科学教育中的论证教学
|
摘要
在科学教育中运用论证的方式来开展教与学的活动是当前国际科学教育研究的热点问题。当今世界,科学教育正在从以往的“获取答案”、“视科学为探索和实验”、“提供有关科学内容之问题的答案”、以及“以实验结果作为探究最后的结论”转向强调“使用证据和策略来发展或修正解释”、“视科学为论证和解释”、“沟通科学解释”,以及“应用实验的结果到科学的论证和解释”,以培养有科学素养的公民。正是在这样的趋势和背景中,本研究对科学教育中的论证教学展开了理论和实践的探索。
研究聚焦的核心问题是“什么是科学论证教学,它在实践中的境遇如何?”为此,研究中运用文献分析法、案例研究法、访谈法、诠释法以及比较分析的方法对科学论证教学的理论和实践层面展开了探索,获得的研究成果包括以下五个方面。
第一,辨析了科学教育中论证和论证教学的概念,阐明了科学论证教学与科学探究教学的关系,厘清了科学论证教学研究的发展脉络与现状。科学论证教学与科学探究教学在本质上是契合的,前者是对后者的一种丰富和发展。科学论证教学更加强调儿童在科学学习中对“证据的形成和使用”,对学习过程和学习结果的“沟通和解释”以及对“知识的产生”和“知识的评价”两个方面的认识、体验和实践。科学论证教学研究起始于20世纪80年代,在90年代中期美国《国家科学教育标准》颁布后逐渐受到重视和强调,当前的研究主要集中在四个方面,包括关于学生论证的过程中论点和论证品质的分析方法和分析框架,评价学生的论证能力；开发论证活动的教学材料和教学策略支持论证教学；科学课堂中师生互动的话语分析以及计算机支持的论证学习活动的设计与开发。
第二,阐释了论证在科学教学中的意蕴。首先从论证涉及的潜在思考知能出发,分析了论证在科学教学中的功能,通过对论证与科学素养的关系的探讨和科学课程标准及课程中包含的论证的内容,展现论证在科学教学中的重要地位。然后结合科学教学的内容分析了多种论证的结构与模式,以进一步呈现和阐述科学教学中论证的过程与内涵,并梳理了当前科学论证教学研究中对论证品质的评量方式。
第三,分析了科学论证教学中论证学习活动的本质。论证学习活动是一种推理的过程(个人层面的论证),是一种关于科学的对话过程(人际间的论证),是一种批判性思考的过程(论证的核心),这三个方面相互交织又各有侧重。理解论证学习活动的本质能够帮助教师把握论证教学的设计和发展方向,最大潜能地发挥论证教学的优势。
第四,探讨了科学论证教学在科学教育中的应用。在分析科学论证教学的六大维度的基础上,探索了在科学教育中适合采用论证的教学方式来开展学习活动的两类题材,即科学概念的学习和社会性科学议题的学习。在这两个题材领域,论证教学过程中所使用的具体的教学策略和运用的方式是有区别的。科学论证教学特别强调需要创建一种安全而富有质询精神的学习共同体环境,研究以安全感、真实参与性、挑战性问题、主导权问题为四个支点,建构了辅导者在科学教学中创建学习共同体的决策模型。
最后,以社会性科学议题为例,对科学论证教学展开了实践研究。研究中以七年级泥石流教学中“土地开发与资源保护”的争议性议题为例,对中美两位教师的论证教学和两个班级的论证学习活动进行了详细描述与分析。此项实践研究获得的研究结论包括：两位教师在实际教学中运用的教学策略比预设的教学策略都有不同程度的丰富和拓展,教师的教学理念对教学过程的发展和学生的学习过程产生影响；两个班级的对话论证活动在举证支持、反驳与质疑、教师引导运用证据和材料、教师帮助化解反驳与质疑、对话论证受学生原有知识水平的影响五个方面表现出共通性,而在学生的参与性、论证话题的跳跃性、证据的来源以及论证发展的程度方面表现出差异性；通过对学生论证学习活动反思的访谈分析发现,E班学生认为证据是对话论证学习活动的核心,T班学生认为发言是对话论证活动的核心,他们在资料的搜集与整理方面都遇到困难,他们共同认为论证活动能够激发多元的思考,但是需要完成很多的学习任务,化费较多的时间；通过对两位教师教学反思的访谈分析发现,E老师认为论证教学的核心是证据的形成与使用,T老师认为论证教学的核心是学生发言,两位老师都认为自己在论证教学的过程中将更多的注意力放在论证活动的发展。
研究表明,论证在科学教育中是一种有效的教与学的方式和策略,对发展学生的高级思维能力、理解科学的本质、提高学生的科学素养具有独特的作用。希冀我国的科学教育工作者对此引起关注、研究,将科学论证教学更广泛地应用于科学教学实践,以改进我国传统的科学课堂教学。
Using argumentation for teaching and learning science is a hot research question in current international science education research field. Instead of "Getting an answer","Science as exploration and experiment","Providing answers to questions about science content" and "Concluding inquiries with the result of the experiment", current science education is turning to "Using evidence and strategies for developing or revising an explanation","Science as argument and explanation","Communicating science explanations" and "Applying the results of experiments to scientific arguments and explanations" for scientifically literate citizens. Underlying in this trending and background, this study explored the theory and practice of argumentation-oriented science instruction in science education.
This study focused on the core question of "what is the argumentation-oriented science instruction, and how it is developed in the teaching and learning practice?" To answer the research question, the study employed several research methodologies including literature research, case study, interview, descriptive research and comparative analysis to explore the theory and practice of argumentation-oriented science instruction, and achieved the following research results.
First, the study defined the conception of argumentation and argumentation-oriented science instruction, stated the relationship between argumentation-oriented science instruction and inquiry-based science instruction, and clarified the historical development and present situation of researches on argumentation-oriented science instruction. Argumentation-oriented science instruction is concordant with inquiry-based science instruction, with enriching and developing inquiry-based science instruction. However, the former stresses more on the development and application of evidence, the communication and explanation for the learning process and learning outcomes,the epistemology, experiences as well as practices on "the production of knowledge" and "the assessment of knowledge". Researches on argumentation-oriented science instruction started in1980s, and gradually got recognized and emphasized after the publication of National Science Education standards in1996. The current researches are mainly on four aspects including researches on developing analytical methods and frameworks for students'argumentations and assessing the students'argumentative ability, researches on developing right materials and instructional strategies for supporting argumentation-oriented science instruction, researches on the discourses analysis of interactions underlying argumentation-oriented science instruction as well as researches on the designing and development of computer-supported argumentation-oriented science instruction.
Second, the study explained the implications of argumentation in science instruction. Based on the potential contributions from argumentation, the functions of argumentation in science instruction were analyzed. The importance of argumentation in science instruction was demonstrated via the discussion of argumentation and scientific literacy, and the exhibition of argumentative content in science curriculum standards as well as science curriculums. Then, different structures and patterns of argumentation were analyzed with integrating the content of science instruction to further explain the process and meaning of argumentation in science instruction. The assessments of the quality of argumentation were also analyzed from the current researches on argumentation-oriented science instruction.
Third, the study elaborated nature of argumentation-oriented science learning. It has three aspects, which are a process of reasoning (intrapsychological argumentation), a process of producing dialogues (interpsychological argumentation), and a process of critical thinking (core of argumentation). These three aspects are interlaced with each other while each of them has its own focus. Understanding the nature of argumentation-oriented science learning could help teachers do argumentation-oriented science teaching better.
Forth, the study explored the application of argumentation-oriented science instruction. Based on the analyzing of six dimensions, it was stated that argumentation-oriented science instruction is appropriate for two different science learning areas which are scientific conception learning and socio-scientific issues. The concrete instructional strategies in these two areas are different. It was stressed that applying argumentation-oriented science instruction should be in a learning community full with safety and inquiry. The study took safety, authentic participation, challenge and ownership as four fulcrums to create a learning community and constructed a decision-making model for teaching argumentation.
The last, the study did a practical research of argumentation-oriented science instruction using a case study. It explored two teachers using argumentation-oriented science instruction for teaching a socio-scientific issue of "land development and environmental protection" and got four research conclusions:(a) The applied instructional strategies of argumentation-oriented science instruction got enriched and developed in the teaching process comparing with the designed instructional strategies, and teachers' teaching philosophy effected the development of instruction and the outcome of students' learning;(b) Conducting analysis on the discourse of interactions for the two classes and found they had intercommunity and differences. The intercommunity is on evidence supporting, rebuttal and inquiry, teacher guiding data and evidence using, teacher helping solve rebuttal and inquiry, and students' prior knowledge influencing the development of argumentation. The differences are on student's participation, Off-Topic Conversation, sources of evidences and the developmental degree of argumentation.(c) Conducting analysis on students' reflections on argumentative activities and found the E class took evidence as the core of argumentative activity while the T class took speaking as the core of it. Both of the classes encountered difficulties on data searching and organizing. Both of the classes realized that argumentative activity could promote multiple thinking but it required huge work and much time,(d) Conducting analysis on the two teachers' reflections on argumentative activities and found teacher E took the development of evidence as the core of argumentation activity while teacher T took students can make speaking as the core of it. Both of the two teachers found they paid more attention on the development of argumentation than on individual student learning.
The study fully demonstrated that argumentation is an effective way and strategy for teaching and learning science. It has distinguished contributions on developing students' high-order thinking, getting understanding of nature of science and improving scientific literacy. More researches and practices of argumentation-oriented science instruction are expected to improve traditional science instruction in our country.
研究聚焦的核心问题是“什么是科学论证教学,它在实践中的境遇如何?”为此,研究中运用文献分析法、案例研究法、访谈法、诠释法以及比较分析的方法对科学论证教学的理论和实践层面展开了探索,获得的研究成果包括以下五个方面。
第一,辨析了科学教育中论证和论证教学的概念,阐明了科学论证教学与科学探究教学的关系,厘清了科学论证教学研究的发展脉络与现状。科学论证教学与科学探究教学在本质上是契合的,前者是对后者的一种丰富和发展。科学论证教学更加强调儿童在科学学习中对“证据的形成和使用”,对学习过程和学习结果的“沟通和解释”以及对“知识的产生”和“知识的评价”两个方面的认识、体验和实践。科学论证教学研究起始于20世纪80年代,在90年代中期美国《国家科学教育标准》颁布后逐渐受到重视和强调,当前的研究主要集中在四个方面,包括关于学生论证的过程中论点和论证品质的分析方法和分析框架,评价学生的论证能力；开发论证活动的教学材料和教学策略支持论证教学；科学课堂中师生互动的话语分析以及计算机支持的论证学习活动的设计与开发。
第二,阐释了论证在科学教学中的意蕴。首先从论证涉及的潜在思考知能出发,分析了论证在科学教学中的功能,通过对论证与科学素养的关系的探讨和科学课程标准及课程中包含的论证的内容,展现论证在科学教学中的重要地位。然后结合科学教学的内容分析了多种论证的结构与模式,以进一步呈现和阐述科学教学中论证的过程与内涵,并梳理了当前科学论证教学研究中对论证品质的评量方式。
第三,分析了科学论证教学中论证学习活动的本质。论证学习活动是一种推理的过程(个人层面的论证),是一种关于科学的对话过程(人际间的论证),是一种批判性思考的过程(论证的核心),这三个方面相互交织又各有侧重。理解论证学习活动的本质能够帮助教师把握论证教学的设计和发展方向,最大潜能地发挥论证教学的优势。
第四,探讨了科学论证教学在科学教育中的应用。在分析科学论证教学的六大维度的基础上,探索了在科学教育中适合采用论证的教学方式来开展学习活动的两类题材,即科学概念的学习和社会性科学议题的学习。在这两个题材领域,论证教学过程中所使用的具体的教学策略和运用的方式是有区别的。科学论证教学特别强调需要创建一种安全而富有质询精神的学习共同体环境,研究以安全感、真实参与性、挑战性问题、主导权问题为四个支点,建构了辅导者在科学教学中创建学习共同体的决策模型。
最后,以社会性科学议题为例,对科学论证教学展开了实践研究。研究中以七年级泥石流教学中“土地开发与资源保护”的争议性议题为例,对中美两位教师的论证教学和两个班级的论证学习活动进行了详细描述与分析。此项实践研究获得的研究结论包括：两位教师在实际教学中运用的教学策略比预设的教学策略都有不同程度的丰富和拓展,教师的教学理念对教学过程的发展和学生的学习过程产生影响；两个班级的对话论证活动在举证支持、反驳与质疑、教师引导运用证据和材料、教师帮助化解反驳与质疑、对话论证受学生原有知识水平的影响五个方面表现出共通性,而在学生的参与性、论证话题的跳跃性、证据的来源以及论证发展的程度方面表现出差异性；通过对学生论证学习活动反思的访谈分析发现,E班学生认为证据是对话论证学习活动的核心,T班学生认为发言是对话论证活动的核心,他们在资料的搜集与整理方面都遇到困难,他们共同认为论证活动能够激发多元的思考,但是需要完成很多的学习任务,化费较多的时间；通过对两位教师教学反思的访谈分析发现,E老师认为论证教学的核心是证据的形成与使用,T老师认为论证教学的核心是学生发言,两位老师都认为自己在论证教学的过程中将更多的注意力放在论证活动的发展。
研究表明,论证在科学教育中是一种有效的教与学的方式和策略,对发展学生的高级思维能力、理解科学的本质、提高学生的科学素养具有独特的作用。希冀我国的科学教育工作者对此引起关注、研究,将科学论证教学更广泛地应用于科学教学实践,以改进我国传统的科学课堂教学。
Using argumentation for teaching and learning science is a hot research question in current international science education research field. Instead of "Getting an answer","Science as exploration and experiment","Providing answers to questions about science content" and "Concluding inquiries with the result of the experiment", current science education is turning to "Using evidence and strategies for developing or revising an explanation","Science as argument and explanation","Communicating science explanations" and "Applying the results of experiments to scientific arguments and explanations" for scientifically literate citizens. Underlying in this trending and background, this study explored the theory and practice of argumentation-oriented science instruction in science education.
This study focused on the core question of "what is the argumentation-oriented science instruction, and how it is developed in the teaching and learning practice?" To answer the research question, the study employed several research methodologies including literature research, case study, interview, descriptive research and comparative analysis to explore the theory and practice of argumentation-oriented science instruction, and achieved the following research results.
First, the study defined the conception of argumentation and argumentation-oriented science instruction, stated the relationship between argumentation-oriented science instruction and inquiry-based science instruction, and clarified the historical development and present situation of researches on argumentation-oriented science instruction. Argumentation-oriented science instruction is concordant with inquiry-based science instruction, with enriching and developing inquiry-based science instruction. However, the former stresses more on the development and application of evidence, the communication and explanation for the learning process and learning outcomes,the epistemology, experiences as well as practices on "the production of knowledge" and "the assessment of knowledge". Researches on argumentation-oriented science instruction started in1980s, and gradually got recognized and emphasized after the publication of National Science Education standards in1996. The current researches are mainly on four aspects including researches on developing analytical methods and frameworks for students'argumentations and assessing the students'argumentative ability, researches on developing right materials and instructional strategies for supporting argumentation-oriented science instruction, researches on the discourses analysis of interactions underlying argumentation-oriented science instruction as well as researches on the designing and development of computer-supported argumentation-oriented science instruction.
Second, the study explained the implications of argumentation in science instruction. Based on the potential contributions from argumentation, the functions of argumentation in science instruction were analyzed. The importance of argumentation in science instruction was demonstrated via the discussion of argumentation and scientific literacy, and the exhibition of argumentative content in science curriculum standards as well as science curriculums. Then, different structures and patterns of argumentation were analyzed with integrating the content of science instruction to further explain the process and meaning of argumentation in science instruction. The assessments of the quality of argumentation were also analyzed from the current researches on argumentation-oriented science instruction.
Third, the study elaborated nature of argumentation-oriented science learning. It has three aspects, which are a process of reasoning (intrapsychological argumentation), a process of producing dialogues (interpsychological argumentation), and a process of critical thinking (core of argumentation). These three aspects are interlaced with each other while each of them has its own focus. Understanding the nature of argumentation-oriented science learning could help teachers do argumentation-oriented science teaching better.
Forth, the study explored the application of argumentation-oriented science instruction. Based on the analyzing of six dimensions, it was stated that argumentation-oriented science instruction is appropriate for two different science learning areas which are scientific conception learning and socio-scientific issues. The concrete instructional strategies in these two areas are different. It was stressed that applying argumentation-oriented science instruction should be in a learning community full with safety and inquiry. The study took safety, authentic participation, challenge and ownership as four fulcrums to create a learning community and constructed a decision-making model for teaching argumentation.
The last, the study did a practical research of argumentation-oriented science instruction using a case study. It explored two teachers using argumentation-oriented science instruction for teaching a socio-scientific issue of "land development and environmental protection" and got four research conclusions:(a) The applied instructional strategies of argumentation-oriented science instruction got enriched and developed in the teaching process comparing with the designed instructional strategies, and teachers' teaching philosophy effected the development of instruction and the outcome of students' learning;(b) Conducting analysis on the discourse of interactions for the two classes and found they had intercommunity and differences. The intercommunity is on evidence supporting, rebuttal and inquiry, teacher guiding data and evidence using, teacher helping solve rebuttal and inquiry, and students' prior knowledge influencing the development of argumentation. The differences are on student's participation, Off-Topic Conversation, sources of evidences and the developmental degree of argumentation.(c) Conducting analysis on students' reflections on argumentative activities and found the E class took evidence as the core of argumentative activity while the T class took speaking as the core of it. Both of the classes encountered difficulties on data searching and organizing. Both of the classes realized that argumentative activity could promote multiple thinking but it required huge work and much time,(d) Conducting analysis on the two teachers' reflections on argumentative activities and found teacher E took the development of evidence as the core of argumentation activity while teacher T took students can make speaking as the core of it. Both of the two teachers found they paid more attention on the development of argumentation than on individual student learning.
The study fully demonstrated that argumentation is an effective way and strategy for teaching and learning science. It has distinguished contributions on developing students' high-order thinking, getting understanding of nature of science and improving scientific literacy. More researches and practices of argumentation-oriented science instruction are expected to improve traditional science instruction in our country.
引文
① OECD.(2006).The Programme for the International Student Assessment (PISA). Paris:OECD. p12.
② National Research Council.(1996).National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.p22.
③ Ibid, p113
① National Research Council.(2012).A Framework for K-12 Science Education:Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.p3.
② Ibid, p42-46.
③ [日]佐藤学著,钟启泉、陈静静译.教师的挑战：宁静的课堂革命[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2012：中文版序.
① [日]佐藤学著,钟启泉、陈静静译.教师的挑战：宁静的课堂革命[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2012：中文版序.
② 来自华东师范大学钟启泉教授在“第三届有效教学理论与实践研讨会”的讲座,2008年12月.
① [美]丹尼尔·坦纳、劳雷尔·坦纳著,崔允漷等译.学校课程史[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2006：239.
② 钟启泉.“知识教学”辨[J].上海教育科研,2007(4)：4-8.
③ [英]怀特海著,徐汝舟译.教育的目的[M].北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店,2002：2.
① [日]佐藤学著,钟启泉译.课程与教师[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2003：231.
② Erickson, F.(1986).Qualitative Methods in Research on Teaching. In M.C.Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. New York:Macmillan, p119-161.
③ [加]马克斯·范梅南著,宋广文等译.生活体验研究——人文科学视野中的教育学[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2003:163-176.
① Mintzes,J,J, Wandersee,J.H,& Novak, J.D.(1998).Teaching Science for Understanding:A Human Constructivist View. San Diego:Academic Press. Preface.
② [美]约翰·杜威著,赵祥麟、任钟印、吴志宏译.学校与社会·明日之学校(第2版)[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2005
③ Schwab,J.J.(1965).Biology Teachers' Handbook. New York:John Wiley & Sons, Inc.1965.
① 转引自丁信中.青年学生于理论竞争论证过程中对其支持理论局限的觉察[D].高雄：台湾高雄师范大学,2004.
① Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and Thinking:A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
① Willard, C. A. (1989). A Theory of Argumentation. Tuscaloosa, AB:University of Alabama Press.
② Emeren, F. H. V. (1995). A world of difference:The rich state of argumentation theory. Informal Logic,17(2),144-158.
③ Voss, J. F.,& Means, M. L. (1991a). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning and Instruction,1(4),337-350.
① Emeren, F. H. V. (1995). A world of difference:The rich state of argumentation theory. Informal Logic,17(2),144-158.
② Bricker, A. L.,& Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education,92(3),473-498.
① Emeren, F. H. V. (1995). A world of difference:The rich state of argumentation theory. Informal Logic,17(2),144-158.
② 转引自Erduran, S.,& Jime'nex-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in Science Education: Perspective from Classroom-Base Research. Springer Press.p3.
③ Driver, R., Newton, P.,& Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education,84(3),287-312.
① Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument:Implication for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education,77(3),319-317.
② 转引自：[日]佐藤正夫著,钟启泉译.教学原理[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2001：311.
① [日]佐藤正夫著,钟启泉译.教学原理[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2001：312.
② 谢耘.论证概念的理论探究[D].上海：华东师范大学,2006：5.
① De Vries, E., Lund, K.,& Baker, M.J. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions.The Journal of the Learning Sciences,11(1),63-103.
② Osborne, J.,& Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation:A necessary distinction? Science Education,95 (4),627-638.
① 转引自：孔企平.教学研究中的几个基本问题——兼谈课堂学习理论的新发展[J].全球教育展望,2005,3：14-16.
② [美]W.多尔.超越方法：教学即审美与精神的追求[J].华东师范大学学报(教育科学版),2003,3：43.
③ Driver, R., Newton, P.,& Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education,84(3),287-312.
④ 莱斯利·P·斯特弗,杰里·盖尔编.高文等译.教育中的建构主义.上海：华东师范大学出版社,2002：134.
⑤ Boulter, C.J.,& Gilbert, J.K. (1995). Argument and science education. In A. Costello and S. Mitchell (Eds.), Competing and consensual voices:The theory and practice of argumentation. Longman(UK):Multilingual Matters. p84-98.
① Russell, T. L. (1983). Analyzing arguments in science classroom discourse:Can teachers' questions distort scientific authority? Journal of Research in Science Teaching,20(1),27-45.
② Nussbaum, M. (2002). Scaffolding argumentation in the social studies classroom. Social Studies,93(3),79-85.
③ [美]阿瑟·A·卡琳、乔尔·E·巴斯、特丽·L·康坦特著,张军霞等译.教作为探究的科学[M].北京：人民教育出版社.2009：18.
① Hodson, D. (1993).Re-thinking old ways:Towards a more critical approach to practical work in school science. Studies in science education,22(1),85-142.
② Duschl, R. A.,& Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education,38,39-72.
① 鄢超云.朴素物理理论与儿童科学教育[M].南京：江苏教育出版社,2007：7.
① Wassermann, S.,& J.W. George Ivany.(1996). The new teaching elementary science. New York: Teachers college Press, Columbia University.p5.
① 中华人民共和国教育部制定.初中科学课程标准.北京：北京师范大学出版社,2011.
① Wassermann, S.,& J.W. George Ivany.(1996). The new teaching elementary science. New York: Teachers college Press, Columbia University. P5.
① 转引自：[美]国家研究理事会科学、数学及技术教育中心,《国家科学教育标准》科学探探究附属读物编委会著,罗星凯等译.科学探究与国家科学教育标准——教与学的指南[M].北京：科学普及出版社,2004：2-5.
① Driver, R., Newton, P.,& Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education,84(3),287-312.
② Driver, R., Newton, P.,& Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education,84(3),287-312.
③ 徐学福.美国探究教学研究30年[J].全球教育展望.2001(8)：57-63.
④ National Research Council.(1996).National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
⑤ [美]国家研究理事会科学、数学及技术教育中心,《国家科学教育标准》科学探究附属读物编委会著,罗星凯等译.科学探究与国家科学教育标准——教与学的指南[M].北京：科学普及出版社,2004.
⑤ American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).(2001).Atlas of Science literacy. Washington, DC:National Science Teachers Association (NSTA).
① Department for Education and Employment,& Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (1999). Science:the National program for England(Key Stages 1-4). London.
② 1996年英国教育法案规定,义务教育分为四个学段(Key Stage),分别为：Key Stagel(1年级-2年级),Key Stage2(3年级-6年级),Key Stage3(7年级-9年级),Key Stage 4(10年级-11年级)。
① 中华人民共和国教育部制定.全日制义务教育科学(7-9年级)课程标准(实验稿)[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社.2001.
② 袁运开.科学课程标准的特点和我们的认识[J].全球教育展望,2002(2)：12-16.
③ 中华人民共和国教育部制定.义务教育初中科学课程标准(2011版)[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社.2012.
① National Research Council.(1996).National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.p113.
② [美]国家研究理事会科学、数学及技术教育中心,《国家科学教育标准》科学探究附属读物编委会著,罗星凯等译.科学探究与国家科学教育标准——教与学的指南[M].北京：科学普及出版社,2004：24.
③ 钟启泉.探究学习与理科教学[J].教育研究,1986,7.
④ Dewey, J.(1997).How we think. New York:Dover Publicaitons, Inc.
⑤ Schwab,1.(1967). Biology teachers' handbook. New York:John Whiley & Sons, Inc.
⑥ Lansdown B., Blackwood, P.,& Brandwein, P.(1971).Teaching Elementary Science Through Investigation and Colloquium. New York:Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., New York,1971.
⑦ Wassermann, S.,& J.W. George Ivany.(1996). The new teaching elementary science. New York: Teachers college Press, Columbia University.
⑧ 李雁冰.科学探究、科学素养与科学教育[J].全球教育展望,2008,37(12)：14-18.
① Bybee, R. Scientific and Engineering Practices in K-12 Classrooms:Understanding a Framework for K-12 Science Education. Science Teacher,78(9):34-40.
② Sarah Michaels, Andrew W. Shouse,& Heidi A. Schweingruber. (2007).Ready, Set, Science!: Putting Research to Work in K-8 Science Classrooms. Washington DC:the National Academies Press.p17-36.
③ Bybee, R. Scientific and Engineering Practices in K-12 Classrooms:Understanding a Framework for K-12 Science Education. Science Teacher,78(9):34-40.
④ Duschl, C. (2000). Making the nature of science explicit. In R. Millar, L.,& Osborne, J. (Eds.), Improving science education:The contribution of research. Buckingham (pp.187-206), UK: Open University Press.
⑤ Rop, C. (2002). The meaning of student inquiry questions:a teacher beliefs and responses. International Journal of Science Education,24(7),717-736.
⑥ Lubben, F.,& Millar, R. (1996). Children's ideas about the reliability of experimental data. International Journal of Science Education,18(8),955-968.
⑦ Kanari, Z.,& Millar, R. (2004). Reasoning from data:how students collect and interpret data in science investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41(7),748-769.
① Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Rodriguez, A.,& Duschl, R. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science":Argument in high school genetics. Science Education,84(6),757-792.
② Duschl, R.,& Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education,38,39-72.
③ Driver, R., Newton, P.& Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education,84,287-312.
④ Osborne, J.,Erduran, S., Simon, S.,& Monk, M.(2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41(10),994-1020.
⑤ Sandoval, W.,& Reiser, B. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry:Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education,88(3),345-372.
⑥ Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review,62(2),155-178.
① Mintzes, J.,& Novak, J. (1999). Assessing science understanding:The epistemological vee diagram. In Mintzes,J, Wandersee, J.,& Novak, J. (Eds.), Assessing science understanding. California:A Harcourt Science and Technology Company Press. P41-69.
② Duschl, R.,& Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education,38,39-72.
③ Kelly, G.,& Crawford, T. (1997). An ethnographic investigation of the discourse processes of school science. Science Education,81(5),533-560.
① Driver, R., Newton, P.,& Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education,84(3),287-312.
② Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R.,& Scott. P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Philadephia:Open University Press.
① Marcia C Linn, theoretical and Practical Significance of Formal Reasoning[J]. Journal of research in teaching,1982(19):727-742.
② Ibid.
③ Miller, J. L.,& Bartsch, K. The development of biological explanation:Are children vitalists? Developmental psychology,1997,33:156-164.
④ Hood, B. M. Gravity does rule for falling events. Developmental science,1998,1:59-63.
⑤ Klahr, D.,& Dunbar, K. Dual search space duringscientific reasoning. Cognitive Science,1988, 12:1-48.
① Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. London:Harvard University Press.
① Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A.,& Duschl, R. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science":Argument in high school genetics. Science education,84(6),757-792.
② Min-Hsien Lee, Ying-Tien Wu & Chin-Chung Tsai.(2009).Research trends in science education from 2003 to 2007:a content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education,31(15),1999-2020.
① Previous Annual International Conferences of National Association for Research in Science Teaching. [EB/OL].[20130920]. https://www.narst.org/annualconference/previous.cfrn.
① Erduran, S.,& Jime'nex-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in Science Education: Perspective from Classroom-Base Research. Springer Press.pl.
② Russell, T. (1983). Analyzing arguments in science classroom discourse:Can teachers' questions distort scientific authority? Journal of Research in Science Teaching,20,27-45.
③ Eichinger, D., Anderson, C., Palincsar, A.,& David, Y. M. (1991). An illustration of the roles of content knowledge, scientific argument, and social norms in collaborative problem solving. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
④ Mason, L.,& Santi, M. (1994, April). Argumentation structure and metacognition in constructing shared knowledge at school. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
⑤ Kelly, G.J., Drucker, S.,& Chen, C. (1998). students'reasoning about electricity:Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education,20,849-871.
⑥ Newton, P., Driver, R.,& Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education,21,553-576.
① Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E.,& Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher,23,5-12.
② Chinn, C. A.,& Brewer, W. F. (1998). Theories of knowledge acquisition. In B. J. Fraser,& K. G Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education:Learning (pp.97-113). Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
③ Newton, P., Driver, R.,& Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education,21,553-576.
① Patronis, P. T., Potari, D.,& Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students" argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue:Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education,21,745-754.
② Simonneaux, L. (2001). Role-play or debate to promote students" argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9),903-927.
③ Engle, A. R.,& Conant, R. C. (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.
④ Lawson, E. A. (2002). Sound and faulty arguments generated by preservice biology teachers when testing hypotheses involving unobservable entities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,39(3),237-252.
① Zohar, A.,& Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,39,35-62.
② Niaz, M., Aguilera, D., Maza, A.,& Liendo, G. (2002). Arguments, Contradictions, Resistances, and Conceptual Change in Students'Understanding of Atomic Structure. Science Education, 86(4),505-525.
③ Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.P & Pereiro-Munoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision-making about environmental management. International journal of science education,24(11),1171-1190.
① 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.
② Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S. (2004). Ideas, evidence and argument in science. In-service training pack, resource pack and video. London:Nuffield Foundation.
① Simon, S., Erduran, S.,& Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation:Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education,28(2&3), 235-260.
② 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.
③ Ibid.
① Bleicher, R. E., Tobin, K.G.,& McRobbie, C. J. (2003). Opportunities to talk science in a high school chemistry classroom. Research in Science Education,33,319-339.
② Sadler, T.D. (2006). Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education,17,323-346.
③ Viiri, J.& Saari, H. (2006). Teacher talk patterns in science lessons:Use in teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education,17,347-365.
④ Simon, S., Erduran, S.,& Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation:Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education,28(2&3), 235-260.
⑤ Childs, C, McNicholl, J. (2007). Investigating the relationship between subject content knowledge and pedagogical practice through the analysis of classroom discourse. International Journal of Science Education,29(13),1629-1653.
⑥ Martin, A.,& Hand, B. (2007). Factors Affecting the Implementation of Argument in the Elementary Science Classroom. A Longitudeinal Case Study. Research of Science Education,39, 17-38.
① Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D.,& Richardson, J. C. (2008). A scaffolding framework to support the construction of evidence-base arguments among middle school students. Educational Technology Research & Development,56,401-422.
② McNeill, K. (2009). Teachers' use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Research of Science Education,93 (2),233-268.
③ 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
④ Clark, D. B. (2004). Hands-on investigation in Internet environments:Teaching thermal equilibrium. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis.,& P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environment for Science Education. NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
① Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B. K., Steinmuller, F.,& Leone, A. J. (2001). BGuILE:Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr, (Eds.), Cognition and instruction:Twenty-five years of progress. (pp.263-305). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
② Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., Fischer, F.,& Mandl, H. (2007). Scripting argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported learning environments. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl,& J. Haake (Eds.). Scripting computer-supported communication of knowledge-cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp.191-211). New York: Springer.
③ Janssen, J., Erkens, G, Jaspers, J.,& Kanselaar, G. (2006, June). Visualizing participation to facilitate argumentation. Proceedings of the 7th Internet Conference of the Learning Sciences. Bloomington, IN.
④ Duschl, R.,& Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse. Studies in Science Education,38,39-72.
① 钟汉峰.高一学生科学问题组对讨论中的同伴关系与论证方式的影响分析[D].台北：台湾师范大学,2001.
① 林丽玲.从后现代课程理念下设计沟通论证之教学研究——以国中演化单元为例[D].台湾：高雄师范大学,2003.
② 丁信中.青年学生于理论竞争论证过程中对其支持理论局限的觉察[D].台湾：高雄师范大学,2004.
③ 黄翎斐.教学策略对论证形成的影响[D].台北：台湾师范大学,2004.
① 黄柏鸿.提升国小六年级学生论证能力之行动研究——以社会性科学议题为例[D].台湾：嘉义大学,2006.
② 陈坤源.提升国小学童论证能力之研究[D].台湾：花莲教育大学,2006.
③ 林燕文.学童在论证导向的探究活动中其科学概念理解与论述策略之研究.台湾：高雄师范大学,2007.
① 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.第二十五届“中华民国”科学教育研讨会,2009年12月18日～12月19日.
② 陈文正.国小高年级学童的论证学习在科学解释合理性判断之效应探讨[D].台湾：东华大学,2011.
③ 林裕仁.论证教学之有经验与生手教师的教学设计、师生互动与教学成效[D].台湾：高雄师范大学,2010。
④ 陈颖志、曾敬梅和张文华.探讨教师角色在促进国小学童论证表现的改变——以启发式科学写作教学(SWH)为情境的四年个案研究[J].科学教育月刊(台湾),2010,18(5)：417-442.
① Zohar, A. (2007). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker,& D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn:Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp.245-268). Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic.
① 潘瑶珍.基于论证的科学教育[J].全球教育展望,2010,39(6)：82-86.
② 潘瑶珍.科学教育中的论证教学[J].全球教育展望,2011,40(2)：77-81.
③ 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,2010,10：50-52.
④ 何嘉媛、刘恩山.论证式教学策略的发展[J].生物学通报,2012,47(5)：31-34.
⑤ 葛乐飞.小组合作学习对科学论证能力培养的影响研究[D].上海：上海师范大学.2012.
⑥ 曹程.大学生论证思考能力的调查分析[D].杭州：杭州师范大学.2012.
① Niaz, M., Aguilera, D., Maza, A.,& Liendo,G. (2002). Arguments, contradictions, resistances, and conceptual change in students' understanding of atomic structure. Science Education,86(4), 505-525.
① Jimenez-Aleixandre M. P.,& Erduran, S.(2007). Argumentation in science education:an overview. In Erduran.,S.,& Jimenez-Aleixandre M. P. (Eds.), Argumentation in science education. Dordewcht, The Netherlands:Springer. p4.
② Ibid, p6.
③ Jimenez-Aleixandre M. P.,& Erduran, S.(2007). Argumentation in science education:an overview. In Erduran.,S.,& Jimenez-Aleixandre M. P. (Eds.), Argumentation in science education. Dordewcht, The Netherlands:Springer, p11.
① Kelly, G.,& Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music:Constructing science as sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,36(8),883-915.
① Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science:Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ:Ablex.
② de Vries, E., Lund, K.,& Brker, M. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue:Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. The Journal of the Learning Science,11(1),63-103.
③ 黄翎斐,胡瑞萍.论证与科学教育的理论与实务[J].科学教育月刊,2006,(9)：15-28.
① Driver, R., Newton, P.,& Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education,84(3),287-312.
② Kelly G., Druker. S.& Chen. C. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity:combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7),849-871.
① Driver, R., Newton, P.,& Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education,84(3),287-312.
② Nussbaum, E. M.,& Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary educational psychology,28,384-395.
③ 陈君玲.高一学生的因果推理与论证能力关系之探讨[D].台湾：高雄师范大学.2009.
① Kuhn D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York:Cambridge University Press.
① [美]美国科学促进协会著,中国科学技术协会译.面向全体美国人的科学[M].北京：科学普及出版社,2001：中文版序,导言.
① National Research Council.(1996).National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.p22.
① OECD.(2006).The Programme for the International Student Assessment (PISA). Paris:OECD. p12.
① OECD.(2007).PISA M2006 science competencies for tomorrow's world(volume 1:Analysis). Paris: OECD. p35.
① OECD.(2007).PISATM2006 science competencies for tomorrow's world(volume 1:Analysis). Paris: OECD. p37-44.
① OECD.(2010), PISA 2009 Results:What Students Know and Can Do-Student Performance in Reading, Mathematics and Science(Volume I). Paris:OECD. p146-150.
① 转引自：Jimenez-Aleixandre M. P.,& Erduran, S.(2007). Argumentation in science education:an overview. In Erduran.,S.,& Jimenez-Aleixandre M. P. (Eds.), Argumentation in science education. Dordewcht, The Netherlands:Springer, p16.
② OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 Assessment and Analytical Framework:Mathematics, Reading, Science.Problem Solving and Financial Literacy. Paris:OECD. p112.
① Osborne, J., Erduran, S.,& Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of research in science teaching,41(10):994-1020.
② Jimenez-Aleixandre M. P.,& Erduran, S.(2007). Argumentation in science education:an overview. In Erduran.,S.,& Jimenez-Aleixandre M. P. (Eds.), Argumentation in science education. Dordewcht, The Netherlands:Springer, p17.
③ National Research Council.(1996).National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.p113
① National Research Council.(2012).A Framework for K-12 Science Education:Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.pl.
② Ibid, P3.
① Kuhn, D.,& Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking and Reasoning,13,90-104.
② 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,(9)：2-18.
① 转引自：林志能.国小学童在不同学习情境中论证能力表现之研究(D).台湾：高雄师范大学.2011.
② 转引自：杨宁芳.图尔明论证逻辑思想研究[M].北京：人民出版社,2012：3.
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.
④ Erduran, S., Simon, S.,& Osborne, J. (2004). TApping into Argumentation:Development in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education,88, 915-933.
⑤ Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S. (2004). Ideas, evidence and argument in science. In-service training pack, resource pack and video. London:Nuffield Foundation.
⑥ Toulmin, S.(2003). The uses of argument(Updated Edition). London:Cambridge university press.
① 转引自：杨宁芳.图尔明论证逻辑思想研究[M].北京：人民出版社,2012：80-91.
① Toulmin, S.(2001). Return to reason. Cambridge, MA:Harvard university press.
② 杨宁芳.图尔明论证逻辑思想研究[M].北京：人民出版社,2012：103-105.
① Erduran, S.,& Jime'nex-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in Science Education: Perspective from Classroom-Base Research. Springer Press.p56-66.
② Verheij, B.(2005).Evaluating arguments based on Toulmin's Scheme. Argumentation,19,347-371.转引自①.
① Anton E. Lawson着,余翎玮等译.学习、发展和发现的神经学基础：科学和数学教学的启示[M].台北：高等教育出版社.p11-13.
① Lawson, A. (2003a). The nature and development of hypothetic-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education,25(11),1387-1408.
② Lawson, A. (2003b). The neurological basis of learning, development and discovery:Implications for science and mathematics instruction. Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publishes.
① Lawson, A. E. (2000). How do humans acquire knowledge, and what does that imply about the nature of knowledge? Science & Education,9,577-598.
① Voss, J.,& Means, M. (1991). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning and Instruction,1,337-350.
② Voss, J., Perkins, D.,& Segal(Eds).(1991). Informal reasoning and education. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Inc.
③ Means, M.& Voss, J. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction,14(2),139-178.
① Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harverd Educational Review,62(2),155-178.
② Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument:Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education,77(3),319-337.
③ Kuhn, D.,& Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking and Reasoning,13,90-104.
① Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. London:Harvard University Press.
② Kuhn, D., Cheney, R.,& Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development,15(3),309-328.
③ Ibid.
① Kuhn, D., Cheney, R.,& Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development,15(3),309-328.
① Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York:Cambridge University Press.
② Kuhn, D.,& Lao, J. (1998). Contemplation and conceptual change:Integrating perspectives from social and cognitive psychology. Developmental Review,18,125-154.
① Kuhn, D.,& Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking and Reasoning,13,90-104.
② Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for Thinking. London England, Harvard University Press.
③ Lemke, D. E. (2002). Laboratory manual for modern biology. Stipes Publishing
① 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.
① Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument:Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education,77(3),319-337.
② Osborne,J., Erduran, S.,& Simon, S.(2004). Ideas, evidence and argument in science. In-service training pack, resource pack. London:Nuffield foundation.
① Mason, L.,& Scirica, F. (2006). Prediction of students'argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding. Learning and Instruction,16(5),492-509.
Zohar, A.& Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students'knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,39,35-62.
① Sadler, T. D.,& Fowler, S. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education,90,986-1004.
① Sadler, T., Barab, S.,& Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscienfific inquiry?. Research in Science Education,37,371-391.
① Clark, D. B., Sampson, V. D., Weinberger, A.,& Erkens, G. (2007). Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments, Educational Psychology Review, 19,343-374.
② Clark DB, Sampson V (2005) Analyzing the quality of argumentation supported by personally-seeded discussions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Computer Supported CollaborativeLearning (CSCL) Conference, Taipei
③ Clark, D. B.,& Sampson, V. D. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality, Journal of Research in Science Teaching,45(3), 293-321.
① Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York:Cambridge University Press.
② Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument:Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education,77(3),319-337.
① Kuhn, D. (2001). How do people know?. Psychological Science,12(1),1-8.
② Kuhn, D.,& Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development,74(5), 1245-1260.
① 《普通逻辑》编写组：普通逻辑(增订本)[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1993：26.
② 转引自：谢耘.论证概念的理论探究[D].上海：华东师范大学.2006.8.
③ Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York:Cambridge University Press.
① Dewey, J.(1997).How we think. New York:Dover Publicaitons, Inc.p1.
② Ibid, p69.
① Dewey, J.(1997).How we think. New York:Dover Publicaitons, Inc.p25.
① Dewey, J.(1997).How we think. New York:Dover Publicaitons, Inc.p56.
② Perkins, D, Faraday, M.,& Bushey, B. (1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education. Hillsdale, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum. p 83-105.
③ Nickerson, R. (1991). Modes and models of informal reasoning:A commentary. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. p291-309.
④ Ibid①.
⑤ Voss, J. (1991). Informal reasoning and international relationship. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education. Hillsdale, New jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.p37-58.
① Perkins D.(1985).Post-primary education has little impact upon informal reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology,77(5):562-571.
② Voss, J., Perkins, D.,& Segal, J. (1991). Informal reasoning and education. Hillsdale, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
③ J Means, M.,& Voss, J. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction,14(2), 139-178.
④ 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.
① 李建华.科学哲学[M].北京：中共中央党校出版社,2004：162.
② 爱因斯坦著.许良英等译.爱因斯坦文集第1卷[M].北京：商务印书馆.2010：764.
③ 爱因斯坦著.许良英等译.爱因斯坦文集第1卷[M].北京：商务印书馆.2010：718.
④ Driver, R., Newton, P.,& Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education,84(3),287-312.
⑤ Lemke, J. L. (1998). Teaching all the language of science:Word, symbols, images and actions.[EB/OL].[20130913]. http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/education/jlemke/papers/barcelon.htm
⑥ Kittleson, J.,& Southerland, S. (2004). The role of discourse in group knowledge construction: a case study of engineering students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41,267-293.
① Lederman, N.(2007). Nature of science:past, present, and future. In Abell, S.,& Lederman, N(Eds.). Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum. P831-879.
② Fleming R. (1986). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, part Ⅰ:Social cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,23(8):677-687.
③ Fleming, R. (1986).Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, part Ⅱ:Nonsocial cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,23(8):689-698.
④ Eisenberg,A.,& Garvey, G.(1981). Children's use of verbal strategies in resolving conflicts. Discourse Processes,4(2):149-170
⑤ Stein, N.,& Bernas, R. (1999). The early emergence of argumentative knowledge and skill. In J. Andriessen, J.,& Coirier, P (Eds.).Foundations of argumentative text processing. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. p97-116.
① [美]弗拉维尔等著.邓赐平、刘明译.认知发展[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2002：4-5.
① [美]弗拉维尔等著.邓赐平、刘明译.认知发展[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2002：4-5.
② [美]肖恩·格林,拉塞尔·晏尼,布鲁斯·布里顿著.熊召弟等译.科学学习心理学[M].台北：心理出版社.2006：276-280.
③ Voss, J.,& Means, M. (1991). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning and Instruction,1,337-350.
④ Hahn, U.,& Oaksford, M. (2007), The rationality of informal argumentation:a Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies, Psychological Review,114(3),704-732.
⑤ Ricco, R. B. (2007). Individual differences in the analysis of informal reasoning fallacies. Contemporary Educational Psychology,32,459-484.
① Mintzes,J., Wandersee,J,& Novak, J.(1998).Teaching Science for Understanding:A Human Constructivist View. San Diego:Academic Press. P78-79.
① Kortland K.(1996).An STS case study about students' decision making on the waste issue. ScienceEducation,80(6):673-689.
② Fleming, R.(1986). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, part Ⅱ:Nonsocial cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,23(8):689-698.
③ 转引自：Stein, N.,& Bernas, R. (1999). The early emergence of argumentative knowledge and skill. In J. Andriessen, J.,& Coirier, P (Eds.).Foundations of argumentative text processing. Amsterdam:Amsterdam University Press. p97-116.
④ Kolst(?), S.(2001). "To trust or not to trust,..."-pupils' ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education,23(9):877-901.
① Kolst(?), S.(2001). "To trust or not to trust,..."-pupils' ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education,23(9):877-901.
② Sadler, T., Chambers, F.,& Zeidler, D. (2004).Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education,26(4): 387-409.
③ Korpan, C., Bisanz, G., Bisanz, J.,& Henderson, J. (1997). Assessing literacy in science: evaluation of scientific news briefs. Science Education,81(5):515-532.
④ Perkins D.(1985).Post-primary education has little impact upon informal reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology,77(5):562-571.
⑤ Voss J F, Blais J, Means M L. Greene T R, Ahwesh F.(1986). Informal reasoning and subject matter knowledge in the solving of economic problems by naive and novice individuals. Cognition and Instruction,3(2):269-302.
⑥ Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York:Cambridge University Press.
⑦ Means, M.,& Voss, J. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction,14(2), 139-178.
① Andrew, J., Robottom, I. (2001).Science and ethics:some issue for education. Science Education,2001,85:769-780.
② Fleming R. (1986).Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, part Ⅰ:Social cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,23(8):677-687.
③ Bell, R.,& Lederman, N. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education,87(3):352-377.
④ Pedretti E.(1999).Decision making and STS education:exploring scientific knowledge and social responsibility in schools and science centers through an issues-based approach. School Science and Mathematics,99(4):174-181.
⑤ [美]约翰·华莱士,威廉·劳登编著,余翎玮等译.突破科学教学中的两难[M].台北：心理出版社.p219.
① Sadler, T.,& Zeidler, D. (2004).The morality of socio-scientific issues:Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education,2004,88(1):4-27.
② Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York:Cambridge University Press.
③ Gelder, T., Bissett, MCumming, G. (2004). Cultivating expertise in informal reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology.2004,52 (2):142-152.
④ Desautels, J.,& Larochelle, M.(1998) The Epistemology of Students:The Thingified'Nature of Scientific Knowledge. In Fraser, B.,& Tobin, K(Eds). International Handbook of Science Education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Kluwer. p115-126转引自：[美]约翰·华莱士,威廉·劳登编著,余翎玮等译.突破科学教学中的两难[M].台北：心理出版社.p42.
① [美]约翰·华莱士,威廉·劳登编著,余翎玮等译.突破科学教学中的两难[M].台北：心理出版社.p60-61.
② Mintzes,J., Wandersee,J,& Novak, J.(1998).Teaching Science for Understanding:A Human Constructivist View. San Diego:Academic Press.p262.
③ Tudge,J.,& Rogoff, B.(1989). Peer influences on cognitive development:Piagetian and Vygotskian Perspectives. In Bornstein, M.,& Bruner, J.(Eds.). Interaction in Human development. Hillsdale, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum. P17-40.
④ Tudge,J.,& Winterhoff, P.(1993). Vygotsky, Piaget, and Bandura:Perspectives on the relations between the social world and cognitive development. Human Development,36,61-81.
① [瑞士]J·皮亚杰著,吴国宏,钱文译.关于矛盾的研究[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2005.
② 莱斯利·P·斯特弗,杰里·盖尔编.高文等译.教育中的建构主义[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2002：10.
③ 转引自：钟启泉.知识建构与教学创新——社会建构主义知识论及其启示[J].全球教育展望,2006,8.
④ 丁邦平.国际科学教育导论[M].太原：山西教育出版社,2002：205-231.
⑤ Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, P.,& Gertzog, W. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception:Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education,66(2):211-227.
⑥ Ibid.
① Wertsch, J.(1991). Voices of the mind. Cambridge. MA:Harvard University Press.
② 转引自：Mintzes,J., Wandersee,J,& Novak, J.(1998).Teaching Science for Understanding:A Human Constructivist View. San Diego:Academic Press.p264.
③ 莱斯利·P·斯特弗,杰里·盖尔编.高文等译.教育中的建构主义[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2002：28.
④ 高文.教学模式论fM].上海：上海教育出版社,2002：386.
⑤ [苏]维果茨基著,余震球译.维果茨基教育论著选[M].北京：人民教育出版社.2005.
① Mintzes,J., Wandersee,J,& Novak, J.(1998).Teaching Science for Understanding:A Human Constructivist View. San Diego:Academic Press.p261-266.
② 钟启泉.知识建构与教学创新——社会建构主义知识论及其启示[J].全球教育展望,2006,8.
③ 同上.
① 莱斯利·P·斯特弗,杰里·盖尔编.高文等译.教育中的建构主义[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2002：24.
② 俄罗斯学者巴赫金(M.M. Bakhtim,或译巴赫汀)在其对话理论中提到了“众声喧哗”一词,意指文化、语言的多样性、多元化现象。正是在各种声音交错之中,人们进行着对话、沟通。在巴赫金看来,众声喧哗是必然的,也是必要的。
③ 转引自：[美]肖恩·格林,拉塞尔·晏尼,布鲁斯·布里顿著.熊召弟等译.科学学习心理学[M].台北：心理出版社.2006：4-5.
④ 钟启泉.学业评价：省思与改革——以日本高中理科的“学习评价”改革为例[J].
① [苏]维果茨基著,余震球译.维果茨基教育论著选[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2005：85
② [英]戴维·伯姆著,王松涛译.论对话[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2004：序
③ 同上,10.
① 转引自：[美]马格丽特·赫姆莉、帕特丽夏F.卡利尼编,仲建维译.从另一个视角看：儿童的力量和标准——“展望中心”之儿童叙事评论.北京：高等教育出版社,2005：204.
② [俄]米伊尔·巴赫金著,李辉凡等译.巴赫金全集(第二卷)[M].石家庄：河北教育出版社,1998：386-452.
③ 同①,205.
④ 同①,205-206.
① [美]理查德·施穆克,帕特里夏·施穆克著.廖珊、郭建鹏等译.班级中的群体化过程(第八版)[M].北京：中国轻工业出版社,2006：98.
① [美]理查德·施穆克,帕特里夏·施穆克著.廖珊、郭建鹏等译.班级中的群体化过程(第八版)[M].北京：中国轻工业出版社,2006：97.
② Verheij, B. (2005). Evaluating argument based on Toulmin's scheme. Argumentations,19, 347-371.
① Pontecorvo, C.,& Girardet, H. (1993). Arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics. Cognition and Instruction.11,365-359.
② Wassermann, S.,& J.W. George Ivany.(1996). The new teaching elementary science. New York:Teachers college Press, Columbia University. P25.
③ Kuhn, D.,& Felton, M. (2000). Paper Presented at the Winter Conference on Discourse, Text, and Cognition. Jackson Hole WY.
① Sandoval, W. A.,& Reiser, B. J.(2004). Explanation-driven inquiry:integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education,88,342-375.
② [美]肖恩·格林,拉塞尔·晏尼,布鲁斯·布里顿著.熊召弟等译.科学学习心理学[M].台北：心理出版社.2006：276-280.
③ Vosniadou, S.& Ioannides, C.(1998). From conceptual development to science education:a psychological point of view. International Journal of Science Education,20(10),1213-1230.
① [美]美国科学促进协会编,中国科学技术协会译.科学素养的基础[M].北京：科学普及出版社,2001：9.
② 转引自：武宏志、周建武编著.批判性思维——论证逻辑的视角[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010：1.
① Ennis, R. H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking disposition and abilities. In J. Baron & R. Sternberg (Eds.).Teaching thinking skills:Theory and practice. New York:Freemen.9-26.
① Dick, R. D. (1991). An empirical taxonomy of critical thinking. Journal of Instructional Psychology,18,79-92.
② 转引自：武宏志、周建武编著.批判性思维——论证逻辑的视角[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010：11.
① Facione, P. Critical Thinking:A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction (executive summary).In the Delphi Report. Millbrae, CA:California Academic in Press.1990.
① 钟启泉.“批判性思维”及其教学[J].全球教育展望,2002,1：34-38.
① Wassermann, S.,& J.W. George Ivany.(1996). The new teaching elementary science. New York:Teachers college Press, Columbia University. p21.
① Raths, L. E., et al.(1986).Teaching for thinking:theory, strategies,& activities for the classroom. New York:Teachers college press, Columbia University. p24-30.
① 转引自：Wassermann, S.,& J.W. George Ivany.(1996). The new teaching elementary science. New York:Teachers college Press, Columbia University.
① Jimenez-Aleixandre M. P.(2007).Designing argumentation learning environments. In Erduran., S.,& Jimenez-Aleixandre M. P. (Eds.), Argumentation in science education. Dordewcht, The Netherlands:Springer. p95.
① [日]佐藤正夫著,钟启泉译.教学原理[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2001：289.
① Jimenez-Aleixandre M. P.(2007).Designing argumentation learning environments. In Erduran., S.,& Jimenez-Aleixandre M. P. (Eds.), Argumentation in science education. Dordewcht, The Netherlands:Springer. p96-98.
① 钟启泉.”学习场域”的生成与教师角色[J].上海教育科研,2004,9.
① Duit, R.,& Treagust, D.(1998). Learning in science:From behaviourism towards social constructivism and beyond. In Fraser, B.,& Tobin, K(Eds.).International handbook of science education. Dordrecht, NL:Kluwer. p3-25.
② Wassermann, S.,& J.W. George Ivany.(1996). The new teaching elementary science. New York:Teachers college Press, Columbia University.p11-13.
① [美]艾伦·多丽丝著,何厘琦译.小科学家：儿童学习探索周遭的世界[M].台北：心理出版社,2003：15.
② American Association for the Advancement of Science.(1989).Science for all Americans. Washington, DC:Author.p14.
① 转引自：施良方著.学习论——学习心理学的理论与原理[M].北京：人民教育出版社,1994：232.
② Glaser, R. (1984). Education and thinking:The role of knowledge. American Psychologist, 39(2),93-104.
③ Metz, K. (1998). Scientific inquiry within reach of young children. In Fraser, B.,& Tobin, K. (Eds.). International handbook of science education:Learning. Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publishers. p81-96.
① Duschl, R.,& Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse. Studies in Science Education,38,39-72.
② Osborne, J.,Erduran, S., Simon, S.,& Monk, M.(2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41(10),994-1020.
③ Jimenez-Aleixandre M. P.(2007).Designing argumentation learning environments. In Erduran., S.,& Jimenez-Aleixandre M. P. (Eds.), Argumentation in science education. Dordewcht, The Netherlands:Springer. p101-102.
④ 转引自Jimenez-Aleixandre M. P.(2007).Designing argumentation learning environments. In Erduran., S.,& Jimenez-Aleixandre M. P. (Eds.), Argumentation in science education. Dordewcht, The Netherlands:Springer. p101.
① 丁邦平.国际科学教育导论[M].太原：山西教育出版社,2002：207.
① [美]约翰·华莱士,威廉·劳登编著,余翎玮等译.突破科学教学中的两难[M].台北：心理出版社.p25-27.
① Clement, J. (1982). students'preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics 50:66-71.
② Minstrell., J. (1982). Explaining the "at rest" condition of an object. The Physics Teacher,20(1), 10-14.
③ Mintzes,J., Wandersee,J,& Novak, J.(1998).Teaching Science for Understanding:A Human Constructivist View. San Diego:Academic Press. P75-76.
① Duit.(1995).The constructivist view:A fashionable and fruitful paradigm for science education research and practice. In L.P. Steffe & J. Gale(eds). Constructivism in Education. Hillside: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.p271-286.
② 蔡铁权、姜旭英、胡玫著.概念转变的科学教学[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2009：242.
① [美]肖恩·格林,拉塞尔·晏尼,布鲁斯·布里顿著.熊召弟等译.科学学习心理学[M].台北：心理出版社.2006：65.
① [美]肖恩·格林,拉塞尔·晏尼,布鲁斯·布里顿著.熊召弟等译.科学学习心理学[M].台北：心理出版社.2006：74-75.
① Duit.(1995).The constructivist view:A fashionable and fruitful paradigm for science education research and practice. In L.P. Steffe & J. Gale(eds). Constructivism in Education. Hillside: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.p271-286.
② [美]兰本达、P.E.布莱克伍德、P.下.布兰德温著,陈德彰、张泰金译.小学科学教育的“探究—研讨”教学法[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2008：27-29.
① [日]佐藤正夫著,钟启泉译.教学原理[M].北京：教育科学出版社.2001：270.
① Nussbaum, E. M.,& Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology,28,384-395.
② Dole,J., Sinatra, G.(1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist,33(2/3:109-28.
① [美]肖恩·格林,拉塞尔·晏尼,布鲁斯·布里顿著.熊召弟等译.科学学习心理学[M].台北：心理出版社.2006：166-168.
① Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues:A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41(5),513-536.
② Lee,H., Witz., K.(2009).Science inspiration for teaching socio-scientific issues:Disconnection with reform efforts. International Journal of Science education,31(7),931-960.
③ Sadler, T.,& Zeidler, D., (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socio-scientific issues:Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education,89(1),71-93.
① Oulton, C., Dillon, J.,& Grace, M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education,19,411-423.
② American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York:Oxford University Press.
③ National Research Council.(1996).National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
④ Kolst(?), S. D. (2000):Consensus Projects:Teaching Science for Citizenship. International Studies in Science Education,22(6):645-664.
⑤ Kolsto, S. D. (2001):Scientific Literacy for Citizenship:Tools for Dealing with Controversial Socio-Scientific Issues. Science Education,85 (3),291-310
⑥ Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues:A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41(5),513-536.
① Fuglsang L. (2001).Three Perspective in STS in the Policy Context. In Cutcliffe S.&Mitcham &Mitcham C. (Eds.) Visions of STS:Counter Points in Science, Technology, and Science Studies. Albany, New York:State University of New York Press.p12.
① Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues:A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41,513-536.
② Oulton, C., Dillon, J.,& Grace, M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education,19,411-423.
③ Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education,28,1201-1224.
④ 刘湘瑶、李丽菁和蔡今中.科学认识观与社会性科学议题抉择判断之相关性探讨[J].科学教育学刊,2007(15),335-356.
① Dawson, V. (2001). Addressing controversial issues in secondary school science. Australian Science Teachers' Journal,47(4),38-44.
② Varelas, M., Pappas, C., Kane, J., Arsenault, A., Hankes, J.,& Cowan, B. (2008). Urban primary-grade children think and talk science:Curricular and instructional practices that nurture participation and argumentation. Science Education,92,65-95.
① National Research Council.(1996).National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
② Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S.,& Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,46,77-101.
③ Dawson, V.,& Venville, G. (2008). High-school students' informal reasoning and argumentation about biotechnology:An indicator of scientific literacy?. International Journal of Science Education,30,1-25.
④ Sadler, T. D.,& Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific Argumentation:The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education,28,1463-1488.
⑤ Sadler, T. D.,& Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,42,112-138.
⑥ Aikenhead, G (2001). Integrating western and aboriginal sciences:Cross-cultural science teaching. Research in Science Teaching,31,337-355.
① 转引自：钟启泉.综合学习时代的课程论：日本教育学者木下百合子教授访谈[J].教育科学论坛,2006,7.
② Oulton, C., Dillon, J.,& Grace, M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education,19,411-423.
③ von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J.,& Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue:Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge, Journal of Research in Science Teaching,45(1),101-131.
① Erduran, S.,& Jime nex-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in Science Education: Perspective from Classroom-Base Research. Springer Press.
② 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.
③ Sadler, T. D.,& Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific Argumentation:The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education,28,1463-1488.
④ Clark, D. B.,& Sampson, V. D. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality, Journal of Research in Science Teaching,45(3),293-321.
⑤ Chan, C. K. K. (2001). Peer collaboration and discourse patterns in learning from incompatible information. Instructional Science,29,443-479.
⑥ Van Amelsvoort, M., Andriessen, J.,& Kanselaar, G. (2007). Representational tools in computer-supported collaborative argumentation-based learning:How dyads work with constructed and inspected argumentative diagrams. Journal of the Learning Sciences,16,4, 485-522.
① Pagano, J.(1988). Teaching women. Educational Theory,39,321-340.
② 林树声.从争议性科技议题的教学设计和实践中诠释科学教师的角色——个案研究[J].科学教育学刊,2006,14(3)：237-255.
① [日]佐藤学著,钟启泉译.学校的挑战：创建学习共同体[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2010：2-3.
② 钟启泉.知识建构和教学创新——社会建构主义知识论及其启示[J].全球教育展望,2006,(8).
① [美]迈克·黑尔、伊莉沙白·斯蒂著,刘雅译.学生为中心的课堂讨论[M].北京：中国轻工业出版社,2009：23.
① [日]佐藤学著,钟启泉、陈静静译.教师的挑战：宁静的课堂革命[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2012：5.
① [英]戴维·伯姆著,王松涛译.论对话[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2004：9.
① [美]J·莱夫、E·温格著,王文静译.情境学习：合法的边缘性参与.上海：华东师范大学出版社,2004：4.
① 马格丽特·赫姆莉、帕特丽夏F.卡利尼编,仲建维译.从另一个视角看：儿童的力量和标准——“展望中心”之儿童叙事评论.北京：高等教育出版社,2005：208.
① Zeidler, D. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education,81,483-496.
② Kolst(?), S. D. (2006). Science students' critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education,90,632-655.
① [加]马克斯·范梅南著,李树英译.教学机智——教育智慧的意蕴[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2001.
① 佐藤学著,钟启泉、陈静静译.教师的挑战：宁静的课堂革命[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2012：125.
① 帕克·帕尔默著,吴国珍、余巍等译.教学勇气：漫步教师心灵[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2005：134-135.
[1]爱因斯坦著.许良英等译.爱因斯坦文集第1卷[M].北京：商务印书馆,2010.
[2]爱因斯坦著.许良英等译.爱因斯坦文集第3卷[M].北京：商务印书馆,2010.
[3]蔡俊彦.以认知学徒制网络系统促进论证能力、概念学习与批判思考成效之研究[D].台湾：高雄师范大学,2008.
[4]蔡佩君.融入竞争理论的论证取向教学提升学生的论证能力、学习动机与自我效能之研究[D].台湾：高雄师范大学,2007.
[5]蔡铁权、姜旭英、胡玫著.概念转变的科学教学[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2009.
[6]曹程.大学生论证思考能力的调查分析[D].杭州：杭州师范大学,2012.
[7]陈君玲.高一学生的因果推理与论证能力关系之探讨[D].台湾：高雄师范大学,2009.
[8]陈敬典.探讨竞争解释的论证取向教学策略对国二学生论证能力与教室环境知觉之影响[D].台湾：高雄师范大学,2007.
[9]陈坤源.提升国小学童论证能力之研究[D].台湾：花莲教育大学,2006.
[10]陈文正.国小高年级学童的论证学习在科学解释合理性判断之效应探讨[D].台湾：东华大学,2011.
[11]陈颖志、曾敬梅和张文华.探讨教师角色在促进国小学童论证表现的改变——以启发式科学写作教学(SWH)为情境的四年个案研究[J].科学教育月刊(台湾),2010,(5).
[12]丁邦平.国际科学教育导论[M].太原：山西教育出版社,2002.
[13]丁信中.青年学生于理论竞争论证过程中对其支持理论局限的觉察[D].高雄：台湾高雄师范大学.2004.
[14][俄]米伊尔·巴赫金著,李辉凡等译.巴赫金全集(第二卷)[M].石家庄：河北教育出版社,1998.
[15][法]莫里斯·梅洛-庞蒂著,姜志辉译.知觉现象学[M].北京：商务印书馆,2001.
[16]高文.教学模式论[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2002.
[17]葛乐飞.小组合作学习对科学论证能力培养的影响研究[D].上海：上海师范大学,2012.
[18][古希腊]柏拉图著,杨绛译.斐多——柏拉图对话录[M].北京：中国国际广播出版社,2012.
[19]何嘉媛、刘恩山.论证式教学策略的发展[J].生物学通报,2012,(5)
[20]黄柏鸿.提升国小六年级学生论证能力之行动研究——以社会性科学议题为例[D].台湾：嘉义大学,2006.
[21]黄翎斐.教学策略对论证形成的影响[D].台北：台湾师范大学,2004.
[22]黄翎斐,胡瑞萍.论证与科学教育的理论与实务[J].科学教育月刊,2006,(9).
[23][加]马克斯·范梅南著,李树英译.教学机智——教育智慧的意蕴[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2002.
[24][加]马克斯·范梅南著,宋广文等译.生活体验研究——人文科学视野中的教育学[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2003.
[25]孔企平.教学研究中的几个基本问题——兼谈课堂学习理论的新发展[J],全球教育展望,2005,3.
[26]莱斯利·P·斯特弗,杰里·盖尔编.高文等译.教育中的建构主义[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2002.
[27]李建华.科学哲学[M].北京：中共中央党校出版社,2004.
[28]林丽玲.从后现代课程理念下设计沟通论证之教学研究——以国中演化单元为例[D].台湾：高雄师范大学,2003.
[29]林树声.从争议性科技议题的教学设计和实践中诠释科学教师的角色——个案研究[J].科学教育学刊(台湾),2006,(3).
[30]李雁冰.科学探究、科学素养与科学教育[J].全球教育展望,2008,12.
[31]林燕文.学童在论证导向的探究活动中其科学概念理解与论述策略之研究[D].台湾：高雄师范大学,2007.
[32]林裕仁.论证教学之有经验与生手教师的教学设计、师生互动与教学成效[D].台湾：高雄师范大学,2010.
[33]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,(9).
[34]林志能.国小学童在不同学习情境中论证能力表现之研究[D].台湾：高雄师范大学,2011.
[35]刘湘瑶、李丽菁和蔡今中.科学认识观与社会性科学议题抉择判断之相关性探讨[J].科学教育学刊(台湾),2007,(15).
[36][美]阿瑟·A·卡琳、乔尔·E·巴斯、特丽·L·康坦特著,张军霞等译.教作为探究的科学[M].北京：人民教育出版社.2009.
[37][美国]安东·罗森著,余翎玮等译.学习、发展和发现的神经学基础：科学和数学教学的启示[M].台北：高等教育出版社,2007.
[38][美]爱莉诺·达克沃斯主编.张华、仲建维、宋时春译.“多多益善”——倾听学习者解释[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2004.
[39][美]艾伦·多丽丝著,何厘琦译.小科学家：儿童学习探索周遭的世界[M].台北：心理出版社,2003.
[40][美]伯纳·派顿著,黄煜文译.身边的逻辑学[M].北京：中信出版社,2011.
[41][美]丹尼尔·坦纳、劳雷尔·坦纳著,崔允漷等译.学校课程史[M].北京：教育科学出版 社,2006.
[42][美]布鲁克·诺埃尔·摩尔、理查德·帕克著,朱素梅译.批判性思维——带你走出思维的误区[M].北京：机械工业出版社,2012.
[43][美]丹尼斯·麦克伦尼著,赵明燕译.简单逻辑学[M].太原：山西教育出版社,2011.
[44][美]戴维·H·乔纳森主编,郑太年、任友群译.学习环境的理论基础[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2002.
[45]马艳苹.3～6岁幼儿非形式推理能力的发生、发展及家庭和幼儿园影响因素的研究[D].大连：辽宁师范大学,2009.
[46][美]弗拉维尔等著.邓赐平、刘明译.认知发展[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2002.
[47][美]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,罗星凯等译.探究——小学科学教学的思想、观点与策略[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2003.
[48][美]国家研究理事会、大学科学教育委员会著,熊作勇译.科学教学创新手册[M].北京：科学普及出版社,2005.
[49][美]国家研究理事会科学、数学及技术教育中心,《国家科学教育标准》科学探探究附属读物编委会著,罗星凯等译.科学探究与国家科学教育标准——教与学的指南[M].北京：科学普及出版社,2004.
[50][美]吉恩·哈兰、玛丽·瑞夫金著,张宪冰等译.儿童早期的科学经验——一种认知与情感整合的方式[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2006.
[51][美]J·莱夫、E·温格著,王文静译.情境学习：合法的边缘性参与[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2004.
[52][美]克里斯汀·夏洛、劳拉·布里坦著,高潇怡等译.儿童像科学家一样——儿童科学教育的建构主义方法[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2006.
[53][美]科学促进协会著,中国科学技术协会译.科学素养的基准[M].北京：科学普及出版社,2001.
[54][美]科学促进协会著,中国科学技术协会译.面向全体美国人的科学[M].北京：科学普及出版社,2001.
[55][美]科学促进协会著,中国科学技术协会译.科学素养的设计[M].北京：科学普及出版社,2005.
[56][美]科学促进协会著,中国科学技术协会译.科学素养的导航图[M].北京：科学普及出版社,2008.
[57][美]理查德·施穆克,帕特里夏·施穆克著.廖珊、郭建鹏等译.班级中的群体化过程(第八版)[M].北京：中国轻工业出版社,2006.
[58][美]罗博特·德莱尔著,方彤译.问题导向学习在课堂教学中的应用[M].北京：中国轻工业出版社.2004.
[59][美]罗纳德G·古德,郭冕成等译.儿童如何学科学——概念的形成和对教学的建议[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2005.
[60][美]马格丽特·赫姆莉、帕特丽夏F.卡利尼编,仲建维译.从另一个视角看：儿童的力量和标准——“展望中心”之儿童叙事评论.北京：高等教育出版社,2005.
[61][美]米歇尔·本特丽等著,洪秀敏等译.科学的探索者[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2008.
[62][美]尼尔·布朗,斯图尔特·基利著,赵玉芳等译.学会提问——批判性思维指[M].北京：中国轻工业出版社,2008.
[63][美]迈克·黑尔、伊莉沙白·斯蒂著,刘雅译.学生为中心的课堂讨论[M].北京：中国轻工业出版社,2009.
[64][美]帕克·帕尔默著,吴国珍、余巍等译.教学勇气：漫步教师心灵[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2005.
[65][美]帕特丽夏F.卡利尼著,张华等译.让学生强壮起来——关于儿童、学校和标准的不同观点[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2005.
[66][美]斯蒂芬·雷曼著,杨武金译.逻辑的力量(第三版)[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010.
[67][美]w.多尔.超越方法：教学即审美与精神的追求[J].华东师范大学学报(教育科学版),2003,3.
[68][美]文森特·赖安·拉吉罗著,马听译.思考的艺术：非凡大脑养成手册(第八版)[M].北京：世界图书出版公司,2010.
[69][美]肖恩·格林,拉塞尔·晏尼,布鲁斯·布里顿著.熊召弟等译.科学学习心理学[M].台北：心理出版社.2006.
[70][美]约翰·杜威著,赵祥麟、任钟印、吴志宏译.学校与社会·明日之学校(第2版)[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2005.
[71][美]亚历山德拉·温鲍姆著,郑丹丹译.探究式教学实践式指导[M].北京：中国轻工业出版社,2006.
[72][美]约翰·D·布兰思特等编著,程可拉等译.人是如何学习的——大脑、心理、经验及学校[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2002.
[73][美]约翰·华莱士,威廉·劳登编著,余翎玮等译.突破科学教学中的两难[M].台北：心理出版社.
[74]潘瑶珍.基于论证的科学教育[J].全球教育展望,2010,(6).
[75]潘瑶珍.科学教育中的论证教学[J].全球教育展望,2011, (2).
[76]《普通逻辑》编写组：普通逻辑(增订本)[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1993.
[77]任长松.探究式学习——学生知识的自主建构[M].北京：教育科学出版社.2005.
[78][日]佐藤正夫著,钟启泉译.教学原理[M].北京：教育科学出版社,20011.
[79][日]佐藤学著,李季湄译.静悄悄的革命——创造活动的、合作的、反思的综合学习课程[M].长春：长春出版社,2003.
[80][日]佐藤学著,钟启泉译.课程与教师[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2003.
[81][日]佐藤学著,钟启泉译.学校的挑战：创建学习共同体[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2010.
[82][日]佐藤学著,钟启泉、陈静静译.教师的挑战：宁静的课堂革命[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2012.
[83][瑞士]J·皮亚杰著,吴国宏,钱文译.关于矛盾的研究[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2005.
[84]施富吉.论证式探究教学对八年级学生浮力概念改变与论证能力影响之研究[D].台湾：“国立”彰化师范大学,2009.
[85]施良方著.学习论——学习心理学的理论与原理[M].北京：人民教育出版社,1994.
[86]苏圣凯.国小自然科教师融入论证教学理念前后之话语类别探究[D].台湾：“国立”嘉义大学,2009.
[87][苏]维果茨基著,余震球译.维果茨基教育论著选[M].北京：人民教育出版社.2005.
[88]王晶莹.中美理科教师对科学探究及其教学的认识[D].上海：华东师范大学.2009.
[89]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,(10).
[90]吴淑娟.电子废弃物教学模组对国小五年级学童批判思考能力与论证能力之影响.台湾：台北市立教育大学,2009.
[91]武宏志、周建武编著.批判性思维——论证逻辑的视角[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010.
[92][西]拉蒙·弗莱夏著,温建平译.分享语言：对话学习的理论与实践[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2005.
[93]徐学福.美国探究教学研究30年[J].全球教育展望.2001,(8).
[94]谢耘.论证概念的理论探究[D].上海：华东师范大学.2006.
[95]鄢超云.朴素物理理论与儿童科学教育[M].南京：江苏教育出版社,2007.
[96]杨宁芳.图尔明论证逻辑思想研究[M].北京：人民出版社,2012.
[97][英]安东尼·韦斯顿著,卿松竹译.论证是一门学问——如何让你的观点有说服力[M].北京：新华出版社,2011.
[98][英]戴维·伯姆著,王松涛译.论对话[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2004.
[99][英]怀特海著,徐汝舟译.教育的目的[M].北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店.2002.
[100][英]罗莎琳德等主编,刘小玲译.儿童的科学前概念[M].上海：科技教育出版社,2008.
[101][英]奈杰尔·劳森著,戴黍、李振亮译.呼唤理性：全球变暖的冷思考[M].北京：社会 科学文献出版社,2011.
[102][英]温·哈伦编著.韦钰译.科学教育的原则和大概念.北京：科学普及出版社,2011.
[103][74]袁运开.科学课程标准的特点和我们的认识[J].全球教育展望,2002,(2).
[104]钟汉峰.高一学生科学问题组对讨论中的同伴关系与论证方式的影响分析[D].台北：台湾师范大学,2001.
[105]张红霞.教育科学研究方法[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2009.
[106]张继华.科学探究推理研究[D].重庆：西南师范大学,2012.
[107]张绫娟.以POE策略设计推理活动探讨国小高年级学童的推理思考与渗透作用概念.台湾：国立台中教育大学,2011.
[108]张淑女.从认识论的观点探究大学生论证思考之能力与模式[D].台湾：国立台湾师范大学,2004.
[109]中华人民共和国教育部制定.全日制义务教育科学(7-9年级)课程标准(实验稿)[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社.2001.
[110]中华人民共和国教育部制定.义务教育初中科学课程标准(2011版)[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社.2012.
[111]钟启泉.探究学习与理科教学[J].教育研究,1986,(7)
[112]钟启泉.“批判性思维”及其教学[J].全球教育展望,2002,(1).
[113]钟启泉.”学习场域”的生成与教师角色[J].上海教育科研,2004,(9).
[114]钟启泉.综合学习时代的课程论：日本教育学者木下百合子教授访谈[J].教育科学论坛,2006,(7).
[115]钟启泉.知识建构与教学创新——社会建构主义知识论及其启示[J].全球教育展望,2006,(8).
[116]钟启泉.“知识教学”辨[J].上海教育科研,2007,(4)
[117]钟启泉.学业评价：省思与改革——以日本高中理科的“学习评价”改革为例[J].上海教育科研,2013,(1)
[118]钟启泉.教育的挑战[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2008.
[119]钟启泉.课程的逻辑[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2008.
[121]钟启泉.对话教育：国际视野与本土行动[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2006.
[122]钟启泉等编.多维视角下的教育理论与思潮[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2004.
[123]郑葳.学习共同体——文化生态学习环境的理想架构[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2007.
[124]周红霞.理科教学中科学推理的缺失与思考[D].长春：东北师范大学,2008.
[1]Aikenhead, G. (2001). Integrating western and aboriginal sciences:Cross-cultural science teaching. Research in Science Teaching,31, (3).
[2]American Association for the Advancement of Science.(1989).Science for all Americans. Washington, DC:American Association for the Advancement of Science.
[3]American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).(2001).Atlas of Science literacy. Washington, DC:National Science Teachers Association (NSTA).
[4]Andrew, J., Robottom, I. (2001).Science and ethics:some issue for education. Science Education,85, (6).
[5]Bell, R.,& Lederman, N. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education,87, (3).
[6]Belland, B., Glazewski, K.,& Richardson, J. (2008). A scaffolding framework to support the construction of evidence-based arguments among middle school students. Educational Technology Research & Development,56,(4).
[7]Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and Thinking:A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[8]Bleicher, R., Tobin, K,& McRobbie, C. (2003). Opportunities to talk science in a high school chemistry classroom. Research in Science Education,33, (3).
[9]Boulter, C.,& Gilbert, J. (1995). Argument and science education. In A. Costello and S. Mitchell (Eds.), Competing and consensual voices:The theory and practice of argumentation. Longman(UK):Multilingual Matters.
[10]Bricker, A. L.,& Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education,92, (3).
[11]Bybee, R. Scientific and Engineering Practices in K-12 Classrooms:Understanding a Framework for K-12 Science Education. Science Teacher,78,(9).
[12]Chan, C. K. K. (2001). Peer collaboration and discourse patterns in learning from incompatible information. Instructional Science,29, (6).
[13]Childs, C., McNicholl, J. (2007). Investigating the relationship between subject content knowledge and pedagogical practice through the analysis of classroom discourse. International Journal of Science Education,29, (13).
[14]Chin, C.(2006). Classroom Interaction in Science:Teacher questioning and feed back to students' responses. International Journal of Science education,28, (11).
[15]Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms:Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,44, (6).
[16]Clark D., Sampson, V. (2005) Analyzing the quality of argumentation supported by personally-seeded discussions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Computer Supported CollaborativeLearning (CSCL) Conference, Taipei
[17]Clark, D., Sampson, V., Weinberger, A.,& Erkens, G. (2007). Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments, Educational Psychology Review,19,(3).
[18]Clark, D.,& Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality, Journal of Research in Science Teaching,45, (3).
[19]Clement, J. (1982). Students'preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics 50,(1).
[20]Dawson, V. (2001). Addressing controversial issues in secondary school science. Australian Science Teachers'Journal,47, (4).
[21]Dawson, V.,& Venville, G. (2008). High-school students'informal reasoning and argumentation about biotechnology:An indicator of scientific literacy?. International Journal of Science Education,31, (11).
[22]Department for Education and Employment,& Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (1999). Science:the National program for England(Key Stages 1-4). London.
[23]De Vries, E., Lund, K.,& Baker, M.J. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions.The Journal of the Learning Sciences,11, (1).
[24]Dewey, J.(1997).How we think. New York:Dover Publicaitons, Inc.
[25]Dick, R. D. (1991). An empirical taxonomy of critical thinking. Journal of Instructional Psychology,18,(2).
[26]Dole,J., Sinatra, G.(1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist,33, (2/3)
[27]Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E.,& Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher,23,(7).
[28]Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R.,& Scott. P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Philadephia:Open University Press.
[29]Driver, R., Newton, P.,& Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education,84, (3).
[30]Duit.(1995).The constructivist view:A fashionable and fruitful paradigm for science education research and practice. In L.P. Steffe & J. Gale(eds). Constructivism in Education. Hillside:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[31]Duit, R.,& Treagust, D.(1998). Learning in science:From behaviourism towards social constructivism and beyond. In Fraser, B.,& Tobin, K(Eds.). International handbook of science education. Dordrecht, NL:Kluwer.
[32]Duschl, C. (2000). Making the nature of science explicit. In R. Millar, L.,& Osborne, J. (Eds.), Improving science education:The contribution of research. Buckingham, UK:Open University Press.
[33]Duschl, R,& Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education,38.
[34]Eisenberg,A.,& Garvey, G.(1981). Children's use of verbal strategies in resolving conflicts. Discourse Processes,4, (2).
[35]Eichinger, D., Anderson, C., Palincsar, A.,& David, Y. M. (1991). An illustration of the roles of content knowledge, scientific argument, and social norms in collaborative problem solving. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
[36]Emeren, F. H. V. (1995). A world of difference:The rich state of argumentation theory. Informal Logic,17, (2).
[37]Engle, A.,& Conant, R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement:Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction,20, (4).
[38]Ennis, R. H. (1987). Ataxonomy of critical thinking disposition and abilities. In J. Baron & R. Sternberg (Eds.).Teaching thinking skills:Theory and practice. New York:Freemen.
[39]Erduran, S., Simon, S.,& Osborne, J. (2004). TApping into Argumentation:Development in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education,88, (6).
[40]Erduran.,S.,& Jimenez-Aleixandre M. P. (Eds.).(2007), Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research.Springer.
[41]Erickson, F.(1986).Qualitative Methods in Research on Teaching. In M.C.Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. New York, NY:Macmillan.
[42]Facione, P. (1990) Critical Thinking:A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction (executive summary).In the Delphi Report. Millbrae, CA:California Academic in Press.
[43]Fleming R. (1986). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, part Ⅰ:Social cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,23, (8).
[44]Fleming, R. (1986).Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, part Ⅱ:Nonsocial cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,23, (8).
[45]Fraser, B.,& Tobin, K. (Eds.).(1998). International handbook of science education. Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[46]Gelder, T., Bissett, MCumming, G. (2004). Cultivating expertise in informal reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology,52, (2).
[47]Glaser, R. (1984). Education and thinking:The role of knowledge. American Psychologist,39, (2).
[48]Hahn, U.,& Oaksford, M. (2007), The rationality of informal argumentation:a Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies, Psychological Review,114, (3).
[49]Hodson, D. (1993).Re-thinking old ways:Towards a more critical approach to practical work in school science. Studies in science education,22, (1)
[50]Hood, B.(1998). Gravity does rule for falling events. Developmental Science,1,(1).
[51]Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Jaspers, J.,& Kanselaar, G. (2006). Visualizing participation to facilitate argumentation. Proceedings of the 7th Internet Conference of the Learning Sciences. Bloomington, IN.
[52]Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Rodriguez, A.,& Duschl, R. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science":Argument in high school genetics. Science Education,84, (6).
[53]Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.P & Pereiro-Munoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision-making about environmental management. International journal of science education,24, (11).
[54]Kanari, Z.,& Millar, R. (2004). Reasoning from data:how students collect and interpret data in science investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41, (7).
[55]Kelly, G.,& Crawford, T. (1997). An ethnographic investigation of the discourse processes of school science. Science Education,81, (5).
[56]Kelly G, Druker. S.& Chen. C. (1998). Students'reasoning about electricity:combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education,20, (7).
[57]Kelly, G.,& Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music:Constructing science as sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,36, (8).
[58]Kelly, G.,& Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument:an analysis of university oceanography students'use of evidence in writing. Science Education,86, (3).
[59]Kittleson, J.,& Southerland, S. (2004). The role of discourse in group knowledge construction:a case study of engineering students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41,(3).
[60]Klahr, D.,& Dunbar, K.(1988). Dual search space during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science,12,(1).
[61]Kuhn D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York:Cambridge University Press.
[62]Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review,62, (2).
[63]Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument:Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education,77, (3).
[64]Kuhn, D.,& Lao, J. (1998). Contemplation and conceptual change:Integrating perspectives from social and cognitive psychology. Developmental Review,18, (2).
[65]Kuhn, D., Cheney, R.,& Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development,15, (3).
[66]Kuhn, D. (2001). How do people know?. Psychological Science,12, (1).>
[67]Kuhn, D.,& Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development,74, (5).
[68]Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Boston:Harvard University Press.
[69]Kuhn, D.,& Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating own and other perspectives in argujnent. Thinking and Reasoning,13,(2).
[70]Lansdown B., Blackwood, P.,& Brandwein, P.(1971).Teaching Elementary Science Through Investigation and Colloquium. New York:Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., New York.
[71]Lawson, A. E. (2000). How do humans acquire knowledge, and what does that imply about the nature of knowledge? Science & Education,9,(6).
[72]Lawson, A. (2002). Sound and faulty arguments generated by preservice biology teachers when testing hypotheses involving unobservable entities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,39, (3).
[73]Lawson, A. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetic-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education,25, (11).
[74]Lawson, A. (2003). The neurological basis of learning, development and discovery: Implications for science and mathematics instruction. Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publishes.
[75]Lederman, N.(2007). Nature of science:past, present, and future. In Abell, S.,& Lederman, N(Eds.). Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum.
[76]Lee,H., Witz., K.(2009).Science inspiration for teaching socio-scientific issues: Disconnection with reform efforts. International Journal of Science education,31, (7).
[77]Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education,28, (10).
[78]Linn, M. (1982) Theoretical and Practical Significance of Formal Reasoning[J]. Journal of research in teaching,19, (9),
[79]Linn, M., Davis, E.,& Bell, P. (Eds.).(2004). Internet environment for science education. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
[80]Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science:Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ:Ablex.
[81]Lemke, J. L. (1998). Teaching all the language of science:Word, symbols, images and actions.[EB/OL].[20130913]. http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/education/ilemke/papers/barcelon.htm
[82]Kolst(?), S. D. (2000):Consensus Projects:Teaching Science for Citizenship. International Studies in Science Education,22, (6).
[83]Kolst(?), S.(2001). "To trust or not to trust,..."-pupils' ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education,23, (9).
[84]Kolsto, S. D. (2001):Scientific Literacy for Citizenship:Tools for Dealing with Controversial Socio-Scientific Issues. Science Education,85, (3).
[85]Kolsto, S. D. (2006). Science students' critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education,90,(4).
[86]Korpan, C., Bisanz, G., Bisanz, J.,& Henderson, J. (1997). Assessing literacy in science: evaluation of scientific news briefs. Science Education,81, (5).
[87]Kortland K.(1996).An STS case study about students' decision making on the waste issue. ScienceEducation,80, (6).
[88]Lubben, F.,& Millar, R. (1996). Children's ideas about the reliability of experimental data. International Journal of Science Education,18, (8).
[89]Mason, L.,& Santi, M. (1994). Argumentation structure and metacognition in constructing shared knowledge at school. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
[90]Mason, L.,& Scirica, F. (2006). Prediction of students' argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding. Learning and Instruction,16, (5).
[91]Martin, A.,& Hand, B. (2007). Factors Affecting the Implementation of Argument in the Elementary Science Classroom.A Longitudeinal Case Study. Research of Science Education, 39,(1).
[92]McNeill, K. (2009). Teachers' use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Research of Science Education,93, (2).
[93]Means, M.& Voss, J. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction,14, (2).
[94]Metz, K. (1998). Scientific inquiry within reach of young children. In Fraser, B.,& Tobin, K. (Eds.). International handbook of science education:Learning. Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[95]Miller, J.,& Bartsch, K.(1997). The development of biological explanation:Are children vitalists? Developmental psychology,33, (1).
[96]Min-Hsien Lee, Ying-Tien Wu & Chin-Chung Tsai.(2009).Research trends in science education from 2003 to 2007:a content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education.31, (15).
[97]Minstrell., J. (1982). Explaining the "at rest" condition of an object. The Physics Teacher,20 (1).
[98]Mintzes,J.J, Wandersee,J.H,& Novak, J.D.(1998).Teaching Science for Understanding:A Human Constructivist View. San Diego:Academic Press.
[99]Mintzes,J, Wandersee, J.,& Novak, J. (Eds.).(1999). Assessing science understanding. California:A Harcourt Science and Technology Company Press..
[100]National Research Council.(2012).A Framework for K-12 Science Education:Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC:National Academy Press..
[101]National Research Council.(1996).National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
[102]Newton, P., Driver, R.,& Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education,21, (5).
[103]Niaz, M., Aguilera, D., Maza, A.,& Liendo,G. (2002). Arguments, contradictions, resistances, and conceptual change in students' understanding of atomic structure. Science Education,86, (4).
[104]Nickerson, R. (1991). Modes and models of informal reasoning:A commentary. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins& J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[105]Nussbaum, M. (2002). Scaffolding argumentation in the social studies classroom. Social Studies,93, (3).
[106]Nussbaum, E. M.,& Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary educational psychology,28,(3).
[107]OECD.(2006).The Programme for the International Student Assessment (PISA). Paris: OECD.
[108]OECD.(2007).PISATM2006 science competencies for tomorrow's world(volume 1: Analysis). Paris:OECD.
[109]OECD.(2010), PISA 2009 Results:What Students Know and Can Do-Student Performance in Reading, Mathematics and Science(Volume I). Paris:OECD.
[110]OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 Assessment and Analytical Framework:Mathematics, Reading, Science,Problem Solving and Financial Literacy. Paris:OECD.
[111]Osborne, J.,Erduran, S., Simon, S.,& Monk, M.(2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41, (10).
[112]Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S. (2004). Ideas, evidence and argument in science. In-service training pack, resource pack and video. London:Nuffield Foundation.
[113]Osborne, J.,& Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation:A necessary distinction? Science Education,95, (4).
[114]Oulton, C., Dillon, J.,& Grace, M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education,26, (4).
[115]Pagano, J.(1988). Teaching women. Educational Theory,38,(3).
[116]Patronis, P. T., Potari, D.,& Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students'argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue:Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education,21, (7).
[117]Pedretti E.(1999).Decision making and STS education:exploring scientific knowledge and social responsibility in schools and science centers through an issues-based approach. School Science and Mathematics,99, (4).
[118]Perkins, D, Faraday, M.,& Bushey, B. (1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins& J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education. Hillsdale, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum.
[119]Perkins D.(1985).Post-primary education has little impact upon informal reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology,77, (5).
[120]Pontecorvo, C.,& Girardet, H. (1993). Arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics. Cognition and Instruction.11,(3-4).
[121]Posner, G, Strike, K., Hewson, P.,& Gertzog, W. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception:Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education,66, (2).
[122]Raths et al.(1986).Teaching for thinking:theory, strategies,& activities for the classroom. New York:Teachers college press, Columbia University.
[123]Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B. K., Steinmuller, F.,& Leone, A. J. (2001). BGuILE:Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr, (Eds.), Cognition and instruction:Twenty-five years of progress. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
[124]Ricco, R. B. (2007). Individual differences in the analysis of informal reasoning fallacies. Contemporary Educational Psychology,32, (3).
[125]Rop, C. (2002). The meaning of student inquiry questions:a teacher beliefs and responses. International Journal of Science Education,24, (7).
[126]Russell, T. L. (1983). Analyzing arguments in science classroom discourse:Can teachers' questions distort scientific authority? Journal of Research in Science Teaching,20, (1).
[127]Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues:A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41, (5).
[128]Sadler, T.,& Zeidler, D. (2004).The morality of socio-scientific issues:Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education,88, (1).
[129]Sadler, T., Chambers, F.,& Zeidler, D. (2004).Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26, (4).
[130]Sadler, T.. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues:A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41, (5).
[131]Sadler, T.,& Zeidler, D., (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding sociorscientific issues:Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education,89, (1).
[132]Sadler, T.,& Zeidler, D. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,42, (1).
[133]Sadler, T.,& Fowler, S. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education,90, (6).
[134]Sadler, T. D.,& Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific Argumentation:The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education,28,(12).
[135]Sadler, T. (2006). Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education,17, (4).
[136]Sadler, T., Barab, S.,& Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscienfific inquiry?. Research in Science Education,37,(4).
[137]Sandoval, W.,& Reiser, B. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry:Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education,88, (3).
[138]Sarah Michaels, Andrew W. Shouse,& Heidi A. Schweingruber. (2007).Ready, Set, Science!:Putting Research to Work in K-8 Science Classrooms. Washington DC:the National Academies Press.
[139]Schwab, J.(1967). Biology teachers' handbook. New York:John Whiley & Sons, Inc.
[140]Simon, S., Erduran, S.,& Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation:Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education,28, (2-3).
[141]Simonneaux, L. (2001). Role-play or debate to promote students" argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis. International Journal of Science Education, 23, (9).
[142]Stein, N.,& Bernas, R. (1999). The early emergence of argumentative knowledge and skill. In J. Andriessen, J.,& Coirier, P (Eds.).Foundations of argumentative text processing. Amsterdam:Amsterdam University Press.
[143]Toulmin, S.(2003). The uses of argument(Updated Edition). London:Cambridge university press.
[144]Toulmin, S.(2001). Return to reason. Cambridge, MA:Harvard university press.
[145]Tudge,J.,& Rogoff, B.(1989). Peer influences on cognitive development:Piagetian and Vygotskian Perspectives. In Bornstein, M.,& Bruner, J.(Eds.). Interaction in Human development. Hillsdale, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum.
[146]Tudge,J.,& Winterhoff, P.(1993). Vygotsky, Piaget, and Bandura:Perspectives on the relations between the social world and cognitive development. Human Development,36,(2).
[147]Van Amelsvoort, M., Andriessen, J.,& Kanselaar, G. (2007). Representational tools in computer-supported collaborative argumentation-based learning:How dyads work with constructed and inspected argumentative diagrams. Journal of the Learning Sciences,16,(4).
[148]Varelas, M., Pappas, C., Kane, J., Arsenault, A., Hankes, J.,& Cowan, B. (2008). Urban primary-grade children think and talk science:Curricular and instructional practices that nurture participation and argumentation. Science Education,92, (1).
[149]Verheij, B. (2005). Evaluating argument based on Toulmin's scheme. Argumentations, 19,(3).
[150]Viiri, J.& Saari, H. (2006). Teacher talk patterns in science lessons:Use in teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education,17,(4).
[151]von Aufschnaiter, C, Erduran, S., Osborne, J.,& Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue:Case studies of how students'argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge, Journal of Research in Science Teaching,45, (1).
[152]Vosniadou, S.& Ioannides, C.(1998). From conceptual development to science education:a psychological point of view. International Journal of Science Education,20, (10),.
[153]Voss, J.,& Means, M. (1991). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning and Instruction,1,(4).
[154]Voss, J., Perkins, D.,& Segal. (Eds).(1991). Informal reasoning and education. Hillsdale, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Inc.
[155]Voss, J., Blais, J., Means, M. Greene, T., Ahwesh, F.(1986). Informal reasoning and subject matter knowledge in the solving of economic problems by naive and novice individuals. Cognition and Instruction,3, (2).
[156]Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., Fischer, F.,& Mandl, H. (2007). Scripting argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported learning environments. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl,& J. Haake (Eds.). Scripting computer-supported communication of knowledge-cognitive, computational and educational perspectives. New York:Springer.
[157]Wertsch, J.(1991). Voices of the mind. Cambridge. MA:Harvard University Press.
[158]Willard, C. A. (1989). A Theory of Argumentation. Tuscaloosa, AB:University of Alabama Press.
[159]Zeidler, D. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education,81,(4).
[160]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).
[161]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.
[162]Zohar, A. (2007). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker,& D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn:Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic.
② National Research Council.(1996).National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.p22.
③ Ibid, p113
① National Research Council.(2012).A Framework for K-12 Science Education:Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.p3.
② Ibid, p42-46.
③ [日]佐藤学著,钟启泉、陈静静译.教师的挑战：宁静的课堂革命[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2012：中文版序.
① [日]佐藤学著,钟启泉、陈静静译.教师的挑战：宁静的课堂革命[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2012：中文版序.
② 来自华东师范大学钟启泉教授在“第三届有效教学理论与实践研讨会”的讲座,2008年12月.
① [美]丹尼尔·坦纳、劳雷尔·坦纳著,崔允漷等译.学校课程史[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2006：239.
② 钟启泉.“知识教学”辨[J].上海教育科研,2007(4)：4-8.
③ [英]怀特海著,徐汝舟译.教育的目的[M].北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店,2002：2.
① [日]佐藤学著,钟启泉译.课程与教师[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2003：231.
② Erickson, F.(1986).Qualitative Methods in Research on Teaching. In M.C.Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. New York:Macmillan, p119-161.
③ [加]马克斯·范梅南著,宋广文等译.生活体验研究——人文科学视野中的教育学[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2003:163-176.
① Mintzes,J,J, Wandersee,J.H,& Novak, J.D.(1998).Teaching Science for Understanding:A Human Constructivist View. San Diego:Academic Press. Preface.
② [美]约翰·杜威著,赵祥麟、任钟印、吴志宏译.学校与社会·明日之学校(第2版)[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2005
③ Schwab,J.J.(1965).Biology Teachers' Handbook. New York:John Wiley & Sons, Inc.1965.
① 转引自丁信中.青年学生于理论竞争论证过程中对其支持理论局限的觉察[D].高雄：台湾高雄师范大学,2004.
① Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and Thinking:A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
① Willard, C. A. (1989). A Theory of Argumentation. Tuscaloosa, AB:University of Alabama Press.
② Emeren, F. H. V. (1995). A world of difference:The rich state of argumentation theory. Informal Logic,17(2),144-158.
③ Voss, J. F.,& Means, M. L. (1991a). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning and Instruction,1(4),337-350.
① Emeren, F. H. V. (1995). A world of difference:The rich state of argumentation theory. Informal Logic,17(2),144-158.
② Bricker, A. L.,& Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education,92(3),473-498.
① Emeren, F. H. V. (1995). A world of difference:The rich state of argumentation theory. Informal Logic,17(2),144-158.
② 转引自Erduran, S.,& Jime'nex-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in Science Education: Perspective from Classroom-Base Research. Springer Press.p3.
③ Driver, R., Newton, P.,& Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education,84(3),287-312.
① Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument:Implication for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education,77(3),319-317.
② 转引自：[日]佐藤正夫著,钟启泉译.教学原理[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2001：311.
① [日]佐藤正夫著,钟启泉译.教学原理[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2001：312.
② 谢耘.论证概念的理论探究[D].上海：华东师范大学,2006：5.
① De Vries, E., Lund, K.,& Baker, M.J. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions.The Journal of the Learning Sciences,11(1),63-103.
② Osborne, J.,& Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation:A necessary distinction? Science Education,95 (4),627-638.
① 转引自：孔企平.教学研究中的几个基本问题——兼谈课堂学习理论的新发展[J].全球教育展望,2005,3：14-16.
② [美]W.多尔.超越方法：教学即审美与精神的追求[J].华东师范大学学报(教育科学版),2003,3：43.
③ Driver, R., Newton, P.,& Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education,84(3),287-312.
④ 莱斯利·P·斯特弗,杰里·盖尔编.高文等译.教育中的建构主义.上海：华东师范大学出版社,2002：134.
⑤ Boulter, C.J.,& Gilbert, J.K. (1995). Argument and science education. In A. Costello and S. Mitchell (Eds.), Competing and consensual voices:The theory and practice of argumentation. Longman(UK):Multilingual Matters. p84-98.
① Russell, T. L. (1983). Analyzing arguments in science classroom discourse:Can teachers' questions distort scientific authority? Journal of Research in Science Teaching,20(1),27-45.
② Nussbaum, M. (2002). Scaffolding argumentation in the social studies classroom. Social Studies,93(3),79-85.
③ [美]阿瑟·A·卡琳、乔尔·E·巴斯、特丽·L·康坦特著,张军霞等译.教作为探究的科学[M].北京：人民教育出版社.2009：18.
① Hodson, D. (1993).Re-thinking old ways:Towards a more critical approach to practical work in school science. Studies in science education,22(1),85-142.
② Duschl, R. A.,& Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education,38,39-72.
① 鄢超云.朴素物理理论与儿童科学教育[M].南京：江苏教育出版社,2007：7.
① Wassermann, S.,& J.W. George Ivany.(1996). The new teaching elementary science. New York: Teachers college Press, Columbia University.p5.
① 中华人民共和国教育部制定.初中科学课程标准.北京：北京师范大学出版社,2011.
① Wassermann, S.,& J.W. George Ivany.(1996). The new teaching elementary science. New York: Teachers college Press, Columbia University. P5.
① 转引自：[美]国家研究理事会科学、数学及技术教育中心,《国家科学教育标准》科学探探究附属读物编委会著,罗星凯等译.科学探究与国家科学教育标准——教与学的指南[M].北京：科学普及出版社,2004：2-5.
① Driver, R., Newton, P.,& Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education,84(3),287-312.
② Driver, R., Newton, P.,& Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education,84(3),287-312.
③ 徐学福.美国探究教学研究30年[J].全球教育展望.2001(8)：57-63.
④ National Research Council.(1996).National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
⑤ [美]国家研究理事会科学、数学及技术教育中心,《国家科学教育标准》科学探究附属读物编委会著,罗星凯等译.科学探究与国家科学教育标准——教与学的指南[M].北京：科学普及出版社,2004.
⑤ American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).(2001).Atlas of Science literacy. Washington, DC:National Science Teachers Association (NSTA).
① Department for Education and Employment,& Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (1999). Science:the National program for England(Key Stages 1-4). London.
② 1996年英国教育法案规定,义务教育分为四个学段(Key Stage),分别为：Key Stagel(1年级-2年级),Key Stage2(3年级-6年级),Key Stage3(7年级-9年级),Key Stage 4(10年级-11年级)。
① 中华人民共和国教育部制定.全日制义务教育科学(7-9年级)课程标准(实验稿)[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社.2001.
② 袁运开.科学课程标准的特点和我们的认识[J].全球教育展望,2002(2)：12-16.
③ 中华人民共和国教育部制定.义务教育初中科学课程标准(2011版)[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社.2012.
① National Research Council.(1996).National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.p113.
② [美]国家研究理事会科学、数学及技术教育中心,《国家科学教育标准》科学探究附属读物编委会著,罗星凯等译.科学探究与国家科学教育标准——教与学的指南[M].北京：科学普及出版社,2004：24.
③ 钟启泉.探究学习与理科教学[J].教育研究,1986,7.
④ Dewey, J.(1997).How we think. New York:Dover Publicaitons, Inc.
⑤ Schwab,1.(1967). Biology teachers' handbook. New York:John Whiley & Sons, Inc.
⑥ Lansdown B., Blackwood, P.,& Brandwein, P.(1971).Teaching Elementary Science Through Investigation and Colloquium. New York:Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., New York,1971.
⑦ Wassermann, S.,& J.W. George Ivany.(1996). The new teaching elementary science. New York: Teachers college Press, Columbia University.
⑧ 李雁冰.科学探究、科学素养与科学教育[J].全球教育展望,2008,37(12)：14-18.
① Bybee, R. Scientific and Engineering Practices in K-12 Classrooms:Understanding a Framework for K-12 Science Education. Science Teacher,78(9):34-40.
② Sarah Michaels, Andrew W. Shouse,& Heidi A. Schweingruber. (2007).Ready, Set, Science!: Putting Research to Work in K-8 Science Classrooms. Washington DC:the National Academies Press.p17-36.
③ Bybee, R. Scientific and Engineering Practices in K-12 Classrooms:Understanding a Framework for K-12 Science Education. Science Teacher,78(9):34-40.
④ Duschl, C. (2000). Making the nature of science explicit. In R. Millar, L.,& Osborne, J. (Eds.), Improving science education:The contribution of research. Buckingham (pp.187-206), UK: Open University Press.
⑤ Rop, C. (2002). The meaning of student inquiry questions:a teacher beliefs and responses. International Journal of Science Education,24(7),717-736.
⑥ Lubben, F.,& Millar, R. (1996). Children's ideas about the reliability of experimental data. International Journal of Science Education,18(8),955-968.
⑦ Kanari, Z.,& Millar, R. (2004). Reasoning from data:how students collect and interpret data in science investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41(7),748-769.
① Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Rodriguez, A.,& Duschl, R. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science":Argument in high school genetics. Science Education,84(6),757-792.
② Duschl, R.,& Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education,38,39-72.
③ Driver, R., Newton, P.& Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education,84,287-312.
④ Osborne, J.,Erduran, S., Simon, S.,& Monk, M.(2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41(10),994-1020.
⑤ Sandoval, W.,& Reiser, B. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry:Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education,88(3),345-372.
⑥ Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review,62(2),155-178.
① Mintzes, J.,& Novak, J. (1999). Assessing science understanding:The epistemological vee diagram. In Mintzes,J, Wandersee, J.,& Novak, J. (Eds.), Assessing science understanding. California:A Harcourt Science and Technology Company Press. P41-69.
② Duschl, R.,& Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education,38,39-72.
③ Kelly, G.,& Crawford, T. (1997). An ethnographic investigation of the discourse processes of school science. Science Education,81(5),533-560.
① Driver, R., Newton, P.,& Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education,84(3),287-312.
② Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R.,& Scott. P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Philadephia:Open University Press.
① Marcia C Linn, theoretical and Practical Significance of Formal Reasoning[J]. Journal of research in teaching,1982(19):727-742.
② Ibid.
③ Miller, J. L.,& Bartsch, K. The development of biological explanation:Are children vitalists? Developmental psychology,1997,33:156-164.
④ Hood, B. M. Gravity does rule for falling events. Developmental science,1998,1:59-63.
⑤ Klahr, D.,& Dunbar, K. Dual search space duringscientific reasoning. Cognitive Science,1988, 12:1-48.
① Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. London:Harvard University Press.
① Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A.,& Duschl, R. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science":Argument in high school genetics. Science education,84(6),757-792.
② Min-Hsien Lee, Ying-Tien Wu & Chin-Chung Tsai.(2009).Research trends in science education from 2003 to 2007:a content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education,31(15),1999-2020.
① Previous Annual International Conferences of National Association for Research in Science Teaching. [EB/OL].[20130920]. https://www.narst.org/annualconference/previous.cfrn.
① Erduran, S.,& Jime'nex-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in Science Education: Perspective from Classroom-Base Research. Springer Press.pl.
② Russell, T. (1983). Analyzing arguments in science classroom discourse:Can teachers' questions distort scientific authority? Journal of Research in Science Teaching,20,27-45.
③ Eichinger, D., Anderson, C., Palincsar, A.,& David, Y. M. (1991). An illustration of the roles of content knowledge, scientific argument, and social norms in collaborative problem solving. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
④ Mason, L.,& Santi, M. (1994, April). Argumentation structure and metacognition in constructing shared knowledge at school. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
⑤ Kelly, G.J., Drucker, S.,& Chen, C. (1998). students'reasoning about electricity:Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education,20,849-871.
⑥ Newton, P., Driver, R.,& Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education,21,553-576.
① Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E.,& Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher,23,5-12.
② Chinn, C. A.,& Brewer, W. F. (1998). Theories of knowledge acquisition. In B. J. Fraser,& K. G Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education:Learning (pp.97-113). Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
③ Newton, P., Driver, R.,& Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education,21,553-576.
① Patronis, P. T., Potari, D.,& Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students" argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue:Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education,21,745-754.
② Simonneaux, L. (2001). Role-play or debate to promote students" argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9),903-927.
③ Engle, A. R.,& Conant, R. C. (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.
④ Lawson, E. A. (2002). Sound and faulty arguments generated by preservice biology teachers when testing hypotheses involving unobservable entities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,39(3),237-252.
① Zohar, A.,& Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,39,35-62.
② Niaz, M., Aguilera, D., Maza, A.,& Liendo, G. (2002). Arguments, Contradictions, Resistances, and Conceptual Change in Students'Understanding of Atomic Structure. Science Education, 86(4),505-525.
③ Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.P & Pereiro-Munoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision-making about environmental management. International journal of science education,24(11),1171-1190.
① 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.
② Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S. (2004). Ideas, evidence and argument in science. In-service training pack, resource pack and video. London:Nuffield Foundation.
① Simon, S., Erduran, S.,& Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation:Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education,28(2&3), 235-260.
② 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.
③ Ibid.
① Bleicher, R. E., Tobin, K.G.,& McRobbie, C. J. (2003). Opportunities to talk science in a high school chemistry classroom. Research in Science Education,33,319-339.
② Sadler, T.D. (2006). Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education,17,323-346.
③ Viiri, J.& Saari, H. (2006). Teacher talk patterns in science lessons:Use in teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education,17,347-365.
④ Simon, S., Erduran, S.,& Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation:Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education,28(2&3), 235-260.
⑤ Childs, C, McNicholl, J. (2007). Investigating the relationship between subject content knowledge and pedagogical practice through the analysis of classroom discourse. International Journal of Science Education,29(13),1629-1653.
⑥ Martin, A.,& Hand, B. (2007). Factors Affecting the Implementation of Argument in the Elementary Science Classroom. A Longitudeinal Case Study. Research of Science Education,39, 17-38.
① Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D.,& Richardson, J. C. (2008). A scaffolding framework to support the construction of evidence-base arguments among middle school students. Educational Technology Research & Development,56,401-422.
② McNeill, K. (2009). Teachers' use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Research of Science Education,93 (2),233-268.
③ 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
④ Clark, D. B. (2004). Hands-on investigation in Internet environments:Teaching thermal equilibrium. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis.,& P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environment for Science Education. NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
① Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B. K., Steinmuller, F.,& Leone, A. J. (2001). BGuILE:Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr, (Eds.), Cognition and instruction:Twenty-five years of progress. (pp.263-305). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
② Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., Fischer, F.,& Mandl, H. (2007). Scripting argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported learning environments. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl,& J. Haake (Eds.). Scripting computer-supported communication of knowledge-cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp.191-211). New York: Springer.
③ Janssen, J., Erkens, G, Jaspers, J.,& Kanselaar, G. (2006, June). Visualizing participation to facilitate argumentation. Proceedings of the 7th Internet Conference of the Learning Sciences. Bloomington, IN.
④ Duschl, R.,& Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse. Studies in Science Education,38,39-72.
① 钟汉峰.高一学生科学问题组对讨论中的同伴关系与论证方式的影响分析[D].台北：台湾师范大学,2001.
① 林丽玲.从后现代课程理念下设计沟通论证之教学研究——以国中演化单元为例[D].台湾：高雄师范大学,2003.
② 丁信中.青年学生于理论竞争论证过程中对其支持理论局限的觉察[D].台湾：高雄师范大学,2004.
③ 黄翎斐.教学策略对论证形成的影响[D].台北：台湾师范大学,2004.
① 黄柏鸿.提升国小六年级学生论证能力之行动研究——以社会性科学议题为例[D].台湾：嘉义大学,2006.
② 陈坤源.提升国小学童论证能力之研究[D].台湾：花莲教育大学,2006.
③ 林燕文.学童在论证导向的探究活动中其科学概念理解与论述策略之研究.台湾：高雄师范大学,2007.
① 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.第二十五届“中华民国”科学教育研讨会,2009年12月18日～12月19日.
② 陈文正.国小高年级学童的论证学习在科学解释合理性判断之效应探讨[D].台湾：东华大学,2011.
③ 林裕仁.论证教学之有经验与生手教师的教学设计、师生互动与教学成效[D].台湾：高雄师范大学,2010。
④ 陈颖志、曾敬梅和张文华.探讨教师角色在促进国小学童论证表现的改变——以启发式科学写作教学(SWH)为情境的四年个案研究[J].科学教育月刊(台湾),2010,18(5)：417-442.
① Zohar, A. (2007). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker,& D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn:Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp.245-268). Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic.
① 潘瑶珍.基于论证的科学教育[J].全球教育展望,2010,39(6)：82-86.
② 潘瑶珍.科学教育中的论证教学[J].全球教育展望,2011,40(2)：77-81.
③ 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,2010,10：50-52.
④ 何嘉媛、刘恩山.论证式教学策略的发展[J].生物学通报,2012,47(5)：31-34.
⑤ 葛乐飞.小组合作学习对科学论证能力培养的影响研究[D].上海：上海师范大学.2012.
⑥ 曹程.大学生论证思考能力的调查分析[D].杭州：杭州师范大学.2012.
① Niaz, M., Aguilera, D., Maza, A.,& Liendo,G. (2002). Arguments, contradictions, resistances, and conceptual change in students' understanding of atomic structure. Science Education,86(4), 505-525.
① Jimenez-Aleixandre M. P.,& Erduran, S.(2007). Argumentation in science education:an overview. In Erduran.,S.,& Jimenez-Aleixandre M. P. (Eds.), Argumentation in science education. Dordewcht, The Netherlands:Springer. p4.
② Ibid, p6.
③ Jimenez-Aleixandre M. P.,& Erduran, S.(2007). Argumentation in science education:an overview. In Erduran.,S.,& Jimenez-Aleixandre M. P. (Eds.), Argumentation in science education. Dordewcht, The Netherlands:Springer, p11.
① Kelly, G.,& Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music:Constructing science as sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,36(8),883-915.
① Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science:Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ:Ablex.
② de Vries, E., Lund, K.,& Brker, M. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue:Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. The Journal of the Learning Science,11(1),63-103.
③ 黄翎斐,胡瑞萍.论证与科学教育的理论与实务[J].科学教育月刊,2006,(9)：15-28.
① Driver, R., Newton, P.,& Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education,84(3),287-312.
② Kelly G., Druker. S.& Chen. C. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity:combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7),849-871.
① Driver, R., Newton, P.,& Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education,84(3),287-312.
② Nussbaum, E. M.,& Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary educational psychology,28,384-395.
③ 陈君玲.高一学生的因果推理与论证能力关系之探讨[D].台湾：高雄师范大学.2009.
① Kuhn D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York:Cambridge University Press.
① [美]美国科学促进协会著,中国科学技术协会译.面向全体美国人的科学[M].北京：科学普及出版社,2001：中文版序,导言.
① National Research Council.(1996).National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.p22.
① OECD.(2006).The Programme for the International Student Assessment (PISA). Paris:OECD. p12.
① OECD.(2007).PISA M2006 science competencies for tomorrow's world(volume 1:Analysis). Paris: OECD. p35.
① OECD.(2007).PISATM2006 science competencies for tomorrow's world(volume 1:Analysis). Paris: OECD. p37-44.
① OECD.(2010), PISA 2009 Results:What Students Know and Can Do-Student Performance in Reading, Mathematics and Science(Volume I). Paris:OECD. p146-150.
① 转引自：Jimenez-Aleixandre M. P.,& Erduran, S.(2007). Argumentation in science education:an overview. In Erduran.,S.,& Jimenez-Aleixandre M. P. (Eds.), Argumentation in science education. Dordewcht, The Netherlands:Springer, p16.
② OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 Assessment and Analytical Framework:Mathematics, Reading, Science.Problem Solving and Financial Literacy. Paris:OECD. p112.
① Osborne, J., Erduran, S.,& Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of research in science teaching,41(10):994-1020.
② Jimenez-Aleixandre M. P.,& Erduran, S.(2007). Argumentation in science education:an overview. In Erduran.,S.,& Jimenez-Aleixandre M. P. (Eds.), Argumentation in science education. Dordewcht, The Netherlands:Springer, p17.
③ National Research Council.(1996).National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.p113
① National Research Council.(2012).A Framework for K-12 Science Education:Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.pl.
② Ibid, P3.
① Kuhn, D.,& Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking and Reasoning,13,90-104.
② 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,(9)：2-18.
① 转引自：林志能.国小学童在不同学习情境中论证能力表现之研究(D).台湾：高雄师范大学.2011.
② 转引自：杨宁芳.图尔明论证逻辑思想研究[M].北京：人民出版社,2012：3.
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.
④ Erduran, S., Simon, S.,& Osborne, J. (2004). TApping into Argumentation:Development in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education,88, 915-933.
⑤ Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S. (2004). Ideas, evidence and argument in science. In-service training pack, resource pack and video. London:Nuffield Foundation.
⑥ Toulmin, S.(2003). The uses of argument(Updated Edition). London:Cambridge university press.
① 转引自：杨宁芳.图尔明论证逻辑思想研究[M].北京：人民出版社,2012：80-91.
① Toulmin, S.(2001). Return to reason. Cambridge, MA:Harvard university press.
② 杨宁芳.图尔明论证逻辑思想研究[M].北京：人民出版社,2012：103-105.
① Erduran, S.,& Jime'nex-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in Science Education: Perspective from Classroom-Base Research. Springer Press.p56-66.
② Verheij, B.(2005).Evaluating arguments based on Toulmin's Scheme. Argumentation,19,347-371.转引自①.
① Anton E. Lawson着,余翎玮等译.学习、发展和发现的神经学基础：科学和数学教学的启示[M].台北：高等教育出版社.p11-13.
① Lawson, A. (2003a). The nature and development of hypothetic-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education,25(11),1387-1408.
② Lawson, A. (2003b). The neurological basis of learning, development and discovery:Implications for science and mathematics instruction. Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publishes.
① Lawson, A. E. (2000). How do humans acquire knowledge, and what does that imply about the nature of knowledge? Science & Education,9,577-598.
① Voss, J.,& Means, M. (1991). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning and Instruction,1,337-350.
② Voss, J., Perkins, D.,& Segal(Eds).(1991). Informal reasoning and education. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Inc.
③ Means, M.& Voss, J. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction,14(2),139-178.
① Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harverd Educational Review,62(2),155-178.
② Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument:Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education,77(3),319-337.
③ Kuhn, D.,& Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking and Reasoning,13,90-104.
① Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. London:Harvard University Press.
② Kuhn, D., Cheney, R.,& Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development,15(3),309-328.
③ Ibid.
① Kuhn, D., Cheney, R.,& Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development,15(3),309-328.
① Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York:Cambridge University Press.
② Kuhn, D.,& Lao, J. (1998). Contemplation and conceptual change:Integrating perspectives from social and cognitive psychology. Developmental Review,18,125-154.
① Kuhn, D.,& Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking and Reasoning,13,90-104.
② Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for Thinking. London England, Harvard University Press.
③ Lemke, D. E. (2002). Laboratory manual for modern biology. Stipes Publishing
① 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.
① Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument:Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education,77(3),319-337.
② Osborne,J., Erduran, S.,& Simon, S.(2004). Ideas, evidence and argument in science. In-service training pack, resource pack. London:Nuffield foundation.
① Mason, L.,& Scirica, F. (2006). Prediction of students'argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding. Learning and Instruction,16(5),492-509.
Zohar, A.& Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students'knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,39,35-62.
① Sadler, T. D.,& Fowler, S. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education,90,986-1004.
① Sadler, T., Barab, S.,& Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscienfific inquiry?. Research in Science Education,37,371-391.
① Clark, D. B., Sampson, V. D., Weinberger, A.,& Erkens, G. (2007). Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments, Educational Psychology Review, 19,343-374.
② Clark DB, Sampson V (2005) Analyzing the quality of argumentation supported by personally-seeded discussions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Computer Supported CollaborativeLearning (CSCL) Conference, Taipei
③ Clark, D. B.,& Sampson, V. D. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality, Journal of Research in Science Teaching,45(3), 293-321.
① Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York:Cambridge University Press.
② Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument:Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education,77(3),319-337.
① Kuhn, D. (2001). How do people know?. Psychological Science,12(1),1-8.
② Kuhn, D.,& Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development,74(5), 1245-1260.
① 《普通逻辑》编写组：普通逻辑(增订本)[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1993：26.
② 转引自：谢耘.论证概念的理论探究[D].上海：华东师范大学.2006.8.
③ Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York:Cambridge University Press.
① Dewey, J.(1997).How we think. New York:Dover Publicaitons, Inc.p1.
② Ibid, p69.
① Dewey, J.(1997).How we think. New York:Dover Publicaitons, Inc.p25.
① Dewey, J.(1997).How we think. New York:Dover Publicaitons, Inc.p56.
② Perkins, D, Faraday, M.,& Bushey, B. (1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education. Hillsdale, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum. p 83-105.
③ Nickerson, R. (1991). Modes and models of informal reasoning:A commentary. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. p291-309.
④ Ibid①.
⑤ Voss, J. (1991). Informal reasoning and international relationship. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education. Hillsdale, New jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.p37-58.
① Perkins D.(1985).Post-primary education has little impact upon informal reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology,77(5):562-571.
② Voss, J., Perkins, D.,& Segal, J. (1991). Informal reasoning and education. Hillsdale, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
③ J Means, M.,& Voss, J. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction,14(2), 139-178.
④ 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.
① 李建华.科学哲学[M].北京：中共中央党校出版社,2004：162.
② 爱因斯坦著.许良英等译.爱因斯坦文集第1卷[M].北京：商务印书馆.2010：764.
③ 爱因斯坦著.许良英等译.爱因斯坦文集第1卷[M].北京：商务印书馆.2010：718.
④ Driver, R., Newton, P.,& Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education,84(3),287-312.
⑤ Lemke, J. L. (1998). Teaching all the language of science:Word, symbols, images and actions.[EB/OL].[20130913]. http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/education/jlemke/papers/barcelon.htm
⑥ Kittleson, J.,& Southerland, S. (2004). The role of discourse in group knowledge construction: a case study of engineering students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41,267-293.
① Lederman, N.(2007). Nature of science:past, present, and future. In Abell, S.,& Lederman, N(Eds.). Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum. P831-879.
② Fleming R. (1986). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, part Ⅰ:Social cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,23(8):677-687.
③ Fleming, R. (1986).Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, part Ⅱ:Nonsocial cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,23(8):689-698.
④ Eisenberg,A.,& Garvey, G.(1981). Children's use of verbal strategies in resolving conflicts. Discourse Processes,4(2):149-170
⑤ Stein, N.,& Bernas, R. (1999). The early emergence of argumentative knowledge and skill. In J. Andriessen, J.,& Coirier, P (Eds.).Foundations of argumentative text processing. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. p97-116.
① [美]弗拉维尔等著.邓赐平、刘明译.认知发展[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2002：4-5.
① [美]弗拉维尔等著.邓赐平、刘明译.认知发展[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2002：4-5.
② [美]肖恩·格林,拉塞尔·晏尼,布鲁斯·布里顿著.熊召弟等译.科学学习心理学[M].台北：心理出版社.2006：276-280.
③ Voss, J.,& Means, M. (1991). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning and Instruction,1,337-350.
④ Hahn, U.,& Oaksford, M. (2007), The rationality of informal argumentation:a Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies, Psychological Review,114(3),704-732.
⑤ Ricco, R. B. (2007). Individual differences in the analysis of informal reasoning fallacies. Contemporary Educational Psychology,32,459-484.
① Mintzes,J., Wandersee,J,& Novak, J.(1998).Teaching Science for Understanding:A Human Constructivist View. San Diego:Academic Press. P78-79.
① Kortland K.(1996).An STS case study about students' decision making on the waste issue. ScienceEducation,80(6):673-689.
② Fleming, R.(1986). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, part Ⅱ:Nonsocial cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,23(8):689-698.
③ 转引自：Stein, N.,& Bernas, R. (1999). The early emergence of argumentative knowledge and skill. In J. Andriessen, J.,& Coirier, P (Eds.).Foundations of argumentative text processing. Amsterdam:Amsterdam University Press. p97-116.
④ Kolst(?), S.(2001). "To trust or not to trust,..."-pupils' ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education,23(9):877-901.
① Kolst(?), S.(2001). "To trust or not to trust,..."-pupils' ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education,23(9):877-901.
② Sadler, T., Chambers, F.,& Zeidler, D. (2004).Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education,26(4): 387-409.
③ Korpan, C., Bisanz, G., Bisanz, J.,& Henderson, J. (1997). Assessing literacy in science: evaluation of scientific news briefs. Science Education,81(5):515-532.
④ Perkins D.(1985).Post-primary education has little impact upon informal reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology,77(5):562-571.
⑤ Voss J F, Blais J, Means M L. Greene T R, Ahwesh F.(1986). Informal reasoning and subject matter knowledge in the solving of economic problems by naive and novice individuals. Cognition and Instruction,3(2):269-302.
⑥ Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York:Cambridge University Press.
⑦ Means, M.,& Voss, J. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction,14(2), 139-178.
① Andrew, J., Robottom, I. (2001).Science and ethics:some issue for education. Science Education,2001,85:769-780.
② Fleming R. (1986).Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, part Ⅰ:Social cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,23(8):677-687.
③ Bell, R.,& Lederman, N. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education,87(3):352-377.
④ Pedretti E.(1999).Decision making and STS education:exploring scientific knowledge and social responsibility in schools and science centers through an issues-based approach. School Science and Mathematics,99(4):174-181.
⑤ [美]约翰·华莱士,威廉·劳登编著,余翎玮等译.突破科学教学中的两难[M].台北：心理出版社.p219.
① Sadler, T.,& Zeidler, D. (2004).The morality of socio-scientific issues:Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education,2004,88(1):4-27.
② Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York:Cambridge University Press.
③ Gelder, T., Bissett, MCumming, G. (2004). Cultivating expertise in informal reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology.2004,52 (2):142-152.
④ Desautels, J.,& Larochelle, M.(1998) The Epistemology of Students:The Thingified'Nature of Scientific Knowledge. In Fraser, B.,& Tobin, K(Eds). International Handbook of Science Education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Kluwer. p115-126转引自：[美]约翰·华莱士,威廉·劳登编著,余翎玮等译.突破科学教学中的两难[M].台北：心理出版社.p42.
① [美]约翰·华莱士,威廉·劳登编著,余翎玮等译.突破科学教学中的两难[M].台北：心理出版社.p60-61.
② Mintzes,J., Wandersee,J,& Novak, J.(1998).Teaching Science for Understanding:A Human Constructivist View. San Diego:Academic Press.p262.
③ Tudge,J.,& Rogoff, B.(1989). Peer influences on cognitive development:Piagetian and Vygotskian Perspectives. In Bornstein, M.,& Bruner, J.(Eds.). Interaction in Human development. Hillsdale, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum. P17-40.
④ Tudge,J.,& Winterhoff, P.(1993). Vygotsky, Piaget, and Bandura:Perspectives on the relations between the social world and cognitive development. Human Development,36,61-81.
① [瑞士]J·皮亚杰著,吴国宏,钱文译.关于矛盾的研究[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2005.
② 莱斯利·P·斯特弗,杰里·盖尔编.高文等译.教育中的建构主义[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2002：10.
③ 转引自：钟启泉.知识建构与教学创新——社会建构主义知识论及其启示[J].全球教育展望,2006,8.
④ 丁邦平.国际科学教育导论[M].太原：山西教育出版社,2002：205-231.
⑤ Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, P.,& Gertzog, W. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception:Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education,66(2):211-227.
⑥ Ibid.
① Wertsch, J.(1991). Voices of the mind. Cambridge. MA:Harvard University Press.
② 转引自：Mintzes,J., Wandersee,J,& Novak, J.(1998).Teaching Science for Understanding:A Human Constructivist View. San Diego:Academic Press.p264.
③ 莱斯利·P·斯特弗,杰里·盖尔编.高文等译.教育中的建构主义[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2002：28.
④ 高文.教学模式论fM].上海：上海教育出版社,2002：386.
⑤ [苏]维果茨基著,余震球译.维果茨基教育论著选[M].北京：人民教育出版社.2005.
① Mintzes,J., Wandersee,J,& Novak, J.(1998).Teaching Science for Understanding:A Human Constructivist View. San Diego:Academic Press.p261-266.
② 钟启泉.知识建构与教学创新——社会建构主义知识论及其启示[J].全球教育展望,2006,8.
③ 同上.
① 莱斯利·P·斯特弗,杰里·盖尔编.高文等译.教育中的建构主义[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2002：24.
② 俄罗斯学者巴赫金(M.M. Bakhtim,或译巴赫汀)在其对话理论中提到了“众声喧哗”一词,意指文化、语言的多样性、多元化现象。正是在各种声音交错之中,人们进行着对话、沟通。在巴赫金看来,众声喧哗是必然的,也是必要的。
③ 转引自：[美]肖恩·格林,拉塞尔·晏尼,布鲁斯·布里顿著.熊召弟等译.科学学习心理学[M].台北：心理出版社.2006：4-5.
④ 钟启泉.学业评价：省思与改革——以日本高中理科的“学习评价”改革为例[J].
① [苏]维果茨基著,余震球译.维果茨基教育论著选[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2005：85
② [英]戴维·伯姆著,王松涛译.论对话[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2004：序
③ 同上,10.
① 转引自：[美]马格丽特·赫姆莉、帕特丽夏F.卡利尼编,仲建维译.从另一个视角看：儿童的力量和标准——“展望中心”之儿童叙事评论.北京：高等教育出版社,2005：204.
② [俄]米伊尔·巴赫金著,李辉凡等译.巴赫金全集(第二卷)[M].石家庄：河北教育出版社,1998：386-452.
③ 同①,205.
④ 同①,205-206.
① [美]理查德·施穆克,帕特里夏·施穆克著.廖珊、郭建鹏等译.班级中的群体化过程(第八版)[M].北京：中国轻工业出版社,2006：98.
① [美]理查德·施穆克,帕特里夏·施穆克著.廖珊、郭建鹏等译.班级中的群体化过程(第八版)[M].北京：中国轻工业出版社,2006：97.
② Verheij, B. (2005). Evaluating argument based on Toulmin's scheme. Argumentations,19, 347-371.
① Pontecorvo, C.,& Girardet, H. (1993). Arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics. Cognition and Instruction.11,365-359.
② Wassermann, S.,& J.W. George Ivany.(1996). The new teaching elementary science. New York:Teachers college Press, Columbia University. P25.
③ Kuhn, D.,& Felton, M. (2000). Paper Presented at the Winter Conference on Discourse, Text, and Cognition. Jackson Hole WY.
① Sandoval, W. A.,& Reiser, B. J.(2004). Explanation-driven inquiry:integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education,88,342-375.
② [美]肖恩·格林,拉塞尔·晏尼,布鲁斯·布里顿著.熊召弟等译.科学学习心理学[M].台北：心理出版社.2006：276-280.
③ Vosniadou, S.& Ioannides, C.(1998). From conceptual development to science education:a psychological point of view. International Journal of Science Education,20(10),1213-1230.
① [美]美国科学促进协会编,中国科学技术协会译.科学素养的基础[M].北京：科学普及出版社,2001：9.
② 转引自：武宏志、周建武编著.批判性思维——论证逻辑的视角[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010：1.
① Ennis, R. H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking disposition and abilities. In J. Baron & R. Sternberg (Eds.).Teaching thinking skills:Theory and practice. New York:Freemen.9-26.
① Dick, R. D. (1991). An empirical taxonomy of critical thinking. Journal of Instructional Psychology,18,79-92.
② 转引自：武宏志、周建武编著.批判性思维——论证逻辑的视角[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010：11.
① Facione, P. Critical Thinking:A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction (executive summary).In the Delphi Report. Millbrae, CA:California Academic in Press.1990.
① 钟启泉.“批判性思维”及其教学[J].全球教育展望,2002,1：34-38.
① Wassermann, S.,& J.W. George Ivany.(1996). The new teaching elementary science. New York:Teachers college Press, Columbia University. p21.
① Raths, L. E., et al.(1986).Teaching for thinking:theory, strategies,& activities for the classroom. New York:Teachers college press, Columbia University. p24-30.
① 转引自：Wassermann, S.,& J.W. George Ivany.(1996). The new teaching elementary science. New York:Teachers college Press, Columbia University.
① Jimenez-Aleixandre M. P.(2007).Designing argumentation learning environments. In Erduran., S.,& Jimenez-Aleixandre M. P. (Eds.), Argumentation in science education. Dordewcht, The Netherlands:Springer. p95.
① [日]佐藤正夫著,钟启泉译.教学原理[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2001：289.
① Jimenez-Aleixandre M. P.(2007).Designing argumentation learning environments. In Erduran., S.,& Jimenez-Aleixandre M. P. (Eds.), Argumentation in science education. Dordewcht, The Netherlands:Springer. p96-98.
① 钟启泉.”学习场域”的生成与教师角色[J].上海教育科研,2004,9.
① Duit, R.,& Treagust, D.(1998). Learning in science:From behaviourism towards social constructivism and beyond. In Fraser, B.,& Tobin, K(Eds.).International handbook of science education. Dordrecht, NL:Kluwer. p3-25.
② Wassermann, S.,& J.W. George Ivany.(1996). The new teaching elementary science. New York:Teachers college Press, Columbia University.p11-13.
① [美]艾伦·多丽丝著,何厘琦译.小科学家：儿童学习探索周遭的世界[M].台北：心理出版社,2003：15.
② American Association for the Advancement of Science.(1989).Science for all Americans. Washington, DC:Author.p14.
① 转引自：施良方著.学习论——学习心理学的理论与原理[M].北京：人民教育出版社,1994：232.
② Glaser, R. (1984). Education and thinking:The role of knowledge. American Psychologist, 39(2),93-104.
③ Metz, K. (1998). Scientific inquiry within reach of young children. In Fraser, B.,& Tobin, K. (Eds.). International handbook of science education:Learning. Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publishers. p81-96.
① Duschl, R.,& Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse. Studies in Science Education,38,39-72.
② Osborne, J.,Erduran, S., Simon, S.,& Monk, M.(2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41(10),994-1020.
③ Jimenez-Aleixandre M. P.(2007).Designing argumentation learning environments. In Erduran., S.,& Jimenez-Aleixandre M. P. (Eds.), Argumentation in science education. Dordewcht, The Netherlands:Springer. p101-102.
④ 转引自Jimenez-Aleixandre M. P.(2007).Designing argumentation learning environments. In Erduran., S.,& Jimenez-Aleixandre M. P. (Eds.), Argumentation in science education. Dordewcht, The Netherlands:Springer. p101.
① 丁邦平.国际科学教育导论[M].太原：山西教育出版社,2002：207.
① [美]约翰·华莱士,威廉·劳登编著,余翎玮等译.突破科学教学中的两难[M].台北：心理出版社.p25-27.
① Clement, J. (1982). students'preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics 50:66-71.
② Minstrell., J. (1982). Explaining the "at rest" condition of an object. The Physics Teacher,20(1), 10-14.
③ Mintzes,J., Wandersee,J,& Novak, J.(1998).Teaching Science for Understanding:A Human Constructivist View. San Diego:Academic Press. P75-76.
① Duit.(1995).The constructivist view:A fashionable and fruitful paradigm for science education research and practice. In L.P. Steffe & J. Gale(eds). Constructivism in Education. Hillside: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.p271-286.
② 蔡铁权、姜旭英、胡玫著.概念转变的科学教学[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2009：242.
① [美]肖恩·格林,拉塞尔·晏尼,布鲁斯·布里顿著.熊召弟等译.科学学习心理学[M].台北：心理出版社.2006：65.
① [美]肖恩·格林,拉塞尔·晏尼,布鲁斯·布里顿著.熊召弟等译.科学学习心理学[M].台北：心理出版社.2006：74-75.
① Duit.(1995).The constructivist view:A fashionable and fruitful paradigm for science education research and practice. In L.P. Steffe & J. Gale(eds). Constructivism in Education. Hillside: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.p271-286.
② [美]兰本达、P.E.布莱克伍德、P.下.布兰德温著,陈德彰、张泰金译.小学科学教育的“探究—研讨”教学法[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2008：27-29.
① [日]佐藤正夫著,钟启泉译.教学原理[M].北京：教育科学出版社.2001：270.
① Nussbaum, E. M.,& Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology,28,384-395.
② Dole,J., Sinatra, G.(1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist,33(2/3:109-28.
① [美]肖恩·格林,拉塞尔·晏尼,布鲁斯·布里顿著.熊召弟等译.科学学习心理学[M].台北：心理出版社.2006：166-168.
① Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues:A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41(5),513-536.
② Lee,H., Witz., K.(2009).Science inspiration for teaching socio-scientific issues:Disconnection with reform efforts. International Journal of Science education,31(7),931-960.
③ Sadler, T.,& Zeidler, D., (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socio-scientific issues:Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education,89(1),71-93.
① Oulton, C., Dillon, J.,& Grace, M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education,19,411-423.
② American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York:Oxford University Press.
③ National Research Council.(1996).National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
④ Kolst(?), S. D. (2000):Consensus Projects:Teaching Science for Citizenship. International Studies in Science Education,22(6):645-664.
⑤ Kolsto, S. D. (2001):Scientific Literacy for Citizenship:Tools for Dealing with Controversial Socio-Scientific Issues. Science Education,85 (3),291-310
⑥ Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues:A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41(5),513-536.
① Fuglsang L. (2001).Three Perspective in STS in the Policy Context. In Cutcliffe S.&Mitcham &Mitcham C. (Eds.) Visions of STS:Counter Points in Science, Technology, and Science Studies. Albany, New York:State University of New York Press.p12.
① Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues:A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41,513-536.
② Oulton, C., Dillon, J.,& Grace, M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education,19,411-423.
③ Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education,28,1201-1224.
④ 刘湘瑶、李丽菁和蔡今中.科学认识观与社会性科学议题抉择判断之相关性探讨[J].科学教育学刊,2007(15),335-356.
① Dawson, V. (2001). Addressing controversial issues in secondary school science. Australian Science Teachers' Journal,47(4),38-44.
② Varelas, M., Pappas, C., Kane, J., Arsenault, A., Hankes, J.,& Cowan, B. (2008). Urban primary-grade children think and talk science:Curricular and instructional practices that nurture participation and argumentation. Science Education,92,65-95.
① National Research Council.(1996).National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
② Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S.,& Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,46,77-101.
③ Dawson, V.,& Venville, G. (2008). High-school students' informal reasoning and argumentation about biotechnology:An indicator of scientific literacy?. International Journal of Science Education,30,1-25.
④ Sadler, T. D.,& Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific Argumentation:The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education,28,1463-1488.
⑤ Sadler, T. D.,& Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,42,112-138.
⑥ Aikenhead, G (2001). Integrating western and aboriginal sciences:Cross-cultural science teaching. Research in Science Teaching,31,337-355.
① 转引自：钟启泉.综合学习时代的课程论：日本教育学者木下百合子教授访谈[J].教育科学论坛,2006,7.
② Oulton, C., Dillon, J.,& Grace, M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education,19,411-423.
③ von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J.,& Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue:Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge, Journal of Research in Science Teaching,45(1),101-131.
① Erduran, S.,& Jime nex-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in Science Education: Perspective from Classroom-Base Research. Springer Press.
② 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.
③ Sadler, T. D.,& Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific Argumentation:The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education,28,1463-1488.
④ Clark, D. B.,& Sampson, V. D. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality, Journal of Research in Science Teaching,45(3),293-321.
⑤ Chan, C. K. K. (2001). Peer collaboration and discourse patterns in learning from incompatible information. Instructional Science,29,443-479.
⑥ Van Amelsvoort, M., Andriessen, J.,& Kanselaar, G. (2007). Representational tools in computer-supported collaborative argumentation-based learning:How dyads work with constructed and inspected argumentative diagrams. Journal of the Learning Sciences,16,4, 485-522.
① Pagano, J.(1988). Teaching women. Educational Theory,39,321-340.
② 林树声.从争议性科技议题的教学设计和实践中诠释科学教师的角色——个案研究[J].科学教育学刊,2006,14(3)：237-255.
① [日]佐藤学著,钟启泉译.学校的挑战：创建学习共同体[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2010：2-3.
② 钟启泉.知识建构和教学创新——社会建构主义知识论及其启示[J].全球教育展望,2006,(8).
① [美]迈克·黑尔、伊莉沙白·斯蒂著,刘雅译.学生为中心的课堂讨论[M].北京：中国轻工业出版社,2009：23.
① [日]佐藤学著,钟启泉、陈静静译.教师的挑战：宁静的课堂革命[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2012：5.
① [英]戴维·伯姆著,王松涛译.论对话[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2004：9.
① [美]J·莱夫、E·温格著,王文静译.情境学习：合法的边缘性参与.上海：华东师范大学出版社,2004：4.
① 马格丽特·赫姆莉、帕特丽夏F.卡利尼编,仲建维译.从另一个视角看：儿童的力量和标准——“展望中心”之儿童叙事评论.北京：高等教育出版社,2005：208.
① Zeidler, D. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education,81,483-496.
② Kolst(?), S. D. (2006). Science students' critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education,90,632-655.
① [加]马克斯·范梅南著,李树英译.教学机智——教育智慧的意蕴[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2001.
① 佐藤学著,钟启泉、陈静静译.教师的挑战：宁静的课堂革命[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2012：125.
① 帕克·帕尔默著,吴国珍、余巍等译.教学勇气：漫步教师心灵[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2005：134-135.
[1]爱因斯坦著.许良英等译.爱因斯坦文集第1卷[M].北京：商务印书馆,2010.
[2]爱因斯坦著.许良英等译.爱因斯坦文集第3卷[M].北京：商务印书馆,2010.
[3]蔡俊彦.以认知学徒制网络系统促进论证能力、概念学习与批判思考成效之研究[D].台湾：高雄师范大学,2008.
[4]蔡佩君.融入竞争理论的论证取向教学提升学生的论证能力、学习动机与自我效能之研究[D].台湾：高雄师范大学,2007.
[5]蔡铁权、姜旭英、胡玫著.概念转变的科学教学[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2009.
[6]曹程.大学生论证思考能力的调查分析[D].杭州：杭州师范大学,2012.
[7]陈君玲.高一学生的因果推理与论证能力关系之探讨[D].台湾：高雄师范大学,2009.
[8]陈敬典.探讨竞争解释的论证取向教学策略对国二学生论证能力与教室环境知觉之影响[D].台湾：高雄师范大学,2007.
[9]陈坤源.提升国小学童论证能力之研究[D].台湾：花莲教育大学,2006.
[10]陈文正.国小高年级学童的论证学习在科学解释合理性判断之效应探讨[D].台湾：东华大学,2011.
[11]陈颖志、曾敬梅和张文华.探讨教师角色在促进国小学童论证表现的改变——以启发式科学写作教学(SWH)为情境的四年个案研究[J].科学教育月刊(台湾),2010,(5).
[12]丁邦平.国际科学教育导论[M].太原：山西教育出版社,2002.
[13]丁信中.青年学生于理论竞争论证过程中对其支持理论局限的觉察[D].高雄：台湾高雄师范大学.2004.
[14][俄]米伊尔·巴赫金著,李辉凡等译.巴赫金全集(第二卷)[M].石家庄：河北教育出版社,1998.
[15][法]莫里斯·梅洛-庞蒂著,姜志辉译.知觉现象学[M].北京：商务印书馆,2001.
[16]高文.教学模式论[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2002.
[17]葛乐飞.小组合作学习对科学论证能力培养的影响研究[D].上海：上海师范大学,2012.
[18][古希腊]柏拉图著,杨绛译.斐多——柏拉图对话录[M].北京：中国国际广播出版社,2012.
[19]何嘉媛、刘恩山.论证式教学策略的发展[J].生物学通报,2012,(5)
[20]黄柏鸿.提升国小六年级学生论证能力之行动研究——以社会性科学议题为例[D].台湾：嘉义大学,2006.
[21]黄翎斐.教学策略对论证形成的影响[D].台北：台湾师范大学,2004.
[22]黄翎斐,胡瑞萍.论证与科学教育的理论与实务[J].科学教育月刊,2006,(9).
[23][加]马克斯·范梅南著,李树英译.教学机智——教育智慧的意蕴[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2002.
[24][加]马克斯·范梅南著,宋广文等译.生活体验研究——人文科学视野中的教育学[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2003.
[25]孔企平.教学研究中的几个基本问题——兼谈课堂学习理论的新发展[J],全球教育展望,2005,3.
[26]莱斯利·P·斯特弗,杰里·盖尔编.高文等译.教育中的建构主义[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2002.
[27]李建华.科学哲学[M].北京：中共中央党校出版社,2004.
[28]林丽玲.从后现代课程理念下设计沟通论证之教学研究——以国中演化单元为例[D].台湾：高雄师范大学,2003.
[29]林树声.从争议性科技议题的教学设计和实践中诠释科学教师的角色——个案研究[J].科学教育学刊(台湾),2006,(3).
[30]李雁冰.科学探究、科学素养与科学教育[J].全球教育展望,2008,12.
[31]林燕文.学童在论证导向的探究活动中其科学概念理解与论述策略之研究[D].台湾：高雄师范大学,2007.
[32]林裕仁.论证教学之有经验与生手教师的教学设计、师生互动与教学成效[D].台湾：高雄师范大学,2010.
[33]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,(9).
[34]林志能.国小学童在不同学习情境中论证能力表现之研究[D].台湾：高雄师范大学,2011.
[35]刘湘瑶、李丽菁和蔡今中.科学认识观与社会性科学议题抉择判断之相关性探讨[J].科学教育学刊(台湾),2007,(15).
[36][美]阿瑟·A·卡琳、乔尔·E·巴斯、特丽·L·康坦特著,张军霞等译.教作为探究的科学[M].北京：人民教育出版社.2009.
[37][美国]安东·罗森著,余翎玮等译.学习、发展和发现的神经学基础：科学和数学教学的启示[M].台北：高等教育出版社,2007.
[38][美]爱莉诺·达克沃斯主编.张华、仲建维、宋时春译.“多多益善”——倾听学习者解释[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2004.
[39][美]艾伦·多丽丝著,何厘琦译.小科学家：儿童学习探索周遭的世界[M].台北：心理出版社,2003.
[40][美]伯纳·派顿著,黄煜文译.身边的逻辑学[M].北京：中信出版社,2011.
[41][美]丹尼尔·坦纳、劳雷尔·坦纳著,崔允漷等译.学校课程史[M].北京：教育科学出版 社,2006.
[42][美]布鲁克·诺埃尔·摩尔、理查德·帕克著,朱素梅译.批判性思维——带你走出思维的误区[M].北京：机械工业出版社,2012.
[43][美]丹尼斯·麦克伦尼著,赵明燕译.简单逻辑学[M].太原：山西教育出版社,2011.
[44][美]戴维·H·乔纳森主编,郑太年、任友群译.学习环境的理论基础[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2002.
[45]马艳苹.3～6岁幼儿非形式推理能力的发生、发展及家庭和幼儿园影响因素的研究[D].大连：辽宁师范大学,2009.
[46][美]弗拉维尔等著.邓赐平、刘明译.认知发展[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2002.
[47][美]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,罗星凯等译.探究——小学科学教学的思想、观点与策略[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2003.
[48][美]国家研究理事会、大学科学教育委员会著,熊作勇译.科学教学创新手册[M].北京：科学普及出版社,2005.
[49][美]国家研究理事会科学、数学及技术教育中心,《国家科学教育标准》科学探探究附属读物编委会著,罗星凯等译.科学探究与国家科学教育标准——教与学的指南[M].北京：科学普及出版社,2004.
[50][美]吉恩·哈兰、玛丽·瑞夫金著,张宪冰等译.儿童早期的科学经验——一种认知与情感整合的方式[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2006.
[51][美]J·莱夫、E·温格著,王文静译.情境学习：合法的边缘性参与[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2004.
[52][美]克里斯汀·夏洛、劳拉·布里坦著,高潇怡等译.儿童像科学家一样——儿童科学教育的建构主义方法[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2006.
[53][美]科学促进协会著,中国科学技术协会译.科学素养的基准[M].北京：科学普及出版社,2001.
[54][美]科学促进协会著,中国科学技术协会译.面向全体美国人的科学[M].北京：科学普及出版社,2001.
[55][美]科学促进协会著,中国科学技术协会译.科学素养的设计[M].北京：科学普及出版社,2005.
[56][美]科学促进协会著,中国科学技术协会译.科学素养的导航图[M].北京：科学普及出版社,2008.
[57][美]理查德·施穆克,帕特里夏·施穆克著.廖珊、郭建鹏等译.班级中的群体化过程(第八版)[M].北京：中国轻工业出版社,2006.
[58][美]罗博特·德莱尔著,方彤译.问题导向学习在课堂教学中的应用[M].北京：中国轻工业出版社.2004.
[59][美]罗纳德G·古德,郭冕成等译.儿童如何学科学——概念的形成和对教学的建议[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2005.
[60][美]马格丽特·赫姆莉、帕特丽夏F.卡利尼编,仲建维译.从另一个视角看：儿童的力量和标准——“展望中心”之儿童叙事评论.北京：高等教育出版社,2005.
[61][美]米歇尔·本特丽等著,洪秀敏等译.科学的探索者[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2008.
[62][美]尼尔·布朗,斯图尔特·基利著,赵玉芳等译.学会提问——批判性思维指[M].北京：中国轻工业出版社,2008.
[63][美]迈克·黑尔、伊莉沙白·斯蒂著,刘雅译.学生为中心的课堂讨论[M].北京：中国轻工业出版社,2009.
[64][美]帕克·帕尔默著,吴国珍、余巍等译.教学勇气：漫步教师心灵[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2005.
[65][美]帕特丽夏F.卡利尼著,张华等译.让学生强壮起来——关于儿童、学校和标准的不同观点[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2005.
[66][美]斯蒂芬·雷曼著,杨武金译.逻辑的力量(第三版)[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010.
[67][美]w.多尔.超越方法：教学即审美与精神的追求[J].华东师范大学学报(教育科学版),2003,3.
[68][美]文森特·赖安·拉吉罗著,马听译.思考的艺术：非凡大脑养成手册(第八版)[M].北京：世界图书出版公司,2010.
[69][美]肖恩·格林,拉塞尔·晏尼,布鲁斯·布里顿著.熊召弟等译.科学学习心理学[M].台北：心理出版社.2006.
[70][美]约翰·杜威著,赵祥麟、任钟印、吴志宏译.学校与社会·明日之学校(第2版)[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2005.
[71][美]亚历山德拉·温鲍姆著,郑丹丹译.探究式教学实践式指导[M].北京：中国轻工业出版社,2006.
[72][美]约翰·D·布兰思特等编著,程可拉等译.人是如何学习的——大脑、心理、经验及学校[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2002.
[73][美]约翰·华莱士,威廉·劳登编著,余翎玮等译.突破科学教学中的两难[M].台北：心理出版社.
[74]潘瑶珍.基于论证的科学教育[J].全球教育展望,2010,(6).
[75]潘瑶珍.科学教育中的论证教学[J].全球教育展望,2011, (2).
[76]《普通逻辑》编写组：普通逻辑(增订本)[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1993.
[77]任长松.探究式学习——学生知识的自主建构[M].北京：教育科学出版社.2005.
[78][日]佐藤正夫著,钟启泉译.教学原理[M].北京：教育科学出版社,20011.
[79][日]佐藤学著,李季湄译.静悄悄的革命——创造活动的、合作的、反思的综合学习课程[M].长春：长春出版社,2003.
[80][日]佐藤学著,钟启泉译.课程与教师[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2003.
[81][日]佐藤学著,钟启泉译.学校的挑战：创建学习共同体[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2010.
[82][日]佐藤学著,钟启泉、陈静静译.教师的挑战：宁静的课堂革命[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2012.
[83][瑞士]J·皮亚杰著,吴国宏,钱文译.关于矛盾的研究[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2005.
[84]施富吉.论证式探究教学对八年级学生浮力概念改变与论证能力影响之研究[D].台湾：“国立”彰化师范大学,2009.
[85]施良方著.学习论——学习心理学的理论与原理[M].北京：人民教育出版社,1994.
[86]苏圣凯.国小自然科教师融入论证教学理念前后之话语类别探究[D].台湾：“国立”嘉义大学,2009.
[87][苏]维果茨基著,余震球译.维果茨基教育论著选[M].北京：人民教育出版社.2005.
[88]王晶莹.中美理科教师对科学探究及其教学的认识[D].上海：华东师范大学.2009.
[89]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,(10).
[90]吴淑娟.电子废弃物教学模组对国小五年级学童批判思考能力与论证能力之影响.台湾：台北市立教育大学,2009.
[91]武宏志、周建武编著.批判性思维——论证逻辑的视角[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010.
[92][西]拉蒙·弗莱夏著,温建平译.分享语言：对话学习的理论与实践[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2005.
[93]徐学福.美国探究教学研究30年[J].全球教育展望.2001,(8).
[94]谢耘.论证概念的理论探究[D].上海：华东师范大学.2006.
[95]鄢超云.朴素物理理论与儿童科学教育[M].南京：江苏教育出版社,2007.
[96]杨宁芳.图尔明论证逻辑思想研究[M].北京：人民出版社,2012.
[97][英]安东尼·韦斯顿著,卿松竹译.论证是一门学问——如何让你的观点有说服力[M].北京：新华出版社,2011.
[98][英]戴维·伯姆著,王松涛译.论对话[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2004.
[99][英]怀特海著,徐汝舟译.教育的目的[M].北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店.2002.
[100][英]罗莎琳德等主编,刘小玲译.儿童的科学前概念[M].上海：科技教育出版社,2008.
[101][英]奈杰尔·劳森著,戴黍、李振亮译.呼唤理性：全球变暖的冷思考[M].北京：社会 科学文献出版社,2011.
[102][英]温·哈伦编著.韦钰译.科学教育的原则和大概念.北京：科学普及出版社,2011.
[103][74]袁运开.科学课程标准的特点和我们的认识[J].全球教育展望,2002,(2).
[104]钟汉峰.高一学生科学问题组对讨论中的同伴关系与论证方式的影响分析[D].台北：台湾师范大学,2001.
[105]张红霞.教育科学研究方法[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2009.
[106]张继华.科学探究推理研究[D].重庆：西南师范大学,2012.
[107]张绫娟.以POE策略设计推理活动探讨国小高年级学童的推理思考与渗透作用概念.台湾：国立台中教育大学,2011.
[108]张淑女.从认识论的观点探究大学生论证思考之能力与模式[D].台湾：国立台湾师范大学,2004.
[109]中华人民共和国教育部制定.全日制义务教育科学(7-9年级)课程标准(实验稿)[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社.2001.
[110]中华人民共和国教育部制定.义务教育初中科学课程标准(2011版)[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社.2012.
[111]钟启泉.探究学习与理科教学[J].教育研究,1986,(7)
[112]钟启泉.“批判性思维”及其教学[J].全球教育展望,2002,(1).
[113]钟启泉.”学习场域”的生成与教师角色[J].上海教育科研,2004,(9).
[114]钟启泉.综合学习时代的课程论：日本教育学者木下百合子教授访谈[J].教育科学论坛,2006,(7).
[115]钟启泉.知识建构与教学创新——社会建构主义知识论及其启示[J].全球教育展望,2006,(8).
[116]钟启泉.“知识教学”辨[J].上海教育科研,2007,(4)
[117]钟启泉.学业评价：省思与改革——以日本高中理科的“学习评价”改革为例[J].上海教育科研,2013,(1)
[118]钟启泉.教育的挑战[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2008.
[119]钟启泉.课程的逻辑[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2008.
[121]钟启泉.对话教育：国际视野与本土行动[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2006.
[122]钟启泉等编.多维视角下的教育理论与思潮[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2004.
[123]郑葳.学习共同体——文化生态学习环境的理想架构[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2007.
[124]周红霞.理科教学中科学推理的缺失与思考[D].长春：东北师范大学,2008.
[1]Aikenhead, G. (2001). Integrating western and aboriginal sciences:Cross-cultural science teaching. Research in Science Teaching,31, (3).
[2]American Association for the Advancement of Science.(1989).Science for all Americans. Washington, DC:American Association for the Advancement of Science.
[3]American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).(2001).Atlas of Science literacy. Washington, DC:National Science Teachers Association (NSTA).
[4]Andrew, J., Robottom, I. (2001).Science and ethics:some issue for education. Science Education,85, (6).
[5]Bell, R.,& Lederman, N. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education,87, (3).
[6]Belland, B., Glazewski, K.,& Richardson, J. (2008). A scaffolding framework to support the construction of evidence-based arguments among middle school students. Educational Technology Research & Development,56,(4).
[7]Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and Thinking:A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[8]Bleicher, R., Tobin, K,& McRobbie, C. (2003). Opportunities to talk science in a high school chemistry classroom. Research in Science Education,33, (3).
[9]Boulter, C.,& Gilbert, J. (1995). Argument and science education. In A. Costello and S. Mitchell (Eds.), Competing and consensual voices:The theory and practice of argumentation. Longman(UK):Multilingual Matters.
[10]Bricker, A. L.,& Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education,92, (3).
[11]Bybee, R. Scientific and Engineering Practices in K-12 Classrooms:Understanding a Framework for K-12 Science Education. Science Teacher,78,(9).
[12]Chan, C. K. K. (2001). Peer collaboration and discourse patterns in learning from incompatible information. Instructional Science,29, (6).
[13]Childs, C., McNicholl, J. (2007). Investigating the relationship between subject content knowledge and pedagogical practice through the analysis of classroom discourse. International Journal of Science Education,29, (13).
[14]Chin, C.(2006). Classroom Interaction in Science:Teacher questioning and feed back to students' responses. International Journal of Science education,28, (11).
[15]Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms:Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,44, (6).
[16]Clark D., Sampson, V. (2005) Analyzing the quality of argumentation supported by personally-seeded discussions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Computer Supported CollaborativeLearning (CSCL) Conference, Taipei
[17]Clark, D., Sampson, V., Weinberger, A.,& Erkens, G. (2007). Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments, Educational Psychology Review,19,(3).
[18]Clark, D.,& Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality, Journal of Research in Science Teaching,45, (3).
[19]Clement, J. (1982). Students'preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics 50,(1).
[20]Dawson, V. (2001). Addressing controversial issues in secondary school science. Australian Science Teachers'Journal,47, (4).
[21]Dawson, V.,& Venville, G. (2008). High-school students'informal reasoning and argumentation about biotechnology:An indicator of scientific literacy?. International Journal of Science Education,31, (11).
[22]Department for Education and Employment,& Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (1999). Science:the National program for England(Key Stages 1-4). London.
[23]De Vries, E., Lund, K.,& Baker, M.J. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions.The Journal of the Learning Sciences,11, (1).
[24]Dewey, J.(1997).How we think. New York:Dover Publicaitons, Inc.
[25]Dick, R. D. (1991). An empirical taxonomy of critical thinking. Journal of Instructional Psychology,18,(2).
[26]Dole,J., Sinatra, G.(1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist,33, (2/3)
[27]Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E.,& Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher,23,(7).
[28]Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R.,& Scott. P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Philadephia:Open University Press.
[29]Driver, R., Newton, P.,& Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education,84, (3).
[30]Duit.(1995).The constructivist view:A fashionable and fruitful paradigm for science education research and practice. In L.P. Steffe & J. Gale(eds). Constructivism in Education. Hillside:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[31]Duit, R.,& Treagust, D.(1998). Learning in science:From behaviourism towards social constructivism and beyond. In Fraser, B.,& Tobin, K(Eds.). International handbook of science education. Dordrecht, NL:Kluwer.
[32]Duschl, C. (2000). Making the nature of science explicit. In R. Millar, L.,& Osborne, J. (Eds.), Improving science education:The contribution of research. Buckingham, UK:Open University Press.
[33]Duschl, R,& Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education,38.
[34]Eisenberg,A.,& Garvey, G.(1981). Children's use of verbal strategies in resolving conflicts. Discourse Processes,4, (2).
[35]Eichinger, D., Anderson, C., Palincsar, A.,& David, Y. M. (1991). An illustration of the roles of content knowledge, scientific argument, and social norms in collaborative problem solving. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
[36]Emeren, F. H. V. (1995). A world of difference:The rich state of argumentation theory. Informal Logic,17, (2).
[37]Engle, A.,& Conant, R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement:Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction,20, (4).
[38]Ennis, R. H. (1987). Ataxonomy of critical thinking disposition and abilities. In J. Baron & R. Sternberg (Eds.).Teaching thinking skills:Theory and practice. New York:Freemen.
[39]Erduran, S., Simon, S.,& Osborne, J. (2004). TApping into Argumentation:Development in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education,88, (6).
[40]Erduran.,S.,& Jimenez-Aleixandre M. P. (Eds.).(2007), Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research.Springer.
[41]Erickson, F.(1986).Qualitative Methods in Research on Teaching. In M.C.Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. New York, NY:Macmillan.
[42]Facione, P. (1990) Critical Thinking:A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction (executive summary).In the Delphi Report. Millbrae, CA:California Academic in Press.
[43]Fleming R. (1986). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, part Ⅰ:Social cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,23, (8).
[44]Fleming, R. (1986).Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, part Ⅱ:Nonsocial cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,23, (8).
[45]Fraser, B.,& Tobin, K. (Eds.).(1998). International handbook of science education. Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[46]Gelder, T., Bissett, MCumming, G. (2004). Cultivating expertise in informal reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology,52, (2).
[47]Glaser, R. (1984). Education and thinking:The role of knowledge. American Psychologist,39, (2).
[48]Hahn, U.,& Oaksford, M. (2007), The rationality of informal argumentation:a Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies, Psychological Review,114, (3).
[49]Hodson, D. (1993).Re-thinking old ways:Towards a more critical approach to practical work in school science. Studies in science education,22, (1)
[50]Hood, B.(1998). Gravity does rule for falling events. Developmental Science,1,(1).
[51]Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Jaspers, J.,& Kanselaar, G. (2006). Visualizing participation to facilitate argumentation. Proceedings of the 7th Internet Conference of the Learning Sciences. Bloomington, IN.
[52]Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Rodriguez, A.,& Duschl, R. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science":Argument in high school genetics. Science Education,84, (6).
[53]Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.P & Pereiro-Munoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision-making about environmental management. International journal of science education,24, (11).
[54]Kanari, Z.,& Millar, R. (2004). Reasoning from data:how students collect and interpret data in science investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41, (7).
[55]Kelly, G.,& Crawford, T. (1997). An ethnographic investigation of the discourse processes of school science. Science Education,81, (5).
[56]Kelly G, Druker. S.& Chen. C. (1998). Students'reasoning about electricity:combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education,20, (7).
[57]Kelly, G.,& Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music:Constructing science as sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,36, (8).
[58]Kelly, G.,& Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument:an analysis of university oceanography students'use of evidence in writing. Science Education,86, (3).
[59]Kittleson, J.,& Southerland, S. (2004). The role of discourse in group knowledge construction:a case study of engineering students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41,(3).
[60]Klahr, D.,& Dunbar, K.(1988). Dual search space during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science,12,(1).
[61]Kuhn D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York:Cambridge University Press.
[62]Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review,62, (2).
[63]Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument:Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education,77, (3).
[64]Kuhn, D.,& Lao, J. (1998). Contemplation and conceptual change:Integrating perspectives from social and cognitive psychology. Developmental Review,18, (2).
[65]Kuhn, D., Cheney, R.,& Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development,15, (3).
[66]Kuhn, D. (2001). How do people know?. Psychological Science,12, (1).>
[67]Kuhn, D.,& Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development,74, (5).
[68]Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Boston:Harvard University Press.
[69]Kuhn, D.,& Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating own and other perspectives in argujnent. Thinking and Reasoning,13,(2).
[70]Lansdown B., Blackwood, P.,& Brandwein, P.(1971).Teaching Elementary Science Through Investigation and Colloquium. New York:Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., New York.
[71]Lawson, A. E. (2000). How do humans acquire knowledge, and what does that imply about the nature of knowledge? Science & Education,9,(6).
[72]Lawson, A. (2002). Sound and faulty arguments generated by preservice biology teachers when testing hypotheses involving unobservable entities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,39, (3).
[73]Lawson, A. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetic-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education,25, (11).
[74]Lawson, A. (2003). The neurological basis of learning, development and discovery: Implications for science and mathematics instruction. Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publishes.
[75]Lederman, N.(2007). Nature of science:past, present, and future. In Abell, S.,& Lederman, N(Eds.). Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum.
[76]Lee,H., Witz., K.(2009).Science inspiration for teaching socio-scientific issues: Disconnection with reform efforts. International Journal of Science education,31, (7).
[77]Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education,28, (10).
[78]Linn, M. (1982) Theoretical and Practical Significance of Formal Reasoning[J]. Journal of research in teaching,19, (9),
[79]Linn, M., Davis, E.,& Bell, P. (Eds.).(2004). Internet environment for science education. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
[80]Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science:Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ:Ablex.
[81]Lemke, J. L. (1998). Teaching all the language of science:Word, symbols, images and actions.[EB/OL].[20130913]. http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/education/ilemke/papers/barcelon.htm
[82]Kolst(?), S. D. (2000):Consensus Projects:Teaching Science for Citizenship. International Studies in Science Education,22, (6).
[83]Kolst(?), S.(2001). "To trust or not to trust,..."-pupils' ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education,23, (9).
[84]Kolsto, S. D. (2001):Scientific Literacy for Citizenship:Tools for Dealing with Controversial Socio-Scientific Issues. Science Education,85, (3).
[85]Kolsto, S. D. (2006). Science students' critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education,90,(4).
[86]Korpan, C., Bisanz, G., Bisanz, J.,& Henderson, J. (1997). Assessing literacy in science: evaluation of scientific news briefs. Science Education,81, (5).
[87]Kortland K.(1996).An STS case study about students' decision making on the waste issue. ScienceEducation,80, (6).
[88]Lubben, F.,& Millar, R. (1996). Children's ideas about the reliability of experimental data. International Journal of Science Education,18, (8).
[89]Mason, L.,& Santi, M. (1994). Argumentation structure and metacognition in constructing shared knowledge at school. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
[90]Mason, L.,& Scirica, F. (2006). Prediction of students' argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding. Learning and Instruction,16, (5).
[91]Martin, A.,& Hand, B. (2007). Factors Affecting the Implementation of Argument in the Elementary Science Classroom.A Longitudeinal Case Study. Research of Science Education, 39,(1).
[92]McNeill, K. (2009). Teachers' use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Research of Science Education,93, (2).
[93]Means, M.& Voss, J. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction,14, (2).
[94]Metz, K. (1998). Scientific inquiry within reach of young children. In Fraser, B.,& Tobin, K. (Eds.). International handbook of science education:Learning. Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[95]Miller, J.,& Bartsch, K.(1997). The development of biological explanation:Are children vitalists? Developmental psychology,33, (1).
[96]Min-Hsien Lee, Ying-Tien Wu & Chin-Chung Tsai.(2009).Research trends in science education from 2003 to 2007:a content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education.31, (15).
[97]Minstrell., J. (1982). Explaining the "at rest" condition of an object. The Physics Teacher,20 (1).
[98]Mintzes,J.J, Wandersee,J.H,& Novak, J.D.(1998).Teaching Science for Understanding:A Human Constructivist View. San Diego:Academic Press.
[99]Mintzes,J, Wandersee, J.,& Novak, J. (Eds.).(1999). Assessing science understanding. California:A Harcourt Science and Technology Company Press..
[100]National Research Council.(2012).A Framework for K-12 Science Education:Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC:National Academy Press..
[101]National Research Council.(1996).National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
[102]Newton, P., Driver, R.,& Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education,21, (5).
[103]Niaz, M., Aguilera, D., Maza, A.,& Liendo,G. (2002). Arguments, contradictions, resistances, and conceptual change in students' understanding of atomic structure. Science Education,86, (4).
[104]Nickerson, R. (1991). Modes and models of informal reasoning:A commentary. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins& J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[105]Nussbaum, M. (2002). Scaffolding argumentation in the social studies classroom. Social Studies,93, (3).
[106]Nussbaum, E. M.,& Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary educational psychology,28,(3).
[107]OECD.(2006).The Programme for the International Student Assessment (PISA). Paris: OECD.
[108]OECD.(2007).PISATM2006 science competencies for tomorrow's world(volume 1: Analysis). Paris:OECD.
[109]OECD.(2010), PISA 2009 Results:What Students Know and Can Do-Student Performance in Reading, Mathematics and Science(Volume I). Paris:OECD.
[110]OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 Assessment and Analytical Framework:Mathematics, Reading, Science,Problem Solving and Financial Literacy. Paris:OECD.
[111]Osborne, J.,Erduran, S., Simon, S.,& Monk, M.(2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41, (10).
[112]Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S. (2004). Ideas, evidence and argument in science. In-service training pack, resource pack and video. London:Nuffield Foundation.
[113]Osborne, J.,& Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation:A necessary distinction? Science Education,95, (4).
[114]Oulton, C., Dillon, J.,& Grace, M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education,26, (4).
[115]Pagano, J.(1988). Teaching women. Educational Theory,38,(3).
[116]Patronis, P. T., Potari, D.,& Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students'argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue:Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education,21, (7).
[117]Pedretti E.(1999).Decision making and STS education:exploring scientific knowledge and social responsibility in schools and science centers through an issues-based approach. School Science and Mathematics,99, (4).
[118]Perkins, D, Faraday, M.,& Bushey, B. (1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins& J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education. Hillsdale, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum.
[119]Perkins D.(1985).Post-primary education has little impact upon informal reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology,77, (5).
[120]Pontecorvo, C.,& Girardet, H. (1993). Arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics. Cognition and Instruction.11,(3-4).
[121]Posner, G, Strike, K., Hewson, P.,& Gertzog, W. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception:Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education,66, (2).
[122]Raths et al.(1986).Teaching for thinking:theory, strategies,& activities for the classroom. New York:Teachers college press, Columbia University.
[123]Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B. K., Steinmuller, F.,& Leone, A. J. (2001). BGuILE:Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr, (Eds.), Cognition and instruction:Twenty-five years of progress. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
[124]Ricco, R. B. (2007). Individual differences in the analysis of informal reasoning fallacies. Contemporary Educational Psychology,32, (3).
[125]Rop, C. (2002). The meaning of student inquiry questions:a teacher beliefs and responses. International Journal of Science Education,24, (7).
[126]Russell, T. L. (1983). Analyzing arguments in science classroom discourse:Can teachers' questions distort scientific authority? Journal of Research in Science Teaching,20, (1).
[127]Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues:A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41, (5).
[128]Sadler, T.,& Zeidler, D. (2004).The morality of socio-scientific issues:Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education,88, (1).
[129]Sadler, T., Chambers, F.,& Zeidler, D. (2004).Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26, (4).
[130]Sadler, T.. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues:A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41, (5).
[131]Sadler, T.,& Zeidler, D., (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding sociorscientific issues:Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education,89, (1).
[132]Sadler, T.,& Zeidler, D. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,42, (1).
[133]Sadler, T.,& Fowler, S. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education,90, (6).
[134]Sadler, T. D.,& Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific Argumentation:The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education,28,(12).
[135]Sadler, T. (2006). Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education,17, (4).
[136]Sadler, T., Barab, S.,& Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscienfific inquiry?. Research in Science Education,37,(4).
[137]Sandoval, W.,& Reiser, B. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry:Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education,88, (3).
[138]Sarah Michaels, Andrew W. Shouse,& Heidi A. Schweingruber. (2007).Ready, Set, Science!:Putting Research to Work in K-8 Science Classrooms. Washington DC:the National Academies Press.
[139]Schwab, J.(1967). Biology teachers' handbook. New York:John Whiley & Sons, Inc.
[140]Simon, S., Erduran, S.,& Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation:Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education,28, (2-3).
[141]Simonneaux, L. (2001). Role-play or debate to promote students" argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis. International Journal of Science Education, 23, (9).
[142]Stein, N.,& Bernas, R. (1999). The early emergence of argumentative knowledge and skill. In J. Andriessen, J.,& Coirier, P (Eds.).Foundations of argumentative text processing. Amsterdam:Amsterdam University Press.
[143]Toulmin, S.(2003). The uses of argument(Updated Edition). London:Cambridge university press.
[144]Toulmin, S.(2001). Return to reason. Cambridge, MA:Harvard university press.
[145]Tudge,J.,& Rogoff, B.(1989). Peer influences on cognitive development:Piagetian and Vygotskian Perspectives. In Bornstein, M.,& Bruner, J.(Eds.). Interaction in Human development. Hillsdale, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum.
[146]Tudge,J.,& Winterhoff, P.(1993). Vygotsky, Piaget, and Bandura:Perspectives on the relations between the social world and cognitive development. Human Development,36,(2).
[147]Van Amelsvoort, M., Andriessen, J.,& Kanselaar, G. (2007). Representational tools in computer-supported collaborative argumentation-based learning:How dyads work with constructed and inspected argumentative diagrams. Journal of the Learning Sciences,16,(4).
[148]Varelas, M., Pappas, C., Kane, J., Arsenault, A., Hankes, J.,& Cowan, B. (2008). Urban primary-grade children think and talk science:Curricular and instructional practices that nurture participation and argumentation. Science Education,92, (1).
[149]Verheij, B. (2005). Evaluating argument based on Toulmin's scheme. Argumentations, 19,(3).
[150]Viiri, J.& Saari, H. (2006). Teacher talk patterns in science lessons:Use in teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education,17,(4).
[151]von Aufschnaiter, C, Erduran, S., Osborne, J.,& Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue:Case studies of how students'argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge, Journal of Research in Science Teaching,45, (1).
[152]Vosniadou, S.& Ioannides, C.(1998). From conceptual development to science education:a psychological point of view. International Journal of Science Education,20, (10),.
[153]Voss, J.,& Means, M. (1991). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning and Instruction,1,(4).
[154]Voss, J., Perkins, D.,& Segal. (Eds).(1991). Informal reasoning and education. Hillsdale, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Inc.
[155]Voss, J., Blais, J., Means, M. Greene, T., Ahwesh, F.(1986). Informal reasoning and subject matter knowledge in the solving of economic problems by naive and novice individuals. Cognition and Instruction,3, (2).
[156]Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., Fischer, F.,& Mandl, H. (2007). Scripting argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported learning environments. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl,& J. Haake (Eds.). Scripting computer-supported communication of knowledge-cognitive, computational and educational perspectives. New York:Springer.
[157]Wertsch, J.(1991). Voices of the mind. Cambridge. MA:Harvard University Press.
[158]Willard, C. A. (1989). A Theory of Argumentation. Tuscaloosa, AB:University of Alabama Press.
[159]Zeidler, D. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education,81,(4).
[160]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).
[161]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.
[162]Zohar, A. (2007). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker,& D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn:Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic.