The Use of Epistemic Tools to Facilitate Epistemic Cognition & Metacognition in Developing Scientific Explanation

References

• Achinstein, P. (1983). The nature of explanation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barzilai, S., & Zohar, A. (2016). Epistemic (meta) cognition: Ways of thinking about knowledge and knowing. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 409–424). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M. (2011). Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education. Science Education, 95(4), 639–669. doi:10.1002/sce.20449
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction (Vol. 59). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bulu, S. T., & Pedersen, S. (2010). Scaffolding middle school students’ content knowledge and ill-structured problem solving in a problem-based hypermedia learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(5), 507–529. doi:10.1007/s11423-010-9150-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chinn, C. A., Buckland, L. A., & Samarapungavan, A. L. A. (2011). Expanding the dimensions of epistemic cognition: Arguments from philosophy and psychology. Educational Psychologist, 46(3), 141–167. doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.587722
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christodoulou, A., & Osborne, J. (2014). The science classroom as a site of epistemic talk: A case study of a teacher’s attempts to teach science based on argument. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(10), 1275–1300. doi:10.1002/tea.21166
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical & methodological Issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1301_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denzin, N. K. (2002). Interpretive Interactionism (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s Argument Pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933. doi:10.1002/sce.20012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erickson, F. (1992). Ethnographic microanalysis of interaction. In M. D. LeCompte, W. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 201–225). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, R. (2002). Shared thinking: Metacognitive modelling in the literacy hour. Reading, 36(2), 63–67. doi:10.1111/1467-9345.00188
   Google Scholar
• Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–991. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flavell, J. H., Miller, P. H., & Miller, S. A. (2002). Cognitive development (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Fox, E., & Riconscente, M. (2008). Metacognition and self-regulation in James, Piaget, and Vygotsky. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 373–389. doi:10.1007/s10648-008-9079-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gee, J. P. (2010). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (3rd ed.). London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Greene, J. A., Sandoval, W. A., & Bråten, I. (2016). Handbook of epistemic cognition. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hofer, B. K. (2004). Epistemological understanding as a metacognitive process: Thinking aloud during online searching. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 43–55. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3901_5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88–140. doi:10.3102/00346543067001088
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofer, B. K., & Sinatra, G. M. (2010). Epistemology, metacognition, and self-regulation: Musings on an emerging field. Metacognition and Learning, 5(1), 113–120. doi:10.1007/s11409-009-9051-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551–578. doi:10.1002/tea.10036
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kitchener, K. S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition, and epistemic cognition: A three-level model of cognitive processing. Human Development, 26(4), 222–232. doi:10.1159/000272885
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers ‘instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53–78. doi:10.1002/tea
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell, J. C. (1983). Case and situation analysis. The Sociological Review, 31(2), 187–211. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.1983.tb00387.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, T. O. (1996). Consciousness and metacognition. American Psychologist, 51(2), 102–116. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norris, S. P., Phillips, L. M., Smith, M. L., Guilbert, S. M., Stange, D. M., Baker, J. J., & Weber, A. C. (2008). Learning to read scientific text: Do elementary school commercial reading programs help? Science Education, 92(5), 765–798. doi:10.1002/sce.20266
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction? Science Education, 95(4), 627–638. doi:10.1002/sce.20438
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
   Google Scholar
• Putra, G.B.S., & Tang, K.S. (2016). Disciplinary literacy instructions on writing scientific explanations: A case study from a chemistry classroom in an all-girls school. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(3), 569–579. doi:10.1039/C6RP00022C
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rappa, N., & Tang, K.S. (2018). Integrating disciplinary-specific genre structure in discourse strategies to support disciplinary literacy. Linguistics and Education, 43, 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2017.12.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. P. (2011). Argument-Driven Inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education, 95(2), 217–257. doi:10.1002/sce.20421
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5–51. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1201_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23–55. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345–372. doi:10.1002/sce.10130
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. xix–627p.). Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Settlage, J., & Southerland, S. A. (2019). Epistemic tools for science classrooms: The continual need to accommodate and adapt. Science Education, 103(4), 1112–1119. doi:10.1002/sce.21510
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stroupe, D., Moon, J., & Michaels, S. (2019). Introduction to special issue: Epistemic tools in science education. Science Education, 103(4), 948–951. doi:10.1002/sce.21512
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang, K.S. (2015). The PRO instructional strategy in the construction of scientific explanations. Teaching Science, 61(4), 14–21.
   Google Scholar
• Tang, K.S. (2016a). Constructing scientific explanations through premise–reasoning–outcome (PRO): An exploratory study to scaffold students in structuring written explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 38(9), 1415–1440. doi:10.1080/09500693.2016.1192309
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang, K.S. (2016b). How is disciplinary literacy addressed in the science classrooms? A Singaporean case study. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 39(3), 220–232.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang, K.S. (2017). Analyzing teachers’ use of metadiscourse: The missing analytical focus in classroom discourse analysis. Science Education, 101(4), 548–583. doi:10.1002/sce.21275
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, G. P. (2012). Metacognition in science education: Past, present and future considerations. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 131–144). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Unsworth, L. (2001). Evaluating the language of different types of explanations in junior high school science texts. International Journal of Science Education, 23(6), 585–609. doi:10.1080/09500690010006473
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veenman, M. V. J. (2011). Learning to self-monitor and self-regulate. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexande (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 197–218). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 3–14. doi:10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, C.-Y. (2015). Scaffolding middle school students’ construction of scientific explanations: Comparing a cognitive versus a metacognitive evaluation approach. International Journal of Science Education, 37(2), 237–271. doi:10.1080/09500693.2014.979378
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitebread, D., Coltman, P., Pasternak, D. P., Sangster, C., Grau, V., Bingham, S., … Demetriou, D. (2009). The development of two observational tools for assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning in young children. Metacognition and Learning, 4(1), 63–85. doi:10.1007/s11409-008-9033-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). How novice science teachers appropriate epistemic discourses around model-based inquiry for use in classrooms. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 310–378. doi:10.1080/07370000802177193
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E.(2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M.Boekaerts,P.R.Pintrich, & M.Zeidner (Eds.),Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zohar, A., & Barzilai, S. (2013). A review of research on metacognition in science education: Current and future directions. Studies in Science Education, 49(2), 121–169. doi:10.1080/03057267.2013.847261
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar