Complexity of secondary scientific data sources and students' argumentative discourse

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 32, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 1207-1225

  Kerlin, Steven C ^a   McDonald, Scott P ^a   Kelly, Gregory J ^a  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Data complexity; Discourse; Earth science education; Inquiry based teaching

Indexed keywords

EID: 77952573415     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500690902995632     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
3. Duschl, R. (1990). Restructuring science education. The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teachers College Press.
4. Erduran, S. (2008). Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 47-69). Dordrecht: Springer.
5. 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.
6. Gee, J. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
7. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1963). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. In The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research (Chap. 5, pp. 101-115). Chicago: Aldine.
8. Hug, B., & McNeill, K. L. (2008). Use of first-hand and second-hand data in science: Does data type influence classroom conversations? International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1725-1751.
9. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792.
10. Kelly, G. J. (2008). Inquiry, activity, and epistemic practice. In R. Duschl & R. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 99-117, 288-291). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
11. Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849-871.
12. Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86(3), 314-342.
13. Kerlin, S., McDonald, S., & Kelly, G. (2009). Mapping a science inquiry unit. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 43(2), 4-13.
14. McDonald, S., & Kelly, G. J. (2007). Understanding the construction of a science storyline in a chemistry classroom. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 2(3), 165-177.
15. 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: The proceedings of the 33rd Carnegie symposium on cognition (pp. 233-265). Mahwah, NJ: Taylor & Francis.
16. Nathan, M. J., & Knuth, E. J. (2003). A study of whole classroom mathematical discourse and teacher change. Cognition and Instruction, 21(2), 175-207.
17. National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
18. National Research Council [NRC]. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. 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.
23. 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.