Reconceptualising inquiry in science education

References

• Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12. doi:10.1023/A:1015171124982
   Google Scholar
• Assessment and Qualifications Alliance. (2013). GCSE SCIENCES guidance on controlled assessment.
   Google Scholar
• Barrow, L. H. (2006). A brief history of inquiry: From Dewey to standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(3), 265–278. doi:10.1007/s10972-006-9008-5
   Google Scholar
• Carter, L. (2008). Globalisation and science education: The implication of science in the new economy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(5), 617–633. doi:10.1002/tea.20189
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crawford, B. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 44(4), 613–642.
   Google Scholar
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development and health. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 182–185. doi:10.1037/a0012801
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Motivation, personality, and development within embedded social contexts: An overview of self-determination theory. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 85–107). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Guay, F., Ratelle, C. F., & Chanal, J. (2008). Optimal learning in optimal contexts: The role of self-determination in education. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49(3), 233. doi:10.1037/a0012758
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaberman, Z., & Dori, Y. J. (2009). Metacognition in chemical education: Question posing in the case-based computerized learning environment. Instructional Science, 37(5), 403–436. doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9054-9
   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(2), 75–86. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavigne, G. L., Vallerand, R. J., & Miquelon, P. (2007). A motivational model of persistence in science education: A self-determination theory approach. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22(3), 351–369. doi: 10.1007/BF03173432
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction—What is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496. doi:10.1002/tea.20347
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minstrell, J., & van Zee, E. H. (Eds.). (2000). Inquiry in to inquiry learning and teaching in science. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Next Generation Science Standards. (2013). The next generation science standards. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards
   Google Scholar
• Nuthall, G. (2005). The cultural myths and realities of classroom teaching and learning: A personal journey. Teachers College Record, 107(5), 895–934. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2005.00498.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, J. (1998). Science education without a laboratory. In J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science: Which way now (pp. 156–173). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ratelle, C. F., Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., Larose, S., & Senécal, C. (2007). Autonomous, controlled, and amotivated types of academic motivation: A person-oriented analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 734–746. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.734
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robertson, B. (2007). Getting past ‘inquiry versus content’. Educational Leadership, 64(4), 67–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadeh, I., & Zion, M. (2009). The development of dynamic inquiry performances within an open inquiry setting: A comparison to guided inquiry setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(10), 1137–1160. doi: 10.1002/tea.20310
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as inquiry. In J. J. Schwab & P. F. Brandwein (Eds.), The teaching of science (pp. 3–103). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (2012). Taking the U.S. patent office criteria seriously: A quantitative three-criterion creativity definition and its implications. Creativity Research Journal, 24(2–3), 97–106. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2012.676974
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & 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:10.1002/sce.20259
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zion, M., & Mendelovici, R. (2012). Moving from structured to open inquiry: Challenges and limits. Science Education International, 23(4), 383–399.
   Google Scholar