Analysis of preservice teachers’ lesson plans to determine the extent of transfer of argumentation

References

• Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Boykin, A. W., & Noguera, P. (2011). Creating the opportunity to learn. Moving from research to practice to close the achievement gap. ASCD.
   Google Scholar
• Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (exp. ed.). The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chi, M. T. H., & Ohlsson, S. (2005). Complex declarative learning. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrision (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of reasoning and thinking (pp. 371–399). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. C. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Demirbag, M., & Gunel, M. (2014). Integrating argument-based science inquiry with modal representations: Impact on science achievement, argumentation, and writing skills. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(1), 386–391. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2014.1.1632
   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(6), 915–933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fishman, E. J., Borko, H., Osborne, J., Gomez, F., Rafanelli, S., Reigh, E., Tseng, A., Million, S., & Berson, E. (2017). A practice-based professional development program to support scientific argumentation from evidence in the elementary classroom. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 28(3), 222–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2017.1302727
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderson, J. B., McNeill, K. L., González-Howard, M., Close, K., & Evans, M. (2018). Key challenges and future directions for educational research on scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21412
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderson, B., Osborne, J., MacPherson, A., & Wild, A. (2015). Beyond construction: Five arguments for the role of critique in teaching science. International Journal of Science Education, 37(10), 1668–1697. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1043598
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hewson, M. G., & Ogunniyi, M. B. (2011). Argumentation-teaching as a method to introduce indigenous knowledge into science classrooms: Opportunities and challenges. Culture Studies of Science Education, 6(3), 679–692. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-010-9303-5
   Google Scholar
• Iordanou, K. (2010). Developing argument skills across scientific and social domains. Journal of Cognition and Development, 11(3), 293–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2010.485335
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jin, H., Mehl, C. E., & Lan, D. H. (2015). Developing an analytical framework for argumentation on energy consumption issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(8), 1132–1162. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21237
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810–824. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20395
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245–1260. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00605
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, H. S., Liu, O. L., Pallant, A., Crotts Roohr, K., Pryputniewicz, S., & Buck, Z. E. (2014). Assessment of uncertainty-infused scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(5), 581–605. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21147
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, H. S., Pallant, A., Pryputniewicz, S., Lord, T., Mulholland, M., & Liu, O. L. (2018). Automated text scoring and real-time adjustable feedback: Supporting revision of scientific arguments involving uncertainty. Science Education, 103(3), 590–622. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21504
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin, T. J., Horng, R. Y., & Anderson, R. C. (2014). Effects of argument scaffolding and source credibility on science text comprehension. The Journal of Experimental Education, 82(2), 264–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2013.769423
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marshall, S. P. (1995). Schemas in problem solving. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McDonald, C. V. (2014). Preservice primary teachers’ written arguments in a socioscientific argumentation task. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 18(7), 1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. National Academies Press. http://www.nextgenscience.org
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen, J. A. (2013). Dialectical features of students’ argumentation: A critical review of argumentation studies in science education. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 371–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9266-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Offredy, M., & Meerabeau, E. (2005). The use of ‘think-aloud’ technique, information processing theory and schema theory to explain decision-making processes of general practitioners and nurse practitioners using patient scenarios. Primary Health Care Research and Development, 6(1), 46–59. https://doi.org/10.1191/1463423605pc228oa
   Google Scholar
• Ogunniyi, M. B., & Hewson, M. G. (2008). Effects of an argumentation-based course on teachers’ disposition towards a science-indigenous knowledge curriculum. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 3(4), 159–177.
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Ideas, evidence and argument in science (IDEAS) project. University of London Press.
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, J. F., Henderson, J. B., MacPherson, A., Szu, E., Wild, A., & Yao, S. Y. (2016). The development and validation of a learning progression for argumentation in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(6), 821–846. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21316
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quinlan, C. L. (2012). A schema theory analysis of students’ think aloud protocols in an STS biology context [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 3508330).
   Google Scholar
• Quinlan, C. L. (2019). Use of schema theory and multimedia technology to explore preservice students’ cognitive resources during an earth science activity. Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 19(3), 413–438.
   Google Scholar
• Sagir, S. U., & Kiliç, Z. (2012). Analysis of the contribution of argumentation-based science teaching on students’ success and retention. Eurasian Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education, 4(2), 139–156.
   Google Scholar
• Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage Publications.
   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(2-3), 235–260. doi:10.1080/09500690500336957
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon, S., & Maloney, J. (2006). Learning to teach ‘ideas and evidence’ in science: A study of school mentors and trainee teachers. School Science Review, 87(321), 75–82.
   Google Scholar
• Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Tippett, C. (2009, Winter). Argumentation: The language of science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(1), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03174713
   Google Scholar
• Walker, J. P., & Sampson, V. (2013). Argument-driven inquiry: Using the laboratory to improve undergraduates’ science writing skills through meaningful science writing, peer-review, and revision. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(10), 1269–1274. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed300656p
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walls, L. (2012). Third grade African American students’ views of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20450
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walls, L. (2016). Awakening a dialogue: A critical race theory analysis of U.S. Nature of science research from 1967 to 2013. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(10), 1546–1570. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21266
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A. S., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2001). Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 529–552. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xie, Q., & So, W. W. M. (2012). Understanding and practice of argumentation: A pilot study with Mainland Chinese pre-service teachers in secondary science classrooms. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 13(2), Article 9, 1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Applied social research methods series (Vol. 5; 3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
   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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar