Teaching and learning science as argument

Science Education

Volumn 94, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 810-824

  Kuhn, Deanna ^a  

^a Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78149312686     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.20395     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Bazerman, C., & Paradis, J. (Eds.). (1991). Textual dynamics of the professions: Historical and contemporary studies of writing in professional communities. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
2. Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Berland, L., & Reiser, B. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93, 26-55.
4. Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
5. Brem, S. K., & Rips, L. J. (2000). Explanation and evidence in informal argument. Cognitive science, 24(4), 573-605.
6. Bricker, L., & Bell, P. (2009). 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. Corcoran, T., Mosher, F., & Rogat, A. (2009). Learning progressions in science: An evidence-based approach to reform. Report of the Center on Continuous Instructional Improvement, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.
8. DeFuccio, M., Kuhn, D., Udell, W., & Callender, K. (2009). Developing argument skills in severely disadvantaged adolescent males in a residential setting. Applied Developmental Science, 13, 30-41.
9. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
10. Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In R. Sternberg & J. Davidson (Ed.), The nature of insight (pp. 365-395). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268-291.
12. Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.). (2008). Argumentation in science education. New York: Springer.
13. Feist, G. (2008). The psychology of science and the origins of the scientific mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
14. Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentive discourse skill. Discourse Processes, 32, 135-153.
15. Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92, 404-423.
16. Gilbert, M. (1997). Coalescent argumentation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
17. Goldstein, M., Crowell, A., & Kuhn, D. (2009). What constitutes skilled argumentation and how does it develop? Informal Logic [Special issue on Argumentation], 29, 379-395.
18. Graff, G. (2003). Clueless in academe: How schooling obscures the life of the mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
19. Greenwald, E. A., Persky, H. R., Campbell, J. R., & Mazzeo, J. (1999). NAEP 1999 Writing Report Card for the Nation and the States. Education Statistics Quarterly, 1(4), 23-28.
20. Hallett, D., Chandler, M., & Krettenauer, T. (2002). Disentangling the course of epistemic development: Parsing knowledge by epistemic content. New Ideas in Psychology, 20, 285-307.
21. Iordanou, K. (in press). Developing argument skills across scientific and social domains. Journal of Cognition and Development.
22. Kelly, G. J., Regev, J., & Prothero, W. (2008). Analysis of lines of reasoning in writtern argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research New York: Springer.
23. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
24. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337.
25. Kuhn, D. (1995). Microgenetic study of change: What has it told us? Psychological Science, 6, 133-139.
26. Kuhn, D. (2009). The importance of learning about knowing: Creating a foundation for development of intellectual values. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 112-117.
27. Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15, 309-328.
28. Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. Manuscript in preparation.
29. Kuhn, D., Crowell, A., & Yanklowitz, S. (2010). Effects of a dialogic argumentation curriculum on middle-school expository writing. Manuscript submitted for publication.
30. Kuhn, D., Goh, W., Iordanou, K., & Shaenfield, D. (2008). Arguing on the computer: A microgenetic study of developing argument skills in a computer-supported environment. Child Development, 79, 1311-1329.
31. Kuhn, D., Iordanou, K., Pease, M., & Wirkala, C. (2008). Beyond control of variables: What needs to develop to achieve skilled scientific thinking? Cognitive Development, 23, 435-451. [Special issue, The Development of Scientific Thinking, B. Sodian & M. Bullock, eds.]
32. Kuhn, D., & Katz, J. (2009). Are self-explanations always beneficial? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 103, 386-394.
33. Kuhn, D., & Pease, M. (2008). What needs to develop in the development of inquiry skills? Cognition and Instruction, 26, 512-559.
34. Kuhn, D., & Pease, M. (2009). The dual components of developing strategy use: Production and inhibition. In H. S. Waters & W. Schneider (Eds.), Metacognition, strategy use, and instruction New York: Guilford Press.
35. Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentive reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 287-315.
36. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245-1260.
37. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking and Reasoning, 13, 90-104.
38. Larson, A. A., Britt, M. A., & Kurby, C. (2009). Improving students' evaluation of informal arguments. Journal of Experimental Education, 77, 339-366.
39. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and scientific literacy: Supporting development in learning contexts. In K. A. Renninger & I. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 153-196) Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
40. Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., & Lucas, D. (2008). Supporting development of the epistemology of inquiry. Cognitive Development, 23, 512-529. [Special issue, The Development of Scientific Thinking, B. Sodian & M. Bullock, eds.]
41. Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., & Petrosino, A. J. (2001). Reconsidering the role of experiment in science education. In K. Crowley, C. Schunn, & T. Okada (Eds.), Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom, and professional settings (pp. 251-277). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
42. Metz, K. (2004). Children's understanding of scientific inquiry: Their conceptualization of uncertainty in investigations of their own design. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 219-290.
43. Michaels, S., O'Connor, C., & Resnick, L. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27, 283-297.
44. Moshman, D. (2008). Epistemic development and the perils of Pluto. In M. Shaughnessy, M. Vennman, & C. K. Kennedy (Eds.), Metacognition: A recent review of research, theory and perspectives (pp. 161-174). Hauppauge, NY: Nova.
45. Muis, K., Bendixen, L., & Haerle, F. (2006). Domain-generality and domain-specificity in personal epistemology research: Philosophical and empirical reflections in the development of a theoretical framework. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 3-54.
46. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
47. Naylor, S., Keogh, B., & Downing, B. (2007). Argumentation and primary science. Research in Science Education, 37, 17-39.
48. Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G., & Poliquin, A. (2008). Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1977-1999.
49. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
50. Russ, R., Scherr, R., Hammer, D., & Mikeska, J. (2008). Recognizing mechanistic reasoning in student scientific inquiry: A framework for discourse analysis developed from philosophy of science. Science Education, 93, 875-891.
51. Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447-472.
52. Sandoval, W. (2005). Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence. Science Education, 89, 634-656.
53. Schworm, S., & Renkl, A. (2007). Learning argumentation skills through the use of prompts for self-explaining examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 285-296.
54. Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborn, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 235-260.
55. Walton, D. N. (1989). Dialogue theory for critical thinking. Argumentation, 3, 169-184.
56. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92, 941-967.
57. 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.