A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry

Journal of the Learning Sciences

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 337-386

  Quintana, Chris ^a   Reiser, Brian J ^b   Davis, Elizabeth A ^a   Krajcik, Joseph ^a   Fretz, Eric ^a   Duncan, Ravit Golan ^b   Kyza, Eleni ^b   Edelson, Daniel ^b   Soloway, Elliot ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 4043167073     PISSN: 10508406     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15327809jls1303_4     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (146)

1. Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2. Anderson, J. R., Boyle, C. F., & Reiser, B. J. (1985). Intelligent tutoring systems. Science, 228, 456-462.
3. Anderson, J. R., Boyle, C. F., & Yost, G. (1986). The geometry tutor. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 5, 5-19.
4. Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 167-207.
5. Bell, P. (1997). Using argument representations to make thinking visible. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL '97: The Second International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (pp. 10-19). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
6. Bell, P. (1998). Supporting conceptual change in the science classroom through technology-enhanced instruction involving evidence and argument. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.
7. Bell, P., & Davis, E. A. (2000). Designing Mildred: Scaffolding students' reflection and argumentation using a cognitive software guide. In B. Fishman & S. O'Connor-Divelbiss (Eds.), Proceedings of ICLS 2000: International Conference for the Learning Sciences (pp. 142-149). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
8. Bell, P., Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. C. (1995). The knowledge integration environment: Theory and design. In J. L. Schnase & E. L. Cunnius (Eds.), Proceedings of the CSCL Conference '95 (pp. 14-21). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
9. Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797-817.
10. Bellamy, R. K. E. (1996). Designing educational technology: Computer-mediated change. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 123-146). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (1999). Learning communities in classrooms: A reconceptualization of educational practice. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 269-292). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
12. Bielaczyc, K., Pirolli, P. L., & Brown, A. L. (1995). Training in self-explanation and self-regulation strategies: Investigating the effects of knowledge acquisition activities on problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 221-252.
13. Blumenfeld, P. C., Fishman, B., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2000). Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: Scaling up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist, 35, 149-164.
14. Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26, 369-398.
15. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
16. 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. 229-270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.
17. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18. Carroll, J. M., & Carrithers, C. (1984, August). Training wheels in a user interface. Communications of the ACM, 27, 800-806.
19. Center for Innovative Learning Technologies. (2002). Design principles for educational software. Retrieved April, 2002, from http://wise.berkeley.edu/design
20. Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1974). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55-81.
21. Chi, M., & Bassok, M. (1989). Learning from examples via self-explanations. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 251-282). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
22. Chi, M., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145-182.
23. Chi, M., Feltovich, P., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152.
24. Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students' preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1241-1257.
25. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1-35.
26. Collins, A. (1996). Design issues for learning environments. In S. Vosniadou, E. D. Corte, R. Glaser, & H. Mandl (Eds.), International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments (pp. 347-362). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
27. Collins, A., & Brown, J. S. (1988). The computer as a tool for learning through reflection. In H. Mandl & A. M. Lesgold (Eds.), Learning issues for intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 1-18). Chicago: Springer-Verlag.
28. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989a). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics, In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Cognition and instruction: Issues and agendas (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
29. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989b). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
30. Collins, A., & Ferguson, W. (1993). Epistemic forms and epistemic games: Structures and strategies to guide inquiry. Educational Psychologist, 28, 25-42.
31. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: HarperPerennial.
32. Davis, E. A. (2003a). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 91-142.
33. Davis, E. A. (2003b). Untangling dimensions of students' beliefs about scientific knowledge and science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 439-468.
34. Davis, E. A. (2004). Creating critique projects. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 89-113). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
35. Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (2001, April). Design principles for scaffolding students' reflection and argumentation in science. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association conference, Seattle, WA.
36. Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scaffolding students' knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 819-837.
37. Davis, M., Hawley, P., McMullan, B., & Spilka, G. (1997). Design as a catalyst for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
38. Dimitrov, D.M., McGee, S., & Howard, B.C. (2002). Changes in students' science ability produced by multimedia learning environments: Application of the linear logistic model for change. School Science and Mathematics, 102, 15-24.
39. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
40. Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for integrating content and process learning in the design of inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 355-385.
41. Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 105-121.
42. Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D., & Pea, R. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 391-450.
43. Favorin, M., & Kuutti, K. (1996). Supporting learning at work by making work activities visible through information technology. Machine-Mediated Learning, 5, 109-118.
44. Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31-49). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
45. Gallas, K. (1995). Talking their way into science. New York: Teachers College Press.
46. Golan, R., Kyza, E. A., Reiser, B. J., & Edelson, D. C. (2001, March). Structuring the task of behavioral analysis with software scaffolds. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.
47. Greeno, J. G. (1989). Situations, mental models, and generative knowledge. In D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon (pp. 285-318). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
48. Guzdial, M. (1994). Software-realized scaffolding to facilitate programming for science learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 4, 1-44.
49. Hancock, C., Kaput, J. J., & Goldsmith, L. T. (1992). Authentic inquiry with data: Critical barriers to classroom implementation. Educational Psychologist, 27, 337-364.
50. Hannafin, M. J., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models (Vol. 2, pp. 115-140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
51. Hoadley, C. M. (1999). Scaffolding scientific discussion using socially relevant representations in networked multimedia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.
52. Holbrook, J., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Scaffolding the development of an inquiry-based (science) classroom. In B. Fishman & S. O'Connor-Divelbiss (Eds.), Proceedings of ICLS 2000: International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 221-227). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
53. Hollan, J. D., Hutchins, E. L., & Weitzman, L. (1984). STEAMER: An interactive inspectable simulation-based training system. The AI Magazine, 5(2), 15-27.
54. Horwitz, P. (1996). Linking models to data: Hypermodels for science education. The High School Journal, 79, 148-156.
55. Jackiw, N. (1995). The Geometer's Sketchpad™ [Computer software]. Emeryville, CA: Key Curriculum Press.
56. Jackson, S. L., Stratford, S. J., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1994). Making dynamic modeling accessible to precollege science students. Interactive Learning Environments, 4, 233-257.
57. Jacobson, M. J., Sugimoto, A., & Archodidou, A. (1996). Evolution, hypermedia learning environments, and conceptual change: A preliminary report. In D. C. Edelson & E. A. Domeshek (Eds.), Proceedings of ICLS 1996: International Conference on the Learning Sciences (pp. 151-158). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
58. Klahr, D. (2000). Exploring science: The cognition and development of discovery processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
59. Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1-48.
60. Knapp, L. K. (1994). A task analysis approach to the visualization of geographic data. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder.
61. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1996). The care of the self and blind variation: An ethnography of the empirical in two sciences. In P. Galison & D. J. Stump (Eds.), The disunity of science: Boundaries, contexts, and power (pp. 287-310). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
62. Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., et al. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design into practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 495-548.
63. Kolodner, J. L., Owensby, J. N., & Guzdial, M. (2004). Case-based learning aids. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 829-862). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
64. Kozma, R. B., Russell, J., Jones, T., Marx, N., & Davis, J. (1996). The use of multiple, linked representations to facilitate science understanding. In S. Vosniadou, E. DeCorte, & H. Mandel (Eds.), International perspective on the psychological foundations of technology-based learning environments (pp. 41-60). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
65. Krajcik, J., Berger, C. F., & Czerniak, C. M. (2002). Teaching science in elementary and middle school classrooms: A project-based approach (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
66. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R., Bass, K. M., Fredericks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Middle school students' initial attempts at inquiry in project-based science classrooms. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 313-350.
67. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London, England: Routledge.
68. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319-337.
69. Lan, W. (1996). The effects of self-monitoring on students' course performance, use of learning strategies, attitude, self-judgment ability, and knowledge representation. Journal of Experimental Education, 64, 101-115.
70. Larkin, J. H., McDermott, J., Simon, D., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Models of competence in solving physics problems. Cognitive Science, 4, 317-345.
71. Latour, B. (1990). Drawing things together. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp. 19-68). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
72. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
73. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (Eds.). (2002). Investigating real data in the classroom: Expanding children's understanding of math and science. New York: Teachers College Press.
74. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
75. Lesgold, A., Lajoie, S., Bunzo, M., & Eggan, G. (1992). SHERLOCK: A coached practice environment for an electronics troubleshooting job. In J. H. Larkin & R. W. Chabay (Eds.), Computer assisted instruction and intelligent tutoring systems: Shared goals and complementary approaches (pp. 201-238). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
76. Linn, M. C. (1995). Designing computer learning environments for engineering and computer science: The scaffolded knowledge integration framework. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4, 103-126.
77. Linn, M. C. (2000). Designing the Knowledge Integration Environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 781-796.
78. Linn, M. C., Bell, P., & Davis, E. A. (2004). Specific design principles: Elaborating the scaffolded knowledge integration framework. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 315-339). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
79. Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Eylon, B.-S. (2004). The scaffolded knowledge integration framework for instruction. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 47-72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
80. Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
81. Linn, M. C., & Slotta, J. D. (2000). WISE science. Educational Leadership, 58(2), 29-32.
82. Linn, M. C., & Songer, N. B. (1991). Teaching thermodynamics to middle school students: What are appropriate cognitive demands? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 885-918.
83. Loh, B., Radinsky, J., Russell, E., Gomez, L. M., Reiser, B. J., & Edelson, D. C. (1998). The Progress Portfolio: Designing reflective tools for a classroom context. In C. Karat, A. Lund, J. Coutaz, & J. Karat (Eds.), Proceedings of CHI 98 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 627-634). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
84. Loh, B., Reiser, B. J., Radinsky, J., Edelson, D. C., Gomez, L. M., & Marshall, S. (2001). Developing reflective inquiry practices: A case study of software, the teacher, and students. In K. Crowley, C. D. Schunn, & T. Okada (Eds.), Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom, and professional settings (pp. 279-323). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
85. Merrill, D. C., Reiser, B. J., Ranney, M., & Trafton, J. G. (1992), Effective tutoring techniques: A comparison of human tutors and intelligent tutoring systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 277-306.
86. Metcalf, S. J., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2000). Model-It: A design retrospective. In M. J. Jacobson & R. B. Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education (pp. 77-115). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
87. Minstrell, J., & Van Zee, E. (Eds.). (2000). Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
88. Miyata, Y., & Norman, D. A. (1986). Psychological issues in support of multiple activities. In D. A. Norman & S. W. Draper (Eds.), User centered system design (pp. 265-284). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
89. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: Author.
90. Nemirovsky, R., Tierney, C., & Wright, T. (1998). Body motion and graphing. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 119-172.
91. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
92. Norman, D. A. (1991). Cognitive artifacts. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), Designing interaction: Psychology at the human-computer interface (pp. 17-38). New York: Cambridge University Press.
93. Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Keeping the metaphor of scaffolding fresh - A response to C. Addison Stone's "The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities." Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 370-373.
94. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
95. Parr, C. S., Jones, T., & Songer, N. B. (2002). CyberTracker in BioKIDS: Customization of a PDA-based scientific data collection application for inquiry learning. In P. Bell, R. Stevens, & T. Satwicz (Eds.), Keeping learning complex: The Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the Learning Sciences.
96. Polman, J. L. (2000). Designing project-based science: Connecting learners through guided inquiry, New York: Teachers College Press.
97. Quintana, C. (2001). Symphony: A case study for exploring and describing design methods and guidelines for learner-centered design. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
98. Quintana, C., Eng, J., Carra, A., Wu, H., & Soloway, E. (1999). Symphony: A case study in extending learner-centered design through process-space analysis. Proceedings of CHI 99 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 473-480). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
99. Quintana, C., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2001). Exploring a description and methodology for learner-centered design. In W. Heineke & L. Blasi (Eds.), Methods of evaluating educational technology (Vol. 1, pp. 125-146). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
100. Quintana, C., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2002, April). Scaffolding design guidelines for learner-centered software environments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
101. Quintana, C., Reiser, B., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Golan, R., Kyza, E., et al. (2002). Evolving a scaffolding design framework for designing educational software. In P. Bell, R. Stevens, & T. Satwicz (Eds.), Keeping learning complex: The Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the Learning Sciences.
102. Quintana, C., Soloway, E., & Krajcik, J. (2003). Issues and approaches for developing learner-centered technology. In M. Zelkowitz (Ed.), Advances in computers (Vol. 57, pp. 271-321). New York: Academic.
103. Recker, M., & Pirolli, P. (1995). Modeling individual differences in students' learning strategies. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 1-38.
104. Reif, F., & Larkin, J. H. (1991). Cognition in scientific and everyday domains: Comparison and learning implications. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 733-760.
105. Reif, F., & Scott, L. A. (1999). Teaching scientific thinking skills: Students and computers coaching each other. American Journal of Physics, 67, 819-831.
106. 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. 263-305). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
107. Roschelle, J., Kaput, J. J., & Stroup, W. (2000). SimCalc: Accelerating students' engagement with the mathematics of change. In M. J. Jacobson & R. Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies of learning (pp. 47-76). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
108. Rosson, M. B., Carroll, J. M., & Bellamy, R. K. E. (1990). Smalltalk scaffolding: A case study of minimalist instruction. In J. C. Chew & J. Whiteside (Eds.), Proceedings of CHI 90 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 423-430). New York: ACM.
109. Ruopp, R., Gal, S., Drayton, B., & Pfister, M. (1993). LabNet: Toward a community of practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
110. Salomon, G. (1996). Studying novel learning environments as patterns of change. In S. Vosniadou, E. DeCorte, R. Glaser, & H. Mandl (Eds.), International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments (pp. 363-377). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
111. Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Students' understanding of causal explanation and natural selection in a technology-supported inquiry curriculum. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 5-51.
112. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic supports for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345-372.
113. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1, 37-68.
114. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1992). An architecture for collaborative knowledge building. In E. De Corte, M. C. Linn, H. Mandl, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Computer-based learning environments and problem solving (pp. 41-66). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
115. Schank, R. C., & Cleary, C. (1995). Engines for education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
116. Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Duschl, R., Schulze, S., & John, J. (1995). Students' understanding of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 131-166.
117. Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Raghavan, K., & Reiner, M. (1991). Causal models and experimentation strategies in scientific reasoning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1, 201-238.
118. Schauble, L., Klopfer, L., & Raghavan, K. (1991). Students' transition from an engineering model to a science model of experimentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 859-882.
119. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1987). What's all the fuss about metacognition? In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 189-215). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
120. Sherin, B. (2001). How students understand physics equations. Cognition and Instruction, 19, 479-541.
121. Shute, V., Glaser, R., & Raghavan, K. (1989). Inference and discovery in an exploratory laboratory. In P. L. Ackerman, R. J. Sternberg, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Learning and individual differences: advances in theory and research (pp. 279-326). New York: Freeman.
122. Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill-structured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4, 181-202.
123. Smith, B. K., & Reiser, B. J. (1998). National Geographic unplugged: Classroom-centered design of interactive nature films. In C. Karat, A. Lund, J. Coutaz, & J. Karat (Eds.), Proceedings of CHI 98 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 424-431). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
124. Smith, C., & Unger, C. (1997). What's in dots-per-box? Conceptual bootstrapping with stripped-down visual analogs. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 143-181.
125. Snir, J., Smith, C., & Grosslight, L. (1995). Conceptually enhanced simulations: A computer tool for science teaching. In D. N. Perkins, J. L. Schwartz, M. M. West, & M. S. Wiske (Eds.), Software goes to school: Teaching for understanding with new technologies (pp. 106-129). New York: Oxford University Press.
126. Soloway, E., Guzdial, M., & Hay, K. E. (1994). Learner-centered design: The challenge for HCI in the 21st century. Interactions, 1, 36-48.
127. Songer, N. B., & Linn, M. C. (1991). How do students' views of science influence knowledge integration? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 761-784.
128. Springmeyer, R. R., Blattner, M. M., & Max, N. L. (1992). A characterization of the scientific data analysis process. In A. E. Kaufman & G. M. Nielson (Eds.), Proceedings of IEEE Visualization '92 (pp. 235-242). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.
129. Stone, C. A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 344-364.
130. Stratford, S. J., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Secondary students' dynamic modeling processes: Analyzing, reasoning about, synthesizing, and testing models of stream ecosystems. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7, 215-234.
131. Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1985). A conceptual change view of learning and understanding. In L. H. T. West & A. L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change (pp. 211-231). Orlando, FL: Academic.
132. Tabak, I. (1999). Unraveling the development of scientific literacy: Domain-specific inquiry support in a system of cognitive and social interactions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
133. Tabak, I., Smith, B. K., Sandoval, W. A., & Agganis, A. (1996, April). BGuILE: Supporting inquiry in a learning environment for biology. Paper presented at the 1996 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
134. Tabak, I., Smith, B. K., Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (1996). Combining general and domain-specific strategic support for biological inquiry. In C. Frasson, G. Gauthier, & A. Lesgold (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems: Third International Conference, ITS '96 (pp. 288-296). Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Springer-Verlag.
135. Tien, L., Rickey, D., & Stacy, A. (1999). The MORE cycle: Guiding students' thinking in the laboratory. Journal of College Science Teaching, 18(5), 318-324.
136. Toth, E. E., Suthers, D. D., & Lesgold, A. M. (2002). "Mapping to know": The effects of representational guidance and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry. Science Education, 86, 264-286.
137. Toulmin, S. E. (1964). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1958)
138. VanLehn, K. (1989). Problem solving and cognitive skill acquisition. In M. Posner (Ed.), Foundations of cognitive science (pp. 527-580). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
139. VanLehn, K., Jordan, P. W., Rose, C. P., Bhembe, D., Boettner, M., Gaydos, A., et al. (2002). The architecture of Why2-Atlas: A coach for qualitative physics essay writing. In S. A. Cerri, G. Gouardènes, & F. Paraguaçu (Eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 158-167). Berlin: Springer.
140. van Zee, E., & Minstrell, J. (1997). Reflective discourse: Developing shared understandings in a physics classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 209-228.
141. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
142. Webb, N. M. (1983). Predicting learning from student interaction: Defining the interaction variables. Educational Psychologist, 18, 33-41.
143. White, B. (1984). Designing computer activities to help physics students understand Newton's laws of motion. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 69-108.
144. White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students, Cognition and Instruction, 16, 3-118.
145. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17, 89-100.
146. Wu, H., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2002). Promoting conceptual understanding of chemical representations: Students' use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 821-842.