Argumentation as/in/for dialogical relation: a case study from elementary school science

References

• Bakhtin, M. M. (1994). Problemy tvorcestva: Poetiki Dostoevskogo [Problems of creativity: Dostoevsky’s poetics]. Kiev: Next (first published in 1929).
   Google Scholar
• Berland, L., & Lee, V. (2012). In pursuit of consensus: Disagreement and legitimization during small-group argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1857–1882. doi:10.1080/09500693.2011.645086
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bricker, L., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92(3), 473–498. doi:10.1002/sce.20278
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Croker, S., & Buchanan, H. (2011). Scientific reasoning in a real-world context: The effect of prior belief and outcome on children’s hypothesis-testing strategies. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 29, 409–424. doi:10.1348/026151010X496906
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davidson, D. (1986). A nice derangement of epitaphs. In E. Lepore (Ed.), Truth and interpretation (pp. 433–446). Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Derrida, J. (1996). Monolinguism de l’autre ou prothèse d’origine [Monolingualism of the other or prosthesis of origin]. Paris: Galilée.
   Google Scholar
• Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durkheim, E. (1919). Les règles de la méthode sociologique (Rules of sociological method). Paris: Felix Alcan.
   Google Scholar
• Duschl, R. (2007). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran, & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 159–175). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39–72.
   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, 915–933. doi:10.1002/sce.20012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1986). On formal structures of practical action. In H. Garfinkel (Ed.), Ethnomethodological studies of work (pp. 160–193). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
   Google Scholar
• Goulart, M., & Roth, W.-M. (2009). Engaging young children in collective curriculum design. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5, 533–562.
   Google Scholar
• Heidegger, M. (1985). Gesamtausgabe. I. Abteilung: Veröffentlichte Schriften 1910–1976. Band 12: Unterwegs zur Sprache [Complete works I. Part: Published writings 1910–1976. Vol 12: On the way to language]. Frankfurt/M: Vittorio Klostermann.
   Google Scholar
• Holzkamp, K. (2013). The fiction of learning as administratively plkannable. In U. Osterlkamp, & E. Straube (Eds.), Psychology from the standpoint of the subject: Selected writings of Klaus Holzkamp (pp. 115–132). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran, & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94, 810–824. doi:10.1002/sce.20395
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., & Pearsall, S. (2000). Developmental origins of scientific thinking. Journal of Cognition and Development, 1, 113–129. doi:10.1207/S15327647JCD0101N_11
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking & Reasoning, 13, 90–104. doi:10.1080/13546780600625447
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lave, J. (1993). The practice of learning. In S. Chaiklin, & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Macagno, F., & Konstantinidou, A. (2013). What students’ arguments can tell us: Using argumentation schemes in science education. Argumentation, 27, 225–243. doi:10.1007/s10503-012-9284-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masnick, A., & Morris, B. (2008). Investigating the development of data evaluation: The role of data characteristics. Child Development, 79(4), 1032–1048. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01174.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercer, N. (2008). The seeds of time: Why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17, 33–59. doi:10.1080/10508400701793182
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercer, N. (2009). Developing argumentation: Lessons learned in the primary school. In N. Muller Mirza, & A.-N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 177–194). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
   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, 371–393.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, E. M. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46, 84–106. doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.558816
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994–1020. doi:10.1002/tea.20035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts, R., & Gott, R. (2010). Questioning the evidence for a claim in a socio‐scientific issue: An aspect of scientific literacy. Research in Science & Technological Education, 28, 203–226. doi:10.1080/02635143.2010.506413
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rommetveit, R. (1974). On message structure: A framework for the study of language and communication. New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Roth, W.-M. (1996). Art and artifact of children’s designing: A situated cognition perspective. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5, 129–166. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0502_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roth, W.-M. (2005). Book review: Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 13, 1639–1646.
   Google Scholar
• Roth, W.-M. (2008). The nature of scientific conceptions: A discursive psychological perspective. Educational Research Review, 3, 30–50. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2007.10.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roth, W.-M. (2013a). An integrated theory of thinking and speaking that draws on Vygotsky and Bakhtin/Vološinov. Dialogical Pedagogy, 1, 32–53.
   Google Scholar
• Roth, W.-M. (2013b). Contradictions and uncertainty in scientists’ mathematical modeling and interpretation of data. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32, 593–612. doi:10.1016/j.jmathb.2013.07.001
   Google Scholar
• Roth, W.-M. (2013c). Technology and science in classroom and interview talk with Swiss lower secondary school students: A Marxist sociological approach. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 8, 433–465. doi:10.1007/s11422-012-9473-4
   Google Scholar
• Roth, W.-M. (2014). Curriculum*-in-the-making: A post-constructivist perspective. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Roth, W.-M., & Jornet, A. G. (2013). Situated cognition. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 4, 463–478. doi:10.1002/wcs.1242
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roth, W.-M., Lee, Y. J., & Hwang, S.-W. (2008). Culturing conceptions: From first principles. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 231–261. doi:10.1007/s11422-008-9092-2
   Google Scholar
• Roth, W.-M., & Maheux, J.-F. (2013). The emerging and emergent present: A view on the indeterminate nature of mathematics lessons. Mathematics Education Research Journal. doi:10/1007/s13394-013-0114-3
   Google Scholar
• Roth, W.-M., & Middleton, D. (2006). Knowing what you tell, telling what you know: Uncertainty and asymmetries of meaning in interpreting graphical data. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1, 11–81. doi:10.1007/s11422-005-9000-y
   Google Scholar
• Roth, W.-M., & Radford, L. (2010). Re/thinking the zone of proximal development (symmetrically). Mind, Culture, and Activity, 17, 299–307. doi:10.1080/10749031003775038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536. doi:10.1002/tea.20009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92, 447–472. doi:10.1002/sce.20276
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, P., Mortimer, E., & Ametller, J. (2011). Pedagogical link‐making: A fundamental aspect of teaching and learning scientific conceptual knowledge. Studies in Science Education, 47, 3–36. doi:10.1080/03057267.2011.549619
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon, S. (2008). Using Toulmin’s argument pattern in the evaluation of argumentation in school science. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 31, 277–289. doi:10.1080/17437270802417176
   Google Scholar
• Suchmman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vološinov, V. N. (1930). Marksizm i folosofija jazyka: osnovye problemy sociologičeskogo metoda b nauke o jazyke [Marxism and the philosophy of language: Main problems of the sociological method in linguistics]. Leningrad: Priboj.
   Google Scholar
• Vygotskij, L. S. (2005). Psyxhologija razvitija čeloveka [Psychology of human development]. Moscow: Eksmo.
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press.
   Google Scholar
• Wagenschein, M. (1977). Verstehen lehren: Genetisch—Sokratisch—Exemplarisch [Teaching understanding: Genetically—Socratically—exemplary]. Weinheim: Beltz.
   Google Scholar
• Waldenfels, B. (2006). Grundmotive einer phänomenologie des fremden [Founding motives of a phenomenology of the foreign]. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, D. N. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Wittgenstein, L. (1953/1997). Philosophical investigations/philosophische untersuchungen (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar