Examining the Use of Talk and Writing for Students' Development of Scientific Conceptual Knowledge Through Constructing and Critiquing Arguments

References

• Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333, 1096–1097.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy. Washington, DC: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Ardasheva, Y., Norton-Meier, L., & Hand, B. (2015). Negotiation, embeddedness, and non-threatening learning environments as themes of science and language convergence for English language learners. Studies in Science Education, 51(2), 201–249.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atwood, S., Turnbull, W., & Carpendale, J. I. M. (2010). The construction of knowledge in classroom talk. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(3), 358–402.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell, P., & Linn, M. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–817.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Berland, L. K. (2011). Explaining variation in how classroom communities adapt the practice of scientific argumentation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(4), 625–664.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities' adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191–216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: Longmans, Green.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cavagnetto, A. R., Hand, B. M., & Norton-Meier, L. (2010). The nature of elementary student science discourse in the context of the science writing heuristic approach. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 427–449.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cavagnetto, A. R., & Hand, B. (2012). The importance of embedding argument within science classrooms. In M. S. S. Khine (Ed.), Perspectives on scientific argumentation (pp. 39–53). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Chaopricha, S. (1997). Coauthoring as learning and enculturation: A study of writing in biochemistry. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.
   Google Scholar
• Chang, H.-Y., & Chang, H.-C. (2013). Scaffolding students' online critiquing of expert-and peer-generated molecular models of chemical reactions. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 2028–2056.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, Y.-C. (2011). Examining the integration of talk and writing for student knowledge construction through argumentation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, Y.-C. (2013). Writing an argument to a real audience: Alternative ways to motivate students in writing about science. Teaching Science: The Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association, 59(4), 8–12.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, Y.-C., Hand, B., & McDowell, L. (2013). The effects of writing-to-learn activities on elementary students' conceptual understanding: Learning about force and motion through writing to older peers. Science Education, 97(5), 745–771.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, Y.-C., Hand, B., & Norton-Meier, L. (2016). Teacher roles of questioning in early elementary science classrooms: A framework promoting student cognitive complexities in argumentation. Research in Science Education, 1–33. doi: 10.1007/s11165-015-9506-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, Y.-C., Hand, B., & Park, S. (2016). Examining elementary students' development of oral and written argumentation practices through argument-based inquiry. Science & Education, 1–45. doi: 10.1007/s11191-016-9811-0
   Google Scholar
• Chen, Y.-C., Park, S., & Hand, B. (2013). Constructing and critiquing arguments: Four communication strategies help students discuss, defend, and debunk ideas. Science and Children, 50(5), 40–45.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, Y.-C., & Steenhoek, J. (2013). A negotiation cycle to promote argumentation in science classrooms. Science Scope, 36(9), 41–50.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, Y.-C., & Steenhoek, J. (2014). Arguing like a scientist: Engaging students in core scientific practices. The American Biology Teacher, 76(4), 231–237.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chi, M. T. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73–105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chi, M. T., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP Framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiou, G.-L., Liang, J.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2012). Undergraduate students' conceptions of and approaches to learning in biology: A study of their structural models and gender differences. International Journal of Science Education, 34(2), 167–195.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Students' questions and discursive interaction: Their impact on argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 883–908.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi, A., Hand, B., & Greenbowe, T. (2013). Students' written arguments in general chemistry laboratory investigations. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 1763–1783.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christodoulou, A., & Osborne, J. (2014). The science classroom as a site of epistemic talk: A case study of a teacher's attempts to teach science based on argument. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(10), 1275–1300.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students' preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1241–1257.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Varieties of data and varieties of analysis. In A. Coffey (Ed.), Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research strategies (pp. 1–25). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers.
   Google Scholar
• de Vries, E., Lund, K., & Baker, M. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 63–103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiSessa, A., Hammer, D., Sherin, B., & Kolpakowski, T. (1991). Inventing graphing: Metarepresentational expertise in children. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10, 117–160.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Edens, K. M., & Potter, E. (2003). Using descriptive drawings as a conceptual change strategy in elementary science. School Science and Mathematics, 103(3), 135–144.
   Google Scholar
• Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28(2), 122–128.
   Google Scholar
• Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., & Anderson, L. M. (1992). Socially mediated instruction: Improving students' knowledge and talk about writing. The Elementary School Journal, 92(4), 411–449.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ford, M. J. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404–423.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ford, M. J. (2012). A dialogic account of sense-making in scientific argumentation and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 30(3), 207–245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galbraith, D. (1999). Writing as a knowledge-constituting process. In D. Galbraith & M. Torrance (Eds.), Knowing what to write: Conceptual processes in text production (pp. 139–159). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Galbraith, D. (2009). Cognitive models of writing. German as a Foreign Language, 2–3, 7–22.
   Google Scholar
• Gobert, J. D., & Clement, J. J. (1999). Effects of student-generated diagrams versus student-generated summaries on conceptual understanding of causal and dynamic knowledge in plate tectonics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 39–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, S., Kiuhara, S., McKeown, D., & Harris, K. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 879–896.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gunel, M., Hand, B., & McDermott, M. A. (2009). Writing for different audiences: Effects on high-school students' conceptual understanding of biology. Learning and Instruction, 19, 354–367.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hand, B. (2008). Introducing the science writing heuristic approach. In B. Hand (Ed.), Science inquiry, argument and language: A case for the science writing heuristic (pp. 1--11). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
   Google Scholar
• Hand, B., Nam, C., Cavagnetto, A. R., & Norton-Meier, L. (2013). The Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach as an argument-based inquiry. Roundtable discussion at 1st International Conference on Immersion Approaches to Argument-Based Inquiry (ABI) for Science Classrooms, Busan, South Korea.
   Google Scholar
• Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (2000). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379–432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderson, J. B., MacPherson, A., Osborne, J., & Wild, A. (2015). Beyond construction: Five arguments for the role and value of critique in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 37(10), 1668–1697.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeong, H., & Chi, M. T. (2007). Knowledge convergence and collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 35(4), 287–315.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Miller, B. W., Kim, I.-H., Kuo, L.-J., … Wu, X. (2011). Influence of a teacher's scaffolding moves during child-led small-group discussions. American Educational Research Journal, 48(1), 194–230.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kanselaar, G., Andriessen, J., Erkens, G., Jaspers, J., Prangsma, M., & Veerman, A. (2002). Co-construction of knowledge in computer supported collaborative argumentation (CSCA). In P. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL? (pp. 93–130). Heerlen, the Netherlands: Open Universiteit.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly, G. J., & Bazerman, C. (2003). How students argue scientific claims: A rhetorical-semantic analysis. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 28–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khine, M. S. (2012). Development of argumentative knowledge in science education. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Perspectives on scientific argumentation: Theory, practice and research (pp. 283–287). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Klein, P. D. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive process in writing-to-learn. Educational Psychology Review, 11(3), 203–270.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein, P. D. (2006). The challenges of scientific literacy: From the viewpoint of second generation cognitive science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 143–178.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 205–226.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LeCompte, M. D. (2000). Analyzing qualitative data. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 146–154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, S. W.-Y., Chang, H.-Y., & Wu, H.-K. (2015). Students' views of scientific models and modeling: Do representational characteristics of models and students' educational levels matter? Research in Science Education, 1–24 doi: 10.1007/s11165-015-9502-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lemke, L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, A. M., & Hand, B. (2009). Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the elementary science classroom: A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 39(1), 17–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mason, L. (2001). Introducing talk and writing for conceptual change: A classroom study. Learning and Instruction, 11(4–5), 305–329.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mason, L., & Boscolo, P. (2000). Writing and conceptual change. What changes? Instructional Science, 28 (3), 199–226.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDermott, M. A., & Hand, B. (2010). A secondary reanalysis of student perceptions of non-traditional writing tasks over a ten year period. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(5), 518–539.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menekse, M., Stump, G. S., Krause, S., & Chi, M. T. (2013). Differentiated overt learning activities for effective instruction in engineering classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(3), 346–374.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercer, N. (2008). The seeds of time: Why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(1), 33–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 34(2), 57–74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Revised and expanded from “case study research in education.” San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Metz, K. E. (2004). Children's understanding of scientific inquiry: Their conceptualization of uncertainty in investigations of their own design. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 219–290.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michaels, S., O'Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in philosophy and education, 27(4), 283–297.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miles, M., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Miyake, A., Kost-Smith, L. E., Finkelstein, N. D., Pollock, S. J., Cohen, G. L., & Ito, T. A. (2010). Reducing the gender achievement gap in college science: A classroom study of values affirmation. Science, 330(6008), 1234–1237.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of applied psychology, 85(2), 273.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munneke, L., Andriessen, J., Kanselaar, G., & Kirschner, P. (2007). Supporting interactive argumentation: Influence of representational tools on discussing a wicked problem. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1072–1088.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Common core state standards. Washington, DC: NGAC and CCSSO.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Naaz, F., Chariker, J. H., & Pani, J. R. (2013). Computer-based learning: Graphical integration of whole and sectional neuroanatomy improves long-term retention. Cognition and Instruction, 32(1), 44–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niebert, K., Marsch, S., & Treagust, D. F. (2012). Understanding needs embodiment: A theory-guided reanalysis of the role of metaphors and analogies in understanding science. Science Education, 96(5), 849–877.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norton-Meier, L., Hand, B., Hockenberry, L., & Wise, K. (2008). Questions, claims, and evidence: The important place of argument in children's science writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Onrubia, J., & Engel, A. (2009). Strategies for collaborative writing and phases of knowledge construction in CSCL environments. Computer and Education, 53(4), 1256–1265.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patton, M. (2001). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Polman, J. L. (2004). Dialogic activity structures for project-based learning environments. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 431–466.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prain, V. (2006). Learning from writing in secondary science: Some theoretical and practical implications. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 179–201.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radinsky, J. (2008). Students' roles in group-work with visual data: A site of science learning. Cognition and Instruction, 26(2), 145–194.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rahwan, I., Ramchurn, S. D., Jennings, N. R., McBurny, P., Parsons, S., & Sonenberg, L. (2003). Argumentation-based negotiation. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 18(4), 343–375.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reiff, M. J. (2002). Teaching audience post-process: Recognizing the complexity of audiences in disciplinary contexts. A National Journal for Writing Across the Curriculum, 13, 100–111.
   Google Scholar
• Resnick, L. B., Asterhan, C. A., & Clarke, S. N. (2015). Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
   Google Scholar
• Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32(2–3), 155–175.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., & Kuo, L.-J. (2007). Teaching and learning argumentation. The Elementary School Journal, 107(5), 449–472.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L. J., Clark, A. M., Miller, B., Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., & Nguyen‐Jahiel, K. (2009). Collaborative reasoning: A dialogic approach to group discussions. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 29–48.
   Google Scholar
• Rivard, L. P. (2004). Are language-based activities in science effective for all students, including low achievers? Science Education, 88(3), 420–442.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rivard, L. P., & Straw, S. B. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study. Science Education, 84(5), 566–593.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., & Conant, F. R. (1992). Appropriating scientific discourse: Findings from language minority classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(1), 61–94.
   Google Scholar
• Roth, W.-M. (2006). Learning science: A singular plural perspective. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense.
   Google Scholar
• Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Li, M., Tsai, S.-P., & Schneider, J. (2010). Testing one premise of scientific inquiry in science classrooms: Examining students' scientific explanations and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(5), 583–608.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children's epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488–526.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sampson, V., Enderle, P., Grooms, J., & Witte, S. (2013). Writing to learn by learning to write during the school science laboratory: Helping middle and high school students develop argumentative writing skills as they Learn core ideas. Science Education, 97(5), 643–670.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345–372.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandoval, W. A., Sodian, B., Koerber, S., & Wong, J. (2014). Developing children's early competencies to engage with science. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 139–152.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarz, B. B., & Linchevski, L. (2007). The role of task design and argumentation in cognitive development during peer interaction: The case of proportional reasoning. Learning and Instruction, 17(5), 510–531.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schoenfeld, A. H. (1989). Ideas in the air: Speculations on small group learning, environmental and cultural influences on cognition, and epistemology. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 71–88.
   Google Scholar
• Schoerning, E., Hand, B., Shelley, M., & Therrien, W. (2015). Language, access, and power in the elementary science classroom. Science Education, 99(2), 238–259.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, P. H., Mortimer, E. F., & Aguiar, O. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90(4), 605–631.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Open coding. In A. Strauss & J. Corbin (Eds.), Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd ed., pp. 101–121). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Susskind, L., McKearnan, S., Thomas-Larmer, J. (1999). The consensus building handbook: A comprehensive guide to reaching agreement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183–218.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Takao, A., & Kelly, G. (2003). Assessment of evidence in university students' scientific writing. Science & Education, 12(4), 341–363.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, L., & Fine, G. A. (1999). Socially shared cognition, affect, and behavior: A review and integration. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(4), 278–302.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tynjala, P., Mason, L., & Lonka, K. (2001). Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101–131.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallace, C. S. (2007). Evidence from the literature for writing as a mode of science learning. In C. S. Wallace, B. Hand, & V. Prain (Eds.), Writing and learning in the science classroom (pp. 9–19). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, D. N. (1998). The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, D. N. & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995) Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
   Google Scholar
• Warwick, P., Mercer, N., Kershner, R., & Staarman, J. K. (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 & Education, 55(1), 350–362.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, T., & Pea, R. (2011). Distributed by design: On the promises and pitfalls of collaborative learning with multiple representations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 489–547.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, H.-K., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Inscriptional practices in two inquiry-based classrooms: A case study of seventh graders' use of data tables and graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1), 63–95.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yin, R. K. (2003). Applications of case study research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, R., & Sullivan, P. (1984). Why write? A reconsideration. In R. J. Conners, L. S. Ede, & A. A. Lunsford (Eds.), Essays on classical rhetoric and modern discourse (pp. 215–225). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, Z. H., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Can generating representations enhance learning with dynamic visualizations? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1177–1198.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zurita, G., & Nussbaum, M. (2004). Computer supported collaborative learning using wirelessly interconnected handheld computers. Computers & Education, 42(3), 289–314.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar