Tribute to Christine Chin

Abstract

It has been more than 3 years since Christine left us. She has left a lasting legacy of her academic brilliance among the science education community. This paper pays tribute to Christine's fine research work that has shaped and continues to shape science education research in the field of questioning and argumentation.

Full text

Translate

Turn on search term navigation

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11422-013-9563-y&domain=pdf

Web End = http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11422-013-9563-y&domain=pdf

Web End = Cult Stud of Sci Educ (2015) 10:855864

DOI 10.1007/s11422-013-9563-y

Tang Wee Teo Aik-Ling Tan

Received: 14 August 2013 / Accepted: 30 November 2013 / Published online: 22 January 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract It has been more than 3 years since Christine left us. She has left a lasting legacy of her academic brilliance among the science education community. This paper pays tribute to Christines ne research work that has shaped and continues to shape science education research in the eld of questioning and argumentation.

Keywords Christine Chin Questioning Argumentation

It has been more than 3 years since Christine Chin, our very dear colleague, mentor, teacher, and friend, passed away on May 21, 2010 in Singapore. She was 50.

Christine guarded her private life ercely when she was alive. However, from the little we know about her we were almost certain that she would not covet encomium for her hard work. But, we want to pay tribute to Christine to honor her valuable contributions to science education, both in terms of her intellectual knowledge and scholarly spirit.

Christines career was cut shorttoo early, in our opinionand this was a great loss to our science education community. We believe that many scholars researching in the area of questioning and argumentation have read some of Christines work published in Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Science Education, and International Journal of Science Education. Christine did not publish any work in Cultural Studies of Science Education but her works were rooted in the sociocultural paradigm. She was an advocate of better teaching practices that support greater student participation. Her research ndings,

Lead Editor: C. N. El-Hani.

T. W. Teo (&)

National Institute of Education, Natural Sciences and Science Education (Academic Group), Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, NIE7-03-83, Singapore 637616, Singaporee-mail: [email protected]

A.-L. Tan

National Institute of Education, Natural Sciences and Science Education (Academic Group), Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, NIE7-03-85, Singapore 637616, Singapore

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11422-013-9563-y&domain=pdf

Web End = http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11422-013-9563-y&domain=pdf

Web End = Tribute to Christine Chin

123

856 T. W. Teo, A.-L. Tan

grounded in rigorous empirical work, offer practical knowledge that teachers could learn to improve their teaching and knowledge about how their students learn. Hence, her work has practical applications and use to teachers, particularly, in rening and honing questioning and argumentation techniques. In what follows, we highlight Christines contribution to the literature in these two areas.

Christines contribution to the literature on questioning

Christines works remind us that to better understand how science teaching and learning can be improved we need to examine the everyday science discourse that takes place in the classrooms. We think that Christine had made a conscious choice to focus on teacher talk, teacher-student interaction, and student talk as these are precisely ways teachers and students transact knowledge, construct meanings, and negotiate understandings in the everyday work of science teaching and learning. Our deduction is supported by the consistency shown in all of Christines works throughout her academic career. While there are different levels (macro, meso, and micro) of analysis of science talk that can be done, Christine had chosen the microanalysis approach. We acknowledge that such ne-grained work can only be accomplished by meticulous researchers who are willing to work relentlessly in rening the analyses. Christine was one of them.

One of her earlier seminal pieces of work, Classroom interaction in science: teacher questioning and feedback in students responses, was published in the International Journal of Science Education in 2006. In this paper, she examined how teachers used questioning as a form of pedagogy in elementary classrooms. Questioning is a common tool or strategy used by teachers, but in Christine work she viewed questioning as a form of productive talk, giving it a greater epistemic value. Using the Questions-based Discourse analytic framework she had developed she expanded and unpacked the nuances and subtleties in the IRE (initiation-response-evaluation) or IRF (F for feedback) teaching exchange to show the complexity and productivity of teacher-student interactions.

Interestingly, we had never associated Christine with critical science education research that advocates for greater student agency and voice in science learning. In retrospect, her works had carried these subtle messages even though she positioned her works more from a pedagogical slant rather than a critical slant. Some hints of critical pedagogy can be elicited from the implications she drew from the ndings of the study. For example, she suggested: (1) changing from explicit evaluation (which teachers are used to do) to responsive-questioning so that the classroom discourse could become more thought-provoking and stimulating for students, and (2) shifting away from the teacher authoritative evaluation of students response to delegation of the control to other studentsthis is important also for an inquiry-based lesson. Another interesting implication of the study was to provide implicit feedback to students so that they may be incited to think, monitor their own think rather than to be told what was correct. This is a novel idea that contested the approach to provide explicit feedback to students to improve. This parallels the subtle critical views that Christine had embedded in her writings.

Another paper by Christine, Teacher questioning in science classrooms: approache that stimulate productive thinking, published in the Journal of Research in Science Teaching in 2007, was built on her work above. In this paper, she positioned teacher questioning as a form of productive talk, once again, acknowledging the epistemic (not technical) quality of teachers talk in class. In doing this, she gave recognition to the work teachers do as professionals and the things they say as professional discourse. Different from other studies

123

Tribute to Christine Chin 857

which identify the different types of questioning, Christine did a ne-grained analysis by applying a process lens to examine how the questions were woven holistically into the everyday instruction, how these questions shape students responses and stimulate them to think in productive ways. Her analyses helped us to see how these productive forms of teacher questioning could purposefully and strategically move students towards achieving the teachers ultimate teaching goals. Similar to her other works, the analyses and ndings have direct applications in translating theoretical understandings derived from empirical studies to practice. This is also why Christines inservice courses, which makes use of these ideas she found in her research, were often well-received by Singapore teachers.

Christines contribution to the literature on argumentation

Building on her extensive knowledge and insights on questioning, Christine worked collaboratively with Jonathan Osborne on two important pieces of work that aimed at illuminating our knowledge about the relationship between questions and arguments in science learning. The premise for establishing an association between questioning and argumentation is that science learning generally begins with a scientically-oriented question which requires learners to seek evidence and convince others about how the evidences address the questions raised.

Christine and Jonathans paper Students questions and discursive interaction: Their impact on argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science was published in 2010 in the Journal of Research in Science Teaching. In this paper, they presented evidence to show that successful arguments are characterized by three key components of students questions focusing on: (1) ideas of inquiry, (2) the scientic concepts under study, and (3) the explicit location of the questions in the structure of the argument. As such, they suggested that scaffolding students questioning in order to help them focus on these three aspects will lead to productive discourse. The ideas on this paper were further extended to another paper published in the Journal of the Learning Sciences in May 2010 (it was published online 20 days before Christines departure). In this paper entitled Supporting argumentation through students questions: Case studies in science classrooms, Christine and Jonathan tackled the question whether scaffolding students questions would encourage critical thinking and subsequently lead to conceptual gains in science learning. In this paper, they presented an exploratory model (QA model) of the different forms of interactions that might possibly lead to productive argumentations. The two papers are likely to be one of the rst in science education that provided detailed empirical evidence to establish the relationship between questioning and argumentation. What the two papers have presented suggest that more can be done to extend our understanding of the role of questions in supporting argumentation which in term will help with science conceptual learning.

Persisting along the line of research on the role of questions and argumentation, Christine was mentoring May Phua for her Masters thesis. They were trying to establish the types of questions asked by students that would lead them to activate different epistemic operations during argumentation. Epistemic operations are the cognitive processes carried out by learners during a collaborative-discursive learning activity and they include explanation procedures, causal relations, and analogies, which are specic to the discipline of science (Jimenez-Aleixandre, Diaz and Duschl 1998). They were in the midst of deciding on the analytic framework for establishing the connections between questions, arguments and epistemic operations when Christine left us. Her sudden departure left us as

123

858 T. W. Teo, A.-L. Tan

intellectual orphans. It took us more than a year to gure out how to establish the connections between types of questions asked and the epistemic operations used by students. This once again exhibit the intellectual leadership showed by Christine in the area of research on questioning and argumentation.

At the Natural Sciences and Science Education academic group in the National Institute of Education (Singapore), we continue to discuss and use Christines ideas in our writing, including publications and grant proposal applications, as well as in courses for preservice and inservice teachers. Her insights are a genesis of a pure mind grounded in strong beliefs about the purpose of doing research and the meaning of being a good scholar who can contribute to the eld. The metaphor of a pure mind is used here since Christines work is usually focused on and addressed fundamental issues of good teaching practices. Christine is not clouded or corrupted by buzzwords that have not been carefully studied and critically examined. Christine can be described as a purist. As young academics in the eld of science education, we feel very honored to have worked and learned from Christine and to be identied with her as a member of the National Institute of Education (Singapore) fraternity.

It was of no surprise to us that the knowledge she created would transcend internationally to inspire other scholars overseas. A check on Harzings Publish or Perish revealed that Christines work has been cited more than 1,255 times and the most cited work was Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches (Chin and Brown 2000a, b). This was cited 232 times. (Information accessed on August 14, 2013). This alludes to the longstanding and widespread impact of Christines work even after she had passed on. We believe this is because Christines works demonstrate the robustness in research designs that researchers can emulate. Also, her works have practical applications for practitioners (school teachers, lecturers, and university professors) looking for ways to improve classroom teaching.

In preparing this tribute, we also invited Christines friends, former colleagues, students, and doctoral advisor to write narratives about their interactions with her. We did not dictate what needs to be written. Rather, we allowed people who wanted to contribute to write anything they wanted as our interactions with Christine differ. We also did not dictate the length of the narrative as we know that memories may fail us or incite new emotions that evoke further emotions and thoughts. We simply allowed any form of memory to ow into the texts. Some wrote about how they came to learn about Christines demise and how that impacted them, others wrote about their interactions with her when she was alive. The narratives are what we see as a consilience of memories showing how Christine had remained close to our hearts and memory. We are glad that the narratives came in spontaneously.

Aik-Ling Tan

Associate Professor

National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological UniversityI remember the events on the Monday of 23 May 2010 very clearly. It was a typical Sunday morning on 23 May 2010. I was preparing to have breakfast before heading out to church. It was about 08:00 when my husband, Seng Chee, and I ipped through the newspaper. Suddenly Seng Chee paused and asked: What is Christines full name? This lady looks very familiar. He pointed to a photograph on the obituary as he asked this question. I walked over to take a look and my heart pounded really fast. Is this our Christine? I asked hesitantly. But how can it be? I just spoke to her in the restroom (which was the most

123

Tribute to Christine Chin 859

common meeting area for Christine and myself) the other day. Immediately, I called the department head to ask if she has heard anything and if the lady in the obituary was Christine. What followed was a series of phone calls to reach her family and within the hour, I received the dreaded conrmation via a text message while sitting in the pews in church. Christine had indeed passed on. Questions such as the cause of her death began to ood my head. We attended her wake that evening and learned from her family that she had died 2 days earlier of a heart failure.

Christine was a purist; she believed that research is purely to move the eld of knowledge forward, and is not intended for decorating the curricula vitae of individual researchers. While she understood the role of research grants in moving research, she believed that good research does not need large amounts of funding. Rather, it needs a good mind (from personal communication with Christines good friend and academic, A/P Ng Swee Fong). As such, her single minded pursue for excellence in furthering the knowledge in the area of questioning has resulted in her stellar work published in the Journal of Research in Science Teaching in 2007, which won her the best paper 2007 Journal of Research in Science Teaching Award from the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Her work was also published in journals such as the International Journal of Science Education (for example, Chin 2006a, b) and also in Studies in Science Education (for example Chin and Osborne 2008). Her work on questioning continues to inuence scholars studying classroom discourse, argumentation in science, science as inquiry and also meaning making in classroom. The notion of questioning has extensive inuence in almost every area of study in science education and this is evidence of the importance of her work which had emerged from a mind grounded in a strong belief of good research.

Christine was also a highly regarded member of the Singapore Ministry of Education science curriculum review committees. Chew Leng Poon, Deputy Director for Research and Evaluation in the Planning Division and Principal Specialist (Research and Curriculum) of the Ministry of Education, Singapore, have had the opportunity to work with Christine and regarded Christines contribution to the progress of Singapore science curriculum as grounded, yet future oriented. (Poon 2013, personal communication). She regarded Christine as a role model and inspiration for future generation of scholars, both in the national and international arena.

I was assigned to take over the preservice courses that were taught by Christine. I went through the materials that Christine had prepared for the students and was really impressed with how systematically and thoroughly Christine had prepared the materials. I learned a great deal about how she developed lessons intended to guide the preservice teachers in developing awareness of their own professional growth. To this day, when I prepare my lessons, I remember the principles used by Christine in her lesson preparation.

I also had the privilege to inherit two Masters students who were supervised by Christine. May Phua and Yi Shan Seow were working on their research at that time and when they presented their study to me, I was impressed by the high standards and rigor of their research design and literature review. May pursued the line of research on argumentation and the role of questions in argumentation for her masters dissertation and has since produced a piece of work that will make signicant contribution to our understanding of conditions that will facilitate productive argumentation. She has since submitted her thesis and will be awarded her masters degree this year. I am sure Christine will be very proud of this piece of work.

To colleagues in the science education community, we hope that Christines pure mind and single-minded persistent pursuit to push the frontier of knowledge to improve learning

123

860 T. W. Teo, A.-L. Tan

of science in our classroom will remind us about the mission of why we had chosen an academic career. It should also serve to inspire us to continue with our quest for good research that will have impact on teaching and learning.

Chew-Leng Poon

Deputy Director for Research and Evaluation in the Planning Division andPrincipal Specialist (Research and Curriculum)

Ministry of Education, SingaporeDr Christine Chins inuence and impact certainly extended beyond teacher education to science curriculum development, teaching and learning in the classroom. She was a highly regarded member of the Singapore Ministry of Educations science curriculum review committees. Her breadth and depth of knowledge of both the theories and practices of science education helped steer us toward a science curriculum that remained relevant, engaging, grounded and yet future-oriented. Her research, publications and school workshops, particularly on questioning and argumentation, have strengthened our teacher practice in the inquiry-based science classrooms.

At the personal level, I have deep respects for Christines scholarly works and views. In my own doctorate research on inquiry science practices, I studied and cited her work and enjoyed tremendously the discussions we had on inquiry science. I attended two conferences with Christine and she had been most generous in introducing me to her network of science educators. And at both the professional and personal level, Christine was marked by her characteristic humility, always ready to share and address questions from novices like me.

To a great role model and inspiration who has made a deep mark in the national and international arena on inquiry science teaching and learning, my heartfelt gratitude and salute.

Li Gek Chia

Assistant DirectorGuidance Branch, Ministry of Education, Singapore

Dr. Christine Chin was my Masters supervisor to whom I owe a huge debt of gratitude. I started researching into problem-based learning in Biology in 1998 and nally completed the dissertation in 2001. Christine patiently guided me through each step of the research process. I lost track of the number of drafts we exchanged. Each draft came back to me with meticulous edits. She always took time to explain why she suggested certain improvements. She always sought to listen and to nd out why I wanted to do things a certain way. A steady friendship developed. I came to know her not only as Professor mentor, but as a friend. She was a caring person who was extremely hardworking and incredibly patient. I appreciated how Christine always sought to have the highest of standards in whatever she did. To her, there was an ever-present new level of improvement that one could aim for. Following the completion of my dissertation, we kept in touch and continued to co-author several papers for international science education journals.

On 21 May 2010, I received news that Christine Chin had passed away suddenly. She was just 50 years old. Just a week earlier, we have arranged to meet up to discuss a paper that we could write together based on another angle of my dissertation for a research journal. Her demise affected me greatly and reminded me that I should not take for granted that we will all live a long life. I do not know what length of days I have, but I can order the

123

Tribute to Christine Chin 861

manner of life by which I live from day-to-day. Just as Christine had shown the way at the end of lifes journey, I seek to be remembered not by what I have achieved, but how I have lived and served.

Tan Ying Chin

Senior Curriculum Specialist

Curriculum Planning and Development Division, Ministry of Education, Singapore Christine was my doctoral supervisoran expert teacher, a caring mentor and a trustworthy friend. I enjoyed many interactions with Christine on questioning and scientic discourse. I particularly valued the opportunities to learn, understand and discuss Christines questioning framework of Socratic questioning, verbal jigsaw, semantic tapestry and framing (Chin 2007), which was rst developed based on questioning practices in the Singapore secondary classrooms. We were really excited when we analyzed scientic discourse in the primary science classrooms and found how the framework was also relevant yet articulated uniquely in the primary school context. It was especially meaningful when we co-developed resources to support teachers in understanding and designing questions at workshops for primary science teachers.

My interactions with Christine have inspired me to look beyond teachers questioning practices to understand teachers professional learning of questioning in my doctoral research. This has helped us understand how teachers knowledge can be facilitated by external stimuli of learning, and translated into practice; hence better understanding teachers change and growth in questioning practices.

To Christine: my deepest gratitude and respect for a great educator, whose work will continue to inspire many others in science teaching and learning locally and internationally.

Tang Wee Teo

Assistant Professor

National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, SingaporeAt the time Christine had passed on, I was still studying at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (UIUC). Coincidentally, it was also where Christine had studied her PhD. I was acquainted with Christine back in 2005 when I studied my part-time Masters degree at NIE. Christine was one of my course instructors. I remembered giving her a ride home after the night class as she stayed near my place. In the short conversation we had in the car, I formed impressions about Christineshe led a simple and well-disciplined life. She was probably one of the few professors who did not drive but ensured that she hopped on the regular 6 pm private bus that dropped people off designated bus stops.

The next time we met again was at Orange County in Anaheim, California. At that time I was a doctoral student and both of us were attending the National Association of Research in Science Teaching conference. I sat next to her at the banquet table in Baltimore, USA, when she received the 2007 Journal of Research in Science Teaching award for the best paper published in the year. She was pleased. We met briey a few times at the foyer, she seemed to have lost some weight and looked tired; I thought she was probably experiencing jet-lag. She said she wanted to go back to her room to sleep and do some workI thought she was so hardworking! A few months before Christine passed on, I met up with Christine at NARST conference again in Philadelphia. We had dinner with another colleague at Chinatown. Following that meet up, Christine wrote an email to me.

123

862 T. W. Teo, A.-L. Tan

When I was at UIUC, I was a recipient of the William Chandler Bagley Award. If I remember correctly (I could be wrong!), I think that at the front lobby of the Education building, there is a big board with the names of both students and staff who had received different kinds of awards. I do not know or remember whether my name is on the board. Would you mind checking this for me? If you do see my name there (it would be for the year 1997 or 1996), would you please take a photograph of it and send it to me? I do not think that I will ever step into UIUC again, so if my name did appear on the board, it would be a very nice momento for me. (Email correspondence, March 30, 2010).

Unfortunately, the photograph could not be taken as the plaque had changed and the names were refreshed. One morning on May 24, 2010, I received an email describing Christines sudden demise. I was in disbelief, went to wash my face, and read the email again. Subsequently, I notied people who knew Christine at UIUC, including her doctoral advisor, David Brown. I did not have the good fortune of her Masters student to have her as my mentor at NIE. She passed away before I returned to NIE.

David Brown

Associate ProfessorUniversity of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

As director of Christines dissertation research, I have many memories of her efforts as she grew as a researcher and developed her orientation as an interpretive researcher. Her initial orientation was toward quantitative research, and her dissertation was a mixed methods study, involving both quantitative and qualitative aspects. But as she delved further into the analysis, just as I had found in my own dissertation, she found that the most interesting results were coming from the interpretive analyses of the qualitative data. During her time working on her dissertation, I saw enormous growth in her abilities in interpretive analysis, and I could see that she had the ability as well as the drive and motivation to be a rst rate researcher. She was one of the most motivated graduate students Ive ever worked with. After her dissertation was completed, she was very proactive in turning her thesis work into three high quality papers. She was rst author on all of these papers, and this placement was well deserved. She was the driving force and principal contributor on all of the papers.

While I did not have an opportunity to work closely with her after she left Illinois, I followed her career from afar, and I truly enjoyed our cheerful meetings at conferences. Although I predicted she would be successful, I did not predict the level of success she achieved. At the time of her untimely death she was a top name in science education research, with many important publications that contributed to genuine improvement in science teaching. And Im sure had she survived, she would have continued to be one of the major contributors to science education research and improvement. The eld has lost a great researcher, but more importantly, the world has lost a kindly and giving soul genuinely dedicated to improving the lives of those around her.

Closing summary

Earlier, we mention about the consilience of narratives. Individuals who recollect their connections with Christine wrote each narrative independently. Each narrative paints an individual portrait of Christine. But, Christines positive qualitiesgenerous in sharing

123

Tribute to Christine Chin 863

knowledge, committed to good research, and inspiringare illuminated in all the narratives. The repetitions attest to the consistency of Christine as an individual and scholar in the eld. This is what we remember of Christine and her scholarship.

Photograph taken during a conference trip to Cijin Island, Taiwan. From left to right: Yew Jin Lee (colleague at NSSE), Chew-Leng Poon (middle), and Christine Chin (right)

Acknowledgments We would like to thank Sonya Martin for her comments and suggestions to improve an earlier version of this manuscript.

Reference

Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Diaz de Bustamante, J., & Duschl, R. A. (1998). Scientic culture and school culture: Epistemic and procedural components. Paper presented in the NARST annual meeting, San Diego, CA.

Christines works

Chin, C., Goh, N.-K., Chia, L.-S., Lee, K. W. L., & Soh, K.-C. (1996). Pre-service teachers use of problem-solving in primary science. Research in Science Education, 24, 4150.

Lee, K. W. L., Goh, N.-K., Chia, L.-S., & Chin, C. (1996). Cognitive variables in problem solving in chemistry: A revisited study. Science Education, 80, 691710.

Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2000a). Learning in Science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 109138.

Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2000b). Learning deeply in science: An analysis and reintegration of deep approaches in two case studies of grade 8 students. Research in Science Education, 30, 173197. Lee, K. W. L., Tan, L.-L., Goh, N.-K., Chia, L.-S., & Chin, C. (2000). Science teachers and problem solving in elementary schools in Singapore. Research in Science & Technological Education, 18, 113126. Chin, C. (2001). Learning in science: What do students questions tell us about their thinking? Education

Journal, 29(2), 85103.

Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2002). Student-generated questions: A meaningful aspect of learning in science.

International Journal of Science Education, 24, 521549.

123

864 T. W. Teo, A.-L. Tan

Chin, C., & Kayalvizhi, G. (2002). Posing problems for open investigations: What questions do pupils ask?Research in Science & Technological Education, 20, 269287.

Chin, C. (2002). Student-generated questions: Encouraging inquisitive minds in learning science. Teaching and Learning, 23, 5967.

Chin, C., & Chia, L.-G. (2004a). Problem-based learning: Using students questions to drive knowledge construction. Science Education, 88, 707727.

Chin, C. (2004). Students questions: Fostering a culture of inquisitiveness in science classrooms. SchoolScience Review, 86, 107112.

Chin, C., & Chia, L.-G. (2004b). Implementing project work in biology through problem-based learning.Journal of Biological Education, 38(2), 6975.

Chin, C., & Kayalvizhi, G. (2005). What do pupils think of open science investigations? A study ofSingaporean primary 6 pupils. Educational Research, 47, 107126.

Chin, C., & Chia, L.-G. (2005). Implementing problem-based learning in biology. Journal of Problem-BasedLearning. http://www.tp.edu.sg/pbl_christinechinligekchia.pdf

Web End =http://www.tp.edu.sg/pbl_christinechinligekchia.pdf .

Chin, C., & Chia, L.-G. (2006). Problem-based learning: Using ill-structured problems in biology project work. Science Education, 90, 4467.

Chin, C. (2006a). Classroom interaction in science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 13151346.

Chin, C. (2006b). Using self-questioning to promote pupils process skills thinking. School Science Review,87, 113119.

Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 815843.

Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). Students questions: A potential resource for teaching and learning science.Studies in Science Education, 44, 139.

Chin, C., & Teou, L.-Y. (2009). Using concept cartoons in formative assessment: Scaffolding students argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 13071332.

Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010a). Supporting argumentation through students questions: Case studies in science classrooms. Journal of Learning Sciences, 19, 230284.

Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010b). Students questions and discursive interaction: Their impact on argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 883908.

Tang Wee Teo is an Assistant Professor at the National Institute of Education and a former student of Christine.

Aik-Ling Tan is an Associate Professor at the National Institute of Education and a former colleague of Christine.

123

Word count: 5127

Show less

Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Tribute to Christine Chin

Content area

Abstract

Full text