Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education

• Alexander, R. (2006). Towards dialogic teaching. York, UK: Dialogos.
• Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., McNurlen, B., Archodidou, A., Kim, S. & Reznitskaya, A. (2001). The snowball phenomena: Spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking across groups of children. Cognitive and Instruction, 19, 1–46.
• Chapin, S.H., O’Connor, C., & Anderson, N.C. (2003). From classroom discussions: Using Math talk to help students learn. Grades 1-6. Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions
• Clement, J. (2000). Analysis of clinical interviews: foundations and model viability. In: A. E. Kelly, & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research data design in mathematics and science education (pp. 547–589). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• DuVall, R. (2001). Inquiry in science: From curiosity to understanding. Primary Voices K-6, 10 (1), 3–9.
• Hackilng, M., Smith, P. & Murcia, K. (2010). Talking science: Developing a discourse of inquiry. Teaching Science, 56 (1), 17–22.
• Marriage, T. V. (2001). Features of an interactive writing discourse: Conversational involvement, conventional knowledge, and internalization in ‘Morning Message’. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 172–196.
• Martin, L. C. (1999). The nature of the folding back phenomenon within the Pirie–Kieren theory for the growth of mathematical understanding and the associated implications for teachers and learners of mathematics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
• Michaels, S & O’Connor, M.C. (2010). For Classroom Conversation That Works. Institute for Learning, University of Pittsburgh.
• Newton, D.P. & Newton, L. D. (2000). Do teachers support causal understanding through their discourse when teaching primary science. British Educational Research Journal, 26 (5), 599–613.
• Piaget, J. (1978). Success and understating. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Pirie, S. E. B. (1996). What are the data? An exploration of the use of video-recording as a data gathering tool in the mathematics classroom. Paper presented at the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education— North America, Florida State University, Panama City.
• Powell, A.B., Francisco, J.M., & Maher, C.A. (2003). An analytical model for studying the development of learners’ mathematical ideas and reasoning using videotape data. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22, 405 – 435.
• Rennie, L. J., Goodrum, D. & Hackling, M. (2001). Science teaching and learning in Australian schools: Results of a national study. Research in Science Education, 31, 455–498.
• Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch, P. Del Rio & A. Alvarez (eds), Sociocultural studies of the mind. (pp. 139–163). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Russ, R.S. (2006). A framework for recognizing mechanistic reasoning in student scientific inquiry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park.
• Shepardson, D.P. & Britsch, S. J. (2001). The role of children journals in elementary schools’ science activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38 (1), 43–69
• Tharp, R. G. & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Thwaite, A. & McKay, G. (2013). Five-year-olds doing science and technology: How teachers shape the conversation. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 36 (1), 28–37.
• Tuminaro, J. (2004). A cognitive framework for analyzing and describing introductory students’ use and understanding of mathematics in physics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
• Wolf, M., Crosson, A., & Resnick, L. (2005). Classroom Talk for Rigorous Reading Comprehension Instruction. Reading Psychology (26), 27-53.
• Yoon, S., Bennett, W., Mendez, C. & Hand, B. (2010). Setting up conditions for negotiation in science. Teaching Science, 56 (3).

APA

Motlhabane, A. (2016). The Level and Quality of Accountability Talk in the Science Lessons. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(12), 2991-3003. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.02318a

Vancouver

Motlhabane A. The Level and Quality of Accountability Talk in the Science Lessons. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2016;12(12):2991-3003. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.02318a

AMA

Motlhabane A. The Level and Quality of Accountability Talk in the Science Lessons. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2016;12(12), 2991-3003. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.02318a

Chicago

Motlhabane, Abraham. "The Level and Quality of Accountability Talk in the Science Lessons". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2016 12 no. 12 (2016): 2991-3003. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.02318a

Harvard

Motlhabane, A. (2016). The Level and Quality of Accountability Talk in the Science Lessons. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(12), pp. 2991-3003. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.02318a

MLA

Motlhabane, Abraham "The Level and Quality of Accountability Talk in the Science Lessons". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 12, no. 12, 2016, pp. 2991-3003. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.02318a