Reasoning using particulate nature of matter: An example of a sociochemical norm in a university-level physical chemistry class

Chemistry Education Research and Practice

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 81-94

  Becker, Nicole ^a,g   Rasmussen, Chris ^b   Sweeney, George ^c   Wawro, Megan ^d   Towns, Marcy ^e   Cole, Renee ^f  

^a CLEMSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Santa Ana College   (United States)

^d VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^g MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84872589223     PISSN: None     EISSN: 11094028     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1039/c2rp20085f     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Abraham, M. R., Williamson, V. M., and Westbrook, S. L. (1994). A cross-age study of the understanding of five chemistry concepts, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 31, 147-165.
2. Asterhan, C. S. C., and Schwarz, B. B. (2007). The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory, J. Educ. Psychol., 99, 626-639.
3. Berland, L. K. (2011). Explaining variation in how classroom communities adapt the practice of scientific argumentation, J. Learn. Sci., 20, 625-664.
4. Berland, L. K., and Lee, V. R. (2012). In pursuit of consensus: Disagreement and legitimization during small-group argumentation, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 34, 1857-1882.
5. Berland, L. K., and Reiser, B. H. (2011). Classroom communities' adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation, Sci. Educ., 95, 191-216.
6. Bowers, J., and Nickerson, S. (2001). Identifying cyclic patterns of interaction to study individual and collective learning, Math. Think. Learn., 3, 1-28. (Pubitemid 33343013)
7. Bricker, L. A., and Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argument from science studies and their implications for the practices of science education, Sci. Educ., 92, 473-498.
8. Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K., and Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Participating in classroom mathematical practices, J. Learn. Sci., 10, 113-163. (Pubitemid 33625754)
9. Cobb, P., and Yackel, E. (1996). Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in the context of developmental research, Educ. Psychol., 31, 175-190.
10. Cole, R., Becker, N., Towns, M. H., Sweeny, G., Wawro, M., and Rasmussen, C. (2012). Adapting a methodology from mathematics education research to chemistry education research: Documenting collective activity, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., 10, 193-211.
11. Cooper, M., Grove, N., Underwood, S. M., and Klymkowsky, M. W. (2010). Lost in Lewis structures: An investigation of student difficulties in developing representational competence, J. Chem. Educ., 87, 869-874.
12. Corbin, J., and Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
13. Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
14. Driver, R., Newton, P., and Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms, Sci. Educ., 84, 289-312.
15. Duschl, R. A., and Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education, Stud. Sci. Educ., 38, 39-72.
16. Eberlein, G., Kampmeier, J., Minderhout, V., Moog, R. S., Platt, T., Varma-Nelson, P., and White, H. B. (2008). Pedagogies of engagement in science: A comparison of PBL, POGIL, and PLTL, Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ., 36(4), 262-273.
17. Erduran, S. (2007). Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms. In S. Erduran and M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (ed.), Argumentation in science education: Recent developments and future directions (pp. 47-69). Dordreht: Springer Academic Publishers.
18. Erduran, S., Simon, S., and Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's Argument Pattern for studying science discourse, Sci. Educ., 88, 915-933. (Pubitemid 39558160)
19. Farrell, J. J., Moog, R. S., and Spencer, J. N. (1999). A guided inquiry chemistry course, J. Chem. Educ., 76, 570-574.
20. Ford, M. J., and Forman, E. (2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts, Rev. Educ. Res., 30, 1-32.
21. Forman, E., Larreamendy-Joerns, J., Stein, M. K., and Brown, C. A. (1998). "You're going to want to find out which and prove it": Collective argumentation in a mathematics classroom, Learn. Instr., 8, 527-548. (Pubitemid 128340269)
22. Hanson, D. M., and Apple, D. K. (2004). vol. IV: Process-oriented guided inquiry learning-assessment, What works, what matters, what lasts. Retrieved from http://www.pkal.org/ open.cfm?d-id=363.
23. Hanson, D. M., and Wolfskill, T. (1998). Improving the teaching/ learning process in general chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 75, 143-147.
24. Hanson, D. M., and Wolfskill, T. (2000). Process workshops: A new model for instruction, J. Chem. Educ., 77, 120-130.
25. Inglis, M., Mejia-Ramos, J. P., and Simpson, A. (2007). Modelling mathematical argumentation: The importance of qualification, Educ. Stud. Math., 66, 3-21.
26. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., and Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. in S. Erduran and M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (ed.), Argumentation in science education: Recent developments and future directions. Dordreht: Springer Academic Publishers.
27. Kelly, R. M., and Jones, L. L. (2007). Exploring how different features of animations of sodium chloride dissolution affect students' explanations, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 16, 413-429.
28. Kelly, R. M., and Jones, L. L. (2008). Investivating students' ability to transfer ideas learned from molecular animations of the dissolution process, J. Chem. Educ., 85, 303-309. (Pubitemid 351246949)
29. Krummheuer, G. (1995). The ethnography of argumentation. In P. Cobb and H. Bauersfeld (ed.), The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interactions in classroom cultures (pp. 229-269). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
30. Krummheuer, G. (1998). Formats of argumentation in the mathematics classroom. in H. Steinbring, M. G. Bartolini Bussi and A. Sierpinska (ed.), Language and communication in the mathematics classroom (pp. 223-234). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
31. Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument, Sci. Educ., 94, 810-824.
32. Kuhn, D., and Udell, W. (2003). The development of argumentation skills, Child Dev., 74, 1245-1260.
33. Lawson, A. E. (2009). Basic inferences of scientific reasoning, argumentation and discovery, Sci. Educ., 94, 336-364.
34. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
35. Lewis, S. E., and Lewis, J. E. (2005). Departing from lectures: An evaluation of a peer-led guided inquiry alternative, J. Chem. Educ., 82(1), 135-139. (Pubitemid 40085199)
36. McClain, K., and Cobb, P. (2001). An analysis of development of sociomathematical norms in one first-grade classroom, J. Res. Math. Educ., 32, 239-266.
37. Moog, R. S. (2006). The POGIL Project: NSF-CCLI Phase 3 DUE-0618746.
38. Moog, R. S., and Spencer, J. N. (2008). POGIL: An overview. In R. S. Moog and J. N. Spencer (ed.), Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL), Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
39. Novick, S., and Nussbaum, J. (1981). Pupils' understanding of the particulate nature of matter: A cross-age study, Sci. Educ., 65, 187-196.
40. Osborne, J. (2010). Arguingto learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse, Science, 328, 463-466.
41. Osborne, J., and Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction?, Sci. Educ., 95, 627-638.
42. Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning. (2012). Retrieved May 2, 2012, from http://www.pogil.org.
43. Rasmussen, C., and Stephan, M. (2008). A methodology for documenting collective activity. in A. E. Kelly, R. A. Lesh and J. Y. Baek (ed.), Handbook of innovative design research in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM) education (pp. 195-215). New York: Taylor and Francis.
44. Rasmussen, C., Yackel, E., and King, K. (2003). Social and sociomathematical norms in the mathematics classroom. in H. Schoen and R. Charles (ed.), Teaching mathematics through problem solving: Grades 6-12 (pp. 143-154). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
45. Sampson, V. D., & Clark, D. B. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93, 448-484.
46. Sandoval, W. A., and Millwood, K. A. (2008). What can argumentation tell us about epistemology. in S. Erduran and M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (ed.), Argumentation in science education: Recent developments and future directions (pp. 71-88). Dordreht: Springer Academic Publishers.
47. Spencer, J. N. (1999). New directions in teaching chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 76, 566-569.
48. Spencer, J. N., Moog, R. S., Creegan, F. J., Hanson, D. M., Wolfskill, D. M., Straumanis, A., and Bunce, D. M. (2003). Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning: NSF (DUE-0231120).
49. Spencer, J. N., Moog, R. S., and Farrell, J. J. (2004), Physical chemistry: Guided inquiry thermodynamics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
50. Stephan, M., and Rasmussen, C. (2002). Classroom mathematical practices in differential equations, J. Math. Behav., 21, 459-490.
51. Toulmin, S. (1958), The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.
53. Weber, K., Maher, C., Powell, A., and Lee, H. S. (2008). Learning opportunities from group discussions: Warrants become the objects of debate, Educ. Stud. Math., 68, 247-261.
54. Yackel, E. (2001). Explanation, justification, and argumentation in mathematics classrooms. In M. van den Heuvel- Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 1 (Vol. 1, pp. 9-23). Utrecht, Holland: IGPME.
55. Yackel, E. (2002). What we can learn from analyzing the teacher's role in collective argumentation, J. Math. Behav., 21, 423-440.
56. Yackel, E., and Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics, J. Res. Math. Educ., 27, 458-477.
57. Yackel, E., Rasmussen, C., and King, K. (2000). Social and sociomathematical norms in an advanced undergraduate mathematics course, J. Math. Behav., 19, 275-287.
58. Zohar, A., and Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 39, 35-62.