• Aikenhead, G. S., & Jegede, O. J. (1999). Cross-cultural science education: A cognitive explanation of a cultural phenomenon. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(3), 269–287. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199903)36:3<269::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-T.
• Amory, A. (2010). Education technology and hidden ideological contradictions. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(1), 69–79. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.13.1.69.
• Babco, E. L. (2004). Skills for the innovation economy: What the 21st century workforce needs and how to provide it. Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology.
• Brown, S. L., & Melear, C. T. (2006). Investigation of secondary science teachers’ beliefs and practices after authentic inquiry-based experiences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(9), 938–962. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20110.
• Buxton, C. A. (2006). Creating contextually authentic science in a “low-performing” urban elementary school. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(7), 695–721. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20105.
• Cardoso, C., Eriş, Ö., Badke-Schaub, P., & Aurisicchio, M. (2014). Question asking in design reviews: How does inquiry facilitate the learning interaction? In Design Thinking Research Symposium. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284315941.
• Chinowsky, P. S., Brown, H., Szajnman, A., & Realph, A. (2006). Developing knowledge landscapes through project-based learning. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 132(2), 118–124. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(2006)132:2(118).
• Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Emdin, C. (2011). Citizenship and social justice in urban science education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 24(3), 285–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2010.539582.
• Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
• Engeström, Y. (1996). Developmental work research as educational research: Looking ten years back and into the zone of proximal development. Nordisk Pedagogik: Journal of Nordic Educational Research, 15(5), 131–143.
• Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080020028747.
• Engeström, Y. (2008). From teams to knots: Activity-theoretical studies of collaboration and learning at work. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619847.
• Engeström, Y. (2015). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research.
• Farrar, C. H. (2016). Teachers’ instructional goals for science practice: Identifying knowledge gaps using cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) (Doctoral dissertation), Columbia University. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1791131298/abstract/659FA9C4D9A64E3APQ/1.
• Fayer, S., Lacey, A., & Watson, A. (2017). STEM occupations: Past, present, and future. Spotlight on Statistics. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/82c3/4b06c6aa1ac049349658ce9037e72fcf5b46.pdf.
• Feldman, A., & Pirog, K. (2011). Authentic science research in elementary school after-school science clubs. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(5), 494–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9305-4.
• Foot, K. A. (2014). Cultural-Historical activity theory: Exploring a theory to inform practice and research. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 24(3), 329–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2013.831011.
• Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
• Hao, Q., Branch, R. M., & Jensen, L. (2016). The effect of precommitment on student achievement within a technology-rich project-based learning environment. TechTrends, 60(5), 442–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0093-9.
• Hsu, P.-L. (2018). Strategies to mediate cogenerative dialogues between scientists and high school students. Paper archived in the 2018 AERA Online Paper Repository.
• Hsu, P.-L., & Espinoza, P. (2018). Cultivating constructivist science internships for high school students through a community of practice with cogenerative dialogues. Learning Environments Research, 21(2), 267-283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-017-9253-x.
• Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2006). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 317–334). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Krajcik, J. S., & Czerniak, C. M. (2014). Teaching science in elementary and middle school: A project-based approach (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 17–44). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Lee, H.-S., & Butler, N. (2003). Making authentic science accessible to students. International Journal of Science Education, 25(8), 923–948. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305023.
• Leont’ev, A. N. (1974). The problem of activity in psychology. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 13(2), 4–33. https://doi.org/10.2753/RPO1061-040513024.
• Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
• Markham, T., Larmer, J., & Ravitz, J. (2003). Project-based learning handbook: A guide to standards-focused project-based learning (2nd ed.). Novato, CA: Buck Institute for Education.
• Meyer, D. K., Turner, J. C., & Spencer, C. A. (1997). Challenge in a mathematics classroom: Students’ motivation and strategies in project-based learning. The Elementary School Journal, 97(5), 501–521.
• Murphy, C., & Carlisle, K. (2008). Situating relational ontology and transformative activist stance within the ‘everyday’ practice of coteaching and cogenerative dialogue. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3(2), 493–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-008-9124-y.
• NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290.
• Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9384-1.
• Patchen, T., & Smithenry, D. W. (2014). Diversifying instruction and shifting authority: A cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) analysis of classroom participant structures. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(5), 606–634. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21140.
• Peters, H. P. (2013). Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 110, 14102–14109. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212745110.
• Radinsky, J., Bouillion, L., Lento, E. M., & Gomez, L. M. (2001). Mutual benefit partnership: A curricular design for authenticity. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(4), 405–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270118862.
• Roth, W.-M., & Tobin, K. (2002a). Redesigning an” urban” teacher education program: An activity theory perspective. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9(2), 108–131. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327884MCA0902_03.
• Roth, W.-M., & Tobin, K. (2002b). At the elbow of another: Learning to teach by coteaching. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
• Roth, W.-M., & Tobin, K. (2004). Coteaching: from praxis to theory. Teachers and Teaching, 10(2), 161–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/0954025032000188017.
• Roth, W.-M., Lee, Y. J., & Hsu, P.-L. (2009). A tool for changing the world: Possibilities of cultural-historical activity theory to reinvigorate science education. Studies in Science Education, 45, 131–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260903142269.
• Roth, W.-M., Tobin, K., & Zimmermann, A. (2002). Coteaching/cogenerative dialoguing: Learning environments research as classroom praxis. Learning Environments Research, 5(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015662623784.
• Sadler, T. D., Burgin, S., McKinney, L., & Ponjuan, L. (2010). Learning science through research apprenticeships: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(3), 235–256. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20326.
• Savin-Baden, M. (2007). Challenging models and perspectives of problem-based learning. In E. De Graaff & A. Kolmos (Eds.), Management of change: Implementation of problem-based and project-based learning in engineering (pp. 9–30). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
• Stefanou, C., Stolk, J. D., Prince, M., Chen, J. C., & Lord, S. M. (2013). Self-regulation and autonomy in problem- and project-based learning environments. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14(2), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787413481132.
• Stith, I., & Roth, W.-M. (2010). Teaching as mediation: The cogenerative dialogue and ethical understandings. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), 363–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.09.008.
• Tobin, K., & Alexakos, K. (2013). Coteaching heuristics (I|Other). New York, NY: The City University of New York.
• Tseng, K.-H., Chang, C.-C., Lou, S.-J., & Chen, W.-P. (2013). Attitudes towards science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) in a project-based learning (PjBL) environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(1), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9160-x.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, Ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Worsham, E., Clevenger, A., & Whealan-George, K. (2016). STEM education discrepancy in the United States and Singapore. Beyond: Undergraduate Research Journal, 1(1). Retrieved from http://commons.erau.edu/beyond/vol1/iss1/3.
• Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2007). Confronting analytical dilemmas for understanding complex human interactions in design-based research from a cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) framework. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(4), 451–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400701524777.
• Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2010). Understanding cultural historical activity theory. In Activity systems analysis methods: Understanding complex learning environments (pp. 13–26). Boston, MA: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6321-5_2.
• Zydney, J. M., deNoyelles, A., & Seo, K. K. J. (2012). Creating a community of inquiry in online environments: An exploratory study on the effect of a protocol on interactions within asynchronous discussions. Computers & Education, 58(1), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.009.

Vancouver

Hsu P, Liao Y. Using Cogenerative Dialogues to Transform Contradictions in Project-Based Learning. EURASIA J Math Sci and Tech Ed. 2018;14(12):em1623. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/95127

APA

Hsu, P., & Liao, Y. (2018). Using Cogenerative Dialogues to Transform Contradictions in Project-Based Learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(12), em1623. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/95127

AMA

Hsu P, Liao Y. Using Cogenerative Dialogues to Transform Contradictions in Project-Based Learning. EURASIA J Math Sci and Tech Ed. 2018;14(12), em1623. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/95127

Chicago

Hsu, Pei-Ling, and Yi-Yu Liao. "Using Cogenerative Dialogues to Transform Contradictions in Project-Based Learning". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2018 14 no. 12 (2018): em1623. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/95127

Harvard

Hsu, P., and Liao, Y. (2018). Using Cogenerative Dialogues to Transform Contradictions in Project-Based Learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(12), em1623. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/95127

MLA

Hsu, Pei-Ling et al. "Using Cogenerative Dialogues to Transform Contradictions in Project-Based Learning". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 14, no. 12, 2018, em1623. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/95127