Research on critique and argumentation from the technology enhanced learning in science center

Perspectives on Scientific Argumentation: Theory, Practice and Research

Volumn 9789400724709, Issue , 2012, Pages 157-199

  Clark, Douglas B ^a   Sampson, Victor ^b   Chang, Hsin Yi ^c   Zhang, Helen ^d   Tate, Erika D ^d   Schwendimann, Beat ^d  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c NATIONAL KAOHSIUNG NORMAL UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Analyzing students' argumentation; Critique; Grouping for collaboration; Knowledge integration framework; Visualizations

Indexed keywords

EID: 84884821270     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-2470-9_9     Document Type: Chapter

References (127)

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. Ainsworth, S. E. (1999). A functional taxonomy of multiple representations. Computers and Education, 33(2/3), 131-152.
3. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Washington, DC: Author.
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. Ardac, D., & Akaygun, S. (2004). Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasizes representations on students' understanding of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 317-337.
6. Bahar, M., Johnstone, A. H., & Hansell, M. H. (1999). Revisiting learning difficulties in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 33(2), 84-86.
7. Baker, M. (2003). Computer-mediated argumentative interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific notions. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 47-78). The Netherlands: Kluwer.
8. Baker, M., Andriessen, J., Lund, K., van Amelsvoort, M., & Quignard, M. (2007). Rainbow: A framework for analyzing computer-mediated pedagogical debates. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2), 315-357.
9. Bell, P. (2004). The educational opportunities of contemporary controversies in science. In M. Linn, E. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 233-260). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10. 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.
11. Betrancourt, M. (2005). The animation and interactivity principles in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 287-296). New York: Cambridge University Press.
12. Bielaczyc, K., PirolIi, P., & Brown, A. L. (1995). Training in selfexplanation and self-regulation strategies: Investigating the effects of knowledge acquisition activities on problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 13(2), 221-252.
13. Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185-205). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14. Boo, H. K., & Watson, J. R. (2001). Progression in high school students' (aged 16-18) conceptualizations about chemical reactions in solution. Science Education, 85(5), 568-585.
15. 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. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
16. Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy of Science Press.
17. Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178.
18. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K.McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229-270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.
19. Chang, H.-Y. (2009). Use of critique to enhance learning with an interactive molecular visualization of thermal conductivity. Poster presented at the annual meeting of National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) 2009, Garden Grove, CA.
20. Chang, H.-Y., & Linn, M. C. (2010, January). Transition to inquiry: Instructional practice of inquiry-based online science curricula in Taiwan. Paper presented at the Sixth International Conference on Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, Hualien, Taiwan.
21. Chang, & Linn. (2011). Learning from a molecular visualization: Observe, interact or critique? Manuscript submitted for publication.
22. Chang, H.-Y., & Tsai, K. C. (2010, June). Investigating the role of physical and virtual experiments in developing integrated understanding of thermal conductivity and equilibrium. Presented in the symposium "Using visualization to link abstract science and everyday experience", the International Conference for the Learning Sciences 2010.
23. Chang, H.-Y., Quintana, C.,&Krajcik, J. (2010). The impact of designing and evaluatingmolecular animations on how well middle school students understand the particulate nature of matter. Science Education, 94(1), 73-94.
24. Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining: The dual processes of generating inference and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology: Educational design and cognitive science (Vol. 5, pp. 161-238). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
25. Chiu, J., & Linn, M. C. (in press). The role of self-monitoring in learning chemistry with dynamic visualization. In A. Zohar, & Y. J. Dori (Eds.), Metacognition and science education: Trends in current research. London: Springer.
26. Clark, D. B. (2001). New representations of student knowledge integration in CLP: Theories or repertoires of ideas? Paper presented at the AERA, Seattle, WA.
27. nds-on investigation in Internet environments: Teaching thermal equilibrium. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 175-200). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
28. Clark, D. B. (2006). Longitudinal conceptual change in students' understanding of thermal equilibrium: An examination of the process of conceptual restructuring. Cognition and Instruction, 24(4), 467-563.
29. Clark, D. B., D'Angelo, C. M., & Menekse, M. (2009). Initial structuring of online discussions to improve learning and argumentation: Incorporating students' own explanations as seed comments versus an augmented-preset approach to seeding discussions. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(4), 321-333.
30. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2005, June). Analyzing the quality of argumentation supported by personally-seeded discussions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference, Taipei, Taiwan.
31. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 6.
32. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253-277.
33. Clark, D., Sampson, V., Weinberger, A., & Erkens, G. (2007). Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 343-374.
34. Clark, D. B., Schleigh, S. P., Menekse, M., D'Angelo, C. M., & Sampson, V. (2008). Improving the quality of student argumentation through the initial structuring of online discussions. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association 2008 meeting. New York.
35. Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students' preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1241-1257.
36. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A. A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9-13.
37. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator, 15, 6-11 & 38-46.
38. Corburn, J. (Ed.). (2005) Street science: Characterizing local knowledge. In His Street science: Community knowledge and environmental health justice (pp. 47-77). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39. Corliss, S., & Spitulnik, M. (2008). Student and teacher regulation of learning in technologyenhanced science instruction. In International perspectives in the learning sciences: Creating a learning world. Proceedings of the 8th international conference of the learning sciences (Vol. 1, pp. 167-174). Utrecht, the Netherlands: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
40. Cuthbert, A. J., Clark, D. B., & Linn, M. C. (2002). WISE learning communities: Design considerations. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities: learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 215-246). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41. 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.
42. Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2007). Designing integrative scripts. In F. Fischer, H. Mandl, J. Haake & I. Kollar (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported communication of knowledge-cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 275-301). New York: Springer.
43. diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2 & 3), 105-225.
44. diSessa, A. A., Gillespie, N., & Esterly, J. (2004). Coherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of force. Cognitive Science, 28, 843-900.
45. diSessa, A. A., & Wagner, J. F. (2005). What coordination has to say about transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multi-disciplinary perspective (pp. 121-154). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
46. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-313.
47. Dufresne, R., Mestre, J., Thaden-Koch, T., Gerace, W., & Leonard, W. (2005). Knowledge representation and coordination in the transfer process. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multi-disciplinary perspective (pp. 155-215). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
48. 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). Dordreht: Springer Academic Publishers.
49. Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268-291.
50. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
51. 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.
52. Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R. B., & Sands, M. L. (1995). Six easy pieces: Essentials of physics, explained by its most brilliant teacher. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
53. Fleming, R. (1986a). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues. Part I. Social cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 677-687.
54. Fleming, R. (1986b). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues. Part II. Nonsocial cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 689-698.
55. Gilbert, J. K. (2008). Visualization: An emergent field of practice and enquiry in science education. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization: Theory and practice in science education (pp. 3-24). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
56. Grace, M., & Ratcliffe, M. (2002). The science and values that young people draw upon to make decisions about biological conservation issues. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1157-1169.
57. Hegarty, M. (2004). Dynamic visualizations and learning: getting to the difficult questions. Learning and Instruction, 14, 343-351.
58. Hegarty, M. (2005). Multimedia learning about physical systems. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 447-465). New York: Cambridge University Press.
59. Hesse, F. W. (2007). Being told to so something or just being aware of something? An alternative approach to scripting in CSCL. In F. Fischer, H. Mandl, J. Haake, & I. Kollar (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported communication of knowledge-cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 275-301). New York: Springer.
60. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Marathe, S., & Liu, L. (2007). Fish swim, rocks sit, and lungs breathe: Expert-novice understanding of complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 307-331.
61. Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students' and scientists' reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 663-687.
62. Hogan, K., Nastasi, B., & Pressley, M. (2000). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379-432.
63. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1969). The early growth of logic in the child. New York: Norton.
64. Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Jaspers, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2006, June/July). Visualizing participation to facilitate argumentation. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Bloomington, IN.
65. Jeong, A., Clark, D., Sampson, V., & Mushin, M. (2011). Assessing and comparing dialogical scientific argumentation across asynchronous online discussion environments with sequential analysis. In S. Puntambekar, C. Hmelo-Silver, & G. Erkens (Eds.), Analyzing interactions in CSCL: Methodology, approaches, and issues (pp. 207-233). New York: Springer.
66. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodríguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. (2000). Doing the lesson or doing science: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792.
67. Kali, Y., (2006). Collaborative knowledge-building using the design principles database. International Journal of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 187-201.
68. Kali, Y., & Linn, M. C. (2008). Technology-Enhanced Support Strategies for Inquiry Learning. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. Van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 145-161). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
69. Kali, Y., Linn, M. C., & Roseman, J. E. (Eds.). (2008). Designing coherent science education. New York: Teachers College Press.
70. Keller, E. F. (1993). A feeling for the organism: The life and work of Barbara McClintock (10th Anniversary Ed.). New York: W.H. Freeman.
71. Keppell, M., Au, E., Ma, A., & Chan, C. (2006). Peer learning and learning-oriented assessment in technology-enhanced environments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education (Special Issue: Learning-Oriented Assessment: Principles and Practice), 31(4), 453-464.
72. King, A. (2007). Scripting collaborative learning processes: A cognitive perspective. In F. Fischer, H. Mandl, J. Haake, & I. Kollar (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported communication of knowledge-cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 275-301). New York: Springer.
73. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
74. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337.
75. 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.
76. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245-1260.
77. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
78. Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332-360.
79. Lin, X. D., & Schwartz, D. (2003). Reflection at the crossroad of cultures. Mind, Culture & Activities, 10(1), 9-25.
80. Linn, M. C., Chang, H.-Y., Chiu, J., Zhang, H., & McElhaney, K. (2011). Can desirable difficulties overcome deceptive clarity in scientific visualizations? In A. Benjamin (Ed.), Successful remembering and successful forgetting: A Festschrift in honor of Robert A. Bjork (pp. 235-258). New York: Psychology Press.
81. Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B. S. (2006). Science education: Integrating views of learning and instruction. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 511-544). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
82. Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
83. Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (2004). Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
84. Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Eylon, B. S. (2004). The scaffolded knowledge integration framework for instruction. Internet environments for science education. (pp. 47-72). (1) Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley, CA; (2) U Michigan, MI; (3) Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
85. Linn, M. C., Eylon, B. S., & Davis, E. A. (2004). The knowledge integration perspective on learning. Internet environments for science education. (pp. 29-46). (1) Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley, CA, US; (2) Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel; (3) University of Michigan, MI, US Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
86. Linn, M. C., Lee, H. S., Tinker, R., Husic, F., & Chiu, J. L. (2006). Teaching and assessing knowledge integration. Science, 313(5790), 1049-1050.
87. Longino, H. (1994). The fate of knowledge in social theories of science. In F. F. Schmidt (Ed.), Socializing epistemology: The social dimension of knowledge. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
88. Lowe, R. (2003). Animation and learning: Selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction, 13, 157-176.
89. Lowe, R. (2004). Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning. Learning and Instruction, 14, 257-274.
90. Mason, L. (1998). Sharing cognition to construct scientific knowledge in school context: The role of oral and written discourse. Instructional Science, 26, 359-389.
91. 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.
92. Moreno, R., & Valdez, A. (2005). Cognitive load and learning effects of having students organize pictures and words in multimedia environments: The role of student interactivity and feedback. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 35-45.
93. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
94. Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.
95. Novak, J. D. (1996). Concept mapping: A tool for improving science teaching and learning. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 32-43). New York: Teachers College Press.
96. 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.
97. Rochelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 235-276.
98. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic supports for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345-372.
99. Sanger, M. J., Brecheisen, D. M., & Hynek, B. M. (2001). Can computer animations affect college biology students' conceptions about diffusion and osmosis? American Biology Teacher, 63(2), 104-109.
100. 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.
101. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283.
102. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1999). Schools as knowledge building organizations. In D. K. C. Hertzman (Ed.), Today's children, tomorrow's society: The developmental health and wealth of nations (pp. 274-289). New York: Guilford.
103. Schwarz, B., & Glassner, A. (2003). The blind and the paralytic: Supporting argumentation in everyday and scientific issues. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 227-260). The Netherlands: Kluwer.
104. Schwendimann, B. (2007). Integrating interactive genetics visualizations into high school biology. TELS AERA Meeting.
105. Schwendimann, B. (2008). Scaffolding an interactive dynamic model to promote coherent connections in high school biology. In Annual meeting of the American education research association (AERA). New York.
106. Seethaler, S., & Linn, M.C. (2004). Genetically modified food in perspective: An inquiry based curriculum to help middle school students make sense of tradeoffs. International Journal of Science Education, 26(14), 1765-1785.
107. Siegel, H. (1989). The rationality of science, critical thinking and science education. Synthese, 80(1), 9-42.
108. Songer, N. B., & Linn, M. C. (1992). How do students' views of science influence knowledge integration? In M. K. Pearsall (Ed.), Scope, sequence and coordination of secondary school science: Vol. 1. Relevant research (pp. 197-219). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
109. 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, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
110. Strike, K., & Posner, G. (1985). A conceptual change view of learning and understanding. In L. H. T.West & A. L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change (pp. 189-210). New York: Academic.
111. Tate, E. D. (2009). Asthma in the community: Designing instruction to help students explore scientific dilemmas that impact their lives. Unpublished dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
112. Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology (Special Issue: Developments in Educational Psychology: How Far Have We Come in 25 Years) 25(6), 631-645.
113. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
114. Tsui, C. Y. & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Genetics reasoning with multiple external representations. Research in Science Education, 33(1), 111-135.
115. Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 57, 247-262.
116. van Eemeren, F., Grootendorst, R., & Henkemans, A. F. (2002). Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ & London, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
117. Veerman, A. (2003). Constructive discussions through electronic dialogue. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computersupported collaborative learning environments (pp. 117-143). The Netherlands: Kluwer.
118. Vellom, R. P., & Anderson, C. W. (1999). Reasoning about data in middle school science. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 36(2), 179-199.
119. Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46, 71-95.
120. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2007). Scripting argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported learning environments. In F. Fischer, H. Mandl, J. Haake, & I. Kollar (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported communication of knowledge-cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 191-211). New York: Springer.
121. White, R., & Gunstone, R. F. (1992). Prediction-observation-explanation. In R. White & R. Gunstone (Eds.), Probing understanding (pp. 44-64). London: The Falmer Press.
122. Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems approach to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 3-19.
123. Williamson, V. M., & Abraham, M. R. (1995). The effects of computer animation on the particulate mental models of college chemistry students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(5), 521-534.
124. Xie, Q., & Tinker, R. (2006). Molecular dynamics simulations of chemical reactions for use in education, Journal of Chemical Education, 83, 77-83.
125. Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81, 483-496.
126. Zhang, Z., & Linn, M. C. (2008). Using drawings to support learning from dynamic visualizations. In Proceedings of the 8th international Conference on Learning Sciences (Utrecht, The Netherlands, June 24-28, 2008). International Conference on Learning Sciences. International Society of the Learning Sciences.
127. 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.