臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究的目的在以教師的教學、學生的學習，以及論證內涵表現三個面向的資料分析，探討論證教學有經驗教師與論證教學生手教師，如何進行爭議性科技議題的論證教學，以及兩位教師教學特徵的相似與相異之處。在教師教學面向的分析主要採用凱利方格分析，學生學習面相是應用問卷量表評鑑，論證內涵面向則是發展對話論證表徵，來系統的探索師生與同儕間的對話論證內容與結構。最後本研究就上述三面向所蒐集的資料進行編碼、探索、追蹤與否證，以分析兩位個案教師的論證教學特徵，並將這些特徵進行比較與討論。研究結果發現有經驗教師無論在教學目標、教學策略，與實際執行的教學策略上，具備較多元的成分與內容，意味有經驗教師能夠應用較廣泛的資源與知識來進行爭議性的論證教學。教學反思方面，有經驗教師反思有更多的教學批判反思與對學生學習過程的反思。無論是生手還是有經驗的教師，都有能力勝任舉證支持的對話論證的教學，因此建議論證教學之教師專業發展可以由舉證支持的對話論證教學為起點，在反駁質疑對話論證中，有經驗教師較能夠維持理性的對話論證氣氛，而延續至學生化解他方反駁的論證內容，原因是有經驗教師較能引導學生反思論證的意義與價值，這些均是論證教學專業發展的參考策略。

The purpose of this study is to inquiry the argumentation teaching from three aspects of analysis, the teacher’s reaching, students’ learning, and nature of argumentation. Participants include two teachers and two classes of high school students. One teacher is familiar with teaching argumentation and another is not. These teachers are identifying as experienced and inexperienced teacher. In our research design, we compare how these teachers making and management their argumentation learning in social-scientific issue environment. The first aspect of analysis is to apply the Kelly’s repertory grid technique for concerning the teachers’ teaching design. Second one is to know the improvement of students’ argumentation ability. The last one is for inquiring the nature of argumentation in classroom and we design a representation as an analytical tool for tracking the progress and quality of argumentation in science classroom. We found students tend to be unwilling to become involved in any kind of verbal exchange which has the potential for conflict (i.e. argumentation). The primary reason for such hesitancy is fear of becoming emotionally upset. When teaching students the objective process of claim/support within the context of an argumentation class, inexperienced teacher was less effective than experienced teacher in helping students to view such a verbal exchange objectively without involving their emotions. Experienced teacher ont only tended to be more sensitive to students’ shift from objective involvement to emotional involvement but invoved more guidance for students to make reflection about the meaning of making aeguments.

目次………………………………………………………………….Ⅰ
表次……………………………………………………………….…Ⅱ
圖次……………………………………………………………….…Ⅴ
中文摘要………………………………………………………….……1
英文摘要………………………………………………………….……2
第一章 緒論…………………………………………………….……3
第一節 研究動機………………………………………...………3
第二節究目的、問題與限制………………………...…………..7
第二章 文獻探討……………………………………….……….……11
第一節 科學論證的內涵與機制………………..………….…...11
第二節 師生互動與對話論證的分析模式……………….…… 20
第三節 科學論證的學習情境與教材主題………….………….29
第四節 專家與生手教師的論證教學……………...………… 36
第三章 研究方法…………………………………………….……….45
第一節 研究設計…………………………………….………….45
第二節 研究流程……..…………………………………...….…51
第三節 研究對象……………………………………….…….…52
第四節 科學爭議性議題教材………………………….….……53
第五節 研究工具……………………………………….….……57
第六節 資料蒐集與分析………………………….……….……65
第七節 研究的信度與效度……………………………….……77
第四章 研究結果………………………………..………..….………79
第一節 教師論證教學之分析……………..…………..….……79
第二節 班級學生論證學習分析…………..………..…..…….142
第三節 師生對話論證表徵分析…………..………...….…….161
第四節 教師論證教學的追蹤與比較分析.………..……..…..179
第五章 結論與建議……………………………..………..….….….199
參考文獻………………………………………………………..…...213

表 次
表3-1：研究流程表……………………………………..…………51
表3-2：研究對象條件比較表……………………..………………52
表3-3：對話論證內容範例………………………….……………60
表3-4：對話論證轉錄表徵的要點…………………………..……60
表3-5：各論證內涵層面品質判準……………………..…………61
表3-6：對話論證話語的分類判準表……………….………….…62
表3-7：晤談教學策略摘要式描述…………………….…….……65
表3-8：實際教學策略摘要式描述…………….…………….……66
表3-9：師生晤談的時期與要點表………………….……….……67
表3-10：元素與構念彙整表………………………………………72
表3-11：資料的最初的描述性編碼類別項目表…………………74
表3-12：資料追蹤表………………………………………………75
表3-13：關鍵事件追蹤表…………………………………………75
表3-14：跨個案教師的比較分析表………………………………76
表4-1：有經驗教師蘇花高議題教學目標之摘要式描述…..……79
表4-2：有經驗教師蘇花高議題教學策略摘要式描述表…...……80
表4-3：有經驗教師蘇花高議題教學目標與教學策略表…..….…81
表4-4：蘇花高議題教學目標與教學策略元素與構念彙整表…...83
表4-5：有經驗教師化妝品議題教學目標摘要式描述……….…..84
表4-6：有經驗教師化妝品議題教學策略摘要式描述表………...84
表4-7：有經驗教師化妝品爭議性議題教學目標與教學策略表...86
表4-8：化妝品議題教學目標與教學策略元素與構念彙整表…...89
表4-9：教師教學策略描述性摘要製作表………………………...91
表4-10：蘇花高議題之實際執行教學策略表………………….…91
表4-11：有經驗教師蘇花高議題執行程度之元素與構念彙整表94
表4-12：教師教學策略描述性摘要製作…………………….……95
表4-13：化妝品使用與否之爭議性議題實際進行的教學策略表96
表4-14：執行程度之元素與構念彙整表……………………….…98
表4-15：教師反思內容分類表……………………………………100
表4-16：生手教師領養議題教學目標之摘要式描述………...….113
表4-17：生手教師領養議題教學策略摘要式描述………………115
表4-18：生手教師領養議題教學目標與教學策略表……………115
表4-19：領養議題元素與構念彙整表……………………………117
表4-20： 生手教師化妝品議題教學目標摘要式描述…………..118
表4-21：生手教師化妝品議題教師教學策略摘要式描述………119
表4-22：生手教師化妝品議題教學目標與教學策略表…………121
表4-23：化妝議題元素與構念彙整表……………………………123
表4-24：生手教師領養議題教師實際教學策略摘要式描述……123
表4-25：生手教師領養議題教師實際教學策略…………………124
表4-26：生手教師領養議題元素構念彙整表……………………126
表4-27：生手教師化妝品議題教師實際教學策略………………127
表4-28：生手教師化妝品議題元素與構念彙整表………………129
表4-29：教師反思內容分類表……………………………………130
表4-30：學生在科學論證能力表現之描述性統計量……………140
表4-31 迴歸係數同質性檢定摘要表……………………………..140
表4-32：不同班級在科學論證能力表現之共變數分析摘要表…141
表4-33：高品質論證回合數表……………………………………162
表4-34：有經驗教師資料追蹤類別總表…………………………180
表4-35：有經驗教師班級在資料蒐集中所含括的舉證支持論證
事件追蹤表…………… ………………….……………..181
表4-36：有經驗教師班級在小組討論中所含括的舉證支持論證
事件追蹤表……………………………..………………..182
表4-37：有經驗教師班級在全班論證中所含括的舉證支持論證
事件追蹤表………………………………………..……..183
表4-38：有經驗教師班級在資料蒐集中的反駁質疑事件追蹤表183
表4-40：有經驗教師班級全班論證中的反駁質疑事件追蹤表….183
表4-41：有經驗教師班級在資料蒐集中的化解反駁事件追蹤表184
表4-42：有經驗教師班級在小組討論中的化解反駁事件追蹤表185
表4-43：有經驗教師班級在全班論證中的化解反駁事件追蹤表186
表4-44：生手教師資料追蹤類別總表…. …. …. …. …. …. .…. ..187
表4-45：生手教師在資料蒐集中的舉證支持論證事件追蹤表….187
表4-46：生手教師在小組討論中的舉證支持論證事件追蹤表….188
表4-47：生手教師在全班論證中的舉證支持論證事件追蹤表….189
表4-50：生手教師在全班論證中的反駁質疑論證事件追蹤表….190
表4-53：生手教師在全班論證中的化解反駁論證事件追蹤表….191
表4-54：有經驗與生手教師經營論證教學的比較分析…. .…. …191


圖 次
圖2-1：論證的高層思考知能………………………………….………13
圖2-2：科學教育中論證教學涉及的理論層面………………..………14
圖2-3：科學論證活動的三面向………………………………………15
圖2-4：科學論證活動模式…………………………………...……….16
圖2-5：論證的結構與機制……………………………………………17
圖2-6：語言類別與層級表徵…………………………….……...……21
圖2-7：互動區表徵…………………………………………..…..……23
圖2-8：知識論的論證教學模式……………………………..…..……25
圖2-9：假設-預測的論證探究教學模式……………………. .………26
圖2-10：知識論與科學概念層級的論證模式……………….… ……27
圖2-11：科學論證的學習情境雪花圖……………………….… ……31
圖3-1：研究設計架構…………………………………………... ……45
圖3-2：教師教學面向的設計架構圖………………………...… ……47
圖3-3：學生教學面向的設計架構圖…………………….…...………48
圖3-4：論證內涵面向的設計架構圖………………..….….…………49
圖3-5：對話論證表徵……………………………………....………59
圖3-6：對話論證表徵範例……………………………..….………63
圖3-7：教師之教學目標與教學策略之凱利方格分…………………69
圖3-8：凱利方格群聚分.………………………………………70
圖3-9：凱利方格主成份分析解讀……………………………………71
圖3-10：凱利方格主成份分析………………………………………..71
圖4-1：蘇花高議題之教學目標與教學策略聚類分析………………82
圖4-2：蘇花高議題之教學目標與教學策略主成份分析……………83
圖4-3：化妝品使用與否教學目標與教學策略聚類分析……………87
圖4-4：化妝品使用與否教學目標與教學策略主成份分析…………88
圖4-5：蘇花高議題之實際與安排之教學策略聚類分析…………….92
圖4-6：蘇花議題之實際與安排之教學策略主成份分析…………….93
圖4-7：化妝品議題之實際與安排之教學策略聚類分析…………….97
圖4-8：化妝品議題之實際與安排之教學策略主成份分析……..…..98
圖4-9：領養議題教學目標與教學策略聚類分析………..…………116
圖4-10：領養議題教學目標與策略主成份分析……………..……..116
圖4-11：生手教師化妝品議題教學目標與策略聚類分析……..…..121
圖4-12：生手教師化妝議題教學目標與策略主成份分析……..…..122
圖4-13：生手教師領養議題實際策略與安排策略聚類分析.............125
圖4-14：生手教師領養議題實際教學策略與安排策略主成份分析126
圖4-15：生手教師化妝品議題實際教學策略與安排策略聚類分析128
圖4-16：生手教師化妝品議題實際與安排策略主成份分析………129
圖4-17：對話論證次數與品質之長條圖……………………..……..161
圖4-18：有經驗教師蘇花高速公路議題之對話論證表徵…………162
圖4-19：有經驗教師化妝品使用議題對話論證表徵………………163
圖4-20：生手教師領養議題之對話論證表徵………………………173
圖4-21：生手教師化妝品議題之對話論證表徵……………………173
圖4-22：舉證支持論證教學事件比較圖……………………………196
圖4-23：反駁質疑論證教學事件比較圖……………………………196
圖4-24：化解反駁教論證學事件比較圖……………………………197
圖5-1 ：教師論證教學成長模式…………………………………… 209

一、中文
江建良(2006)。商用統計學。普林斯頓國際有限公司。
李哲迪(2005)高中物理教科書與學生關於力的話語與合法化的語言策略。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文，未出版。
林煥祥、洪振方和洪瑞兒(2007). 德智體群美五育理念與實踐。教育部。
邱貞綺(2007)以凱利方格技術探討國民小學教師對公民教育目標和內涵的看法。臺北市立教育大學課程與教學研究所碩士論文，未出版。
洪振方、林裕仁與魏子婷(2010)。專精教師與生手教師經營論證教學的分析與比較。科學教育學刊，18(3)，P 205-227。
洪振方(2008)：促進學生論證與理解品質之教學模式研究(3/3)。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計劃書，計劃編號：NSC-95-2511-S-017-005-MY3。
陳可恭(2005)：從系統典範探討板塊構造學說多重類比教學-「凱利方格法」(RGT)之系統性應用。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文，未出版。
陳世文(2006)科學文本之級位分體論述與師生對其語意理解之研究。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文，未出版。
黃翎斐、張文華和林陳涌(2008)。不同佈題模式對學生論證表現的影響。科學教育學刊, 16, 375-393.
張芬芬譯(2006)。Matthew B. Miles＆Michael Huberman合著，質性研究資料分析(Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook)。台北市：雙葉書廊。
楊巽斐(2004)合作式行動研究對國中自然與生活科技教師教學信念的影響之研究 。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文，未出版。
楊榮祥和林陳涌(1998)：利用凱利方格晤談法探討教師對科學本質的觀點－個案研究。科學教育學刊，6(2)，p113-128 。

二、英文
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.
Aikenhead, G. (2001). Integrating western and aboriginal sciences: Cross-cultural science teaching. Research in Science Teaching, 31, 337–355.
Aikenhead, G., & Olugbemiro, J. (1999). Transcending cultural borders: Implications for science teaching. Research in Science and Technological Education, 17, 45–66.
Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 37, 295-317.
Alexopoulou, E. & Driver, R. (1997). Small group discussions in physics: Peer interaction modes in pairs and fours. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 1099–1114.
Alverman, D.E., Qian, G., & Hynd, C.E. (1995). Effects of interactive discussion and text type on learning counterintuitive science concepts. Journal of Educational Research, 88, 146–154.
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 Academic.
Armstrong, K., & Weber, K. (1991). Genetic engineering - A lesson on bioethics for the classroom. The American Biology Teacher, 53(5), 294-297.
Avraamioduo, L., & Zembal-Sual, 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, 965-986.
Appleton. K. (2008). Developing science pedagogical content knowledge through mentoring elementary teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(6), 523–545.
Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J & Simon, S., (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101–131.
Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87, 352–377.
Bencze, J. L., Bowen, G. M., & Alsop, S. (2006). Teachers' tendencies to promote student-led science projects: Associations with their views about science. Science Education, 90(3), 400-419.
Bezzi, A. (1996). Use of repertory grids in facilitating knowledge construction and reconstruction in geology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(2), 179.
Bezzi, A. (1999). What is this thing called geoscience? Epistemological dimensions elicited with the repertory grid and their implications for scientific literacy. Science Education, 83(6), 675-700.
Billing, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: A rhetoric approach to social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown A. L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagarva, K., Gordon, A., & Campione, J. C. (1993). Distributed expertise in the classroom. In G. Salomon. (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: psychological and educational considerations (pp. 188-228). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press
Brown A. L (1992) Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom Settings. Journal of the learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178
Bricker, A. L., & 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, 473-498.
Burden, P. R., & Byrd, D. M. (1999). Instructional strategies. In P. R. Burden & D. M. Byrd (Eds.), Methods for effective teaching (pp.84-114). Boston: Allyn and
Carpenter, T.P., Lynn-Blanton, M., Cobb, P., Loef-Franke. M., Kaput, J., McClain, K. (2004). Scaling Up Innovative Practices in Mathematics and Science. Research report. NCISLA.
Chan, C. K. K. (2001). Peer collaboration and discourse patterns in learning from incompatible information. Instructional Science, 29, 443–479.
Chalghoumi, T. N., & Simonneaux, L. (2006). Analyse des arguments d’ eleves tunisiens sur le depistage prenatal de la drepanocytose. Aster, 42, 159-186.
Chin, C.(2006). Classroom Interaction in Science: Teacher questioning and feed back to students’ responses. International Journal of Science education, 28(11), 1315-1346.
Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 815-843.
Chitsabesan, P., Corbett, S., Walker, L., Spencer J., & Barton, J. R. (2006). Describing clinical teachers' characteristics and behaviours using critical incidents and repertory grids. Medical Education, 40, 645-653
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, 293–321
Corporaal, A. H. (1991). Repertory grid research into cognitions of prospective primary school teachers. Teaching & Teacher Education, 7(4), 315-329.
Crawford, T., Kelly, G. J., & Brown, C. (2000). Ways of knowing beyond facts and laws of Science: An ethnographic investigation of student engagement in scientific practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 237-258.
Dawson, V., & Venville, G. J. (2008). High-school students' informal reasoning and argumentation about biotechnology: An indicator of scientific literacy? International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1-25.
Dawson, V. (2001). Addressing controversial issues in secondary school science. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 47(4), 38-44.
Driver, R., Newton, P., Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312
Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. & Holman, D. (1996). Using repertory grids in management. Journal of European Industrial Training, 20(3), 3-30.
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.
Erduran, S., & Jime´nex-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in Science Education: Perspective from Classroom-Base Research. Springer Press.
Ergazaki, M., & Zogza, V. ( 2005). From a causal question to stating and testing hypotheses: exploring the discursive activity of biology students. In K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. De Jong, & H. Eijkelhof(Eds.), Research and the Quality of Science Education, (pp.407-417). Dordewcht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Fetherstonhaugh, T. (1994). Using the repertory grid to probe students’ ideas about energy. Research in Science & Technological Education, 12(2), 117.
Fransella, F., Bell, R. & Bannister, D. (2004). A Manual for Repertory Grid Technique. NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (2007). A framework for practical work in science and scientific literacy through argumentation. Research in Science & Technological Education, 25, 271 – 291.
Grace, M. 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, 1157– 1169.
Henze, I., Driel, J. V., & Verloop, N. (2007). The change of science teachers’personal knowledge about teaching models and modelling in the context of science education reform. International Journal of Science Education, 29(15), 1819–1846
Herrenkohl, L., Palinscar, A., DeWater, L.S., & Kawasaki, K. (1999). Developing scientific communities in classrooms: A sociocognitive approach. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 451–493.
Hewitt,A.(2005). Teachers’ Personal Construct models of pupil individuality and their influence in the music classroom. Music Education Research, 7(3), 305-330.
Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students’ and scientists’ reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 663–687.
Ho, C. M. L., Rappa, N. A., & Chee, Y. S. (2009). Designing and implementing virtual enactive role-play and structured argumentation: Promises and pitfalls. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(5), 381-408.
Jordan, P. W., & Persson, S. (2007). Exploring users’ product constructs: how peoplethink about different types of product think about different types of product. CoDesign, 3, 97-106.
Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (2000). Role playing/Studying social behavior and values. In B. Joyce & M. Weil (Eds.), Models of teaching (pp.57-76). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Jime´nex-Aleixandre, M.P., Rodrı´guez, A.B., & Duschl, R. (2000). ‘‘Doing the lesson’’ or ‘‘doing science’’: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792.
Jimenez-Aleixandre M. P., & Pereiro, Munoz, C.(2005). Argument Construction and Change while Working on a Real Environment Problem. In K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. De Jong, & H. Eijkelhof(Eds.), Research and the Quality of Science Education, (pp.419-431). Dordewcht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton
Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: an analysis of university oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86, 314 – 342.
Kelly, G.J., Drucker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). students’ reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 849–871.
Kittleson, J. M., & Southerland, S. A. (2004). The role of discourse in group knowledge construction: A case study of engineering students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 267-293.
Kolstø, S. D & Ratliffe, M. (2008). Social aspect of Argumentation. In Erduran, S., & Jiménex-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education: Perspective from Classroom-Base Research (pp. 117-137 ). Springer Press.
Kolstø, S, D., & Mestad, I. (2005). Learning about the nature of scientific knowledge: The imitating science project. In K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. De Jong, & H. Eijkelhof(Eds.), Research and the Quality of Science Education, (pp.419-431). Dordewcht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Kolstø, S., D. (2006). Patterns in Students’ Argumentation Confronted with a Risk-focused Socio-scientific Issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1689–1716.
Kramarski, B., Mevarech, Z., & Arami, M. (2002). The effects of metacognitive instruction on solving mathematical authentic tasks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 225–250.
Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Continuum.
Krystyniak, R. A., & Heikkinen, H. W. (2007). Analysis of verbal interactions during an extended, open-inquiry general chemistry laboratory investigation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 1160-1186.
Kurz,T.L. & Middleton, J.A. (2006). Using a functional approach to change preservice teachers’ understanding of mathematics software. Journal of research on technology in education, 39(1), 45-65
Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 287–315.
Kuhn, D., & Felton, M. (2000). Paper Presented at the Winter Conference on Discourse, Text, and Cognition. Jackson Hole WY.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implication for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319-317
Kuhn, D., (2002). What is scientific thinking and how does it develop? In U. Goswami(Eds.), Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development . Oxford: Blackwell.
Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for Thinking. London England, Harvard University Press.
Lawson, A.E. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetico-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1387– 1408.
Lopez Rodríguez, R., & Jimenez-A1eixandre, M. P. (2002) Sharing the authority to evaluate environmental attitudes: A case study in primary school. In J. Lewis, A. Magro, & L. Simonneaux (eds.). Biology education for the real world,(p319-333). Dordewcht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Luk, A. L., & Shek, D. (2006). Perceived personal changes in chinese ex-mental patients attending a holistic psychiatric rehabilitation program. Social behavior and persionality, 34(8), 939-954.
Mason, L. (1996). An analysis of children's construction of new knowledge through their use of reasoning and arguing in classroom discussions. Qualitative Studies in Education 9(4): 411-433.
McDonald, C. V. (2010). The influence of explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction on preservice primary teachers' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(9), 1137–1164.
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53–78.
Mercer, N. (2000).Words and minds: Hoe we use language to thinking together. London: Routledge.
Meyer, H. (2004). Novice and expert teachers' conceptions of learners' prior knowledge. Science Education, 88, 970-983.
Mortimer, E.F., & Scott, P.H. (2003). Meaning Making in Secondary Science Classrooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Oliveira, A. W., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). Interactive patterns and conceptual convergence during student collaborations in science, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 634-658.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S.,& Monk, M. (2001). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. School Science Review, 82, 63–70.
Oulton, C., Dillon, F., & Grace, M. M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 411-423.
Palincsar, A. S., &Magnusson, S. (2001). The interplay of first-hand and second-hand investigations to model and support the development of scientific knowledge and reasoning. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction (pp. 151 – 191). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pope, M.L., & Keen, T.R. (1981). Personal construct psychology and education. London: Academic Press.
Pontecorvo, C., & Girardet, H. (1993). Arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics. Cognition and Instruction. 11, 365-359.
Ramsey, J. (1993). The science education reform movement:Implications for social responsibility. Science Education, 77(2), 235-258.
Reed, R. (1984). An exercise in research ethics. The American Biology, 46(8), 457-458.
Reigosa, C., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Scaffolded Problem-solving in the Physics and Chemistry Laboratory: Difficulties hindering students' assumption of responsibility. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 307-329.
Richmond, G. & Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in classrooms: Social processes in smallgroup discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 839–858.
Roth, W. M. (1997). Interactional Structures during a Grade 4–5 Open-Design Engineering Unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 273–302.
Roth, W. M., & Welzel, M. (2001). From activity to gestures and scientific language. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 103-136.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71–93.
Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S, R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986– 1004.
Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific Argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1463 – 1488.
Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J.(2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 342-375.
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, 447-472.
Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 5 – 51.
Sandoval,W. A., & Millwood, K. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence inwritten scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 23 – 55.
Schwarz, B.B., Neumann, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 219–256.
Shepardson, D. P., & Britsch, S. J. (2006). Zones of interaction: Differential access to elementary science discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 443–466.
Simon, S., Osborne, J., & Erduran, S. (2003). Systemic teacher development to enhance the use of argumentation in school science activities. In J.Wallace & J. Loughran (Eds.), Leadership and professional development in science education: New possibilities for enhancing teacher learning (pp. 198–217). London: Routledge Falmer.
Solomon, J. (1992). The Classroom discussion of science-based socialissue presented on television: Knowledge, attitudes and values.International Journal of Science Education, 14(4), 431-444.
Stamovlasis, D., Dimos, A., & Tsaparlis, G. (2006). A study of group interaction processes in learning lower secondary physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 556-576.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Varelas, M., Pappas, C. C., Kane, J. M., Arsenault, A., Hankes, J., & Cowan, B. M. (2008). Urban primary-grade children think and talk science: Curricular and instructional practices that nurture participation and argumentation. Science Education, 92, 65-95.
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). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students' argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952–977.
Verheij, B. (2005). Evaluating argument based on Toulmin’s scheme. Argumentations, 19, 347-371.
Warburton, E., & Torff, B. (2005). The effect of perceived learner advantages on teachers’ beliefs about critical-thinking activities. Journal of Teacher Education, 56, 24-33
Walter, B.O.(2004). A proposal for a common data exchange format for repertory grid data. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 17, 247-251.
Wallace, C. S., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2004). Writing and learning in the science classroom. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Walton, D. N. (1998). The new dialectic: Conversional contexts of argument. Toronto: Unversity of Toronto Press.
Wellingon, J., & Osbourne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
Yoon, S. (2008). Using memes and memetic processes to explain social and conceptual influences on student understanding about complex socio-scientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 900-921.
Zembal-Sual, C., Munford, D., Cawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding pre-service science teachers’ Evidence-based arguments during an investigation of nature selection. Research in Science Education, 32, 437-463.
Zembal-Sual, C., Munford, D., Cawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding pre-service science teachers’ Evidence-based arguments during an investigation of nature selection. Research in Science Education, 32, 437-463.
Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education,81, 483-496.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through Socioscientific Issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 46, 74-101.
Zohar, A., Vaaknin, E., & Degani, A. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs about low-achieving students and higher order thinking. Teaching and teachers’ Education, 17, 469-485.
Zohar, A., Dori, Y. J. (2003). Higher order thinking skills and low achieving students - Are they mutually exclusive? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 145-182.
Zohar, A. (2004). Higher order thinking in science classrooms: Students’ learning and teaches’ professional development. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Zohar, A. (2006). The nature and development of teachers' metastrategic knowledge in the context of teaching higher order thinking. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 334-378.
Zohar, A. (2007). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 245–268). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.