A framework for scaffolding students' assessment of the credibility of evidence

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 48, Issue 7, 2011, Pages 711-744

  Nicolaidou, Iolie ^a   Kyza, Eleni A ^a   Terzian, Frederiki ^b   Hadjichambis, Andreas ^b   Kafouris, Dimitris ^b  

^a CYPRUS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Cyprus)

^b Ministry of Education and Culture Limassol   (Cyprus)

Author keywords

biotechnology; collaboration; evidence credibility assessment; high school students; reflective inquiry; scaffolding; socio scientific issues; WWW

Indexed keywords

COLLABORATION; EVIDENCE CREDIBILITY ASSESSMENT; HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS; REFLECTIVE INQUIRY; SCAFFOLDING; SOCIO-SCIENTIFIC ISSUES;

BIOTECHNOLOGY; DESIGN; GENETICALLY MODIFIED PLANTS; RATING; SCAFFOLDS; USER INTERFACES; VIDEO RECORDING;

STUDENTS;

EID: 80051782842     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.20420     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Baildon, M., &, Damico, J.S., (2009). How do we know? Students examine issues of credibility with a complicated multimodal web-based text. Curriculum Inquiry, 39 (2), 265-285.
2. Brem, S.K., Russel, J., &, Weems, L., (2001). Science on the web: Student evaluations of scientific arguments. Discourse Processes, 32 (2&3), 191-231.
3. Chinn, A.C., Duschl, R.A., Duncan, R.G., Buckland, L.A., &, Pluta, W.J., (2008). A microgenetic classroom study of learning to reason scientifically through modelling and argumentation. In G. Kanselaar, J. van Merriënboer, P. Kirschner, & T. de Jong (Eds.), International Perspectives in the Learning Sciences: Cre8ing a Learning World, Proceedings of the Eight International Conference for the Learning Sciences (pp. 14-15). Utrecht, The Netherlands.
4. Chinn, C.A., &, Malhotra, B.A., (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175-218. (Pubitemid 37230332)
5. Cohen, J., (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6. Collins, A., Brown, J.S., &, Newman, S.E., (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In, L.B. Resnick, (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
7. Collins, A.M., &, Ferguson, W., (1993). Epistemic forms and epistemic games: Structures and strategies to guide inquiry. Educational Psychologist, 28, 25-42.
8. Creswell, J., (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: PearsonMerrill Prentice Hall.
9. Dawson, V., &, Venville, G.J., (2009). High-school students' informal reasoning and argumentation about biotechnology: An indicator of scientific literacy? International Journal of Science Education, 31 (11), 1421-1445.
10. Driver, R., Newton, P., &, Osborne, J., (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84 (3), 287-312.
11. 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. (Pubitemid 33629152)
12. Gago, J.M., Ziman, J., Caro, P., Constantinou, C.P., Davies, G., Parchmann, I., Sjøberg, S., (2004). Europe Needs More Scientists: Increasing human resources for science and technology in Europe. Report of the High Level Group on Human Resources for Science and Technology in Europe. Brussels. [Online] Retrieved from.
13. Gieryn, T.F., (1999). Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line (1st ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
14. Glassner, A., Weinstock, M., &, Neuman, Y., (2005). Pupils' evaluation and generation of evidence and explanation in argumentation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75 (1), 105-118. (Pubitemid 40465820)
15. Halverson, K.L., Siegel, M.A., &, Freyermuth, S.K., (2010). Non-science majors' critical evaluation of websites in a Biotechnology course. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19 (6), 612-620.
16. Herrington, J., &, Oliver, R., (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48 (3), 23-48. (Pubitemid 33238094)
17. 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.
18. Ioannou, A., &, Constantinou, C.P., (2009, August). Promoting secondary students' understanding of the credibility of scientific knowledge claims through an educational intervention about the quality of bottled water. Poster session presented at the conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Amsterdam, The Netherlands
19. Jackson, S.L., (2003). Research methods and statistics: A critical thinking approach (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
20. Jordan, B., &, Henderson, A., (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 39-103.
21. Julien, H., &, Barker, S., (2009). How high-school students find and evaluate scientific information: A basis for information literacy skills development. Library & Information Science Research, 31, 12-17.
22. Khishfe, R., &, Abd-El Khalick, F., (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented Instruction on sixth graders' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 39 (7), 551-578.
23. KolstÃ, S.D., (2001). " To trust or not to trust,â∥"-Pupils' ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23 (9), 877-901. (Pubitemid 33595824)
24. Korpan, C.A., Bisanz, G.L., Bisanz, J., &, Henderson, J.M., (1997). Assessing literacy in science: Evaluation of scientific news briefs. Science Education, 81 (5), 5151-5532.
25. Kyza, E.A., &, Constantinou, C.P., (2007). STOCHASMOS: A web-based platform for reflective, inquiry-based teaching and learning [Computer software]. Cyprus: Learning in Science Group. Accessible from.
26. Kyza, E., &, Edelson, D.C., (2005). Scaffolding middle-school students' coordination of theory and evidence. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11 (6), 545-560.
27. Lederman, N.G., (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In, S.K. Abell, &, N.G. Lederman, (Eds.), Handbook of Research in Science Education (pp. 831-879). Mahwah: Routledge.
28. Lippman, J.P., Amurao, F.K., &, Pellegrino, J.W., (2008). Undergraduate Cognitive Psychology Students' Evaluations of Scientific Arguments in a Contrasting-Essays Assignment. In G. Kanselaar, J. van Merriënboer, P. Kirschner, T. de Jong, (Eds.), International Perspectives in the Learning Sciences: Cre8ing a Learning World, Proceedings of the Eight International Conference for the Learning Sciences (pp. 75-76). Utrecht, The Netherlands.
29. Lodico, M.G., Spaulding, D.T., &, Voegtle, K.H., (2010). Methods in Educational Research: From Theory to Practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
30. Loh, B., Radinsky, J., Russell, E., Gomez, L.M., Reiser, B.J., &, Edelson, D.C., (1998). The progress portfolio: Designing reflective tools for a classroom context. In Proceedings of CHI 98 (pp. 627-634). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
31. Mathews, J., Holden, C., Jan, M.F., &, Martin, J., (2008). Sick at South Shore Beach: A place-based augmented reality game as a framework for building evidence-based arguments. In G. Kanselaar, J. van Merriënboer, P. Kirschner, & T. de Jong (Eds.), International Perspectives in the Learning Sciences: Cre8ing a Learning World, Proceedings of the Eight International Conference for the Learning Sciences (pp. 89-90). Utrecht, The Netherlands.
32. Marton, F., (1981). Phenomenography-describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10, 177-200.
33. Murphy, P.K., (2001). What makes a text persuasive? Comparing students' and experts' conceptions of persuasiveness. International Journal of Educational Research, 35, 675-698. (Pubitemid 41168103)
34. National Research Council, U.S. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
35. Nicolaidou, I., Kyza, E.A., Hadjichambis, A., Terzian, F., &, Kafouris, D., (2009). Biotechnology and genetically modified organisms. [Web-based Learning Environment]. Cyprus: Cyprus University of Technology. Retrieved from.
36. Nicolaidou, I., Kyza, E.A., Terzian, F., Hadjichambis, A., &, Kafouris, D., (2010). Scaffolding students in evaluating the credibility of evidence using a reflective web-based inquiry environment on biotechnology. In K. Gomez, L. Lyons, & J. Radinsky (Eds.), Learning in the Disciplines, Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (Vol. 1, pp. 246-253). Chicago, Illinois: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
37. Osborne, J.F., &, Dillon, J., (2008). Science Education in Europe: Critical Reflections. A report to the Nuffield Foundation. [Online] Retrieved from.
38. Pluta, W.J., Buckland, L.A., Chinn, A.C., Duncan, R.G., &, Duschl, R.A., (2008). Learning to evaluate scientific models. In G. Kanselaar, J. van Merriënboer, P. Kirschner, & T. de Jong, (Eds.), International Perspectives in the Learning Sciences: Cre8ing a Learning World, Proceedings of the Eight International Conference for the Learning Sciences (pp. 411-412). Utrecht, The Netherlands.
39. Quintana, C., Reiser, B.J., Davis, E.A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R., Soloway, E., (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13 (3), 337-386. (Pubitemid 39057719)
40. Reiser, B.J., (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13 (3), 273-304. (Pubitemid 39063558)
41. Rieh, S.Y., &, Danielson, D.R., (2007). Credibility: A multidisciplinary framework. In, B. Cronin, (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 41, pp. 307-364). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
42. Rieh, S.Y., &, Hilligoss, B., (2008). College Students' Credibility Judgments in the Information-Seeking Process. In, M.J. Metzger, &, A.J. Flanagin, (Eds.), Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning (pp. 49-72.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI: 10.1162/dmal.9780262562324.049.
43. Porter, S., &, Brinke, L., (2009). Dangerous decisions: A theoretical framework for understanding how judges assess credibility in the courtroom. The British Psychological Society, 14, 119-134.
44. Sadler, T.D., (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (5), 513-536.
45. Sanchez, C.A., Wiley, J., &, Goldman, S.R., (2006). Teaching students to evaluate source reliability during Internet research tasks. In S.A. Barab, K.E. Hay, & D.T. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the seventh international conference on the learning sciences (pp. 662-666). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
46. Sandoval, W.A., &, Ãam, A., (2011). Elementary children's judgments of the epistemic status of sources of justification. Science Education, 95 (3), 383-408.
47. 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. (Pubitemid 40273028)
48. Seethaler, S., &, Linn, M., (2004). Genetically modified food in perspective: An inquiry-based curriculum to help middle school students make sense of tradeoffs. International Journal of Science Education, 26 (14), 1765-1785. (Pubitemid 40032566)
49. Sherin, B., Reiser, B.J., &, Edelson, D.C., (2004). Scaffolding Analysis: Extending the Scaffolding Metaphor to Learning Artifacts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13 (3), 337-386.
50. Tabak, I., (2004). Synergy. A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13 (3), 305-335. (Pubitemid 39057718)
51. Treise, D., Walsh-Childers, K., Weigold, M.F., &, Friedman, M., (2003). Cultivating the science internet audience. Impact of brand and domain on source credibility for science information. Science Communication, 24 (3), 309-332.
52. Wong, S.L., &, Hodson, D., (2009). From the horse's mouth: What scientists say about scientific investigation and scientific knowledge. Science Education, 93 (1), 109-130. DOI: 10.1002/sce.20290.
53. Wu, H.K., &, Hsieh, C.E., (2006). Developing sixth graders' inquiry skills to construct explanations in inquiry-based learning environments. International Journal of Science Education, 28 (11), 1289-1313.
54. Wu, H.K., &, Krajcik, J.S., (2006). Inscriptional practices in two inquiry-based classrooms: A case study of seventh graders' use of data tables and graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43 (1), 63-95.
55. Yang, F.Y., (2004). Exploring high school students' use of theory and evidence in an everyday context: The role of scientific thinking in environmental science decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 26 (11), 1345-1364.
56. Yoon, S., (2008). Using memes and memetic processes to explain social and conceptual influences on student understanding about complex socio-scientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45 (2), 1-22.
57. Zembal-Saul, C., Munsford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., &, Land, S., (2002). Scaffolding pre-service science teachers' evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32 (4), 437-463.