Moving Past Curricula and Strategies: Language and the Development of Adaptive Pedagogy for Immersive Learning Environments

Research in Science Education

Volumn 46, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 223-241

  Hand, Brian ^a   Cavagnetto, Andy ^b   Chen, Ying Chih ^c   Park, Soonhye ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^b WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Epistemic engagement; Immersive learning; Language in science; Social negotiation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84955265515     PISSN: 0157244X     EISSN: 15731898     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11165-015-9499-1     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 69–84.
2. Berland, L. K., & Lee, V. R. (2012). In pursuit of consensus: disagreement and legitimization during small-group argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1857–1882.
3. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55.
4. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities’ adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191–216.
5. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy.
6. Caprara, G. V., Kanacri, B. P. L., Gerbino, M., Zuffianò, A., Alessandri, G., Vecchio, G., & Bridglall, B. (2014). Positive effects of promoting prosocial behavior in early adolescence. Eevidence from a school-based intervention. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 38(4), 386–396. doi:10.1177/0165025414531464.
7. Cavagnetto, A. R. (2008). Factors influencing implementation of the science writing heuristic in two elementary classrooms. In B. Hand (Eds.), Science inquiry, argument and language: the case for the science writing heuristic. Taiwan: Sense Publishers.
8. Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: a review of argument interventions in K-12 contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80, 336–371.
9. Chen, Y.-C. (2011). Examining the integration of talk and writing for student knowledge construction through argumentation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.
10. Chi, M. T. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: a conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73–105.
11. Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Supporting argumentation through students’ questions: case studies in science classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 230–284. doi:10.1080/10508400903530036.
12. Choi, A. Klein, V. & Hershberger, S. (2014). Success, difficulty, and instructional strategies to enact an argument-based inquiry approach: experiences of elementary teachers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. doi:10.1007/s10763-014-9525-1.
13. Cummins, R. A. (1998). The second approximation to an international standard of life satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 43, 307–334.
14. Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. (2010). Teaching strategies for developing students’ argumentation skills about socioscientific issues in high school genetics. Research in Science Education, 40(2), 133–148.
15. Duschl, R. (2008). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran & M. Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 159–175). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
16. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., Shouse, A. W., (Eds.), Committee on Science Learning Kindergarten Through Eighth Grade, Board on Science Education, et al. (2007). Taking science to school: learning and teaching science in grades K–8. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press.
17. Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28(2), 122–128.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. Felton, M., Garcia-Mila, M., & Gilabert, S. (2009). Deliberation versus dispute: the impact of argumentative discourse goals on learning and reasoning in the science classroom. Informal Logic, 29(4), 417–446.
21. Ford, M. J. (2012). A dialogic account of sense-making in scientific argumentation and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 30(3), 207–245.
22. Ford, M. J., & Forman, E. A. (2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30, 1–32.
23. Galbraith, D., van Waes, L., & Torrance, M. (2007). Introduction. In L. W. M. Torrance & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Writing and cognition: research and applications (pp. 1–10). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
24. Gilabert, S., Garcia-Mila, M., & Felton, M. (2012). The effect of task instructions on students’ use of repetition in argumentative discourse. International Journal of Science Education, 35(17), 2857–2878.
25. Gray, R., & Kang, N.-H. (2014). The structure of scientific arguments by secondary science teachers: comparison of experimental and historical science topics. International Journal of Science Education, 36(1), 46–65.
26. Günel, M., Kingir, S., & Geban, Ö. (2012). Analysis of argumentation and questioning patterns in argument-based inquiry classrooms. Education and Science, 37(164), 316–330.
27. Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Learning how to mean: explorations in the development of language. London: Arnod.
28. Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh.
29. Hand, B. & Norton-Meier, L. (2011). Voices from the classroom: elementary teachers’ experience with argument based inquiry. Amerstedam: Sense Publishers.
30. Hand, B., Hohenshell, L., & Prain, V. (2007). Examining the effect of multiple writing tasks on Year 10 biology students’ understanding of cell and molecular biology concepts. Instructional Science, 35, 343–373.
31. Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L., Staker, J. & Bintz, J. (2009). Negotiating science: the critical role of argument in student inquiry, grades 5-10. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
32. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792.
33. 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(7), 691–718.
34. Kuhn, D., Zillmer, N., Crowell, A., & Zavala, J. (2013). Developing norms of argumentation: metacognitive, epistemological, and social dimensions of developing argumentative competence. Cognition and Instruction, 31(4), 456–496.
35. Lotter, C., Harwood, W. S., & Bonner, J. J. (2007). The influence of core teaching conceptions on teachers’ use of inquiry teaching practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(9), 1318–1347.
36. 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.
37. Mercer, N., Warwick, P., Kershner, R., & Staarman, J. K. (2010). Can the interactive whiteboard help to provide ‘dialogic space’ for children’s collaborative activity? Language and Education, 24(5), 367–384.
38. Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2), 57–74.
39. Moje, E. B., Ciechanowski, K. M., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004). Working toward third space in content area literacy: an examination of everyday funds of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38–70. doi:10.1598/RRQ.39.1.4.
40. National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
41. NGSS Lead States (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academy.
42. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240.
43. Norton-Meier, L. (2007). Creating border convergence between science and language: a case for the science writing heuristic. In B. M. Hand (Ed.), Science inquiry, argument and language (pp. 13–24). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
44. Nussbaum, E. M., & Edwards, O. V. (2011). Critical questions and argument stratagems: a framework for enhancing and analyzing students’ reasoning practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 443–488.
45. Oral, Ş. (2012). Providing a rationale for promoting argument-based inquiry approach to science education: a Deweyan pragmatist aesthetics perspective. Mevlana International Journal of Education, 2(3), 69–78.
46. Osborne, J., Duschl, R., & Fairbrother, B. (2002). Breaking the mould? Teaching science for public understanding. London: The Nuffield Foundation.
47. Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: a review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079. doi:10.1080/0950069032000032199.
48. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(10), 994–1020.
49. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
50. Park, S., & Chen, Y.-C. (2012). Mapping out the integration of the components of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): examples from high school biology classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 922–941.
51. Pfundt, H., & Duit, R. (Eds.). (1994). Students’ alternative frameworks and science education (4th edn.). Kiel, West Germany: Institute for Science Education.
52. Prain, V. (2006). Learning from writing in school science: some theoretical and practical implications. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 179–201.
53. Rahwan, I., Ramchurn, S. D., Jennings, N. R., McBurny, P., Parsons, S., & Sonenberg, L. (2004). Argumentation-based negotiation. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 18(4), 343–375.
54. Rivard, L. P. (2004). Are language-based activities in science effective for all students, including low achievers? Science Education, 88, 420–442. doi:10.1002/sce.10114.
55. Rivard, L. P., & Straw, S. B. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: an exploratory study. Science Education, 84, 566–593.
56. Sampson, V., & Blanchard, M. R. (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: trends in views and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1122–1148. doi:10.1002/tea.21037.
57. Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5–51.
58. Sober, E., & Wilson, D. S. (1998). Unto others: the evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior. Cambridge MA: Harvard University.
59. Tsai, C. C. (1999). “Laboratory exercises help me memorize the scientific truths”: a study of eighth graders’ scientific epistemological views and learning in laboratory activities. Science Education, 83(6), 654–674.
60. van Amelsvoort, M., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Representational tools in computer-supported collaborative argumentation-based learning: how dyads work with constructed and inspected argumentative diagrams. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(4), 485–521.
61. Varelas, M., Pappas, C. C., Kane, J. M., Arsenault, A., Hankes, J., & Cowan, B. M. (2008). Urban primary-grade children think and talk science: curricular and instructional practices that nurture participation and argumentation. Science Education, 92(1), 65–95.
62. Waldrip, B., Prain, V., & Carolan, J. (2010). Using multi-modal representations to improve learning in junior secondary science. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 65–80.
63. Walton, D. N. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
64. Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. (1995). Commitment in dialogue: basic concept of interpersonal reasoning. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
65. Warwick, P., Mercer, N., Kershner, R., & Staarman, J. (2010). In the mind and in the technology: the vicarious presence of the teacher in pupil’s learning of science in collaborative group activity at the interactive whiteboard. Computers and Education, 55, 350–362.
66. Wilson, D. S. (1980). The natural selection of populations and communities. Series in Evolutionary Biology (USA). Menlo Park, CA, USA: Benjamin/Cummings.
67. Wilson, D. S. (2007). Evolution for everyone: how Darwin’s theory can change the way we think about our lives. New York: Random House.
68. Wilson, C. D., Taylor, J. A., Kowalski, S. M., & Carlson, J. (2010). The relative effects and equity of inquiry-based and commonplace science teaching on students’ knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(3), 276–301.
69. Wilson, D. S., Kauffman, R. A., & Purdy, M. S. (2011). A program for at-risk high school students informed by evolutionary science. PLoS ONE, 6(11), e27826. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027826.
70. Wilson, D. S., Ostrom, E., Cox, M. E. (2013). Generalizing the core design principles for the efficacy of groups. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, (90 Suppl), S21–S32. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2012.12.010.
71. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). How novice science teachers appropriate epistemic discourses around model-based inquiry for use in classrooms. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 310–378.
72. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., Braaten, M., & Stroupe, D. (2012). Proposing a core set of instructional practices and tools for teachers of science. Science Education, 96(5), 878–903.
73. Yore, L. D., & Treagust, D. F. (2006). Current realities and future possibilities: language and science literacy—empowering research and informing instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 291–314.