Developing pre-service teachers' evidence-based argumentation skills on socio-scientific issues

Learning and Instruction

Volumn 34, Issue , 2014, Pages 42-57

  Iordanou, Kalypso ^a   Constantinou, C P ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL LANCASHIRE   (Cyprus)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CYPRUS   (Cyprus)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Evidence; Metacognition; Reasoning; Science

Indexed keywords

EID: 84906705613     PISSN: 09594752     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.07.004     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Amsel E., Brock S. The development of evidence evaluation skills. Cognitive Development 1996, 11:523-550. 10.1016/S0885-2014(96)90016-7.
2. Anderson R.C., Chinn C., Chang J., Waggoner M., Yi H. On the logical integrity of children's arguments. Cognition and Instruction 1997, 15(2):135-167. 10.1207/s1532690xci1502_1.
3. Avraamidou L., Zembal-Saul C. Giving priority to evidence in science teaching: a first-year elementary teacher's specialized practices and knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2005, 42:965-968. 10.1002/tea.20081.
4. Berland L.K., Reiser B.J. Classroom communities' adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education 2011, 95(2):191-216. 10.1002/sce.20420.
5. Chinn C.A. Learning to argue. Collaborative learning, reasoning, and technology 2006, 355-383. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. A. O'Donnell, C. Hmelo-Silver, G. Erkens (Eds.).
6. Chinn C.A., Brewer W.F. The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: a theoretical framework and implications for science education. Review of Educational Research 1993, 63:1-49. 10.3102/00346543063001001.
7. Chinn C.A., Buckland L.A., Samarapungavan A. Expanding the dimensions of epistemic cognition: arguments from philosophy and psychology. Educational Psychologist 2011, 46(3):141-167. 10.1080/00461520.2011.587722.
8. Crowell A., Kuhn D. Developing dialogic argumentation skills: a 3-year intervention study. Journal of Cognition and Development 2014, 15(2):363-381. 10.1080/15248372.2012.725187.
9. Driver R., Newton P., Osborne J. Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education 2000, 84(3):287-312. 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE13.0.CO;2-A.
10. Erduran S., Simon S., Osborne J. TaPping into argumentation: developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education 2004, 88(6):915-933. 10.1002/sce.20012.
11. Felton M. The development of discourse strategies in adolescent argumentation. Cognitive Development 2004, 19:35-52. 10.1016/j.cogdev.2003.09.001.
12. Felton M., Kuhn D. The development of argumentative discourse skill. Discourse Processes 2001, 32:135-153.
13. Franklin A. How to avoid the experimenters' regress. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 1994, 25(3):463-491. 10.1007/978-94-011-5334-8_2.
14. Graff G. Clueless in academe: How schooling obscures the life of the mind 2003, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
15. Iordanou K. Developing argument skills across scientific and social domains. Journal of Cognition and Development 2010, 11(3):293-327. 10.1080/15248372.2010.485335.
16. Iordanou, K., & Constantinou, C. P. (in press). Supporting use of evidence in argumentation through practice in argumentation and reflection in the context of Socrates learning environment. Science Education.
17. Iordanou K. Developing face-to-face argumentation skills: Does arguing on the computer help?. Journal of Cognition and Development 2013, 14(2):292-320. 10.1080/15248372.2012.668732.
18. Jiménez-Aleixandre M.P., Rodriguez A.B., Duschl R.A. "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": argument in high school genetics. Science Education 2000, 84(6):757-792. 10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757::AID-SCE53.0.CO;2-F.
19. Kelly G.J., Takao A. Epistemic levels in argument: an analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. Science Education 2002, 86(3):314-342. 10.1002/sce.10024.
20. Kelly G.J., Druker S., Chen C. Students' reasoning about electricity: combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education 1998, 20(7):849-871. 10.1080/0950069980200707.
21. Kollar I., Ufer S., Reichersdorfer E., Vogel F., Fischer F., Reiss K. Effects of collaboration scripts and heuristic worked examples on the acquisition of mathematical argumentation skills of teacher students with different levels of prior achievement. Learning and Instruction 2014, 32:22-36. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.01.003.
22. Kolstø S.D., Bungum B., Arnesen E., Isnes A., Kristensen T., Mathiassen K., et al. Science students' critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education 2006, 90(4):632-655. 10.1002/sce.20133.
23. Kopp B., Mandl H. Fostering argument justification using collaboration scripts and content schemes. Learning and Instruction 2011, 21(5):636-649. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.02.001.
24. Kuhn D., Goh W., Iordanou K., Shaenfield D. Arguing on the computer: A microgenetic study of developing argument skills in a computer-supported environment. Child Development 2008, 79(1):233-234. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01190.x.
25. Kuhn D., Iordanou K., Pease M., Wirkala C. Beyond control of variables: What needs to develop to achieve skilled scientific thinking?. Cognitive Development 2008, 23:435-451. 10.1016/j.cogdev.2008.09.006.
26. Kuhn, D., & Moore, W. (in press). Argument as core curriculum. Learning, research, and practice.
27. Kuhn D. How do people know?. Psychological Science 2001, 12:1-8. 10.1111/1467-9280.00302.
28. Kuhn D. Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education 2010, 94(5):810-824. 10.1002/sce.20395.
29. Kuhn D., Udell W. The development of argument skills. Child Development 2003, 74:1245-1260. 10.1111/1467-8624.00605.
30. Kuhn D., Shaw V., Felton M. Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction 1997, 15:287-315. 10.1207/s1532690xci1503_1.
31. Kuhn D., Zillmer N., Crowell A., Zavala J. Developing norms of argumentation: metacognitive, epistemological, and social dimensions of developing argumentive competence. Cognition and Instruction 2013, 31(4):456-496. 10.1080/07370008.2013.830618.
32. Kyza E.A., Constantinou C.P. STOCHASMOS: a web-based platform for reflective, inquiry-based teaching and learning. [Computer software] 2007, Cyprus: Learning in Science Group.
33. Lehrer R., Schauble L., Petrosino A.J. Reconsidering the role of experiment in science education. Designing for science: Implications from every day, classroom, and professional settings 2001, 251-277. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. K. Crowley, C. Schunn, T. Okada (Eds.).
34. Maloney J.F. Children's roles and use of evidence in science: an analysis of decision-making in small groups. British Educational Research Journal 2007, 33(3):371-401. 10.1080/01411920701243636.
35. Maloney J., Simon S. Mapping children's discussions of evidence inscience to assess collaboration and argumentation. International JournalofScience Education 2006, 28(15):1817-1841. 10.1080/09500690600855419.
36. Mason L. Sharing cognition to construct scientific knowledge in school context: the role of oral and written discourse. Instructional Science 1998, 26(5):359-389. 10.1023/A:1003103213786.
37. Mason L., Scirica F. Prediction of students' argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding. Learning and Instruction 2006, 16(5):492-509. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.09.007.
38. Mercer N., Littleton K. Dialogue and development of children's thinking: A sociocultural approach 2007, Routledge, London, United Kingdom; New York, NY.
39. Muis K.R. The role of epistemic beliefs in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist 2007, 42(3):173-190. 10.1080/00461520701416306.
40. Nussbaum E.M., Sinatra G. Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology 2003, 28:384-395. 10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00038-3.
41. Osborne G., Erduran S., Simon S. Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2004, 41(10):994-1020. 10.1002/tea.20035.
42. Petty R.E., Wegener D.T. The elaboration likelihood model: current status and controversies. Dual process theories in social psychology 1999, 41-72. Guilford, New York. S. Chaiken, Y. Trope (Eds.).
43. Reznitskaya A., Anderson R.C., Kuo L.J. Teaching and learning argumentation. The Elementary School Journal 2007, 107(5):449-472. 10.1086/518623.
44. Sadler T. Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: a critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2004, 41:513-536. 10.1002/tea.20009.
45. Sadler T.D., Chambers W.F., Zeidler D.L. Student conceptualizations ofthe nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education 2004, 26(4):387-409. 10.1080/0950069032000119456.
46. Sandoval W.A. Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education 2005, 89:634-656. 10.1002/sce.20065.
47. Sandoval W.A., Millwood K.A. What can argumentation tell us about epistemology?. Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research 2008, 71-88. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_4. S. Erduran, M.P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.).
48. Schauble L. Belief revision in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 1990, 49:31-57.
49. Schwarz B., Newman Y., Biezuner S. Two wrongs may make a right. . . If they argue together!. Cognition and Instruction 2000, 18(4):461-494. 10.1207/S1532690XCI1804_2.
50. Stanovich K.E., West R.F., Toplak M.E. Myside bias, rational thinking, and intelligence. Current Directions in Psychological Science 2013, 22(4):259-264. 10.1177/0963721413480174.
51. Stein N., Miller C. The development of memory and reasoning skill in argumentative contexts: evaluating, explaining, and generating evidence. Advances in instructional psychology 1993, 285-335. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. R. Glaser (Ed.).
52. Toulmin S. The uses of argument 1958, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 10.1017/CBO9780511840005.
53. Walton D.N. Dialogue theory for critical thinking. Argumentation 1989, 3(2):169-184. 10.1007/BF00128147.
54. Zembal-Saul C., Munford D., Crawford B., Friedrichsen P., Land S. Scaffolding preservice science teachers' evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education 2002, 32:437-463. 10.1023/A:1022411822951.
55. Zohar A. Higher order thinking in science classrooms: Students' learning and teachers' professional development 2004, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 10.1007/978-1-4020-1854-1.
56. Zohar A. Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research 2008, 245-268. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_12. S. Erduran, M.P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.).
57. Zohar A., Ben David A. Explicit teaching of meta-strategic knowledge in authentic classroom situations. Metacognition and Learning 2008, 3(1):59-82. 10.1007/s11409-007-9019-4.
58. Zohar A., Nemet F. Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2002, 39(1):35-62. 10.1002/tea.10008.
59. Zohar A., Peled B. The effects of explicit teaching of metastrategic knowledge on low-and high-achieving students. Learning and Instruction 2008, 18(4):337-353. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.07.001.