SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Ayers, J., & Ayers, K. (2007). Teaching the scientific method: It's all in the perspective. The American Biology Teacher, 69, 1721.
  • Carey, S., & Smith, C. (1989). On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. Educational Psychologists, 28(3), 235251.
  • Cavicchi, E. (1997). Experimenting with magnetism: Ways of learning of Joann and Faraday. American Journal of Physics, 65, 867882.
  • Collins, H. (1992). Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Conant, J. (1951). Science and common sense. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  • Dewey, J. (1910a). Science as subject matter and method. Science, 31, 121127.
  • Dewey, J. (1910b). How we think. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
  • Edmund, N. (1994). The general pattern of the scientific method (SM-14; 2nd student ed.). Lauderdale, FL: Norman Edmund.
  • Edmund, N. (2000). The scientific method today: Your guide to the complete method of creative problem solving and decision making (SM-14). Lauderdale, FL: Norman Edmund.
  • Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Kosultit Oy.
  • Erickson, F. (2004). Talk and social theory: Ecologies of speaking and listening in everyday life. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
  • Gee, J. B. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London: Routledge.
  • Hammer, D. (1995). Epistemological considerations in teaching introductory physics. Science Education, 79(4), 393413.
  • Hammer, D., Russ, R., Mikeska, J., & Scherr, R. (2005). Identifying inquiry and conceptualizing students' abilities. In R.Duschl & R.Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry (pp. 138156). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: SensePublishers.
  • Hammer, D., & van Zee, E. (2006). Seeing the science in children's thinking: Case studies of student inquiry in physical science. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
  • Herbst, P., & Chazan, D. (2003). Exploring the practical rationality of mathematics teaching through conversations about videotaped episodes: The case of engaging students in proving. Learning of Mathematics, 23(1), 214.
  • Hodson, D. (1996). Laboratory work as scientific method: Three decades of confusion and distortion. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(2), 115135.
  • Kelly, G. J. (2005). Discourse, description, and science education. In R. K.Yerrick & W. M.Roth (Eds.), Establishing scientific classroom discourse communities: Multiple voices of teaching and learning research (pp. 79104). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86, 314342.
  • Knabb, M. T. (2006). Assessing inquiry process skills in the lab using a fast, simple, inexpensive fermentation model system. American Biology Teacher, 68, 2528.
  • Kolb, D. A., & Fry, R. (1975). Toward an applied theory of experiential learning. In C.Cooper (Ed.), Studies of group process (pp. 3357). New York: Wiley.
  • Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319337.
  • Lederman, N. (1998). The state of science education: Subject matter without context. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 3, 111.
  • Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2004). Modeling natural variation through distribution. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 635679.
  • Levin, D., Hammer, D., & Coffey, J. E. (2009). Novice teachers attention to student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(2), 142154.
  • National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  • Pickering, A. (1993). The mangle of practice: Agency and emergence in the sociology of science. American Journal of Sociology, 99, 559589.
  • Platt, J. R. (1964). Strong inference. Science, 146, 347352.
  • Reiff, R., Harwood, W. S., & Phillipson, T. (2002). A scientific method based upon research scientists' conceptions of scientific inquiry. In P.Rubba, J.Rye, W. J.Di Biase, & B. A.Crawford (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 Annual International Conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers of Science Greenville, NC: Association for the Education of Teachers in Science.
  • Rosenberg, S., Hammer, D., & Phelan, J. (2006). Multiple epistemological coherences in an eighth-grade discussion of the rock cycle. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 261292.
  • Rudolph, J. L. (2005). Epistemology for the masses: The origins of the scientific method in American schools. History of Education Quarterly, 45, 341376.
  • Russ, R. S., Scherr, R. E., Hammer, D., & Mikeska, J. (2008). Recognizing mechanistic reasoning in student scientific inquiry: A framework for discourse analysis developed from philosophy of science. Science Education, 92(3), 499525.
  • Salmon, W. C. (1984). Scientific explanation and the causal structure of the world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Sherin, B., diSessa, A. A., & Hammer, D. M. (1993). Dynaturtle revisited: Learning physics through collaborative design of a computer model. Interactive Learning Environments, 3(2), 91118.
  • Smith, C., Maclin, D., Houghton, C., & Hennessey, M. G. (2000). Sixth-grade students' epistemologies of science: The impact of school science experiences of epistemological development. Cognition and Instruction, 18(3), 349422.
  • Suits, J. P. (2004). Assessing investigative skill development in inquiry-based and traditional college science laboratory courses. School Science and Mathematics, 104, 248257.
  • Tamir, P. (1998). Teaching science by inquiry: Assessment and learning. Journal of Biological Education, 33, 2732.
  • Valli, L., & Chambliss, M. (2007). Creating classroom cultures: One teacher, two lessons, and a high stakes test. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 38(1), 5775.
  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society—The development of higher psychological processes (M.Cole, V.John-Steiner, S.Scribner, & E.Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., & Roseberry, A. S. (2001). Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 529552.
  • Warren, B., & Roseberry, S. (1995). “This question is just too too easy!” Perspectives from the classroom on accountability in science. In L.Schauble & R.Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning (pp. 97125). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Willden, J. (2002). A quantitative comparison of instruction format of undergraduate introductory level content biology courses: Traditional lecture approach vs. inquiry-based for education majors. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Charlotte, NC.
  • Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of “inquiry”: How preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 481512.
  • Wink, D. J. (2005). The inquiry wheel, an alternative to the scientific method. Journal of Chemical Education, 82, 682682.