Evidence-based dialogue maps as a research tool to investigate the quality of school pupils' scientific argumentation

International Journal of Research and Method in Education

Volumn 31, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 291-315

  Okada, Alexandra ^a   Shum, Simon Buckingham ^a  

^a OPEN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Evidence based Dialogue Maps; Participatory action research; Teenagers' scientific argumentation

Indexed keywords

EID: 54049107674     PISSN: 1743727X     EISSN: 17437288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17437270802417184     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Buckingham Shum, S. (2007) Undermining mimetic contagion on the net: Argumentation tools as critical voices. COV&R 2007: Colloquium on Violence and Religion Soesterberg, The Netherlands
2. Buckingham Shum, S., MacLean, A., Bellotti, V. and Hammond, N. (1997) Graphical argumentation and design cognition. Human - Computer Interaction, 12:3, pp. 267-300.
3. Buckingham Shum, S. and Okada, A. (2008) Knowledge cartography for controversies: The Iraq debate. Knowledge cartography: Software tools and mapping techniques, pp. 249-266. Springer, London
4. Carr, C. (2003) Using computer supported argument visualization to teach legal argumentation. Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making, pp. 75-94. Springer-Verlag, London
5. Conklin, J. (2006) Dialogue mapping: Building shared understanding of wicked problems, John Wiley, London
6. Conklin, J. and Begeman, M. L. (1988) gIBIS: A hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 6:4, pp. 303-331.
7. Hogan, K. and Maglienti, M. (2001) Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of pupils' and scientists' reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38:6, pp. 663-687.
8. Kuhn, D. (1991) The skills of argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
9. Means, M. L. and Voss, J. F. (1996) Who reason well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14:2, pp. 139-179.
10. Newman, S. E. and Marshall, C. C. (1991) Pushing Toulmin too far: Learning from an argument representation scheme. Technical Report SSL 92-45.Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, Palo Alto, CA
11. Okada, A. (2008) Scaffolding school pupils' scientific argumentation with evidence-based dialogue maps. Knowledge cartography: Software tools and mapping techniques, pp. 131-162. Springer, London
12. (2001) Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice, Sage, London
13. Schwarz, B. and Glassner, A. (2003) The blind and the paralytic: Supporting argumentation in everyday and scientific issues. Arguing to learn confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments, pp. 227-260. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands
14. Selvin, A. (2008) Performing knowledge art: Understanding collaborative cartography. Knowledge cartography: Software tools and mapping techniques, pp. 233-248. Springer, London
15. Sherborne, A. (2006) Totally wild science course - cracking science.
16. Sherborne, A. (2008) Mapping the curriculum: How concept maps can improve the effectiveness of course development. Knowledge cartography: Software tools and mapping techniques, pp. 183-198. Springer, London
17. Simon, S., Erduran, S. and Osborne, J. (2002) Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching New Orleans, LA
18. Suppe, F. (1998) The structure of a scientific paper. Philosophy of Science, 65:3, pp. 381-405.
19. Toulmin, S. (1958) The uses of argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
20. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S. and Jacobs, S. (1993) Reconstructing argumentative discourse, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL
21. Walton, D. (1995) Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ