Formas de actuar de los estudiantes en el laboratorio para la fundamentación de afirmaciones y propuestas de acción

Bibliographic References

• ABRAHAMS, I. y MILLAR, R. (2009). Does Practical Work Really Work? A Study of the Effectiveness of Practical Work as a Teaching and Learning Method in the School Science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), pp. 1945-1969.
• BAKER, M.J. (2009). Intersubjective and Intrasubjective Rationalities in Pedagogical Debates: Realizing What One Thinks, en Schwarz, B., Dreyfus, T. y Hershkowitz, R. (eds.). Transformation of Knowledge through Classrooom Interaction. Londres: Routledge, pp. 145-158.
• BLOOME, D., PURO, P. y THEODOROU, E. (1989). Procedural Display and Classroom Lessons. Curriculum Inquiry, 19(3), pp. 265-291.
• BROWN, J.S., COLLINS, A. y DUGUID, A. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher, 18, pp. 32-42.
• CAZDEN, C.B. (1988). Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
• DAWSON, V.M. y VENVILLE, G. (2010). Teaching Strategies for Developing Students' Argumentation Skills about Scioscientific Issues in High School Genetics. Research in Science Education, 40, pp. 133-148.
• DRIVER, R., NEWTON, P. y OSBORNE, J. (2000). Establishing the Norms of Scientific Argumentation in Classrooms. Science Education, 84, pp. 287-312.
• EGAN-ROBERTSON, A. y WILLETT, J. (1998). Students as Ethnographers, Thinking and Doing Ethnography: a Bibliographic Essay, en Egan-Robertson, A. y Bloome, D. (eds.). Students as Researchers of Culture and Language in their own Communities. Cresskill: Hampton Press, pp. 1-32.
• ERDURAN, S., SIMON, S. y OSBORNE, J. (2004). TAPping into Argumentation: Developments in the Application of Toulmin's Argument Pattern for Studying Science Discourse. Science Education, 88, pp. 915-933. (Pubitemid 39558160)
• GOMES, A.D.T., BORGES, A.T. y JUSTI, R. (2008). Students' Performance in Investigative Activity and their Understanding of Activity Aims. International Journal of Science Education, 30, pp. 109-135.
• GRINDSTAFF, K. y RICHMOND, G. (2008). Learners' Perceptions of the Role of Peers in a Research Experience: Implicationes for the Apprenticeship Process, Scientific Inquiry and Collaborative Work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(2), pp. 251-271. (Pubitemid 351321947)
• HABERMAS, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action. Boston: Beacon Press.
• HSU, P.L. y ROTH, W.-M. (2009). Lab Technicians and High School Students Interns - Who Is Scaffolding Whom?: On Forms of Emergent Expertise. Science Education, 93, pp. 1-25.
• JIMÉNEZ, M.P. y REIGOSA, C. (2006). Contextualizing Practices Across Epistemic Levels in the Chemistry Laboratory. Science Education, 90, pp. 707-733. (Pubitemid 44059843)
• KELLY, G.J., DRUKER, S. y CHEN, C. (1998). Students' Reasoning about Electricity: Combining Performance Assessments with Argumentation Analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20, pp. 849-871. (Pubitemid 128691682)
• KLAASEN, C.W.J.M. y LIJNSE, P.L. (1996). Interpreting Students' and Teachers' Discourse in Science Classes: An Understimated Problem? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, pp. 115-134.
• KUHN, D. (1993). Science as Argument: Implications for Teaching and Learning Scientific Thinking. Science Education, 77, pp. 319-337.
• KUHN, L. y REISER, B.J. (2007). Bridging Classroom Practices: Traditional and Argumentative Discourse. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching. Nueva Orleans, Abril.
• LATOUR, B. y WOOLGAR, S. (1986). Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• LAVE, J. y WENGER, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• LEMKE, J.L. (1990). Talking Science: Language, Learning and Values. Norwood: Ablex.
• LEMKE, J.L. (1998). Analysing Verbal Data: Principles, Methods and Problems, en Fraser, B.J. y Tobin, K.J. (eds.). International Handbook of Science Education, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 1175-1189.
• Leontiev, A.N. (1981). The Problem of Activity in Psychology, en Werstch, J. (comp.): The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology. Armonk: Sharp, pp. 37-71.
• LINCOLN, Y.S. y GUBA, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage.
• MASON, L. (1998). Sharing Cognition to Construct Scientific Knowledge in School Contexts: the Role of Oral and Written Discourse. Instructional Science, 26, pp. 359-389.
• McKERNAN, J. (1996). Curriculum Action Research. Londres: Kogan Page.
• ORSOLINI, M. (1993). «Dwarfs Do Not Shoot»: An Analysis of Children's Justifications. Cognition and Instruction, 11, pp. 281-297.
• REIGOSA, C. y JIMÉNEZ, M. P. (2007). Scaffolded Problem-Solving in the Physics and Chemistry Laboratory: Difficulties Hindering Students' Assumptions of Responsibility. International Journal of Science Education, 29, pp. 307-329.
• RESNICK, L.B., SALMON, M., ZEITZ, C.M., WATHEN, S.H. y HOLOWCHAK, M. (1993). Reasoning in Conversation. Cognition and Instruction, 11, pp. 347-364.
• ROTH, W.M. y BOWEN, G.W. (1995). Knowing and Interacting: a Study of Culture, Practices and Resources in a Grade 8 Open-inquiry Science Classroom Guided by a Cognitive Apprenticeship Metaphor. Cognition and Instruction, 13, pp. 73-128.
• SAMPSON, V. y CLARK, D. (2009). The Impact of Collaboration on the Outcomes of Scientific Argumentation. Science Education, 93, pp. 448-484.
• SANDOVAL, W. A. y REISER, B. J. (2004). Explanation-Driven Inquiry: Integrating Conceptual and Epistemic Scaffolds for Scientific Inquiry. Science Education, 88, pp. 345-372. (Pubitemid 38652408)
• TOULMIN, S.E. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• WEBER, M. (1978). Economy and Society. An Outline of Interpretative Sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.