The need to enhance argument skills through education has become increasingly evident during the past 20 years. This need has resulted in an ongoing discussion that focuses on students’ and teachers’ argumentation and its support. However, apart from the extended competence-based discourse, no clear and homogeneous definition exists for argumentative competence and its constituent skills. To respond to this deficiency, we conducted an integrative literature review focusing on the methods of argument analysis and assessment that have been proposed thus far in the field of education. Specifically, we constructed an interpretative framework to organize the information contained in 97 reviewed studies in a coherent and meaningful way. The main result of the framework’s application is the emergence of three levels of argumentative competence: metacognitive, metastrategic, and epistemological competence. We consider this result the beginning of further research on the psycho-pedagogical nature of argument skills and their manifestation as competent performance.
AndersonR.ChinnC.ChangJ.WaggonerM.YiH. (1997). On the logical integrity of children’s arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 135–167. doi:1207/s1532690xci1502_1
2.
AndrewsR. (2009). Argumentation in higher education: Improving practice through theory and research. New York, NY: Routledge.
3.
AndriessenJ.BakerM. J.SuthersD. (2003). Argumentation, computer support, and the educational context of confronting cognitions. In AndriessenJ.BakerM.SuthersD. (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 1–25). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
4.
AndriessenJ.ErkensG.van de LaakC. M.PetersN.CoirierP. (2003). Argumentation as negotiation in computer supported collaborative writing. In AndriessenJ.BakerM.SuthersD. (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 79–116). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
5.
AngellR. B. (1964). Reasoning and logic. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
6.
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. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01017.x
7.
Auriac-PeyronnetE. (2001). The impact of oral training on argumentative texts produced by ten- and eleven-year old children: Exploring the relation between narration and argumentation. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16, 299–317. doi:10.1007/BF03173031
8.
BakerM. J. (1999). Argumentation and constructive interaction. In RijlaarsdamG.EspéretE. (Series Eds.) & CoirierP.AndriessenJ. (Vol. Eds.), Studies in writing: Vol. 5. Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 179–202). Amsterdam, Netherlands: University of Amsterdam Press. doi:1874/51235
9.
BakerM. J. (2003). Computer-mediated argumentative interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific notions. In AndriessenJ.BakerM.SuthersD. (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 47–78). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
10.
BakerM. J. (2009). Argumentative interactions and the social construction of knowledge. In Muller MirzaN.Perret-ClermontA.-N. (Eds.), Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 127–144). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-98125-3_5
11.
*BellP.LinnM. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797-817. doi:10.1080/095006900412284
12.
BerlandL. K.McNeillK. L.(2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94, 765–793. doi:10.1002/sce.20402
13.
BerlandL. K.ReiserB. J. (2011). Classroom communities’ adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95, 191–216. doi:10.1002/sce.20420
14.
BilligM. (1987). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15.
BremS. K.RipsL. J. (2000). Explanation and evidence in informal argument. Cognitive Science, 24, 573-604. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2404_2
16.
BrownJ. S.DuguidP. (2001). Knowledge and organization: A social-practice perspective. Organization Science, 12, 198-213. doi:10.1287/orsc.12.2.198.10116
17.
BrymanA.CramerD. (2005). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS 12 and 13: A guide for social scientists. New York, NY: Routledge.
18.
*ChoreshC.MevarechZ. R.FrankM. (2009). Developing argumentation ability as a way to promote technological literacy. International Journal of Educational Research, 48, 225–234. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2009.10.002
19.
ClarkD. B.SampsonV. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 293–321. doi:10.1002/tea.20216
20.
CoxJ. R.WillardC. A. (1982). Introduction: The field of argumentation. In CoxJ. R.WillardC. A. (Eds.), Advances in argumentation theory and research (pp. xiii–xvii). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
21.
CrosA. (2001). Teaching by convincing: strategies of argumentation in lectures. Argumentation, 15, 191–206. doi:10.1023/A:1011161331228
22.
CrossD.TaasoobshiraziG.HendricksS.HickeyD. T. (2008). Argumentation: A strategy for improving achievement and revealing scientific identities. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 837–861. doi:10.1080/09500690701411567
23.
De VriesE.LundK.BakerM. J. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 63–103. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1101_3
24.
DillenbourgP.BakerM. J.BlayeA.O’ MalleyC. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In ReimannP.SpadaH. (Eds.), Learning in humans and machines: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
25.
DriverR.NewtonP.OsborneJ. (1998). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3 <287::AID-SCE >3.3CO;2-1
26.
DuschlR. A.SchweingruberH. A.ShouseA. W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K–8. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
27.
ErduranS.Jiménez-AleixandreM. P. (2008). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
28.
ErduranS.SimonS.OsborneJ. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s Argument Pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915–933. doi:10.1002/sce.20012
FeltonM. (2004). The development of discourse strategy in adolescent argumentation. Cognitive Development, 19, 39–58 doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2003.09.001
31.
*FeltonM.Garcia-MilaM.GilabertS. (2009). Deliberation versus dispute: The impact of argumentative discourse goals on learning and reasoning in the science classroom. Informal Logic, 29, 417-446.
32.
FeltonM.KuhnD. (2001). The development of argumentive discourse skills. Discourse Processes, 32, 135–153. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2001.9651595.
33.
*FischerK. W.FarrarM. J. (1987). Generalizations about generalization: How a theory of skill development explains both generality and specificity. International Journal of Psychology, 22, 643-677. doi:10.1080/00207598708246798
34.
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.
35.
GiannakouliasE.MastoridesE.PotariD.ZachariadesT. (2010). Studying teachers’ mathematical argumentation in the context of refuting students’ invalid claims. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 29, 160–168. doi:10.1016/j.jmathb.2010.07.001
36.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
37.
*GlassnerA.WeinstockM.NeumanY. (2005). Pupils’ evaluation and generation of evidence and explanation in argumentation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 105-118. doi:10.1348/000709904X22278
38.
GolderC. (1992). Production of elaborated argumentative discourse: The role of cooperativeness. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 7, 51–59. doi:10.1007/BF03172821
39.
GolderC. (1993). Framed writing of argumentative monologues by sixteen- and seventeen-year-old students. Argumentation, 7, 343–358. doi:10.1007/BF00710817
*GoldsteinM.CrowellA.KuhnD. (2009). What constitutes skilled argumentation and how does it develop?Informal Logic, 29, 379-395.
42.
HampleD. (2003). Arguing skill. In GreeneJ. O.BurlesonB. R. (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 439–478). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
43.
HennesseyM. G. (2003). Probing the dimensions of metacognition: Implications for conceptual change teaching-learning. In SinatraG. M.PintrichP. R. (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 103–132). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
44.
Jiménez-AleixandreM. P.Bugallo-RodriguezA.DuschlR. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792. doi:10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F
45.
Jiménez-AleixandreM. P.Pereiro-MuñozC. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1171–1190. doi:10.1080/09500690210134857
46.
JohnsonR. H. (2000). Manifest rationality. A pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
47.
JohnsonR. H.BlairA. (1994). Logical self-defense. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
48.
KellyG. J.DrukerS.ChenC. (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 849–871. doi:10.1080/0950069980200707
49.
KellyG. J.RegevJ.ProtheroW. (2008). Analysis of lines of reasoning in written argumentation. In ErduranS.Jiménez-AleixandreM. (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 137–157). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
50.
KirschD.MaglioP. (1994). On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action. Cognitive Science, 18, 513–549. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1804_1
51.
KoschmannT. (2003). CSCL, argumentation, and Deweyan inquiry: Argumentation is learning. In AndriessenJ.BakerM.SuthersD. (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 261–284). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
52.
KuhnD. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96, 674–689. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.96.4.674
53.
KuhnD. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
54.
KuhnD. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 155–179.
55.
KuhnD. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319–337. doi:10.1002/sce.3730770306
56.
KuhnD. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16–26. doi:10.2307/1177186
57.
KuhnD. (2000a). Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 178–181. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00088
58.
KuhnD. (2000b). Theory of mind, metacognition, and reasoning: A life-span perspective. In MitchellP.RiggsK. J. (Eds.), Children’s reasoning and the mind (pp. 301–326). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
59.
KuhnD. (2002). A multi-component system that constructs knowledge: Insights from microgenetic study. In GranottN.ParzialeJ. (Eds.), Microdevelopment: Transition processes in development and learning (pp. 109–131). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CB09780511489709.005
60.
KuhnD. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
61.
KuhnD. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94, 810–824. doi:10.1002/sce.20395
62.
KuhnD.AmselE.O’LoughlinM. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
63.
KuhnD.FranklinS. (2006). The second decade: What develops (and how)? In DamonW.LernerR. M. (Series Eds.) & KuhnD.SieglerR. (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2. Cognition, perception, and language (6th ed., pp. 953–993). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
64.
KuhnD.GohW.IordanouK.ShaenfieldD. (2008). Arguing on the computer: A microgenetic study of developing argument skills in a computer-supported environment. Child Development, 79, 1310–1328. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01190.x
65.
KuhnD.PearsallS. (1998). Relations between metastrategic knowledge and strategic performance. Cognitive Development, 13, 227–247. doi:10.1016/S0885-2014(98)90040-5
66.
KuhnD.ShawV.FeltonM. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 287–315 doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1503_1
67.
KuhnD.UdellW. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74, 1245–1260. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00605
68.
LehrerR.SchaubleL. (2005). Developing modeling and argument in elementary grades. In RombergT. A.CarpenterT. P.DremockF. (Eds.), Understanding mathematics and science matters (pp. 29–53). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
69.
LeitaoS. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332–360. doi:10.1159/000022695
70.
LundK.MolinariG.SéjournéA.BakerM. (2007). How do argumentation diagrams compare when student pairs use them as a means for debate or as a tool for representing debate?Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 273–295. doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9019-z
71.
*MarttunenM. (1994). Assessing argumentation skills among Finnish university students. Learning and Instruction, 4, 175–191. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(94)90010-8.
72.
MarttunenM.LaurinenL. (2001). Learning of argumentation skills in networked and face-to-face environments. Instructional Science, 29, 127–153. doi:10.1023/A:1003931514884
73.
McNeillK. L. (2008). Teachers’ use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93, 233–268. doi:10.1002/sce.20294
74.
McNeillK. L.PimentelD. S. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94, 203–229. doi:10.1002/sce.20364
75.
MeansM. L.VossJ. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 139–178. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1402-1
76.
MossP. A. (1992). Shifting conceptions of validity in educational measurements: Implications for performance assessment. Review of Educational Research, 62, 229–258. doi:10.2307/1170738
77.
Muller MirzaN.Perret-ClermontA.-N.TartasV.IannacconeA. (2009). Psychosocial processes in argumentation. In Muller MirzaN.Perret-ClermontA. N. (Eds.), Argumentation and education (pp. 67–90). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-98125-3_3
78.
NeumanY. (2003). Go ahead, prove that God does not exist! On high school students’ ability to deal with fallacious arguments. Learning and Instruction, 13, 367–380. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00011-7
79.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064767
80.
NussbaumE. M.SinatraG. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 573–595. doi:10.1016/50361-476X(02)00038-3
81.
NussbamE. M.SinatraG. M.PoliquinA. (2008). Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1977–1999. doi:10.1080/09500690701545919
82.
O’KeefeD. J. (1982). The concepts of argument and arguing. In CoxJ. R.WillardC. A. (Eds.), Advances in argumentation theory and research (pp. 3–23). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
83.
OrsoliniM. (1993). Dwarfs do not shoot: An analysis of children’s justifications. Cognition and Instruction, 11, 281–297. doi:10.1080/07370008.1993.9649026
84.
OsborneJ.ErduranS.SimonS. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994–1020. doi:10.1002/tea.20035
85.
PerelmanC. (1982). The realm of rhetoric (W. Kluback, Trans.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
86.
PerelmanC.Olbrechts-TytecaL. (1958). La nouvelle rhétorique: Traité de l’argumentation [The new rhetoric: Treatise on argumentation]. Paris, France: Presses Universitaires de France.
87.
PerkinsD. N. (1989). Reasoning as it is and could be: An empirical perspective. In ToppingD. M.CrowellD. C.KobayashiV. N. (Eds.). Thinking across cultures: The third international conference on thinking (pp. 175–194). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
ReznitskayaA.AndersonR.McNurlenB.Nguyen-JahielK.ArchoudidouA.KimS. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32, 155–175. doi:10.1207/S15326950DP3202&3-04
90.
RiccoR. B. (2003). The macrostructure of informal arguments: A proposed dimension and analysis. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56, 1021–1051. doi:10.1080/02724980244000701
91.
SadlerT. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513–536. doi:10.1002/tea.20009
92.
SampsonV.ClarkD. B. (2009). A comparison of the collaborative scientific argumentation practices of two high and two low performing groups. Research in Science Education, 41, 63–97. doi:10.1007/s11165-009-9146-9
93.
*SandersR. E. (2003). Applying the skills concept to discourse and conversation: the remediation of performance defects in talk-in-interaction. In GreeneJ. O.BurlesonB. R. (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 221–256). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
94.
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. 71–88). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
95.
ScheuerO.LollF.PinkwartN.McLarenB. M. (2010). Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5, 43–102. doi:10.1007/s11412-009-9080-x
96.
SchneiderW. (2008). The development of metacognitive knowledge in children and adolescents: Major trends and implications for education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 2, 114–121. doi:10.1111/j.1751-228X.2008.00041.x
97.
SchwarzB. B. (2009). Argumentation and learning. In Muller MirzaN.Perret-ClermontA.-N. (Eds.), Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 91–126). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-98125-3_4
98.
SchwarzB. B.NeumanY.GilJ.IlyaM. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 219–256. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1202_3
SteinN.MillerC. A. (1991). I win–you lose: The development of argumentative thinking. In VossJ. F.PerkinsD. N.SegalJ. W. (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 265–290). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
101.
SteinN.MillerC. A. (1993). The development of memory and reasoning skill in argumentative contexts: Evaluating, explaining, and generating evidence. In GlaserR. (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 285–335). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
102.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
103.
TindaleC. W. (1999). Acts of arguing: A rhetorical model of argument. New York: State University of New York Press.
104.
TorracoR. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4, 356–367. doi:10.1177/1534484305278283
105.
ToulminS. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
106.
TrappR.YinglingJ.WannerJ. (1987). Measuring argumentative competence. In van EemerenF. H.GrootendorstR.BlairJ. A.WillardC. A. (Eds.), Argumentation: Across the lines of discipline (pp. 253–261). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris. doi:10.1515/9783110867718.253
107.
van AmelsvoortM.AndriessenJ.KanselaarG. (2007). Representational tools in computer-supported argumentation-based learning: How dyads work with constructed and inspected argumentative diagrams. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16, 485–522. doi:10.1080/10508400701524785
108.
van EemerenF. H.GrootendorstR. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
109.
van EemerenF. H.GrootendorstR. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
110.
van EemerenF. H.GrootendorstR.Snoeck HenkemansA. F. (2002). Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
111.
Vega ReñonL. (2003). Si de argumentar se trata [Regarding argumentation]. Barcelona, Spain: Montesinos.
112.
VenvilleG. J.DawsonV. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on Grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 952–977. doi:10.1002/tea.20358
113.
VolkerM. A. (2006). Reporting effect size estimates in school psychology research. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 653–672. doi:10.1002/pits.20176
114.
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. doi:10.1002/tea.20213
115.
*VossJ. F.MeansM. L. (1991). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning and Instruction, 1, 337-350 doi:10.1016/0959-4752(91)90013-X
116.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
117.
WaltonD. N. (1989). Informal logic: A handbook for critical argumentation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
118.
WaltonD. N. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
119.
WaltonD. N. (1998). The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
120.
WeinstockM. P. (2006). Psychological research and the epistemological approach to argumentation. Informal Logic, 26, 103–120.
121.
WeinstockM. P.NeumanY.GlassnerA. (2006). Identification of informal reasoning fallacies as a function of epistemological level, grade level, and cognitive ability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 327–341. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.89.2.327
122.
WhittemoreR.KnaflK. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52, 546–553. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x
123.
ZoharA.NemetF. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62. doi:10.1002/tea.10008
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.
