Science Teaching and Argumentation: One-sided versus dialectical argumentation in Chilean middle-school science lessons

References

• Alexander, R. J. (2001). Culture and pedagogy: International comparisons in primary education. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Alexander, R. J. (2004). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. Cambridge: Dialogos.
   Google Scholar
• Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 626–639. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.626
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2009). The role of argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: Indications from protocol analyses of peer-to-peer dialogue. Cognitive Science, 33, 373–399. doi: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01017.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogical imagination (C. Emerson and M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
   Google Scholar
• Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
   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. 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
• van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, F. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Erduran, S. (2008). Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms. In M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre & S. Erduran (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 47–70). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Galton, M., Hargreaves, L., Comber, C., Pell, T., & Wall, D. (1999). Inside the primary classroom: 20 years on. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Galton, M., Simon, B., & Croll, P. (1980). Inside the primary classroom. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
   Google Scholar
• Galton, M., & Williamson, J. (1992). Group work in the primary classroom. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Givvin, K. B., Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J., … Stigler, J. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
   Google Scholar
• Howe, C. (2010). Peer dialogue and cognitive development. A two-way relationship? K. Littleton, & C. Howe (Eds.), Educational dialogues: Understanding and promoting productive interaction (pp. 32–47). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Howe, C., Rodgers, C., & Tolmie, A. (1990). Physics in the primary school: Peer interaction and the understanding of floating and sinking. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 4, 459–475. doi: 10.1007/BF03173132
   Google Scholar
• Howe, C., & Tolmie, A. (2003). Group work in primary school science: Discussion, consensus and guidance from experts. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 51–72. doi: 10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00073-9
   Google Scholar
• Howe, C., Tolmie, A., & Rodgers, C. (1992). The acquisition of conceptual knowledge in science by primary school children: Group interaction and the understanding of motion down an inclined plane. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10, 113–130. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-835X.1992.tb00566.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howe, C., Tolmie, A., Thurston, A., Topping, K., Christie, D., Livingston, K., … Donaldson, C. (2007). Group work in elementary science: towards organisational principles for supporting pupil learning. Learning and Instruction, 17, 549–563.
   Google Scholar
• Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre & S. Erduran (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 47–70). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. (2000). ‘Doing the lesson’ or ‘doing science’: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792. doi: 10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonassen, D. H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Design justifications and guidelines. Educational Technology: Research & Development, 58, 439–457. doi: 10.1007/s11423-009-9143-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 849–871. doi: 10.1080/0950069980200707
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86, 314–342. doi: 10.1002/sce.10024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, H., & Song, J. (2006). The features of peer argumentation in middle school students’ scientific inquiry. Research in Science Education, 36, 211–233. doi: 10.1007/s11165-005-9005-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 155–178.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larrain, A., & Freire, P. (2011). Capitalizando a controvérsia: algumas reflexões para tornar visível e aproveitar a contra- argumentação dos alunos no ensino de ciências, En S. Leitão & M. C. Damianovic (orgs), Argumentação na escola: o conhecimento em construção [Taking advantage of controversy: Some insights to shed light on science teaching students' counter-argumentation] (pp. 47–79). Campinas, Sao Paulo: Pontes Editores.
   Google Scholar
• Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332–360. doi: 10.1159/000022695
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leitão, S. (2008). Arguing and learning. In C. Lightfoot & M. Lyra (Eds.), Challenges and strategies for studying human development in cultural contexts (pp. 251–252). Rome: Firera.
   Google Scholar
• Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Westport, CT: Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• Mercer, N., Dawes, R., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30, 367–385. doi: 10.1080/01411920410001689689
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministerio de Educación. (2003). Marco para la buena enseñanza [Framework for good quality teaching]. Santiago: CPEIP.
   Google Scholar
• Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Muller Mirza, N., Perret-Clermont, A. N., Tartas, V., & Iannaccone, A. (2009). Psychosocial processes in argumentation. In N. Muller Mirza & A. N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education (pp. 67–90). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, E. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 384–395. doi: 10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00038-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., Kachur, R., & Prendergast, C. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nystrand, M., Wu, L. L., Gamoran, A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D. A. (2003). Questions in time: Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse Processes, 35, 135–198. doi: 10.1207/S15326950DP3502_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, J. F., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994–1020. doi: 10.1002/tea.20035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
   Google Scholar
• Preiss, D. (2009). The Chilean instructional pattern for the teaching of language: A video-survey study based on a national program for the assessment of teaching. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2008.08.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Preiss, D., Larrain, A., & Valenzuela, S. (2011). Discurso y pensamiento en el aula matemática chilena [Discourse and thought in the Chilean mathematics classroom]. Psykhe, 20, 131–146. doi: 10.4067/S0718-22282011000200011
   Google Scholar
• Radovic, D., & Preiss, D. (2010). Patrones de Discurso Observados en el Aula de Matemática de Segundo Ciclo Básico en Chile [Discourse patterns observed in middle- school level mathematics classes in Chile]. Psykhe, 19, 65–79. doi: 10.4067/S0718-22282010000200007
   Google Scholar
• Roth, K., Druker, S., Garnier, H., Lemmens, M., Chen, C., Kawanaka, T., … Gallimore, R. (2006). Teaching science in five countries. Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
   Google Scholar
• Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 23–55. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarz, B. (2009). Argumentation and learning. In N. Muller Mirza & A. N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education (pp. 91–126). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Schwarz, B. B., & Asterhan, C. S. C. (2010). Argumentation and reasoning. In K. Littleton C. Wood & J. Kleine Staarman (Eds.), Elsevier handbook of educational psychology: New perspectives on learning and teaching (pp. 137–176). Dordrecht: Elsevier Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University 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, 952–977.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1934/1999). Thinking and speech (N. Minick, Trans.). In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (vol. 1, pp. 39–285). London: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
   Google Scholar
• Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 689–725. doi: 10.1080/09500690305018
   Web of Science ®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, 35–62. doi: 10.1002/tea.10008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar