1. Abell, J. 2018. “Value, fact and policy resolutions.” Ace Peak. Connect to a speech and debate expert everywhere, retrieved the 24th of March 2020 <https://acepeak.org/the-acepeak-blog/fact-value-and-policy-resolutions> (2021/05/14)
2. Aristotle, 1995. Rhetoric (Vol. I). Athens: Kaktos.
3. Asimov, I. 1959. Words of science and the history behind them. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
4. Baso, F. A. 2016. “The implementation of debate technique to improve students’ ability in speaking.” Exposure Journal 5 (2): 154-73.
5. Berland, L. K., C. V. Schwarz, C. Krist, L. Kenyon, A. S. Lo, and B. J. Reiser. 2016. “Epistemologies in practice: Making scientific practices meaningful for students.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 53 (7): 1082-1112.
6. Cavagnetto, A. R. 2010. “Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K-12 science contexts.” Review of Educational Research 3: 336-71.
7. Dearden, R. F. 1981. “Controversial issues in the curriculum.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 13: 37-44.
8. Dewey, J. 1910. “Science as subject-matter and as method.” Science: 121-27.
9. De Winter, J. F. C., and D. Dodou. 2010, “Five-Point Likert items: t-test versus Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon.” Practical Assessment, Research and Education 15(11): 1-16.
10. Duschl, R. A., H. Schweingruber and A. W. Shouse, Eds. 2007. Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
11. Egglezou, F. 2019. Methodological guide for teachers: «Odyssey. Oxford Debates for youths in science education». Intellectual Output 04 of the Erasmus + KA2 project Odyssey (Agreement No: 2018-1-PL01-KA201-050823).
12. Erduran, S., and M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre M. P., Eds. 2008. Argumentation in science education. New York: Springer.
13. Erickson, J. M., J. J. Murphy, and R. B. Zeuschner. 2003. The debater’s guide. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
14. Fedrizzi, M., and R. Ellis. 2011. Debate. South-Western: Cengage Learning.
15. Ford, M. 2008a. “Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning.” Science Education 92: 404-23.
16. Ford, M. 2008b. “‘Grasp of practice’ as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of science under- standing.” Science and Education 17: 147-77.
17. Freeley, A. J., and D. L. Steinberg. 2009. Argumentation and debate: Critical thinking for reasoned decision making. Boston: Wadsworth Publishing.
18. Gillham, B. 2000. Case study: Research methods. London/New York: Continuum.
19. Göb, R., C. McCollin, and M. F. Ramalhoto. 2007. “Ordinal methodology in the analysis of Likert Scale.” Quality and Quantity 41: 601-26.
20. Hadzigeorgiou, Y. 2015. “A critique of science education as sociopolitical action from the perspective of liberal education.” Science & Education 24(3): 259-80.
21. Hannan J., B. Berkman, & C. Meadows. 2012. Introduction to public forum and congressional debate. New York: International Debate Education Association.
22. Joshi, A., S. Kale, S. Chandel, & D. K. Pal. 2015. “Likert Scale: Explored and explained.” British Journal of Applied Science and Technology 7(4): 396-403.
23. Kennedy, T. J., & M. R. L. Odell. 2014. “Engaging students in STEM education.” Science Education International 25(3): 246-58.
24. Kuhn, D. 2010. “Teaching and learning science as argument.” Science Education: 810-24.
25. Levinson, R. 2011. “Teaching controversial issues in science.” In How science works: Exploring effective pedagogy and practice, Ed. R. Taplis, 56-70. New York: Routledge, New York.
26. Medelsohn, E. 1977. “The social production of the scientific knowledge.” Sociology of the Sciences 1: 3-26.
27. Millar, R. 2004. The role of practical work in the teaching and learning of science. Paper prepared for the Committee: High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision, Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
28. National Forensic League. 2009. “Guide to public forum debate.”, <https://debate.uvm. edu/dcpdf/PFNFL.pdf> (2020-03-23).
29. National Frameworks for Implementation of Oxford Debates in STEM in School Practice. 2019 Intellectual Output O3 of the Erasmus + KA2 project Odyssey (Agreement No: 2018-1-PL01-KA201-050823).
30. National Research Council. 1996. National science standards. Washington: National Academy Press.
31. Norman, G. 2010. “Likert Scales, levels of measurement and the laws of statistics.” Advances in Health Science Education 15: 625-32.
32. Osborne, J. 2014. “Scientific practices and inquiry in the science classroom.” In Handbook of research on science education, Volume II, N. G. Lederman, and S. K. Abell, 593-613. London: Routledge.
33. Poincaré, H. 1917. La science et l’hypothèse. Paris: Ernest Flammarion.
34. Sampson, V., and D. Clark. 2008. “Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions.” Science Education 92(3): 447-72.
35. Sengul, O. 2019. “Linking scientific literacy, scientific argumentation and democratic citizenship. ” Universal Journal of Educational Research 7(4): 1090-8.
36. Taber, K. 2017. “The use of Cronbach’s Alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education.” Research in Science Education 48: 1273-96.
37. Weber, M. 1958. “Science as vocation.” Daedalus 87(1): 111-34.
38. Williams-Brown, Z. 2015. “The use of in-class debates as a teaching strategy in increasing students’ critical thinking and collaborative learning skills in higher education.” Educational Futures 7(1): 39-55.
39. Wolf, D. P. 1993. “Assessment as an episode of learning.” In Construction versus choice in cognitive measurement: Issues in constructed response, performance learning and portfolio assessment, Eds. R. E. Bennett, and W. C. Ward: 213-40. NJ: Lawrence Erlba

Informazioni sul capitolo

Informazioni bibliografiche