Synergy between teacher practices and curricular scaffolds to support students in using domain-specific and domain-general knowledge in writing arguments to explain phenomena

Journal of the Learning Sciences

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 416-460

  McNeill, Katherine L ^a   Krajcik, Joseph ^b  

^a BOSTON COLLEGE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 70449591867     PISSN: 10508406     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10508400903013488     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Bell, P., & Linn, M. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797-817
3. Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
4. Brown, A. L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A., & Campione, J. C. (1993). Distributed expertise in the classroom. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 188-228). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
5. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 253-277.
6. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft 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.
7. Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 91-142.
8. Davis, E. A., & Miyake, N. (2004). Explorations of scaffolding in complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 265-272.
9. DeBoer, G. E., Herrmann Abell, C., Gogos, A., Michiels, A., Regan, T., & Wilson, P. (2008). Assessment linked to science learning goals: Probing student thinking through assessment. In J. Coffey, R. Douglas, & C. Stearns (Eds.), Assessing science learning: Perspectives from research and practice (pp. 231-252). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
10. DeBoer, G. E., Lee, H.-S., & Husic, F. (2008). Assessing integrated understanding of science. In Y. Kali, M. C. Linn, & J. E. Roseman (Eds.), Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum, instruction and policy (pp. 153-182). New York: Teacher College Press.
11. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
12. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
13. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
14. 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, 88,915-933.
15. 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.
16. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Designing argumentation learning environments. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 91-115). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
17. 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.
18. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodríguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792.
19. Koslowski, B. (1996). Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20. 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, 1-32.
21. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319-338.
22. Kuhn, D., Schauble, L., & Garcia-Mila, M. (1992). Cross-domain development of scientific reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 9(4), 285-327.
23. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2001). The path to wisdom. Educational Psychologist, 36(4), 261-264.
24. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74, 1245-1260.
25. Lee, H.-S. (2003). Scaffolding elementary students'authentic inquiry through a written science curriculum. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
26. 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.
27. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and science literacy: Supporting development in learning in contexts. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner, K. A. Renninger, & I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (p. 153-196). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
28. Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
29. 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.
30. McNeill, K. L. (2009). Teachers' use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93, 233-268.
31. 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 Press.
32. 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.
33. 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, 153-191.
34. 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.
35. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36. Moje, E. B., Peek-Brown, D., Sutherland, L. M., Marx, R. W., 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 (pp. 227-251). New York: Carnegie Corporation.
37. Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science: Problems in the logic of science education. New York: Har-court, Brace, & World.
38. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
39. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation inschool science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994-1020.
40. Passmore, C., & Stewart, J. (2002). A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 185-204.
41. 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, 423-451.
42. Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context-bound? Educational Researcher, 18(1), 16-25.
43. Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 42, 185-217.
44. Quintana, C., Reiser, B., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Golan, R., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for designing educational software. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 337-386.
45. Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 273-304.
46. Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., Sandoval, 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.
47. Reznitskaya, A., & Anderson, R. C. (2002). The argument schema and learning to reason. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 319-334). New York: Guilford Press.
48. Rivet, A. E., & Krajcik, J. S. (2004). Achieving standards in urban systemic reform: An example of a sixth grade project-based science curriculum.Journal in Research in Science Teaching, 41,669-692.
49. Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 235-276.
50. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513-536.
51. Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2-9.
52. Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92, 447-472.
53. Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students'scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 5-51.
54. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 23-55.
55. Sandoval, W. A., & Morrison, K. (2003). High school students' ideas about theory and theory change after a biological inquiry unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 369-392.
56. Schunn, C. D., & Anderson, J. R. (1999). The generality/specificity of expertise in scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 23(3), 337-370.
57. Schwarz, B.B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M.(2003). Constructionof collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 219-256.
58. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
59. Shah, P., Freedman, E., & Watkins, P. (2004, April). Influences of prior content knowledge and graphical literacy skills on data interpretation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
60. 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. (Pubitemid 43135580)
61. Smith, C. L., Maclin, D., Houghton, C., & Hennessey, M. G. (2000). Sixth-grade students' epis-temologies of science: The impact of school science experiences on epistemological development. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 349-422.
62. Songer, N. B., & Linn, M. C. (1991). How do students' views of science influence knowledge integration? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 761-784.
63. Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (p. 435-454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
64. Stevens, R., Wineburg, S., Herrenkohl, L. R., & Bell, P. (2005). Comparative understanding of school subjects: Past, present, and future. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 125-157.
65. Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns in distributed scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 305-335.
66. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
67. Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
68. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.
69. Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track science students' argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 807-838.
70. Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding pre-service science teachers' evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32, 437-465.
71. Zimmerman, C. (2000). The development of scientific reasoning skills. Developmental Review, 20, 99-149.
72. 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.
73. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35-62.