This article reports the outcomes of a project in which teachers' sought to develop their ability to use instructional practices associated with argumentation in the teaching of science-in particular, the use of more dialogic approach based on small group work and the consideration of ideas, evidence, and argument. The project worked with four secondary school science departments over 2 years with the aim of developing a more dialogic approach to the teaching of science as a common instructional practice within the school. To achieve this goal, two lead teachers in each school worked to improve the use of argumentation as an instructional practice by embedding activities in the school science curriculum and to develop their colleague's expertise across the curriculum for 11-to 16-yearold students. This research sought to identify: (a) whether such an approach using minimal support and professional development could lead to measurable difference in student outcomes, and (b) what changes in teachers' practice were achieved (reported elsewhere). To assess the effects on student learning and engagement, data were collected of students' conceptual understanding, reasoning, and attitudes toward science from both the experimental schools and a comparison sample using a set of standard instruments. Results show that few significant changes were found in students compared to the comparison sample. In this article, we report the findings and discuss what we argue are salient implications for teacher professional development and teacher learning. ß 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 50: 2013

In this study we propose a methodology for the analysis of text based interchanges on computer mediated conferences which is based on Speech Act theory and which takes the illocutionary act as its unit of analysis. This methodology is used to compare messages from two different conferences -one based on methods for fostering leamer independence and one based around a guest speaker seminar-and to show the differing patterns of interaction provoked by the differing task designs.

Editors and publishers of scholarly journals rarely agree on what makes for a good publication; they do, however, agree on the need for a robust peer review process as a crucial means to judge the merits of potential publications. While fraught with issues and inefficiencies, a critical and supportive peer review is not only what editors rely on when assessing scholarship presented for publication but also what authors hope for in order to improve their work. Understanding how peer review may best serve all parties involved: authors, editors, and reviewers, is thus at the heart of this article. The analysis offered here is based on a session the Journal for Learning Development in Higher Education editors gave at the 2020 LD@3 seminar series, entitled ‘The Art of Reviewing’. It explores the different aspects of the peer review process while formulating recommendations regarding best practices and outlining JLDHE initiatives for supporting reviewers’ vital work.

No abstract