Advertisement

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

  • Douglas B. Clark
  • Victor Sampson
  • Hsin-Yi Chang
  • Helen Zhang
  • Erika D. Tate
  • Beat Schwendimann
Chapter

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.

Keywords

Knowledge integration framework Critique Visualizations Grouping for collaboration Analyzing students’ argumentation 

References

  1. 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
  2. Ainsworth, S. E. (1999). A functional taxonomy of multiple representations. Computers and Education, 33(2/3), 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bahar, M., Johnstone, A. H., & Hansell, M. H. (1999). Revisiting learning difficulties in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 33(2), 84–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy of Science Press.Google Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. Chang, & Linn. (2011). Learning from a molecular visualization: Observe, interact or critique? Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A. A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator, 15, 6–11 & 38–46.Google Scholar
  38. 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
  39. 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
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2 & 3), 105–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. diSessa, A. A., Gillespie, N., & Esterly, J. (2004). Coherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of force. Cognitive Science, 28, 843–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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
  48. 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
  49. Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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
  53. Fleming, R. (1986a). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues. Part I. Social cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 677–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Fleming, R. (1986b). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues. Part II. Nonsocial cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 689–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Hegarty, M. (2004). Dynamic visualizations and learning: getting to the difficult questions. Learning and Instruction, 14, 343–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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
  59. 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
  60. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1969). The early growth of logic in the child. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  64. 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
  65. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Kali, Y., (2006). Collaborative knowledge-building using the design principles database. International Journal of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 187–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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
  69. Kali, Y., Linn, M. C., & Roseman, J. E. (Eds.). (2008). Designing coherent science education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  70. 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
  71. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 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
  73. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  74. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 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
  76. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245–1260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Lin, X. D., & Schwartz, D. (2003). Reflection at the crossroad of cultures. Mind, Culture & Activities, 10(1), 9–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 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
  81. 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
  82. Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  83. Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (2004). Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  84. 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
  85. 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
  86. Linn, M. C., Lee, H. S., Tinker, R., Husic, F., & Chiu, J. L. (2006). Teaching and assessing knowledge integration. Science, 313(5790), 1049–1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 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
  88. Lowe, R. (2003). Animation and learning: Selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction, 13, 157–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Lowe, R. (2004). Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning. Learning and Instruction, 14, 257–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Mason, L. (1998). Sharing cognition to construct scientific knowledge in school context: The role of oral and written discourse. Instructional Science, 26, 359–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  94. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 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
  96. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Rochelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 235–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic supports for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 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
  103. 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
  104. Schwendimann, B. (2007). Integrating interactive genetics visualizations into high school biology. TELS AERA Meeting.Google Scholar
  105. 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
  106. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Siegel, H. (1989). The rationality of science, critical thinking and science education. Synthese, 80(1), 9–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 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
  109. 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
  110. 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
  111. 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
  112. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  114. Tsui, C. Y. & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Genetics reasoning with multiple external representations. Research in Science Education, 33(1), 111–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 57, 247–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. van Eemeren, F., Grootendorst, R., & Henkemans, A. F. (2002). Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ & London, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  117. 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
  118. Vellom, R. P., & Anderson, C. W. (1999). Reasoning about data in middle school science. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 36(2), 179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46, 71–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 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
  121. 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
  122. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Xie, Q., & Tinker, R. (2006). Molecular dynamics simulations of chemical reactions for use in education, Journal of Chemical Education, 83, 77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81, 483–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 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
  127. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Douglas B. Clark
    • 1
  • Victor Sampson
    • 2
  • Hsin-Yi Chang
    • 3
  • Helen Zhang
    • 4
  • Erika D. Tate
    • 4
  • Beat Schwendimann
    • 4
  1. 1.Vanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA
  2. 2.Florida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  3. 3.National Kaohsiung Normal UniversityKaohsiung CityTaiwan
  4. 4.University of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations