Searching for a common ground – A literature review of empirical research on scientific inquiry activities

Studies in Science Education

Volumn 52, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 161-197

  Rönnebeck, Silke ^a   Bernholt, Sascha ^a   Ropohl, Mathias ^a  

^a LEIBNIZ INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION   (Germany)

Author keywords

definitions; operationalisations; review; Scientific inquiry; students activities

Indexed keywords

EID: 84980315470     PISSN: 03057267     EISSN: 19408412     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/03057267.2016.1206351     Document Type: Article

References (115)

1. F.Abd El Khalick, S.Boujaoude, R.A.Duschl, N.G.Lederman, R.Mamlok-Naaman, A.Hofstein, … H.-L.Tuan, (2004). Inquiry in science education:International perspectives. Science Education, 88, 397–419. doi:10.1002/sce.10118
2. O.G.Aguiar, E.F.Mortimer, & P.Scott, (2010). Learning from and responding to students’ questions:The authoritative and dialogic tension. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 174–193. doi:10.1002/tea.20315
3. V.Akerson, & L.A.Donnelly, (2010). Teaching nature of science to K‐2 students:What understandings can they attain? International Journal of Science Education, 32, 97–124. doi:10.1080/09500690902717283
4. R.D.Anderson, (2002). Reforming science teaching:What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12. doi:10.1023/A:1015171124982
5. T.Bell, D.Urhahne, S.Schanze, & R.Ploetzner, (2010). Collaborative inquiry learning:Models, tools, and challenges. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 349–377. doi:10.1080/09500690802582241
6. B.R.Belland, K.D.Glazewski, & J.C.Richardson, (2011). Problem-based learning and argumentation:Testing a scaffolding framework to support middle school students’ creation of evidence-based arguments. Instructional Science, 39, 667–694. doi:10.1007/s11251-010-9148-z
7. L.K.Berland, (2011). Explaining variation in how classroom communities adapt the practice of scientific argumentation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20, 625–664. doi:10.1080/10508406.2011.591718
8. L.K.Berland, & B.J.Reiser, (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93, 26–55. doi:10.1002/sce.20286
9. M.R.Blanchard, S.A.Southerland, J.W.Osborne, V.D.Sampson, L.A.Annetta, & E.M.Granger, (2010). Is inquiry possible in light of accountability?:A quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction. Science Education, 94, 577–616. doi:10.1002/sce.20390
10. N.J.S.Brown, S.O.Nagashima, A.Fu, M.Timms, & M.Wilson, (2010). A framework for analyzing scientific reasoning in assessments. Educational Assessment, 15, 142–174. doi:10.1080/10627197.2010.530551
11. K.A.Butler, & A.Lumpe, (2008). Student use of scaffolding software:Relationships with motivation and conceptual understanding. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 427–436. doi:10.1007/s10956-008-9111-9
12. R.W.Bybee, (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J.Minstrell & E.H.van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 21–46). Washington, DC:American Association for the Advancement of Science.
13. R.W.Bybee, J.A.Taylor, A.Gardner, P.van Scotter, J.C.Powell, A.Westbrook, & N.Landes, (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model:Origins and effectiveness. Colorado Springs:BSCS. Retrieved from http://bscs.org/sites/default/files/_media/about/downloads/BSCS_5E_Full_Report.pdf
14. A.Cavagnetto, (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy:A Review of argument interventions in K–12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80, 336–371. doi:10.3102/0034654310376953
15. A.Cavagnetto, B.M.Hand, & L.Norton-Meier, (2010). The nature of elementary student science discourse in the context of the science writing heuristic approach. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 427–449. doi:10.1080/09500690802627277
16. H.-P.Chang, C.-C.Chen, G.-J.Guo, Y.-J.Cheng, C.-Y.Lin, & T.-H.Jen, (2011). The development of a competence scale for learning science:Inquiry and communication. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 1213–1233. doi:10.1007/s10763-010-9256-x
17. Z.Chen, & D.Klahr, (1999). All Other things being equal:Acquisition and transfer of the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70, 1098–1120. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00081
18. C.Chin, & J.Osborne, (2010). Students’ questions and discursive interaction:Their impact on argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 883–908. doi:10.1002/tea.20385
19. C.Chin, & L.-Y.Teou, (2009). Using concept cartoons in formative assessment:Scaffolding students’ argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 1307–1332. doi:10.1080/09500690801953179
20. C.-K.Chiou, G.-J.Hwang, & J.C.R.Tseng, (2009). An auto-scoring mechanism for evaluating problem-solving ability in a web-based learning environment. Computers & Education, 53, 261–272. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.02.006
21. D.B.Clark, & V.D.Sampson, (2007). Personally‐seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 253–277. doi:10.1080/09500690600560944
22. D.B.Clark, & V.Sampson, (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online senvironments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 293–321. doi:10.1002/tea.20216
23. D.Cross, G.Taasoobshirazi, S.Hendricks, & D.T.Hickey, (2008). Argumentation:A strategy for improving achievement and revealing scientific identities. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 837–861. doi:10.1080/09500690701411567
24. V.Dawson, & G.J.Venville, (2009). High‐school students’ informal reasoning and argumentation about biotechnology:An indicator of scientific literacy? International Journal of Science Education, 31, 1421–1445. doi:10.1080/09500690801992870
25. Y.J.Dori, (2003). From nationwide standardized testing to school-based alternative embedded assessment in Israel:Students’ performance in the matriculation 2000 project. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 34–52. doi:10.1002/tea.10059
26. R.A.Duschl, & R.E.Grandy, (2011). Demarcation in science education – Toward an enhanced view of scientific method. In R.S.Taylor & M.Ferrari (Eds.), Epistemology and Science Education (pp. 3–19). New York, NY:Routledge.
27. R.A.Duschl, & R.Grandy, (2012). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 22, 2109–2139.
28. J.Ebenezer, O.N.Kaya, & D.L.Ebenezer, (2011). Engaging students in environmental research projects:Perceptions of fluency with innovative technologies and levels of scientific inquiry abilities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 94–116. doi:10.1002/tea.20387
29. S.Erduran, S.Simon, & J.Osborne, (2004). TAPping into argumentation:Developments in the application of Toulmin’s Argument Pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915–933. doi:10.1002/sce.20012
30. E.M.Furtak, (2006). The problem with answers:An exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching. Science Education, 90, 453–467. doi:10.1002/sce.20130
31. E.M.Furtak, & M.A.Ruiz-Primo, (2008). Making students’ thinking explicit in writing and discussion:An analysis of formative assessment prompts. Science Education, 92, 799–824. doi:10.1002/sce.20270
32. E.M.Furtak, T.Seidel, H.Iverson, & D.C.Briggs, (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching:A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82, 300–329. doi:10.3102/0034654312457206
33. E.M.Furtak,R.J. Shavelson,J.T.Shemwell, & M.Figueroa, (2012). To teach or not to teach through inquiry:Is that the question? In S.M.Carver & J.Shrager (Eds.), The journey from child to scientist. Integrating cognitive development and the education sciences (1st ed., pp. 227–244). Washington, DC:American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/13617-000
34. H.Gijlers, & T.de Jong, (2005). The relation between prior knowledge and students’ collaborative discovery learning processes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 264–282. doi:10.1002/tea.20056
35. J.D.Gobert, A.R.Pallant, & J.T.Daniels, (2010). Unpacking inquiry skills from content knowledge in geoscience:A research and development study with implications for assessment design. International Journal of Learning Technology, 5, 310–334. doi:10.1504/IJLT.2010.037309
36. A.W.Gotwals, & N.B.Songer, (2010). Reasoning up and down a food chain:Using an assessment framework to investigate students’ middle knowledge. Science Education, 94, 259–281. doi:10.1002/sce.20368
37. D.L.Haury, (1993). Teaching science through inquiry. ERIC/CSMEE Digest. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED359048.pdf
38. J.Heinz, F.Lipowsky, A.Gröschner, & T.Seidel, (2012). Indicators and instruments in the context of inquiry-based science education. Münster:Waxmann.
39. L.Herrenkohl, A.Palincsar, L.DeWater, & K.Kawasaki, (1999). Developing scientific communities in classrooms:A sociocognitive approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 451–493. doi:10.1080/10508406.1999.9672076
40. L.R.Herrenkohl, T.Tasker, & B.White, (2011). Pedagogical practices to support classroom cultures of scientific inquiry. Cognition and Instruction, 29(1), 1–44. doi:10.1080/07370008.2011.534309
41. D.T.Hickey, G.Taasoobshirazi, & D.Cross, (2012). Assessment as learning:Enhancing discourse, understanding, and achievement in innovative science curricula. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 1240–1270. doi:10.1002/tea.21056
42. D.T.Hickey, & S.J.Zuiker, (2012). Multilevel assessment for discourse, understanding, and achievement. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21, 522–582. doi:10.1080/10508406.2011.652320
43. C.E.Hmelo, D.L.Holton, & J.L.Kolodner, (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 247–298. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS0903_2
44. C.E.Hmelo-Silver, R.G.Duncan, & C.A.Chinn, (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning:A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42, 99–107. doi:10.1080/00461520701263368
45. A.Hofstein, O.Navon, M.Kipnis, & R.Mamlok-Naaman, (2005). Developing students’ ability to ask more and better questions resulting from inquiry-type chemistry laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 791–806. doi:10.1002/tea.20072
46. D.Holton, & D.Clarke, (2006). Scaffolding and metacognition. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 37, 127–143.10.1080/00207390500285818
47. C.-J.Huang, Y.-W.Wang, T.-H.Huang, Y.-C.Chen, H.-M.Chen, & S.-C.Chang, (2011). Performance evaluation of an online argumentation learning assistance agent. Computers & Education, 57, 1270–1280. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.013
48. M.P.Jiménez-Aleixandre, & S.Erduran, (2007). Argumentation in science education:An overview. In S.Erduran & M.P.Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–27). New York, NY:Springer.
49. Z.Kaberman, & Y.J.Dori, (2009). Question posing, inquiry, and modeling skills of chemistry students in the case-based computerized laboratory environment. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 597–625. doi:10.1007/s10763-007-9118-3
50. G.J.Kelly, S.Druker, & C.Chen, (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity:Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 849–871. doi:10.1080/0950069980200707
51. D.J.Ketelhut, & B.C.Nelson, (2010). Designing for real-world scientific inquiry in virtual environments. Educational Research, 52, 151–167. doi:10.1080/00131881.2010.482741
52. H.Kim, & J.Song, (2006). The features of peer argumentation in middle school students' scientific inquiry. Research in Science Education, 36, 211–233. doi:10.1007/s11165-005-9005-2
53. P.A.Kirschner, J.Sweller, & R.E.Clark, (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. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
54. D.Klahr, & M.Nigam, (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction:Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15, 661–667. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00737.x
55. D.Kubasko, M.G.Jones, T.Tretter, & T.Andre, (2008). Is it live or is it memorex? Students' synchronous and asynchronous communication with scientists. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 495–514. doi:10.1080/09500690701217220
56. E.A.Kyza, (2009). Middle-school students’ reasoning about alternative hypotheses in a scaffolded, software-based inquiry investigation. Cognition and Instruction, 27, 277–311. doi:10.1080/07370000903221718
57. D.R.Lavoie, (1999). Effects of emphasizing hypothetico-predictive reasoning within the science learning cycle on high school student's process skills and conceptual understandings in biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 1127–1147.10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199912)36:10<>1.0.CO;2-I
58. N.G.Lederman, (2006). Syntax of nature of science within inquiry and science instruction. In L.B.Flick & N.G.Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science:Implications for teaching, learning and teacher education (pp. 301–317). Dordrecht:Springer.
59. S.-S.Lin, & J.J.Mintzes, (2010). Learning argumentation skills through instruction in socioscientific issues:The effect of ability level. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8, 993–1017. doi:10.1007/s10763-010-9215-6
60. M.C.Linn, E.A.Davis, & P.Bell, (Eds.). (2004). Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
61. W.F.McComas, & J.K.Olson, (1998). The nature of science in international science education standard documents. In W.F.McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education:Rationales and strategies (pp. 41–52). Dordrecht:Kluwer.
62. K.W.McElhaney, & M.C.Linn, (2011). Investigations of a complex, realistic task:Intentional, unsystematic, and exhaustive experimenters. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 745–770. doi:10.1002/tea.20423
63. K.L.McNeill, (2009). Teachers’ use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93, 233–268. doi:10.1002/sce.20294
64. K.L.McNeill, (2011). Elementary students’ views of explanation, argumentation, and evidence, and their abilities to construct arguments over the school year. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 793–823. doi:10.1002/tea.20430
65. K.L.McNeill, & J.Krajcik, (2008). Scientific explanations:Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 53–78. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1098-2736
66. D.D.Minner, A.J.Levy, & J.Century, (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. doi:10.1002/tea.20347
67. M.Mistler Jackson, & N.B.Songer, (2000). Student motivation and internet technology:Are students empowered to learn science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 459–479. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1098-2736
68. I.V.A.Mullis, M.O.Martin, G.J.Ruddock, C.Y.O’Sullivan, & C.Preuschoff, (2009). TIMSS 2011 assessment frameworks. Boston, MA:TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.
69. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC:The National Academies Press.
70. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards:A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC:The National Academies Press.
71. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education:Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC:The National Academies Press.
72. National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards:For states, by states. Washington, DC:The National Academies Press.
73. I.Neumann, K.Neumann, & R.Nehm, (2011). Evaluating instrument quality in science education:Rasch‐based analyses of a nature of science test. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 1373–1405. doi:10.1080/09500693.2010.511297
74. C.T.Nicolaou, & C.P.Constantinou, (2014). Assessment of the modeling competence:A systematic review and synthesis of empirical research. Educational Research Review, 13, 52–73. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2014.10.001
75. J.Osborne, (2014). Teaching scientific practices:Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 177–196. doi:10.1007/s10972-014-9384-1
76. J.Osborne, S.Collins, M.Ratcliffe, R.Millar, & R.Duschl, (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, 692–720.10.1002/(ISSN)1098-2736
77. J.Osborne, S.Erduran, & S.Simon, (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994–1020. doi:10.1002/tea.20035
78. J.F.Osborne, & A.Patterson, (2011). Scientific argument and explanation:A necessary distinction? Science Education, 95, 627–638.10.1002/sce.20438
79. J.Osborne, S.Simon, A.Christodoulou, C.Howell-Richardson, & K.Richardson, (2013). Learning to argue:A study of four schools and their attempt to develop the use of argumentation as a common instructional practice and its impact on students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50, 315–347. doi:10.1002/tea.21073
80. M.Pedaste, M.Mäeots, L.A.Siiman, T.de Jong, S.A.N.van Riesen, E.T.Kamp, & E.Tsourlidaki, (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning:Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003
81. A.Pickering, (Ed.). (1992). Science as practice and culture. Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.
82. A.Repenning, A.Ioannidou, L.Luhn, C.Daetwyler, & N.Repenning, (2010). Mr. Vetro:Assessing a collective simulation framework. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 21, 515–537.
83. A.E.Rivet, & K.A.Kastens, (2012). Developing a construct-based assessment to examine students’ analogical reasoning around physical models in Earth Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 713–743. doi:10.1002/tea.21029
84. M.A.Ruiz-Primo, & E.M.Furtak, (2007). Exploring teachers’ informal formative assessment practices and students’ understanding in the context of scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 57–84. doi:10.1002/tea.20163
85. M.A.Ruiz-Primo, E.M.Furtak, C.C.Ayala, Y.Yin, & R.J.Shavelson, (2010). Formative assessment, motivation, and science learning. In H.L.Andrade & G.J.Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of Formative Assessment (pp. 139–158). New York, NY:Routledge.
86. M.A.Ruiz-Primo, M.Li, C.Ayala, & R.J.Shavelson, (2004). Evaluating students’ science notebooks as an assessment tool. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1477–1506. doi:10.1080/0950069042000177299
87. M.A.Ruiz-Primo, M.Li, S.-P.Tsai, & J.Schneider, (2010). Testing one premise of scientific inquiry in science classrooms:Examining students’ scientific explanations and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 583–608. doi:10.1002/tea.20356
88. S.Ryu, & W.A.Sandoval, (2012). Improvements to elementary children’s epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96, 488–526. doi:10.1002/sce.21006
89. D.R.Sadler, (2013). Making competent judgements of competence. In S.Blömeke, O.Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, C.Kuhn, & J.Fege (Eds.), Modeling and measuring competencies in higher education (pp. 13–27). Rotterdam:Sense.10.1007/978-94-6091-867-4
90. A.Samarapungavan, P.Mantzicopoulos, & H.Patrick, (2008). Learning science through inquiry in kindergarten. Science Education, 92, 868–908. doi:10.1002/sce.20275
91. A.Samarapungavan, H.Patrick, & P.Mantzicopoulos, (2011). What kindergarten students learn in inquiry-based science classrooms. Cognition and Instruction, 29, 416–470. doi:10.1080/07370008.2011.608027
92. V.Sampson, J.Grooms, & J.P.Walker, (2011). 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, 217–257. doi:10.1002/sce.20421
93. W.A.Sandoval, (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 5–51.10.1207/S15327809JLS1201_2
94. C.M.Schroeder, T.P.Scott, H.Tolson, T.-Y.Huang, & Y.-H.Lee, (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. doi:10.1002/tea.20212
95. J.J.Schwab, (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J.J.Schwab & P.F.Brandwein (Eds.), The teaching of science (pp. 3–103). Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
96. R.Schwartz, N.G.Lederman, & J.S.Lederman, (2008). An instrument to assess views of scientific inquiry:The VOSI questionnaire. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Baltimore, MD.
97. C.V.Schwarz, & B.Y.White, (2005). Metamodeling knowledge:Developing students' understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 165–205. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2302_1
98. J.T.Shemwell, & E.M.Furtak, (2010). Science classroom discussion as scientific argumentation:A study of conceptually rich (and poor) student talk. Educational Assessment, 15, 222–250. doi:10.1080/10627197.2010.530563
99. K.D.Simons, & J.D.Klein, (2007). The impact of scaffolding and student achievement levels in a problem-based learning environment. Instructional Science, 35, 41–72. doi:10.1007/s11251-006-9002-5
100. W.W.M.So, (2003). Learning science through investigations:An experience with Hong Kong primary school children. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1, 175–200. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FB%3AIJMA.0000016852.19000.af10.1023/B:IJMA.0000016852.19000.af
101. H.A.Spires, J.P.Rowe, B.W.Mott, & J.C.Lester, (2011). Problem solving and game-based learning:Effects of middle grade students' hypothesis testing strategies on learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44, 453–472. doi:10.2190/EC.44.4.e
102. B.M.Stecher, S.P.Klein, G.Solano-Flores, D.McCaffrey, A.Robyn, R.J.Shavelson, & E.Haertel, (2000). The effects of content, format, and inquiry level on science performance assessment scores. Applied Measurement in Education, 13, 139–160. doi:10.1207/S15324818AME1302_2
103. R.N.Steinberg, S.Cormier, & A.Fernandez, (2009). Probing student understanding of scientific thinking in the context of introductory astrophysics. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 5, 020104-1–020104-10. doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.020104
104. G.Taasoobshirazi, & D.T.Hickey, (2005). Promoting argumentative discourse:A design-based implementation and refinement of an astronomy multimedia curriculum, assessment model, and learning environment. Astronomy Education Review, 4, 53–70. doi:10.3847/AER2005003
105. G.Taasoobshirazi, S.J.Zuiker, K.T.Anderson, & D.T.Hickey, (2006). Enhancing inquiry, understanding, and achievement in an astronomy multimedia learning environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15, 383–395. doi:10.1007/s10956-006-9028-0
106. E.E.Toth, D.D.Suthers, & A.M.Lesgold, (2002). “Mapping to know”:The effects of representational guidance and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry. Science Education, 86, 264–286. doi:10.1002/sce.10004
107. S.E.Toulmin, (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
108. P.-S.Tsai, G.-J.Hwang, C.-C.Tsai, C.-M.Hung, & I.Huang, (2012). An electronic library-based learning environment for supporting web-based problem-solving activities. Educational Technology & Society, 15, 252–264.
109. N.Valanides, & C.Angeli, (2008). Distributed cognition in a sixth-grade classroom. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40, 309–336. doi:10.1080/15391523.2008.10782510
110. R.P.Vellom, & C.W.Anderson, (1999). Reasoning about data in middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 179–199.10.1002/(ISSN)1098-2736
111. B.Y.White, & J.R.Frederiksen, (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition:Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 3–118. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1601_2
112. C.D.Wilson, J.A.Taylor, S.M.Kowalski, & J.Carlson, (2010). The relative effects and equity of inquiry-based and commonplace science teaching on students’ knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 276–301. doi:10.1002/tea.20329
113. K.K.H.Wong, & J.R.Day, (2009). A comparative study of problem-based and lecture-based learning in junior secondary school science. Research in Science Education, 39, 625–642. doi:10.1007/s11165-008-9096-7
114. C.H.Yoon, (2009). Self-regulated learning and instructional factors in the scientific inquiry of scientifically gifted Korean middle school students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 203–216. doi:10.1177/0016986209334961
115. M.Zion, T.Michalsky, & Z.R.Mevarech, (2005). The effects of metacognitive instruction embedded within an asynchronous learning network on scientific inquiry skills. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 957–983. doi:10.1080/09500690500068626