Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 30, Issue 15, 2008, Pages 1977-1999

  Nussbaum, E Michael ^a   Sinatra, Gale M ^a   Poliquin, Anne ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 57049169894     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500690701545919     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Alexander, P. A. and Sinatra, G. M. (2007) First steps: Scholars' promising movements into a nascent field of inquiry. Re-framing the problem of conceptual change in learning and Instruction, pp. 221-236. Elsevier Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2. Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., McNurlen, B., Archodidou, A., Kim, S., Reznitskaya, A., Tillmanns, M. and Gilbert, L. (2001) The snowball phenomenon: Spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking across groups of children. Cognition & Instruction, 19, pp. 1-46.
3. Andre, T. and Windschitl, M. (2003) Interest, epistemology and intentional conceptual change. Intentional conceptual change, pp. 173-195. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ
4. Bell, P. (2002) Using argument map representations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups. CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation, pp. 449-485. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ
5. Bell, P. and Linn, M. C. (2000) Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, pp. 797-817.
6. Bendixen, L. D. and Schraw, G. (2001) Why do epistemic beliefs affect ill-defined problem solving?. Epistemic beliefs and learning: What do we know and how do we know it? Symposium presented at the AERA Annual Meeting Seattle, WA
7. Chinn, C. A. and Brewer, W. F. (1993) The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, pp. 1-49.
8. Chinn, C. A. and Mahlotra, B. A. (2002) Children's responses to anomalous data: How is conceptual change impeded?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, pp. 327-343.
9. Cho, K. and Jonassen, D. H. (2002) The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology, Research, & Development, 50, pp. 1042-1629.
10. Dole, J. A. and Sinatra, G. M. (1998) Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33, pp. 109-128.
11. Driver, R., Newton, P. and Osborne, J. (2000) Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, pp. 287-312.
12. Duschl, R. and Osborne, J. (2002) Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, pp. 39-72.
13. Eemeren, F.H. van and Grootendorst, R. (1992) Argumentation, communication, and fallacies, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ
14. Hox, J. (2002) Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ
15. Infante, D. A. and Rancer, A. S. (1982) A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, pp. 72-80.
16. Johnson, R. H. (2002) Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ
17. Kardash, C. M. and Scholes, R. J. (1996) Effects or preexisting beliefs, epistemological beliefs, and need for cognition on interpretation of controversial issues. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, pp. 260-271.
18. Kuhn, D. (1991) The skills of argument, Cambridge University Press, New York
19. Kuhn, D. (1993) Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, pp. 319-337.
20. Kuhn, D., Cheney, R. and Weinstock, M. (2000) The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15, pp. 309-328.
21. Nussbaum, E. M. (2005) The effect of goal instructions and need for cognition on interactive argumentation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, pp. 286-313.
22. Nussbaum, E. M. and Bendixen, L. M. (2003) Approaching and avoiding arguments: The role of epistemological beliefs, need for cognition, and extraverted personality traits. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, pp. 573-595.
23. Nussbaum, E. M., Hartley, K., Sinatra, G. M., Reynolds, R. E. and Bendixen, L. M. (2004) Personality interactions and scaffolding in on-line discussions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30, pp. 113-137.
24. Nussbaum, E. M. and Jacobson, T. E. (2004) Reasons that students avoid intellectual arguments. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association Honolulu, HI
25. Nussbaum, E. M. and Kardash, C. M. (2005) The effect of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, pp. 157-169.
26. Nussbaum, E. M. and Sinatra, G. M. (2003) Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, pp. 384-395.
27. O'Keefe, D. J. (1982) The concept of argument and arguing. Advances in argumentation theory and research, pp. 3-23. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL
28. Perry, W. G. (1970) Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York
29. Petty, R. E. and Wegener, D. T. (1999) The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. Dual-process theories in social psychology, pp. 41-72. Guilford, New York
30. Pintrich, P. R. and Sinatra, G. M. (2003) The role of intentions in conceptual change learning. Intentional conceptual change, pp. 1-18. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ
31. Qian, G. and Alvermann, D. (2000) Relationship between epistemological beliefs and conceptual change learning. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 16, pp. 59-74.
32. Rabash, J., Browne, W., Goldstein, H., Yang, M., Plewis, I., Healy, M., Woodhouse, G., Draper, D., Langford, I. and Lewis, T. (2000) A user's guide to MLwiN, Centre for Multilevel Modelling, Institute of Education, University of London, London
33. Sandoval, W. A. and Millwood, K. A. (2005) The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23, pp. 23-55.
34. Sinatra, G. M. (2003) Learning about biological evolution involves epistemic change. The Generality-Specificity Issue on Conceptual Change: Influence of domain Epistemology in Conceptual Change Research. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction Padova, Italy
35. Sinatra, G. M., Southerland, S. A., McConaughy, F. and Demastes, J. (2003) Intentions and beliefs in students' understanding and acceptance of biological evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, pp. 510-528.
36. Songer, N. B. and Linn, M. C. (1992) How do students' views of science influence knowledge integration?. Scope, sequence and coordination of secondary school science, Volume II: Relevant research, pp. 197-219. The National Science Teachers Association, Washington, DC
37. Stathopoulou, C. and Vosnidou, S. (2007) Conceptual change in physics and physics-related epistemological beliefs: A relationship under scrutiny. Re-framing the problem of conceptual change in learning and instruction, pp. 145-163. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
38. Toulmin, S. (1958) The uses of argument, Cambridge University Press, New York
39. Weinstock, M. and Cronin, M. A. (2003) The everyday production of knowledge: Individual differences in epistemological understanding and juror reasoning skills. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, pp. 161-181.
40. Yeh, S. S. (1998) Empowering education: Teaching argumentative writing to cultural minority middle school students. Research in the Teaching of English, 33, pp. 49-83.