Examining the link between oral and written reasoning within a generative learning environment: the impact of the Science Writing Heuristic approach

References

• Applebee, A. N. (1984). Writing and reasoning. Review of Educational Research, 54(4), 577–596. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543054004577
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asterhan, C. S., & Schwarz, B. B. (2016). Argumentation for learning: Well-trodden paths and unexplored territories. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 164–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, M. J., Andriessen, J., & Schwarz, B. B. (2019). Collaborative argumentation-based learning. In N. Mercer, R. Wegerif, & L. Major (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of research in dialogic education (pp. 76–88). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2011). Manual of data analysis for social sciences (15th ed.). Pegem Akademi.
   Google Scholar
• Çapkınoğlu, E., Çetin, P. S., & Metin Peten, D. (2021). How do pre-service science teachers evaluate the persuasiveness of a socioscientific argument? International Journal of Science Education, 43(4), 594–623. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1876273
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, Y.-C., Park, S., & Hand, B. (2016). Examining the Use of talk and writing for students’ development of scientific conceptual knowledge through constructing and critiquing arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 34(2), 100–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2016.1145120
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Çiğdemoğlu, C., Arslan, H. O., & Çam, A. (2017). Argumentation to foster pre-service science teachers’ knowledge, competency, and attitude on the domains of chemical literacy of acids and bases. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(2), 288–303. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RP00167J
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (Second ed.). SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Del Longo, S., & Cisotto, L. (2014). Writing to argue: Writing as a tool for oral and written argumentation. In P. D. Klein, P. Boscolo, C. Gelati, & L. C. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Writing as a learning activity (pp. 15–43). Brill.
   Google Scholar
• Demiral, Ü., & Çepni, S. (2018). Examining argumentation skills of preservice science teachers in terms of their critical thinking and content knowledge levels: An example using GMOs. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 15(3), 128–151.
   Google Scholar
• Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560187
   Google Scholar
• Duschl, R. A. (2007). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran & M. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 159–175). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28(2), 122–128. https://doi.org/10.2307/356095
   Google Scholar
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Firetto, C. M., Murphy, P. K., Greene, J. A., Li, M., Wei, L., Montalbano, C., Hendrick, B., & Croninger, R. M. (2019). Bolstering students’ written argumentation by refining an effective discourse intervention: Negotiating the fine line between flexibility and fidelity. Instructional Science, 47(2), 181–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9477-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ford, M. J., & Forman, E. A. (2006). Chapter 1: Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X030001001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galbraith, D. (1999). Writing as a knowledge-constituting process. Knowing what to write. Conceptual Processes in Text Production, 4, 139–164.
   Google Scholar
• Graham, S., Kiuhara, S. A., & MacKay, M. (2020). The effects of writing on learning in science, social studies, and mathematics: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 90(2), 179–226. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320914744
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gunel, M., Hand, B., & McDermott, M. A. (2009). Writing for different audiences: Effects on high-school students’ conceptual understanding of biology. Learning and Instruction, 19(4), 354–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.07.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hand, B. (2017). Exploring the role of writing in science: A 25-year journey. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 25(3), 16–23.
   Google Scholar
• Hand, B., Chen, Y. C., & Suh, J. K. (2021). Does a knowledge generation approach to learning benefit students? A systematic review of research on the science writing heuristic approach. Educational Psychology Review, 33(2), 535–577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09550-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hand, B., Shelley, M. C., Laugerman, M., Fostvedt, L., & Therrien, W. (2018). Improving critical thinking growth for disadvantaged groups within elementary school science: A randomized controlled trial using the Science Writing Heuristic approach. Science Education, 102(4), 693–710. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21341
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hemberger, L., Kuhn, D., Matos, F., & Shi, Y. (2017). A dialogic path to evidence-based argumentive writing. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(4), 575–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2017.1336714
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higher Education Council, YÖK. (2018). Science teaching undergraduate program. https://www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/Kurumsal/egitim_ogretim_dairesi/Yeni-Ogretmen-Yetistirme-Lisans-Programlari/Fen_Bilgisi_Ogretmenligi_Lisans_Programi.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Jang, J. Y., & Hand, B. (2017). Examining the value of a scaffolded critique framework to promote argumentative and explanatory writings within an argument-based inquiry approach. Research in Science Education, 47(6), 1213–1231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9542-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krell, M., Redman, C., Mathesius, S., Krüger, D., & van Driel, J. (2020). Assessing pre-service science teachers’ scientific reasoning competencies. Research in Science Education, 50(6), 2305–2329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9780-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. S. (2011). Supporting grade 5-8 students in constructing explanations in science: The claim, evidence, and reasoning framework for talk and writing. Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Major, L. (2019). The Routledge international handbook of research on dialogic education. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Merriam, S. B. (2009). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• MONE (Ministry of National Education). (2018). Curriculum of science courses for grade 3–8. Head Council of Education and Morality.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academy of the Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, E. M. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), 84–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.558816
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, E. M., Dove, I. J., Slife, N., Kardash, C. M., Turgut, R., & Vallett, D. (2019). Using critical questions to evaluate written and oral arguments in an undergraduate general education seminar: A quasi-experimental study. Reading and Writing, 32(6), 1531–1552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9848-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, E. M., & Edwards, O. V. (2011). Critical questions and argument stratagems: A framework for enhancing and analyzing students’ reasoning practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 443–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.564567
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ozdem, Y., Ertepinar, H., Cakiroglu, J., & Erduran, S. (2013). The nature of pre-service science teachers’ argumentation in inquiry-oriented laboratory context. International Journal of Science Education, 35(15), 2559–2586. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.611835
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prain, V., & Hand, B. (2016). Coming to know more through and from writing. Educational Researcher, 45(7), 430–434.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnick, L., Asterhan, C., & Clarke, S. (2015). Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 1–480). American Educational Research Association (AERA).
   Google Scholar
• Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S. Y. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32(2), 155–175. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950DP3202&3_04
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children’s epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488–526. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sahin, E., Chen, Y. C., & Hand, B. (2019April 28 - May 01). Describing students’ reasoning in an immersive argument-based science inquiry. [Conference presentation]. International Conference on Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology (ICEMST), Izmir, Turkey.
   Google Scholar
• Smalheiser, N. R. (2017). Chapter 12 – Nonparametric ests. Data literacy (pp. 157–167). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Talanquer, V. (2018). Chemical rationales: Another triplet for chemical thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 40(15), 1874–1890. Tang & Abraham, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1513671
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, J. P., & Sampson, V. (2013). Learning to argue and arguing to learn: Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help undergraduate chemistry students learn how to construct arguments and engage in argumentation during a laboratory course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(5), 561–596. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21082
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, J. P., Van Duzor, A. G., & Lower, M. A. (2019). Facilitating argumentation in the laboratory: The challenges of claim change and justification by theory. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(3), 435–444. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00745
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallace, C. S. (2004). Framing new research in science literacy and language use: Authenticity, multiple discourses, and the ‘Third Space’. Science Education, 88(6), 901–914. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walton, D. (2016). Argument evaluation and evidence. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, D. N. (1990). What is reasoning? What is an argument? The Journal of Philosophy, 87(8), 399–419. https://doi.org/10.2307/2026735
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walton, D. N. (1996). Argument structure: A pragmatic theory. University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Washburn, E., & Cavagnetto, A. (2013). Using argument as a tool for integrating science and literacy. The Reading Teacher, 67(2), 127–136.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yaman, F., & Hand, B. (2022).Examining pre-service science teachers’ development and utilization of written and oral argument and representation resources in an argument-based inquiry environment. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 23(4), 948-968.
   Google Scholar
• Yore, L. D., & Treagust, D. F. (2006). Current realities and future possibilities: Language and science literacy-empowering research and informing instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 291–314.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar