Supporting argumentation through students' questions: Case studies in science classrooms

Journal of the Learning Sciences

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 230-284

  Chin, Christine ^a   Osborne, Jonathan ^b  

^a NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY   (Singapore)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77951701424     PISSN: 10508406     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10508400903530036     Document Type: Article

References (86)

1. Alexander, R. (2005). Towards dialogic teaching. York, England: Dialogos.
2. Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (Eds.). (2003). Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
3. Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 626-639.
4. Baker, M. (2003). Computer mediated argumentative interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific notions. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 47-78). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
5. Barnes, D., & Todd, F. (1977). Communication and learning in small groups. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
6. Bell, N., Grossen, M., & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (1985). Sociocognitive conflict and intellectual growth. New Directions in Child Development, 29, 41-54.
7. Bell, P., & Linn, M. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning on the Web in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797-817.
8. Berlyne, D. E. (1954). A theory of human curiosity. British Journal of Psychology, 45, 180-191.
9. Billig, M. (1996). Arguing and thinking (2nd ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
10. Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual process of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 161-238). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Chi, M. T. H., Bassock, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145-182.
12. Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.
13. Chin, C. (2006). Using self-questioning to promote pupils' process skills thinking. School Science Review, 87(321), 113-122.
14. Chin, C., Brown, D. E., & Bruce, B. C. (2002). Student-generated questions: A meaningful aspect of learning in science. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 521-549.
15. Chin, C., & Chia, L. G. (2004). Problem-based learning: Using students' questions to drive knowledge construction. Science Education, 88, 707-727.
16. Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). Students' questions: A potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44, 1-39.
17. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science education. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 1-49.
18. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of the taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 623-654.
19. Clark, D. B., Sampson, V., Weinberger, A., & Erkens, G. (2007). Analytical frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 343-374.
20. Costa, J., Caldeira, H., Gallástegui, J. R., & Otero, J. (2000). An analysis of question asking on scientific texts explaining natural phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 602-614.
21. Cuccio-Schirripa, S., & Steiner, H. E. (2000). Enhancement and analysis of science question level for middle school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 210-224.
22. de Vries, 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, 63-103.
23. diSessa, A. A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P. B. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 49-70). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
24. Doise, W., & Mugny, G. (1984). The social development of intellect. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
25. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
26. Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 365-395). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
28. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
29. 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.
30. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
31. Geddis, A. (1991). Improving the quality of classroom discourse on controversial issues. Science Education, 75, 169-183.
32. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
33. Graesser, A. C., & Olde, B. A. (2003). How does one know whether a person understands a device? The quality of the questions the person asks when the device breaks down. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 524-536.
34. Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 104-137.
35. Graesser, A. C., Person, N. K., & Huber, J. D. (1992). Mechanisms that generate questions. In T. Lauer, E. Peacock, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Questions and information systems (pp. 167-187). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
36. Harper, K. A., Etkina, E., & Lin, Y. (2003). Encouraging and analyzing student questions in a large physics course: Meaningful patterns for instructors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 776-791.
37. Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (2003). When is conceptual change intended? A cognitive-sociocultural view. In G. M. Sinatra & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 407-427). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
38. Herrenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 431-473.
39. Hofstein, A., Navon, O., Kipnis, M., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). Developing students' ability to ask more and better questions resulting from inquiry-type chemistry laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 791-806.
40. Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (1999). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 379-432.
41. Howe, C., Tolmie, A., Duchak-Tanner, V., & Rattray, C. (2000). Hypothesis testing in science: Group consensus and the acquisition of conceptual and procedural knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 10,361-391.
42. Hynd, C., & Alvermann, D. E. (1986). The role of refutation text in overcoming difficulty with science concepts. Journal of Reading, 29, 440-446.
43. Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2003). Elaborating new arguments through a CSCL script. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 205-226). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
44. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Pereiro-Munoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 1171-1190.
45. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. G., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792.
46. Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 849-871.
47. King, A. (1990). Enhancing peer interaction and learning through guided student-generated questioning. Educational Psychologist, 27, 111-126.
48. Koch, A., & Eckstein, S. G. (1991). Improvements of reading comprehension of physics texts by students' question formulation. International Journal of Science Education, 13, 473-485.
49. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319-337.
50. Kuhn, D. (2009). Do students need to be taught how to reason? Educational Research Review, 4(1), 1-6.
51. Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 287-315.
52. Lawson, A. E. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetico-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1387-1408.
53. Leach, J., & Scott, P. (1995). The demands of learning science concepts: Issues of theory and practice. School Science Review, 76, 47-51.
54. Limon, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11, 357-380.
55. Linn, M., & Bell, P. (2000). Designing the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 781-796.
56. Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87, 517-538.
57. Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30, 359-377.
58. Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children's talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 95-111.
59. Mugny, G., & Doise, W. (1978). Socio-cognitive conflict and the structure of individual and collective performances. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 181-192.
60. Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argument in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 553-576.
61. Nussbaum, E. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 384-395.
62. Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., Kachur, R., & Prendegarst, C. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom New York: Teachers College Press.
63. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004a). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994-1020.
64. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004b). Ideas, evidence and argument in science [In-service training pack, resource pack and video]. London: Nuffield Foundation.
65. Palincsar, A., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
66. Pedrosa de Jesus, H., Neri de Souza, F., Teixiera-Dias, J. J. C., & Watts, M. (2005). Organising the chemistry of question-based learning: A case study. Research in Science and Technological Education, 23(2), 179-193.
67. 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.
68. Ratcliffe, M. (1996). Adolescent decision-making, by individual and groups, about science-related societal issues. In G. Welford, J. Osborne, & P. Scott (Eds.), Research in science education in Europe: Current issues and themes (pp. 126-140). London: Falmer Press.
69. Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 235-276.
70. Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2008, March). Interpersonal influences on collaborative argumentation during scientific inquiry. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
71. Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., & Biezuner, S. (2000). Two wrongs make a right...if they argue together! Cognition and Instruction, 18, 461-494.
72. Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 219-256.
73. 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.
74. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
75. Suthers, D. D. (2003). Representational guidance for collaborative inquiry. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 27-46). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
76. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
77. van Amelsvoort, M., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Representational tools in computer-supported collaborative argumentation-based learning: How dyads work with constructed and inspected argumentative diagrams. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16, 485-521.
78. van Eemeren, F. H. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical developments and contemporary developments. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
79. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-di-alectic approach. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
80. Veerman, A. (2003). Constructive discussions through electronic dialogue. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 117-143). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
81. 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, 101-131.
82. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
83. Walton, D., & Godden, D. M. (2005). The nature and status of critical questions in argumentation schemes. In D. Hitchcock (Ed.), The uses of argument: Proceedings of a conference at McMaster University (pp. 476-484). Hamilton, Canada: Ontario Society for the Study of Augmentation.
84. Walton, D., & Reed, C. (2003). Diagramming, argumentation schemes and critical questions. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoek Henkemans (Eds.), Anyone who has a view: Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation (pp. 195-211). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
85. White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. London: Falmer Press.
86. 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.