SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

REFERENCES

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. L. (2006). On the role and use of “theory” in science education research: A response to Johnston, Southerland, and Sowell. Science Education, 90, 187194.
  • Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2000). Making believe: The collective construction of public mathematical knowledge in the elementary classroom. In D.Phillips (Ed.), Constructivism in education: Opinions and second opinions on controversial issues (pp. 193224). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Barnes, B., & Bloor, D. (1982). Relativism, rationalism, and the sociology of knowledge. In M.Hollis & S.Lukes (Eds.), Rationality and relativism (pp. 2147). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
  • Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
  • Brewer, W. F., & Samarapungavan, A. (1991). Children's theories vs. scientific theories: Differences in reasoning or differences in knowledge? In R. R.Hoffman & D. S.Palermo (Eds.), Cognition and the symbolic processes: Applied and ecological perspectives (pp. 209232). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Bridgman, P. W. (1936). The nature of physical theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles and systems. In L.Schauble & R.Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289325). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70(5), 10981120.
  • Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 12411257.
  • Comte, A., & Martineau, H. (1853). The positive philosophy of Auguste Comte. London: J. Chapman.
  • Davson-Galle, P. (2000). Contra Garrisonian social constructivism. Science and Education, 9, 611614.
  • Dewey, J. (1916). Education and democracy. New York: Macmillan.
  • diSessa, A. A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G.Forman & P.Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 4970). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • diSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. (1998). What changes in conceptual change? International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 11551191.
  • Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children's ideas. New York: Routledge.
  • Duhem, P. (1969). To save the phenomena: An essay on the idea of physical theory from Plato to Galileo. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Edelson, D., & Reiser, B. (2006). Making authentic practices accessible to learners: Design challenges and strategies. In R. K.Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Engle, R. A. (2006). Framing interactions to foster generative learning: A situative explanation of transfer in a community of learners classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 451498.
  • Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 399483.
  • Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915933.
  • Ford, M. J. (2005). The game, the pieces, and the players: Generative resources from alternative instructional portrayals of experimentation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 449487.
  • Ford, M. J. (in press). “Grasp of practice” as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of science understanding. Science and Education (available online). Retrieved January 9, 2008, from www.springerlink.com/content/102992
  • Ford, M. J., & Forman, E. A. (2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30, 132.
  • Ford, M. J., & Kniff, K. J. (2006). Groundwork for progress supporting scientific literacy: An expert–novice study. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.
  • Garrison, J. (1997). An alternative to von Glaserfeld's subjectivism in science education: Deweyan social constructivism. Science and Education, 6, 543554.
  • Geddis, A. N. (1993). Transforming subject-matter knowledge: The role of pedagogical content knowledge in learning to reflect on teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 15(6), 673683.
  • Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606633.
  • Gresalfi, M. S., & Cobb, P. (2006). Cultivating students' discipline-specific dispositions as a critical goal for pedagogy and equity. Pedagogies, 1(1), 4957.
  • Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Hanson, N. R. (1958). Patterns of discovery. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1991). Sharing cognition through collective comprehension activity. In L. B.Resnick, J. M.Levine, & S. D.Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 331348). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  • Herrenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 431473.
  • Hewson, P. W., Beeth, M. E., & Thorley, N. R. (1998). Teaching for conceptual change. In B. J.Fraser & K. G.Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp.199218) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
  • Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., et al. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The case of mathematics. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 1221.
  • Koslowski, B. (1996). Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319337.
  • Lampert, M. (1985). How do teachers manage to teach? Perspectives on problems in practice. Harvard Educational Review, 55(2), 178194.
  • Latour, B. (1990). Drawing things together. In M.Lynch & S.Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp. 1968). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Laudan, L. (1984). Science and values: The aims of science and their role in scientific debate. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and scientific literacy. In W.Damon, R.Lerner, K. A.Renninger, & E.Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 4, pp. 153196) Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  • Longino, H. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Matthews, M. R. (Ed.). (1998). Constructivism and science education: A philosophical examination. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
  • Mayo, D. (1996). Error and the growth of experimental knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Minstrell, J., & Stimpson, V. (1996). A classroom environment for learning: Guiding students' reconstruction of understanding and reasoning. In L.Schauble & R.Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • Niaz, M., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Benarroch, L. C., Laburu, C. E., Marin, N., Montes, L. A., et al. (2003). Constructivism: Defense or a continual critical appraisal. Science and Education, 12, 787797.
  • Nola, R. (1997). Constructivism in science and science education: A philosophical critique. Science and Education, 6, 5583.
  • Nola, R., & Irzik, G. (2006). Philosophy, science, education, and culture. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
  • Olson, D. (1996). The world on paper: The conceptual and cognitive implications of writing and reading. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Osborne, J. (1996). Beyond constructivism. Science Education, 80(1), 5382.
  • Papert, S. (2006). Afterword: After how comes what. In R. K.Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 581586). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Pera, M. (1994). The discourses of science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 512.
  • Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Popper, K. (1968). The logic of scientific discovery (2nd rev. ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
  • Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211227.
  • Reiser, B. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273304.
  • Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
  • Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., & Conant, F. R. (1992). Appropriating science discourse: Findings from language minority classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 6194.
  • Rouse, J. (1987). Knowledge and power: Toward a political philosophy of science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
  • Rouse, J. (1996). Engaging science: How to understand its practices philosophically. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
  • Rudolph, J. L. (2000). Reconsidering the “nature of science” as a curriculum component. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(3), 403419.
  • Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic supports for science inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345372.
  • Schauble, L. (1996). The development of scientific reasoning in knowledge-rich contexts. Developmental Psychology, 32(1), 2119.
  • Schwab, J. (1962). The concept of the structure of a discipline. Educational Record, 43, 197205.
  • Toth, E. E., Klahr, D., & Chen, Z. (2000). Bridging research and practice: A research-based classroom intervention for teaching experimentation skills to elementary school children. Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 423459.
  • Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Toulmin, S. (1990). Cosmopolis: The hidden agenda of modernity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of learning. New York: Routledge Falmer.
  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131175.
  • Wiser, M. (1995). Use of history of science to understand and remedy students' misconceptions about heat and temperature. In D. N.Perkins, J. L.Schwartz, & M. M.West (Eds.), Software goes to school: Teaching for understanding with new technologies (pp. 2338). New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 458477.