References
- Anderson, D., & Nashon, S. M. (2007). Predators of knowledge construction: Interpreting students’ metacognition in an amusement park physics program. Science Education, 91(2), 298–320. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20176
- Anthony, R., & Kim, M. (2015). Challenges and remedies for identifying and classifying argumentation schemes. Argumentation: An International Journal on Reasoning, 29(1), 81–113. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9335-1
- Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20286
- Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities’ adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191–216. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20420
- Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press.
- Bulu, S. T., & Pedersen, S. (2010). Scaffolding middle school students’ content knowledge and ill-structured problem solving in a problem-based hypermedia learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(5), 507–529. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9150-9
- 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. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310376953
- Chen, L., & Xiao, S. (2021). Perception, challenges and coping strategies of science teachers in teaching socioscientific issues: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 32. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100377
- Clark, D., & Sampson, V. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253–277. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600560944
- Clark, D., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 293–321. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20216
- Clark, D., Sampson, V., Weinberger, A., & Erkens, G. (2007). Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 343–374. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9050-7
- Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. R. B. (2007). Research methods in education. Routledge.
- Conner, L. (2007). Cueing metacognition to improve researching and essay writing in a final year high school biology class. Research in Science Education, 37(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-004-3952-x
- Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124–130. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
- Davidowitz, B., & Rollnick, M. (2003). Enabling metacognition in the laboratory: A case study of four second year university chemistry students. Research in Science Education, 33(1), 43–69. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023673122220
- Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
- Duschl, R. A. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268–291. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07309371
- Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K–8. National Academic Press.
- 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/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012
- Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–236). Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
- Garcia-Mila, M., & Anderson, C. (2007). 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). Springer.
- Georghiades, P. (2006). The role of metacognitive activities in the contextual use of primary pupils’ conceptions of science. Research in Science Education, 36(1/2), 29–49. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-004-3954-8
- Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Sage.
- Hodson, D. (2013). Don’t be nervous, don’t be flustered, don’t be scared. Be prepared. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 13(4), 313–331. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2013.845327
- Iordanou, K., & Constantinou, C. P. (2014). Developing pre-service teachers’ evidence-based argumentation skills on socio-scientific issues. Learning and Instruction, 34, 42–57. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.07.004
- Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). 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). Springer.
- Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0401_2
- Kim, M. (2016). Children’s reasoning as collective social action through problem solving in grade 2/3 science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 38(1), 51–72. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1125559
- Kim, M., & Roth, W.-M. (2014). Argumentation as/in/for dialogical relation: A case study from elementary school science. Pedagogies, 9(4), 300–321. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2014.955498
- Kipnis, M., & Hofstein, A. (2008). The inquiry laboratory as a source for development of metacognitive skills. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(3), 601–627. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9066-y
- Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge University Press.
- Kuhn, D. (2001). How do people know? Psychological Science, 12(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00302
- Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Harvard University Press.
- Kuhn, D., Zillmer, N., Crowell, A., & Zavala, J. (2013). Developing norms of argumentation: Metacognitive, epistemological, and social dimensions of developing argumentive competence. Cognition and Instruction, 31(4), 456–496. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2013.830618
- Lee, H., Yoo, J., Choi, K., Kim, S.-W., Krajcik, J., Herman, B. C., & Zeidler, D. (2013). Socioscientific issues as a vehicle for promoting character and values for global citizens. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 2079–2113. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.749546
- Martin, A., & 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. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9072-7
- McNeill, K. L. (2009). Teachers’ use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93(2), 233–268. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20294
- McNeill, K. L. (2011). Elementary students’ views of explanation, argumentation, and evidence, and their abilities to construct arguments over the school year. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(7), 793–823. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20430
- 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. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21252
- McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2007). Middle school students’ use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In M. Lovett, & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data: Proceedings of the 33rd Carnegie Symposium on Cognition (pp. 233–265). Taylor & Francis.
- 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. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20201
- McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1
- Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2), 57–111. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000968
- Merriam, S. B. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.
- Naylor, S., Keogh, B., & Downing, B. (2007). Argumentation and primary science. Research in Science Education, 37(1), 17–39. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-005-9002-5
- Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1994). Why investigate metacognition? In J. Metcalfe, & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 1–26). The MIT Press.
- Nielsen, J. A. (2012). Science in discussions: An analysis of the use of science content in socioscientific discussions: Science in discussions. Science Education, 96(3), 428–456. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21001
- Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(10), 994–1020. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
- Peters, E., & Kitsantas, A. (2010). The effect of nature of science metacognitive prompts on science students’ content and nature of science knowledge, metacognition, and self-regulatory efficacy. School Science and Mathematics, 110(8), 382–396. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2010.00050.x
- Rapanta, C., Garcia-Mila, M., & Gilabert, S. (2013). What is meant by argumentative competence? An integrative review of methods of analysis and assessment in education. Review of Educational Research, 83(4), 483–520. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313487606
- Roll, I., Holmes, N. G., Day, J., & Bonn, D. (2012). Evaluating metacognitive scaffolding in guided invention activities. Instructional Science, 40(4), 691–710. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9208-7
- Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children’s epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488–526. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21006
- Sadler, T. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20009
- Sadler, T. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 1–42. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260802681839
- Sampson, V., & Blanchard, M. (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1122–1148. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21037
- Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future direction. Science Education, 92(3), 447–472. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20276
- Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93(3), 448–484. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20306
- Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. (2011). Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education, 95(2), 217–257. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20421
- Sandoval, W., & Millwood, K. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 25(1), 23–55. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2
- Sengul, O., Enderle, P., & Schwartz, R. (2020). Science teachers’ use of argumentation instructional model: Linking PCK of argumentation, epistemological beliefs, and practice. International Journal of Science Education, 42(7), 1068–1086. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1748250
- Thomas, G. P. (2012). Metacognition in science education: Past, present, and future considerations. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 131–144). Springer.
- Thomas, G. P., & McRobbie, C. J. (2001). Using a metaphor for learning to improve students’ metacognition in the chemistry classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 222–259. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200102)38:2<222::AID-TEA1004>3.0.CO;2-S
- Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
- Veenman, M. V. J. (2005). The assessment of metacognitive skills: What can be learned from multi-method designs? In C. Artelt, & B. Moschner (Eds.), Lernstrategien und metakognition: Implikationen für forschung und praxis (pp. 75–97). Waxmann.
- Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
- Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1387–1410. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601068095
- Wang, J. (2020). Scrutinising the positions of students and teacher engaged in argumentation in a high school physics classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 42(1), 25–49. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1700315
- Yilmaz, YÖ, Cakiroglu, J., Ertepinar, H., & Erduran, S. (2017). The pedagogy of argumentation in science education: Science teachers’ instructional practices. International Journal of Science Education, 39(11), 1443–1464. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1336807
- Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49–58. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173684
- Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2007). The role of moral reasoning in argumentation: Conscience, character, and care. In S. Erduran, & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 201–216). Springer.
- Zohar, A. (2007). 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). Springer.
- Zohar, A., & Barzilai, S. (2013). A review of research on metacognition in science education: Current and future directions. Studies in Science Education, 49(2), 121–169. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2013.847261