References
- Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916-937 https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200011)37:9<916::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-2
- Crawford, T., Kelly, G. J., & Brown, C. (2000). Ways of knowing beyond facts and laws of science: An ethnographic investigation of student engagement in scientific practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(3), 237-258 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200003)37:3<237::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-6
- Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
- Dunbar, K., & Klahr, D. (1989). Developmental differences in scientific discovery processes. In D. Klahr & L. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon (pp. 109-143). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
- Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72 https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560187
- Gallagher, J. J., & Tobin, K. (1987). Teacher management and student engagement in high school science. Science Education, 71(4), 535-555 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730710406
- Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (2000). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussion. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379-432 https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1704_2
- Kahan, P. (2000). Science explorer: Motion, forces, and energy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall
- Klahr, D., & Kotovsky, L. (1989). Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
- Krajcik, K., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial Attempts by middles students. The Journal of the Learning Science, 7 (3 & 4), 313-350 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0703&4_3
- Kuim, D. (1986). Education for thinking. Teachers College Record, 87(4), 495-511
- Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96(4), 674-689 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.674
- Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implication for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730770306
- Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., & O'Loughlin, M. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. San Diego: Academic Press, INC
- Lemke, A. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, Learning, and Values. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation
- National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
- National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
- Pressley, M., Hogan, K., Wharton-McDonald, R., Mistretta, J., & Ettenberger, S. (1996). The challenges of instructional scaffolding: The challenges of instruction that supports student thinking. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11 (3), 138-146
- Richmond, G., & Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in classrooms: Social processes in small -group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 839-858 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199610)33:8<839::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-X
- Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press
- Vellom, R. P., & Anderson, C. W. (1999). Reasoning about data in middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 179-199 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199902)36:2<179::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-T
- Yenrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track science students' argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 807-838 https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200010)37:8<807::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-7