Peer Argumentation in the School Science Laboratory-Exploring effects of task features

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 33, Issue 18, 2011, Pages 2527-2558

  Kind, Per Morten ^a   Kind, Vanessa ^a   Hofstein, Avi ^b   Wilson, Janine ^a  

^a DURHAM UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE   (Israel)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Laboratory work; Science education

Indexed keywords

EID: 84863351558     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2010.550952     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Abrahams, I. and Millar, R. 2008. Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14): 1945-1969.
2. 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.
3. Cavagnetto, A. R. 2010. Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K-12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3): 336-371.
4. Chinn, C. A. and Malhotra, B. A. 2002a. Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86: 175-218.
5. Chinn, C. A. and Malhotra, B. A. 2002b. Children's responses to anomalous scientific data: How is conceptual change impeded?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2): 327-343.
6. Clark, D. B. and Sampson, V. 2008. Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45: 293-321.
7. De Vries, E., Lund, K. and Baker, M. 2002. Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11: 63-103.
8. Donnelly, J., Buchan, A., Jenkins, E., Laws, P. and Welford, G. 1996. Investigation by order: Policy, curriculum and science teachers' work under the Education Reform Act, Nafferton: Studies in Education.
9. Driver, R., Newton, P. and Osborne, J. 2000. Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3): 287-312.
10. Ebenezer, J. and Erickson, G. 1996. Chemistry students' conceptions of solubility: A phenomenography. Science Education, 80(2): 181-201.
11. Engel, R. A. and 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.
12. Erduran, S. 2008. "Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms". In Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from classroom-based research, Edited by: Erduran, S. and Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. 47-69. Dordrecht: Springer.
13. 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: 915-933.
14. Ford, M. 2008. Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92: 404-423.
15. Germann, P. J., Haskins, S. and Auls, S. 1996. Analysis of nine high school biology laboratory manuals: Promoting scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(5): 475-499.
16. Harmon, M., Smith, T. A., Martin, M. O., Kelly, D. L., Beaton, A. E., Mullis, I. V. S. and Orpwood, G. 1997. Performance assessment in IEA's third international mathematics and science study, Chestnut Hill, MA: Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation and Educational Policy, Boston College.
17. Hegarty-Hazel, E., ed. 1990. The student laboratory and the science curriculum, London: Routledge.
18. Herrenkol, L. R., Palincsar, A. S., DeWater, L. S. and Kawasaki, K. 1999. Developing scientific communities in classrooms: A sociocognitive approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3-4): 451-493.
19. Hodson, D. 1993. Re-thinking old ways: Towards a more critical approach to practical work in school science. Studies in Science Education, 22: 85-142.
20. Hodson, D. 1996. Practical work in school science: Exploring some directions for change. International Journal of Science Education, 18(7): 755-760.
21. Hofstein, A. and Lunetta, V. N. 2004. The laboratory in science education: Foundation for the 21st century. Science Education, 88: 28-54.
22. Hofstein, A., Kipnis, M. and Kind, P. M. 2008. "Learning in and from science laboratories: Enhancing students meta-cognition and argumentation skills". In Science education issues and developments, Edited by: Petroselli, C. L. 59-94. New York: Nova Science.
23. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. 2008. "Designing argumentation learning environments". In Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from classroom-based research, Edited by: Erduran, S. and Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. 91-115. Dordrecht: Springer.
24. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo Rodriguez, A. and Duschl, R. A. 2000. 'Doing the lesson' or 'Doing Science': Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84: 757-792.
25. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. and Erduran, S. 2008. "Argumentation in science education: An overview". In Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from classroom-based research, Edited by: Erduran, S. and Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. 3-27. Dordrecht: Springer.
26. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Lopez Rodriquez, R. and Erduran, S. Argumentative quality and intellectual ecology: A case study in primary school. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Dallas, TX.
27. Katchevich, D., Mamlok-Naaman, R. and Hofstein, A. Argumentation in the chemistry laboratory: Inquiry and confirmatory experiments. Paper presented at the NARST Annual Conference. Philadelphia, PA.
28. Kelly, D. L. 2007. "Discourse in science classrooms". In Handbook of research on science education, Edited by: Abell, S. K. and Lederman, N. G. 443-469. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
29. Kelly, G. Inquiry, activity, and epistemic practice. Paper presented at the NSF Inquiry Conference on Developing a Consensus Research Agenda, Rutgers University. Newark, NJ. February 16-19.
30. Kim, H. and Song, J. 2006. The features of peer argumentation in middle school students' scientific inquiry. Research in Science Education, 36(3): 211-233.
31. Klahr, D., Fay, A. L. and Dunbar, K. 1993. Heuristics for scientific experimentation: A developmental study. Cognitive Psychology, 24(1): 111-146.
32. Kolstø, S. D. and Mestad, I. 2005. "Learning about the nature of scientific knowledge: The imitating-science project". In Research and the quality of science education, Edited by: Boersma, K., Goedhart, M., Jong, O. D. and Eijkelhof, H. 247-258. Dordrecht: Springer.
33. Koslowski, B. 1996. Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34. Kuhn, D. 1992. Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62: 155-178.
35. Kuhn, T. S. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
36. Lemke, J. 1990. Talking science: Language, learning, and values, Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
37. Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A. and Clough, M. P. 2007. "Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory, and practice". In Handbook of research on science education, Edited by: Abell, S. K. and Lederman, N. G. 393-441. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
38. Martin, A. and Hand, B. 2009. Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the elementary science classroom. A longitudinal study. Research in Science Education, 39: 17-38.
39. Millar, R., Lubben, F., Gott, R. and Duggan, S. 1994. Investigating in the school science laboratory: Conceptual and procedural knowledge and their influence on performance. Research Paper in Education, 9(2): 207-248.
40. Mork, S. M. 2005. Argumentation in science lessons: Focusing on the teacher's role. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 1: 17-30.
41. Murphy, P. and Gott, R. 1984. The assessment framework for science at age 13 and 15. APU Science report for teachers: 2, London: Department for Education and Science.
42. Naylor, S., Keogh, B. and Downing, B. 2007. Argumentation and primary science. Research in Science Education, 37: 17-39.
43. Newton, P., Driver, R. and Osborne, J. 1999. The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5): 553-576.
44. 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.
45. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. 2007. Science: Programme of study for key stage 3 and attainment targets. The National Curriculum 2007, London: Author.
46. Richmond, G. and Striley, J. 1996. Making meaning in classroom: Social processes in small group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8): 839-858.
47. Roth, W.-M. and Roychoudhury, A. 1992. The social construction of scientific concepts or the concept map as conscription device and tool for social thinking in high school science. Science and Education, 76: 531-557.
48. Sadler, T. D. 2004. Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5): 513-536.
49. Sampson, V. and Clark, D. B. 2008. Assessment of ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3): 447-472.
50. Sandoval, W. A. and Millwood, K. A. 2007. "What can argumentations tell us about epistemology?". In Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from classroom-based research, Edited by: Erduran, S. and Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. 71-88. Dordrecht: Springer.
51. Sandoval, W. A. and Reiser, B. J. 2004. Explanation driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3): 345-372.
52. Schank, R. C. and Abelson, R. P. 1977. Scripts, plans, goals and understanding, New York: Erlbaum.
53. Schofield, B., Black, P., Head, J. and Murphy, P. 1985. Science in schools: Age 13 (Research Report No. 2), London: Department for Education and Science.
54. Séré, M.-G., Leach, J., Niedderer, H., Psillos, D., Tiberghien, A. and Vicentini, M. Improving science education: Issues and research on innovative empirical and computer-based approaches to labwork in Europe. (Final report from Labwork in Science Education, PL 95-2005). Retrieved from http://www.ictt.insa-lyon.fr/ELabs/Bibliographie/e-learning/Rapports/CEE-LABWORK%20IN%20SCIENCE%20EDUCATION.pdf)
55. Sherman, G. P. and Klein, J. D. 1995. The effects of cued interaction and ability grouping during cooperative computer-based science instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43: 5-24.
56. 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.
57. Simonneaux, L. 2001. Role-play or debate to promote students' argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis. International Journal of Educational Research, 23: 902-927.
58. Toulmin, S. 1958. The uses of argument, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
59. Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
60. Watson, J. R., Swain, J. R. L. and McRobbie, C. 2004. Students' discussion in practical scientific inquiries. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1): 24-45.
61. Welford, G., Bell, J., Davey, A., Gamble, R. and Gott, R. 1986. Science in schools age 15 (Research Report No. 4), London: Department for Education and Science.
62. Yerrick, R. K. 2000. Lower track science students' argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37: 807-838.
63. Zeidler, D., Sadler, T., Simmons, M. and Howes, E. 2005. Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89: 357-377.
64. Zohar, A. and Nemet, F. 2002. Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39: 35-62.
65. Zoller, U., Ben-Chaim, D., Pentimalli, R. and Borsese, A. 2000. The disposition towards critical thinking of high school and university students: An inter-intra Israel-Italian study. International Journal of Educational Research, 22: 571-582.