Pedagogical content knowledge of argumentation: Using classroom contexts to assess high-quality PCK rather than pseudoargumentation

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 53, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 261-290

  McNeill, Katherine L ^a   González Howard, María ^a   Katsh Singer, Rebecca ^a   Loper, Suzanna ^b  

^a BOSTON COLLEGE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

argument; argumentation; assessment; PCK; pedagogical content knowledge; science practices; teacher learning

Indexed keywords

EDUCATION; STUDENTS;

ARGUMENT; ARGUMENTATION; ASSESSMENT; PCK; PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE; SCIENCE PRACTICES; TEACHER LEARNING;

TEACHING;

EID: 84954395865     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.21252     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Abell, S. K., (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. In, S. K. Abell, &, N. G. Lederman, (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 3-28). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
2. Alonzo, A. C., Kobarg, M., &, Seidel, T., (2012). Pedagogical content knowledge as reflected in teacher-student interactions: Analysis of two video cases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49 (10), 1211-1239.
3. Alozie, N. M., Moje, E. B., &, Krajcik, J. S., (2010). An analysis of the supports and constrains for scientific discussion in high school project-based science. Science Education, 94, 395-427.
4. Baxter, J. A., &, Lederman, N. G., (1999). Assessment and measurement of pedagogical content knowledge. In, J. Gess-Newsome, &, N. G. Lederman, (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 147-161). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
5. Berland, L., (2011). Explaining variations in how classroom communities adapt the practice of scientific argumentation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20, 625-664.
6. Berland, L. K., &, Hammer, D., (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49 (1), 68-94.
7. Berland, L. K., &, McNeill, K. L., (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94 (5), 765-793.
8. Berland, L. K., &, Reiser, B. J., (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93, 26-55.
9. Berland, L. K., &, Reiser, B. J., (2011). Classroom communities' adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95, 191-216.
10. Berry, A., Loughran, J., &, van Driel, J. H., (2008). Revisiting the roots of pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 30 (10), 1271-1279.
11. Bybee, R. W., (2014). NGSS and the next generation of science teachers. Journal of science teacher education, 25, 211-221.
12. Cavagnetto, A. R., (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in k-12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80 (3), 336-371.
13. Crippen, K. J., (2012). Argument as professional development: Impacting teacher knowledge and beliefs about science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23 (8), 847-866.
14. Davis, E., &, Krajcik, J., (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34 (3), 3-14.
15. Davis, E. A., Palincsar, A. S., Arias, A. M., Bismack, A. S., Marulis, L. M., &, Iwashyna, S. K., (2014). Designing educative curriculum materials: A theoretically and empirically driven process. Harvard Educational Review, 84 (1), 24-52.
16. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., &, Shouse, A. W., (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades k-8. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press. process. Harvard Educational Review. 84 (1), 24-52.
17. Duschl, R. A., &, Grandy, R., (2013). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 22, 2109-2139.
18. Evagorou, M., &, Dillon, J., (2011). Argumentation in the teaching of science. In, D. Corrigan, J. Dillon, &, R. Gunstone, (Eds.), The professional knowledge base of science teaching (pp. 189-204). New York: Springer.
19. Ford, M. J., (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92, 404-423.
20. Ford, M. J., &, Forman, E. A., (2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30, 1-32.
21. Goffman, E., (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
22. Hill, H. C., Ball, D. L., &, Schilling, S. G., (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: Conceptualizing and measuring teachers' topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39 (4), 372-400.
23. Hill, H. C., Schilling, S. G., &, Ball, D. L., (2004). Developing measures of teachers' mathematics knowledge for teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 105 (1), 11-30.
24. Hutchison, P., &, Hammer, D., (2010). Attending to student epistemological framing in a science classroom. Science Education, 94 (3), 506-524.
25. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., &, Erduran, S., (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In, S. Erduran, &, M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre, (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3-28). Dordrecht: Springer.
26. Jin, H., &, Anderson, C. W., (2012). Developing assessments for a learning progression on carbon-transforming processes in socio-ecological systems. In, A. C. Alonzo, &, A. W. Gotwals, (Eds.), Learning progressions in science: Current challenges and future directions (pp. 151-182). The Netherlands: SensePublishers.
27. Kazemi, E., &, Hubbard, A., (2008). New directions for the design and study of professional development: Attending to the coevolution of teachers' participation across contexts. Journal of Teacher Education, 59 (5), 428-441.
28. Kind, V., (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: Perspectives and potential progress. Studies in Science Education, 45 (2), 169-204.
29. Lemke, J., (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
30. Loper, S., McNeill, K. L., Peck, P., Price, J., &, Barber, J., (2014). Multimedia educative curriculum materials: Designing digital supports for learning to teach scientific argumentation. Paper presented at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Boulder, CO.
31. Loughran, J., Mulhall, P., &, Berry, A., (2004). Insearch of pedagogical content knowledge in science: Developing ways of articulating and documenting professional practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (4), 370-391.
32. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J. S., &, Borko, H., (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In, J. Gess-Newsome, &, N. G. Lederman, (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95-132). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
33. McNeill, K. L., (2009). Teachers' use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93 (2), 233-268.
34. McNeill, K. L., González-Howard, M., Katsh-Singer, R., Price, J. F., &, Loper, S., (2013). Teachers' beliefs and practices around argumentation during a curriculum enactment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Puerto Rico.
35. McNeill, K. L., &, Knight, A. M., (2013). Teachers' pedagogical content knowledge of scientific argumentation: The impact of professional development on k-12 teachers. Science Education, 97 (6), 936-972.
36. McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J, Krajcik, J., &, Marx, R. W., (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15 (2), 153-191.
37. McNeill, K. L., &, Pimentel, D. S., (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94 (2), 203-229.
38. Mortimer, E. F., &, Scott, P. H., (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
39. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
40. National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. In Committee on the Foundations of Assessment, J. Pellegrino, N. Chudowsky, &, R. Glaser, (Eds.), Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
41. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for k-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
42. Osborne, J., (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 177-196.
43. Osborne, J., (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463-466.
44. 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.
45. Osborne, J., Simon, S., Christodoulou, A., Howell-Richardson, C., &, Richardson, K., (2013). Learning to argue: A study of four schools and their attempt to develop the use of argumentation as a common instructional practice and its impact on students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50 (3), 315-347.
46. Park, S., &, Oliver, S., (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38, 261-284.
47. Pimentel, D. S., &, McNeill, K. L., (2013). Conducting talk in science classrooms: Investigating instructional moves and teachers' beliefs. Science Education, 97 (3), 367-394.
48. Pruitt, S. L., (2014). The next generation science standards: The features and challenges. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 145-156.
49. Sadler, T. D., (2006). Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 323-346.
50. Sampson, V., &, Blanchard, M. R., (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in view and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49 (9), 112-1148.
51. Sampson, V., &, Clark, D., (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92, 447-472.
52. Sampson, V., &, Clark, D. B., (2011). A comparison of the collaborative scientific argumentation practices of two high and two low performing groups. Research in Science Education, 41, 63-97.
53. Sandoval, W. A., &, Cam, A., (2011). Elementary children's judgment of the epistemic status of sources of justification. Science Education, 95, 383-408.
54. Sandoval, W. A., &, Millwood, K. A., (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23 (1), 23-55.
55. Sawyer, R. K., (2006). Introduction: The new science of learning. In, R. K. Sawyer, (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 1-16). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
56. Schneider, R. M., &, Plasman, K., (2011). Science teacher learning progressions: A review of science teachers' pedagogical content knowledge development. Review of Educational Research, 81 (4), 530-565.
57. Settlage, J., (2013). On acknowledging PCK's shortcomings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24, 1-12.
58. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., &, Campbell, D. T., (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
59. Shulman, L. S., (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15 (2), 4-14.
60. Toulmin, S., (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
61. Van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., &, deVos, W., (1998). Developing science teachers' pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35 (6), 673-695.
62. Wilson, M., (2005). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
63. Wilson, S. M., (2013). Professional development for science teachers. Science, 340 (6130), 310-313.
64. Zembal-Saul, C., (2009). Learning to teach elementary school science as argument. Science Education, 93, 687-719.