Assaraf, O. B., & Orion, N. (2005). Development of systems thinking skills in the context of earth system education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 518-560.

Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition--Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33, 367-379.

Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001). Formative assessment and science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Bennett, R. E. (2010). Cognitively Based Assessment of, for, and as Learning (CBAL): A preliminary theory of action for summative and formative assessment. Measurement, 8, 70-91.

Bennett, R. E., Persky, H., Weiss, A. R., & Jenkins, F. (2007). Problem solving in technology-rich environments: A report from the NAEP technology-based assessment project (NCES Publication No. 2007-466). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93, 26-55.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 139-148.

Blumenfeld, P. C., Kempler, T. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Motivation and cognitive engagement in learning environments. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 475-488). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M. (2011). Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education. Science Education, 95, 639-669.

Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, D. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2001). The use of embedded scaffolds with hypermedia-supported student-centered learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 10, 333-356.

Buehl, M. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2001). Beliefs about academic knowledge. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 385-418.

Carey, S., & Smith, C. L. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 28, 235-251.

Chan, K., & Elliott, R. G. (2004). Relational analysis of personal epistemology and conceptions about teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 817-831.

Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology: Educational design and cognitive science (Vol. 5, pp. 161-238). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Chi, M. T. H., & Bassok, M. (1989). Learning from examples via self-explanations. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 251–282). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Corcoran, T., Mosher, F., & Rogat, A. (2009). Learning progressions in science: An evidence-based approach to reform. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Cuccio-Schirripa, S., & Steiner, H. E. (2000). Enhancement and analysis of science question level for middle school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 210-224.

Davidson, J. E., & Sternberg, J. R. (1998). Smart problem solving: How metacognition helps. In J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 47-68). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1-19). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

Duell, O. K., & Schommer-Aikins, M. (2001). Measures of people’s beliefs about knowledge and learning. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 419-449.

Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 671-688.

Dunbar, K., & Klahr, D. (1989). Developmental differences in scientific discovery strategies. In D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon (pp. 109-144). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Duschl, R. A. (2003). Assessment of inquiry. In J. M. Atkin & J. E. Coffey (Eds.), Everyday assessment (pp. 41–60). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.

Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.

Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new era of cognitive developmental inquiry. The American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.

Forrester, J. W. (1961). Industrial dynamics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Furtak, E. M. (2012). Linking a learning progression for natural selection to teachers' enactment of formative assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 1181-1210.

Gobert, J. D., & Pallant, A. (2004). Fostering students' epistemologies of models via authentic model-based tasks. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13, 7-22.

Golan, R., & Reiser, B. J. (2002). Investigating students’ reasoning about the complexity manifested in molecular genetics phenomena. In P. Bell & S. Reed (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th international conference for the learning sciences. Keeping learning complex: Fostering multidisciplinary research efforts (pp. 237–244). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hammer, D. (1994). Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 151-183.

Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 1011- 1026.

Hmelo, C. E., & Lin, X. (2000). Becoming self-directed learners: Strategy development in problem-based learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hofer, B. K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 378-405.

Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88-140.

Hogan, K. (2000). Exploring a process view of students’ knowledge about the nature of science. Science Education, 84, 51-70.

Hogan, K. E., & Pressley, M. E. (1997). Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues. Northhampton, MA: Brookline Books.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1992). Positive interdependence: Key to effective cooperation. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 174–199). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, P. (1998). Progression in children's understanding of a 'basic' particle theory: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 393-412.

Johnson, P. (2000). Children's understanding of substances, part 1: Recognizing chemical change. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 719-737.

Johnson, P. (2002). Children's understanding of substances, part 2: Explaining chemical change. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1037-1054.

Klahr, D. (2000). Exploring science: The cognition and development of discovery processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

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, 1-32.

Krnel, D., Watson, R., & Glazar, S. (1998). Survey of research related to the development of the concept of ‘matter.’ International Journal of Science Education 20, 257-289.

Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2000). Inventing data structures for representational science: Co-constituting inscription and thought. In J. Byrnes & E. D. Amsel (Eds.), Language, literacy, and cognitive development: The development and consequences of symbolic communication (pp. 39-74). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Linn, M. C., & Songer, N. B. (1993). How do students make sense of science? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39, 47-73.

Liu, L., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2009). Promoting complex systems learning through the use of conceptual representations in hypermedia. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 1023-1040.

Liu, X., & Lesniak, K. M. (2005). Students' progression of understanding the matter concept from elementary to high school. Science Education, 89, 433-450.

Lombrozo, T. (2006). The structure and function of explanations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 464-470.

McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Inquiry and scientific explanations: Helping students use evidence and reasoning. In J. Luft, R. Bell & J. Gess-Newsome (Eds.), Science as inquiry in the secondary setting (pp. 121-134). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.

McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 153-191.

Merritt, J. (2010). Tracking students' understanding of the particle nature of matter (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from DeepBlue, University of Michigan database (Handle: http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/78789).

Nakhleh, M. B., & Samarapungavan, A. (1999). Elementary school children's beliefs about matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 777-805.

National Assessment Governing Board. (2010). Science framework for the 2011 national assessment of educational progress. Washington, DC: Author.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards: Observe, interact, change, learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for k-12 science education practices, crosscutting concepts, and core Ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Retrieved from www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards

Ofer, G., & Durban, J. (1999). Curiosity: Reflections on its nature and functions. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 53, 35-51.

Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994-1020.

Osborne, J., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction? Science Education, 95, 627-638.

Papageorgiou, G., & Johnson, P. (2005). Do particle ideas help or hinder pupils’ understanding of phenomena? International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1299-1317.

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2007). The intellectual and policy foundations of the 21st century skills framework. Tucson, AZ: Author.

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. (1993). Predictive validity and reliability of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801-813.

Quellmalz, E. S., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2009). Technology and testing. Science, 323(5910), 75-79.

Quellmalz, E. S., Timms, M. J., Silberglitt, M. D., & Buckley, B. C. (2012). Science assessments for all: Integrating science simulations into balanced state science assessment systems.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 363-393.

Rogat, A. (with Anderson, C., Foster, J., Goldberg, F., Hicks, J., Kanter, D., . . . Wiser, M.). (2011). Developing learning progressions in support of the new science standards: A RAPID workshop series. Retrieved from http://www.cpre.org/developing-learning-progressions-support-new-science-standards-rapid-workshop-series

Sabelli, N. H. (2006). Complexity, technology, science, and education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 5-9.

Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D., ... Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 632-654.

Schwarz, C. V., & White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students' understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 165-205.

Slotta, J. D. (2004). The web-based inquiry science environment (WISE): Scaffolding knowledge integration in the science classroom. In M. C. Linn, P. Bell, & E. Davis (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 203-231). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Smith, C. L., Maclin, D., Houghton, C., & Hennessey, M. G. (2000). Sixth-grade students’ epistemologies of science: The impact of school science experiences on epistemological development. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 349-422.

Smith, C. L., Wiser, M., Anderson, C. W., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Implications of research on children's learning for standards and assessment: A proposed learning progression for matter and the atomic-molecular theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 4(1-2), 1-98.

Songer, N. B., Kelcey, B., & Gotwals, A. W. (2009). When and how does complex reasoning occur? Empirically driven development of a learning progression focused on complex reasoning about biodiversity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 610-631.

Stathopoulou, C., & Vosniadou, S. (2007). Exploring the relationship between physics-related epistemological beliefs and physics understanding. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 255-281.

Stavy, R. (1990). Children's conception of changes in the state of matter: From liquid (or solid) to gas. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 247-266.

Stavy, R. (1991). Children’s ideas about matter. School Science and Mathematics, 91, 240-244.

Stevens, S. Y., Delgado, C., & Krajcik, J. (2010). Developing a hypothetical multi-dimensional learning progression for the nature of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 687-715.

Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Weinstein, C., Zimmermann, S., & Palmer, D. (1988). Assessing learning strategies: The design and development of the LASSI. In C. Weinstein, E. Goetz & P. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment, instruction, and evaluation (pp. 25–40). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

White, B. Y. (1993). ThinkerTools: Causal models, conceptual change, and science education. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 1-100.

Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a firefly: Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories—an embodied modeling approach. Cognition and Instruction, 24, 171-209.

Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems approach to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8, 3-19.

Wiser, M., & Smith, C. L. (2008). Learning and teaching about matter in grades K-8: When should the atomic-molecular theory be introduced? In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change. New York, NY: Routledge.

Wiser, M., Smith, C. L., & Doubler, S. (2012). Learning progressions as tool for curriculum development. In A. C. Alonzo & A. W. Gotwals (Eds.), Learning progression in science (pp. 359-403). New York, NY: Sense Publishers.

Yarden, A., Brill, G., & Falk, H. (2001). Primary literature as a basis for a high-school biology curriculum. Journal of Biology Education, 35, 190-195.

Yoon, S. A., Liu, L., & Goh, S. (2009). Exploring the process of convergent adaptation in technology-based science curriculum construction. Proceedings of the 9th international conference on computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 272-281). Rhodes, Greece: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

Zacharia, Z. C. (2007). Comparing and combining real and virtual experimentation: An effort to enhance students’ conceptual understanding of electric circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 120-132.