The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Students’ reasoning about electricity: combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis
Abstract
In this paper a set of methodological procedures to analyse students’ arguments is presented. Normative perspectives from the philosophy of science and naturalistic perspectives from sociolinguistics are brought together to analyse students dyadic discourse. The Toulmin layout of arguments was interpreted and applied to student arguments as they completed an electricity‐based performance assessment. Results showed that in these contexts students could complete the task without warranting all arguments. Conditions leading to the warranted arguments are explored. The paper concludes by suggesting extensions of this methodology for further research in science education.
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
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Kuhn, T. S., & Schlegel, R. (1963) · Physics Today · doi:10.1063/1.3050879 · Cited by 35,538
Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists
Strauss, A. L. (1987) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511557842 · Cited by 12,277
National Science Education Standards
Shea, J. H. (1995) · Journal of Geological Education · doi:10.5408/0022-1368-43.2.102 · Cited by 7,888
Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts
Latour, B. (1986) · DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) · Cited by 7,491
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Kuhn, T. S. (1996) · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226458106.001.0001 · Cited by 7,281
Toulmin, S. E. (2003) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511840005 · Cited by 7,101
Gumperz, J. J. (1982) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511611834 · Cited by 5,861
Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.3730660207 · Cited by 5,187
The Constant Comparative Method of Qualitative Analysis
Glaser, B. G. (1965) · Social Problems · doi:10.2307/798843 · Cited by 4,588
Talking science: language, learning, and values
(1991) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.28-5211 · Cited by 3,996
Cited by
Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.20035 · Cited by 1,596
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20012 · Cited by 1,408
Supporting and Promoting Argumentation Discourse in Science Education
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002) · Studies in Science Education · doi:10.1080/03057260208560187 · Cited by 1,161
Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry
Sandoval, W. A. (2005) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20065 · Cited by 769
Explanation‐driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry
Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.10130 · Cited by 717
Metadata
- Authors
- Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C.
- Venue
- International Journal of Science Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1998-08
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 849-871
- ISSN
- 0950-0693 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5289
- OpenAlex
- W2163959125
- Cited by
- 300
- References
- 51
- FWCI
- 14.97
- 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: Students’ reasoning about electricity: combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/0950069980200707
- The paper
- Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980200707
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.
