Mapping a science inquiry unit

Journal of Classroom Interaction

Volumn 43, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 4-13

  Kerlin, Steven C ^a   McDonald, Scott P ^a   Kelly, Gregory J ^a  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77952580266     PISSN: 07494025     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R. A., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Naiz, M., Treagust, D. & Tuan, H. L. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88, 397-419.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R.W., Patrick, H., Krajcik, J., Soloway, E. (1997). Teaching for understanding. In B. J. e. a. Biddle (Ed.), International Handbook of Teachers and Teaching (pp. 819-878). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
4. Bransford, J., Derry, S., Berliner, D., Hammerness, K., & Beckett, K. L. (2005). Theories of learning and their roles in teaching. In Preparing Teachers for a Changing World: What Teachers Should Learn and Be Able To Do (First ed., pp. 40-87). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
5. Brown, A. L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A., & Campione, J. C. (1993). Distributed expertise in the classroom. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 188-228). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
6. Bybee, R. W. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. M. E. v. Zee (Ed.), Inquiring into Inquiry Learning and Teaching in Science (pp. 20-46). Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
7. Duschl, R., & Grandy, R. (Eds.). (2008). Teaching Scientific Inquiry: Recommendations for Research and Implementation. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
8. Enyedy, N., & Goldberg, J. (2004). Inquiry in interaction: How local adaptations of curricula shape classroom communities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 905-935.
9. Erduran S. & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.). (2008). Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research. New York: Springer.
10. 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.
11. Kelly, G. J., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 883-915.
12. McDonald, S., & Kelly, G. J. (2007). Understanding the construction of a science storyline in a chemistry classroom. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 2(3), 165-177.
13. Morrow, C. A. (2003). Misconceptions scientists often have about the K-12 National Science Education Standards. Astronomy Education Review, 1(2), 85-94.
14. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
15. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
16. Osbourne, J., Erduran, S. & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994-1020.
17. Rudolph, J. L. (2005). Inquiry, instrumentalism, and the public understanding of science. Science Education, 89, 803-821.
18. Rutherford, F. J. (1964). The role of inquiry in science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2, 80-84.
19. Rutherford, F. J. (2001). Fostering the history of science in American science education. Science & Education, 10, 569-580