A framework to foster problem-solving in STEM and computing education

References

• Artigue, M., and M. Blomhoj. 2013. “Conceptualizing Inquiry-Based Education in Mathematics.” ZDM 45 (6): 797–810. doi:10.1007/s11858-013-0506-6.
   Google Scholar
• Artigue, M., and P. Baptist. 2012. “Inquiry in Mathematics Education: Background Resources for Implementing Inquiry in Science and in Mathematics at School.” http://fibonacci.uni-bayreuth.de/resources/resources-for-implementing-inquiry.html .
   Google Scholar
• Basey, J. M., and C. D. Francis. 2011. “Design of Inquiry-Oriented Science Labs: Impacts on Students’ Attitudes.” Research in Science & Technological Education 29 (3): 241–255. doi:10.1080/02635143.2011.589379.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beckmann, A. 1989. Zur didaktischen Bedeutung der abbildungsgeometrischen Beweismethode für 12- bis 15-jährige Schüler. Bad Salzdetfurth: Franzbecker.
   Google Scholar
• Boero, P. 1999. “Argumentation and Mathematical Proof: A Complex, Productive, Unavoidable Relationship in Mathematics and Mathematics Education.” International Newsletter on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematical Proof 7/8. http://www.lettredelapreuve.org/OldPreuve/Newsletter/990708Theme/990708ThemeUK.html
   Google Scholar
• Booth, J. L., K. M. McGinn, C. Barbieri, K. N. Begolli, B. Chang, D. Miller-Cotto, L. K. Young, and J. L. Davenport. 2017. “Evidence for Cognitive Science Principles that Impact Learning in Mathematics.” In Acquisition of Complex Arithmetic Skills and Higher-Order Mathematics, edited by D. C. Geary, D. B. Berch, R. Ochsendorf, and K. M. Koepke, 297–325. London: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Brandon, R. N. 1994. “Theory and Experiment in Evolutionary Biology.” Synthese 99: 59–73. doi:10.1007/BF01064530.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bransford, J. D., and B. S. Stein. 1984. The Ideal Problem Solver: Guide for Improving Thinking, Learning and Creativity. New York, NY: Freeman.
   Google Scholar
• Chinn, C. A., and B. A. Malhotra. 2002. “Epistemologically Authentic Inquiry in Schools: A Theoretical Framework for Evaluating Inquiry Tasks.” Science Education 86: 175–218. doi:10.1002/sce.10001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cobern, W. W., D. Schuster, B. Adams, B. Applegate, B. Skjold, A. Undreiu, C. C. Loving, and J. D. Gobert. 2010. “Experimental Comparison of Inquiry and Direct Instruction in Science.” Research in Science & Technological Education 28 (1): 81–96. doi:10.1080/02635140903513599.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dagher, Z. R., and S. Erduran. 2017. “Abandoning Patchwork Approaches to Nature of Science in Science Education.” Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education 17 (1): 46–52. doi:10.1080/14926156.2016.1271926.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Jong, T., W. R. Van Joolingen, A. Giezma, I. Girault, U. Hoppe, J. Kindermann, A. Kluge, et al. 2010. “Learning by Creating and Exchanging Objects: The SCY Experience.” British Journal of Educational Technology 41 (6): 909–921. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01121.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Department for Education. 2015. “Statutory Guidance. National Curriculum in England: Science Programmes of Study.” https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-science-programmes-of-study/national-curriculum-in-england-science-programmes-of-study
   Google Scholar
• Duncan, R. G., C. A. Chinn, and S. Barzilai. 2017. “Grasp of Evidence: Problematizing and Expanding the Next Generation Science Standards’ Conceptualization of Evidence.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 55: 907–937. doi:10.1002/tea.21468.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edelson, D. C., D. N. Gordin, and R. D. Pea. 1999. “Addressing the Challenges of Inquiry-Based Learning through Technology and Curriculum Design.” Journal of the Learning Sciences 8 (3–4): 391–450. doi:10.1080/10508406.1999.9672075.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engeln, K., M. Euler, and K. Maaß. 2013. “Inquiry-Based Learning in Mathematics and Science: A Comparative Baseline Study of Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices across 12 European Countries.” ZDM 45 (6): 823–836. doi:10.1007/s11858-013-0507-5.
   Google Scholar
• Epp, S. 1994. “The Role of Proof in Problem Solving.” In Mathematical Thinking and Problem Solving, edited by A. H. Schoenfeld, 257–286. Hillsdale, New Jersey, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Erduran, S., and Z. R. Dagher. 2014. Reconceptualizing the Nature of Science for Science Education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Ewen, I. 1996. “Strategies for Problem Exploration.” In The Art of Problem Solving, edited by A. S. Posamentier and W. Schulz, 1–82. Thousand Oaks, Cal., USA: Corwin.
   Google Scholar
• Forman, E. A. 2018. “The Practice Turn in Learning Theory and Science Education”. In Constructivist Education in an Age of Accountability, edited by D. W. Kritt, 97–111. London: Palgrave Macmillan doi:10.1007/978-3-319-66050-9_5.
   Google Scholar
• Frensch, P. A., and J. Funke. 2005 “Thinking and Problem Solving ” In Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS), developed under the Auspices of the UNESCO. Oxford, UK: Eolss. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11780/369
   Google Scholar
• Funke, J. 2004. “Komplexes Problemlösen - Möglichkeiten deduktivistischen Vorgehens.” In Allgemeine Psychologie und deduktivistische Methodologie, edited by E. Erdfelder and J. Funke, 281–300. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
   Google Scholar
• Gray, G. L., F. Constanzo, and M. E. Plesha. 2005. “Problem Solving in Statics and Dynamics: A Proposal for A Structured Approach.” Paper presented at the annual meeting for the American Society for Engineering Education, Portland, Oregon, June 12–15. https://peer.asee.org/15371
   Google Scholar
• Greiff, S., A. Kretzschmar, and D. Leutner. 2014. “Problemlösen in der Pädagogischen Psychologie.” Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie 28 (4): 161–166. doi:10.1024/1010-0652/a000140.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartmann, S., A. Upmeier Zu Belzen, D. Krüger, and H. A. Pant. 2015. “Scientific Reasoning in Higher Education: Constructing and Evaluating the Criterion-Related Validity of an Assessment of Preservice Science Teachers’ Competencies.” Zeitschrift für Psychologie 223: 47–53. doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000199.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hmelo-Silver, C. E., R. G. Duncan, and C. A. Chinn. 2007. “Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006).” Educational Psychologist 42 (2): 99–107. doi:10.1080/00461520701263368.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hodson, D., and S. L. Wong. 2017. “Going beyond the Consensus View: Broadening and Enriching the Scope of NOS-Oriented Curricula.” Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education 17 (1): 3–17. doi:10.1080/14926156.2016.1271919.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hussy, W. 1998. Denken und Problemlösen. Stuttgart, Berlin, Köln: Kohlhammer.
   Google Scholar
• Jang, H. 2016. “Identifying 21st Century STEM Competencies Using Workplace Data.” Journal of Science Education and Technology 25: 284–301. doi:10.1007/s10956-015-9593-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karaca, K. 2017. “A Case Study in Experimental Exploration: Exploratory Data Selection at the Large Hadron Collider.” Synthese 194 (2): 333–354. doi:10.1007/s11229-016-1206-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kay, J., M. Barg, A. Fekete, T. Greening, O. Hollands, J. H. Kingston, and K. Crawford. 200. “Problem-Based Learning for Foundation Computer Science Courses.” Computer Science Education 10 (2): 109–128. doi:10.1076/0899-3408(200008)10:2;1-C;FT109.
   Google Scholar
• Keys, C. W., and L. A. Bryan. 2001. “Co-Constructing Inquiry-Based Science with Teachers: Essential Research for Lasting Reform.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 38 (6): 631–645. doi:10.1002/tea.1023.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kind, P., and J. Osborne. 2017. “Styles of Scientific Reasoning: A Cultural Rationale for Science Education?” Science Education 101 (1): 8–13. doi:10.1002/sce.21251.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klahr, D., and K. Dunbar. 1988. “Dual Space Search During Scientific Reasoning.” Cognitive Science 12 (1): 1–48. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1201_1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klieme, E., D. Leutner, and J. Wirth. 2005. Problemlösekompetenz von Schülerinnen und Schülern. Diagnostische Ansätze, theoretische Grundlagen und empirische Befunde der deutschen PISA-2000-Studie. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
   Google Scholar
• KMK – Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. 2004a. Bildungsstandards im Fach Chemie für den Mittleren Schulabschluss. München: Wolters Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• KMK – Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. 2004b. Bildungsstandards im Fach Biologie für den Mittleren Schulabschluss. München: Wolters Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• KMK – Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. 2004c. Bildungsstandards Im Fach Physik Für Den Mittleren Schulabschluss. München: Wolters Kluwer
   Google Scholar
• Kolodner, J. L., J. T. Gray, and B. B. Fasse. 2003. “Promoting Transfer through Case-Based Reasoning: Rituals and Practices in Learning by Design™ Classrooms.” Cognitive Science Quarterly 3 (2): 119–170.
   Google Scholar
• Koppelt, J., and R. Tiemann. 2008. “Modellierung dynamischer Problemlösekompetenz.” In Zur Didaktik der Chemie und Physik, edited by D. Höttecke, 362–364. Münster: LIT.
   Google Scholar
• Krajcik, J. 2015. “Three-Dimensional Instruction: Using a New Type of Teaching in the Science Classroom.” Science Scope 39 (3): 16–18. doi:10.2505/4/ss15_039_03_16.
   Google Scholar
• Krämer, P., S. H. Nessler, and K. Schlüter. 2015. “Teacher Students’ Dilemmas When Teaching Science through Inquiry.” Research in Science & Technological Education 33 (3): 325–343. doi:10.1080/02635143.2015.1047446.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., M. Garcia-Mila, A. Zohar, C. Anderson, S. H. White, D. Klahr, and S. M. Carver. 1995. “Strategies of Knowledge Acquisition.” Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 60 (4): 1–157. doi:10.2307/1166059.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehmann, M. 2018. “Relevante mathematische Kompetenzen von Ingenieurstudierenden im ersten Studienjahr – Ergebnisse einer empirischen Untersuchung.” PhD diss., Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. doi: 10.18452/19315.
   Google Scholar
• Lehrer, R., and L. Schauble. 2015. “The Development of Scientific Thinking.” In Vol. 2 Of Handbook of Child Psychology and Developmental Science, edited by R. M. Lerner, 671–715. 7th ed ed. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Leuders, T., D. Naccarella, and K. Philipp. 2011. “Experimentelles Denken – Vorgehensweisen beim innermathematischen Experimentieren.” JMD 32: 205–231. doi:10.1007/s13138-011-0027-1.
   Google Scholar
• Leuders, T., and K. Philipp. 2014. “Mit Beispielen zum Erkenntnisgewinn – Experiment und Induktion in der Mathematik.” Mathematica Didactica 37: 163–190.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, R. W. 1988. “Biology: A Hypothetico-Deductive Science.” The American Biology Teacher 50 (6): 362–366. doi:10.2307/444876.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maaß, K., and M. Artigue. 2013. “Implementation of Inquiry-Based Learning in Day-to-Day Teaching: A Synthesis.” ZDM 45: 779–795. doi:10.1007/s11858-013-0528-0.
   Google Scholar
• Maaß, K., and M. Doormann. 2013. “A Model for A Widespread Implementation of Inquiry-Based Learning.” ZDM 45: 887–899. doi:10.1007/s11858-013-0505-7.
   Google Scholar
• Mäeots, M., M. Pedaste, and T. Sarapuu. 2011. “Interactions between Inquiry Processes in a Web-Based Learning Environment.” 11th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies in Athens, Georgia, USA, 331–335. doi:10.1109/ICALT.2011.103.
   Google Scholar
• Mahootian, F., and T. Eastman. 2008. “Complementary Frameworks of Scientific Inquiry: Hypothetico-Deductive, Hypothetico-Inductive, and Observational-Inductive.” World Futures 64: 128–142. doi:10.1080/02604020701845624.
   Google Scholar
• Marulcu, I., and M. Barnett. 2016. “Impact of an Engineering Design-Based Curriculum Compared to an Inquiry-Based Curriculum on Fifth Graders’ Content Learning of Simple Machines.” Research in Science & Technological Education 34 (1): 85–104. doi:10.1080/02635143.2015.1077327.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehalik, M. M., Y. Doppelt, and C. D. Schuun. 2008. “Middle-School Science through Design-Based Learning versus Scripted Inquiry: Better Overall Science Concept Learning and Equity Gap Reduction.” Journal of Engineering Education 97 (1): 71–85. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00955.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merrill, K. L., S. W. Smith, M. M. Cumming, and A. P. Daunic. 2017. “A Review of Social Problem-Solving Interventions: Past Findings, Current Status, and Future Directions.” Review of Educational Research 87 (1): 71–102. doi:10.3102/0034654316652943.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millar, R., J. Le Maréchal, and A. Tiberghien. 1999. “‘Mapping’ the Domain: Varieties of Practical Work.” In Practical Work in Science Education. Recent Research Studies, edited by J. Leach and A. Paulsen, 33–59. Frederiksberg: Roskilde University Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council (NRC). 1996. National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Neumann, I., B. Rösken-Winter, M. Lehmann, C. Duchhardt, A. Heinze, and R. Nickolaus. 2015. “Measuring Mathematical Competences of Engineering Students at the Beginning of Their Studies.” Peabody Journal of Education 90 (4): 465–476. doi:10.1080/0161956X.2015.1068054.
   Google Scholar
• NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by States. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nuutila, E., S. Törmä, and L. Malmi. 2005. “PBL and Computer Programming - the Seven Steps Method with Adaptations.” Computer Science Education 15 (2): 123–142. doi:10.1080/08993400500150788.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. 2013. PISA 2012 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Mathematics, Reading, Science, Problem Solving and Financial Literacy. Paris, France: OECD. doi:10.1787/9789264190511-en.
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, J. 2013. “The 21st Century Challenge for Science Education: Assessing Scientific Reasoning.” Thinking Skills and Creativity 10: 265–279. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2013.07.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, J. 2014. “Scientific Practices and Inquiry in the Science Classroom.” In Handbook of Research on Science Education, edited by N. G. Lederman and S. K. Abell, 579–599. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, J., S. Erduran, and S. Simon. 2004. “Enhancing the Quality of Argumentation in School Science.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41 (10): 994–1020. doi:10.1002/tea.20035.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oser, F. K., and F. J. Baeriswyl. 2001. “Choreographies of Teaching: Bridging Instruction to Learning.” In AERA’s Handbook of Research on Teaching, edited by V. Richardson, 1031–1065. 4th ed ed. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
   Google Scholar
• Pedaste, M., M. Mäeots, L. A. Siiman, T. De Jong, S. Van Riesen, E. T. Kamp, C. C. Manoli, C. Z. Zacharia, and E. Tsourlidaki. 2015. “Phases of Inquiry-Based Learning: Definitions and the Inquiry Cycle.” Educational Research Review 14: 47–61. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polya, G. 1957. How to Solve It. 2nd ed ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Polya, G. 1966. Let Us Teach Guessing. Vol. 1 Of MAA Video Classics. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
   Google Scholar
• Priemer, B., and J. Hellwig. 2018. “Learning about Measurement Uncertainties in Secondary Education: A Model of the Subject Matter.” International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 16 (1): 45–68. doi:10.1007/s10763-016-9768-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Przybylla, M., and R. Romeike. 2015. “Concept-Maps als Mittel zur Visualisierung des Lernzuwachses in einem Physical-Computing-Projekt.” In INFOS 2015: Informatik allgemeinbildend begreifen (16. GI-Fachtagung Informatik und Schule), edited by J. Gallenbacher, 247–256. Bonn: Köllen.
   Google Scholar
• Pucher, R., and M. Lehner. 2011. “Project Based Learning in Computer Science - A Review of More than 500 Projects.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 29: 1561–1566. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.398.
   Google Scholar
• Reif, F. 1983. “How Can Chemists Teach Problem Solving? Suggestions Derived from Studies of Cognitive Processes.” Journal of Chemical Education 60 (11): 948–953. doi:10.1021/ed060p948.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reiss, K., and A. Heinze. 2004. “Beweisen und Begründen in der Geometrie. Zum Einfluss des Unterrichts auf Schülerleistungen und Schülerinteresse.” In Beiträge zum Mathematikunterricht 2004, edited by A. Heinze and S. Kuntze, 465–468. Hildesheim: Franzbecker.
   Google Scholar
• Riga, F., M. Winterbottom, E. Harris, and L. Newby. 2017. “Inquiry-Based Science Education.” In Science Education, edited by K. S. Taber and B. Akpan, 247–261. Rotterdam: Sense. doi:10.1007/978-94-6300-749-8.
   Google Scholar
• Schauble, L. 1990. “Belief Revision in Children: The Role of Prior Knowledge and Strategies for Generating Evidence.” Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 49 (1): 31–57. doi:10.1016/0022-0965(90)90048-D.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schoenfeld, A. 1985. Mathematical Problem Solving. San Diego, CA, USA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schulz, S., and N. Pinkwart. 2016. “Towards Supporting Scientific Inquiry in Computer Science Education.” WiPSCE ‘16 - Proceedings of the 11th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education, 45–53. New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Sfard, A. 1998. “On Two Metaphors for Learning and the Dangers of Choosing Just One.” Educational Researcher 27 (2): 4–13. doi:10.3102/0013189X027002004.
   Google Scholar
• Smit, R., H. Weitzel, R. Blank, F. Rietz, J. Tardent, and N. Robin. 2017. “Interplay of Secondary Pre-Service Teacher Content Knowledge (CK), Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) and Attitudes regarding Scientific Inquiry Teaching within Teacher Training.” Research in Science & Technological Education 35 (4): 477–499. doi:10.1080/02635143.2017.1353962.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinle, F. 2002. “Experiments in History and Philosophy of Science.” Perspectives on Science, MIT Press Journals 10 (4): 408–432. doi:10.1162/106361402322288048.
   Google Scholar
• Van Joolingen, W. R., and T. De Jong. 1997. “An Extended Dual Search Space Model of Scientific Discovery Learning.” Instructional Science 25: 307–346. doi:10.1023/A:1002993406499.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Joolingen, W. R., T. De Jong, A. W. Lazonder, E. R. Savelsbergh, and S. Manlove. 2005. “Co-Lab: Research and Development of an Online Learning Environment for Collaborative Scientific Discovery Learning.” Computers in Human Behavior 21: 671–688. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.039.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vollrath, H. J. 1992. “Zur Rolle des Begriffs im Problemlöseprozeß des Beweisens.” Mathematische Semesterberichte 39 (2): 127–136. doi:10.1007/BF03186465.
   Google Scholar
• Walpuski, M., and A. Schulz. 2011. “Erkenntnisgewinnung durch Experimente - Stärken und Schwächen deutscher Schülerinnen und Schüler.” Chimica didacticae 104: 6–27.
   Google Scholar
• Wilhelm, P., and J. J. Beishuizen. 2003. “Content Effects in Self-Directed Inductive Learning.” Learning and Instruction 13: 381–402. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00013-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, P. J., and K. Otrel-Cass. 2017. “Teacher and Student Reflections on ICT-Rich Science Inquiry.” Research in Science & Technological Education 35 (1): 88–107. doi:10.1080/02635143.2016.1248928.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Windschitl, M., J. Thompson, and M. Braaten. 2008. “Beyond the Scientific Method: Model-Based Inquiry as a New Paradigm of Preferences for School Science Investigations.” Science Education 92: 941–967. doi:10.1002/sce.20259.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woods, D. R. 2000. “An Evidence-Based Strategy for Problem Solving.” Journal of Engineering Education 89 (3): 443–459. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2000.tb00551.x.
   Google Scholar
• Wu, M., and R. Adams. 2006. “Modelling Mathematics Problem Solving Item Responses Using a Multidimensional IRT Model.” Mathematics Education Research Journal 18 (2): 93–113. doi:10.1007/BF03217438.
   Google Scholar