Promoting argumentation in the context of chemistry stories

Relevant Chemistry Education: From Theory to Practice

Volumn , Issue , 2015, Pages 143-161

  Erduran, Sibel ^a   Pabuccu, Aybuke ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIMERICK   (Ireland)

^b ABANT IZZET BAYSAL UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84943173661     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (30)

1. Achieve, Inc. (2013). Next generation science standards (Appendix H. Nature of Science). www.nextgenscience.org.
2. Aydeniz, M., Pabuccu, A., Cetin, P. S., & Kaya, E. (2012). Argumentation and students’ conceptual understanding of properties and behaviors of gases. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10, 1303-1324.
3. Benson, D. L., Wittrock, M. C., & Baur, M. E. (1993). Students’ preconceptions of the nature of gases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 587-597.
4. Cetin, P. S., Kaya, E., & Geban, Ö. (2009). Facilitating conceptual change in gases concepts. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 130-137.
5. Cetin, P. S. (2014). Explicit argumentation instruction to facilitate conceptual understanding and argumentation skills. Research in Science & Technology Education, 32, 1-20.
6. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
7. Duffy, A.M. (2006). Students’ ways of understanding aromaticity and electrophilic aromatic substitution reactions (PhD dissertation). University of California, San Diego.
8. Erduran, S. (2006). Promoting ideas, evidence and argument in initial teacher training. School Science Review, 87(321), 45-50.
9. Erduran, S. (2012). The role of dialogue and argumentation. In J. Oversby (Ed.), Guide to research in science education(pp. 106-116). Hatfield Hearts: ASE.
10. 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, 915-933.
11. Erduran S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.) (2007). Research in argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer.
12. Erduran, S., & Villamanan, R. (2009). Cool argument: Engineering students’ arguments about thermodynamics in the context of Peltier effect in refrigeration. Educación Química, 20, 119-125.
13. Erduran, S., & Yan, X. (2010). Salvar las brechas en la argumentacion: El desarrollo profesional en la ensenanza de la indagacion scientifica. Alambique, 63, 76-87.
14. Erduran S., & Pabuccu, A. (2012). Bonding chemistry and argument: Teaching and learning argumentation through chemistry stories, a booklet. www.bristol.ac.uk/education/news/2012/63.html
15. Erduran S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, J. M. (2012). Research on argumentation in science education in Europe. In D. Jorde, & J. Dillon (Eds.), Science education research and practice in Europe: Retrospective and prospective(pp. 253-289). Rotterdam: Sense.
16. Erduran, S., Ozdem, Y., & Park, J. Y. (2015). Argumentation as scientific practice: Trends and implications of research on argumentation in science education for STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 2, 5.
17. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: an overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Research in argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3-27). Dordrecht: Springer.
18. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Pereiro-Munoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1171-1190.
19. Kaya, E., Erduran, S., & Cetin, P. S. (2012). Discourse, argumentation and science lessons: match or mismatch in high school students’ perceptions and understanding? Mevlana International Journal of Education, 2(3), 1-32.
20. Krylova, I. (1997). Investigation of causes of differences in student performance on the topics of stereochemistry and reaction mechanisms in an undergraduate organic chemistry course (PhD dissertation). Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America.
21. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
22. Simon, S., & Maloney, J. (2006). Learning to teach ‘ideas and evidence’ in science: A study of school mentors and trainee teachers. School Science Review, 87(321), 75-82.
23. Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 963-980.
24. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25. Van Driel, J. H., De Jong, O., & Verloop, N. (2002). The development of preservice chemistry teachers’ PCK. Science Education, 86, 572-590.
26. Walker, J. P., Sampson, V., Grooms, J., Anderson, B., & Zimmerman, C.O. (2012). Argument-driven inquiry in undergraduate chemistry labs: The impact on students’ conceptual understanding, argument skills, and attitudes toward science. Journal of College Science Teaching, 41(4), 74-81.
27. Zembal-Saul, C. (2009). Learning to teach elementary school science as argument. Science Education, 93, 687-719.
28. Zohar, A. (2004). Higher order thinking in science classrooms: students’ learning and teachers’ professional development. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
29. Zohar, A. (2008). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 245-268). Dordrecht: Springer.
30. 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.