丁邦平（2002）。论国际理科教育的范式转换—从科学教育到科技教育。比较教育研究，140，1-6。
刘兵（2009）。克丽奥眼中的科学－科学编史学初探。上海市：上海科技教育出版社。
邱仁宗（1987）。论科学史中内在主义与外在主义之间的张力。自然辩证法通讯，1，39-47。
邱兆偉編（2004）。當代教育哲學。台北市：師大書苑。
邱明富、高慧蓮（2006）。科學史融入教學對國小學童科學本質觀影響之探究。科學教育學刊，14（2），163-187。李田英（2000）。由設計科學課程的理論談本次課程改革的一些問題。科學教育，，231，28-34。
李哲迪（2009，6月）。在TIMSS2007與PISA2006跨國調查脈絡中分析台灣國中學生之科學學習成果。載於台北市立教育大學舉辦之「中小學課程發展之相關基礎性研究」2009年成果討論會論文輯，台北市。
李国秀编（2000）。科学的社会视角。合淝市：安徽人民出版社。
李茂能、楊德清（2015）。工作記憶力、後設認知能力對於國小高年級一般兒童
與注意力缺陷過動症兒童之數常識發展的徑路結構分析。科學教育學刊，
23（3），265-291。
沈铭贤（1988）。新科学观。上海市：江苏科学技术出版社。
吳明隆（2007）。SPSS統計應用學習實務分析。台北市：知城圖書。
芮涵芝（1996）。科學的本質。台北市：桂冠圖書公司。
林清山（1992）。心理與教育統計。台北市：東華圖書公司。
林陳涌（1996）。「了解科學本質量表」之發展與效化。科學教育學刊，4（1），31-58。林陳涌、鄭榮輝、張永達（2009）。融入科學史教學對高中學生的科學本質觀、對科學的態度以及學習成就的影響，科學教育學刊，17（2），93-109。林淑梤、劉聖忠、黃茂在、陳素芬、張文華（1998）。運用科學史傳達NOS—以簡單機械單元為例。科學教育月刊，315，2-18。
姜志忠、張惠博、林淑梤、鄭一亭（2006）。物理史融入教學對提升學生科學認識論瞭解及其學習成效之研究。科學教育學刊，14（6），637-661。翁秀玉（1997）。國小自然科教師傳達科學本質之行動研究。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。翁秀玉、段曉林（1997）。科學史對國小六年級學生理解NOS之成效。科學教育研究與發展季刊，8，26-41。袁维新（2005）。国外科学史融入科学课程的研究综述。比较教育研究，185，62-67。
郭生玉（2001）。心理與教育測驗。台北縣：精華書局。
张永宗、魏炎顺（2003）。台湾地区与英国中小学阶段科技教育课程之比较。比较教育研究，159，70-75。
張景媛（1997）。國中生之正負向情緒與其後設認知、學習動機關係之研究。教育心理學報，29，51-76。許良榮、蕭培玉 （2007）。中小學之科學本質與科學史的教學需求之研究。科學教育學刊，15 (1)，1-23。許國忠、王靜如（2003）。NOS教學初探。科學教育研究與發展季刊，33，15-28。
許綺婷（2015）。個案都市原住民學生之西方科學本質觀探討。課程與教學，18(2)，125-167。教育部（2008）。97年度國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要。台北市：教育部。
陳俊輝（1992）。哲學的基本架構。台北市：水牛出版社。
陳瑞麟（2010）。科學哲學：理論與歷史。台北市：群學出版社
傅大為（2004）。科技渴望社會。台北市：群學出版有限公司。
傅大為（2009）。回答科學是什麼的三個問題。台北市：群學出版有限公司。
黃光國（2003）。社會科學的理路（第二版）。台北市：心理出版社。
黃光國（2013）。社會科學的理路（第三版）。台北市：心理出版社。
舒煒光（2004）。科學哲學導論（第四版）。台北市：水牛出版社。
喬莉莉、洪志誠（2005）。科學史融入國小自然科教學之研究。科學教育研究與發展季刊，41，17-34。詹志禹（1997）。從科學哲學的發展探討「理性」的意義及其對教育的含意。
「當代教育哲學論文集II」，頁1-42。台北市：中央研究院。
楊榮祥（1998）。中學科學教學環境之研究（III）。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告（NSC-87-2511-S-003-011）。台北市：行政院國家科學委員會。
楊桂瓊、林煥祥、洪瑞兒（2012）。以論證活動探討國小學童論證能力和科學本質表現。科學教育學刊，20（2），145-170。劉俊庚、邱美虹（2012）。我國百年國中科學課程發展回顧與展望，科學教育月刊，347，2-20。蔡今中（1998）。改變學生的科學認識觀：以STS教學為例。於高雄師範大學主辦之「第十四屆科學教育學術研討會會議手冊短篇論文彙編」(頁445-448)，高雄市。
謝州恩、吳心楷（2005）。探究情境中國小學童科學解釋能力成長之研究。師大
學報：科學教育類，50（2），55-84。
謝州恩、劉湘瑤（2013）。省思九年一貫自然與生活科技課程綱要中的科學本
質內涵。科學教育研究與發展季刊，66，53-76。
謝州恩、劉湘瑤（2016）。建構國小自然科學課程之科學本質要項。科學教育
學刊，24（4），355-377。
蘇育任（2005）。英國中小學的科學教育。教育資料與研究雙月刊，64，60-88。
蘇鈺楠（2011）。理性、批判思考和教育─論Harvey Siegel的批判思考理論。科
學教育學刊，19（1），25-37。
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans: A project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics, and technology. Washington, DC: Author.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Project 2061: Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.AAAS. (1989). Science for All Americans: A project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics, and technology. Washington, DC: AAAS Publication.
AAAS.(2001). Atlas of science literacy (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science Press.
AAAS.(2007). Atlas of science literacy (Vol. 2). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science Press.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82, 417-436.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of history of science courses on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1057-1095.
Abell, S. K., & Smith, D.C. (1994). What is science? Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 16(4), 475-487.
Abimbola, I. O. (1983).The relevance of the "new" philosophy of science for the science curriculum. School Science & Mathematics, 83(3), 181-193.
ACARA. (2013). The Australian curriculum: Science. Retrieved March 03, 2013, from http: //www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/.
Akerson, V. L., Hanson, D. L., & Cullen, T. A. (2007).The influence of guided inquiry and explicit instruction on K-6 teachers’ views of nature of science.Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(5), 751-772.
Allchin, D. (2004). Should the sociology of science be rated X? Science Education, 88, 934-946.
Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of science. Science Education, 95, 518-542.
Alters, B. J. (1997). Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 39-55.
Baert, P. (2005). Philosophy of the social sciences: Toward pragmatism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a science apprenticeship program on high school students' understanding of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 487-509.
Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87, 352-377.
Bell, P., & Linn, M. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the Web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797-817.
Bell, R. L., Matkins, J. J., & Gansneder, B. M. (2011). Impacts of contextual and explicit instruction on preservice elementary teachers' understandings of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(4), 414-436.
Ben-David, A., & Orion, N. (2013). Teachers' voices on integrating metacognition
into science education. International Journal of Science Education, 35(18),
3161-3193.
Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2012). For whom is argument and explanation a necessary distinction? A response to Osborne and Patterson. Science Education, 95(5), 808-813.
Bielaczyc, K., Pirolli, P. L., & Brown, A. L. (1995). Training in self-explanation and self-regulation strategies: Investigating the effects of knowledge acquisition activities on problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 13(2), 221-252.
Billeh, V. Y., & Hasan, O. E. (1975). Factors affecting teachers' gain in understanding the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 12(3), 209-219.
Black, P., & Atkin, J. M. (1996).Changing the Subject: Innovations in science, mathematics and technology education. London: Routledge.
Brewer, W. F., & Lambert, B. L. (1993). The theory ladenness of observation: Evidence from cognitive psychology. Paper presented at the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, N.J.
Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In Glaser, R. (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 77-165). New York: Halsted Press.
Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation and other more mysterious mechanisms. In Weinert, F. E., & Kluwe, R. H. (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cakic, Y., & Bayir, E. (2012). Developing children's views of the nature of science through role play. International Journal of Science Education, 34(7), 1075-1091.
Carey, R. L., & Stauss, N. G. (1968). An analysis of the understanding of the nature of science by prospective secondary science teachers.Science Education, 52(4), 358-363.
Case, J. M., & Gunstone, R. F. (2002). Metacognitive development as a shift inapproach to learning: An in-depth study. Studies in Higher Education, 27(4), 459-470.
Chalmers, A. F. (1999). What is this thing called science? (3rd ed.). Brisbane, Australia: University of Queensland Press.
Cho, J. (2002). The development of an alternative in-service programme for Korean science teachers with an emphasis on science-technology-society. International Journal of Science Education, 24(10), 1021-1035.
Choi, I., Land, S. M., & Turgeon, A. Y. (2005). Scaffolding peer-questioning strategies to facilitate metacognition during online small group discussion. Instructional Science, 33(5-6), 483-511.
Cleminson, A. (1990). Establishing an epistemological base for science teaching in the light of contemporary notions of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(5), 429-445.
Collette, A. T., & Chiappetta, E. L. (1994). Science instruction in the middle and science school (3nded.). Columbus: Merrill.
Eager, M. (1991). Dissonance in the theory and practice of rationality: Teaching evolution and teaching morals. In Matthews, M. R. (Ed.), History, philosophy, and science teaching: Selected readings. Toronto: OISE Press.
Feigl, H. (1970). The "orthodox" views of theories: Remarks in defense as well as critique. In Radner, M. & Winokur, S. (Eds.), Theories and Methods of Physics and Psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 3-16). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. London: New Left Books.
Feyerabend, P. (1978). Science in a free society. London: Lowe & Brydone.
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In Resnick, L. B. (Ed.), The Nature of intelligence (pp. 231-235). Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum.
Garner, R., & Alexander, P. A. (1989). Metacognition: answered and unanswered questions. Educational Psychologist, 24(2), 143-158.
Georghiades, P. (2004). From the general to the situated: three decades of metacognition. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 365-383.
Giere, R. N. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Heap, R., & France, B. (2013). Realising the potential of an authentic context to understand the characteristics of NOS and NOT: You, me and UV. International Journal of Science Education, 35(2), 335-355.
Hempel, C. G. (1948). Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of science, 15, 135-175.
Hogan, K. (2000). Exploring a process view of students' knowledge about the nature of science. Science Education, 84(1), 51-70.
Hung, E. H.-C. (1997). The nature of science: Problems and perspectives. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Keselman, A. (2003). Supporting inquiry learning by promoting normative understanding og multivariable causality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(9), 898-921.
Khine, M. S. (Ed.)(2012). Advances in Nature of Science Research: Concepts and methodologies. Netherlands: Springer.
Khishfe, R. (2008). The development of seventh graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(4), 470-496.
Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551-578.
Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. G. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 395-418.
Khishfe, R. (2014). Explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction in the
context of socioscientific issues: An effect on student learning and transfer.
International Journal of Science Education, 36(6), 974-1016.
Khishfe, R. (2014). A look into students’ retention of acquired nature of science understandings. International Journal of Science Education, 37(10), 1639-1667.
Khishfe, R. Alshaya, F. S., BouJaoude, S., Mansour, N., & Alrudiyan, K. I. (2017). Students’ understandings of nature of science and their arguments in the context of four socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 39(3), 299-334.
Knight, G. R. (1989). Issues and alternatives in educational philosophy. Andrews University Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1977). The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakatos, I. (1978). The methodology of scientific research program. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its problems: Toward a theory of scientific growth. LA: University of California Press.
Lederman, N. G., & Zeidler, D. L. (1987). Science teachers’ conceptions of the
nature of science: Do they really influence teacher behavior? Science
Education, 71, 721–734.
Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359.
Lederman, N. G. (1998). The state of science education: Subject matter without content. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 3(2), 1-12.
Lederman, N. G. (1999). Teachers' understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice: Factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 816-829.
Lederman, N. G. (2004). Syntax of nature of science with inquiry and science instruction. In Flick, L. B., & Lederman, N. G. (Eds.), Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science: Implication for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp.301-317). Netherland: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In Abell, S. K. & Lederman, N. G. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 831-880). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R.L., & Schwartz, R.S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521.
Lederman, N. G., Wade, P., & Bell, R. (1998). Assessing understanding of the nature of science: A historical perspective. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The Nature of Science inScience Education (pp. 331-350). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lisa, M. H. (2002). Defining inquiry. The Science Teacher, Feb., 34-37.
Liu, S. Y., & Lederman, N. G. (2002). Taiwanese gifted students' views of nature of science. School Science & Mathematics, 102(3), 114-123.
Liu, S. Y., Lin, C.-S., & Tsai, C.-C. (2011). College students' scientific epistemological views and thinking patterns in socioscientific decision making. Science Education, 95(3), 497-517.
Loving, C. C. (1991). The scientific theory profile: A philosophy of science models for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 823-838.
Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Gonzalez, E. J., Gregory, K. D., Smith, T. A., Chrostowski, S. J., et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 international science report: Findings from IEA’s repeat of the third international mathematics and science study at the eighth grade. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching the role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
Matthews, M. R. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science (NOS) to features of science (FOS). In Khine, M. S. (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research: Concepts and methodologies (pp. 3-26). New York: Springer.
McDonald, V. C. (2010). The influence of explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction on preservice primary teachers' view of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(9), 1137-1164.
McComas, W. F. (1996). The myths of science: Reexamining what we think we know about the nature of science. School Science & Mathematics, 96, 10-16.
McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (1998).The role and character of the nature of science in science education. Science & Education, 7(6), 511-532.
McComas, W. F., & Olson J. K. (1998). The nature of science in international science education standards documents. In McComas, W. F. (Ed.), The nature of science in science education (pp. 41-52). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
McDonald, C. V. (2010). The influence of explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction on preservice primary teach¬ers’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(9), 1137-1164.
McDonald, C. V., & McRobbie, C. J. (2010). Utilising argumentation to teach na¬ture of science. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second Interna¬tional Handbook of Science Education (pp. 969-986). New York: Springer.
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers' inscriptional practices on students' learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53-78.
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(2), 153-191.
Meichtry, Y. J. (1992). Influencing students understanding of the nature of science: Data from a case of curriculum development. Journa of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 389-407.
Ministry of Education, New Zealand (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Retrieved March 03, 2013, from http: //nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/Curriculum-documents.
NAS. (1998). Teaching about evolution and the nature of science. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards: Observe, interact, change, learn. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
NRC. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
NRC. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practice, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Science Teachers Association. (2000). NSTA position statement: The nature
of science. Retrieved July 12, 2011, from
http: //www.nsta.org/about/positions/natureofscience.aspx
Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What "ideas-about-science" should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692-720.
Osborne, J., & Patterson, A. (2012). Authors' response to “For whom is argument and explanation a necessary distinction? A response to Osborne and Patterson” by Berland and McNeill. Science Education, 96(5), 814-817.
Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Keeping the metaphor of scaffolding fresh: A response to C. Addison Stone's: The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 370-373.
Palmquist, B. C., & Finley, F. N. (1997). Preservice teachers' views of the nature of science during a postbaccalaureate science teaching program.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(6), 595-615.
Paris, S. G., & Lindauer, B. K. (1982).The development of cognitive skills during childhood.In Wolman, B. (Ed.), Handbook of developmental psychology (pp. 333-349). Englewood, Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Park, D.-Y., & Lee, Y. B. (2009). Different conceptions of the nature of science among preservice elementary teacher of two countries. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 1-14.
Peterson, R. A. (2000). Constructing effective questionnaires. Washington D.C.: SAGE Publications.
Pomeroy, D. (1993). Implications of teachers' beliefs about nature of science: Comparison of the beliefs of scientists, secondary science teachers, and elementary teachers. Science Education, 77(3), 261-278.
Ronan, C. A. (1983). The Cambridge illustrated history of the world’s science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosenberg, A. (2000). Philosophy of science: A contemporary introduction. New York: Routledge.
Rubba, P. A., Horner, J. K., & Smith, J. M. (1981). A study of two misconceptions about the nature of science among junior high school students. School Science and Mathematics, 81(3), 221-226.
Puntambekar, S., & Stylianou, A. (2005). Designing navigation support in hypertext systems based on navigation patterns. Instructional Science, 33, 451-481.
Quine, W. V. (1961). From a logical point of view (2 ed.). New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.
Quine, W. V. (1981). The pragmatist's' place in empiricism. In Zeltner, M. A. (Ed.), Pragmatism its sources and prospects (pp. 21-39). University of South Carolina Press.
Rubba, P., Horner, J., & Smith, J. M. (1981). A study of two misconceptions about the nature of science among junior high school students. School Science & Mathematics, 81, 221-226.
Sampson, V., Enderle, P., Grooms, J., & Witte, S. (2013). Writing to learn by learning
to write during the school science labatory: Helping middle and high school
students develop argumentative writing skills as they learn core ideas. Science
Education, 97(5), 643-670.
Schwartz, R., Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). A series of misrepresentations: A response to Allchin's whole approach to assessing nature of science understanding. Science Education, 96, 685-691.
Shapere, D. (1984). Reason and the search for knowledge. Boston: Reidel Publishing Company.
Shimony, A. (1991). Some comments on rationality in science and ethics. In Matthews, M. R. (Ed.), History, philosophy, and science teaching: Selected readings. Toronto: OISE Press.
Smith, M. U., & Scharmann, L. C. (1999). Defining versus describing the nature of science: A pragmatic analysis for classroom teachers and science educators. Science Education, 83(4), 493-509.
Snow, C. P. (1998). The two cultures. Cambridge: The Cambridge University Press.
Solomon, J., Duveen, J., Scot, L., & McCarthy, S. (1992). Teaching about the nature of science through history: Action research in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 409-421.
Shapin, S. (1996). The scientific revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago.
Stone, C. A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 344-364.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Thomas, G. P. (2013). Changing the metacognative orientation of a classroom environment to stimulate metacognitive reflection regarding the nature of physics learning. International Journal of Science Education, 35(7), 1183-1207.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tyler, R. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
van Dijk, E. M. (2013). Book review: Myint Swe Khine (Ed): Advances in nature of science research: Concepts and methodologies. Science & Education, 22, 881-886.
Walker, J. P., & Sampson.V. (2013). Learning to argue and arguing to learn: Argument driven inquiry as a way to help undergraduate chemistry students learn how to construct arguments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(5), 561-596.
Walls, L. (2012). Third grade African American students' views of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 1-37.
Wang, H. A., & Marsh, D. D. (2002). Science introduction with humanistic twist: Teachers' perception and practice in using the history of science in their classroom. Science & Education, 11(2), 169-189.
Yip, D.-Y. (2006). Using history to promote understanding of nature of science in science teachers. Teaching Education, 17(2), 157-166.