A metaconceptually-enriched argumentation activity for creating the scientific understanding: example of simple electrical circuits

References

• Abimbola, I. O. 1988. The problem of terminology in the study of student conceptions in science. Science Education 72 (2):175–84. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730720206.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alexander, J. M., K. E. Johnson, J. Albano, T. Freygang, and B. Scott. 2006. Relations between intelligence and the development of metaconceptual knowledge. Metacognition and Learning 1 (1):51–67. doi: 10.1007/s11409-006-6586-8.
   Google Scholar
• Antonio, R. P., and M. S. Prudente. 2021. Metacognitive argument-driven inquiry in teaching antimicrobial resistance: Effects on students’ conceptual understanding and argumentation skills. Journal of Turkish Science Education 18 (2):192–217.
   Google Scholar
• Beeth, M. E. 1998. Facilitating conceptual change learning: The need for teachers to support metacognition. Journal of Science Teacher Education 9 (1):49–61. doi: 10.1023/A:1009417622756.
   Google Scholar
• Colburn, A. 2007. The prepared practitioner: Constructivism and conceptual change, part I. The Science Teacher 74 (7):10.
   Google Scholar
• Demircioglu, T., M. Karakus, and S. Ucar. 2022. The impact of augmented reality-based argumentation activities on middle school students’ academic achievement and motivation in science classes. Education Quarterly Reviews 5 (1):22–34. doi: 10.31014/aior.1993.05.02.464.
   Google Scholar
• Driver, R., andJ. Easley. 1978. Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education 5 (1):61–84. doi: 10.1080/03057267808559857.
   Google Scholar
• Driver, R., P. Newton, and J. Osborne. 2000. Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education 84 (3):287–312. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duschl, R., and J. Osborne. 2002. Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse. Studies in Science Education 38 (1):39–72. doi: 10.1080/03057260208560187.
   Google Scholar
• Engelhardt, P. V., and R. J. Beichner. 2004. Students’ understanding of direct current resistive electrical circuits. American Journal of Physics 72 (1):98–115. doi: 10.1119/1.1614813.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erduran, S. 2007. Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms. In Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research, ed. S. Erduran and M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre, 47–69. Dordrecht, NL: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Georghiades, P. 2004. Making pupils’ conceptions of electricity more durable by means of situated metacognition. International Journal of Science Education 26 (1):85–99. doi: 10.1080/0950069032000070333.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gunstone, R. F., and I. J. Mitchell. 2005., and Metacognition and conceptual change. In Teaching for science education: A human constructivist view, ed. J. L. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee, and J. D. Novak, 133–163. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Halloun, I. A., andD. Hestenes. 1985. Common sense concepts about motion. American Journal of Physics 53 (11):1056–65. doi: 10.1119/1.14031.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammer, D. 1996. Misconceptions or P-Prims: How May Alternative Perspectives of Cognitive Structure Influence Instructional Perceptions and Intentions. Journal of the Learning Sciences 5 (2):97–127. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls0502_1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hashweh, M. 1988. Descriptive studies of students’ conceptions in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 25 (2):121–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hennessey, G. 2003. Metacognitive aspects of students’ reflective discourse: Implications for intentional conceptual change teaching and learning. In Intentional conceptual change, ed. G. M. Sinatra and P. R. Pintrich, 105–134. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Huang, K., X. Ge, and D. Eseryel. 2017. Metaconceptually-enhanced simulation-based inquiry: Effects on eighth grade students’ conceptual change and science epistemic beliefs. Educational Technology Research and Development 65 (1):75–100. doi: 10.1007/s11423-016-9462-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hynd, C., and D. E. Alvermann. 1986. The role of refutation text in overcoming difficulty with science concepts. Journal of Reading 29 (5):440–446.
   Google Scholar
• Limon Luque, M. 2003. The role of domain-specific knowledge in intentional conceptual change. In Intentional conceptual change, ed. G. M. Sinatra and P. R. Pintrich, 135–172. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Mason, L., and M. Santi. 1994. Argumentation structure and metacognition in constructing shared knowledge at school. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, USA, April 4–8.
   Google Scholar
• Memiş, E. K., and R. B. Aydın. 2022. The effect of argumentation-based inquiry approach supported by metacognitive activities on science achievement of preservice teachers. Kastamonu Education Journal 30 (3):520–535.
   Google Scholar
• Moodley, K., and E. Gaigher. 2019. Teaching electric circuits: Teachers’ perceptions and learners’ misconceptions. Research in Science Education 49 (1):73–89. doi: 10.1007/s11165-017-9615-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NRC (National Research Council). 2012. A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Novak, J. D. 2002. Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education 86 (4):548–571. doi: 10.1002/sce.10032.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, E. M., and G. M. Sinatra. 2003. Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology 28 (3):384–395. doi: 10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00038-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Opstal, M. T., and P. L. Daubenmire. 2015. Extending students’ practice of metacognitive regulation skills with the science writing heuristic. International Journal of Science Education 37 (7):1089–1112. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2015.1019385.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, J., S. Erduran, and S. Simon. 2004a. Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41 (10):994–1020. doi: 10.1002/tea.20035.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, J., S. Erduran, and S. Simon. 2004b. IDeas, evidence, and argument in science. London: King’s College London.
   Google Scholar
• Parker, J., andD. Heywood. 1998. The earth and beyond: developing primary teachers’ understanding of basic astronomical events. International Journal of Science Education 20 (5):503–20. doi: 10.1080/0950069980200501.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peşman, H., and A. Eryılmaz. 2010. Development of a three-tier test to assess misconceptions about simple electric circuits. The Journal of Educational Research 103 (3):208–222. doi: 10.1080/00220670903383002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Posner, G. J., K. A. Strike, P. W. Hewson, and W. A. Gertzog. 1982. Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education 66 (2):211–227. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730660207.
   Google Scholar
• von Rhöneck, C., and K. Grob. 1987. Representation and problem-solving in basic electricity, predictors for successful learning. In Proceedings of the Second International Seminar on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics, ed. J. D. Novak, 564. New York, NY: Cornell Univ.
   Google Scholar
• Vosniadou, S. 1994. Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction 4 (1):45–69. doi: 10.1016/0959-4752(94)90018-3.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, P. H., H. M. Asoko, and R. H. Driver. 1992. Teaching for conceptual change: A review of strategies. In Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies, ed. R. Duit, F. Goldberg, and H. Niederer, 310–329. Kiel: IPN.
   Google Scholar
• Sellmann, D., A. K. Liefländer, and F. X. Bogner. 2015. Concept maps in the classroom: A new approach to reveal students’ conceptual change. The Journal of Educational Research 108 (3):250–257. doi: 10.1080/00220671.2014.896315.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serttaş, S., and A. Y. Yenilmez-Türkoğlu. 2020. Diagnosing students’ misconceptions of astronomy through concept cartoons. Participatory Educational Research 7 (2):164–182. doi: 10.17275/per.20.27.7.2.
   Google Scholar
• Tahir, F. M., N. M. Nasri, and L. Halim. 2020. The effectiveness of predict-observe-explain-animation (POE-A) strategy to overcome students’ misconceptions about electric circuits concepts. Learning Science and Mathematics 15:1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Tao, P. K., and R. F. Gunstone. 1999. The process of conceptual change in force and motion during computer-supported physics instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36 (7):859–882. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199909)36:7<859::AID-TEA7>3.0.CO;2-J.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tippett, C. 2009. Argumentation: The language of science. Journal of Elementary Science Education 21 (1):17–25. doi: 10.1007/BF03174713.
   Google Scholar
• Toulmin, S. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vosniadou, S. 2007. The conceptual change approach and its re-framing. In Reframing the conceptual change approach in learning and instruction, ed. S. Vosniadou, A. Baltos, and X. Vamvakoussi, 1–15. Oxford: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Wandersee, J. H. 1986. Can the history of science help science educators anticipate students’ misconceptions?. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 23 (7):581–97. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660230703.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, J. C., and T. H. Wang. 2023. Learning effectiveness of energy education in junior high schools: Implementation of action research and the predict–observe–explain model to STEM course. Heliyon 9 (3):e14058. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14058.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, R., and R. Gunstone. 2014. Probing understanding. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Wu, X., R. C. Anderson, K. Nguyen-Jahiel, and B. Miller. 2013. Enhancing motivation and engagement through collaborative discussion. Journal of Educational Psychology 105 (3):622–632. doi: 10.1037/a0032792.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yerdelen-Damar, S., and A. Eryılmaz. 2021. Promoting conceptual understanding with explicit epistemic intervention in metacognitive instruction: Interaction between the treatment and epistemic cognition. Research in Science Education 51 (2):547–575. doi: 10.1007/s11165-018-9807-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yuruk, N. 2005. An analysis of the nature of students’ metaconceptual processes and the effectiveness of metaconceptual teaching practices on students’ conceptual understanding of force and motion. PhD diss., The Ohio State University.
   Google Scholar
• Yuruk, N., M. E. Beeth, and C. Andersen. 2009. Analyzing the effect of metaconceptual teaching practices on students’ understanding of force and motion concepts. Research in Science Education 39 (4):449–475. doi: 10.1007/s11165-008-9089-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yürük, N. 2007. A case study of one student’s metaconceptual process and the changes in her alternative conceptions of force and motion. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 3 (4):305–325. doi: 10.12973/ejmste/75411.
   Google Scholar
• Zhou, G. 2010. Conceptual change in science: A process of argumentation. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 6 (2):101–110. doi: 10.12973/ejmste/75231.
   Google Scholar