Engaging students in learning science through promoting creative reasoning

References

• Aikenhead, G. (1996). Science education: Border crossing into the subculture of science. Studies in Science Education, 27(1), 1–52. [Published online 2008]. doi: 10.1080/03057269608560077
   Google Scholar
• Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333(6046), 1096–1097. doi: 10.1126/science.1204153
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bailin, S. (2002). Critical thinking and science education. Science & Education, 11, 361–375. doi: 10.1023/A:1016042608621
   Google Scholar
• Barsalou, L. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carolan, J., Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. (2008). Using representations for teaching and learning in science. Teaching Science, 54, 18–23.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, Y. C., Park, S., & Hand, B. (2016). Examining the use of talk and writing for Students’ development of scientific conceptual knowledge through constructing and critiquing arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 34(2), 100–147. doi: 10.1080/07370008.2016.1145120
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi, A., Klein, V., & Hershberger, S. (2015). Success, difficulty, and instructional strategy to enact an argument-based approach: Experiences of elementary teachers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(5), 991–1011. doi: 10.1007/s10763-014-9525-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chubb, I. (2014). Australia needs a strategy. Science, 345(6200), 985. doi: 10.1126/science.1259741
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• diSessa, A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293–331. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci2203_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Witt, J., Osborne, J., Archer, L., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2013). Young children’s aspirations in science: The unequivocal, the uncertain and the unthinkable. International Journal of Science Education, 35(6), 1037–1063. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2011.608197
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolan, E., & Grady, J. (2010). Recognizing students’ scientific reasoning: A tool for categorizing complexity of reasoning during teaching by inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21, 31–55. doi: 10.1007/s10972-009-9154-7
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Duit, R. (2007). STCSE – bibliography: Students’ and teachers’ conceptions and science education.Kiel: IPN-Leibniz Institute for Science Education. Retrieved from http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/stcse.html
   Google Scholar
• Dunbar, K. (1999). The scientist in vivo: How scientists think and reason in the laboratory. In L. Magnani, N. Nersessian, & P. Thagard (Eds.), Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery (pp. 89–98). Amsterdam: Plenum Press.
   Google Scholar
• Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268–291. doi: 10.3102/0091732X07309371
   Web of Science ®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
• Furtak, E., Hardy, I., Beinbrech, C., Shavelson, R., & Shemwell, J. (2010). A framework for analyzing evidence-based reasoning in science classroom discourse. Educational Assessment, 15(3), 175–196. doi: 10.1080/10627197.2010.530553
   Google Scholar
• Gooding, D. (2004). Visualization, inference and explanation in the sciences. In G. Malcolm (Ed.), Studies in multidisciplinarity, Vol 2 (pp. 1–25). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Hand, B., McDermott, M., & Prain, V. (Eds.). (2016). Using multimodal representations to support learning in the science classroom. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Haste, H. (2004). Science in my future: A study of the values and beliefs in relation to science and technology amongst 11–21 year olds. London: Nestlé Social Research Programme.
   Google Scholar
• Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. (2014). Determinism and underdetermination in genetics: Implications for students’ engagement in argumentation and epistemic practices. Science & Education, 23(2), 465–484. doi: 10.1007/s11191-012-9561-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keys, C., Hand, B., Prain, P., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory ınvestigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065–1084. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199912)36:10<1065::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-I
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein, P. D. (2014). Knowledge construction in collaborative science writing: Strategic simplicity, distributed complexity, and explanatory sophistication. In P. D. Klein, P. Boscolo, L. C. Kirkpatrick, & C. Gelati (Eds.), Studies in writing: Vol. 28, writing as a learning activity (pp. 300–326). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.
   Google Scholar
• Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005). Students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence. In J. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education. (pp. 121–145). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D. (2015). Thinking together and alone. Educational Researcher, 44(1), 46–53. doi: 10.3102/0013189X15569530
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., Zillmer, N., Crowell, A., & Zavala, J. (2013). Developing norms of argumentation: Metacognitive, epistemological, and social dimensions of developing argumentative competence. Cognition and Instruction, 31(4), 456–496. doi: 10.1080/07370008.2013.830618
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 371–387). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., & Lucas, D. (2008). Supporting development of the epistemology of inquiry. Cognitive Development, 23(4), 512–529. doi: 10.1016/j.cogdev.2008.09.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lemke, J. L. (2016). Demonstrating the value of informal learning. Retrieved from http://www.jaylemke.com/
   Google Scholar
• Lindahl, B. (2007). A longitudinal study of Students’ attitudes towards science and choice of career. Paper presented at the 80th NARST international conference. New Orleans, Louisiana.
   Google Scholar
• Linn, M., Davis, E., & Bell, P. (2013). Internet environments for science education.Oxon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Liu, Y., Won, M., & Treagust, D. F. (2014). Secondary biology teachers’ use of different types of diagrams for different purposes. In B. Eilam, & J. K. Gilbert (Eds.), Science teachers’ use of visual representations (pp. 103–121). Switzerland: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Lucas, B., Claxton, G., & Spencer, E. (2013). Progression in student creativity in school: First steps towards new forms of formative assessments. OECD Education Working papers, No 86, OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.oer/10.1787/5k4dp59msdwk-en
   Google Scholar
• Lyons, T. (2006). Different countries, same science classes: Students’ experiences of school science in their own words. International Journal of Science Education, 28(6), 591–613. doi: 10.1080/09500690500339621
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magnani. L. (2010). Model-based reasoning in science and technology. Cosmos (Vol. 3, pp. 317–359). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• McDermott, M., Hand, B., Sturtz, A., & Mohling, J. (2016). Modeling scientific communication with multimodal writing tasks: Impact on students at different grade levels. In B. Hand, M. McDermott, & V. Prain (Eds.), Using multimodal representations to support learning in the science classroom (pp. 183–211). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 34(2), 57–74. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X10000968
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metz, K. E. (2011). Disentangling robust developmental constraints from the instructionally mutable: Young children’s epistemic reasoning about a study of their own design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(1), 50–110. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2011.529325
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moje, E. B. (2007). Developing socially just subject-matter instruction: A review of the literature on disciplinary literacy. In N. L. Parker (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 1–44). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
   Google Scholar
• Newell, B., & Broder, A. (2008). Cognitive processes, models and metaphors. Judgment and Decision Making, 3(3), 195–204.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nickerson, R. S. (1991). Modes and models of informal reasoning: A commentary. In J. Voss, D. Perkins, & J. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education. (pp. 291–310). Oxon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. London: Nuffield Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Peirce, C. S. (1931–58). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. 8 volumes. (Eds. Charles Hartshorne, Paul Weiss & Arthur W Burks, Vols 1–6), (Ed., Arthur W. Burks, vols 7–8). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2012). Learning through constructing representations in science: A framework of representational construction affordances. International Journal of Science Education, 34(17), 2751–2773. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2011.626462
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. (2006). An exploratory study of teachers’ and students’ use of multi-modal representations of concepts in primary science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1843–1866. doi: 10.1080/09500690600718294
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prain, V., Waldrip, B., & Lovejoy, V. (2015). ‘They just can’t google the correct answer’: Personalising science learning in an open-plan secondary schools. In V. Prain, P. Cox, C. Deed, D. Edwards, C. Farrelly, M. Keefe, & V. Lovejoy (Eds.), Personalising learning in open-plan schools (pp. 143–161). Rotterdam: Sense.
   Google Scholar
• Sadler, T. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536. doi: 10.1002/tea.20009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schreiner, C., & Sjøberg, S. (2007). Science education and youth’s identity construction – two incompatible projects? In D. Corrigan, J. Dillon, & R. Gunstone (Eds.), The re-emergence of values in the science curriculum (pp. 231–247). Rotterdam: Sense.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, C. (2012). An investigation of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) focused high schools in the U.S. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 13(5), 30–39.
   Google Scholar
• Tang, K. S., Delgado, C., & Moje, E. B. (2014). An integrative framework for the analysis of multiple and multimodal representations for meaning-making in science education. Science Education, 98(2), 305–326. doi: 10.1002/sce.21099
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TIMSS. (2007). Science framework. Retrieved from http://timss.bc.edu/timss2007/PDF/T07_AF_chapter2.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tytler, R., Prain, V., Hubber, P., & Waldrip, B. (Eds.). (2013). Constructing representations to learn in science. Rotterdam: Sense.
   Google Scholar
• Vertisi. (2014). Drawing as: Distinctions and disambiguation in digital images of Mars In Coopmans. In J. Vertesi, M. Lynch, & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice revisited (pp. 15–36). Cambridge: MIT press.
   Google Scholar
• Waldrip, B. G., & Prain, V. (2011). Developing an understanding of ions in junior secondary school chemistry. International Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 10(5), 1191–1213. doi: 10.1007/s10763-011-9327-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waldrip, B., Prain, V., & Carolan, J. (2010). Using multi-modal representations to improve learning in junior secondary science. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 65–80. doi: 10.1007/s11165-009-9157-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waldrip, B. G., Prain, V., & Sellings, P. (2013). Explaining Newton’s laws of motion: Using student reasoning through representations to develop conceptual understanding. Instructional Science, 41(1), 165–189. doi: 10.1007/s11251-012-9223-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar