The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Making sense of argumentation and explanation
Open accessAbstract
Constructing scientific explanations and participating in argumentative discourse are seen as essential practices of scientific inquiry (e.g., R. Driver, P. Newton, & J. Osborne, 2000). In this paper, we identify three goals of engaging in these related scientific practices: (1) sensemaking, (2) articulating, and (3) persuading. We propose using these goals to understand student engagement with these practices, and to design instructional interventions to support students. Thus, we use this framework as a lens to investigate the question: What successes and challenges do students face as they engage in the scientific practices of explanation and argumentation? We study this in the context of a curriculum that provides students and teachers with an instructional framework for constructing and defending scientific explanations. Through this analysis, we find that students consistently use evidence to make sense of phenomenon and articulate those understandings but they do not consistently attend to the third goal of persuading others of their understandings. Examining the third goal more closely reveals that persuading others of an understanding requires social interactions that are often inhibited by traditional classroom interactions. Thus, we conclude by proposing design strategies for addressing the social challenges inherent in the related scientific practices of explanation and argumentation. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 93:26–55, 2009
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Toulmin, S. E. (2003) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511840005 · Cited by 7,101
Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching the Crafts of Reading, Writing, and Mathematics
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (2018) · Knowing, Learning, and Instruction · doi:10.4324/9781315044408-14 · Cited by 3,674
Motivating Project-Based Learning: Sustaining the Doing, Supporting the Learning
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.1991.9653139 · Cited by 3,594
Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom
Mehan, H. (1979) · doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674420106 · Cited by 2,872
Children and adults as intuitive scientists.
Kuhn, D. (1989) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.96.4.674 · Cited by 774
The Development of Argument Skills
Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00605 · Cited by 595 · cited 1×
“For example, D. Kuhn and Udell (2003) found that engaging in argumentative discourse strengthened the quality of inner-city eighth-grade students' articulation of their beliefs.”
BackgroundThe Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
(2022) · doi:10.1017/9781108888295 · Cited by 122
Cited by
Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Achér, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., Hug, B., & Krajcik, J. (2009) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.20311 · Cited by 1,155
Self-citationHandbook of Research on Learning and Instruction
(2011) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203839089 · Cited by 916
Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20402 · Cited by 481
Self-citationSampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. P. (2011) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20421 · Cited by 416
Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction?
Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20438 · Cited by 366
Metadata
- Authors
- Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J.
- Venue
- Science Education
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-12-05
- Volume
- 93
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 26-55
- ISSN
- 0036-8326 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-237X
- OpenAlex
- W2031885725
- Cited by
- 713
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 84.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.