SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
  • Apedoe, X., Reynolds, B., Ellefson, M., & Schunn, C. (2008). Bringing engineering design into high school science classrooms: The heating/cooling unit. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 454465.
  • Arnaudin, M. W., & Mintzes, J. J. (1985). Students' alternative conceptions of the human circulatory system: A cross-age study. Science Education, 69(5), 721733.
  • Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  • Barak, J., Gorodetsky, M., Chipman, D., & Gurion, B. (1997). Understanding of energy in biology and vitalistic conceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 19(1), 2130.
  • Barron, B. J. S., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., et al. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 271311.
  • Baumgartner, E., & Reiser, B. J. (1998). Strategies for supporting student inquiry in design tasks. Paper Presented at Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Diego, CA.
  • Beissner, K. L., & Reigeluth, C. M. (1994). A case study on course sequencing with multiple strands using the elaboration theory. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7(2), 3861.
  • Bloom, H. S., Hill, C. J., Black, A. R., & Lipsey, M. W. (2009). Performance trajectories and performance gaps as achievement effect-size benchmarks for educational interventions. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 1(4), 289328.
  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1542.
  • Committee on Science Learning Kindergarten Through Eighth Grade. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  • Consolazio, F. C., Johnson, R. E., & Pecora, L. J. (1963). Physiological measurements of metabolic functions in man. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  • Dreyfus, A., & Jungwirth, E. (1989). The pupil and the living cell: A taxonomy of dysfunctional ideas about an abstract idea. Journal of Biological Education, 23(1), 4955.
  • Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1997). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children's ideas. London: Routledge.
  • Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355385.
  • Fortus, D., Dershimer, R. C., Krajcik, J. S., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2004). Design-based science and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 10811110.
  • Gagné, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
  • Gayford, C. G. (1986). Some aspects of the problems of teaching about energy in school biology. European Journal of Science Education, 8(4), 443450.
  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99107.
  • Holbrook, J., Gray, J., Fasse, B. B., Camp, P. J., & Kolodner, J. L. (2001). Assessment and evaluation of the Learning by Design™ physical science unit, 1999–2000: A document in progress. Retrieved November 3, 2009, from http://www.cc.gatech.edu/projects/lbd/htmlpubs/progress.html.
  • Hug, B., Krajcik, J. S., & Marx, R. W. (2005). Technologies to promote learning and engagement in an urban science classroom. Urban Education, 40(4), 446472.
  • Kanter, D. E., Edelson, D. C., Krajcik, J. S., Marx, R. W., Reiser, B. J., & Kolodner, J. L. (2003). Design principles for project-based inquiry. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association. Chicago, IL.
  • Kanter, D. E., Kemp, E. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2001). Teaching middle school human biology through Biomedical Engineering-based project contexts. Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) IL/IN Sectional Conference. Purdue, IN.
  • Kanter, D. E., & Schreck, M. A. (2006). Learning content using complex data in project-based science: An example from high school biology in urban classrooms. New Directions in Teaching and Learning, 108, 7791.
  • Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J. E. (2003). Project 2061 analysis of middle school science textbooks: A response to holiday. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 535543.
  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 7586.
  • Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15, 661667.
    Direct Link:
  • Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B. B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., Puntambekar, S., & Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design into practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495547.
  • Kolodner, J. L., Crismond, D., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., & Puntambekar, S. (1998). Learning by design: From theory to practice. In A. A.Bruckman, M.Guzdial, J. L.Kolodner & A.Ram (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 1622). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing Education.
  • Krajcik, J. S., Czerniak, C. M., & Berger, C. F. (1999). Teaching science in elementary and middle school classrooms: A project-based approach. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
  • Krajcik, J. S., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 132.
  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lijnse, P. (1990). Energy between the life-world of pupils and the world of physics. Science Education, 74(5), 571583.
  • Linn, M. C., Bell, P., & Davis, E. A. (2004). Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Linn, M. C., & Clark, H. C. (1997). When are science projects learning opportunities? National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Retrieved November 3, 2009, from http://www.narst.org/publications/research/projects.cfm.
  • Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., Geier, R., & Tal, R. T. (2004). Inquiry-based science in the middle grades: Assessment of learning in urban systemic reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 10631080.
  • Mehalik, M. M., Doppelet, Y., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Middle-school science through design-based learning versus scripted inquiry: better overall science concept learning and equity gap reduction. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 115.
  • Mintzes, J. J. (1984). Naive theories in biology: Children's concepts of the human body. School Science and Mathematics, 84(7), 548555.
  • Mintzes, J. J., Trowbridge, J., Arnaudin, M. W., & Wandersee, J. (1989). Children's biology: Studies on conceptual development in the life sciences. In S.Glynn, R.Yeany, & B.Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science (pp. 179202). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • Novick, S. (1976). No energy storage in chemical bonds. Journal of Biological Education, 10(3), 116118.
  • Nuñez, F., & Banet, E. (1997). Students' conceptual patterns of human nutrition. International Journal of Science Education, 19(5), 509526.
  • Nussbaum, J., & Novick, S. (1982). Alternative frameworks, conceptual conflict and accommodation: Toward a principled teaching strategy. Instructional Science, 11, 183200.
  • Petrosino, A. J. (1998). The use of reflection and revision in hands-on experimental activities by at-risk children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
  • Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185217.
  • Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J. S., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., Kyza, E., Edelson, D. C., & Soloway, E. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337386.
  • Reigeluth, C. M., & Moore, J. (1999). The elaboration theory: Guidance for scope and sequence decisions. In C. M.Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol II, pp. 425454). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Reigeluth, C. M., & Stein, F. S. (1983). The elaboration theory of instruction. In C. M.Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 335381). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B. K., Steinmuller, F., & Leone, A. J. (2001). BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In S. M.Carver & D.Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 263305). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Rivet, A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2004). Achieving standards in urban systemic reform: An example of a sixth-grade project-based science curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(7), 669692.
  • Roberts, P. (1995). The place of design in technology education. In D.Layton (Ed.), Innovations in science and technology education (pp. 2738). Paris: UNESCO.
  • Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 12(1), 551.
  • Schank, R. C. (1999). Dynamic memory revisited (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Schank, R. C., & Korcuska, M. (1996). Eight goal-based scenario tools (Technical Report). The Institute for the Learning Sciences, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
  • Schneider, R. M. (2002). Performance of students in project-based science classrooms on a national measure of science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(5), 410422.
  • Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2005). Enacting reform-based science materials: The range of teacher enactments in reform classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 283312.
  • Schwartz, M. S., Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., & Tai, R. H. (2009). Depth versus breadth: How content coverage in high school science courses relates to later success in college science coursework. Science Education, 93, 798826.
  • Sherin, B., Brown, M., & Edelson, D. C. (2005). On the content of task-structured science curricula. In L. B.Flick & N.Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications teaching, learning, and teacher education Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
  • Singer, J., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., & Chambers, J. C. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 165178.
  • Simon, H. A. (1999). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Songer, C., & Mintzes, J. J. (1994). Understanding cellular respiration: An analysis of conceptual change in college biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(6), 621637.
  • Stern, L., & Roseman, J. E. (2004). Can middle-school science textbooks help students learn important ideas? Findings from project 2061's curriculum evaluation study: Life science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(6), 538568.
  • Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur's quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
  • Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257285.
  • Sweller, J., Kirschner, P. A., & Clark, R. E. (2007). Why minimally guided teaching techniques do not work: A reply to commentaries. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 115121.
  • Talbert, J. E., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1993). Understanding teaching in context. In D. K.Cohen, M. W.McLaughlin, & J. E.Talbert (Eds.), Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice (pp. 167206). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (Eds.). (2009). Constructivist instruction: success or failure? New York: Routledge.
  • Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education. New York: MacMillan.