LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Publisher: Elsevier
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: C800

Classified by OpenAIRE into

mesheuropmc: education
We report on a study of the effect of meta-level awareness on the use of evidence in discourse. The participants were 66 pre-service teachers who were engaged in a dialogic activity. Meta-level awareness regarding the use of evidence in discourse was heightened by having same-side peers collaborating in arguing on the computer against successive pairs of peers on the opposing side of an issue on the topic of Climate Change and by engaging in explicit reflective activities on the use of evidence. Participants showed significant advances both in their skill of producing evidence-based arguments and counterarguments and regarding the accuracy of the evidence used. Advances were also observed at the meta-level, reflecting at least implicit understanding that using evidence is an important goal of argumentation. Another group of pre-service teachers, who studied about the role of evidence in science in the context of regular curriculum and served as a control condition, did not exhibit comparable advances in the use of evidence in argumentation. Educational implications are discussed.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Amsel, E., & Brock, S. (1996). The Development of evidence evaluation skills. Cognitive Development, 11, 523-550. doi:10.1016/S0885-2014(96)90016-7
    • Anderson, R. C., Chinn, C., Chang, J., Waggoner, M., & Yi, H. (1997). On the logical integrity of children's arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 15(2), 135-167. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1502_1
    • Avraamidou, L., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2005). Giving priority to evidence in science teaching: A first-year elementary teacher‟s specialized practices and knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 965-968. doi:10.1002/tea.20081
    • Chinn, C. A. (2006). Learning to argue. In A. O‟Donnell, C. Hmelo-Silver, & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaborative learning, reasoning, and technology. (pp. 355-383). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
    • Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science education. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1-49. doi:10.3102/00346543063001001
    • Chinn, C. A., Buckland, L. A., & Samarapungavan, A. (2011). Expanding the dimensions of epistemic cognition: Arguments from philosophy and psychology. Educational Psychologist, 46(3), 141-167, doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.587722
    • Crowell, A., & Kuhn, D. (2014) Developing dialogic argumentation skills: A 3-year intervention study. Journal of Cognition and Development, 15(2), 363-381, doi:10.1080/15248372.2012.725187
    • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098- 237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
    • 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(6). 915-933. doi:10.1002/sce.20012
    • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or" doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792. doi:10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F
    • Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students‟ use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86(3), 314-342. doi:10.1002/sce.10024
    • Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students‟ reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849-871. doi:10.1080/0950069980200707
    • Kollar, I., Ufer, S., Reichersdorfer, E., Vogel, F., Fischer, F., & Reiss, K. (2014). Effects of collaboration scripts and heuristic worked examples on the acquisition of mathematical argumentation skills of teacher students with different levels of prior achievement. Learning and Instruction, 32, 22-36. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.01.003
    • Kolstø, S. D., Bungum, B., Arnesen, E., Isnes, A., Kristensen, T., Mathiassen, K., . . . Ulvik, M. (2006). Science students‟ critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education, 90(4), 632-655. doi:10.1002/sce.20133
    • Kopp, B., & Mandl, H. (2011). Fostering argument justification using collaboration scripts and content schemes. Learning and Instruction, 21(5), 636-649. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.02.001
    • Kuhn, D. (2001). How do people know? Psychological Science, 12, 1-8. doi:10.1111/1467- 9280.00302
    • Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810- 824. doi:10.1002/sce.20395
    • Kuhn, D., Goh, W., Iordanou, K., & Shaenfield, D. (2008). Arguing on the Computer: A Microgenetic Study of Developing Argument Skills in a Computer-Supported Environment. Child Development, 79(1), 233-234.
    • Kuhn, D., Iordanou, K., Pease, M., & Wirkala, C. (2008). Beyond control of variables: What needs to develop to achieve skilled scientific thinking? Cognitive Development, 23, 435- 451.
    • Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 287-315. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1503_1
    • Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74, 1245-1260. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00605
    • Kuhn, D., Zillmer, N., Crowell, A., & Zavala, J. (2013). Developing norms of argumentation: Metacognitive, epistemological, and social dimensions of developing argumentive competence. Cognition and Instruction, 31(4), 456-496. doi:10.1080/07370008.2013.830618
    • Kyza, E. A., & Constantinou, C. P. (2007). STOCHASMOS: a web-based platform for reflective, inquire-based teaching and learning. [Computer software]. Cyprus: Learning in Science Group.
    • Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., & Petrosino, A. J. (2001). Reconsidering the role of experiment in science education. In K. Crowley, C. Schunn, & T. Okada (Eds.), Designing for science: Implications from every day, classroom, and professional settings (pp. 251-277). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
    • Muis, K. R. (2007). The role of epistemic beliefs in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 42(3), 173-190, doi:10.1080/00461520701416306
    • Nussbaum, E. M., & Sinatra, G. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 384 -395. doi:10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00038-3
    • Osborne, G., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020. doi:10.1002/tea.20035
    • Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. 41-72). New York: Guilford.
    • Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., & Kuo, L. J. (2007). Teaching and learning argumentation. The Elementary School Journal, 107(5), 449-472. doi:10.1086/518623
    • Sadler, T. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513-536. doi:10.1002/tea.20009
    • Sadler, T. D., Chambers, W. F., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387- 409. doi:10.1080/0950069032000119456
    • Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students‟ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89, 634-656. doi:10.1002/sce.20065
    • Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2008). What can argumentation tell us about epistemology? In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 71-88). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_4
    • Schauble, L. (1990). Belief revision in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 49, 31-57.
    • Schwarz, B., Newman, Y., & Biezuner, S. (2000). Two wrongs may make a right . . . If they argue together! Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 461-494. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI1804_2
    • Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Toplak, M. E. (2013). Myside bias, rational thinking, and intelligence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(4), 259-264. doi:10.1177/0963721413480174
    • Stein, N., & Miller, C. (1993). The development of memory and reasoning skill in argumentative contexts: Evaluating, explaining, and generating evidence. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 285-335). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    • Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511840005
    • Walton, D. N. (1989). Dialogue theory for critical thinking. Argumentation, 3(2), 169-184. doi:10.1007/BF00128147
    • Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding preservice science teachers‟ evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32, 437-463. doi:10.1023/A:1022411822951
    • Zohar, A. (2004). Higher order thinking in science classrooms: Students' learning and teachers' professional development. Dordrecht, The Neatherlands: Kluwer Academic. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-1854-1
    • Zohar, A. (2008). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 245-268). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_12
    • Zohar, A., & Ben David, A. (2008). Explicit teaching of meta-strategic knowledge in authentic
    • classroom situations. Metacognition and Learning, 3(1), 59-82. doi:10.1007/s11409-
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article