Preservice Teachers’ use of Discourse to Shape the Construction of Scientific Arguments

References

• Acar, Ö. (2014). Scientific reasoning, conceptual knowledge, & achievement differences between prospective science teachers having a consistent misconception and those having a scientific conception in an argumentation-based guided inquiry course. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 148–154. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.12.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berland, L. K. (2011). Explaining variation in how classroom communities adapt the practice of scientific argumentation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(4), 625–664. doi:10.1080/10508406.2011.591718
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. doi:10.1002/sce.v94:5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Students’ questions and discursive interaction: Their impact on argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 883–908. doi:10.1002/tea.20385
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christie, F. (2002). Classroom discourse analysis. London, UK: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Christodoulou, A., & Osborne, J. (2014). The science classroom as a site of epistemic talk: A case study of a teacher’s attempts to teach science based on argument. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(10), 1275–1300. doi:10.1002/tea.v51.10
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582–601. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1098-2736
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1098-237X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and cognition. London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Emig, B. R., McDonald, S., Zembal-Saul, C., & Strauss, S. G. (2014). Inviting argument by analogy: Analogical-mapping-based comparison activities as a scaffold for small-group argumentation. Science Education, 98(2), 243–268. doi:10.1002/sce.2014.98.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erduran, S. (2007). Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 45–67). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Erman, B. (2001). Pragmatic markers revisited with a focus on you know in adult and adolescent talk. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1337–1359. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00066-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring young students’ collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 209–237. doi:10.1002/tea.v50.2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox Tree, J. E., & Schrock, J. C. (2002). Basic meanings of you know and I mean. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 727–747. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00027-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London, UK: E. Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• Henderson, B. J., 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. doi:10.1002/tea.21412
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hendry, G., Wiggins, S., & Anderson, T. (2016). The discursive construction of group cohesion in problem-based learning tutorials. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 15(2), 180–194. doi:10.1177/1475725716643267
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. doi:10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2013). Well-prefaced turns in English conversation: A conversation analytic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 88, 88–104. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2015.08.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iedema, R. (1996). ‘Save the talk for after the listening’: The realisation of regulative discourse in teacher talk. Language and Education, 10(2–3), 82–102. doi:10.1080/09500789608666702
   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). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., & Franklin, S. (2006). The second decade: What develops (and how)? In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner (Series Eds.), D. Kuhn, & R. Siegler (Vol. Eds.) (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2, cognition, perception, and language (6th ed., pp. 953–993). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Lazarou, D., Erduran, S., & Sutherland, R. (2017). Argumentation in science education as an evolving concept: Following the object of activity. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 14, 51–66. doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.05.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, H. S., Liu, O. L., Pallant, A., Roohr, K. C., Pryputniewicz, S., & Buck, Z. E. (2014). Assessment of uncertainty‐infused scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(5), 581–605. doi:10.1002/tea.21147
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. doi:10.1002/tea.v47:9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. S. (2012). Supporting grade 5–8 students in constructing explanations in science: The claim, evidence, and reasoning framework for talk and writing. Boston, MA: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The 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
• Menon, D., & Sadler, T. D. (2016). Preservice elementary teachers’ science self-efficacy beliefs and science content knowledge. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(6), 649–673. doi:10.1007/s10972-016-9479-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• 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. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1098-2736
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potter, J. (2012). Discourse analysis and discursive psychology. In H. Cooper (Ed.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology: Vol. 2. Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 111–130). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ricketts, A. (2014). Preservice elementary teachers’ ideas about scientific practices. Science & Education, 23(10), 2119–2135. doi:10.1007/s11191-014-9709-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robertshaw, B., & Campbell, T. (2013). Constructing arguments: Investigating pre-service science teachers’ argumentation skills in a socio-scientific context. Science Education International, 24(2), 195–211.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1972). An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 31–74). New York, NY: The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (Vols. 1–2). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Shemwell, J. T., & Furtak, E. M. (2010). Science classroom discussion as scientific argumentation: A study of conceptually rich (and poor) student talk. Educational Assessment, 15(3–4), 222–250. doi:10.1080/10627197.2010.530563
   Google Scholar
• Stevanovic, M., & Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45(3), 297–321. doi:10.1080/08351813.2012.699260
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101–131. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1098-2736
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiggins, S. (2016). Discursive psychology: Theory, method and applications. London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Woofit, R. (2005). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: A comparative and critical introduction. London, UK: Sage.
   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
• Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding preservice science teachers’ evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 437–463. doi:10.1023/A:1022411822951
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar