"Here the scientists explain what i said." Coordination practices elicited during the enactment of the results and discussion sections of adapted primary literature0

Research in Science Education

Volumn 39, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 349-383

  Falk, Hedda ^a   Yarden, Anat ^a  

^a WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE   (Israel)

Author keywords

Adapted primary literature (APL); Biology education; Biotechnology education; Coordination practices; Discourse analysis; Epistemic practices; High school; Inquiry; Scientific literacy

Indexed keywords

EID: 67349091172     PISSN: 0157244X     EISSN: 15731898     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11165-008-9114-9     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Aikenhead, G. S., & Ryan, A. G. (1992). The development of a new instrument: "Views on Science-Technology-Society" (VOSTS). Science Education, 76(5), 477-491.
2. Alexander, P. A., & Jetton, T. L. (2000). Learning from text: A multidimensional and developmental perspective. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (vol. 3, pp. 285-310). London: Erlbaum.
3. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A project 2061 report. New York: Oxford University Press.
4. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shapping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
5. Brill, G., Falk, H., & Yarden, A. (2004). The learning processes of two high-school biology students when reading primary literature. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 497-512.
6. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
7. Bybee, R. W. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrell, & E. H. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into Inquiry Learning and Teaching in Science (pp. 20-46). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
8. Carey, S., & Smith, C. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 28, 235-251.
9. Cervetti, G. N., Pearson, P. D., Bravo, M. A., & Barber, J. (2006). Reading and writing in the service of inquiry-based science. In R. Douglas, M. Klentschy, & K. Worth (Eds.), Linking Science and Literacy in the K-8 Classroom. Arlington: National Science Teacher Association.
10. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175-218.
11. Davidov, Y., Rosen, R., Smulsky, D. R., Van Dyk, T. K., Vollmer, A. C., Elsemore, D. A., et al. (2000). Improved bacterial SOS promoter: Lux fusions for genotoxicity detection. Mutation Research, 466, 97-107.
12. DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37 (6), 582-601.
13. Dewey, J. (1964). Science as subject matter and as method. In R. D. Archambault (Ed.), John Dewey On Education: Selected Writings (pp. 121-127). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
14. Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In R. J. Sternberg, & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The Nature of Insight (pp. 365-395). Cambridge: MIT.
15. Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. The Journal of the Learning of Sciences, 8(3/4), 391-450.
16. Falk, H., Piontkevitz, Y., Brill, G., Baram, A., & Yarden, A. (2003). Gene tamers: Study biotechnology through research (In Hebrew, 1st ed.). Rehovot: The Amos de-Shalit Center for Science Teaching.
17. Falk, H., Brill, G., & Yarden, A. (2008). Teaching a biotechnology curriculum based on adapted primary literature. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1841-1866.
18. Ford, M. J., & Wargo, B. M. (2007). Routines, roles, and responsibilities for aligning scientific and classroom practices. Science Education, 91, 133-157.
19. Gaskins, I. W., Guthrie, J. T., Satlow, E., Ostertag, J., Six, L., Byrne, J., & Connor, B. (1994). Integrating instruction of science, reading, and writing: Goals, teacher development, and assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 1039-1056.
20. Hapgood, S., Magnusson, S. J., & Palinscar, A. S. (2004). Teacher, text, and experience: A case of young children's scientific inquiry. The Journal of the Learning of Sciences, 13(4), 455-505.
21. Havdala, R., & Ashkenazi, G. (2007). Coordination of theory and evidence: Effect of epistemological theories on students' laboratory practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1134-1159.
22. Hofer, B. K. (2004). Epistemological understanding as a metacognitive process. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 43-55.
23. Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students' and scientists' reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(6), 663-687.
24. Hug, B., & McNeill, K. L. (2008). Use of first-hand and second-hand data in science; Does data type influence classroom conversations. International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1725-1751.
25. Israeli Ministry of Education. (2003). Syllabus of Biological Studies (10th-12th Grade). Jerusalem: State of Israel Ministry of Education Curriculum Center.
26. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Reigosa, C. (2006). Contextualizing practices across epistemic levels in the chemistry laboratory. Science Education, 90, 707-733.
27. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo Rodriguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792.
28. Kanari, Z., & Millar, R. (2004). Reasoning from data: How students collect and interpret data in science investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(7), 748-769.
29. Kelly, G. J., Chen, C., & Crawford, T. (1998). Methodological considerations for studying science-in-the-making in educational settings. Research in Science Education, 28(1), 23-49.
30. Klein, P. D. (2006). The challenges of scientific literacy: From the viewpoint of second generation cognitive science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 143-178.
31. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
32. Lee, H. S., & Songer, N. B. (2003). Making authentic science accessible to students. International Journal of Science Education, 25(8), 923-948.
33. Lemke, J. L. (1998a). Analyzing verbal data: Principles, methods and problems. In B. J. Fraser, & K. Tobin (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 1175-1189). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
34. Lemke, J. L. (1998b). 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.
35. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage.
36. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science Education for the Future. London: King's College.
37. Myers, G. (1991). Lexical cohesion and specialized knowledge in science and popular science texts. Discourse Processes, 14, 1-26.
38. Myers, G. (1992). Textbooks and the sociology of scientific knowledge. English for Specific Purpose, 11, 3-17.
39. National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
40. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224-240.
41. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2008). Reading as inquiry. In R. A. Duschl, & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching Scientific Inquiry: Recommendations for Research and Implementation (pp. 233-262). Rotterdam: Sense.
42. Palinscar, A. S., & Magnusson, S. J. (2000). The interplay of firsthand and text-based investigations in science education (CIERA REPORT #2-007). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
43. Palinscar, A. S., & Magnusson, S. J. (2001). The interplay of first-hand and second-hand investigations to model and support the development of scientific knowledge and reasoning. In S. Carver, & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and Instruction: Twenty-five Years of Progress (pp. 151-194). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
44. Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context-bound? Educational Researcher, 18(1), 16-25.
45. Perkins, D. N., & Simmons, R. (1988). Patterns of misunderstanding: An integrative model for science, math, and programming. Review of Educational Research, 58(3), 303-326.
46. Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students' scientific explanations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5-51.
47. Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89, 634-656.
48. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55.
49. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345-372.
50. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1998). Toward a theory of teaching-in-context. Issues in Education, 4(1), 1-94.
51. Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as inquiry. In J. J. Schwab, & P. F. Brandwein (Eds.), The Teaching of Science (pp. 1-103). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
52. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 610-645.
53. Shuell, T. J. (1996). Teaching and learning in a classroom context. In D. C. Berliner, & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 726-764). New York: Macmillan.
54. Songer, N. B., Lee, H. S., & McDonald, S. (2003). Research towards an expanded understanding of inquiry science beyond one idealized standard. Science Education, 87, 490-516.
55. Swales, J. M. (2001). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56. Tabak, I., & Baumgartner, E. (2004). The teacher as partner: Exploring participant structures, symmetry, and identity work in scaffolding. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 393-429.
57. Tamir, P. (1985). Content analysis focusing on inquiry. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17(1), 87-94.
58. Tamir, P. (2004). Curriculum implementation revisited. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(3), 281-294.
59. Wu, H. K., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Inscriptional practices in two inquiry-based classrooms: A case study of seventh graders' use of data tables and graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1), 63-95.
60. Yarden, A., Brill, G., & Falk, H. (2001). Primary literature as a basis for a high-school biology curriculum. Journal of Biological Education, 35(4), 190-195.
61. Yore, L. D., Hand, B. M., & Prain, V. (2002). Scientists as writers. Science Education, 86, 672-692.
62. Zion, M., Shapira, D., Slezak, M., Link, E., Bashan, N., Brumer, M., et al. (2004). Biomind - a new biology curriculum that enables authentic inquiry learning. Journal of Biological Education, 38(2), 59-67.