Explicit Nature of Science and Argumentation Instruction in the Context of Socioscientific Issues: An effect on student learning and transfer

References

• Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. L. (2004). Learning as conceptual change: Factors mediating the development of preservice elementary teachers’ views of nature of science. Science Education, 88, 785–810. doi: 10.1002/sce.10143
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82, 417–436. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199807)82:4<417::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-E
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Association for the Advancement of Science (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 5–11. doi: 10.3102/0013189X025004005
   Google Scholar
• Ausubel, D. P. (1962). A subsumption theory of meaningful verbal learning and retention. The Journal of General Psychology, 66, 213–224. doi: 10.1080/00221309.1962.9711837
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–817. doi: 10.1080/095006900412284
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bentley, M. L., & Fleury, S. C. (1998). Of starting points and destinations: Teacher education and the nature of science. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science and science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 277–291). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Berland, L. K., & Hammer, H. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68–94. doi: 10.1002/tea.20446
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. doi: 10.1002/sce.20402
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55. doi: 10.1002/sce.20286
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BouJaoude, S. (2002). Balance of scientific literacy themes in science curricula: The case of Lebanon. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 139–156. doi: 10.1080/09500690110066494
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bransford, J., & Schwartz, D. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. In A. Iran-Nejad, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education (pp. 61–100). Washington, DC: The American Education Research Association.
   Google Scholar
• Bricker, L., & Bell, P. (2007). ‘Um … since I argue for fun, I don't remember what I argue about’: Using children's argumentation across social contexts to inform science instruction. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 17, 32–42. doi: 10.3102/0013189X018001032
   Google Scholar
• Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E., & Unger, C. (1989). An experiment is when you try it and see if it works: A study of grade 7 students’ understanding of the construction of scientific knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 11(Special Issue), 514–529. doi: 10.1080/0950069890110504
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70(5), 1098–1120. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00081
   PubMed 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. doi: 10.1002/tea.20385
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 623–654. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199808)35:6<623::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-O
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC) Pan-Canadian Science Project. (1997). Common framework of science learning outcomes K to 12. Retrieved from http://204.225.6.243/science/framework/
   Google Scholar
• Curriculum Council. (1998). Curriculum framework for kindergarten to year 12 education in Western Australia. Osborne Park, WA: Author.
   Google Scholar
• 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. doi: 10.1007/s11165-008-9104-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72. doi: 10.1080/03057260208560187
   Google Scholar
• Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483. doi: 10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fleming, R. (1986). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, part I: Social cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 689–698. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660230804
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran, & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Ed.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• 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(11), 1171–1190. doi: 10.1080/09500690210134857
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khishfe, R. (2008). The development of seventh graders' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(4), 470–496.
   Google Scholar
• Khishfe, R. (2012a). Nature of science and decision making. International Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 67–100.
   Google Scholar
• Khishfe, R. (2012b). Relationship between nature of science understandings and argumentation skills: A role for counterargument and contextual factors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 489–514.
   Google Scholar
• Khishfe, R. (2012c). Transfer of nature of science understandings into similar contexts: Promises and possibilities of an explicit reflective approach. International Journal of Science Education. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2012.672774.
   Google Scholar
• Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). The influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551–578.
   Google Scholar
• Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 377–394.
   Google Scholar
• Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. (2007). Relationship between instructional context and understandings of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(8), 939–961.
   Google Scholar
• Klopfer, L., & Cooley, W. (1963). The history of science cases for high schools in the development of student understanding of science and scientists. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1(1), 33–47. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660010112
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kok, A., & Woolnough, B. E. (1994). Science process skills: Are they generalisable?. Research in Science and Technological Education, 12(1), 31–42. doi: 10.1080/0263514940120105
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319–337. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730770306
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larkin, J. H., & Reif, F. (1976). Analysis and teaching of a general skill for studying scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(4), 431–440. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.68.4.431
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Leach, J., Hind, A., & Ryder, J. (2003). Designing and evaluating short teaching interventions about the epistemology of science in high school classrooms. Science Education, 87(6), 831–848. doi: 10.1002/sce.10072
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331–359. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660290404
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell, & N. G. Lederman (Ed.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 831–880). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science and science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 83–126). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Lederman, N., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R., & Schwartz, R. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521. doi: 10.1002/tea.10034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lederman, N., & Flick, L. (2005). Beware of the unit of analysis: It may be you!!. School Science and Mathematics, 105(8), 381–383. doi: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.2005.tb18058.x
   Google Scholar
• Lin, S., & Mintzes, J. J. (2010). Learning argumentation skills through instruction in socioscientific issues: The effect of ability level. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8, 993–1017. doi: 10.1007/s10763-010-9215-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, S., & Lederman, N. G. (2002). Taiwanese gifted students’ views of nature of science. School Science and Mathematics, 102(3), 114–123. doi: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.2002.tb17905.x
   Google Scholar
• Louca, L., Hammer, D., & Bell, M. (2002). Developmental versus context-dependant accounts of abilities for scientific inquiry: A case study of 5–6th grade student inquiry from a discussion about a dropped pendulum. In P. Bell, R. Stevens, & T. Satwicz (Eds.), Keeping learning complex: Fifth international conference of the learning sciences (pp. 261–267). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Mason, L., & Scirica, F. (2006). Prediction of students’ argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding. Learning and Instruction, 16, 492–509. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.09.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matkins, J., & Bell, R. (2007). Awakening the scientist inside: Global climate change and the nature of science in an elementary science methods course. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(2), 137–163. doi: 10.1007/s10972-006-9033-4
   Google Scholar
• May, D., Hammer, D., & Pea, R. D. (2006). Children's analogical reasoning in a 3rd-grade science discussion. Science Education, 90(2), 316–330. doi: 10.1002/sce.20116
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McComas, W. F., & Olson, J. K. (2002). The nature of science in international science education standards documents. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 41–52). Dordrecht: Kluwer (Springer) Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• McDonald, C. V. (2010). The influence of explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction on preservice primary teachers’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(9), 1137–1164. doi: 10.1002/tea.20377
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald, C. V. (2011, September). The impact of context of argumentation on inservice science teachers’ views of nature of science. Paper presented at the biannual conference of the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA), Lyon, France.
   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. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michaels, S., Shouse, A. W., & Schweingruber, H. A. (2008). Ready, set, science!: Putting research to work in K-8 classrooms. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Millar, R., & Osborne, J. F. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King's College London.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Science Teachers Association. (2000). NSTA position statement: The nature of science. Retrieved February 11, 2013, from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/natureofscience.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Naylor, S., Keogh, B., & Downing, B. (2007). Argumentation in primary science. Research in Science Education, 37, 17–39. doi: 10.1007/s11165-005-9002-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553–576. doi: 10.1080/095006999290570
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M., & Poliquin, A. (2008). Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 30(15), 1977–1999. doi: 10.1080/09500690701545919
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ogunniyi, M. B. (2006). Using an argumentation-instrumental reasoning discourse to facilitate teachers’ understanding of the nature of science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), San Francisco, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Oh, S., & Jonassent, D. H. (2007). Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 95–110. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00206.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463–466. Retrieved from https://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5977/463.short
   Google Scholar
• 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. doi: 10.1002/tea.20035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, J. F., Ratcliffe, M., Collins, S., Millar, R., & Duschl, 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
• Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students’ argumentation in decision-making on a socioscientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 745–754. doi: 10.1080/095006999290408
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ratcliffe, M. (1996). Adolescent decision-making, by individual and groups, about science-related societal issues. In G. Welford, J. Osborne, & P. Scott (Eds.), Research in science education in Europe: Current issues and themes (pp. 126–140). London: Falmer Press.
   Google Scholar
• Resnick, L., & Hall, M. W. (2001). Principles of learning: Study tools for educators [CD-ROM, version 2.0]. Pittsburg, PA: University of Pittsburg, Learning Research and Development Center, Institute for Learning. Retrieved from http://ifl.lrdc.pitt.edu/ifl/index.php/resources/principles_of_learning/
   Google Scholar
• Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children's epistemic under-standing from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488–526. doi: 10.1002/sce.21006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler, T. D., Chambers, W. F., & Zeidler, D. L. (2002, April). Investigating the crossroads of socioscientific issues, the nature of science, and critical thinking. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved from ERIC database (ED466401).
   Google Scholar
• Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112–138. doi: 10.1002/tea.20042
   Web of Science ®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
• Sandoval, W. A., & Milwood, K. A. (2008). What can argumentation tell us about epistemology?. In S. Erduran, & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 71–88). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz, R. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2002). ‘It's the nature of the beast’: The influence of knowledge and intentions on learning and teaching nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 205–236. doi: 10.1002/tea.10021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Smith, M. (1999). Modeling success during earth science week. Science Scope, 23, 36–37.
   Google Scholar
• Schworm, S., & Renkle, A. (2007). Learning argumentation skills through the use of prompts for self-explaining examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 285–296. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.285
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SEPUP (2000). Issues, evidence and you. Ronkonkoma: Lab Aids.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2), 235–260. doi: 10.1080/09500690500336957
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonneaux, L. (2008). Argumentation in socio-scientific contexts. In S. Erduran, & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Ed.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 179–199). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Solomon, J. (1992). The classroom discussion of science-based social issues presented on television: Knowledge, attitudes and values. International Journal of Science Education, 14(4), 431–444. doi: 10.1080/0950069920140406
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solomon, J., Duveen, J., Scott, L., & McCarthy, S. (1992). Teaching about the nature of science through history: Action research in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 409–421. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660290408
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spector, B., Strong, P., & La Porta, T. (1998). Teaching the nature of science as an element of science, technology and society. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science and science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 267–276). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education: Engaging students in science for Australia's future. Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) Press.
   Google Scholar
• Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952–977.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voss, J. F., & Means, M. (1991). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning and Instruction, 1, 337–350. doi: 10.1016/0959-4752(91)90013-X
   Google Scholar
• Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2003, March). Students’ understanding of the nature of science and their reasoning on socioscientific issues: A web-based learning inquiry. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Philadelphia, PA. Retrieved from ERIC database (ED474454).
   Google Scholar
• Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A. S., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2001). Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 529–552. doi: 10.1002/tea.1017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track science students’ argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 807–838. doi: 10.1002/1098-2736(200010)37:8<807::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeidler, D. L. (Ed.). (2003). The role of moral reasoning and discourse on socioscientific issues in science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86, 343–367. doi: 10.1002/sce.10025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zohar, A. (1996). Transfer and retention of reasoning skills taught in biological contexts. Research in Science and Technological Education, 14, 205–209. doi: 10.1080/0263514960140207
   Google Scholar
• Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62. doi: 10.1002/tea.10008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar