Comparing the Effectiveness of Verification and Inquiry Laboratories in Supporting Undergraduate Science Students in Constructing Arguments Around Socioscientific Issues

References

• AAAS. (1989). Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Albe, V. (2008). Students’ positions and considerations of scientific evidence about a controversial socioscientific issue. Science and Education, 17, 805–827. doi: 10.1007/s11191-007-9086-6
   Google Scholar
• Barrue, C., & Albe, V. (2013). Citizenship education and socioscientific issues: Implicit concept of citizenship in the curriculum, views of French middle school teachers. Science and Education, 22, 1089–1114. doi: 10.1007/s11191-012-9571-4
   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. doi: 10.1080/095006900412284
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne, J., Ideland, M., Malmberg, C., & Grace, M. (2014). Climate change and everyday life: Repertoires children use to negotiate a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education. doi:10.1080/09500693.2014.891159
   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. doi: 10.3102/0034654310376953
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper, M., & Kerns, T. (2006). Changing the laboratory: Effects of a laboratory course on students’ attitudes and perceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(9), 1356–1361. doi: 10.1021/ed083p1356
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cree, V. E., & Macaulay, C. (2000). Transfer of learning in professional and vocational education. London: Routledge/Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• CSPI. (2010). Why tax soft drinks? Retrieved March 2010, from http://www.cspinet.org/liquidcandy/whytax.html
   Google Scholar
• DeHaan, R. L. (2005). The impending revolution in undergraduate science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(2), 253–269. doi: 10.1007/s10956-005-4425-3
   Google Scholar
• Dillon, J. (2012). Science, environment and health education: Towards a reconceptualisation of their mutual interdependences. In A. Zeyer & R. Kyburz-Graber (Eds.), Science-environment-health. Towards a renewed pedagogy for science education (pp. 87–102). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Donovan, M. S., Bransford, J. D., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school: Expanded edition. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 83(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
• Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268–291. doi: 10.3102/0091732X07309371
   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
• Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring young students’ collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 209–237. doi: 10.1002/tea.21076
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(3), 221–233. doi: 10.1037/h0057532
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gough, A. (2002). Mutualism: A different agenda for environmental and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1201–1215. doi: 10.1080/09500690210136611
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2008). Using SPSS for windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Haigh, M. (2005). Greening the university curriculum: Appraising an international movement. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 29(1), 21–48. doi: 10.1080/03098260500030355
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halyard, R. (1993). Introductory science courses: The SCST position statement. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23, 29–31.
   Google Scholar
• Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 952–984. doi: 10.1002/tea.20439
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Kolsto, S. D. (2001). ‘To trust or not to trust, … ’—Pupils’ ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 877–901. doi: 10.1080/09500690010016102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolsto, S. D., Bungum, B., Arnesen, E., Isnes, A., Krisensen, T., Mathiassen, K., … Ulvik, M. (2006). Science students’ critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education, 90, 632–655. doi: 10.1002/sce.20133
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). A one-way components of variance model for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 671–679. doi: 10.2307/2529465
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, Y. C., & Grace, M. (2012). Students’ reasoning and decision making about a socioscientific issue: A cross-context comparison. Science Education, 96, 787–807. doi: 10.1002/sce.21021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Means, M., & Voss, J. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14(2), 139–178. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci1402_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen, J. A. (2012). Science in discussions: An analysis of the use of science content in socioscientific discussions. Science Education, 96, 428–456. doi: 10.1002/sce.21001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NRC. (1996a). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• NRC. (1996b). From analysis to action: Undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering and technology, report of a convocation. Washington, DC: National Research Council, Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education.
   Google Scholar
• NRC. (1999). Transforming undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• NSF. (1998). Shaping the future volume II: Perspectives on undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Arlington, VA: The National Science Foundation, Division of Undergraduate Education.
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020. doi: 10.1002/tea.20035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1992). Transfer of learning. Contribution to the international encyclopedia of education. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, D. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Rockefeller, J. (2010). Press release—Rockefeller introduces legislation to suspend EPA action and protect clean coal state economies. Retrieved March 4, 2010, from http://rockefeller.senate.gov/press
   Google Scholar
• Ryder, J. (2001). Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education, 36, 1–44. doi: 10.1080/03057260108560166
   Google Scholar
• Sadler, T. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536. doi: 10.1002/tea.20009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler, T. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 1–42. doi: 10.1080/03057260802681839
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler, T., Barab, S., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37, 371–391. doi: 10.1007/s11165-006-9030-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler, T., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387–409. doi: 10.1080/0950069032000119456
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler, T., & Donnelly, L. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463–1488. doi: 10.1080/09500690600708717
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler, T., & Fowler, S. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986–1004. doi: 10.1002/sce.20165
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler, T., & Zeidler, D. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88, 4–27. doi: 10.1002/sce.10101
   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.
   Google Scholar
• Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. (2009). Argument-Driven Inquiry to promote learning and interdisciplinary work in science classrooms. The Science Teacher, 76(8), 42–47.
   Google Scholar
• Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. (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.
   Google Scholar
• Sandoval, W., & Reiser, B. (2004). Explanation driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345–372. doi: 10.1002/sce.10130
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonneaux, L. (2007). Argumentation in socio-scientific contexts. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 179–199). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Simonneaux, L., & Simonneaux, J. (2009). Socio-scientific reasoning influenced by identities. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4, 705–711. doi: 10.1007/s11422-008-9145-6
   Google Scholar
• Venville, G., & Dawson, V. (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
• Walker, J., Sampson, V., Grooms, J., Zimmerman, C., & Anderson, B. (2012). Argument-Driven Inquiry in undergraduate chemistry labs: The impact on students' conceptual understanding, argument skills, and attitudes toward science. Journal of College Science Teaching, 41(4), 82–89.
   Google Scholar
• Wyckoff, S. (2001). Changing the culture of undergraduate science teaching: Shifting from lecture to interactive engagement and scientific reasoning. Journal of College Science Teaching, 30(5), 306–312.
   Google Scholar
• Yerrick, R. (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., & Sadler, T. (2007). The role of moral reasoning in argumentation: Conscience, character, and care. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 201–216). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Zeidler, D., Walker, K., Ackett, W., & Simmons, M. (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., & 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