A Practice-Based Professional Development Program to Support Scientific Argumentation From Evidence in the Elementary Classroom

References

• Alexander, R. (2006). Towards dialogic teaching. York, England: Dialogos.
   Google Scholar
• Alverman, D. E., Qian, G., & Hynd, C. E. (1995). Effects of interactive discussion and text type on learning counterintuitive science concepts. Journal of Educational Research, 88, 146–154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ball, D., & Cohen, D. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as a learning profession (pp. 3–32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Ball, D., & Forzani, F. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 497–511.
   Google Scholar
• Berson, E., Borko, H., Million, S., Khachatryan, E., & Glennon, K. (in press). Practice what you teach: A video-based practicum model of professional development for elementary science teachers. Orbis.
   Google Scholar
• Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.
   Google Scholar
• Borko, H., Jacobs, J., & Koellner, K. (2010). Contemporary approaches to teacher professional development. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (Vol. 7, pp. 548–556). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Borko, H., Jacobs, J., Seago, N., & Mangram, C. (2014). Facilitating video-based professional development: Planning and orchestrating productive discussions. In Y. Li, E. A. Silver, & S. Li (Eds.), Transforming mathematics instruction: Multiple approaches and practices (pp. 259–281). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, R. L. (2000). Performance assessment from the perspective of generalizability theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24(4), 339–353.
   Google Scholar
• Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Chi, B., Visintainer, T., Chung, J., de Nova, J., & Sacco, K. (2011). ¡Youth & the ocean! (¡YO!) Final evaluation report, 2007–2010. Berkeley, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Chi, M. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73–105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chi, M., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chin, C. (2006, November). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: What approaches stimulate productive thinking? Presentation at the International Science Education Conference, Singapore.
   Google Scholar
• Chin, C., & Osborne, J. F. (2008). Students’ questions: A potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Supporting argumentation through students’ questions: Case studies in science classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 230–284.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cromer, A. (1993). Uncommon sense: The heretical nature of science. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillon, J. T. (1982). The effects of questions in education and other enterprises. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 14(2), 127–152.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London, UK: Methuen.
   Google Scholar
• Ford, M. J. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92, 404–423.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franke, M. L., Turrou, A. C., Webb, N. M., Ing, M., Wong, J., Shin, N., & Fernandez, C. (2015). Student engagement with others’ mathematical ideas. The Elementary School Journal, 116(1), 126–148. doi:10.1086/683174
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaudin, C., & Chaliès, S. (2015). Video viewing in teacher education and professional development: A literature review. Educational Research Review, 16, 41–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfeldt, M., Shahan, E., & Williamson, P. W. (2009). Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective. Teachers College Record, 111, 2055–2100.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1991). Sharing cognition through collective comprehension activity. In L. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 331–348). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, UK: Routledge.
   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, 1668–1697.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jennings, L., & Mills, H. (2009). Constructing a discourse of inquiry: Findings from a five-year ethnography at one elementary school. Teachers College Record, 111, 1583–1618.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). Energizing learning: The instructional power of conflict. Educational Researcher, 38(1), 37–51. doi:10.3102/0013189X08330540
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kazemi, E., & Stipek, D. (2001). Promoting conceptual thinking in four upper-elementary mathematics classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 102(1), 59–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiemer, K., Groschner, A., Pehmer, A., & Seidel, T. (2015). Effects of a classroom discourse intervention on teachers’ practice and students’ motivation to learn mathematics and science. Learning and Instruction, 35, 94–103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, A. (1990). Enhancing peer interaction and learning in the classroom through reciprocal interaction. American Education Research Journal, 27, 664–687.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 338–368.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koellner, K., & Jacobs, J. (2015). Distinguishing models of professional development: The case of an adaptive model’s impact on teachers’ knowledge, instruction, and student achievement. Journal of Teacher Education, 66, 51–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94, 810–824.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lampert, M. (2010). Learning teaching in, from, and for practice: What do we mean? Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 21–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
   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.
   Google Scholar
• Matsumura, L. C., Slater, S. C., Junker, B., Peterson, M., Boston, M., Steele, M., & Resnick, L. (2006). Measuring reading comprehension and mathematics instruction in urban middle schools: A pilot study of the Instructional Quality Assessment (CSE Technical Report No. 681). Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED492885
   Google Scholar
• Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Mercer, N. (2010). The analysis of classroom talk: Methods and methodologies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 1–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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 Education Research Journal, 30(3), 359–377.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercer, N., & Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and learning: The value and potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(1), 12–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2), 57–74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moss, E., Cyr, C., & Dubois-Comtois, K. (2004). Attachment at early school age and developmental risk: Examining family contexts and behavior problems of controlling-caregiving, controlling-punitive, and behaviorally disorganized children. Developmental Psychology, 40(4), 519–531.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Board on Science Education, Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K–12 Science Education Standards.
   Google Scholar
• Newton, D. P., & Newton, L. D. (2000). Do teachers support causal understanding through their discourse when teaching primary science? British Educational Research Journal, 26, 599–613.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. F. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 553–576.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., Kachur, R., & Prendegarst, C. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ohlsson, S. (1996). Learning to do and learning to understand? A lesson and a challenge for cognitive modelling. In P. Reimann & H. Spada (Eds.), Learning in humans and machines (pp. 37–62). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, J. F. (2010, April 23). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463–466.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, J., Berson, E., Borko, H., Busch, K., Zaccarelli, F., Million, S. & Tseng, A. (2015, August). Assessing the quality of classroom discourse in science classrooms. Paper presented at the European Association for Research in Learning and Instruction, Limassol, Cyprus.
   Google Scholar
• Putnam, R., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 21(1), 4–15.
   Google Scholar
• Reddy, M. (1979). The conduit metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 284–324). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Resnick, L., Asterhan, C., & Clarke, S. N. (Eds.). (2015). Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
   Google Scholar
• Resnick, L., Michaels, S., & O’Connor, C. (2010). How (well-structured) talk builds the mind. In J. Sternberg (Ed.), From genes to context: New discoveries about learning from educational research and their applications (pp. 163–194). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Reznitskaya, A. (2012). Dialogic teaching: Rethinking language use during literature discussions. The Reading Teacher, 65, 446–456.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ryan, G., Toohey, S., & Hughes, C. (1996). The purpose, value and structure of the practicum in higher education: A literature review. Higher Education, 31(3), 355–377.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seago, N. M., Jacobs, J. K., Heck, D. J., Nelson, C. L., & Malzahn, K. A. (2014). Impacting teachers’ understanding of geometric similarity: Results from field testing of the learning and teaching geometry professional development materials. Professional Development in Education, 40, 627–653.
   Google Scholar
• Shavelson, R. J., & Webb, N. M. (1991). Generalizability theory: A primer (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2010). The influence of video clubs on teachers’ thinking and practice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 13(2), 155–176.
   Google Scholar
• Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Education Research, 13, 21–39.
   Google Scholar
• Weiss, I. R., Pasley, J. D., Smith, P., Banilower, E. R., & Heck, D. J. (2003). A study of K–12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
   Google Scholar
• Wells, G. (Ed.). (2001). Action, talk and text: Learning and teaching through inquiry. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wolpert, L. (1992). The unnatural nature of science. London, UK: Faber and Faber.
   Google Scholar