In Pursuit of Consensus: Disagreement and legitimization during small-group argumentation

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 34, Issue 12, 2012, Pages 1857-1882

  Berland, Leema K ^a   Lee, Victor R ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^b UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Case study; Discourse; Small group discussions

Indexed keywords

EID: 84864697885     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2011.645086     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Andriessen, J. 2007. "Arguing to learn". In The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, Edited by: Sawyer, K. 443-460. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Asterhan, C. and Schwarz, B. B. 2009. Argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: Indications from protocol analyses of peer-to-peer dialog. Cognitive Science, 33(3): 374-400.
3. Asterhan, C. S. and Schwarz, B. 2007. The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3): 626-639.
4. Barron, B. 2000. Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4): 403-436
5. Berland, L.K. (2008). Understanding the composite practice that forms when classrooms take up the practice of scientific argumentation. Evanston, IL: Northwestern, Learning Sciences.
6. Berland, L. K. 2011. Explaining variation in how classroom communities adapt the practice of scientific argumentation. Journal of Learning Sciences, 20(4): 625-664.
7. Berland, L.K., & Hammer, D. (2011). Students' framings and their participation in scientific argumentation. In M.S. Khine (Ed.), Perspectives on scientific argumentation: Theory, practice and research (1st ed., pp. 73-93). London: Springer.
8. Berland, L. K. and Hammer, D. 2012. Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1): 68-94.
9. Berland, L.K., & Lee, V.R. (2010). Anomalous graph data and claim revision during argumentation. International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Chicago, IL.
10. Berland, L. K. and Reiser, B. J. 2009. Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1): 26-55.
11. Berland, L. K. and Reiser, B. J. 2011. Classroom communities' adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2): 191-216.
12. Bricker, L. A. and Bell, P. 2008. Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92(3): 473-498.
13. Brown, P. and Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Cavagnetto, A., Hand, B. M. and Norton-Meier, L. 2010. The nature of elementary science discourse in the context of the science writing heuristic approach. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4): 427-449.
15. Cavagnetto, A. R. 2010. Argument to foster scientific literacy. Review of Educational Research, 80(3): 336-371.
16. Chin, C. and Osborne, J. 2010. Supporting argumentation through students' questions: Case studies in science classrooms. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19: 230-284.
17. Choi, A., Notebaert, A., Diaz, J. and Hand, B. 2008. Examining arguments generated by year 5, 7, and 10 students in science classrooms. Research in Science Education, 40(2): 149-169.
18. Clark, D. B. and Sampson, V. 2007. Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3): 253-277.
19. Clark, H. H. 1996. Using language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20. Cohen, E. G. 1994. Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1): 1-35.
21. Duschl, R. A. 2000. "Making the nature of science explicit". In Improving science education: The contribution of research, Edited by: Millar, R., Leach, J. and Osborne, J. 187-206. Buckingham: Open University Press.
22. Duschl, R. A. and Osborne, J. 2002. Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38: 39-72.
23. Engle, R. A., Conant, F. R. and Greeno, J. G. 2000. "Progressive refinement of hypotheses in video-supported reserach". In Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education, Edited by: Lesh, D. and Kelley, A. 647-664. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
24. Engle, R. A., Langer-Osuna, J. M. and de Royston, M. M. in press. Toward a model of differential influence in persuasive discussions: Negotiating quality, authority, and access within student-led arguments. Cognition & Instruction,
25. Felton, M. and Kuhn, D. 2001. The development of argumentative discourse skill. Discourse Processes, 32(2&3): 135-153.
26. Finn, L.-E., Kuhn, L., Whitcomb, J. L., Bruozas, M. and Reiser, B. J. 2006. "Where have all the creatures gone?". In IQWST: Investigating and questioning our world through science and technology, Edited by: Krajcik, J. and Reiser, B. J. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
27. Ford, M. J. 2008. Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3): 404-423.
28. Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.
29. Goffman, E. 1974. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
30. Goodwin, C. 1981. Conversational organization, New York, NY: Academic Press.
31. Goodwin, C. and Heritage, J. 1990. Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19: 283-307.
32. Hammer, D. and Elby, A. 2003. Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1): 53-90.
33. Hatano, G. and Inagaki, K. 1991. "Sharing cognition through collective comprehension activity". In Perspectives on socially shared cognition, Edited by: Resnick, L. B., Levine, J. M. and Teasley, S. D. 331-348. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
34. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. and Barrows, H. S. 2008. Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cognition & Instruction, 26(1): 48-94.
35. Hogan, K. and Corey, C. 2001. Viewing classrooms as cultural contexts for fostering scientific literacy. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 32(2): 214-243
36. 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.
37. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B. and Duschl, R. A. 2000. 'Doing the lesson' or 'doing science': Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(3): 287-312.
38. Johnson, D. W. and Johnson, R. T. 1994. Learning together and alone cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning (vol. 4), Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
39. Krajcik, J. and Reiser, B. J. 2004. IQWST: Investigating and questioning our world through science and technology, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
40. Kuhn, D. 1989. Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96(4): 674-689.
41. Kuhn, D. 1991. The skills of argument, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42. Kuhn, D. 2010. Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5): 810-824.
43. Kuhn, D., Shaw, V. and Felton, M. 1997. Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3): 287-315.
44. Laursen, B., Finkelstein, B. D. and Betts, N. T. 2001. A developmental meta-analysis of peer conflict resolution. Developmental Review, 21(4): 423-449.
45. Leander, K. M. and 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(1): 93-135.
46. Lemke, J. L. 1990. Talking science: Language, learning, and values, Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
47. Lidar, M., Lundqvist, E., & Ostman, L. (2006). Teaching and learning in the science classroom: The interplay between teachers' epistemological moves and students' practical epistemology. Science Education, 90(1), 148-163.
48. Limón, M. and Carretero, M. 1997. Conceptual change and anomalous data: A case study in the domain of natural sciences. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 12(2): 213-230.
49. Longino, H. E. 1990. Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
50. McNeill, K. L. and Pimentel, D. S. 2010. Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2): 203-229.
51. Mehan, H. 1979. Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
52. Mercier, H. and Sperber, D. 2011. Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2): 57-74.
53. Naylor, S., Keogh, B., & Downing, B. (2007). Argumentation in primary science. Research in Science Education, 37, 17-39.
54. Nickerson, R. S. 1998. Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2): 175-220.
55. Osborne, J. 2010. Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977): 463-466.
56. 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.
57. Osborne, J. F. and Patterson, A. 2011. Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction?. Science Education, 95(4): 627-638.
58. Radinsky, J. 2008. Students' roles in group-work with visual data: A site of science learning. Cognition and Instruction, 26(2): 145-194.
59. Redish, E. F. 2004. "A theoretical framework for physics education research: Modeling student thinking". In Proceedings of the Enrico Fermi Summer School Course, CLVI, Edited by: Redish, E. F. and Vicentini. 1-63. Bologna: Italian Physical Society.
60. Rosenberg, S., Hammer, D. and Phelan, J. 2006. Multiple epistemological coherences in an eighth-grade discussion of the rock cycle. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 15(2): 261-292.
61. Russ, R.S., Lee, V.R., & Sherin, B.L. (in press). Framing in cognitive clinical interviews about intuitive science knowledge: Dynamic student understandings of the discourse interaction. Science Education.
62. Ryu, S. and Sandoval, W. A. in press. Improvements to elementary children's epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education,
63. Sampson, V. and Clark, D. B. 2009. The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93(3): 448-484.
64. Scherr, R. and Hammer, D. 2009. Student behavior and epistemological framing: Examples from collaborative active-learning activities in physics. Cognition and Instruction, 27(2): 147-174.
65. Schwarz, B., Neuman, Y. and Biezuner, S. 2000. Two wrongs may make a right... if they argue together!. Cognition and Instruction, 18(4): 461-94
66. Southerland, S., Kittleson, J., Settlage, J. and Lanier, K. 2005. Individual and group meaning-making in an urban third grade classroom: Red fog, cold cans, and seeping vapor. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(9): 1032-1061.
67. Venville, G.J., & Dawson, V.M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students' argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952-977.
68. 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(1): 63-103.
69. Wason, P. C. 1983. "Realism and rationality in the selection task". In Thinking and reasoning, Edited by: Evans, J. St B. T. 44-75. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
70. Wegerif, R. 2007. Dialogic education and technology: Expanding the space of learning, New York: Springer.
71. Weiss, I. R., Pasley, J. D., Smith, P. S., Banilower, E. R. and 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.
72. Wilensky, U. 1999. NetLogo, Evanston, IL: Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University.
73. Zeidler, D. L. 1997. The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81: 483-496.