Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views and practice

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 49, Issue 9, 2012, Pages 1122-1148

  Sampson, Victor ^a   Blanchard, Margaret R ^b  

^a FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

argumentation; cognitive appraisal interview; science teachers

Indexed keywords

ARGUMENTATION; COGNITIVE APPRAISAL; CONTENT KNOWLEDGE; ENGAGING STUDENTS; MULTIPLE BARRIER; SCIENCE CLASSROOM; SCIENCE TEACHERS; STUDENT ENGAGEMENT; TEACHING AND LEARNING;

TEACHING;

STUDENTS;

EID: 84867581503     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.21037     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., &, Lederman, N. G., (2000). Improving science teachers' conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665-701.
2. 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), 797-818.
3. Bell, P., &, Linn, M. C., (2002). Beliefs about science: How does science instruction contribute? In, B. K. H. P. R. Pintrich, (Ed.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4. Berland, L., &, McNeill, K., (2010). A learning progresion for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94 (5), 765-793.
5. Berland, L., &, Reiser, B., (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93 (1), 26-55.
6. Blanchard, M., Southerland, S., &, Granger, E., (2009). No silver bullet for inquiry: Making sense of teacher change following an inquiry-based research experience for teachers. Science Education, 93 (2), 322-360.
7. Blanchard, M., Southerland, S., Osborne, J., Sampson, V., Annetta, L., &, Granger, E., (2010). Is inquiry possible in light of accountability? A quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction. Science Education, 94 (4), 577-616.
8. Carlsen, W. S., (1991). Effects of new biology teachers' subject matter knowledge on curricular planning. Science Education, 75, 631-647.
9. Chinn, C., &, Malhotra, B., (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluation inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86 (9), 175-218. (Pubitemid 37230332)
10. Clark, D., &, Sampson, V., (2006). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29 (3), 253-277.
11. Crawford, B., (2007). Learning to teach science in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 613-642. (Pubitemid 46643973)
12. Driver, R., Newton, P., &, Osborne, J., (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84 (3), 287-313.
13. Duschl, R., Schweingruber, H., &, Shouse, A., (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
14. Duschl, R. A., (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teachers College Press.
15. Duschl, R. A., &, Osborne, J., (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
16. Erkens, G., Kanselaar, G., Prangsma, M., &, Jaspers, J., (2003). Computer support for collaborative and argumentative writing. In, E. D. Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, &, J. v. Merriënboer, (Eds.), Powerful learning environments: Unraveling basic components and dimensions (pp. 157-176). Amsterdam: Pergamon, Elsevier Science.
17. Feldman, A., (2000). Decision making in the practical domain: A model of practical conceptual change. Science and Education, 84 (5), 606-623.
18. Haney, J. J., Lumpe, A. T., Czerniak, C. M., &, Egan, V., (2002). From beliefs to actions: The beliefs and actions of teachers implementing change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13 (3), 171-187.
19. Hatch, J. A., (2002). Doing qualitative research in educational settings. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
20. Henderson, R., Podd, J., Smith, M., &, Varela-Alvarez, H., (1995). An examination of four user-based software evaluation methods. Ergonomics, 38 (10), 2030-2044.
21. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Rodriguez, M., &, Duschl, R. A., (2000). Doing the lesson or doing science: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84 (6), 757-792.
22. Kelly, G. J., &, Chen, C., (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as a sociocultural practice through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36 (8), 883-915. (Pubitemid 129531957)
23. Keys, C. W., &, Bryan, L. A., (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38 (6), 631-645. (Pubitemid 33655583)
24. Lawson, A., (2001). What should students learn about the nature of science and how should we teach it? Applying the "If-And-Then- Therefore" pattern to develop students' theoretical reasoning abilities in science. In, J. Cusick, (Ed.), Practicing science: The investigative approach to college science teaching (pp. 1-11). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
25. Lincoln, Y., &, Guba, E., (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
26. Lotter, C., Harwood, W. S., &, Bonner, J. J., (2007). The influence of core teaching conceptions on teachers' use of inquiry teaching practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44 (9), 1318-1347. (Pubitemid 350164142)
27. Lumpe, A. T., Haney, J. J., &, Czerniak, C. M., (2000). Assessing teachers' beliefs about their science teaching context. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37 (3), 275-292.
28. McNeill, K., &, Krajcik, J., (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers' instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45 (1), 53-78. (Pubitemid 351189812)
29. McNeill, K., &, Pimentel, D., (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.
30. McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Harris, C. J., Scott, L., Krajcik, J., &, Marx, R. W., (2003) How can I make new stuff from old stuff? In, J. Krajcik, &, B. Resier, (Eds.), IQWST: Investigating and questioning our world through science and technology. Ann Arbor, MI University of Michigan.
31. McNeill K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., &, Marx, R. W., (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15 (2), 153-191. (Pubitemid 43602584)
32. National Research Council. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
33. National Research Council. (2008). Ready, set, science: Putting research to work in K-8 science classrooms. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
34. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., &, Simon, S., (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (10), 994-1020. (Pubitemid 40002954)
35. Passmore, C., &, Stewart, J., (2002). A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39 (3), 185-204.
36. Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., &, Kim, S.-Y., (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32 (2&3), 155-175.
37. Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., &, Conant, F. R., (1992). Appropriating scientific discourse: Findings from language minority classrooms. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2 (1), 61-94.
38. Roth, K.J., Druker, S.L., Garnier, H., Lemmens, M., Chen, C., Kawanaka, T., Rasmussen, D., Trubacova, S., Warvi, D., Okamoto, Y., Gonzales, P., Stigler, J., &, Gallimore, R., (2006). Teaching science in five countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
39. Sampson, V., &, Clark, D., (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92 (3), 447-472.
40. Sampson, V., &, Clark, D., (2009). The effect of collaboration on the outcomes of argumentation. Science Education, 93 (3), 448-484.
41. Sampson, V., &, Clark, D., (2011). A comparison of the collaborative scientific argumentation practices of two high and two low performing groups. Research in Science Education, 41 (1), 63-97.
42. Sampson, V., Grooms, J., &, Walker, J., (2011). Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education, 95 (2), 217-257.
43. Sandoval, W. A., (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students' scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12 (1), 5-51. (Pubitemid 36399994)
44. Sandoval, W. A., (2005). Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89 (4), 634-656. (Pubitemid 41360021)
45. Sandoval, W. A., &, Millwood, K., (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23 (1), 23-55. (Pubitemid 40273028)
46. Sandoval, W. A., &, Reiser, B. J., (2004). Explanation driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88 (3), 345-372. (Pubitemid 38652408)
47. Silverman, S. K., (2010, May). Cognitive Appraisal Interviews for Surveys Embedded in Mixed-Methods Research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.
48. 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&3), 235-260. (Pubitemid 43135580)
49. Stewart, J., Cartier, J. L., &, Passmore, C., (2005) Developing understanding through model-based inquiry. In, S. Donovan, &, J. D. Bransford, (Eds.), How students learn science in the classroom (pp. 147-198). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
50. Toulmin S., (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
51. van Eemeren, F., Grootendorst, R., &, Henkemans, A. F., (2002). Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, New Jersey & London, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
52. Walton, D., (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
53. Weiss, I. R., Banilower, E. R., McMahon, K. C., &, Smith, P. S., (2001). The 2000 national survey of science and mathematics education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
54. Willis, G., (2005). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
55. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., &, Braaten, M., (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92 (5), 941-967.
56. Woodbury, S., &, Gess-Newsome, J., (2002). Overcoming the paradox of change without difference: A model of change in the arena of fundamental school reform. Educational Policy, 16 (5), 763-782.
57. 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.