Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the elementary science classroom. A longitudinal case study

Research in Science Education

Volumn 39, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 17-38

  Martin, Anita M ^a   Hand, Brian ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

Author keywords

Embedded elements of argument; Science Writing Heuristic (SWH); Student voice; Teacher questioning

Indexed keywords

EID: 58549115985     PISSN: 0157244X     EISSN: 15731898     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11165-007-9072-7     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Abell, S. K., Anderson, G., & Chezem, J. (2000). Science as argument and explanation: Exploring concepts of sound in third grade. In J. Minstrell, & E. H. van Zee (Eds.) Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 65-79). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Andrews, R., Costello, P., & Clarke, S. (1993). Improving the quality of argument, Final Report pp. 5-16. Hull, UK: Esmee Fairbairn Charitable Trust/University of Hull.
4. Beck, J., Czerniak, C., & Lumpe, A. (2000). An exploratory study of teacher's beliefs regarding the implementation of constructivism in their classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11, 323-343.
5. Bereiter, C., Scardamalia, M., Cassells, C., & Hewitt, J. (1997). Postmodernism, knowledge building and elementary science. Elementary School Journal, 97, 329-340.
6. Bloom, B. S., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, by a committee of college and university examiners. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: Longmans, Green.
7. Bright, P., & Yore, L. (2002). Elementary preservice teacher's beliefs about the nature of science and their influence on classroom practice. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA. (ED46182)
8. Carlsen, W. S. (1997). Never ask a question if you don't know the answer: Tension in teaching between modeling scientific argument and maintaining law and order. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 32(2), 14-23.
9. Cobb, P., & Bauersfeld, H. (1995). The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures. Studies in mathematical thinking and learning series. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
10. Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916-937.
11. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.
12. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
13. Duschl, R. A. (2003). Assessment of inquiry. In J. M. Atkin, & J. E. Coffey (Eds.) Everyday assessment in the science classroom (pp. 41-59). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
14. Duschl, R.A., & Ellenbogen, K. (2002). Argumentation processes in science learning. Paper presented at the conference on Philosophical, Psychological, and Linguistic Foundations for Language and Science Literacy Research, University of Victoria, BC, Canada.
15. Duschl, R., Ellenbogen, K., & Erduran, S. (1999). Understanding dialogic argumentation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, Montreal, QC, Canada.
16. Eduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin et al.'s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915-933.
17. Ernest, P. (1998). Social constructivism as a philosophy of mathematics. New York: State University of New York Press.
18. Fu, D., & Shelton, N. R. (2002). Teaching collaboration between a university professor and a classroom teacher. Teaching Education, 13 (1), 91-102.
19. Furman, M., & Barton, A. (2006). Capturing urban student voices in the creation of a science mini-documentary. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 667-694.
20. Goodnough, K. (2006). Enhancing pedagogical content knowledge through self-study: An exploration of problem-based learning. Teaching in Higher Education, 11, 301-318.
21. Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L., Gunel, M., & Akkus, R. (2005). K-6 Science Writing Heuristic Project: An MSP project funded by the Iowa Department of Education. Presentation to The Iowa Department of Education, Des Moines, IA.
22. Hand, B., Wallace, C. W., & Yang, E. (2004). Using a science writing heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh-grade science: Quantitative and qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 26 (2), 131-149.
23. Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., & DeHaan, R. (2004). Scientific teaching. Science, 304, 521-522.
24. Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students' and scientists' reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 663-687.
25. Jeanpierre, B., Oberhauser, K., & Freeman, C. (2005). Characteristics of professional development that effect change in secondary science teachers' classroom practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 668-690.
26. Kelly, G. J., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 883-915.
27. Kitchener, K. S., & Fischer, K. W. (1990). A skill approach to the development of reflective thinking. In D. Kuhn (Ed.) Developmental perspectives on teaching and learning thinking skills: Vol. 21 (pp. 48-62). New York: Karger.
28. Kuhn, T. E. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29. Kuhn, T. E. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30. Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 155-178.
31. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument. Science Education, 77, 319-337.
32. Kuhn, D., & Dean Jr., D. (2005). Is developing scientific thinking all about learning to control variables? Psychological Science, 16, 866-870.
33. Lawson, A., Benford, R., Bloom, I., Carlson, M., Falconer, K., Hestenes, D., et al. (2002). Evaluating college science and mathematics instruction: A reform effort that improves teaching skills. Journal of College Science Teaching, 31, 388-93.
34. Lapadat, J. (2000). Construction of science knowledge: Scaffolding conceptual change through discourse. Journal of Classroom Interactions, 35 (2), 1-14.
35. Lapadat, J. (2002). Relationships between instructional language and primary students' learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 278-290.
36. Lederman, N. G., & Niess, M. L. (2000). Problem solving and solving problems: Inquiry about inquiry. School Science and Mathematics, 100, 113-116.
37. Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
38. Lew, L. (2001). Development of constructivist's behaviors among four new science teachers prepared at the University of Iowa. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City.
39. Luykx, A., & Lee, O. (2007). Measuring instructional congruence in elementary science classrooms: Pedagogical and methodological components of a theoretical framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 424-447.
40. Macbeth, D. (2003). Hugh Mehan's Learning Lessons reconsidered: On the differences between the naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom discourse. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 239-280.
41. MacIsaac, D., & Falconer, K. (2002). Reforming physics education via RTOP. The Physics Teacher, 40, 479-485.
42. McGinn, M., & Roth, W. -M. (1999). Preparing students for competent scientific practice: Implications of recent research in science and technology studies. Educational Researcher, 28 (3), 14-24.
43. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44. Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30, 359-377.
45. Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children's talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25, 95-111.
46. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King's College London.
47. National Research Council (1990). Fulfilling the promise: Biology education in the nation's schools. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
48. National Research Council (1996a). The role of scientists in the professional development of science teachers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
49. National Research Council (1996b). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
50. National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
51. Naylor, S., Keogh, B., & Downing, B. (2007). Argumentation and primary science. Research in Science Education, 37, 17-39.
52. Newman, W., Abell, S., Hubbard, P., McDonald, J., Otaala, J., & Martini, M. (2004). Dilemmas of teaching inquiry in elementary science methods. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15, 257-279.
53. Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 553-576.
54. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224-240.
55. Osborne, J. F., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2001). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. School Science Review, 82 (301), 63-70.
56. Pera, M. (1994). The discourses of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
57. Polman, J. (2004). Dialogic activity structures for project-based learning environments. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 431-466.
58. Polman, J., & Pea, R. (2000). Transformative communication as a cultural tool for guiding inquiry science. Science Education, 85, 223-238.
59. Quinn, V. (1997). Critical thinking in young minds. London: David Fulton.
60. Ritchie, S., & Tobin, K. (2001). Actions and discourses for transformative understanding in a middle school science class. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 283-299.
61. Sawada, D., Piburn, M., Falconer, K., Turley, J., Benford, R., & Bloom, I. (2000). Reformed teaching observation protocol (RTOP) (Tech. Rep No. IN00-1). Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University, Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers.
62. Schwarz, B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentation activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 219-256.
63. Seymour, J., & Lehrer, R. (2006). Tracing the evolution of pedagogical content knowledge as the development of interanimated discourses. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 549-582.
64. Siegel, H. (1995). Why should educators care about argumentation? Informal Logic, 17 (2), 159-176.
65. Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 235-260.
66. Solomon, J. (1998). About argument and discussion. School Science Review, 80 (291), 57-62.
67. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
68. Treagust, D. (2007). General instructional methods and strategies. In S. Abell, & N. Lederman (Eds.) Handbook on research in science education (pp. 373-391). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
69. Van Zee, E. (2000). Using questioning to guide student's thinking. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 227-269.
70. Wallace, C., & Narayan, R. (2002). Acquiring the social language of science: Building science language identities through inquiry-based investigations. Paper presented at the Conference on Philosophical, Psychological, and Linguistic Foundations for Language and Science Literacy Research, University of Victoria, B.C., Canada.
71. Weiss, I., & Pasley, J. (2004). What is high quality instruction? Educational Leadership, 61 (5), 24-28.
72. Weiss, I., Pasley, J., Smith, P., Banilower, E., & Heck, D. (2003). Looking inside the classroom: A study of K-12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
73. Wragg, E. (1993). Primary teaching skills. London: Routledge.
74. Yip, D. (2001). Promoting the development of a conceptual change model of science instruction in prospective secondary biology teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 755-770.
75. Zady, M., Portes, P., & Ochs, V. (2003). Examining classroom interactions related to differences in students' science achievement. Science Education, 87, 40-63.