Elementary Science Teaching

Handbook of Research on Science Education

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 493-535

  Appleton, Ken ^a  

^a CENTRAL QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85145511527     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203824696-21     Document Type: Chapter

References (181)

1. Abell, S. K., and Roth, M. (1995). Reflections on a fifth-grade life science lesson: Making sense of children’s understanding of scientific models. International Journal of Science Education, 17(1), 59-74.
2. Akerson, V. L., Flick, L. B., and Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of primary children’s ideas in science on teaching practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 363-385.
3. Akerson, V. L., and Young, T. A. (1998). Elementary science and language arts: Should we blur the boundaries? School Science and Mathematics, 98(6), 334-339.
4. Anderson, C. W., Holland, J. D., and Palincsar, A. S. (1997). Canonical and sociocultural approaches to research and reform in science education: The story of Juan and his group. The Elementary School Journal, 7(4), 359-379.
5. Appleton, K. (1993). Using theory to guide practice: Teaching science from a constructivist perspective. School Science and Mathematics, 5, 269-274.
6. Appleton, K. (1995). Problem solving in science lessons: How students explore the problem space. Research in Science Education, 25(4), 383-393.
7. Appleton, K. (1997). Teaching science: Exploring the issues. Rockhampton, Australia: Central Queensland University Press.
8. Appleton, K. (2002). Science activities that work: Perceptions of primary school teachers. Research in Science Education, 32, 393-410.
9. Appleton, K. (2003, July). Pathways in professional development in primary science: Extending science PCK. Paper presented at the Annual conference of the Australasian Science Education Research Association, Melbourne, Australia.
10. Appleton, K. (2006). Science pedagogical content knowledge and elementary school teachers. In K. Appleton (Ed.), Elementary science teacher education: International perspectives on contemporary issues and practice (pp. 31-54). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum in association with the Association for Science Teacher Education (ASTE).
11. Appleton, K., and Asoko, H. (1996). Acase study of a teacher’s progress toward using a constructivist view of learning to inform teaching in elementary science. Science Education, 80(5), 165-180.
12. Appleton, K., and Kindt, I. (1997). Beginning teachers’ practices in primary science in rural areas Research monograph. Rockhampton, Australia: Faculty of Education, Central Queensland University.
13. Australian Academy of Science. (1994). Primary investigations. Canberra, Australia: Author.
14. Bailey, S., and Watson, R. (1998). Establishing basic ecological understanding in younger pupils: A pilot evaluation of a strategy based on drama/role play. International Journal of Science Education, 20(2), 139-152.
15. Barman, C. (1997). The learning cycle revisited: A modification of an effective teaching model. Monograph 6. Washington, DC: Council for Elementary Science International.
16. Barnett, M., and Morran, J. (2002). Addressing children’s alternative frameworks of the Moon’s phases and eclipses. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 859-879.
17. Baxter, G. P., Bass, K. M., and Glaser, R. (2001). Notebook writing in three fifth-grade science classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 102(2), 123-140.
18. Beeth, M. (1998a). Teaching for conceptual change: Using status as a metacognitive tool. Science Education, 82, 343-356.
19. Beeth, M. (1998b). Teaching science in fifth grade: Instructional goals that support conceptual change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(10), 1091-1101.
20. Beeth, M., and 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.
21. Bell, B., and Cowie, B. (1997). Formative assessment and science education. Research report of the Learning in Science Project (Assessment). Hamilton, New Zealand: University of Waikato.
22. Bell, B., and Cowie, B. (2001a). The characteristics of formative assessment in science education. Science Education, 85, 536-553.
23. Bell, B., and Cowie, B. (2001b). Formative assessment and science education (Vol. 12). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
24. Benenson, G. (2001). The unrealized potential of everyday technology as a context for learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 730-745.
25. Bianchini, J. A. (1997). Where knowledge construction, equity, and context intersect: Student learning of science in small groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(10), 1039-1065.
26. Bianchini, J. A., and Kelly, G. J. (2003). Challenges of standards-based reform: The example of California’s science content standards and textbook adoption process. Science Education, 87, 378-389.
27. Biddulph, F., and Osborne, R. (1984). Making sense of our world: An interactive teaching approach. Hamilton, New Zealand: University of Waikato.
28. Biemans, H. J. A., Deel, O. R., and Simons, P. R. (2001). Differences between successful and less successful students while working with the CONTACT-2 strategy. Learning and Instruction, 11, 265-282.
29. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study [BSCS]. (1992). Science for life and living: Integrating science, technology, and health. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
30. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., and Wiliam, D. (2002). Working inside the black box:Assessment for learning in the classroom. London: King’s College.
31. Blank, L. M. (2000). Ametacognitive learning cycle: Abetter warranty for student understanding? Science Education, 84, 486-506.
32. Boddy, N., Watson, K., and Aubusson, P. (2003). Atrial of the five Es: Areferent model for constructivist teaching and learning. Research in Science Education, 33, 27-42.
33. Boulter, C., Prain, V., and Armitage, M. (1998). “What’s going to happen in the eclipse tonight?":Rethinking perspectives on primary school science. International Journal of Science Education, 20(4), 487-500.
34. Brickhouse, N. W. (1994). Children’s observations, ideas, and the development of classroom theories about light. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(6), 639-656.
35. Buchanan, A. M., Howard, C., Martin, E., Williams, L., Childress, R., Bedsole, B., et al. (2002). Integrating elementary physical education and science: A cooperative problem-solving approach. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 73(2), 31-36.
36. Butts, D. P., Hofman, H. M., and Anderson, M. (1993). Is hands-on experience enough? A study of young children’s views of sinking and floating objects. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 5(1), 50-64.
37. Butts, D. P., Hofman, H. M., and Anderson, M. (1994). Is direct experience enough? A study of young children’s views of sounds. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 6(1), 1-16.
38. Butts, D. P., Koballa, T., Anderson, M., and Butts, D. P. (1993). Relationship between teacher intentions and their classroom use of Superscience. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2(1), 349-357.
39. Buxton, C. A., and Whatley, A. (2002, April). Authentic environmental inquiry model: An approach to integrating science and social studies in under-resourced urban elementary schools in southeastern Louisiana. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans (ERIC document reproduction services, ED464841).
40. Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth, UK:Heinemann.
41. Candela, A. (1997). Demonstrations and problem-solving exercises in school science: Their transformation within the Mexican elementary school classroom. Science Education, 81, 497-513.
42. Caravita, S. (2001). A re-framed conceptual change theory? Learning and Instruction, 11, 421-429.
43. Carter, G., and Jones, M. G. (1994). Relationship between ability-paired interactions and the development of fifth graders’ concepts of balance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(8), 847-856.
44. Carter, G., Jones, G., and Rua, M. (2003). Effects of partner’s ability on the achievement and conceptual organization of high-achieving fifth-grade students. Science Education, 87, 94-111.
45. Caswell, B., and Lamon, M. (1998, April). Development of scientific literacy: The evolution of ideas in a grade four knowledge-building classroom. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego.
46. Chin, C., and Kayalvizhi, G. (2002). Posing problems for open investigations: What questions do pupils ask? Research in Science and Technological Education, 20(2), 269-287.
47. Chinn, C. A., and Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: Atheoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175-218.
48. Claxton, G. (1990). Teaching to learn: A direction for education. London: Cassell.
49. Cobern, W. W., and Loving, C. C. (2002). Investigation of preservice elementary teachers’ thinking about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 1016-1031.
50. Curriculum Corporation. (1994). Astatement on science for Australian schools. Melbourne, Australia:Author.
51. diSessa, A., and Minstrell, J. (1998). Cultivating conceptual change with benchmark lessons. In J. Greeno and S. Goldman (Eds.), Thinking practices in mathematics and science learning (pp. 155-187). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
52. Edens, K. M., and Potter, E. (2003). Using descriptive drawings as a conceptual change strategy in elementary science. School Science and Mathematics, 103(3), 135-144.
53. Farenga, S. J., and Joyce, B. A. (1997). What children bring to the classroom: Learning science from experience. School Science and Mathematics, 97(5), 248-252.
54. Fellows, N. (1994). A window into thinking: Using student writing to understand conceptual change in science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 985-1001.
55. Fetters, M. K., Czerniak, C. M., Fish, L., and Shawberry, J. (2002). Confronting, challenging and changing teachers’ beliefs: Implications from a local systemic change professional development program. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(2), 101-130.
56. Fleer, M. (2006). “Meaning-making science”: Exploring the sociocultural dimensions of early childhood teacher education. In K. Appleton (Ed.), Elementary science teacher education: International perspectives on contemporary issues and practice (pp. 107-124). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum in association with the Association for Science Teacher Education (ASTE).
57. Fleer, M., and Hardy, T. (2002). Science for children: Developing a personal approach to teaching (2nd ed.). Sydney, Australia: Prentice Hall.
58. Flick, L. B. (1995). Navigating a sea of ideas: Teacher and students negotiate a course toward mutual relevance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(10), 1065-1082.
59. Fraser, B. J., and Tobin, K. G. (1998). International handbook of science education. Dordrecht, the Netherlands:Kluwer.
60. Friedl, A. E. (1995). Teaching science to children: Integrated approach (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
61. Gabel, D. L. (1994). Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. New York: Macmillan.
62. Gallas, K. (1995). Talking their way into science: Hearing children’s questions and theories, responding with curricula. New York: Teachers College Press.
63. Georghiades, P. (2000). Beyond conceptual change learning in science education: Focusing on transfer, durability and metacognition. Educational Research, 42(2), 119-139.
64. Gibson, J. (1998). Any questions any answers? Primary Science Review, 51, 20-21.
65. Gitomer, D. H., and Duschl, R. A. (1998). Emerging issues and practices in science assessment. In B. J. Fraser and K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (Vol. 2, pp. 791-810). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
66. Glynn, S. M., and Takahashi, T. (1998). Learning from analogy-enhanced science text. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(10), 1129-1149.
67. Gobert, J. D., and Clement, J. 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.
68. Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., and Rennie, L. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.
69. Gott, R., and Duggan, S. (1995). The place of investigations in practical work in the UK National Curriculum for science. International Journal of Science Education, 18(7), 791-806.
70. Gray, B. V. (1999). Science education in the developing world: Issues and considerations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(3), 261-268.
71. Harlen, W. (1997). Primary teachers’ understanding in science and its impact in the classroom. Research in Science Education, 27(3), 323-337.
72. Harlen, W. (1998). Teaching for understanding in pre-secondary science. In B. J. Fraser and K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 183-198). Dordrecht, the Netherlands:Kluwer.
73. Harlen, W., and Holroyd, C. (1997). Primary teachers’ understanding of concepts of science: Impact on confidence and teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 93-105.
74. Hayes, M. T., and Deyhle, D. (2001). Constructing difference: A comparative study of elementary science curriculum differentiation. Science Education, 85, 239-262.
75. Hewson, P. W. (1981). A conceptual change approach to learning science. European Journal of Science Education, 3(4), 383-396.
76. Hewson, P. W., Beeth, M., and Thorley, N. R. (1998). Teaching for conceptual change. In B. J. Fraser and K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (Vol. 2, pp. 199-218). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
77. Hewson, P. W., and Thorley, N. R. (1989). The conditions of conceptual change in the classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 541-553.
78. Heywood, D., and Parker, J. (1997). Confronting the analogy: Primary teachers exploring the usefulness of analogies in the teaching and learning of electricity. International Journal of Science Education, 19(8), 869-885.
79. Huber, R. A., and Moore, C. J. (2001). A model for extending hands-on science to be inquiry based. School Science and Mathematics, 101(1), 32-41.
80. Hunt, J., and Appleton, K. (2003). Professional development in primary science: Teacher mentoring. In B. Knight and A. Harrison (Eds.), Research perspectives on education for the future (pp. 165-187). Flaxton, Australia: Post Pressed.
81. Hurley, M. M. (2001). Reviewing integrated science and mathematics: The search for evidence and definitions from new perspectives. School Science and Mathematics, 101(5), 259-268.
82. Iwasyk, M. (1997). Kids questioning kids: “Experts” sharing. Science and Children, 35(1), 42-46, 80.
83. Jane, B., and Jobling, W. M. (1995). Children linking science and technology in the primary classroom. Research in Science Education, 25(2), 191-201.
84. Jarvis, T., Hargreaves, L., and Comber, C. (1997). An evaluation of the role of email in promoting science investigative skills in primary rural schools in England. Research in Science Education, 27(2), 223-236.
85. Johnson, S. L. (1999). Discovering the potential of gifted girls: The biological and physical science interests of gifted kindergarten girls. School Science and Mathematics, 99(6), 302-310.
86. Jones, M. G., Brader-Araje, L., Carboni, L. W., Carter, G., Rua, M., Banilower, E., et al. (2000). Tool time: Gender and students’ use of tools, control, and authority. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 760-783.
87. Jones, M. G., and Carter, G. (1994). Verbal and nonverbal behavior of ability-grouped dyads. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(6), 603-619.
88. Jones, M. G., Carter, G., and Rua, M. (2000). Exploring the development of conceptual ecologies:Communities of concepts related to convection and heat. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 139-159.
89. Jones, M. G., and Edmunds, J. (2006). Models of elementary science instruction: Roles of science specialists. In K. Appleton (Ed.), Elementary science teacher education: International perspectives on contemporary issues and practice (pp. 317-343). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum in association with the Association for Science Teacher Education (ASTE).
90. Kamen, M. (1996). A teacher’s implementation of authentic assessment in an elementary science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 859-877.
91. Karplus, R., and Thier, H. D. (1967). A new look at elementary school science. Chicago: Rand-McNally.
92. Kelly, G. J., Brown, C., and Crawford, T. (2000). Experiments, contingencies, and curriculum: Providing opportunities for learning through improvisation in science teaching. Science Education, 84, 624-657.
93. Keogh, B., and Naylor, S. (1999). Concept cartoons, teaching and learning in science: An evaluation. International Journal of Science Education, 21(4), 431-446.
94. Keys, C. (1998). A study of grade six pupils generating questions and plans for open-ended science investigations. Research in Science Education, 28(3), 301-316.
95. Khishfe, R., and Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551-578.
96. King, K., Shumow, L., and Lietz, S. (2001). Science education in an urban elementary school: Case studies of teacher beliefs and classroom practices. Science Education, 85, 89-110.
97. Koch, J. (2002). Science stories: A science methods book for elementary school teachers. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
98. Kruger, C., and Summers, M. (2000). Developing primary school children’s understanding of energy waste. Research in Science and Technological Education, 18(1), 5-21.
99. Kurth, L. A., Anderson, C. W., and Palincsar, A. S. (2002). The case of Carla: Dilemmas of helping all students to understand science. Science Education, 86, 287-313.
100. Lach, C., Little, E., and Nazzaro, D. (2003). From all sides now: Weaving technology and multiple intelligences into science and art. Learning and Leading with Technology, 30(6), 32-35, 59.
101. Laplante, B. (1997). Teachers’ beliefs and instructional strategies in science: Pushing analysis further. Science Education, 81, 277-294.
102. Lee, C. A., and Houseal, A. (2003). Self-efficacy, standards, and benchmarks as factors in teaching elementary school science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 15(1), 37-55.
103. Levitt, K. E. (2001). An analysis of elementary teachers’ beliefs regarding the teaching and learning of science. Science Education, 86, 1-22.
104. Limón, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change:A critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11, 357-380.
105. Liu, S. Y., and Lederman, N. G. (2002). Taiwanese gifted students’ views of the nature of science. School Science and Mathematics, 102(3), 114-122.
106. Martinez, K. (1994). Postcards from the edge. In K. Smith (Ed.), Knowledge and competence for beginning teachers (pp. 121-140). Brisbane, Australia: Queensland Board of Teacher Registration.
107. Mason, L. (2001). Introducing talk and writing for conceptual change: Aclassroom study. Learning and Instruction, 11, 305-329.
108. Mastropieri, M. A., and Scruggs, T. E. (1994). Text versus hands-on science curriculum: Implications for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 15(2), 72-85.
109. McGinn, M. K., and Roth, W. M. (1998). Assessing students’ understanding about levers: Better test instruments are not enough. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 813-832.
110. Meyer, K., and Woodruff, E. (1997). Concensually driven explanation in science teaching. Science Education, 80, 173-192.
111. Mistler, M. M., and Songer, N. B. (2000). Student motivation and internet technology: Are students empowered to learn science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 459-479.
112. Mitchell, I., and Mitchell, J. (1997). Stories of reflective teaching: A book of PEEL cases. Melbourne, Australia:Monash University.
113. Moje, E. B., Collazo, C., Carrillo, R., and Marx, R. W. (2001). “Maestro, what is ‘quality’?": Language, literacy, and discourse in project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(4), 469-498.
114. Morell, P. D., and Carroll, J. B. (2003). An extended examination of preservice elementary teachers’ science teaching self-efficacy. School Science and Mathematics, 103(5), 246-251.
115. Nason, R., Lloyd, P., and Ginns, I. S. (1996). Format-free databases and the construction of knowledge in primary school science projects. Research in Science Education, 26(3), 353-373.
116. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
117. National Science Resources Center. (2002). Science and technology for children. Burlington, NC:Carolina Biological Supply Company.
118. Newton, D. P., and Newton, L. D. (2000). Do teachers support causal understanding through their discourse when teaching primary science? British Educational Research Journal, 26(5), 599-613.
119. Newton, L. D., Newton, D. P., Blake, A., and Brown, K. (2002). Do primary school science books for children show a concern for explanatory understanding. Research in Science and Technological Education, 20(2), 227-240.
120. Nuthall, G. (1999). The way students learn: Acquiring knowledge from an integrated science and social studies unit. The Elementary School Journal, 99(4), 303-341.
121. Nuthall, G. (2001). Understanding how classroom experience shapes students’ minds. Unterrichts Wissenschaft, 29(3), 224-267.
122. Nuthall, G., and Alton-Lee, A. (1995). Assessing classroom learning: How students use their knowledge and experience to answer classroom achievement test questions in science and social studies. American Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 185-223.
123. Osborne, J., and Simon, S. (1996). Primary science: Past and future directions. Studies in Science Education, 26, 99-147.
124. Owens, C. V. (2001). Teachers’ responses to science writing. Teaching and Learning: The Journal of Natural Inquiry, 15(1), 22-35.
125. Palmer, D. (1995). The POE in the primary school: An evaluation. Research in Science Education, 25(3), 323-332.
126. Pang, J. S., and Good, R. (2000). A review of the integration of science and mathematics: Implications for further research. School Science and Mathematics, 100(2), 73-82.
127. Parker, V. (2000). Effects of a science intervention program on middle-grade student achievement and attitudes. School Science and Mathematics, 100(5), 236-242.
128. Patterson, E. W. (2001). Structuring the composition process in scientific writing. International Journal of Science Education, 23(1), 1-16.
129. Peacock, A., and Gates, S. (2000). Newly qualified primary teachers’ perceptions of the role of text material in teaching science. Research in Science and Technological Education, 18(2), 155-171.
130. Peers, C. E., Diezmann, C. M., and Watters, J. J. (2003). Supports and concerns for teacher professional growth during the implementation of a science curriculum innovation. Research in Science Education, 33(1), 89-110.
131. Penner, D. E., Giles, N. D., Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L. (1997). Building functional models: Designing an elbow. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 125-143.
132. Piaget, J. (1978). The development of thought (A. Rosin, Trans.). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
133. Raghavan, K., Sartoris, M. L., and Glaser, R. (1998). Why does it go up? The impact of the MARS curriculum as revealed through changes in student explanations of a helium balloon. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 547-567.
134. Ramos, E. (1999). Teaching science constructively: Examining teacher’s issues when teaching science. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED436391).
135. Rath, A., and Brown, D. E. (1996). Modes of engagement in science inquiry: A microanalysis of elementary students’ orientations toward phenomena at a summer science camp. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(10), 1083-1097.
136. Ritchie, S. M. (2002). Student positioning within groups during science activities. Research in Science Education, 32, 35-54.
137. Ritchie, S. M., and Hampson, B. (1996). Learning in-the-making: A case study of science and technology projects in a year six classroom. Research in Science Education, 26(4), 391-407.
138. Rollnick, M., Jones, B., Perold, H., and Bahr, M. A. (1998). Puppets and comics in primary science:The development and evaluation of a pilot multimedia package. International Journal of Science Education, 20(5), 533-550.
139. Roth, W. M. (1996). Teacher questioning in an open-inquiry learning environment: Interactions of context, content, and student responses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(7), 709-736.
140. Roth, W. M. (2001). Learning science through technological design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 768-790.
141. Rowell, P. M. (1997). Learning in school science: The promises and practices of writing. Studies in Science Education, 30, 19-56.
142. Schoon, K. J., and Boone, W. J. (1998). Self-efficacy and alternative conceptions of science of preservice elementary teachers. Science Education, 82, 553-568.
143. Schwartz, R. S., and Lederman, N. G. (2000). Achieving the reforms vision: The effectiveness of a specialists-led elementary science program. School Science and Mathematics, 100(4), 181-193.
144. Shepardson, D. P. (1996). Social interactions and the mediation of science learning in two small groups of first-graders. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(2), 159-178.
145. Shepardson, D. P. (1997). Of butterflies and beetles: First graders’ ways of seeing and talking about insect life cycles. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(9), 873-88.
146. Shepardson, D. P., and Britsch, S. J. (2001). The role of children’s journals in elementary school science activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 43-69.
147. Shepardson, D. P., Moje, E. B., and Kennard-McClelland, A. M. (1994). The impact of a science demonstration on children’s understandings of air pressure. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(3), 243-258.
148. Shimoda, T. A., White, B. Y., and Frederiksen, J. R. (2002). Student goal orientation in learning inquiry skills with modifiable software advisors. Science Education, 86, 244-263.
149. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14.
150. Skamp, K. (1993). Research themes, styles, purposes and future directions. In D. Goodrum (Ed.), Science in the early years of schooling: An Australasian perspective (pp. 43-63). Perth, Western Australia: Key Centre for Teaching and Research in School Science and Mathematics, Curtin University of Technology.
151. Skamp, K., and Mueller, A. (2001). Alongitudinal study of the influences of primary and secondary school, university and practicum on student teachers’ images of effective primary science practice. International Journal of Science Education, 23(3), 227-245.
152. Sneider, C. I., and Ohadi, M. M. (1998). Unraveling students’ misconceptions about the earth’s shape and gravity. Science Education, 82, 265-284.
153. Spillane, J. P., Diamond, J. B., Walker, L. J., Halverson, R., and Jita, L. (2001). Urban school leadership for elementary science instruction: Identifying and activating resources in an undervalued school subject. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 918-940.
154. Stark, R., and Gray, D. (1999). Gender preferences in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(6), 633-643.
155. Stoddart, T., Abrams, R., Gasper, E., and Canaday, D. (2000). Concept maps as assessment in science inquiry learning-a report of methodology. International Journal of Science Education, 22(12), 1221-1246.
156. Stow, W. (1997). Concept mapping: A tool for self-assessment? Primary Science Review, 49, 12-15.
157. Suchman, J. (1966). Inquiry development program in physical science: Teacher’s guide. Chicago: SRA.
158. Summers, M., Kruger, C., and Mant, J. (1998). Teaching electricity effectively in the primary school:A case study. International Journal of Science Education, 20(2), 153-172.
159. Tasker, R., and Freyberg, P. (1985). Facing the mismatches in the classroom. In R. Osborne and P. Freyberg (Eds.), Learning in science: The implications of children’s science (pp. 66-80). Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann.
160. Thorley, N. R., and Woods, R. K. (1997). Case studies of students’ learning as action research on conceptual change teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 229-245.
161. Tilgner, P. J. (1990). Avoiding science in the elementary school. Science Education, 74, 421-431.
162. Tomkins, S. P., and Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2001). Looking for ideas: Observation, interpretation and hypothesis-making by 12-year-old pupils undertaking science investigations. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 791-813.
163. Turner, S. A. (1997). Children’s understanding of food and health in primary classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 19(5), 491-508.
164. Tytler, R. (1998). The nature of students’ informal science conceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 20(8), 901-927.
165. Tytler, R., and Peterson, S. (2000). Deconstructing learning in science-Young children’s responses to a classroom sequence on evaporation. Research in Science Education, 30(4), 339-355.
166. van Zee, E. H., Iwasyk, M., Kurose, A., Simpson, D., and Wild, J. (2001). Student and teacher questioning during conversations about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 159-190.
167. Varelas, M., Becker, J., Luster, B., and Wenzel, S. (2002). When genres meet: Inquiry into a sixthgrade urban science class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 579-605.
168. Vaughan, M. N., Sumrall, J., and Rose, L. H. (1998). Preservice teachers use the newspaper to teach science and social studies literacy. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 10(2), 1-9.
169. Venville, G., Wallace, J., Rennie, L., and Malone, J. (2002). Curriculum integration: Eroding the high ground of science as a school subject? Studies in Science Education, 37, 43-83.
170. Vosniadou, S., Ioannides, C., Dimitrakopoulou, A., and Papademetriou, E. (2001). Designing learning environments to promote conceptual change in science. Learning and Instruction, 11, 381-419.
171. Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A. S., and 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.
172. Warwick, P., Linfield, R. S., and Stephenson, P. (1999). A comparison of primary school pupils’ ability to express procedural understanding in science through speech and writing. International Journal of Science Education, 21(8), 823-838.
173. Warwick, P., Stephenson, P., and Webster, J. (2003). Developing pupils’ written expression of procedural understanding through the use of writing frames in science: Findings from a case study approach. International Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 173-192.
174. Watters, J. J., and Ginns, I. S. (1997). An in-depth study of a teacher engaged in an innovative primary science trial professional development project. Research in Science Education, 27(1), 51-69.
175. Watts, M., Barber, B., and Alsop, S. (1997). Children’s questions in the classroom. Primary Science Review, 49, 6-8.
176. Weaver, G. C. (1996). Strategies in K-12 science instruction to promote conceptual change. Science Education, 82, 455-472.
177. Williams, M., and Linn, M. C. (2002). WISE inquiry in fifth grade Biology. Research in Science Education, 32, 415-436.
178. Woodbury, J. M. (1995, November). Methods and strategies of exemplary fifth grade teachers: Science as preferred and non-preferred subject. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Biloxi, MS.
179. Woodruff, E., and Meyer, K. (1997). Explanations from intra- and inter-group discourse: Students building knowledge in the science classroom. Research in Science Education, 27(1), 25-39.
180. Yanowitz, K. L. (2001). Using analogies to improve elementary school students’ inferential reasoning about scientific concepts. School Science and Mathematics, 101(3), 133-142.
181. Zubrowski, B. (2002). A curriculum framework based on archetypical phenomena and technologies. Science Education, 86, 481-501.