1 |
Wells, G. (2000). Modes of meaning in a science activity. Linguistics and Education, 10(3), 307-334.
DOI
|
2 |
Wendell, K. B., & Lee, S. (2010). Elementary students' learning of materials science practices through instruction based on engineering design tasks. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19, 580-601. DOI:10.1007s10956-010-9225-8
DOI
|
3 |
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
|
4 |
Barr, D. J. (2003). Paralinguistic correlates of conceptual structure. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(2), 462-467.
DOI
|
5 |
Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68-94.
DOI
|
6 |
Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26-55.
DOI
|
7 |
Buck, Z. E., Lee, H.‐S., & Flores, J. (2014). I am sure there may be a planet there: Student articulation of uncertainty in argumentation tasks. International Journal of Science Education, 36(14), 2391-2420.
DOI
|
8 |
Chen, Y.-C., Benus, M. J., & Hernandez, J. (2019). Managing uncertainty in science argumentation. Science Education. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21527
|
9 |
Clore, G. L. (1992). Cognitive phenomenology: The role of feelings in the construction of social judgment. In A. Tesser & L. L. Martin (Eds.), The construction of social judgments (pp. 133-164). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
|
10 |
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research. London, England: Sage.
|
11 |
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
|
12 |
Derry, S. J., Pea, R. D., Barron, B., Engle, R. A., Erickson, F., Goldman, R., Hall, R., Koschmann, T., Lemke, J., Sherin, M., & Sherin, B. L. (2010). Conducting video research in the learning sciences: Guidance on selection, analysis, technology, and ethics. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 3-53.
DOI
|
13 |
Duit. R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(3), 671-688.
DOI
|
14 |
Dunbar, K., & Fugelsang, J. (2005). Scientific thinking and reasoning. In K. J. Holyoak & R. Morrison (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 705-726). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
|
15 |
Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of research in education, 32(1), 268-291.
DOI
|
16 |
Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399-483.
DOI
|
17 |
Erickson, F. (1992). Ethnographic microanalysis of interaction. In M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 202-224). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
|
18 |
Park, C., & Cha, H. (2017). Analysis of epistemic considerations and scientific argumentation level in argumentation to conceptualize the concept of natural selection of science-gifted elementary students. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 37(4), 565-575.
DOI
|
19 |
Park, S-H., Lee S., & Kim, H-B. (2014). Exploring middle school students' metacognitive development via collaborative reflection of small-group argumentation in science classroom. Biology Education, 42(1), 1-15.
DOI
|
20 |
Pollock, J. L. (1987). Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive science, 11(4), 481-518.
DOI
|
21 |
Feldman, C. F., & Wertsch, J. V. (1976). Context dependent properties of teachers' speech. Youth & Society, 7(3), 227-258.
DOI
|
22 |
Garcia‐Carmona, A., & Acevedo‐Diaz, J. A. (2017). Understanding the nature of science through a critical and reflective analysis of the controversy between Pasteur and Liebig on fermentation. Science and Education, 26(1-2), 65-91.
DOI
|
23 |
Ha, H., & Kim, H. B. (2017). Exploring responsive teaching's effect on students' epistemological framing in small group argumentation. Journal of Korean Association for Science Education, 37(1), 63-75.
DOI
|
24 |
Ha, H., Lee, Y. M., & Kim, H. B. (2018). Exploring the teachers' responsive teaching practice and epistemological framing in whole class discussion after small group argumentation activity. Journal of the Korean Assoication for Science Education, 38(1), 11-26.
|
25 |
Schunn, C. D., Saner, L. D., Kirschenbaum, S. K., Trafton, J. G., & Littleton, E. B. (2007). Complex visual data analysis, uncertainty, and representation. In M. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data (pp. 27-63). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
|
26 |
Reznitskaya, A., & Gregory, M. (2013). Student thought and classroom language: Examining the mechanisms of change in dialogic teaching. Educational Psychologist, 48(2), 114-133.
DOI
|
27 |
Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634-656.
DOI
|
28 |
Schubert, T. W. (2009). A new conception of spatial presence: Once again, with feeling. Communication Theory, 19, 161-187.
DOI
|
29 |
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (2007). Feelings and phenomenal experiences. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 385-407). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
|
30 |
She, H. C., & Liao, Y. W. (2009). Bridging scientific reasoning and conceptual change through adaptive web-based learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(1), 91-119.
DOI
|
31 |
Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The journal of the learning sciences, 4(1), 39-103.
DOI
|
32 |
Hammer, D., Russ, R., Mikeska, J., & Scherr, R. (2008). Identifying inquiry and conceptualizing students' abilities. In R. A. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 138-156). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
|
33 |
Han, M. H., & Kim, H. B. (2017). Elementary students' cognitive-emotional rebuttals in their modeling activity: Focusing on epistemic affect. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 37(1), 155-168.
DOI
|
34 |
Han, M. H., & Kim, H. B. (2018). An introverted elementary students' construction of epistemic affect during modeling participation patterns. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 38(2), 171-186.
DOI
|
35 |
Jaber, L. Z., & Hammer, D. (2016). Learning to feel like a scientist. Science Education, 100(2), 189-220.
DOI
|
36 |
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). Doing the lesson or doing science: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792.
DOI
|
37 |
Jordan, M. E., & McDaniel, R. R. (2014). Managing uncertainty during collaborative problem solving in elementary school teams: The role of peer influence in robotics engineering activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(4), 490–536.
DOI
|
38 |
Kang, B. C., Kang, S. H., Kim, Y. H., Park, J. W., Seo, E. J., Lee, W. J., Jung, H. S., Che, W. H., Cho, J. Y., Chae, J. C., Ha, S. H., Hyun, T. H., & Hong, J. I. (2019). SNU scientists who believe in God. Seoul, South Korea: Revival and reform corporation.
|
39 |
Kim, H., Kang, E., & Kim, H. B. (2015a). Expression of students' agency in an elementary school science class: A focus on teaching and learning contexts. Biology Education, 43(3), 289-301.
DOI
|
40 |
Kim, S., Lee, S. Y., & Kim, H. B. (2015b). Exploring a teacher's argumentation-specific pedagogical content knowledge identified through collaborative reflection and teaching practice for science argumentation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(6), 1019-1030.
DOI
|
41 |
King, D., Ritchie, S., Sandhu, M., & Henderson, S. (2015). Emotionally intense science activities. International Journal of Science Education, 37(12), 1886-1914.
DOI
|
42 |
King, D., Ritchie, S. M., Sandhu, M., Henderson, S., & Borand, B. (2017). Temporality of Emotion: Antecedent and successive variants of frustration when learning chemistry. Science Education, 101(4), 639-672.
DOI
|
43 |
Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking and Reasoning, 13(2), 90-104.
DOI
|
44 |
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
|
45 |
Leitao, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43(6), 332-360.
DOI
|
46 |
Lee, H. S., Liu, O. L., Pallant, A., Roohr, K. C., Pryputniewicz, S., & Buck, Z. E. (2014). Assessment of uncertainty-infussed scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(5), 581-605.
DOI
|
47 |
Lee, H.‐S., Pallant, A., Pryputniewicz, S., Lord, T., Mulholland, M., & Liu, O. L. (2019). Automated text scoring and real‐time adjustable feedback: Supporting revision of scientific arguments involving uncertainty. Science Education, 103(3), 590-622.
DOI
|
48 |
Lee, K. H., Yoon, S. M., & Kim, H. B. (2013). Differences in reasoning patterns in small-group argumentation focused on the features of classificuation task. Biology Education, 40(3), 344-356.
|
49 |
Alsop, S. (2005). Beyond Cartesian Dualism: Encountering Affect in the Teaching and Learning of Science. Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media.
|
50 |
Afifi, T. D., & Afifi, W. A. (Eds.). (2009). Uncertainty, information management, and disclosure decisions: Theories and applications. New York, NY: Routledge.
|
51 |
Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., McNurlen, B., Archodidou, A., Kim, S., Reznetskaya, A., & Gilbert, L. (2001). The snowball phenomenon: Spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking across groups of children. Cognition and Instruction, 19(1), 1-46. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI1901_1
DOI
|
52 |
Arango-Munoz, S. (2014). The nature of epistemic feelings. Philosophical Psychology, 27(2), 193-211.
DOI
|
53 |
McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban Classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203-229.
DOI
|
54 |
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex publishing corporation.
|
55 |
Arango-Munoz, S., & Michaelian, K. (2014). Epistemic feelings, epistemic emotions: Review and introduction to the focus section. Philosophical Inquiries, 2/1, 97-122.
|
56 |
Atwood, S., Turnbull, W., & Carpendale, J. I. M. (2010). The construction of knowledge in classroom talk. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(3), 358-402.
DOI
|
57 |
Lin, Y.-R., & Hung, J.-F. (2016). The analysis and reconciliation of students' rebuttals in argumentation activities. International Journal of Science Education, 38(1), 130-155.
DOI
|
58 |
Maclay, H., & Osgood, C. E. (1959). Hesitation phenomena in spontaneous speech. Word, 15, 19-44.
DOI
|
59 |
McNeill, K. L., Gonzalez Howard, M., Katsh-Singer, R., & Loper, S. (2017). Moving beyond pseudoargumentation: Teachers' enactments of an educative science curriculum focused on argumentation. Science Education, 101(3), 426-457.
DOI
|
60 |
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2012). Supporting grade 5-8 students in constructing explanations in science: The claim, evidence and reasoning framework for talk and writing. New York, NY: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
|
61 |
Meaney, T. (2006). Really that's probably about roughly what goes down: Hesitancies and uncertainties in mathematics assessment interactions. Language and Education, 20, 374-390.
DOI
|
62 |
Muis, K. R., Chevrier, M., & Singh, C. A. (2018). The role of epistemic emotions in personal epistemology and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 53(3), 165-184. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1421465
DOI
|
63 |
Turner, G. J., & Pickvance, R. E. (1973). Social class differences in the expression of uncertainty in five-year-old children. In B. Bernstein (Ed.), Class, codes, and control (pp. 303-325). London, England: Routledge.
|
64 |
Tomas, L., Rigano, D., & Ritchie, S. M. (2016). Students' regulation of their emotions in a science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(2), 234-260.
DOI
|
65 |
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
|
66 |
Turner, J. H. (2009). The sociology of emotions: Basic theoretical arguments. Emotion Review, 1(4), 340-354.
DOI
|
67 |
Vosniadou, S., & Skopeliti, I. (2014). Conceptual change from the framework theory side of the fence. Science and Education, 23(7), 1427-1445.
DOI
|
68 |
Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A. S., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2001). Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense‐making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 529-552.
DOI
|
69 |
Weary, G., Marsh, K. L., Gleicher, F., & Edwards, J. A. (1993). Depression, control motivation, and the processing of information about others. In G. Weary, F. Gleicher, & K. L. Marsh (Eds.), Control motivation and social cognition (pp. 255-287). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
|
70 |
Osborne, J. E. (2002). Science without literacy: A ship without a sail? Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 203-215.
DOI
|
71 |
Osborne, J. E., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction? Science Education, 95(4), 627-638.
DOI
|
72 |
Osborne, J. E., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
DOI
|