Grade 5 Students' Online Argumentation about Their In-Class Inquiry Investigations

Research in Science Education

Volumn 44, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 267-287

  Choi, Aeran ^a   Hand, Brian ^b   Norton Meier, Lori ^c  

^a Ewha Womans University   (South Korea)

^b UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE   (United States)

Author keywords

Argument based inquiry; Online learning environment

Indexed keywords

EID: 84898960472     PISSN: 0157244X     EISSN: 15731898     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11165-013-9384-8     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Abell, S., Anderson, G., & Chezem, J. (2000). Science as argument and explanation: Exploring concepts of sounds in third grad. In J. Minstrell & E. Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 65-79). Washington: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Andriessen, J., Erkens, G., van de Laak, C., Peters, N., & Coirier, P. (2003). Argumentation as negotiation in electronic collaborative writing. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 79-115). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
4. 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, 797-817.
5. Berland, L., & Reiser, B. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93, 26-55.
6. Cavagnetto, A. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument intervention in K-12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336-371.
7. 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, 293-321.
8. Clark, D. B., Sampson, V., Weinberger, A., & Erkens, G. (2007). Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 343-374.
9. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
10. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
11. Duschl, R., & Oaborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
12. 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(6), 915-933.
13. Ford, M. (2006). 'Grasp of practice' as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of science understanding. Science & Education, 17, 147-177.
14. Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404-423.
15. Ford, M. J., & Kniff, K. J. (2006). Groundwork for progress supporting scientific literacy: An expert-novice study. San Francisco: Poster presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
16. Gardner, P. L. (1980). The identification of specific difficulties with logical connectives in science among secondary school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17(3), 223-229.
17. Hand, B., & Keys, C. W. (1999). Inquiry investigation: A new approach to laboratory reports. The Science Teacher, 66(4), 27-29.
18. Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2002). Teachers implementing writing-to-learn strategies in junior secondary science: A case study. Science Education, 86(6), 737-755.
19. Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology. Instructional Science, 28(2), 115-152.
20. Herrenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 431-473.
21. Higgs, J. (2001). Charting standpoints in qualitative research. In H. Byrne-Armstrong, J. Higgs, & D. Horsfall (Eds.), Critical moments in qualitative research (pp. 44-67). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
22. 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.
23. Hohenshell, L. M., & Hand, B. (2006). Writing-to-learn strategies in secondary school cell biology: A mixed method study. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 261-289.
24. Hsi, S., & Hoadley, C. (1997). Productive discussion in science: Gender equity through electronic discourse. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 6(1), 23-36.
25. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo-Rodriguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792.
26. Joiner, R., & Jones, S. (2003). The effects of communication medium on argumentation and the development of critical thinking. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(8), 861-971.
27. Kelly, G. J., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 883-915.
28. Kelly, G. J., Chen, C., & Prothero, W. (2000). The epistemological framing of a discipline: Writing science in university oceanography. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 691-718.
29. Kelly, G. J., Drucker, S., & Chen, K. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessment with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 849-871.
30. Keys, C. W. (1999). Language as an indicator of meaning generation: An analysis of middle school students' written discourse about scientific investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(9), 1044-1061.
31. Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96, 674-689.
32. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319-337.
34. Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94, 810-824.
35. Lederman, N., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R., & Schwartz, R. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521.
36. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington: National Academy Press.
37. National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
38. National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
39. 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.
40. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224-240.
41. 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.
42. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage publications, Thousand Oaks, CA pp 46.
43. Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. (2011). Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education, 95, 217-257.
44. Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students' scientific explanations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5-51.
45. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanation. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55.
46. Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2006). Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Computers & Education, 46, 349-370.
47. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. London: Sage.
48. Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online course: The importance of interaction. Education, Communication and Information, 2(1), 23-49.
49. Tiene, D. (2000). Online discussions: A survey of advantages and disadvantages compared to face-to-face discussions. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9(4), 371-384.
50. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
51. Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1984). An introduction to reasoning (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
52. Tu, C., & Corry, M. (2003). Building active online interaction via a collaborative learning community. Computers in the Schools, 20(3), 51-59.
53. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92: 941-967.
54. Wang, Q., & Woo, H. (2007). Comparing asynchronous online discussions and face-to-face discussions in a classroom setting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 271-286.
55. 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, 437-467.