1 |
Amade-Escot, C., and Bennour, N. (2017). Productive disciplinary engagement within didactical transactions: A case study of student learning in gymnastics. European Physical Education Review, 23(3), 279-296.
DOI
|
2 |
Passmore, C., Gouvea, J. S., and Giere, R. (2014). Models in science and in learning science: Focusing scientific practice on sense-making. In M. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1171-1202). Springer.
|
3 |
Passmore, C. M., and Svoboda, J. (2012). Exploring opportunities for argumentation in modelling classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 34(10), 1535-1554.
DOI
|
4 |
Russ, R. S., and Berland, L. K. (2019). Invented science: A framework for discussing a persistent problem of practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(3), 279-301.
DOI
|
5 |
White, B. Y., and Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3-118.
DOI
|
6 |
Windschitl, M., and Calabrese Barton, A. (2016). Rigor and equity by design: Seeking a core of practices for the science education community. In C. Bell, and D. Gitomer. (Eds.), AERA handbook of research on teaching (5th ed., pp. 1099-1158). AERA Press.
|
7 |
Zangori, L., and Forbes, C. T. (2016). Development of an empirically based learning performances framework for third-grade students' model-based explanations about plant processes. Science Education, 100(6), 961-982.
DOI
|
8 |
Zangori, L., Peel, A., Kinslow, A., Friedrichsen, P., and Sadler, T. D. (2017). Student development of model-based reasoning about carbon cycling and climate change in a socio-scientific issues unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(10), 1249-1273.
DOI
|
9 |
Ambitious Science Teaching. (2015b). Models and modeling: An introduction. http://ambitiousscienceteaching.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Models-and-Modeling-An-Introduction1.pdf
|
10 |
Ambitious Science Teaching. (2015a). Guide face to face tools: Making changes in student thinking visible over time. http://ambitiousscienceteaching.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Guide-Face-to-Face-Tools.pdf
|
11 |
Bybee, R., and Chopyak, C. (2017). Instructional materials and implementation of next generation science standards: Demand, supply, and strategic opportunities. A report for carnegie corporation of New York. Carnegie Corporation of New York.
|
12 |
Campbell, T., and Oh, P. S. (2015). Engaging students in modeling as an epistemic practice of science: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(2-3), 125-131.
DOI
|
13 |
Campbell, T., Oh, P. S., and Neilson, D. (2012). Discursive modes and their pedagogical functions in model-based inquiry (MBI) classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 34(15), 2393-2419.
DOI
|
14 |
Cho, H. S. and Nam J. (2017). Analysis of trends of model and modeling-related research in science education in korea. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 37(4), 539-552.
DOI
|
15 |
Dasgupta, C. (2019). Improvable models as scaffolds for promoting productive disciplinary engagement in an engineering design activity. Journal of Engineering Education, 108(3), 394-417.
DOI
|
16 |
Chen, Y. C. (2020). Dialogic pathways to manage uncertainty for productive engagement in scientific argumentation. Science & Education, 29, 331-375.
DOI
|
17 |
Schwarz, C. V., and White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students' understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165-205.
DOI
|
18 |
Suarez, E. (2020). "Estoy explorando science": Emergent bilingual students problematizing electrical phenomena through translanguaging. Science Education, 104(5), 791-826.
DOI
|
19 |
Scott, P. H., Mortimer, E. F., and Aguiar, O. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90(4), 605-631.
|
20 |
Song, J., Kang, S. J., Kwak, Y., Kim, D., Kim, S., Na, J., ... and Joung, Y. J. (2019). Contents and features of 'Korean Science Education Standards (KSES)' for the next generation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 39(3), 465-478.
DOI
|
21 |
Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., Hug, B., and Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632-654.
DOI
|
22 |
Davis, E. A., Janssen, F. J., and Van Driel, J. H. (2016). Teachers and science curriculum materials: Where we are and where we need to go. Studies in Science Education, 52(2), 127-160.
DOI
|
23 |
Engle, R. A. (2011). The productive disciplinary engagement framework. In D. Y. Dai (Ed.), Design research on learning and thinking in educational settings: Enhancing intellectual growth and functioning (pp. 161-200). Routledge: Taylor and Francis Group.
|
24 |
Engle, R. A., and Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399-483.
DOI
|
25 |
Ford, M. J. (2015). Educational implications of choosing "practice" to describe science in the Next Generation Science Standards. Science Education, 99(6), 1041-1048.
DOI
|
26 |
Freedman, E. B. (2020). When discussions sputter or take flight: Comparing productive disciplinary engagement in two history classes. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 29(3), 385-429.
DOI
|
27 |
Ford, M. J., and Forman, E. A. (2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30(1), 1-32.
DOI
|
28 |
Forman, E. A. (2018). The practice turn in learning theory and science education. In D. W. Kritt (Ed.), Constructivist education in an age of accountability (pp. 97-111). Palgrave Macmillan.
|
29 |
Forman, E. A., and Ford, M. J. (2014). Authority and accountability in light of disciplinary practices in science. International Journal of Educational Research, 64, 199-210.
DOI
|
30 |
Gouvea, J., and Passmore, C. (2017). 'Models of' versus 'models for'. Science & Education, 26(1-2), 49-63.
DOI
|
31 |
Svoboda, J., and Passmore, C. (2010). Evaluating a modeling curriculum by using heuristics for productive disciplinary engagement. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 9(3), 266-276.
DOI
|
32 |
Svoboda, J., and Passmore, C. (2013). The strategies of modeling in biology education. Science & Education, 22(1), 119-142.
DOI
|
33 |
Grimes, P., McDonald, S., and van Kampen, P. (2019). "We're getting somewhere": Development and implementation of a framework for the analysis of productive science discourse. Science Education, 103(1), 5-36.
|
34 |
Grosslight, L., Unger, C., Jay, E., and 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.
DOI
|
35 |
Guy-Gaytan, C., Gouvea, J. S., Griesemer, C., and Passmore, C. (2019). Tensions between learning models and engaging in modeling. Science & Education, 28, 843-864.
DOI
|
36 |
Knight-Bardsley, A. M., and McNeill, K. L. (2016). Teachers' pedagogical design capacity for scientific argumentation. Science Education, 100(4), 645-672.
DOI
|
37 |
Kawasaki, J., and Sandoval, W. A. (2019). The role of teacher framing in producing coherent NGSS-aligned teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30(8), 906-922.
DOI
|
38 |
Kenyon, L., Schwarz, C., and Hug, B. (2008). The benefits of scientific modeling. Science and Children, 46(2), 40-44.
|
39 |
Kim, S. A., Yoon, M. B., and Kim, H. S. (2010). Conceptual changes on geocentricism of middle school students using the phase model of the Venus. Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 47-57.
DOI
|
40 |
Koretsky, M. D., Vauras, M., Jones, C., Iiskala, T., and Volet, S. (2019). Productive disciplinary engagement in high-and low-outcome student groups: Observations from three collaborative science learning contexts. Research in Science Education, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9838-8
DOI
|
41 |
Park, B-Y., Rodriguez, L, and Campbell, T. (2019, November 01). Using models to teach science. The Science Teacher, 87(4), 8-11.
|
42 |
Campbell, T., and Fazio, X. (2018). Epistemic frames as an analytical framework for understanding the representation of scientific activity in a modeling-based learning unit. Research in Science Education, 50, 2283-2304.
DOI
|
43 |
Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404-423.
DOI
|
44 |
Campbell, T., Schwarz, C., and Windschitl, M. (2016). What we call misconceptions may be necessary stepping-stones on a path towards making sense of the world. The Science Teacher, 83(3), 28-33.
|
45 |
Clement, J. (2000). Model based learning as a key research area for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1041-1053.
DOI
|
46 |
Elgin, C. Z. (2013). Epistemic agency. Theory and Research in Education, 11(2), 135-152.
DOI
|
47 |
Louca, L. T., and Zacharia, Z. C. (2012). Modeling-based learning in science education: Cognitive, metacognitive, social, material and epistemological contributions. Educational Review, 64(4), 471-492.
DOI
|
48 |
Mortimer, E. F., and de Araujo, A. O. (2014). Using productive disciplinary engagement and epistemic practices to evaluate a traditional Brazilian high school chemistry classroom. International Journal of Educational Research, 64, 156-169.
DOI
|
49 |
Nunez-Oviedo, M. C., and Clement, J. J. (2019). Large scale scientific modeling practices that can organize science instruction at the unit and lesson levels. Frontiers in Education, 4(68), 1-22.
DOI
|
50 |
Meyer, X. (2014). Productive disciplinary engagement as a recursive process: Initial engagement in a scientific investigation as a resource for deeper engagement in the scientific discipline. International Journal of Educational Research, 64, 184-198.
DOI
|
51 |
Neilson, D., and Campbell, T. (2017). Modeling as an anchoring scientific practice for explaining friction phenomena. The Physics Teacher, 55(9), 570-574.
DOI
|
52 |
Oh, P. S., Jon, W. S., and Yoo, J. (2007). Analysis of Scientific Models in the Earth Domain of the 10th Grade science Textbooks. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 28(4), 393-404.
DOI
|
53 |
Oh, P. S., and Oh, S. J. (2011). What teachers of science need to know about models: An overview. International Journal of Science Education, 33(8), 1109-1130.
DOI
|
54 |
Venturini, P., and Amade-Escot, C. (2014). Analysis of conditions leading to a productive disciplinary engagement during a physics lesson in a disadvantaged area school. International Journal of Educational Research, 64, 170-183.
DOI
|
55 |
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., and 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.
DOI
|