The relation between students’ communicative moves during laboratory work in physics and outcomes of their actions

References

• Abrahams, I. (2009). Does practical work really motivate? A study of the affective value of practical work in secondary school science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(17), 2335–2353. doi: 10.1080/09500690802342836
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1945–1969. doi: 10.1080/09500690701749305
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abrahams, I., & Reiss, M. J. (2012). Practical work: Its effectiveness in primary and secondary schools in England. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(8), 1035–1055. doi: 10.1002/tea.21036
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnes, D., & Todd, F. (1977). Communication and learning in small groups. Oxford: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
   Google Scholar
• Barnes, D., & Todd, F. (1995). Communication and learning revisited: Making meaning through talk. Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, J., Hogarth, S., Lubben, F., Campbell, B., & Robinson, A. (2010). Talking science: The research evidence on the use of small group discussions in science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 32(1), 69–95. doi: 10.1080/09500690802713507
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
   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
• Firestone, W. A. (1993). Alternative arguments for generalizing from data as applied to qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 22(4), 16–23. doi: 10.3102/0013189X022004016
   Google Scholar
• Hart, C., Mulhall, P., Berry, A., Loughran, J., & Gunstone, R. (2000). What is the purpose of this experiment? Or can students learn something from doing experiments? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 655–675. doi: 10.1002/1098-2736(200009)37:7<655::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-E
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54. doi: 10.1002/sce.10106
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kind, P. M., Kind, V., Hofstein, A., & Wilson, J. (2011). Peer argumentation in the school science laboratory – exploring effects of task features. International Journal of Science Education, 33(18), 2527–2558. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2010.550952
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lazarowitz, R., & Tamir, P. (1994). Research on using laboratory instruction in science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 94–130). New York, NY: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values ( p. 269). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• Lemke, J. L. (2000). Across the scales of time: Artifacts, activities, and meanings in ecosocial systems. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7(4), 273–290. doi: 10.1207/S15327884MCA0704_03
   Google Scholar
• Llewellyn, D. (2013). Teaching high school science through inquire and argumentation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
   Google Scholar
• Lunetta, V. (1998). The school science laboratory: Historical perspectives and contexts for contemporary teaching. In I. B. Fraiser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 249–262). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A., & Clough, M. P. (2007). Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory, and practice. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 393–441). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Maloney, J., & Simon, S. (2006). Mapping children’s discussions of evidence in science to assess collaboration and argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1817–1841. doi: 10.1080/09500690600855419
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayring, P. (2001). Kombination und Integration qualitativer und quantitativer Analyse. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 2(1), Art. 20, http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/967 [20-Aug-2015].
   Google Scholar
• Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. London: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: Analysing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 137–168. doi: 10.1558/japl.2004.1.2.137
   Google Scholar
• Mercer, N. (2015). Why oracy must be in the curriculum (and group work in the classroom). FORUM, 57(1), 67–74. doi: 10.15730/forum.2015.57.1.67
   Google Scholar
• Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (2014). The study of talk between teachers and students, from the 1970s until the 2010s. Oxford Review of Education, 40(4), 430–445. doi: 10.1080/03054985.2014.934087
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercer, N., Dawes, L., & Staarman, J. K. (2009). Dialogic teaching in the primary science classroom. Language and Education, 23(4), 353–369. doi: 10.1080/09500780902954273
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach (pp. 54–91). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Buckingham: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Öhman, J., & Öhman, M. (2013). Participatory approach in practice: An analysis of student discussions about climate change. Environmental Education Research, 19(3), 324–341. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2012.695012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079. doi: 10.1080/0950069032000032199
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renner, J. W., Abraham, M. R., & Birnie, H. H. (1985). Secondary school students’ beliefs about the physics laboratory. Science Education, 69(5), 649–663. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730690507
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, P., Mortimer, E., & Ametller, J. (2011). Pedagogical link-making: A fundamental aspect of teaching and learning scientific conceptual knowledge. Studies in Science Education, 47(1), 3–36. doi: 10.1080/03057267.2011.549619
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tiberghien, A., Veillard, L., Le Maréchal, J.-F., Buty, C., & Millar, R. (2001). An analysis of labwork tasks used in science teaching at upper secondary school and university levels in several European countries. Science Education, 85(5), 483–508. doi: 10.1002/sce.1020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   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