How can we support pupils' engagement in argumentation? Should argumentation be explicitly taught or rather embedded in the learning tasks? Which design principles are related to the goal of promoting argumentation in the science classroom? Are they the same as design principles for constructivist learning environments? How can research explore these features of learning environments supporting argumentation?
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download to read the full chapter text
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
References
4th Grade Students (1992). Fourth graders’ understandings and beliefs about the importance of becoming aware of their own ideas. Unpublished memo. St. Anns’ Elementary School.
Baker, M. (2002). Argumentative interactions, discursive operations and learning to model in science. In P. Brna, M. Baker, K. Stenning, & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), The role of communication in learning to model (pp. 303–324). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genre and other late essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1989). Intentional learning as a goal of instruction. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction. Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 361–392). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bourdieu, P. (1972). Esquisse d’une théorie de la pratique. Genève: Librairie Droz. (English translation: Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977).
Brown A. L. (1992). Design Experiments: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1990). Communities of learning and thinking, or a context by any other name. Human Development, 21, 108–126.
Brown, A. L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A., & Campione, J. C. (1993) Distributed expertise in the classroom. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 188–228). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32–42.
Chinn, C., & Brewer, W. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1–49.
Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural–historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1–46). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Crawford, T. (2005). What counts as knowing: Constructing a communicative repertoire for student demonstration of knowledge in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 139–165.
Doyle, W. (1977) Learning the classroom environment: An ecological analysis. Journal of Teacher Education, 28(6), 51–55.
Eichinger, D. C., Anderson, C. W., Palincsar, A. S., & David, Y. M. (1991). An illustration of the roles of content knowledge, scientific argument, and social norms in collaborative problem solving. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, April.
Ergazaki, M., & Zogza, V. (2005). From a causal question to stating and testing hypotheses: Exploring the discursive activity of biology students. In K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. De Jong, & H. Eijkelhof (Eds.), Research and the quality of science education (pp. 407–417). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Hennessey, G. (1991). Analysis of concept change and status change in sixth graders’ concepts of force and motion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.
Hewson, P. W. (1985) Epistemological commitments in the learning of science: Examples from dynamics. European Journal of Science Education, 7, 163–172.
Hewson, P.W., & Thorley, R. (1989) The conditions of conceptual change in the classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 541–553.
Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students’ and scientists’ reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 663–687.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & López Rodríguez, R. (2001). Designing a field code: environmental values in primary school. Environmental Education Research, 7(1), 5–22.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Pereiro Muñoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1171–1190.
Jiménez-Aleixandre M. P., & Pereiro Muñoz, C. (2005). Argument construction and change when working on a real environmental problem. In K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. De Jong, & H. Eijkelhof (Eds.), Research and the quality of science education (pp. 419–431). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Reigosa, C. (2006). Contextualizing practices across epistemic levels in the chemistry laboratory. Science Education, 90, 707–733.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Agraso, M. F., & Eirexas, F. (2004, April). Scientific authority and empirical data in argument warrants about the Prestige oil spill. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) annual meeting. Vancouver, Canada.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo Rodríguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics, Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Díaz, J., & Duschl, R. A. (1999). Plant, animal or thief? Solving problems under the microscope. In M. Bandiera, S. Caravita, E. Torracca, & M. Vicentini (Eds.), Research in science education in Europe (pp. 31–39). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Jiménez-Aleixandre M. P., López Rodríguez R., & Erduran, S. (2005). Argumentative quality and intellectual ecology: A case study in primary school. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) Annual Meeting. Dallas, TX, April.
Kelly, G. J. (2005). Inquiry, activity, and epistemic practice. Proceedings of the Inquiry Conference on Developing a Consensus Research Agenda, Rutgers University, February 2005. http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~grgrandy/NSFConSched.html
Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86, 314–342.
Kelly, G. J., Druker S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessment with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849–871.
Kenyon, L., Kuhn, L., & Reiser, B. J. (2006). Using students’ epistemologies of science to guide the practice of argumentation. In S. A. Barab, K. E. Hay, & T. D. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 321–327). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kitchener, K. S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition and epistemic cognition: A three-level model of cognitive processing. Human Development, 26, 222–232.
Kolstø, S. D., & Mestad, I. (2005). Learning about the nature of scientific knowledge: The imitating-science project. In K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. De Jong, & H. Eijkelhof (Eds.), Research and the quality of science education (pp. 247–258). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Kortland, J. (2001). A problem posing approach to teaching decision making about the waste issue. Doctoral dissertation. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Centre for Science and Mathematic Education (Cdß), Utrecht University.
Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students’ decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80, 673–689.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 155–178.
Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kuhn, L., & Reiser, B. J. (2007). Bridging classroom practices: Traditional and argumentative discourse. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching. New Orleans, April.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
López Rodríguez, R., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2002). Sharing the authority to evaluate environmental attitudes: A case study in primary school. In J. Lewis, A. Magro, & L. Simonneaux (Eds.), Biology education for the real world. Proceedings of the IV ERIDOB Conference (pp. 319–333). Toulouse, France: École Nationale de Formation Agronomique (ENFA), Université de Toulouse.
Mason, L. (1996). An analysis of children’s construction of new knowledge through their use of reasoning and arguing in classroom discussions. Qualitative Studies in Education, 9(4), 411–433.
Mason, L. (1998). Sharing cognition to construct scientific knowledge in school contexts: The role of oral and written discourse. Instructional Science, 26(5), 359–389.
Moshman, D. (1998). Cognitive development beyond childhood. In D. Kuhn & R. S. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2, Cognition, perception and language (5th ed., pp. 947–978). New York: Wiley.
Mork, S. M. (2005). Argumentation in science lessons: Focusing on the teacher’s role. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 1(1), 17–30.
Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004a). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004b). Ideas, evidence and argument in science. London: Nuffield Foundation.
Otero, J. (2002). Noticing and fixing difficulties while understanding science texts. In J. Otero, J. A. León, & A. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 281–307). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Otero, J., & Campanario, J. M. (1990). Comprehension evaluation and regulation in learning from science texts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 447–460.
Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students’ argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 745–754.
Pea, R. D. (1993). Distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47–87). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accomodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change, science education, 62, 211–227.
Ratcliffe, M. (1996). Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues, within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167–182.
Reigosa, C., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Scaffolded problem-solving in the physics and chemistry laboratory: Difficulties hindering students’ assumptions of responsibility. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 307–329.
Resnick, L. (1989). Introduction. In Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction. Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 1–25). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetics engineering issues. Science Education, 89, 71–93.
Salomon, G. (1993). Editor’s introduction. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions. Psychological and educational considerations (pp. xi–xxi). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89, 634–656.
Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345–372.
Schweizer, D. M., & Kelly, G. J. (2005). An investigation of student engagement in a global warming debate. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(1), 75–84.
Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 235–260.
Sutton, C. (1992). Words, science and learning. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Toulmin, S. (1972). Human understanding: Vol. 1, The collective use and evolution of concepts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind. A Sociocultural approach to mediated action Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Zohar, A. (2004). Higher order thinking in science classrooms: Students’ learning and teachers’ professional development. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering Students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in Human Genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer Science + Business Media B.V
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P. (2007). Designing Argumentation Learning Environments. In: Erduran, S., Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P. (eds) Argumentation in Science Education. Science & Technology Education Library, vol 35. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-6669-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-6670-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)