Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education

• Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In R. K.Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 79-96). New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Baker, M. J. (2003). Computer-mediated argumentative interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific notions. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 47–78). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
• Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307- 359.
• Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797-817.
• Billett, S. (1996). Situated learning: Bridging sociocultural and cognitive theorising. Learning and Instruction, 6(3), 263-280.
• Blair, J. A., & Johnson, R. H. (1987). Argumentation as dialectical. Argumentation, 1, 41-56.
• Brown, A., & Campione, J. C. (1998). Designing a community of young learners: Theoretical and practical lessons. In N. M. Lambert & B. L. McCombs (Eds.), How students learn: Reforming schools through learner-centered education (pp. 153-186). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Buckley, B. C., & Boulter, C. (2000). Investigating the role of representations and expressed models in building mental models. In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 119-135). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Chi, M. T. H., & Roscoe, R. D. (2002). The process and challenges of conceptual change. In M. Limon & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 3-27). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Chin, C., & Teou, L. Y. (2009). Using concept cartoons in formative assessment: Scaffolding students' argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 31(10), 1307-1332.
• Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 293-321.
• Creswell, J. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. New Jersey: Pearson: Merrill Prentice Hall.
• Cross, D., Taasoobshirazi, G., Hendricks, S., & Hickey, D. T. (2008). Argumentation: A strategy for improving achievement and revealing scientific identities. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 837-861.
• Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
• Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 365- 395). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford.
• Duschl, R. A. (2008). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran and M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 155-179). The Netherlands: Springer.
• Duschl, A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
• Erduran, S. (2008). Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 47-69). The Netherlands: Springer
• 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.
• Eksin, H. & Ogan-Bekiroglu, F. (2013). Argumentation as a strategy for conceptual learning of dynamics. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 1939-1956.
• Garcia-Mila, M., & Andersen, C. (2008). Cognitive Foundations of Learning Argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 29-46). The Netherlands: Springer.
• Gibbons, J. D. (1993). Nonparametric Measures of Association. Newbury, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
• Greeno, J. G. (2006). Learning in activity. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 79-96). New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax & semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41-58). London: Academic Press.
• Hewson, M. G., & Hewson, P. W. (1993). Effect of instruction using students' prior knowledge and conceptual change strategies on science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(8), 731-743.
• Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (1999). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379- 432.
• Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodríguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792.
• Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 3-27). The Netherlands: Springer.
• John-Steiner, V. (2000). Creative collaboration. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849-871.
• Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Kuhn, D., Shaw, W. & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287-315.
• Mason, L. (1998). Sharing cognition to construct scientific knowledge in school context: The role of oral and written discourse. Instructional Science, 26, 359-389.
• McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191.
• Means, L.M., & Voss, J.F. (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.
• Naylor, S., Downing, B., & Keogh, B. (August, 2001). An empirical study of argumentation in primary science, using Concept Cartoons as the stimulus. Paper presented at the 3rd Conference of the European Science Education Research Association Conference, Thessaloniki, Greece.
• Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.
• Niaz, M., Aguilera, D., Maza, A., & Liendo, G. (2002). Arguments, contradictions, resistances, and conceptual change in students’ understanding of atomic structure. Science Education, 86, 505-525.
• Nussbaum, E. M. (2011). Argumentation, Dialogue Theory, and Probability Modeling: Alternative Frameworks for Argumentation Research in Education. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), 84-106.
• Nussbaum, E. M., & Bendixen, L. D. (2003). Approaching and avoiding arguments: The role of epistemological beliefs, need for cognition, and extraverted personality traits. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(4), 573-595.
• Nussbaum, M., & Sinatra, G. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 384-395.
• Ogan-Bekiroglu, F., & Eskin, H. (2012). Examination of the relationship between engagement in scientific argumentation and conceptual knowledge. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(6), 1415-1443.
• Okada, T., & Simon, H. A. (1997). Collaboration discovery in a scientific domain. Cognitive Science, 21(2), 109–146.
• Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Ideas, evidence and argument in science: In-service training pack, resource pack and video. London: Nuffield Foundation.
• Perkins, D. N., Farady, M. & Bushey, B. (1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins, J. Segal (eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 83-105). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Perret-Clermont, A., Perret, J.A., & Bell, N. (1991). The social construction of meaning and cognitive activity in elementary school children. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine & S. D. Teasley (Εds.), Perspectives on socially-shared cognition (pp. 41-62). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Process, 32(2-3), 155-175.
• Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986-1004.
• Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 89–99.
• Schwartz, D. L. (1995). The emergence of abstract representations in dyad problem solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 321–354.
• Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14.
• 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.
• Tavares, M. L., Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Mortimer, E. F. (2010). Articulation of conceptual knowledge and argumentation practices by high school students in evolution problems. Science and Education, 19, 573-598.
• Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Walton, D. (2000). The place of dialogue theory in logic, computer science and communication studies. Synthese, 123(3), 327–346.
• Wood, J. M. (2007). Understanding and computing Cohen’s Kappa: A tutorial. WebPsychEmpiricist. Retrieved from http://wpe.info/papers_table.html.
• von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J. & Simon, S. (2007). Argumentation and the learning of science. In R. Pinto. & D. Couso (Eds.), Contributions from science education research (pp. 377-388). The Netherlands: Springer.
• 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.
• Vosniadou, S. (1992). Designing curricula for conceptual restructuring: Lessons from the study of knowledge acquisition in astronomy. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED325327).
• 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.
• Zohar, A. (2008). Science Teacher Education and Professional Development in Argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 245-268). The Netherlands: Springer.

APA

Hakyolu, H., & Ogan-Bekiroglu, F. (2016). Interplay between Content Knowledge and Scientific Argumentation. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(12), 3005-3033. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.02319a

Vancouver

Hakyolu H, Ogan-Bekiroglu F. Interplay between Content Knowledge and Scientific Argumentation. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2016;12(12):3005-33. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.02319a

AMA

Hakyolu H, Ogan-Bekiroglu F. Interplay between Content Knowledge and Scientific Argumentation. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2016;12(12), 3005-3033. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.02319a

Chicago

Hakyolu, Hanife, and Feral Ogan-Bekiroglu. "Interplay between Content Knowledge and Scientific Argumentation". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2016 12 no. 12 (2016): 3005-3033. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.02319a

Harvard

Hakyolu, H., and Ogan-Bekiroglu, F. (2016). Interplay between Content Knowledge and Scientific Argumentation. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(12), pp. 3005-3033. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.02319a

MLA

Hakyolu, Hanife et al. "Interplay between Content Knowledge and Scientific Argumentation". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 12, no. 12, 2016, pp. 3005-3033. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.02319a