Teachers' pedagogical content knowledge of scientific argumentation: The impact of professional development on K-12 teachers

Science Education

Volumn 97, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 936-972

  McNeill, Katherine L ^a   Knight, Amanda M ^a  

^a BOSTON COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84885807284     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.21081     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Abell, S. K. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 3-28). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Abell, S. K. (2008). Twenty years later: Does pedagogical content knowledge remain a useful idea? International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1405-1416.
3. Banilower, E. R., Heck, D. J., & Weiss, I. R. (2007). Can professional development make the vision of the Standards a reality? The impact of the National Science Foundation's local systemic change through teacher enhancement initiative. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(3), 375-395.
4. Bell, P., & Linn, M. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797-817.
5. Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68-94.
6. Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765-793.
7. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93, 26-55.
8. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95, 191-216.
9. Berry, A., Loughran, J., & Van Driel, J. H. (2008). Revisiting the roots of pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1271-1279.
10. Beyer, C. J., & Davis, E. A. (2008). Fostering second graders' scientific explanations: A beginning elementary teacher's knowledge, beliefs and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17, 381-414.
11. Beyer, C. J., & Davis, E. A. (2012). Learning to critique and adapt science curriculum materials: Examining the development of preservice elementary teachers' pedagogical content knowledge. Science Education, 96, 130-157.
12. Blumenfeld, P., Fishman, B. J., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2000). Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: Scaling up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 149-164.
13. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15.
14. Crippen, K. J. (2012). Argument as professional development: Impacting teacher knowledge and beliefs about science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(8), 847-866.
15. Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 2-14.
16. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades k-8. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
17. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119-161). New York: Macmillan.
18. Evagorou, M., & Dillon, J. (2011). Argumentation in the teaching of science. In D. Corrigan, J. Dillon, & R. Gunstone (Eds.), The professional knowledge base of science teaching (pp. 189-204). New York: Springer.
19. Fogleman, J., Fishman, B., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Sustaining innovations through lead teacher learning: A learning sciences perspective on supporting professional development. Teaching Education, 17(2), 181-194.
20. Hill, H. C., Ball, D. L., & Schilling, S. G. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: Conceptualizing and measuring teachers' topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 372-400.
21. Jeanpierre, B., Oberhauser, K., & Freeman, C. (2005). Characteristics of professional development that effect change in secondary science teachers' classroom practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 668-690.
22. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3-28). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
23. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodríguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792.
24. Johnson, R. B. (1997). Examining the validity structure of qualitative research. Education, 118, 282-292.
25. Kenyon, L., Kuhn, L., & Reiser, B. J. (2006). Using students' epistemologies of science to guide the practice of argumentation. In S. A. Barab, K. E. Hay, & D. T. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the seventh international conference of the learning sciences (pp 321-327). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810-824.
27. Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescent's thinking. Psychological Science, 22(4), 545-552.
28. Lee, E., & Luft, J. (2008). Experienced secondary science teachers' representation of pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1343-1363.
29. Loughran, J. J. (2007). Science teacher as learner In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1043-1065). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
30. Loughran, J., Mulhall, P., & Berry, A. (2004). In search of pedagogical content knowledge in science: Developing ways of articulating and documenting professional practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 370-391.
31. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsom & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95-132). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
32. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33. Martin, A. M., & Hand, B. (2009). Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the elementary science classroom. A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 39(1), 17-38
34. McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (1990). The contexts in question: The secondary school workplace. In M. McLaughlin, J. Talbert, & N. Bascia (Eds.), The contexts of teaching in secondary schools: Teachers' realities (pp. 1-14). New York: Teachers College Press.
35. McNeill, K. L. (2009). Teachers' use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93(2), 233-268.
36. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2012a). Supporting grade 5-8 students in constructing explanations in science: The claim, evidence and reasoning framework for talk and writing. New York: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
37. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2012b). Book study facilitator's guide: Supporting grade 5-8 students in constructing explanations in science: The claim, evidence and reasoning framework for talk and writing. New York: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
38. 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.
39. McNeill, K. L., & 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.
40. McNeill, K. L., Pimentel, D. S., & Strauss, E. G. (in press). The impact of high school science teachers' beliefs, curricular enactments, and experience on student learning during an inquiry-based urban ecology curriculum. International Journal of Science Education.
41. Michaels, S., O'Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 283-297.
42. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
44. Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463-466.
45. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
46. Osborne, J., MacPherson, A., Patterson, A., & Szu, E. (2012). Introduction. In M. S. Khine (Ed.): Perspectives on scientific argumentation: Theory, practice and research. (pp. 3-15). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
47. Park, S., & Oliver, S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38. 261-284.
48. Pearson, P. D., Moje, E., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328, 459-463.
49. Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.
50. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
51. Sadler, T. D. (2006). Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 323-346.
52. Sampson, V., & Blanchard, M. (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 1122-1148.
53. 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, 447-472.
54. Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93, 448-484.
55. Sandoval, W. A., & Cam, A. (2011). Elementary children's judgments of the epistemic status of sources of justification. Science Education, 95, 383-408.
56. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55.
57. Scott, P., Mortimer, E. F., & Aguiar, O. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90, 605-631.
58. Sherin, M. G. (2000). Viewing teaching on videotape. Educational Leadership. 57(8), 36-38.
59. Sherin, M. G., & van Es, E. A. (2005). Using video to support teachers' ability to notice classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(3), 475-491.
60. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
61. 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.
62. Simon, S., & Johnson, S. (2008). Professional learning portfolios for argumentation in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(5), 669-688.
63. Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
64. Tiberghien, T. (2008). Foreword. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. ix-xv). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
65. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
66. Van Driel, J. H., & Berry, A. (2012). Teacher professional development focusing on pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Researcher, 41(1), 26-28.
67. Van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & deVos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers' pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673-695.
68. Van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2002). Learning to notice: Scaffolding new teachers' interpretations of classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 571-596.
69. Zembal-Saul, C. (2005). Preservice teachers' understanding of teaching elementary school science as argument. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.
70. Zembal-Saul, C. (2009). Learning to teach elementary school science as argument. Science Education, 93, 687-719.
71. Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding preservice science teachers' evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 437-465.
72. Zohar, A. (2008). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 245-268). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
73. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35-62.