CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 215Science Education and PedagogyEvolution and Science EducationTeacher Education and Leadership Studies

Learning to teach elementary school science as argument

Open access
Zembal‐Saul, Carla·2009·Science Education
DOI 10.1002/sce.20325
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

New views of proficiency in K‐8 science that highlight the importance of engaging children in the discourses and practices of science have raised the stakes for elementary teachers and the teacher educators who prepare them. In this paper, a framework for teaching science as argument is presented. The framework is advanced as a means of addressing problems of practices faced by preservice teachers, creating coherence for the design of teacher education experiences, and serving as a tool for shaping a design‐based research agenda. Findings of three research studies that examined preservice teachers' developing understandings and practices for teaching science as argument and the ways in which teacher education experiences mediated learning are synthesized. Across the studies, findings suggest that the framework serves as a powerful scaffold for preservice teachers' developing thinking and practice. More specifically, early attention to evidence and argument can leverage other important aspects of effective science teaching, such as attention to classroom discourse and the role of the teacher in monitoring and assessing children's thinking. In closing, a case is made for coherence among science learning opportunities, learning to teach science experiences, and field experiences. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 93:687–719, 2009

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/sce.20325

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Creating research-based didactic tools and frameworks for teaching science through argumentation can help teachers focus their attention on fostering the construction of evidence-based explanations in their classes.

    “Creating research-based didactic tools and frameworks for teaching science through argumentation can help teachers focus their attention on fostering the construction of evidence-based explanations in their classes”

    From Young Children's Epistemic Operations and Emergent Argumentation in Inquiry‐Based Discussions: The Role of Teacher Questioning and Collaborative Interactions (2025) · cites this paper as Zembal-Saul 2009

    In “Discussion and Implications,” the paper says its argument-construction framework appeared to help preservice teachers focus on constructing evidence-based explanations. “Connections to Problems of Practice” also describes instructional resources intended to connect the framework to classroom practice. The claim extends this finding from preservice teachers to teachers generally and implies an effect on what they foster in their classes, which the cited passages do not establish. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 54

  1. Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of a reflective activity-based approach on elementary teachers' conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 295 -317.
  2. Akerson, V. L., Morrison, J. A., & Roth McDuffie, A. (2006). One course is not enough: Preservice elementary teachers' retention of improved views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 194 -213.
  3. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. NewYork: Oxford University Press.
  4. Avraamidou, L., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2005). Giving priority to evidence in science teaching: A first-year el- ementary teacher's specialized knowledge and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(9), 965 -986.
  5. Badiali, B., Zembal-Saul, C., Nolan, J., & Manno, J. (in press). Affirmation and change: Assessing the impact of professional development school on mentors' classroom practice. In J. Nath, I. Guadarrama, & J. Ramsey (Eds.), Professional development schools research books series (Vol. 4). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
  6. 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. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (1989). New designs for elementary school science and health: A coop- erative project of Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) and International Business Machines (IBM).
  7. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3 -15.
  8. Bransford, J., Darling-Hammond, L., & LePage, P. (2005). Introduction. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  9. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex inter- ventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141 -178.
  10. Brown, A., & Palincsar, A. (1989). Guided cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction. Essays in the honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 393 -451).
  11. Cobb, P., & Bowers, J. S. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and practice. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 4 -15.
  12. Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O'Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  13. Clift, R. T., & Brady, P. (2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 309 -424). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  14. Darling-Hammond, L., Hammerness, K., Grossman, P., Rust, F., & Shulman, L. (2005). The design of teacher education programs. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  15. Davis, E., Petish, D., & Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new science teachers face. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 607 -651.
  16. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulimin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915 -933.
  17. Greeno, J. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 5 -17.
  18. Grossman, P. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.
  19. Grossman, P. (2005). Research on pedagogical approaches in teacher education. In M. Cochrane-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  20. Haefner, L. A., Friedrichsen, P., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2006). Teaching with insects: An applied life science course for supporting prospective elementary teachers' scientific inquiry. The American Biology Teacher, 68(4), 254 -259.
  21. Haefner, L. A., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2004). Learning by doing? Prospective elementary teachers' developing un- derstandings of scientific inquiry and science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 26(13), 1653 -1674.
  22. Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J., Berliner, D., Cochrane-Smith, M., McDonald, M., et al. (2005). In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  23. Hand, B., Lawrence, C., & Yore, L. (1999). A writing in science framework designed to enhance science literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 21(10), 1021 -1035.
  24. Hershberger, K., Zembal-Saul, C., & Starr, M. (2006). Evidence helps the KLW get a KLEW. Science & Children, 43(5), 50 -53.
  25. Hoadley, C. (2004). Methodological alignment in design-based research. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 203 - 212.
  26. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3 -27). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
  27. Kelly, A. E. (2003). Theme issue: The role of design in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 3 -4.
  28. Kelly, G., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86(3), 314 -342.
  29. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
  30. Leach, J., Hind, R., & Ryder, J. (2003). Designing and evaluating short teaching interventions about the episte- mology of science in high school classrooms. Science Education, 87(6), 831 -848.
  31. Linn, M. (2000). Designing the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 781 -796.
  32. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  33. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowl- edge for science teaching. In J. Guess-Newsome & N. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95 -132). Dordrecht, The Nether- lands: Kluwer.
  34. Ogle, D. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. The Reading Teacher, 39(6), 564 -570.
  35. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994 -1020.
  36. Putnam, R., & Borko, H. (2000), What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4 -15.
  37. Schwab, J. (1978). Education and the structure of the disciplines. In J. Schwab (Ed.), Science, curriculum, and liberal education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  38. Scott, P., Asoko, H., & Leach, J. (2007). Student conceptions and conceptual learning in science. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), The handbook of research on science education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  39. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4 -14.
  40. Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2 -3), 235 -260.
  41. In N. Lederman & J. Guess-Newsome (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
  42. Smith, D. C., & Anderson, C. W. (1999). Appropriating scientific practices and discourses with future elementary teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 755 -776.
  43. Smithey, J. (2008). The development of preservice elementary teachers' knowledge about learners' science ideas. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
  44. Vygostky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  45. Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S., & Richert, A. E. (1988). "150 different ways" of knowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers' thinking (pp. 104 -124). London: Cassell.
  46. Yore, L., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689 -725.
  47. Zembal-Saul, C., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Krajcik, J. S. (2000). The influence of early cycles of planning, teaching, and reflection on prospective elementary teachers' developing understanding of supporting students' science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 318 -339.
  48. Zembal-Saul, C., Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2002a). Elementary student teachers' science content representa- tions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 443 -463.
  49. Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2002b). Scaffolding preservice science teachers' evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 437 -463.
  50. Zembal-Saul, C., Starr, M., & Krajcik, J. S. (1999). Constructing a framework for elementary science teaching using pedagogical content knowledge. In N. Lederman & J. Guess-Newsome (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 237 -256). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
  51. Zohar, A. (2004). Elements of teachers' pedagogical knowledge regarding instruction of higher order thinking. Journal of Research in Science Education, 15(4), 293 -312.
  52. Zohar, A. (2006). The nature and development of teachers' metastrategic knowledge in the context of teaching higher order thinking. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 334 -378.
  53. Zohar, A. (2008). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 245 -268). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
  54. Science Education 1098237x, 2009, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sce.20325 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [16/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zembal‐Saul, C.
Affiliations
Pennsylvania State University (US)
Corresponding author
Zembal‐Saul, Carla
ORCID
Zembal‐Saul, Carla
Venue
Science Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-04-27
Volume
93
Issue
4
Pages
687-719
ISSN
  • 0036-8326 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-237X
DOI
10.1002/sce.20325
OpenAlex
W1981549427
Cited by
215
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 8
FWCI
41.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
Science Education (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0237922)
  • University of Pennsylvania
  • Pennsylvania State University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Evolution and Science Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
Keywords
pre-service teachers, elementary science teacher education, scientific argumentation, evidence-based reasoning, classroom discourse, scaffolding, design-based research, practicum

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