Classroom communities' adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation

Science Education

Volumn 95, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 191-216

  Berland, Leema K ^a   Reiser, Brian J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79551705349     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.20420     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Berland, L. K. (2008). Understanding the composite practice that forms when classrooms take up the practice of scientific argumentation. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
3. Berland, L. K. (2010). Explaining variation in how classroom communities adapt the practice of scientific argumentation. Under review.
4. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26-55.
5. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178.
6. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289-325). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. Cavagnetto, A., Hand, B. M., & Norton-Meier, L. (2010). The nature of elementary science discourse in the context of the science writing heuristic approach. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 427-449.
8. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175-218.
9. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9-13.
10. Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 327-345.
11. Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (2001). Making change: Instruction and its improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1), 73-77.
12. Cornelius, L. L., & Herrenkohl, L. R. (2004). Power in the classroom: How the classroom environment shapes students' relationships with each other and with concepts. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 467-498.
13. Costello, P., & Mitchell, S. (1995). Argument: Voices, texts and contexts. In P. Costello & S. Mitchell (Eds.), Competing and consensual voices Philadephia: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
14. de Vries, E., Lund, K., & Michael, B. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 63-103.
15. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
16. Duschl, R. A. (2000). Making the nature of science explicit. In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: The contribution of research (pp. 187-206). Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
17. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. E. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
18. Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355-385.
19. Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105-121.
20. Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399-483.
21. Enyedy, N., & Goldberg, J. (2004). Inquiry in interaction: How local adaptations of curricula shape classroom communities. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 41(9), 905-935.
22. Finn, L.-E., Kuhn, L., Whitcomb, J. L., Bruozas, M., & Reiser, B. J. (2006). Where have all the creatures gone? In J. Krajcik & B. J. Reiser (Eds.), IQWST: Investigating and questioning our world through science and technology. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
23. Ford, M. J. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404-423.
24. Ford, M. J. (2010). The oppositional voice in argumentation and learning scientific content. Manuscript submitted for publication.
25. Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1991). Sharing cognition through collective comprehension activity. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 331-348). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
26. Hogan, K., & Corey, C. (2001). Viewing classrooms as cultural contexts for fostering scientific literacy. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 32(2), 214-243.
27. Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students' and scientists' reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 663-687.
28. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Designing argumentation learning environments. In S. Erduran & M. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 91-116). New York: Springer.
29. Kolstø, S. D., & Ratcliffe, M. (2008). Social aspects of argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives on classroom-based research (pp. 117-136). New York: Springer.
30. Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 82(1), 32.
31. Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96(4), 674-689.
32. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
33. Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., & O'Loughlin, M. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
34. Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A., & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 495-523.
35. Kuhn, L., Kenyon, L. O., & Reiser, B. J. (2006). Fostering scientific argumentation by creating a need for students to attend to each other's claims and evidence. In S. A. Barab, K. E. Hay, & D. T. Hickey (Eds.), 7th Annual International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 370-375). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
36. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and science literacy: Supporting development in learning in contexts. In W. Damon, R. Lerner, K. A. Renninger, & E. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, 6th edition (Vol. 4, pp. 153-196). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
37. Leitao, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332-360.
38. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
39. McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191.
40. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
41. Mercer, N. (2000). Words & minds. New York: Routledge.
42. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
43. Naylor, S., Keogh, B., & Downing, B. (2007). Argumentation in primary science. Research in Science Education, 37, 17-39.
44. 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.
45. 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.
46. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337-386.
47. Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273-304.
48. Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447-472.
49. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 265-283.
50. Schwartz, Y., Weizman, A., Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). The IQWST experience: Using coherence as a design principle for middle school science curriculum. The Elementary School Journal, 109(2), 199.
51. Schwarz, B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 219-256.
52. Schwarz, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L. O., Archer, A., Fortus, D., et al. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632-654.
53. Sohmer, R., & Michaels, S. (2005). The "Two Puppies'" story: The role of narrative in teaching and learning science. In U. Quasthoff & T. Becker (Eds.), Narrative interaction (pp. 57-91). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
54. Squire, K., MaKinister, J. G., Barnett, M., Luehmann, A. L., & Barab, S. A. (2003). Designed curriculum and local culture: Acknowledging the primacy of classroom culture. Science Education, 87, 469-489.
55. Tabak, I., & Baumgartner, E. (2004). The teacher as partner: Exploring participant structures, symmetry, and identity work in scaffolding. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 393-429.
56. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
57. 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 on Science Teaching, 45(1), 101-131.
58. Walton, D. (1998). The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
59. Weiss, I. R., Pasley, J. D., Smith, P. S., Banilower, E. R., & Heck, D. J. (2003). Looking inside the classroom: A study of K-12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Horizon Research. .
60. Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo [Computer Program]: Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling. Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.