Digital Assessment Environments for Scientific Inquiry Practices

The Handbook of Cognition and Assessment

Volumn , Issue , 2016, Pages 508-534

  Gobert, Janice D ^a   Sao Pedro, Michael A ^b  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Digital assessment environment; Educational data mining; Inq ITS; Intelligent tutoring system; Scientific inquiry practice

Indexed keywords

EID: 85018929261     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1002/9781118956588.ch21     Document Type: Chapter

References (143)

1. Ahn, W., & Bailenson, J. (1996). Causal attribution as a search for underlying mechanisms: An explanation of the conjunction fallacy and the discounting principle. Cognitive Psychology, 31, 82-123.
2. Ahn, W., Kalish, C., Medin, D., & Gelman, S. (1995). The role of covariation versus mechanism information in causal attribution. Cognition, 54, 299-352.
3. Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. (2000). Limitations of student control: Do students know when they need help? In G. Gauthier, C. Frasson, & K. VanLehn (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth international conference on intelligent tutoring systems, ITS 2000 (pp. 292-303). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
4. Aleven, V., McLaren, B., Roll, I., & Koedinger, K. (2004). Toward tutoring help seeking. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 227-239). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
5. Amershi, S., & Conati, C. (2009). Combining unsupervised and supervised machine learning to build user models for exploratory learning environments. Journal of Educational Data Mining, 1(1), 71-81.
6. Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 167-207.
7. Aulls, M. W. (2002). The contributions of co-occurring forms of classroom discourse and academic activities to curriculum events and instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 520-538.
8. Baker, R., & Yacef, K. (2009). The state of educational data mining in 2009: A review and future visions. Journal of Educational Data Mining, 1(1), 3-17.
9. Behrens, J. T. (2009). Response to assessment of student learning in science simulations and games. National Academy of Sciences. Retrieved from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_080067.pdf
10. Behrens, J. (2013). Harnessing the currents of the digital ocean. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
11. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. London, UK: School of Education, King's College.
12. Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
13. Brem, S., & Rips, L. (2000). Explanation and evidence in informal argument. Cognitive Science, 24, 573-604.
14. Brewer, W. F. (1987). Schemas versus mental models in human memory. In P. Morris (Ed.), Modelling cognition (pp. 187-197). Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
15. Brown, A., & Campione, J. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229-270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. Buckley, B., Gobert, J. D., & Horwitz, P. (2006). Using log files to track students' model-based inquiry. Proceedings of the seventh international conference on learning sciences, (pp. 57-63). Bloomington, IN: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
17. Charney, D., Reder, L., & Kusbit, G.R. (1990). Goal setting and procedure selection in acquiring computer skills: A comparison of tutorials, problem solving, and learning exploration. Cognition and Instruction, 7(4), 323-342
18. 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.
19. Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271-315.
20. 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.
21. Christensen, C., Horn, M., & Johnson, C. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
22. Clarke-Midura, J., Code, J., Zap, N., & Dede, C. (2012). Assessing science inquiry in the c lassroom: A case study of the virtual assessment project. In L. Lennex & K. Nettleton (Eds.), Cases on inquiry through instructional technology in math and science: Systemic approaches (pp. 138-164). New York, NY: IGI Publishing.
23. Clarke-Midura, J., Dede, C., & Norton, J. (2011). The road ahead for state assessments. Policy Analysis for California Education and Rennie Center for Educational Research & Policy. MA: Rennie Center for Educational Research & Policy.
24. Clement, J. (1989). Learning via model construction and criticism. New York, NY: Springer.
25. Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students' p reconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1241-1257.
26. Clement, J., Brown, B., & Zietsman, A. (1989). Not all preconceptions are misconceptions: Finding "anchoring conceptions" for grounding instruction on students' intuitions. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 554-565.
27. Corbett, A., & Anderson, J. (1995). Knowledge-tracing: Modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 4, 253-278.
28. de Jong, T. (2006). Computer simulations: Technological advances in inquiry learning. Science, 312, 532-533.
29. de Jong, T., Beishuizenm J., Hulshof, C., Prins, F., van Rijn, H., van Someren, M.,... Wilhelm, P. (2005). Determinants of discovery learning in a complex simulation learning environment. In P. Gardenfors & P. Johansson, (Eds.), Cognition, education, and communication technology (pp. 257-283). Mawah, NJ: Erlbaum.
30. DeBoer, G., Abell C., Gogos, A., Michiels, A., Regan, T., & Wilson, P. (2008). Assessment linked to science learning goals: Probing student thinking through assessment. Project 2061. American Association for the Advancement of Science. In J. Coffey, R. Douglas, & C. Stearns (Eds.), Assessing science learning: Perspectives from research and practice (pp. 231-252). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
31. DiCerbo, K. E., & Behrens, J. T. (2012). Implications of the digital ocean on current and future assessment. In R. W. Lissitz & H. Jiao (Eds.), Computers and their impact on state assessment: Recent history and predictions for the future (pp. 273-306). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
32. Driver, R. (1983). The pupil as scientist? Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
33. Dunbar, K. (1993). Concept discovery in a scientific domain. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 17(3), 397-434.
34. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215-251.
35. Feigenbaum, E. A., & McCorduck, P. (1983). Land of the rising fifth generation computer. High Technology, 3(6), 64-70.
36. Frederiksen, C. (1975). Representing logical and semantic structure of knowledge acquired from discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 371-458.
37. Frederiksen, C. (1986). Cognitive models and discourse analysis. In C. Cooper and S. Greenbaum (Eds.), Written communication annual volume 1: Linguistic approaches to the study of w ritten discourse (pp. 227-267). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
38. Gentner, D., & Stevens, A. L. (1983). Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
39. Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, a cting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology (pp. 67-82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
40. Gilbert, J. K. (1993). Models and modelling in science education. Hatfield, UK: Association for Science Education.
41. Gilbert, S. (1991). Model building and a definition of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(1), 73-79.
42. Glaser, R., Schauble, L., Raghavan, K., & Zeitz, C. (1992). Scientific reasoning across different domains. In E. DeCorte, M. Linn, H. Mandl, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Computer-based learning environments and problem-solving (pp. 345-371). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
43. Gobert, J. (1994). Expertise in the comprehension of architectural plans: Contribution of representation and domain knowledge. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.
44. Gobert, J. (2000). A typology of models for plate tectonics: Inferential power and barriers to understanding, International Journal of Science Education, 22, 937-977.
45. Gobert, J. (2005). Leveraging technology and cognitive theory on visualization to promote students' science learning and literacy. In J. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 73-90). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer-Verlag.
46. Gobert, J. (in press). Microworlds. In R. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science education. Springer.
47. Gobert, J., Baker, R., & Sao Pedro, M. (2016). Inquiry Skills Tutoring System. US Patent Pending, Application no. 14/167,215.
48. Gobert, J., Baker, R., & Wixon, M. (2015). Operationalizing and detecting disengagement within on-line science microworlds. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 43-57. doi:10.1080/00461520.2014.999919
49. Gobert, J., & Buckley, B. (2000). Special issue editorial: Introduction to model-based teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 891-894.
50. Gobert, J., & Clement, J. (1999). Effects of student-generated diagrams versus student-generated summaries on conceptual understanding of causal and dynamic knowledge in plate tectonics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 39-53.
51. Gobert, J., Kim, Y. J, Sao Pedro, M. A., Kennedy, M., & Betts, C. G. (2015). Using educational data mining to assess students' skills at designing and conducting experiments within a complex systems microworld. Thinking Skills and Creativity. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2015.04.008
52. Gobert, J., Sao Pedro, M., Baker, R. S., Toto, E., & Montalvo, O. (2012). Leveraging educational data mining for real time performance assessment of scientific inquiry skills within microworlds, Journal of Educational Data Mining, 15(4), 153-185.
53. Gobert, J., Sao Pedro, M., Raziuddin, J., & Baker, R. (2013). From log files to assessment metrics for science inquiry using educational data mining. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(4), 521-563.
54. Haertel, G., Lash, A., Javitz, H., & Quellmalz, E. (2006). An instructional sensitivity study of science inquiry items from three large-scale science examinations. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
55. Hanushek, E. A. (2005). The economics of school quality. German Economic Review, 6(3), 269-286.
56. Harrison, A. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2004). The transfer of logically general scientific reasoning skills. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 541-546). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
57. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1011-1026.
58. Hmelo-Silver, C., 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(2), 99-107.
59. Huff, K., & Goodman, D. (2007). The demand for cognitive diagnostic assessment. In J. P. Leighton & M. J. Gierl (Eds.), Cognitive diagnostic assessment for education: Theory and applications (pp. 19-60). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
60. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
61. Keselman, A. (2003). Promoting scientific reasoning in a computer-assisted environment. Journal for Research in Science Teaching, 40, 898-921.
62. Ketelhut, D. J., & Dede, C. (2006). Assessing inquiry learning. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, April 3-6, San Francisco, CA.
63. Kindfield, A. C. H. (1993). Biology diagrams: Tools to think with. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(1), 1-36.
64. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discover, problem-based, e xperimental, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
65. Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual search space during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 1-48.
66. Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15(10), 661-667.
67. Klayman, J., & Ha, Y.-W. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review, 94(2), 211-228.
68. Koedinger, K. R., & Aleven, V. (2007). Exploring the assistance dilemma in experiments with cognitive tutors. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 239-264.
69. Koedinger, K. R., & Corbett, A. T. (2006). Cognitive tutors: Technology bringing learning s cience to the classroom. In K. Sawyer (Ed.) The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 61-78). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
70. Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Middle school students' initial attempts at inquiry in project-based science classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 313-350.
71. Krajcik, J., Marx, R., Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., & Fishman, B. (2000). Reforming science e ducation through university and school district collaborations. Conference paper presented at NARST. New Orleans, LA.
72. Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96, 674-689.
73. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
74. Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
75. Kuhn, D., & Dean, D. (2004). Connecting scientific reasoning and causal inference. Journal of Cognition and Development, 5, 261-288.
76. Kuhn, D., Garcia-Mila, M., Zohar, A., & Andersen, C. (1995). Strategies of knowledge acquisition. Society for Research in Child Development Monographs 60(4), Serial No. 245.
77. Kuhn, D., Katz, J., & Dean, D. (2004). Developing reason. Thinking and Reasoning, 10, 197-219.
78. Kuhn, D., Schauble, L., & Garcia-Mila, M. (1992). Cross-domain development of scientific reasoning, Cognition and Instruction, 9(4), 285-327.
79. Larkin, J., & Simon, H. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65-100.
80. Leeman-Munk, S., Wiebe, E., & Lester, J. (2013). Mining student science argumentation text to inform an intelligent tutoring system. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
81. Leighton, J., & Gierl, M. (2011). The learning science in educational assessment: The role of cognitive models. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
82. Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
83. Lowe, R. K. (1989). Search strategies and inference in the exploration of scientific diagrams. Educational Psychology, 9(1), 27-44.
84. McDermott, L., Rosenquist, M. L., & van Zee, E. H. (1987). Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics. American Journal of Physics, 55, 503-513.
85. McElhaney, K., & Linn, M. (2008). Impacts of students' experimentation using a dynamic visualization on their understanding of motion. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, ICLS 2008, Volume 2 (pp. 51-58). Ultrecht, The Netherlands: International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.
86. McElhaney, K., & Linn, M. (2010). Helping students make controlled experiments more informative. In K. Gomez, L. Lyons, & J. Radinsky (Eds.), Learning in the disciplines: Proceedings of the 9th international conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2010) - Volume 1, Full Papers (pp. 786-793). Chicago, IL: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
87. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2007). Middle school students' use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In M. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data (pp. 233-265). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
88. Mislevy, R., Behrens, J., DiCerbo, K., & Levy, R. (2012). Putting ECD into practice: The interplay of theory and data in evidence models within a digital learning environment. Journal of Educational Data Mining, 4(1), 49-110.
89. Mislevy, R., Chudowsky, N., Draney, K., Fried, R., Gaffney, T., & Haertel, G. (2003). Design p atterns for assessing science inquiry. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
90. Mitrovic, A., Mayo, M., Suraweera, P., & Martin, B. (2001). Constraint-based tutors: A success story. In L. Monostori, J. Vancza, & M. Ali (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th international conference on industrial and engineering application of artificial intelligence and expert systems: Engineering of intelligent systems, IEA/AIE-2001. LNCS 2070 (pp. 931-940). Budapest, Hungary: Springer-Verlag.
91. National Center for Education Statistics (2011). National assessment of educational progress. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education.
92. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
93. National Research Council (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. R. Duschl, H. Schweingruber, & A. Shouse (Eds.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
94. National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
95. Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
96. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall.
97. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Achieve, Inc. on behalf of the twenty-six states and partners that collaborated on the NGSS. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
98. Njoo, M., & de Jong, T. (1993). Exploratory learning with computer simulations for control theory: Learning processes and instructional support. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 821-844.
99. Norman, D. A. (1988). The design of everyday things. New York, NY: Basic Books.
100. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2014). PISA 2012 Results in focus: What 15-year-olds know and what they can do with what they know. Paris, France: Author.
101. Papert, S. (1980). Computer-based microworlds as incubators for powerful ideas. In R. Taylor (Ed.), The computer in the school: Tutor, tool, tutee (pp. 203-201). New York, NY: Teacher's College Press.
102. Papert, S. (1993). Mindstorms: Children, comptuers, and powerful ideas (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.
103. Pea, R. D., & Kurland, D. M. (1984). On the cognitive effects of learning computer programming. New Ideas in Psychology, 2(2), 137-168.
104. Pellegrino, J., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
105. Perkins, D. (1986). Knowledge as design. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
106. Pfundt, H., & Duit, R. (1994). Students' alternative frameworks and science education: Bibliography. Kiel: Germany: Institut fur die Padagogik der Naturwissenschaften an der Universitat Kiel.
107. Quellmalz, E., & Haertel, G. (2004). Technology supports for state science assessment systems. Paper commissioned by the National Research Council Committee on Test Design for K-12 Science Achievement. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
108. Quellmalz, E., Kreikemeier, P., DeBarger, A. H., & Haertel, G. (2007). A study of the alignment of the NAEP, TIMSS, and New Standards Science Assessments with the inquiry abilities in the National Science Education Standards. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
109. Quellmalz, E., & Pellegrino, J. (2009). Technology and testing. Science, 323, 75-79.
110. Quellmalz, E. S., Timms, M. J., Buckley, B. C., Davenport J., Loveland, M., & Silberglitt, M. D. (2012). 21st century dynamic assessment. In M. Mayrath, J. Clarke-Midura, & D. H. Robinson (Eds.), Technology-based assessments for 21st century skills: Theoretical and practical i mplications from modern research (pp. 55-90). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
111. Quellmalz, E., Timms, M., & Schneider, S. (2009). Assessment of student learning in science s imulations and games. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
112. Quinn, J., & Alessi, S. (1994). The effects of simulation complexity and hypothesis-generation strategy on learning. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 27(1), 75-91.
113. Raghavan, K., & Glaser, R. (1995). Model-based analysis and reasoning in science: The MARS curriculum. Science Education, 79, 37-61.
114. Reimann, P. (1991). Detecting functional relations in a computerized discovery environment. Learning and Instruction, 1(1), 45-65.
115. Resnick, L. B. (1997). Getting to work: Thoughts on the function and form of the school-to-work transition. In A. Lesgold, M. J. Feuer, & A. M. Black (Eds.), Transitions in work and learning: Implications for assessment (pp. 249-263). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
116. Richardson, J. (2008). Science ASSISTments: Tutoring inquiry skills in middle school s tudents. Unpublished Interactive Qualifying Project, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA.
117. Romero, C., & Ventura, S. (2007). Educational data mining: A survey from 1995 to 2005. Expert Systems with Applications, 33(1), 135-146.
118. Rouse, W. B., & Morris, N. M. (1986). On looking into the black box: Prospects and limits in the search for mental models. Psychological Bulletin, 100(3), 349-363.
119. Rupp, A. A., Gushta, M., Mislevy, R. J., & Shaffer, D. W. (2010). Evidence-centered design of e pistemic games: Measurement principles for complex learning environments. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 8(4). Retrieved from http://escholarship.bc.edu/jtla/vo18/4
120. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socio-scientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
121. Sao Pedro, M., Baker, R., & Gobert, J. (2012). Improving construct validity yields better models of systematic inquiry, even with less information. In Proceedings of the 20th Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation, and Personalization (UMAP 2012) (pp. 249-260). Montreal, QC, Canada.
122. Sao Pedro, M., Baker, R., Gobert, J., Montalvo, O., & Nakama, A. (2011). Using machine-learned detectors of systematic inquiry behavior to predict gains in inquiry skills. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction. doi: 10.1007/s11257-011-9101-0
123. Sao Pedro, M., Gobert, J. D., & Betts, C. G. (2015). Inq-Blotter: Revolutionizing how teachers identify and support students needing help during inquiry. Proposal (EDIES15C0018) funded by the US Department of Education SBIR program.
124. Sao Pedro, M., Gobert, J., Toto, E., & Paquette, L. (2015, April). Assessing transfer of students' data analysis skills across physical science simulations. Paper presented at the symposium on The State of the Art in Automated Scoring of Science Inquiry Tasks at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association. Chicago, IL.
125. Sao Pedro, M., Jiang, Y., Paquette, L., Baker, R. S., & Gobert, J. (2014). Identifying transfer of inquiry skills across physical science simulations using educational data mining. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 222-229), Boulder, CO. International Society of the Learning Sciences.
126. Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Duschl, R., Schulze, S., & John, J. (1995). Students' understanding of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 131-166.
127. Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Raghavan, K., & Reiner, M. (1991). Causal models and experimentation strategies in scientific reasoning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(2), 201-238.
128. Schauble, L., Klopfer, L. E., & Raghavan, K. (1991). Students' transition from an engineering model to a science model of experimentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 859-882.
129. Schunn, C. D., & Anderson, J. R. (1998). Scientific discovery. In J. R. Anderson (Ed.), The atomic components of thought (pp. 385-428). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
130. Schunn, C. D., & Anderson, J. R. (1999). The generality/specificity of expertise in scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 23(3), 337-370.
131. Shute, V. J. (2011). Stealth assessment in computer-based games to support learning. In S. Tobias & J. D. Fletcher (Eds.), Computer games and instruction (pp. 503-524). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers.
132. Shute, V. J., & Glaser, R. (1990). A large-scale evaluation of an intelligent discovery world: Smithtown. Interactive Learning Environments, 1, 55-71.
133. Shute, V. J., Glaser, R., & Raghavan, K. (1989). Inference and discovery in an exploratory laboratory. In P. L. Ackerman, R. J. Sternberg, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Learning and individual differences: Advances in theory and research (pp. 279-326). New York, NY: W.H. Freeman.
134. Stewart, J., & Hafner, R. (1991). Extending the conception of "problem" in problem-solving research. Science Education, 75(1), 105-120.
135. Timms, M., Clements, D. H., Gobert, J., Ketelhut, D. J., Lester, J., Reese, D. D., & Wiebe, E. (2012). New measurement paradigms. A report prepared for the Community for Advancing Discovery Research in Education (CADRE), United States. Retrieved from http://works.bepress.com/michael_timms/36
136. Tschirgi, J. E. (1980). Sensible reasoning: A hypothesis about hypotheses. Child Development, 51(1), 1-10.
137. van Joolingen, W.R., & de Jong, T. (1991). Supporting hypothesis generation by learners exploring an interactive computer simulation. Instructional Science, 20(5-6), 389-404.
138. van Joolingen, W. R., & de Jong, T. (1993). Exploring a domain through a computer simulation: Traversing variable and relation space with the help of a hypothesis scratchpad. In D. Towne, T. de Jong, & H. Spada (Eds.), Simulation-based experiential learning (pp. 191-206). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
139. van Joolingen, W. R., & de Jong, T. (1997). An extended dual search space model of scientific discovery learning. Instructional Science, 25(5), 307-346.
140. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
141. White, B. (1993). Intermediate causal models: A missing link for successful science education. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 177-252). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
142. White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (1990). Causal model progressions as a foundation for intelligent learning environments. Artificial Intelligence, 24, 99-157.
143. Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.