Instructional efficiency of different discussion approaches in an outreach laboratory: Teacher-guided versus student-centered

References

• Akcay, H., & Yager, R. E. (2010). The impact of a science/technology/society teaching approach on student learning in five domains. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19, 602–611. doi:10.1007/s10956-010-9226-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ayres, P. (2006). Using subjective measures to detect variations of intrinsic cognitive load within problems. Learning and Instruction, 16, 389–400. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.09.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556–559. doi:10.1126/science.1736359
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bavarian Ministry of Education. (2008). Lehrplan für die Realschule [Curriculum for the Realschule] (2nd ed.). Munich, Germany: Maiss.
   Google Scholar
• Bavarian Ministry of Education. (2013). Education in Bavaria. Retrieved from http://www.km.bayern.de/education-in-bavaria.html
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, J., Hogarth, S., Lubben, F., Campbell, B., & Robinson, A. (2010). Talking science: The research evidence on the use of small group discussions in science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 69–95. doi:10.1080/09500690802713507
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blatchford, P., Kutnick, P., Baines, E., & Galton, M. (2003). Toward a social pedagogy of classroom group work. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 153–172. doi:10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00078-8
   Google Scholar
• Bühner, M., & Ziegler, M. (2009). Statistik für Psychologen und Sozialwissenschaftler [Statistics for psychologists and social scientists]. Munich, Germany: Pearson Studium.
   Google Scholar
• Chang, C.-Y. (2003). Teaching earth sciences: Should we implement teacher-directed or student-controlled CAI in the secondary classroom? International Journal of Science Education, 25, 427–438. doi:10.1080/09500690210145701
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Day, S. P., & Bryce, T. G. K. (2011). Does the discussion of socio‐scientific issues require a paradigm shift in science teachers' thinking? International Journal of Science Education, 33, 1675–1702. doi:10.1080/09500693.2010.519804
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Day, S. P., & Bryce, T. G. K. (2013). The benefits of cooperative learning to socio-scientific discussion in secondary school science. International Journal of Science Education, 35, 1533–1560. doi:10.1080/09500693.2011.642324
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Di Bernardo, G., Del Gaudio, S., Galderisi, U., Cascino, A., & Cipollaro, M. (2007). Comparative evaluation of different DNA extraction procedures from food samples. Biotechnology Progress, 23, 297–301. doi:10.1021/bp060182m
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Field, A. P. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS: (And sex and drugs and rock'n'roll) (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Franke, G., & Bogner, F. X. (2011). Cognitive influences of students' alternative conceptions within a hands-on gene technology module. The Journal of Educational Research, 104, 158–170. doi:10.1080/00220671003636745
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerstner, S., & Bogner, F. X. (2009). Concept map structure, gender and teaching methods: An investigation of students' science learning. Educational Research, 51, 425–438. doi:10.1080/00131880903354758
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldschmidt, M., & Bogner, F. X. (2013). Associations with plant genetic engineering: A perception analysis of students' hopes and fears. Studies in Agricultural Economics, 115, 143–149. doi:10.7896/j.1314
   Google Scholar
• Grace, M. (2009). Developing high quality decision - Making discussions about biological conservation in a normal classroom setting. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 551–570. doi:10.1080/09500690701744595
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Granger, E. M., Bevis, T. H., Saka, Y., Southerland, S. A., Sampson, V., & Tate, R. L. (2012). The efficacy of student-centered instruction in supporting science learning. Science, 338(6103), 105–108. doi:10.1126/science.1223709
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gray, D. S., & Bryce, T. G. K. (2006). Socio-scientific issues in science education: Implications for the professional development of teachers. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36, 171–192. doi:10.1080/03057640600718489
   Google Scholar
• Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 645–670. doi:10.1080/09500690305021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsu, Y. (2008). Learning about seasons in a technologically enhanced environment: The impact of teacher‐guided and student‐centered instructional approaches on the process of students' conceptual change. Science Education, 92, 320–344. doi:10.1002/sce.20242
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James, C. (2012). Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2012 (ISAAA Brief No. 44). Ithaca, NY: ISAAA.
   Google Scholar
• Jarvis, B. (2013). Knowledge, cognitive achievement, and environmental luck. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 94, 529–551. doi:10.1111/papq.12012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2004). Timing of information presentation in learning statistics. Instructional Science, 32, 233–252. doi:10.1023/B:TRUC.0000024191.27560.e3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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, 75–86. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knight, A. J. (2009). Perceptions, knowledge and ethical concerns with GM foods and the GM process. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 177–188. doi:10.1177/0963662507079375
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, Y. C. (2012). Socio-scientific issues in health contexts: Treading a rugged terrain. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 459–483. doi:10.1080/09500693.2011.613417
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehesvuori, S., Viiri, J., Rasku‐Puttonen, H., Moate, J., & Helaakoski, J. (2013). Visualizing communication structures in science classrooms: Tracing cumulativity in teacher‐led whole class discussions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50, 912–939. doi:10.1002/tea.21100
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socio‐scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1201–1224. doi:10.1080/09500690600560753
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, J., & Leach, J. (2006). Discussion of socio‐scientific issues: The role of science knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1267–1287. doi:10.1080/09500690500439348
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maghari, B. M., & Ardekani, A. M. (2011). Genetically modified foods and social concerns. Avicenna Journal of Medical Biotechnology, 3, 109–117.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59, 14–19. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Science Teachers Association. (2010). Teaching science and technology in the context of societal and personal issues (NSTA position statement). Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/societalpersonalissues.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Odom, A. L., Stoddard, E. R., & LaNasa, S. M. (2007). Teacher practices and middle‐school science achievements. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1329–1346. doi:10.1080/09500690601001971
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paas, F. G. W. C., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1–4. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paas, F. G. W. C., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38, 63–71. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paas, F. G. W. C., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental effort and performance measures. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 35, 737–743. doi:10.1177/001872089303500412
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paas, F. G. W. C., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 122–133. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.122
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paas, F. G. W. C., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Adams, J. (1994). Measurement of cognitive load in instructional research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 419–430. doi:10.2466/pms.1994.79.1.419
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rivard, L. P. (2004). Are language‐based activities in science effective for all students, including low achievers? Science Education, 88, 420–442. doi:10.1002/sce.10114
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Rouet, J.-F. (2009). Managing cognitive load during document-based learning. Learning and Instruction, 19, 445–450. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1463–1488. doi:10.1080/09500690600708717
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scharfenberg, F. J., & Bogner, F. X. (2010). Instructional efficiency of changing cognitive load in an out-of-school laboratory. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 829–844. doi:10.1080/09500690902948862
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2005). Collaborative learning in asynchronous discussion groups: What about the impact on cognitive processing? Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 957–975. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.02.025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sekretariat der Kultusministerkonferenz. (2005). Beschlüsse der Kultusministerkonferenz— Bildungsstandards im Fach Biologie für den Mittleren Bildungsabschluss [Resolution of the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder in the Federal Republic of Germany– Standards of biology education for secondary school]. Munich, Germany: Luchterhand.
   Google Scholar
• Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sweller, J. (2006). How the human cognitive system deals with complexity. In J. Elen & R. Clark (Eds.), Handling complexity in learning environments: Theory and research (pp. 13–25). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296. doi:10.1023/A:1022193728205
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taraban, R., Box, C., Myers, R., Pollard, R., & Bowen, C. W. (2007). Effects of active‐learning experiences on achievement, attitudes, and behaviors in high school biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 960–979. doi:10.1002/tea.20183
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Blankenstein, F. M., Dolmans, D., Van der Vleuten, C. P., & Schmidt, H. G. (2011). Which cognitive processes support learning during small-group discussion? The role of providing explanations and listening to others. Instructional Science, 39, 189–204. doi:10.1007/s11251-009-9124-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (2008). Instructional efficiency: Revisiting the original construct in educational research. Educational Psychologist, 43, 16–26. doi:10.1080/00461520701756248
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Ayres, P. (2005). Research on cognitive load theory and its design implications for e-learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 5–13. doi:10.1007/BF02504793
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walberg, H. J. (1990). Productive teaching and instruction: Assessing the knowledge base. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 470–478. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20404184
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1387–1410. doi:10.1080/09500690601068095
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wals, A. E., & Jickling, B. (2002). “Sustainability” in higher education: From doublethink and newspeak to critical thinking and meaningful learning. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 3, 221–232. doi:10.1108/14676370210434688
   Google Scholar
• Wells, G., & Arauz, R. M. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 379–428. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1503_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whelan, R. R. (2007). Neuroimaging of cognitive load in instructional multimedia. Educational Research Review, 2, 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2006.11.001
   Google Scholar
• Wu, H., & Huang, Y. (2007). Ninth‐grade student engagement in teacher‐centered and student‐centered technology‐enhanced learning environments. Science Education, 91, 727–749. doi:10.1002/sce.20216
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar