Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Perspectives on Scientific Argumentation pp 157–199Cite as

Research on Critique and Argumentation from the Technology Enhanced Learning in Science Center

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

Technology Enhanced Learning in Science Center (TELS) received funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation to investigate approaches for improving learning and instruction in science classes for students in grades 6–12 with a focus on the role that information technology can play. The knowledge integration framework informs the design of TELS curricula in terms of supporting students in (1) eliciting ideas, (2) adding ideas, (3) developing criteria for evaluating ideas, and (4) sorting and connecting ideas based on those criteria. Critique, argument construction, and argumentation represent central TELS research foci for supporting those foci. This chapter provides an overview of that research. More specifically, this chapter synthesizes research on the role of critique in students’ experimentation skills, the manner in which students warrant ideas in their explanations and arguments, approaches for supporting students in critique and argumentation, approaches for supporting students in revising their explanations and arguments, designs to optimize dialogic argumentation, and approaches for analyzing students’ critique and argumentation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abell, S. K., Anderson, G., & Chezem, J. (2000). Science as argument and explanation: Exploring concepts of sound in third grade. In J. Minstrell & E. H. Van Zee (Eds.), Inquiry into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 100–119). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ainsworth, S. E. (1999). A functional taxonomy of multiple representations. Computers and Education, 33(2/3), 131–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2003). Argumentation, computer support, and the educational contexts of confronting cognitions. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 1–25). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ardac, D., & Akaygun, S. (2004). Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasizes representations on students’ understanding of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 317–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bahar, M., Johnstone, A. H., & Hansell, M. H. (1999). Revisiting learning difficulties in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 33(2), 84–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M. (2003). Computer-mediated argumentative interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific notions. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 47–78). The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M., Andriessen, J., Lund, K., van Amelsvoort, M., & Quignard, M. (2007). Rainbow: A framework for analyzing computer-mediated pedagogical debates. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2), 315–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, P. (2004). The educational opportunities of contemporary controversies in science. In M. Linn, E. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 233–260). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Betrancourt, M. (2005). The animation and interactivity principles in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 287–296). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bielaczyc, K., PirolIi, P., & Brown, A. L. (1995). Training in selfexplanation and self-regulation strategies: Investigating the effects of knowledge acquisition activities on problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 13(2), 221–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185–205). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boo, H. K., & Watson, J. R. (2001). Progression in high school students’ (aged 16–18) conceptualizations about chemical reactions in solution. Science Education, 85(5), 568–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boulter, C. J., & Gilbert, J. K. (1995). Argument and science education. In P. J. M. Costello & S. Mitchell (Eds.), Competing and consensual voices: The theory and practices of argument. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy of Science Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229–270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, H.-Y. (2009). Use of critique to enhance learning with an interactive molecular visualization of thermal conductivity. Poster presented at the annual meeting of National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) 2009, Garden Grove, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, H.-Y., & Linn, M. C. (2010, January). Transition to inquiry: Instructional practice of inquiry-based online science curricula in Taiwan. Paper presented at the Sixth International Conference on Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, Hualien, Taiwan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, & Linn. (2011). Learning from a molecular visualization: Observe, interact or critique? Manuscript submitted for publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, H.-Y., & Tsai, K. C. (2010, June). Investigating the role of physical and virtual experiments in developing integrated understanding of thermal conductivity and equilibrium. Presented in the symposium “Using visualization to link abstract science and everyday experience”, the International Conference for the Learning Sciences 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, H.-Y., Quintana, C., & Krajcik, J. (2010). The impact of designing and evaluating molecular animations on how well middle school students understand the particulate nature of matter. Science Education, 94(1), 73–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining: The dual processes of generating inference and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology: Educational design and cognitive science (Vol. 5, pp. 161–238). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, J., & Linn, M. C. (in press). The role of self-monitoring in learning chemistry with dynamic visualization. In A. Zohar, & Y. J. Dori (Eds.), Metacognition and science education: Trends in current research. London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D. B. (2001). New representations of student knowledge integration in CLP: Theories or repertoires of ideas? Paper presented at the AERA, Seattle, WA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D. B. (2004). Hands-on investigation in Internet environments: Teaching thermal equilibrium. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 175–200). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D. B. (2006). Longitudinal conceptual change in students’ understanding of thermal equilibrium: An examination of the process of conceptual restructuring. Cognition and Instruction, 24(4), 467–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D. B., D’Angelo, C. M., & Menekse, M. (2009). Initial structuring of online discussions to improve learning and argumentation: Incorporating students’ own explanations as seed comments versus an augmented-preset approach to seeding discussions. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(4), 321–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2005, June). Analyzing the quality of argumentation supported by personally-seeded discussions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference, Taipei, Taiwan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D., Sampson, V., Weinberger, A., & Erkens, G. (2007). Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 343–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D. B., Schleigh, S. P., Menekse, M., D’Angelo, C. M., & Sampson, V. (2008). Improving the quality of student argumentation through the initial structuring of online discussions. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association 2008 meeting. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students’ preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1241–1257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A. A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator, 15, 6–11 & 38–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corburn, J. (Ed.). (2005) Street science: Characterizing local knowledge. In His Street science: Community knowledge and environmental health justice (pp. 47–77). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corliss, S., & Spitulnik, M. (2008). Student and teacher regulation of learning in technology-enhanced science instruction. In International perspectives in the learning sciences: Creating a learning world. Proceedings of the 8th international conference of the learning sciences (Vol. 1, pp. 167–174). Utrecht, the Netherlands: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuthbert, A. J., Clark, D. B., & Linn, M. C. (2002). WISE learning communities: Design considerations. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities: learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 215–246). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • deVries, E., Lund, K., & Baker, M. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 63–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2007). Designing integrative scripts. In F. Fischer, H. Mandl, J. Haake & I. Kollar (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported communication of knowledge—cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 275–301). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2 & 3), 105–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A., Gillespie, N., & Esterly, J. (2004). Coherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of force. Cognitive Science, 28, 843–900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A., & Wagner, J. F. (2005). What coordination has to say about transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multi-disciplinary perspective (pp. 121–154). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dufresne, R., Mestre, J., Thaden-Koch, T., Gerace, W., & Leonard, W. (2005). Knowledge representation and coordination in the transfer process. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multi-disciplinary perspective (pp. 155–215). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. (2007). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran & M. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 159–175). Dordreht: Springer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R. B., & Sands, M. L. (1995). Six easy pieces: Essentials of physics, explained by its most brilliant teacher. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, R. (1986a). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues. Part I. Social cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 677–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, R. (1986b). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues. Part II. Nonsocial cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 689–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K. (2008). Visualization: An emergent field of practice and enquiry in science education. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization: Theory and practice in science education (pp. 3–24). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Grace, M., & Ratcliffe, M. (2002). The science and values that young people draw upon to make decisions about biological conservation issues. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1157–1169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegarty, M. (2004). Dynamic visualizations and learning: getting to the difficult questions. Learning and Instruction, 14, 343–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegarty, M. (2005). Multimedia learning about physical systems. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 447–465). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hesse, F. W. (2007). Being told to so something or just being aware of something? An alternative approach to scripting in CSCL. In F. Fischer, H. Mandl, J. Haake, & I. Kollar (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported communication of knowledge – cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 275–301). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Marathe, S., & Liu, L. (2007). Fish swim, rocks sit, and lungs breathe: Expert–novice understanding of complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 307–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, K., Nastasi, B., & Pressley, M. (2000). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1969). The early growth of logic in the child. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Jaspers, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2006, June/July). Visualizing participation to facilitate argumentation. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Bloomington, IN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeong, A., Clark, D., Sampson, V., & Mushin, M. (2011). Assessing and comparing dialogical scientific argumentation across asynchronous online discussion environments with sequential analysis. In S. Puntambekar, C. Hmelo-Silver, & G. Erkens (Eds.), Analyzing interactions in CSCL: Methodology, approaches, and issues (pp. 207–233). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodríguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. (2000). Doing the lesson or doing science: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kali, Y., (2006). Collaborative knowledge-building using the design principles database. International Journal of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 187–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kali, Y., & Linn, M. C. (2008). Technology-Enhanced Support Strategies for Inquiry Learning. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. Van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 145–161). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kali, Y., Linn, M. C., & Roseman, J. E. (Eds.). (2008). Designing coherent science education. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, E. F. (1993). A feeling for the organism: The life and work of Barbara McClintock (10th Anniversary Ed.). New York: W.H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keppell, M., Au, E., Ma, A., & Chan, C. (2006). Peer learning and learning-oriented assessment in technology-enhanced environments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education (Special Issue: Learning-Oriented Assessment: Principles and Practice), 31(4), 453–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (2007). Scripting collaborative learning processes: A cognitive perspective. In F. Fischer, H. Mandl, J. Haake, & I. Kollar (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported communication of knowledge—cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 275–301). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, L., & Reiser, B. (2005). Students constructing and defending evidence-based scientific explanations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245–1260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, X. D., & Schwartz, D. (2003). Reflection at the crossroad of cultures. Mind, Culture & Activities, 10(1), 9–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C., Chang, H.-Y., Chiu, J., Zhang, H., & McElhaney, K. (2011). Can desirable difficulties overcome deceptive clarity in scientific visualizations? In A. Benjamin (Ed.), Successful remembering and successful forgetting: A Festschrift in honor of Robert A. Bjork (pp. 235–258). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B. S. (2006). Science education: Integrating views of learning and instruction. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 511–544). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (2004). Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Eylon, B. S. (2004). The scaffolded knowledge integration framework for instruction. Internet environments for science education. (pp. 47–72). (1) Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley, CA; (2) U Michigan, MI; (3) Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C., Eylon, B. S., & Davis, E. A. (2004). The knowledge integration perspective on learning. Internet environments for science education. (pp. 29–46). (1) Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley, CA, US; (2) Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel; (3) University of Michigan, MI, US Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C., Lee, H. S., Tinker, R., Husic, F., & Chiu, J. L. (2006). Teaching and assessing knowledge integration. Science, 313(5790), 1049–1050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. (1994). The fate of knowledge in social theories of science. In F. F. Schmidt (Ed.), Socializing epistemology: The social dimension of knowledge. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, R. (2003). Animation and learning: Selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction, 13, 157–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, R. (2004). Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning. Learning and Instruction, 14, 257–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L. (1998). Sharing cognition to construct scientific knowledge in school context: The role of oral and written discourse. Instructional Science, 26, 359–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R., & Valdez, A. (2005). Cognitive load and learning effects of having students organize pictures and words in multimedia environments: The role of student interactivity and feedback. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 35–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D. (1996). Concept mapping: A tool for improving science teaching and learning. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 32–43). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Passmore, C., & Stewart, J. (2002). A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 185–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rochelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 235–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic supports for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanger, M. J., Brecheisen, D. M., & Hynek, B. M. (2001). Can computer animations affect college biology students’ conceptions about diffusion and osmosis? American Biology Teacher, 63(2), 104–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1999). Schools as knowledge building organizations. In D. K. C. Hertzman (Ed.), Today’s children, tomorrow’s society: The developmental health and wealth of nations (pp. 274–289). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B., & Glassner, A. (2003). The blind and the paralytic: Supporting argumentation in everyday and scientific issues. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 227–260). The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwendimann, B. (2007). Integrating interactive genetics visualizations into high school biology. TELS AERA Meeting.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwendimann, B. (2008). Scaffolding an interactive dynamic model to promote coherent connections in high school biology. In Annual meeting of the American education research association (AERA). New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seethaler, S., & Linn, M.C. (2004). Genetically modified food in perspective: An inquiry based curriculum to help middle school students make sense of tradeoffs. International Journal of Science Education, 26(14), 1765–1785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, H. (1989). The rationality of science, critical thinking and science education. Synthese, 80(1), 9–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Songer, N. B., & Linn, M. C. (1992). How do students’ views of science influence knowledge integration? In M. K. Pearsall (Ed.), Scope, sequence and coordination of secondary school science: Vol. 1. Relevant research (pp. 197–219). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, J., Cartier, J. L., & Passmore, C. (2005). Developing understanding through model-based inquiry. In S. Donovan & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn science in the classroom (pp. 147–198). Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strike, K., & Posner, G. (1985). A conceptual change view of learning and understanding. In L. H. T. West & A. L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change (pp. 189–210). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tate, E. D. (2009). Asthma in the community: Designing instruction to help students explore scientific dilemmas that impact their lives. Unpublished dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology (Special Issue: Developments in Educational Psychology: How Far Have We Come in 25 Years?) 25(6), 631–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, C. Y. & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Genetics reasoning with multiple external representations. Research in Science Education, 33(1), 111–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 57, 247–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F., Grootendorst, R., & Henkemans, A. F. (2002). Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ & London, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veerman, A. (2003). Constructive discussions through electronic dialogue. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 117–143). The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vellom, R. P., & Anderson, C. W. (1999). Reasoning about data in middle school science. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 36(2), 179–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46, 71–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2007). Scripting argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported learning environments. In F. Fischer, H. Mandl, J. Haake, & I. Kollar (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported communication of knowledge – cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 191–211). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, R., & Gunstone, R. F. (1992). Prediction-observation-explanation. In R. White & R. Gunstone (Eds.), Probing understanding (pp. 44–64). London: The Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems approach to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, V. M., & Abraham, M. R. (1995). The effects of computer animation on the particulate mental models of college chemistry students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(5), 521–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, Q., & Tinker, R. (2006). Molecular dynamics simulations of chemical reactions for use in education, Journal of Chemical Education, 83, 77–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81, 483–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Z., & Linn, M. C. (2008). Using drawings to support learning from dynamic visualizations. In Proceedings of the 8th international Conference on Learning Sciences (Utrecht, The Netherlands, June 24–28, 2008). International Conference on Learning Sciences. International Society of the Learning Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA

    Douglas B. Clark

  2. Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA

    Victor Sampson

  3. National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung City, Taiwan

    Hsin-Yi Chang

  4. University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA

    Helen Zhang, Erika D. Tate & Beat Schwendimann

Authors
  1. Douglas B. Clark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Victor Sampson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hsin-Yi Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Helen Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Erika D. Tate
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Beat Schwendimann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Douglas B. Clark .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Bahrain Teachers College, Manama, Bahrain

    Myint Swe Khine

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Clark, D.B., Sampson, V., Chang, HY., Zhang, H., Tate, E.D., Schwendimann, B. (2012). Research on Critique and Argumentation from the Technology Enhanced Learning in Science Center. In: Khine, M. (eds) Perspectives on Scientific Argumentation. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2470-9_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation