Beyond argument in science: Science education as connected and separate knowing

Second International Handbook of Science Education

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 951-967

  Milne, Catherine ^a  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84897580041     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_63     Document Type: Chapter

References (74)

1. Abbott, H. P. (2003). Unnarratible knowledge: The difficulty of understanding evolution by natural selection. In D. Herman (Ed.), Narrative theory and the cognitive sciences (pp. 143-162). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Trans.), M. Holquist (Ed.).Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
4. Banister, F., & Ryan, C. (2001). Developing science concepts through story-telling. School Science Review, 83, 75-83.
5. Barab, S. A., Sadler, T. D., Heiselt, C., Hickey, D., & Zuiker, S. (2007). Relating narrative, inquiry, and inscriptions: Supporting consequential play. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16, 59-82.
6. Barthes, R. (1978). Image-music-text. S. Heath (Trans.) New York: Hill & Wang.
7. Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1997). Women's ways of knowing: The development of self, voice and mind (Tenth anniversary edition). New York: Basic Books.
8. Bell, P., & Linn, M. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797-817.
9. Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. New York: Routledge.
10. Bricker, L. A. & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92, 473-498.
11. Bruner, J. (1986). Possible worlds, actual minds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13. Clinchy, B. (1989). The development of thoughtfulness in college women: Integrating reason and care. American Behavioral Scientists, 32, 647-657.
14. Clinchy, B. M. (1994). On critical thinking and connected knowing. In K. S. Walters (Ed.), Re-thinking reason: New perspectives on critical thinking (pp. 33-42). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
15. Clinchy, B. M. (1996). Connected and separate knowing: Toward a marriage of two minds. In N. R. Goldberger, J. M. Tarule, B. MV. Clinchy, & M. F. Belenky (Eds.), Knowledge, difference, and power: Essays inspired by Women's Ways of Knowing (pp. 205-247). New York: Basic Books.
16. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40 (1), 65-80.
17. Cortazzi, M. (1993). Narrative analysis. London: The Falmer Press.
18. Dear, P. (1985). Totius in Verba. Isis, 76, 142-161.
19. Dear, P. (1991). Narratives, anecdotes and experiments: Turning experience into science in the seventeenth century. In P. Dear (Ed.), The literary structure of scientific argument (pp. 135-163). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
20. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
21. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
22. Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92, 404-423.
23. Gee, J. P. (1991). What is literacy? In C. Mitchell & K. Weiler (Eds.), Rewriting literacy: Culture and the discourse of the other (pp. 3-12). New York: Bergin & Garvey.
24. Gee, J. P. (2005). Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the heart of school-based literacy. In R. Yerrick & W.-M. Roth (Eds.), Establishing scientific classroom discourse communities: Multiple voices of teaching and learning research (pp. 19-39). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25. Goodrum, D. & Rennie, L. J. (2007). Australian school science education national action plan 2008-2012 Volume 1: National action plan. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Department of Education, Science and Training.
26. Goodwin, M. H., & Goodwin, C. (1987). Children's arguing. In S. U. Philips, S. Steele, & C. Tanz (Eds.), Language, gender, and sex in comparative perspective (pp. 200-248). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
27. Graesser, A. C. (1981). Prose comprehension beyond the word. New York: Springer-Verlag.
28. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371-395.
29. Gross, A. G., Harmon, J. E., & Reidy, M. S. (2000). Argument and 17th-century science: A rhetorical analysis with sociological implications. Social Studies of Science, 30, 371-396.
30. Gutiérrez, K., Baquedano-Lopez, P., & Turner, M. G. (1997). Putting language back into language arts: When radical middle meets the third space. Language Arts, 74, 368-378.
31. Halliday, M. A. K. & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: The Falmer Press.
32. Herman, D. (2003). Stories as a tool for thinking. In D. Herman (Ed.), Narrative theory and the cognitive sciences (pp. 163-192). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
33. Hildebrand, G. M. (1996, April). Writing in/forms science and science learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St Louis, MO, April 1996 (ERIC Document: ED393694).
34. Hildebrand, G. M. (1998). Disrupting hegemonic writing practices in school science: Contesting the right way to write. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 345-362.
35. Holmes, F. L. (1987). Scientific writing and scientific discovery. Isis, 78, 220-235.
36. Jegede, O. J., & Okebukola, P. A. O. (1991). The effect of instruction on socio-cultural beliefs hindering the learning of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 275-85.
37. Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 849-871.
38. Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86, 314-342.
39. Keselman, A., Kaufman, D. R., & Patel, V. L. (2004). "You can exercise your way out of HIV" and other stories: The role of biological knowledge in adolescents' evaluation of myths. Science Education, 88, 548-573.
40. Klein, P. D. (2006). The challenges of scientific literacy: From the viewpoint of second generation cognitive psychology. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 143-178.
41. Kurth, L. A., Kidd, R., Gardner, R., & Smith, E. L. (2002). Student use of narrative and paradigmatic forms of talk in elementary science conversations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 793-818.
42. Lemke, J. (1990). Talking Science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. 1990.
43. Scholes, R. (1981). Language, narrative, and anti-narrative. In W. J. T. Mitchell (Ed.), On narrative (pp. 200-208). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
44. Levi, P. (1984). The periodic table. R. Rosenthal (Trans.) New York: Schocken Books.
45. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King's College.
46. Milne, C. (1998). Philosophically correct science stories? Examining the implications of heroic science stories for school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 175-187.
47. Milne, C., Plass, J., Homer, B., Jordan, T., Wang, Y., Schwartz, R., & Chang, Y. K. (2008, July). Beyond argument: The role of narrative in science education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Australasian Science Education Research Association, Brisbane, Australia.
48. Milne, C., Plass, J., Homer, B., Jordan, T., Schwartz, R., Chang, Y. K., Khan M., & Ching, D. (2011). Developing narrative scaffolds for use within multimedia chemistry simulations: Challenges and possibilities. AERA Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, 8-12 April, 2011.
49. Moje, E. B., Ciechanowski, K. M., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., Collazo, T. (2004). Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and Discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 38-70.
50. Morris, P. (1994). The Bakhtin reader: Selected writings of Bakhtin, Medvedev and Voloshinov. London: Edward Arnold.
51. Myers, G. (1991). Politeness and certainty: The language of collaboration in an AI project. Social Studies of Science, 21, 37-73.
52. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards: Observe, interact, change, learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
53. Norris, S., & Phillips, L. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224-240.
54. Norris, S. P., Guilbert, S. M., Smith, M. L., Hakimelahi, S., & Phillips, L. M. (2005). A theoretical framework for narrative explanation in science. Science Education, 89, 535-563.
55. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994-1020.
56. Patriotta, G. (2003). Sensemaking on the shop floor: Narratives of knowledge in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 349-375.
57. Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., Wang, Y., Kim, M., Milne, C., & Jordan, T. (2008, July). Using narratives as contextual scaffolds for science simulations. Paper presented at the Conference of the International Society of the Learning Sciences, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
58. Polkinghorne, D. E. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
59. Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1996). Writing to learn in the junior secondary science classroom: Issues arising from a case study. International Journal for Science Education, 18, 117-128.
60. Roth, W.-M. (2005). Telling in purposeful activity and the emergence of scientific language. In R. Yerrick & W.-M. Roth (Eds.), Establishing scientific classroom discourse communities: Multiple voices of teaching and learning research (pp. 45-71). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
61. Roth, W.-M., & McGinn, M. K. (1998). Inscriptions: Toward a theory of representing as social practice. Review of Educational Research, 68, 35-59.
62. Russell, T. (1983). Analyzing arguments in science classroom discourse: Can teachers' questions distort scientific authority? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 27-45.
63. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513-536.
64. Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation, Science Education, 90, 986-1004.
65. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 23-55.
66. Shapin, S., & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the air pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
67. Shapiro, B. J. (2000). A culture of fact: England, 1550-1700. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
68. Solomon, J. (2002). Science stories and science texts: What can they do for our students? Studies in Science Education, 37 (1), 85-105.
69. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
70. Varelas, M., Pappas, C. C., Kane, J. M., Arsenault, A., Hankes, J., & Cowan, B. M. (2008). Urban primary-grade children think and talk science: Curricular and instructional practices that nurture participation and argumentation. Science Education, 92, 65-95.
71. Watson, J. (1980). The double helix: A personal account of the discovery of the structure of DNA. In G. S. Stent (Ed.), New York: Norton.
72. White, H. (1981). The value of narrativity in the representation of reality. In W. J. T. Mitchell (Ed.), On narrative (pp. 1-23). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
73. Zohar, A. (2006). Connected knowledge in science and mathematics education. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1579-1599.
74. 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.