The Structure of Scientific Arguments by Secondary Science Teachers: Comparison of experimental and historical science topics

References

• Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701. doi: 10.1080/09500690050044044
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alexander, P.A., Fives, H., Buehl, M.M., & Mulhern, J. (2002). Teaching as persuasion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(7), 795–813. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00044-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518–542. doi: 10.1002/sce.20432
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ault, C.R. (1998). Criteria of excellence for geological inquiry: The necessity of ambiguity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(2), 189–212. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199802)35:2<189::AID-TEA8>3.0.CO;2-O
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakhtin, M.M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays, Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bell, R.L., Matkins, J.J., & Gansneder, B.M. (2011). Impacts of contextual and explicit instruction on preservice elementary teachers’ understandings of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(4), 414–436. doi: 10.1002/tea.20402
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bond-Robinson, J., & Stucky, A.P. (2005). Grounding scientific inquiry and knowledge in situated cognition. Proceedings of the 27th annual cognitive science society, Stresa, Italy.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, B. (2011). Ecology as historical science. Philosophy of Ecology, 11, 251–284. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-51673-2.50010-8
   Google Scholar
• Buchwald, J.Z. (1995). Scientific practice, Chicago: University of Chicago press.
   Google Scholar
• Carlsen, W.S. (1997). Never ask a question if you don't know the answer: The tension in teaching between modeling scientific argument and maintaining law and order. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 32(2), 14–23.
   Google Scholar
• Cartier, J.L., & Stewart, J.H. (2000). Teaching the nature of scientific inquiry: Further developments in a high school genetics curriculum. Science & Education, 9, 247–267. doi: 10.1023/A:1008779126718
   Google Scholar
• Cleland, C.E. (2002). Methodological and epistemic differences between historical science and experimental science. Philosophy of Science, 69(3), 447–451. doi: 10.1086/342455
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins, H. (1992). Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice, Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Department for Education England. (2007). The national curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/teachingandlearning/curriculum/secondary/b00198831/science
   Google Scholar
• Diamond, J.M. (1997). Guns, germs, and steel: The fates of human societies, New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
   Google Scholar
• van Dijk, E.M. (2011). Portraying real life science in science communication. Science Education, 95(6), 1086–1100. doi: 10.1002/sce.20458
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dodick, J., Argamon, S., & Chase, P. (2009). Understanding scientific methodology in the historical and experimental sciences via language analysis. Science & Education, 18(8), 985–1004. doi: 10.1007/s11191-008-9146-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dodick, J., & Orion, N. (2003). Introducing evolution to non-biology majors via the fossil record: A case study from the Israeli high school system. The American Biology Teacher, 65(3), 185–190. doi: 10.1662/0002-7685(2003)065[0185:IETNMV]2.0.CO;2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Druker, S.L., Chen, C., & Kelly, G.J. (1996). Introducing content to the Toulmin model of argumentation via error analysis. Paper presented at NARST meeting, Chicago, IL.
   Google Scholar
• Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Duschl, R.A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72. doi: 10.1080/03057260208560187
   Google Scholar
• Duschl, R.A., Schweingruber, H.A., & Shouse, A.W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   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. doi: 10.1002/sce.20012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erwin, D.H. (2011). A paleontological look at history. Cliodynamics, 2(1), 27–39.
   Google Scholar
• Ford, M. (2008). ‘Grasp of practice’ as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of science understanding. Science & Education, 17(2–3), 147–177. doi: 10.1007/s11191-006-9045-7
   Google Scholar
• Galison, P., & Stump, D. (Eds.). (1996). The disunity of science: Boundaries, contexts, and power, Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Giere, R.N. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach, Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gould, S.J. (1986). Evolution and the triumph of homology, or why history matters. American Scientist, 74(1), 60–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gray, R.E. (2009). Teacher argumentation in the secondary science classroom: Images of two modes of scientific inquiry (Doctoral dissertation). Oregon State University. Retrieved from http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/jspui/handle/1957/13559
   Google Scholar
• Grootendorst, R., & van Eemeren, F.H. (2003). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach, New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jeffares, B. (2009). Guessing the future of the past. Biology & Philosophy, 25(1), 125–142. doi: 10.1007/s10539-009-9155-0
   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(6), 757–792. doi: 10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katchevich, D., Hofstein, A., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2011). Argumentation in the chemistry laboratory: Inquiry and confirmatory experiments. Research in Science Education. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/content/c27q2m7014451231/
   Google Scholar
• Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 1–48. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1201_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science, Oxford: Pergamon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (1988). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society, (pp. 287 Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lemke, J.L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values, Westport, CT: Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Lynch, M. (1987). Art and artifact in laboratory science: A study of shop work and shop talk in a research laboratory. Sociology of Health & Illness, 9(2), 219–220. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347044
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matthews, M.R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science, (pp. 287 London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Mayr, E. (1985). How biology differs from the physical sciences. In D.J. Depew, & B.H. Weber (Eds.). Evolution at a crossroads: The new biology and the new philosophy of science, (pp. 43–63). Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• McComas, W.F. (1998). The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies, (pp. 365 Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Merriam, S.B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Myers, G. (1990). Writing biology: Texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
   Google Scholar
• Myers, N. (2008). Molecular embodiments and the body-work of modeling in protein crystallography. Social Studies of Science, 38(2), 163–199. doi: 10.1177/0306312707082969
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Research Council (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nersessian, N.J. (1992). How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamics of conceptual change in science. Cognitive Models of Science, 15, 3–44.
   Google Scholar
• Nersessian, N. (2005). Interpreting scientific and engineering practices: Integrating the cognitive, social, and cultural dimensions. In M. Gorman, R.D. Tweney, D. Gooding, & A. Kincannon (Eds.), Scientific and technological thinking (pp. 17–56). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Nersessian, N.J. (2009). How do engineering scientists think? Model-based simulation in biomedical engineering research laboratories. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(4), 730–757. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01032.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006, Paris: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Osbeck, L.M., Nersessian, N.J., Malone, K.R., & Newstetter, W.C. (2010). Science as psychology: Sense-making and identity in science practice, New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, J., Duschl, R.A., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., & Millar, R. (2003). What ‘ideas-about-science’ should be taught in school science? A delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720. doi: 10.1002/tea.10105
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, J., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction?. Science Education, 95(4), 627–638. doi: 10.1002/sce.20438
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Passmore, C., & Stewart, J. (2002). A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 185–204. doi: 10.1002/tea.10020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative research and evaluation methods, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Pera, M. (1994). The discourses of science, Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pickering, A. (1995a). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science, Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pickering, A. (1995b). Beyond constraint: The temporality of practice and the historicity of knowledge. In J.Z. Buchwald (Ed.), Scientific practice: Theories and stories of doing physics, (pp. 42–55). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Popper, K.R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery, (pp. 479 New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Roth, W.M. (2009). Radical uncertainty in scientific discovery work. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 34(3), 313–336. doi: 10.1177/0162243907309627
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roth, W.M., & Bowen, G.M. (2001). Creative solutions’ and ‘fibbing results’: Enculturation in field ecology. Social Studies of Science, 31(4), 533–556. doi: 10.1177/030631201031004003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouse, J. (1996). Engaging science: How to understand its practices philosophically, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rudolph, J.L. (2000). Reconsidering the 'nature of science' as a curriculum component. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(3), 403–419. doi: 10.1080/002202700182628
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rudolph, J.L. (2003). Portraying epistemology: School science in historical context. Science Education, 87(1), 64–79. doi: 10.1002/sce.1055
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rudolph, J.L., & Stewart, J. (1998). Evolution and the nature of science: On the historical discord and its implications for education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(10), 1069–1089. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199812)35:10<1069::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-A
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruivenkamp, M., & Rip, A. (2010). Visualizing the invisible nanoscale study: Visualization practices in nanotechnology community of practice. Science Studies, 23(1), 3–36.
   Google Scholar
• Russell, T.L. (1983). Analyzing arguments in science classroom discourse: Can teachers’ questions distort scientific authority?. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(1), 27–45. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660200104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sampson, V.D., & Clark, D.B. (2006). Assessment of argument in science education: A critical review of the literature. Social Work Education, 21(2), 655–661. International Society of the Learning Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J.P. (2011). Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education, 95(2), 217–257. doi: 10.1002/sce.20421
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schumm, S.A. (1991). To interpret the earth, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schwab, J.J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tobin, K.G., & McRobbie, C.J. (1996). Cultural myths as constraints to the enacted science. Science Education, 80(2), 223–241. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199604)80:2<223::AID-SCE6>3.0.CO;2-I
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toulmin, S.E. (1958). The uses of argument, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Traweek, S. (1988). Beamtimes and lifetimes: The world of high energy physicists, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tucker, A. (2011). Historical science, over- and underdetermined: A study of Darwin's inference of origins. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 62(4), 805–829. doi: 10.1093/bjps/axr012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner, D.D. (2007). Making prehistory: Historical science and the scientific realism debate, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar