Developing argumentation ability as a way to promote technological literacy

International Journal of Educational Research

Volumn 48, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 225-234

  Choresh, Cilla ^a   Mevarech, Zemira R ^a   Frank, Moti ^b  

^a BAR ILAN UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

^b HOLON INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Israel)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Improve; Meta cognition; Meta cognitive instruction; Patent; Teaching technology; Technological literacy

Indexed keywords

EID: 77349121343     PISSN: 08830355     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijer.2009.10.002     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Asterhan C.S.C., and Schwarz B.B. The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology 99 3 (2007) 626-639
2. Berret J. Technological literacy: Researching teaching and learning in the K-12 setting. Proceedings of the Second AAAS Technology Education Research Conference (2003). http://www.project2061.org/meetings/technology/tech2/berrett.htm Accessed August 16, 2009, from http://www.project2061.org/meetings/technology/tech2/berrett.htm
3. Butler D.L., Lauscher H., Jarvis-Selinger S., and Beckingham B. Collaboration and self-regulation in teachers' professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education 5 1 (2004) 435-455
4. Bybee R.W. Achieving technological literacy: A national imperative. Technology Teacher 60 1 (2000) 23-28
5. Choresh, C. (2007). Teaching through argumentation as a means to promote technological literacy. Thesis submitted to the Faculty Senate of Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel (in Hebrew).
6. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (1987), Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ
7. Driver R., Newton P., and Osborne J. Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education 84 3 (2000) 287-312
8. van Eemeren F.H., et al. Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical background and contemporary developments (1996), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ
9. Erduran S., and Dagher Z. Exemplary teaching of argumentation: A case study of two middle school science teachers. In: Pinto R., and Couso D. (Eds). Contributions of science education research (2007), Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands
10. Fleming R. Technological literacy. Saskatchewan education (Chapter 5). Understanding the common essential learnings: A Handbook for Teachers (1987). http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/docs/policy/cels/el5.html Accessed August 16, 2009, from http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/docs/policy/cels/el5.html#e12e9
11. Frank M. A systems approach for developing technological literacy. Journal of Technology Education 17 1 (2005) 19-34
12. Glassner A., and Schwartz B. The antilogos ability to evaluate information supporting arguments. Learning and Instruction 15 4 (2005) 353-375
13. Hemmerich J., and Wiley J. Do argumentation tasks promote conceptual change about volcanoes? (2002). http://www.cognitivesciencesociety.org/confproc/gmu02/final_ind_files/hemmerich_wiley.pdf Accessed August 16, 2009, from http://www.cognitivesciencesociety.org/confproc/gmu02/final_ind_files/hemmerich_wiley.pdf
14. ITEA. Technology for all Americans: A rationale and structure for the study of technology (International Technology Education Association) (2003), ITEA, Reston, VA. http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/TAA/PRPDF/Jan97.pdf (Summary accessed August 16, 2009 from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/TAA/PRPDF/Jan97.pdf)
15. ITEA. Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology (International Technology Education Association) (2003), ITEA, Reston, VA. http://www.iteaconnect.org/index.html (Accessed August 16, 2009 from http://www.iteaconnect.org/index.html)
16. Jenkins E.W. Technological literacy: Concepts and constructs. Journal of Technology Studies 13 1 (1997) 2-5
17. Kramarski B., Mevarech Z.R., and Arami M. The effects of meta-cognitive training on solving mathematical authentic tasks. Educational Studies in Mathematics 49 2 (2002) 225-250
18. Kuhn D. Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review 62 2 (1992) 155-178
19. Kuhn D. Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education 77 3 (1993) 319-337
20. Leibovitz M., and Kipperman D. Products design (2004), Ort Israel Press, Tel Aviv, Israel (in Hebrew)
21. Means M.L., and Voss J.F. Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction 14 2 (1996) 139-179
22. Mevarech Z.R., and Amrany C. Immediate and delayed effects of meta-cognitive instruction on regulation of cognition and mathematics achievement. Metacognition and Learning 3 2 (2008) 147-157
23. Mevarech Z.R. Effects of meta-cognitive training embedded in cooperative settings on mathematical problem solving. The Journal of Educational Research 92 4 (1999) 195-205
24. Mevarech Z., and Kramarski B. IMPROVE: A multidimensional method for teaching mathematics in heterogeneous classrooms. American Educational Research Journal 34 2 (1997) 365-394
25. Mevarech Z.R., Zion M., and Michalsky T. Peer-assisted learning via face-to-face or a syncronic learning network embedded with or without metacognitive guidance: Effects on higher and lower achieving students. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology 6 3 (2007) 456-471. http://www.iacep.cogned.org/ (Accessed August 16, 2009, from www.iacep.cogned.org)
26. Mioduser D. Framework for the study of cognitive and curricular issues of technological problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 8 2 (1998) 167-184
27. Osborne J., Erduran S., Simon S., and Monk M. Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. School Science Review 82 301 (2001) 63-70
28. Parkinson E. Scientific & technological literacy through TechnoScience2000+: An approach for in-service and preservice training. The Journal of Technology Studies XXIX 1 (2003) 26-33
29. Piaget J. The psychology of the child (1972), Basic Books, New York
30. PISA. Framework for the PISA 2006 Assessment (2003). http://www.oecd.org/pages/0,3417,en_32252351_32235731_1_1_1_1_1,00.html (Accessed August 16, 2009, from http://www.oecd.org/pages/0,3417,en_32252351_32235731_1_1_1_1_1,00.html)
31. Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Programme for International Student Assessment (2006). http://www.oecd.org/document/2/0,3343,en_32252351_32236191_39718850_1_1_1_1,00.html (Accessed August 16, 2009, from http://www.oecd.org/document/2/0,3343,en_32252351_32236191_39718850_1_1_1_1,00.html)
32. Raizen S. Making way for technology education. Journal of Science Education and Technology 6 1 (1997) 59-70
33. Schwarz B., and Glassner A. The blind and the paralytic: Supporting argumentation in everyday and scientific issues. In: Andriessen J., Baker M., and Suthers D. (Eds). Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (2003), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 227-260
34. Simon S. Systematic teacher development to enhance the use of argumentation in school science activities. In: Wallace J., and Laughran J. (Eds). Leadership and professional development in science education (2003), Routledge Falmer Publishers, London, United Kingdom 198-215
35. Simon S., Erduran S., and Osborne J. Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the national association for research in science teaching, New Orleans, LA (2002)
36. Toulmin S.E. The uses of argument (1958), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA
37. Veennman M.V.J., Van Hout-Walters B.H.A.M., and Afflerbach P. Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological issues. Metacognition and Learning 1 1 (2006) 3-14
38. Waks S. Science-technology dimensions in physics education: Prospects and impact. Physics Education 29 2 (1993) 64-70
39. Zeidler D., Osborne J., Erduran S., Simon S., and Monk M. The role of argument during discourse about socioscientific issues. In: Zeidler D. (Ed). The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (2003), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands 97-116