中学生在科学探究中论证能力的初步研究
|
摘要
本研究的目的是通过访谈法探讨初中生和高中生在科学探究活动中论证能力的差异与特征。研究工具以自行发展之以“淘米水—碘酒—柠檬”为主题的科学探究活动为主,研究的参与者为30位高中生和30位初中生。本研究以通过文献综述法制定的论证能力评价表为依椐.从“理由的正确性”、“理由的数量”、“主张的数量”、“支持的质量”、“反驳的质量”、“论证的认识论”六个方面评价中学生的论证能力。在数据分析中,通过量化资料的结果来分析论证元素,质性资料的结果来分析论证过程。
研究结果显示高中生的论证能力明显比初中生的论证能力强,高中组在提出“支持主张的理由”、“支持的质量”、“论证的认识论”的得分显著优于初中组：初中组和高中组在“反驳的质量”的得分都不高。中学生论证过程中的主要缺陷与困难主要是论证框架不完整,特别是缺少利用反驳来支持其主张；面对真实情景的问题时,论证能力减弱；论证过程中遇到困难时,过分依赖外界。
The purpose of this study was to explore the differences and characteristics of secondary school students' science argumentation abilities under the treatment of scientific inquiry activity. The data were collected through interview and participant observation. The interview tool used a self-developed scientific inquiry activity, whose theme was about "rice water- iodine- lemon". 30 middle school students and 30 high school students were invited to participate. The students' science argumentation abilities were assessed by 6 dimensions:the quality of reason, the quantity of reason, the quantity of claim, the quality of backing, quality of rebuttal and argument epistemology. The data were classified to quantitative data and qualitative data. The quantitative data were used to analyze the argument element and the qualitative data were used to analyze the argumentation procedure.
The results indicated that high school students' argumentation skills were much better than middle school students. High school students were significantly different from middle school students on the scores for formulating supportive arguments, the quality of backing, and argument epistemology. Both high school students and middle school students are not good at quality of rebuttal. Students' main argumentation defects and difficulties were the argumentation framework was uncompleted, especially lack rebuttal to support its claims; demonstration ability is abate when facing the real situation problems; relying too heavily on the outside when argument process encounter difficulties.
研究结果显示高中生的论证能力明显比初中生的论证能力强,高中组在提出“支持主张的理由”、“支持的质量”、“论证的认识论”的得分显著优于初中组：初中组和高中组在“反驳的质量”的得分都不高。中学生论证过程中的主要缺陷与困难主要是论证框架不完整,特别是缺少利用反驳来支持其主张；面对真实情景的问题时,论证能力减弱；论证过程中遇到困难时,过分依赖外界。
The purpose of this study was to explore the differences and characteristics of secondary school students' science argumentation abilities under the treatment of scientific inquiry activity. The data were collected through interview and participant observation. The interview tool used a self-developed scientific inquiry activity, whose theme was about "rice water- iodine- lemon". 30 middle school students and 30 high school students were invited to participate. The students' science argumentation abilities were assessed by 6 dimensions:the quality of reason, the quantity of reason, the quantity of claim, the quality of backing, quality of rebuttal and argument epistemology. The data were classified to quantitative data and qualitative data. The quantitative data were used to analyze the argument element and the qualitative data were used to analyze the argumentation procedure.
The results indicated that high school students' argumentation skills were much better than middle school students. High school students were significantly different from middle school students on the scores for formulating supportive arguments, the quality of backing, and argument epistemology. Both high school students and middle school students are not good at quality of rebuttal. Students' main argumentation defects and difficulties were the argumentation framework was uncompleted, especially lack rebuttal to support its claims; demonstration ability is abate when facing the real situation problems; relying too heavily on the outside when argument process encounter difficulties.
引文
1 Driver, R., Newton, P.,& Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classroom. Science Education,84(3),287-312.
2 Duschl, R. A.,& Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and prompting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education,38(1),39-72.
3探究：小学科学教学的思想、观点于策略美国国家科学基金会教育与人力资源部中小学及校外教育处著.罗星凯,李萍昌编译.[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2003.
4(美)国家研究理事会,戢守志等译.美国国家科学教育标准[M].北京：科学技术文献出版社,1999.
5 Aleixandre, M. P.,& Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education:An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education:Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp.3-27). New York:Springer.
6 Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument:Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education,77(3), 319-337.
7 Lawson, A. E (2003).The nature and development of hypothetical predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education,25(11),1387-1408.
8 C. Passmore,& J. Stewart, (2002). A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,39(3),185-204.
9 Shirley Simona, Sibel Erduranb and Jonathan Osborne (2006), Learning to Teach Argumentation:Research and development in the science classroom, International Journal of Science Education. Vol.28, Nos 2-3,15 February, pp.235-260
10 Willard,C.A.(1983).Argumentation and the social grounds of knowledge. University of Alabama Press.
11 Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R.,& Snoeck Henkemans, F. S. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
12 Zarefsky, D. (1995). Argumentation in the Tradition of Speech Communication Studies. InF. H. Van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair,&C. A. Willard(Eds.), Perspectives and approaches:Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Argumentation (Vol.1,pp.32-52). Amsterdam:SicSat.
13 Voss, J. F.,& Dyke, A. J. V. (2001). Argumentation in psychology:Background comments. Discourse Processes,32(2&3), 89-111.
14 Lawson, A. E. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetic predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education,25(11),1387-1408.
15黄翎斐,张文华,林陈涌,不同布题模式对学生论证表现的影响,科学教育学刊,2008,第十六卷第四期,375-393
16 Driver, R., Newton, P.,& Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classroom. Science Education,84(3),287-312.
17引自潘瑶珍.基于论证的科学教育.[J].全球教育展望,2010年第6期,第39卷.
18 OECD. PISA 2006 Science competencies for tomorrow's world. Vol.1. Paris, French,2007.
19王星乔,米广春,论证式教学：科学探究教学的新图景,中国教育学刊2010年第10期.
20引自林志能,洪振方,论证模式分析及其评量要素,科学教育月刊,2008,9月,312期,2—18.
21 Voss, J. F.,& Dyke, A. J. V.(2001). Argumentation in psychology:Background comments. Discourse Processes,32(2&3), 89-111.
22林志能,洪振方,论证模式分析及其评量要素,科学教育月刊,2008年9月,312期,2-18.
23引自Mauldin,R. F.,& Lonney, L.W.(1999). Scientific reasoning or non-science majors:Ronald. Giere's approach, Journal of College ScienceTeaching,416-421
24 Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R.,& Snoeck Henkemans, F. S. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
25引自张巨青、吴寅华,逻辑与历史：现代科学方法论的嬗变,台北市：淑馨出版社,1994.
26 Lawson, A. E (2003).The nature and development of hypothetical predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education,25(11),1387-1408.
27 Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument:Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education,77(3), 319-337.
28 Kuhn, D.. How Do People Know? Psychological Science,2001,12(1),1-8.
29 Kelly, G J.,&Takao, A. (2002).Epistemic levels in argument:an analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. Science Education,86(3),314-342.
30 Osborne, J., Erduran, S.,& Simon, S.(2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41(10),994-1020.
31 Driver, R., Newton, P.,& Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classroom. Science Education,84(3),287-312.
32 Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M.,& Poliquin, A. (2008). Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education,30(15),1977-1999.
33全国初中毕业升学考试综合理科学科评价课题组,全国初中毕业与普通高中招生制度改革项目组.2004年中考命题指导从书(综合理科)[M].江苏：江苏教育出版社,2004年版,p6-11.
[1](美)国家研究理事会,戢守志等译.美国国家科学教育标准[M].北京：科学技术文献出版社,1999.
[2]美国国家科学基金会教育与人力资源部中小学及校外教育处.罗星凯著,李萍昌编译.探究：小学科学教学的思想、观点于策略[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2003.
[3]何光峰.国外教学质量监控与评价及其特点分析[J].教学与管理,2005,8：75.
[4]王蕾.教育评价探新[M].西安：西安交通大学出版社,2007：250-265.
[5]王蕾PISA科学素养评价工具的建构[J].中国教育学刊.2007(9).
[6]王海燕.开放性试题评分标准对评分效果的影响[D].桂林：广西师范大学,2009.
[7]王星乔,米广春.论证式教学：科学探究教学的新图景[J].中国教育学刊,2010年第10期.
[8]杨连武.科学探究中培养学生的分析与论证能力[J].物理通报,2010年第3期
[9]潘瑶珍.基于论证的科学教育.[J].全球教育展望,2010年第6期,第39卷.
[10]林燕文,洪振方.对话论证的探究中学童论述策略对促进科学概念理解之研究[J].屏东教育大学学报,第二十六期,2007年3月,页285—324.
[11]林志能,洪振方.论证模式分析及其评量要素[J].科学教育月刊,2008年9月,312期,2-18.
[12]林志能,陈玲君,洪振方.高一学生多变因因果推理与论证能力之相关研究[J].教育实践与研究,第23卷第2期,1-36,2010年12月
[13]洪振方,林裕仁,魏子婷.专精教师与生手教师经营论证教学的分析与比较[J].科学教育学刊,2010,第十八卷第三期,205-227.
[14]张巨青,吴寅华.逻辑与历史：现代科学方法论的嬗变[M]淑馨出版社,1994.
[15]黄柏鸿,林树声.论证教学相关实证性研究之回顾与省思[J].科学教育月刊,2007,9月,302期,5-20.
[16]黄翎斐,张文华,林陈涌.不同布题模式对学生论证表现的影响[J].科学教育学刊,2008,第十六卷第四期,375-393.
[17]李松涛,林焕祥,洪振方.探究式教学对学童科学论证能力影响之探究[J].科学教育学刊,2010,第十八卷第三期,177-203.
[18]靳知勤,杨惟程,段晓林.引导式Toulmin论证模式对国小学童在科学读写表现上的影响[J].科学教育学刊,2010,第十八卷第五期,443-467.
[19]蔡佩颖,张惠博,林雅慧,张文华.小组立场、小组组成及文本特性对于学生论证生殖遗传新闻之效应[J].科学教育学刊,2010,第十八卷第三期,253-276.
[20]林宗进,林树声,陈映均.大学生对基因改造作物议题的认知与论证能力之研究[J].科学教育学刊,2010,第十八卷第三期,229-252.
[21]林树声,黄柏鸿.国小六年级学生在社会性科学议题教学中之论证能力研究-不同学业成就学生间之比较[J].科学教育学刊,2009,第十七卷第二期,111-133
[22]全国初中毕业升学考试综合理科学科评价课题组,全国初中毕业与普通高中招生制度改革项目组.2004年中考命题指导丛书(综合理科)[M].江苏：江苏教育出版社,2004年版,p6-11.
[23]Aleixandre, M. P.,& Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education:An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education:Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp.3-27). New York:Springer.
[24]C. Passmore,& J. Stewart, (2002). A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,39(3),185-204.
[25]Driver, R., Newton, P.,& Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classroom. Science Education,84(3),287-312.
[26]Duschl, R. A.,& Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and prompting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education,38(1),39-72.
[27]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.
[28]Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2002).Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11),1171-1190.
[29]Kelly, G. J.,&Takao, A. (2002).Epistemic levels in argument:an analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. Science Education,86(3),314-342.
[30]Kuhn, D. (1991) The skill of argument. New York:Cambridge University Press.
[31]Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument:Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education,77(3),319-337.
[32]Kuhn, D. (2001) How Do People Know? Psychological Science,12(1),1-8.
[33]Lawson, A. E. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetic predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education,25(11),1387-1408.
[34]Lawson, A. E (2003).The nature and development of hypothetical predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education,25(11),1387-1408.
[35]Mason, L. (2001). Responses to anomalous data on controversial topics and theory change. Journal of Learning and Instruction,11(6),453-483.
[36]Mauldin,R. F.,& Lonney, L.W.(1999). Scientific reasoning or non-science majors:Ronald. Giere's approach, Journal of College ScienceTeaching,416-421
[37]Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M.,& Poliquin, A. (2008). Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education,30(15),1977-1999.
[38]Osborne, J., Erduran, S.,& Simon, S.(2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41(10),994-1020.
[39]Shirley Simona, Sibel Erduranb and Jonathan Osborne (2006), Learning to Teach Argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom, International Journal of Science Education. Vol.28, Nos 2-3,15 February, pp.235-260
[40]Solomon, J. (1992). The classroom discussion of science-based social issues presented on television: knowledge, attitudes and values. International Journal of Science Education,14(4),431-444.
[41]Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R.,& Snoeck Henkemans, F. S. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
[42]Voss, J. F.,& Dyke, A. J. V. (2001). Argumentation in psychology:Background comments. Discourse Processes,32(2&3),89-111.
[43]Willard,C.A.(1983).Argumentation and the social grounds of knowledge. University of Alabama Press.
[44]Zarefsky, D. (1995). Argumentation in the Tradition of Speech Communication Studies. InF. H. Van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair,&C. A. Willard(Eds.), Perspectives and approaches:Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Argumentation (Vol.1,pp.32-52). Amsterdam:SicSat.
[45]OECD. PISA 2006 Science competencies for tomorrow's world. Vol.1. Paris, French,2007.
[46]百度知道[EB/OL]http://zhidao.baidu.com/question/215788175.html
2 Duschl, R. A.,& Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and prompting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education,38(1),39-72.
3探究：小学科学教学的思想、观点于策略美国国家科学基金会教育与人力资源部中小学及校外教育处著.罗星凯,李萍昌编译.[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2003.
4(美)国家研究理事会,戢守志等译.美国国家科学教育标准[M].北京：科学技术文献出版社,1999.
5 Aleixandre, M. P.,& Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education:An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education:Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp.3-27). New York:Springer.
6 Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument:Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education,77(3), 319-337.
7 Lawson, A. E (2003).The nature and development of hypothetical predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education,25(11),1387-1408.
8 C. Passmore,& J. Stewart, (2002). A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,39(3),185-204.
9 Shirley Simona, Sibel Erduranb and Jonathan Osborne (2006), Learning to Teach Argumentation:Research and development in the science classroom, International Journal of Science Education. Vol.28, Nos 2-3,15 February, pp.235-260
10 Willard,C.A.(1983).Argumentation and the social grounds of knowledge. University of Alabama Press.
11 Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R.,& Snoeck Henkemans, F. S. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
12 Zarefsky, D. (1995). Argumentation in the Tradition of Speech Communication Studies. InF. H. Van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair,&C. A. Willard(Eds.), Perspectives and approaches:Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Argumentation (Vol.1,pp.32-52). Amsterdam:SicSat.
13 Voss, J. F.,& Dyke, A. J. V. (2001). Argumentation in psychology:Background comments. Discourse Processes,32(2&3), 89-111.
14 Lawson, A. E. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetic predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education,25(11),1387-1408.
15黄翎斐,张文华,林陈涌,不同布题模式对学生论证表现的影响,科学教育学刊,2008,第十六卷第四期,375-393
16 Driver, R., Newton, P.,& Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classroom. Science Education,84(3),287-312.
17引自潘瑶珍.基于论证的科学教育.[J].全球教育展望,2010年第6期,第39卷.
18 OECD. PISA 2006 Science competencies for tomorrow's world. Vol.1. Paris, French,2007.
19王星乔,米广春,论证式教学：科学探究教学的新图景,中国教育学刊2010年第10期.
20引自林志能,洪振方,论证模式分析及其评量要素,科学教育月刊,2008,9月,312期,2—18.
21 Voss, J. F.,& Dyke, A. J. V.(2001). Argumentation in psychology:Background comments. Discourse Processes,32(2&3), 89-111.
22林志能,洪振方,论证模式分析及其评量要素,科学教育月刊,2008年9月,312期,2-18.
23引自Mauldin,R. F.,& Lonney, L.W.(1999). Scientific reasoning or non-science majors:Ronald. Giere's approach, Journal of College ScienceTeaching,416-421
24 Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R.,& Snoeck Henkemans, F. S. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
25引自张巨青、吴寅华,逻辑与历史：现代科学方法论的嬗变,台北市：淑馨出版社,1994.
26 Lawson, A. E (2003).The nature and development of hypothetical predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education,25(11),1387-1408.
27 Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument:Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education,77(3), 319-337.
28 Kuhn, D.. How Do People Know? Psychological Science,2001,12(1),1-8.
29 Kelly, G J.,&Takao, A. (2002).Epistemic levels in argument:an analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. Science Education,86(3),314-342.
30 Osborne, J., Erduran, S.,& Simon, S.(2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41(10),994-1020.
31 Driver, R., Newton, P.,& Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classroom. Science Education,84(3),287-312.
32 Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M.,& Poliquin, A. (2008). Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education,30(15),1977-1999.
33全国初中毕业升学考试综合理科学科评价课题组,全国初中毕业与普通高中招生制度改革项目组.2004年中考命题指导从书(综合理科)[M].江苏：江苏教育出版社,2004年版,p6-11.
[1](美)国家研究理事会,戢守志等译.美国国家科学教育标准[M].北京：科学技术文献出版社,1999.
[2]美国国家科学基金会教育与人力资源部中小学及校外教育处.罗星凯著,李萍昌编译.探究：小学科学教学的思想、观点于策略[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2003.
[3]何光峰.国外教学质量监控与评价及其特点分析[J].教学与管理,2005,8：75.
[4]王蕾.教育评价探新[M].西安：西安交通大学出版社,2007：250-265.
[5]王蕾PISA科学素养评价工具的建构[J].中国教育学刊.2007(9).
[6]王海燕.开放性试题评分标准对评分效果的影响[D].桂林：广西师范大学,2009.
[7]王星乔,米广春.论证式教学：科学探究教学的新图景[J].中国教育学刊,2010年第10期.
[8]杨连武.科学探究中培养学生的分析与论证能力[J].物理通报,2010年第3期
[9]潘瑶珍.基于论证的科学教育.[J].全球教育展望,2010年第6期,第39卷.
[10]林燕文,洪振方.对话论证的探究中学童论述策略对促进科学概念理解之研究[J].屏东教育大学学报,第二十六期,2007年3月,页285—324.
[11]林志能,洪振方.论证模式分析及其评量要素[J].科学教育月刊,2008年9月,312期,2-18.
[12]林志能,陈玲君,洪振方.高一学生多变因因果推理与论证能力之相关研究[J].教育实践与研究,第23卷第2期,1-36,2010年12月
[13]洪振方,林裕仁,魏子婷.专精教师与生手教师经营论证教学的分析与比较[J].科学教育学刊,2010,第十八卷第三期,205-227.
[14]张巨青,吴寅华.逻辑与历史：现代科学方法论的嬗变[M]淑馨出版社,1994.
[15]黄柏鸿,林树声.论证教学相关实证性研究之回顾与省思[J].科学教育月刊,2007,9月,302期,5-20.
[16]黄翎斐,张文华,林陈涌.不同布题模式对学生论证表现的影响[J].科学教育学刊,2008,第十六卷第四期,375-393.
[17]李松涛,林焕祥,洪振方.探究式教学对学童科学论证能力影响之探究[J].科学教育学刊,2010,第十八卷第三期,177-203.
[18]靳知勤,杨惟程,段晓林.引导式Toulmin论证模式对国小学童在科学读写表现上的影响[J].科学教育学刊,2010,第十八卷第五期,443-467.
[19]蔡佩颖,张惠博,林雅慧,张文华.小组立场、小组组成及文本特性对于学生论证生殖遗传新闻之效应[J].科学教育学刊,2010,第十八卷第三期,253-276.
[20]林宗进,林树声,陈映均.大学生对基因改造作物议题的认知与论证能力之研究[J].科学教育学刊,2010,第十八卷第三期,229-252.
[21]林树声,黄柏鸿.国小六年级学生在社会性科学议题教学中之论证能力研究-不同学业成就学生间之比较[J].科学教育学刊,2009,第十七卷第二期,111-133
[22]全国初中毕业升学考试综合理科学科评价课题组,全国初中毕业与普通高中招生制度改革项目组.2004年中考命题指导丛书(综合理科)[M].江苏：江苏教育出版社,2004年版,p6-11.
[23]Aleixandre, M. P.,& Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education:An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education:Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp.3-27). New York:Springer.
[24]C. Passmore,& J. Stewart, (2002). A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,39(3),185-204.
[25]Driver, R., Newton, P.,& Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classroom. Science Education,84(3),287-312.
[26]Duschl, R. A.,& Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and prompting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education,38(1),39-72.
[27]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.
[28]Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2002).Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11),1171-1190.
[29]Kelly, G. J.,&Takao, A. (2002).Epistemic levels in argument:an analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. Science Education,86(3),314-342.
[30]Kuhn, D. (1991) The skill of argument. New York:Cambridge University Press.
[31]Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument:Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education,77(3),319-337.
[32]Kuhn, D. (2001) How Do People Know? Psychological Science,12(1),1-8.
[33]Lawson, A. E. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetic predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education,25(11),1387-1408.
[34]Lawson, A. E (2003).The nature and development of hypothetical predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education,25(11),1387-1408.
[35]Mason, L. (2001). Responses to anomalous data on controversial topics and theory change. Journal of Learning and Instruction,11(6),453-483.
[36]Mauldin,R. F.,& Lonney, L.W.(1999). Scientific reasoning or non-science majors:Ronald. Giere's approach, Journal of College ScienceTeaching,416-421
[37]Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M.,& Poliquin, A. (2008). Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education,30(15),1977-1999.
[38]Osborne, J., Erduran, S.,& Simon, S.(2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41(10),994-1020.
[39]Shirley Simona, Sibel Erduranb and Jonathan Osborne (2006), Learning to Teach Argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom, International Journal of Science Education. Vol.28, Nos 2-3,15 February, pp.235-260
[40]Solomon, J. (1992). The classroom discussion of science-based social issues presented on television: knowledge, attitudes and values. International Journal of Science Education,14(4),431-444.
[41]Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R.,& Snoeck Henkemans, F. S. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
[42]Voss, J. F.,& Dyke, A. J. V. (2001). Argumentation in psychology:Background comments. Discourse Processes,32(2&3),89-111.
[43]Willard,C.A.(1983).Argumentation and the social grounds of knowledge. University of Alabama Press.
[44]Zarefsky, D. (1995). Argumentation in the Tradition of Speech Communication Studies. InF. H. Van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair,&C. A. Willard(Eds.), Perspectives and approaches:Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Argumentation (Vol.1,pp.32-52). Amsterdam:SicSat.
[45]OECD. PISA 2006 Science competencies for tomorrow's world. Vol.1. Paris, French,2007.
[46]百度知道[EB/OL]http://zhidao.baidu.com/question/215788175.html