Socioscientific issues, socioscientific argumentation, model-based reasoning, argumentation schemes, student beliefsproblemáticas sociocientíficas, argumentación socio-científica, razonamiento basado en modelos, esquemas argumentativos, creencias de estudiantes

Adúriz-Bravo, A. (2011). Fostering model-based school scientific argumentation among prospective science teachers. US-China Education Review, 8(5), 718-723. https://doi.org/10.1590/1516-73132014000400014

Åkerblom, D., & Lindahl, M. (2017). Authenticity and the relevance of discourse and figured worlds in secondary students' discussions of socioscientific issues. Teaching and Teacher Education, 65, 205-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.03.025

Amossy, R. (2006). L’argumentation dans le discours. Paris: Armand Colin.

Amossy, R. (2014). L'éthos et ses doubles contemporains. Perspectives disciplinaires. Langage et Société, 3, 13-30. https://doi.org/10.3917/ls.149.0013

Amossy, R. (2018). Introduction: la dimension argumentative du discours - enjeux théoriques et pratiques. Argumentation et Analyse du Discours [En ligne], 20, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.4000/aad.2560

Bago, B., & De Neys, W. (2017). Fast logic? Examining the time course assumption of dual process theory. Cognition, 158, 90-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.014

Böttcher, F., & Meisert, A. (2011). Argumentation in science education: a model-based framework. Science & Education, 20(2), 103-140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-9304-5

Buck, Z. E., Lee, H. S., & Flores, J. (2014). I am sure there may be a planet there: student articulation of uncertainty in argumentation tasks. International Journal of Science Education, 36(14), 2391-2420. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.924641

Crawford B., & Jordan R. C. (2013) Inquiry, models, and complex reasoning to transform learning in environmental education. In: M. Krasny & J. Dillon (Eds.), Trading zones in environmental education: Creating transdisciplinary dialogue (pp. 105-123). New York : Peter Lang.

Develaki, M. (2016). Key-Aspects of Scientific Modeling Exemplified by School Science Models: Some Units for Teaching Contextualized Scientific Methodology. Interchange, 47(3), 297-327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-016-9277-7

Develaki, M. (2017). Using computer simulations for promoting model-based reasoning. Science & Education, 26(7-9), 1001-1027. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9944-9

Doury, M. & Plantin, C. (2015). Une approche langagière et interactionnelle de l’argumentation. Argumentation et Analyse du Discours, 15, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.4000/aad.2006

Doury, M., Quet, M., & Tseronis, A. (2015). Le façonnage de la critique par les dispositifs. Le cas du débat sur les nanotechnologies. Semen. Revue de Sémio-linguistique des Textes et Discours, 39, 1-11. Retrieved from http://journals.openedition.org/semen/10472

Fowler, S., Zeidler, D. & Sadler, T. (2009). Moral sensitivity in the context of socioscientific issues in high school science students. International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 279-296. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701787909

Gilbert, S. W. (2011). Models based science teaching: Understanding and using mental models. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

Gutierrez, M. F. (2017). Escritura colaborativa de textos en quinto grado: Razonamiento y argumentación causal sobre un fenómeno físico. Actualidades Investigativas en Educación, 17(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.15517/aie.v17i1.27291

Hay, D. B., & Pitchford, S. (2016). Curating blood: How students’ and researchers’ drawings bring potential phenomena to light. International Journal of Science Education, 38(17), 2596-2620. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1253901

Herman B. C., Sadler T. D., Zeidler D. L., Newton M. H. (2018). A socioscientific issues approach to environmental education. In: G. Reis & J. Scott (Eds.), International Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Environmental Education: A Reader (Vol. 3., pp. 145-151). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67732-3

Hsu, Y. S., & Lin, S. S. (2017). Prompting students to make socioscientific decisions: embedding metacognitive guidance in an e-learning environment. International Journal of Science Education, 39(7), 964-979. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1312036

Jho, H., Yoon, H. G., & Kim, M. (2014). The relationship of science knowledge, attitude and decision making on socio-scientific issues: The case study of students’ debates on a nuclear power plant in Korea. Science & Education, 23(5), 1131-1151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-9652-z

Kathpalia, S. S., & See, E. K. (2016). Improving argumentation through student blogs. System, 58, 25-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.03.002

Kerbatch-Orecchioni, C. (1992): Les Interactions Verbales, 2. Paris: Armand Colin

Klosterman, M. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2010). Multi‐level assessment of scientific content knowledge gains associated with socioscientific issues‐based instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), 1017-1043. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902894512

Koh, N. K. (2016). Approaches to teaching financial literacy: Evidence-based practices in Singapore schools. In International Handbook of Financial Literacy (pp. 499-513), Singapore: Springer.

Kragten, M., Admiraal, W., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2015). Students’ learning activities while studying biological process diagrams. International Journal of Science Education, 37(12), 1915-1937. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1057775

Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511571350

Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. New York, NY: Harvard University Press.

Kuhn, D. (2015). Thinking together and alone. Educational Researcher, 44(1), 46-53. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15569530

Kuhn, D., & Modrek, A. (2018). Do reasoning limitations undermine discourse? Thinking & Reasoning, 24(1), 97-116. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2017.1388846

Kuhn, D., Hemberger, L., & Khait, V. (2017). Argue with me: Argument as a path to developing students' thinking and writing. New York, NY: Routledge.

Kuhn, D., Iordanou, K., Pease, M., & Wirkala, C. (2008). Beyond control of variables: What needs to develop to achieve skilled scientific thinking? Cognitive Development 23, 435–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2008.09.006

Kuhn, D., Ramsey, S., & Arvidsson, T. S. (2015). Developing multivariable thinkers. Cognitive Development, 35, 92-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2014.11.003

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2529310

Lederman, N. G., Antink, A., & Bartos, S. (2014). Nature of science, scientific inquiry, and socio-scientific issues arising from genetics: A pathway to developing a scientifically literate citizenry. Science & Education, 23(2), 285-302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9503-3

Lee, C. B., Koh, N. K., Cai, X. L., & Quek, C. L. (2012). Children's use of meta-cognition in solving everyday problems: Children's monetary decision making. Australian Journal of Education, 56(1), 22-39. Retrieved from https://research.acer.edu.au/aje/vol56/iss1/3

Lee, Y. C., & Grace, M. (2012). Students' reasoning and decision making about a socioscientific issue: A cross‐context comparison. Science Education, 96(5), 787-807. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21021

Macagno, F., & Walton, D. (2015). Classifying the patterns of natural arguments. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 48, 26–53. Retrieved from https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/crrarpub/26

Meyer, H. (2018). Teachers’ Thoughts on student decision making during engineering design lessons. Education Sciences, 8(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8010009

Moon, A., Stanford, C., Cole, R., & Towns, M. (2017). Analysis of inquiry materials to explain complexity of chemical reasoning in physical chemistry students’ argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(10), 1322-1346. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21407

Myhill, D., & Jones, S. (2015). Conceptualizing metalinguistic understanding in writing/Conceptualización de la competencia metalingüística en la escritura. Cultura & Educación, 27(4), 839-867. https://doi.org/10.1080/11356405.2015.1089387

Owens, D. C., Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2017). Controversial issues in the science classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 99(4), 45-49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721717745544

Pennington, D., Bammer, G., Danielson, A., Gosselin, D., Gouvea, J., Habron, G., ... & Wei, C. (2016). The EMBeRS project: employing model-based reasoning in socio-environmental synthesis. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 6(2), 278-286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0335-8

Perelman, C. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958). Traité de l’argumentation. La nouvelle rhétorique. Bruxelles: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles.

Pitiporntapin, S., Yutakom, N., Sadler, T. D., & Hines, L. (2018). Enhancing pre-service science teachers’ understanding and practices of socioscientific issues (ssis)-based teaching via an online mentoring program. Asian Social Science, 14(5), 1-13. Retrieved from http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ass/article/viewFile/73670/41240

Plantin, C. (2011). Les bonnes raisons des émotions: principes et méthode pour l’étude du discours « émotionné ». Berne, Suisse: Peter Lang.

Plantin, C. (2014). Dictionnaire de l’argumentation - Une introduction notionnelle aux études d’argumentation. Lyon, France: ENS Editions.

Plantin, C. (2015). Emotion and affect. In K. Tracy, C. Ilie & T. Sandel (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction (pp. 514-523). Boston: John Wiley & Sons.

Quillin, K., & Thomas, S. (2015). Drawing-to-learn: a framework for using drawings to promote model-based reasoning in biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 14(2), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-08-0128

Sadler, T. & Donnelly, L. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463–1488. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600708717

Sadler, T. D., Romine, W. L. & Topçu, M. S. (2016). Learning science content through socio-scientific issues-based instruction: a multi-level assessment study. International Journal of Science Education, 38(10), 1622-1635. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1204481

Sanders, T. J., & Spooren, W. P. (2015). Causality and subjectivity in discourse: The meaning and use of causal connectives in spontaneous conversation, chat interactions and written text. Linguistics, 53(1), 53-92. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2014-0034

Smyrnaiou, Z., Petropoulou, E., & Sotiriou, M. (2015). Applying argumentation approach in STEM education: A case study of the European student parliaments project in Greece. American Journal of Educational Research, 3(12), 1618-1628. https://doi.org/10.12691/education-3-12-20

Sorensen, A. E., Jordan, R. C., Shwom, R., Ebert-May, D., Isenhour, C., McCright, A. M., … Robinson, J. M. (2016). Model-based reasoning to foster environmental and socio-scientific literacy in higher education. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 6(2), 287-294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0352-7

Stephens, R. G., Dunn, J. C., & Hayes, B. K. (2018). Are there two processes in reasoning? The dimensionality of inductive and deductive inferences. Psychological Review, 125(2), 218-244. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000088

Toulmin, S.E. (1993). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.

Traverso, V. (2009). The dilemmas of third-party complaints in conversation between friends. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(12), 2385-2399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.047

Trouche, E., Sander, E., & Mercier, H. (2014). Arguments, more than confidence, explain the good performance of reasoning groups. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(5), 1958-1971. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037099

Tsai, C. Y. (2015). Improving students' PISA scientific competencies through online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 37(2), 321-339. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.987712

Uluçinar, U., & Aypay, A. (2016). A model of decision-making based on critical thinking. Education and Science, 41(185), 251-268. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2016.4639

Van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C., Henkemans, A. F. S., Verheij, B., & Wagemans, J. H. (2014). Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Van Eemeren, F. H., Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck, H. (2007). Argumentative indicators in discourse: A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Walton, D., & Macagno, F. (2016). A classification system for argumentation schemes. Argument & Computation, 6(3), 219-245. https://doi.org/10.1080/19462166.2015.1123772

Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Williams, G., & Clement, J. (2015). Identifying multiple levels of discussion-based teaching strategies for constructing scientific models. International Journal of Science Education, 37(1), 82-107. https://doi.org//10.1080/09500693.2014.966257

Zangori, L., Vo, T., Forbes, C. T., & Schwarz, C. V. (2017). Supporting 3rd-grade students’ model-based explanations about groundwater: a quasi-experimental study of a curricular intervention. International Journal of Science Education, 39(11), 1421-1442. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1336683

Vol. 17 Núm. 5 (2018)