Epistemologies in practice: Making scientific practices meaningful for students

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 53, Issue 7, 2016, Pages 1082-1112

  Berland, Leema K ^a   Schwarz, Christina V ^b   Krist, Christina ^c   Kenyon, Lisa ^d   Lo, Abraham S ^c   Reiser, Brian J ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

argumentation; epistemology; explanation; modeling; scientific practices

Indexed keywords

EDUCATION; MODELS; RESEARCH;

ARGUMENTATION; ENGAGING STUDENTS; EPISTEMOLOGY; EXPLANATION; KNOWLEDGE CONSTRUCTION; SCIENTIFIC PRACTICES; STUDENT ENGAGEMENT; STUDENT PERFORMANCE;

STUDENTS;

EID: 84930716238     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.21257     Document Type: Article

References (124)

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R. A., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., & Tuan, H. -l. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397–419.
2. Aikenhead, G. S. (1997). Toward a first nations cross-cultural science and technology curriculum. Science Education, 81(2), 217–238.
3. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of educational psychology, 84(3), 261.
4. Archer, J. (1994). Achievement goals as a measure of motivation in university students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 430–446.
5. Baek, H., Schwarz, C. V., Chen, J., Hokayem, H., & Zhan, L. (2011). Engaging elementary students in scientific modeling: The MoDeLS fifth-grade approach and findings. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), Models and modeling in science education (Vol. 6, pp. 195–218). Dordrecht: Springer.
6. Ballenger, C. (1997). Social identities, moral narratives, scientific argumentation: Science talk in a bilingual classroom. Language and Education, 11(1), 1–14.
7. Bang, M., & Medin, D. (2010). Cultural processes in science education: Supporting the navigation of multiple epistemologies. Science Education, 94(6), 1008–1026. doi: 10.1002/sce.20392
8. Bang, M., Warren, B., Rosebery, A. S., & Medin, D. (2012). Desettling expectations in science education. Human Development, 55(5–6), 302–318. doi: 10.1159/000345322
9. Banilower, E., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., Malzahn, K. A., Campbell, K. M., & Weiss, A. M. (2013). Report of the 2012 national survey of science and mathematics education (pp. 1–309). Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research Inc.
10. Barron, B., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3–4), 271–311.
11. Beeth, M. E., & Hewson, P. W. (1999). Learning goals in an exemplary science teacher's practice: Cognitive and social factors in teaching for conceptual change. Science Education, 83, 738–760.
12. Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a science apprenticeship program on high school students' understandings of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 487–509.
13. Berland, L. K. (2011). Explaining variation in how classroom communities adapt the practice of scientific argumentation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(4), 625–664.
14. Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012a). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68–94.
15. Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012b). Students' framings and their participation in scientific argumentation. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Perspectives on scientific argumentation (pp. 73–93). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
16. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55.
17. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities' adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191–216.
18. Bielaczyc, K. (2013). Informing design research: Learning from teachers' designs of social infrastructure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(2), 258–311. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2012.691925
19. Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M. (2011). Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education. Science Education, 95(4), 639–669. doi: 10.1002/sce.20449
20. Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2014). “What comes to mind when you think of science? The perfumery!”: Documenting science-related cultural learning pathways across contexts and timescales. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(3), 260–285. http://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21134
21. Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2012). In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Argumentation and reasoning in life and in school: Implications for the design of school science learning environments (pp. 117–133). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
22. Brophy, J. (2008). Developing students' appreciation for what is taught in school. Educational Psychologist, 43(3), 132–141. doi: 10.1080/00461520701756511
23. Brousseau, G. (1984). The crucial role of the didactical contract in the analysis and construction of situations in teaching and learning mathematics. In H. -G. Steiner (Ed.), Theory of mathematics education (pp. 110-119). Occasional paper 54. Bielefeld, Germany: University of Bielefeld, Institut ffir Didaktik der Mathematik. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible.
24. 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). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.
25. Calabrese Barton, A., & Tan, E. (2009). Funds of knowledge and discourses and hybrid space. Journal of Research In Science Teaching, 46(1), 50–73.
26. Calabrese Barton, A., & Tan, E. (2010). We be burnin'! Agency, identity, and science learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 187–229. doi: 10.1080/10508400903530044
27. Calabrese Barton, A., Tan, E., & Rivet, A. (2008). Creating hybrid spaces for engaging school science among urban middle school girls. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 68–103.
28. Carey, S., & Smith, C. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 28(3), 235–251.
29. 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.
30. Chinn, C. A., Buckland, L. A., & Samarapungavan, A. (2011). Expanding the dimensions of epistemic cognition: Arguments from philosophy and psychology. Educational Psychologist, 46(3), 141–167. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2011.587722
31. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175–218.
32. Christodoulou, A., & Osborne, J. F. (2014). The science classroom as a site of epistemic talk: A case study of a teachers' attempts to teach science based on argument. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(10), 1275–1300.
33. Cornelius, L. L., & Herrenkohl, L. R. (2004). Power in the classroom: How the classroom environment shapes students' relationships with each other and with concepts. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 467–498.
34. DeBarger, A. H., Choppin, J., Beauvineau, Y., & Moorthy, S. (2013). Designing for productive adaptations of curriculum interventions. In B. J. Fishman, W. R. Penuel, A. -R. Allen, & B. H. Cheng (Eds.), National society for the study of education yearbook: Design based implementation research (pp. 298–319). New York, NY: Teachers College Record.
35. DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
36. Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
37. Duschl, R. A. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268–291.
38. Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109–132. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
39. 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(3), 355–385.
40. 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.
41. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. F. (2004). Tapping into argumentation: Developments in the application of toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915–933.
42. Ford, M. J. (2008). ‘Grasp of practice’ as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of science understanding. Science & Education, 17(2–3), 147–177. doi: 10.1007/s11191-006-9045-7
43. Ford, M. J. (2012). A dialogic account of sense-making in scientific argumentation and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 30(3), 207–245. doi: 10.1080/07370008.2012.689383
44. Ford, M. J., & Forman, E. A. (2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30, 1–32.
45. Forte, A., & Bruckman, A. S. (2009). Writing, citing, and participatory media: Wikis as learning environments in the high school classroom. International Journal of Learning and Media, 1(4), 23–44. doi: 10.1162/ijlm_a_00033
46. Giere, R. N. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
47. Giere, R. N., Bickle, J., & Maudlin, R. F. (2006). Understanding scientific reasoning. 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
48. Grosslight, L., Unger, C., Jay, E., & Smith, C. L. (1991). Understanding models and their use in science: Conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 799–822. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660280907
49. Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2003). Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 53–90.
50. Henry, J., Breuilly, J., & Porter, R. (1997). The scientific revolution and the origins of modern science. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
51. Herrenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 431–473.
52. Herrenkohl, L. R., Palincsar, A. S., DeWater, L. S., & Kawasaki, K. (1999). Developing scientific communities in classrooms: A sociocognitive approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3–4), 451–493.
53. Hogan, K., & Corey, C. (2001). Viewing classrooms as cultural contexts for fostering scientific literacy. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 32(2), 214–243.
54. Hutchison, P., & Hammer, D. (2009). Attending to student epistemological framing in a science classroom. Science Education, 94(3), 506–524. doi: 10.1002/sce.20373
55. Jimenenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(3), 757–792.
56. Kanter, D. E. (2010). Doing the project and learning the content: Designing project-based science curricula for meaningful understanding. Science Education, 94(3), 525–551.
57. Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2012). Designing for productive failure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(1), 45–83.
58. Kenyon, L., Schwarz, C. V., & Hug, B. (2008). The benefits of scientific modeling. Science and Children, 46(2), 40–44.
59. Kitcher, P. (1989). Explanatory unification and the causal structure of the world. In P. Kitcher, & W. Salmon (Eds.), Scientific explanation (pp. 410–505). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
60. Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., & Ryan, M. (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(4), 495–547.
61. Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1–32.
62. Krajcik, J., Reiser, B. J., Sutherland, L. M., & Fortus, D. (2013). Investigating and questioning our world through science and technology (IQWST). 2nd ed. Greenwich, CT: Sangari Active Science.
63. Kuhn, D., & Pease, M. (2008). What needs to develop in the development of inquiry skills? Cognition and Instruction, 26(4), 512–559. doi: 10.1080/07370000802391745
64. Langer, J. A., & Applebee, A. N. (1986). Reading and Writing Instruction: Toward a Theory of Teaching and Learning. Review of Research in Education, 13, 171. http://doi.org/10.2307/1167222
65. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
66. Lee, C. D. (2006). “Every good-bye ain”t gone': analyzing the cultural underpinnings of classroom talk. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(3), 305–327. http://doi.org/10.1080/09518390600696729
67. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and science literacy: Supporting development in learning in contexts. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner, K. A. Renninger, & I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, 6th ed. (Vol. 4, pp. 153–196). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
68. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
69. Lewis, C. T., & Belanger, C. (2015). The generality of scientific models: A measure theoretic approach. Synthese, 192, 269–285. doi: 10.1007/s11229-014-0567-2
70. Louca, L., Elby, A., Hammer, D., & Kagey, T. (2004). Epistemological resources: Applying a new epistemological framework to science instruction. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 57–68.
71. Manz, E. (2012). Understanding the codevelopment of modeling practice and ecological knowledge. Science Education, 96(6), 1071–1105. doi: 10.1002/sce.21030
72. Manz, E. (2014). Representing student argumentation as functionally emergent from scientific activity. Review of Educational Research. doi: 10.3102/0034654314558490
73. Mason, J. (1989). Mathematical abstraction as the result of a delicate shift of attention. For the Learning of Mathematics, 9(2), 2–8.
74. McNeill, K. L. (2009). Teachers' use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93(2), 233–268. http://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20294
75. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers' instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research In Science Teaching, 45(1), 53–78.
76. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Synergy between teacher practices and curricular scaffolds to support students in using domain-specific and domain-general knowledge in writing arguments to explain phenomena. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18, 416–460.
77. McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191.
78. McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203–229.
79. Mcneill, K. L., & Vaughn, M. H. (2010). Urban high school students' critical science agency: Conceptual understandings and environmental actions around climate change. Research in Science Education, 42(2), 373–399.
80. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
81. Moje, E. B., Peek-Brown, D., Sutherland, L. M., Marx, R., Blumenfeld, P., & Krajcik, J. (2004). Explaining explanations: Developing scientific literacy in middle-school project-based science reforms. In D. Strickland & D. E. Alvermann (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Improving literacy learning for preadolescent and adolescent learners in grades 4–12 (pp. 227–251). New York: Teachers College Press.
82. Morgan, W., & Beaumont, G. (2003). A dialogic approach to argumentation: Using a chat room to develop early adolescent students' argumentative writing. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 47(2), 146–157.
83. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
84. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
85. Nersessian, N. (2002). The cognitive basis of model-based reasoning in science. In P. Carruthers, S. Stich, & M. Siegal (Eds.), The cognitive basis of science (pp. 133–153). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
86. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
87. Osborne, J. F. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 177–196.
88. Osborne, J. F., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. A. (2003). What “ideas-about-science“ should be taught in school science? A delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720.
89. Osborne, J. F., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.
90. Paretti, M. (2009). When the teacher is the audience: Assignment design and assessment in the absence of “real“ readers. In M. Weiser, B. Fehler, & A. Gonzalez (Eds.), Engaging audience: Writing in an age of new literacies. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
91. Passmore, C. M., Gouvea, J. S., & Giere, R. (2014). Models in science and in learning science: Focusing scientific practice on sense-making. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1171-1202). Netherlands: Springer.
92. Passmore, C. M., & Svoboda, J. (2012). Exploring opportunities for argumentation in modelling classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 34(10), 1535–1554. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2011.577842
93. Petraglia, J. (1995). Spinning like a kite: A closer look at the pseudotransactional function of writing. Journal of Advanced Composition 15(1), 19–33.
94. Pluta, W. J., Chinn, C. A., & Duncan, R. G. (2011). Learners' epistemic criteria for good scientific models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(5), 486–511. doi: 10.1002/tea.20415
95. Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304.
96. Reiser, B. J., & Tabak, I. (2014). Scaffolding. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences: Second edition (pp. 44–62). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
97. Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). Perceptions of the school psychological environment and early adolescents’ psychological and behavioral functioning in school: The mediating role of goals and belonging. Journal of educational psychology, 88(3), 408.
98. Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., & Conant, F. R. (1992). Appropriating scientific discourse: Findings from language minority classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 61–94.
99. Russ, R. S. (2014). Epistemology of science vs. Epistemology for science. Science Education, 98(3), 388–396. doi: 10.1002/sce.21106
100. Russ, R. S., Scherr, R. E., Hammer, D., & Mikeska, J. (2008). Recognizing mechanistic reasoning in student scientific inquiry: A framework for discourse analysis developed from philosophy of science. Science Education, 92(3), 499–525.
101. Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. P. (2010). Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education, 95(2), 217–257. doi: 10.1002/sce.20421
102. Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634–656.
103. Sandoval, W. A. (2014). Science education's need for a theory of epistemological development. Science Education, 98(3), 383–387. doi: 10.1002/sce.21107
104. Sandoval, W. A., & Morrison, K. (2003). High school students' ideas about theories and theory change after a biological inquiry unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(4), 369–392.
105. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345–372.
106. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 97–115). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
107. Schaffer, D. W., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thick authenticity: New media and authentic learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 10(2), 195–215. doi: citeulike-article-id:3050512
108. Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2005). Enacting reform-based science materials: The range of teacher enactments in reform classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 283–312.
109. Schwarz, C. V., Akcaoglu, M., Ke, L., Zhan, L. (2013, April). Fifth grade students' engagement in modeling practice across content areas: What epistemologies in practice change over time and how? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
110. Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Acher, A., Kenyon, L., & Fortus, D. (2012). MoDeLS: Challenges in defining a learning progression for scientific modeling. In A. C. Alonzo & A. Gotwals (Eds.), Learning progressions in science: Current challenges and future directions (pp. 101–137). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
111. Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D., & Krajcik, J. S. (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. doi: 10.1002/tea.20311
112. Schwarz, C. V., & White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students' understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165–205.
113. Smith, C. L., Maclin, D., Houghton, C., & Hennessey, M. G. (2000). Sixth-grade students' epistemologies of science: The impact of school science experiences on epistemological development. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 349–422.
114. Songer, N. B., & Gotwals, A. W. (2012). Guiding explanation construction by children at the entry points of learning progressions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(2), 141–165.
115. Stewart, J., Cartier, J. L., & Passmore, C. M. (2005). Developing underst and ing through model-based inquiry. In M. S. Donovan & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn (pp. 515–565). Washington, DC: National Research Council.
116. Strevens, M. (2008). Depth: An account of scientific explanation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
117. Tindale, C. W. (1999). Acts of arguing: A rhetorical model of argument. Albany: State University of New York Press.
118. Vedder-Weiss, D., & Fortus, D. (2011). Adolescents' declining motivation to learn science: Inevitable or not? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 199–216.
119. Vedder-Weiss, D., & Fortus, D. (2012). Adolescents' declining motivation to learn science: A follow-up study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1057–1095. doi: 10.1002/tea.21049
120. Vedder-Weiss, D., & Fortus, D. (2013). School, teacher, peers, and parents' goals emphases and adolescents' motivation to learn science in and out of school. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(8), 952–988. doi: 10.1002/tea.21103
121. von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J. F., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101–131.
122. Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A. S., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2001). Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 529–552.
123. Wilensky, U. (1999). Netlogo [Computer Program]: Center for connected learning and computer-based modeling. Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. Retrieved from http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/
124. 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.