Understanding the quality of data: a concept map for ‘the thinking behind the doing’ in scientific practice

References

• Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., … Tuan, H. -L. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397–419.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1945–1969.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abrahams, I., & Reiss, M. J. (2012). Practical work: Its effectiveness in primary and secondary schools in England. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(8), 1035–1055.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Achieve, Inc. (2013). Next generation science standards. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards
   Google Scholar
• Allen, M. (2011). Theory‐led confirmation bias and experimental persona. Research in Science and Technological Education, 29(1), 107–127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2012, January). The Australian Curriculum: Science. Retrieved from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Australian%20Curriculum.pdf?Type=0&s=S&e=ScopeAndSequence
   Google Scholar
• Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buffler, A., Allie, S., Lubben, F., & Campbell, B. (2001). The development of physics students' ideas about measurement in terms of point and set paradigms. International Journal of Science Education, 23(11), 1137–1156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bybee, R. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practical action. Portsmouth: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, P. (Ed.). (2010). The language of measurement: Terminology used in school science investigations. Hatfield: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cañas, A. J., Novak, J. D., & Reiska, P. (2015) How good is my concept map? Am I a good cmapper? Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 7(1): 6–19.
   Google Scholar
• Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argumentation to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K-12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336–371.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cleland, C. E. (2002). Methodological and epistemic differences between historical science and experimental science. Philosophy of Science, 69(3), 447–451.
   Google Scholar
• Conant, J. B. (1957). The overthrow of the phlogiston theory: The chemical revolution of 1775–1789. In J. B. Conant & L. K.Nash (Eds.). Harvard case histories in experimental science, volume 1. Harvard: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cowen, R. (2014). Doubt grows about gravitational waves detection. Scientific American. Retrieved from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/doubt-grows-about-gravitational-waves-detection/
   Google Scholar
• DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582–601.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeBoer, G. E. (2011). The globalisation of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 567–591.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Department for Education. (2014) National Curriculum in England: Science programmes of study. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-science-programmes-of-study/national-curriculum-in-england-science-programmes-of-study
   Google Scholar
• Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39–72.
   Google Scholar
• Fairbrother, R., & Hackling, M. (1997). Is this the right answer? International Journal of Science Education, 19(8), 887–894.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fletcher, J. (2014). Spurious correlations: Margarine linked to divorce? Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27537142
   Google Scholar
• Ford, M. J., & Foreman, E. A. (2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30. 1–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fortus, D. (2009). The importance of learning to make assumptions. Science Education, 93(1), 86–108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glaesser, J., Gott, R., Roberts, R., & Cooper, B. (2009). The roles of substantive and procedural understanding in open-ended science investigations: Using fuzzy set Qualitative Comparative Analysis to compare two different tasks. Research in Science Education, 39(4), 595–624.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (1996). Practical work: its role in the understanding of evidence in science. International Journal of Science Education, 18(7), 791–806.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (2007). A framework for practical work in science and scientific literacy through argumentation. Research in Science & Technological Education, 25(3), 271–291.
   Google Scholar
• Gott, R., Duggan, S., Roberts, R., & Hussain, A. (n.d.). Research into understanding scientific evidence. Retrieved from http://community.dur.ac.uk/rosalyn.roberts/Evidence/cofev.htm
   Google Scholar
• Gott, R., Foulds, K., Roberts, R., Jones, M., & Johnson, P. (1999). Science Investigations: 3. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Gray, R. (2014). The distinction between experimental and historical sciences as a framework for improving classroom inquiry. Science Education, 98(2), 327–341.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haigh, M., France, B., & Gounder, R. (2012). Compounding confusion? When illustrative practical work falls short of its purpose – A case study. Research in Science Education, 42(5), 967–984.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, B. M. (2010). Teaching uncertainty: the case of climate change. Unpublished PhD thesis, Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Heinicke, S., & Heering, P. (2013). Discovering randomness, recovering expertise: The different approaches to the quality in measurement of Coulomb and Gauss and of today's students. Science and Education, 22(3), 483–503.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hodson, D. (2014). Learning science, learning about science, doing science: Different goals demand different learning methods. International Journal of Science Education, doi: 10.1080/09500693.2014.899722
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hodson, D., & Wong, S. L. (2014). From the Horse's Mouth: Why scientists' views are crucial to nature of science understanding. International Journal of Science Education, doi: 10.1080/09500693.2014.927936
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenkins, E. (2009). Reforming school science education: A commentary on selected reports and policy documents. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 65–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “Doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, P., & Papageorgiou, G. (2010). Rethinking the introduction of particle theory: A substance-based framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2), 130–150.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, P., & Tymms, P. (2011). The emergence of a learning progression in middle school chemistry relating to the concept of a substance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48 (8), 849–984.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, L. R., Wheeler, G., & Centurino, V. A. S. (2013). TIMSS 2015 Science Framework. In I.V.S. Mullis, & M.O. Martin, (Eds.). TIMSS 2015 assessment frameworks (Chapter 2). Chestnut Hill, MA: Routledge, Routledge. Retrieved from http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/frameworks.html
   Google Scholar
• Kinchin, I. M. (2010). Solving Cordelia's Dilemma: Threshold concepts within a punctuated model of learning. Journal of Biological Education, 44(2), 53–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kinchin, I. M. (2015). Prof. Kinchin's Blog: Musings on Academic Development. Re: Excellence and elegance in concept mapping. Retrieved from https://profkinchinblog.wordpress.com/
   Google Scholar
• Kinchin, I. M., & Hay, D. B. (2007). The myth of the research‐led teacher. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and practice, 13(1), 43–61.
   Google Scholar
• Kind, P. M. (2013a). Conceptualising the science curriculum: 40 years of developing assessment frameworks in three large-scale assessments. Science Education, 97(5), 671–694.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kind, P. M. (2013b). Establishing Assessment Scales Using a Novel Disciplinary Rationale for Scientific Reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(5), 530–560.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning of scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319–337.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lambert, D., & Reiss, M. J. (2014). The place of fieldwork in geography and science qualifications. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Laugksch, R. (2000). Scientific Literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71–94.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lederman, J. S., Lederman, N. G., Bartos, S. A., Bartels, S. L., Meyer, A. A., & Schwartz, R. S. (2014). Meaningful assessment of learners' understandings about Scientific Inquiry – The Views About Scientific Inquiry (VASI) questionnaire. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(1), 65–83.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., & Lucas, D. (2008). Supporting development of the epistemology of inquiry. Cognitive Development, 23(4), 512–529.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lubben, F., Sadeck, M., Scholtz, Z., & Braund, M. (2010). Gauging students' untutored ability in argumentation about experimental data: A South African case study. International Journal of Science Education, 32(16), 2143–2166.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, I. (2011). Literacy as metaphor and perspective in science. In C. Linder, L. Östman, D. A. Roberts, P -O. Wickman, G. Erickson, & A. MacKinnon (Eds.), Exploring the landscapes of scientific literacy (pp. 90–105). Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Millar, R., & Driver, R. (1987). Beyond processes. Studies in Science Education, 14(1), 33–62.
   Google Scholar
• Millar, R., Lubben, F., Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (1994). Investigating in the school science laboratory: Conceptual and procedural knowledge and their influence on performance. Research Papers in Education, 9(1), 207–248.
   Google Scholar
• Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future: A report with ten recommendations. London: Routledge.
   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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in Grades K-8. Washington, DC: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Novak, J. D. (2010). Learning, creating and using knowledge. (2nd edn). Oxford: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2007). Theoretical origins of concept maps, how to construct them and use them in education. Reflecting Education, 3(1), 29–42.
   Google Scholar
• Novak, J., & Gowin, D. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2013). PISA 2015: Draft science framework. Paris: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts, D. A. (1982). Developing the concept of ‘curriculum emphases’ in science education. Science Education, 66(2), 243–260.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah, NJ: Routledge
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, D. A. (2011). Competing visions of scientific literacy: The influence of science curriculum policy image. In C. Linder, L. Östman, D. A. Roberts, P -O. Wickman, G. Erickson, & A. MacKinnon (Eds.), Exploring the landscapes of scientific literacy (pp. 11–27). Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, R. (2004). Using different types of practical within a problem-solving model of science. School Science Review, 85(312), 113–119.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, R., & Gott, R. (2003). Assessment of biology investigations. Journal of Biological Education, 37(3), 114–121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts, R., & Gott, R. (2006). Assessment of performance in practical science and pupil attributes. Assessment in Education, 13(1), 45–67.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, R., & Gott, R. (2010). Questioning the evidence for a claim in a socio-scientific issue: An aspect of scientific literacy. Research in Science and Technological Education, 28(3), 203–226.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Royal Society (n.d.). The Royal Society: History. Retrieved from https://royalsociety.org/about-us/history/
   Google Scholar
• Schalk, H. H., van der Schee, J. A., & Boersma, K. T. (2013). The development of understanding of evidence in pre-university biology education in the Netherlands. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 551–578.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shymansky, J. A., Yore, L. D., Treagust, D. F., Thiele, R. B., Harrison, A., Waldrip, B. G., … Venville, G. (1997). Examining the construction process: A study of changes made in Level 10 students' understanding of classical mechanics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(6), 571–593.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siegel, H. (1995). Why should educators care about argumentation? Informal Logic, 17(2), 159–176.
   Google Scholar
• Silvertown, J. (2009). A new dawn for citizen science. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 24(9), 467–471.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education: Engaging students in science for Australia's future. Victoria: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Wiliam, D. (2010). What counts as evidence of educational achievement? The role of constructs in the pursuit of equity in assessment. Review of Research in Education, 34, 254–284.
   Google Scholar