The challenges of scientific literacy: From the viewpoint of secondgeneration cognitive science

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 28, Issue 2-3, 2006, Pages 143-178

  Klein, Perry D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 31344436637     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500690500336627     Document Type: Article

References (170)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1967). Science—A process approach. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
2. Anderson, J. R. (1976). Language, memory, and thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., McNurlen, B., Archodidou, A., Kim, S., Reznitskaya, A., et al. (2001). The snowball phenomenon: Spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking across groups of children. Cognition and Instruction, 19, 1–46.
4. Atkinson, D. (1999). Scientific discourse in sociohistorical context: The philosophical transactions of the royal society of London, 1675–1975. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5. Bacon, F. (1994). Novum organum, with other parts of the great instauration. Chicago, IL: Open Court. (Original work published 1620)
6. Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74, 29–58.
7. Barsalou, L. W. (1993). Flexibility, structure, and linguistic vagary in concepts: Manifestations of a compositional system of perceptual symbols. In A. F. Collins, S. E. Gathercole, M. A. Conway, & P. E. Morris (Eds.), Theories of memory (pp. 29–101). Hove, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.
9. Bauer, M. I., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1993). How diagrams can improve reasoning. Psychological Science, 4, 372–378.
10. Bazerman, C. (1985). Physicists reading physics: Schema laden purposes and purpose laden schema. Written Communication, 2, 3–24.
11. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.
12. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13. Berk, L. E. (1994). Why children talk to themselves. Scientific American, 271(5), 78–83.
14. Berninger, V. W., Fuller, F., & Whitaker, D. (1996). A process model of writing development across the lifespan. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 193–218.
15. Boscolo, P., & Borghetto, M. (2002, September). Writing a report from multiple sources. Paper presented at the International Conference on Ontological, Epistemological, Linguistic and Pedagogical Considerations of Language and Scientific Literacy: Empowering Research and Informing Instruction, University of Victoria, B.C., Canada.
16. Brown, A. L., & Kane, M. J. (1988). Preschool children can learn to transfer: Learning to learn and learning from example. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 493–523.
17. Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18. Bruner, J. S. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19. Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J., & Austin, G. A. (1956). A study of thinking. New York: Wiley.
20. Butcher, K. (2002). Science squad adventure series #1: Summer of suspense. North Vancouver, B.C.: Whitecap Books
21. Calfee, R. C., & Miller, R. G. (2004, April). The reading and writing about science project: Successful integration of reading, writing, and content using the read-write cycle. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
22. Carruthers, P., & Boucher, J. (Eds.). (1998). Language and thought: Interdisciplinary themes. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
23. Carruthers, P., & Chamberlain, A. (Eds.). (2000). Evolution and the modern mind: Modularity, language, and meta-cognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
24. Chambliss, M. J., Christenson, L. A., & Parker, C. (2003). Fourth graders composing scientific explanations about the effects of pollutants: Writing to understand. Written Communication, 20, 426–454.
25. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
26. Clark, A. (1997). Being there: Putting brain, body, and world together again. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
27. Clement, C. A., Mawby, R., & Giles, D. E. (1994). The effects of manifest relational similarity on analog retrieval. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 396–420.
28. Clement, J. J., & Steinberg, M. S. (2002). Step-wise evolution of mental models of electric circuits: A “learning-aloud” case study. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 389–452.
29. Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407–428.
30. Cox, R. (1999). Representation, construction, externalised cognition, and individualized differences. Learning and Instruction, 9, 343–363.
31. Croft, W., & Cruse, A. D. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
32. Crowhurst, M. (1990). The development of persuasive/argumentative writing. In R. Beach & S. Hynds (Eds.), Developing discourse practices in adolescence and adulthood (pp. 200–223). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Company.
33. De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (2002). Explicitly teaching strategies, skills, and knowledge: Writing instruction in middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 687–698.
34. Dehaene, S. (1997). The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics. New York: Oxford University Press.
35. di Sessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 105–225.
36. di Sessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. L. (1998). What changes in conceptual change? International Journal of Science Education, 10, 1155–1191.
37. Dienes, Z., & Perner, J. (1999). A theory of implicit and explicit knowledge. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 735–808.
38. Donald, M. (2001). A mind so rare: The evolution of human consciousness. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.
39. Donovan, C. A. (2001). Children’s development and control of written story and informational genre: Insights from one elementary school. Research in the Teaching of English, 35, 394–447.
40. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.
41. Fahnestock, J. (1997). Arguing in different forums: The Bering crossover controversy. In R. A. Harris (Ed.), Landmark essays on the rhetoric of science: Case studies (pp. 53–67). Mahwah, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (Reprinted from Science, Technology, and Human Values, 14, 26–42, 1989)
42. Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
43. Feldman, C. F. (1989). Monologue as problem-solving narrative. In K. Nelson (Ed.), Narratives from the crib (pp. 98–122). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44. Feldman, J. A., & Ballard, D. H. (1982). Connectionist models and their properties. Cognitive Science, 6, 205–254.
45. Fodor, J. A. (1975). The language of thought. New York: Thomas Y Crowell Company.
46. Fodor, J. A., & Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1988). Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. Cognition, 28, 3–71.
47. Galbraith, D. (1999). Writing as a knowledge-constituting process. In M. Torrance & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Knowing what to write: Conceptual processes in text production (pp. 139–159). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
48. Gardner, H. (1987). The mind’s new science: A history of the cognitive revolution. New York: Basic Books.
49. Garrett, M. F. (1982). Production of speech: Observations from normal and pathological language use. In A. W. Ellis (Ed.), Normality and pathology in cognitive functions (pp. 19–76). London: Academic Press.
50. Gelman, S. A., & Markman, E. M. (1986). Categories and induction in young children. Cognition, 23, 183–209.
51. Gentner, D. (2003). Why we’re so smart. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 195–235). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
52. Gentner, D., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (Eds.). (2003). Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
53. Gentner, D., Ratterman, M. J., Markman, A., & Kotovsky, L. (1995). Two forces in the development of relational similarity. In T. J. Simon & G. S. Halford (Eds.), Developing cognitive competence: New approaches to process modelling (pp. 263–313). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
54. Georghiades, P. (2004). From the general to the situated: Three decades of metacognition. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 365–383.
55. Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
56. Glynn, S. M. (1991). Explaining science concepts: A teaching with analogies model. In S. M. Glynn, R. H. Yeany, & B. K. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science (pp. 219–239). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
57. Glynn, S. M., & Takahashi, T. (1998). Learning from analogy-enhanced science text. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 1129–1149.
58. Goel, V. (1995). Sketches of thought. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
59. Goldman, S. R., & Bisanz, G. L. (2002). Toward a function analysis of scientific genres: Implications for understanding and learning processes. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon, & A. C. Glaesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 19–50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
60. Goodman, N. (1976). Languages of art: An approach to a theory of symbols. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.
61. Gopnik, A. (1993). How we know our minds: The illusion of first-person knowledge of intentionality. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 1–14.
62. Grabe, W. (2002). Narrative and expository macro-genres. In A. M. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 249–267). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
63. Hall, R. H., & O’Donnell, A. (1996). Cognitive and affective outcomes of learning through knowledge maps. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 94–101.
64. Halliday, M. A. K. (1988). On the language of physical science. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 54–68). London: The Falmer Press.
65. Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). The analysis of scientific texts in English and Chinese. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 124–132). London: The Falmer Press.
66. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Arnold.
67. Halliday, M. A. K. (1998). Things and relations: Regrammaticising experience as technical knowledge. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 185–235). London: Routledge.
68. Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (Eds.). (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: The Falmer Press.
69. Hand, B. M., Alvermann, D. E., Gee, J., Guzzetti, B. J., Norris, S. P., Phillips, L. M., et al. (2003). Message from the “Island Group”: What is literacy in science literacy? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 607–615.
70. Hand, B., Hohenshell, L., & Prain, V. (2004). Exploring students’ responses to conceptual questions when engaged with planned writing experiences: A study with Year 10 science students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 186–210.
71. Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2002). Teachers implementing writing-to-learn strategies in junior secondary science: A case study. Science Education, 86, 737–755.
72. Hand, B. M., Prain, V., & Yore, L. D. (2001). Sequential writing tasks’ influence on science learning. In P. Tynjala, L. Mason, & K. Lonka (Eds.), Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 105–129). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
73. Hand, B., Wallace, C. W., & Yang, E. M. (2004). Using a Science Writing Heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh grade; quantitative and qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 131–149.
74. Hanrahan, M. (1999). Rethinking science literacy: Enhancing communication and participation through affirmational dialogue journal writing. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 699–717.
75. Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1996). Making the writing process work: Strategies for composition and self-regulation. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
76. Harris, P. L. (2000). The work of the imagination. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
77. Hempel, C. G. (1966). Philosophy of natural science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
78. Henle, M. (1962). On the relation between logic and thinking. Psychological Review, 69, 366–378.
79. Hidi, S., Berndorff, D., & Ainley, M. (2002). Children’s argument writing, interest, and selfefficacy: An intervention study. Learning and Instruction, 12, 429–446.
80. Hildebrand, G. M. (1998). Disrupting hegemonic writing practices in school science: Contesting the right way to write. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 345–362.
81. Hildebrand, G. M. (2002, September). It’s electrophilic; it’s hydrophobic … That’s anthropomorphic language! Paper presented at the conference on Ontological, Epistemological, Linguistic and Pedagogical Considerations of Language and Science Literacy: Empowering Research and Informing Instruction. University of Victoria, B.C., Canada.
82. Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1995). Mental leaps: Analogy in creative thought. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
83. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
84. Hutchins, E., & Hazelhurst, B. (1991). Learning in the cultural process. In C. G. Langton, C. Taylor, J. D. Farmer, & S. Rasmussen (Eds.) Artificial life II (pp. 689–706). Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
85. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York: Basic Books.
86. Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Byrne, R. M. J. (2002). Conditionals: A theory of meaning, pragmatics, and inference. Psychological Review, 109, 646–678.
87. Kamberelis, G. (1999). Genre development and learning: Children writing stories, science reports, and poems. Research in the Teaching of English, 33, 403–460.
88. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
89. Kendler, H. H., & Kendler, T. S. (1975). From discrimination learning to cognitive development: A neobehavioristic odyssey. In W. K. Estes (Ed.), Handbook of learning and cognitive processes (Vol. 1, pp. 191–247). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
90. Keogh, B., & Naylor, S. (1999). Concept cartoons, teaching and learning in science: An evaluation. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 431–446.
91. Keys, C. W. (1994). The development of scientific reasoning skills in conjunction with collaborative writing assignments: An interpretive study of six ninth-grade students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1003–1022.
92. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
93. Klein, P. D. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educational Psychology Review, 11, 203–270.
94. Klein, P. D. (2000). Elementary students’ strategies for writing-to-learn in science. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 317–348.
95. Klein, P. D. (2004). Constructing scientific explanations through writing. Instructional Science, 32, 191–231.
96. Klein, P. D., & Piacente-Cimini, S. (in review). The effects of discourse modality on learning physics concepts through analogy.
97. Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Continuum.
98. Kurth, L. A., Kidd, R., Gardner, R., & Smith, E. L. (2002). Student use of narrative and paradigmatic forms of talk in elementary science conversations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 793–818.
99. Kurtz, K. J., Miao, C. H., & Gentner, D. (2000). Learning by analogical bootstrapping. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 417–446.
100. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.
101. Lawson, A. E. (2002). Sound and faulty arguments generated by preservice biology teachers when testing hypotheses involving unobservable entities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 237–252.
102. Lawson, A. E. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetico-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1387–1408.
103. Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
104. Lemke, J. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 87–113). London: Routledge.
105. Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
106. Levinson, S. C. (1997). Language and cognition: The cognitive consequences of spatial description in Guugu Yimithirr. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 7, 98–131.
107. Margolis, H. (1987). Patterns, thinking, and cognition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
108. Martin, J. R. (1990). Literacy in science: Learning to handle text and technology. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: The Falmer Press.
109. Martin, J. R. (1993). Life as a noun: Arresting the universe in science and humanities. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 221–267). London: The Falmer Press.
110. Martin, J. R. (1998). Discourses of science: Recontextualization, genesis, intertextuality and hegemony. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 3–14). London: Routledge.
111. McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1988). Contextually relevant aspects of meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 14, 331–343.
112. Medawar, P. (1963). Is the scientific paper a fraud? The Listener, 12, 377–378. (Reprinted in E. W. Jenkins & R. C. Whitfield (Eds.), Readings in Science Education, 1974, London: McGraw-Hill)
113. Metz, K. E. (1995). Reassessment of developmental constraints on children’s science education. Review of Educational Research, 65, 93–127.
114. Meyers, G. (1985). Texts as knowledge claims: The social construction of two biology articles. Social Studies of Science, 15, 593–630.
115. Monaghan, J. M., & Clement, J. (1999). Use of a computer simulation to develop mental simulations for understanding relative motion concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 921–944.
116. Nelson, K. (1996). Language in cognitive development: The emergence of the mediated mind. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
117. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
118. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1976). Computer science as empirical inquiry: Symbols and search. Communications of the Association of Computing Machinery, 19, 113–126.
119. Newkirk, T. (1987). The non-narrative writing of young children. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 121–144.
120. Niaz, M., Aguilera, D., Maza, A., & Liendo, G. (2002). Arguments, contradictions, resistances, and conceptual change in students’ understanding of atomic structure. Science Education, 86, 505–525.
121. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240.
122. Ochs, E., & Capps, L. (2001). Living narrative: Creating lives in everyday storytelling. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
123. Ogborn, J., & Martins, I. (1996). Metaphorical understandings and scientific ideas. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 631–652.
124. Olson, D. R. (1994). The world on paper: The conceptual and cognitive implications of writing and reading. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
125. Olson, D. R., & Astington, J. W. (1990). Talking about text: How literacy contributes to thought. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 705–721.
126. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994–1020.
127. Park, J., & Han, S. (2002). Using deductive reasoning to promote the change of students’ conceptions about force and motion. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 593–609.
128. Piaget, J. (1929). The child’s conception of the world (J. Tomlinson & A. Tomlinson, Trans.). New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
129. Pressley, M., & Lysynchuk, L. (1995). Vocabulary. In M. Pressley (Ed.), Cognitive strategy instruction that really improves children’s academic performance (2nd ed.,. pp. 101–115). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
130. Purcell-Gates, V., & Duke, N. K. (2003, April). Learning to write informational and procedural science text in second and third grade in two instructional conditions. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
131. Pylyshyn, Z. W. (2002). Mental imagery: In search of a theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 157–238.
132. Raison, G., Rivalland, J., Derewianka, B., Johnson, T. D., Sloan, P., Latham, R., et al. (1994). First steps: Writing resource. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
133. Reber, A. S. (1993). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: An essay on the cognitive unconscious. New York: Oxford University Press.
134. Reiner, M., & Gilbert, J. (2000). Epistemological resources for thought experimentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 489–506.
135. Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S.-Y. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32, 155–175.
136. Rips, L. J., & Marcus, S. L. (1977). Supposition and the analysis of conditional sentences. In M. A. Just & P. A. Carpenter (Eds.), Cognitive processes in comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
137. Rivard, L. P. (2004). Are language-based activities in science effective for all students, including low achievers? Science Education, 88, 420–442.
138. Rivard, L. P., & Straw, S. B. (2000). The effect of talking and writing on learning science: An exploratory study. Science Education, 84, 566–593.
139. Roth, W.-M., & Duit, R. (2003). Emergence, flexibility and stabilization of language in a physics classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 869–897.
140. Roth, W.-M., & Lawless, D. (2002). Science, culture, and the emergence of language. Science Education, 86, 368–385.
141. Rowell, P. M. (1997). Learning in school science: The promises and practices of writing. Studies in Science Education, 30, 19–56.
142. Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1986). Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
143. Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2001). Imagery and text: A dual coding theory of reading and writing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
144. Settlage, J. (1994). Conceptions of natural selection: A snap-shot of the sense-making process. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 449–457.
145. Simon, H. A., & Kaplan, C. A. (1989). Foundations of cognitive science. In M. I. Posner (Ed.), Foundations of cognitive science (pp. 1–47). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
146. Slobin, D. I. (2003). Language and thought online: Cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 157–191). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
147. Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (1993). When analogy is perceived as such. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1229–1239.
148. Stein, N. L., & Albro, E. R. (2001). The origins and nature of arguments: Studies in conflict understanding, emotion, and negotiation. Discourse Processes, 32, 113–133.
149. Stenning, K., & van Lambalgen, M. (2004). A little logic goes a long way: Basing experiment on semantic theory in the cognitive science of conditional reasoning. Cognitive Science, 28, 481–529.
150. Sternberg, R. J. (1977). Intelligence, information processing, and analogical reasoning: The componential analysis of human abilities. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
151. Stevenson, S. (1999). Bridging the symbolic-connectionist gap in language comprehension. In E. Lepore & Z. Pylyshyn (Eds.), What is cognitive science? (pp. 336–355). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
152. Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
153. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
154. Treagust, D. F., Harrison, A. G., & Venville, G. J. (1996). Using the analogical teaching approach to engender conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 213–229.
155. Varelas, M., Becker, J., Luster, B., & Wenzel, S. (2002). When genres meet: Inquiry into a sixthgrade urban science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 579–605.
156. Varghese, S. A., & Abraham, S. A. (2004). Book-length scholarly essays as a hybrid genre in science. Written Communication, 21, 201–231.
157. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language (E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. (Original work published 1934)
158. Warwick, P., Stephenson, P., Webster, J., & Bourne, J. (2003). Developing pupils’ written expression of procedural understanding through the use of writing frames in science: Findings from a case study approach. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 173–192.
159. Wickman, P.-O., & Östman, L. (2002a). Induction as an empirical problem: How students generalize during empirical work. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 465–486.
160. Wickman, P.-O., & Östman, L. (2002b). Learning as discourse change: A sociocultural mechanism. Science Education, 86, 601–623.
161. Wignell, P., Martin, J. R., & Eggins, S. (1989). The discourse of geography: Ordering and explaining the experiential world. Linguistics and Education, 1, 359–391.
162. Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 301–311.
163. Willerman, M., & Mac Harg, R. A. (1991). The concept map as an advanced organizer. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 705–711.
164. Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical investigations (G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.). Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
165. Wollman-Bonilla, J. E. (2000). Teaching science writing to first graders: Genre learning and recontextualization. Research in the Teaching of English, 35, 35–65.
166. Yore, L. D., Hand, B. M., & Florence, M. K. (2004). Scientists’ views of science, models of writing, and science writing practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 338–369.
167. Yore, L. D., Hand, B. M., & Prain, V. (2002). Scientists as writers. Science Education, 86, 672–692.
168. Zhang, J., & Norman, D. A. (1994). Representations in distributed cognitive tasks. Cognitive Science, 18, 87–122.
169. Zhang, J., & Norman, D. A. (1995). A representational analysis of numeration systems. Cognition, 57, 271–295.
170. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62.