Skip to main content Accessibility help
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 1
  • Print publication year: 2014
  • Online publication date: November 2014

28 - Science Education and the Learning Sciences as Coevolving Species

from Part V - Learning Disciplinary Knowledge


Achieve. (2013). Next generation science standards. Downloaded from on May 28, 2013.
Ben-Zvi, D. (2007). Using wiki to promote collaborative learning in statistics education. Technology Innovations in Statistics Education, 1(1), 1–18.
Bjork, R. A., & Linn, M. C. (2006). The science of learning and the learning of science: Introducing desirable difficulties. APS Observer, 19(3).
Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92(3), 473–498.
Brown, A., Ellery, S., & Campione, J. C. (1998). Creating zones of proximal development electronically. In J. G. Greeno & S. Goldman (Eds.), Thinking practices: A symposium in mathematics and science education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Colella, V. (2000). Participatory simulations: Building collaborative understanding through immersive dynamic modeling. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 471–500.
Corcoran, T., Mosher, F. A., & Rogat, A. (2009) Learning progressions in science: An evidence-based approach to reform. Consortium for Policy Research in Education Research Report RR 63.
Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985) Children’s ideas in science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Goodyear, P., & Retalis, S. (2010). Technology-enhanced learning: Design patterns and pattern languages. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York: Basic Books.
Israeli Ministry of Education. (1994). Tomorrow 98: Report of the Superior Committee on Science, Mathematics and Technology Education in Israel.
Kali, Y. (2006). Collaborative knowledge building using the Design Principles Database. International Journal of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 187–201.
Kali, Y. (2008). The Design Principles Database as means for promoting design-based research. In A. E. Kelly, R. A. Lesh, & J. Y. Baek (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in education (pp. 423–438). New York: Routledge.
Kali, Y., & Linn, M. C. (2007). Technology-enhanced support strategies for inquiry learning. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. Third Edition (pp. 445–461). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kali, Y., Linn, M. C., & Roseman, J. E. (2008). Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy. New York: Teachers College Press.
Karplus, R. (1977). Science teaching and the development of reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Education, 14(2), 169–175.
Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 395–418.
Kolodner, J. L., Owensby, J. N., & Guzdial, M. (2004). Case-based learning aids. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for education communications and technology, 2nd Ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kuhn, D. (2010). What is scientific thinking and how does it develop? In U. Goswami (Ed.), Handbook of childhood cognitive development. Second Edition. Blackwell.
Laurillard, D. (2009). The pedagogical challenges to collaborative technologies. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(1), 5–20.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. In R. Pea & J. S. Brown (Eds.), Learning in doing: Social, cognitive, and computational perspectives (pp. 29–129). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, H. S., & Songer. N. B. (2003). Making authentic science accessible to students. International Journal of Science Education, 25(1), 1–26.
Levy, Sharona T., & Wilensky, U. ( 2008). Inventing a “mid level” to make ends meet: Reasoning between the levels of complexity. Cognition and Instruction, 26(1), 1–47.
Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B. (2006). Science education: Integrating views of learning and instruction. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology, second edition (pp. 511–544). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
McNeill, K., & Krajcik. J. (2009) Synergy between teacher practices and curricular scaffolds to support students in using domain specific and domain general knowledge in writing arguments to explain phenomena. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(3), 416–460.
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59.
Metz, K. (2000). Young children’s inquiry in biology: Building the knowledge bases to empower independent inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 371–404). Washington, DC: AAAS.
National Academy of Science. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council (NRC). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
OECD. (2012). OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2012.
Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345–375.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2011). Framework for 21st Century Learning. Downloaded from on May 29, 2013.
Pea, R., & Collins, A. (2008). Learning how to do science education: Four waves of reform. In Y. Kali, M. C. Linn, & J. E. Roseman (Eds.), Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy (pp. 3–12). New York: Teachers College Press.
Peters, V., Dewey, T., Kwok, A., Hammond, G., & Songer, N. B. (2012). Predicting the impact of climate change on ecosystems: A high school curricular module. The Earth Scientist, (28)3, 33–37.
Quintana, C., Reiser, B., Davis, E., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R., Kyza, E., Edison, E., & Soloway, E. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.
Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 1–42.
Sagy, O., Kali, Y., Tsaushu, M., Tal, T., Zilberstein, D., & Gepstein, S. (2011). Promoting a culture of learning that is based on internal values in an introductory undergraduate level biology course. Paper presented at the 14th biennial European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI) conference, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Scardamalia, M. (2003). Crossing the digital divide: Literacy as by-product of knowledge building. Journal of Distance Education, 17 (Suppl. 3, Learning Technology Innovation in Canada), 78–81.
Shepard, L. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, (20)7, 4–14.
Songer, N. B. (2006). BioKIDS: An animated conversation on the development of curricular activity structures for inquiry science. In R. Keith Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 355–369). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Songer, N. B., Kelcey, B., & Gotwals, A. (2009). How and when does complex reasoning occur? Empirically driven development of a learning progression focused on complex reasoning about biodiversity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, (46)6, 610–631.
STAO/APSO. (2006). Position Paper: The nature of science. downloaded from
Tate, E. D. (2008). The impact of an asthma curriculum on students’ integrated understanding of biology. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
Tate, E. D., Clark, D., Gallagher, J., & McLaughlin, D. (2008). Designing science instruction for diverse learners. In Y. Kali, M. C. Linn, & J. E. Roseman (Eds.), Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy (pp. 65–93). New York: Teachers College Press.
Tsaushu, M., Tal, T., Sagy, O., Kali, Y., Gepstein, S., & Zilberstein, D. (2012). Peer learning and support of technology in an undergraduate biology course to enhance deep learning. CBE life sciences education, 11(4), 402–412.
Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, (29)11, 1387–1410.
Wortham, S. E. F. (1994). Acting out participant examples in the classroom. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62.