You are here:

Supporting Scientific Argumentation in the Classroom

, , ALTEC/Center for Research on Learning, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Austin, Texas, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-92-1 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA


This roundtable will discuss the development of teacher resources to support teaching scientific argumentation in the classroom. The study uses an iterative development process with middle school students and teachers providing feedback in the creation of a targeted game format to teach scientific argumentation. Specifically, this paper will address feedback from teachers through surveys and focus groups.


Craig Hare, J. & Ault, M. (2012). Supporting Scientific Argumentation in the Classroom. In P. Resta (Ed.), Proceedings of SITE 2012--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2495-2497). Austin, Texas, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 23, 2019 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Bannan-Ritland, B. (2003). The role of design in research: The integrative learning design framework. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 21-24.
  2. Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M.W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76. International Standards Organization (ISO) 9241-11. (1998). Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) Part 11: Guidance on usability. Geneva: Author.
  3. Kelly, A.E. (2008, May 14). Design research in education: Cultivating the soil for experimental studies. Presentation at the University of Kansas Center for Learning, Lawrence.
  4. Lawless, K.A., & Pellegrino, J.W. (2007). Professional Development in Integrating Technology into Teaching and Learning: Knowns, Unknowns, and Ways to Pursue Better Questions and Answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575-614.
  5. O'Hanlon, C. (2009). Resistance is futile. T.H.E. Journal, 36(3), 32-36.
  6. Penuel, W.R., Fishman, B.J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L.P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921958.
  7. Schneiderman, M. (2004). What does SBR mean for educational technology. T.H.E. Journal, 31(11), 30-36.
  8. Sparks, D., & Richardson, J. (1997). What is staff development anyway? Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. Thompson, C. (June 25, 2007). For Certain Tasks, the Cortex Still Beats the CPU. Wired Magazine, Issue 15.07.
  9. Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1984). An introduction to reasoning. Upper Saddle Ridge, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  10. Von Ahn, L. (2006). Games with a purpose. Computer, 29(6), pp. 92–94.
  11. Von Ahn, L. & Dabbish, L. (2004). Labeling Images with a Computer Game. Proc. Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 04), ACM Press, 2004, pp. 319–326.
  12. Von Ahn, L., Kedia, M., & Blum, M. (2006). Verbosity: A Game for Collecting Commonsense Facts. Proc. Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 06), ACM Press, 2006, pp. 75–78.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact