References
- Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. L. (2004). Learning as conceptual change: Factors mediating the development of preservice elementary teachers’ veiws of nature of science. Science Education, 88(5), 785–810. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10143
- Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417–436. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199807)82:4<417::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-E
- Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690050044044
- Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifcats: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–817. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900412284
- Bell, R. L., Matkins, J. J., & Gansneder, B. M. (2011). Impacts of contextual and explicit instruction on preservice elementary teachers’ understandings of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(4), 414–436. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20402
- Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68–94. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20446
- Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765–793. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20402
- 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
- Cavagnetto, A. (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
- Clough, M. (2005, July). Learners’ responses to the demands of conceptual change: Considerations for effective NOS instruction [Paper presentation], 8th IHPST Conference, University of Leeds, England.
- 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(2), 133–148. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008-9104-y
- Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Open University Press.
- 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
- Eastwood, J. L., Sadler, T. D., Zeidler, D. L., Lewis, A., Amiri, L., & Applebaum, S. (2012). Contextualizing nature of science instruction in socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 88(6), 915–933. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.667582
- Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. (2007). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Springer. Springer Science and Business Media.
- 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
- García-Carmona, A., & Acevedo Díaz, J. A. (2016). Learning about the nature of science using newspaper articles with scientific content. Science & Education, 25(5–6), 523–546. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9831-9
- Herman, B., Owens, D., Oertli, R., Zangori, L., & Newton, M. (2019). Exploring the complexity of students’ scientific explanations and associated nature of science views within a place-based socioscientific issue context. Science & Education, 28(3–5), 329–366. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00034-4
- Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2007). The nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1347–1362. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601007549
- Iordanou, K. (2010). Developing argument skills across scientific and social domains. Journal of Cognition and Development, 11(3), 293–327. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2010.485335
- Kampourakis, K. (2016). The “general aspects” conceptualization as a pragmatic and effective means to introducing students to nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(5), 667–682. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21305
- Khishfe, R. (2012). Relationship between nature of science understandings and argumentation skills: A role for counterargument and contextual factors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 489–514. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21012
- Khishfe, R. (2013). Transfer of nature of science understandings into similar contexts: Promises and possibilities of an explicit reflective approach. International Journal of Science Education, 35(17), 2928–2953. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.672774
- Khishfe, R. (2014). Explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction in the context of socioscientific issues: An effect on student learning and transfer. International Journal of Science Education, 36(5-6), 974–1016. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.832004
- Khishfe, R. (2017). Consistency of nature of science views across scientific and socioscientific contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 39(4), 403–432. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1287976
- Khishfe, R. (2019). The transfer of nature of science understandings: A question of similarity and familiarity of contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 41(9), 1159–1180. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1596329
- Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). The influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551–578. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10036
- Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 377–394. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20137
- Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. (2007). Relationship between instructional context and understandings of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(8), 939–961. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601110947
- Kolsto, S. D. (2001). Science literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291–310. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1011
- Koponen, I. T. (2021). Nature of science (NOS) being acquainted with science of science (SoS): providing a panoramic picture of sciences to embody NOS for pre-service teachers. Education Sciences, 11(3), 107. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11030107
- Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge University Press.
- Kutluca, A., & Aydin, A. (2017). Changes in pre-service science teachers’ understandings after being involved in explicit nature of science and socioscientific argumentation processes. Science & Education, 26(6), 637–668. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9919-x
- Lederman, N., & Flick, L. (2005). Beware of the unit of analysis: It may be you!!. School Science and Mathematics, 105(8), 381–383.
- Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ cocneptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331–359. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290404
- Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 831–880). Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science and science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 83–126). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
- Leung, J. S. C. (2020). A practice-based approach to learning nature of science through socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 52(1), 259–285. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09942-w
- Li, W., Chen, Y., Xiang, P., Xie, X., & Li, Y. (2017). Unit of analysis: Impact of Silverman and Solmon’s article on field-based intervention research in physical education in the U.S.A. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 36(2), 131–141. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2016-0169
- Mason, L., & Scirica, F. (2006). Prediction of students’ argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding. Learning and Instruction, 16(5), 492–509. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.09.007
- Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. Routledge.
- McDonald, C. V. (2010). The influence of explicit Nature of Science and Argumentation Instruction on preservice primary teachers’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(9), 1137–1164. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20377
- NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards. National Academic Press.
- Nielsen, J. A. (2020). Teachers and socioscientific issues-an overview of recent empirical research. In M. Evagorou, J. A. Nielsen, & J. Dillon (Eds.), Science teacher education for responsible citizenship: Towards a pedagogy for relevance through socioscientific issues (pp. 13–20). Springer.
- Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M., & Poliquin, A. (2008). Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 30(15), 1977–1999. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701545919
- Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463–466. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183944
- 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. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
- Rundgren, C., Eriksson, M., & Rundgren, S. (2016). Investigating the intertwinement of knowledge, value, and experience of upper secondary students’ argumentation concerning socioscientific issues. Science & Education, 25(9-10), 1049–1071. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9859-x
- Ryan, A. G., & Aikenhead, G. S. (1992). Students’ preconceptions about the epistemology of science. Science Education, 76(6), 559–580. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730760602
- Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children’s understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488–526. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21006
- Sadler, T. D. (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
- Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634–656. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20065
- 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. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2
- Sandoval, W. A., & Milwood, K. A. (2008). What can argumentation tell us about epistemology? In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 71–88). Springer.
- Urhahne, D., Kremer, K., & Mayer, J. (2011). Conceptions of the nature of science–Are they general or context specific? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(3), 707–730. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9233-4
- Wei, L., Firetto, C., Duke, R., Greene, J., & Murphy, P. (2021). High school students’ epistemic cognition and argumentation practices during small-group quality talk discussions in science. Education Sciences, 11(10), 616. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11100616
- Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track science students’ argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 807–838. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200010)37:8<807::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-7
- Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 74–101. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20281
- Zeidler, L. D., Herman, C. B., & Sadler, D. S. (2019). New directions in socioscientific issues research. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 1(11), 1–9. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0008-7