Teachers' use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena

Science Education

Volumn 93, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 233-268

  Mcneill, Katherine L ^a  

^a BOSTON COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 68049124533     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.20294     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is-or might be-the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6 - 8, 14.
3. Bell, P., & Linn, M. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797 - 817.
4. Black, P. (2003). The importance of everyday assessment. In J. M. Atkin & J. E. Coffey (Eds.), Everyday assessment in the science classroom (pp. 1 - 11). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
5. Blumenfeld, P., & Meece, J. L. (1988). Task factors, teacher behavior, and students' involvement and use of learning strategies in science. The Elementary School Journal, 88(3), 235 - 250.
6. Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.) (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
7. Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 109 - 138.
8. Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916 - 937.
9. Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3 - 14.
10. Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children's ideas in science. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
11. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287 - 312.
12. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.) (2006). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
13. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPing into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915 - 933.
14. Fogleman, J., Fishman, B., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Sustaining innovations through lead teacher learning: A learning sciences perspective on supporting professional development. Teaching Education, 17(2), 181 - 194.
15. Fogleman, J., & McNeill, K. L. (2005). Comparing teachers' adaptations of an inquiry-oriented chemistry unit. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
16. Flick, L. B. (2000). Cognitive scaffolding that fosters scientific inquiry in middle level science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11(2), 109 - 129.
17. Fradd, S., & Lee, O. (1999). Teachers' roles in promoting science inquiry with students from diverse language backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 18, 14 - 20.
18. Garcia-Mila, M., & Andersen, C. (2008). Cognitive foundations of learning argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jim<énez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 29 - 45). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
19. Gotwals, A.W.,&Songer, N. B. (2006).Measuring students' scientific content and inquiry reasoning. In S. Barab, K. Hay, & D. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 196 - 202). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. Gross, A. G. (1990). The rhetoric of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21. Haberman, M. (1991). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 190 - 294.
22. Herrenkohl, L. R., Palincsar, A. S., DeWater, L. S., & Kawasaki, K. (1999). Developing scientific communities in classrooms: A sociocognitive approach. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3 and 4), 451 - 493.
23. Jiménez-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 - 28). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
24. Kelly, G. J., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as a sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 883 - 915.
25. Kelly,G. J., Regev, J.,&Prothero,W. (2008).Analysis of lines of reasoning in written argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 137 - 157). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
26. Keys, C. W., & Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 631 - 645.
27. Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065 -1084.
28. Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1 - 32.
29. Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A., & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry. Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 495 - 523.
30. Lee, H.-S., & Songer, N. B. (2004, April). Longitudinal knowledge development: Scaffolds for inquiry. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
31. Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
32. Martin, A. M., & Hand, B. (in press). Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the elementary science classroom. A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education.
33. McNeill, K. L. (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations through curricular scaffolds and teacher instructional practices. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
34. McNeill, K. L., Harris, 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.
35. 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 (pp. 233 - 265). New York: Taylor & Francis.
36. McNeill, K. L., &Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers' instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53 - 78.
37. 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.
38. Metz, K. E. (2000). Young children's inquiry in biology: Building the knowledge bases to empower independent inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. H. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiry into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 371 - 404). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
39. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40. Moje, E. B., Collazo, T., Carrillo, R., & Marx, R. W. (2001). " Maestro, what is quality?" Language, literacy, and discourse in project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(4), 469 - 498.
41. Myers, G. (1990). Writing biology: Texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
42. Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science: Problems in the logic of science education. New York: Harcourt, Brace, &World.
43. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
44. 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.
45. Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423 - 451.
46. Puntambekar, S., Stylianou, A.,&Goldstein, J. (2007).Comparing classroom enactments of an inquiry curriculum: Lessons learned from two teachers. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(1), 81 - 130.
47. Quintana, C., Reiser, B., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E.,Golan, R, et al. (2004).Ascaffolding design framework for designing educational software. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337 - 386.
48. Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., Sandeval, W. A., Smith, B., Steinmuller, F., & Leone, A. (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.
49. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers' use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211 - 246.
50. Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students' scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5 - 51.
51. Sandoval,W. A. (2005). Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634 - 656.
52. 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.
53. Schneider, R., Krajcik, J.,&Blumenfeld, P. (2005). Enacting reform-based science materials: The range of teacher enactments in reform classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 283 - 312.
54. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
55. 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.
56. Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
57. Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns in distributed scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305 - 335.
58. Tabak, I., & Reiser, B. J. (1997). Complementary roles of software-based scaffolding and teacher - student interactions in inquiry learning. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.), Proceedings of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning '97 (pp. 289 - 298), Toronto, Canada.
59. Tiberghien, A. (2008). Foreword. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. ix - xv). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
60. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
61. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F. S., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C. W., et al. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
62. Yore, L. D., Hand, B. M., & Prain, V. (2002). Scientists as writers. Science Education, 86(5), 672 - 692.