Making sense of argumentation and explanation

Science Education

Volumn 93, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 26-55

  Berland, Leema Kuhn ^a   Reiser, Brian J ^a  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 61349084766     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.20286     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for All Americans: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Andriessen, J. (2007). Arguing to learn. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443-460). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
3. Barron, B. J. S., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 271-311.
4. Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797-817.
5. Bielaczyc, K., & Blake, P. (2006). Shifting epistemologies: Examining student understanding of new models of knowledge and learning. In S. A. Barab, K. E. Hay, & D. T. Hickey (Eds.), 7th Annual International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 50-56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6. Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating projectbased learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26. 369-398.
7. Brewer, W. F., Chinn, C. A., & Samarapungavan, A. (1998). Explanation in scientists and children. Minds and Machines, 8, 119-136.
8. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289-325). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Bruozas, M., Finn, L. E., Tzou, C., Hug, B., Kuhn, L., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Struggle 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.
10. Chi, M. T. H., Leeuw, N. D., Chiu, M. H., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18(3), 439-477.
11. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253-277.
12. Coleman, E. B. (1998). Using explanatory knowledge during collaborative problem solving in science. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 387-427.
13. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. Cornelius, L. L., & Herrenkohl, L. R. (2004). Power in the classroom: How the classroom environment shapes students' relationships with each other and with concepts. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 467-498.
15. Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 91-142.
16. de Vries, E., Lund, K., & Michael, B. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 63-103.
17. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
18. Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teachers College Press.
19. 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, England: Open University Press.
20. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. E. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
21. Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for integrating content and process learning in the design of inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 355-385.
22. Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399-483.
23. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education. 88, 915-933.
24. Ford, M. J., & Forman, E. A. (2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. In J. Green & A. Luke (Eds.), Review of educational research (Vol. 30, pp. 1-32). Washington, DC: American Education Research Association.
25. Giere, R. N. (1988). Explaining science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
26. 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.
27. Hogan, K., & Corey, C. (2001). Viewing classrooms as cultural contexts for fostering scientific literacy. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 32(2), 214-243.
28. Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (1999). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 379-432.
29. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo Rodriguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
30. Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align widi national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 82(1), 32.
31. Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96(4), 674-689.
32. Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A., & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 495-523.
33. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245-1260.
34. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
35. Latour, B. (1980). Is it possible to reconstruct the research process?: Sociology of a brain peptide. In K. D. Knorr, R. Krohn, & R. Whitley (Eds.), The social process of scientific investigation (Vol. TV). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: D. Reidel.
36. Lave, J. (2004). Situating learning in communities of practice. In L. Resnick, J. Levine, & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 63-84). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
37. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and science literacy: Supporting development in learning in contexts. In W. Damon, R. Lerner, K. A. Renninger, & E. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 4, pp. 153-196). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
38. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
39. Linn, M. C., Songer, N. B., & Eylon, B. S. (1996). Shifts and convergences in science learning and instruction. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 438-490). New York: Macmillan.
40. McNeill, K. L., Hams, C. J., Heitzman, M., Lizotte, D. J., Sutherland, L. M., & Krajcik, J. (2004). How can I make new stuff from old stuff. In J. Krajcik & B. J. Reiser (Eds.), IQWST: Investigating and questioning our world through science and technology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
41. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2007). Middle school students' use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In M. C. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data: The Proceedings of the 33rd Carnegie Symposium on Cognition (pp. 233-265). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
42. McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191.
43. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44. Moje, E. B., Peek-Brown, D., Sutherland, L. M., Marx, R., Blumenfeld, P., & Krajcik, J. (2004). Explaining explanations: Developing scientific literacy in middle-school project-based science reforms. In D. Strickland & D. E. Alvermann (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Improving literacy learning for preadolescent and adolescent learners in grades 4-12. New York: Teachers College Press.
45. Nagel, E. (1979). The structure of science: Problems in the logic of scientific explanation. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.
46. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
47. O'Neill, D. K. (2001). Knowing when you've brought them in: Scientific genre knowledge and communities of practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(3), 223-264.
48. 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.
49. 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: Erlbaum.
50. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55.
51. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345-372.
52. Sawyer, K. (2007). Introduction: The new science of learning. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 1-18). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
53. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 265-283.
54. Smith, E. L. (1991). A conceptual change model of learning science. In S. M. Glynn, R. H. Yeany, & B. K. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science (pp. 43-63). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
55. Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1985). A conceptual change view of learning and understanding. In L. H. T. West & A. L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change (pp. 211-231). New York: Academic Press.
56. Suthers, D., Toth, E. E., & Weiner, A. (1997). An integrated approach to implementing collaborative inquiry in the clasroom, 2nd International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 272-279). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto.
57. Tabak. I., & Reiser, B. J. (2008, in press). Software-realized inquiry support for cultivating a disciplinary stance. Pragmatics and Cognition, 16.
58. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
59. Toulmin, S. (1972). Human understanding (Vol. 1). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
60. Warren, B., & Rosebery, A. S. (1996). "This question is just too, too easy!" Student's perspectives on accountability in science. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.). Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 97-125). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
61. Weiss, I. R., Pasley, J. D., Smith, P. S., Banilower, E. R., & Heck, D. J. (2003). Looking inside the classroom: A study of K-12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Horizon Research. Available at http://www.horizon-research.com/insidetheclassroom/reports/looking/.
62. Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo [Computer Program]: Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University. Available at http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/.
63. Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81, 483-496.
64. Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding preservice science teachers' evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 437-463.