The Impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation

Science Education

Volumn 93, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 448-484

  Sampson, Victor ^a   Clark, Douglas ^b  

^a FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 68049091932     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.20306     Document Type: Article

References (138)

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.), Inquiry into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 100-119). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
2. Aikenhead, G. (2004). Science-based occupations and the science curriculum: Concepts of evidence. Science Education, 89(2), 242-275.
3. Alexopoulou, E., & Driver, R. (1996). Small-group discussion in physics: Peer interaction modes in pairs and fours. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(10), 1099-1114.
4. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Washington, DC: Author.
5. Amigues, R. (1988). Peer interactions in solving physics problems: Sociocognitive confrontation and metacognitive aspects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 45(1), 141-158.
6. Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2003). Argumentation, computer support, and the educational contexts of confronting cognitions. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 1-25).Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
7. Andriessen, J., Erkens, G., Van de Laak, C., Peters, N., & Coirier, P. (2003). Argumentation as negotiation in electronic collaborative writing. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 79-115). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
8. Azmitia, M. (1988). Peer interaction and problem solving: When are two heads better than one? Child Development, 59(1), 87-96.
9. Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. (1986). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge, University Press.
10. Baker, M. J. (1999). Argumentation and constructive interactions. In P. Coirer&J. Andriessen (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 179-202). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press.
11. Barron, B. (2000). Problem solving in video-based microworlds: Collaboration and individual outcomes of high-achieving sixth grade students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 391-398.
12. 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), 797-818.
13. Brem, S. K., & Rips, L. J. (2000). Explanation and evidence in informal argument. Cognitive Science, 24(4), 573-604.
14. Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E., & Unger, C. (1989). "An experiment is when you try it and see if it works": A study of grade 7 students' understanding of the construction of scientific knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 11(Special Issue), 514-529.
15. Carey, S., & Smith, C. L. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 28(3), 235-251.
16. Cartier, J. L., & Stewart, J. (2000). Teaching the nature of inquiry: Furthur developments in a high school genetics curriculum. Science and Education, 9(3), 247-267.
17. Chi, M. T. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing metal models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
18. Chi, M. T., Bassok, M., Lewis, M., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145-182.
19. Chinn, C. A., & 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, 1-49.
20. Clark, D. (2006). Longitudinal conceptual change in students' understanding of thermal equilibrium: An examination of the process of conceptual restructuring. Cognition & Instruction, 24(4), 467-563.
21. Clark, D., & Linn, M. C. (2003). Designing for knowledge integration: The impact of instructional time. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 451-494.
22. Clark, D., & Sampson, V. (2005). Analyzing the quality of argumentation supported by personally-seeded discussions. Paper presented at the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Conference, Taipei, Taiwan.
23. Clark, D., & Sampson, V. (2006a). Characteristics of students' argumentation practices when supported by personally seeded discussions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.
24. Clark, D., & Sampson, V. (2006b). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253-277.
25. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
26. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1-35.
27. Coleman, E. B. (1998). Using explanatory knowledge during collaborative problem solving in science. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3,4), 387-427.
28. deVries,E., Lund, K.,&Baker,M. (2002).Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue:Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 63-103.
29. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23, 5-12.
30. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
31. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-313.
32. Duschl, R. (2000). Making the nature of science explicit. In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: The contribution of research. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
33. Duschl, R. (2007). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran & M. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 159-175). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Academic Publishers.
34. Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teachers College Press.
35. Duschl, R. A., Ellenbogan, E., & Erduran, S. (1999). Promoting argumentation in middle school classrooms: A project SEPIA evaluation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.
36. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
37. Eichinger, D., Anderson, C. W., Palincsar, A. S., & David, Y. M. (1991). An illustration of the roles of content knowledge, scientific argument, and social norm in collaborative problem solving. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 1991, Chicago, IL.
38. Eisenberg, A., & Garvey, C. (1981). Children's use of verbal strategies in resolving conflict. Discourse Processes, 4, 149-170.
39. 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.
40. 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.
41. Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York: Wiley.
42. Forman, E. (1992).Discourse, intersubjectivity and the development of peer collaboration:AVygotskian approach. In L. T.Winegar & J. Valsinier (Eds.), Children's development within social context (pp. 143-159). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
43. Forman, E. A., Larreamendy-Joerns, J., Stein, M. K., & Brown, C. A. (1998). "You're going to want to find out which and prove it": Collective argumentation in a mathematics classroom. Learning and Instruction, 8(6), 527-548.
44. Forman, E., & Cazden, C. (1985). Exploring Vygotskian perspectives in education: The cognitive value of peer education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
45. Gallas, K. (1995). Talking their way into science: Hearing children's questions and theories, responding with curricula. New York: Teachers College Press.
46. Gibbs, R., & Mueller, R. (1990). Conversation as coordinated, cooperative interaction. In S. Robertson, W. Zachaary, & J. Black (Eds.), Cognition, computing, and cooperation. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
47. Goldman, S., Cosden, M., & Hine, M. (1992). Working alone and working together: Individual differences in the effects of collaboration on learning handicapped students' writing. Learning & Individual Differences, 4(4), 369-393.
48. Goldman, S. R., Duschl, R. A., Ellenbogen, K., Williams, S. M., & Tzou, C. (2002). Science inquiry in a digital age: Possibilities for making thinking visible. In V. Oostendorp (Ed.), Cognition in a digital age (pp. 253-281). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
49. Hammer, D. (2000). Student resources for learning introductory physics.American Journal of Physics, Supplement 68(7), S52 -S59.
50. Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2003). Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 53-90.
51. Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1991). Sharing cognition through collective comprehension activity. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspective on socially shared cognition (pp. 331-348). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
52. Hill, G.W. (1982).Group versus individual performance: AreN+1 heads better than one? Psychological Bulletin, 91, 517-539.
53. Hogan, K. (2000). Exploring a process viewof students' knowledge about the nature of science. Science Education, 84, 51-70.
54. Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students' and scientists' reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 663-687.
55. Hunt, E., & Minstrell, J. (1994). A cognitive approach to the teaching of physics. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 51-74). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
56. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
57. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.,Rodriguez, M.,&Duschl,R.A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792.
58. Kelly, G. J., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as a sociocultural practice through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 883-915.
59. Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849-871.
60. Kenyon, L. O., & Reiser, B. J. (2005). Students' epistemologies of science and their influence on inquiry practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.
61. King, A. (1990). Facilitating elaborative learning in the classroom through reciprocal questioning. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 664-687.
62. Klahr, D., Dunbar, K., & Fay, A. L. (1990). Designing good experiments to test bad hypotheses. In J. Shrager & P. Langley (Eds.), Computational models of scientific discovery and theory formation (pp. 355-401). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
63. Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96(4), 674-689.
64. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
65. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337.
66. Kuhn, D., Garcia-Mila, M., Zohar, A., & Anderson, C. (1995). Strategies of knowledge acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 60 (4, Serial No. 245).
67. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245-1260.
68. Kuhn, L., & Reiser, B. (2005). Students constructing and defending evidence-based scientific explanations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.
69. Kuhn, L., & Reiser, B. (2006). Structuring activities to foster argumentative discourse. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
70. Laughlin, P., Hatch, E., Silver, J., & Boh, L. (2006). Groups perform better than individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: Effects of group size. Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 90(4), 644-651.
71. Lawson, A. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetico-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1387-1408.
72. Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
73. Lewis, E. L. (1996). Conceptual change among middle school students studying elementary thermodynamics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 5(1), 3-31.
74. Lewis, E. L., & Linn, M. C. (1994). Heat energy and temperature concepts of adolescents, adults, and experts: Implications for curricular improvements. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(6), 657-677.
75. Linn, M. C., Eylon, B., & Davis, E. A. (2004). The knowledge integration perspective on learning. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 29-46).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
76. Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B.-S. (2006). Science education: Integrating views of learning and instruction. In P. Alexander & P. H.Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 511-544).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
77. Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
78. Lizotte, D. J., Harris, C. J., McNeill, K. L., Marx, R. W., & Krajcik, J. (2003). Usable assessments aligned with curriculum materials: Measuring explanation as scientific way of knowing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
79. Lizotte, D. J., McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2004). Teacher practices that support students' construction of scientific explanations in middle school classrooms. In Y. Kafai, W. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. Nixon, & F. Herrera (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 310-317). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
80. Mason, L. (1998). Sharing cognition to construct scientific knowledge in school context: The role of oral and written discourse. Instructional Science, 26, 359-389.
81. May, D., Hammer, D., & Roy, P. (2006). Children's analogic reasoning in a 3rd grade science discussion. Science Education, 90(2), 316-330.
82. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2007). Middle school students' use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In M. Lovett, & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data: The proceedings of 33rd Carnegie symposium on cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
83. 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.
84. Minstrell, J. (2000). Student thinking and related assessment: Creating a facet-based learning environment. In N. Raju, J. Pellegrino, M. Bertenthal, K. Mitchell, & L. Jones (Eds.), Grading the nation's report card: Research from the evaluation of NAEP. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
85. Moje, E. B., & Shepardson, D. P. (1998). Social interactions and children's changing understanding of electric circuits: Exploring unequal power relations in "peer" learning groups. In B. Guzzetti & C. Hynd (Eds.), Perspectives on conceptual change (pp. 225-234). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
86. Monk, M., & Osborne, J. (1997). Placing the history and philosophy of science in the curriculum: A model for the development of pedagogy. Science Education, 81(4), 405-424.
87. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
88. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
89. Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.
90. Odom, A. L., & Barrow, L. H. (1995). The development and application of a two-tiered diagnostic test measuring college biology students' understanding of diffusion and osmosis following a course of instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 45-61.
91. Ohlsson, S. (1992). The cognitive skill of theory articulation: A neglected aspect of science education? Science & Education, 1, 181-192.
92. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
93. Passmore, C.,&Stewart, J. (2002). A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 185-204.
94. Perkins, D. N., Farady, M., & Bushy, B. (1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins, & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
95. Phelps, E., & Damon, W. (1989). Problem solving with equals: Peer collaboration as a context for learning mathematics and spatial concepts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4), 639-646.
96. Pontecorvo, C., & Girardet, H. (1993). Arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3-4), 365-395.
97. Resnick, L. B., Salmon, M., Zeitz, C. M., Wathen, S. H., & Holowchak, M. (1993). Reasoning in conversation. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3-4), 347-364.
98. Richmond, G., & Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in the classroom: Social processes in small-group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 839-858.
99. Rochelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 235-276.
100. Roth, K. J., Druker, S. L., Garnier, H., Lemmens, M., Chen, C., Kawanaka, T., et al. (2006). Teaching science in five countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
101. Roth, W.-M., McGinn, M. K., Woszcyna, C., & Boutonne, S. (1999). Differential participation during science conversations: The interaction of focal artifacts, social configurations, and physical arrangements. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3-4), 293-347.
102. Sadler, T. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
103. Salomon, G. (1993). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
104. Sampson, V. (2007). The effects of collaboration of argumentation outcomes. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.
105. Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2008). A case study comparison of the scientific argumentation practices that occur in two high and two low performing groups. Manuscript submitted for publication.
106. Sandoval, W. A. (2003a). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students' scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5-51.
107. Sandoval,W. A. (2003b). The inquiry paradox: Why doing science doesn't necessarily change ideas about science. In C. P. Constantinou & Z. C. Zacharis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Computer-Based Learning in Science Conference (pp. 825-834). Nicosia, Cyprus.
108. Sandoval,W. A.,&Millwood, K. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence inwritten scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55.
109. Sandoval,W. A.,&Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345-372.
110. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283.
111. Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Duschl, R., Schulze, S., & John, J. (1995). Students' understanding of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 131-166.
112. Schauble, L., Klopfer, L. E., & Raghavan, K. (1991). Students' transition from an engineering model to a science model of experimentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 859-882.
113. Schwarz, B., & Glassner, A. (2003). The blind and the paralytic: Supporting argumentation in everyday and scientific issues. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 227-260). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
114. Settlage, J., & Odom, A. L. (1995, April 22-25). Natural selection conceptions assessment: Development of a two-tiered test "Understanding Biological Change." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.
115. Siegel, H. (1989). The rationality of science, critical thinking and science education. Synthese, 80(1), 9-42.
116. Siegel, H. (1995). Why should educators care about argumentation? Informal Logic, 17(2), 159-176.
117. 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.
118. Southerland, S., Kittleson, J., Settlage, J., & Lanier, K. (2005). Individual and group meaning-making in an urban third grade classroom: Red fog, cold cans, and seeping vapor. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(9), 1032-1061.
119. Stein, N. L., & Bernas, R. (1999). The early emergence of argumentative knowledge and skill. In G. Rijlaarsdam, E. Esperet, J. Andriessen, & P. Coirier (Eds.), Studies in writing: Vol. 5. Foundations of argumentative text processing. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press.
120. Stein, N. L., & Miller, C. (1991). I win... you lose: The development of argumentative thinking. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins, & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
121. Stein, N. L., & Miller, C. (1993). The development of memory and reasoning skill in argumentative contexts: Evaluating, explaining, and generating evidence. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 235-285). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
122. Stewart, J., Cartier, J. L., & Passmore, C. (2005). Developing understanding through model-based inquiry. In S. Donovan, & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn science in the classroom. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
123. Suthers, D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 315-337.
124. Tabak, I., Smith, B. K., Sandoval,W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (1996). Combining general and domain-specific strategic support for biological inquiry. In C. Frasson, G. Gauthier, & A. Lesgold (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS '96). Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Springer-Verlag.
125. Toth, E., Suthers, D., & Lesgold, A. (2002). "Mapping to know": The effects of representational guidance and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry. Science Education, 86(2), 264-286.
126. Treagust, D. F. (1988). Development and use of a diagnostic test to evaluate students' misconceptions in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 159-169.
127. van Eemeren, F., Grootendorst, R.,&Henkemans,A. F. (2002).Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
128. Vellom, R. P., & Anderson, C. W. (1999). Reasoning about data in middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 179-199.
129. Webb, N. (1984). Sex difference in interaction and achievement in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 33-44.
130. Webb, N. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 21-39.
131. Webb, N., & Palincsar, A. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillian.
132. Webb, N., Troper, J., & Fall, R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 406-423.
133. Webb, N. M. (1985). Verbal interaction and learning in peer-directed groups. Theory Into Practice, 24, 32-39.
134. White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. London: Falmer Press.
135. White, R. T. (1992). Implications of recent research on learning for curriculum and assessment. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24(2), 153-164.
136. Yerrick, R. (2000). Lower track science students' argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 807-838.
137. Zeidler,D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81, 483-496.
138. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62.