Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education

• Alexopoulou, E., & Driver, R. (1996). Small-group discussion in physics: Peer interaction modes in pairs and fours. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(10), 1099-1114.
• Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.
• Duschl, R., Ellenbogen, K., & Erduran, S. (1999, March). Promoting argumentation in middle school science classrooms: A Project SEPIA evaluation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED453050)
• Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in the science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.
• Eichinger, D. C., Anderson, C. W., Palincsar, A. S., & David, Y. M. (1991). An illustration of the roles of content knowledge, scientific argument and social norms in collaborative problemsolving. Paper presented at the AERA meeting, Chicago, IL.
• Eskin, H, & Ogan-Bekiroglu, F. (2007). Effects of promoting argumentation on students’ reasoning in physics. Proceedings of the 80th National Association for Research in Science Teaching Annual International Conference, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED498913)
• 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.
• Faltis, C. (1997). Case study methods in researching language and education. In N. H. Hornberger & D. Corson (Eds.). Encyclopedia of language and education: Research methods in language and education (volume 8) (pp. 145-152). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Hogan, K., & Fisherkeller, J. (1996). Representing students’ thinking about nutrient cycling in ecosystems: Bidimensional coding of a complex topic. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(9), 941-970.
• Jim´enez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, B. A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or Doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792
• 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. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harward Educational Review, 62(2), 155-178
• Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287-315
• Mason, L. (1998). Sharing cognition to construct shared knowledge in school context. The role of oral and written discourse. Instructional Science, 26, 359-389
• 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., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 384-395.
• Perret-Clermont, A. N., Perret, J. F., & Bell, N. (1991). The social construction of meaning and cognitive activity in elementary school children. In L. B. Resnick, J. Levine, & S. D. Behrend (Eds.), Perspectives in socially shared cognition (pp. 41-62). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986-1004.
• Williams, M. (2004). Generalized additive models. In M. S. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, & T. F. Liao (Eds.). The SAGE encyclopedia of social science research methods (volume 2) (pp. 420-421). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

APA

Eşkin, H., & Ogan-Bekiroğlu, F. (2009). Investigation of A Pattern Between Students’ Engagement in Argumentation and Their Science Content Knowledge: A Case Study. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 5(1), 63-70. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75257

Vancouver

Eşkin H, Ogan-Bekiroğlu F. Investigation of A Pattern Between Students’ Engagement in Argumentation and Their Science Content Knowledge: A Case Study. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2009;5(1):63-70. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75257

AMA

Eşkin H, Ogan-Bekiroğlu F. Investigation of A Pattern Between Students’ Engagement in Argumentation and Their Science Content Knowledge: A Case Study. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2009;5(1), 63-70. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75257

Chicago

Eşkin, Handan, and Feral Ogan-Bekiroğlu. "Investigation of A Pattern Between Students’ Engagement in Argumentation and Their Science Content Knowledge: A Case Study". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2009 5 no. 1 (2009): 63-70. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75257

Harvard

Eşkin, H., and Ogan-Bekiroğlu, F. (2009). Investigation of A Pattern Between Students’ Engagement in Argumentation and Their Science Content Knowledge: A Case Study. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 5(1), pp. 63-70. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75257

MLA

Eşkin, Handan et al. "Investigation of A Pattern Between Students’ Engagement in Argumentation and Their Science Content Knowledge: A Case Study". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 5, no. 1, 2009, pp. 63-70. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75257