@article{clark_gyles_tieu_venkatesh_sandoval_2024, title={Exploring science teachers' efforts to frame phenomena in the community}, volume={4}, ISSN={["1098-2736"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21945}, DOI={10.1002/tea.21945}, abstractNote={Abstract This article examines two teachers' efforts to re‐organize their science teaching around issues of environmental and food justice in the urban community where they teach through the pedagogical approach of community‐oriented framing. We introduce this approach to teachers' framing of phenomena in community as supporting students' framing of phenomena as personally and locally relevant. Drawing on classroom observations of remote learning during the COVID‐19 pandemic, we took an analytic approach that characterized features of classroom discourse to rate community‐oriented framing at the lesson level. Results show that teachers framed phenomena as both social and scientific, and as rooted in students' lived experiences, with classroom activities designed to gather localized and personalized evidence needed to explain or model phenomena. We also share examples of how Black and Latinx students took up this framing of phenomena in their classroom work. By providing a detailed description of the launch and implementation of activities, findings illustrate how community‐oriented framing supported teachers in posing local questions of equity and justice as simultaneously social and scientific, and helping students perceive science learning as meaningful to their everyday lives. Community‐oriented framing offers a practical means of designing locally and socially relevant instruction. We contribute to justice‐centered science pedagogies by conceptualizing transformative science learning environments as those in which students understand their goal in science class as understanding, and later addressing, inequities in how socioscientific issues manifest in their community.}, journal={JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING}, author={Clark, Heather F. and Gyles, Symone A. and Tieu, Darlene and Venkatesh, Shriya and Sandoval, William A.}, year={2024}, month={Apr} }
 @article{sandoval_kovach_perez_kim-john_kawasaki_2023, title={Using Argument to Reason AboutScience Practice}, volume={60}, ISSN={0036-8148 1943-4812}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00368148.2023.12315939}, DOI={10.1080/00368148.2023.12315939}, abstractNote={Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Additional informationNotes on contributorsWilliam SandovalWilliam Sandoval (sandoval@seis.ucla.edu) is a professor of education, and Jon Kovach (kovach@seis.ucla.edu) is the director of the Science Project at the University of California, Los Angeles. Leticia Perez (lperez2@wested.org) is a professional learning specialist at WestEd in San Francisco. Lynn Kim-John (lkim@seis.ucla.edu) is the director of the Educational Leadership Program at the University of California, Los Angeles. Jarod Kawasaki (jakawasaki@csudh.edu) is an assistant professor of education at California State University in Dominguez Hills.Jon KovachWilliam Sandoval (sandoval@seis.ucla.edu) is a professor of education, and Jon Kovach (kovach@seis.ucla.edu) is the director of the Science Project at the University of California, Los Angeles. Leticia Perez (lperez2@wested.org) is a professional learning specialist at WestEd in San Francisco. Lynn Kim-John (lkim@seis.ucla.edu) is the director of the Educational Leadership Program at the University of California, Los Angeles. Jarod Kawasaki (jakawasaki@csudh.edu) is an assistant professor of education at California State University in Dominguez Hills.Leticia PerezWilliam Sandoval (sandoval@seis.ucla.edu) is a professor of education, and Jon Kovach (kovach@seis.ucla.edu) is the director of the Science Project at the University of California, Los Angeles. Leticia Perez (lperez2@wested.org) is a professional learning specialist at WestEd in San Francisco. Lynn Kim-John (lkim@seis.ucla.edu) is the director of the Educational Leadership Program at the University of California, Los Angeles. Jarod Kawasaki (jakawasaki@csudh.edu) is an assistant professor of education at California State University in Dominguez Hills.Lynn Kim-JohnWilliam Sandoval (sandoval@seis.ucla.edu) is a professor of education, and Jon Kovach (kovach@seis.ucla.edu) is the director of the Science Project at the University of California, Los Angeles. Leticia Perez (lperez2@wested.org) is a professional learning specialist at WestEd in San Francisco. Lynn Kim-John (lkim@seis.ucla.edu) is the director of the Educational Leadership Program at the University of California, Los Angeles. Jarod Kawasaki (jakawasaki@csudh.edu) is an assistant professor of education at California State University in Dominguez Hills.Jarod KawasakiWilliam Sandoval (sandoval@seis.ucla.edu) is a professor of education, and Jon Kovach (kovach@seis.ucla.edu) is the director of the Science Project at the University of California, Los Angeles. Leticia Perez (lperez2@wested.org) is a professional learning specialist at WestEd in San Francisco. Lynn Kim-John (lkim@seis.ucla.edu) is the director of the Educational Leadership Program at the University of California, Los Angeles. Jarod Kawasaki (jakawasaki@csudh.edu) is an assistant professor of education at California State University in Dominguez Hills.}, number={7}, journal={Science and Children}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Sandoval, William and Kovach, Jon and Perez, Leticia and Kim-John, Lynn and Kawasaki, Jarod}, year={2023}, month={Sep}, pages={54–57} }
 @misc{sandoval_2023, title={Epistemic cognition}, ISBN={9780128186299}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-818630-5.14019-9}, DOI={10.1016/b978-0-12-818630-5.14019-9}, abstractNote={Epistemic cognition refers to how people think about the nature of knowledge and knowing. It is studied by researchers across a wide range of sub-fields of psychology and education. It is seen as increasingly important to learning in the disciplines and for productive civic engagement. This chapter summarizes key concepts and related areas of developmental research, issues in the study of epistemic cognition, and emerging trends in research in this area.}, journal={International Encyclopedia of Education(Fourth Edition)}, publisher={Elsevier}, author={Sandoval, William A.}, year={2023}, pages={162–167} }
 @article{modrek_hass_kwako_sandoval_2021, title={Do adolescents want more autonomy? Testing gender differences in autonomy across STEM}, volume={92}, ISSN={0140-1971 1095-9254}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2021.09.003}, DOI={10.1016/j.adolescence.2021.09.003}, abstractNote={AbstractIntroductionA growing body of research has identified gender disparities in STEM education, but data are limited from studies directly comparing autonomy given to autonomy wanted by adolescents, as experienced in classrooms by gender and across course subjects.MethodsWith a sample of US adolescents (n = 540), aged 11–19 and 55% female, we assessed students’ perceived levels of autonomy given, and levels of autonomy wanted, by adapting an autonomy assessment specific to course subjects of math, science, and English. We then employed contrast models testing gender differences of autonomy levels across course subjects of math, science, and English, and controlled for age.ResultsOverall, all adolescents reported getting less autonomy than they want. Within gender, girls reported wanting the most autonomy from science. Between genders, girls reported wanting more autonomy from both math and science, compared to boys. In contrast, girls reported getting more autonomy in English, compared to boys. While we found no developmental differences for reported levels of autonomy given, we did find developmental differences with levels of autonomy wanted, showing significant variability of adolescents wanting more autonomy with age.ConclusionsOur results suggest a general desire for more autonomy across adolescence, with a desire for more autonomy in STEM more common amongst girls. If adolescents' perceived levels of autonomy vary across STEM and by gender, these effects may extend more broadly to their pursuits of STEM careers. Students’ beliefs of autonomy and self‐concept shape their career interests and academic engagement, a trajectory that warrants concern and further investigation.}, number={1}, journal={Journal of Adolescence}, publisher={Wiley}, author={Modrek, Anahid S. and Hass, Richard and Kwako, Alexander and Sandoval, William A.}, year={2021}, month={Oct}, pages={237–246} }
 @inbook{kim-john_sandoval_kawasaki_perez_kovach_clark_2021, place={Cambridge, MA}, title={Equity-oriented science professional development}, booktitle={Preparing and sustaining social justice educators}, publisher={Harvard Education Press}, author={Kim-John, L. and Sandoval, W.A. and Kawasaki, J. and Perez, L. and Kovach, J. and Clark, H.F.}, editor={Francois, A. and Quartz, K.H.Editors}, year={2021}, pages={105–124} }
 @book{davis_carlone_charara_clements_mcmillan culp_domînguez_greenfield_hopkins_manz_neill_et al._2022, place={Washington, D.C.}, title={Science and Engineering in Preschool Through Elementary Grades: The Brilliance of Children and the Strengths of Educators}, ISBN={9780309684170}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.17226/26215}, DOI={10.17226/26215}, publisher={National Academies Press}, author={Davis, Elizabeth A. and Carlone, Heidi and Charara, Jeanane and Clements, Douglas and Mcmillan Culp, Katie and Domînguez, Ximena and Greenfield, Daryl and Hopkins, Megan and Manz, Eve and Neill, Tiffany and et al.}, editor={Davis, Elizabeth A. and Stephens, AmyEditors}, year={2022}, month={Mar} }
 @article{modrek_sandoval_2020, title={Can autonomy play a role in causal reasoning?}, volume={54}, ISSN={0885-2014}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2020.100849}, DOI={10.1016/j.cogdev.2020.100849}, abstractNote={Autonomy is associated with a variety of cognitive, educational, and motivational benefits, but relations between autonomy and reasoning skills are less well understood. We posit individuals afforded greater autonomy are more often put into situations of having to consider multiple options, or causes, and hence will likely reason about cause and effect differently. In a multi-level study, (n = 696) we examine associations between younger (11–13 years) and older (14–19 years) adolescents' autonomy and their performance on a multivariable causal reasoning and prediction task. Across the sample, greater autonomy was associated with more effective reasoning, with some differences between young and older adolescents. Autonomy given predicted reasoning skills in younger adolescents, whereas more autonomy desired predicted reasoning skills in older adolescents. We highlight sociocultural, individual, and developmental factors in their differing relations to autonomy and its effects on causal reasoning.}, journal={Cognitive Development}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Modrek, Anahid S. and Sandoval, William A.}, year={2020}, month={Apr}, pages={100849} }
 @article{sandoval_kawasaki_clark_2020, title={Characterizing Science Classroom Discourse Across Scales}, volume={51}, ISSN={0157-244X 1573-1898}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09953-7}, DOI={10.1007/s11165-020-09953-7}, number={1}, journal={Research in Science Education}, publisher={Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, author={Sandoval, William A. and Kawasaki, Jarod and Clark, Heather F.}, year={2020}, month={Aug}, pages={35–49} }
 @article{kawasaki_sandoval_2020, title={Examining teachers’ classroom strategies to understand their goals for student learning around the science practices in the Next Generation Science Standards}, volume={31}, ISSN={1046-560X 1573-1847}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2019.1709726}, DOI={10.1080/1046560X.2019.1709726}, abstractNote={ABSTRACT We report on seven secondary science teachers’ initial efforts to understand and enact NGSS-aligned teaching. After interviewing and observing them over the course of the school year, we found that teachers revised their lessons to include instructional strategies that aimed to meet the demands of the NGSS. Yet at times, the purpose for which teachers used these strategies were misaligned with the demands of the NGSS. This suggests that appropriately supporting teachers during this time of science education reform must include opportunities for them to consider their own instructional goals in relation to the goals and demands of the NGSS. We present the strategies and goals identified from interviews with the seven teachers and the observations of their classroom teaching in order to illustrate the professional learning needs of the in-service science teachers in this study.}, number={4}, journal={Journal of Science Teacher Education}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Kawasaki, Jarod and Sandoval, William A.}, year={2020}, month={Jan}, pages={384–400} }
 @article{clark_sandoval_kawasaki_2020, title={Teachers’ uptake of problematic assumptions of climate change in the NGSS}, volume={26}, ISSN={1350-4622 1469-5871}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2020.1748175}, DOI={10.1080/13504622.2020.1748175}, abstractNote={Abstract This case study presents the efforts of three high school teachers to design and implement climate change lessons in alignment with the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). Using three conceptual frameworks that organize the assumptions of the environment in the NGSS we examine how those assumptions influence teacher practice when teachers strive to align with the standards. Video recorded instruction of eight climate change-anchored lessons spanning three consecutive years were thematically coded. Results indicate that the problematic aspects of the NGSS’s characterization of climate change can help explain the framing of environmental issues and the compartmentalization of humans relative to the climate science in teachers’ lesson plans and instruction. The NGSS promulgate disconnected agency which appears in teacher and student talk in classrooms. Our analysis reveals opportunities to use standards to design interventions for classroom practice to support diverse students in countering the assumptions about the human-environment relationship embodied in the NGSS.}, number={8}, journal={Environmental Education Research}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Clark, Heather F. and Sandoval, William A. and Kawasaki, Jarod N.}, year={2020}, month={May}, pages={1177–1192} }
 @misc{kuhn_modrek_sandoval_2020, title={Teaching and Learning by Questioning}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/9781108553803.012}, DOI={10.1017/9781108553803.012}, abstractNote={How can we encourage adolescents to ask the most effective questions? Several different lines of research design children's and adolescents' learning environments in ways that capitalize on self-initiated, largely self-directed question-asking and answer-seeking. We describe a number of studies indicating that such contexts yield effective outcomes for several different kinds of learning and across different populations. We discuss inquiry, and its importance for students developing a sense of agency and value in conducting their own inquiry and their learning more broadly. The role of argument, a context in which claims are expected to be justified by appeal to evidence, is highlighted as it can lead one to question a claim being made, and thus be seen as a driving factor to engaging in discourse about a claim. Finally, we stress that teachers must learn to cede control to an extent that allows students autonomy in choosing questions they find authentic and worthy of pursuit, and in letting students engage and address one another directly, allowing them to develop the norms of discourse that reinforce accountability to one another.}, journal={The Questioning Child}, publisher={Cambridge University Press}, author={Kuhn, Deanna and Modrek, Anahid S. and Sandoval, William A.}, year={2020}, month={Jan}, pages={232–251} }
 @article{sandoval_enyedy_redman_xiao_2019, title={Organising a culture of argumentation in elementary science}, volume={41}, ISSN={0950-0693 1464-5289}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1641856}, DOI={10.1080/09500693.2019.1641856}, abstractNote={ABSTRACT Most of the research on argumentation in science education has documented the myriad flaws in students’ argumentation, and the difficulties teachers have organising productive arguments in the classroom. We apply a sociocultural framework to argue that productive argumentation emerges from a classroom culture in which its practice meaningfully serves classroom goals. We present a case study using interaction analysis to contrast two elementary teachers’ efforts to organise productive scientific argumentation in their classrooms. One teacher used discourse moves to orient students to each other’s contributions in ways the other did not, reflecting differences in underlying aims for collective versus individual sense-making. This analysis shows that connecting discourse practices specifically to a goal of collective sense-making promotes productive argumentation.}, number={13}, journal={International Journal of Science Education}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Sandoval, William A. and Enyedy, Noel and Redman, Elizabeth H. and Xiao, Sihan}, year={2019}, month={Jul}, pages={1848–1869} }
 @article{kawasaki_sandoval_2019, title={The Role of Teacher Framing in Producing Coherent NGSS-Aligned Teaching}, volume={30}, ISSN={1046-560X 1573-1847}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2019.1657765}, DOI={10.1080/1046560X.2019.1657765}, abstractNote={ABSTRACT We report on one teachers’ efforts to re-design an entire instructional unit as a coherent storyline about forces and motion as a part of a multiyear professional development (PD) project around the NGSS. Designing coherent storylines demands that teachers create opportunities for students to meaningfully engage in science practices in order to develop their knowledge over time. We found that appropriately framing the unit, lesson, and/or activity supported students take on roles as epistemic agents and sensemakers, whereas unclear framing led to more traditional roles for students that resembled didactic science teaching. This suggests that a primary issue for PD is to help teachers look at and plan how they intend to frame lessons/activities as a way for them to promote coherence and epistemic agency.}, number={8}, journal={Journal of Science Teacher Education}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Kawasaki, Jarod and Sandoval, William A.}, year={2019}, month={Aug}, pages={906–922} }
 @misc{chinn_sandoval_2018, title={Epistemic Cognition and Epistemic Development}, ISBN={9781315617572}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315617572-3}, DOI={10.4324/9781315617572-3}, abstractNote={Research on epistemic cognition (EC) focuses on people's beliefs, stances, or theories related to knowledge and knowing. This chapter discusses learning sciences (LS) approaches to research on EC. Six features of research on EC are relatively distinctive to LS: (1) emphasizing multidisciplinary research, (2) broadening the range of questions, (3) challenging normative assumptions, (4) a focus on practices, (5) the thoroughly social nature of EC, and (6) its situativity. Learning scientists typically investigate EC through promoting and analyzing rich epistemic practices as learners engage with practical reasoning tasks. We illustrate LS approaches to studying epistemic practices by examining the practices of explanation and argumentation at three levels of analysis: the community/system level, the interactional level, and the individual level. Our review of this research reveals the diverse ways in which EC is embedded within social communities. Finally, we highlight the LS theme that EC varies across disciplines by contrasting EC in history and EC in science along the dimensions of epistemic aims, epistemic ideals or criteria, and reliable epistemic processes used to achieve knowledge.}, journal={International Handbook of the Learning Sciences}, publisher={Routledge}, author={Chinn, Clark and Sandoval, William}, year={2018}, month={Apr}, pages={24–33} }
 @inproceedings{sandoval_kwako_modrek_kawasaki_2018, place={London}, title={Patterns of classroom talk through participation in discourse-focused teacher professional development}, volume={2}, booktitle={Rethinking Learning in the Digital Age: Making the Learning Sciences Count. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2018}, publisher={ISLS}, author={Sandoval, W.A. and Kwako, A.J. and Modrek, A. and Kawasaki, J.}, editor={Kay, J. and Luckin, R.Editors}, year={2018}, pages={760–767} }
 @article{xiao_sandoval_2017, title={Associations Between Attitudes Towards Science and Children’s Evaluation of Information About Socioscientific Issues}, volume={26}, ISSN={0926-7220 1573-1901}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9888-0}, DOI={10.1007/s11191-017-9888-0}, number={3-4}, journal={Science & Education}, publisher={Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, author={Xiao, Sihan and Sandoval, William A.}, year={2017}, month={May}, pages={247–269} }
 @book{sandoval_2017, title={Design-based research in education. Commissioned white paper for the Committee on Designing Citizen Science to Support Science Learning}, publisher={National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. Board on Science Education}, author={Sandoval, W.A.}, year={2017} }
 @article{xiao_sandoval_2017, title={How do practices differ from inquiry in the science classroom}, volume={37}, number={12}, journal={Curriculum, Teaching Material and Method}, author={Xiao, S. and Sandoval, W.A.}, year={2017}, pages={110–115} }
 @inproceedings{sandoval_2017, place={Seoul, Korea}, title={Linking practice to purpose in teacher professional development}, booktitle={Proceedings of the Korean Association for Science Education 71st General Meeting and International Conference}, publisher={KASE}, author={Sandoval, W.A.}, year={2017}, pages={45–52} }
 @misc{sandoval_2017, title={Situating practices of epistemic cognition}, ISBN={9781315467139}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315467139-30}, DOI={10.4324/9781315467139-30}, abstractNote={Conceptual change and metacognition are typically theorized as processes of individuals. Likewise, epistemic cognition has typically been studied from a cognitive perspective that argues beliefs about the nature of knowledge and knowing drive efforts of conceptual change. This chapter argues for a situative theory of cognition that pays close attention to how thinking occurs in interaction with material and social resources, tied to goals that emerge from activity. This view accounts for empirical discrepancies that typical cognitive models do not handle well, and can focus conceptual change efforts on organizing social and material resources for thinking.}, journal={Converging Perspectives on Conceptual Change}, publisher={Routledge}, author={Sandoval, William A.}, year={2017}, month={Nov}, pages={253–260} }
 @inbook{greene_sandoval_bråten_2016, place={New York}, title={An introduction to epistemic cognition}, booktitle={Handbook of Epistemic Cognition}, publisher={Routledge}, author={Greene, J. A. and Sandoval, W.A. and Bråten, I.}, editor={Greene, J.A. and Sandoval, W.A. and Bråten, I.Editors}, year={2016}, pages={1–15} }
 @inbook{sandoval_2016, place={New York}, title={Disciplinary insights into the study of epistemic cognition}, booktitle={Handbook of Epistemic Cognition}, publisher={Routledge}, author={Sandoval, W.A.}, editor={Greene, J. A. and Sandoval, W. A. and Bråten, I.Editors}, year={2016}, pages={184–194} }
 @book{greene_sandoval_bråten_2016, place={New York}, title={Handbook of Epistemic Cognition}, ISBN={9781317746874}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315795225}, DOI={10.4324/9781315795225}, abstractNote={(a) causal structure, (b) causal coherence, (c) citation of and (d) employment of warrants for proposed relations between and The showed that children improved in their ability to both construct and evaluate arguments, especially in the ways children met evidentiary criteria.Iordanou (2010) directly assessed participants’ epistemic understanding after their engagement in an argumentative-based intervention.}, publisher={Routledge}, year={2016}, month={Jan} }
 @inbook{greene_sandoval_bråten_2016, place={New York}, title={Reflections and future directions}, booktitle={Handbook of Epistemic Cognition}, publisher={Routledge}, author={Greene, J. A. and Sandoval, W. A. and Bråten, I.}, editor={Greene, J. A. and Sandoval, W. A. and Bråten, I.Editors}, year={2016}, pages={495–510} }
 @inproceedings{xiao_sandoval_2016, place={Singapore}, title={Resolving disagreements in evaluating epistemic and disciplinary claims in middle school science}, volume={2}, booktitle={Proceedings of the Transforming learning, empowering learners: The international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS) 2016}, publisher={ISLS}, author={Xiao, S. and Sandoval, W.A.}, editor={Looi, C.K. and Polman, J.L. and Cress, U. and Reimann, P.Editors}, year={2016}, pages={835–838} }
 @inproceedings{sandoval_kawasaki_cournoyer_rodriguez_2016, place={Singapore}, title={Secondary teachers’ emergent understanding of teaching science practices}, volume={2}, booktitle={Proceedings of the Transforming learning, empowering learners: The international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS) 2016}, publisher={ISLS}, author={Sandoval, W.A. and Kawasaki, J. and Cournoyer, N. and Rodriguez, L.}, editor={Looi, C.K. and Polman, J.L. and Cress, U. and Reimann, P.Editors}, year={2016}, pages={737–744} }
 @article{sandoval_greene_bråten_2016, title={Understanding and Promoting Thinking About Knowledge}, volume={40}, ISSN={0091-732X 1935-1038}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0091732X16669319}, DOI={10.3102/0091732x16669319}, abstractNote={Epistemic cognition is the thinking that people do about what and how they know. Education has long been concerned with promoting reflection on knowledge and processes of knowing, but research into epistemic cognition began really in the past half century, with a tremendous expansion in the past 20 years. This review summarizes the broad range of psychological and education research that comprises the study of epistemic cognition, and it identifies various fault lines that currently prevent coherent synthesis of theoretical models and empirical findings. The fault lines include differences in how scholars conceptualize knowledge and cognition, and the contextual nature of epistemic cognition, with consequent differences in accounts of individual development, as well as in research methods. In the coming century, research that can integrate findings among individual, situative, and cultural accounts of cognition may enable the advancement of coherent models of epistemic cognition and its development and support improved educational efforts aimed at such development.}, number={1}, journal={Review of Research in Education}, publisher={American Educational Research Association (AERA)}, author={Sandoval, William A. and Greene, Jeffrey A. and Bråten, Ivar}, year={2016}, month={Mar}, pages={457–496} }
 @misc{sandoval_2015, place={Dordrecht}, title={Epistemic Goals}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2150-0_245}, DOI={10.1007/978-94-007-2150-0_245}, journal={Encyclopedia of Science Education}, publisher={Springer Netherlands}, author={Sandoval, William A.}, editor={Gunstone, R.Editor}, year={2015}, pages={393–398} }
 @article{sandoval_redman_2015, title={The Contextual Nature of Scientists’ Views of Theories, Experimentation, and Their Coordination}, volume={24}, ISSN={0926-7220 1573-1901}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11191-015-9787-1}, DOI={10.1007/s11191-015-9787-1}, number={9-10}, journal={Science & Education}, publisher={Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, author={Sandoval, William A. and Redman, Elizabeth H.}, year={2015}, month={Oct}, pages={1079–1102} }
 @article{ryu_sandoval_2015, title={The influence of group dynamics on collaborative scientific argumentation}, volume={11}, journal={Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education}, author={Ryu, Suna and Sandoval, William A.}, year={2015}, pages={335–351} }
 @article{sandoval_sodian_koerber_wong_2014, title={Developing children's early competencies to engage with science}, volume={49}, url={http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=ORCID&SrcApp=OrcidOrg&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=WOS:000337924600006&KeyUID=WOS:000337924600006}, DOI={10.1080/00461520.2014.917589}, abstractNote={Science educators have long been concerned with how formal schooling contributes to learners’ capacities to engage with science after school. This article frames productive engagement as fundamentally about the coordination of claims with evidence, but such coordination requires a number of reasoning capabilities to evaluate the strength of evidence, critique methods, and other factors upon which evidence evaluation rests, evaluating sources and potential biases, and so on. Although the general discourse on education commonly suggests students are bad at such things, we review cognitive development research that demonstrates children display a variety of capabilities, even at early ages, that can be productively built upon by formal science instruction. We use this research to suggest some possibilities for formal schooling to develop children's capacities for evaluating claims within the pursuit of personally meaningful goals. We conclude with observations of useful directions our analysis opens to research.}, journal={Educational Psychologist}, author={Sandoval, W. A. and Sodian, Beate and Koerber, S. and Wong, Jacqueline}, year={2014}, pages={139–152} }
 @inbook{sandoval_2014, place={Thousand Oaks, CA}, title={Epistemologies, teacher and student}, volume={1}, booktitle={Encyclopedia of Educational Theory and Philosophy}, author={Sandoval, William A.}, editor={Phillips, D. C.Editor}, year={2014}, pages={284–286} }
 @article{xiao_sandoval_2014, title={Orchestrating students’ agency in scientific inquiry: A classroom interaction analysis}, volume={34}, journal={Curriculum, Teaching Material and Method}, author={Xiao, Sihan and Sandoval, W.}, year={2014}, pages={48–54} }
 @article{sandoval_2014, title={Science education's need for a theory of epistemological development}, volume={98}, url={http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=ORCID&SrcApp=OrcidOrg&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=WOS:000337696000004&KeyUID=WOS:000337696000004}, DOI={10.1002/sce.21107}, abstractNote={Science educators have been interested in developing people’s understanding of the epistemology of science for a long time. Despite decades of research on students’ ideas, and decades of instructional reforms, it remains very hard to change students’ ideas about the nature of scientific knowledge and practice. There are essentially two specializations in science education related to epistemology: research on student’s conceptions of the nature of professional science (NOS) and research on students’ own efforts to make scientific meaning of the world through inquiry, modeling, argumentation, and so on. They have produced different conclusions about students’ understanding of the epistemology of science (Sandoval, 2005), and the fact that they are in very little dialogue with each other is a major obstacle to producing a coherent theory of epistemological development; a point I expand on below. Without such a theory, however, it is difficult to see how instructional experiences in school are likely to help students develop productive understandings of the epistemology of science. There are, at least, two reasons why we should want all students to leave high school with productive understandings of the epistemology of science. One is so that people understand what makes science science, to distinguish science as a field of human endeavor from other human endeavors. The second reason is to be able to use this understanding to identify scientific arguments and explanations from other kinds, and to be able to evaluate them in}, journal={Science Education}, author={Sandoval, W. A.}, year={2014}, pages={383–387} }
 @article{kawasaki_deliema_sandoval_2014, title={The influence of non-epistemic features of settings on epistemic cognition}, volume={14}, DOI={10.1080/14926156.2014.903319}, abstractNote={Situated theories of learning recognize the rules, tools, goals, and communities within which activities develop. Similarly, situated theories of epistemic cognition recognize that individuals’ ideas about knowledge are tentative and dependent on particular contexts. In this study, we bring these frameworks together and qualitatively examine how one high school student thinks about knowledge at the intersection between multiple settings while creating a documentary film about a socioscientific issue. We describe several non-epistemic features of settings that impact epistemic cognition, including time constraints, tool characteristics, and participation norms.RésuméLes théories de l’apprentissage contextuel reconnaissent les règles, les outils, les objectifs et les communautés où se déroulent les activités. De la même façon, les théories de l’épistémologie cognitive contextuelle reconnaissent que les idées des individus sur la connaissance sont souvent hésitantes et dépendent de contextes particuliers. Dans cette étude, nous unissons ces deux cadres théoriques et proposons une analyse qualitative portant sur la façon dont un étudiant de niveau secondaire conçoit la connaissance, au moment où il se trouve à une croisée des chemins entre de multiples contextes, pendant qu’il tourne un documentaire sur un sujet socio-scientifique. Nous décrivons plusieurs traits non épistémiques des contextes qui influencent la cognition épistémique, y compris les contraintes temporelles, les caractéristiques des outils utilisés et les norms de participation.}, journal={Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education}, author={Kawasaki, J. and DeLiema, D. and Sandoval, W. A.}, year={2014}, pages={207–221} }
 @article{sandoval_2014, title={Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research}, volume={23}, url={http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=ORCID&SrcApp=OrcidOrg&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=WOS:000330825300003&KeyUID=WOS:000330825300003}, DOI={10.1080/10508406.2013.778204}, abstractNote={Design research is strongly associated with the learning sciences community, and in the 2 decades since its conception it has become broadly accepted. Yet within and without the learning sciences there remains confusion about how to do design research, with most scholarship on the approach describing what it is rather than how to do it. This article describes a technique for mapping conjectures through a learning environment design, distinguishing conjectures about how the design should function from theoretical conjectures that explain how that function produces intended outcomes.}, journal={Journal of the Learning Sciences}, author={Sandoval, William A.}, year={2014}, pages={18–36} }
 @inbook{sandoval_2013, place={London}, chapter={33}, title={Educational design research in the 21st century}, url={http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=ORCID&SrcApp=OrcidOrg&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=WOS:000327384500038&KeyUID=WOS:000327384500038}, booktitle={Handbook of design in educational technology}, author={Sandoval, William A.}, editor={Luckin, R. and Puntambekar, S. and Goodyear, P. and Grabowski, B. L. and Underwood, J. and Winters, N.Editors}, year={2013}, pages={388–396} }
 @inproceedings{deliema_kawasaki_sandoval_2012, place={Sydney}, title={High school students’epistemic engagement in producing documentaries about public science concerns}, volume={2}, booktitle={The future of learning: Proceedings of the 10th international conference of the learning sciences}, publisher={ISLS}, author={DeLiema, D. and Kawasaki, J. and Sandoval, W.A.}, editor={Aalst, J. and Thompson, K. and Jacobson, M.J. and Reimann, P.Editors}, year={2012}, pages={311–315} }
 @article{ryu_sandoval_2012, title={Improvements to Elementary Children's Epistemic Understanding From Sustained Argumentation}, volume={96}, url={http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=ORCID&SrcApp=OrcidOrg&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=WOS:000302716400006&KeyUID=WOS:000302716400006}, DOI={10.1002/sce.21006}, abstractNote={AbstractThe aim of this study was to assess whether and how a sustained instructional focus on argumentation might improve children's understanding and application of key epistemic criteria for scientific arguments. These criteria include the articulation of clear, coherent causal claims, and the explicit justification of such claims with appropriate evidence. We show a mixed‐age class of 8–10‐year‐old children improved in their ability to both construct and evaluate arguments, especially in the ways they met evidentiary criteria. We locate these improvements in their classroom's development of a number of norms for “good arguments'' that focused on evidentiary standards. We summarize how students' appropriation of specific norms around showing evidence and justifying evidentiary relations produced these outcomes. We frame these findings in terms of their implications for promoting argumentation in classrooms, children's capacities for engaging in such argumentation, and in relation to the development of informed views about the nature of professional science. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 96:488–526, 2012}, number={3}, journal={Science Education}, author={Ryu, Suna and Sandoval, William A.}, year={2012}, pages={488–526} }
 @article{mika_lin_ferreira_lacson_lee_lin_o’byrne_sandoval_thulsiraj_jay_2012, title={Incorporating service-learning in traditionally lecture-based environmental engineering courses through researching bacterial contamination at a local beach}, volume={14}, journal={Global Journal of Engineering Education}, author={Mika, K. and Lin, T. Y. and Ferreira, M. and Lacson, J. and Lee, C. M. and Lin, C. and O’Byrne, K. and Sandoval, William A. and Thulsiraj, V. and Jay, Jennifer A.}, year={2012}, pages={155–162} }
 @inbook{sandoval_2012, place={Sydney}, title={Situating epistemological development}, volume={1}, booktitle={The future of learning: Proceedings of the 10th international conference of the learning sciences}, author={Sandoval, William A.}, editor={Aalst, J. and Thompson, K. and Jacobson, Michael J. and Reimann, P.Editors}, year={2012}, pages={347–354} }
 @article{sandoval_cam_2011, title={Elementary Children's Judgments of the Epistemic Status of Sources of Justification}, volume={95}, url={http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=ORCID&SrcApp=OrcidOrg&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=WOS:000289657900001&KeyUID=WOS:000289657900001}, DOI={10.1002/sce.20426}, abstractNote={AbstractThis study investigated children's judgments of the epistemic status of justifications for causal claims. Twenty‐six children (14 boys, 12 girls) between the ages of 8 and 10 were asked to help two story characters choose the “best reason” for believing a claim. The reasons included appeals to an authority, to a plausible causal mechanism, or to data. Authority and plausible mechanism justifications always supported the claim and were paired with data that either covaried in support of the claim or did not covary and so were ambiguous with respect to the claim. Most children appeared to have a loose ordering of the epistemic status of justifications with data being preferred, plausible mechanisms appealing and preferred to ambiguous data, and appeals to authority least preferable. The children's primary reason for preferring any justification was its credibility. The credibility of data, to these children, seemed to rest on its firsthand nature. We suggest that this preference for data is productive and that instructional attention can usefully be focused on the attributes of measurement and experimentation that make data credible. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Sci Ed95:383–408, 2011}, number={3}, journal={Science Education}, author={Sandoval, William A. and Cam, Aylin}, year={2011}, pages={383–408} }
 @inproceedings{ryu_sandoval_2010, place={Chicago, IL}, title={Listen to each other: How the building of norms in an elementary science classroom fosters participation and argumentation}, booktitle={Proceedings of the 2010 Intl. Conference of the Learning Sciences}, publisher={ISLS}, author={Ryu, S. and Sandoval, W.A.}, editor={Gomez, K. and Lyons, L. and Radinsky, J.Editors}, year={2010}, pages={1103–1110} }
 @article{sandoval_harven_2011, title={Urban Middle School Students' Perceptions of the Value and Difficulty of Inquiry}, volume={20}, url={http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=ORCID&SrcApp=OrcidOrg&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=WOS:000286666400010&KeyUID=WOS:000286666400010}, DOI={10.1007/s10956-010-9237-4}, abstractNote={Following their participation in a guided-inquiry unit, 129 seventh-graders from five diverse urban middle schools were asked about their perceptions of specific inquiry tasks, from an expectancy-value framework. Students were asked to rate the interest value, utility value, and task difficulty of (a) data collection design; (b) explanation; (c) data analysis; and (d) citing evidence for claims. The utility of all tasks was rated highly, while interest ratings were moderate. Students perceived these tasks as moderately different from their usual work, and not especially difficult. No gender differences were found in students’ ratings. Investigation tasks were rated as more interesting and useful than argumentation tasks. Students from lower SES schools found all tasks more useful and interesting than their peers in higher SES schools. Students’ justifications for their ratings suggest they valued the utility of knowing how to back up their ideas with evidence.}, number={1}, journal={Journal of Science Education and Technology}, author={Sandoval, William A. and Harven, Aletha M.}, year={2011}, pages={95–109} }
 @article{puntambekar_sandoval_2009, title={Editors' Note}, volume={18}, ISSN={1050-8406 1532-7809}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508400903053492}, DOI={10.1080/10508400903053492}, abstractNote={Since the publication of Ann Brown’s seminal 1992 paper on design experiments, the Journal of the Learning Sciences has maintained a central role in promoting discussion about the nature of design research methods in education and has featured articles on methodological issues for the learning sciences. The journal’s Design Research Strand was created in the aftermath of the National Research Council’s (2002) famous report on educational research that appeared to claim a role for design experiments that practitioners of the form may not have chosen for themselves. Special issues of Educational Researcher, 43(1), Educational Psychologist, 39(4), and the Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1) were devoted to design research methods, and more recently books on the subject have appeared in Europe (Van den Akker, Gravemeijer, McKenney, & Nieveen, 2006) and the United States (Kelly, Lesh, & Baek, 2009), showing the reach of design research methods around the world. As the new co-editors of this strand, we want to acknowledge the efforts of our predecessor, Sasha Barab, for developing this aspect of the journal. Here, we want to describe what we see as compelling issues for the development of design research as a methodology. We see a need to be able to respond to various issues in the current (and future) world of educational research. The first is the ability to clearly communicate to a range of audiences how design research generates valid inferences about the problems to which it is addressed. A second issue is the development of capacity within the learning sciences to train the next generation of scholars to conduct rigorous research. A third is to develop some sort of epistemological framework, or perhaps frameworks, that can address the first two issues. We want to encourage submissions on these issues and on methodological concerns for the learning sciences more generally. We specifically seek work that addresses the following four broad areas.}, number={3}, journal={Journal of the Learning Sciences}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Puntambekar, Sadhana and Sandoval, William}, year={2009}, month={Jul}, pages={323–326} }
 @article{sandoval_2009, title={In Defense of Clarity in the Study of Personal Epistemology}, volume={18}, url={http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=ORCID&SrcApp=OrcidOrg&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=WOS:000265414300005&KeyUID=WOS:000265414300005}, DOI={10.1080/10508400802581700}, abstractNote={Andrew Elby (this issue) argues that researchers in the field of personal epistemology should beware insistence on a narrow definition of epistemology to guide this work. His argument is a response to suggestions (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Sandoval, 2005) that the study of personal epistemology should focus on people's views about knowledge and knowing and not conflate those with views about learning. His main concern is that learners' views about knowledge and their views about learning may, in fact, be conflated and that an insistence on definitional clarity could lead to a mischaracterization of cognitive structures. In this response I argue that clarity in the definition of theoretical constructs does not imply exclusion of views about learning from the study of personal epistemology. Furthermore, given the history of this area of research, failing to more clearly define our constructs makes real theoretical progress difficult.}, number={1}, journal={Journal of the Learning Sciences}, author={Sandoval, William A.}, year={2009}, pages={150–161} }
 @book{sandoval_2009, place={Chicago}, title={The preparation of aspiring educational researchers in the empirical qualitative and quantitative traditions: methodological rigor, social and theoretical relevance, and more}, publisher={Spencer Foundation}, author={Sandoval, William}, year={2009} }
 @inbook{sandoval_2008, place={Charlotte, NC}, title={Design principles for effective laboratory instruction}, booktitle={The impact of the laboratory and technology on learning and teaching science K-16}, publisher={Information Age}, author={Sandoval, W.A.}, editor={Sunal, D.W. and Wright, E.L. and Sundberg, C.Editors}, year={2008}, pages={35–56} }
 @misc{sandoval_2008, title={Exploring Children’s Understanding of the Purpose and Value of Inquiry}, ISBN={9789460911453 9789087902728}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/9789460911453_013}, DOI={10.1163/9789460911453_013}, journal={Teaching Scientific Inquiry}, publisher={BRILL}, author={Sandoval, William A.}, year={2008}, month={Jan}, pages={157–163} }
 @article{sandoval_2007, title={Education for thinking}, volume={91}, url={http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=ORCID&SrcApp=OrcidOrg&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=WOS:000245738700010&KeyUID=WOS:000245738700010}, DOI={10.1002/sce.20210}, abstractNote={Science EducationVolume 91, Issue 3 p. 515-518 The Books Education for thinking William A. Sandoval, William A. Sandoval Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, UCLA, Moore Hall 2339, PO Box 951521, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1521, USASearch for more papers by this author William A. Sandoval, William A. Sandoval Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, UCLA, Moore Hall 2339, PO Box 951521, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1521, USASearch for more papers by this author First published: 03 April 2007 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20210AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Volume91, Issue3May 2007Pages 515-518 RelatedInformation}, number={3}, journal={Science Education}, author={Sandoval, William A.}, year={2007}, pages={515–518} }
 @misc{sandoval_millwood_2007, title={What Can Argumentation Tell Us About Epistemology?}, ISBN={9781402066696 9781402066702}, ISSN={1572-5987}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_4}, DOI={10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_4}, abstractNote={Who, besides scientists, engages in what we would call scientific argumentation? When? for what purpose? As calls for argumentation to take a central place in science instruction increase (Driver et al., 2000; Duschl & Osborne, 2002; Kuhn, 1993b), answers to these questions become more important. There are two key claims for engaging students in scientific argumentation. One is that argumentation is a central practice of science, and thus should be at the core of science education. The other is that understanding the norms of scientific argumentation can lead students to understand the epistemological bases of scientific practice. We are more interested in this second claim. We think it unlikely that people who do not practice science are likely to engage in truly scientific argumentation. At the same time, we see everyday contexts all around us where people might apply scientific arguments to further other kinds of arguments. For example, using arguments about global climate change to argue for or against particular energy policies or even personal consumer decisions.}, journal={Argumentation in Science Education}, publisher={Springer Netherlands}, author={Sandoval, William A. and Millwood, Kelli A.}, year={2007}, pages={71–88} }
 @article{wallis_milojevic_borgman_sandoval_2006, title={The Special Case of Scientific Data Sharing with Education}, volume={43}, ISSN={0044-7870 1550-8390}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/meet.14504301169}, DOI={10.1002/meet.14504301169}, abstractNote={AbstractThe seemingly simple task of reusing data for science education relies on the presence of scientific data, scientists willing to share, infrastructure to provide access, and mechanisms to share between the two disparate communities of scientists and science students. What makes sharing between scientists and science students a special case of data sharing, is that all of the implicit knowledge attending the data must pass along this same vector. Our work at the Center for Embedded Networked Sensing studying aspects of this data reuse problem has shown us a rough outline of how the future of this data sharing will look. Our approach is to start from the prospective of the scientists, looking for opportunities to support scientific research, and then leveraging the data for reuse by education. The investment needed to capture high quality scientific data necessitates the consideration of reuse by the general population as well as other interested scientific parties.}, number={1}, journal={Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology}, publisher={Wiley}, author={Wallis, Jillian C. and Milojevic, Stasa and Borgman, Christine L. and Sandoval, William A.}, year={2006}, month={Jan}, pages={1–13} }
 @book{singer_dyasi_eisenkraft_hines_lach_licata_pelaez_sandoval_spillane_wieman_et al._2005, place={Washington, D.C.}, title={America's Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science}, ISBN={9780309139342}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.17226/11311}, DOI={10.17226/11311}, publisher={National Academies Press}, author={Singer, Susan R. and Dyasi, Hubert M. and Eisenkraft, Arthur and Hines, Pamela J. and Lach, Michael and Licata, David Paul and Pelaez, Nancy and Sandoval, William A. and Spillane, James P. and Wieman, Carl E. and et al.}, editor={Singer, Susan R. and HIlton, Margaret L. and Schweingruber, Heidi A.Editors}, year={2005}, month={Dec} }
 @article{sandoval_millwood_2005, title={The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations}, volume={23}, url={http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=ORCID&SrcApp=OrcidOrg&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=WOS:000226797800002&KeyUID=WOS:000226797800002}, DOI={10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2}, abstractNote={Drawing on sociological and philosophical studies of science, science educators have begun to view argumentation as a central scientific practice that students should learn. In this article, we extend recent work to understand the structure of students' arguments to include judgments about their quality through content analyses of high school students' written explanations for 2 problems of natural selection. In these analyses, we aim to explicate the relations between students' conceptual understanding of specific domains and their epistemic understanding of scientific practices of argumentation as they try to learn science through inquiry. We present a method that assesses the warrant of explanatory claims, the sufficiency of the evidence explicitly cited for claims, and students' rhetorical use of specific inscriptions in their arguments. Students were attentive to the need to cite data, yet they often failed to cite sufficient evidence for claims. Students' references to specific inscriptions in their arguments often failed to articulate how specific data related to particular claims. We discuss these patterns of data citation in terms of what they suggest about students' epistemological ideas about explanation and consequent implications for inquiry-oriented, science education reforms.}, number={1}, journal={Cognition and Instruction}, author={Sandoval, WA and Millwood, KA}, year={2005}, pages={23–55} }
 @article{sandoval_2005, title={Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry}, volume={89}, url={http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=ORCID&SrcApp=OrcidOrg&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=WOS:000230258000007&KeyUID=WOS:000230258000007}, DOI={10.1002/sce.20065}, abstractNote={It has long been a goal of science education in the United States that students leave school with a robust understanding of the nature of science. Decades of research show that this does not happen. Inquiry-based instruction is advocated as a means for developing such understanding, although there is scant direct evidence that it does. There is a gap between what is known about students' inquiry practices and their epistemological beliefs about science. Studies of students' ideas about epistemological aspects of formal science are unlikely to shed any light on how they perceive their own inquiry efforts. Conversely, inquiry-based instruction that does not account for the epistemological beliefs that guide students' inquiry stands very little chance of helping students to understand professional science. This paper reviews largely independent lines of research into students' beliefs about the nature of science and their practices of inquiry to argue that students' inquiry is guided by practical epistemologies that are in need of study. An approach to studying practical epistemologies is proposed that has the potential to produce a better psychological theory of epistemological development, as well as to realize goals of a science education that develops scientifically informed citizens. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed, 89:634–656, 2005}, number={4}, journal={Science Education}, author={Sandoval, WA}, year={2005}, pages={634–656} }
 @article{sandoval_bell_2004, title={Design-based research methods for studying learning in context: Introduction}, volume={39}, url={http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=ORCID&SrcApp=OrcidOrg&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=WOS:000225270400001&KeyUID=WOS:000225270400001}, DOI={10.1207/s15326985ep3904_1}, abstractNote={The field of psychology has a long history of interaction with education, and educational psychology has had a profound impact on how issues of learning have been framed and studied in educational contexts. Still, it has never been simple to translate theoretical insights into educational practice. Educational psychology has been criticized for not creating “usable knowledge” (Lagemann, 2002). Currently, educational researchers generally have been pushed to justify how their claims are “scientific” and “evidence-based” (National Research Council, 2002). There is a tension between the desire for locally usable knowledge on the one hand and scientifically sound, generalizable knowledge on the other. Lagemann, for example, argued that the traditional paradigm of psychology has striven for experimental control at the expense of fidelity to learning as it actually occurs. Thus, although such claims might be scientific in one sense, they do not adequately explain or predict the phenomena they purport to address. This critique extends the long-standing debate surrounding the ecological validity of well-defined psychological tasks and their relation to psychological phenomena as they come to occur in everyday settings (Brunswik, 1943; Lewin, 1943). As a field, we still lack an adequate methodological reconciliation that attends to issues of both experimental control and ecological validity. At the same time, there is considerable unease with the perceived “credibility gap” (Levin & O’Donnell, 1999) of much of educational research because it is not produced with what are considered to be scientific methods. From this perspective, the knowledge from educational research has limited usability because it is not trustworthy. An educational psychology that is both usable in a practical sense and scientifically trustworthy cannot proceed without directly studying the phenomena it hopes to explain in its inherent messiness. A little over a decade ago, Brown (1992) described her evolving approach to “design experimentation” as an effort to bridge laboratory studies of learning with studies of complex instructional interventions based on such insights. She showed how insights from the laboratory were inherently limited in their ability to explain or predict learning in the classroom. The challenge, as she saw it, was to develop a methodology of experimenting with intervention designs in situ to develop theories of learning (and teaching) that accounted for the multiple interactions of people acting in a complex social setting. At the same time, Collins (1992) was putting forth a notion of educational research as a “design science,” like aerospace engineering, that required a methodology to systematically test design variants for effectiveness. Achieving such a design science, however, requires a sufficient understanding of the underlying variables at all relevant layers of a complex social system (schooling)—an understanding that we do not yet have (Collins, Joseph, & Bielaczyc, 2004). The last 12 years have seen an increasing uptake of the design experimentation methodology, so much so that a recent handbook on research in math and science education is replete with examples and formulations of the approach (Kelly & Lesh, 2000). The general approach has been called by many names. We have settled on the term design-based research over the other commonly used phrases “design experimentation,” which connotes a specific form of controlled experimentation that does not capture the breadth of the approach, or “design research,” which is too easily confused with research design and other efforts in design fields that lack in situ research components. The approach to research described in this issue is design based in that it is theoretiEDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST, 39(4), 199–201 Copyright © 2004, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.}, number={4}, journal={Educational Psychologist}, author={Sandoval, WA and Bell, P}, year={2004}, pages={199–201} }
 @article{sandoval_2004, title={Developing learning theory by refining conjectures embodied in educational designs}, volume={39}, url={http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=ORCID&SrcApp=OrcidOrg&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=WOS:000225270400003&KeyUID=WOS:000225270400003}, DOI={10.1207/s15326985ep3904_3}, abstractNote={Designed learning environments embody conjectures about learning and instruction, and the empirical study of learning environments allows such conjectures to be refined over time. The construct of embodied conjecture is introduced as a way to demonstrate the theoretical nature of learning environment design and to frame methodological issues in studying such conjectures. An example of embodied conjecture and its history of empirical refinement are presented to provide a concrete example of how the effort to design instructional change can lead to a productive shift in view of the underlying learning issues at hand. This example is used to suggest some general features of embodied conjectures and to raise methodological issues for refining them.}, number={4}, journal={Educational Psychologist}, author={Sandoval, WA}, year={2004}, pages={213–223} }
 @article{sandoval_reiser_2004, title={Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry}, volume={88}, url={http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=ORCID&SrcApp=OrcidOrg&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=WOS:000221172800003&KeyUID=WOS:000221172800003}, DOI={10.1002/sce.10130}, abstractNote={AbstractScience education reforms consistently maintain the goal that students develop an understanding of the nature of science, including both the nature of scientific knowledge and methods for making it. This paper articulates a framework for scaffolding epistemic aspects of inquiry that can help students understand inquiry processes in relation to the kinds of knowledge such processes can produce. This framework underlies the design of a technology‐supported inquiry curriculum for evolution and natural selection that focuses students on constructing and evaluating scientific explanations for natural phenomena. The design has been refined through cycles of implementation, analysis, and revision that have documented the epistemic practices students engage in during inquiry, indicate ways in which designed tools support students' work, and suggest necessary additional social scaffolds. These findings suggest that epistemic tools can play a unique role in supporting students' inquiry, and a fruitful means for studying students' scientific epistemologies. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 88:345–372, 2004; Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI 10.1002/.sce10130}, number={3}, journal={Science Education}, author={Sandoval, WA and Reiser, BJ}, year={2004}, pages={345–372} }
 @article{sandoval_daniszewski_2004, title={Mapping Trade-Offs in Teachers' Integration of Technology-Supported Inquiry in High School Science Classes}, volume={13}, ISSN={1059-0145}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/b:jost.0000031256.45142.e5}, DOI={10.1023/b:jost.0000031256.45142.e5}, number={2}, journal={Journal of Science Education and Technology}, publisher={Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, author={Sandoval, William A. and Daniszewski, Kenneth}, year={2004}, month={Jun}, pages={161–178} }
 @book{kafai_sandoval_enyedy_nixon_herrera_2004, place={Mahwah, NJ}, title={Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, ICLS2004}, publisher={Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc}, year={2004} }
 @article{sandoval_2003, title={Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students' scientific explanations}, volume={12}, url={http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=ORCID&SrcApp=OrcidOrg&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=WOS:000180476000001&KeyUID=WOS:000180476000001}, DOI={10.1207/S15327809JLS1201_2}, abstractNote={This article explores how students' epistemological ideas about the nature of science interact with their conceptual understanding of a particular domain, as reflected in written explanations for an event of natural selection constructed by groups of high school students through a technology-supported curriculum about evolution. Analyses intended to disentangle conceptual and epistemic aspects of explanation reveal that groups sought plausible causal accounts of observed data, and were sensitive to the need for causal coherence, while articulating explanations consistent with the theory of natural selection. Groups often failed to explicitly cite data to support key claims, however, both because of difficulty in interpreting data and because they did not seem to see explicit evidence as crucial to an explanation. These findings reveal that students have productive epistemic resources to bring to bear during inquiry, but highlight the need for an epistemic discourse around student-generated artifacts to deepen both the conceptual and epistemological understanding students may develop through inquiry.}, number={1}, journal={Journal of the Learning Sciences}, author={Sandoval, WA}, year={2003}, pages={5–51} }
 @article{design-based research: an emerging paradigm for educational inquiry_2003, volume={32}, ISSN={0013-189X 1935-102X}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189x032001005}, DOI={10.3102/0013189x032001005}, abstractNote={ The authors argue that design-based research, which blends empirical educational research with the theory-driven design of learning environments, is an important methodology for understanding how, when, and why educational innovations work in practice. Design-based researchers’ innovations embody specific theoretical claims about teaching and learning, and help us understand the relationships among educational theory, designed artifact, and practice. Design is central in efforts to foster learning, create usable knowledge, and advance theories of learning and teaching in complex settings. Design-based research also may contribute to the growth of human capacity for subsequent educational reform. }, number={1}, journal={Educational Researcher}, publisher={American Educational Research Association (AERA)}, year={2003}, month={Jan}, pages={5–8} }
 @article{sandoval_morrison_2003, title={High school students' ideas about theories and theory change after a biological inquiry unit}, volume={40}, url={http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=ORCID&SrcApp=OrcidOrg&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=WOS:000182059000002&KeyUID=WOS:000182059000002}, DOI={10.1002/tea.10081}, abstractNote={AbstractStudents' epistemological beliefs about scientific knowledge and practice are one important influence on their approach to learning. This article explores the effects that students' inquiry during a 4‐week technology‐supported unit on evolution and natural selection had on their beliefs about the nature of science. Before and after the study, 8 students were interviewed using the Nature of Science interview developed by Carey and colleagues. Overall, students held a view of science as a search for right answers about the world. Yet, the inconsistency of individuals' responses undermines the assumption that students have stable, coherent epistemological frameworks. Students' expressed ideas did not change over the course of the intervention, suggesting important differences between students' talk during inquiry and their abilities to talk epistemologically about science. Combined with previous work, our findings emphasize the crucial role of an explicit epistemic discourse in developing students' epistemological understanding. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 40: 369–392, 2003}, number={4}, journal={Journal of Research in Science Teaching}, author={Sandoval, WA and Morrison, K}, year={2003}, pages={369–392} }
 @inbook{sandoval_2003, title={The inquiry paradox: why doing science doesn't necessarily change ideas about science}, booktitle={Proceedings of the Sixth Intl. Computer-Based Learning in Science Conference 2003}, author={Sandoval, W.A.}, editor={Constantinou, C.P. and Zacharia, Z.C.Editors}, year={2003}, pages={825–834} }
 @inbook{reiser_tabak_sandoval_smith_steinmuller_leone_2001, place={Mahwah, NJ}, title={BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms}, booktitle={Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress}, publisher={Lawrence Erlbaum}, author={Reiser, B.J. and Tabak, I. and Sandoval, W.A. and Smith, B.K. and Steinmuller, F. and Leone, A.J.}, editor={Carver, S.M. and Klahr, D.Editors}, year={2001}, pages={263–305} }
 @misc{sandoval_2001, title={Book Review: Designing New Literacies, Designing New Learners: Are They the Same?: Changing Minds: Computers, Learning, and Literacy}, volume={25}, ISSN={0735-6331 1541-4140}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/pt46-pppk-1brh-uxx6}, DOI={10.2190/pt46-pppk-1brh-uxx6}, abstractNote={Andy diSessa wants your children to become programmers. Not because it will discipline their minds to logical thinking, but because through programming they can learn to express ideas, especially mathematical and scientific ideas, that are difficult to express in text. Furthermore, they may come to express these ideas in ways that enhance their abilities to think about them. In his provocative, ambitious new book Changing Minds: Computers, Learning, and Literacy, diSessa argues that computer technology makes possible a new “computational literacy” that may have the power to change the way we think, with the same influence that textual literacy has had on our culture. diSessa sees such a literacy as especially beneficial for learning science and mathematics, as a way for students to represent and conceptualize complex ideas, and to construct dynamic, interactive representations that support scientific thinking. If we are to see such benefits, diSessa argues, then we must first understand what a computational literacy might look like, and then figure out how to design for it. Changing Minds presents his efforts to do just that, through his longstanding research program on his Boxer programming system. diSessa starts by trying to formulate an idea of how “a literacy” might be defined. In his view, we take our current textual literacy so much for granted that when we think of “literacy” that is what we think of. Other uses of the term connote a pale shadow of textual literacy. diSessa takes particular issue with the popular notion of “computer literacy,” usually defined as achieving a basic functional competence in operating one’s computer, as being remotely like a real literacy. Literacy implies a deep, not superficial, understanding of a particular representational form (e.g., our textual symbol system) and an ability to use it to produce}, number={2}, journal={Journal of Educational Computing Research}, publisher={SAGE Publications}, author={Sandoval, William A.}, year={2001}, month={Sep}, pages={197–203} }
 @inbook{tabak_smith_sandoval_reiser_1996, place={Berlin Heidelberg}, title={Combining general and domain-specific strategic support for biological inquiry}, ISBN={9783540613275 9783540684602}, ISSN={0302-9743 1611-3349}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61327-7_126}, DOI={10.1007/3-540-61327-7_126}, abstractNote={BGuILE is a learning environment in which students explore rich problem contexts in evolutionary biology and behavioral ecology. BGuILE uses domain-specific investigation models to scaffold students for the particular strategies experts use in these domains. These investigation models focus students on the relevant aspects of each domain, and support productive investigation strategies within the domain. BGuILE's explanation construction tools encourage students to bridge from their problem-specific explanations to broader domain theories and a more general understanding of scientific inquiry and theory-building. BGuILE is situated within classroom activities which encourage students to inquire into complex problems and discuss their research with their teachers and peers.}, booktitle={Intelligent Tutoring Systems}, publisher={Springer}, author={Tabak, Iris and Smith, Brian K. and Sandoval, William A. and Reiser, Brian J.}, editor={Frasson, C. and Gauthier, G. and Lesgold, A.Editors}, year={1996}, pages={288–296} }
 @misc{tabak_sandoval_smith_agganis_baumgartner_reiser_1995, title={Supporting collaborative guided inquiry in a learning environment for biology}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.3115/222020.222830}, DOI={10.3115/222020.222830}, abstractNote={We describe a learning environment for high school biology called BGuILE that engages students in scien tific investigations in which they can explore interest ing problems in evolution and ecology. The environ ment supports productive inquiry by two interrelated means. First, the system structures students’ investigations, encouraging them to compare competing hypotheses, articulate predictions, and record interpreta tions according to specific task models of biological inquiry. Second, the system provides a context for col laboration in which the biological task model is used to drive the content of students’ discussions.}, journal={The first international conference on Computer support for collaborative learning - CSCL '95}, publisher={Association for Computational Linguistics}, author={Tabak, Iris and Sandoval, William A. and Smith, Brian K. and Agganis, Aggelici and Baumgartner, Eric and Reiser, Brian J.}, year={1995} }
 @inproceedings{sandoval_trafton_reiser_1995, place={Pittsburgh, PA}, title={The effects of self-explanation on studying examples and solving problems}, booktitle={Proceedings of 17th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society}, publisher={Erlbaum}, author={Sandoval, W.A. and Trafton, J.G. and Reiser, B.J.}, editor={Moore, J.D. and Lehman, J.F.Editors}, year={1995}, pages={253–258} }