I Am Sure There May Be a Planet There: Student articulation of uncertainty in argumentation tasks

References

• Allchin, D. (2012). Teaching the nature of science through scientific errors. Science Education, 96, 904–926. doi: 10.1002/sce.21019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ash, D. (2004). Reflective scientific sense-making dialogue in two languages: The science in the dialogue and the dialogue in the science. Science Education, 88(6), 855–884. doi: 10.1002/sce.20002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carey, S., & Smith, C. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 28(3), 235–251. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep2803_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chinn, C. A., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2002). Authentic inquiry: Introduction to the special section. Science Education, 86, 171–174. doi: 10.1002/sce.10000
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175–218. doi: 10.1002/sce.10001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, D., Sampson, V., Weinberger, A., & Erkens, G. (2007). Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 343–374. doi: 10.1007/s10648-007-9050-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124–130. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 582–601. doi: 10.1002/1098-2736(200008)37:6<582::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-L
   Web of Science ®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
• 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, 915–933. doi: 10.1002/sce.20012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fairbrother, R., & Hackling, M. (1997). Is this the right answer? International Journal of Science Education, 19(8), 887–894. doi: 10.1080/0950069970190802
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88–140. doi: 10.3102/00346543067001088
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hogan, K. (2000). Exploring a process view of students’ knowledge about the nature of science. Science Education, 84, 51–70. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200001)84:1<51::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-H
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelly, G. J., & Bazerman, C. (2003). How students argue scientific claims: A rhetorical-semantic analysis. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 28–55. doi: 10.1093/applin/24.1.28
   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
• Kuhn, D. (2001). How do people know? Psychological Science, 12, 1–8. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00302
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentive reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287–315. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci1503_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation (Learning in doing: Social, cognitive and computational perspectives). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, H.-S., & Songer, N. B. (2003). Making authentic science accessible to students. International Journal of Science Education, 25(8), 923–948. doi: 10.1080/09500690305023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lemke, J. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 296–316. doi: 10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3<296::AID-TEA1007>3.0.CO;2-R
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Language and educational processes. Westport, CT: Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (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.
   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. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci2202_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards.Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994–1020. doi: 10.1002/tea.20035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pallant, A., Damelin, D., & Pryputniewicz, S. (2013). Deep space detectives. The Science Teacher, 80(2), 45–50.
   Google Scholar
• Pallant, A., Lee, H.-S., & Pryputniewicz, S. (2012). Systems thinking and modeling climate change. The Science Teacher, 79(7), 38–42.
   Google Scholar
• Pallant, A., Pryputniewicz, S., & Lee, H.-S. (2012). Exploring the unknown: Fostering critical thinking in earth and space science. The Science Teacher, 79(3), 60–66.
   Google Scholar
• Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (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
• Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634–656.
   Google Scholar
• Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition & Instruction, 23(1), 23–55. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2
   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, 345–372. doi: 10.1002/sce.10130
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz, B. B., Neuman, Y., Julia, G., & Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 219–256. doi: 10.1207/S15327809JLS1202_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 610–645. doi: 10.1002/sce.10128
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, C. L., & Wenk, L. (2006). Relations among three aspects of first-year college students’ epistemologies of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 747–785. doi: 10.1002/tea.20113
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Southerland, S. A., Golden, B., & Enderle, P. (2012). The bounded nature of science: An effective tool in an equitable approach to the teaching of science. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research (pp. 75–96). Netherlands: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (14th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Warren, B., Pothier, S., & Ogonowski, M. (2005). Everyday and ‘scientific': Rethinking dichotomies in modes of thinking in science learning. In R. Nemirovsky, A. Rosebery, J. Solomon, & B. Warren (Eds.), Everyday matters in science and mathematics: Studies of complex classroom events (pp. 119–148). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar