Explaining variation in how classroom communities adapt the practice of scientific argumentation

Journal of the Learning Sciences

Volumn 20, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 625-664

  Berland, Leema K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 80053554586     PISSN: 10508406     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10508406.2011.591718     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. Andriessen, J. (2007). Arguing to learn. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443-460). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
2. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is-or might be-the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6-8, 14.
3. Barab, S. A. (2007). Design-based research: Methodological toolkit for the learning scientist. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 153-169). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
4. Bateson, G. (1972). A theory of play and fantasy. In G. Bateson (Ed.), Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology (pp. 177-193). San Francisco, CA: Chandler. (Original work published 1954)
5. 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, 797-817.
6. Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (in press). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
7. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93, 26-55.
8. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities' adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95, 191-216.
9. Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26, 369-398.
10. Bricker, L., & Bell, P. (2007, April). ' 'Um. since I argue for fun, I don't remember what I argue about' ': Using children's argumentation across social contexts to inform science instruction. Presentation at the annual conference of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
11. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141-178.
12. 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.
13. Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42.
14. Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 271-315.
15. Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Participating in classroom mathematical practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 113-163.
16. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
17. de Vries, E., Lund, K., & Baker, M. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 63-103.
18. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
19. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
20. Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 105-121.
21. Elliot, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5-12.
22. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156.
23. Engestrom, Y. (2003a). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19-38). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
24. Engestrom, Y. (2003b). Developmental studies of work as a test bench of activity theory: The case of primary care medical practice. In S. Chaiklin &J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity in context (pp. 64-103). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
25. 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, 399-483.
26. Enyedy, N., & Goldberg, J. (2004). Inquiry in interaction: How local adaptations of curricula shape classroom communities. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 41, 905-935.
27. 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.
28. Feldman, A. (2002). Multiple perspectives for the study of teaching: Knowledge, reason, understanding and being. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 1032-1055.
29. Finn, L.-E., Kuhn, L., Whitcomb, J. L., Bruozas, M., & Reiser, B. J. (2006). Where have all the creatures gone? Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
30. Ford,M. J. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92, 404-423.
31. Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London, England: Routledge.
32. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
33. Gutierrez, K. D., & Stone, L. D. (2000). Synchronic and diachronic dimensions of social practice: An emerging methodology for cultural-historical perspectives on literacy learning. In C. D. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research: Constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry (pp. 150-164). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
34. Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R., & Redish, E. F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J. P. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 89-119). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
35. 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.
36. Herrenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 431-473.
37. Herrenkohl, L. R., & Palincsar, A. S. (1999). Developing scientific communities in classrooms: A sociocognitive approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 451-493.
38. Hogan, K.,& Corey, C. (2001). Viewing classrooms as cultural contexts for fostering scientific literacy. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 32(2), 214-243.
39. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Designing argumentation learning environments. In S. Erduran & M. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 91-116). New York, NY: Springer.
40. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together and alone cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning (Vol. 4). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
41. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration scripts-A conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18(2), 159-185.
42. Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in themiddle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design into practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 495-547.
43. Krajcik, J., McNeill, K., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92, 1-32.
44. Krajcik, J., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). IQWST: Investigating and Questioning our World Through Science and Technology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
45. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
46. Leander, K. M., & Brown, D. E. (1999). ' 'You understand, but you don't believe it' ': Tracing the stabilities and instabilities of interaction in a physics classroom through a multidimensional framework. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 93-135.
47. 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 ed., pp. 153-196). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
48. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
49. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
50. Lounsbury, M., & Crumley, E. (2007). New practice creation: An institutional perspective on innovation. Organization Studies, 28, 993-1012.
51. McNeill, K., 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, 153-191.
52. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
53. Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds. New York, NY: Routledge.
54. Mercer, N., Warwick, P., Kershner, R., & Staarman, J. K. (2010). Can the interactive whiteboard help to provide ' 'dialogic space' ' for children's collaborative activity? Language and Education, 24(5), 367-384.
55. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363.
56. 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.
57. Moje, E. B., Ciechanowski, K. M., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Callazo, T. (2004). Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38-70.
58. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
59. Naylor, S., Keogh, B., & Downing, B. (2007). Argumentation in primary science. Research in Science Education, 37, 17-39.
60. Orlikowski, W. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28, 1435-1448.
61. Osborne, J. (2010, April 23). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463-466. doi:10.1126/science.1183944
62. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994-1020.
63. Penuel, W., & Means, B. (2004). Implementation variation and fidelity in an inquiry science program: Analysis of GLOBE data reporting patterns. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 41, 294-315.
64. Pinto, R., Couso, D., & Gutierrez, R. (2005). Using research on teachers' transformations of innovations to inform teacher education: The case of energy degradation. Science Education, 89, 38-55.
65. Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B. K., Steinmuller, F., & Leone, A. J., (2001). BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 263-305). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
66. Riel, M., & Polin, L. (2004). Learning communities: Common ground and critical differences in designing technical support. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 16-52). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
67. 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, 447-472.
68. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345-372.
69. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 265-283.
70. Schank, R. C., Fano, A., Bell, B., & Jona, M. (1993). The design of goal-based scenarios. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 305-346.
71. Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2005). Enacting reform-based science materials: The range of teacher enactments in reform classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 283-312.
72. Schwarz, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L. O., Archer, A., Fortus, D.,Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 632-654.
73. Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2), 235-260.
74. 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.
75. Tannen, D. (1993). Framing in discourse. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
76. Toth, E. E., Suthers, D. D., & Lesgold, A. M. (2002). ' 'Mapping to know' ': The effects of representational guidance and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry. Science Education, 86, 264-286.
77. Walton, D. (1998). The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
78. Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., & Ing, M. (2006). Small-group reflections: Parallels between teacher discourse and student behavior in peer-directed groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 63-119.
79. Wegerif, R. (2007). Dialogic education and technology: Expanding the space of learning. New York, NY: Springer.
80. 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. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
81. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
82. Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University, Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling.