1 |
강순민, 곽경화, 남정희 (2006). 논의과정을 강조한 교수.학습전략이 중학생들의 인지발달, 과학개념 이해, 과학관련 태도 및 논의과정에 미치는 영향. 한국과학교육학회지, 26(3), 450-461.
|
2 |
김희경, 송진웅 (2004). 학생의 논변활동을 강조한 개방적 과학탐구활동 모형의 탐색. 한국과학교육학회지,24(6), 1216-1234.
|
3 |
남정희, 곽경화, 장경화, Hand, B. (2008). 논의를 강조한 탐구적 과학 글쓰기(Science Writing Heuristic)의 중학교 과학 수업에의 적용. 한국과학교육학회지, 28(8),922-936.
|
4 |
맹승호, 신명환, 차현정, 함석진, 신현정, 김찬종(2010). 지구과학 논문의 언어 특성 이해: 레지스터 분석. 한국지구과학회지, 31(7), 785-797.
|
5 |
박영신 (2006). 교실에서의 실질적 과학 탐구를 위한 과학적 논증 기회에 대한 이론적 고찰. 한국지구과학회지, 27(4), 401-415.
|
6 |
양일호, 이효정, 이효녕, 조현준 (2009). 과학적 논증과정 평가를 위한 루브릭 개발. 한국과학교육학회지, 29(2), 203-220.
|
7 |
이선경, 이선경, 김찬종, 김희백 (2005). 비형식적 과학 학습 자료의 시나리오 및 논증 구조: 영국 자연사박물관의 공룡관의 사례 연구. 한국과학교육학회지, 25(7),849-866.
|
8 |
이은경, 강성주 (2008). 학생-학생 언어적 상호작용분석을 통한 문제 해결형 탐구 모듈에서의 SWH 활용 효과. 한국과학교육학회지, 28(2), 130-138.
|
9 |
이정아, 맹승호, 김찬종 (2008). 과학수업담화의 새로운 독법: 교수학적 담화분석. 한국과학교육학회지, 28(8),832-847.
|
10 |
이주연, 이정아, 김찬종 (2010). 자연사 박물관에서 관람객의 학습을 중재하는 도슨트의 담화 특성에 대한 사례연구. 한국과학교육학회지, 30(6), 815-835.
|
11 |
차현정, 김찬종, 맹승호 (2011). 장르와 레지스터 분석에서 나타난 중학생의 지구과학 주제 글쓰기의 언어적 특징. 한국지구과학회지, 32(1), 84-98.
|
12 |
최문영, 맹승호, 박은지, 정원영, 김찬종 (2012). 관람대화의 흐름과 상호작용의 양상에 기반한 자연사 전시관의 전시물과 관람객 간 상호작용적 학습 사례 연구. 한국과학교육학회지, 32(7), 1251-1268.
|
13 |
Achieve, Inc. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards. Achieve Inc. On behalf of the twenty-six states and partners that collaborated on the NGSS.
|
14 |
Baker, M. (2003). Computer-mediated argumentative interactions for the co-ellaboration of scientific notions. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 47-78). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
|
15 |
Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities'adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95, 191-216.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
16 |
Brown, N. J. S., Furtak, E. M., Timms, M., Nagashima, S. O., & Wilson, M. (2010). The evidence-based reasoning framework: Assessing scientific reasoning. Educational Assessment, 15(3-4), 123-141.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
17 |
Christie, F. (2002). Classroom discourse analysis: A functional perspective. New York, NY: Continuum.
|
18 |
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
19 |
Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 293-321.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
20 |
Clark, D. B., Sampson, V., Weinberger, A., & Erkens, G. (2007). Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 343-374.
DOI
|
21 |
Duschl, R. A. (2003a). Assessment of inquiry. In J. M. Atkin & J. Coffey (Eds.), Everyday assessment in the science classroom (pp. 41-59). Arlingon, VA: NSTA Press.
|
22 |
Duschl, R. A. (2003b). The assessment of argumentation and explanation: Creating and supporting teachers'feedback strategies. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 139-161). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
|
23 |
Duschl, R. A. (2008). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran & M.P. Jime'nez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 159-175). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
|
24 |
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
25 |
Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics (2nd ed.). London, UK: Continuum.
|
26 |
Erduran, S., & Jime'nez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in science education: Perspective from classroom-based research. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
|
27 |
Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). The language of science. London, UK: Continuum.
|
28 |
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's Argument Pattern for studying science discourse.Science Education, 88, 915-933.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
29 |
Ford, M. J., & Wargo, B. M. (2012). Dialogic framing of scientific content for conceptual and epistemic understanding. Science Education, 96(3), 369-391.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
30 |
Furtak, E. M., Hardy, I., Beinbrech, C., Shavelson, R. J., & Shemwell, J. T. (2010). A framework for analyzing evidence-based reasoning in science classroom discourse. Educational Assessment, 15(3-4), 175-196.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
31 |
Halliday, M. A. K., & Mathiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London, UK: Amold.
|
32 |
Jime'nez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson"or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
33 |
Kelly, G. J. (2008). Inquiry, Activity, and Epistemic Practice. In R. Duschl & R. Grandy (Eds.) Teaching Scientific Inquiry: Recommendations for Research and Implementation (pp. 99-117). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
|
34 |
Kelly, G. J., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 883-915.
DOI
|
35 |
Kelly, G. J., & Green, J. (1998). The social nature of knowing: Toward a sociocultural perspective on conceptual change and knowledge construction. In B. Guzzetti & C. Hynd (Eds.), Perspectives on conceptual change: Multiple ways to understand knowing and learning in a complex world. (pp. 145-181). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
|
36 |
Kim, H., & Song, J. (2006). The features of peer argumentation in middle school students'scientific inquiry. Research in Science Education, 36(3), 211-233.
DOI
|
37 |
Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. , 86, 314-342.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
38 |
Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 849-871.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
39 |
Kelly, G. J., Regev, J., & Prothero, W. (2008). Analysis of lines of reasoning in written argumentation. In S. Erduran & M.P. Jime'nez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 137-157). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
|
40 |
Maeng, S., & Kim, C-J. (2011). Variations in science teaching modalities and students'pedagogic subject positioning through the discourse register and language code. Science Education, 95(3), 431-457.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
41 |
National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
|
42 |
National Research Council (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. R. A. Duschl, H. A. Schweingruber, & A. W. Shouse (Eds.). Washington DC: National Academy Press.
|
43 |
National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, cross-cutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Washington DC:National Academy Press.
|
44 |
Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M., & Owens, M. C. (2012). The two faces of scientific argumentation: Applications to global climate change. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Perspectives on scientific argumentation: Theory, practice and research (pp. 17-37). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Springer.
|
45 |
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
|
46 |
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994-1020.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
47 |
Resnick, L. B., Saljo, R., Pontecorvo, C., & Burge, B. (1997). Discourse, tools, and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
|
48 |
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education:Current perspectives and recommendations for future direction. Science Education, 92, 447-472.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
49 |
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. New York,NY: Cambridge University Press.
|
50 |
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
|
51 |
Zeidler, D.L., Sadler, T.D., Applebaum, S. & Callahan, B.E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 74-101.
DOI
ScienceOn
|