Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T07:12:19.542Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part V - Learning Disciplinary Knowledge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Edited by
R. Keith Sawyer
R. Keith Sawyer
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences , pp. 465 - 578
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Battista, M. T. (2007). The development of geometric and spatial thinking. In Lester, F. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 843–908). Charlotte, NC: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics & Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Borko, H., Jacobs, J., & Koellner, K. (2010). Contemporary approaches to teacher professional development. In International Encyclopedia of Education (Vol. 7, pp. 548–556).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, D., & Stanley, J. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago, IL: Rand-McNally.Google Scholar
Cobb, P. (2012). Research in mathematics education: Supporting improvements in the quality of mathematics teaching on a large scale. Paper presented at a meeting of the National Science Board Committee on Education and Human Resources, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A. A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in education research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.Google Scholar
Cobb, P., & Steffe, L. P. (1983). The constructivist researcher as teacher and model builder. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14(2), 83–94.Google Scholar
Cobb, P., Stephen, M., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Participating in classroom mathematical practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1&2), 113–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Darragh, L. (2016). Identity research in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 93(1), 19–33.Google Scholar
Davis, R. (1988). The interplay of algebra, geometry, and logic. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 7(1), 9–28.Google Scholar
Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5(1), 61–84.Google Scholar
Dubinsky, E. (1991). Reflective abstraction in advanced mathematical thinking. In Tall, D. (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 95–125). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Erlwanger, S. H. (1973). Benny’s conception of rules and answers in IPI mathematics. Journal of Children’s Mathematical Behavior, 1(2), 7–26.Google Scholar
Filloy, E., & Rojano, T. (1989). Solving equations: The transition from arithmetic to algebra. For the Learning of Mathematics, 9(2), 19–25.Google Scholar
Fischbein, E. (1989). Tactic models and mathematical reasoning. For the Learning of Mathematics, 9(2), 9–14.Google Scholar
Gelman, R., & Gallistel, C. R. (1978). The child’s understanding of number. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gray, E. M., & Tall, D. O. (1993). Duality, ambiguity, and flexibility: A “proceptual” view of simple arithmetic. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(2), 116–140.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez, R. (2007). (Re)defining equity: The importance of a critical perspective. In Nasir, N. & Cobb, P. (Eds.), Diversity, equity, and access to mathematical ideas (pp. 37–50). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Harel, G., Behr, M., Post, T., & Lesh, R. (1989). Fishbein’s theory: A further consideration. In Vergnaud, G., Rogalski, J., & Artigue, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Conference of the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 52–59). Paris, France: University of Paris.Google Scholar
Heyd-Metzuyanim, E. (2015). Vicious cycles of identifying and mathematizing: A case study of the development of mathematical failure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(1), 1–46.Google Scholar
Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. In Lester, F. K. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 1, pp. 371–405). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Hill, H. C., Sleep, L., Lewis, J. M., & Ball, D. L. (2007). Assessing teachers’ mathematical knowledge: What knowledge matters and what evidence counts? In Lester, F. K. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 1, pp. 111–156). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Horn, I. S., Garner, B., Kane, B. D., & Brasel, J. (2017). A taxonomy of instructional learning opportunities in teachers’ workgroup conversations. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(1), 41–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, K., Gibbons, L., & Sharpe, C. (2017). Teachers’ views of students’ mathematical capabilities: Challenges and possibilities for accomplishing ambitious reform. Teachers College Record, 119(7), 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kafai, Y. B. (2006). Constructionism. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (1st ed., pp. 35–46). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kazemi, E., Franke, M., & Lampert, M. (2009). Developing pedagogies in teacher education to support novice teachers’ ability to enact ambitious instruction. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Wellington, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Kazemi, E., & Hubbard, A. (2008). New directions for the design and study of professional development: Attending to the coevolution of teachers’ participation across contexts. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 428–441.Google Scholar
Kieran, C. (2007). Learning and teaching algebra at the middle school through college levels: Building meaning for symbols and their manipulation. In Lester, F. K. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 707–762). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Kieran, C., Forman, E. A., & Sfard, A. (Eds.). (2003). Learning discourse: Discursive approaches to research in mathematics education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. [Also published as a special issue of Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46(1–3)]Google Scholar
Kieren, T. E. (1992). Rational numbers and fractional numbers as mathematical and personal knowledge; Implications for curriculum and instruction. In Leinhardt, G. & Putnam, R. T. (Eds.), Analysis of arithmetic for mathematics teaching (pp. 323–371). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Kochmanski, N. (2020). Aspects of high-quality mathematics coaching: What coaches need to know and be able to do to support individual teachers’ learning [Doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University].Google Scholar
Langer-Osuna, J. M., & Esmonde, I. (2017). Identity in research on mathematics education. In Cai, J. (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 637–648). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2011). Designing to support long-term growth and development. In Koschmann, T. (Ed.), Theories of learning and studies of instructional practice (pp. 19–38). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Lerman, S. (2001). Cultural, discursive psychology: A sociocultural approach to studying the teaching and learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46(1), 87–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyotard, J.-F. (1993). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Malik, M. A. (1980). Historical and pedagogical aspects of definition of function. International Journal of Math Science and Technology, 1(4), 489–492.Google Scholar
Moschkovich, J. N. (Ed.). (2010). Language and mathematics education: Multiple perspectives and directions for research. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Munter, C. (2014). Developing visions of high-quality mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45(5), 584–635.Google Scholar
Nunes, T., Schliemann, A., & Carraher, D. (1993). Street mathematics and school mathematics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1962). Comments on Vygotsky’s critical remarks concerning The Language and Thought of the Child, and Judgment and Reasoning in the Child. Boston, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pirie, S., & Kieren, T. (1994). Growth in mathematical understanding: How can we characterize it and how can we represent it? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26(2–3), 165–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poincaré, H. (1952). Science and method. New York, NY: Dover Publications. (Original work published 1929)Google Scholar
Rees, M. (2009). Mathematics: The only true universal language New Scientist, 2695. Retrieved from http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126951.800-mathematics-the-only-true-universal-language.htmlGoogle Scholar
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, J. L., Stein, M. K., Correnti, R., Bill, V., Booker, L., & Schwartz, N. (2017). Tennessee scales up improvement in math instruction through coaching. The State Educational Standard, 17(2), 22–27.Google Scholar
Saxe, G. B. (1982). Developing forms of arithmetic operations among the Oksapmin of Papua New Guinea. Developmental Psychology, 18(4), 583–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: Reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the same coin. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22(1), 1–36.Google Scholar
Sfard, A. (1998). Two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.Google Scholar
Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Skemp, R. R. (1971). The psychology of learning mathematics. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.Google Scholar
Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Rochelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–163.Google Scholar
Steffe, L. P., Thompson, P. W., & von Glassersfeld, E. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. In Kelly, E. A. & Lesh, R. A. (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 267–306). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Stein, M. K., Engle, R., Smith, M., & Hughes, E. (2008). Orchestrating powerful mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 313–340.Google Scholar
Tall, D., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12(2), 151–169.Google Scholar
van Hiele, P. M. (2004). A child’s thought and geometry. In Carpenter, T. P., Dossey, J. A., & Koelher, J. L. (Eds.), Classics in mathematics education research (pp. 60–67). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (Original work published 1959)Google Scholar
Vergnaud, G., Booker, G., Confrey, J., et al. (1990). Epistemology and psychology of mathematics education. In Nesher, P. & Kilpatrick, J. (Eds.), Mathematics and cognition: A research study of the International Group of the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 14–30). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vinner, S., & Dreyfus, T. (1989). Images and definitions for the concept of function. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(4), 356–366.Google Scholar
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Constructivism in education. In Husen, T. & Postlethwaite, T. N. (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (Vol. 1, pp. 162–163). Oxford, England; New York, NY: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458–477.Google Scholar

References

Atias, O., Benichou, M., Sagy, O., Ben-David, A., Kali, Y., & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2020). “Sometimes you’re not wrong, you’re just not right”: Advancing students’ epistemic thinking about science through in-school citizen science programs. In Proceedings of the 12th Chais Conference for the Study of Innovation and Learning Technologies: Learning in the Technological Era. Raanana, Israel: The Open University of Israel.Google Scholar
Ballard, H. L., Dixon, C. G., & Harris, E. M. (2017). Youth-focused citizen science: Examining the role of environmental science learning and agency for conservation. Biological Conservation, 208, 65–75.Google Scholar
Barab, S., & Dede, C. (2007). Games and immersive participatory simulations for science education: An emerging type of curricula. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 1–3.Google Scholar
Barzilai, S., & Zohar, A. (2016). Epistemic (meta) cognition: Ways of thinking about knowledge and knowing. In Greene, J. A., Sandoval, W. A., & Bråten, I. (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 409–424). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. (1963). High school biology: BSCS green version student manual, laboratory, and field investigations. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and ‘making’ in education: The democratization of invention. In Büching, C. & Walter-Herrmann, J. (Eds.), FabLabs: Of machines, makers and inventors (pp. 203–222). Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript Verlag.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, A., Ellery, S., & Campione, J. C. (1998). Creating zones of proximal development electronically. In Greeno, J. G. & Goldman, S. (Eds.), Thinking practices: A symposium in mathematics and science education (pp. 341–368). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Egyptian Ministry of Planning and Economic Development. (2016). Sustainable development strategy: Egypt’s vision 2030. Retrieved December 1, 2020 from https://mped.gov.eg/EgyptVision?lang=en#:~:text=Egypt%20Vision%202030%20focuses%20on,life%2C%20in%20conjunction%20with%20high%2CGoogle Scholar
Golumbic, Y. N., Fishbain, B., & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2019). User centered design of a citizen science air-quality monitoring project. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 9(3), 1–19.Google Scholar
Harris, E. M., Dixon, C. G., Bird, E. B., & Ballard, H. L. (2020). For science and self: Youth interactions with data in community and citizen science. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 29(2), 224–263.Google Scholar
Hecker, S., Haklay, M., Bowser, A., Makuch, Z., Vogel, J., & Bonn, A. (2018). Citizen science: Innovation in open science, society and policy. London, England: UCL Press.Google Scholar
Hod, Y., Bielaczyc, K., & Ben-Zvi, D. (2018). Revisiting learning communities: Innovations in theory and practice. Instructional Science, 46(4), 489–506.Google Scholar
Hod, Y., & Sagy, O. (2019). Conceptualizing the designs of authentic computer-supported collaborative learning environments in schools. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 14(2), 143–164.Google Scholar
Hod, Y., Sagy, O, Kali, Y., & TCSS. (2018). The opportunities of networks of research-practice partnerships and why CSCL should not give up on large-scale educational change. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(4),457–466.Google Scholar
Holland, D., & Lave, J. (2009). Social practice theory and the historical production of persons. Actio: An International Journal of Human Activity Theory, 2, 1–15.Google Scholar
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York, NY: Basic Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kali, Y. (2016). Transformative learning in design research: The story behind the scenes. In Looi, C. K., Polman, J. L., Cress, U., & Reimann, P. (Eds.), Transforming learning, empowering learners (Vol. 1, pp. 4–5). The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2016. Singapore: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
Kali, Y. (2021). Guiding frameworks for the design of inquiry learning environments. In Golan Duncan, R. & Chinn, C. A. (Eds.), International handbook on inquiry and learning (pp. 39–59). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kali, Y., Linn, M. C., & Roseman, J. E. (2008). Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Kali, Y., Sagy, O., Benichou, M., Atias, A., & Levin-Peled, R. (2019). Teaching expertise reconsidered: The Technology, Pedagogy, Content, and Space (TPeCS) knowledge framework. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2162–2177.Google Scholar
Karplus, R., & Thier, H. D. (1967). A new look at elementary school science. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Kuhn, D. (2010). What is scientific thinking and how does it develop? In Goswami, U. (Ed.), Handbook of childhood cognitive development (2nd ed., pp. 497–523). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. In Pea, R. & Brown, J. S. (Eds.), Learning in doing: Social, cognitive, and computational perspectives (pp. 29–129). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Metz, K. (2000). Young children’s inquiry in biology: Building the knowledge bases to empower independent inquiry. In Minstrell, J. & van Zee, E. (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 371–404). Washington, DC: AAAS.Google Scholar
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Learning through citizen science: Enhancing opportunities by design. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
National Research Council (NRC). (2019). Science and engineering for grades 6–12: Investigation and design at the center. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10/17226/2516Google Scholar
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards. Retrieved on November 10, 2021 from www.nextgenscience.orgGoogle Scholar
OECD. (2018). OECD: The future of education and skills education 2030. Retrieved from www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdfGoogle Scholar
Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345–375.Google Scholar
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2011). Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved May 29, 2013 from www.p21.org/tools-and-resources/policy-maker#definingGoogle Scholar
Pea, R., & Collins, A. (2008). Learning how to do science education: Four waves of reform. In Kali, Y., Linn, M. C., & Roseman, J. E. (Eds.), Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy (pp. 3–12). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Pellegrino, J. W. (2020). Sciences of learning and development: Some thoughts from the learning sciences. Applied Developmental Science, 24(1), 48–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penuel, B., & Reiser, B. J. (2018). Designing NGSS curriculum materials. Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_189504.pdf&hl=en&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm2Z0Q3-AmNoAk1sIBFM6krh_BYbqQ&nossl=1&oi=scholarrGoogle Scholar
Pietrocola, M., Rodrigues, E., Bercot, F., & Schnorr, S. (2020, June 2). Science education in pandemic times: What can we learn from COVID-19 on science technology and risk society. doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/chtgvGoogle Scholar
Quintana, C., Reiser, B., Davis, E., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogoff, B., Moore, L., Najafi, B., Dexter, A., Correa-Chavez, M., & Solis, J. (2007). Children’s development of cultural repertoires through participation in everyday routines and practices. In Grusec, J. E. & Hastings, P. D. (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research (pp. 490–515). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 1–42.Google Scholar
Sadler, T. D., Friedrichsen, P., Zangori, L., & Ke, L. (2020). Technology-supported professional development for collaborative design of COVID-19 instructional materials. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28(2), 171–177.Google Scholar
Sagy, O., Golumbic, Y., Abramsky, H., et al. (2019). Citizen science: An opportunity for learning in a networked society. In Kali, Y., Baram-Tsabary, A., & Schejter, A. (Eds.), Learning in a networked society: Spontaneous and designed technology enhanced learning communities (pp. 97–115). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
Sharon, A. J., & Baram‐Tsabari, A. (2020). Can science literacy help individuals identify misinformation in everyday life? Science Education, 104(3).Google Scholar
Shepard, L. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 20(7), 4–14.Google Scholar
Songer, N. B. (2006). BioKIDS: An animated conversation on the development of curricular activity structures for inquiry science. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 355–369). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Tabak, I., Ben-Zvi, D., & Kali, Y. (2019). Technology-enhanced learning communities on a continuum between spontaneous and designed. In Kali, Y., Baram-Tsabary, A., & Schejter, A. (Eds.), Learning in a networked society: Spontaneous and designed technology enhanced learning communities (pp. 25–37). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1387–1410.Google Scholar
Zeidler, D. L., Herman, B. C., & Sadler, T. D. (2019). New directions in socioscientific issues research. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 1(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar

References

Abrahamson, D., Blikstein, P., & Wilensky, U. (2007). Classroom model, model classroom: Computer-supported methodology for investigating collaborative-learning pedagogy. In Chin, C., Erkins, G., & Putambekar, S. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference (Vol. 8, Part 1, pp. 45–55). New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
Abrahamson, D., & Wilensky, U. (2004). ProbLab: A computer-supported unit in probability and statistics. In Hoines, M. J. & Fuglestad, A. B. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, p. 369). Norway: Bergen University College.Google Scholar
Abrahamson, D., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Is a disease like a lottery? Classroom networked technology that enables student reasoning about complexity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R., Greeno, J. G., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (2000). Perspectives on learning, thinking, and activity. Educational Researcher, 29(4), 11–13. doi:10.3102/0013189X029004011Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 5–11.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1997). Situative versus cognitive perspectives: Form versus substance. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 18–21.Google Scholar
Arastoopour Irgens, G., Dabholkar, S., Bain, C., et al. (2020). Modeling and measuring students’ computational thinking practices in science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 137–161.Google Scholar
Arthur, B., Durlauf, S., & Lane, D. (Eds.). (1997). The economy as an evolving complex system (Vol. II). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Bak, P., Tang, C., & Wiesenfeld, K. (1987). Self-organized criticality: An explanation of 1/f noise. Physical Review Letters, 59(4), 381–384. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.381Google Scholar
Balmer, M., Nagel, K., & Raney, B. (2004). Large-scale multi-agent simulations for transportation applications. Intelligent Transportation Systems, 8(4), 1–17.Google Scholar
Bar-Yam, Y. (1997). Dynamics of complex systems. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2006). Education for the knowledge age: Design-centered models of teaching and instruction. In Alexander, P. A. & Winne, P. H. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 695–713). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Bishop, B. A., & Anderson, C. W. (1990). Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(5), 415–427.Google Scholar
Blikstein, P., & Wilensky, U. (2009). An atom is known by the company it keeps: A constructionist learning environment for materials science using multi-agent simulation. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 14(1), 81–119.Google Scholar
Blikstein, P., & Wilensky, U. (2010). MaterialSim: A constructionist agent-based modeling approach to engineering education. In Jacobson, M. J. & Reimann, P. (Eds.), Designs for learning environments of the future: International perspectives from the learning sciences (pp. 17–60). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Brady, C., Holbert, N., Soylu, F., Novak, M., & Wilensky, U. (2015). Sandboxes for model-based inquiry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(2), 265–286.Google Scholar
Brown, D. E., & Hammer, D. (2008). Conceptual change in physics. In Vosniadou, S. (Ed.), Handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 127–154). Hillsdale, NJ: Laurance Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.Google Scholar
Casti, J. L. (1994). Complexificantion: Explaining a paradoxical world through the science of surprise. New York, NY: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Charles, E. S. (2002). Using complex systems thinking to facilitate shifts in ontological beliefs: A qualitative case study systematically investigating a learning and teaching context that employs “StarLogo” simulations and a one-on-one coaching methodology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
Charles, E. S., & d’Apollonia, S. (2004). Developing a conceptual framework to explain emergent causality: Overcoming ontological beliefs to achieve conceptual change. In Forbus, K., Gentner, D., & Reiger, T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Cognitive Science Society (pp. 210–215). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from www.cogsci.northwestern.edu/cogsci2004/sessions.html#emergentGoogle Scholar
Chi, M. T. H., Roscoe, R. D., Slotta, J. D., Roy, M., & Chase, C. C. (2012). Misconceived causal explanations for emergent processes. Cognitive Science, 36(1), 1–61. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01207Google Scholar
Cobb, P., & Bowers, J. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and practice. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colella, V. (2000). Participatory simulations: Building collaborative understanding through immersive dynamic modeling. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 471–500.Google Scholar
Cuevas, E. (2020). An agent-based model to evaluate the COVID-19 transmission risks in facilities. Computational Biology Medicine, 121, Article 103827. doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2020.103827Google Scholar
Dabholkar, S., & Wilensky, U. (2019). Designing ESM-mediated collaborative activity systems for science learning. Paper presented at the Proceedings of International Conference of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 2019, Lyon, France.Google Scholar
Dai, L., Vorsellen, D., Korolev, K., & Gore, J. (2012). Generic indicators for loss of resilience before a tipping point leading to population collapse. Science, 336(6085), 1175–1177. doi:10.1126/science.1219805Google Scholar
Edwards, L. (1995). Microworlds as representations. In diSessa, A. A., Hoyles, C., Noss, R., & Edwards, L. D. (Eds.), Computers and exploratory learning (pp. 127–154). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Epstein, J. M. (2006). Generative social science: Studies in agent-based computational modeling. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, E. M. (2013). Conceptual change and evolutionary biology: Taking a developmental perspective. In Vosniadou, S. (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (2nd ed., pp. 220–239). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Frank, K. A., Zhao, Y., & Borman, K. (2004). Social capital and the diffusion of innovations within organizations: Application to the implementation of computer technology in schools. Sociology of Education, 77(2), 148–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gladwell, M. (2000). The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co.Google Scholar
Goldstone, R. L., & Wilensky, U. (2008). Promoting transfer through complex systems principles. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(4), 465–516.Google Scholar
Greeno, J. G. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 5–17.Google Scholar
Guo, Y., & Wilensky, U. (2018). Mind the gap: Teaching high school students about wealth inequality through agent-based participatory simulations. In Dagiene, V. & Jasute, E. (Eds.), Proceedings of Constructionism 2018. Vilnius, Lithuania.Google Scholar
Hjorth, A., Brady, C., Head, B., & Wilensky, U. (2015). Thinking within and between levels: Exploring reasoning with multi-level linked models. In Proceedings of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference. Gothenburg, Sweden.Google Scholar
Hjorth, A., Head, B., Brady, C., & Wilensky, U. (2020). LevelSpace – A NetLogo extension for multi-level agent-based modeling. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 23(1).Google Scholar
Hjorth, A., & Wilensky, U. (2014). Re-grow your city – A NetLogo curriculum unit on regional development. In Polman, J. L., Kyza, E. A., O’Neill, D. K., et al. (Eds.), The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2014 (Vol. 3, pp. 1553–1554). International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Marathe, S., & Liu, L. (2007). Fish swim, rocks sit, and lungs breathe: Expert-novice understanding of complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 307–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, J. H. (1995). Hidden order: How adaptation builds complexity. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Hsiao, L., Lee, I., & Klopfer, E. (2019). Making sense of models: How teachers use agent‐based modeling to advance mechanistic reasoning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50, 2203–2216. doi:10.1111/bjet.12844Google Scholar
Jacobson, M. J. (2001). Problem solving, cognition, and complex systems: Differences between experts and novices. Complexity, 6(3), 41–49.Google Scholar
Jacobson, M. J., Kapur, M., & Reimann, P. (2016). Conceptualizing debates in learning and educational research: Towards a complex systems conceptual framework of learning. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 210–218. doi:10.1080/00461520.2016.1166963Google Scholar
Jacobson, M. J., Kapur, M., So, H.-J., & Lee, J. (2011). The ontologies of complexity and learning about complex systems. Instructional Science, 39, 763–783. doi:10.1007/s11251-010-9147-0Google Scholar
Jacobson, M. J., Kim, B., Pathak, S., & Zhang, B. (2015). To guide or not to guide: Issues in the sequencing of pedagogical structure in computational model-based learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(6), 715–730. doi:10.1080/10494820.2013.792845Google Scholar
Jacobson, M. J., Levin, J. A., & Kapur, M. (2019). Education as a complex system: Conceptual and methodological implications. Educational Researcher, 48(2), 112–119. doi:10.3102/0013189x19826958Google Scholar
Jacobson, M. J., Markauskaite, L., Portolese, A., Kapur, M., Lai, P. K., & Roberts, G. (2017). Designs for learning about climate change as a complex system. Learning and Instruction, 52, 1–14. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.03.007Google Scholar
Jacobson, M. J., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 11–34.Google Scholar
Kapur, M. (2006). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 307–313.Google Scholar
Kapur, M. (2014). Productive failure in learning math. Cognitive Science, 38(5), 1008–1022. doi:10.1111/cogs.12107Google Scholar
Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2012). Designing for productive failure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(1), 45–83. doi:10.1080/10508406.2011.591717Google Scholar
Kauffman, S. (1995). At home in the universe: The search for laws of self-organization and complexity. New York. NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kitano, H. (2002). Computational systems biology. Nature, 420(6912), 206–210.Google Scholar
Kozma, R. B., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The role of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 105–144.Google Scholar
Lemke, J., & Sabelli, N. (2008). Complex systems and educational change: Towards a new research agenda. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(1), 118–129. doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00401.xGoogle Scholar
Levy, S. T., & Wilensky, U. (2008). Inventing a “mid-level” to make ends meet: Reasoning through the levels of complexity. Cognition & Instruction, 26(1), 1–47.Google Scholar
Levy, S. T., & Wilensky, U. (2009). Students’ learning with the Connected Chemistry (CC1) curriculum: Navigating the complexities of the particulate world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(3), 243–254. doi:10.1007/s10956-009-9145-7Google Scholar
Loibl, K., & Rummel, N. (2014). Knowing what you don’t know makes failure productive. Learning and Instruction, 34, 74–85. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.08.004Google Scholar
Lorenz, E. N. (1963). Deterministic nonperiodic flow. Journal of Atmospheric Science, 20(2), 130–141.Google Scholar
Maroulis, S., & Gomez, L. (2008). Does ‘connectedness’ matter? Evidence from a social network analysis of a small school reform. Teachers College Record, 110(9), 1901–1929.Google Scholar
Maroulis, S., Guimerà, R., Petry, H., et al. (2010). Complex systems view of educational policy research. Science, 330(6000), 38–39.Google Scholar
Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: A guided tour. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Page, S. (2011). Diversity and complexity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Penner, D. E. (2001). Complexity, emergence, and synthetic models in science education. In Crowley, K., Schunn, C. D., & Okada, T. (Eds.), Designing for science (pp. 177–208). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Resnick, M. (1996). Beyond the centralized mindset. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
Resnick, M., & Wilensky, U. (1993). Beyond the deterministic, centralized mindsets: A new thinking for new science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
Resnick, M., & Wilensky, U. (1998). Diving into complexity: Developing probabilistic decentralized thinking through role-playing activities. Journal of Learning Science, 7(2), 153–172.Google Scholar
Samarapungavan, A., & Wiers, R. W. (1997). Children’s thoughts on the origin of species: A study of explanatory coherence. Cognitive Science, 21(2), 147–177.Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (2005). Social emergence: Societies as complex systems. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sengupta, P., & Wilensky, U. (2009). Learning electricity with NIELS: Thinking with electrons and thinking in levels. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 14(1), 21–50.Google Scholar
Stieff, M., & Wilensky, U. (2003). Connected chemistry: Incorporating interactive simulations into the chemistry classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(3), 285–302.Google Scholar
Vermeer, W., Hjorth, A., Jenness, S. M., Brown, C. H., & Wilensky, U. (2020). Leveraging modularity during replication of high-fidelity models: Lessons from replicating an agent-based model for HIV prevention. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 23(4), Article 7. doi:10.18564/jasss.4352Google Scholar
Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of “small-world” networks. Nature, 393, 440–442.Google Scholar
West, J. J., & Dowlatabadi, H. (1999). On assessing the economic impacts of sea-level rise on developed coasts. In Downing, T. E., Olsthoorn, A. A., & Tol, R. S. J. (Eds.), Climate change and risk (pp. 205–220). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wilensky, U. (1997). StarLogoT. Evanston, IL: Center for Connected Learning and Computer Based Modeling, Northwestern University. Retrieved from ccl.northwestern.edu/cmGoogle Scholar
Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo. Evanston, IL: Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling. Northwestern University. Retrieved from ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogoGoogle Scholar
Wilensky, U. (2001). Modeling nature’s emergent patterns with multi-agent languages. Paper presented at the EuroLogo 2001 conference, Linz, Austria.Google Scholar
Wilensky, U. (2003). Statistical mechanics for secondary school: The GasLab modeling toolkit. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 8(1), 1–41.Google Scholar
Wilensky, U. (2020). Restructurations: Reformulating knowledge domains through new representational infrastructure. In Holbert, N., Berland, M., & Kafai, Y. (Eds.), Designing constructionist futures: The art, theory, and practice of learning designs (pp. 287–300). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wilensky, U., Hazzard, E., & Longenecker, S. (2000). A bale of turtles: A case study of a middle school science class studying complexity using StarLogoT. Paper presented at the meeting of the Spencer Foundation, New York, October 11–13, 2000.Google Scholar
Wilensky, U., & Novak, M. (2010). Teaching and learning evolution as an emergent process: Learning with agent-based models of evolutionary dynamics. In Taylor, R. S. & Ferrari, M. (Eds.), Epistemology and science education: Understanding the evolution vs. intelligent design controversy (pp. 213–242). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wilensky, U., & Papert, S. (2010). Restructurations: Reformulations of knowledge disciplines through new representational forms. In Clayson, J. & Kalas, I. (Eds.), Proceedings for Constructionism 2010 (p. 97). Paris, France.Google Scholar
Wilensky, U., & Rand, W. (2015). An introduction to agent-based modeling: Modeling natural, social, and engineered complex systems with NetLogo. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a firefly: Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 171–209.Google Scholar
Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems perspective to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 3–19.Google Scholar
Wilensky, U., & Stroup, W. (2000). Networked gridlock: Students enacting complex dynamic phenomena with the HubNet architecture. In Fishman, B. & O’Connor-Divelbiss, S. (Eds.), Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 282–289). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Wilkerson-Jerde, M. H., & Wilensky, U. (2015). Patterns, probabilities, and people: Making sense of quantitative change in complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(2), 204–251. doi:10.1080/10508406.2014.976647Google Scholar
Wolfram, S. (2002). A new kind of science. Champaign, IL: Wolfram Media.Google Scholar
Yoon, S. A. (2008). An evolutionary approach to harnessing complex systems thinking in the science and technology classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 30(1), 1–32.Google Scholar
Yoon, S. A., Anderson, E., Klopfer, E., et al. (2016). Designing computer-supported complex systems curricula for the Next Generation Science Standards in high school science classrooms. Systems, 4(38).Google Scholar
Yoon, S. A., Goh, S.-E., & Park, M. (2018). Teaching and learning about complex systems in K–12 science education: A review of empirical studies 1995–2015. Review of Educational Research, 88(2), 285–325.Google Scholar

References

Alridge, D. P. (2006). The limits of master narratives in history textbooks: An analysis of representations of Martin Luther King, Jr. Teachers College Record, 108(4), 662–686.Google Scholar
Barton, K. C. (2008). Research on students’ ideas about history. In Levstik, L. S. & Thyson, C. A. (Ed.), Handbook of research in social studies education (pp. 239–258). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Barton, K. C., & Levstik, L. S. (2004). Teaching history for the common good. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Barton, K. C., & McCully, A. W. (2005). History, identity, and the school curriculum in Northern Ireland: An empirical study of secondary students’ ideas and perspectives. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(1), 85–116.Google Scholar
Bermúdez, A. (2012). The discursive negotiation of narratives and identities in learning history. In Carretero, M., Asensio, M., & Rodríguez-Moneo, M. (Eds.), History education and the construction of national identities (pp. 203–220). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Billig, M. (1995). Banal nationalism. London, England: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Brophy, J., VanSledright, B. A., & Bredin, N. (1992). Fifth graders’ ideas about history expressed before and after their introduction to the subject. Theory & Research in Social Education, 20(4), 440–489. doi:10.1080/00933104.1992.10505682Google Scholar
Cajani, L., Lässig, S., & Repoussi, M. (Eds.). (2019). The Palgrave handbook of conflict and history education in the post-cold war era. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
Carretero, M. (2011). Constructing patriotism: Teaching history and memories in global worlds. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Carretero, M. (2017). Teaching history master narratives: Fostering imaginations. In Carretero, M., Berger, S., & Grever, M. (Eds.), Palgrave handbook of research in historical culture and education (pp. 511–528). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Carretero, M. (2019). “Reconquest” – historical narrative or xenophobic view? Public History Weekly, 7, 7. doi:10.1515/phw-2019-13423Google Scholar
Carretero, M., Asensio, M., & Rodríguez-Moneo, M. (Eds.). (2012). History education and the construction of national identities. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Carretero, M., Berger, S., & Grever, M. (Eds.). (2017). Palgrave handbook of research in historical culture and education. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Carretero, M., & Bermúdez, A. (2012). Constructing histories. In Valsiner, J. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 625–646). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carretero, M., Cantabrana, M., & Parellada, C. (in press). History education in the digital age. Springer.Google Scholar
Carretero, M., Castorina, J. A., & Levinas, M. L. (2014). Conceptual change and historical narratives about the nation: A theoretical and empirical approach. In Vosniadou, S. (Ed.), International handbook of research in conceptual change (2nd ed., pp. 269–287). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Carretero, M., & González, M. F. (2008). “Aquí vemos a Colón llegando a América”: Desarrollo cognitivo e interpretación de imágenes históricas [“Here we see Columbus reaching America”: Cognitive development and interpretation of historical images]. Cultura y Educación, 20(2), 217–227.Google Scholar
Carretero, M., Jacott, L., & López-Manjon, A. (2002). Learning history through textbooks: Are Mexican and Spanish children taught the same story? Learning and Instruction, 12(6), 651–665.Google Scholar
Carretero, M., López, C., González, M. F., & Rodríguez-Moneo, M. (2013). Students historical narratives and concepts about the nation. In Carretero, M., Asensio, M., & Rodríguez-Moneo, M. (Eds.), History education and the construction of national identities (pp. 153–170). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Carretero, M., & Perez-Manjarrez, E. (2019). Historical narratives and the tensions among national identities, colonialism, and citizenship. In Thünemann, H., Zülsdorf-Kersting, M., & Köster, M. (Eds.), Researching history education: International perspectives and research traditions (2nd ed., 71–88). Schwalbach, Germany: Wochenschau Pub.Google Scholar
Carretero, M., & van Alphen, F. (2014). Do master narratives change among high school students? A characterization of how national history is represented. Cognition and Instruction, 32(3), 290–312. doi:10.1080/07370008.2014.919298Google Scholar
Carretero, M., & van Alphen, F. (2018). History, collective memories, or national memories? How the representation of the past is framed by master narratives. In Wagoner, B. (Ed.), Handbook of culture and memory (pp. 283–303). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carretero, M., van Alphen, F., & Parellada, C. (2018). National identities in the making and alternative pathways of history education. In Rosa, A. & Valsiner, J. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of sociocultural psychology, (2nd ed., pp. 424–442). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carretero, M., Wagoner, B., & Perez-Manjarrez, E. (Eds.). (in press). Historical reenactment: New ways of experiencing history. Oxford, England: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
Freedman, E. B. (2015). “What happened needs to be told”: Fostering critical historical reasoning in the classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 33(4), 357–398.Google Scholar
Freedman, E. B. (2020). When discussions sputter or take flight: Comparing productive disciplinary engagement in two history classes. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 29(3), 385–429. doi:10.1080/10508406.2020.1744442Google Scholar
González, M. F., & Carretero, M. (2013). Historical narratives and arguments in the context of identity conflicts. Estudios de Psicología, 34(1), 73–82.Google Scholar
Grever, M., & Stuurman, S. (2008). Beyond the canon: History for the 21st century. Basingstoke, England: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Grever, M., & Van der Vlies, T. (2017). Why national narratives are perpetuated: A literature review on new insights from history textbook research. London Review of Education, 15(2), 286–301.Google Scholar
Hammack, P. L. (2010). Identity as burden or benefit? Youth, historical narrative, and the legacy of political conflict. Human Development, 53, 173–201. doi: 10.1159/000320045Google Scholar
Haste, H., & Bermudez, A. (2017). The power of story: Historical narratives and the construction of civic identity. In Carretero, M., Berger, S., & Grever, M. (Eds.), Palgrave handbook of research in historical culture and education (pp. 427–447). London, England: Springer.Google Scholar
Iggers, G. (1993/2005). Historiography in the twentieth century: From scientific objectivity to the postmodern challenge (An expanded English version of: Geschichtswissenschaft im 20. Jahrhundert, c.1993). Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
Kadianaki, I., Andreouli, E., & Carretero, M. (2018). Using national history to construct the boundaries of citizenship: An analysis of Greek citizens’ discourse about immigrants’ rights. Qualitative Psychology, 5(1), 172–187. doi:10.1037/qup0000087Google Scholar
Koselleck, R. (2004). Futures past: On the semantics of historical time. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, P. J. (2005). Putting principles into practice: Understanding history. In Donovan, M. S. & Bransford, J. D. (Eds.), How students learn: History in the classroom (pp. 31–77). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Lee, P. J., & Shemilt, D. (2003). A scaffold, not a cage: Progression and progression models in history. Teaching History, 113, 13–23.Google Scholar
Lee, P. J., & Shemilt, D. (2009). Is any explanation better than none? Over-determined narratives, senseless agencies and one-way streets in students’ learning about cause and consequence in history. Teaching History, 137, 42–49.Google Scholar
Lévesque, S. (Ed.). (2008). Thinking historically: Educating students in the 21st century. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Lévesque, S., & Clark, A. (2018). Historical thinking: Definitions and educational applications. In Metzger, S. A. & Harris, L. M. A. (Eds.), The Wiley international handbook of history teaching and learning (pp. 117–148). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Limón, M., & Carretero, M. (1999). Conflicting data and conceptual change in History experts. In Schnotz, W., Vosniadou, S., & Carretero, M. (Eds.), New perspectives on conceptual change (pp. 137–160). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Pergamon/Elsevier.Google Scholar
Limón, M., & Carretero, M. (2000). Evidence evaluation and reasoning abilities in the domain of history: An empirical study. In Voss, J. F. & Carretero, M. (Eds.), Learning and reasoning in history (International Review of History Education, Vol. 2, pp. 252–271). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
López, C., Carretero, M., & Rodríguez-Moneo, M. (2014). Fostering national identity, hindering historical understanding. In Cabell, K. & Valsiner, J. (Eds.), The catalyzing mind (Annals of Theoretical Psychology, Vol. 11, pp. 211–221). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-8821-7_11Google Scholar
López, C., & Márquez, M. (2021). Proud but ashamed: Narratives and moral emotions about the troubled national past in Spain. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 27(2), 200–215. doi:10.1080/13527258.2020.1781680Google Scholar
Lowenthal, D. (2015). The past is a foreign country – revisited. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Luckin, R., Bligh, B., Manches, A., Ainsworth, S., Crook, C., & Noss, R. (2012). Decoding learning: The proof, promise and potential of digital education. London, England: NESTA.Google Scholar
Luis, R., & Rapanta, C. (2020). Towards (re-) defining historical reasoning competence: A review of theoretical and empirical research. Educational Research Review, 31, 1–15.Google Scholar
McGrew, S., Breakstone, J., Ortega, T., Smith, M., & Wineburg, S. (2018). Can students evaluate online sources? Learning from assessments of civic online reasoning. Theory & Research in Social Education, 46(2), 165–193.Google Scholar
Metzger, S. A., & Harris, L. M. (Eds.). (2018). The Wiley international handbook of history teaching and learning. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Milligan, A., Gibson, L., & Peck, C. L. (2018). Enriching ethical judgments in history education. Theory & Research in Social Education, 46(3), 449–479.Google Scholar
Monte-Santo, C., & Reisman, A. (2016). Studying historical understanding. In Corno, L. & Anderman, E. M. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 295–308). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nokes, J. (2017). Historical reading and writing in secondary school classrooms. In Carretero, M., Berger, S., & Grever, M. (Eds.), Palgrave handbook of research in historical culture and education (pp. 553–571). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Nordgren, K. (2016). How to do things with history: Use of history as a link between historical consciousness and historical culture. Theory & Research in Social Education, 44(4), 479–504.Google Scholar
Parellada, C., Carretero, M., & Rodríguez-Moneo, M. (2020). Historical borders and maps as symbolic supporters of master narratives and history education. Theory & Psychology. Special Issue on Borders, 1–17.Google Scholar
Perez-Manjarrez, E., & Carretero, M. (2021). Historical maps as narratives: Anchoring the nation in history textbooks. In Berger, S., Brauch, N., & Lorenz, C. (Eds.), Analyzing historical narratives: On academic, popular and educational framings of the past (pp. 164–190). New York, NY: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
Perikleous, L., & Shemilt, D. (Eds.). (2011). The future of the past: Why history education matters. Nicosia, Cyprus: Association for Historical Dialogue and Research.Google Scholar
Reisman, A. (2015). Entering the historical problem space: Whole-class text-based discussion in history class. Teachers College Record, 117(2), 1–44.Google Scholar
Reisman, A., & McGrew, S. (2018). Reading in history education: Text, sources, and evidence. In Metzger, S. A. & Harris, L. M. A. (Eds.), The Wiley international handbook of history teaching and learning (pp. 527–550). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Retz, T. (2017). The structure of historical inquiry. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49(6), 606–617.Google Scholar
Ricoeur, P. (1990). Time and narration. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Moneo, M., & López, C. (2017). Concept acquisition and conceptual change in history. In Carretero, M., Berger, S., & Grever, M. (Eds.), Palgrave handbook of research in historical culture and education (pp. 469–490). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/978-1-137-52908-4_25Google Scholar
Rüsen, J. (2005). History. New York, NY: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
Seixas, P. (Ed.). (2004). Theorizing historical consciousness. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Seixas, P. (2017a). A model of historical thinking. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49(6), 593–605.Google Scholar
Seixas, P. (2017b). Historical consciousness and historical thinking. In Carretero, M., Berger, S., & Grever, M. (Eds.), Palgrave handbook of research in historical culture and education (pp. 59–72). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Seixas, P., & Morton, T. (2013). The big six: Historical thinking concepts. Toronto, Canada: Nelson Education.Google Scholar
Shemilt, D. (1980). History 13–16 evaluation study. Edinburgh, Scotland: Holmes McDougall.Google Scholar
Shemilt, D. (1983). The devil’s locomotive. History and Theory, 22(4), 1–18.Google Scholar
Shemilt, D. (2011). ‘The gods of the copybook headings’: Why don’t we learn from the past? In Perikleous, L. & Shemilt, D. (Eds.), The future of the past: Why history education matters (pp. 69–128). Nicosia, Cyprus: AHDR.Google Scholar
Shemilt, D. (2018). Assessment of learning in history education: Past, present, and possible futures. In Metzger, S. A. & Harris, L. M. A. (Eds.), The Wiley international handbook of history teaching and learning (pp. 449–471). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.1002/9781119100812.ch17Google Scholar
Straub, J. (2005). Narration, identity, and historical consciousness. New York, NY: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
Thünemann, H., Köster, M., & Zülsdorf-Kersting, M. (Eds.). (2019). Researching history education: International perspectives and disciplinary traditions. (2nd ed.). Frankfurt, Germany: Wochenschau.Google Scholar
Van Alphen, F., & Carretero, M. (2015). The construction of the relation between national past and present in the appropriation of historical master narratives. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49(3), 512–530.Google Scholar
Van Boxtel, C., & van Drie, J. (2017). Engaging students in historical reasoning: The need for dialogic history education. In Carretero, M., Berger, S., & Grever, M. (Eds.), Palgrave handbook of research in historical culture and education (pp. 573–589). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Van Boxtel, C., & van Drie, J. (2018). Historical reasoning: Conceptualizations and educational applications. In Metzger, S. A. & Harris, L. M. A (Eds.), The Wiley international handbook of history teaching and learning (pp. 149–176). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
VanSledright, B. (2008). Narratives of nation-state, historical knowledge and school history education. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 109–146.Google Scholar
VanSledright, B., & Limón, M. (2006). Learning and teaching in social studies: Cognitive research on history and geography. In Alexander, P. & Winne, P. (Eds.), The handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 545–570). Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Voss, J., Ciarrocchi, J., & Carretero, M. (1998). Causality in history: On the “intuitive” understanding of the concepts of sufficiency and necessity. In Voss, J. & Carretero, M. (Eds.), Learning and reasoning in history (International Review of History Education, Vol. 2, pp. 199–213). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wertsch, J. (2001). Specific narratives and schematic narrative templates. Paper presented at Canadian Historical Consciousness in an International Context: Theoretical Frameworks. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.Google Scholar
White, H. (1987). The content of the form: Narrative discourse and historical representation. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Wineburg, S. (1991a). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictoral evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 73–87.Google Scholar
Wineburg, S. (1991b). The reading of historical texts: Notes on the breach between school and academy. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 495–519.Google Scholar
Wineburg, S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Wineburg, S. (2018). Why learn history (When it’s already on your phone). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wineburg, S., Martin, D., & Monte-Sano, C. (2011). Reading like a historian. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar

References

Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M., Sinatra, G. M., & Loxterman, J. A. (1991). Revising social studies text from a text-processing perspective: Evidence of improved comprehensibility. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 251–276.Google Scholar
Booth, W. (1974). A rhetoric of irony. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. (1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to read – a causal connection. Nature, 301, 419–421.Google Scholar
Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. (1985). Rhyme and reason in reading and spelling. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual requisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 717–726.Google Scholar
Brown, A. L., & Smiley, S. S. (1977). Rating the importance of structural units of prose passages: A problem of metacognitive development. Child Development, 48(1), 1–8.Google Scholar
Bus, A. G., & van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1999). Phonological awareness and early reading: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 403–414.Google Scholar
Clymer, T. (1963). The utility of phonic generalizations in the primary grades. The Reading Teacher, 16(4), 252–258.Google Scholar
De La Paz, S., Swanson, N., & Graham, S. (1998). The contribution of executive control to the revising by students with writing and learning difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 448–460.Google Scholar
Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Stahl, S. A., & Willows, D. M. (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 393–447.Google Scholar
Fahnestock, J., & Secor, M. (1991). The rhetoric of literary criticism. In Bazerman, C. & Paradis, J. (Eds.), Textual dynamics of the professions: Historical and contemporary studies of writing in professional communities (pp. 74–96). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). Learning as a generative activity: Eight learning strategies that promote understanding. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fish, S. (1980). Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fisher, M. T. (2005). From the coffee house to the school house: The promise and potential of spoken word poetry in school contexts. English Education, 37(2), 115–131.Google Scholar
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387.Google Scholar
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Thompson, A., et al. (2001). Is reading important in reading-readiness programs? A randomized field trial with teachers as program implementers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 251–267.Google Scholar
Gallas, K., & Smagorinsky, P. (2002). Approaching texts in school. The Reading Teacher, 56(1), 54–61.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Geary, D. C. (2005). The origin of mind: Evolution of brain, cognition, and general intelligence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Geary, D. C. (2012). Evolutionary educational psychology. In Harris, K., Graham, S., & Urdan, T. (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 597–621). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Glynn, S. M., Britton, B. K., Muth, D., & Dogan, N. (1982). Writing and revising persuasive documents: Cognitive demands. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4), 557–567.Google Scholar
Goswami, U., & Bryant, P. (1990). Phonological skills and learning to read. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In Levy, C. M. & Ransdell, S. (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 1–28). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In Gregg, L. W. & Steinberg, E. R. (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language life, and work in communities and classrooms. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hill, M. L. (2009). Beats, rhymes, and classroom life: Hip-hop pedagogy and the politics of identity. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, IL: ERIC, National Conference on Research in English.Google Scholar
Hillocks, G. (1995). Teaching writing as reflective practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Hillocks, G. (2002). The testing trap: How state writing assessments control learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Hillocks, G., Kahn, E., & Johannessen, L. (1983). Teaching defining strategies as a mode on inquiry: Some effects on student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 17, 275–284.Google Scholar
Huey, E. B. (1908). The psychology and pedagogy of reading. New York, NY: The Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
Hulme, C., Bowyer-Crane, C., Carroll, J. M., Duff, F. J., & Snowling, M. J. (2012). The causal role of phoneme awareness and letter-sound knowledge in learning: Combining intervention studies with mediation analyses. Psychological Science, 23(6), 572–577.Google Scholar
Hutchins, R. (2008). The role of cultural practices in the emergence of modern human intelligence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363(1499), 2011–2019.Google Scholar
Jones, D., & Christensen, C. A. (1999). Relationship between automaticity in handwriting and students’ ability to generate written text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 44–49.Google Scholar
Juel, C., Griffin, P. L., & Gough, P. B. (1986). Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of children in first and second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 243–255.Google Scholar
Kellogg, R. T. (1994). The psychology of writing. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kochman, T. (1981). Black and White styles in conflict. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Limpo, T., Alves, R. A., & Connelly, V. (2017). Examining the transcription-writing link: Effects of handwriting fluency and spelling accuracy on writing performance via planning and translating in middle grades. Learning and Individual Differences, 53, 26–36.Google Scholar
Limpo, T., Alves, R. A., & Fidalgo, R. (2014). Children’s high‐level writing skills: Development of planning and revising and their contribution to writing quality. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(2), 177–193.Google Scholar
Lipson, M. Y. (1983). The influence of religious affiliation on children’s memory for text information. Reading Research Quarterly, 18(4), 448–457.Google Scholar
Majors, Y. J. (2015). Shoptalk: Lessons in teaching from an African American hair salon. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Markman, E. (1979). Realizing that you don’t understand: Elementary school children’s awareness of inconsistencies. Child Development, 50(3), 643–655.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Teaching of subject matter. In Fiske, S. T., Shallert, D. L., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 55, pp. 715–744). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and instruction (2nd ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Applying the science of learning to instruction in school subjects. In Marzano, R. (Ed.), On excellence in teaching (pp. 172–193). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
McCann, T. M. (1989). Student argumentative knowledge and ability at three grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 23(1), 62–76.Google Scholar
Melby-Lervåg, M., Lyster, S.-A. H., & Hulme, C. (2012). Phonological skills and their role in learning to read: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 322–352.Google Scholar
Murray, D. (1980). Writing as process. In Donovan, T. R. & McClelland, V. W. (Eds.), Eight approaches to teaching composition (pp. 3–20). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
National Governors Association. (2012). Common Core State Standards Initiative: Preparing America’s students for college & career, Kindergarten-grade 12. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/W/KGoogle Scholar
Newell, G. E., Bloome, D., & Hirvela, A. (2015). Teaching and learning argumentative writing in high school English language arts classrooms. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nystrand, M. (Ed.). (1982). What writers know: The language, process, and structure of written discourse. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Odell, L., & Goswami, D. (Eds.). (1985). Writing in nonacademic settings. New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2014). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 27–42). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Paris, S. G., & Lindauer, B. K. (1976). The role of inference in children’s comprehension and memory for sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 8(2), 217–227.Google Scholar
Parla, J. (2003). Car narratives: A subgenre in Turkish novel writing. The South Atlantic Quarterly, 102(2–3), 535–550.Google Scholar
Pearson, P. D., Hansen, J., & Gordon, C. (1979). The effect of background knowledge on young children’s comprehension of explicit and implicit information. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11(3), 201–209.Google Scholar
Pichert, J., & Anderson, R. C. (1977). Taking different perspectives on a story. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(4), 309–315.Google Scholar
Rabinowitz, P. J. (1987). Before reading: Narrative conventions and the politics of interpretation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Rayner, K., Pollatsek, A., Ashby, J., & Clifton, C. (2011). Psychology of reading (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Reay, B. (1991). The context and meaning of popular literacy: Some evidence from nineteenth-century rural England. Past and Present, 131(1), 89–129.Google Scholar
Rose, M. (2005). The mind at work: Valuing the intelligence of the American worker. New York, NY: Penguin.Google Scholar
Saddler, B., & Graham, S. (2005). The effects of peer-assisted sentence-combining instruction on the writing performance of more of less skilled young writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 43–54.Google Scholar
Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1981). The psychology of literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Smagorinsky, P. (1991). The writer’s knowledge and the writing process: A protocol analysis. Research in the Teaching of English, 25(3), 339–364.Google Scholar
Smagorinsky, P. (Ed.). (2006). Research on composition: Multiple perspectives on two decades of change. New York, NY: Teachers College Press and the National Conference on Research in Language and Literacy.Google Scholar
Smagorinsky, P. (2020). Learning to teach English and language arts: A Vygotskian perspective on beginning teachers’ pedagogical concept development. London, England: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Smagorinsky, P. (in press). The great equalizer of the conditions of [humanity]: How transformative can schools be when society itself remains inequitable and quarrelsome? In Berliner, D. C. & Hermanns, C. (Eds.), Public education: Defending a cornerstone of American democracy. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Smagorinsky, P., Johannessen, L. R., Kahn, E., & McCann, T. (2010). The dynamics of writing instruction: A structured process approach for middle and high school. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Smagorinsky, P., & Smith, M. W. (1992). The nature of knowledge in composition and literary understanding: The question of specificity. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 279–305.Google Scholar
Smith, M. W. (1989). Teaching the interpretation of irony in poetry. Research in the Teaching of English, 23(3), 254–272.Google Scholar
Smith, M. W. (1991). Understanding unreliable narrators: Reading between the lines in the literature classroom. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
Spector, J. E. (1995). Phonemic awareness training: Application of principles of direct instruction. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 11(1), 37–51.Google Scholar
Stahl, S., Duffy-Hester, A. M., & Stahl, K. A. D. (1998). Everything you wanted to know about phonics (but were afraid to ask). Reading Research Quarterly, 33(3), 338–355).Google Scholar
Taylor, B. (1980). Children’s memory for expository text after reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 15, 399–411.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wagner, R. K., & Torgesen, J. K. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101(2), 192–212.Google Scholar
Wassenburg, S. I., Bos, L. T., de Koning, B. B., & van der Schoot, M. (2015). Effects of an inconsistency-detection training aimed at improving comprehension monitoring in primary school children. Discourse Processes, 52(5–6), 463–488.Google Scholar

References

Amabile, T. M. (1982). The social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(5), 997–1013.Google Scholar
Baer, J., Kaufman, J. C., & Gentile, C. A. (2004). Extension of the consensual assessment technique to nonparallel creative products. Creativity Research Journal, 16(1), 113–117.Google Scholar
Ball, A., & Heath, S. B. (1993). Dances of identity: Finding an ethnic self in the arts. In Heath, S. B. & McLaughlin, M. (Eds.), Identity and inner city youth: Beyond ethnicity and gender (pp. 69–93). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Bing-Canar, J., & Zerkel, M. (1998). Reading the media and myself: Experiences in critical media literacy with young Arab-American women, Signs, 23(3), 735–743.Google Scholar
Black, R. (2008). Adolescents and online fan fiction. New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Bowen, D. H., & Kisida, B. (2019). Investigating causal effects of arts education experiences: Experimental evidence from Houston’s Arts Access Initiative. Houston Education Research Consortium, 7(3).Google Scholar
Buechley, L., Eisenberg, M., Catchen, J., & Crockett, A. (2008). The LilyPad Arduino: Using computational textiles to investigate engagement, aesthetics, and diversity in computer science education. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI), Florence, Italy, April 2008 (pp. 423–432).Google Scholar
Calabrese Barton, A., & Tan, E. (2010). “We be burnin!” Agency, identity, and science learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 187–229.Google Scholar
Chávez, V., & Soep, E. (2005). Youth radio and the pedagogy of collegiality. Harvard Educational Review, 75(4), 409–434.Google Scholar
Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Oxford, England: Berg Publishers.Google Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Dando, M., & Halverson, E. R. (2017). Spoken word poetry and out-of-school learning. In Peppler, K. (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of out-of-school learning (pp. 739–742). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Davis, J. H., & Evans, M. J. (1987). Theatre, children, and youth. New Orleans, LA: Anchorage Press.Google Scholar
Deasy, R. J. (Ed.). (2002). Critical links: Learning in the arts and student academic and social development. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.Google Scholar
diSessa, A. (2004). Metarepresentational competence: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition & Instruction, 22(3), 293–331.Google Scholar
DuPont, S. (1992). The effectiveness of creative drama as an instructional strategy to enhance reading comprehension skills of fifth-grade remedial readers. Reading Research and Instruction, 31(3), 41–52.Google Scholar
Dyson, A. H. (1997). Writing superheroes. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Eisner, E. (2002). The arts and the creation of mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Enyedy, N. (2005). Inventing mapping: Creating cultural forms to solve collective problems. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 427–466.Google Scholar
Farrington, C. A., Maurer, J., Aska McBride, M. R., et al. (2019). Arts education and social-emotional learning outcomes among K-12 students: Developing a theory of action. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Consortium on School Research. Retrieved from https://consortium.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/2019-05/Arts%20Education%20and%20Social-Emotional-June2019-Consortium%20and%20Ingenuity.pdfGoogle Scholar
Fleetwood, N. (2005). Authenticating practices: Producing realness, performing youth. In Maira, S. and Soep, E. (Eds.), Youthscapes: The popular, the national, the global (pp. 155–172). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Gadsden, V. (2008). The arts and education: Knowledge generation, pedagogy, and the discourse of learning. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 29–61.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds: An anatomy of creativity seen through the lives of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham, and Ghandi. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gardner, H., & Winner, E. (1982). First intimations of artistry. In Strauss, S. (Ed.), U-shaped behavioral growth (pp. 147–168). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Getzels, J. W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). The creative vision: A longitudinal study of problem finding in art. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Goodman, N. (1976). Languages of art: An approach to a theory of symbols. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
Grafton, S., & Cross, M. (2008). Dance and the brain. In Asbury, C. & Rich, B. (Eds.), Learning, the arts, and the brain: The Dana Consortium Arts and Cognition report (pp. 61–70). New York, NY: Dana Foundation.Google Scholar
Greene, J. P., Erickson, H. H., Watson, A. R., & Beck, M. I. (2018). The play’s the thing: Experimentally examining the social and cognitive effects of school field trips to live theater performances. Educational Researcher, 47(4), 246–254. doi:10.3102/0013189X18761034Google Scholar
Halverson, E. R. (2005). InsideOut: Facilitating gay youth identity development through a performance-based youth organization. Identity: An International Journal of Theory & Research, 5(1), 67–90.Google Scholar
Halverson, E. R. (2010a). Detypification as identity development: The dramaturgical process and LGBTQ youth. Journal of Adolescent Research, 25(5), 635–668.Google Scholar
Halverson, E. R. (2010b). Film as identity exploration: A multimodal analysis of youth-produced films. Teachers College Record, 112(9), 2352–2378.Google Scholar
Halverson, E. R. (2013). Digital art-making as a representational process. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 121–162.Google Scholar
Halverson, E. R., & Gibbons, D. (2010). “Key moments” as pedagogical windows into the digital video production process. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 26(2), 69–74.Google Scholar
Halverson, E. R., Lowenhaupt, R., Gibbons, D., & Bass, M. (2009). Conceptualizing identity in youth media arts organizations: A comparative case study. E-Learning, 6(1), 23–42.Google Scholar
Halverson, E. R., & Peppler, K. (2018). The Maker Movement and learning. In Fischer, F., Hmelo-Silver, C., Goldman, S., & Reimann, P. (Eds.), The international handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 285–294). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Halverson, E. R., Saplan, K., Stoiber, A., & Rabkin, N. (2020). The role of critique in student-artists metacognitive practices. In Knutson, K., Crowley, K., & Okada, T. (Eds.), Multidisciplinary approaches to art learning and creativity: Fostering exploration in formal and informal settings (pp. 167–188). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hanna, J. L. (2008). A nonverbal language for imagining and learning: Dance education in a K-12 curriculum. Educational Researcher, 37(8), 491–506.Google Scholar
Heath, S. B. (2004). Risks, rules, and roles: Youth perspectives on the work of learning for community development. In Perret-Clermont, A., Pontecorvo, C., Resnick, L., Zittoun, T., & Burge, B. (Eds.), Joining society: Social interaction and learning in adolescence and youth (pp. 41–70). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heathcote, D., & Johnson, L. (1991). Collected writings on education and drama (O’Neill, C., Ed.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenema, S., & Sheridan, K. M. (2013). Studio thinking: The real benefits of visual arts education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Hill, M. L., & Petchauer, E. (2013). Schooling hip-hop: Expanding hip-hop education across the curriculum. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Hull, G. A., & Nelson, M. E. (2005). Locating the semiotic power of multimodality. Written Communication, 22(2), 224–261.Google Scholar
Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittanti, M., et al. (Eds.). (2010). Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out: Kids living and learning with new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Clinton, K., Weigler, M., & Robison, A. (2007). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Building the field of digital media and learning. Chicago, IL: MacArthur Foundation.Google Scholar
Kafai, Y. B. (2006). Constructionism. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 35–46). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keinänen, M., Sheridan, K., & Gardner, H. (2006). Opening up creativity: The lenses of axis and focus. In Kaufman, J. C. & Baer, J. (Eds.), Creativity and reason in cognitive development (pp. 202–218). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: a.k.a. the Remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 74–84.Google Scholar
Lashley, Y., & Halverson, E. R. (2021). Towards a collaborative approach to measuring social emotional learning in the arts. Arts Education Policy Review, 122(3), 182–192. doi:10.1080/10632913.2020.1787909Google Scholar
Lowenfeld, V. (1957). Creative and mental growth (3rd ed.). New York, NY: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Magnifico, A. M. (2012). The game of Neopian writing. In Hayes, E. R. & Duncan, S. C. (Eds.), Learning in videogame affinity spaces (pp. 212–234). New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Marino, K. (2018). The benefits of art education for English language learners’ acquisition of the English language (Order No. 10752850). [Doctoral dissertation. St. John’s University, New York, NY]. Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1978496358).Google Scholar
Mayer, V. (2000). Capturing cultural identity/creating community. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 3(1), 57–78.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, M. W., Irby, M. A., & Langman, J. (1994). Urban sanctuaries: Neighborhood organizations in the lives and futures of inner-city youth. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
McPherson, G. E., Davidson, J. W., & Faulkner, R. (2012). Music in our lives: Rethinking musical ability, development, and identity. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, K. (2009). Schizophonic performance: Guitar Hero, Rock Band, and virtual virtuosity. Journal of the Society for American Music, 3(4), 395–429.Google Scholar
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1).Google Scholar
Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. In Harel, I. & Papert, S. (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 1–11). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.Google Scholar
Penhune, V. B. (2011). Sensitive periods in human development: Evidence from musical training. Cortex, 47(9), 1126–1137.Google Scholar
Peppler, K. A. (2010). Media arts: Arts education for a digital age. Teachers College Record, 112(8), 2118–2153.Google Scholar
Peppler, K. A., Powell, C. W., Thomson, N., & Catterall, J. (2014). Positive impacts of arts integration on student academic achievement in English language arts. The Educational Forum, 78(4), 364–377.Google Scholar
Peppler, K., Warschauer, M., & Diazgranados, A. (2010). Game critics: Exploring the role of critique in game-design literacies. E-Learning and Digital Media, 7(1), 35–48.Google Scholar
Podlozny, A. (2000). Strengthening verbal skills through the use of classroom drama: A clear link. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34(3–4), 239–276.Google Scholar
Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185–217.Google Scholar
Roque, R., Rusk, N., & Resnick, M. (2016). Supporting diverse and creative collaboration in the scratch online community. In Cress, U., Moskaliuk, J., & Jeong, H. (Eds.), Mass collaboration and education (pp. 241–256). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-13536-6_12Google Scholar
Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (Eds.). (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (2012). Explaining creativity. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (2018). Teaching and learning how to create in schools of art and design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27(1), 137–181. doi:10.1080/10508406.2017.1381963Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. K., & DeZutter, S. (2009). Distributed creativity: How collective creations emerge from collaboration. Journal of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(2), 81–92.Google Scholar
Schlaug, G., Norton, A., Overy, K., & Winner, E. (2005). Effects of music training on the child’s brain and cognitive development. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1060, 219–230.Google Scholar
Sefton-Green, J., & Sinker, R. (Eds.). (2000). Evaluating creativity: Making and learning by young people. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sheridan, K. M. (2011). Envision and observe: Using the studio thinking framework for learning and teaching in digital arts. Mind, Brain, and Education, 5(1), 19–26.Google Scholar
Sheridan, K. M. (2020). Constructionism in art studios. In Holbert, N., Berland, M., & Kafai, Y. (Eds.), Designing constructionist futures: The art, theory, and practice of learning designs (pp. 323–330). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sheridan, K. M., Clark, K., & Williams, A. (2013). Designing games, designing roles: A study of youth agency in an urban informal education program. Urban Education, 48(5), 734–758.Google Scholar
Sheridan, K. M., & Gardner, H. (2012). Artistic development: Three essential spheres. In Shimamura, A. & Palmer, S. (Eds.), Aesthetic science: Connecting minds, brains, and experience (pp. 276–296). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sheridan, K., Halverson, E. R., Litts, B., Brahms, L., Jacobs-Priebe, L., & Owens, T. (2014). Learning in the making: A comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 505–531.Google Scholar
Spina, S. U. (2006). Worlds together … words apart: An assessment of the effectiveness of arts-based curriculum for second language learners. Journal of Latinos in Education, 5(2), 99–122.Google Scholar
Stalinski, S. M., & Schellenberg, E. G. (2012). Music cognition: A developmental perspective. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4(4), 485–497.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. (Ed.). (1999). Handbook of creativity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wiley, L., & Feiner, D. (2001). Making a scene: Representational authority and a community-centered process of script development. In Haedicke, S. C. & Nellahus, T. (Eds.), Performing democracy: International perspectives on urban community-based performance (pp. 121–142). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Winner, E. (1982). Invented worlds: The psychology of the arts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Winner, E. (2019). How art works: A psychological exploration. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Winner, E., & Hetland, L. (2000). The arts in education: Evaluating the evidence for a causal link. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34(3/4), 3–10.Google Scholar
Winsler, A., Gara, T., Alegrado, A., Castro, S., & Tavassolie, T. (2019). Selection into, and academic benefits from, arts-related courses in middle school for low-income, ethnically diverse youth. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 14(4), 415–432. doi:10.1037/aca0000222Google Scholar
Wong, C. P., & Alim, S. (2017). Hip-hop. In Peppler, K. (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of out-of-school learning (pp. 341–343). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Worthman, C. (2002). “Just playing the part”: Engaging adolescents in drama and literacy. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Learning Disciplinary Knowledge
  • Edited by R. Keith Sawyer, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
  • Online publication: 14 March 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.028
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Learning Disciplinary Knowledge
  • Edited by R. Keith Sawyer, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
  • Online publication: 14 March 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.028
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Learning Disciplinary Knowledge
  • Edited by R. Keith Sawyer, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
  • Online publication: 14 March 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.028
Available formats
×