The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Learning to Teach Argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom
Abstract
The research reported in this study focuses on an investigation into the teaching of argumentation in secondary science classrooms. Over a 1‐year period, a group of 12 teachers from schools in the greater London area attended a series of workshops to develop materials and strategies to support the teaching of argumentation in scientific contexts. Data were collected at the beginning and end of the year by audio‐recording and video‐recording lessons where the teachers attempted to implement argumentation. To assess the quality of argumentation, analytical tools derived from Toulmin’s argument pattern were developed and applied to classroom transcripts. Teachers’ use of argumentation developed across the year, the pattern of use was teacher‐specific, as was the nature of change. To inform future professional development programmes, transcripts of five teachers, three showing a significant change and two showing no change, were analysed in more detail to identify features of teachers’ oral contributions that facilitated and supported argumentation. All teachers attempted to encourage a variety of processes involved in argumentation; teachers whose lessons included the highest quality of argumentation (Toulmin’s argument pattern analysis) also encouraged higher‐order processes in their teaching. The analysis of teachers’ facilitation of argumentation has helped to guide the development of in‐service materials and to identify the barriers to learning in the professional development of less experienced teachers.
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
The New Meaning of Educational Change
Fullan, M. (2001) · doi:10.4324/9780203986561 · Cited by 4,373
Kuhn, D. (1991) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511571350 · Cited by 2,094
Working inside the Black Box: Assessment for Learning in the Classroom
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004) · Phi Delta Kappan · doi:10.1177/003172170408600105 · Cited by 1,323
Wells, G., & Arauz, R. M. (2006) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1503_3 · Cited by 515
Cited by
Osborne, J., Simon, S., Christodoulou, A., Howell‐Richardson, C., & Richardson, K. (2013) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.21073 · Cited by 268
Self-citationMcNeill, K. L. (2011) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.20430 · Cited by 254
Learning to teach elementary school science as argument
Zembal‐Saul, C. (2009) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20325 · Cited by 215
Effects of chatbot-assisted in-class debates on students’ argumentation skills and task motivation
Guo, K., Zhong, Y., Li, D., & Chu, S. K. W. (2023) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104862 · Cited by 188
Mapping Children’s Discussions of Evidence in Science to Assess Collaboration and Argumentation
Maloney, J., & Simon, S. (2006) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/09500690600855419 · Cited by 131
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J.
- Venue
- International Journal of Science Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2006-02-15
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 2-3
- Pages
- 235-260
- ISSN
- 0950-0693 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5289
- OpenAlex
- W2117243085
- Cited by
- 764
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 77.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Learning to Teach Argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/09500690500336957
- The paper
- Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to Teach Argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336957
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.