Making sense of argumentation and explanation

By Leema K. Berland, Brian J. Reiser. 2009

726 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/82f4a503fdcdd0f866cab71606e09a264ab6b0f2

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

The Reasoning Behind Informal Statistical Inference (2011, background): “Kuhn Berland, L., & Reiser, B. (2009).”
Problem-based learning and argumentation: testing a scaffolding framework to support middle school students’ creation of evidence-based arguments (2011, background): “Many middle school students are not able to do this independently because they do not fully possess the ability to think abstractly (Berland and Reiser 2008; Inhelder and Piaget 1955; Krajcik et al. 1998; Kuhn et al. 1997; Sandoval and Reiser 2004) and they adhere to an objectivist/absolutist episte”
Framing for scientific argumentation (2012, methodology): “The strategies for supporting argumentation throughout the unit are described in Berland and Reiser (2009). Our initial motivation to study this class centered on the emergence of argumentation in one class discussion.”
Explicit Nature of Science and Argumentation Instruction in the Context of Socioscientific Issues: An effect on student learning and transfer (2014, background): “…to this perspective, students can argue better in a specific context, along with when and how that context is experienced (Berland & Hammer, 2012; Berland & Reiser, 2009; Bricker & Bell, 2007; Engle & Conant, 2002; Louca, Hammer, & Bell, 2002; May, Hammer, & Pea, 2006; Naylor, Keogh, & Downing,…”
Teaching and Learning Argumentative Reading and Writing: A Review of Research (2011, background): “Students are then evaluated for demonstrating their ability to engage in argument without experiencing the potential consequences of the effectiveness of their arguments based on feedback from actual audiences beyond their teacher’s feedback (Berland & Reiser, 2009).”
Confusing Claims for Data: A Critique of Common Practices for Presenting Qualitative Research on Learning (2014, background): “For example, studying students’ written explanations and argumentation, Berland and Reiser (2009) began with a coding scheme based on the existing literature, with epistemic categories of claims, evidence, and logical inferences.”
Factors impacting teachers' argumentation instruction in their science classrooms (2016, background): “…indicates, however, that typical science instruction emphasises the transmission of teacher knowledge (Berland & Reiser, 2009; Newton, Driver, & Osborne, 1999), and interactions focus on students talking to teachers instead of to each other (Alozie, Moje, & Krajcik, 2010; Berland & Reiser, 2009).”
Resistance and the Development of Scientific Practice: Designing the Mangle Into Science Instruction (2015, background): “However, it is becoming increasingly clear that students can adopt the structures of taught practices without understanding their purposes (Berland & Reiser, 2009; Jimenez-Aleixandre, Rodriguez, & Duschl, 2000; Kuhn & Pease, 2008).”
A Dialogic Account of Sense-Making in Scientific Argumentation and Reasoning (2012, background): “Several groups of researchers have drawn on TAP (e.g., Berland & Reiser, 2009; Duschl & Osbourne, 2002; Erduran, Simon, & Osbourne, 2004), which brings attention not only to claims and evidence but other structural features as well, such as warrants (a rationale for why evidence supports a claim),…”
Explanations and Context in the Emergence of Students' Informal Inferential Reasoning (2011, background): “Kuhn Berland and Reiser’s review of the literature (2009) expands the meaning of explanations by contending that they are generally an attempt to provide an account that specifies what happened and not only why it happened (see also, Brewer, Chinn, & Samarapungavan, 1998).”
Disciplinary Literacies and Learning to Read for Understanding: A Conceptual Framework for Disciplinary Literacy (2016, methodology): “…the particular linguistic features of it, including claims, scientific principles, and descriptions of methods used to establish the reliability of the processes used to create the evidence (Bazerman, 1998; Berland & Reiser, 2009; Cavagnetto, 2010; Driver et al., 2000; Passmore & Svoboda, 2012).”
Supporting Use of Evidence in Argumentation through Practice in Argumentation and Reflection in the Context of SOCRATES Learning Environment (2015, methodology): “…the product of coordination of theory with evidence, will they be able to see the point of employing evidence in their arguments and only then will they have the motivation to use evidence to support their arguments and the critiques they offer to the opponents‘ arguments (Berland & Reiser, 2009).”