Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics

By Anat Zohar, F. Nemet. 2002

1,399 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3ce5c1e94071fd1e43e38a8fe400206b3bfad7df

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Education

Citations in the corpus

Argumentation in the Chemistry Laboratory: Inquiry and Confirmatory Experiments (2013, background): “Other researchers suggested using socio-scientific dilemmas, because these dilemmas are ambiguous and enable students to practice the process of simultaneously posing claims and counter claims (Dawson and Venville 2010; Jiménez-Aleixandre et al. 2000; Sadler 2004; Zohar and Nemet 2002).”
LEARNING ARGUMENTATION SKILLS THROUGH INSTRUCTION IN SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUES: THE EFFECT OF ABILITY LEVEL (2010, background): “Zohar & Nemet (2002) suggested that teaching argumentation skills is best achieved when learning focuses on a real problem occurring in students' everyday lives.”
‘Should We Kill the Grey Squirrels?’ A Study Exploring Students’ Justifications and Decision-Making (2012, methodology): “However, Zohar and Nemet (2002), and Erduran, Simon, and Osborne (2004) in their effort to address this issue and increase the validity and reliability of Toulmin’s framework have introduced the concept of justifications which are essentially a collapsed category for data, warrant, and backings.”
Teaching Strategies for Developing Students’ Argumentation Skills About Socioscientific Issues in High School Genetics (2010, background): “Some studies suggest a positive relationship (e.g., Aufschnaiter et al. 2008; Zohar and Nemet 2002) while others do not (e.”
Contextualizing Nature of Science Instruction in Socioscientific Issues (2012, background): “SSI are ill-structured problems for which solutions are uncertain and complex (Baxter Magolda, 1999 ; Kuhn, 1991 ; Zohar & Nemet, 2002 ), and, at a minimum, incorporate two main elements: (1) connections to science content, and (2) social significance.”
Assessing Teachers’ Pedagogical Knowledge in the Context of Teaching Higher‐order Thinking (2005, background): “Our previous studies addressed various aspects of teachers’ pedagogical knowledge in the context of teaching higher‐order thinking, identifying several important components of teachers’ knowledge in this field (Zohar, 1999 , 2004 ; Zohar & Nemet, 2002 ; Zohar, Vaaknin, & Degani, 2001 ).”
Developing Norms of Argumentation: Metacognitive, Epistemological, and Social Dimensions of Developing Argumentive Competence (2013, neutral): “…& Schwarz, 2007, 2009; Berland & McNeill, 2010; Bricker & Bell, 2011; Felton, 2004; Iordanou, 2010; Jimenez-Aleixandre & Erduran, 2008; Kuhn & Udell, 2003; Kuhn, Goh, Iordanou, & Shaenfield, 2008; Nussbaum, 2008; Nussbaum & Edwards, 2011; Sampson & Clark, 2009; Udell, 2007; Zohar & Nemet, 2002).”
Tough acts to follow: the challenges to science teachers presented by biotechnological progress (2004, background): “Importantly, more research is required to explore the relationship between the discussion of controversial issues and the learning of the science concerned (cf. Zohar and Nemet 2002).”
Argument relevance and structure.: Assessing and developing students' uses of evidence (2016, background): “However, argument can mean both the product, namely the quasi-logical support (justification) of a claim (Erduran, imon, & Osborne, 2004; Means & Voss, 1996; Zohar & Nemet, 2002), and the process, or rather the (dialogical or individual) rgumentative debate.”
Higher Order Thinking Skills and Low-Achieving Students: Are They Mutually Exclusive? (2003, methodology): “Discussion of Moral Dilemmas ( Zohar & Nemet, 2000, 2002 ) Human genetics 10–12 hr Five experimental 9th-grade classes and four comparison classes from two middle- class heterogeneous”
The Role of Moral Reasoning in Argumentation: Conscience, Character, and Care (2007, result): “The emphasis on contextualized, discipline-specific argumentation within the SSI framework, therefore, shows great promise in nurturing these features, and is consistent with other approaches using contextualized argumentation and authentic learning of scientific concepts (Erduran et al., 2005; Jime”