Republic of the Philippines

DAVAO DE ORO STATE COLLEGE Compostela, Davao de Oro www.ddosc.edu.ph |

[email protected]

Name: Julaiza V. Cubcuban

Year & Section: 1-A

Instructor: Sir, Kirk John Tonido, MAED

Create a professional reading on the book “Teaching Science Thinking: Using Scientific
Reasoning in the Classroom” for a project aimed at teaching science students in college
institution involves several steps. Below is a guide on how to extract essential information
from the book:

Introduction to the Book:

I. Title: Teaching Science Thinking: Using Scientific Reasoning in the Classroom

II. About the Author:

Christopher Moore, is the Dr. George F. Haddix Community Chair in

Physical Science and associate professor of physics education at the
University of Nebraska Omaha, USA. He is also the author of Creating
Scientists: Teaching and Assessing Science Practice for the NGSS.
 III. Publication Date

First published 2019 by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York,

NY 10017 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon,
OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa
business © 2019 Taylor & Francis The right of Christopher Moore to be
identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with
sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

IV. Overview

This book shows you practical ways to incorporate science thinking in

your classroom using simple “Thinking Tasks” that you can insert into any
lesson. What is science thinking and how can you possibly teach and assess
it? How is science thinking incorporated into the Next Generation Science
Standards (NGSS) and how can it be weaved into your curriculum? This book
answers these questions. This practical book provides a clear, researchverified
framework for helping students develop scientific thinking as required by the
NGSS. Your students will not bememorizing content but will become engaged
in the real work scientists do, using critical thinking patterns such as:

• Recognizing patterns,

• Inventing new hypotheses based on observations,

• Separating causes from correlations,

• Determining relevant variables and isolating them,

• Testing hypotheses, and

• Thinking about their own thinking and the relative

value of evidence.

The book includes a variety of sample classroom activities and rubrics,

as well as frameworks for creating your own tools. Designed for the busy
teacher, this book also shows you quick and simple ways to add deep science
thinking to existing lessons.

III. Objectives

The book's primary goal is to offer a well-researched framework for

enhancing students' scientific thinking skills. It focuses on assessing
students' learning in alignment with standards like NGSS crosscutting
concepts, emphasizing the integration of scientific thinking with practice
 and content. The approach to teaching is backed by established research in
science education. Additionally, the book provides educators with practical
methods and resources for teaching scientific reasoning and enhancing
students' thinking abilities in the classroom.

Chapter Summaries

PART I: TEACHING AND LEARNING SCIENCE THINKING

Chapter 1: What is science thinking?

This chapter underscores the significance of scientific reasoning in

the education sector, defining it as the methodology employed by
professional scientists to tackle problems. It promotes the use of critical
thinking and problem-solving skills in science classes, with the goal of
teaching students to think like scientists, basing conclusions on facts and
logical reasoning. The chapter stresses that true comprehension involves
knowledge, action, and thought within the scientific community's norms
and practices.

The research of Moore and his colleagues draws a crucial distinction

between beginner students and expert scientists in their approach to science
and its application. Beginner students often depend on rote learning and
accept scientific knowledge as a given, adhering to specific methods
without a profound understanding. The book aims to bridge these
differences across aspects like structure, methodology, validity, and
reflective thinking. It emphasizes a shift from rote-learning to nurturing
quality scientific thought in teaching.

Chapter 2: How is science Thinking Integrated into Next Generation Standard?

This chapter discusses the key aspects of scientific reasoning and

how they align with the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). It
emphasizes the importance of activities like observing, asking questions,
researching, and analyzing evidence in science education. The NGSS aims
to provide comprehensive science standards that cover content, practices,
and crosscutting concepts, serving as a global benchmark for science
education.
 The chapter also highlights the significance of critical thinking and
communication skills in scientific research and provides suggestions for
educators to incorporate these elements into their lesson plans. It compares
traditional assessment methods that focus on memorization with the NGSS's
emphasis on a deeper understanding and application of scientific concepts.

Furthermore, the NGSS is based on a framework rooted in the theory of

situated cognition, which emphasizes the importance of patterns in science
and how the consistency of nature across different domains forms the basis
of scientific understanding. The concept of crosscutting concepts, which are
distinct from scientific thinking patterns, is introduced to enhance effective
science education strategies.

The chapter provides examples from biology and physical science classes
to illustrate the difference between thinking patterns and crosscutting
concepts. It explains how students create classifications based on
observable features in each subject, noting that many thinking patterns
identified earlier are not explicitly present in the NGSS.

In conclusion, integrating scientific thinking into the NGSS framework is

crucial for helping students develop a deep understanding of scientific
concepts and enhancing the relevance and engagement of their learning
experiences. It shifts the focus from specific skills to broader abilities such
as evaluating and minimizing measurement uncertainties. However, it
acknowledges that thinking patterns remain essential for successfully
practicing science and ultimately understanding it.

Chapter 3: How Do You Teach and Assess Science Thinking?

The chapter focuses on effective strategies for encouraging students to

apply critical thinking and scientific reasoning. It emphasizes the
importance of teaching scientific thinking skills alongside understanding
 scientific concepts. By prioritizing scientific thinking, teachers can help
students develop a deeper appreciation for science.

The chapter introduces Cognitive Apprenticeship as a teaching theory that

emphasizes learning through active participation and metacognition. It
contrasts this approach with mere inquiry-based learning, highlighting the
need for students to actively engage in scientific thinking.

Overall, it stresses the importance of a student-centered approach to

teaching scientific thinking and integrating it into the curriculum for better
learning outcomes.

PART II: SCIENCE THINKING IN THE CLASSROOM

Chapter 4: Recognizing Patterns and making Connection

This chapter emphasizes the significance of pattern recognition in

scientific research and problem-solving as a means to enhance students'
critical thinking and observational skills. It discusses the concept of pattern
recognition as a cornerstone not only in the field of science but also in
human cognition, as suggested by Mattson (2014). The chapter further
explores the perspectives of psychologists and cognitive scientists on
pattern recognition in our mental processes, and how these insights can be
utilized to shape effective teaching methodologies.

The chapter talks about recognizing patterns in learning and doing science,
highlighting the difference between basic and advanced pattern recognition.
For instance, it describes an activity where students group cylinders based
on how they interact, helping them spot patterns through experimentation.
The goal is to improve students' scientific thinking by teaching them to
understand and assess data effectively. It stresses the importance of
including pattern recognition in science lessons and showing how scientific
concepts connect. Overall, the chapter offers helpful tips and methods to
help students develop their scientific thinking skills.
 Additionally, it mentions psychologist Jean Piaget's idea that kids as young
as four start grasping abstract thinking concepts like "seriation" and
"oddity," even before starting school.

Chapter 5: What’s Important, What’s Not, and Designing a Fair Test

This chapter highlights the importance of identifying key

variables and controlling factors in scientific experiments to ensure
accurate results. It explains how scientists establish causation, correlate
variables, and conduct unbiased trials. The focus is on two critical thinking
patterns: causative thinking and control of variables, which help simplify
complex problems and identify patterns.

Understanding causation is crucial for predicting outcomes and making

informed decisions, both in science and everyday life. The chapter
discusses studies on students' ability to think causatively and infer patterns
compared to experts.

Furthermore, it stresses the concept of fair testing in science, emphasizing

the need to teach students about experimental design and control variables
for reliable experiments.

Overall, the chapter offers practical suggestions for improving scientific

investigations through fair testing practices. It highlights the importance of
control groups, randomization, blinding, and replication for reliable results.
By teaching these methods, educators can help students develop a strong
grasp of scientific reasoning and inquiry, enabling them to design fair
assessments and critically evaluate experimental techniques.

Chapter 6: Testing Our Crazy Ideas with Experiments

This chapter focuses on the importance of conducting controlled

experiments, collecting data, and evaluating findings to draw reliable
conclusions in science. It discusses the concept of falsifiability and how
experimentation plays a crucial role in scientific reasoning. The chapter also
 categorizes experiments based on their context and purpose, according to
sociologist Bruno Latour.

Furthermore, the chapter highlights how science is applied to solve real-

world problems and emphasizes the iterative process of testing and refining
scientific ideas. Practical examples, such as using Newton's Laws of motion
for rocketry or measuring the speed of light, are provided to demonstrate
the practical application of scientific concepts.

The chapter also addresses common issues in experimental design, such as

bias and confounding variables, and provides guidance on creating fair
experiments. It emphasizes the importance of experimentation in the
scientific process and its contribution to developing critical thinking skills
in students.

Chapter 7: What Does This Evidence Tell Me, and Do I believe it?

This chapter emphasizes the importance of using evidence to form

conclusions and make informed decisions. It discusses how science
educators can help students develop critical thinking skills to assess the
reliability of evidence and effectively use it to support their claims. The
chapter also explores metacognition, which is the ability to reflect on and
understand one's own thinking processes, as a thinking pattern utilized by
expert scientists.

Furthermore, the chapter introduces the concept of declarative awareness,

where students acknowledge what they know, what they don't know, and
what they want to learn. It highlights the significance of relying on
evidence-based reasoning in science and avoiding personal biases when
interpreting data. The chapter encourages readers to objectively evaluate
evidence before drawing any conclusions.
PART III: PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER

Chapter 8: Weaving Science Thinking into Curriculum

This chapter provides guidance for educators in designing lessons and activities that promote critical
thinking, problem-solving, and evidence-based reasoning in students. It highlights the importance of
evidence-based reasoning in scientific thinking and decision-making, and emphasizes the alignment of
classroom instruction with the goal of developing scientific thinking skills.

The chapter explores different approaches to curriculum development that integrate scientific thinking,
emphasizing the need to understand students' existing mental models and experiences in order to create
effective learning experiences. It provides examples of project activities that can be used to teach scientific
reasoning in practical contexts and suggests methods for assessing students' progress in scientific thinking
skills.

Overall, Chapter 8 serves as a valuable resource for educators to incorporate scientific thinking into their
curriculum and enhance students' ability to think scientifically. It offers practical examples and
assessment strategies to support this goal.

3. Key Concepts and Strategies

"Teaching Science Thinking" underscores the significance of arming students with the ability to
reason scientifically, encouraging them to approach problems using logical and evidence-based
methods akin to scientists. The book advocates for learning through questioning, experimentation,
and problem-solving, offering genuine opportunities for study and exploration. It emphasizes
critical thinking, evaluating data, making connections between concepts, and making decisions
based on evidence.

Scientific thinking involves critical thinking, solving problems, and testing hypotheses, which are
essential for grasping scientific concepts and developing adaptable skills applicable in various
areas of life. Educators play a crucial role in imparting these skills, guiding students through
complexity, facilitating informed decision-making, and nurturing curiosity and a spirit of
exploration.

The scientific method, which includes forming hypotheses, planning experiments, gathering data,
and drawing conclusions, lies at the heart of scientific thinking. By testing hypotheses, students
deepen their comprehension of scientific concepts and participate in investigative practices,
enhancing their scientific literacy and problem-solving capabilities.

4.Pedagogical Approaches:

"Teaching Science Thinking: Using Scientific Reasoning in the Classroom"

presents various pedagogical strategies to foster scientific reasoning among
students. These strategies include:

1.Lecture-based: Traditional approach where the teacher delivers

information through lectures or presentations, often supplemented with
visual aids or multimedia resources.

2.Active learning: Involves student-centered activities that encourage active

participation, such as group discussions, problem-solving tasks, hands-on
experiments, and peer teaching.

3.Experiential learning: Focuses on learning through experience, where

students engage in real-world activities, internships, simulations, or field
trips to gain practical knowledge and skills.

4.Inquiry-based learning: Encourages students to ask questions, investigate

phenomena, gather evidence, and draw conclusions independently or
collaboratively, promoting curiosity, critical thinking, and problem-solving
abilities.

By teaching students the fundamentals of scientific inquiry, evidence-driven

reasoning, and critical examination to understand and assess scientific
occurrences, these instructional methods enhance students' competence in
scientific thought. The strategies promoted in the book align with
contemporary educational theories and successful approaches in science
education, stressing interactive learning, practical experiences, and active
involvement to foster students' scientific thinking abilities.

5.Application to College Curriculum

 College science lectures benefit greatly from incorporating
active learning methods, such as hands-on experiments and real-
world applications from textbooks. Instead of sticking solely to
lectures, educators can promote critical thinking by involving
students in inquiry-based learning. Group projects and
discussions foster peer-to-peer communication and collaborative
problem-solving skills. Bridging science with other subjects
through interdisciplinary approaches underscores the practical
significance of scientific ideas, enhancing student
comprehension. Nevertheless, integrating these methods into
college courses may encounter obstacles due to resource
constraints, despite students' adeptness with technology.

6.Conclusions
"Teaching Science Thinking: Utilizing Scientific Reasoning in Education"
is a valuable guide for educators seeking to enhance their teaching methods
and foster the development of critical and scientific thinking skills in
students. The book emphasizes the importance of integrating scientific
reasoning into teaching practices to promote inquiry, critical thinking, and
a passion for exploration among students. It highlights the significance of
helping students improve skills such as observation, hypothesis
development, research, analysis, argumentation, data evaluation, and clear
communication of findings. Ultimately, the book serves as a comprehensive
resource for teachers aiming to seamlessly incorporate science education
into their classrooms and empower students to become adept critical
thinkers and lifelong learners.

7.References
Benn, E. (2011, October 4). Alton Brown says improvising is key in the

kitchen. St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Ding, L., Wei, X., & Mollohan, K. (2016). Does Higher Education
 Improve Student Scientific Reasoning Skills? International Journal

of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(4), 619– 634.

McDermott, L. C. (1996). Physics by Inquiry. New York: John Wiley &

Sons.

Moore, C. (2017). Creating Scientists: Teaching and Assessing Science

Practice for the NGSS. New York, NY: Routledge.

National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science

Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core

Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

NGSS Lead States. (2013). The Next Generation Science

Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The

National Academies Press.

Rubbo, L., & Moore, J. (2012). Are We Teaching Students to Think

Like Scientists? Connecting People to Science: A National

Conference on Science Education and Public Outreach, 457, 343–

347.

Chapter 1
Adams, W. K, Perkins, K. K., S., P. N., Dubson, M., Finkelstein, N. D.,

& Wieman, C. E. (2006), New instrument for measuring student beliefs

about physics and learning physics: The Colorado Learning Attitudes

about Science Survey

Physical Review Special Topics- Physics Education Research,

2(1). Allchin, D. (2003). Lawson’s Shoehorn, or Should the

Philosophy of Science Be Rated X? Science and Education, 12, 315-

329.
Edmondson, K. M., & Novak, J. D. (1993). The interplay of

scientific epistemological views, learning strategies, and attitudes of

college students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 547-

559.

Hestenes, I, & Halloun, D. (1996). Views About Sciences Survey.

Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science

Teaching. Saint Louis, M1: ERIC Document No.

ED394840.

Hestenes, L, & Halloun, D. (1998). Interpreting VASS Dimensions and

Profiles. Science & Education, 7(6), 553-577.

Holyoak, K., & Morrison, R. (2005). Thinking and Reasoning: A

Reader’s Guide. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kuhn, D. (2004). What is scientific thinking and how does it

develop? In U. Goswami (ed.), Black vell Handbook of Childhood

Cognitive Development (pp. 371-393). Malden, MA: Wiley-

Blackwell.

Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and

Engineers through Society. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University

Press.

Lawson, A. E. (1982). The nature of advanced reasoning and science

instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19, 743.

Lawson, A. E. (2005). What is the role of induction and deduction in

reasoning and scientific inquiry? Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 42, 716-740.

 Moore, C. (2017). Creating Scientists: Teaching and Assessing Science

Practice for the NGSS. New York, NY: Routledge.

Moore, J. C. (2012). Transitional to Formal Operational: Using

Authentic Research Experiences to Get Non-Science Students to

Think More Like Scientists. European Journal of Physics Education,

3(4).

National Research Council. (2012). Å Framework for K-12 Science

Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core ideas.

Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards:

For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National

Academies Press

Overton, W.E(1990). Reasoning, Necessity, and Logic:

Developmental Perspectives.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Assoc.

Shan, K. J (2013). Improving student learning and views of physics in a

large enrollment introductory physics class. Theses and Dissertations, 205.

Tsai, C-C. (1998). An analysis of scientific epistemological beliefs and

learning orientations of Taiwanese eighth graders. Science Education,

Chapter 2
Kuhn, D. (2004). What is scientific thinking and how does it develop? In

U.Goswami (ed.), Blackvell Handbook of

Childhood Cognitive Development. Malden, MA: WileyBlackwell.

Moore, C. (2017). Creating Scientists: Teaching and Assessing Science

Practice for the NGSS. New York, NY: Routledge.

 Moore, J. C., & Slisko, J. (2017). Dynamic Visualizations o Multibody
Physics Problems and Scientic Reasoning:AThreshold to Understanding. In
T. Greczylo, &e E. Debowska (eds), Key

Competences in Physics Teaching and Learning. New York, NY:

Springer.

National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science

Education:Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core ldeas.

Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards:

For States, ByStates. Washington, DC: The National Academies

Press.

Reif, F, &e Larkin, J. H. (1991). Cognition in scientific and everyday

domains:Comparisons and learning implications. Research in Science

Teaching,

Chapter 3

Bachtold, M. (2013). What do students “construct” according o

constructivism in science education? Research in Science
Education, 43,2477-2496.
Banchi, H., & Bell, R. (2008). The many levels of inquiry. Science
and Children, 26-29.
Barab, S., & Hay, K. (2001). Doing science at the elbows of
experts: Issues related to the science apprenticeship camp.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 70-102.q
Blank, L. M. (2000). A metacognitive learning cycle: A better
warranty for student understanding? Science Education, 84(4), 486-506.
Brown, J, Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and
the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32.
Cornbleth, C. (1990). Curriculum in Context. Basingstoke: Falmer Press.
Danielson, c, & Dragoon, J. (2016). Peformance Tasks and
Rubrics for Ipper Elementary Mathematics (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Danielson,C., & Hansen, P. (2016). Performance Tasks and
Edmondson, K. M., & Novak, J. D. (1993). The interplay of
scientific epistemological views, learning strategies, and
attitudes of college Students. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 30, 547-559.
Etkina, E., & Mestre, J. P. (2004). Implications of Learning

Research for Teaching Science to Non-Science Majors. SENCER,

(Pp. 1-26). Harrisburg, PA.

Lawson, A. E. (2000). The generality of hypothetico-deductive

reasoning:Making scientific thinking explicit. American

Biology Teacher, 62, 482. Moore, C. (2017). Creating Scientists:

Teaching and Assessing Science Practice For the NGSS. New York,

NY: Routledge.

Moore, J. C. (2012). Transitional to Formal Operational: Using

Authentic Research Experiences to Get Non-Science

Students to Think More Like Scientists. European Journal of Physics
Education, 3(4), 1-12.Moore, J. C., & Rubbo, LJ. (2012). Scientific
reasoning abilities of
nonscience Majors in physics-based courses. Plysical
Review Special Topics – Prysics Education Research, 8, 010106.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Evidence Statements. Retrieved from
Next Generation Science Standards:
www.nextgenscience.org
Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel, & S.
Papert (eds),Constructionism: Research Reports and Essays
(pp. 1-11). Norwood, NJ:Ablex
 Pratt, D. (1998). Five Perspectives on Tenching in Adult and Higher
Education. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company.
Reif, F, & Larkin, J. (1991). Cognition in scientific and everyday

domains: Comparisons and learning implications. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 28, 733-760.

Roth, W.-M, & Jornet, A. (2013). Toward a theory of experience.

Science Education, 98(1), 106-126.
Smith, M. K. (2000). Curiculum theory and practice. Retrieved from

TheEncyclopedia of infornal Education:

www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm
Stenhouse, L (1975). An Introduction to Curriculum Research and
Development.London: Heinemann.
Stevens, D. D., & Levi, A. J. (2005). An Introduction to Rubrics.

Sterling, VA:Stylus.b

Stiggins, R, & Chappuis, J. (2017). Introduction to StudentInvolved

Assessment FOR Learning 7th ed. New York: Pearson.
Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice.

New York:Harcourt Brace and World.

The Center for Faculty Development, University of Colorado
Denver. (2006).Retrieved from Creating a Rubric: An Online

Tutorial for

Chapter 4

Chi, M., Feltovich, P, &e Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and

representation Of physics problems by experts and novices.
Cognitie Science, 5,121-152.
Dorier, S. (2017). Energy and Ocaan Wones Retrieved rom
Stanford NGSS Assessment Project: htp:l
/webstanford.edu/group /ngs assessment/Gi-bin/snags/
Eysenck, M. & Keane, M. (2003). Cognitive Psychology: A
Student’s Handbook 4
th ed. New York: Taylor &e Francis.
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1969). Early groeth of logic in the child.
New York,NY: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
 Kidd, J. Curby. T, Boyer, c, Gadzichowski, K., Galington, D,
Machado,L,& Pasnak, R. (2012). Benefits of an intervention

focused on oddity And seriation. Early Education and

Development, 23(6), 900-918.
Larkin, J. (1985). Understanding, problem representations, and

skill in Physics. Thinking and Learning Skills, 2, 141-159.

Larkin, J., & Simon, H. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes)
worth ten Thousand words. Cognitive Science, 1, 65-99.

Mattson, M. (2014). Superior pattern processing is the essence of

the Evolved human brain. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 8.
McDermott, L. C. (1996). Plysics by Inquiry. New York: John Wiley
& Sons.
Moore, J. C. & Rubbo, L. J.(2012). Scientific reasoning abilities of
nonscience Majors in physics-based courses. Plrysical
Revieo Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 8,
010106.
Moore, J, &e Slisko, J. (2017). Dynamic Visualizations of Multibody
Physics Problems and Sientific Reasoning Ability: A
Threshold to Understanding, In T. Greczylo, & E. Debowska
(eds), Key Competences In Physics Teaching and Learning.
New York, New York: Springer.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards

Piaget, J, & Szeminska, A. (1941). La genèse du nombre chez

l’enfant (The Development of numbers in childyen).
Neuchatel, France: Delachaux and Nestlé.
Shugen, W. (2002). Framework of pattern recognition model based
on the Cognitive psychology. Geo-spatial Information
Science, 5(2), 74-78.
Silva,J. (2011).On Creativity, Marijuana and “a Butterfly Effect in
Thought”.Huffington Post.
For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Pres.

Chapter 5

Ahn, W. K., Kalish, C. W., Medin, D. L., & Gelman, S. A. (1995).

The role Of covariation versus mechanism information in
causal attribution. Cognition, 54(3), 299-352.
 Moore, J. C. (2012). Transitional to Formal Operational: Using
Authentic Research Experiences to Get Non-Science
Students to Think More Like Scientists. European Journal of
Physics Education, 3(4), 1-12.
Moore, J.C., & Rubbo, LJ. (2012). Scientific reasoning abilities of
nonscience Majors in physics-based courses. Physical
Review Special Topics – Physic: Education Research, 8, NGSS Lead
States. (2013). Evidence Statements. Retrieved from
NesGeneration Science Standards: www.nextgenscience.org
Perlis, A. (1982). Epigrams on Programming. ACM SIGPLAN
Notices, 17(7-13.
Riegelman, R. (1979). Contributory cause: Unnecessary and
insufficiePostgraduate Medicine, 66(2), 177-179.
Schulz, L., & Gopnik, A. (2004). Causal learning across domai
Developmental Psychology, 40, 162-176.
Shultz, T., & Mendelson, R. (1975). The use of covariation as a
princOf causal analysis. Child Development, 46, 394-399.
Vigen, T. (2015). Spurious Correlations. New York: Hachette Books
Vigen, T. (2018). Spurious Correlations. Retrieved from
TylerVigen.com:Tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations010106.

Chapter 6

Borke, H. (1975), Piaget’s Mountains Revisited: Changes in the

Egocentric Landscape. Developmental Psychology, 11(2), 240-

243. Coletta, V. P, & Phillips, J. A. (2005). Interpreting FCI scores:

Normalized Gain, preinstruction scores, and scientific reasoning

ability. American Journal of Physics, 73, 1172.

Danner, E, & Day, M. (197), Eliciing Formal Operations. Chilá

Development, 48(4).
Etkina, E, Van Heuvelen, A, Brookes, D, & Mills, D. (2002). Role of

Experiments in Physics Instruction – A Process Approach. The

Plysics Teacher, 40.

Etkina, E., Van Heuvelen, A, White-Brahmia, S., Brookes, D.,
Gentile,M.,Murthy,S,...Warren, A. (2006). Scientific abilities and

their assessment.Physical Review ST Plysics Education Research,

2,020103.

Brown, A. L, & DeLoache, J. S. (1978). Skills, plans, and

selfregulation.In R. Siegler (ed.), Children’s thinking: What

develops? (pp.3-6). Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Brown, A.,

Bransford, J, Ferrara, R., & Campione, J. (1983).

Learning,Remembering, and understanding. In J. H. Flavell,& E. M.

Markman(eds), Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol. 3 Cognitive

Development 4th ed.(pp. 78-166). New York: Wiley.Brown, J.,

Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture

of Learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32.Coletta, V. P, &

Phillips, J. A. (2005). Interpreting FCI scores:

NormalizedGain, preinstruction scores, and scientific
reasoning ability. American Journal of Physics, 73, 1172

Dewey, J. (1910). How We Think. Boston: D.C. Heath Company.

Edmondson, K. M., & Novak, J. D. (1993). The interplay of
scientific Epistemological views, learning strategies, and
atitudes of college.Students. Journal of Research in Science
Tenching, 30, 547-559.
Etkina, E., Van Heuvelen, A., White-Brahmia, S., Brookes, D.,
Gentile, M.,Murthy, S.,...Warren, A. (2006). Scientific abilities
and their assesment. Physical Review ST Physics Education
Research, 2, 020103.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A
new area Of cognitive-development inquiry. American
Psychologist, 34, 906-911.
Cornbleth, C. (199o). Curricuun in Context. Basingstoke: Falmer
Press.
Etkina, E. (2010). Iedagogical Content Knowledge and Preparation
of High School Physics Teachers. Physical Review Special
Topics-Plysics Education Research, 6(2).
 Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum: Product or Praxis? New York:
Falmer Pres. McDermott, L. C. (1996). Physics by Inquiry. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.

Moore, C. (2017). Creating Scientists: Teaching and Assessing

Sciene Practice For the NGSS. New York, NY: Routledge.
NGSS Lead States. (2013a). Evidence Statements. Retrieved from
Next Generation Science Standards: www.nextgenscience.org

NGSS Lead States. (2013b). Next Generation Science Standards:

For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of
the new Reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22.
Smith, M. K. (2000). Curriculum Theory and Practice. Retrieved
from The Encyclopedia of Informal Education:
www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An Introduction to Curriculum Research and
Development. London: Heinemann.
Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice.
New York:Harcourt Brace and World.
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction.
Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Chapter 7

Brown, A. L, & DeLoache, J. S. (1978). Skills, plans, and selfregulation.

In R. Siegler (ed.), Children’s thinking: What

develops? (pp.3-6). Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brown, A., Bransford, J, Ferrara, R., & Campione, J. (1983).
Learning, Remembering, and understanding. In J. H. Flavell,
& E. M. Markman(eds), Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol.
3 Cognitive Development 4th ed.(pp. 78-166). New York: Wiley.
Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and
the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32.
Coletta, V. P, & Phillips, J. A. (2005). Interpreting FCI scores:
Normalized Gain, preinstruction scores, and scientific
reasoning ability. American Journal of Physics, 73, 1172.
Dewey, J. (1910). How We Think. Boston: D.C. Heath Company.
Edmondson, K. M., & Novak, J. D. (1993). The interplay of
 scientific Epistemological views, learning strategies, and
atitudes of college Students. Journal of Research in Science
Tenching, 30, 547-559.
Etkina, E., Van Heuvelen, A., White-Brahmia, S., Brookes, D.,
Gentile, M.,Murthy, S.,...Warren, A. (2006). Scientific abilities
and their assesment.Physical Review ST Physics Education
Research, 2, 020103.Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive
monitoring: A
new area Of cognitive-development inquiry. American Psychologist, 34,
906-911.

Chapter 8

Ball, D. L., & McDiarmid, G. W. (1990). The subject matter

preparation of
Teachers. In W. R. Houston, M. Haberman, & J. Sikula, Handbook
of Research on Teacher Education (pp. 437-449). New York: Macmillan.
Cornbleth, C. (199o). Curricuun in Context. Basingstoke: Falmer
Press.
Etkina, E. (2010). Iedagogical Content Knowledge and Preparation
of High School Physics Teachers. Physical Review Special
Topics-Plysics Education Research, 6(2).
Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum: Product or Praxis? New York:
Falmer Pres.
McDermott, L. C. (1996). Physics by Inquiry. New York: John Wiley
& Sons.
Moore, C. (2017). Creating Scientists: Teaching and Assessing
Sciene Practice For the NGSS. New York, NY: Routledge.

NGSS Lead States. (2013a). Evidence Statements. Retrieved from

Next Generation Science Standards:
www.nextgenscience.org
NGSS Lead States. (2013b). Next Generation Science Standards:
For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of
the new Reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22.

Smith, M. K. (2000). Curriculum Theory and Practice. Retrieved

from The Encyclopedia of Informal
Education:www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An Introduction to Curriculum Research and
Development. London: Heinemann.
Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice.
New York: Harcourt Brace and World.
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Thankyou!