Promoting conceptual change through inquiry

International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 539-559

  Chinn, Clark A ^a   Duncan, Ravit Golan ^a   Dianovsky, Michael ^a   Rinehart, Ronald ^b  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84957079572     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203154472     Document Type: Chapter

References (75)

1. Blumenfeld, P. C., Kempler, T. M., & Krajcik, J. C. (2006). Motivation and cognitive engagement in learning environments. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 475-488). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
2. Buckland, L. B., Chinn, C. A., Pluta, W. P., & Duncan, R. G. (2009, April). Model evaluation criteria in inquiry classrooms. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA
3. Cartier, J. L. (2000). Research report 99-1: Using a modeling approach to explore scientific epistemology with high school biology students. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison
4. Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 161-199
5. Chinn, C. A. (2006). Learning to argue. In A. M. O'Donnell, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaborative learning, reasoning, and technology (pp. 355-383). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
6. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1-49
7. Chinn, C. A., & Buckland, L. A. (2011). Differences in epistemic practices among scientists, young earth creationists, intelligent design creationists, and the scientist creationists of Darwin's era. In R. Taylor & M. Ferrari (Eds.), Epistemology and science education: Understanding the evolution vs. intelligent design controversy (pp. 38-76). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis
8. Chinn, C. A., & Buckland, L. A. (2012). Model-based instruction: Fostering change in evolutionary conceptions and in epistemic practices. In K. S. Rosengren, E. M. Evans, S. K. Brem, & G. M. Sinatra (Eds.), Evolution challenges: Integrating research and practice in teaching and learning about evolution (pp. 212-232). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press
9. Chinn, C. A., Buckland, L. A., & Samarapungavan, A. (2011). Expanding the dimensions of epistemic cognition: Arguments from philosophy and psychology. Educational Psychologist, 46, 141-167
10. Chinn, C. A., & Clark, D. B. (2013). Learning through collaborative argumentation. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, & A. M. O'Donnell (Eds.), International handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 314-332). New York, NY: Routledge
11. Chinn, C. A., Duschl, R. A., Duncan, R. G., Pluta, W. J., & Buckland, L. A. (2008). A microgenetic classroom study of learning to reason scientifically through modeling and argumentation. ICLS 2008: Proceedings of International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Utrecht, The Netherlands
12. Chinn, C. A., Rinehart, R., Drescher, C, Duncan, R. G., Dianovsky, M., & Buckland, L. A. (2012, April). Standards for evaluating evidence in arguments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, Vancouver, Canada
13. Chinn, C. A., & Samarapungavan, A. (2001). Distinguishing between understanding and belief. Theory into Practice, 40, 235-241
14. Chinn, C. A., & Samarapungavan, A. (2008). Learning to use scientific models:Multiple dimensions of conceptual change. In R. A. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 191-225). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers
15. Chinn, C. A., & Samarapungavan, A. (2009). Conceptual change-Multiple routes, multiple mechanisms: A commentary on Ohlsson (2009). Educational Psychologist, 44, 47-57
16. Cobb, P., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. (2003). Learning about statistical covariation. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 1-78
17. Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 91-142
18. Eylon, B., & Linn, M. C. (1988). Learning and instruction: An examination of four research perspectives in science education. Review of Educational Research, 58, 251-301
19. Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J., Fishman, B., & Soloway, E. (2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-based science curriculum in the context of urban reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 922-939
20. Hapgood, S., Magnusson, S. J., & Palincsar, A. S. (2004). Teacher, text, and experience: A case of young children's scientific inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 455-505
21. Herrenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 431-473
22. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42, 99-107
23. K-12 Alliance & WestEd. (2007). Accountable talk toolkit. Available at: http://msopage. weebly. com/uploads/3/8/5/1/ 3851505/203_accountable_talk_toolkit_10-09. pdf
24. Kang, H., & Lundeberg, M. A. (2010). Participation in science practices while working in a multimedia case-based environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 1116-1136
25. Kirschner, P. A. (2009). Epistemology or pedagogy, that is the question. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 144-157). New York, NY: Routledge
26. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75-86
27. Kitcher, P. (1993). The advancement of science: Science without legend, objectivity without illusions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press
28. Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2006). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 317-333). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
29. 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, 1-32
30. Krajcik, J. S., & Sutherland, L. M. (2009). IQWST materials: Meeting the challenges of the 21st century. Paper presented at the NRC Workshop on Exploring the Intersection between Science Education and the Development of 21st Century Skills. Washington, DC: National Academies Press
31. Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96, 674-689
32. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
33. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press
34. Kuhn, T. S. (1977). The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press
35. Laudan, L. (1990). Demystifying underdetermination. In C. W. Savage (Ed.), Scientific theories (Vol. 14, pp. 267-297). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press
36. Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (2004a). Inquiry and technology. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 3-27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
37. Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (Eds.). (2004b). Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
38. Longino, H. E. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
39. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59, 14-19
40. 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, 53-78
41. McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 159-191
42. Merritt, J., Shwartz, Y., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Middle school students' development of the particle model of matter. ICLS 2008: Proceedings of International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Utrecht, The Netherlands
43. Minner, D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction:What is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 474-496
44. Nathan, M. J. (2012). Rethinking formalisms in formal education. Educational Psychologist, 47, 125-148
45. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC:National Academy Press
46. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press
47. Newton-Smith, W. H. (1981). The rationality of science. Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegan Paul
48. Ohlsson, S. (2009). Re-subsumption: A possible mechanism for conceptual change and belief revision. Educational Psychologist, 44, 20-40
49. Passmore, C., & Stewart, J. (2002). A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 185-204
50. Pluta, W. J., Chinn, C. A., & Duncan, R. G. (2011). Learners' epistemic criteria for good scientific models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 486-511
51. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., Kyza, E., Edelson, D. C., & Soloway, E. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337-386
52. Roth, P. A. (1998). Narrative explanations: The case of history. History and Theory, 27, 1-13
53. Samarapungavan, A., Westby, E. L., & Bodner, G. M. (2006). Contextual epistemic development in science: A comparison of chemistry students and research chemists. Science Education, 90, 468-495
54. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345-372
55. Schmidt, H. G., Loyens, S. M. M., Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2007). Problem-based learning is compatible with human cognitive architecture: Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42, 91-97
56. Schmidt, H. G., Van Der Molen, H. T., Te Windel, W. W. R., & Wijnen, W. H. F. W. (2009). Constructivist, problembased learning does work: A meta-analysis of curricular comaprisons involving a single medical school. Educational Psychologist, 44, 227-249
57. Schroeder, C. M., Scott, T. P., Tolson, H., Huang, T.-Y., & Lee, Y.-H. (2007). A meta-analysis of national research: Effects of teaching strategies on student achievement in science in the United States. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 1436-1460
58. Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 129-184
59. Shimoda, T. A., White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (2002). Student goal orientation in learning inquiry skills with modifiable software advisors. Science Education, 86, 244-263
60. Shute, V. J., & Glaser, R. (1990). A large-scale evaluation of an intelligent discovery world: Smithtown. Interactive Learning Environments, 1, 51-77
61. Shute, V. J., & Glaser, R. (1991). An intelligent tutoring system for exploring principles of economics. In R. E. Snow & D. Wiley (Eds.), Improving inquiry in social science: A volume in honor of Lee J. Cronbach (pp. 333-366). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
62. Shwartz, Y., Weizman, A., Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., & Reiser, B. (2008). The IQWST experience: Coherence as a design principle. Elementary School Journal, 109, 199-219
63. Singer, J., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J., & Clay-Chambers, J. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 35, 165-178
64. Smith, C., & Unger, C. (1997). What's in dots-per-box? Conceptual bootstrapping with stripped-down visual analogs. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 143-181
65. Smith, J. P., III, diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993/1994). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 115-163
66. Smith, M. U., & Siegel, H. (2004). Knowing, believing, and understanding:What goals for science education? Science & Education, 13, 553-582
67. Stewart, J., Cartier, J. L., & Passmore, C. M. (2005). Developing understanding through model-based inquiry. In N. R. Council (Ed.), How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academies Press
68. Stewart, J., & Hafner, R. (1991). Extending the conception of "problem" in problem-solving research. Science Education, 75, 105-120
69. Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (Eds.). (2009). Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? New York, NY: Routledge
70. Weber, K. (2008). Students' difficulties with proof. Mathematical Association of America. Available at: www. maa. org/t_and_l/sampler/rs_8. html
71. White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 3-118
72. Wiser, M., & Amin, T. (2001). "Is heat hot?" Inducing conceptual change by integrating everyday and scientific perspectives on thermal phenomena. Learning and Instruction, 11, 331-355
73. Wu, H.-K., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students' use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 821-842
74. Wylie, A. (2002). Thinking from things: Essays in the philosophy of archaeology. Berkeley, CA:University of California Press
75. Zammito, J. H. (2004). A nice derangement of epistemes: Post-positivism in the study of science from Quine to Latour. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press