Students' questions and discursive interaction: Their impact on argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 47, Issue 7, 2010, Pages 883-908

  Chin, Christine ^a   Osborne, Jonathan ^b  

^a NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY   (Singapore)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Discourse analysis; General science; Language of science and classrooms; Middle School science

Indexed keywords

COLLABORATIVE GROUPS; DISCOURSE ANALYSIS; GENERAL SCIENCE; LANGUAGE OF SCIENCE AND CLASSROOMS; MIDDLE SCHOOL SCIENCE; POSITIVE CORRELATIONS; STRUCTURAL COMPONENT; TWO-GRAPHS;

LINGUISTICS; SCHOOL BUILDINGS; SEMANTICS; TEACHING;

STUDENTS;

EID: 77956945596     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.20385     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Allison, A. W., & Shrigley, R. L. (1986). Teaching children to ask operational questions in science. Science Education, 70, 73-80.
2. Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In: R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443-460). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
3. Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797-818.
4. Bereiter, C. (1994). Implications of postmodernism for science, or, science as progressive discourse. Educational Psychologist, 29, 3-12.
5. Berlyne, D. E. (1954). A theory of human curiosity. British Journal of Psychology, 45, 180-191.
6. Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92, 473-498.
7. Chan, C. K. K. (2001). Peer collaboration and discourse patterns in learning from incompatible information. Instructional Science, 29, 443-479.
8. Chin, C. (2006). Using self-questioning to promote pupils' process skills thinking. School Science Review, 87(321), 113-122.
9. Chin, C, & Osborne, J. (2008). Students' questions: a potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1-39.
10. Chin, C, & Osborne, J. (2010). Supporting argumentation through students' questions: Case studies in science classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 230-284.
11. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2007). Personally seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253-277.
12. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 293-321.
13. 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.
14. Davis, E. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 91-142.
15. diSessa, A. A. (1988). Knowledge in Pieces. In: G. Forman & PB. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
17. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
18. Duschl RA. Schweingruber HA. Shouse A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
19. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAP ping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915-933.
20. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
21. Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404-423.
22. Groarke, L. (1996). Logic, art and argument. Informal Logic, 18 (2 and 3), 105-129.
23. 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(8), 776-791.
24. Hartford, F, & Good, R. (1982). Training chemistry students to ask research questions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19, 559-570.
25. Herrenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 431-473.
26. Herrenkohl, L. R., Palincsar, A. S., deWater, L. S., & Kawasaki, K. (1999). Developing scientific communities in classrooms: A sociocognitive approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8 (3 & 4), 451-493.
27. Hmelo-Silver, C, & Barrows, H. S. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cognition and Instruction, 26(1), 48-94.
28. 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.
29. Jimenez-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.
30. 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, 24(11), 1171-1190.
31. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P, Rodriguez, M., & Duschl, RA. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792.
32. 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.
33. Kim, H., & Song, J. (2006). The features of peer argumentation in middle school students' scientific inquiry. Research in Science Education, 36(3), 211-233.
34. King, A. (1990). Enhancing peer interaction and learning through guided student-generated questioning. Educational Psychologist, 27, 111-126.
35. King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 338-368.
36. King, A., & Rosenshine, B. (1993). Effects of guided cooperative questioning on children's knowledge construction. Journal of Experimental Education, 61, 127-148.
37. King, A., Staffieri, A., & Aldelgais, A. (1998). Mutual peer tutoring: Effects of structuring tutorial interaction to scaffold peer learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 134-152.
38. Koch, A., & Eckstein, S. G. (1991). Improvements of reading comprehension of physics texts by students' question formulation. International Journal of Science Education, 13(4), 473-485.
39. Leitao, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332-360.
40. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Company.
41. Lemke, J. L. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In: J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discoursesof science (pp. 87-113). New York: Routledge.
42. Limón, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11, 357-380.
43. McNeill, K., Lizotte, D., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191.
44. Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children's collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6, 359-379.
45. 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.
46. Miyake, N., & Norman, D. A. (1979). Toaska question, one must know enoughto know whatisnot known. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(3), 357-364.
47. Mugny, G., & Doise, W. (1978). Socio-cognitive conflict and structure of individual and collective performances. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 181-192.
48. 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.
49. Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Collaborative, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 345-359.
50. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004a). Enhancing the qualityofargumentation inscience classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
51. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004b). Ideas, evidence and argument in science. In-service training pack, resource pack and video. London: Nuffield Foundation.
52. Pera, M. (1994). The discourses of science (C. Botsford, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
53. 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.
54. Resnick, L. B., Michaels, S., & O'Connor, M. C. (2010). How (well-structured) talk builds the mind. In R. J. Sternberg, & D. D. Preiss (Eds.), Innovations in educational psychology: Perspectives on learning, teaching, and human development (pp. 163-194). New York: Springer Publishing Company.
55. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55.
56. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345-372.
57. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1992). Text-based and knowledge-based questioning by children. Cognition and Instruction, 9, 177-199.
58. Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 219-256.
59. Slade, C. (2003). Seeing reasons: Visual argumentation in advertisements. Argumentation, 17, 145-160.
60. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
61. 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(4), 485-521.
62. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectic approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
63. von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learningtoargue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 101-131.
64. 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 Argumentation.
65. Webb, N. M. (2009). The teacher's role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(1), 1-28.
66. Wells, G., & Arauz, R. M. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 379-428.
67. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
68. Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.
69. Wittrock, M. C. (1992). Generative learning processes of the brain. Educational Psychologist, 27, 531-541.
70. 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.