Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education

Declaration of Conflict of Interest: No conflict of interest is declared by author(s).

Data sharing statement: Data supporting the findings and conclusions are available upon request from the corresponding author(s).

• Adúriz-Bravo, A. (2011). Fostering model-based school scientific argumentation among prospective science teachers. US-China Education Review, 8(5), 718-723.
• Adúriz-Bravo, A. (2014). Revisiting school scientific argumentation from the perspective of the history and philosophy of science. In M. R. Mathews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, Philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1443-1472). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7654-8_45
• Adúriz-Bravo, A., & Revel Chion, A. (2017). Language, Discourse, Argumentation and Science Education. In K. S. Taber & B. Akpan (Eds.), Science education (pp. 157–166). SensePublishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-749-8_12
• Álvarez-Quiroz, G. B., & Blanquicett Romero, J. C. (2015). Percepciones de los docentes rurales sobre las TIC en sus prácticas pedagógicas [Perceptions of rural teachers on ICT in their teaching]. Ciencia, Docencia y Tecnología, 26(51), 371-394.
• ANFHE-CUCEN (2011). Lineamientos Básicos sobre Formación Docente de Profesores Universitarios [Basic Guidelines on Teacher Training for University Professors]. http://www.anfhe.org.ar/archivos/lineas_trabajo/documento_comision_mixta%20anfhe-cucen.pdf
• Archila, P. A. (2014). Are science teachers prepared to promote argumentation? A case study with pre-service teachers in Bogotá city. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 15(1), Article 2.
• Benavides, F., & Pedró, F. (2007). Políticas educativas sobre nuevas tecnologías en los países iberoamericanos. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 45, 19-69. https://doi.org/10.35362/rie450726
• Bogar Y. (2019). Synthesis study on argumentation in science education. International Education Studies, 12(9), 1. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v12n9p1
• Borba, M., & Villarreal, M. (2005). Humans-with-media and the reorganization of mathematical thinking: information and communication technologies, modeling, experimentation and visualization. Springer.
• Buty, C., & Plantin, C. (2008). L’argumentation à l’épreuve de l’énseignement des sciences et vice-versa [Argumentation put to the test of science education and vice versa]. In C. Buty & C. Plantin (Eds.), Argumenter en classe de sciences. Du débat à l’apprentissage (pp. 17-41). Institut National de Recherche Pédagogique.
• Cebrián-Robles, D., Franco Mariscal, A. J., & Blanco-López, A. (2018). Preservice elementary science teachers’ argumentation competence: impact of a training programme. Instructional Science, 46, 789-817. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9446-4
• Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 293-321. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20216
• Clark, D. B., Sampson, V., Chang, H., Zhang, H., Tate, E. D., & Schwendimann, B. (2012). Research on critique and argumentation from the technology enhanced learning in science center. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Perspectives on Scientific Argumentation (pp. 157-199). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2470-9_9
• Coll, C., Mauri, M. T., & Onrubia, J. (2008). Analyzing actual uses of ICT in formal educational contexts: A socio-cultural approach. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 10(1). http://redie.uabc.mx/vol10no1/contents-coll.html
• Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813-834. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038004813
• Dede, C. (2007). Reinventing the role of information and communications technologies in education. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 106(2), 11-38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7984.2007.00113.x
• Drossel, K., Eickelmann, B., & Gerick, J. (2017). Predictors of teachers’ use of ICT in school - the relevance of school characteristics, teachers’ attitudes and teacher collaboration. Education and Information Technologies, 22(2), 551-573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9476-y
• Elam, M., & Bertilsson, M. (2003). Consuming, engaging and confronting science. The emerging dimensions of scientific citizenship. European Journal of Social Theory, 6(2), 233-251. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431003006002005
• Er, E., & Kim, C. (2017). Episode-centered guidelines for teacher belief change toward technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(4), 1041–1065. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1142 3-017-9518-1
• Erduran, S., Ardac, D., & Yakmaci-Guzel, B. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Case studies of pre-service secondary science teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(2), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75442
• Erduran, S., Ozdem, Y., & Park, J.Y. (2015). Research trends on argumentation in science education: a journal content analysis from 1998–2014. International Journal of STEM Education, 2, 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-015-0020-1
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012
• Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504683
• Ertmer, P. A., & Glazewski, K. D. (2015). Essentials of PBL implementation: Fostering collaboration, transforming roles, and scaffolding learning. In A. Walker, H. Leary, C. Hmelo-Silver, & P. A. Ertmer (Eds.), Essential readings in problem-based learning (pp. 89-106). Purdue University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt6wq6fh.12
• Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change. How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551
• Fernandes, G. W. R., Rodrigues, A. M., & Ferreira, C. A. (2020). Professional development and use of digital technologies by science teachers: A review of theoretical frameworks. Research in Science Education, 50, 673-708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9707-x
• Garcia Romano, L. (2017). Concepciones sobre argumentación de futuros docentes de biología [Pre-service Biology Teachers’ Conceptions about Argumentation]. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, Número extraordinario, 2335-2341. https://raco.cat/index.php/Ensenanza/article/view/336854
• Garcia Romano, L., Condat, M.E., Occelli, M., Masullo, M., & Valeiras, N. (2017). Some conceptions about argumentation of in-service science teachers in Córdoba (Argentina). In O. Finlayson, E. McLoughlin, S. Erduran & P. Childs (Eds.), Research, practice and collaboration in science education (Proceedings of ESERA 2017) (pp. 945-951). Dublin, Ireland: Dublin City University https://www.esera.org/publications/esera-conference-proceedings/esera-2017
• García-Ruiz, C., Hierrezuelo-Osorio, J., & Lupión-Cobos, T. (2019). Applying argumentation in primary pre-service teacher education. A teaching-learning sequence using collaborative video annotations. In O. Levrini & G. Tasquier (Eds.), Electronic Proceedings of the ESERA 2019 Conference: The Beauty and Pleasure of Understanding: Engaging with Contemporary Challenges Through Science Education (pp. 1409-1418). Bologna: ALMA MATER STUDIORUM – University of Bologna. https://www.esera.org/publications/esera-conference-proceedings/esera-2019
• Higgins, T. E., & Spitunik, M. W. (2008). Supporting teachers’ use of technology in science instruction through professional development: A literature review. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 511-521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9118-2
• Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Laptops in the K-12 classrooms: Exploring factors impacting instructional use. Computers & Education, 55(3), 937-944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.04.004
• Inan, F. A., Lowther, D. L., Ross, S. M., & Strahl, J. D. (2010). Pattern of classroom activities during students’ use of computers: relations between instructional strategies and computer applications. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 540-546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.06.017
• Islas, S. M., Sgro, M. R., & Pesa, M. A. (2009). La argumentación en la comunidad científica y en la formación de profesores de física [Argumentation in scientific community and in Physics teachers’ education]. Ciência & Educação, 15(2), 291-304. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-73132009000200004
• Islas, S., Stipcich, S., & Domínguez, A. (2006). El lugar de la argumentación en la formación de profesores de ciencias [The place of argumentation in the training of science teachers]. Revista Chilena de Educación Científica, 5(1), 67-74.
• Jackson, P. (1986). The practice of teaching. Teachers College Press.
• Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Designing argumentation learning Environments. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education. Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research (pp. 91-115). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_5
• Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2010). Diez ideas clave. Competencias en argumentación y uso de pruebas [Ten key ideas. Competences in argumentation and use of evidence]. Grao.
• Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science Education: An Overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education. Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research (pp. 3-27). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_1
• Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Gallástegui Otero, J. R., Santamaría, F. E., & Puig Mauriz, B. (2009). Resources for introducing argumentation and the use of evidence in science classrooms. Santiago de Compostela: Danú. www.rodausc.eu
• Kaya, E. (2013). Argumentation practices in classroom: Pre-service teachers’ conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 35(7), 1139-1158. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.770935
• Kopcha, T. J. (2010). A systems-based approach to technology integration using mentoring and communities of practice. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 175-190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-008-9095-4
• Landau, M., Serra, J., & Gruschetsky, M. (2007). Acceso universal a la alfabetización digital. Políticas, problemas y desafíos en el contexto argentino (La Educación en Debate 5) [Universal access to digital literacy. Policies, problems and challenges in the Argentine context (Education in Debate 5)]. DiNIECE, Ministerio de Educación, Ciencia y Tecnología. http://www.bnm.me.gov.ar/giga1/documentos/EL000984.pdf
• Lawrence, J. E., & Tar, U. A. (2018). Factors that influence teachers’ adoption and integration of ICT in teaching/learning process. Educational Media International, 55(1), 79-105. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2018.1439712
• Lévy, P. (1993). As tecnologías da inteligência. O futuro do pensamento na era da informática [Intelligence technologies. The future of thinking in the computer age]. Editora 34.
• Light, D., & Pierson, E. (2013). Changing classroom practices through a one-to-one laptop program in rural Argentina: Experiences of schools in San Luis. International Journal for E-Learning Security, 3(1/2), 236-243. https://doi.org/10.20533/ijels.2046.4568.2013.0030
• Linn, M. C. (2003). Technology and science education: starting points, research programs, and trends. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 727-758. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305017
• Linn, M., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10086
• Lugo, M. T., & Kelly, V. (2011). El modelo 1 a 1: un compromiso por la calidad y la igualdad educativas. La gestión de las TIC en la escuela secundaria: nuevos formatos institucionales [The 1 to 1 model: a commitment to educational quality and equality. ICT management in secondary school: new institutional formats]. Ministerio de Educación de la Nación.
• Martín-Gámez, C., & Erduran, S. (2018). Understanding argumentation about socio-scientific issues on energy: a quantitative study with primary pre-service teachers in Spain. Research in Science & Technological Education, 36(4), 463-483. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2018.1427568
• Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography - describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10, 177-200. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00132516
• Matuk, C. (2015). Argumentation environments. In R. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science education (pp. 59-63). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2150-0_71
• McNeill, K. L., & Knight, A. M. (2013). Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of scientific argumentation: The impact of professional development on K–12 teachers. Science Education, 97(6), 936-972. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21081
• McNeill, K. L., González-Howard, M., Katsh-Singer, R. & Loper, S. (2016). Pedagogical content knowledge of argumentation: Using classroom contexts to assess high-quality PCK rather than pseudoargumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53, 261-290. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21252
• Mermoud, S. R., Ordoñez, C., & Garcia Romano, L. (2017). Potencialidades de un entorno virtual de aprendizaje para argumentar en clases de ciencias en la escuela secundaria [Potentialities of a virtual learning environment to support students' argumentation in science classes at secondary school]. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias, 14(3), 587-600. https://doi.org/10.25267/Rev_Eureka_ensen_divulg_cienc.2017.v14.i3.06
• Ministry of Education of Argentina. (2012). Plan nacional de educación obligatoria y formación docente (Resolución CFE Nº 188/12 – 5 de diciembre de 2012) [National plan for compulsory education and teacher training (CFE Resolution No. 188/12 - December 5, 2012)]. http://www.me.gov.ar/consejo/resoluciones/res12/188-12_01_01.pdf
• Oliveira, A. W. (2010). Improving teacher questioning in science inquiry discussions through professional development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 422-453. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20345
• Ozdem, Y., Ertepinar, H., Cakiroglu, J., & Erduran, E. (2013). The nature of pre-service science teachers’ argumentation in inquiry-oriented laboratory context. International Journal of Science Education, 35(15), 2559-2586. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.611835
• Perrenoud, P. (2004). Desarrollar la práctica reflexiva en el oficio de enseñar. Grao.
• Plantin, C. (1998). La argumentación [The argumentation]. Ariel.
• Plantin, C. (2004). Pensar el debate. Revista Signos, 37(55), 121-129. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342004005500010
• Plantin, C. (2014). Lengua, argumentación y aprendizajes escolares [Language, argumentation and learning in the school]. Tecné, Episteme y Didaxis, 36, 95-114. https://doi.org/10.17227/01213814.36ted95.114
• Pomar, S., González, J.M., Ibáñez, F., Tello, N., Biber, P., Occelli, M., & Garcia Romano, L. (2016). PREGUNTIC: un juego digital para la enseñanza de las ciencias naturales en la escuela secundaria [PREGUNTIC: A Digital Game for Natural Science Teaching in Secondary Schools]. In Ferreyra. H.A. (Ed.), El currículum de Ciencias Naturales de la Educación Secundaria: retos y desafíos de cara al futuro: Dossier. Córdoba: EDUCC http://pa.bibdigital.uccor.edu.ar/873/
• Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Golan Duncan, R., Kyza, E., Edelson, D., & Soloway, E. (2004). A Scaffolding Design Framework for Software to Support Science Inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337-386. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_4
• Romero Ariza, M., & Quesada Armenteros, A. (2014). Nuevas tecnologías y aprendizaje significativo de las ciencias [ICT and meaningful science learning]. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 32(1), 101-115. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.433
• Salomon, G. (2001). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge University Press.
• Sancho Gil, J., & Padilla Petry, P. (2016). Promoting digital competence in secondary education: are schools there? Insights from a case study. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 5(1), 57-63. https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2016.1.157
• Schwarz, B. B. (2018). Computer-Supported Argumentation and learning. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Ed.), International Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 318-329). Routledge. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315617572-31
• Seufert, S., Guggemos, J., & Sailer, M. (2021). Technology-related knowledge, skills, and attitudes of pre- and in-service teachers: The current situation and emerging trends. Computers in Human Behavior, 115, 106552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106552
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336957
• Tondeur, J., Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Baran, E. (2020). Enhancing pre-service teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): A mixed-method study. Educational Technology Research & Development, 68(1), 319-343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09692-1
• Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: a systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology Research and Development 65(3), 555-575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9481-2
• Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
• Turgut, Y. E., & Aslan, A. (2021). Factors affecting ICT integration in TURKISH education: a systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10441-2
• Uslu, N. A., & Usluel, Y. K. (2019). Predicting technology integration based on a conceptual framework for ICT use in education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 28(5), 517-531. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2019.1668293
• van Eemeren, F., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, F. (2002). Argumentation. Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Vieira, R. D., da Rocha Bernardo, J. R., Evagorou, M., & Florentino de Melo, V. (2015). Argumentation in science teacher education: The simulated jury as a resource for teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 37(7), 1113-1139. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1022623
• Wang, J., & Buck, G. A. (2016) Understanding a high school physics teacher’s pedagogical content knowledge of argumentation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(5), 577-604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9476-1
• Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195117530.001.0001
• Zanotti, A., & Arana, A. (2015). Implementación del Programa Conectar Igualdad en el aglomerado Villa María-Villa Nueva, Córdoba, Argentina [Implementation of the Program Conectar Igualdad in the Villa Maria-Villa Nueva agglomerate, Córdoba, Argentina]. Ciencia, Docencia y Tecnología, 26(50), 120-143.
• Zhao, G., Zhao, R., Li, X., Duan, Y., & Taotao Long (2021). Are preservice science teachers (PSTs) prepared for teaching argumentation? Evidence from a university teacher preparation program in China. Research in Science & Technological Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2021.1872518
• Zheng, B., Warschauer, M., Lin, C. H., & Chang, C. (2016). Learning in one-to-one laptop environments: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1052-1084. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316628645

APA

Garcia Romano, L., Occelli, M., & Adúriz-Bravo, A. (2021). School Scientific Argumentation Enriched by Digital Technologies: Results With Pre- and in-Service Science Teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(7), em1982. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/10990

Vancouver

Garcia Romano L, Occelli M, Adúriz-Bravo A. School Scientific Argumentation Enriched by Digital Technologies: Results With Pre- and in-Service Science Teachers. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2021;17(7):em1982. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/10990

AMA

Garcia Romano L, Occelli M, Adúriz-Bravo A. School Scientific Argumentation Enriched by Digital Technologies: Results With Pre- and in-Service Science Teachers. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2021;17(7), em1982. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/10990

Chicago

Garcia Romano, Leticia, Maricel Occelli, and Agustín Adúriz-Bravo. "School Scientific Argumentation Enriched by Digital Technologies: Results With Pre- and in-Service Science Teachers". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2021 17 no. 7 (2021): em1982. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/10990

Harvard

Garcia Romano, L., Occelli, M., and Adúriz-Bravo, A. (2021). School Scientific Argumentation Enriched by Digital Technologies: Results With Pre- and in-Service Science Teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(7), em1982. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/10990

MLA

Garcia Romano, Leticia et al. "School Scientific Argumentation Enriched by Digital Technologies: Results With Pre- and in-Service Science Teachers". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 17, no. 7, 2021, em1982. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/10990