Understanding the codevelopment of modeling practice and ecological knowledge

Science Education

Volumn 96, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 1071-1105

  Manz, Eve ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84867630811     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.21030     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Acher, A., Arcà, M., & Sanmartí, N. (2007). Modeling as a teaching learning process for understanding materials: A case study in primary education. Science Education, 91(3), 398-418.
2. Anderson, D. L., Fisher, K. M., & Norman, G. J. (2002). Development and evaluation of the conceptual inventory of natural selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 952-978.
3. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
4. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A. A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9.
5. Collins, A., & Ferguson, W. (1993). Epistemic forms and epistemic games: Structures and strategies to guide inquiry. Educational Psychologist, 28(1), 25-42.
6. diSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. (1998). What changes in conceptual change? International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1155-1191.
7. Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268.
8. Duschl, R., Schweingruber, H., & Shouse, A. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
9. Engle, R. A. (2011). The productive disciplinary engagement framework: Origins, key concepts, and developments. In D. Dai (Ed.), Design research on learning and thinking in educational settings: Enhancing growth and functioning (pp. 161-200). New York: Routledge.
10. 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(4), 399-483.
11. Engle, R. A., Conant, F. R., & Greeno, J. G. (2007). Progressive refinement of hypotheses in video-supported research. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 239-254). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Erickson, F., & Schultz, J. (1997). When is a context? Some issues and methods in the analysis of social competence. In M. Cole, Y. Engestrom, & O. Vasquez (Eds.), Mind, culture, and activity: Seminal papers from the laboratory of comparative human cognition (pp. 22-31). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
13. Ford, M. J. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404-423.
14. Ford, M. J., & Forman, E. A. (2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30(1), 32.
15. Gee, J. P., & Green, J. L. (1998). Discourse analysis, learning, and social practice: A methodological study. Review of Research in Education, 23, 119-169.
16. Giere, R. N. (1990). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17. Gooding, D. (1990). Experiment and the making of meaning. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
18. Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606-633.
19. Grandy, R., & Duschl, R. (2007). Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: Analysis of a conference. Science & Education, 16(2), 141-166.
20. Hall, R., & Greeno, J. G. (2008). Learning and understanding concepts in practice. In T. Good (Ed.), 21st century education: A reference handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21. Halloun, I. (2007). Mediated Modeling in Science Education. Science & Education, 16(7), 653-697.
22. Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R., & Redish, E. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 89-120). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
23. Hanson, N. (1958). Patterns of discovery: An inquiry into the conceptual foundations of science. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
24. Harrison, A., & Treagust, D. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1011-1026.
25. Hesse, M. (1966). Models and analogies in science. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
26. Hmelo-Silver, C., Marathe, S., & Liu, L. (2007). Fish swim, rocks sit, and lungs breathe: Expert-novice understanding of complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 307-331.
27. Jacobson, M., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 11-34.
28. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39-103.
29. Kelly, G. (2008). Inquiry, activity, and epistemic practice. In R. Duschl & R. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry (pp. 99-117). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: SensePublishers.
30. Koslowski, B. (1996). Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
31. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredericks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3-4), 313-350.
32. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora's hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
33. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
34. Leach, J., Driver, R., Scott, P., & Wood-Robinson, C. (1996). Children's ideas about ecology 3: Ideas found in children aged 5-16 about the interdependency of organisms. International Journal of Science Education, 18(2), 129-141.
35. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2000). Modeling in mathematics and science. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology: Educational design and cognitive science (Vol. 5, pp. 101-159) Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
36. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006a). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 371-388). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
37. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006b). Scientific thinking and scientific literacy. In K. A. Renninger & I. E. Siegel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6 ed., Vol. 4: Child psychology in practice) Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
38. Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., Carpenter, S., & Penner, D. (2000). The interrelated development of inscriptions and conceptual understanding. In P. Cobb, E. Yackel, & K. McClain (Ed.), Symbolizing and communicating in mathematics classrooms: Perspectives on discourse, tools, and instructional design (pp. 325-360). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
39. Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., & Lucas, D. (2008). Supporting development of the epistemology of inquiry. Cognitive Development, 23(4), 512-529.
40. Louca, L. T., Elby, A., Hammer, D., & Kagey, T. (2004). Epistemological resources: Applying a new epistemological framework to science instruction. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 57-68.
41. Louca, L. T., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2011). Modeling-based learning in science education: Cognitive, metacognitive, social, material and epistemological contributions. Educational Review, DOI:10.1080/00131911.2011.628748.
42. Magntorn, O., & Hellden, G. (2007). Reading new environments: Students' ability to generalise their understanding between different ecosystems. International Journal of Science Education, 29(1), 67-100.
43. Metz, K. E. (1995). Reassessment of developmental constraints on children's science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 65(2), 93-127.
44. Metz, K. E. (2011). Disentangling robust developmental constraints crom the instructionally mutable: Young children's epistemic reasoning about a study of their own design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(1), 50-110.
45. Metz, K. E., Sisk-Hilton, S., Berson, E., & Ly, U. (2010). Scaffolding children's understanding of the fit between organisms and their environment in the context of the practices of science. Paper presented at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Chicago, IL.
46. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
47. Nersessian, N. J. (2008). Creating scientific concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
48. Nersessian, N. J., & Patton, C. (2009). Model-based reasoning in interdisciplinary engineering. In A. Mcijers (Ed.), Handbook of the philosophy of technology and engineering sciences (pp. 687-718). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
49. National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K-12 science standards: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy of the Sciences.
50. Oh, P. S., & Oh, S. J. (2010). What teachers of science need to know about models: An overview. International Journal of Science Education, 33(8), 1109-1130.
51. Passmore, C., & Stewart, J. (2002). A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 185-204.
52. Penner, D. E. (2000). Cognition, computers, and synthetic science: Building knowledge and meaning through modeling. Review of Research in Education, 25, 1-35.
53. Perkins, D., & Grotzer, T. (2000, April). Models and moves: Focusing on dimensions of causal complexity to achieve deeper scientific understanding. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
54. Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
55. Roth, W., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The development of science process skills in authentic contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(2), 127-152.
56. Schatzman, L., & Strauss, A. (1973). Field research: Strategies for a natural sociology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
57. Schwarz, C., Reiser, B., Davis, E., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D., et al. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632-654.
58. Schwarz, C., & White, B. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students' understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165-205.
59. Sengupta, P., & Wilensky, U. (2009). Learning electricity with NIELS: Thinking with electrons and thinking in levels. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 14(1), 21-50.
60. Songer, N., Kelcey, B., & Gotwals, A. (2009). How and when does complex reasoning occur? Empirically driven development of a learning progression focused on complex reasoning about biodiversity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 610-631.
61. Staples, M. (2007). Supporting whole-class collaborative inquiry in a secondary mathematics classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 25(2), 161-217.
62. Stevens, R., & Hall, R. (1998). Disciplined perception: Learning to see in technoscience. In M. Lampert & M. L. Blunk (Eds.), Talking mathematics in school: Studies of teaching and learning (pp. 107-149). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
63. Vattam, S. S., Goel, A. K., Rugaber, S., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Jordan, R., Gray, S., et al. (2011). Understanding complex natural systems by articulating structure-behavior-function models. Educational Technology & Society, 14(1), 66-81.
64. Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a firefly: Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories--an embodied modeling approach. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 171-209.
65. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941-967.