SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

REFERENCES

  • Almqvist, J. (2005). Learning and artefacts: On the use of information technology in educational settings. Digital comprehensive summaries of Uppsala dissertations from the Faculty of Social Sciences, 3. Uppsala, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.
  • Anderson, J. R., Greeno, J. G., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (2000). Perspectives on learning, thinking, and activity. Educational Researcher, 29, 1113.
  • Caravita, S., & Halldén, O. (1994). Re-framing the problem of conceptual change. Learning & Instruction, 4, 89111.
  • Carey, S. (1999). Sources of conceptual change. In E. K.Scholnick, K.Nelson, S. A.Gelman, & P. H.Miller (Eds.), Conceptual development: Piaget's legacy (pp. 293326). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & deLeeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning & Instruction, 4, 2743.
  • Clement, J., Brown, D., & Zeitsman, A. (1989). Not all preconceptions are misconceptions: Finding anchoring conceptions for grounding instruction on students' intuitions. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 554565.
  • Coll, R. K., & Taylor, N. (2001). Alternative conceptions of chemical bonding held by upper secondary and tertiary students. Research in Science and Technological Education, 19, 171191.
  • De Posada, J. M. (1997). Conceptions of high school students concerning the internal structure of metals and their electric conduction: Structure and evolution. Science Education, 81, 445467.
  • Dewey, J. (1958). Experience and nature (2nd ed.). New York: Dover. (Original work published 1925)
  • Dewey, J. (2005). Democracy and education. Stilwell, KS: Digireads.com Publishing. (Original work published 1916)
  • diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition & Instruction, 10, 105225.
  • diSessa, A. A. (2006). A history of conceptual change research. In K. R.Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 265281). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • diSessa, A. A., Gillespie, N. M., & Esterly, J. B. (2004). Coherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of force. Cognitive Science, 28, 843900.
  • diSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. L. (1998). What changes in conceptual change? International Journal of Science Education, 20, 11551191.
  • Driver, R., & Erickson, G. (1983). Theories-in-action: Some theoretical and empirical issues in the study of students' conceptual frameworks in science. Studies in Science Education, 10, 3760.
  • Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children's ideas. London: Routledge.
  • Duit, R. (2007). Bibliography STCSE—Students' and teachers' conceptions and science education. Retrieved June 25, 2007, from IPN—Leibniz Institute for Science Education at the University of Kiel Web site: http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse//bibint.html
  • Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 671688.
  • Garnett, P. J., & Treagust, D. F. (1992a). Conceptual difficulties experienced by senior high school students of electrochemistry: Electric circuits and oxidation–reduction equations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 121142.
  • Garnett, P. J., & Treagust, D. F. (1992b). Conceptual difficulties experienced by senior high school students of electrochemistry: Electrochemical (galvanic) and electrolytic cells. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 10791099.
  • Garrison, J. W. (1995). Deweyan pragmatism and the epistemology of contemporary social constructivism. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 716740.
  • Greeno, J. G. (2006). Learning in activity. In K. R.Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 7996). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Groves, F. H., & Pugh, A. F. (2002). Cognitive illusions as hindrances to learning complex environmental issues. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 11, 381390.
  • Hammer, D. (2000). Student resources for learning introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, 68, 5259.
  • Hamza, K. M., & Wickman, P.-O. (2007). Encounters with distractions: A study of their role during a practical in electrochemistry. Manuscript in preparation.
  • Hewson, P. W., & Thorley, N. R. (1989). The conditions of conceptual change in the classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 541543.
  • Hickman, L. A. (1998). Dewey's theory of inquiry. In L. A.Hickman (Ed.), Reading Dewey: Interpretations for a post modern generation (pp. 166186). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
  • Huddle, P. A., White, M. D., & Rogers, F. (2000). Using a teaching model to correct known misconceptions in electrochemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 77, 104110.
  • Hunt, E., & Minstrell, J. (1994). A cognitive approach to the teaching of physics. In K.McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 5174). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Ioannides, C., & Vosniadou, S. (2002). The changing meanings of force. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 2, 561.
  • Jakobson, B., & Wickman, P.-O. (2007). Transformation through language use: Children's spontaneous metaphors in elementary school science. Science & Education, 16, 267289.
  • Johnson, P., & Gott, R. (1996). Constructivism and evidence from children's ideas. Science Education, 80, 561577.
  • Kelly, G. J., & Green, J. (1998). The social nature of knowing: Toward a sociocultural perspective on conceptual change and knowledge construction. In B.Guzzetti & C.Hynd (Eds.), Perspectives on conceptual change: Multiple ways to understand knowing and learning in a complex world (pp. 145181). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Kruckeberg, R. (2006). A Deweyan perspective on science education: Constructivism, experience, and why we learn science. Science & Education, 15, 130.
  • Lave, J. (1993). The practice of learning. In S.Chaiklin & J.Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 332). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2003). Individual and sociocultural views of learning in science education. Science and Education, 12, 91113.
  • Lidar, M., Lundqvist, E., & Östman, L. (2006). Teaching and learning in the science classroom: The interplay between teachers' epistemological moves and students' practical epistemology. Science Education, 90, 148163.
  • Lundegård, I., & Wickman, P.-O. (2007). Conflicts of interest: An indispensable element of education for sustainable development. Environmental Education Research, 13, 115.
  • Magnusson, S. J., Templin, M., & Boyle, R. A. (1997). Dynamic science assessment: A new approach for investigating conceptual change. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 91142.
  • Nicoll, G. (2001). A report of undergraduates' bonding misconceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 707730.
  • Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education, 86, 548571.
  • Özmen, H. (2004). Some student misconceptions in chemistry: A literature review of chemical bonding. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 13, 147159.
  • Rhees, R. (1970). Discussions of Wittgenstein. Bristol, England: Thoemmes Press.
  • Rogoff, B., & Chavajay, P. (1995). What's become of research on the cultural basis of cognitive development? American Psychologist, 50, 859877.
  • Sanger, M. J., & Greenbowe, T. J. (1997a). Common student misconceptions in electrochemistry: Galvanic, electrolytic, and concentration cells. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 377398.
  • Sanger, M. J., & Greenbowe, T. J. (1997b). Students' misconceptions in electrochemistry: Current flow in electrolyte solutions and the salt bridge. Journal of Chemical Education, 74, 819823.
  • Schoultz, J., Säljö, R., & Wyndhamn, J. (2001). Heavenly talk: Discourse, artifacts, and children's understanding of elementary astronomy. Human Development, 44, 103118.
  • Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 115163.
  • Songer, C. J., & Mintzes, J. J. (1994). Understanding cellular respiration: An analysis of conceptual change in college biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 621637.
  • Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. A.Duschl & R. J.Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology and educational theory and practice New York: State University of New York Press.
  • Säljö, R. (1997). Learning and sociocultural change. Den Haag: CIP-gegevens Koninklijke Bibliotheek.
  • Taber, K. S. (1995). Development of student understanding: A case study of stability and lability in cognitive structure. Research in Science and Technological Education, 13, 8999.
  • Taber, K. S. (2000). Multiple frameworks?: Evidence of manifold conceptions in individual cognitive structure. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 399.
  • Taber, K. S. (2001). Shifting sands: A case study of conceptual development as competition between alternative conceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 731753.
  • Taber, K. S. (2006a). Beyond constructivism: The progressive research programme into learning science. Studies in Science Education, 42, 125184.
  • Taber, K. S. (2006b). Constructivism's new clothes: The trivial, the contingent, and a progressive research programme into the learning of science. Foundations of Chemistry, 8, 189219.
  • Tytler, R. (1998). The nature of students' informal science conceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 901927.
  • Watson, R. J., Prieto, T., & Dillon, J. S. (1997). Consistency of students' explanations about combustion. Science Education, 81, 425443.
  • Welzel, M., & Roth, W.-M. (1998). Do interviews really assess students' knowledge? International Journal of Science Education, 20, 2544.
  • Wickman, P.-O. (2004). The practical epistemologies of the classroom: A study of laboratory work. Science Education, 88, 325344.
  • Wickman, P.-O. (2006). Aesthetic experience in science education: Learning and meaning-making as situated talk and action. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Wickman, P.-O., & Östman, L. (2002a). Induction as an empirical problem: How students generalize during practical work. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 465486.
  • Wickman, P.-O., & Östman, L. (2002b). Learning as discourse change: A sociocultural mechanism. Science Education, 86, 601623.
  • Vosniadou, S. (2001). Conceptual change research and the teaching of science. In H.Behrendt, H.Dahncke, R.Duit, W.Gräber, M.Komorek, A.Kross, & P.Reiska (Eds.), Research in science education—Past, present, and future (pp. 177188). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  • Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535585.
  • Vosniadou, S., & Ioannides, C. (1998). From conceptual development to science education: A psychological point of view. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 12131230.
  • Vosniadou, S., Skopeliti, I., & Ikospentaki, K. (2005). Reconsidering the role of artifacts in reasoning: Children's understanding of the globe as a model of the earth. Learning & Instruction, 15, 333351.
  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.