Creencias del profesorado en formación sobre los zahoríes y aplicación del modelo acuífero

Referencias bibliográficas

• Afonso, A. S. y Gilbert, J. K. (2010). Pseudo‐science: A meaningful context for assessing nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 329-348. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903055758
• Arthurs, L. A. y Elwonger, J. M. (2018). Mental models of groundwater residence: A deeper understanding of students’ preconceptions as a resource for teaching and learning about groundwater and aquifers. Journal of Astronomy & Earth Sciences Education, 5(1), 53-66. https://doi.org/10.19030/jaese.v5i1.10192
• Bach, J. y Márquez, C. (2017). El estudio de los fenómenos geológicos desde una perspectiva sistémica. Enseñanza de las Ciencias de la Tierra, 25(3), 302-309.
• Barnett, S. M. y Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn?: A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612-637. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.128.4.612
• Baytelman, A., Iordanou, K. y Constantinou C. P. (2020). Epistemic beliefs and prior knowledge as predictors of the construction of different types of arguments on socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57, 1199-1227. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21627
• Bell, R. L. y Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87(3), 352-377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10063
• Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O. y Orion, N. (2005). A study of junior high students’ perceptions of the water cycle. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(4), 366-373. https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-53.4.366
• Beyerstein, B. L. (1995). Distinguishing science from pseudoscience. The Centre for Curriculum and Professional Development.
• Cano-Orón, L. (2019). A twitter campaign against pseudoscience: The sceptical discourse on complementary therapies in Spain. Public Understanding of Science, 28(6), 679-695. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519853228
• Cortiñas-Rovira, S., Alonso-Marcos, F., Pont-Sorribes, C. y Escribà-Sales, E. (2015). Science journalists’ perceptions and attitudes to pseudoscience in Spain. Public Understanding of Science, 24(4), 450-465. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662514558991
• Costall, A., Teo, B. y Pethick, A. (2019). Can you use a coconut to find groundwater? ASEG Extended Abstracts, 1, 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1080/22020586.2019.12073220
• Couso, D. y Puig, B. (2021). Educación científica en tiempos de pandemia. Alambique. Didáctica de las Ciencias Experimentales, 104, 49-56.
• Crujeiras Pérez, B. y Jiménez Aleixandre, M. P. (2018). Influencia de distintas estrategias de andamiaje para promover la participación del alumnado de secundaria en las prácticas científicas. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 36(2), 23-42. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.2241
• Deming, D. (2002). Water witching and dowsing. Ground Water, 40(4), 450-452. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2002.tb02525.x
• Dickerson, D. L. y Dawkins, K. (2004). Eighth grade students’ understandings of groundwater. Journal of Geoscience Education, 52(2), 178-181. https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-52.2.178
• Domènech, J. (2022). Mueve la lengua, que el cerebro te seguirá. Graó.
• Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268-291. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x07309371
• Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical thinking. Prentice Hall.
• Erduran, S., Simon S. y Osborne J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s Argument Pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012
• Erickson, F. (1989). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. En M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119-161). Macmillan.
• Feinstein, N. (2011). Salvaging science literacy. Science Education, 95, 168-185. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20414
• Feinstein, N. W., Allen, S. y Jenkins, E. (2013). Outside the pipeline: Reimagining science education for nonscientists. Science, 340(6130), 314-317. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1230855
• Fernández-Ferrer, G. y González-García, F. (2010). El problema de la descarga del agua subterránea al medio superficial: estudio de esquemas de conocimiento en universitarios. Didáctica de las ciencias experimentales y sociales, 24, 153-169.
• Forbes, C. T., Zangori, L. y Schwarz, C. V. (2015). Empirical validation of integrated learning performances for hydrologic phenomena: 3rd-grade students’ model-driven explanation-construction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(7), 895-921. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21226
• Foulkes, R. A. (1971). Dowsing experiments. Nature, 229, 163-168. https://doi.org/10.1038/229163a0
• Fuertes-Prieto, M. A., Andrés-Sánchez, S., Corrochano-Fernández, D., Urones-Jambrina, C., Delgado-Martín, M. L., Herrero-Teijón, P. y Ruiz, C. (2020). Pre-service teachers’ false beliefs in superstitions and pseudosciences in relation to science and technology. Science & Education, 29, 1235-1254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00140-8
• Fundación Española para la Ciencia y la Tecnología. (2017). Percepción social de la ciencia y la tecnología 2016. Editorial MIC.
• Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C. J. y Elmer, R. (2000). Positioning models in science education and in design and technology education. En J. K. Gilbert y C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 3-17). Kluwer Academic Publisher. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0876-1_1
• González-García, F. y Fernández-Ferrer, G. (2012). Potencialidades y limitaciones de las analogías elaboradas por estudiantes de magisterio para representar las aguas subterráneas. Enseñanza de las Ciencias de la Tierra, 20(3), 229-238.
• Hansson, L. (2018). Science education, indoctrination, and the hidden curriculum. En M. Matthews (Ed.), History, Philosophy and Science Teaching. Science: Philosophy, History and Education (pp. 283-306). Springer.
• Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Jordan, R., Eberbach, C. y Sinha, S. (2017). Systems learning with a conceptual representation: A quasi-experimental study. Instructional Science, 45, 53-72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9392-y
• Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2010). 10 ideas clave. Competencias en argumentación y uso de pruebas. Graó.
• Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. y Puig, B. (2012). Argumentation, evidence evaluation and critical thinking. En B. J. Frasser, K. G. Tobin y C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second International Handbook for Science Education (pp. 1001-1016). Springer.
• Lack, C. W. y Rousseau, J. (2016). Critical thinking, science, and pseudoscience. Springer.
• Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional. (2022). Real Decreto 217/2022, de 29 de marzo, por el que se establece la ordenación y las enseñanzas mínimas de la Educación Secundaria. BOE, 52, 41571-41789.
• Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 177-196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9384-1
• Pan, Y.-T. y Liu, S.-C. (2018). Students’ understanding of a groundwater system and attitudes towards groundwater use and conservation. International Journal of Science Education, 40(5), 564-578. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1435922
• Pozo-Muñoz, M. P., Velasco-Martínez, L. C., Martín-Gámez, C. y Tójar-Hurtado, J. C. (2021). ¿Qué sabe el alumnado sobre las problemáticas socio-ambientales del agua y su gestión sostenible? Investigación mixta en Educación Primaria. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias, 18(3), 3501. http://doi.org/10.25267/Rev_Eureka_ensen_divulg_cienc.2021.v18.i3.3501
• Preece, P. F. W. y Baxter, J. H. (2000). Scepticism and gullibility: the superstitious and pseudoscientific beliefs of secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 22(11), 1147-1156. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690050166724
• Quevedo-Ortiz, G., González-García, F. y Fernández-Ferrer, G. (2019). Un estudio sobre pensamiento pseudocientífico en estudiantes de educación secundaria. Didáctica de las Ciencias Experimentales y Sociales, 37, 147‐164.
• Sabariego, M., Massot, I. y Dorio, I. (2009). Características generales de la metodología cualitativa. En R. Bisquerr. (Ed.), Metodología de la investigación educativa (pp. 275-292). La muralla.
• Sadler, T. D. y Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463-1488. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600708717
• Sadler T. D. y Fowler S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 9, 986-1004. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20165
• Sadler, T. D., Nguyen, H. y Lankford, D. (2016). Water systems understandings: A framework for designing instruction and considering what learners know about water. WIRES Water, 5(1), e1178. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1178
• Salomon, G. y Perkins, D. N. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: rethinking mechanism of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24(2), 113-142. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2402_1
• Sánchez, F. J. (2022). Hidrología Superficial y Subterránea (2.ª ed.). Kindle Direct Publishing.
• Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Achér, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., Hug, B. y Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632-654. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20311
• Seijas, N. y Uskola, A. (2022). Revision and manipulation of physical models as tools for developing the aquifer model by Preservice Elementary Teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 44(11), 1715-1737. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2095453
• Simon, S., Erduran, S. y Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2), 235-260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336957
• Snapir, Z., Eberbach, C., Ben-Zvi-Assaraf, O., Hmelo-Silver, C. y Tripto, J. (2017). Characterising the development of the understanding of human body systems in high-school biology students – a longitudinal study. International Journal of Science Education, 39(15), 2092-2127. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1364445
• Strahler, A. N. y Strahler, A. H. (2005). Geografía Física (3.ª ed.). Ediciones Omega.
• Solbes, J., Palomar, R. y Domínguez M. C. (2018). ¿En qué grado afectan las pseudociencias al profesorado? Una mirada al pensamiento de los docentes de ciencias en formación. Mètode Science Studies Journal, 29, 28-35.
• Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. ‎Cambridge University Press.
• Unterbruner, U., Hilberg, S. y Schiffl, I. (2016). Understanding groundwater-students’ pre-conceptions and conceptual change by means of a theory-guided multimedia learning program. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 20(6), 2251-2266. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-2251-2016
• Uskola, A. (2017). Escepticismo del profesorado de Primaria en formación hacia las pseudociencias: Influencia de las concepciones erróneas en el caso de la homeopatía. Profesorado. Revista de currículum y formación del profesorado, 21, 391-408.
• Van de Pol, J., Volman, M. y Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271-296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6
• Yates, G. C. R. y Chandler, M. (2000). Where have all the skeptics gone?: Patterns of New Age beliefs and anti-scientific attitudes in preservice primary teachers. Research in Science Education, 30(4), 377-387. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02461557
• Zembal-Saul, C. (2009). Learning to teach elementary school science as argument. Science Education, 93, 687-719. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.20325
• Zohar, A. (1998). Result or conclusion? Students’ differentiation between experimental results and conclusions. Journal of Biological Education, 32, 53-59. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1998.9655594