Claim, Evidence, and Reasoning (C-E-R) Framework: Application in Dissertation and Thesis Writing for Music Education Research and Cross-Disciplinary Contexts

This article examines the Claim, Evidence, and Reasoning framework, detailing its historical development and theoretical underpinnings. It elucidates the core components of CER and provides practical guidance on its application in crafting robust arguments within dissertations and theses, particularly within the domain of music education research. The utility of CER extends beyond this specific field, demonstrating its broad applicability across various disciplines for enhancing argumentative clarity and rigor. This framework, adapted from Toulmin’s model of argumentation, provides a structured approach for students to construct scientific explanations and justify their claims based on empirical data and logical inferences. Specifically, the Claim, Evidence, Reasoning model, developed by McNeill and Krajcik, simplifies Toulmin's more complex argumentation model to make it more accessible for science education contexts, enabling students to articulate not just what occurred, but also the underlying reasons. This pedagogical framework fosters critical thinking by guiding students to substantiate assertions with empirical data and sound justification. By requiring students to evaluate evidence for ill-defined or complex problems rather than simply confirming theories, CER promotes a deeper engagement with scientific inquiry and argumentation. This approach not only aids in structuring scientific explanations but also encourages students to link these components coherently, ensuring that evidence supports the claim and reasoning connects the evidence to that claim.

Claim, Evidence, Reasoning, argumentation, dissertation

1. Adeoye, M. A. (2024). Mastering the Basics: A Guide to Research Methodology for Effective Writing and Publication. Deleted Journal, 4(1), 30. https://doi.org/10.31538/cjotl.v4i1.1345 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Allen, W. C., Rebello, C. M., & Rebello, N. S. (2025). Assessing Physics Students’ Scientific Argumentation using Natural Language Processing. arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2504.08910 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Allen, W. C., Shanker, A., & Rebello, N. S. (2025). Students’ Perceptions to a Large Language Model’s Generated Feedback and Scores of Argumentation Essays. arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2508.14759 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Almpani, S., & Stefaneas, P. (2023). Bridging Informal Reasoning and Formal Proving: The Role of Argumentation in Proof-Events. Foundations of Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-023-09926-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Andrews, R. (2015a). Critical Thinking and/or Argumentation in Higher Education. In Palgrave Macmillan US eBooks (p. 49). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137378057_3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Andrews, R. (2015b). Critical Thinking and/or Argumentation in Higher Education. In Palgrave Macmillan eBooks. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137378057.0006 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Aoonlamai, N., & Kwangmuang, P. (2025). Integrating digital tools and constructivist learning: a ubiquitous learning framework for enhancing creativity in music education. BMC Psychology, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-03300-z [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Arias, A. M. (2015). Learning to Teach Elementary Students to Construct Evidence-Based Claims of Natural Phenomena. Deep Blue (University of Michigan). https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/113423 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Arini, S. H. D., & Adi, T. T. (2024). Enhancing learning and skills in the digital age: Digital Bloom and platforms in music education. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in the Digital Age (CELDA 2024) (pp. 68–74). http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED665372.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Bachtiar, R. W., Meulenbroeks, R. R., & Joolingen, W. van. (2022). Mechanistic reasoning in science education: A literature review [Review of Mechanistic reasoning in science education: A literature review]. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 18(11). Modestum Limited. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/12512 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Bajunid, S. N. H. A. S. A., & Tony, R. E. Z. (2025). Performative Education: Redesigning Learning through Music Performance Practices. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 9(25), 368. https://doi.org/10.47772/ijriss.2025.925ileiid000065 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Baş, Ö., & Sevım, S. (2020). The Effect of Argumentation-Based Learning Environments on Pre-service Science Teachers' Conceptual Understanding and Decision Making Styles. Higher Education Studies, 10(2), 66. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v10n2p66 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Biasutti, M. (2015). Pedagogical applications of cognitive research on musical improvisation. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00614 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Boell, S. K., & Hovorka, D. S. (2019). Writing, Arguing, Contributing - A Cogent Argumentation Framework for Identifying, Specifying, and Evaluating Research Contribution. AJIS. Australasian Journal of Information Systems/AJIS. Australian Journal of Information Systems/Australian Journal of Information Systems, 23. https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v23i0.1857 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Cojorn, K., & Sonsupap, K. (2024a). A collaborative professional development and its impact on teachers’ ability to foster higher order thinking. Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn), 18(2), 561. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v18i2.21182 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Cojorn, K., & Sonsupap, K. (2024b). Examining science teachers’ TPACK impact on students’ post-pandemic thinking skills. International Journal of ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES, 11(5), 44. https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2024.05.005 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Dahnuss, D., Sarwi, S., Marwoto, P., & Linuwih, S. (2023). Argumentation Writing Skills of Preservice Teacher in Higher Education: Mapping for Development. BIO Web of Conferences, 79, 5009. https://doi.org/10.1051/bioconf/20237905009 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. De L’Etoile, S. K., Dachinger, C., Fairfield, J., & Lathroum, L. (2012). The rational-scientific mediating model (R-SMM): A framework for scientific research in music therapy. Music Therapy Perspectives, 30(2), 130–140. https://doi.org/10.1093/mtp/30.2.130 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. DİREKÇİ, B., Akbulut, S., Şimşek, B., Gülmez, M., & ÇOPUR, E. N. (2022). Analysis of pre-service teachers’ argumentation-based academic writing process. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1040332 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Dolapçıoğlu, S. (2021). Thinking through Arguments on Comparative Education Topics: Contemporary Learning Approach in Teacher Education. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 8(4), 196. https://doi.org/10.33200/ijcer.889521 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Du, L., Ding, X., Xiong, K., Liu, T., & Qin, B. (2022). e-CARE: a New Dataset for Exploring Explainable Causal Reasoning. Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), 432. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.33 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Duran, V. (2024). Analyzing teacher candidates’ arguments on AI integration in education via different chatbots. Digital Education Review, 45, 68. https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2024.45.68-83 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Fatihah, J. A., Widhiyanti, T., Mulyani, S., Wiji, W., & Yuliani, G. (2022). Design of Science Process Skill-Based Intertextual Learning on Reaction Kinetics Concept. JTK (Jurnal Tadris Kimiya), 7(2), 190. https://doi.org/10.15575/jtk.v7i2.20883 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Feijoo‐Garcia, M. A., Newell, B., Magana, A. J., & Holstrom, M. S. (2024). Argumentation Framework as an Educational Approach for Supporting Critical Design Thinking in Engineering Education. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--46597 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Foster, N., & Schleicher, A. (2022). Assessing Creative Skills. Creative Education, 13(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2022.131001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Fredrick, D. (2025). Student vs. ChatGPT in Rogerian Argument: A Diction 7.2 and Qualitative Content Analysis. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 16(5), 1475. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1605.04 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Gotwals, A. W., & Songer, N. B. (2009). Reasoning up and down a food chain: Using an assessment framework to investigate students’ middle knowledge. Science Education, 94(2), 259. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20368 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Gotwals, A. W., & Songer, N. B. (2010). Reasoning up and down a food chain: Using an assessment framework to investigate students’ middle knowledge. Deep Blue (University of Michigan). http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/65025 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Gotwals, A. W., & Songer, N. B. (2013a). Validity Evidence for Learning Progression‐Based Assessment Items That Fuse Core Disciplinary Ideas and Science Practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(5), 597. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21083 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Gotwals, A. W., & Songer, N. B. (2013b). Validity Evidence for Learning Progression‐Based Assessment Items That Fuse Core Disciplinary Ideas and Science Practices. Deep Blue (University of Michigan). http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/97447 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Guamanga, M. H., González, F. A., Saiz, C., & Rivas, S. F. (2023). Critical Thinking: The ARDESOS-DIAPROVE Program in Dialogue with the Inference to the Best and Only Explanation. Journal of Intelligence, 11(12), 226. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11120226 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Gui, Q., Kanjanakate, S., & Jantharajit, N. (2024). Active and Collaborative Learning: A Theoretical Framework to Enhance Musical Performance and Learning Attitudes in College Students. World Journal of Education, 14(4), 48. https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v14n4p48 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Haudek, K. C., & Zhai, X. (2023). Examining the Effect of Assessment Construct Characteristics on Machine Learning Scoring of Scientific Argumentation. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-023-00385-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Heston, T. F. (2023). Foundations of Scholarly Writing. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4653380 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Hong, L. Y., & Talib, C. A. (2018). Scientific Argumentation in Chemistry Education: Implications and Suggestions. Asian Social Science, 14(11), 16. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v14n11p16 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Jacobson, M. J., Lund, K., Hoadley, C., Vatrapu, R., Kolodner, J. L., & Reimann, P. (2016). Beyond Just Getting Our Word Out : Creating Pipelines from Learning Sciences Research to Educational Practices. Research Portal Denmark, 2, 1071. https://local.forskningsportal.dk/local/dki-cgi/ws/cris-link?src=cbs&id=cbs-f0bc91d6-b766-4a4e-b067-1f908b778ca1&ti=Beyond%20Just%20Getting%20Our%20Word%20Out%20%3A%20Creating%20Pipelines%20from%20Learning%20Sciences%20Research%20to%20Educational%20Practices [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Jamil, M., Hafeez, F. A., & Muhammad, N. (2024). Critical Thinking Development for 21st Century: Analysis of Physics Curriculum. Journal of Social & Organizational Matters, 3(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.56976/jsom.v3i1.45 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Jimenez, P. C., Alred, A., & Dauer, J. M. (2024). Describing undergraduate students’ reasoning and use of evidence during argumentation about socioscientific issues systems. Frontiers in Education, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1371095 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Kartika, H., & Budiarto, M. T. (2022). Assessing the Quality of Arguments in Students’ Mathematical Problem Solving. ÜNİVERSİTEPARK Bülten, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.22521/unibulletin.2022.112.2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Kock, C. E. J., & Lantz, P. M. V. (2022). Rhetorical Argumentation: The Copenhagen School. https://doi.org/10.22329/wsia.13.2023 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Kubsch, M., Czinczel, B. K., Lossjew, J., Wyrwich, T., Bednorz, D., Bernholt, S., Fiedler, D., Strauß, S., Creß, U., Drachsler, H., Neumann, K., & Rummel, N. (2022). Toward learning progression analytics — Developing learning environments for the automated analysis of learning using evidence centered design. Frontiers in Education, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.981910 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Laliyo, L. A. R., Utina, R., Husain, R. I., Umar, M. K., Katili, M. R., & Panigoro, C. (2023). Evaluating students’ ability in constructing scientific explanations on chemical phenomena. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 19(9). https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13524 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Leshem, S., & Bitzer, E. (2021). ‘Signposting’ research stories in doctoral theses: Writing that keeps the reader in mind. Per Linguam, 37(1). https://doi.org/10.5785/37-1-965 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Lins, S., Becker, J.-M., Lyytinen, K., & Sunyaev, A. (2023). A Design Theory for Certification Presentations. ACM SIGMIS Database the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, 54(3), 75. https://doi.org/10.1145/3614178.3614183 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Liu, D., & Xiong, M. (2024). Keeping balance between loyalty and modification: a Toulminian model as analytical framework. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03151-w [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Loch, Q. (2018). The impact of claim-evidence-reasoning writing techniques on argumentation skills in scientific investigations. Montana State University ScholarWorks (Montana State University). https://scholarworks.montana.edu/xmlui/handle/1/13677 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Long, T. Hobbs. (2014). EFFECTS OF THE CLAIMS-EVIDENCE-REASONING WRITING FRAMEWORK ON TEACHING AND LEARNING IN EIGHTH GRADE SCIENCE. Montana State University ScholarWorks (Montana State University), 1. https://scholarworks.montana.edu/xmlui/handle/1/3569 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. LOZADA, S. F. C., & CORTEZ, J. C. (2025). Transforming science education: A qualitative inquiry into empowering teachers through professional development for effective Claim, Evidence, and Reasoning (CER) integration. International Journal of Science and Research Archive, 15(2), 194. https://doi.org/10.30574/ijsra.2025.15.2.1311 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. MacDonald, R., & Saarikallio, S. (2024). Healthy musical identities and new virtuosities: a humble manifesto for music education research. Nordic Research in Music Education, 5. https://doi.org/10.23865/nrme.v5.5565 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. MacIntyre, P. D., Potter, G. K., & Burns, J. N. (2012). The socio-educational model of music motivation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 60(2), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429412444609 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Magnussen, R., & Elming, A. (2017). Student re-design of deprived neighborhoods in Minecraft : Game-assisted community-driven urban development. Research Portal Denmark. https://local.forskningsportal.dk/local/dki-cgi/ws/cris-link?src=aau&id=aau-3e342bd0-8f30-42b7-ac84-9656bbf87204&ti=Student%20re-design%20of%20deprived%20neighborhoods%20in%20Minecraft%20%3A%20Game-assisted%20community-driven%20urban%20development [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Marino, J.-C. (2020). Elementary Students’ Coordination of Claims and Evidence in Science and History. Deep Blue (University of Michigan). https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/155176 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Martínez-Albiñana, R., Carbonell, G. E., & Montagud, M. Á. C. (2023). Propuesta de implementación de una práctica artístico-musical performativa y participativa en localidades de la Comunitat Valenciana. Culturas Revista de Gestión Cultural, 10(2), 120. https://doi.org/10.4995/cs.2023.20714 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Martorell, J. J. V., Mariscal, A. J. F., & Martínez, J. M. O. (2024). Enhancing Argumentation and Decision-Making of Preservice Early Childhood Education Teachers Through Role-Playing on Animal Experimentation. Science & Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-024-00529-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Maryanti, M., Wicaksana, E. J., & Mursyd, D. (2025). IMPACT OF THE STUDENT FACILITATOR AND EXPLAINING MODEL INTEGRATED WITH SOCIO-SCIENTIFIC ISSUES ON ANALYTICAL THINKING SKILLS IN BIOLOGY EDUCATION. BIOMA Jurnal Ilmiah Biologi, 14(2), 17. https://doi.org/10.26877/sy0vtt35 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Mathis, C., Siverling, E., Glancy, A., Guzey, S. S., & Moore, T. (2016). Students’ Use of Evidence-Based Reasoning in K-12 Engineering: A Case Study (Fundamental). https://doi.org/10.18260/p.25943 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. McPhail, G., Tibbles, S., & Cornish, M. (2022). Developing teacher curriculum design expertise: using the CDC Model in the music classroom. British Journal of Music Education, 40(2), 255. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0265051722000262 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Mehl, C. E., Jin, H., & Llort, K. F. (2019). Student Decision Making in a Scenario-based Investigation of an Ecosystem. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/112278 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. Moore, B., & Wright, J. (2023). Constructing written scientific explanations: a conceptual analysis supporting diverse and exceptional middle- and high-school students in developing science disciplinary literacy. Frontiers in Education, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1305464 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. Mosquera, E. M., & Sierra, L. O. (2019). Estructura y movidas de la sección “metodología” en tesis de posgrado de educación. Enunciación, 24(2), 133. https://doi.org/10.14483/22486798.14772 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. Pedersen, A. Y., Caviglia, F., Kay, J., & Luckin, R. (2018). Researcher or Fellow Citizen? : Looking for a Role Model in the Humanities. Research Portal Denmark, 2, 945. https://local.forskningsportal.dk/local/dki-cgi/ws/cris-link?src=au&id=au-5c6f9289-adfe-4de6-9a10-159c99bd420a&ti=Researcher%20or%20Fellow%20Citizen%3F%20%3A%20Looking%20for%20a%20Role%20Model%20in%20the%20Humanities [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. Perdana, R., Yulianti, D., & Bertiliya, W. A. (2025). Enhancing scientific literacy through AI-integrated Inquiry Social Complexity module in primary education. Journal of Educational Management and Instruction (JEMIN), 5(2), 388. https://doi.org/10.22515/jemin.v5i2.10891 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. Pichette, C. F. (2019). Writing arguments with evidence: the claim-evidence-reasoning framework and scientific literacy. Montana State University ScholarWorks (Montana State University). https://scholarworks.montana.edu/xmlui/handle/1/14799 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. Rainey, E. C. (2017). Disciplinary Literacy in English Language Arts: Exploring the Social and Problem‐Based Nature of Literary Reading and Reasoning. Deep Blue (University of Michigan). http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/135650 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. Ramadhani, D. G., Yamtinah, S., Saputro, S., & Widoretno, S. (2023). Analysis of the relationship between students’ argumentation and chemical representational ability: a case study of hybrid learning oriented in the environmental chemistry course. Chemistry Teacher International, 5(4), 397. https://doi.org/10.1515/cti-2023-0047 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. Rangel, V. S., Monroy, C. R., & Bell, E. R. (2016). Science teachers’ data use practices: A descriptive analysis. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24, 86. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.2348 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. Rapanta, C., & Macagno, F. (2019). Evaluation and Promotion of Argumentative Reasoning Among University Students: The Case of Academic Writing. Revista Lusófona de Educação, 45, 125. https://doi.org/10.24140/issn.1645-7250.rle45.09 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. Rapanta, C., & Macagno, F. (2023). Authentic questions as prompts for productive and constructive sequences: A pragmatic approach to classroom dialogue and argumentation. Dialogic Pedagogy A Journal for Studies of Dialogic Education, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2023.546 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

69. Reamy, A. T. (2021). What effect does the claim-evidence-reasoning framework have on teaching and learning in a middle school classroom? Montana State University ScholarWorks (Montana State University). https://scholarworks.montana.edu/xmlui/handle/1/16333 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

70. Robles, D. C., Osorio, J. H., Mariscal, A. J. F., & Cruz-Lorite, I. M. (2022). Assessing the argumentation ability of pre-service teachers. Case study concerning the chemical dissolution process. IJERI International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation, 17, 73. https://doi.org/10.46661/ijeri.4968 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

71. Rocco, T. S., & Plakhotnik, M. S. (2009). Literature Reviews, Conceptual Frameworks, and Theoretical Frameworks: Terms, Functions, and Distinctions. Human Resource Development Review, 8(1), 120. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484309332617 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

72. Rogers, P. S. (2000). Tools to facilitate transitions into unfamiliar writing contexts. Deep Blue (University of Michigan). https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/36051 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

73. Rohayati, R., Syihabuddin, S., Anshori, D. S., & Sastromiharjo, A. (2024). Improving Scientific Argumentation in University Students Through a Training Approach. KnE Social Sciences. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v9i13.15990 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

74. Samosa, R. C. (2021). EFFECTIVENESS OF CLAIM, EVIDENCE AND REASONING AS AN INNOVATION TO DEVELOP STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTATIVE WRITING SKILLS. JournalNX - A Multidisciplinary Peer Reviewed Journal, 7(5), 135. https://doi.org/10.17605/osf.io/9qjuz [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

75. Sánchez, D. O., & González, C. P. (2025). Teachers’ Perceptions of Argumentation in Citizenship Education: Psychometric Validation of the AASES Instrument and Mediation Analysis of Sociodemographic Variables Using SEM. Argumentation. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-025-09676-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

76. Sari, I. J., & Islami, R. A. Z. E. (2020). The Effectiveness of Scientific Argumentation Strategy towards the Various Learning Outcomes and Educational Levels Five Over the Years in Science Education. Journal of Innovation in Educational and Cultural Research, 1(2), 52. https://doi.org/10.46843/jiecr.v1i2.17 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

77. Sasseron, L. H. (2019). Práticas em aula de ciências: o estabelecimento de interações discursivas no ensino por investigação. https://doi.org/10.11606/t.48.2019.tde-01082019-120320 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

78. Schiavio, A., Nijs, L., Schyff, D. van der, & Juntunen, M.-L. (2023). Editorial: Community series: towards a meaningful instrumental music education. Methods, perspectives, and challenges, volume II. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1303796 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

79. Shin, D., Song, M., & Thompson, C. (2011). Turn That Light Up: Examining the Effect of Light Intensity on Photosynthesis as Measured by Oxygen Production in Elodea canadensis. Expedition, 1. https://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/expedition/article/download/183642/183675 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

80. Simon, S. (2008). Using Toulmin’s Argument Pattern in the evaluation of argumentation in school science. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 31(3), 277. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437270802417176 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

81. Siverling, E., Suazo‐Flores, E., Mathis, C., Moore, T., Guzey, S. S., & Whipple, K. (2018). Middle School Students’ Engineering Discussions: What Initiates Evidence-Based Reasoning? (Fundamental). https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--28668 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

82. Srivastava, R., Sinha, S. K., Sutaria, K., Kundra, D., Nirupa, V., & Kulkarni, S. (2025). Managing music curriculum with predictive analytics. ShodhKosh: Journal of Visual and Performing Arts, 6(4S), 410–421. https://doi.org/10.29121/shodhkosh.v6.i4s.2025.6874 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

83. Su, Y., Liu, K., Lai, C., & Jin, T. (2021). The progression of collaborative argumentation among English learners: A qualitative study. System, 98, 102471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102471 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

84. Subramaniam, R. C., Morphew, J., Rebello, C. M., & Rebello, N. S. (2024). Presenting a STEM Ways of Thinking Framework for Engineering Design-based Physics Problems. arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2411.11654 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

85. Sularso, S., Yu, Q., Pranolo, A., & P, C. H. (2024). Advancing computer science in education: integrating digital music technology into elementary school music programs. E3S Web of Conferences, 501, 1019. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202450101019 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

86. Surin, S., & Damrongpanit, S. (2024). Quantifying Influence: Propensity Score Matching Unravels the True Effect Sizes of Learning Management Models on Students’ Analytical Thinking. European Journal of Educational Research, 1535. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.13.4.1535 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

87. The Toulmin Argumentation Framework. (2023). In Advances in educational marketing, administration, and leadership book series (p. 149). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-6563-9.ch007 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

88. Thorne, S., Mentzer, N., Strimel, G., Bartholomew, S., & Ware, J. (2024). Learning by Evaluating: An Exploration of Optimizing Design-Based Instruction. Journal of Technology Education, 35(2), 53. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v35i2.a.4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

89. Velandia-Mesa, C., Pastor, F. J. S., & Segura, M. J. M. (2019). The challenge of competencies in training for educational research: a conceptual approach. Actualidades Investigativas En Educación, 19(3). https://doi.org/10.15517/aie.v19i3.38738 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

90. Verma, S. K., Dandu, V., Ghosh, D., Tripathy, S., Malhotra, A., & Ojha, V. (2025). Performance data analytics for music institutions. ShodhKosh: Journal of Visual and Performing Arts, 6(2s), 158–167. https://doi.org/10.29121/shodhkosh.v6.i2s.2025.6696 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

91. Wallon, R. C., Jasti, C., Lauren, L. H., & Hug, B. (2017). Implementation of a Curriculum-Integrated Computer Game for Introducing Scientific Argumentation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27(3), 236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-017-9720-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

92. Williyan, A., Sirniawati, S., Istianah, T. N., & Guntur, M. (2023). CRITICAL REVIEW ON A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS RESEARCH: WHAT NOVICE WRITERS CAN LEARN [Review of CRITICAL REVIEW ON A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS RESEARCH: WHAT NOVICE WRITERS CAN LEARN]. English Review Journal of English Education, 11(1), 83. University of Kuningan and Association of Indonesian Scholars of English Education (AISEE). https://doi.org/10.25134/erjee.v11i1.7195 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

93. Yang, R. (2021). A Study of Claims and Qualifiers in ESL Students’ Argumentative Writing --An empirical study based on Toulmin model. Research Square (Research Square). https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-764344/v1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

94. Yao, J., Guo, Y., & Neumann, K. (2016). Towards a hypothetical learning progression of scientific explanation. Asia-Pacific Science Education, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41029-016-0011-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

95. Yasuda, S. (2023). What does it mean to construct an argument in academic writing? A synthesis of English for general academic purposes and English for specific academic purposes perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 66, 101307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2023.101307 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

96. Yindeemak, A., Jantakoon, T., & Laoha, R. (2025). Robotic Simulation in STEM Education: A Conceptual Framework for Developing Problem-Solving and Systems Thinking Skills (RSiSTEM Framework). Higher Education Studies, 15(4), 266. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v15n4p266 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

97. Zhang, Z., Gao, J., Dhaliwal, R. S., & Li, T. J.-J. (2023). VISAR: A Human-AI Argumentative Writing Assistant with Visual Programming and Rapid Draft Prototyping. 1. https://doi.org/10.1145/3586183.3606800 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study