毛松霖、張菊秀 (1997)。”探究式教學法”與”講述式教學法”對於國中學生地球科學-氣象單元學習成效之比較。科學教育學刊 ,5(4),461-497。李國賓 (2008)。WebQuest教學策略對國小學童批判思考能力之影響—以國小六年級社會學習領域為例。國立台南大學數位學習科技學系教學碩士論文。未出版。
邱美虹 (2008)。模型與建模能力之理論架構。科學教育月刊,306,2-9。(轉載自論文發表於中華民國科學教育學術研討會,2007,高雄:國立高雄師範大學)。
邱美虹、鐘建坪、鍾曉蘭、白勝安和陳建章(送審中)。建模文本對高中學生建模能力之促進效果。科學教育學刊。
吳明珠 (2008)。科學模型本質剖析:認識論面向初探。科學教育月刊,306,2-8。(轉載自論文發表於中華民國科學教育學術研討會,2007,高雄:國立高雄師範大學)。
周金城 (2002)。以孔恩的常態科學探究高中師生科學社群中科學探索活動的歷程—參與科學展覽活動之得獎個案分析。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文,未出版。周金城 (2008)。探究中學生對科學模型的分類與組成本質的理解。科學教育月刊,306,10-17。(轉載自論文發表於中華民國科學教育學術研討會,2007,高雄:國立高雄師範大學)。
林正弘 (1988)。伽利略.波柏.科學說明。台北: 東大圖書公司。
林俊華(1985)。國中學生科學過程技能學習成就之調查研究。國立台灣師範大學物理研究所碩士論文。未出版。
林靜雯、邱美虹(2008)。從認知/方法論之向度初探高中學生模型及建模歷程之知識。科學教育月刊,307,9-14。(轉載自論文發表於中華民國科學教育學術研討會,2007,高雄:國立高雄師範大學)。
洪振方 (2003)。探究式教學的歷史回顧與創造性探究模式之初探。高雄師大學報:自然科學與科技類,15,641-662。洪振方、莊敏雄和宋國城 (2011)。建模教學對國小學童的模型認知及地質概念理解之影響。科學教育學刊,19(4),309-333。高慧蓮 (2006)。九年一貫課程提升學生科學本質能力指標表現可行教學模組之開發研究。科學教育學刊, 14(4), 1-25。教育部 (2003)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要:自然與生活科技學習領域。台北: 作者。陳瑞麟(2004)。科學理論版本的結構與發展。台北:台大出版中心。郭章淵、戴文雄(2007)。問題導向學習對建築系學生學習成效之研究-以建築設備學教學為例。朝陽學報,12,293-310。張志康、邱美虹(2009)。建模能力分析指標的發展與應用-以電化學為例。科學教育學刊,17(4), 319-342。張志康(2009)。從Chi與Vosniadou的綜合理論探究建模教學對學生力學概念改變之影響。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文。未出版。
楊秀停、王國華(2007)。實施引導式探究教學對於國小學童學習成效之影響。科學教育學刊,15(4),439-459。蔡執仲、段曉林(2005)。探究式實驗教學對國二學生理化學習動機之影響。科學教育學刊,13(3),289-315。謝州恩、吳心楷(2005)。探究情境中國小學童科學解釋能力成長之研究。師大學報:科學教育類,50(2),55-84。
劉宏文(2001)。高中學生進行開放式科學探究活動之個案研究。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文,彰化市。劉俊庚、邱美虹(2010)。從建模觀點分析高中化學教科書中原子理論之建模歷程及其意涵。科學教育研究與發展季刊,59,23-54。
鐘建坪(2010)。引導式建模探究教學架構初探。科學教育月刊,328,2-19。
Achinstein, P. (1983). The nature of explanation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Abd-El-Khalick, F. S., &; Akerson, V. L. (2004). Learning about nature of science as conceptual change: Factors that mediate the development of preservice elementary teachers’ views of nature of science. Science Education, 88(5),785-810.
Agassi, J. (1997). Thought, action and scientific technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(1-2), 33-48.
Ainsworth, S. E., &; van Labeke, N. (2004). Multiple forms of dynamic representation. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 241–255.
Akerson, V. L., &; Hanuscin, D. L. (2007). Teaching nature of science through inquiry: The results of a three-year professional development program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 653–680.
Alonzo, A. C., &; Steedle, J. T. (2009). Developing and assessing a force and motion learning progression. Science Education, 93(3), 389-421.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1989). Science for all American. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Project 2061. Benchmarks for science literacy. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: what research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.
Barrow, L. H. (2006). A brief history of inquiry: From Dewey to standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(3), 265-278.
Bamberger, Y., &; Davis, E. A. (2013). Middle-school science students' scientific modeling performances across content areas and within a learning progression. International Journal of Science Education, 35(2), 213-238.
Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., &; Pasley, J. D. (2006). The status of K-12 science teaching in the United States: Results from a national observation study. In D. W. Sunal and E. L. Wright (Eds.) The Impact of State and National Standards on K-12 Science Teaching. Greenwich, CT: IAP.
Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., Barnett, M. G., &; Squire, K. (2001). Constructing virtual worlds: Tracing the historical development of learner practices/understandings. Cognition and Instruction, 19(1), 47-94.
Bell, R. L. (2006). Perusing Pandora’s Box: Exploring the what, when, and how of nature of science instruction. In L. B. Flick &; N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 427-446). Dordrecht: Springer.
Bell, R. L., Matkins, J. J., &; Gansneder, B. M. (2011). Impacts of contextual and explicit instruction on preservice elementary teachers’ understandings of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(4), 414-436.
Bell, L. R., Smetana, L., &; Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction: assessing the inquiry level of classroom activities. The Science Teacher, 72 (7), 30-33.
Biggs, J. B., &; Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy. New York Academic Press.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: McKay.
BonJour, L. (1985). The structure of empirical knowledge. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Boulter, C. J. &; Buckley, B. C. (2000). Constructing a typology of models for science education. In J. K. Gilbert &; C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 41–57). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Britton, B. K., &; Gulgoz, S. (1991). Using Kintsch's computational model to improve instructional text: Effects of repairing inference calls on recall and cognitive structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 329-404.
Brown, A. I. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in Instructional Psychology. New York: Halstead Press.
Brown, A. L., &; DeLoache, J. S. (1978). Skills, plans, and self-regulation. In R. S. Siegel (Ed.), Children’s thinking: What develops? (pp. 3–35). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Braaten, M., &; Windschitl, M. (2011). Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education. Science Education, 95(4), 639-669.
Bruner, J. S. (1977). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Buckley, B. C., &; Boulter, C. J. (2000). Investigating the role of representations and expressed models in building mental models. In J. K. Gilbert and C.J. Boulter (eds.), Developing Models in Science Education (pp.119-135.) Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Burns, J. C., Okey, J. R., &; Wise, K. C. (1985). Development of an integrated process skill test: Tips II. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(2), 169–177.
Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Bybee, R. W. (2004). Science inquiry and science teaching. In L. B. Flick, &; N. G. Lederman (Eds.) Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science. Implications for Teaching, Learning, and Teacher Education (pp. 1–12). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Campbell, T., Zhang, D., &; Neilson, D. (2011). Model based inquiry in the high school physics classroom: An exploratory study of implementation and outcomes. Journal of Science Education &; Technology, 20(3), 258-269.
Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. The MIT press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E., &; Unger, C. (1989). An experiment is when you try it and see if it works: A study of grade 7 students’ understanding of the construction of scientific knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 11(5), 514–529.
Carey, S., &; Smith, C. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 28(3), 235–251.
Champagne, A., Klopfer, L. E., &; Anderson, J. H. (1980). Factors influencing the learning of classical mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 48(12), 1074 – 1079.
Chi, M. T. H. (1992). Conceptual change within and across ontological categories: Examples from learning and discovery in science. Cognitive Models of Science: Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, XV, 129-186.
Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Common sense conceptions of emergent processes. Journal of the Learning Science, 14(2), 161-199.
Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121-152.
Chi, M. T. H. &; Ohlsson, S. (2005). Complex declarative learning. In K. J. Holyak &; R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 371-400). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chi, M. T. H., Roscoe, R., Slotta, J., Roy, M., &; Chase, M. (2012). Misconceived causal explanations for emergent processes. Cognitive Science, 36(1), 1–61.
Chinn, C. A., &; Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2002). Authentic inquiry: Introduction to the special section. Science Education, 86(2), 171-174.
Chinn, C. A., &; Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175–218.
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), 1–49.
Chinn, C. A., &; Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 623-654.
Chinn, C. A., &; Brewer, W. F. (2001). Models of data: A theory of how people evaluate data. Cognition and Instruction, 19(3), 323-393.
Chinn, C. A., &; Samarapungavan, A. (2009). Conceptual Change-Multiple Routes, Multiple Mechanisms: A Commentary on Ohlsson. Educational Psychologist, 44(1), 1-10.
Chiu, M. H., &; Lin, J. W. (2005). Promoting fourth graders' conceptual change of their understanding of electric current via multiple analogies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(4), 424-468.
Clark, D. B. (2006). Longitudinal conceptual change in students' understanding of thermal equilibrium: An examination of the process of conceptual restructuring. Cognition and Instruction, 24(4), 467-563.
Clement, J. (1982). Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50(1), 66–71.
Clement, J. (1983). A conceptual model discussed by Galileo and used intuitively by physics students. In D. Gentner and A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental Models (pp. 325-340). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Clement, J. (1989). Learning via model construction and criticism: Protocol evidence on sources of creativity in science. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, and C. R. Reynolds (eds), Handbook of Creativity: Assessment, Theory and Research (pp. 341-381). New York: Plenum Press.
Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students’ preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1241-1257.
Clement, J. (2000). Model based learning as a key research area for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1041-1053.
Clement, J. (2008). Six levels of organization for curriculum design and teaching. In: Clement J, Rea-Ramirez MA (eds.) Model Based Learning and Instruction in Science (pp. 255-272). New York, Springer.
College Board. (2009). Science: College Board standards for college success. New York: Author.
Confrey, J. (1990). A review of the research on student conceptions in mathematics, science and programming. In C. B. Cazdan (Ed). Review of Research in Education, 16, 3-56, Washington, DC: AERA.
Courtney, T. D. (1986). The significance of the SOLO taxonomy for learning and teaching in geography. Geographical Education, 5(2), 47–50.
Crawford, B. A. (1999). Is it realistic to expect a preservice teacher to create an inquiry-based classroom? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10(3), 175 – 194.
Crawford, B. A., &; Cullin, M. J. (2004). Supporting prospective teachers’ conceptions of modelling in Science, International Journal of Science Education, 26(11), 1379-1401.
Creedy, L. J. (1993). Student understandings of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 23(1), 34-41.
Daniel, L., Ortleb, E. P., &; Biggs, A. (1995). Merrill life science. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Danusso, L., Testa, I. &; Vicentini, M. (2010). Improving prospective teachers' knowledge about scientific models and modelling: Design and evaluation of a teacher education intervention. International Journal of Science Education, 32(7), 871-905.
DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education. New York: Teachers College.
Deboer, G. E. (2004). Historical perspectives on inquiry teaching in schools. In L.B. Flick, &; N.G. Lederman (Eds.) Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science. Implications for Teaching, Learning, and Teacher Education (pp. 17-35). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
DeBoer, G. E., &; Bybee, R. W. (1995). The goals of science curriculum. In R. W. Bybee and J. D. McInerney (Eds.), Redesigning the science curriculum, (pp. 77-74). Colorado Springs, CO: Biological Sciences Curriculum Study.
Devi, R., Tiberghien, A., Baker, M., &; Brna, P. (1996). Modelling students’ construction of energy models in physics. Instructional Science, 24(4), 259–295.
diSessa, A. A. (1993). Towards an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2-3), 105-225.
diSessa, A. A. (2002). Why “conceptual ecology” is a good idea. In M. Limon &; L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 29–60). Dortrecht: Kluwer.
diSessa, A. A., Gillespie, N. M., &; Esterly, J. B. (2004). Coherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of force. Cognitive Science, 28(6), 843-900.
Doherty, E. J. S., &; Evans, L. C. (1983). Primary independent study. Connecticut: Synergetics.
Doyle, J. K., &; Ford, D. N. (1998). Mental models concepts for system dynamics research. System Dynamics Review, 14(1), 3-29.
Driver, R., Guesne, E., &; Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children’s ideas in science. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.
Dunbar, K. (1995). How Scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real world laboratories. In R. J. Sternberg, &; J. Davidson (Eds.) Mechanisms of insight(pp. 365-395). Cambridge: MA. MIT press.
Duit, R. (2009). Bibliography STCSE: Students’ and teachers’ conceptions and science education. Kiel, Germany: IPN—Leibniz Institute for Science Education (http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/).
Duit, R., Roth, W., Komorek, M., &; Wilbers, J. (2001). Fostering conceptual change by analogies - between Scylla and Charybdis. Learning and Instruction,11(4-5), 283-303.
Duschl, R., &; Grandy, R. (Eds.). (2008). Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Dykstra, D. I., Boyle, C. F., &; Monarch, I. A. (1992). Studying conceptual change in learning physics. Science Education, 76(6), 615-652.
Erduran, S. &; Duschl, R. (2004). Interdisciplinary characterizations of models and the nature of chemical knowledge in the classroom. Studies in Science Education, 40(1), 105-138.
Eryilmaz, A. (2002). Effects of conceptual assignments and conceptual change discussions on students’ misconceptions and achievement regarding force and motion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 1001–1015.
Etheredge, S. &; Rudnitsky, A. (2003). Introducing students to scientific inquiry: How do we know what we know? Boston: Allyn &; Bacon.
Flavell, J. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of psychological inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911.
Flavell, J. H., Green, F. L., &; Flavell, E. R. (1990). Developmental changes in children's knowledge about the mind. Cognitive Development, 5(1), 1-27.
Flick, L. B. (2000). Cognitive scaffolding that fosters scientific inquiry in middle level science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11(2), 109–129.
Francoeur, E. (1997). The forgotten tool: The design and use of molecular models. Social Studies of Science, 27(1), 7–40.
Fretz, E. B., Wu, H. K., Zhang, B., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J. S., &; Soloway, E. (2002). An investigation of software scaffolds supporting modeling practices. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 567–589.
Gabel, D. L. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: A lock to the future, Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 548-554.
Gagné, E. D., Yekovich, C.W., &; Yekovich, F. R. (1993). The cognitive psychology of school learning (2nd Edition). New York: Harper Collins.
Gardner, H. (1991). The Unschooled Mind: How Children Think and How Schools Should Teach. New York: Basic Books.
Garson, James. Connectionism, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2007 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), retrieved May 9, 2010 from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2007/entries/connectionism/
Germann, P. J., &; Aram, R. J. (1998). Student performances on the science processes of recording data, analyzing data, drawing conclusions, and providing evidence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(7), 773-798.
Germann, P. J., Aram, R. J., &; Burke, G. (1998). Identifying patterns and relationships among the responses of seventh-grade students to the science process skill of designing experiments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(1), 79-99.
Gibson, H. L., &; Chase, C. (2002). Longitudinal impact of an inquiry-based science program on middle school students’ attitudes toward science. Science Education, 86(5), 693-705.
Giere, R. N. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Giere, R. N. (2010). An agent-based conception of models and scientific representation. Synthese, 172(2), 269-281.
Gilbert, J. K. (1995). The role of models and modelling in some narratives in science learning. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 18-22. San Francisco, CA, USA.
Gilbert, J. K. (2004). Models and modeling : routes to more authentic science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(2), 115-130.
Gilbert, J. K. (2005). Visualization: A metacognitive skill in science and science education. In J. K. Gilbert (Eds.), Visualization in science education (pp. 1-27). Dordrecht: Springer.
Gilbert, J. K. (2008). Visualization: An emergent field of practice and enquiry in science education. Visualization: Theory and practice in science education (pp.3-24). Dordrecht, Springer.
Gilbert, J. K. &; Boulter, C. J. (1998). Learning science through models and modelling. In B. J. Fraser, &; K. G. Tobin (Eds) International handbook of Science Education (pp.53-66). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C., &; Rutherford, M. (1998). Models in explanations, part 1: Horses for courses? International Journal of Science Education, 20(1), 83–97.
Gilbert, J. K., &; Watts, D. M. (1983). Concepts, misconceptions and alternative conceptions: Changing perspectives in science education. Studies in Science Education, 10(1), 61–98.
Gilbert, S. W. (1991). Model building and a definition of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(1), 73–80.
Gobert, J. D., &; Buckley, B. C. (2000). Introduction to model-based teaching and learning in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 891-894.
Gobert, J. D. &; Discenna, J. (1997). The Relationship between Students' Epistemologies and Model-Based Reasoning. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University, Department of Science Studies. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED409164).
Gobert, J. D., &; Pallant, A. (2004). Fostering students’ epistemologies of models via authentic model-based tasks. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 13(1), 7-22.
Gobert, J. Slotta, J., &; Pallant, A. (2002). Inquiry Learning Through Students’ East-West Coast Collaboration. Presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, April 7-11, New Orleans, LA.
Gobert, J., Snyder, J., &; Houghton, C. (2002). The influence of students' understanding of models on model-based reasoning. Presented at the Annual 24 Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 1-5, New Orleans, LA.
Gobert, J. D., O’Dwyer, L., Horwitz, P., Buckley, B. C., Levy, S. T., Wilensky, U. (2011). Examining the relationship between students’ understanding of the nature of models and conceptual learning in biology, physics, and chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 33(5), 653-684.
Goldberg, F. M., &; Anderson, J. H. (1989). Student difficulties with gaphical representations of negative values of velocity. The Physics Teacher, 27(4), 254–260.
Goldstone, R. L., &; Wilensky, U. (2008). Promoting transfer through complex systems principles. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(1), 465-516.
Greeno, J. G., &; van de Sande, C. (2007). Perspectival understanding of conceptions and conceptual growth in interaction. Educational Psychologist, 42(1), 9–23.
Grosslight, L., Unger, C., Jay, E., &; Smith, C. L. (1991). Understanding models and their use in science: Conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 799–822.
Gunstone, R. F. (1987). Student understanding in mechanics: A large population survey. American Journal of Physics, 55(8), 691–696.
Guth, J., &; Pegg, J. (1994). First-year tertiary students’ understandings of iron flung patterns around a magnet. Research in Science Education, 24(1), 137-146.
Haack, S. (1993). Evidence and Inquiry: Towards Reconstruction in Epistemology, Oxford; Wiley-Blackwell.
Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Halloun, I. A. (1996). Schematic modeling for meaningful learning of physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(9), 1019-1041.
Halloun, I. A. (2004). Modeling Theory in Science Education. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
Halloun, I. A., &; Hestenes, D. (1985). Common sense concepts about motion. American Journal of Physics, 53(11), 1056 – 1065.
Hanuscin, D. L., Akerson, V. L., &; Phillipson, T. (2006). Integrating nature of science instruction into a physical science content course for preservice elementary teachers: NOS views of teaching assistants. Science Education, 90(5),912-935.
Harms, N. C. (1977). Project Synthesis: An interpretative consolidation of research identifying needs in natural science education (a proposal prepared for the National Science Foundation). Boulder: University of Colorado.
Harms, N. C., &; Yager, R. E. (Eds.). (1981). What research says to the science teacher, Vol. 3. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
Harrison, A. G., &; Treagust, D. F. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1011–1026.
Haury, D. L. (1993) Teaching science through inquiry. Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 359048.
Helm, H., &; Novak, J. D. (Eds.) (1983). Proceedings of the international seminar on misconceptions in science and mathematics. Department of Education, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. New York, NY: Free Press.
Hempel, C. G., &; Oppenheim, P. (1948). Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science, 15(2), 135–175.
Hess, M. (1966). Models and Analogies in Science. Notre Dame University Press.
Hestenes, D. (1987). Toward a modeling theory of physical education. American Journal of Physics., 55(5), 440-454.
Hestenes, D. (1992). Modeling games in the Newtonian World. American Journal of Physics, 60(8), 732–748.
Hestenes, D. (1995). Modeling software for learning and doing physics. In C. Bernardini, C., Tarsitani,, &; M. Vincentini (Eds.), Thinking physics for teaching (pp. 25-66). New York: Plenum.
Hestenes, D. (2006). Notes on modeling theory, Proceedings of the 2006 GIREP conference: Modelling in Physics and Physics Education.
Hestenes, D. (2010). Modeling theory for math and science education. In R. Lesh, P. L. Galbraith, C. R. Haines , &; A. Hurford (Eds.), Modeling students’ mathematical modeling competencies (pp. 13-41). New York, Springer.
Hestenes, D., Wells, M. &; Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141–158.
Milner-Bolotin, M. (2012). Increasing interactivity and authenticity of chemistry instruction through data acquisition systems and other technologies. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(4), 477–481.
Hinton, M. E. &; Nakhleh, M. B. (1999). Students’ microscopic, macroscopic, and symbolic representations of chemical reactions, Chem. Educator, 4(5), 158-167.
Hodson, D. (1992). In search of a meaningful relationship: an exploration of some issues relating to integration in science and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 14 (5), 541–562.
Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teaching. Educational Psychology Review, 13(4), 353–383.
Hofer, B. K., &; Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88–140.
Hofstein, A. &; Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28-54.
Hogan, K. &; Thomas, D. (2001). Cognitive comparisons of students’ systems modelling in ecology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10(4), 319-345.
Holyoak, K. J. (1985). The pragmatics of analogical transfer. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol.19 (pp. 59-86). New. York: Academic Press.
Holyoak, K. J. (2005). Analogy. In K. J. Holyoak and R. G. Morison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 117-142). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ioannides, C., &; Vosniadou, S. (2002). The changing meanings of force. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 2(1), 5-62.
Isaacson, W. (2007). Einstein: His life and universe. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Jakob. G., Per-Olof. W., &; Sven-Olof. H. (2010). Teachers' Language on Scientific Inquiry: Methods of teaching or methods of inquiry? International Journal of Science Education, 32(9), 1151-1172.
Jeong, H., Songer, N. B., &; Lee, S.-Y. (2007). Evidentiary competence: Sixth graders' understanding for gathering and interpreting evidence in scientific investigations. Research in Science Education, 37(1), 75-97.
Jimoyiannis, A., &; Komis, V. (2001). Computer simulations in teaching and learning physics: A case study concerning students’ understanding of trajectory motion. Computers &; Education, 36(2), 183-204.
Johnstone, A. H., (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7(2), 75-83.
Jonassen, D. (2008). Model Building for Conceptual Change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 676-693). New York: Taylor &; Francis - Routledge.
Jonassen, D., Strobel, J., &; Gottdenker, J. (2005). Model building for conceptual change. Interactive Learning Environments, 13(1–2), 15–37.
Justi, R. S. &; Gilbert, J. K. (2002). Modelling, teachers’ views on the nature of modelling, and implications for the education of modellers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 369-387.
Kaberman, Z., &; Dori, Y. J. (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(3), 597-625.
Kaminski, J. A., Sloutsky, V. M., &; Heckler, A. F. (2008). The advantage of abstract examples in learning math. Science, 320, 454–455.
Karagiannis, D., &; Kühn, H. (2002) Metamodelling Platforms. In K. Bauknecht, A. Min Tjoa and G. Quirchmayer (eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference EC-Web 2002 - Dexa 2002, Aix-en-Provence, France, volume 2455 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 182–196), Springer-Verlag.
Karplus, R. (1977). Science teaching and the development of reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14(2), 169-175.
Kempa, R. F., &; Diaz, M. (1990). Students’ motivational traits and preferences for different instructional modes in science education: Part 2. International Journal of Science Education, 12(2), 205-216.
Keselman, A. (2003). Supporting inquiry learning by promoting normative understanding of multivariable causality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(9), 898-921.
Keys, C., &; Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 631–645.
Khan, S. (2007). Model-based inquiries in chemistry. Science Education, 91(6), 877–905.
Khishfe, R. (2008). The development of seventh graders' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(4), 470-.
Khishfe, R., &; 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.
Kikas, E. (2003). University students’ conceptions of different physical phenomena. Journal of Adult Development,10(3), 139-150.
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(2), 75–86.
Koponen, I. T., (2007). Models and modelling in physics education: A critical reanalysis of philosophical underpinnings and suggestions for revisions. Science &; Education, 16(7-8), 751-773.
Kozma, R. &; Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(9), 949–968.
Kozma, R., &; Russell, J. (2005). Modelling students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 121–146). Dordrecht: Springer.
Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., &; Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&;4), 313–350.
Krajcik, J. S., Czerniak, C., &; Berger, C. (1998). Teaching children science in elementary and middle school classrooms: A project-based approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kuhn, D. (2007). Reasoning about multiple variables: Control of variables is not the only challenge. Science Education, 91(5), 710–716.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolution. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A., &; Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 495–523.
Kuhn, D. &; Dean, D. (2005). Is developing scientific thinking all about learning to control variables? Psychological Science, 16(11), 866–870.
Kuhn, D., Pease, M., &; Wirkala, C. (2009). Coordinating effects of multiple variables: A skill fundamental to causal and scientific reasoning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 103(3), 268–284.
Kvanvig, J. (2007). Coherentist theories of epistemic justification. In: Zalta EN (ed.) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2007/entries/justep-coherence/.
Larkin, J. (1983). The role of problem representation in physics. In D. Gentner &; A. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 75–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D., &; Simon, H. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208, 1335–1342.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Latour, B., &; Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific fact (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lawson, A. E. (1995). Science teaching and the development of thinking. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Leach, J., Hind, A., &; Ryder, J. (2003). Designing and evaluating short teaching interventions about the epistemology of science in high school classrooms. Science Education, 87(6), 831–848.
Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions about the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331–359.
Lederman, N. G. (2004). Syntax of nature of science with inquiry and science instruction. In L. B. Flick &; N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 301 – 317). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Lederman, N. G., &; Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. In W. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 83–126). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
Lederman, N.G., Wade, P.D., &; Bell, R.L. (1998). Assessing understanding of the nature of science: A historical perspective. In McComas, W. (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 331–350). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Lehrer, R., &; Schauble, L. (2003). Origins and evolution of model-based reasoning in mathematics and science. In R. Lesh &; H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: A models and modeling perspective on mathematics problem-solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 59-70). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lehrer, R., &; Schauble, L. (2006). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 371–388). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lehrer, R., and L. Schauble. (2010). What kind of explanation is a model? In M. K. Stein &; L. Kucan (Eds.) Instructional explanations in the disciplines (pp. 9-22). New York, Springer.
Levins, L. (1992). Students' understanding of concepts related to evaporation. Research in Science Education, 22(1), 263-272.
Levy, S. T., &; Wilensky, U. (2009). Students’ learning with the connected chemistry (CC1) curriculum: Navigating the complexities of the particulate world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(3), 243-254.
Liang, L. L., Fulmer, G. W., Majerich, D. M., Clevenstine, R., &; Howanski, R. (2012) The effects of a model-based physics curriculum program with a physics first approach: a causal-comparative study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(1), 114–124.
Linderholm, T., Gaddy, M., van den Broek, P., Mischinski, M., Crittenden, A., &; Samuels, S. J. (2000). Effects of causal text revisions on more- and less-skilled readers’ comprehension of easy and difficult texts. Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 525–556.
Linn, M. C., &; Muilenburg, L. (1996). Creating lifelong science learners: What models form a firm foundation? Educational Researcher, 25(5), 18-24.
Liu, S., &; Lederman, N. G. (2002). Taiwanese gifted students’ views of nature of science. School Science and Mathematics, 102(3), 114–123.
Louca, L. T., Zacharia, Z. C. (2012). Modeling-based learning in science education: cognitive, metacognitive, social, material and epistemological contributions. Education review, 64(4), 471-492.
Louca, L. T., Zacharia, Z. C., &; Constantinou, C. P. (2011). In quest of productive modeling-based learning discourse in elementary school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 919-951.
Maskiewicz, A. C., &; Winters,V. C. (2012). Understanding the co-construction of inquiry practices: A case study of a responsive teaching environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 429-464.
McCloskey, M. (1983). Naïve theories of motion. In D. Gentner &; A. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp.299-324). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
McComas, W. F. (2004). Keys to teaching the nature of science. The Science Teacher, 71(9), 24-27.
McDermott, L. C., Rosenquist, M. L., &; van Zee, E. H. (1987). Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics. American Journal of Physics, 55(6), 503–513.
McNeill, K. L. (2009). Teachers’ use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93(2), 233 – 268.
McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J. S., &; Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191.
McNeill, K. L., &; Krajcik, J. (2012). Claim, evidence and reasoning: Supporting grade 5-8 students in constructing scientific explanations. New York: Pearson Allyn &; Bacon.
Mestre, J. P. (1991). Learning and instruction in pre-college physical science. Physics Today, 44(9), 56-62.
Metz, K. E. (1991). Development of explanation: Incremental and fundamental change in children’s physics knowledge. Journal of Reserach in Science Teaching, 28(9), 785-797.
Michalsky, T. (2010). Shaping self-regulation in science teachers' professional growth: Inquiry skills. Science Education, 96(6), 1106-1133.
Minogue, J., &; Jones, M. G. (2009). Measuring the impact of haptic feedback using the SOLO taxonomy. International Journal of Science Education. 31(10), 1359-1378.
Minstrell, J. (1982). Explaining the “at-rest” condition of an object. The Physics Teacher, 20(1), 10–14.
Minstrell, J. (n.d.). Facets of students’ thinking. Retrieved October 27, 2006, from http://depts.washington.edu/huntlab/diagnoser/facetcode.html.
Niss, M. (2009). Metamodelling messages conveyed in five statistical mechanical textbooks from 1936 to 2001, International Journal of Science Education, 35 (5), 697-719.
Morrison, J. A., Raab, F., &; Ingram, D. (2009). Factors influencing elementary and secondary teachers’ views on the nature of science. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 46(4), 384–403.
Mortimer, E. F. (1995). Conceptual change or conceptual profile change? Science and Education, 4(3), 267-285.
Nagel, E. (1961). The Structure of Science. Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
National Society for the Study of Education. (NSSE). (1960). Rethinking science education: Fifty-ninth yearbook of the NSSE, Part I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Nersessian, N. (1992), How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamics of conceptual change in science, In R. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of science Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science, Vol. 15, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Nersessian, N. J. (2002). The cognitive basis of model-based reasoning in science. In Carruthers, P., Stich, S. &; Siegal, M. (eds.) The Cognitive Basis of Science, (pp. 133-153) Cambridge University Press.
Nersessian, N . J ., &; Resnick, L. B. (1989). Comparing historical and intuitive explanations of motion : Does "naive physics" have a structure? In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 412-420). Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc .
Nersessian, N. J., &; Patton, C. (2009). Model-based reasoning in interdisciplinary engineering. In A. Mcijers (Ed.), Handbook of the philosophy of technology and engineering sciences (pp. 687 – 718). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education, 86(4), 548-571.
Oh, P. S., Oh, S. J. (2011). What teachers of science need to know about models: An overview. International Journal of Science Education, 33(8), 1109-1130.
Osborne, J. F., &; Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction? Science Education, 95(4), 627–638.
Otero, J., Campanario, J. M., &; Hopkins, K. D. (1992). The relationship between academic achievement and metacognitive comprehension monitoring ability of Spanish secondary school students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(2), 419–430.
Palmer, D. H. &; Flanagan, R. B. (1997). Readiness to change the conception that “Motion- Implies-Force”: A comparison of 12-year-old and 16-year-old students. Science Education, 81(3), 317–331.
Papaevripidou, M., Constantinou, C. P., &; Zacharia, Z. C. (2007). Modeling complex marine ecosystems: Using Stagecast CreatorTM to foster fifth graders’ development of modeling skills. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 145–157.
Passmore, C. Stewart, J. &; Cartier, J. (2009). Model-based inquiry and school science: creating connections. School Science and Mathematics, 109(7), 394-402.
Perkins, D. N. (1986). Knowledge as Design. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Publ.
Penner, D. E. (2001). Cognition, computers, and synthetic science: Building knowledge and meaning through modelling. Review of Research in Education, 25, 1-36.
Penner, D, Giles, N, Lehrer, R, &; Schauble, L. (1997). Building functional models: designing an elbow. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 125–143.
Piaget, J. (1969). The mechanisms of perception. London: Routledge &; Kegan Paul.
Pluta, J. W., Chinn, A. C., &; Duncan, G. R. (2011). Learners’ epistemic criteria for good scientific models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(5), 486–511.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., &; Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-277.
Prins, G. T., Bulte, A. M. W., &; Pilot, A. (2011). Evaluation of a design principle for fostering students’ epistemological views on models and modelling using authentic practices as contexts for learning in chemistry education. International Journal of Science Education, 33(11), 1539–1569.
Raghavan, R., Sartoris, M. L., &; Glaser, R. (1998). Interconnecting science and mathematics concepts. In R. Lehrer &; D. Chazan (Eds.). Designing Learning Environments for Developing Understanding of Geometry and Space. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rea-Ramirez, M. A., Clement, J., &; Nunez-Oviedo, M. C. (2008). An instructional model derived from model construction and criticism theory. In J. J. Clement &; M. A. Rea-Ramirez (eds.), Model based learning and instruction in science (pp. 23-43). Netherlands: Springer.
Reiner, M., Slotta, J. D., Chi, M. T. H., &; Resnick, L. B. (2000). Naive physics reasoning: A commitment to substance-based conceptions. Cognition and Instruction, 18(1), 1 – 34.
Rezba, R. J., Sprague, C., Fiel, R. L., Funk, H. J., Okey, J. R., &; Jaus, H. H. (1995). Learning and Assessing Science Process Skills. Dubuque: Kendall &; Hunt Publishers.
Rosenquist, M. L., &; McDermott, L. C. (1987). A conceptual approach to teaching kinematics. American Journal of Physics, 55(5), 407-415.
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.
Roth, W. -M. (1996). The co-evolution of situated language and physics knowing. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 5(3), 171-191.
Roth, K., &; Garnier, H. (2007). What science teaching looks like: An international perspective. Educational Leadership, 64(4), 16 – 23.
Roth, W. M., &; Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The development of science process skills in authentic contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(2), 127–152.
Rubin, R, L., &; Norman, J, T. (1992). Systematic modeling versus the learning cycle: Comparative effects on integrated science process skill achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29 (7), 715-727.
Rutherford, F. J. (1964). The role of inquiry in science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(2), 80–84.
Salmon, W. C. (1989). Four decades of scientific explanation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Sandoval, W. A. &; Çam, A. (2011). Elementary children's judgments of causal justifications. Science Education. 95(3), 383-408.
Sandoval, W. A., &; Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: integrating conceptual and epistemic supports for science inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345-372.
Scharmann, L. C., Smith, M. U., James, J. C., &; Jensen, M. (2005). Explicit reflective nature of science instruction: Evolution, intelligent design &; umbrellaology. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16(1), 27-41.
Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., &; Catrambone, R. (2006). Making the abstract concrete: Visualizing mathematical solution procedures. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(1), 9–25.
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(10), 1436–1460.
Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J. J. Schwab &; P. F. Brandwein (Eds.), The Teaching of Science (pp. 1-103). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., &; Crawford, B. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(4), 610–645.
Schwarz, C. V. (2002). Is there a connection? The role of meta-modeling knowledge in learning with models. In the Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences. Seattle, WA.
Schwarz, C. V., &; Gwekwerere, Y. N. (2007). Using a guided inquiry and modeling instructional framework (EIMA) to support preservice K-8 science teaching. Science Education, 91(1), 158–187.
Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L, Acher, A., Fortus, D., … Krajcik, J. (2009). Designing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal for Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632-654.
Schwarz, C. V., &; White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165–205.
Sensevy, G., Tiberghien, A., Santini, J., Laube, S., &; Griggs, P. (2008). An epistemological approach to modeling: Cases studies and implications for science teaching. Science Education, 92(3), 424–447.
Shrigley, R. L. (1990). Attitude and behavior correlates. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(2), 97-113.
Shternberg, B., &; Yerushalmy,M. (2003). Models of functions and models of situations: On the design of modeling-based learning environments. In R. Lesh &; H.M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics teaching, learning, and problem solving (pp. 479–498). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Sins, P. H. M., Savelsbergh, E. R., &; van Joolingen, W. R. (2005). The difficult process of scientific modeling: An analysis of novices’ reasoning during computer-based modeling. International Journal of Science Education, 27(14), 1695–1721.
Sins, P. H. M., Savelsbergh, E. R., van Joolingen, W. R., &; van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2009). The relation between students’ epistemological understanding of computer models and their cognitive processing on a modelling task. International Journal of Science Education, 31(9), 1205–1229.
Smith, C., Maclin, D., Houghton, C., &; Hennessy, G. (2000). Sixth-grade students’ epistemologies of science: the impact of school science experiences on epistemological development. Cognition and Instruction, 18(3), 349-422.
Smith, C., Snir, J., &; Grosslight, L. (1992). Using conceptual models to facilitate conceptual change: the case of weight-density differentiation, Cognition and Instruction, 9(3), 221-283.
Snir, J., Smith, C. L., and Raz, G. (2003). Linking phenomena with competing underlying models: A software tool for introducing students to the particulate model of matter. Science Education, 87(6), 794-830.
Snyder, J. L. (2000). An investigation of the knowledge structures of experts, intermediates and novices in physics. International Journal of Science Education 22(9), 979–992.
Songer, N. B., Kelcey, B., &; Gotwals, A. W. (2009). How and when does complex reasoning occur? Empirically driven development of a learning progression focused on complex reasoning about biodiversity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 606-609.
Stake, R. &; Easley, J., (1978). Case Studies in Science Education. Urbana, IL: The University of Illinois.
Stewart, J., Cartier, J. L., &; Passmore, C. M. (2005). Developing understanding through model-based inquiry. In M. S. Donovan &; J. D. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn (pp. 515–565). Washington, DC: National Research Council.
Stewart, J., Hafner, R., Johnson, S., &; Finkel, E. (1992). Science as model building: Computers and high-school genetics. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 317–336.
Steyvers, M., Tenenbaum, J. B., Wagenmakers, E., &; Blum, B. (2003). Inferring causal networks from observations and interventions. Cognitive Science, 27(3), 453-489.
Strike, K. A., &; Posner, G. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In Dushl &; Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of Science, Cognitive Psychology, and Educational Theory and Practice. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Suppe, F. (1977). The search for philosophic understanding of scientific theories. in F. Suppe (ed.). The Structure of Scientific Theories (2nd edition). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Suppes, P. (1961). A comparison of the meaning and use of models in mathematics and the empirical sciences. In H. Freudenthal (ed.) The Concept and the Role of the Model in Mathematics and Natural and Social Sciences (pp. 163-177), Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.
Tamir, P. (1983). Inquiry and the science teacher. Science Teacher Education, 67(5), 657-672.
Tamir, P., Stavy, R., &; Ratner, N. (1998). Teaching science by inquiry: Assessment and learning. Journal of Biological Education. 33(1), 27-32.
Tang, X., Coffey, J., Elby, A., &; Levin, D. (2010). The scientific method and scientific inquiry: Tensions in teaching and learning. Science Education, 94(1), 29–47.
Tao, P.-K. (2003). Eliciting and developing junior secondary students’ understanding of the nature of science through a peer collaboration instruction in science stories. International Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 147-171.
Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Thomas, G. (2003). Conceptualisation, development and validation of an instrument for investigating the metacognitive orientations of science classroom learning environments: The Metacognitive Orientation Learning Environment Scale–Science (MOLES–S). Learning Environment Research, 6(2), 175–197.
Toth, E. E., Suthers, D. D., &; Lesgold, A. (2002). “Mapping to know”: the effects of representational guidance and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry. Science Education, 86(2), 264-286.
Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G., &; Mamiala, T. L. (2002). Students’ understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 357–368.
Trowbridge, D. E., &; McDermott, L. C. (1980). Investigation of student understanding of the concept of velocity in one dimension. American Journal of Physics, 48(12), 1020-1028.
Trowbridge, D. E., &; McDermott, L. C. (1981). Investigation of student understanding of the concept of acceleration in one dimension. American Journal of Physics, 49(3), 242-253.
Trumper, R., &; Gorsky, P. (1996). A cross-college age study about physics students’ conceptions of force in pre-service training for high school teachers. Physics Education, 31(4), 227 – 235.
Tyson, L. M., Venville, G., Harrison, A. G., &; Treagust, D. F. (1997). A multidimensional framework for interpreting conceptual change events in the classroom. Science Education, 81(4), 387-404.
van Driel, J. &; Verloop, N. (1999). Teachers' knowledge of models and modelling in science. International Journal of Science Teaching, 21(11), 1141-1153.
van Joolingen, W. R. (2004). A tool for the support of qualitative inquiry modeling. In Kinsuk, C.K. Looi, E. Sutinen, D. Sampson, I. Aedo, L. Uden, &; E. Kähkönen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th IEEE conference on advanced learning.
van Kraayenoord C. E., &; Schneider W. E. (1999). Reading achievement; metacognition, reading self-concept and interest: a study of German students in grades 3 and 4. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14(3), 305-324.
van Zele, E., Lenaerts, J. &; Wieme, W. (2004). Improving the usefulness of concept maps as a research tool for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 26(9), 1043-1064.
Veenman, M. V. J., &; Beishuizen, J. J. (2004). Intellectual and metacognitive skills of novices while studying texts under conditions of text difficulty and time constraint. Learning and Instruction, 14(6), 619–638.
Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., &; Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 3–15.
Vionnet, L. (1979). Spontaneous reasoning in elementary dynamics. European Journal of Science Education, 1(2), 205.
Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and instruction, 4(1), 45–69.
Vosniadou, S., &; Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental meanings of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24(4), 535-585.
Vosniadou, S., Skopeliti, I., &; Ikospentaki, K. (2004). Modes of knowing and ways of reasoning in elementary astronomy. Cognitive Development, 19(2), 203-222.
Wang, C. Y. &; Barrow, L. H. (2011). Characteristics and levels of sophistication: An analysis of chemistry students’ ability to think with mental models. Research in science education, 41(4), 561-586.
Weaver, G. C. (1998). Strategies in K-12 science instruction to promote conceptual change. Science Education, 82(4), 455–472.
Weiss, I. R. (1978). Report of the 1977 national survey of science, mathematics, and social studies education: Center for educational research and evaluation. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Welch, W. W., Klopfer, L., Aikenhead, G., &; Robinson, J. (1981). The role of inquiry in science education: Analysis and recommendations. Science Education, 65(1), 33–50.
Wells, M., Hestenes, D., &; Swackhamer, G. (1995). A modeling method for high school physics instruction. American Journal of Physics, 63(7), 606–620.
West, L. H. T., &; Pines, A. L. (1985). Cognitive structure and conceptual change. New York: Academic Press.
White, B. (1993). Tinker tool: Causal models, conceptual change, and science education. Cognition and Instructions, 1(1), 69-108.
White, B. Y., Collins, A., &; Frederiksen, J. R. (2011). The nature of scientific meta-knowledge. In M. S. Khine &; I. Saleh (Eds.) Models and modeling: Cognitive tools for scientific enquiry (pp. 41–76). London, UK: Springer.
White, B., &; Frederiksen, J. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3-118.
Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of “inquiry”: How preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 481–512.
Windschitl, M., &; André, T. (1998). Using computer simulations to enhance conceptual: The roles of constructivist instruction and student epistemological beliefs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(2), 145–160.
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., &; Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941–967.
Wise, K. C. &; Okey, J. R. (1983). A meta-analysis of the effects of various science teaching strategies on achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5), 419-435.
Wu, H. -K. (2010). Modeling a complex system: Using novice-expert analysis for developing an effective technology-enhanced learning environment. International Journal of Science Education, 32(2), 195-219.
Yacoubian, H.A., &; BouJaoude, S. (2010). The effect of reflective discussions following inquiry based laboratory activities on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(10), 1229–1252.
Zhang, L. J. (2001). Awareness in reading: EFL students’ metacognitive knowledge of reading strategies in an acquisition-poor environment. Language Awareness, 10(4), 268–288.
Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27(2), 172–223.
Zion, M., Cohen, S., &; Amir, R. (2007). The spectrum of dynamic inquiry teaching practices. Research in Science Education, 37(4), 423–447.
Zion, M., Michalsky, T., &; Mevarech, Z. R. (2005). The effects of metacognitive instruction embedded within an asynchronous learning network on scientific inquiry skills. International Journal of Science Education, 27(8), 957–983.
Zohar, A., &; Ben, D. A. (2008). Explicit teaching of meta-strategic knowledge in authentic Classroom situations , Metacognition and Learning, 3 (1), 59-82.
Zohar, A., &; Peled, B. (2008). The effects of explicit teaching of metastrategic knowledge on low- and high-achieving students. Learning and Instruction, 18(4), 337–353.
Zuckerman, M., Kieffer, S. C., &; Knee, C. R. (1998). Consequences of self-handicapping: Effects on coping, academic performance and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1619-1628.