Argumentation and intellectual humility: a theoretical synthesis and an empirical study about students’ warrants

References

• Bakhtin, M. 1986. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin: University of Texas.
   Google Scholar
• Basel, N., U. Harms, and H. Prechtl. 2013. “Analysis of Students’ Arguments on Evolutionary Theory”. Journal of Biological Education 47 (4): 192–1999. doi:10.1080/00219266.2013.799078.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bender-Szymanski, D. 2013. “Argumentation integrity in intercultural education: A teaching project about a religious-ideological dialogue as challenge for school.” Intercultural Education, 24(6), 573–591.
   Google Scholar
• BouJaoude, S., J.R. Wiles, A. Asghar, and B. Alters. 2011. “Muslim Egyptian and Lebanese Students’ Conceptions of Biological Evolution”. Science & Education 20 (9): 895–915. doi:10.1007/s11191-011-9345-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology”. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
   Google Scholar
• Brewer, W. F., C. Chinn, and A. Samarapungavan. 1998. “Explanation in Scientists and Children”. Minds and Machines 8 (1): 119–136. doi:10.1023/A:1008242619231.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brickhouse, N. W., Z.R. Dagher, W.J. Letts, and H.L. Shipman. 2000. “Diversity of Students’ Views about Evidence, Theory, and the Interface between Science and Religion in an Astronomy Course”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 37: 340–362. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200004)37:4<340::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-D.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, A. L., & J. C. Campione. 1990. “Communities of learning and thinking, or a context by any other name.” In D. Kuhn (Ed.), Developmental perspectives on teaching and learning thinking skills. Contribution to Human Development, 21, 108–126.
   Google Scholar
• Chan, J., N. Fancourt, and L. Guilfoyle. 2020. “Argumentation in Religious Education in England: An Analysis of Locally Agreed Syllabuses”. British Journal of Religious Education. doi:10.1080/01416200.2020.1734916.
   Google Scholar
• Church, I. M. & P. L. L, P. L. (2016). Intellectual Humility: An Introduction to the Philosophy and Science. Bloomsbury Academic
   Google Scholar
• Church, I. M., and P.L. Samuelson. 2017. “Intellectual Humility : An Introduction to the Philosophy and Science.”
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W., M. D Fetters, V.L. P. Clark, and A. Morales. 2009. “Mixed Methods Intervention Trials S. Andrew & E. J. Halcomb (Eds.) ”. In Mixed Methods Research for Nursing and the Health Sciences, 159–180. doi:10.1002/9781444316490.ch9.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W., and V.L Plano-Clark. 2011. “Choosing a Mixed Methods Design”. Designing and Conducting Mixed Method Research.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W., and V.L.P Clark. 2018. “Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research”. Organizational Research Methods.
   Google Scholar
• Damon, W., and A. Colby. 2015. “The Power of Ideals: The Real Story of Moral Choice.” OUP USA.
   Google Scholar
• Damon, W., A. Colby, and P.E King. 2018. “They Do Care: An Interview with William Damon and Anne Colby on Moral Development”. Journal of Moral Education 1–14. doi:10.1080/03057240.2018.1494972.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Department for Education. 2014. National Curriculum in England: Science Programmes of Study. London: Key Stage 4.
   Google Scholar
• Duschl, R. 1990. Restructuring Science Education: The Importance of Theories and Their Development. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
   Google Scholar
• Eckert, S. A. 2013. “What Do Teaching Qualifications Mean in Urban Schools? A Mixed-Methods Study of Teacher Preparation and Qualification”. Journal of Teacher Education 64 (1): 75–89. doi:10.1177/0022487112460279.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erduran, S., Ed. 2019. Argumentation in Chemistry Education: Research, Policy and Practice. London: Royal Society of Chemistry.
   Google Scholar
• Erduran, S., and E. Kaya. 2019. Transforming Teacher Education through the Epistemic Core of Chemistry: Empirical Evidence and Practical Strategies. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Erduran, S., L. Guilfoyle, and W. Park. 2020. “Science and Religious Education Teachers’ Views of Argumentation and Its Teaching”. Research in Science Education. doi:10.1007/s11165-020-09966-2.
   Google Scholar
• Erduran, S., L. Guilfoyle, W. Park, J. Chan, and N. Fancourt. 2019. “Argumentation and Interdisciplinarity: Reflections from the Oxford Argumentation in Religion and Science Project”. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research 1 (1): 8. doi:10.1186/s43031-019-0006-9.
   Google Scholar
• Erduran, S., and M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre. Eds. 2007. Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research, 285. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Erduran, S., S. Simon & J. Osborne, J. 2004. “TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the use of Toulmin’s Argument Pattern for studying science discourse.” Science Education, 88(6), pp.915–933.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erduran, S., Y. Ozdem, and J. Y. Park. 2015. “Research Trends on Argumentation in Science Education: A Journal Content Analysis from 1998–2014”. International Journal of STEM Education 2015 2: 5, 12. doi:10.1186/s40594-015-0020-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Field, A. 2017. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. Fifth ed. SAGE Publications .
   Google Scholar
• Ford, M. J., and B.M Wargo. 2012. “Dialogic Framing of Scientific Content for Conceptual and Epistemic Understanding”. Science Education 96 (3): 369–391. doi:10.1002/SCE.20482.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freathy, R., and H.C John. 2019. “Religious Education, Big Ideas and the Study of Religion(s) and Worldview(s)”. British Journal of Religious Education 41 (1): 27–40. doi:10.1080/01416200.2018.1500351.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giere, R. 1988. Explaining Science. A cognitive approach. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press
   Google Scholar
• Goldman, S. R., M.L Ko, C. Greenleaf, and W. Brown. 2018. “Domain-specificity in the Practices of Explanation, Modeling, and Argument in the Sciences”. Scientific Reasoning and Argumentation 121–141. doi:10.4324/9780203731826-7/.
   Google Scholar
• Guilfoyle, L., J. Hillier, and N. Fancourt. 2021. “Students’ Argumentation in the Contexts of Science, Religious Education, and Interdisciplinary Science-religious Education Scenarios”. Research in Science & Technological Education 1–18. doi:10.1080/02635143.2021.1947223.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guilfoyle, L., and S. Erduran. 2021. “Recalibrating the Evolution versus Creationism Debate for Student Learning: Towards Students’ Evaluation of Evidence in an Argumentation Task”. International Journal of Science Education.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guilfoyle, L., S. Erduran, and W. Park. 2021. “An Investigation into Secondary Teachers’ Views of Argumentation in Science versus Religious Education”. Journal of Beliefs and Values 42 (2): 190–204. doi:10.1080/13617672.2020.1805925.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hacker, D. J., J., Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of metacognition in education. London: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, S. 2011. Moral Landscape : How Science Can Determine Human Values. New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., A. B. Rodriguez, and R.A. Duschl. 2000. “Doing the Lesson or Doing Science: Arguments in High School Genetics”. Science Education 84 (6): 757–792. doi:10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kampourakis, K., and V. Zogza. 2009. “Preliminary Evolutionary Explanations: A Basic Framework for Conceptual Change and Explanatory Coherence in Evolution”. Science & Education 18 (10): 1313–1340. doi:10.1007/s11191-008-9171-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D. 1993. “Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking.” Science Education, 77, 319–337.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D. & A. Crowell, and Amanda. 2011. “Dialogic Argumentation as a Vehicle for Developing Young Adolescents' Thinking.” Psychological Science. 22. 545–52. 10.1177/0956797611402512.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., R. Cheney, and M. Weinstock. 2000. “The Development of Epistemological Understanding.” Cognitive Development 15 (3): 309–328. doi:10.1016/S0885-2014(00)00030-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• La Velle, B. L., and S. Erduran. 2007. “Argument and Developments in the Science Curriculum”. School Science Review 88 (324): 31–40.
   Google Scholar
• Lambeth Council. 2015. Lambeth Agreed Syllabus for Religious Education. Lambeth: Lambeth Council.
   Google Scholar
• Lazarou, D., and S. Erduran. 2021. “Evaluate What I Was Taught, Not What You Expected Me to Know: Evaluating Students’ Arguments Based on Science Teachers’ Adaptations to Toulmin’s Argumentation Pattern”. Journal of Science Teacher Education 32 (3): 306–324. doi:10.1080/1046560X.2020.1820663.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leach, J., R. Driver, P. Scott, and C. Wood-Robinson. 1996. “Children’s Ideas about Ecology 3: Ideas Found in Children Aged 5-16 about the Interdependency of Organisms”. International Journal of Science Education. doi:10.1080/0950069960180201.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lemke, J. 1990. Talking Science: Language, Learning, and Values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing
   Google Scholar
• Lin, T.C., T.J Lin, and C. Tsai. 2014. “Research Trends in Science Education from 2008 to 2012: A Systematic Content Analysis of Publications in Selected Journals”. International Journal of Science Education 36 (8): 1346–1372. doi:10.1080/09500693.2013.864428.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martín-Gámez, C., and S. Erduran. 2018. “Understanding Argumentation about Socio-scientific Issues on Energy: A Quantitative Study with Primary Pre-service Teachers in Spain”. Research in Science & Technological Education 36 (4): 463–483. doi:10.1080/02635143.2018.1427568.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by States. Washington, DC: Achieve, .
   Google Scholar
• Northumberland County Council. 2016. Agreed Syllabus for Religious Education 2016. Northumberland: Northumberland County Council.
   Google Scholar
• Ozdem, Y., J. Cakiroglu, H. Ertepinar, and S. Erduran. 2017. “The Pedagogy of Argumentation in Science Education: Science Teachers’ Instructional Practices”. International Journal of Science Education 39 (11): 1443–1464. doi:10.1080/09500693.2017.1336807.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pontecorvo, C., and H. Girardet. 1993. “Arguing and Reasoning in Understanding Historical Topics”. Cognition and Instruction 11 (3–4): 365–395. doi:10.1080/07370008.1993.9649030.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porter, T., and K. Schumann. 2018. “Intellectual Humility and Openness to the Opposing View”. Self and Identity 17 (2): 139–162. doi:10.1080/15298868.2017.1361861.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rex, L. A., E.E. Thomas, and S. Engel. 2010. “Applying Toulmin: Teaching Logical Reasoning and Argumentative Writing”. The English Journal 99 (6): 56–62.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, R. C., and W.J Wood. 2003. “Humility and Epistemic Goods”. Intellectual Virtue: Perspectives from Ethics and Epistemology. doi:10.1093/acprof.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, R. C., and W.J Wood. 2007. “Intellectual Virtues: An Essay in Regulative Epistemology”. Intellectual Virtues: An Essay in Regulative Epistemology. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199283675.001.0001.
   Google Scholar
• Tavares, M. D., M.P Jimenez-Aleixandre, and E.F Mortimer. 2010. “Articulation of Conceptual Knowledge and Argumentation Practices by High School Students in Evolution Problems”. Science & Education 19 (6–8): 573–598. doi:10.1007/s11191-009-9206-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• To, C., H.R Tenenbaum, and H. Hogh. 2017. “Secondary School Students’ Reasoning about Evolution”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 54 (2): 247–273. doi:10.1002/tea.21347.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toulmin, S. 1958. “The Uses of Argument.” Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Verheij, B. 2005. “Evaluating Arguments Based on Toulmin’s Scheme”. Argumentation 19 (3): 347–371. doi:10.1007/s10503-005-4421-z.
   Google Scholar