Authority and accountability in light of disciplinary practices in science

International Journal of Educational Research

Volumn 64, Issue , 2014, Pages 199-210

  Forman, Ellice A ^a   Ford, Michael J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Evolutionary biology; High school; Science education

Indexed keywords

EID: 84895114061     PISSN: 08830355     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijer.2013.07.009     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Bakhtin M.M. The dialogic imagination: Four essays 1981, (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.), University of Texas Press, Austin, TX.
2. Berland L.K., Reiser B.J. Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education 2009, 93(1):26-55.
3. Bogen J., Woodward J. Saving the phenomena. The Philosophical Review 1988, 97(3):303-352.
4. Bricker L., Bell P. Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education 2008, 92:473-498.
5. Brown A.L., Campione J.C. Guided discovery in a community of learners. Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice 1994, 229-270. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. K. McGilly (Ed.).
6. Candela A. Students' power in classroom discourse. Linguistics and Education 1999, 10(2):139-163.
7. Cazden C. Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning 2001, Heinemann, Portsmouth, NH. 2nd ed.
8. Driver R., Newton P., Osborne J. Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education 2000, 84(3):287-312.
9. Duschl R. Restructuring science education. The importance of theories and their development 1990, Teachers College Press, New York.
10. Duschl R. Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education 2008, 32:268-291.
11. Duschl R.A., Osborne J. Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education 2002, 38:39-72.
12. Engle R.A. The productive disciplinary engagement framework: Origins, key concepts and developments. Design research on learning and thinking in educational settings: Enhancing intellectual growth and functioning 2011, 161-200. Taylor & Francis, London. D.Y. Dai (Ed.).
13. Engle R.A., Conant F.R. Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction 2002, 20:399-483.
14. Erduran S., Simon S., Osborne J. Tapping in argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education 2004, 88:915-933.
15. Ford M.J. Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education 2008, 92:404-423.
16. Ford M.J. Critique in academic disciplines and active learning of academic content. Cambridge Journal of Education 2010, 40(3):265-280.
17. Ford M.J. A dialogic account of sense-making in scientific argumentation and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction 2012, 30(3):207-245.
18. Ford M.J., Forman E.A. Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of educational research 2006, Vol. 30:1-32. American Education Research Association, Washington, DC.
19. Ford M.J., Kniff K.J. Groundwork for progress supporting scientific literacy 2006, Poster presented at the annual meeting of the national association for research in science teaching, San Francisco, CA.
20. Ford M.J., Wargo B.M. Dialogic framing of scientific content for conceptual and epistemic understanding. Science Education 2011, 96(3):369-391.
21. Forman E.A., Ansell E. Creating mathematics stories: Learning to explain in a third grade classroom. Everyday matters in science and mathematics: Studies of complex classroom events 2005, 177-209. Lawrence Erlbaum, Inc., Mahwah, NJ. R. Nemirovsky, A. Rosebery, J. Solomon, B. Warren (Eds.).
22. Forman E.A., Barnhart B., Deafenbaugh L., Ewing M. Fostering constructive criticism in a high school biology classroom: Understanding the social dynamics of argumentation. Paper presented at the national association of research in science teaching 2010.
23. Heath S.B. Linguistics in the study of language in education. Harvard Educational Review 2000, 70(1):49-58.
24. Herrenkohl L.R., Guerra M.R. Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction 1998, 16:431-473.
25. Hogan K., Corey C. Viewing classrooms as cultural contexts for fostering scientific literacy. Anthropology & Education Quarterly 2001, 32(2):214-243.
26. Kelly G.J., Takao A. Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. Science Education 2002, 86:314-342.
27. Kuhn D. The skills of argument 1991, Cambridge University Press, New York.
28. Kuhn D. Education for thinking 2005, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
29. Leitao S. The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development 2000, 43.
30. National Research Council National science education standards 1996, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
31. Olitsky S. Promoting student engagement in science: Interaction rituals and the pursuit of a community of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2007, 44(1):33-56.
32. Osborne J., Erduran S., Simon S. Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2004, 41(10):994-1020.
33. Polman J.L. Mastery and appropriation as means to understand the interplay of history learning and identity trajectories. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 2006, 15(2):221-259.
34. Polman J.L., Pea R.D. Transformative communication in project science learning discourse. Talking text: How speech and writing interact in school learning 2007, 297-315. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, NJ. R. Horowitz (Ed.).
35. Schwab J.J. The teaching of science as enquiry. The teaching of science 1962, 1-103. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. P.F. Brandwein (Ed.).
36. Stewart J., Cartier J.L., Passmore C. Developing understanding through model-based inquiry. How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom 2005, 515-565. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. M.S. Donovan, J.D. Bransford (Eds.).
37. Tabak I., Baumgartner E. The teacher as partner: Exploring participant structures, symmetry, and identity work in scaffolding. Cognition and Instruction 2004, 22(4):393-429.
38. Vygotsky L.S. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes 1978, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
39. Wertsch J.V. Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action 1991, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
40. Yackel E., Cobb P. Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 1996, 27(4):458-477.