Technology in support of argument construction in school science;La technologie, un appui pour la construction des arguments dans les cours de science à l’école;Technologie zur Unterstützung der Argumentenbildung im naturwissenschaftlichen Schulunterricht;La tecnología como apoyo para la construcción de argumentos en las clases de ciencias en las escuelas

Educational Media International

Volumn 45, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 33-45

  Evagorou, Maria ^a   Avraamidou, Lucy ^b  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NICOSIA   (Cyprus)

Author keywords

Argument supporting technology tools; Argumentation; Science education

Indexed keywords

EID: 84857099538     PISSN: 09523987     EISSN: 14695790     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09523980701847156     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Beck, U., 1992. Risk society: Towards a new modernity, London: Sage.
2. Bell, P., Using argument representations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups. Proceedings of CSCL ‘97: The Second International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning. Edited by: Hall, R., Miyake, N., and Enyedy, N., pp. 10–19. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
3. Bell, P., 2004. “ Promoting students’ argument construction and collaborative debate in the science classroom ”. In Internet environments for science education, Edited by: Linn, M., Davis, E., and Bell, P., 115–143. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4. Bell, P., Hoadley, C., and Linn, M., 2004. “ Design‐based research in education ”. In Internet environments for science education, Edited by: Linn, M., Davis, E., and Bell, P., 73–85. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5. Bell, P., and Linn, M., 2000. Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8): 797–817.
6. Brem, S.K., and Rips, L.J., 2000. Explanation and evidence in informal argument. Cognitive Science, 24: 573–604.
7. Cho, K., and Jonassen, D., 2002. The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3): 1042–1629.
8. Clark, D., and Sampson, V., 2006. Characteristics of students’ argumentation practices when supported by online personally seeded discussions, San Francisco: National Association of Research in Science Teaching.
9. de Vries, E., Lund, K., and Baker, M., 2002. Computer‐mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanations and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1): 63–103.
10. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., and Scott, P., 1996. Young people’s images of science, Buckingham: Open University Press.
11. Driver, R., Newton, P., and Osborne, J., 2000. Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3): 287–312.
12. Duschl, R.A., 1990. Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development, New York: Teachers College Press.
13. Edelson, D.C., and O’Neil, K.D., The CoVis collaboratory notebook: Supporting collaborate scientific inquiry. Proceedings of the 1994 National Educational Computing Conference. Edited by: Best, A., pp. 146–152. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education in cooperation with the National Education Computing Association.
14. Edelson, D., Pea, R.D., and Gomez, L.M., 1995. “ Constructivism in the collaboratory ”. In Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design, Edited by: Wilson, B.G., 151–164. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
15. Edelson, D.C., Pea, R.D., and Gomez, L.M., 1996. The Collaboratory Notebook. Communications of the ACM, 39(4): 32–33.
16. Erduran, S., Simon, S., and Osborne, J., 2004. TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s Argument Pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6): 915–933.
17. Giddens, A., 1990. The consequences of modernity, Cambridge: Polity Press.
18. Guzdial, M., Turns, J., Rappin, N., and Carlson, D., 1995. “ Collaborative support for learning in complex domains ”. In Computer supported collaborative learning, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
19. Hoadley, C.M., Hsi, S., and Berman, B.P., 1995. The multimedia forum kiosk and speakeasy, New York: ACM Press. ACM Multimedia ’95
20. Jimenez‐Aleixandre, M.P.M., and Muzon‐Pereiro, C., 2002. Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11): 1171–1190.
21. Jimenez‐Aleixandre, M.P., Rodriguez, A.B., and Duschl, A.R., 2000. ‘Doing the lesson’ or ‘doing science’: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6): 757–792.
22. Kenyon, L., and Reiser, B., 2005. Students’ epistemologies of science and their influence on inquiry practices, Dallas, TX: National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
23. Kuhn, D., 1991. The skills of argument, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Kuhn, D., 1999. A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2): 16–26.
25. Kuhn, D., and Udell, W., 2003. The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5): 1245–1260.
26. Kuhn, L., and Reiser, B., Students constructing and defending evidence‐based scientific explanations. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of National Association of Research in Science Teaching. Dallas, TX. April.
27. Lajoie, S.P., and Lesgold, A., 1992. “ Apprenticeship training in the workplace: A computer coached practice environment as a new form of apprenticeship ”. In Intelligent instruction by computer: Theory and practice, Edited by: Farr, M., and Psotka, J., 15–36. New York: Taylor & Francis.
28. Lampert, M., Rittenhouse, P., and Crumbaugh, C., 1996. “ Agreeing to disagree: Developing sociable mathematical discourse ”. In The handbook of education and human development, Edited by: Olson, D., and Torrance, N., 731–764. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
29. Lawson, A.E., 2003. The nature and development of hypothetico‐predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11): 1387–1408.
30. Lederman, N.G., 1992. Students’ and teachers’ conceptions on the nature of science. A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4): 331–359.
31. Linn, M., 2003. Technology and science education: Starting points, research programs, and trends. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6): 727–758.
32. Linn, M., Bell, P., and Davis, E., 2004. “ Specific design principles: Elaborating the scaffolded knowledge integration framework ”. In Internet environments for science education, Edited by: Linn, M., Davis, E., and Bell, P., 315–339. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
33. Linn, M., Eylon, B., and Davis, E., 2004. “ The knowledge integration perspective on learning ”. In Internet environments for science education, Edited by: Linn, M., Davis, E., and Bell, P., 29–46. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
34. Linn, M.C., and Hsi, S., 2000. Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
35. McNeil, K.L., and Krajcik, J., 2006. Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanation through generic versus context‐specific written scaffolds, San Francisco: American Educational Research Association.
36. Means, M.L., and Voss, J.F., 1996. Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14(2): 139–178.
37. Millar, R., and Osborne, J., 1998. Beyond 2000: Science education for the future, London: King’s College London.
38. National Research Council (NRC). 1996. National science education standards, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
39. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., and Simon, S., 2004. Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10): 994–1020.
40. Pontecorvo, C., 1993. Forms of discourse and shared thinking. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3/4): 189–196.
41. Quintana, C., Reiser, B., Davis, E., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Golan Duncan, R., Kyza, E., Edelson, D., and Soloway, E., 2004. A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3): 337–386.
42. Reiser, B., Why scaffolding should sometimes make tasks more difficult for learners. Paper presented at the Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning. Boulder, CO.
43. Sandoval, W.A., 2003. Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1): 5–51.
44. Sandoval, W.A., and Reiser, B., 2004. Explanation‐driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3): 345–372.
45. Scardamalia, M., 2003. Knowledge forum (advances beyond CSILE). Journal of Distance Education, 17: 23–28.
46. Scardamalia, M., 2004. “ CSILE/knowledge forum ”. In Education and technology: An Encyclopedia 183–192.
47. Scardamalia, M., and Bereiter, C., 1999. “ Schools as knowledge building organizations ”. In Today’s children, tomorrow’s society: The developmental health and wealth of nations, Edited by: Hertzman, D.K.C., 274–289. New York: Guilford.
48. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., and Lamon, M., 1994. “ The CSILE project: Trying to bring the classroom into world 3 ”. In Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice, Edited by: McGilly, K., 201–228. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
49. Simon, S., Erduran, S., and Osborne, J., 2006. Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3): 235–260.
50. Suthers, D.D., Effects of alternate representations of evidential relations on collaborative learning discourse. Paper presented at the 3rd Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning. Stanford, CA. December.
51. 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.
52. Zohar, A., and Nemet, F., 2002. Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(1): 35–62.