This article reports the results of a randomized control trial of a semester-long intervention designed to promote ninth-grade science students’ use of text-based investigation to create explanatory models of biological phenomena. The main research question was whether the student participants in the intervention outperformed the students in the control classes, as assessed by several measures of comprehension and application of information to modeling biological phenomena not covered in the instruction. A second research question examined the impact on the instructional practices of the teachers who implemented the intervention. Multilevel modeling of outcome measures, controlling for preexisting differences at individual and school levels, indicated significant effects on the intervention students and teachers relative to the controls. Implications for classroom instruction and teacher professional development are discussed.
AkkusR.GunelM.HandB. (2007). Comparing an inquiry-based approach known as the science writing heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are there differences?International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1745–1765.
2.
AlexanderP. A. (2003). The development of expertise: The journey from acclimation to proficiency. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 10–14.
3.
AsterhanC. S. C.SchwarzB. B. (2009). Argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: Indications from protocol analyses of peer-to-peer dialog. Cognitive Science, 33, 374–400.
4.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
5.
BazermanC. (1985). Physicists reading physics: Schema-laden purposes and purpose-laden schema. Written Communication, 2, 3–23.
6.
BerlandL. K.ReiserB. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93, 26–55.
7.
BerlinerD. C. (2001). Learning about and learning from expert teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 35, 463–482.
8.
BillV.BookerL.CorrentiR.RussellJ.SchwartzN.SteinM. K. (2017). Tennessee scales up improved math instruction through coaching. Journal of the National Association of State Boards of Education, 17(2), 22–27.
9.
BorkoH.PutnamR. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In BerlinerD. C.CalfeeR. C. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673–708). New York, NY: Macmillan.
10.
BrickerL. A.BellP. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92, 473–498.
11.
BrickerL. A.BellP.van HorneK.ClarkT. L. (2017). Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information. In SchwarzC. V.PassmoreC.ReiserB. J. (Eds.), Helping students make sense of the world using the Next Generation Science Standards (pp. 259–281). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
12.
BrommeR.GoldmanS. R. (2014). The public’s bounded understanding of science. Educational Psychologist, 49, 59–69.
13.
BrykA. S.GomezL. M.GrunowA.LeMahieuP. G. (2016). Learning to improve: How America’s schools can get better at getting better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14.
CavagnettoA. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K–12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80, 336–371.
15.
ChiappettaE. L.FillmanD. A. (2007). Analysis of five high school biology textbooks used in the United States for inclusion of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1847–1868.
16.
ChinC.OsborneJ. (2010). Supporting argumentation through students’ questions: Case studies in science classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 230–284.
17.
Cochran-SmithM.LytleS. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. In Iran-NejadA.PearsonP. D. (Eds.), Review of research in education (Vol. 24, pp. 249–305). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
18.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). The Jasper Project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment and professional development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
CribbG.MaglioC.GreenleafC. (2018). Collaborative argumentation: 10th graders read modern Iranian history. The History Teacher, 51, 477–526.
21.
Darling-HammondL.BransfordJ. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
22.
Darling-HammondL.McLaughlinM. W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 597–604.
23.
DavisE. A.KrajcikJ. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.
24.
ElliotK.SammonsP. (2004). Exploring the use of effect sizes to evaluate the impact of different influences on child outcomes: Possibilities and limitations. In SchagenI.ElliotK. (Eds.), But what does it mean? The use of effect sizes in educational research (pp. 6–24). Slough, England: National Foundation for Educational Research. Retrieved fromhttps://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/SEF01/SEF01.pdf
25.
EngleR. A.ConantF. C. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 11, 365–395.
26.
FangZ.SchleppegrellM. J. (2010). Disciplinary literacies across content areas: Supporting secondary reading through functional language analysis. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53, 587–597.
27.
FergusonL. E.BråtenI. (2013). Student profiles of knowledge and epistemic beliefs: Changes and relations to multiple-text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 25, 49–61.
28.
FordM. J. (2012). A dialogic account of sense-making in scientific argumentation and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 30, 207–245.
29.
Garcia-MilaM.AndersenC. (2008). Cognitive foundations of learning argumentation. In ErduranS.Jiménez-AleixandreM. P. (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 29–47). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
30.
GeeJ. P. (1992). The social mind: Language, ideology, and social practice. New York, NY: Bergin & Garvey.
31.
GoldmanS. R. (2004). Cognitive aspects of constructing meaning through and across multiple texts. In Shuart-FerrisN.BloomeD. M. (Eds.), Uses of intertextuality in classroom and educational research (pp. 313–347). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
32.
GoldmanS. R. (2018). Discourse of learning and the learning of discourse. Discourse Processes, 55(5–6), 434–453.
33.
GoldmanS. R.BisanzG. (2002). Toward a functional analysis of scientific genres. In OteroJ.LeónJ. A.GraesserA. C. (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 19–50). Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.
34.
GoldmanS. R.BrittM. A.BrownW.CribbG.GeorgeM.GreenleafC.. . . Project READI. (2016). Disciplinary literacies and learning to read for understanding: A conceptual framework for disciplinary literacy. Educational Psychologist, 51, 219–246.
35.
GoldmanS. R.KoM.GreenleafC.BrownW. (2018). Domain-specificity in the practices of explanation, modeling, and argument in the sciences. In FischerF.ChinnC.EngelmannK.OsborneJ. (Eds.), Scientific reasoning and argumentation: Domain-specific and domain-general aspects (pp. 121–141). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
36.
GoldmanS. R.ScardamaliaS. (2013). Managing, understanding, applying, and creating knowledge in the information age: Next-generation challenges and opportunities. Cognition & Instruction, 31, 255–269.
37.
GraesserA. C.McNamaraD. S. (2011). Computational analyses of multilevel discourse comprehension. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 371–398.
38.
GreenleafC.BrownW. (2018). An argument for learning: Secondary science teachers building capacity to support students’ evidence-based argumentation. The Learning Professional, 38, 56–70.
39.
GreenleafC.BrownW.GoldmanS. R.KoM. (2014). READI for science: Promoting scientific literacy practices through text-based investigations for middle and high school science teachers and students. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
40.
GreenleafC.LitmanC.HansonT.RosenR.BoscardinC. K.HermanJ.. . . JonesB. (2011). Integrating literacy and science in biology: Teaching and learning impacts of Reading Apprenticeship professional development. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 647–717.
41.
GreenleafC.LitmanC.MarpleS. (2018). The impact of inquiry-based professional development on teachers’ capacity to integrate literacy instruction in secondary subject areas. Teaching and Teacher Education, 71, 226–240.
42.
GreenleafC.SchoenbachR. (2004). Building capacity for the responsive teaching of reading in the academic disciplines: Strategic inquiry designs for middle and high school teachers’ professional development. In StricklandD. S.KamilM. L. (Eds.), Improving reading achievement through professional development (pp. 97–127). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
43.
GrossmanP.HammernessK.McDonaldM. (2009). Redefining teaching, re-imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15, 273–289.
44.
GuthrieJ. T.Van MeterP.McCannA.WigfieldA.BennettL.PoundstoneC.. . . MitchellA. (1996). Growth in literacy engagement: Changes in motivations and strategies during concept-oriented reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 306–325.
45.
HairJ. F.Jr.BlackW. C.BabinB. J.AndersonR. E.TathamR. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
46.
HammernessK.Darling-HammondL.BransfordJ.BerlinerD.Cochran-SmithM.McDonaldM.KennethZ. (2005). How teachers learn and develop. In Darling-HammondL.BransfordJ. (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 258–289). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
47.
HandB.WallaceC. W.YangE. M. (2004). Using a science writing heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh-grade science: Quantitative and qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 131–149.
48.
HatanoG.InagakiK. (2003). When is conceptual change intended? A cognitive-sociocultural view. In SinatraG. M.PintrichP. R. (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 407–427). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
49.
HerrenkohlL. R.CorneliusL. (2013). Investigating elementary students’ scientific and historical argumentation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22, 413–461.
50.
HillC. J.BloomH. S.BlackA. R.LipseyM. W. (2008). Empirical benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes in research. Child Development Perspectives, 2, 172–177.
51.
JacobsonM. J.WilenskyU. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 11–34. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1501_4
52.
KennedyM. M. (2016). How does professional development improve teaching?Review of Educational Research, 86, 945-980. doi:10.3102/0034654315626800
53.
KienhuesD.FergusonL.StahlE. (2016). Diverging information and epistemic change. In GreeneJ. A.SandovalW. A.BråtenI. (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 318–220). New York, NY: Routledge.
54.
KintschW. (1994). The psychology of discourse processing. In GernsbacherM. A. (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 721–739). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
55.
KressG.Van LeeuwenT. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London, England: Edward Arnold.
56.
KyzaE. A.GeorgiouY. (2014). Developing in-service science teachers’ ownership of the PROFILES pedagogical framework through a technology-supported participatory design approach to professional development. Science Education International, 25(2), 55–77.
57.
LampertM. (2010). Learning teaching in, from, and for practice: What do we mean?Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 21–34.
58.
LangerJ. A. (2011). Envisioning knowledge: Building literacy in the academic disciplines. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
59.
LaveJ.WengerE. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
60.
LeeC. D.SpratleyA. (2010). Reading in the disciplines: The challenges of adolescent literacy. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation.
61.
LemkeJ. L. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In MartinJ. R.VeelR. (Eds.), Reading science (pp. 87–113). London, England: Routledge.
62.
LiebermanA.MaceD. P. (2010). Making practice public: Teacher learning in the 21st century. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 77–88.
63.
LinnM. C.EylonB.-S. (2011). Science learning and instruction: Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. New York, NY: Routledge.
64.
LitmanC.MarpleS.GreenleafC.Charney-SirottI.BolzM.RichardsonL.. . .GoldmanS. R. (2017). Text-based argumentation with multiple sources: A descriptive study of opportunity to learn in secondary English language arts, history and science. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26, 79–130.
65.
Loucks-HorsleyS.HewsonP. W.LoveN.StilesK. E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
66.
McNeillK. L.KrajcikJ. S. (2011). Supporting Grade 5–8 students in constructing explanations in science: The claim, evidence, and reasoning framework for talk and writing. New York, NY: Pearson.
67.
MehanH. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
68.
MendonçaP. C. C.JustiR. (2013). The relationships between modelling and argumentation from the perspective of the model of modelling diagram. International Journal of Science Education, 35, 2407–2434.
69.
MichaelsS.O’ConnorC. (2017). From recitation to reasoning: Supporting scientific and engineering practices through talk. In SchwarzC. V.PassmoreC.ReiserB. J. (Eds.), Helping students make sense of the world using the Next Generation Science Standards (pp. 311–336). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
70.
MojeE. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52, 96–107.
71.
MojeE. B. (2015). Doing and teaching disciplinary literacy with adolescent learners: A social and cultural enterprise. Harvard Educational Review, 85, 254–278.
72.
MojeE. B.SpeyerJ. (2014). Reading challenging texts in high school: How teachers can scaffold and build close reading for real purposes in the subject areas. In HinchmanK.ThomasH. (Eds.), Best practices in adolescent literacy instruction (pp. 207–231). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
73.
MoonJ. A. (2013). Reflection in learning and professional development: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
74.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2009a). Achievement gaps: How Black and White students in public schools perform in mathematics and reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NCES 2009-455). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. (Prepared by A. Vanneman, L. Hamilton, J. Baldwin Anderson, & T. Rahman for the National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences)
75.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2009b). NAEP 2008 trends in academic progress (NCES 2009-479). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. (Prepared by B. D. Rampey, G. S. Dion, & P. L. Donahue for the National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences)
76.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2012). The nation’s report card: Science 2011 (NCES 2012-465). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
77.
National Research Council. (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century (Committee on Defining Deeper Learning and 21st Century Skills, J. W. Pellegrino & M. L. Hilton, Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
78.
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60–92.
79.
Next Generation Science Standards Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
80.
NietfeldJ. L.CaoL.OsborneJ. W. (2006). The effect of distributed monitoring exercises and feedback on performance, monitoring accuracy, and self-efficacy. Metacognition Learning, 1, 159–179.
81.
NorrisS. P.PhillipsL. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240.
82.
Organization of Economic and Cultural Development. (2013). PISA 2012: Results in focus. Paris, France: Author.
83.
OsborneJ. (2002). Science without literacy: A ship without a sail?Cambridge Journal of Education, 32, 203–218.
84.
OsborneJ. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463–467.
85.
PajaresF. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–332.
86.
ParkM.AndersonE.YoonS. (2017). Learning biology coherently through complex systems: A model supported with scientific practices and agent-based simulations. In SmithB. K.BorgeM.MercierE.LimK. Y. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference for Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 199–206). Philadelphia, PA: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
87.
PassmoreC. M.SvobodaJ. (2012). Exploring opportunities for argumentation in modeling classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 1535–1554.
88.
PearsonP. D.MojeE. B.GreenleafC. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328, 459–463.
89.
PenneyK.NorrisS. P.PhillipsL. M.ClarkG. (2003). The anatomy of junior high school science textbooks: An analysis of textual characteristics and a comparison to media reports of science. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 3, 415–436.
90.
PenuelW.FishmanB.YamaguchiR.GallagherL. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 921–958.
91.
PenuelW. R.FishmanB. J.ChengB. H.SabelliN. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40, 331–337.
92.
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. (Prepared for the Office of Educational Research and Improvement)
93.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
94.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S.CongdonR. (2016). HLM 7.02 for Windows [Computer software]. Skokie, IL: Scientific Software International.
95.
ResnickL. B.AsterhanC.ClarkeS. (Eds.). (2015). Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialog. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
96.
RinehartR. W.DuncanR. G.ChinnC. A.AtkinsT. A.DiBenedettiJ. (2016). Critical design decisions for successful model-based inquiry in science classrooms. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 7(2), 17-40. doi:10.14434/ijdl.v7i2.20137
97.
RouetJ.-F.BrittM. A. (2011). Relevance processes in multiple document comprehension. In McCruddenM. T.MaglianoJ. P.SchrawG. (Eds.), Relevance instructions and goal-focusing in text learning (pp. 19–52). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
98.
SabatiniJ.BruceK.SteinbergJ. (2013). SARA reading components tests, RISE form: Test design and technical adequacy (ETS Research Rep. No. RR-13-08). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
99.
SabatiniJ.O’ReillyT. (2015, July). Is the Moon a satellite? “No, it is a big piece of rock. It’s a moon!” Examining scientific reasoning in elementary students’ performance on scenario-based assessments. Paper presented at the Society for Text & Discourse, Minneapolis, MN.
100.
SabatiniJ. P.BruceK.SteinbergJ.WeeksJ. (2015). SARA reading components tests, RISE forms: Technical adequacy and test design (2nd ed., ETS Research Rep. No. RR-15-32). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
101.
SabatiniJ. P.O’ReillyT.WeeksJ.SteinbergJ. (2016, April). The validity of scenario-based assessments: Empirical results. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Washington, DC.
SandovalW. A.MillwoodK. A. (2008). What can argumentation tell us about epistemology? In ErduranS.Jiménez-AleixandreM. P. (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 68–85). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
104.
SchoenbachR.GreenleafC.MurphyL. (2012). Reading for understanding: How Reading Apprenticeship improves disciplinary learning in secondary and college classrooms (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
105.
SchoenbachR.GreenleafC.MurphyL. (2016). Leading for literacy: A Reading Apprenticeship approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
106.
SchwarzC. V.PassmoreC.ReiserB. J. (Eds.). (2017). Helping students make sense of the world using next generation science and engineering practices. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
107.
ShanahanC.HeppelerJ.ManderinoM.BolzM.CribbG.GoldmanS. R. (2016). Deepening what it means to read (and write) like a historian: Progressions of instruction across a school year in an eleventh grade U.S. history class.The History Teacher, 49, 241–270.
108.
ShanahanT.ShanahanC. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59.
109.
StrømsøH. I.BråtenI.SamuelstuenM. S. (2008). Dimensions of topic-specific epistemological beliefs as predictors of multiple text understanding. Learning and Instruction, 18, 513–527.
110.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon.
111.
TabakI. (2016). Functional scientific literacy: Seeing the science within the words and across the Web. In CornoL.AndermanE. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (3rd ed., pp. 269–280). New York, NY: Routledge.
112.
ToulminS. E. (1958) The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
113.
UnsworthL. (2002). Changing dimensions of school literacies. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 25, 62–77.
114.
van den BroekP. (2010). Using texts in science education: Cognitive processes and knowledge representation. Science, 328, 453–456.
115.
van den BroekP.YoungM.TzengY.LinderholmT. (1999). The landscape model of reading: Inferences and the online construction of memory representation. In van OostendorpH.GoldmanS. R. (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 71–98). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
116.
VaughnS.SwansonE. A.RobertsG.WanzekJ.Stillman-SpisakS. J.SolisM.SimmonsD. (2013). Improving reading comprehension and social studies knowledge in middle school. Reading Research Quarterly, 48, 77–93. doi:10.1002/rrq.039
117.
von AufschnaiterC.ErduranS.OsborneJ.SimonS. (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, 101–131.
118.
WellsG. (1989). Language in the classroom: Literacy and collaborative talk. Language and Education, 3(4), 251–273.
119.
WindschitlM.ThompsonJ.BraatenM. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941–967.
120.
WineburgS. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the future of teaching the past. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
121.
YoonS.AndersonE.Koehler-YomJ.EvansC.ParkM.SheldonJ.. . .KlopferE. (2017). Teaching about complex systems is no simple matter: Building effective professional development for computer-supported complex system instruction. Instructional Science, 45(1), 99–121.
122.
YoreL. D. (2004). Why do future scientists need to study the language arts? In SaulE. W. (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 71–94). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
123.
YoreL. D.BisanzG. L.HandB. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 689–725.
124.
ZechL. K.Gause-VegaC. L.BrayM. H.SeculesT.GoldmanS. R. (2000). Content-based collaborative inquiry: A professional development model for sustaining educational reform. Educational Psychologist, 35, 207–217.
125.
ZoharA. (2008). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In ErduranS.Jiménez-AleixandreM. (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom based research (pp. 245–268). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
