Learning to Teach Argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom

By Shirley Simon, S. Erduran, Jonathan Osborne. 2006

748 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/69b58d78065a346c44b0c320dd533af84de8df60

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

1. Katherine L. McNeill
2. Andy Cavagnetto
3. Brian Hand
4. G. Venville
5. V. Dawson
6. Leema K. Berland
7. Jonathan Osborne
8. Victor D. Sampson

In Education

1. Katherine L. McNeill
2. Andy Cavagnetto
3. Brian Hand
4. V. Dawson
5. G. Venville
6. Leema K. Berland
7. Jonathan Osborne
8. David M. Hammer

Citations in the corpus

• Teaching Strategies for Developing Students’ Argumentation Skills About Socioscientific Issues in High School Genetics (2010, methodology): “In a different paper based on the same data, Simon et al. (2006) focussed on the argumentation dialogue used by the 12 teachers who taught argumentation.”
• Learning to argue: A study of four schools and their attempt to develop the use of argumentation as a common instructional practice and its impact on students (2013, background): “Using a dialogic approach is a practice which is neither familiar nor comfortable for many science teachers and can pose a significant challenge to their teaching (Simon et al., 2006; Zohar, 2004).”
• Factors impacting teachers' argumentation instruction in their science classrooms (2016, background): “Supporting teachers in argumentation can take considerable time, potentially longer than one year, and require teacher reflection and reframing of their current instruction (Simon et al., 2006).”
• Developing decision-making skills for socio-scientific issues (2007, background): “Efforts have been made to develop theoretical models (e.g. Levinson, 2006) and pedagogic practices for enhancing students’ ability to make informed decisions on socio-scientific issues (e.g. Osborne et al, 2004; Simon et al, 2006; Simon and Maloney, 2007; Braund et al, 2007).”
• Peer Argumentation in the School Science Laboratory—Exploring effects of task features (2011, background): “One is facilitator encouraging students to participate in discussions by presenting views and critiquing those of others (Simon, Erduran, & Osborne, 2006 ).”
• The Importance of Embedding Argument Within Science Classrooms (2012, background): “While we acknowledge that rhetorical structures have importance in participation in science we believe that the structural level offered by models such as Toulmin’s (1958) is simply too defined to be practical scaffolds for learning science.”
• The Evidence-Based Reasoning Framework: Assessing Scientific Reasoning (2010, positive): “Many of these approaches build on Toulmin's (1958/2003) The Uses of Argument (eg, Driver et al, 2000 ; Jimenez-Aleixandre, Rodriguez, & Duschl, 2000 ; McNeill, Lizotte, Krajcik, & Marx, 2006 ; Simon, Erduran, & Osborne, 2006 ), and others make distinctions based on the quality of reasoning ( C”
• Analytic Frameworks for Assessing Dialogic Argumentation in Online Learning Environments (2007, methodology): “Erduran et al. (2004) provide an authoritative account and analysis of the excellent framework developed through the joint work of Jonathan Osborne, Sibel Erduran, and Shirley Simon (e.g., Erduran et al. 2004; Osborne et al. 2004; Simon et al. 2006 ).”
• Argument to Foster Scientific Literacy (2010, background): “Such orientations were evident in two major research efforts: the IDEAS project (Erduran et al., 2004; Osborne et al., 2004; Simon et al., 2006; TAbLE 2 Orientations guiding the structure of the argument interventions Group description Nature of activity Emphasis Science aspect n Immersion in…”