CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 24

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Relationships Between Teacher Discursive Moves and Middle School Students’ Cognitive Contributions to Science Concepts

Soysal, Yilmaz, Yilmaz-Tuzun, Ozgul·2021·Research in Science Education
DOI 10.1007/s11165-019-09881-1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11165-019-09881-1

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Research works printed but not linked: 84

  1. Ardasheva, Y., Norton-Meier, L., & Hand, B. (2015). Negotiation, embeddedness, and non-threatening learning environments as themes of science and language convergence for English language learners. Studies in Science Education, 51(2), 201–249. · DOI
  2. Bakhtin, M. M. (1934). The dialogic imagination: four essays (trans. Michael Holquist and Caryl Emerson). In Discourse in the novel. Austin: University of Texas.
  3. Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68–94. · DOI
  4. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities’ adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191–216. · DOI
  5. Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: the SOLO taxonomy. New York: Academic Press.
  6. Boyd, M., & Rubin, D. (2006). How contingent questioning promotes extended student talk: a function of display questions. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(2), 141–169. · DOI
  7. Brown, N. J. S., Furtak, E. M., Timms, M., Nagashima, S. O., & Wilson, M. (2010a). The evidence-based reasoning framework: assessing scientific reasoning. Educational Assessment, 15, 123–141. · DOI
  8. Brown, N. J. S., Nagashima, S. O., Fu, A., Timms, M., & Wilson, M. (2010b). A framework for analyzing scientific reasoning in assessments. Educational Assessment, 15, 142–174. · DOI
  9. Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: a review of argument interventions in K-12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336–371. · DOI
  10. Cavagnetto, A., & Hand, B. M. (2012). The importance of embedding argument within science classrooms. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Perspectives on scientific argumentation (pp. 39–53). Dordrecht: Springer. · DOI
  11. Cazden, C. B. (1986). Classroom discourse. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (Vol. 3, pp. 432–463). New York: Macmillan.
  12. Chen, Y.-C., Park, S., & Hand, B. (2016). Examining the use of talk and writing for students' development of scientific conceptual knowledge through constructing and critiquing arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 34(2), 100–147. · DOI
  13. Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815–843. · DOI · Paper page
  14. Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Students’ questions and discursive interaction: their impact on argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 883–908. · DOI
  15. Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). Teacher educators as researchers: multiple perspectives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(2), 219–225. · DOI
  16. Cochran-Smith, M. (2006). Policy, practice, and politics in teacher education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  17. Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: new roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916–937. · DOI
  18. Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: the development of understanding in the classroom. London: Routledge.
  19. Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–484. · DOI
  20. Ford, M. J. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404–423. · DOI
  21. Ford, M. J. (2012). A dialogic account of sense-making in scientific argumentation and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 30(3), 207–245. · DOI
  22. Furtak, E. M., Hardy, I., Beinbrech, C., Shavelson, R. J., & Shemwell, J. T. (2010). A framework for analyzing evidence-based reasoning in science classroom discourse. Educational Assessment, 15(3–4), 175–196. · DOI
  23. Gabel, D. (1998). The complexity of chemistry and its implications for teaching. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (Vol. 1, pp. 223–248). London: Kluwer Academic.
  24. Gabel, D. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: a look to the future. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 548–554. · DOI
  25. Gee, J. P. (2004). Language in the science classroom: academic social languages as the heart of school-based literacy. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 13–32). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
  26. Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. (2009). Introduction: macro, submicro and symbolic representations and the relationship between them: key models in chemical education. In J. K. Gilbert & D. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 1–8). The Netherlands: Springer. · DOI
  27. Grimberg, B. I., & Hand, B. (2009). Cognitive pathways: analysis of students' written texts for science understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 503–521. · DOI
  28. Gurel, D. K., Eryılmaz, A., & McDermott, L. C. (2015). A review and comparison of diagnostic instruments to identify students’ misconceptions in science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(5), 989–1008.
  29. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3), 381–391. · DOI · Paper page
  30. Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer Press.
  31. Hardy, I., Kloetzer, B., Moeller, K., & Sodian, B. (2010). The analysis of classroom discourse: elementary school science curricula advancing reasoning with evidence. Educational Assessment, 15(3–4), 197–221. · DOI
  32. Ho, D. G. E. (2005). Why do teachers ask the questions they ask? RELC Journal, 36(3), 297–310. · DOI
  33. Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (2000). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379–432. · DOI · Paper page
  34. Hutchison, P., & Hammer, D. (2010). Attending to student epistemological framing in a science classroom. Science Education, 94(3), 506–524. · DOI
  35. Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Janiel, K., Miller, B. W., Kim, I. H., & Kuo, L. J. (2011). Influence of a teacher's scaffolding moves during child-led small-group discussion. American Educational Research Journal, 48(1), 194–230. · DOI
  36. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: an overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht: Springer.
  37. Johnstone, A. H. (1982). Macro- and micro-chemistry. School Science Review, 64, 377–379.
  38. Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: a changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701–705. · DOI
  39. Johnstone, A. H. (2000). Teaching of chemistry: logical or psychological? Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 1(1), 9–15.
  40. Kawalkar, A., & Vijapurkar, J. (2013). Scaffolding science talk: the role of teachers' questions in the inquiry classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 2004–2027. · DOI · Paper page
  41. Kayima, F., & Jakobsen, A. (2018). Exploring the situational adequacy of teacher questions in science classrooms. Research in Science Education, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9696-9. · DOI
  42. Lam, S., Law, Y., & Shum, M. S. (2009). Classroom discourse analysis and educational outcomes in the era of educational reform. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 617–641. · DOI
  43. Leach, J. T., & Scott, P. H. (2002). Designing and evaluating science teaching sequences: an approach drawing upon the concept of learning demand and a social constructivist perspective on learning. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 115–142. · DOI
  44. Leach, J. T., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Individual and sociocultural views of learning in science education. Science & Education, 12(1), 91–113. · DOI
  45. Lefstein, A., Snell, J., &, Israeli, M. (2015). From moves to sequences: expanding the unit of analysis in the study of classroom discourse. British Educational Research Journal, 41(5), 866–885. · DOI
  46. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: language, learning, and values. Norwoord: Ablex.
  47. Lopes, J. B., & Cunha, A. E. (2017). Self-directed professional development to improve effective teaching: key points for a model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 68, 262–274. · DOI
  48. Lopes, J. B., Branco, J., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2011). “Learning experience” provided by science teaching practice in a classroom and the development of students' competences. Research in Science Education, 41(5), 787–809. · DOI
  49. Louca, L. T., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tzialli, D. (2012). Identification, interpretation-evaluation, response: an alternative framework for analyzing teacher discourse in science. International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1823–1856. · DOI
  50. Martin, A. M., & Hand, B. (2009). Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the elementary science classroom. A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 39(1), 17–38. · DOI
  51. McMahon, K. (2012). Case studies of interactive whole-class teaching in primary science: communicative approach and pedagogic purposes. International Journal of Science Education, 34(11), 1687–1708. · DOI
  52. McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: the role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203–229. · DOI
  53. Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: how we use language to think together. London: Routledge.
  54. Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: analysing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistic, 1(2), 137–168. · DOI
  55. Mercer, N. (2008). The seeds of time: why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(1), 33–59. · DOI
  56. Mercer, N. (2010). The analysis of classroom talk: methods and methodologies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 1–14. · DOI
  57. Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (2014). The study of talk between teachers and students, from the 1970s until the 2010s. Oxford Review of Education, 40(4), 430–445. · DOI
  58. Michaels, S., & O'Conner, C. (2012). Talk science primer. Cambridge, MA: TERC.
  59. Middleton, D., & Edwards, D. (1990). Conversational remembering: a social psychological approach. In D. Middleton & D. Edwards (Eds.), Collective remembering. London: Sage.
  60. Molinari, L., & Mameli, C. (2013). Process quality of classroom discourse: pupil participation and learning opportunities. International Journal of Educational Research, 62, 249–258. · DOI
  61. Molinari, L., Mameli, C., & Gnisci, A. (2013). A sequential analysis of classroom discourse in Italian primary schools: the many faces of the IRF pattern. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 414–430. · DOI
  62. Mortimer, E. F., & Machado, A. H. (2000). Anomalies and conflicts in classroom discourse. Science Education, 84(4), 429–444. · DOI
  63. Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
  64. Myhill, D. (2006). Talk, talk, talk: teaching and learning in whole class discourse. Research Papers in Education, 21(1), 19–41. · DOI
  65. Nilsson, P., & Vikström, A. (2015). Making PCK explicit-capturing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 37(17), 2836–2857. · DOI
  66. Nussbaum, E. M., & Edwards, O. V. (2011). Critical questions and argument stratagems: a framework for enhancing and analyzing students’ reasoning practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 443–488. · DOI
  67. Oh, P. S., & Campbell, T. (2013). Understanding of science classrooms in different countries through the analysis of discourse modes for building ‘classroom science knowledge’ (CSK). Journal of Korean Association for Science Education, 33(3), 597–625. · DOI
  68. Oliveira, A. W. (2010). Improving teacher questioning in science inquiry discussions through professional development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 422–453. · DOI
  69. Pimentel, D. S., & McNeill, K. L. (2013). Conducting talk in science classrooms: investigating instructional moves and teachers’ beliefs. Science Education, 97(3), 367–394. · DOI · Paper page
  70. Rappoport, L. T., & Ashkenazi, G. (2008). Connecting levels of representation: emergent versus submergent perspective. International Journal of Science Education, 30(12), 1585–1603. · DOI
  71. Santas, G. X. (1979). Socrates. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  72. Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
  73. Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  74. Scott, P. H. (1997). Developing science concepts in secondary classrooms: an analysis of pedagogical interactions from a Vygotskian perspective. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Leeds, School of Education.
  75. Shemwell, J. T., & Furtak, E. R. (2010). Science classroom discussion as scientific argumentation: a study of conceptually rich (and poor) student talk. Educational Assessment, 15(3–4), 222–250. · DOI
  76. 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. · DOI
  77. Sinclair, J. M. H., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: the English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
  78. Talanquer, V. (2011). Macro, submicro, and symbolic: the many faces of the chemistry “triplet”. International Journal of Science Education, 33(2), 179–195. · DOI
  79. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  80. Turner, J. C., & Meyer, D. K. (2000). Studying and understanding the instructional contexts of classrooms: using our past to forge our future. Educational Psychologist, 35(2), 69–85. · DOI
  81. van Booven, D. (2015). Revisiting the authoritative–dialogic tension in inquiry-based elementary science teacher questioning. International Journal of Science Education, 37(8), 1182–1201. · DOI
  82. van Zee, E. H. (2000). Analysis of a student-generated inquiry discussion. International Journal of Science Education, 22(2), 115–142. · DOI
  83. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech (N. Minick, trans.). In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Vol. 1. Problems of general psychology (pp. 39–285). New York: Plenum Press (Original work published 1934).
  84. Wegerif, R. (2008). Reason and dialogue in education. In B. van Oers, W. Wardekker, E. Elbers, & R. van der Veer (Eds.), The transformation of learning. Advances in cultural-historical activity theory (pp. 273–286). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 24

Metadata

Authors
Soysal, Y., & Yilmaz-Tuzun, O.
Venue
Research in Science Education
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2019-08-13
Volume
51
Issue
S1
Pages
325-367
ISSN
  • 0157-244X
  • 1573-1898
DOI
10.1007/s11165-019-09881-1
Cited by
24
References
4
Language
en
Licence

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Relationships Between Teacher Discursive Moves and Middle School Students’ Cognitive Contributions to Science Concepts. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s11165-019-09881-1
The paper
Soysal, Y., & Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. (2021). Relationships Between Teacher Discursive Moves and Middle School Students’ Cognitive Contributions to Science Concepts. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09881-1