A Dialogic Account of Sense-Making in Scientific Argumentation and Reasoning

By Michael Ford. 2012

199 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9635c1fd1c691e2434c55f187531910854845f8d

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

Learning in a community of practice: Factors impacting english‐learning students' engagement in scientific argumentation (2016, background): “Specifically, this type of activity includes constructing and critiquing claims and their justifications (Ford, 2012), as well as evaluating and revising claims (Ford, 2008).”
Teacher Roles of Questioning in Early Elementary Science Classrooms: A Framework Promoting Student Cognitive Complexities in Argumentation (2017, background): “The fundamental goal of argumentation in science classrooms is not only to interact/ exchange ideas through dialogue but also to establish an agreement where teachers and students work together as a community to search for deficiencies in their arguments through solving cognitive conflict (Ford, 201”
The Learning Benefits of Being Willing and Able to Engage in Scientific Argumentation (2015, background): “argumentation and learning generally, there is a particularly strong case for how argumentation supports science learning (Berland, 2011; Berland & Reiser, 2011; Ford, 2012; Koslowski, 1996).”
Developing Norms of Argumentation: Metacognitive, Epistemological, and Social Dimensions of Developing Argumentive Competence (2013, background): “…who participate in a community identified by joint activities come to share a set of standards and values that shape the behaviors central to the activity (Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000; Ford, 2012; Ford & Forman, 2006; Kuhn, Wang, & Li, 2010; Resnick & Nelson-LeGall, 1997; Ryu & Sandoval, 2012).”
Rigor and Responsiveness in Classroom Activity (2016, background): “It requires teachers to deeply understand disciplinary content and students’ ideas well enough to move students forward in their thinking through a combination of social, cultural, and epistemic practices that challenge and refine thinking over time (Duschl, 2008; Ford, 2012).”
Examining the Use of Talk and Writing for Students' Development of Scientific Conceptual Knowledge Through Constructing and Critiquing Arguments (2016, background): “…thus becomes a significantmeans throughwhich to elevate knowledge development from the production of an individual to a publicly accepted product of a special community, which is why “the interaction between construction and critique is fundamental to how science works” (Ford, 2012, p. 212).”