Organising a culture of argumentation in elementary science

References

• 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., & 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
• Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities’ adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191–216. doi: 10.1002/sce.20420
   Web of Science ®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
• CCSSO. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Retrieved from Washington, DC.
   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). Science education in 3 part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic and social goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268–291. doi: 10.3102/0091732X07309371
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elgin, C. Z. (2013). Epistemic agency. Theory and Research in Education, 11(2), 135–152. doi: 10.1177/1477878513485173
   Google Scholar
• Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483. doi: 10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enyedy, N. (2003). Knowledge construction and collective practice: At the intersection of learning, talk, and social configurations in a computer-mediated mathematics classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 361–407. doi: 10.1207/S15327809JLS1203_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erickson, F. (1992). Ethnographic microanalysis of interaction. In M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 201–225). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Erickson, F. (2006). Definition and analysis of data from videotape: Some research procedures and their rationales. In J. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 177–205). Washington, DC: AERA.
   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. 189–203). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• FOSS. (2005). FOSS Human body (2nd ed.). Nashua, NH: Delta Education. (Developed at the Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California at Berkeley).
   Google Scholar
• Garcia-Mila, M., Gilabert, S., Erduran, S., & Felton, M. (2013). The effect of argumentative task goal on the quality of argumentative discourse. Science Education, 97, 497–523. doi: 10.1002/sce.21057
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghousseini, H., Beasley, H., & Lord, S. (2015). Investigating the potential of guided practice with an enactment tool for supporting adaptive performance. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(3), 461–497. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2015.1057339
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gomez Zaccarelli, F., Schindler, A., Borko, H., & Osborne, J. (2018). Learning from professional development: A case study of the challenges of enacting productive science discourse in the classroom. Professional Development in Education, 44(5), 721–737. doi: 10.1080/19415257.2017.1423368
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls0401_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kazemi, E., & Stipek, D. (2001). Promoting conceptual thinking in four upper-elementary mathematics classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 102, 59–80. doi: 10.1086/499693
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larrain, A., Freire, P., & Howe, C. (2014). Science teaching and argumentation: One-sided versus dialectical argumentation in Chilean middle-school science lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 36(6), 1017–1036. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2013.832005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larrain, A., Howe, C., & Freire, P. (2018). ‘More is not necessarily better’: curriculum materials support the impact of classroom argumentative dialogue in science teaching on content knowledge. Research in Science & Technological Education, 36(3), 282–301. doi: 10.1080/02635143.2017.1408581
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (1986). Visualization and cognition: Drawing things together. In H. Kuklick (Ed.), Knowledge and society: Studies in the sociology of culture past and present (Vol. 6, pp. 1–40). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., & Lucas, D. (2008). Supporting development of the epistemology of inquiry. Cognitive Development, 23(4), 512–529. doi: 10.1016/j.cogdev.2008.09.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton U. Press.
   Google Scholar
• Manz, E. (2014). Representing student argumentation as functionally emergent from scientific activity. Review of Educational Research, doi: 10.3102/0034654314558490
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald, C. V., & McRobbie, C. J. (2010). Utilising argumentation to teach nature of science. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 969–986). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• McNeill, K. L., González-Howard, M., Katsh-Singer, R., & Loper, S. (2017). Moving beyond pseudoargumentation: Teachers’ enactments of an educative science curriculum focused on argumentation. Science Education, 101, 426–457. doi: 10.1002/sce.21274
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeill, K. L., & Knght, A. M. (2013). Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of scientific argumentation: The impact of professional development on k-12 teachers. Science Education, 97(6), 936–972. doi: 10.1002/sce.21081
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D., Krajcik, J. S., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by Fading Scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203–229.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercer, N. (2009). Developing argumentation: Lessons learned in the primary school. In N. M. Mirza & A.-N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 177–194). Boston: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 359–377. doi: 10.1080/01411920410001689689
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michaels, S., & O’Connor, C. (2012). Talk science primer. Retrieved from Cambridge, MA: http://inquiryproject.terc.edu/shared/pd/TalkScience_Primer.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27, 283–297. doi: 10.1007/s11217-007-9071-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naylor, S., Keogh, B., & Downing, B. (2007). Argumentation and primary science. Research in Science Education, 37, 17–39. doi: 10.1007/s11165-005-9002-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states (Vol. 1: The standards). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• O’Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1996). Shifting participant frameworks: Orchestrating thinking practices in group discussion. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning, and schooling (pp. 63–103). Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press.
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, J., Simon, S., Christodoulou, A., Howell-Richardson, C., & Richardson, K. (2013). Learning to argue: A study of four schools and their attempt to develop the use of argumentation as a common instructional practice and its impact on students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50, 315–347. doi: 10.1002/tea.21073
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penner, D. E., Giles, N. D., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (1997). Building functional models: Designing an elbow. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 125–143. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199702)34:2<125::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-V
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenberg, S., Hammer, D., & Phelan, J. (2006). Multiple epistemological coherences in an eighth-grade discussion of the rock cycle. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 261–292. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1502_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children's epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488–526. doi: 10.1002/sce.21006
   Web of Science ®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
• Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23–55. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zembal-Saul, C. (2009). Learning to teach elementary school science as argument. Science Education, 93(4), 687–719. doi: 10.1002/sce.20325
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar