Achieve (2013). Next generation science standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Aguiar, O. G., Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2010). Learning from and responding to students' questions: The authoritative and dialogic tension. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2), 174-193. Ahtee, M., Juuti, K. Lavonen, J. & Suomela, L. (2011) Questions asked by primary student teachers about observations of a science emonstration, European Journal of Teacher Education 34:3, 347-361, DOI: 10.1080/02619768.2011.565742 Alexander, R. J. (2004). Still no pedagogy? Principle, pragmatism and compliance in primary education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34(1), 7-33.
Alexander, R. J. (2006, 3rd Ed.). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. University of Cambridge: Dialogos.
Bansal, G. (2018). Teacher discursive moves: conceptualizing a schema of dialogic discourse in science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 40 (15), 1891-1912. Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765. Chen, YC., Hand, B. & Norton-Meier, L. Res Sci Educ (2017). Teacher Roles of Questioning in Early Elementary Science Classrooms: A Framework Promoting Student Cognitive Complexities in Argumentation 47: 373 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9506-6 Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2002). Student-generated questions: A meaningful aspect of learning in science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(5), 521-549. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark. V. L. (2017 3rd. Ed.). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. California: Sage Publications, Inc. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Scott, P., & Mortimer, E. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). 1.1 Learning in Science-From Behaviourism Towards Social Constructivism and Beyond. Ebenezer, J., Chacko, S., Kaya, O. N., Koya, S. K., & Ebenezer, D. L. (2010). The effects of common knowledge construction model sequence of lessons on science achievement and relational conceptual change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(1), 25-46. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in theapplication of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science education, 88(6), 915-933. Edwards, A. D., & Furlong, V. J. (1978). The language of teaching: Meaning in classroom interaction. Heinemann Educational Books. Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (2013). Common Knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. New York, NY: Routledge Revivals. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987c). Common Knowledge (Routledge Revivals): The Development of Understanding in the Classroom. Routledge. Eshach, H. (2010). An analysis of conceptual flow patterns and structures in the physics classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 451-477. Fogleman, J., McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Examining the effect of teachers' adaptations of a middle school science inquiry-oriented curriculum unit on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 149-169. Gay, A. & Duzor, V. (2012) Evidence that Teacher Interactions with Pedagogical Contexts Facilitate Chemistry-Content Learning in K-8 Professional Development, Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23:5, 481-502, DOI: 10.1007/s10972-012-9290-3
Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., & Clay-Chambers, J. (2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-based science curricula in the context of urban reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(8), 922-939.
Huang, Y. & Asghar, A. (2016). Science education reform in Confucian learning cultures: policymakers‘ perspectives on policy and practice in Taiwan. Asian-Pacific Science Education. 3. Kyriacou, C., & Issitt, J. (2008). What characterizes effective teacher-pupil dialogue to promote conceptual understanding in mathematics lessons in England in Key Stages 2 and 3. EPPI-centre report no. 1604R.
Krajcik, J., Czerniak, C., & Berger, C. (2002). Teaching science in elementary and middle school classrooms: Aproject based approach. (2nd Ed.) Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project - based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1-32. Krajcik, J., Reiser, B. J., Fortus, D., & Sutherland, L. (2008). Investigating and questioning our world through science and technology. Ann Arbor, MI: Regents of the University of Michigan. Krajcik, J. S., & Sutherland, L. M. (2010). Supporting students in developing literacy in science. Science, 328(5977), 456-459.
Lai, C., Li, Z. & Gong, Y. (2016). Teacher agency and professional learning in cross-cultural teaching contexts: accounts of Chinese teachers from international schools in Hong Kong. Teacher and Teacher Education, Vol. 54, 12-21. Lehesvuori, S., Viiri, J., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2011). Introducing dialogic teaching to science student teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(8), 705-727. Lehesvuori, S., Viiri, J., Rasku-Puttonen, H., Moate, J., & Helaakoski, J. (2013). Visualizing communication structures in science classrooms: Tracing cumulativity in teacher-led whole class discussions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(8), 912-939. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203-229. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. New York, NY: Routledge, Imprint of Taylor & Francis Group. Mercer, N. (2008). Talk and the development of reasoning and understanding. Human development, 51(1), 90-100. Mercer, N. (2009). Developing argumentation: Lessons learned in the primary school. In Argumentation and education. In N. M. Mirza & A. N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education (pp. 177–194). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Mercer, N., Dawes, L., & Staarman, J. K. (2009). Dialogic teaching in the primary science classroom. Language and Education, 23(4), 353-369. Mercer, N., & Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and learning: The value and potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(1), 12-21. Michaels, S., & O‘Connor, C. (2012). Talk science primer. Cambridge, MA: TERC. Mishler, E. G. (1975). Studies in dialogue and discourse: II. Types of discourse initiated by and sustained through questioning. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 4(2), 99-121.
Montenegro, H. (2017). Teaching as a discoursive practice: new perspectives for teacher education. Spain: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2000). Analysing discourse in the science classroom. In, R. Millar, J. Leach and J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: The contribution of research, pp.126–142. Buckingham: Open University Press. Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill International.
Myhill, D., & Dunkin, F. (2005). Questioning learning. Language and Education, 19, 415-427.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Polman, J. L. (2004). Dialogic activity structures for project-based learning environments. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 431-466. Prawat, R. S. (1993). The value of ideas: Problems versus possibilities in learning. Educational Researcher, 22(6), 5-16. Scott, P., & Ametller, J. (2007). Teaching science in a meaningful way: striking a balance between =opening up'and =closing down' classroom talk. School science review, 88(324), 77. Scott, P. H., Mortimer, E. F., & Aguiar, O. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90(4), 605-631. Shwartz, Y., Weizman, A., Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., & Reiser, B. (2008). The IQWST experience: Using coherence as a design principle for a middle school science curriculum. The Elementary School Journal, 109(2), 199-219. Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Singer, J., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J., & Clay Chambers, J. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 165-178.
Viiri, J., & Saari, H. (2006). Teacher talk patterns in science lessons. Use in teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 347-365. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. White, R., & Gunstone, R. F. (2008). The conceptual change approach and the teaching of science. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change (pp. 619 - 628). New York: Routledge. Wolf, M. K., Crosson, A. C., & Resnick, L. B. (2006). Accountable talk in reading comprehension instruction (CSE Technical Report 670). Los Angeles : National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST). Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357-377.