The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Arguing to Learn in Science: The Role of Collaborative, Critical Discourse
Abstract
Argument and debate are common in science, yet they are virtually absent from science education. Recent research shows, however, that opportunities for students to engage in collaborative discourse and argumentation offer a means of enhancing student conceptual understanding and students’ skills and capabilities with scientific reasoning. As one of the hallmarks of the scientist is critical, rational skepticism, the lack of opportunities to develop the ability to reason and argue scientifically would appear to be a significant weakness in contemporary educational practice. In short, knowing what is wrong matters as much as knowing what is right. This paper presents a summary of the main features of this body of research and discusses its implications for the teaching and learning of science.
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
Hake, R. R. (1998) · American Journal of Physics · doi:10.1119/1.18809 · Cited by 6,072
Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00737.x · Cited by 977
Reasoning as a scientist: ways of helping children to use language to learn science
Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004) · British Educational Research Journal · doi:10.1080/01411920410001689689 · Cited by 637
Cited by
Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100612451018 · Cited by 2,920
PISA 2018 Assessment and Analytical Framework
OECD (2019) · PISA · doi:10.1787/b25efab8-en · Cited by 1,614
Academic Language and the Challenge of Reading for Learning About Science
Snow, C. E. (2010) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1182597 · Cited by 584
Gormally, C., Brickman, P., & Lutz, M. (2012) · CBE—Life Sciences Education · doi:10.1187/cbe.12-03-0026 · Cited by 437
Literacy and Science: Each in the Service of the Other
Pearson, P. D., Moje, E., & Greenleaf, C. (2010) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1182595 · Cited by 425
Metadata
- Authors
- Osborne, J.
- Venue
- Science
- Published
- 2010-04-23
- Volume
- 328
- Issue
- 5977
- Pages
- 463-466
- ISSN
- 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
- 1095-9203
- OpenAlex
- W1996173996
- Cited by
- 948
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 209.95
- 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: Arguing to Learn in Science: The Role of Collaborative, Critical Discourse. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1126/science.1183944
- The paper
- Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to Learn in Science: The Role of Collaborative, Critical Discourse. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183944
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.
