中文部份
林樹聲、黃柏鴻(2009)。國小六年級學生在社會性科學議題教學中之論證能力研究—不同學業成就學生間之比較。科學教育學刊,17(2),111-133。林樹聲、靳知勤(2012)。國小教師實踐社會性科學議題教學之教師知識成長與比較。科學教育學刊,20(1),41-68。邱旻昇(1999)。從期望地位的觀點探討學生在科學小組討論中互動的平等性。未出版之碩士論文,國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所,臺北市。
洪振方、林志能(2011)。網路與課室學習環境促進學童論證能力之效益。教育實踐與研究,24(1),67-106。胡壯麟、朱永生、張德祿、李戰子(2005)。系統功能語言學概論。北京:北京大學出版社。
黃俊儒(2000)。從社會互動與認知投入的觀點探討理化實驗課中學習機會之分佈。未出版之博士論文,國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所,臺北市。黃俊儒、簡妙如(2010)。在科學與媒體的接壤中所開展之科學傳播研究:從科技社會公民的角色及需求出發。新聞學研究,105,127-166。黃柏鴻、林樹聲(2007)。論證教學相關實證性研究之回顧與省思。科學教育月刊,302,5-20。
黃翎斐、張文華、林陳涌(2008)。不同佈題模式對學生論證表現的影響。科學教育學刊,16(4),375-393。楊文金(1997)。社會類別對信念選擇的影響分析。科學教育學刊,5(1),1-21。楊文金、陳世文、李哲迪、任宗浩、古智雄(2008)。以閱讀困難觀點探討漢、英語科學論述之語意差異--以觀念物理文本為例。科學教育學刊,16(2),193-214。葉蓉樺(1999)。國小高年級自然科學習小組織結構及其互動模式研究。未出版之博士論文,國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所,臺北市。廖孟諄(2011)。社會性科學議題融入奧瑞岡式辯論活動對國小高年級學童之學習成效影響研究。未出版之碩士論文,國立臺中教育大學科學應用與推廣學系,臺中市。
Weber, A. L. (1995)。社會心理學(Social Psychology;趙居蓮譯)。台北市:桂冠。(原作出版年:1992)。
英文部份
AAAS. (1994). Science for all Americans(9th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, K. T. (2009). Applying positioning theory to the analysis of classroom interactions: Mediating micro-identities, macro-kinds, and ideologies of knowing. Linguistics and Education, 20(4), 291-310. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2009.08.001
Anderson, R. D., & Helms, J. V. (2001). The ideal of standards and the reality of schools: Needed research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 3-16.
Augoustinos, M., & Walker, I. (1995). Social cognition: an integrated introduction. London: Sage.
Bell, P. (2004). Promoting students’ argument construction and collaborative debate in the science classroom. In M. Linn, E. Davis & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 115-143): New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Berge, M., & Danielsson, A. T. (2013). Characterising learning interactions: A study of university students solving physics problems in groups. Research in Science Education, 43(3), 1177-1196.
Berger, J., & Fisek, M. H. (1974). A generalization of the theory of status characteristics and expectation states. . In J. Berger, T. L. Conner & M. H. Fisek (Eds.), Expectation states theory: A theoretical research program. (pp. 163-205). Cambridge, MA: Wintrop.
Bianchini, J. A. (1997). Where knowledge construction, equity, and context: Student learning of science in small groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(10), 1039-1065.
Bosch, O. J. H., King, C. A., Herbohn, J. L., Russell, I. W., & Smith, C. S. (2007). Getting the big picture in natural resource management—systems thinking as ‘method’ for scientists, policy makers and other stakeholders. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 24(2), 217-232.
Boxer, L. (2005). Discourses of change ownership in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 13(4), 344-352.
Bricker, L., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92(3), 473-498.
Bridgstock, M., Burch, D., Gorge, J., Laurent, J., & Lowe, I. (1998). Science, technology and society: An introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism. London: Routledge.
Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Supporting argumentation through students’ questions: Case studies in science classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 230-284.
Cohen, E. G. (1997a). Equity in heterogeneous classrooms : a challenge for teachers and sociologists. In E. G. Cohen & R. A. Lotan (Eds.), Working for equity in heterogeneous classrooms: sociological theory in practice (pp. 3-14). New York: Teachers College Press.
Cohen, E. G. (1997b). Understanding status problems: Sources and consequences. In E. G. Cohen & L. R. A. (Eds.), Working for equity in heterogeneous classrooms. (pp. 61-76). New York: Teachers College Press.
Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (Eds.). (1997). Working for equity in heterogeneous classrooms: sociological theory in practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2012). How can conceptual change contribute to theory and practice in science education? In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 107-118): Springer Netherlands.
Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development: New York: Teachers College Press.
Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in science education: Recent developments and future directions: Dordrecht: Springer.
Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2005). Developing arguments. In S. Alsop, L. Bencze & E. Pedretti (Eds.), Analysing exemplary science teaching: Theoretical lenses and a spectrum of possibilities for practice: Philadelphia: Open University Press.
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.
Evagorou, M., Jime´nez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Osborne, J. (2012). 'Should we kill the grey squirrels?' A study exploring students’ justifications and decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 401–428.
Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring young students' collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 209-237.
Garcia-Mila, M., Gilabert, S., Erduran, S., & Felton, M. (2013). The effect of argumentative task goal on the quality of argumentative discourse. Science Education, 97(4), 497-523.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar(3rd Edition). London: Arnold.
Harré, R., & Langenhove, L. v. (1999). The dynamics of social episodes. In R. Harre & L. v. Langenhove (Eds.), Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action. (pp. 1-13). Oxford: Blackwell.
Harré, R., Moghaddam, F. M., Cairnie, T. P., Rothbart, D., & Sabat, S. R. (2009). Recent advances in positioning theory. Theory & Psychology, 19(1), 5-31.
Herrick, J. A. (1998). Argumentation: Understanding and shaping argument. Toronto: Allyn and Bacon.
Hollway, W. (1984). Gender difference and the production of subjectivity. In J. Henriques, W. Hollway, C. Urwin, C. Venn & V. Walkerdine (Eds.), Changing the subject : psychology, social regulation and subjectivity. London: Methuen.
Jim´enez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodr´ıguez, A., & Duschl, R. (2000). "Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.
Kitcher, P. (1988). The child as parent of the scientist. Mind and Language, 3(3), 215–228.
Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Learning‐goals‐driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project‐based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1-32.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 155–178.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337.
Kuhn, T. E. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions: Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kunda, Z. (2000). The impact of motivation and affect on judgment. Social Cognition: making sense of people. (pp. 211-262). Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its problems: Toward a theory of scientific growth. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lawson, A. E. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetico-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1387–1408.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values: Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. New York: Continuum.
Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 95-111.
Moghaddam, F. M., Harré, R., & Lee, N. (2008). Global conflict resolution through positioning analysis. New York: Springer.
Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms: Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.
Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224-240.
Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M., & Poliquin, A. (2008). Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 30(15), 1977-1999.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2008). Science Competencies for tomorrow’s world. Second results from PISA 2008. Paris: Author.
Osborne, J. (2001). Promoting argument in the science classroom: A rhetorical perspective. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 1(3), 271–290.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
Osborne, J., Simon, S., Christodoulou, A., Howell-Richardson, C., & Richardson, K. (2013). Learning to argue: A study of four schools and their attempt to develop the use of argumentation as a common instructional practice and its impact on students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 315-347.
Oulton, C., Dillon, J., & Grace, M. M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 411-423.
Price, D. J. d. S. (1963). Little science, big science. London: Columbia University Press.
Rieke, R. D., & Sillars, M. O. (1997). Arbumentation and critical decision making. New York: Longman.
Ritchie, S. M. (2002). Student positioning within groups during science activities. Research in Science Education, 32(1), 35-54.
Sabat, S. R. (2008). Positioning and conflict involving a person with dementia: A case study. In F. M. Moghaddam, R. Harré & N. Lee (Eds.), Global conflict resolution through positioning analysis (pp. 81-93). New York: Springer.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Scienec Education, 26(4), 387-409.
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447-472.
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55.
Schwarz, B. B., (2009). Argumentation and learning. In N. M. Mirza & A.-N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 91–126): New York: Springer.
Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentation activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 219-256.
Schwarz, C. V., & Gwekwerere, Y. N. (2007). Using a guided inquiry and modeling instructional framework (EIMA) to support preservice K‐8 science teaching. Science Education, 91(1), 158-186.
Schwarz, C. V., Meyer, J., & Sharma, A. (2007). Technology, pedagogy, and epistemology: Opportunities and challenges of using computer modeling and simulation tools in elementary science methods. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(2), 243-269.
Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 235-260.
Simonneaux, L. (2001). Role-play or debate to promote students' argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis. [Article]. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 903-927. doi: 10.1080/09500690010016076
Simonneaux, L. (2008). Argumentation in Socio-Scientific Contexts. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F. S., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C. W., . . . Zarefsky, D. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments: Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
van Langenhove, L., & Harré, R. (1999). Introducing positioning theory. In R. Harre & L. v. Langenhove (Eds.), Positioning theory: moral contexts of intentional action. (pp. 14-31). Oxford: Blackwell.
Verheij, B. (2005). Evaluating arguments based on Toulmin’s scheme. Argumentation, 19(3), 347-371.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: London: Harvard University Press.
Wagner, D. G., & Berger, J. (1993). Status characteristics theory: The growth of a program. In J. Berger & M. J. Zelditch (Eds.), Theortical research programs: Studies in the growth of theory. (pp. 23-63). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Watson, J. R., Swain, J. R. L., & McRobbie, C. (2004). Students' discussions in practical scientific inquiries. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 25-45.
Zeidler, D. L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. (pp. 7-38). Netherlands: Springer.
Zeidler, D. L., Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2003). The role of argument during discourse about socioscientific issues. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 97-116): Springer Netherlands.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes3, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357-377.