Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: designing for learning from the web with KIE

By Philippa Bell, Marcia C. Linn. 2000

722 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Communication, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8e3e49ed5b36f3392d6188c3569288ed6b2cc766

How researchers see this paper

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

In Communication

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Education

Citations in the corpus

Argumentation in the Chemistry Laboratory: Inquiry and Confirmatory Experiments (2013, methodology): “formulating grounded and rational arguments (Bell and Linn 2000; Driver et al. 2000; Erduran et al. 2004; Jiménez-Aleixandre et al. 2000; Kind et al. 2010; Sandoval 2003). The claim is an assertion whereby the one who suggests it believes it to be true, e.g., a conclusion, an answer to a question or”
Contextualizing Nature of Science Instruction in Socioscientific Issues (2012, background): “Instruction embedded in the WISE (web-based inquiry science environment; Bell & Linn, 2000 ; Linn, Clark, & Slotta, 2003 ) platform explicitly incorporated NOS aspects and was designed to engage students in inquiry and scaffold development of evidence-based arguments.”
Reasoning up and down a Food Chain: Using an Assessment Framework to Investigate Students' Middle Knowledge. (2009, positive): “Similarly to others (e.g., Bell & Linn, 2000; Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000; Lee, 2003; McNeill et al., 2006; Sandoval, 2003), we developed a modified version of Toulmin’s (1958) model of argumentation to support students in creating scientific explanations.”
Explanation-Driven Inquiry: Integrating Conceptual and Epistemic Scaffolds for Scientific Inquiry (2004, background): “ExplanationConstructor is just one of several recently developed epistemic tools that structure students’ efforts to construct arguments ( Bell & Linn, 2000; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1993 ‐1994; Toth, Suthers, & Lesgold, 2002) or models (Jackson et al., 1994).”
A Comparison of the Collaborative Scientific Argumentation Practices of Two High and Two Low Performing Groups (2011, background): “To help address these challenges, many science educators (e.g., Abell et al. 2000; Bell and Linn 2000; Kuhn and Reiser 2005; McNeill et al. 2006; Schwarz and Glassner 2003) organize students into collaborative groups to promote and support better scientific argumentation.”
Metamodeling Knowledge: Developing Students' Understanding of Scientific Modeling (2005, result): “Before moving on to the next module and inquiry cycle, students in the final portion of the evaluation phase compared and contrasted their model to other stu-178 dents’ models in class debates (cf. Bell & Linn, 2000; Koslowski, 1996; Kuhn, 1993).”
A Scaffolding Design Framework for Software to Support Science Inquiry (2004, background): “The examples of scaffolding Strategy 7d in Table 8 focus on understanding scientific argumentation (Bell & Linn, 2000; Sandoval, 2003; Sandoval & Reiser, 2004), the process of coordinating theory and evidence, considerations of the utility and relevance of scientific evidence (Linn, Bell, et al.,…”
Source Evaluation, Comprehension, and Learning in Internet Science Inquiry Tasks (2009, background): “In addition to prompting integration and explanation, argumentation tasks are thought to improve learning by focusing students on the relations between claims and evidence and prompting them to engage in evaluative behaviors (Andriessen, Baker, & Suthers, 2003; Bell & Linn, 2000; Kuhn, 1993).”
Developing the changes in attitude about the relevance of science (CARS) questionnaire and assessing two high school science classes (2003, background): “Some studies have focused on whether instructional interventions can alter students’ views of the nature of inquiry in science (Bell & Linn, 2000; Davis, 1998).”
Learners' Epistemic Criteria for Good Scientific Models. (2011, background): “Existing research emphasizes helping students make critical structural distinctions, such as the distinction between explanations and evidence (e.g., Bell & Linn, 2000; McNeill, Lizotte, Krajcik, & Marx, 2006; Suthers & Hundhausen, 2003; Toth, Suthers, & Lesgold, 2002).”
Designs for Collective Cognitive Responsibility in Knowledge-Building Communities (2009, background): “Having students become active agents in knowledge construction is an important theme in the learning sciences literature ( Bell & Linn, 2000 ; Engle & Conant, 2002 ; Herrenkohl & Guerra, 1998 ; Lamon et al, 1996 ; Lehrer, Carpenter, Schauble, & Putz, 2000; Paavola & Hakkarainen, 2005; Scardamalia”
Handbook of Epistemic Cognition (2016, background): “…2013; Ferguson & Bråten, 2013; Mason & Scirica, 2006; Nussbaum, Sinatra, & Poliquin, 2008), and (b) certainty of knowledge, which negatively predicts resolving global ambiguities (Kardash & Howell, 2000) and willingness to engage in argumentation (Bell & Linn, 2000; Nussbaum & Bendixen, 2003).”
Supporting Argumentation Through Students' Questions: Case Studies in Science Classrooms (2010, background): “Hence, they need to be supported by either explicit instruction or scaffolds such as argument prompts (P. Bell & Linn, 2000; Simon, Erduran, & Osborne, 2006).”
From Everyday to Scientific Observation: How Children Learn to Observe the Biologist’s World (2009, background): “These studies share a serious commitment to discourse and building classroom practice around the notion that talking science is necessary for doing science (Bell, 2000; Brown & Campione, 1994; Hogan, Nastasi, & Pressley, 2000; Lemke, 1990).”