The pedagogy of argumentation in science education: science teachers’ instructional practices

References

• Ahuvia, A. (2001). Traditional, interpretive, and reception based content analyses: Improving the ability of content analysis to address issues of pragmatic and theoretical concern. Social Indicators Research, 54(2), 139–172. doi: 10.1023/A:1011087813505
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Babbie, E. R. (2007). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
   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
• Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (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, 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, 26–55. doi: 10.1002/sce.20286
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bybee, R. W. (2011). Scientific and engineering practices in K-12 classrooms: Understanding ‘A framework for K-12 science education’. Science and Children, 49(4), 10–16.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253–277. doi: 10.1080/09500690600560944
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Commission, E., & Eurydice, E. A. C. E. A. (2012). Developing key competences at school in Europe: Challenges and opportunities for Policy – 2011/12 (pp. 1–72).
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14. doi: 10.3102/0013189X034003003
   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, 133–148. doi: 10.1007/s11165-008-9104-y
   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
• Duschl, R. A. (2008). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 159–175). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Duschl, R. A., Ellenbogen, K., & Erduran, S. (1999). Promoting argumentation in middle school science classrooms: A project SEPIA evaluation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (pp. 1–18), Boston, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39–72. doi: 10.1080/03057260208560187
   Google Scholar
• Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2012). Argumentation in science education research: Perspectives from Europe. In D. Jorde & J. Dillon (Eds.), Science education research and practice in Europe: Retrospective and prospective (pp. 253–289). Rotterdam: Sense.
   Google Scholar
• Erduran, S., Ozdem, Y., & Park, J. Y. (2015). Research trends on argumentation in science education: A journal content analysis from 1998–2014. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(1), 379–312. doi: 10.1186/s40594-015-0020-1
   Google Scholar
• Evagorou, M., & Dillon, J. (2011). Argumentation in the teaching of science. In D. Corrigan, J. Dillon, & R. Gunstone (Eds.), The professional knowledge base of science teaching (pp. 189–204). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Garcia-Mila, M., & Andersen, C. (2008). Cognitive foundations of learning argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 29–46). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Jeanpierre, B., Oberhauser, K., & Freeman, C. (2005). Characteristics of professional development that effect change in secondary science teachers’ classroom practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 668–690. doi: 10.1002/tea.20069
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Pereiro-Munoz, C. (2005). Argument construction and change while working on a real environment problem. In K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, & O. De Jong (Eds.), Research and the quality of science education (pp. 419–431). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Designing argumentation learning environments. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 91–115). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht: Springer.
   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
• Knight-Bardsley, A., & McNeill, K. L. (2016). Teachers’ pedagogical design capacity for scientific argumentation. Science Education, Early View. doi: 10.1002/sce.21222
   Google Scholar
• Kolsto, S. D., & Ratcliffe, M. (2008). Social aspects of argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 116–136). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319–337. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730770306
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, L., & Reiser, B. J. (2006). Structuring activities to foster argumentative discourse. American Educational Research Association. San Francisco, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245–1260. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00605
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, M. H., Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2009). Research trends in science education from 2003 to 2007: A content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 31(15), 1999–2020. doi: 10.1080/09500690802314876
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, A. M, & Hand, B. (2009). Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the elementary science classroom. A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 39(1), 17–38. doi: 10.1007/s11165-007-9072-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeill, K. L. (2009). Teachers’ use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93, 233–268. doi: 10.1002/sce.20294
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeill, K. L., González-Howard, M., Katsh-Singer, R., & Loper, S. (2016). Pedagogical content knowledge of argumentation: Using classroom contexts to assess high-quality PCK rather than pseudoargumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(2), 261–290. doi: 10.1002/tea.21252
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeill, K. L., & Knight, A. M. (2013). Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of scientific argumentation: The impact of professional development on K-12 teachers. Science Education, 97, 936–972. doi: 10.1002/sce.21081
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53–78. doi: 10.1002/tea.20201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacherin engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94, 203–229.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merriam, S. B. (2002). Introduction to qualitative research. In S. B. Merriam (Ed.), Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis (pp. 1–33). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of National Education in Turkey (MNE). (2013). İlköğretim kurumları (ilkokullar ve ortaaokullar) fen bilimleri dersi (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) öğretim programı [Elementary (primary and middle school) Science Curriculum (3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th grades)]. Ankara: Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
   Google Scholar
• Mork, S. M. (2005). Argumentation in science lessons: Focusing on the teacher’s role. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 1(1), 17–30.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council (NRC) (2012). A framework for k-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   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
• Osborne, J. (2005). The role of argument in science education. In K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, & O. De Jong (Eds.), Research and the quality of science education (pp. 367–380). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 177–196. doi: 10.1007/s10972-014-9384-1
   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
• Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students’ argumentation in decisionmaking on a socio-scientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 745–754. doi: 10.1080/095006999290408
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler, T. D. (2006). Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(4), 323–346. doi: 10.1007/s10972-006-9025-4
   Google Scholar
• Sampson, V., & Blanchard, M. R. (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1122–1148. doi: 10.1002/tea.21037
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92, 447–472. doi: 10.1002/sce.20276
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. (2009). Argument-driven inquiry: A way to promote learning during laboratory activities. The Science Teacher, 76(8), 42–47.
   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
• Science Teacher Education Advanced Methods (S-TEAM). (2010). Report on argumentation and teacher education in Europe. Trondheim: S-TEAM/NTNU.
   Google Scholar
• Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. doi: 10.3102/0013189X015002004
   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
• Simon, S., & Johnson, S. (2008). Professional learning portfolios for argumentation in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(5), 669–688. doi: 10.1080/09500690701854873
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonneaux, L. (2008). Argumentation in socio-scientific contexts. In S. Erduran & M.P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 179–199). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, S, Richardson, K, Howell-Richardson, C, Christodolou, A, & Osborne, J. (2009). Professional development in the use of discussion and argument in secondary school science departments. In M. F. Tasar & G. akmakci (Eds.), Contemporary science education research: Pre-service and in-service teacher education (pp. 245–252). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
   Google Scholar
• Tümay, H. (2008). Argumentation focused chemistry teaching (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Gazi University, Ankara.
   Google Scholar
• Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, J. P., & Sampson, V. (2013). Learning to argue and arguing to learn: Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help undergraduate chemistry students learn how to construct arguments and engage in argumentation during a laboratory course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(5), 561–596. doi: 10.1002/tea.21082
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zohar, A. (2006). The nature and development of teachers’ metastrategic knowledge in the context of teaching higher order thinking. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 331–377. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1503_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zohar, A. (2008). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 245–268). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Zohar, A. (2012). Explicit teaching of metastrategic knowledge: Definitions, students' learning, and teachers' professional development. In A. Zohar & Y. J. Dori (Eds.), Metacognition in science education (pp. 197–223). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar