Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning

Science Education

Volumn 92, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 404-423

  Ford, Michael ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 43849104944     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.20263     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. L. (2006). On the role and use of "theory" in science education research: A response to Johnston, Southerland, and Sowell. Science Education, 90, 187-194.
2. Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2000). Making believe: The collective construction of public mathematical knowledge in the elementary classroom. In D. Phillips (Ed.), Constructivism in education: Opinions and second opinions on controversial issues (pp. 193-224). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3. Barnes, B., & Bloor, D. (1982). Relativism, rationalism, and the sociology of knowledge. In M. Hollis & S. Lukes (Eds.), Rationality and relativism (pp. 21-47). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
4. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
5. Brewer, W. F., & Samarapungavan, A. (1991). Children's theories vs. scientific theories: Differences in reasoning or differences in knowledge? In R. R. Hoffman & D. S. Palermo (Eds.), Cognition and the symbolic processes: Applied and ecological perspectives (pp. 209-232). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6. Bridgman, P. W. (1936). The nature of physical theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289-325). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70(5), 1098-1120.
9. 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.
10. Comte, A., & Martineau, H. (1853). The positive philosophy of Auguste Comte. London: J. Chapman. Davson-Galle, P. (2000). Contra Garrisonian social constructivism. Science and Education, 9, 611-614.
11. Dewey, J. (1916). Education and democracy. New York: Macmillan.
12. diSessa, A. A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 49-70). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. diSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. (1998). What changes in conceptual change? International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1155-1191.
14. Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children's ideas. New York: Routledge.
15. Duhem, P. (1969). To save the phenomena: An essay on the idea of physical theory from Plato to Galileo. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16. Edelson, D., & Reiser, B. (2006). Making authentic practices accessible to learners: Design challenges and strategies. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.
17. Engle, R. A. (2006). Framing interactions to foster generative learning: A situative explanation of transfer in a community of learners classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 451-498.
18. Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 399-483.
19. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915-933.
20. Ford, M. J. (2005). The game, the pieces, and the players: Generative resources from alternative instructional portrayals of experimentation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 449-487.
21. Ford, M. J. (in press). "Grasp of practice" as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of science understanding. Science and Education (available online). Retrieved January 9, 2008, from www.springerlink.com/ content/102992
22. Ford, M. J., & Forman, E. A. (2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30, 1-32.
23. Ford, M. J., & Kniff, K. J. (2006). Groundwork for progress supporting scientific literacy: An expert-novice study. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.
24. Garrison, J. (1997). An alternative to von Glaserfeld's subjectivism in science education: Deweyan social constructivism. Science and Education, 6, 543-554.
25. Geddis, A. N. (1993). Transforming subject-matter knowledge: The role of pedagogical content knowledge in learning to reflect on teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 15(6), 673-683.
26. Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606-633.
27. Gresalfi, M. S., & Cobb, P. (2006). Cultivating students' discipline-specific dispositions as a critical goal for pedagogy and equity. Pedagogies, 1(1), 49-57.
28. Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
29. Hanson, N. R. (1958). Patterns of discovery. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
30. Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1991). Sharing cognition through collective comprehension activity. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 331-348). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
31. Herrenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 431-473.
32. Hewson, P. W., Beeth, M. E., & Thorley, N. R. (1998). Teaching for conceptual change. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 199-218). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
33. Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., et al. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The case of mathematics. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 12-21.
34. Koslowski, B. (1996). Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
35. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337.
36. Lampert, M. (1985). How do teachers manage to teach? Perspectives on problems in practice. Harvard Educational Review, 55(2), 178-194.
37. Latour, B. (1990). Drawing things together. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp. 19-68). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38. Laudan, L. (1984). Science and values: The aims of science and their role in scientific debate. Berkeley: University of California Press.
39. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
40. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and scientific literacy. In W. Damon, R. Lerner, K. A. Renninger, & E. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 4, pp. 153-196). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
41. Longino, H. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
42. Matthews, M. R. (Ed.). (1998). Constructivism and science education: A philosophical examination. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
43. Mayo, D. (1996). Error and the growth of experimental knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
44. Minstrell, J., & Stimpson, V. (1996). A classroom environment for learning: Guiding students' reconstruction of understanding and reasoning. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
45. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
46. Niaz, M., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Benarroch, L. C., Laburu, C. E., Marin, N., Montes, L. A., et al. (2003). Constructivism: Defense or a continual critical appraisal. Science and Education, 12, 787-797.
47. Nola, R. (1997). Constructivism in science and science education: A philosophical critique. Science and Education, 6, 55-83.
48. Nola, R., & Irzik, G. (2006). Philosophy, science, education, and culture. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
49. Olson, D. (1996). The world on paper: The conceptual and cognitive implications of writing and reading. New York: Cambridge University Press.
50. Osborne, J. (1996). Beyond constructivism. Science Education, 80(1), 53-82.
51. Papert, S. (2006). Afterword: After how comes what. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 581-586). New York: Cambridge University Press.
52. Pera, M. (1994). The discourses of science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
53. Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5-12.
54. Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
55. Popper, K. (1968). The logic of scientific discovery (2nd rev. ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
56. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-227.
57. Reiser, B. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273-304.
58. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
59. Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., & Conant, F. R. (1992). Appropriating science discourse: Findings from language minority classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 61-94.
60. Rouse, J. (1987). Knowledge and power: Toward a political philosophy of science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
61. Rouse, J. (1996). Engaging science: How to understand its practices philosophically. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
62. Rudolph, J. L. (2000). Reconsidering the "nature of science" as a curriculum component. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(3), 403-419.
63. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic supports for science inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345-372.
64. Schauble, L. (1996). The development of scientific reasoning in knowledge-rich contexts. Developmental Psychology, 32(1), 2-119.
65. Schwab, J. (1962). The concept of the structure of a discipline. Educational Record, 43, 197-205.
66. Toth, E. E., Klahr, D., & Chen, Z. (2000). Bridging research and practice: A research-based classroom intervention for teaching experimentation skills to elementary school children. Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 423-459.
67. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
68. Toulmin, S. (1990). Cosmopolis: The hidden agenda of modernity. Chicago: University of Chcago Press.
69. von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of learning. New York: Routledge Falmer.
70. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
71. Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131-175.
72. Wiser, M. (1995). Use of history of science to understand and remedy students' misconceptions about heat and temperature. In D. N. Perkins, J. L. Schwartz, & M. M. West (Eds.), Software goes to school: Teaching for understanding with new technologies (pp. 23-38). New York: Oxford University Press.
73. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 458-477.