Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education

• Alexander, P. A., Murphy, P. K., & Kulikowich, J. M. (1998). What responses to domain-specific analogy problems reveal about emerging competence: A new perspective on an old acquaintance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 397-406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.3.397
• Bråten, I., Ferguson, L. E., Strømsø, H. I., & Anmarkrud, Ø. (2014). Students working with multiple conflicting documents on a scientific issue: Relations between epistemic cognition while reading and sourcing and argumentation in essays. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(1), 58-85. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12005
• Bromme, R., & Goldman, S.R. (2014). The public’s bounded understanding of science. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 59-69. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.921572
• Chao, J., Chiu, J. L., DeJaegher, C. J., & Pan, E. A. (2016). Sensor-augmented virtual labs: Using physical interactions with science simulations to promote understanding of gas behavior. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 16-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9574-4
• Chen, S., Chang, W.-H., Lai, C.-H., & Tsai, C.-Y. (2014). A comparison of students’ approaches to inquiry, conceptual learning, and attitudes in simulation-based and microcomputer-based laboratories. Science Education, 98(5), 905-935. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21126
• Chinn, C. A., & Buckland, L. A. (2012). Model-based instruction: Fostering change in evolutionary conceptions and in epistemic practices. In E. M. Evans, G. M. Sinatra, K. S. Rosengren, & S. K. Brem (Eds.), Evolution challenges: Integrating research and practice in teaching and learning about evolution (pp. 211-233). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199730421.003.0010
• Dinsmore, D. L., Loughlin, S. M., Parkinson, M. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2015). The effects of persuasive and expository text on metacognitive monitoring and control. Learning and Individual Differences, 38, 54-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.01009
• Dinsmore, D. L., & Zoellner, B. P. (2017). The relation between cognitive and metacognitive strategic processing during science simulations. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 95-117. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12177
• Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33(2/3), 109-128. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1998.9653294
• Eason, S. H., Goldberg, L. F., Young, K. M., Geist, M. C., & Cutting, L. E. (2012). Reader-text interactions: How differential text and question types influence cognitive skills needed for reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 515-528. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027182
• Feinstein, N. W. (2015). Education, communication, and science in the public sphere. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(2), 145-163. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21192
• Hall, W. S. (1989). Reading comprehension. American Psychologist, 44(2), 157-161. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.2.157
• Hancock, G. R., & Mueller, R. O. (2001). Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems. In R. Cudeck, S. du Toit, & D. Sorbom (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: Present and future–A Festschrift in honor of Karl Joreskog. Scientific Software International, Inc.
• Hewson, P. W., Beeth, M. E., & Thorley, N. R. (1998). Teaching for conceptual change. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 199-218). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4940-2_13
• Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
• Lombardi, D., & Sinatra, G. M. (2012). College students’ perceptions about the plausibility of human-induced climate change. Research in Science Education, 42(2), 201-217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-010-9196-z
• Lombardi, D., Sinatra, G. M., & Nussbaum, E. M. (2013). Plausibility reappraisals and shifts in middle school students’ climate change conceptions. Learning and Instruction, 27, 50-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.03.001
• McElhaney, K. W., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Investigations of a complex, realistic task: Intentional, unsystematic, and exhaustive experimenters. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(7), 745-770. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20423
• McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22(3), 247-288. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539609544975
• National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. National Academies Press.
• NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press.
• Nisbet, M. C. (2009). Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 51(2), 12-23. https://doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.51.2.12-23
• Rogelj, J., Meinshausen, M., & Knutti, R. (2012). Global warming under old and new scenarios using IPCC climate sensitivity range estimates. Nature Climate Change, 2(4), 248-253. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1385
• Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1991). Science for all Americans. Oxford University Press.
• Sinatra, G. M., & Broughton, S. H. (2011). Bridging reading comprehension and conceptual change in science education: The promise of refutation text. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(4), 374-393. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.005
• Sinatra, G. M., Kienhues, D., & Hofer, B. K. (2014). Addressing challenges to public understanding of science: Epistemic cognition, motivated reasoning, and conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 123-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.916216
• Streefland, P. H. (2001). Public doubts about vaccination safety and resistance against vaccination. Health Policy, 55(3), 159-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-8510(00)00132-9
• Woodhead, J. A. (2001). Earth science: The physics and chemistry of earth. Salem Press.

APA

Zoellner, B. P., Dinsmore, D. D., Zhao, H., & Rozas, X. (2026). Using a global climate change simulation to develop students’ use of quality scientific evidence and argumentation. Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 22(1), e2601. https://doi.org/10.29333/ijese/17499

Vancouver

Zoellner BP, Dinsmore DD, Zhao H, Rozas X. Using a global climate change simulation to develop students’ use of quality scientific evidence and argumentation. INTERDISCIP J ENV SCI ED. 2026;22(1):e2601. https://doi.org/10.29333/ijese/17499

AMA

Zoellner BP, Dinsmore DD, Zhao H, Rozas X. Using a global climate change simulation to develop students’ use of quality scientific evidence and argumentation. INTERDISCIP J ENV SCI ED. 2026;22(1), e2601. https://doi.org/10.29333/ijese/17499

Chicago

Zoellner, Brian P., Daniel D. Dinsmore, Hongyang Zhao, and Xavier Rozas. "Using a global climate change simulation to develop students’ use of quality scientific evidence and argumentation". Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education 2026 22 no. 1 (2026): e2601. https://doi.org/10.29333/ijese/17499

Harvard

Zoellner, B. P., Dinsmore, D. D., Zhao, H., and Rozas, X. (2026). Using a global climate change simulation to develop students’ use of quality scientific evidence and argumentation. Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 22(1), e2601. https://doi.org/10.29333/ijese/17499

MLA

Zoellner, Brian P. et al. "Using a global climate change simulation to develop students’ use of quality scientific evidence and argumentation". Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, vol. 22, no. 1, 2026, e2601. https://doi.org/10.29333/ijese/17499