Fostering scientific argumentation by creating a need for students to attend to each other's claims and evidence

ICLS 2006 - International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Proceedings

Volumn 1, Issue , 2006, Pages 370-375

  Kuhn, Leema ^a   Kenyon, Lisa O ^b   Reiser, Brian J ^a  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLASSROOM INTERACTION; SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY;

TEACHING;

STUDENTS;

EID: 43849098263     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. Bruozas, M., Dodick, J., Finn, L.-E., Hug, B., Kuhn, L., Tzou, C, et al. (2004). Straggle in natural environments: What will survive? In J. Krajcik & B. J. Reiser (Eds.), IQWST: Investigating and questioning our world through science and technology. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
2. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
3. Duschl, R. A. (2000). Making the nature of science explicit. In R. Millar, J. Leach & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: The contribution of research (pp. 187-206). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
4. Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1991). Sharing cognition through collective comprehension activity. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 331-348). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
5. Herrenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 431-473.
6. Hogan, K., & Corey, C. (2001). Viewing classrooms as cultural contexts for fostering scientific literacy. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 32(2), 214-243.
7. Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students' and scientists' reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 663-687.
8. Kenyon, L. O., Kuhn, L., & Reiser, B. J. (2006). Student epistemologies of science to guide the practice of argumentation. Paper presented at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Bloomington, IN.
9. Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96(A), 674-689.
10. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337.
11. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
12. Linn, M. C, Songer, N. B., & Eylon, B. S. (1996). Shifts and convergences in science learning and instruction. InD. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 438-490). New York: Macmillan.
13. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14. NRC. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
15. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
16. Reiser, B., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B. K., Steinmuller, F., & Leone, A. J. (2001). Bguile: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 263-305). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17. Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students' scientific explanations. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5-51.