SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Adey, P., & Shayer, M. (1993). An exploration of long-term far-transfer effects following an extended intervention program in the high school science curriculum. Cognition & Instruction, 11(1), 1.
  • Alexander, R. (2005). Towards dialogic teaching. York: Dialogos.
  • Allen, J. P., Pianta, R. C., Gregory, A., Mikami, A. Y., & Lun, J. (2011). An interaction-based approach to enhancing secondary school instruction and student achievement. Science, 333(6045), 10341037.
  • Alverman, D. E., Qian, G., & Hynd, C. E. (1995). Effects of interactive discussion and text type on learning counterintuitive science concepts. Journal of Educational Research, 88, 146154.
  • Ames, G. J., & Murray, F. B. (1982). When two wrongs make a right: Promoting cognitive change by social conflict. Developmental Psychology, 18, 894897.
  • Andrews, R. (1995). Teaching and learning argument. London: Cassell.
  • Applebee, A., Langer, J., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 685.
  • Avvisati, F., & Vincent-Lancrin, S. P. (in press). Effective teaching for improving students' motivation, curiosity, and self-confidence in science: A comparative approach. Paris: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, OECD.
  • Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2000). Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach: Knowing and using mathematics. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 83104). Wesport, CT: Ablex.
  • Bassey, M. (2001). A solution to the problem of generalisation in educational research: Fuzzy prediction. Oxford Review of Education, 27(1), 522.
  • Billig, M. (1996). Arguing and thinking (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Birman, B. F., Le Floch, K. C., Klekotka, A., Ludwig, M., Taylor, J., Walters, K., … Yoon, K. S. (2007). State and Local Implementation of the “No Child Left Behind Act.” Volume II—Teacher Quality under“NCLB”: Interim Report.
  • Blalock, C. L., Lichtenstein, M. J., Owen, S., Pruski, L., Marshall, C., & Toepperwein, M. (2008). In pursuit of validity: A comprehensive review of science attitude instruments. International Journal of Science Education, 30(7), 961977.
  • Boaler, J., & Staples, M. (2008). Creating mathematical futures through an equitable teaching approach: The case of Railside School. The Teachers College Record, 110(3), 608645.
  • Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 315.
  • Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229270).
  • Cerini, B., Murray, I., & Reiss, M. (2003). Student review of the science curriculum. London: NESTA.
  • Chi, M. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73105.
  • Christodoulou, A. (2011). The science classroom as a site of epistemic talk: two case studies of teachers and their students. Unpublished PhD Thesis. King's College London.
  • Clark, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 947967.
  • Claxton, G. (1988). Live and Learn: An introduction to the psychology of growth and change in everyday life. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
  • Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E., Nicholls, J., Wheatley, G., Trigatti, B., et al. (1991). Assessment of a problem-centered second-grade mathematics project. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 329.
  • Conley, A. M., Pintrich, P. R., Vekiri, I., & Harrison, D. (2004). Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(2), 186204.
  • Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Hermanson, K. (1995). Intrinsic motivation in museums: Why does one want to learn? In J. H. Falk & L. D. Dierking (Eds.), Public institutions for personal learning: Establishing a research agenda (pp. 6777). Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.
  • Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Schneider, B. (2000). Becoming adult: Preparing teenagers for the world of work. New York: Basic Books.
  • Damon, W., & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education. International Journal of Educational Research, 5, 331343.
  • Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers' professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181199.
  • Dillon, J., Osborne, J. F., Fairbrother, R., & Kurina, L. (2000). A study into the professional views and needs of science teachers in primary & secondary schools in England. London: King's College London.
  • Doise, W., & Mugny, G. (1984). The social development of the intellect. Oxford: Pergamon.
  • Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.
  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. F. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287312.
  • Dweck, C. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development (essays in social psychology). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
  • Elder, A. D. (2002). Characterizing fifth grade students' epistemological beliefs in science. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology (pp. 347364). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Ennis, R. H., Millman, J., & Tomko, T. (1985). Cornell critial thinking tests, level X and Z. Pacific Grove, California: MidWest Publications.
  • Erduran, S., & Jiménex-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363.
  • Ford, M. J. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404423.
  • Garet, M., Wayne, A., Stancavage, F., Taylor, J., Eaton, M., Walters, K., et al. (2011). Middle School Mathematics Professional Development Impact Study: Findings After the Second Year of Implementation (NCEE 2011-4024). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of. Education Sciences, U.S.
  • Gawande, A. (2007). Better: A surgeon's notes on performance. New York: Henry Holt.
  • Goldberg, T., Schwarz, B. B., & Porat, D. (2008). Living and dormant collective memories as contexts of history learning. Learning and Instruction, 18, 223237.
  • Graff, G., & Birkenstein, C. (2007). They say/I say: The moves that matter in persuasive writing: WW Norton & Company Incorporated.
  • Greenleaf, C., Litman, C., Hanson, T. L., Rosen, R., Boscardin, C. K., Herman, J., et al. (2011). Integrating literacy and science in biology: Teaching and learning impacts of reading apprenticeship professional development. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 647717.
  • Greeno, J. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning and research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 526.
  • Guskey, T. R., & Yoon, K. S. (2009). What works in professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(7), 495500.
  • Hannover, B., & Kessels, U. (2004). Self-to-prototype matching as a strategy for making academic choices. Why high school students do not like math and science. Learning and Instruction, 14(1), 5167.
  • Harré, R. (1984). The philosophies of science: An introductory survey (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Heller, J. I., Daehler, K. R., Wong, N., Shinohara, M., & Miratrix, L. W. (2012). Differential effects of three professional development models on teacher knowledge and student achievement in elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(3), 333362, DOI: 10.1002/tea.21004
  • Hoban, G. (2002). Teacher Learning for Educational Change. Buckingham: Open University Press.
  • Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88140.
  • Horton, R. (1967). African traditional thought and western science. Africa, 37, 157.
  • Howe, C., Tolmie, A., & Mackenzie, M. (1995). Computer support for collaborative learning of physics concepts. In C. O'Malley (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning. Berlin: Springer.
  • Howson, C., & Urbach, P. (2006). Scientific reasoning: A Bayesian approach (3rd ed.). Chicago: Open Court.
  • Hynd, C., & Alvermann, D. E. (1986). The role of refutation text in overcoming difficulty with science concepts. Journal of Reading, 29(5), 440446.
  • Johnson, A. (2009). Hitting the brakes: Engineering design and the production of knowledge. Durham: Duke University Press.
  • Khine M. (Ed.). (2011). Perspectives on scientific argumentation: Theory, practice and research. Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Klahr, D., Zimmerman, C., & Jirout, J. (2011). Educational interventions to advance children's scientific thinking. Science, 333, 971975.
  • Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 155178.
  • Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319337.
  • Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 1646.
  • Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15, 309328.
  • Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27(1), 2963.
  • Lawson, A. E. (1978). The development and validation of a classroom test of formal reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15(1), 1124.
  • Lederman, N. G., & O'Malley, M. (1990). Students' perceptions of tentativeness in science: Development, use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74, 225239.
  • Lee, M.-H., Wu, Y.-T., & Tsai, C.-C. (2009). Research Trends in Science Education from 2003 to 2007: A content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 31(15), 19992020.
  • Lehrer, J. (2010). The truth wears off. New Yorker, 5257.
  • Lord Sainsbury of Turville. (2007). The race to the top: A review of government's science and innovation policies. London: HM Treasury.
  • Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press, Inc.
  • Martin, A., & Hand, B. (2009). Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the elementary science classroom. A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 39(1), 1738.
  • McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (1993). Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Education Research Journal, 30(3), 359377.
  • Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children's talk in the development of reasoning. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 95111.
  • Michaels, S., O'Connor, C., & Resnick, L. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in the Philosophy of Education, 27, 283297.
  • Millar, R., & Osborne, J. F. (2009). Research and practice: A complex relationship? In M. C. Shelley II, L. Yore, & B. Hand (Eds.), Quality research in literacy and science education. (pp. 4161). Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Moller, A. P., & Jennions, M. D. (2001). Testing and adjusting for publication bias. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 16(10), 580586.
  • National Academies of Sciences. (2010). Rising above the gathering storm revisited. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
  • National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education. Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
  • Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. F. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553576.
  • Nolen, S. B. (2003). Learning environment, motivation and achievement in high school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(4), 347368.
  • Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., Kachur, R., & Prendegarst, C. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • O'Donnell, C. L. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K-12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 3384.
  • Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (2007). Bayesian Rationality: The probalistic approach to human reasoning. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Ogborn, J. (2002). Ownership and transformation: Teachers using Curriculum Innovation. Physics Education, 37(2), 142146.
  • Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 376407.
  • Osborne, J. F., & Collins, S. (2001). Pupils' views of the role and value of the science curriculum: A focus-group study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 441468.
  • Osborne, J. F., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004a). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 9941020.
  • Osborne, J. F., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004b). The IDEAS project. London: King's College London.
  • Paris, S. G. (1998). Situated motivation and informal learning. Journal of Museum Education, 22(2 & 3), 2226.
  • Pell, T., & Jarvis, T. (2001). Developing attitude to science scales for use with children of ages from five to eleven years. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 847862.
  • Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context-bound? Educational Researcher, 18(1), 1625.
  • Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years. A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  • Petroski, H. (1996). Engineering by design: How engineers get from thought to thing. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  • Pontecorvo, C. (1987). Discussing and reasoning: The role of argument in knowledge construction. In E. De Corte, H. Lodewïjks, R. Parmentier, & P. Span (Eds.), Learning and instruction: European Research in an International Context (pp. 239250). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
  • Pontecorvo, C., & Girardet, H. (1993). Arguing and Reasoning in understanding historical topics. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3 & 4), 365395.
  • Ratcliffe, M., Hanley, P., & Osborne, J. F. (2007). Evaluation of Twenty First Century Science GCSE Strand 3: The teaching of Twenty First Century Science GCSE, and teachers' and students' views of the course. Southampton: University of Southampton.
  • Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (updated 2004). (2004). Manual for Raven's Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.
  • Renninger, K. A., Hidi, S., & Krapp, A. (1992). The role of interest in learning and development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Resnick, L., Michaels, S., & O'Connor, C. (in press). How (well-structured) talk builds the mind. In R. Sternberg & D. Preiss (Eds.), From genes to context: New discoveries about learning from educational research and their applications. New York: Springer.
  • Roth, K. J., Garnier, H. E., Chen, C., Lemmens, M., Schwille, K., & Wickler, N. I. Z. (2011). Videobased lesson analysis: Effective science PD for teacher and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 117148, DOI: 10.1002/tea.20408
  • Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students' scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 551.
  • Sandoval, W. A., & Morrison, K. (2003). High school students' ideas about theories and theory change after a biological inquiry unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(4), 369392.
  • Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 2355.
  • Sartre, J.-P. (1969). Being and Nothingness. Northampton: John Dickens and Co.
  • Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Shayer, M., Wylam, H., Adey, P., & Kuchemann, D. (1979). CSMS Science Reasoning Tasks. NFER, Nelson, Windsor.
  • Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. F. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 235260.
  • Sisk-Hilton, S. (2009). Teaching and learning in public. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Spillane, J. (1999). External reform initiatives and teachers' efforts to reconstruct their practice: The mediating role of teachers' zones of enactment. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(2), 143175.
  • Spillane, J. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 313340.
  • Sterling, T. D. (1959). Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn from tests of significance—Or vice versa. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 54, 3034.
  • Szu, E., & Osborne, J. F. (2011). Scientific reasoning and argumentation from a Bayesian perspective. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Perspectives on scientific argumentation (pp. 5571). Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Taconis, R., & Kessels, U. (2009). How choosing science depends on students' individual fit to ‘Science Culture’. International Journal of Science Education, 31(8), 11151132.
  • Tytler, R., Osborne, J. F., Williams, G., Tytler, K., Clark, J. C., Tomei, A., et al. (2008). Opening up pathways: Engagement in STEM across the Primary-Secondary school transition. A review of the literature concerning supports and barriers to Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics engagement at Primary-Secondary transition. Commissioned by the Australian Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Melbourne: Deakin University.
  • van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum. New York: Longman.
  • Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students' argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952977.
  • Waring, R., & Takaki, M. (2003). At what rate do learners learn and retain new vocabulary from reading a graded reader? Reading in a Foreign Language, 15(3), 130163.
  • Watson, J. D., & Crick, F. H. C. (1953). A Structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature, 171, 737738.
  • Weiss, I. R., Pasley, J. D., Sean Smith, P., Banilower, E. R., & Heck, D. J. (2003). A Study of K–12 Mathematics and Science Education in the United States. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
  • Wertsch, J. (1991). Voices of the Mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Windschitl, M. (2009). Cultivating 21st Century Skills in Science Learners: How Systems of Teacher Preparation and Professional Development will have to evolve. Paper presented at the National Academies of Science Workshop on 21st Century Skills.
  • Yoon, K. S., Ducan, T., Lee, S. W.-Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. L. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
  • Zohar, A. (2004). Higher order thinking in science classrooms: Students' Learning and Teachers Professional Development. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  • Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 3562.