An instrument for analyzing arguments produced in modeling-based chemistry lessons

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 51, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 192-218

  Mendonça, Paula Cristina Cardoso ^a   Justi, Rosária ^b  

^a FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF OURO PRETO   (Brazil)

^b FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF MINAS GERAIS   (Brazil)

Author keywords

argumentation; chemistry teaching; intermolecular interaction; methodology of analysis; modeling based teaching

Indexed keywords

ARGUMENTATION; CHEMISTRY TEACHING; EMPIRICAL STUDIES; INTERMOLECULAR INTERACTIONS; IT SUPPORTS; METHODOLOGY OF ANALYSIS; MODELING PROCESS; SCIENCE EDUCATION;

EDUCATION COMPUTING; INSTRUMENTS; QUALITY CONTROL; STUDENTS;

CHEMICAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 84892434671     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.21133     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Abi-El-Mona, I., &, Abd-El-Khalick, F., (2011). Perceptions of the nature and 'goodeness' of argument among college students, science teachers, and scientists. International Journal of Science Education, 33 (4), 573-605.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for All Americans: A Project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics, and technology. Washington, DC: Oxford University Press.
3. Bell, P., &, Linn, M., (2002). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22 (8), 797-817.
4. Berland, L. K., &, Hammer, D., (2011). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49 (1), 68-94.
5. Berland, L. K., &, Lee, V. R., (2012). In pursuit of consensus: Disagreement and legitimization during small-group argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 34 (12), 1857-1882.
6. Berland, L. K., &, Reiser, B. J., (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93 (1), 26-55.
7. Berland, L. K., &, Reiser, B. J., (2010). Classroom communities' adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95 (2), 191-216.
8. Bottcher, F., &, Meisert, A., (2010). Argumentation in science education: A model-based framework. Science & Education, 20 (2), 103-140.
9. Chin, C., &, Osborne, J., (2010). Students' questions and discoursive interaction: The impact on argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47 (7), 883-908.
10. Clement, J., (1989). Learning via model construction and criticism-Protocol evidence on sources of creativity in science. In, J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, &, C. R. Reynolds, (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 341-381). New York: Plenum.
11. Clement, J., (2000). Model based learning as a key research area for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22 (9), 1041-1053.
12. Clement, J., (2008). Creative model construction in scientists and students-The role of imagery, analogy, and mental simulation. Dordrecht: Springer.
13. Clement, J., &, Rea-Ramirez, M. A., (2008). Model based learning and science instruction. Dordrecht: Springer.
14. Cohen, C., Manion, L., &, Morrison, K., (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). London and New York: Routledge.
15. Driver, R., Newton, P., &, Osborne, J., (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84 (3), 287-312.
16. Duschl, R. A., (2008). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In, S. Erduran, &, M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre, (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perpectives from classroom-based research (pp. 159-170). Dordretch: Springer.
17. Duschl, R. A., &, Osborne, J., (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
18. Erduran, S., (2008). Methodological foundations of learning argumentation. In, S. Erduran, &, M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre, (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 47-70). Dordrecht: Springer.
19. Erduran, S., &, Duschl, R. A., (2004). Interdisciplinary characterizations of models and the nature of chemical knowledge in the classroom. Studies in Science Education, 40, 105-138.
20. Evagorou, M., Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., &, Osborne, J., (2012). ' Should we kill the grey squirrels?' A study exploring students' justifications and decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 34 (3), 401-428.
21. Furiõ, C., &, Catalayud, M. L., (1996). Difficulties with geometry and polarity of molecules: Beyond misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 73 (1), 36-41.
22. Giere, R. N., (1999). Using models to represent reality. In, L. Magnani, N. J. Nersessian, &, P. Thagard, (Eds.), Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery (pp. 41-57). New York: Kluwer and Plenum Publishers.
23. Giere, R. N., (2001). A new framework for teaching scientific reasoning. Argumentation, 15, 21-33.
24. Gilbert, J. K., (2004). Models and modelling: Routes to a more authentic science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2 (2), 115-130.
25. Gilbert, J. K., (2008). Visualization: An emergent field of practice and enquiry in science education. In, J. K. Gilbert, M. Reiner, &, M. Nakhleh, (Eds.), Visualization: Theory and practice in science education (pp. 3-24). Dordrecht: Springer.
26. Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C. J., &, Elmer, R., (2000). Positioning models in science education and in design and technology education. In, J. K. Gilbert, &, C. J. Boulter, (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 3-17). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
27. Gilbert, J. K., Justi, R., &, Queiroz, A. S., (2010). The use of a model of modelling to develop visualization during the learning of ionic bonding. In, M. F. Taşar, &, G. Çakmakci, (Eds.), Contemporary science education research: International perspectives (pp. 43-51). Ankara, Turkey: Pegem Akademi.
28. Hodson, D., (1992). In search of a meaningful relationship: An exploration of some issues relating to integration in science and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 14 (5), 541-562.
29. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., (2008). Designing argumentation in learning environments. In, S. Erduran, &, M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre, (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 91-116). Dordrecht: Springer.
30. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo Rodríguez, A., &, Duschl, R. A., (2000). " Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84 (6), 757-792.
31. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., &, Erduran, S., (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In, S. Erduran, &, M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre, (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3-27). Dordrecht: Springer.
32. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., &, Puig Mauriz, B., (2010). Argumentaciõn y evaluaciõn de explicaciones causales en ciencias: El caso de la inteligencia [Argumentation and assessing causal explanation in science: The case of intelligence]. Alambique, 63, 11-18.
33. Johnstone, A. H., (1982). Macro and microchemistry. The School Science Review, 64 (227), 377-379.
34. Justi, R., &, Gilbert, J. K., (2002). Modelling, teachers' views on the nature of modelling, implications for the education of modellers. International Journal of Science Education, 24 (4), 369-387.
35. Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., &, Chen, C., (1998). Student's reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20 (7), 849-871.
36. Kelly, G. J., Regev, J., &, Prothero, W., (2008). Analysis of line of reasoning in written argumentation. In, S. Erduran, &, M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre, (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perpectives from classroom-based research (pp. 137-158). Dordrecht: Springer.
37. Khishfe, R., (2012). Relationship between nature of science understadings and argumentation skills: A role for counterargument and contextual factors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49 (4), 489-514.
38. Kuhn, D., (1991). The skills of argument. New York: Cambridge University.
39. MEC. (2000). PCN+ Ensino Médio: Orientações Educacionais Complementares aos Parâmetros Curriculares Nacionais-Ciências da Natureza, Matemática e suas Tecnologias [PCN+ Medium Level: Additional Educational Orientations to The National Curricular Parameters-Science, Mathematics and their Technologies]. Brasília: SEMTEC-CNE.
40. McNeill, K. L., (2011). Elementary students' views of explanation, argumentation, and evidence, and their abilities to construct arguments over the school year. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48 (7), 793-823.
41. Mendonça, P. C. C., &, Justi, R., (2011). Contributions of the 'model of modelling' diagram to the learning of ionic bonding: Analysis of a case study. Research in Science Education, 41 (4), 479-503.
42. Mendonça, P. C. C., &, Justi, R., (2013a). The relationships between modelling and argumentation from the perspective of the model of modelling diagram. International Journal of Science Education, 35 (14), 2407-2434.
43. Mendonça, P. C. C., &, Justi, R., (2013b). Modelling-based chemistry teaching and the development of scientific curricular arguments by students. Paper presented at the ESERA Conference, Nicosia, Cyprus, 2-9 Spetember.
44. Merrian, S. B., (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
45. Merrian, S. B., (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
46. Millar, R., &, Osborne, J., (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King's College.
47. Morrison, M., &, Morgan, M. S., (1999). Models as mediating instruments. In, M. Morrison, &, M. S. Morgan, (Eds.), Models as mediators (pp. 10-37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
48. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
49. Nersessian, N. J., (1992). How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamics of conceptual change in science. In, R. N. Giere, (Ed.), Cognitive models of science (pp. 3-44). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
50. Nersessian, N. J., (1999). Model-based reasoning in conceptual change. In, L. Magnani, N. J. Nersessian, &, Thagard P., (Eds.), Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery (pp. 5-22). New York: Kluwer and Plenum Publishers.
51. 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.
52. 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.
53. Osborne, J., &, Patterson, A., (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction ? Science Education, 95 (2), 627-638.
54. Osborne, J., Simon, S., Christodolou, A., Howell-Richardson, C., &, Richardson, K., (2013). Learning to argue: A study of four schools and their attempt to develop the use of argumentation as a common instructional practice and its impact on students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50 (3), 315-347.
55. 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.
56. Passmore, C., &, Svoboda, J., (2012). Exploring opportunities for argumentation in modelling classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 34 (10), 1535-1554.
57. Peterson, R. F., &, Treagust, D., (1989). Grade 12 students' misconceptions of covalent bonding and structure. Journal of Chemical Education, 66 (6), 459-460.
58. Ryu, S., &, Sandoval, W. A., (2012). Improvements to elementary children's epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 86 (3), 488-526.
59. Sampson, V., &, Clark, D., (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations of future directions. Science Education, 92 (3), 447-472.
60. Sandoval, W. A., &, Millwood, K. A., (2008). What can argumentation tell us about epistemology? In, S. Erduran, &, M. P. Jiménez- Aleixandre, (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 71-90). Dordrecht: Springer.
61. Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Achér, A., Fortus, D.,., Krajcik, J., (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46 (6), 632-654.
62. Teaching and Learning Research Programme. (2006). Science education in schools-Issues, evidence and proposals. London: The Association for Science Education.
63. Toulmin, S., (1958). The uses of Argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
64. von Auschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., &, Simon, S., (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45 (1), 101-131.
65. Vosniadou, S., (1994). Capturing and modelling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4 (1), 45-69.
66. Vosniadou, S., (2002). Mental models in conceptual development. In, L. Magnani, N. J. Nersessian, &, P. Thagard, (Eds.), Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery (pp. 353-368). New York: Kluwer and Plenum Publishers.
67. Windschitl, M., Thompson, M. B., &, 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.
68. Zohar, A., &, Nemet, F., (2002). Fostering student's knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39 (1), 35-62.