The development and validation of the assessment of scientific argumentation in the classroom (ASAC) observation protocol: A tool for evaluating how students participate in scientific argumentation

Perspectives on Scientific Argumentation: Theory, Practice and Research

Volumn 9789400724709, Issue , 2012, Pages 235-264

  Sampson, Victor ^a   Enderle, Patrick J ^a   Walker, Joi Phelps ^b  

^a FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Tallahassee Community College   (United States)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Assessment; Evaluation; Group interactions; Observation protocol; Participation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84876290012     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-2470-9_12     Document Type: Chapter

References (48)

1. Abell, S. K., Anderson, G., & Chezem, J. (2000). Science as argument and explanation: Exploring concepts of sound in third grade. In J. Minstrell & E. H. Van Zee (Eds.), Inquiry into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 100-119). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
2. Alexopoulou, E., & Driver, R. (1996). Small-group discussion in physics: Peer interaction modes in pairs and fours. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(10), 1099-1114.
3. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
4. Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2003). Argumentation, computer support, and the educational contexts of confronting cognitions. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 1-25). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
5. Berland, L., & Reiser, B. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26-55.
6. Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1989). Educational research: An introduction (5th ed.). White Plains: Longman.
7. Boulter, C. J., & Gilbert, J. K. (1995). Argument and science education. In P. J. M. Costello & S. Mitchell (Eds.), Competing and consensual voices: The theory and practices of argument (pp. 84-98). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
8. Burns, R. B. (1994). Introduction to research methods in education. Chesire: Longman.
9. Carlsen, W. S. (2007). Language and science learning. In S. K. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 57-74). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10. deVries, E., Lund, K., & 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.
11. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-313.
12. Duschl, R. (2007). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran & M. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 159-175). Dordrecht: Springer Academic.
13. Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268-291.
14. 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.
15. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
16. Edwards, A. (1957). Techniques for attitude scale construction. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
17. Erduran, S. (2007). Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms. In S. Erduran & M. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. (pp. 47-69). Dordrecht: Springer Academic.
18. Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. (Eds.). (2007). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer Academic.
19. Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2004). The role of argument in developing scientific literacy. In K. Boersma, O. deJong, H. Eijkelhof, & M. Goedhart (Eds.), Research and the quality of science education (pp. 381-394). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337.
23. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245-1260.
24. Kuhn, L., & Reiser, B. (2005). Students constructing and defending evidence-based scientific explanations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.
25. Landis, J., & Koch, G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174.
26. McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R.W. (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191.
27. National Research Council. (1999). Transforming undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
28. National Research Council. (2005). America's lab report: Investigations in high school science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
29. National Research Council. (2008). Ready, set, science: Putting research to work in K-8 science classrooms. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
30. National Science Foundation. (1996). Shaping the future: Strategies for revitalizing undergraduate education. Paper presented at the National Working Conference, Washington, DC.
31. Nunally, J. C. (1970). Introduction to psychological measurement. New York: McGraw-Hill.
32. 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.
33. Richmond, G., & Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in the classroom: Social processes in smallgroup discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 839-858.
34. Rubba, P. A., & Anderson, H. O. (1978). Development of an instrument to assess secondary school students: Understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 62(4), 449-458.
35. 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.
36. Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2009). The effect of collaboration on the outcomes of argumentation. Science Education, 93(3), 448-484.
37. 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.
38. Sampson, V., & Gleim, L. (2009). Argument-driven inquiry to promote the understanding of important concepts and practices in biology. American Biology Teacher, 71(8), 471-477.
39. Sampson, V., & Grooms, J. (2010). Generate an argument: An instructional model. The Science Teacher, 77(5), 33-37.
40. Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. (2009). Argument-driven inquiry: A way to promote learning during laboratory activities. The Science Teacher, 76(7), 42-47.
41. Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students' scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5-51.
42. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345-372.
43. 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.
44. Suthers, D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 315-337.
45. Trochim, W. M. (1999). The research methods knowledge base (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog.
46. Veerman, A. (2003). Constructive discussions through electronic dialogue. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 117-143). The Netherlands: Kluwer.
47. Vellom, R. P., & Anderson, C. W. (1999). Reasoning about data in middle school science. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 36(2), 179-199.
48. Zeidler, D., L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81, 483-496.