Learning to teach elementary school science as argument

Science Education

Volumn 93, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 687-719

  Zembal Saul, Carla ^a  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 67650164390     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.20325     Document Type: Review

References (83)

1. Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of a reflective activity-based approach on elementary teachers' conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 295 - 317.
2. Akerson, V. L., Morrison, J. A., & Roth McDuffie, A. (2006). One course is not enough: Preservice elementary teachers' retention of improved views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 194 - 213.
3. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. NewYork: Oxford University Press.
4. Appleton, K. (2005). Elementary science teacher education: International perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
5. Avraamidou, L., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2005). Giving priority to evidence in science teaching: A first-year elementary teacher's specialized knowledge and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(9), 965 - 986.
6. Badiali, B., Zembal-Saul, C., Nolan, J., & Manno, J. (in press). Affirmation and change: Assessing the impact of professional development school on mentors' classroom practice. In J. Nath, I. Guadarrama, & J. Ramsey (Eds.), Professional development schools research books series (Vol. 4). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
7. 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(8), 797 - 817.
8. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (1989). New designs for elementary school science and health: A cooperative project of Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) and International Business Machines (IBM). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
9. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3 - 15.
10. Bransford, J., Darling-Hammond, L., & LePage, P. (2005). Introduction. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
11. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141 - 178.
12. Brown, A., & Palincsar, A. (1989). Guided cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction. Essays in the honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 393 - 451). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32 - 42.
14. Cobb, P., & Bowers, J. S. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and practice. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 4 - 15.
15. Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O'Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology. New York: Springer-Verlag.
16. Collins, A., Brown, J., & Newman, S. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing and mathematics. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction. Essays in the honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453 - 494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
17. Clift, R. T., & Brady, P. (2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 309 - 424). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
18. Darling-Hammond, L., Hammerness, K., Grossman, P., Rust, F., & Shulman, L. (2005). The design of teacher education programs. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
19. Davis, E., Petish, D.,&Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new-science teachers face. Reviewof Educational Research, 76(4), 607 - 651.
20. Davis, E. A., & Smithey, J. (2009). Beginning teachers moving toward effective elementary science teaching. Science Education, 93, 745 - 770.
21. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287 - 312.
22. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulimin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915 - 933.
23. Greeno, J. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 5 - 17.
24. Grossman, P. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.
25. Grossman, P. (2005). Research on pedagogical approaches in teacher education. In M. Cochrane-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. Haefner, L. A., Friedrichsen, P., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2006). Teaching with insects: An applied life science course for supporting prospective elementary teachers' scientific inquiry. The American Biology Teacher, 68(4), 254 - 259.
27. Haefner, L. A., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2004). Learning by doing? Prospective elementary teachers' developing understandings of scientific inquiry and science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 26(13), 1653 - 1674.
28. Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J., Berliner, D., Cochrane-Smith, M., McDonald, M., et al. (2005). In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
29. Hand, B., Lawrence, C., & Yore, L. (1999). A writing in science framework designed to enhance science literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 21(10), 1021 - 1035.
30. Hershberger, K., Zembal-Saul, C., & Starr, M. (2006). Evidence helps the KLW get a KLEW. Science & Children, 43(5), 50 - 53.
31. Hoadley, C. (2004). Methodological alignment in design-based research. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 203 - 212.
32. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P.,&Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3 - 27). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
33. Kelly, A. E. (2003). Theme issue: The role of design in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 3-4.
34. Kelly, G., & Duschl, R. (2002). Toward a research agenda for epistemological studies in science education. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
35. Kelly, G., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86(3), 314 - 342.
36. Keys, C. W. (1999). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83, 115 - 130.
37. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
38. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319 - 337.
39. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
40. Leach, J., Hind, R., & Ryder, J. (2003). Designing and evaluating short teaching interventions about the epistemology of science in high school classrooms. Science Education, 87(6), 831 - 848.
41. Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
42. Linn, M. (2000). Designing the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 781 - 796.
43. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
44. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Guess-Newsome & N. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95 - 132). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
45. Mikeska, J. N., Anderson, C. W., & Schwarz, C. V. (2009). Principled reasoning about problems of practice. Science Education, 93, 678 - 686.
46. Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Berkshire, England: Open University Press.
47. Munford, D. (2002). Situated argumentation, learning and science education: A case study of prospective teachers' experiences in an innovative science course. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Penn State University, University Park.
48. National Research Council. (1996). The National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
49. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
50. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
51. 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.
52. Nolan, J., Zembal-Saul, C.,&Badiali, B. (2008, March). Assessing and explaining the impact of PDS participation on the thinking and practices of mentor teachers. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), New York.
53. Ogle, D. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. The Reading Teacher, 39(6), 564 - 570.
54. 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.
55. Putnam, R., & Borko, H. (2000), What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4 - 15.
56. Raizen, S. A.,&Michelson, A. M. (1994). The future of science in elementary schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
57. Sandoval,W. A.,&Reiser,B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345 - 372.
58. Schwab, J. (1978). Education and the structure of the disciplines. In J. Schwab (Ed.), Science, curriculum, and liberal education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
59. Schwarz, C. (2009). Developing preservice elementary teachers' knowledge and practices through modelingcentered scientific inquiry. Science Education, 93, 720 - 744.
60. Scott, P., Asoko, H., & Leach, J. (2007). Student conceptions and conceptual learning in science. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), The handbook of research on science education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
61. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4 - 14.
62. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Education Review, 57, 1 - 22.
63. Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2 - 3), 235 - 260.
64. Smith, D. C. (1999). Changing our teaching: The role of pedagogical content knowledge in elementary science. In N. Lederman & J. Guess-Newsome (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
65. Smith, D. C., & Anderson, C.W. (1999). Appropriating scientific practices and discourses with future elementary teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 755 - 776.
66. Smithey, J. (2008). The development of preservice elementary teachers' knowledge about learners' science ideas. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
67. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
68. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
69. Vygostky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
70. Ward, A. R., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2007). Scientist - science teacher educator partnerships for developing and teaching science courses for preservice elementary teachers. Pennsylvania Teacher Educator, 6, 1 - 9.
71. Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S., & Richert, A. E. (1988). " 150 different ways" of knowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers' thinking (pp. 104 - 124). London: Cassell.
72. Yore, L., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689 - 725.
73. Zeidler,D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81, 483 - 496.
74. Zembal-Saul, C. (2004). Year 1: Teaching elementary school science as argument. Annual report to the National Science Foundation (NSF CAREER 0237922).
75. Zembal-Saul, C. (2005, April). Preservice teachers' understanding of teaching elementary school science as argument. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Dallas, TX.
76. Zembal-Saul, C. (2007, August). Evidence and explanation as a lens for learning to teach elementary school science as argument. Paper presented at the meeting of the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA), Malmo, Sweden.
77. Zembal-Saul, C., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Krajcik, J. S. (2000). The influence of early cycles of planning, teaching, and reflection on prospective elementary teachers' developing understanding of supporting students' science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 318 - 339.
78. Zembal-Saul, C., Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2002a). Elementary student teachers' science content representations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 443 - 463.
79. Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2002b). Scaffolding preservice science teachers' evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 437 - 463.
80. Zembal-Saul, C., Starr, M., & Krajcik, J. S. (1999). Constructing a framework for elementary science teaching using pedagogical content knowledge. In N. Lederman & J. Guess-Newsome (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 237 - 256). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
81. Zohar, A. (2004). Elements of teachers' pedagogical knowledge regarding instruction of higher order thinking. Journal of Research in Science Education, 15(4), 293 - 312.
82. Zohar, A. (2006). The nature and development of teachers' metastrategic knowledge in the context of teaching higher order thinking. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 334 - 378.
83. Zohar, A. (2008). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In S. Erduran&M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 245 - 268). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.