Implementation of Web-based argumentation in facilitating elementary school students to learn environmental issues

Journal of Computer Assisted Learning

Volumn 30, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 479-496

  Wang, T H ^a  

^a NATIONAL TSING HUA UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

E Learning; Environmental education; Web based argumentation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84908492483     PISSN: 02664909     EISSN: 13652729     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/jcal.12061     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
2. Chang, S. N., & Chiu, M. H. (2008). Lakatos' scientific research programmes as a framework for analysing informal argumentation about socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1753-1773.
3. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 253-277.
4. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 293-321.
5. Dani, D. E. (2011). Sustainability as a framework for analyzing socioscientific issues. International Electronic Journal of Environmental Education, 2, 113-127.
6. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
7. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
8. Katchevich, D., Hofstein, A., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2013). Argumentation in the chemistry laboratory: Inquiry and confirmatory experiments. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 317-345.
9. Kearney, M., Treagust, D. F., Yeo, S., & Zadnik, M. G. (2001). Student and teacher perceptions of the use of multimedia supported Predict-Observe-Explain tasks to probe understanding. Research in Science Education, 31, 589-615.
10. 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.
11. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319-337.
12. Lakatos, I. (1978). The methodology of scientific research programmes. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
13. Lu, J., & Zhang, Z. (2013). Scaffolding argumentation in intact class: Integrating technology and pedagogy. Computers & Education, 69, 189-198.
14. Marcinkowski, T. J., & Rehring, L. (1995). The secondary school report: A final report on the development, pilot testing, validation, and field testing of the secondary school environmental literacy assessment instrument. Cincinnati, OH: Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency.
15. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2009). PISA 2009 assessment framework - key competencies in reading, mathematics and science. Paris: OECD Publications.
16. Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 273-304.
17. Roth, C. E. (1992). Environmental literacy: Its roots, evolution, and directions in the 1990s. Columbus, OH: ERIC/CSMEE.
18. Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986-1004.
19. Sampson, V., & Gleim, L. (2009). Argument-driven inquiry to promote the understanding of important concepts & practices in biology. The American Biology Teacher, 71, 465-472.
20. Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2006). Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Computers & Education, 46, 349-370.
21. Songer, N. B. (2007). Digital resources versus cognitive tools: A discussion of learning science with technology. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 471-491). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
22. Teksöz, G., Şahin, E., & Ertepinar, H. (2010). A new vision for chemistry education students: Environmental education. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 5, 131-149.
23. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
24. van Drie, J., van Boxtel, C., Jaspers, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2005). Effects of representational guidance on domain specific reasoning in CSCL. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(4), 575-602.
25. Waight, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2007). The impact of technology on the enactment of 'inquiry' in a technology enthusiast's sixth grade science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 154-182.
26. Zimmermann, L. K. (1996). The development of an environmental values short form. Journal of Environmental Education, 28, 32-37.
27. 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.