Facilitation of Scientific Argumentation to Support Knowledge-Building Discourse

Facilitation of Scientific Argumentation to Support Knowledge-Building Discourse

By: Yann Shiou Ong

Abstract

While argumentation plays a critical role in advancing science knowledge, there is

criticism that argumentation and debate currently promoted in schools do not qualify as

knowledge-building discourse. This paper examines the extent to which existing instructional

designs that facilitate scientific argumentation support knowledge-building discourse. Six

instructional designs that facilitate scientific argumentation through varying extent of teacher

facilitation and computer support were reviewed using a set of three commitments for

knowledge-building discourse as the theoretical framework. My analysis indicates that all the

reviewed instructional designs are well-designed to support the commitment to progress, some

have support for the commitment to expand the base of accepted facts, but only one instructional

design supports the commitment to seek common understanding. This commitment needs to be

emphasized by instructional designs for facilitating scientific argumentation, so that

argumentation can support knowledge building in the science classroom.

Introduction

Over the last twenty years, a variety of approaches for teaching argument and

argumentation in science (Sampson & Clark, 2008), including the use of software tools (Scheuer,

Loll, Pinkwart, & McLaren, 2010), have been developed. In this paper, I use argument to refer to

the student-created artifacts for the purpose of articulation and justification of claims or

explanations, while argumentation refers to the complex process through which these artifacts

are generated (Sampson & Clark, 2008). Adopting Suthers’s (2003) interpretation, participants of

scientific argumentation mutually evaluate alternative hypotheses or explanations according to

their consistency with empirical evidence (where available), plausibility of the causal

explanations, and reliability of the evidence. The participants may, but not necessarily, take

opposing positions.

As argumentation plays a critical role in advancing science knowledge (Driver, Newton,

& Osborne, 2000), positioning argumentation as a core component in school science should help

students engage with the social construction of scientific ideas and understand how the scientific

enterprise works to build and advance knowledge in science (Bricker & Bell, 2008). However,

Scardamalia and Bereiter (2006) criticize that argumentation and debate currently promoted in

schools do not qualify as knowledge-building discourse. Their criticism inspired the research

questions that frame this literature review: To what extent do existing instructional designs

facilitate scientific argumentation to support knowledge-building discourse among the

participants of argumentation? How should such instructional designs be improved to better

support knowledge-building discourse? The answers to these questions are sought through a

review of six instructional designs with varying extent of teacher facilitation and computer

support to scaffold students’ participation in scientific argumentation. For the purpose of this

review, scaffolding refers to the supports provided to help students participate in argumentation

(Collins, 2006), such as supports for constructing, critiquing, and revising arguments

individually or as a group.

In this literature review, I will first elaborate on the theoretical framework for analyzing

the instructional designs, which is formed by the set of commitments for knowledge-building

discourse articulated by Scardamalia and Bereiter (2006). I then summarize the features of the

SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTATION TO SUPPORT KNOWLEDGE-BUILDING DISCOURSE 2

instructional designs for facilitating students’ argumentation. This is followed by my analysis of

the extent to which these argumentation instructional designs support the commitments for

knowledge-building discourse. Finally, I conclude with implications and suggestions for

improvement to the instructional designs to facilitate argumentation in support of knowledge-

building discourse in the science classroom.

Theoretical Framework: Knowledge-Building Discourse

According to Scardamalia and Bereiter (2006), knowledge-building discourse is defined

as discourse aimed at progress in the state of knowledge of the community participating in the

discourse. When members of a community with differing or opposing views participate in

knowledge-building discourse, or what Bereiter (1994) refers to as progressive discourse, it leads

to a new understanding that the members agree is an improvement over their own previous

understanding (Bereiter, 1994). Science can thus be viewed as progressive discourse which

involves discussion of whether one theory is an improvement over another (Bereiter, 1994).

Hence, the aim of engaging students in knowledge-building discourse in the science classroom is

to improve their shared understanding of science, not just to share knowledge and critique ideas.

Achievement of knowledge-building discourse depends on a set of commitments, which

distinguishes knowledge-building discourse from other types of discourse. Drawing on ideas

from Bereiter (1994; 2002), I will discuss the set of three commitments of knowledge-building

discourse presented by Scardamalia and Bereiter (2006).

1. A commitment to progress. Knowledge-building discourse is progressive when engaging

participants in discourse with opposing views lead to new understanding that all participants

acknowledge is an improvement over their previous understanding. This commitment to

progress distinguishes knowledge-building discourse from conversation and discussion

devoted to sharing information or venting opinions. It is also different than willingness to

compromise, in which participants with opposing views do not change their beliefs but each

side yields sufficiently to achieve a practical resolution of conflicts.

2. A commitment to seek common understanding rather than mere agreement. In knowledge-

building discourse, it is more important for participants to have a common understanding of

each other’s views rather than just agreeing to a view. A mutual understanding of the ideas

discussed provides a basis for knowledge-building discourse even if there are major

differences of views.

3. A commitment to expand the base of accepted facts. Accepted facts are those which the

discourse participants will not deny. A commitment to expand (in number, scope or

connectedness) the base of accepted facts implies a willingness to maximize the basis from

which new claims could be drawn. This increases the chance of advancement over the

original understandings brought into the discourse. However, participants also recognize

even accepted facts are open to criticism and improvement, for example, when new evidence

that cannot be adequately explained by the accepted facts is presented. Hence, knowledge-

building discourse committed to expand the base of accepted facts differs from court trial or

debate where participants focus on undermining the opponents’ factual claims in order to win.

Scardamalia and Bereiter (2006)’s conceptualization of knowledge-building discourse is

similar to the goal of collaborative argumentation which is studied in the learning sciences.

According to Andriessen (2006), argumentation in science is a form of collaborative discussion

in which participants work together to resolve an issue, with the expectation of finding an

agreement by the end of the argument. Such an expectation can be interpreted as the commitment


to progress in knowledge-building discourse. Hence, argumentation and knowledge-building

discourse in the science classroom need not be mutually exclusive. It should therefore be

possible and desirable to design instruction that facilitates scientific argumentation in support of

knowledge-building discourse. This forms the basis of the research questions for my literature

review: 1) to what extent do existing instructional designs facilitate scientific argumentation to

support knowledge building among the participants of argumentation?, and 2) how should such

instructional designs be improved to better support knowledge building?

Instructional Designs for Facilitating Scientific Argumentation

The six instructional designs reviewed were developed for facilitating scientific

argumentation, and have been empirically tested. These designs share similar features based on

the extent of teacher facilitation and computer support provided to scaffold students’

participation in scientific argumentation. Hence, the instructional designs are grouped as

“teacher-facilitated instructional designs without computer support” (Ford, 2012; Keys, Hand,

Prain, & Collins, 2002; Sampson, Grooms, & Walker, 2010), “computer-supported instructional

designs with teacher facilitation” (Bell & Linn, 2000; Resier, Tabak, Sandoval, Smith,

Steinmuller, & Leone, 2001), and “computer-supported instructional designs without teacher

facilitation” (de Vries, Lund & Baker, 2002) for the purpose of describing their design features

for facilitating scientific argumentation.

Features of Teacher-Facilitated Instructional Designs without Computer Support

The teacher-facilitated instructional designs without computer support include:

Constructor and Critic (Ford, 2012), Argument-Driven Inquiry (ADI) (Sampson, Grooms, &

Walker, 2010), and Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) (Keys et al., 1999). These designs involve

groups of students participating in laboratory activities to answer a predetermined research

question. In SWH and ADI, the laboratory procedures were given by the teacher, or fully or

partially designed by students. In Constructor and Critic, each group came up with the most

scientific experiment plan , and the class decided on the most scientific plan through peer

critique (for the experiment conducted, “scientific” means the data has a small range and little

measurement error, and to provide a rational argument about the pattern between the dependent

and independent variables). All three instructional designs involve students constructing claims

or explanations to answer the research question, based on their collected data. Students’ claims

or explanations were shared and critiqued by their peers, and the students were given the

opportunity to revise their claims or explanations.

Constructor and Critic involves a “dual role condition” designed to engage students in the

roles of constructor and critic of claims as they work towards arriving at a scientific answer to

the driving question of the laboratory activities. As previously mentioned, after each group’s

experiment plan was critiqued by the class (during which the designers responded to questions

by the class), the class decided on which group’s plan was the most scientific. The discussions

were scaffolded through explicit instruction by the teachers, including modeling of critique by

the teachers, and pointing out what it means to be “scientific” in the context of the experiment.

Each group then decided whether and how to revise their plan, then conducted their experiment.

A similar activity sequence is repeated at other stages – after groups had preliminary results,

after they conducted a revised experiment, and in planning a second experiment similar to the

first.


ADI scaffolds students’ construction and critique of arguments by sharing with students

the components of a scientific argument (claims, evidence, and reasoning) as well as the criteria

for evaluating the quality of an argument (Figure 1). The teachers supported the process of

critiquing and revising arguments by having students share their tentative arguments with their

peers in an argumentation session where they critiqued each other’s arguments and responded to

the questions, so as to determine the most valid and acceptable claim (or refine a claim to make it

more valid and acceptable). Students are encouraged to use the criteria valued in science shared

with them for evaluating the arguments. Further support for students’ argumentation was

provided by a double-blind peer review process of students’ individual investigation report

written after the argumentation session. Students revised and resubmitted their report based on

the results and feedback from the peer review.

Figure 1. The components of a scientific argument and criteria for evaluating the quality

of a scientific argument in ADI. Adapted from Sampson et al., 2010 (p.221).

In SWH, teachers are given a template (Figure 2) to help them design activities to

promote laboratory understanding, while students are given a different heuristic template as a

scaffold to guide their thinking and facilitate their construction of explanations for their

observations (Figure 3) during negotiation phase I to IV (refer to Figure 2). The teacher or

students can choose to enter the negotiation phases and the laboratory activities once or several

times based on the nature of the topic and the laboratory activity. Apart from constructing their

own ideas (negotiation phase I), sharing and comparing their ideas in peer groups (negotiation

phase III), the SWH design requires students to compare their ideas to science textbooks or other

printed resources (negotiation phase III), as well as engage in individual reflection and writing

on how one’s scientific understandings have changed due to the laboratory activities (negotiation

phase IV). An example of a writing guideline prompt based on the SWH for an erosion lab is

shown in Figure 4 (Hand & Keys, 1999).


1. Exploration of pre-instruction understanding through individual or group concept mapping.

2. Pre-laboratory activities, including informal writing, making observations, brainstorming,

and posing questions

3. Participation in laboratory activity.

4. Negotiation phase I – writing personal meanings for laboratory activity (e.g., writing

journals).

5. Negotiation phase II – sharing and comparing data interpretations in small groups (e.g.

making group charts)

6. Negotiation phase III – comparing science ideas to textbooks or other printed sources (e.g.,

writing group notes in response to focus questions)

7. Negotiation phase IV – individual reflection and writing (e.g., creating a presentation such

as a poster or report for a larger audience)

8. Exploration of post-instruction understanding through concept mapping.

Figure 2. The Science Writing Heuristic, Part I: A template for teacher-designed activities.

1. Beginning ideas – What are my questions?

2. Tests - What did I do?

3. Observations – What did I see?

4. Claims – What can I claim?

5. Evidence – How do I know? Why am I making these claims?

6. Reading – How do my ideas compare with other ideas?

7. Reflection – How have my ideas changed?

Figure 3. The Science Writing Heuristic, Part II: A template for student thinking.

As you write your erosion report, make sure you include the following:

1. Your scientific opinion of how bad erosion is behind the tennis courts at your school.

(claim)

2. Detailed evidence supporting your opinion, including the results of the specific

observations and measurement. (observation and evidence)

3. A description of how you carried out the observations and measurements. (procedures/test)

4. A description of how your findings compare with your predictions about erosion.

(reflection)

5. A list of possible causes of erosion at your school. (claim and explanations)

Figure 4. A writing guideline prompt for an erosion lab based on the Science Writing Heuristic.

Features of Computer-Supported Instructional Designs with Teacher Facilitation

The computer software systems, Knowledge Integration Environment (KIE) (Bell & Linn,

2000), subsequently known as Web-based Integrated Science Environment (WISE) (Andriessen,

2006), and Biology Guided Inquiry Learning Environments (BGuILE) (Reiser, et al., 2001),

were reportedly used in instructional designs to support students’ argumentation with the

incorporation of teacher facilitation. Both software systems utilize specialized tools to support

students’ construction of arguments and explanations - SenseMaker (Figure 5) and the Mildred

guidance and note-taking component (Figure 6) are featured in KIE, while

ExplanationConstructor is in BGuILE (Figure 7). In both the KIE and BGuILE studies, the

presence of teacher-facilitation is noted during class debate where students’ claims or


explanations were critiqued (for KIE), or during whole class discussion where a shared

explanation among the class was sought (for BGuILE).

In the KIE study, prior to working in KIE, students performed laboratory experiments on

the topic of light. Students stated their personal position about how far light travels, then worked

in pairs using SenseMaker (Figure 5) and Mildred (Figure 6) to evaluate and explain how pieces

of evidence from the internet (which are linked to SenseMaker) supported their side of the

argument (presented as theories) for the debate on “how far does light go”? The evidence

includes scientific arguments by experts or historical scientists (e.g., competing arguments by

Newton and Kepler on the relationship between light and color). Student pairs then presented

their argument for either theory to the class in a class debate, which is the capstone instructional

activity. Thereafter, students were asked to reflect and restate their opinion about how far light

travels.

Figure 5. The SenseMaker software tool in KIE. Adapted from Bell and Linn (2000, p.799)


Figure 6. The Midred guidance and note-taking component in SenseMaker. Adapted from Bell

and Linn (2000, p.799)

In BGuILE, students worked in groups to investigate a problem using information

provided in the BGuILE investigation environment, and generate explanations for a related

research question. Criteria for evaluating explanations (i.e. causal coherence of explanations, and

relevance and sufficiency of evidence) were established among the teacher and students prior to

the investigation. Using ExplanationConstructor, students constructed their developing

explanations while performing an investigation in BGuILE. Explanation guides are provided for

the key causal components of an explanation based on a scientific theory, thus scaffolding

students’ construction of explanations. For example, in Figure 7, the explanation guides for

antibiotic attack indicate there are three components (three checked boxes) for an explanation

based on antibiotic attack. Students can attach more than one candidate explanation to each

question, and can insert evidence from the investigation environment to back up their claims.

Students can also evaluate each explanation by providing a rating and justification of the rating,

as seen in Figure 7. At various midpoints of an investigation, student groups paired up to critique

each other’s explanations, which provided an opportunity for students to assess their progress,

revise and extend their work. After the investigation, student groups reported their findings to the

class. The class analyzed essential points of agreement and disagreement, and generated a shared

explanation of the problem.


Figure 7. The ExplanationConstructor in BGuILE. Adapted from Reiser et al., (2001, p.276)

Features of Computer-Supported Instructional Design without Teacher Facilitation

In contrast to KIE and BGuILE, Confrontation, Negotiation, and Construction of Text

(CONNECT) (de Vries et al., 2002), provides a different kind of support for students’

argumentation. In the CONNECT study, students were introduced to a particle model of sound

(represented through a simulation video), and individually wrote an interpretation of a sound

phenomenon presented to them (i.e. an explanation). Students were then paired up based on

differences in their written interpretations by the researchers. Working across the network using

CONNECT, student pairs first judged their own and their partner’s interpretations by the

sentence (whether they agree, disagree, or don’t know/don’t understand/don’t have an opinion

about a sentence). Based on the combination of the student pair’s judgment, CONNECT

dynamically generates one of four instruction labels (verify, discuss, explain, or to be seen i.e. try

to see what is meant by the sentence) and displays it next to each statement. Students followed

the instruction next to each sentence (meanings of the labels were explained to the students prior

to their working with CONNECT). Following their discussion, each student pair wrote a

common interpretation of the same phenomenon in CONNECT. Thus, CONNECT supports the

process of critiquing an argument by focusing students on specific actions to take for each

sentence in an explanation, as well as the revision of individual explanations into a common

explanation.

Argumentation Instructional Designs’ Support for Knowledge-Building Discourse

In this section, I will present my analysis of the extent to which the reviewed instructional

designs for facilitating scientific argumentation support the three commitments of knowledge-

building discourse.


Support for Commitment to Progress

All the reviewed instructional designs include ways of having students externalize their

ideas, making different, sometimes opposing, ideas visible to themselves and others. These ideas

were then critiqued and evaluated by their peers and/or teacher. Consensus was sought to

generate a shared interpretation between a collaborating pair (e.g., CONNECT), shared criteria

for evaluating the claims and arguments (e.g., establishment of criteria for evaluating

explanations in BGuILE instructional design; discussion of what “most scientific” means in

Constructor and Critic), a shared explanation among collaborating groups as a class (through

teacher facilitation in the BGuILE instructional design), or agreement on which is the best claim

or argument (e.g. class discussion to determine the most scientific plan in Constructor and Critic;

argumentation session in ADI to determine the most valid or acceptable claim or to refine a

claim to make it more valid or acceptable). After establishing the consensus view, students could

revise their original idea, presumably because they are convinced that the consensus view is an

improvement over their original claim or argument. Other than CONNECT which required the

paired students to come up with a shared interpretation (hence either or both students had to

revise the original idea(s) which were dissimilar), and the ADI peer review process which

required students to resubmit their report based on the review results, the other instructional

designs do not make it mandatory for students to change their externalized ideas in based on the

consensus view. In SWH, support for progress in students’ ideas comes from student’s written

reflection on how his/her ideas have changed because of the investigation (Keys et al., 1999).

Students compared their ideas with peers’ ideas and authoritative ideas from science textbooks or

the science teachers to prompt improvements in their ideas.

However, whether students changed their ideas because they made a compromise or

recognized the consensus view as an improvement over their original idea remains a question for

further empirical study. In the CONNECT study, de Vries et al. (2002) presented their analysis

of a pair of students’ discussion whereby one of the students successively modified her

explanation seemingly with a goal of coinciding with the other student’s model, thus the pair did

not make progress in their conceptual understanding.

Support for Commitment to Seek Common Understanding

The teacher-facilitated instructional designs, including those with computer-support, do

not include specific designs for encouraging students to seek common understanding.

Interestingly, in the Constructor and Critic study, although students were asked to come up with

the “most scientific experiment plan” for answering an investigation question (Ford, 2012,

p.217), it was only when the instructor modeled the scientific critique of experiment plans did

the students realize they had not understood what scientific meant. The students went on to

produce more specific and reasoned arguments in the next iteration of presentation and critique,

indicating that they had established a common understanding of scientific. In the BGuILE study,

an instance of seeking common understanding is found in an excerpt of a class discussion where

the teacher asked a student to clarify what he meant by “fully developed” finches (Reiser et al.,

p.297). These examples highlight the importance of the teacher’s role in facilitating the class to

seek common understanding. Among the reviewed instructional designs, only CONNECT

explicitly requires students to verify i.e. check if they have the same understanding of a

statement which both students indicated they agree or disagree with (de Vries, et al., 2002).

SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTATION TO SUPPORT KNOWLEDGE-BUILDING DISCOURSE

10

Support for Commitment to Expand the Base of Accepted Facts

As for expanding the base of accepted facts, in SWH, students are asked to compare their

ideas with authoritative sources such as science textbooks, other printed sources, and the science

teacher, suggesting that these sources could be used to expand the base of accepted facts for

supporting students’ new ideas and claims. Scardamalia and Bereiter (2006) caution that the

authoritative texts, such as textbooks, should be used constructively, that is, they should be

treated like other participants in the knowledge-building discourse (Bereiter, 1994), and could be

challenged. On the other hand, investigations and activities in BGuILE and KIE are based on a

set of data and evidence. To some extent, the data and evidence can be interpreted as “facts”

accepted by the students. From this perspective, BGuILE and KIE software systems provide

students with an expanded set of accepted facts compared to what they knew. The expanded base

of accepted facts was then used by students to form new claims and explanations, and make

progress in their scientific understandings.

Although students were introduced to scientific theories, laws and concepts through ADI

investigations, they did not use these theories or laws in the post-intervention performance task

(Sampson et al., 2010). Sampson et al. (2010) suggest either the students did not understand the

scientific theories or laws well enough to use them in a novel context, or they were not

sufficiently encouraged to use scientific theories or laws to explain novel phenomena throughout

the course (the researchers thought the latter explanation is more likely). The finding could be

interpreted as: either the students did not expand their base of accepted facts, or they did not

recognize which facts were relevant for supporting new claims in the novel context.

Implications and Suggestions for Improvements

Based on my review presented in this paper, the reviewed instructional designs for

facilitating argumentation in science seem well designed to support some of the commitments in

knowledge-building discourse. All six instructional designs include approaches for making

students’ thinking visible. They also include multiple opportunities for students’ ideas, claims,

explanations and arguments to be compared, critiqued and revised. While a commitment to

progress in knowledge-building discourse means students revise their ideas because they

recognize that the new idea is an improvement over their previous idea, there is no evidence

provided in the studies of the reviewed instructional designs to suggest if students revised their

ideas because they recognized the new idea as an improvement over the previous idea, or if they

compromised so the lesson or activity could move on. Empirical studies could be conducted on

instructional designs facilitating argumentation to probe the reason behind apparent progress in

students’ ideas. Furthermore, all the reviewed instructional designs that included seeking

consensus view, except CONNECT, depend on teacher facilitation to establish the consensus

among the class. This highlights the significance of the teacher’s role in establishing consensus

among the students, as well as the challenge for the teacher to achieve consensus without forcing

the desired view onto the students.

As for supporting the commitment to seek common understanding, only CONNECT

explicitly requires students to verify and check if they have the same understanding of a sentence.

The other instructional designs might have presumed students would seek common

understanding during discussions. However, this does not seem to be the case. In the Constructor

and Critic study, the teacher was the one who made the students realize they did not have a

common understanding of what “scientific” means (Ford, 2012). Hence, instructional designs for

facilitating argumentation need to be more explicit in supporting students to establish common


11

understanding, in order for knowledge building to occur. Studies could be done on whether

students more frequently seek common understanding or agreement at various points during

argumentation, and whether certain patterns of when or how frequent common understanding is

sought is related to more productive knowledge building.

Finally, some of the reviewed instructional designs sought to enlarge students’ base of

accepted facts in different ways. Instructional designs utilizing BGuILE and KIE had students

make use of the data and evidence within the software system to draw upon for new claims and

explanations, while authoritative sources such as the science textbooks were introduced in SWH.

ADI sought to increase students’ base of accepted facts through the laboratory investigations.

The finding that students did not apply scientific theories, laws, and concepts developed through

ADI investigations to support new claims in a novel situation suggests a commitment to expand

the base of accepted facts has to be coupled with knowing which facts are relevant to draw upon

for making new claims in a particular situation. While the commitment is supported by

presenting students with a predefined set of facts, data or evidence to draw upon, such as in the

designs of BGuILE, KIE, and SWH, a question remains as to whether such support should be

faded i.e. gradually removed until students can identify new, relevant facts to form the base of

accepted facts for making new claims on their own, and how fading of the support should be

incorporated in the instructional design.

In conclusion, many of the instructional designs I reviewed, such as BGuILE, KIE, and

SWH, seem well-designed to support the knowledge-building discourse commitment to progress,

and commitment to expand the base of accepted facts through computer support, and/or teacher

facilitation. These instructional designs should be improved to support the commitment to seek

common understanding either though computer-support using features similar to CONNECT, or

through teacher facilitation during class discussions and related pedagogical approaches to foster

this commitment among students when they engage in small group discussions.

References

Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The cambridge handbook of the

learning sciences (pp. 443–459). New York: Cambridge University Press.

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), 797-817.

Bereiter, C. (1994). Implications of postmodernism for science, or, science as progressive

discourse. Educational Psychologist, 29(1), 3-12.

Bereiter, C. (2002). Knowledge outside the mind. In Education and mind in the knowledge age.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bricker, L. A, & 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.

Collins, A. (2006). Cognitive apprenticeship. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The cambridge handbook of

the learning sciences (pp. 47–60). New York: Cambridge University Press.


12

de Vries, E., Lund, K. & Baker, M. J. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue:

Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. The Journal

of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 63 - 103.

Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation

in classrooms. Science Education, 287–312.

Ford, M. (2012). A dialogic account of sense-making in scientific argumentation and reasoning.

Cognition and Instruction, 30(3), 207-245.

Hand, B., & Keys, C. (1999). Inquiry investigation. The Science Teacher, 66(4), 27-29.

Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a

tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research

in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065-1084.

Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B. K., Steinmuller, F., & Leone, A. J. (2001).

BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In

S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress

(pp. 263–305). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge-building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology.

In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–115). New

York: Cambridge University Press.

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(3), 447–472.

Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, K. P. (2010). Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help

students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An

exploratory study. Science Education, 95(2), 217-257.

Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., & McLaren, B. M. (2010) Computer-supported

argumentation: A review of the state of the art. Computer-Supported Collaborative

Learning, 5, 43-102.

Suthers, D. (2003). Representational guidance for collaborative inquiry. In J. Andriessen, M.

Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Confronting Cognitions: Arguing to Learn in Computer-

Supported Collaborative Learning Environments (pp.27-46).Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic

Publishers.

Facilitation of Scientific Argumentation to Support Knowledge-Building Discourse

Documents

Transcript of Facilitation of Scientific Argumentation to Support Knowledge-Building Discourse