Beal, C. R., Arroyo, I., Cohen, P. R., & Woolf, B. P. (2010). Evaluation of Animalwatch: An intelligent tutoring system for arithmetic and fractions. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(1), 64–77.
Bereiter, C. (2013). Principled practical knowledge: Not a bridge but a ladder. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 4–17.
Berland, L. K., Schwarz, C. V., Krist, C., Kenyon, L., Lo, A. S., & Reiser, B. J. (2016). Epistemologies in practice: Making scientific practices meaningful for students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(7). https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21257
Bolhuis, S. (2003). Towards process-oriented teaching for self-directed lifelong learning: A multidimensional perspective. Learning and Instruction, 13, 327–347.
Brown, J., & Livstrom, I. (2020). Secondary science teachers’ pedagogical design capacities for multicultural curriculum design. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 31(8), 821–840. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2020.1756588
Burton, E. P. (2013). Student work products as a teaching tool for nature of science pedagogical knowledge: A professional development project with in-service secondary science teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 156–166.
Chi, M. T. H., Adams, J., Bogusch, E. B., Bruchok, C., Kang, S., Lancaster, M., Levy, R., Li, N., McEldoon, K. L., Stump, G. S., Wylie, R., Xu, D., & Yaghmourian, D. L. (2018). Translating the ICAP theory of cognitive engagement into practice. Cognitive Science, 42(6), 1777–1832.
Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175–218.
Clark, D. (2006). Longitudinal conceptual change in students’ understanding of thermal equilibrium: An examination of the process of conceptual restructuring. Cognition and Instruction, 24(4), 467–563. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2404_3
Cordova, D. I., & Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 715–730.
Crawford, L., Lloyd, S., & Knoth, K. (2008). Analysis of student revisions on a state writing test. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33(2), 108–119.
Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x034003003
Davis, E. A., Palinscar, A. S., Smith, P. S., Arias, A. M., & Kademian, S. M. (2017). Educative curriculum materials: Uptake, impact, and implications for research and design. Educational Researcher, 46(6), 293–304. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17727502
Debarger, A. H., Penuel, W. R., Moorthy, S., Beauvineau, Y., Kennedy, C. A., & Boscardin, C. K. I. M. (2017). Investigating purposeful science curriculum adaptation as a strategy to improve teaching and learning. Science Education, 101(1), 66–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21249
diSessa, A. A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 49–70). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Drake, C., & Sherin, M. G. (2006). Practicing change: Curriculum adaptation and teacher narrative in the context of mathematics education reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 32, 153–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-873X.2006.00351.x
Duncan, R. G., Chinn, C. A., & Barzilai, S. (2018). Grasp of evidence: Problematizing and expanding the next generation science standards’ conceptualization of evidence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55, 907–937. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21468
Fallik, O., Eylon, B.-S., & Rosenfeld, S. (2008). Motivating teachers to enact free choice project-based learning in science and technology: Effects of a professional development model. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(6), 565–591.
Forbes, C. T., & Davis, E. A. (2010). Curriculum design for inquiry: Preservice elementary teachers’ mobilization and adaptation of science curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 820–839. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20379
Freedman, S., Hull, G., Higgs, J., & Booten, K. (2016). Teaching writing in a digital and global age: Toward access, learning, and development for all. In Handbook of Research on Teaching (5th ed., pp. 1389–1449). American Educational Research Association.
Gerard, L., Kidron, A., & Linn, M. C. (2019). Teacher guidance for collaborative revision of science explanations. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 14(3), 291–324.
Gerard, L., & Linn, M. C. (2016). Using automated scores of student essays to support teacher guidance in classroom inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education., 27(1), 111–129.
Gerard, L., & Linn, M. C. (2022). Computer-based guidance to support students’ revision of their science explanations. Computers & Education, 176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104351
Gerard, L., Ryoo, K., McElhaney, K., Liu, L., Rafferty, A., & Linn, M. C. (2015). Automated guidance for student inquiry. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(1), 60–81.
Gerard, L. F., Spitulnik, M., & Linn, M. C. (2010). Teacher use of evidence to customize inquiry science instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(9), 1037–1063.
Gerard, L. F., Varma, K., Corliss, S. C., & Linn, M. C. (2011). A review of the literature on professional development in technology-enhanced inquiry science. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 408–448.
Gess-Newsome, J., Taylor, J. A., Carlson, J., Gardner, A. L., Wilson, C. D., & Stuhlsatz, M. A. M. (2019). Teacher pedagogical content knowledge, practice, and student achievement. International Journal of Science Education, 41(7), 944–963.
Gunstone, R. F., & Champagne, A. B. (1990). Promoting conceptual change in the laboratory. In E. Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.), The student laboratory and the science curriculum. New York: Routledge.
Harn, B., Parisi, D., & Stoolmiller, M. (2013). Balancing fidelity with flexibility and fit: What do we really know about fidelity of implementation in schools? Exceptional Children, 79(2), 181–193.
Hmelo-Silver, C. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology, 16(3), 235–266.
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958/1972). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence, an essay on the construction of formal operational structures. New York: Basic Books.
Janssen, F., Westbroek, H., & Doyle, W. (2015). Practicality studies: How to move from what works in principle to what works in practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(1), 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2014.954751
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(3), 757–792.
Kali, Y. (2006). Collaborative knowledge-building using the design principles database. International Journal of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 187–201. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11412-006-8993-x
Kamii, C. (1991). Toward autonomy: The importance of critical thinking and choice making. School Psychology Review, 20(3), 382–388.
Kerr, K. A., Marsh, J. A., Ikemoto, G. S., Darilek, H., & Barney, H. (2006). Strategies to promote data use for instructional improvement: Actions, outcomes, and lessons from three urban districts. American Journal of Education, 112, 496–520. https://doi.org/10.1086/505057
Kraft, M. A. (2020). Interpreting effect sizes of education interventions. Educational Researcher, 49(4), 241–253.
Leary, H., Severance, S., Penuel, W., Quigley, D., Sumner, T., & Devaul, H. (2016) Designing a deeply digital science curriculum: Supporting teacher learning and implementation with organizing technologies. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(1), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9452-9
Lewis, C., Perry, R., Friedkin, S., & Roth, J. (2016). How does lesson study improve mathematics instruction? Theory and Practice of Lesson Study in Mathematics, 48(4), 541–554.
Linn, M., & Eylon, B.-S. (2011). Science learning and instruction: Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. New York: Routledge.
Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, and peers: Science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Littenberg-Tobias, J., Beheshti, E., & Staudt, C. (2016). To customize or not to customize? Exploringscience teacher customization in an online lesson portal. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(3), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21300
Liu, O. L., Lee, H.-S., Hofstetter, C., & Linn, M. C. (2008). Assessing knowledge integration in science:Construct, measures and evidence. Educational Assessment, 13(1), 33–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627190801968224
Matuk, C., & Linn, M. C. (2018). Why and how do middle school students exchange ideas during science inquiry? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(3), 263–299.
Matuk, C. F., Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B.-S. (2015). Technology to support teachers using evidence from student work to customize technology-enhanced inquiry units. Instructional Science, 43, 229–257.
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 57–111. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X1000096
Nickerson, R. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2618.104.22.168
Penuel, W. R. (2017). Research–practice partnerships as a strategy for promoting equitable science teaching and learning through leveraging everyday science. Science Education, 101(4), 520–525.
Penuel, W. R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2009). Preparing teachers to design instruction for deep understanding in middle school earth science. Journal of the Learning Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400903191904
Raviv, A., Cohen, S., & Aflalo, E. (2019). How should students learn in the school science laboratory? The benefits of cooperative learning. Research in Science Education, 49(2), 331–345.
Razzaq, L., & Heffernan, N. (2009). To tutor or not to tutor: that is the question. In V. Dimitrova, R. Mizoguchi, B. D. Boulay, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence in Education: Building Learning Systems that Care: From Knowledge Representation to Affective Modelling, Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, AIED 2009 (pp. 457–464): IOS Press.
Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246.
Rivard, L. P. (1994). A review of writing to learn in science: Implications for practice and research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 969–983.
Roll, I., Baker, R. S. D., Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2014). On the benefits of seeking (and avoiding) help in online problem-solving environments. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(4), 537–560. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2014.88397
Roseman, J., Herrmann-Abell, C., & Koppal, M. (2017). Designing for the next generation science standards: Educative curriculum materials and measures of teacher knowledge. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 28(1), 111–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2016.1277598
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93, 448–484. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20306
Sun, D., Looi, C.-K., & Xie, W. (2016). Learning with collaborative inquiry: A science learning environment for secondary students. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(3).
Tekkumru-Kisa, M., Stein, M.K. & Doyle, W. (2020). Theory and research on tasks revisited: Task as a context for students’ thinking in the era of ambitious reforms in mathematics and science. Educational Researcher.
Vogel, F., Wecker, C., Kollar, I., et al. (2017). Socio-cognitive scaffolding with computer-supported collaboration scripts: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 29, 477–511.
Voogt, J., Laferriere, T., Breuleux, A., Itow, R. C., Hickey, D. T., & McKenney, S. (2015). Collaborative design as a form of professional development. Instructional Science, 43(2), 259–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9340-7
Wen, C.-T., Liu, C.-C., Chang, H.-Y., Chang, C.-J., Chang, M.-H., Fan Chiang, S.-H., Yang, C.-W., & Hwang, F.-K. (2020). Students’ guided inquiry with simulation and its relation to school science achievement and scientific literacy. Computers & Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103830
White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 3–118. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1601_2
Winne, P. H. (2018). Cognition and metacognition within self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Educational psychology handbook series. Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 36–48). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Ye, L., Recker, M., Walker, A., Leary, H., & Yuan, M. (2015). Expanding approaches for understanding impact: Integrating technology, curriculum, and open educational resources in science education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(3), 355–380.
Zhu, M., Liu, O. L., & Lee, H. S. (2020). The effect of automated feedback on revision behavior and learning gains in formative assessment of scientific argument writing. Computers & Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103668
Zimmerman, B. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learning. An Overview. Theory into Practice, 41, 64–70.