1 |
Abi-El-Mona, I., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2011). Perceptions of the nature and 'goodness' of argument among college students, science teachers, and scientists. International Journal of Science Education, 33(4), 573-605.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
2 |
Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87(3), 352-377.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
3 |
Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797-817.
DOI
|
4 |
Chang, H., & Lee, H. (2010). College students' decision-making tendencies in the context of socioscientific issues (SSI). Journal of the Korean Association in Science Education, 30(7), 887-900.
|
5 |
Choi, A., Hand, B., & Norton-Meier, L. (2014). Grade 5 students' online argumentation about their in-class inquiry investigations. Research in Science Education, 44(2), 267-287.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
6 |
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(3), 293-321.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
7 |
Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. J.. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students' argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952-977.
DOI
|
8 |
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
DOI
|
9 |
Duschl, R. (2007). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 159-175). The Netherlands: Springer.
|
10 |
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(6), 915-933.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
11 |
Evagorou, M. (2011). Discussing a socioscientific issue in a primary school classroom: The case of using a technology-supported environment in formal and nonformal settings. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning, and research (pp. 133-159). The Netherlands: Springer.
|
12 |
Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentive discourse skills. Discourse Processes, 32(2&3), 135-153.
DOI
|
13 |
Fowler, S. R., Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2009). Moral sensitivity in the context of socioscientific issues in high school science students. International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 279-296.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
14 |
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroombased research (pp. 3-27). The Netherlands: Springer.
|
15 |
Kim, M., Anthony, R., & Blades, D. (2014). Decision making through dialogue: A case study of analyzing preservice teachers' argumentation on socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 44(6), 903-926.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
16 |
Lee, H., Yoo, J., Choi, K., Kim, S., Krajcik, J., Herman, B. C., & Zeidler, D. L. (2013). Socioscientific issues as a vehicle for promoting character and values for global citizens. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 2079-2113.
DOI
|
17 |
Lee, H., Chang, H., Choi, K., Kim, S., & Zeidler, D. L. (2012). Developing character and values for global citizens: Analysis of preservice science teachers' moral reasoning on socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(6), 925-953.
DOI
|
18 |
Lee, H., Choi, Y., & Ko, Y. (2015). Effects of collective intelligence-based ssi instruction on promoting middle school students' key competencies as citizens. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(3), 431-442.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
19 |
Lee, H., Choi, Y., & Ko, Y. (2014). Designing collective intelligence-based instructional models for teaching socioscientific issues. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(6), 523-534.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
20 |
Maeng, S., Park, Y., & Kim, C. (2013). Methodological review of the research on argumentative discourse focused on analyzing collaborative construction and epistemic enactments of argumentation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(4), 840-862.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
21 |
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Synergy between teacher practices and curricular scaffolds to support students in using domain-specific and domain-general knowledge in writing arguments to explain phenomena. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(3), 416-460.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
22 |
Nussbuam, E. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), 84-106.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
23 |
Park, J., & Kim, H. (2012). Theoretical considerations on analytical framework design for the interactions between participants in group argumentation on socio-scientific issues. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(4), 604-624.
DOI
|
24 |
Nussbaum, E. M., & Edwards, O. V. (2011). Critical questions and argument stratagems: A framework for enhancing and analyzing students' reasoning practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 443-488.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
25 |
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 (pp. 17-37). The Netherlands: Springer.
|
26 |
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S.(2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
27 |
Rest, J. R., Bebeau, M. J., & Thoma, S. J. (1999). Postconventional moral thinking: A neo-Kohlbergian approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
|
28 |
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Moral sensitivity and its contribution to the resolution of socio-scientific issues. Journal of Moral Education, 33(3), 339-358.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
29 |
Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371-391.
DOI
|
30 |
Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90(6), 986-1004.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
31 |
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4-27.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
32 |
Takao, A. Y., & Kelly, G. J. (2003). Assessment of evidence in university students' scientific writing. Science & Education, 12(4), 341-363.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
33 |
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71-93.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
34 |
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanation. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
35 |
Simon, S., & Amos, R. (2011). Decision making and use of evidence in a socio-scientific problem on air quality. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning, and research (pp. 167-192). The Netherlands: Springer.
|
36 |
Topcu, M. S., Sadler, T. D., & Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. (2010). Preservice science teachers' informal reasoning about socioscientific issues: The influence of issue context. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2475-2495.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
37 |
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, UK: University Press.
|
38 |
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F. S., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. A., Krabbe, E. C. W., & Zarefsky, D. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
|
39 |
Walton, D. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
|
40 |
Walton, D. (2006). Examination dialogue: An argumentation framework for critically questioning an expert opinion. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(5), 745-777.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
41 |
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
42 |
Zeidler, D. L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 7-38). The Netherlands: Springer.
|
43 |
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357-377.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
44 |
Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343-367.
DOI
ScienceOn
|