Brian’s life is not just another brick in the wall: Reframing the metaphor of science teaching

References

• Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2009). A disciplinary discourse perspective on university science learning: Achieving fluency in a critical constellation of modes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 27–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20265
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, K. J. (2012). Science education and test-based accountability: Reviewing their relationship and exploring implications for future policy. Science Education, 96(1), 104–129. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20464
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biesta, G. J. (2017). The rediscovery of teaching. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cavagnetto, A., & Hand, B. (2012). The importance of embedding argument within science classrooms. In Perspectives on scientific argumentation: Theory, practice and research (pp. 39–53). Sense Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Christakis, N. A. (2019). Blueprint: The evolutionary origins of a good society. Little Brown.
   Google Scholar
• DiSessa, A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2–3), 105–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.1985.9649008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children’s ideas. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Fick, S. J. (2018). What does three-dimensional teaching and learning look like?: Examining the potential for crosscutting concepts to support the development of science knowledge. Science Education, 102(1), 5–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21313
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Eight ways to promote generative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 717–741. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9348-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404–423. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20263
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geary, D. C. (2008). An evolutionarily informed education science. Educational Psychologist, 43(4), 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520802392133
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Falmer Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hand, B., Chen, Y. C., & Suh, J. K. (2021). Does a knowledge generation approach to learning benefit students? A systematic review of research on the science writing heuristic approach. Educational Psychology Review, 33, 535–577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09550-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L., Staker, J., & Bintz, J. (2009). Negotiating science: The critical role of argument in student inquiry, grades 5-10. Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Illeris, K. (2018). An overview of the history of learning theory. European Journal of Education, 53(1), 86–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12265
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelly, G. J., & Licona, P. (2018). Epistemic practices and science education. In History, philosophy and science teaching: New perspectives (pp. 139–165). Springer Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Kirschner, P. A., & Hendrick, C. (2020). How learning happens: Seminal works in educational psychology and what they mean in practice. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, O. (2001). Culture and language in science education: What do we know and what do we need to know? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 499–501. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Ablex Publishing Corporation. 07648 (hardback: ISBN-0-89391-565-3; paperback: ISBN-0-89391-566-1).
   Google Scholar
• McNeil, K., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Supporting grade 5-8 students in constructing explanations in science: The claim, evidence and reasoning framework for talking and writing. Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000968
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, E., Manz, E., Russ, R., Stroupe, D., & Berland, L. (2018). Addressing the epistemic elephant in the room: Epistemic agency and the next generation science standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(7), 1053–1075. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21459
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10066
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nowak, M., & Highfield, R. (2011). Supercooperators: Altruism, evolution, and why we need each other to succeed. Simon and Schuster.
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, J. (2005). The role of argument in science education. In Research and the quality of science education (pp. 367–380). Springer Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, J., Rafanelli, S., & Kind, P. (2018). Toward a more coherent model for science education than the crosscutting concepts of the next generation science standards: The affordances of styles of reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(7), 962–981. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21460
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, R., & Wittrock, M. (1985). The generative learning model and its implications for science education. Studies in Science Education, 12(1), 59–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057268508559923
   Google Scholar
• Prawat, R. S. (1989). Teaching for understanding: Three key attributes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 5(4), 315–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(89)90029-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prawat, R. S. (1990). Changing schools by changing teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning. Elementary subjects centre, Series No. 19. The Centre for Learning and Teaching of Elementary Subjects, Michigan State University.
   Google Scholar
• Prawat, R. S. (1999). Dewey, peirce and the learning paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 36(1), 47–76. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312036001047
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reznitskaya, A., & Wilkinson, I. A. G. (2020). Designing professional development to support teachers’ facilitation of argumentation. In N. Mercer, R. Wegerif, & L. Major (Eds.). The Routledge International handbook of research on dialogic education. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Stroupe, D., Moon, J., & Michaels, S. (2019). Introduction to special issue: Epistemic tools in science education. Science Education, 103(4), 948–951. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21512
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Unsworth, L., Tytler, R., Fenwick, L., Humphrey, S., Chandler, P., Herrington, M., & Pham, L. (2022). Multimodal literacy in school science: Transdisciplinary perspectives on theory, research and pedagogy. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Van Uum, M. S., Verhoeff, R. P., & Peeters, M. (2016). Inquiry-based science education: Towards a pedagogical framework for primary school teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 38(3), 450–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1147660
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, D. S., Ostrom, E., & Cox, M. E. (2013). Generalizing the core design principles for the efficacy of groups. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 90, S21–S32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2012.12.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar