The nature of elementary student science discourse in the context of the science writing heuristic approach

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 427-449

  Cavagnetto, Andy ^a   Hand, Brian M ^b   Norton Meier, Lori ^c  

^a BINGHAMTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^c IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Argument; Discourse argumentation; Elementary school; Nature of science; Science discourse; Scientific literacy; Student talk

Indexed keywords

EID: 77951135651     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500690802627277     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Bereiter, C., Scardamalia, M., Cassells, C., & Hewitt, J. (1997). Postmodernism, knowledge building, and elementary science. Elementary School Journal, 97(4), 329-340.
2. Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
3. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.
4. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
5. Duschl, R. A., & Hamilton, R. J. (1992). Introduction: Viewing the domain of science education. In R. A. Duschl & R. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice (pp. 1-18). Albany, NY: SUNY.
6. 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(6), 915-933.
7. Ford, M. J. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404-423.
8. Ford, M. J., & Forman, E. A. (2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30(1), 1-32.
9. Ford, M. J., & Wargo, B. M. (2007). Routines, roles, & responsibilities for aligning scientific and classroom practices. Science Education, 91(1), 133-157.
10. Galbraith, D. (1999). Writing as a knowledge constituting process. In M. Torrence & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Knowing what to write: Conceptual processes in text production (pp. 139-160). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
11. Grimberg, I. B., Mohammed, E., & Hand, B. (2004, January 8-10). A grade six case study of cognitive involvement and attitudes towards scientific inquiry using the SWH. Paper presented at the International Conference of the Association for Educators of Teachers of Science, Nashville, TN.
12. Halliday, M. A. K. (1977). Explorations in the functions of language. New York: Elsevier North Holland.
13. Hand, B. (2008). Science inquiry, argument and language: The case for the science writing heuristic. Taiwan: Sense.
14. Henriques, L. (1997). A study to define and verify a model of interactive constructive elementary school science teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.
15. Herrenkohl, L. P., & Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 431-473.
16. Hohenshell, L. M., & Hand, B. (2006). Writing-to-learn strategies in secondary school cell biology: A mixed method study. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 261-289.
17. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo-Rodriguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). 'Doing the lesson' or 'doing science': Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-592.
18. Keys, C. W. (1999). Language as an indicator of meaning generation: An analysis of middle school students' written discourse about scientific investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(9), 1044-1061.
19. 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, 1065-1084.
20. Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students' decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80(6), 673-689.
21. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337.
22. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23. Laudan, L. (1997). Explaining the success of science: Beyond epistemic realism and relativism. In A. I. Tauber (Ed.), Science and the quest for reality (pp. 137-161). New York: New York University Press.
24. Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
25. Mehan, H. (2001). What time is it Denise? Asking known information questions in classroom discourse. Theory into Practice, 18(4), 285-294.
26. Munford, D., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2002, April 6-10). Learning science through argumentation: Prospective teachers' experiences in an innovative science course. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
27. 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.
28. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (1994). Interpreting pragmatic meaning when reading popular reports of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 947-967.
29. Norris, S. P., Phillips, L. M., & Korpan, C. A. (2003). University students' interpretation of media reports of science and its relationship to background knowledge, interest, and reading difficulty. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 123-145.
30. Norton-Meier, L., Hand, B., Hockenberry, L., & Wise, K. (2008). Questions, claims, and evidence: The important place of argument in children's science writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
31. Novak, J. D. (1977). A theory of education. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
32. Nystrand, M. (2006). Research on the role of classroom discourse as it affects reading comprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 40, 392-412.
33. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-227.
34. Richmond, G., & Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in classrooms: Social processes in small group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 839-858.
35. Russell, B. (1965). On the philosophy of science. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
36. Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2008, March 24-28). Interpersonal influences on collaborative argument during scientific inquiry. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, New York.
37. Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463-1488.
38. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4-27.
39. Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008a). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447-472.
40. Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008b). Differences in the ways more and less successful groups engage in argumentation: A case study. Paper presented at the National Research in Science Teaching International Conference. Baltimore, MD.
41. Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students' scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5-51.
42. Shepardson, D. P., & Britsch, S. J. (2006). Zones of interaction: Differential access to elementary science discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 443-466.
43. 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.
44. Solomon, J. (1991). Group discussion in the classroom. School Science Review, 72, 29-34.
45. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46. von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101-131.
47. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
48. Wallace, C. S., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2004). Writing and learning in the science classroom. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
49. Wallace, C. S., & Narayan, R. (2002, September). Acquiring the social language of science: Building science language identities through inquiry-based investigations. Paper presented at the Conference on Philosophical, Psychological, and Linguistic Foundations for Language and Science Literacy Research, University of Victoria, B.C., Canada.
50. Yore, L. D. (2004). Why do future scientists need to study language arts? In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 71-94). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
51. Yore, L. D., Hand, B., & Florence, M. K. (2004). Scientists' views of science, models of writing, and science writing practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 338-369.
52. Yore, L. D., & Shymansky, J. A. (1997, September 25-28). Constructivism: Implications for teaching, teacher education and research-breakthroughs, barriers and promises. Paper presented at the National Science Council ROC Workshop for Science Educators, Taipei, Taiwan.
53. 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.