Improvements to elementary children's epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation

Science Education

Volumn 96, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 488-526

  Ryu, Suna ^a   Sandoval, William A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84859739779     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.21006     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (1999). Statistical methods for the social sciences (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
2. Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443-459). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
3. Barron, B. J., & Engle, R. A. (2007). Analyzing data derived from video records. In S. J. Derry (Ed.), Guidelines for video research in education: Recommendations of an expert panel (pp. 24-33, 79-80). Prepared for the NSF Interagency Education Research Initiative (IERI) and the Data Research and Development Center.
4. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
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(8), 797-817.
6. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93, 26-55.
7. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities' adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191-216.
8. Bowers, J., Cobb, P., & McClain, K. (1999). The evolution of mathematical practices: A case study. Cognition and Instruction, 17(1), 25-66.
9. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253-277.
10. Cobb, P. (2002). Reasoning with tools and inscriptions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(2-3), 187-215.
11. Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Participating in classroom mathematical practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1&2), 113-163.
12. Collins, A., & Ferguson, W. (1993). Epistemic forms and epistemic games: Structures and strategies to guide inquiry. Educational Psychologist, 28(1), 25-42.
13. 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.
14. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
15. Duschl, R. A. (2008). Science education in 3 part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic and social goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268-291.
16. Erduran, S. (2008). Methodological foundations in the study of science classroom argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 47-69). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
17. Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.). (2008). Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
18. 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.
19. Erickson, F. (1992). Ethnographic microanalysis of interaction. In J. LeCompte, M. D. Millroy, & W. L. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 201-225). Academic Press.
20. Fairclough, N. (2001). The discourse of new labour: Critical discourse analysis. In S. Wetherall, S. Taylor, & S. J. Yates (Eds.), Discourse as data: A guide for analysis (pp. 229-266). London: Sage Publications, Ltd.
21. Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentative discourse skill. Discourse Processes, 32(2&3), 135-153.
22. Ford, M. (2005). The game, the pieces, and the players: Generative resources from two instructional portrayals of experimentation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 449-487.
23. Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404-423.
24. Ford, M., & Forman, E. A. (2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30, 1-32.
25. Forman, E. A., Larreamendy-Joerns, J., Stein, M. K., & Brown, C. A. (1998). "You're going to want to find out which and prove it": Collective argumentation in a mathematics classroom. Learning and Instruction, 8(6), 527-548.
26. Gutierrez, K., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19-25.
27. Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R., & Redish, E. F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 89-120). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
28. Herrenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. A. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition & Instruction, 16(4), 431-473.
29. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo Rodríguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792.
30. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39-103.
31. Jurow, A. S. (2004). Generalizing in interaction: Middle school mathematics students making mathematical generalizations in a population-modeling project. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 11(4), 279-300.
32. Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity: combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849-871.
33. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
34. Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291-310.
35. Koslowski, B. (1996). Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337.
37. Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition & Instruction, 15(3), 287-315.
38. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245-1260.
39. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
40. Lee, C. D. (2008). The centrality of culture to the scientific study of learning and development: How an ecological framework in education research facilitates civic responsibility. Educational Researcher, 37(5), 267-279.
41. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and science literacy. In W. Damon, R. Lerner, K. A. Renninger, & I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4, Child psychology in practice (6th Ed., pp. 153-196) Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
42. Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., & Lucas, D. (2008). Supporting development of the epistemology of inquiry. Cognitive Development, 23(4), 512-529.
43. Leitao, S. (2003). Evaluating and selecting counterarguments: studies of children's rhetorical awareness. Written Communication, 20(3), 269-306.
44. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
45. Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
46. McDonald, C. V., & McRobbie, C. J. (2010). Utilising argumentation to teach nature of science. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
47. McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D., Krajcik, J. S., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Fading scaffolds for argumentation and explanation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191.
48. Metz, K. E. (2004). Children's understanding of scientific inquiry: Their conceptualization of uncertainty in investigations of their own design. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 219-290.
49. Metz, K. E. (2011). Disentangling robust developmental constraints from the instructionally mutable: Young children's epistemic reasoning about a study of their own design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(1), 50-110.
50. Muhr, T. (1997). Atlas.ti, the knowledge workbench (version 5.0). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
51. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
52. Palincsar, A. S., Anderson, C., & David, Y. M. (1993). Pursuing scientific literacy in the middle grades through collaborative problem solving. Elementary School Journal, 93(5), 643-658.
53. Pera, M., & Shea, W. R. (Eds.). (1991). Persuading science: the art of scientific rhetoric. Canton, MA: Science History.
54. Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
55. Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch, P. D. Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 139-164): Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
56. Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., & Conant, F. R. (1992). Appropriating scientific discourse: Findings from language minority classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(1), 61-94.
57. Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93, 448-484.
58. Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students' scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5-51.
59. Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89, 634-656.
60. 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.
61. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2008). What can argumentation tell us about epistemology? In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 68-85). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
62. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic supports for science inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345-372.
63. Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Achér, 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.
64. Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305-335.
65. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
66. 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 in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101-131.
67. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
68. Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., & Rosebery, A. S. (2001). Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 529-552.
69. Warren, B., & Rosebery, A. S. (1996). "This question is just too, too easy!" Students' perspectives on accountability in science. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: new environments for education (pp. 97-125). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
70. Weinstock, M., Neuman, Y., & Tabak, I. (2004). Missing the point or missing the norms? Epistemological norms as predictors of students' ability to identify fallacious arguments. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 77-94.
71. 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.