Background on sdq

Elliott, Boin, Irving, Johnson & Galea, 2010 References
Adams, D. J. (2009). Current trends in laboratory class teaching in university bioscience Bioscience Education, 13-3. [online] Available: http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/vol13/beej-13-3.aspx [2009, December 7] Agostinho, S. (2006). The use of a visual learning design representation to document and communicate teaching ideas. In L. Markauskaite, P. Goodyear and P. Reimann (Eds), Who’s learning? Whose technology? Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (pp. 3-7). Sydney: Sydney University Press. Agostinho, S. (2009). Learning design representations to document, model and share teaching practice. In L. Lockyer, S. Bennett, S. Agostinho & B. Harper (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Learning Design and Learning Objects (pp. 1-19). New York: Information Science Reference. Agostinho, S., Harper, B., Oliver, R., Hedberg, J., & Wills, S. (2008). A visual learning design representation to facilitate dissemination and reuse of innovative pedagogical strategies in university teaching. In L. Botturi & S. T. Stubbs (Eds.), Handbook of Visual Languages for Instructional Design: Theories and Practices. New York: Information Science Reference. Agostinho, S., Oliver, R., Harper, B., Hedberg, J., & Wills, S. (2002). A tool to evaluate the potential for an ICT-based learning design to foster “high-quality learning”. In A. Williamson, C. Gunn, A. Young & T. Clear (Eds), Winds of Change in the Sea of Learning. Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (pp. 29-38). Auckland, New Zealand: UNITEC Institute of Technology. Australian Government Department of Education, Science and Training. (2006). Audit of science, engineering and technology skills. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia. Bloom, B. S., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objective: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: Longmans. Boin, A., Elliott, K., Irving, H., Galea, V., & Johnson, E. (2009). Where are the learning spaces on the scientific inquiry landscape? In Same places, different spaces. Proceedings ascilite Auckland 2009. (pp. 81-90). [online] Available: http://ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland09/procs/boin.pdf [2009, December 15] Brown, P. L., Abell, S. K., Demir, A., & Schmidt, F. J. (2006). College science teachers’ views of classroom inquiry. Science education, 90, 784-802. Buck, L. B., Lowery Bretz, S., & Towns, M. H. (2008). Characterizing the level of inquiry in the undergraduate laboratory: discrepancies abound in use of the word ‘inquiry’. Journal of College Science, 38(1), 52. Teaching scientific inquiry skills: A handbook Bunge, M. (1967). Scientific Research I: The search for system. Berlin – Heidelberg: Springer Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University (1998). Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for America’s research universities. Stoney Brook, NY: Carnegie Found. Charlesworth, M., Farrall, L., Stokes, T. & Turnbull, D. (1989). Life among the scientists: an anthropological study of an Australian scientific community. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Chin, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175-218. Collins, L. T., & Bell, R. P. (2004). How to generate understanding of the scientific process in introductory biology: A student-designed laboratory exercise on yeast fermentation. The American Biology Teacher, 66, 51-53. Darby, A. (2009). Nobel crusader for women in science. [online] Available: http://www.theage.com.au/national/nobel-crusader-for-women-in-science-20091006-glh3.html [2009, December 7] Eberlein, T., Kampmeier, J., Minderhout, V., Moog, R. S., Platt, T., Varma-Nelson, P., & White, H., B. (2008). Pedagogies of engagement in science: A comparison of PBL, POGIL, and PLTL. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 36(4), 262-273. Elliott, K. A., Sweeney, K., & Irving, H. R. (2009). A learning design to teach scientific inquiry. In L. Lockyer, S. Bennett, S. Agostinho & B. Harper (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Learning Design and Learning Objects: Issues, Applications and Technologies. (pp. 652-675). Hershey, Pennsylvania: Idea Group Inc. Fraser, B., J. (1979). Test of Enquiry skills and handbook. Victoria, Australia: Australian Galea, V. J. (2006). Virtual plant pathology lab CD-ROM: A tool to support plant pathology diagnostics learning for distance education. In International Society for Plant Pathology Teaching Symposium, May 15 -June 4, 2006. Gilbert, J. K. (2004). Models and modeling: Routes to more authentic science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2, 115-130. Gijlers, H., Saab, N., van Joolingen, W. R., de Jong, T., & van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2009). Interaction between tool and talk: how instruction and tools support consensus building in collaborative inquiry-learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 252-267. Goodyear, P. (2005). Educational design and networked learning: Patterns, pattern languages and design practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(1), 82-101. Elliott, Boin, Irving, Johnson & Galea, 2010 Hakkarainen, K. (2009). Three generations ot technology-enhanced learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(5), 879-888. Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains. American Psychologist, 53(4), 449-455. Hatton, J., & Plouffe, P. B. (1997). Science and its ways of knowing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Hunter, A., Laursen, S. L., & Seymour, E. (2007). Becoming a scientist: The role of undergraduate research in students’ cognitive, personal and professional development. Science Education, 91, 36-74. de Jong, T. (2006). Technological advances in inquiry learning. Science, 312, 532-533. de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179-201. van Joolingen, W. R., de Jong, T., & Dimitrakopoulou, A. (2007). Issues in computer supported inquiry learning in science. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 111-119. Kim, M. C., Hannafin, M. J., & Bryan, L. A. (2007). Technology-enhanced inquiry tools in science education: An emerging pedagogical framework for classroom practice. Science Education, 91(6), 1010-1030. Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1975). Evaluating training programs. Madison, Wisconsin: American Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. Lynn, S. E., Egar, J. M., Walker, B. G., Sperry, T. S., & Ramenofsky, M. (2007). Fish on Prozac: a simple, noninvasive physiology laboratory investigating the mechanisms of aggressive behaviour in Betta splendans. Advances in Physiology Education, 31, 358-363. Manlove, S., Lazonder, A. W., & de Jong, T. (2009). Collaborative versus individual use of regulative software scaffolds during scientific inquiry learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 17(2), 105-117. Mulder, R. A., & Pearce, J. M. (2007). PRAZE: innovating teaching through online peer review. In R.J. Atkinson, C. McBeath, S. K. A. Soong & C. Cheers (Eds), ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (pp. 727-736). Singapore: Centre for Educational Development, Nanyang Technological University. Teaching scientific inquiry skills: A handbook National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: Nokelainen, P., Miettinen, M., Kurhila, J., Floréen, P., & Tirri, H. (2005). A shared document-based annotation to support learner-centred collaborative learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 757-770. Oliver, R., Harper, B., Hedberg, J., Wills, S., & Agostinho, S. (2002). Formalising the description of learning designs. In J. Herrington (Ed.) Proceedings of HERDSA. Joondalup, Western Australia: Edith Cowan University. Oliver, R., & Herrington, J. (2001). Teaching and Learning Online: A Beginner's Guide to e- learning and e-teaching in Higher Education. Perth, Western Australia: Edith Cowan University. Paxton, C. (2009). Teaching scientific methods. Centre for Bioscience Bulletin, 26, 5. [online] Available: http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/ftp/newsletters/bulletin26.pdf [2009, December 7] Prapavessi, D. (2006). Work in progress: wireless tablet technology in the calculus classroom leads to inquiry and discovery. Paper presented at the ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, San Diego, USA. Rice, J., Thomas, S. M., & O’Toole, P. (2009). Tertiary science education in the 21st century. Sydney, Australia: Australian Learning and Teaching Council. Ritchey, R. C. (2008). Reflections of the 2008 AECT definitions of the field. TechTrends, 52, Rodrigues, S., Tytler, R., Darby, L., Hubber, P., Symington, D., & Edwards, J. (2007). The usefulness of a sciences degree: the ‘lost voices’ of science trained professionals. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1411-1433. Samarapungavan, A., Westby, E. L., & Bodner, G. M. (2006). Contextual epistemic development in science: A comparison of chemistry students and research chemists. Science Education, 90(3), 468 - 495. Schwartz, R., & Lederman, N. G. (2006). Exploring contextually-based views of NOS and scientific inquiry: What scientists say. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) Annual Conference. San Francisco, CA: National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imaging science education: Engaging students in science for Australia’s future. Victoria, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research. Tytler, R., & Symington, D. (2006). Science in school and society. Teaching Science, 52(3), Vollmeyer, R., Burns, B. D., & Holyoak, K. J. (1996). The impact of goal specificity on strategy use and the acquisition of problem structure. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 20(1), 75-100. Elliott, Boin, Irving, Johnson & Galea, 2010 Weaver, G. C., Russell, C. B., & Wink, D. J. (2008). Inquiry-based and research-based laboratory pedagogies in undergraduate science. Nature Chemical Biology, 4(10), 577-580. Wenning C. L. (2007). Assessing inquiry skills as a component of scientific literacy. Journal of Physics Teacher Education Online, 4(2), 21-24. Whitley, R. (1984). The Intellectual and Social Organisation of the Sciences. Oxford: Wilson, J. (2008). Report: 1st Year Practicals: Their Role in Developing Future Bioscientists. United Kingdom: Centre for Biosciences, University of Leeds. [online] http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/ftp/reports/pracworkshopreport.pdf [2009, December 7] Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the Scientific Method: Model based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science education, 92(5), 941-967. Wisner, A. (1995). Understanding problem building: ergonomic work analysis. Ergonomics, 38(3), 595 - 605. Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2009). From the horse’s mouth: What scientists say about scientific investigation and scientific knowledge. Science Education, 93(1), 109-130. Wood, W. B. (2009). Innovations in teaching undergraduate biology and why we need them. Annual Review of Cell Biology and Developmental Biology, 25, 93-112. Yuan, S., Tabard, A., & Mackay, W. (2008). Streamliner: a general-purpose interactive course- visualization tool. Paper presented at the 2008 IEEE International Symposium on Knowledge Acquisition and Modeling Workshop, Wuhan, China.

Source: http://www.scientificinquiry.meu.unimelb.edu.au/outcomes/docs/section8.pdf