LAWRENCE B. FLICK & NORMAN G.

LEDERMAN

INTRODUCTION

A renewed stress on scientific inquiry and nature of science are what distinguish
current reform documents in science education from previous efforts. Unfortunately,
classroom teachers, as well as teacher educators, remain uncertain about the specific
attributes of scientific inquiry and nature of science, let alone their integration into
current science instruction and curricula. Although intimately related, scientific
inquiry and nature of science are different constructs. The purpose of this text is to
help clarify both the theoretical and practical aspects of inquiry and nature of
science as well as provide some guidance relative to their inclusion in science
teaching, teacher education, and research. Consequently, the text contains chapters
that are dedicated solely to inquiry, solely to nature of science, and to the interaction
of inquiry and nature of science. To introduce these two complex ideas, we use the
term inquiry, and variously the terms learning (teaching) about inquiry and
learning(teaching) about science in our discussion of the nature of science.
Not since the introduction of the term “hands-on” into science education have
teachers and scholars in the field been so dominated by a single concept. The
concept capturing the imagination of so many people is, inquiry. The contemporary
stimulus prompting the use of the term in popular and scholarly discourse was the
publication of the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996). Publication
of this document was part of a larger movement to generate national standards for
science subject matter, science teaching, and assessment, among other concerns. But
as ubiquitous as the standards movement has become, it can not be the only or,
perhaps, even the main reason that the term inquiry has captured so much attention.
With so much being written on the subject of teaching science as inquiry, there is
always the tendency for the quantity of discourse to dilute the meaning of key terms.
As usage flows between popular and professional literature, concepts are applied in
an increasing number of settings and to increasingly diverse instances. It is
important for a profession to periodically take a reading on the directions major
ideas have been taken. This book examines inquiry and nature of science, two major
and interrelated foci of the reforms in science education. The first concept is inquiry.
The term has taken on three different meanings in the context of the National
Science Education Standards. Inquiry stands for a fundamental principle of how
modern science is conducted. Inquiry refers to a variety of processes and ways of
thinking that support the development of new knowledge in science. In addition to
the doing of science, inquiry also refers to knowledge about the processes scientists
use to develop knowledge, that is the nature of science itself. Thus, inquiry is
viewed as two different student outcomes, ability to do scientific processes and
knowledge about these processes. Finally, inquiry is viewed as a teaching approach

i
[Flick & Lederman] (eds.), [Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science], i—xviii.
© 11/28/20Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
 INTRODUCTION ii

that can be used to teach students the traditional subject matter of the sciences. The
logic here is that students will best learn science if they learn using a reasonable
facsimile of the processes scientists follow. Closely related to inquiry is nature of
science, a term that has created as much confusion as inquiry. As a consequence of
the conventions of what is considered acceptable scientific inquiry, as well as the
fact that inquiry is performed by humans, the knowledge produced necessarily has
certain characteristics that limit and delimit its applications and ontological status.
The National Science Education Standards used the term inquiry as the label for
a core principle of science. Simply stated that principle is that knowledge about the
world derives from human efforts to systematically gather and interpret observations
that become evidence for or against explanations and theory through collaboration,
discussion, and debate. This general principle implies that scientific knowledge
about the world is subject to the interpretation and reinterpretation of a body of
evidence in a fluid environment of scientific ideas and theory. Schwab (1962) in
analyzing the nature of science contrasted “stable enquiry”, were scientific
principles define problems, with “fluid enquiry”, where principles are treated as
problems themselves. This contrast highlights two complementary activities of
science, constructing bodies of evidence related to existing theory and constructing
new theory. The principle of disciplined inquiry is at the center of both forms of
investigation. On the basis of this central principle the National Science Education
Standards made “teaching science as inquiry” a core principle for science education.
When translated into classroom curriculum, instruction, and assessment, teaching
science as inquiry and teaching about the nature of science have resonated with core
principles in teaching science. These core principles derive from work on
understanding the nature of student thinking in complex tasks such as those required
by inquiry-oriented tasks. Throughout the last century the principle that science
should be taught “from the beginning…studied (though not exclusively) by direct
contact with the environment” (United States Bureau of Education, 1893) has
received periodic reinforcement. However understanding the cognitive demands of
complex tasks, such as posing and investigating problems in science classrooms, has
developed more recently. Educational research examining the skills of expert
learners involved with complex tasks resonates closely with teaching science as
inquiry.
Teaching scientific inquiry and teaching about the nature of scientific inquiry
means finding ways for engaging students in investigative activity and also teaching
appropriate ways of thinking that support development of meaning. Active student
involvement that prompts the use of relevant intellectual skills goes to the core of
what teachers strive to do in any subject. Educators have long been interested in a
better understanding of how to stimulate student thought. Teaching science as
inquiry poses a particularly important and difficult instance of this goal. Addressing
scientific problems through inquiry requires that students link a scientific purpose
with scientific procedures that lead to a conclusion supported by reasoned argument
(Reiser et al. 2001). The cognitive skills needed for this kind of task are beyond
what most students are capable of doing without direct teacher involvement.
Understanding how to support student development and use of relevant cognitive
 INTRODUCTION iii

skills is a broad area of research by cognitive and educational psychologists as well

as science educators that is relevant to teaching science as inquiry.
Forming and maintaining a sense of scientific purpose in the process of
designing and/or engaging in investigative activity, requires a reflective state of
mind. The nature of complex tasks, such as inquiry, require the learner to track their
own progress, use of cognitive resources, and awareness of when error checking or
correction is needed. Reflection is also required for students to understand the nature
of the scientific work they are engaged in, in other words the nature of science itself.
Educators and scholars over recent decades have become increasingly interested in
metacognitive capabilities that support learners in this kind of complex task.
Prominent areas of work have included studying from texts, expository writing, and
scientific reasoning (Brown et al., 1983). Indeed, it is this alternation of doing and
reflecting that provides students with opportunities to develop their inquiry skills as
well as an understanding about what they have done. In the language of the
standards, students will learn to do inquiry as well as learn about inquiry, or about
the nature of science itself.
Early work in teaching science as inquiry (see Welch, 1981; Harms & Yager,
1980) was not successful. Specifically, low achieving students seemed to be further
disadvantaged by instruction focusing on inquiry. Hope for improvement of this
situation comes from important advances in knowledge about the kinds of cognitive
skill and knowledge needed for inquiry-type tasks and how to scaffold student
thinking. The premises underlying recent efforts to teach scientific inquiry are
derived from research suggesting that with appropriate instructional scaffolding,
students can learn cognitive skills for learning how to learn. By extension, students
can be guided in developing the metacognitive skills necessary for following the
course of investigating a scientific problem. In the process of pursuing
investigations, students can also develop knowledge of science and knowledge about
science. These advances are accomplished by explicit teaching of cognitive and
metacognitive processes in the context of learning science and participating in
investigations. Explicit approaches to teaching these skills particularly benefit low-
achieving and/or disadvantaged students (White & Frederickson, 1998).
As students gain skills for conducting an investigation, they can also be guided
to consider how the scientific enterprise functions from a larger perspective. A
metacognitive awareness necessary for guiding and shaping procedures and
constraining the relationship between data and conclusions, can be extended to
consider the context within which the work takes place. Science does not operate
outside of the influences of culture, politics, and society. As the student’s world
grows so should their understanding of how science, its people and ideas, fit into it.
It is only at this level of thought about science and scientific knowledge that students
reach the full intent of science education envisioned by current reformers. It is one
thing to be able to focus on a scientific question, for example where does salt go
when dissolved in water, and quite another to recognize that question as part of a
much larger process of building scientific knowledge.
Recognizing the nature of inquiry as disciplined observation and interpretation
under the constraints of a stated problem is a major accomplishment. Recognizing
 INTRODUCTION iv

that inquiry is a way of thinking and a way of knowing encompassing the work of
scientists over hundreds of years is a second major accomplishment. We must not
underestimate the scale of these two achievements. The framers of a new science
education want to broaden the way students see the world to include a scientific
perspective. A favorite story in science is an analogy suggesting the scale of this
change in thinking. We picture Newton pondering the scientific problems of force
and motion. A round apple, reminiscent of the moon hanging in the sky, falls from a
tree and strikes him on the head triggering an insight. The forces operating on earth
also operate on the scale of the heavens (Bronowski, 1973, p. 222). Science and our
perception of the world is forever changed. This is the goal we have for students.
The nature of scientific work as investigative processes, bookish knowledge, and
discipline is limited, it involves much more. It is creativity always influenced by the
culture, politics, and social values of the time. Jacob Bronowski was an acute
observer of the development of science and the interplay among ideas and people
and culture. His thoughts on the practice of science are the stuff that breathe life into
abstract principles and disciplined procedures. “Every theory is based on some
analogy, and sooner or later the theory fails because the analogy turns out to be
false. A theory in its day helps to solve the problems of the day” (p. 140). Historical
precursors to modern scientific work, alchemy and astrology, were attempts to use
human life as an analogy for how the world works. This turns out to be a false
analogy. But like the early thinkers that pre-date modern science, our students
themselves are stargazers and fascinated by transforming materials.
The focus on inquiry as critical to the development of scientific literacy provides
students within a framework within which they can better understand the nature and
limitations of the knowledge produced as part of the scientific body of knowledge.
Such understandings are critical, especially when we quickly come to realize that it
is unreasonable to assume that our citizenry will make decisions about scientifically
and technologically-based issues by running to the garage to conduct authentic
investigations. More realistically, experiences with inquiry provide our students (and
citizens) with foundational experiences from which they can reflect on the nature
and limits of scientific knowledge and claims. It is based upon this knowledge that
the general citizenry will derive meaning and research conclusions concerning
knowledge claims. This is the value of nature of science. There are numerous lists
and definitions that one can find related to nature of science. However, the empirical
literature and the National Science Education Standards typically use the phrase to
refer to the characteristics of the knowledge as directly derived from how the
knowledge is produced. That is, the nature of scientific inquiry has implications for
the knowledge produced. Again, although disagreements exist among philosophers,
scientists, and educators there is virtually no disagreement that scientific knowledge
is a) subject to change (tentative); b) partly derived from human imagination,
creativity and imagination; c) necessarily derived from a combination of observation
and inference; d) embedded within a social and cultural context; and e) at least
partially derived from the empirical world.
It is critical for us to do more than avoid debates about nature of science by
rising to a level of generality where disagreements do not exist. As educators, it is
 INTRODUCTION v

absolutely critical that we carefully consider what aspects of nature of science are
accessible to school-aged students and what aspects make sense for all students to
know. It is not, for example, fruitful to insist that middle school students should
come to understand that there are no observations, but really only inferences.
Clearly, scientific inquiry and nature of science are the foundations of current
conceptions of what it means to be scientifically literate. Clearly, promoting
students’ understandings of these complex and abstract ideas and processes require
types of teaching, learning, and assessment much different from what has been
typically observed in our classrooms over the past century. The authors presented in
this text have attempted to address, from varied perspectives, the educational issues
surrounding attention to inquiry and nature of science in our K-12 classrooms, as
well as teacher education.

Organization of the Book

Bybee has, perhaps, influenced the inclusion of inquiry and nature of science in
the science curriculum at the policy level more than any science educator. His
chapter sets a concrete foundation for the text by clearly defining the different
perspectives on the meaning of inquiry and its relationship to nature of science
within teaching and curriculum. Further, he does an excellent job of clarifying the
importance of inquiry and nature of science to science teaching and learning, and the
role of science curriculum in the current socio-cultural climate. The implications
provided with respect to teacher education clearly follow. Overall, this chapter
provides an lens through which to view the more specific perspectives of the
following chapters.
Part I examines three educational contexts that pose significant challenges to
reforming science and mathematics teaching. In order to understand the broad
implications of teaching inquiry and the nature of science to the broadest possible
population of students, DeBoer sets an historical foundation for the book. In
particular, he provides an analysis of the history of scientific inquiry as a goal of
science education. Specific attention is given to the varying rationales for the inquiry
approach within curriculum with respect to current day socio-historical perspectives.
One completes this chapter with a clear understanding that the inclusion of inquiry
and nature of science has been advocated for a long period of time and the rationale
has not always been limited to the value of these topics to an understanding of
science.
Haberman examines teaching children of poverty in urban settings. These
environments pose some of the most difficult educational environments in our
system. For the teachers that not only survive in these environments but help
students thrive, Haberman describes how they address three of the central questions
of in our field: What knowledge is of most worth? How does learning best occur?
and What is the purpose of learning? Teaching science and inquiry, in the hands of
skilled teachers, can play an important role in promoting real thinking and real
learning in the toughest of schools.
Lederman and Stefanich take an extremely innovative approach to their
discussion of traditional issues related to inclusive instruction. Their discussion
 INTRODUCTION vi

provides an excellent primer for those not well-versed in the literature on inclusive
instruction, but then takes matters several steps further by clearly showing how an
instructional approach focused on inquiry and nature of science is quite consistent
with what the literature on inclusive science instruction has been recommending for
years. Additionally, the authors provide an innovative perspective in their
description of how the experiences of students with disabilities can be used to
enhance inquiry-oriented and nature of science instruction for all students.
Novak and Krajcik provide a tour de force of learning technologies and their
potential to impact student understanding of science through inquiry. Emphasis is
placed on technologies as a cognitive tools that, in concert with the teacher, provide
a variety of scaffolding for student inquiry. They present examples of learning
technologies whose features support the development of integrated understandings
through access to a wide variety of information, capabilities for multiple forms of
representation, and channels of communication that break the barriers of typical
classrooms. Each category of technology is discussed in the context of research
critically examining of the role technology can play in science teaching and
learning. Across the breadth of this chapter, the reader gains a sense of future
technological innovation through tantalizing examples of the integration of
technologies. Computer probes, hand-held computers, and web resources connect
students to the environment, students to experts, students to each other.
In Part II, authors take readers through issues in teaching and learning scientific
inquiry from the elementary grades to teacher education. Metz begins with the
obvious that the work of professional scientists and children learning science in
elementary classrooms is fundamentally different. However, she raises a central,
penetrating question of how problematic are these differences for leading children to
understand science as inquiry? By examining the goal structures of scientific work
and of exemplary elementary curricula, she challenges readers to re-examine the
capabilities of children and the intended goals of elementary science. Contrary to the
design of most curricula in the US, Metz argues that it is possible for less to become
more if we “understand the nature of scientists’ knowledge and how they use it.”
Finally, drawing on recent research in classrooms, she challenges elementary
science educators to recognize the fundamental role of discourse in examining
competing ideas in science and to scaffold student engagement in such discourse as
a central task of science learning.
Magnusson, Palincsar, and Templin present an argument for the central
importance of communication within and among scientific communities. They apply
the central tenets of this argument to heuristic for guided inquiry in elementary
classrooms. The chapter uses data from classroom students to illustrate how their
heuristic can be used by teachers to encourage use of and advance student skills in
classroom conversation that transitions into scientific discourse. A key feature of the
basic argument instantiated in the heuristic is that scientists operate in two arenas of
discourse. In “workbench” science, scientists engage in informal communication
and argument along with creative speculations. In formal publication, scientists must
respect formal modes of presentation and argument. The guided discovery heuristic
helps teachers structure classrooms as a scientific community.
 INTRODUCTION vii

Prescriptions for teaching science in high school has a long history of

emphasizing lab work and viewing science as part of real world experiences. In
sketching some of these historical antecedents to teaching science as inquiry, Flick
highlights the more contemporary view that to accomplish an understanding and use
of inquiry, teachers are charged with teaching and supporting the use of appropriate
cognitive skills. This is a radical shift in teaching responsibilities for many teachers.
Flick outlines the complementary nature of research in cognitive and developmental
psychology and research in science classrooms both emphasizing the importance of
cognitive supports for engaging in challenging, inquiry tasks. The chapter includes
discussion by teachers of their efforts to incorporate inquiry in their classrooms
based on a year-long professional development program.
Abell, Smith, and Volkman examine the roles of teacher educators as they
present scientific inquiry in university courses. To do this, they lead us through three
different contexts where teachers or pre-service teachers are learning about the
nature of science inquiry. The contexts are (a) a physics content course specifically
designed for pre-service elementary education majors, (b) an undergraduate
elementary science methods course “Teaching Subject Matter to Diverse Learners”,
and (c) a graduate level methods course for practicing teachers at various levels. The
analysis describes a variety of roles for science teacher educators that include the
teacher who pushes students to generate evidence-based arguments, who “tells”
scientific explanations, who scaffolds instruction for inquiry, and who assesses and
evaluates student learning. Each of these create a different kind of instructional
tension that challenges both instructors and students.
Holliday confronts a long-standing issue related to the broad interpretation of
inquiry teaching in science, the issue of explicit versus implicit teaching practices as
they apply to inquiry-related instruction. While recognizing that science teaching in
general and inquiry in particular require varied forms of teaching, many authors
have, perhaps unintentionally, given the impression that inquiry implies an implicit
or indirect approach with students. Holliday prompts us to consider the instructional
challenges of delivering the content and spirit of scientific inquiry to all students.
Part III takes up the design of curriculum that fosters students opportunity to
learn inquiry and the design of assessment tasks the provide students opportunities
to demonstrate their knowledge of inquiry. Sherin, Edelson, and Brown present a
novel approach to analyzing curriculum that is highly relevant to the design of
inquiry-oriented materials. Task-structured curricular designs are contrasted with
content-structured designs. The analysis specifically highlights structural differences
that compare discipline structure with problem-centered structures. Sherin and
colleagues deepen the analysis by noting that some curricula, such as prior-
conceptions-driven models, map out both target concepts and pathways that students
may traverse while achieving intended understanding. It may be more difficult for
task-structured curricula to provide an account of student learning than content-
structured curricula. That having been said, they examine empirical and theoretical
sides of the question of whether task-structured curricula can achieve their learning
goals.
 INTRODUCTION viii

Elementary classrooms have been a perennial challenge to the establishment of a

consistent and sound science curriculum. Abell and McDonald explore the operation
of inquiry-oriented science in two elementary classrooms and conjecture that an
inquiry-based science curriculum could be a model of reform-minded, inquiry-based
curriculum and instruction across elementary school subjects. They argue for a view
of elementary science that avoids both activity-driven curricula that emphasizes the
action over content and text-driven curricula the emphasizes passive reading of
content over meaningful activity. Their integrated vision is elaborated through two
descriptions of classroom instruction one based on fourth-grade, teacher-developed
curriculum and another based on a fifth-grade, published curriculum from the
National Science Resources Center.
Champagne and Gummer focus on the challenges faced by classroom teachers as
they work to provide student opportunity to learn what is intended by state
implementations of national standards. Specifically they focus on understandings
about the nature of scientific inquiry and how those understandings are
communicated to teachers through school system documents. If teachers are charged
with structuring opportunities to learn for students, then how clear and coherent is
the language of these documents and how well aligned are state tests with the stated
content? They take us through an in-depth analysis of the New York State
documents describing the Standards for Science and Science Inquiry and develop
the contrasting images of scientific inquiry they present to teachers.
The educational challenges of teaching and learning about the nature of science
is the focus of Part IV. In his introductory chapter, Lederman provides a concrete
foundation for the perspectives on nature of science evident in national reforms and
the empirical research on the topic. Upon completion of the chapter the reader
should be clear on the often misunderstood distinction between nature of science and
scientific inquiry as well as be cognizant of the numerous overlaps. The major thrust
of the chapter is to provide readers with an organizational template for the
successful integration of nature of science into current curriculum and classroom
instruction.
Richard Duschl is perhaps the most influential contemporary science educator
for promoting the importance of nature of science and the use of history of science
to teach to that end. Duschl does an excellent job of reviewing the relationship
between history of science and nature of science instructional outcomes.
Importantly, he discusses both the effective use of history as well as the abuse of
history as a venue for teaching nature of science. Few would argue that history of
science could not be a fruitful way to promote student understandings of nature of
science. However, Duschl makes it quite clear that inclusion of history of science is
not a universal panacea, but rather it can be abused just as any other curriculum
focus.
The value of students’ experiences with authentic scientific inquiry as a means to
promote understandings of nature of science is the focus of this “cutting edge”
chapter by Schwartz and Crawford. Over the years, most educators have accepted,
untested, the claim that students come to understand nature of science naturally
through experiences with inquiry. Hence, the popularity of providing both teachers
 INTRODUCTION ix

and students with experiences working with active scientists. In what probably
represents one of the few contemporary reviews of research on the assumed value of
research experiences, Schwartz and Crawford clarify what the research actually says
and they also provide clear guidance on how such experiences can be useful.
Shipman is one of handful of science professors that have consistently made an
effort to promote students’ understanding of nature of science and scientific inquiry
while they are learning college level astronomy. He does an excellent job of
describing the “history” of college level science instruction and how, in recent years,
there has been a shift in instructional approach. Shipman is quite realistic in his
discussion and does not recommend an overnight and total reorganization of college
level instruction. Rather, his well-crafted discussion and instructional examples
carefully considers the logistical constraints of college level instruction which make
it quite a different matter than what is possible in K-12 instruction.
As an companion to Shipman’s chapter, Abd-El-Khalick reviews the literature of
college students’ understandings of nature of science. He brings the most recent
research to bear in his discussion of what is known, what is assumed, and what can
be done to alleviate the perceived problems. In ever case, what is provided to the
reader is thoroughly supported by current research. Although one would expect
research support for recommendations to be the norm, the literature on nature of
science and scientific inquiry is replete with unsubstantiated recommendations.
Bell probes the various aspects of nature of science as advocated throughout the
literature on the topic and then grapples with the hard questions of developmental
appropriateness. Teachers often are concerned about how capable their students are
of understanding some of the abstract ideas labeled as nature of science. Bell
provides incisive, research-based guidance on teaching nature of science and what is
possible to teach younger students. He makes a strong argument for the possibility
of teaching most nature of science aspects to students often thought of as too young
for such curriculum topics.

How to Use the Book

The purpose of this book is to help clarify both the theoretical and practical
aspects of inquiry and nature of science as well as provide some guidance relative to
their inclusion in science teaching, teacher education, and research. Certainly the
authors do not share a common point of view and the increased clarity we seek does
not imply a simplification of these complex constructs. But discussion and debate
that should follow from reading these chapters will stimulate deeper understanding.
Researchers will find the contributions to theory offered by the authors to be
valuable for framing studies to examine the two central constructs of the book in
finer detail. In this sense the book will be useful as a scholarly resource and for
readings in graduate courses. The careful examination of issues of practice offer new
approaches and insights to science educators who work with teachers in their
courses and in the field. Selected chapters will provide a foundational resource for
teachers in workshops and in-service programs conducted by science specialists in
districts or state departments of education. Ultimately it is our hope that the book as
 INTRODUCTION x

a whole will support clearer thinking about and reflection on inquiry and the nature
of science as it applies to student learning.

REFERENCES
Bronowski, J. (1973). The ascent of man. Boston, MA: Little Brown & Company.
Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A. & Campione, J. C. (1983). Learning, remembering, and
understanding. In Flavell, J. H. & E. M. Markman. Cognitive Development, Vol. 3 of P. H. Mussen
(Ed.). Handbook of child psychology, 4th Edition. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Brown, A. L. & Campione, J. C. (1990). Interactive learning environments and the teaching of science
and mathematics. In M. Gardner, J. G. Greeno, F. Reif, A. H. Schoenfeld, A. DiSessa, & E. Stage
(Eds.). Toward a scientific practice of science education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers.
Gardner, M., Greeno, J. G., Reif, F., Schoenfeld, A. H., DiSessa, A, & Stage, E. (1990). Toward a
scientific practice of science education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Harms, N. & Yager, R. (Eds.). (1980). What research says to the science teacher (Vol. 3). Washington
DC: National Science Teachers Association (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
205367).
Reiser, B., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B. K., Steinmuller, F., Leone, A. J. (2001). BGuILE:
Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In S. M. Carver & D.
Klahr (Eds.). Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress. Medwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J. J. Schwab & P. F. Brandwein, The
teaching of science, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
United States Bureau of Education (1893). Report of the committee on secondary school studies.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
Welch, W. W. (1981). Inquiry and school science. Science Education, 65, 33-50.
White, B. Y., & Frederickson, J. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science
accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction. 16 (1), 3-118.