Exploring shifts in the characteristics of US government-funded science curriculum materials and their (unintended) consequences

References

• Abramovich, S., Schunn, C. D., & Correnti, R. J. (2013). The role of evaluative metadata in an online teacher resource exchange. Educational Technology Research & Development, 61, 863–883.
   Google Scholar
• Agresti, A. (2007). An introduction to categorical data analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.10.1002/0470114754
   Google Scholar
• Ainsworth, S., Honey, M., Johnson, W., Koedinger, K., Muramatsu, B., Pea, R., … Weimar, S. (2005). Cyberinfrastructure for education and learning for the future: A vision and research agenda. Computing Research Association. Retrieved from http://archive.cra.org/reports/cyberinfrastructure.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25.10.3102/0013189X11428813
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arias, A., Davis, E., Marino, J., Kademian, S., & Palincsar, A. (2016). Teachers’ use of educative curriculum materials to engage students in science practices. International Journal of Science Education, 38(9), 1504–1526.10.1080/09500693.2016.1198059
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atkins, D. E., Brown, J. S., & Hammond, A. L. (2007). A review of the open educational resources (OER) movement: Achievements, challenges, and new opportunities(pp. 1–84). Creative commons. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8d16/858268c5c15496aac6c880f9f50afd9640b2.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2017). Australian curriculum: Science. Retrieved from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/science/rationale
   Google Scholar
• Ball, D., & Cohen, D. (1996). Reform by the book: What is or might be the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6–14.
   Google Scholar
• Banilower, E., Smith, S., Weiss, I., Malzahn, K., Campbell, K., & Weis, A. (2013). Report of the 2012 national survey of science and mathematics education. Horizons Research,. Retrieved from http://www.horizon-research.com/2012nssme/research-products/reports/technical-report/
   Google Scholar
• Barber, J. (2015). How to Design For Breakthrough. Educational Designer, 2(8). Retrieved from http://www.educationaldesigner.org/ed/volume2/issue8/article29/
   Google Scholar
• Belland, B., Walker, A., Olsen, M., & Leary, H. (2015). A Pilot meta-analysis of computer-based scaffolding in STEM education. Educational Technology & Society, 18(1), 183–197.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ben-Peretz, M. (1990). The teacher-curriculum encounter. Albany: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beyer, C., & Davis, E. A. (2009). Supporting preservice elementary teachers’ critique and adaptation of science lesson plans using educative curriculum materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20, 517–536.10.1007/s10972-009-9148-5
   Google Scholar
• Bismack, A., Arias, A. M., Davis, E., & Palincsar, A. (2015). Examining student work for evidence of teacher uptake of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(6), 816–846.10.1002/tea.v52.6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blake, C., & Scanlon, E. (2007). Reconsidering simulations in science education at a distance: Features of effective use. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(6), 491–502.10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00239.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borgman, C., Abelson, H., Dirks, L., Johnson, R., Koedinger, K., Linn, M., … Azalay, A. (2008). Fostering learning in the networked world: The cyberlearning opportunity and challenge. Report of the NSF task force on cyberlearning. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2008/nsf08204/nsf08204.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Brown, M. (2009). The teacher–tool relationship. Theorizing the design and use of curriculum materials. In J. Remillard, B. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. Lloyd (Eds), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17–36). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bybee, R. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
   Google Scholar
• Cafolla, R. (2006). Project MERLOT: Bringing peer review to web-based educational resources. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(2), 313.
   Google Scholar
• Carlson, J., & Anderson, R. (2002). Changing teachers’ practice: Curriculum materials and science education reform in the USA. Studies in Science Education, 37(1), 107–135.
   Google Scholar
• Cervetti, G., Barber, J., Dorph, R., Pearson, P. D., & Goldschmidt, P. G. (2012). The impact of an integrated approach to science and literacy in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(5), 631–658.10.1002/tea.v49.5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cervetti, G., Kulikowich, J., & Bravo, M. (2015). The effects of educative curriculum materials on teachers’ Use of instructional strategies for English language learners in science and on student learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 40, 86–98.10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.10.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang, H. Y., Quintana, C., & Krajcik, J. (2014). Using drawing technology to assess students’ visualizations of chemical reaction processes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(3), 355–369.10.1007/s10956-013-9468-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng, M. T., Chen, J. H., Chu, S. J., & Chen, S. Y. (2015). The use of serious games in science education: A review of selected empirical research from 2002 to 2013. Journal of Computers in Education, 2(3), 353–375.10.1007/s40692-015-0039-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, D., Touchman, S., Martinez-Garza, M., Ramirez-Marin, F., & Drews, T. (2012). Bilingual language supports in online science inquiry environments. Computers & Education, 58, 1207–1224.10.1016/j.compedu.2011.11.019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke, J., & Dede, C. (2009). Design for scalability: A case study of the river city curriculum. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(4), 353–365.10.1007/s10956-009-9156-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, D., & Ball, D. (1999). Instruction, capacity and improvement (CPRE Research Report Series RR-43). Philadelphia, PA: CPRE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Conole, G. (2013). Designing for Learning in an Open World: Explorations in the learning sciences, instructional systems and performance (Vol. 4). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, E., & Krajcik, J. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.10.3102/0013189X034003003
   Google Scholar
• Davis, E., Palincsar, A., Arias, A. M., Bismack, A., Marulis, L., & Iwashyna, S. (2014). Designing educative curriculum materials: A theoretically and empirically driven process. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 24–52.10.17763/haer.84.1.g48488u230616264
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, E., Janssen, F. J., & Van Driel, J. (2016). Teachers and science curriculum materials: Where we are and where we need to go. Studies in Science Education, 52(2), 127–160.10.1080/03057267.2016.1161701
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, E. A., Palincsar, A. S., Smith, P. S., Arias, A. M., & Kademian, S. M. (2017). Educative curriculum materials: Uptake, impact, and implications for research and design. Educational Researcher, 46(6), 293–304.10.3102/0013189X17727502
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 340(6130), 305–308.10.1126/science.1230579
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Lucchi, L., & Malone, L. (2011). The effect of educational policy on curriculum development. In G. DeBoer (Ed.), The role of public policy in K-12 science education (pp. 355–392). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Dede, C. (2005). Why design-based research is both important and difficult. Educational Technology, 45(1), 5–8.
   Google Scholar
• Drake, C., Land, T., & Tyminski, A. (2014). Using educative curriculum materials to support the development of prospective teachers’ knowledge. Educational Researcher, 43(3), 154–162.10.3102/0013189X14528039
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncan, R., Rogat, A., & Yarden, A. (2009). A learning progression for deepening students’ understandings of modern genetics across the 5th–10th grades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 655–674.10.1002/tea.v46:6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Earle, J. (2011). How do funding agencies at the federal level inform the science education policy agenda? The case of the National Science Foundation. In G. E. DeBoer (Ed.), The role of public policy in K-12 science education (pp. 117–146). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Feder, M., Ferrini-Mundy, J. & Heller-Zeisler, S. (2011). The federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education portfolio. A Report from the federal inventory of STEM education fast-track action committee. Committee on STEM education, national science and technology council. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/costem__federal_stem_education_portfolio_report.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Fensham, P. J. (2009). The link between policy and practice in science education: The role of research. Science Education, 93(6), 1076–1095.10.1002/sce.v93:6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating Rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92.10.1177/160940690600500107
   Google Scholar
• Fishman, B. J., & Krajcik, J. (2003). What does it mean to create sustainable science curriculum innovations? A commentary. Science Education, 87(4), 564–573.
   Google Scholar
• Fortus, D., & Krajcik, J. (2012). Curriculum coherence and learning progressions. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie  (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education. Springer international handbooks of education (Vol. 24, pp. 783–798). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Gonzalez, H., & Kuenzi, J. (2014). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: A primer. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc122233/m1/1/high_res_d/R42642_2012Aug01.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Grossman, P., & Thompson, C. (2008). Learning from curriculum materials: Scaffolds for new teachers? Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(8), 2014–2026.10.1016/j.tate.2008.05.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris, C., Penuel, W., D’Angelo, C., DeBarger, A., Gallagher, L., Kennedy, C., … Krajcik, J. S. (2015). Impact of project-based curriculum materials on student learning in science: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(10), 1362–1385.10.1002/tea.21263
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Häussler, P., & Hoffmann, L. (2002). An intervention study to enhance girls’ interest, self-concept, and achievement in physics classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 870–888.10.1002/tea.v39:9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hazelkorn, E., Ryan, C., Beernaert, Y., Constantinou, C. P., Deca, L., Grangeat, M., … Welzel-Breuer, M. (2015). Science Education for Responsible Citizenship. Report to the European Commission of the Expert Group on Science Education. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_science_education/KI-NA-26-893-EN-N.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Hohlfeld, T., Ritzhaupt, A., Barron, A., & Kemker, K. (2008). Examining the digital divide in K-12 public schools: Four-year trends for supporting ICT literacy in Florida. Computers & Education, 51, 1648–1663.10.1016/j.compedu.2008.04.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopmann, S. (2007). Restrained teaching: The common core of Didaktik. European Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 109–124.10.2304/eerj.2007.6.2.109
   Google Scholar
• Institute of Education Sciences (IES). (2007). Toward a learning society. Director’s Biennial report to congress (IES 2007–6004). Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/director/pdf/20076004.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Institute of Education Sciences (IES). (2008). Rigor and Relevance Redux. Director’s biennial report to congress (IES 2009-6010). Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/director/pdf/20096010.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Institute of Education Sciences (IES). (2009). Request for applications. Education Research Grants. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/funding/pdf/2009_84305A.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Institute of Education Sciences (IES). (2011). Request for applications. Education Research Grants. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/funding/pdf/2012_84305A.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Institute of Education Sciences (IES). (2014). Request for applications. Education Research Grants. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/funding/pdf/2014_84305A.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Jacobson, N., Butterill, D., & Goering, P. (2004). Organizational factors that influence university-based researchers’ engagement in knowledge transfer activities. Science Communication, 25(3), 246–259.10.1177/1075547003262038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janssen, F., Westbroek, H., Doyle, W., & Van Driel, J. (2013). How to make innovations practical. Teachers College Record, 115(7), 1–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J. E. (2002). How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061’s curriculum review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 522–549.10.1002/(ISSN)1098-2736
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klahr, D., Triona, L. M., & Williams, C. (2007). Hands on what? The relative effectiveness of physical versus virtual materials in an engineering design project by middle school children. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 183–203.10.1002/(ISSN)1098-2736
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knight, V., Spooner, F., Browder, D., Smith, B., & Wood, C. L. (2013). Using systematic instruction and graphic organizers to teach science concepts to students with autism spectrum disorders and intellectual disability. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 28(2), 115–126.10.1177/1088357612475301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krajcik, J. S., & Mun, K. (2014). Promises and challenges of using learning technologies to promote student learning of science. In L. Norman & S. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education, Vol. 2 (pp. 337–360). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1–32.10.1002/(ISSN)1098-237X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lappan, G., & Phillips, E. (2009) A Designer Speaks. Educational Designer, 1(3). Retrieved from http://www.educationaldesigner.org/ed/volume1/issue3/article11/
   Google Scholar
• Leary, H., Severance, S., Penuel, W., Quigley, D., Sumner, T., & Devaul, H. (2016). Designing a deeply digital science curriculum: Supporting teacher learning and implementation with organizing technologies. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(1), 61–77.10.1007/s10972-016-9452-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, H.-S., & Songer, N. B. (2004, April). Longitudinal knowledge development: Scaffolds for Inquiry. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Linn, M. C., Gerard, L., Matuk, C., & McElhaney, K. W. (2016). Science Education: From Separation to Integration. Review of Research in Education, 40(1), 529–587.10.3102/0091732X16680788
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marco-Bujosa, L., McNeill, K., González-Howard, M., & Loper, S. (2017). An exploration of teacher learning from an educative reform-oriented science curriculum: Case studies of teacher curriculum use. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(2), 141–168.10.1002/tea.21340
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McElhaney, K., Chang, H., Chiu, J., & Linn, M. (2015). Evidence for effective uses of dynamic visualisations in science curriculum materials. Studies in Science Education, 51(1), 49–85.10.1080/03057267.2014.984506
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKenney, S. (2017). Een infrastructure voor de professionele groei van docenten. Enschede: University of Twente.
   Google Scholar
• McNeill, K., Lizotte, D., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191.10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, & Institute of Medicine (2007). Rising above the gathering storm. Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council (NRC). (1999). Designing mathematics or science curriculum programs: A guide for using mathematics and science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Science Foundation. (2002a). Instructional Materials Development (Document No. NSF 02-067). Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2002/nsf02067/nsf02067.html
   Google Scholar
• National Science Foundation. (2002b). Information technology experiences for students and teachers (Document No. NSF 02-147). Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2002/nsf02147/nsf02147.htm
   Google Scholar
• National Science Foundation. (2003). Instructional materials development (Document No. NSF 03-524). Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2003/nsf03524/nsf03524.htm
   Google Scholar
• National Science Foundation. (2004). Instructional materials development (Document No. NSF 04-562). Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/nsf04562/nsf04562.pdf
   Google Scholar
• National Science Foundation. (2008a). Innovative technology experiences for students and teachers (Document No. NSF 08-526). Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2008/nsf08526/nsf08526.htm
   Google Scholar
• National Science Foundation. (2008b). Discovery research K-12 (Document No. NSF 08-502). Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2008/nsf08502/nsf08502.htm
   Google Scholar
• National Science Foundation. (2014). Strategic re-envisioning for the education and human resources directorate. A Report to the Directorate for Education and Human Resources National Science Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/ehr/Pubs/AC_ReEnvisioning_Report_Sept_2014_01.pdf
   Google Scholar
• National Science Foundation (NSF). (1997). Review of instructional materials for middle school science (NSF97-54). Washington DC: Directorate for education and human resources. Division of elementary, secondary and informal education. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1997/nsf9754/nsf9754.htm
   Google Scholar
• National Science Foundation (NSF). (2000). Middle grades science instructional materials initiative (NSF 00-80). Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf0080
   Google Scholar
• National Science Foundation (NSF). (2006). Discovery research K-12 (NSF 06-593). Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf06593/nsf06593.htm
   Google Scholar
• National Science Foundation (NSF) (2015). Discovery research PreK-12 (NSF 15-592). Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf15592
   Google Scholar
• NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nieveen, N., & Kuiper, W. (2012). Balancing curriculum freedom and regulation in the Netherlands. European Educational Research Journal, 11(3), 357–368.10.2304/eerj.2012.11.3.357
   Google Scholar
• Ornstein, A. (2006). The frequency of hands-on experimentation and student attitudes toward science: A statistically significant relation (2005-51-Ornstein). Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(3–4), 285–297.10.1007/s10956-006-9015-5
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, J. (2011). Science education policy and its relationship with research and practice. In G. DeBoer (Ed.), The Role of Public Policy in K-12 Science Education (pp. 13–46). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Pareja Roblin, N., Schunn, C., & McKenney, S. (2018). What are critical features of science curriculum materials that impact student and teacher outcomes? Science Education, 102(2), 260–282.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal, experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work, 1(3), 261–283.10.1177/1473325002001003636
   Google Scholar
• Pea, R. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451.10.1207/s15327809jls1303_6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penuel, W., Fishman, B., & Cheng, B. (2011). Developing the area of design-based implementation research. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
   Google Scholar
• Penuel, W., Fishman, B., Cheng, B., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331–337.10.3102/0013189X11421826
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2008). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Reiser, B. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304.10.1207/s15327809jls1303_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Remillard, J. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246.10.3102/00346543075002211
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Remillard, J. (2012). Modes of engagement: Understanding teachers’ transactions with mathematics curriculum resources. In G. Gueudet, B. Pepin, & L. Trouche (Eds.), From text to ‘lived’ resources: Mathematics curriculum materials and teacher development (pp. 105–122). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Remillard, J. T., Harris, B., & Agodini, R. (2014). The influence of curriculum material design on opportunities for student learning. ZDM Mathematics Education, 46(5), 735–749.10.1007/s11858-014-0585-z
   Google Scholar
• Roseman, J. E., Linn, M. C., & Koppal, M. (2008). Characterizing curriculum coherence. In J. Kali, M. Linn, & J. E. Roseman (Eds.), Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy (pp. 13–36). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education, 58(1), 136–153.10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt, W., McKnight, C., & Raizen, S. (2002). A splintered vision: An investigation of US science and mathematics education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, W., Wang, H., & McKnight, C. (2005). Curriculum coherence: An examination of US mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(5), 525–559.10.1080/0022027042000294682
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider, R., Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2005). Enacting reform-based science materials: The range of teacher enactments in reform classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 283–312.10.1002/(ISSN)1098-2736
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singer, M., & Tuomi, J. (Eds.). (1999). Selecting instructional materials: A guide for K-12 science. Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Smetana, L., & Bell, R. (2012). Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 34(9), 1337–1370.10.1080/09500693.2011.605182
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stokes, D. (1997). Pasteurs Quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305–335.10.1207/s15327809jls1303_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246.10.1177/1098214005283748
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Kingdom Department for Education. (2015). National curriculum in England: Science programmes of study. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-science-programmes-of-study
   Google Scholar
• White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.10.1207/s1532690xci1601_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (2000). Metacognitive facilitation: An approach to making scientific inquiry accessible to all. In J. Minstrell & E. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 331–370). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, M. (2014). Who are interested in online science simulations? Tracking a trend of digital divide in Internet use. Computers & Education, 76, 205–214.10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, M., & Quintana, C. (2012). Scaffolding strategies for supporting middle school students’ online inquiry processes. Computers & Education, 58(1), 181–196.10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. L. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482–515.10.1111/tcre.2002.104.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar