STEM

Science Reasoning & Engineering Design

  1. Egan, P., Moore, J., Ehrlicher, A., Weitz, D., Schunn, C., Cagan, J., & LeDuc, P. (2017). Robust mechanobiological behavior emerges in heterogenous myosin systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 10.1073/pnas.1713219114 pdf
  2. Paletz, S., Chan, J., & Schunn, C. D. (2017). Dynamics of micro-conflicts and uncertainty in successful and unsuccessful design teams. Design Studies, 50, 39-69. 10.1016/j.destud.2017.02.002 pdf
  3. Egan, P., Chiu, F., Cagan, J., Schunn, C., LeDuc, P., Moore, J. (2016). The d3 Design Methodology: Computational and cognitive-based processes for discovering describing and developing bio-based technologies. Journal of Mechanical Design, 138, 081101-1-13. pdf
  4. Paletz, S., Chan, J., & Schunn, C. D. (2016). Uncovering uncertainty through disagreement. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(3), 387–400. pdf
  5. Egan, P., Schunn, C., Cagan, J., & LeDuc, P. (2015). Improving understanding and design proficiency of complex multi-level biosystems through animation and parametric relationships support. Design Science, 1(1), e3. doi:10.1017/dsj.2015.3 pdf
  6. Chan, J., & Schunn, C. D. (2015). The importance of iteration in creative conceptual combination. Cognition, 145, 104–115. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2015.08.008. pdf
  7. Egan, P., Schunn, C. D., Cagan, J., & LeDuc, P. (2015). Emergent systems energy laws for predicting myosin ensemble processivity. PLOS Computational Biology, 11(4): e1004177. link
  8. Egan, P., Cagan, J., Schunn, C. D., & LeDuc, P. (2015). Synergistic human-agent methods for deriving effective search strategies: The case of nanoscale design. Research In Engineering Design, 26(2), 145-169. pdf
  9. Chan, J., Dow, S. P., & Schunn, C. D. (2015). Do the best design ideas (really) come from conceptually distant sources of inspiration? Design Studies, 36, 31-58. pdf
  10. Chan, J., & Schunn, C. D. (2015). The impact of analogies on creative concept generation: Lessons from an in vivo study in engineering design. Cognitive Science, 39(1), 126-155. pdf
  11. Paletz, S. B. F., Kim, K., Schunn, C. D., Tollinger, I., & Vera, A. (2013). The development of adaptive expertise, routine expertise, and novelty in a large research team. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(4), 415–428. pdf
  12. Egan, P. F., Cagan, J. C., Schunn, C. D., & LeDuc, P. R. (2013). Design of complex biologically-based nanoscale systems using multi-agent simulations and structure-behavior-function representations. Journal of Mechanical Design, 135(6), 061005. pdf
  13. Fu, K., Chan, J., Cagan, J., Kotovsky, K., Schunn, C., & Wood, K. (2013). The meaning of “near” and “far”: The impact of structuring design databases and the effect of distance of analogy on design output. Journal of Mechanical Design, 135(2), 021007. pdf
  14. Fu, K., Chan, J., Schunn, C. D., Cagan, J., & Kotovsky, K. (2013). Expert representation of design repository space: A comparison to and validation of algorithmic output. Design Studies, 34(6), 729-762. pdf
  15. Paletz, S. B. F., Schunn, C. D., & Kim, K. (2013). The interplay of conflict and analogy in multidisciplinary teams. Cognition, 126(1), 1-19. pdf
  16. Chan, J., Paletz, S., & Schunn, C. D. (2012). Analogy as a strategy for supporting complex problem solving under uncertainty. Memory & Cognition, 40, 1352-1365. pdf
  17. Paletz, S. B. F., & Schunn, C. D. (2012). Digging into implicit/explicit states and processes: The case of cognitive/social process interaction in scientific groups. In R. Proctor and J. Capaldi (Eds.), Psychology of Science: Implicit and Explicit Processes. Oxford University Press. pdf
  18. Schunn, C. D., & Trafton, J. G. (2012). The psychology of uncertainty in scientific data analysis. In G. Feist & M. Gorman (Eds.), Handbook of the Psychology of Science. Springer Publishing. pdf
  19. Chan, J., Fu, K., Schunn, C. D., Cagan, J., Wood, K., & Kotovsky, K. (2011). On the benefits and pitfalls of analogies for innovative design: Ideation performance based on analogical distance, commonness, and modality of examples. Journal of Mechanical Design, 133, 081004-1-11. pdf
  20. Paletz, S. B. F., Schunn, C. D., & Kim, K. (2011). Intragroup conflict under the microscope: micro-conflicts in naturalistic team discussions. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 4, 314-351. pdf
  21. Paletz, S. B. F., & Schunn,C. D. (2011). Assessing group level participation in fluid teams: Testing a new metric. Behavior Research Methods, 10.3758/s13428-011-0070-3. pdf
  22. Schunn, C. D. (2010). From uncertainly exact to certainly vague: Epistemic uncertainty and approximation in science and engineering problem solving. In B. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 53). pdf
  23. Linsey, J., Tseng, I., Fu, K., Cagan, J., Wood, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2010). A study of design fixation, its mitigation and perception in engineering design faculty. Journal of Mechanical Design, 132(4), 041003-1-12. pdf
  24. Paletz, S. B. F., & Schunn, C. D. (2010). A social-cognitive framework of multidisciplinary team innovation. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 73-95. pdf
  25. Christensen, B. T., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). Setting a limit to randomness [or: ‘Putting blinkers on a blind man’]: Providing cognitive support for creative processes with environmental cues. In K. Wood & A. Markman (Eds.), Tools for Innovation. Oxford University Press. pdf
  26. Trickett, S. B, Trafton, J. G., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). How do scientists respond to anomalies? Different strategies used in basic and applied science. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(4), 711-729. pdf
  27. Christensen,B. T., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). The role and impact of mental simulation in design. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 327-344. pdf
  28. Christensen, B. T., & Schunn,C. D. (2007). The relationship of analogical distance to analogical function and pre-inventive structure: The case of engineering design. Memory & Cognition, 35(1), 29-38. pdf
  29. Schunn, C. D., Saner, L. D., Kirschenbaum, S. K., Trafton, J. G., & Littleton, E. B. (2007). Complex visual data analysis, uncertainty, and representation. In M. C. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with Data. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. pdf
  30. Trickett, S. B., Trafton, J. G., & Saner, L. D., & Schunn, C. D. (2007). "I don't know what is going on there": The use of spatial transformations to deal with and resolve uncertainty in complex visualizations. In M. C. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with Data. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. pdf
  31. Mehalik, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2006). What constitutes good design? A review of empirical studies of the design process. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(3), 519-532. pdf
  32. Trafton,J. G., Trickett, S. B., Stitzlein, C. A., Saner, L. D., Schunn, C. D., & Kirschenbaum, S. S. (2006). The relationship between spatial transformations and iconic gestures. Spatial Cognition & Computation, 6(1), 1-29. pdf
  33. Schunn, C. D., Crowley, K., & Okada, T. (2005). Cognitive Science: Interdisciplinarity now and then. In S. J. Derry, C. D. Schunn, & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Problems and promises of interdisciplinary collaboration: Perspectives from cognitive science. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. pdf
  34. Trickett, S. B., Trafton, J. G., & Schunn, C. D. (2005). Puzzles and peculiarities: How scientists attend to and process anomalies during data analysis. In M. E. Gorman, R. D. Tweney, D. Gooding, & A. Kincannon (Eds.), Scientific and technological thinking (pp. 97-118). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.pdf
  35. Christensen, B. T., & Schunn, C. D. (2005). Spontaneous access and analogical incubation effects. Creativity Research Journal, 17(2), 207-220. pdf
  36. Schunn, C. D., Crowley, K., & Okada, T. (2002). What makes collaborations across a distance succeed?: The case of the Cognitive Science community. In P. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed Work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pdf
  37. Schunn, C. D., Crowley, K., & Okada, T. (2000). Cognitive Science: Interdisciplinarity now and then. In K. Ueda & T. Okada (Eds.), (2000). In search of collaborative cognition: Cognitive science on creative collaboration. Tokyo: Kyoritsu Shuppan. (In Japanese)
  38. Schunn, C. D., & Klahr, D. (2000). Discovery processes in a more complex task. In D. Klahr (Ed.), Exploring science: The cognition and development of discovery processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Download programs. pdf
  39. Schunn, C. D., & Anderson, J. R. (1999). The generality/specificity of expertise in scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 23(3), 337-370 . pdf
  40. Schunn, C. D., & Anderson, J. R. (1998). Scientific Discovery. In J. R. Anderson & C. Lebiere (Eds.), Atomic Components of Thought. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. pdf
  41. Schunn, C. D., Crowley, K., & Okada, T. (1998). The growth of multidisciplinarity in the Cognitive Science Society. Cognitive Science, 22(1), 107-130. pdf
  42. Schunn, C. D., & Dunbar, K. (1996). Priming, analogy, and awareness in complex reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 24(3), 271-284. pdf

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Learning

  1. Cannady, M., Moore, D., Votruba-Drzal, E., Greenwald, E., Stites, R. & Schunn, C. (in press). How personal, behavioral, and environmental factors predict working in STEMM vs non-STEMM Middle-Skill Careers. International Journal of STEM Education.
  2. Tekkumru-Kisa, M., Stein, M. K., & Schunn, C. D., (in press). Identifying cognitively demanding science tasks to provide opportunities for students to engage in three-dimensional learning. The Science Teacher.
  3. Malone, K. L., Schunn, C. D., & Schuchardt, A. (in press). Improving conceptual understanding and representation skills through Excel-based modeling. Journal of Science Education and Technology.pdf
  4. Schuchardt, A., Tekkumru-Kisa, M., Schunn, C. D., Stein, M. K., & Reynolds, B. (2017). How much professional development is needed with educative curriculum materials? It depends upon the intended student learning outcomes. Science Education. pdf
  5. Witherspoon, B., Schunn, C. D. Higashi, R. M., & Shoop, R. (in press). Developing computational thinking in robotics. ACM Transactions on Computing Education.
  6. Menekse, M., Higashi, R., Schunn, C., & Baehr, E. (in press). Exploring the role of robotics teams’ collaboration quality on team performance in a robotics tournamen. Journal of Engineering Education.
  7. Barstow, B., Fazio, L., Schunn, C. D., & Ashley, K. (2017). Experimental evidence for diagramming benefits in science writing. Instructional Science, 45(5), 537-556. 10.1007/s11251-017-9415-3 pdf
  8. Tekkumru-Kisa, M., Schunn, C. D., Stein, M. K., & Reynolds, B. (in press). Change in thinking demands for students across the phases of a science task: An exploratory study. Research in Science Education. pdf
  9. Liu, A.S., & Schunn, C. D. (2017). Applying math onto mechanisms: mechanistic knowledge is associated with the use of formal mathematical strategies. Cognitive Research, 2(6). pdf
  10. Barstow, B., Fazio, L., Lippman, J., Falakmasir, M., Schunn, C., & Ashley, K. (2017). The impacts of domain-general vs. domain-specific diagramming tools on writing. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. pdf
  11. Schunn, C. D. (2017). Building from in vivo research to the future of research on relational thinking and learning. Educational Psychology Review, 29(1), 97-104.pdf
  12. Witherspoon, E. B., Schunn, C. D., Higashi, R. M., & Baehr, E. C. (2016). Gender, interest and prior experience shape opportunities to learn programming in robotics competitions. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(18).pdf
  13. Cromley, J. M., Weisberg, S. M., Dai, T., Newcombe, N. S., Schunn, C. D., Massey, C., & Merlino, F. J. (2016). Improving middle school science learning using diagrammatic reasoning, Science Education, 100(6), 1184-1213. pdf
  14. Cox, C., Apedoe, X., Silk, E., & Schunn, C. D. (2017). Analyzing materials in order to find design opportunities for the classroom. In S. Goldman & Z. Kabayadondo (Eds.), Taking Design Thinking to School.
  15. Iriti, J., Bickel, W., Schunn, C., & Stein, M. K. (2016). Maximizing research and development resources: Identifying and testing “load-bearing conditions” for educational technology innovations. Educational Technology Research & Development, 64, 245-262. 10.1007/s11423-015-9409-2 pdf
  16. Cox, C., Reynolds, B., Schuchardt, A., & Schunn, C. D., (2016). How do secondary level biology teachers make sense of using mathematics in design-based lessons about a biological process? In L. Annetta & J. Minogue (Eds.), Connecting Science and Engineering Practices in Meaningful Ways (pp. 339-372). Heidelberg: Springer. pdf
  17. Cox, C., Schuchardt, A., Reynolds, B., & Schunn, C. D. (2016). Using mathematics and engineering to solve problems in secondary level biology. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 17(1), 6-14. pdf
  18. Schuchardt, A., & Schunn, C. D. (2016). Modeling scientific processes with mathematics equations enhances student qualitative conceptual understanding and quantitative problem solving. Science Education, 100(2), 290–320. pdf
  19. Crowell, A. J., & Schunn, C. D. (2016). Unpacking the relationship between science education and applied scientific literacy. Research in Science Education, 46(1), 129-140. 10.1007/s11165-015-9462-1. pdf
  20. Bathgate, M.E., Crowell, A.J., Cannady, M., Dorph, R. & Schunn, C.D. (2015). The learning benefits of being willing and able to engage in scientific argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 37(10), 1590-1612. 10.1080/09500693.2015.1045958 pdf
  21. Kessler, A., Stein, M. K., & Schunn, C. (2015). Cognitive demand of model tracing tutor tasks: Conceptualizing and predicting how deeply students engage. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 20(3), 317-337. pdf
  22. Alfieri, L., Higashi, R., Shoop, R., & Schunn, C. D. (2015). Case studies of a robot-based game to shape interests and hone proportional reasoning skills. International Journal of STEM Education, 2:4. pdf
  23. Peffer, M. E., Beckler, M. L., Schunn, C. D., Renken, M., & Revak, A. (2015). Science classroom inquiry (SCI) simulations: A novel method to scaffold science learning. PLoS ONE, 10(3): e0120638. link
  24. Tekkumru-Kisa, M., Stein, M. K., & Schunn, C. D. (2015). A framework for analyzing cognitive demand and content-practices integration: Task analysis guide in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(5), . pdf
  25. Crowell, A. J., & Schunn, C. D. (2014). The context-specificity of scientifically literate action: key barriers and facilitators across contexts and contents. Public Understanding of Science, 23(6), 718-733. pdf
  26. Cox, C., Reynolds, B., Schuchardt, A., & Schunn, C. D., (2014). How do secondary level biology teachers make sense of using mathematics in engineering design-based lessons about describing and predicting a biological process? In L. Annetta & J. Minogue (Eds.), Achieving science and technological literacy through engineering design practices. Springer.
  27. Liu, A., Schunn, C. D., Flot, J., & Shoop, R. (2013). The role of physicality in rich programming environments. Computer Science Education, 23(4), 315-331. pdf
  28. Apedoe, X. & Schunn, C. D. (2013). Strategies for Success: Uncovering what makes students successful in design and learning. Instructional science, 41, 773-791. pdf
  29. Apedoe,X. & Ellefson, M. E., Schunn, C. D. (2012). Learning together while designing: Does group size make a difference? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(1), 83-94. pdf
  30. Schunn, C. D., Silk, E. M., & Apedoe, X. S. (2012). Engineering in/&/or/for science education. In S. M. Carver and J. Shrager (Eds.), From Child to Scientist. Washington, DC: APA Press. pdf
  31. Schunn, C.D., & Silk, E. M. (2011). Learning theories for engineering technology and engineering education. In M. Barak and M. Hacker (Eds.), Fostering Human Development through Engineering and Technology Education (p. 3–18). Sense Publishers. pdf
  32. Singh, C., Moin, L., & Schunn, C. D. (2010). Introduction to physics teaching for science and engineering undergraduates. Journal of Physics Teacher Education Online, 5(3), 3-10. pdf
  33. Silk, E. M., Higashi, R., Shoop, R., Schunn, C. D. (2010). Designing technology activities that teach mathematics. The Technology Teacher, 69(4), 21-27. pdf
  34. Doppelt, Y. , Schunn, C. D., Silk, E., Mehalik, M., Reynolds, B., & Ward, E. (2009). Evaluating the impact of a facilitated learning community approach to professional development on teacher practice and student achievement. Research in Science & Technological Education, 27(3), 339-354.pdf
  35. Singh, C., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). Connecting three pivotal concepts in K-12 science state standards and maps of conceptual growth to research in physics education. Journal of Physics Teacher Education Online, 5(2), 16-28. pdf
  36. Steinberg, D., Patchan, M., Schunn, C. D., Landis, A. (2009). Determining adequate information for green building occupant training materials. Journal of Green Building, 4(3), 143-150. pdf
  37. Steinberg, D., Patchan, M., Schunn, C. D., Landis, A. (2009). Developing a focus for green building occupant training materials. Journal of Green Building, 4(2), 175–184.pdf
  38. Silk, E. M., Schunn, C. D., & Shoop, R. (2009). Synchronized robot dancing: Motivating efficiency and meaning in problem solving with robotics. Robot Magazine, 17, 42-45. pdf
  39. Schunn, C. D. (2009). How Kids Learn Engineering: The Cognitive Science Perspective. The Bridge, 39(3), 32-37. pdf (in) Hebrew)
  40. Silk, E., Schunn, C. D., & Strand-Cary, M. (2009). The impact of an engineering design curriculum on science reasoning in an urban setting. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(3), 209-223. pdf
  41. Reynolds, B., Mehalik, M. M., Lovell, M. R., & Schunn, C. D. (2009).Increasing student awareness of and interest in engineering as a career option through design-based learning. International Journal of Engineering Education, 25(1), 788-798. pdf
  42. Schunn, C. D. (2008). Engineering educational design. Educational Designer, 1. html (in Hebrew)
  43. Apedoe, X., Reynolds, B., Ellefson, M. R., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Bringing engineering design into high school science classrooms: The heating/cooling unit. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(5), 454–465. pdf
  44. Doppelt, Y. & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Identifying students' perceptions of the important classroom features affecting learning aspects of a design based learning environment? Learning Environments Research, 11(3), 195-209. pdf
  45. Ellefson,M., Brinker, R., Vernacchio, V., & Schunn, C. D.(2008). Design-based learning for biology: Genetic engineering experience improves understanding of gene expression. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 36(4), 292–298. pdf
  46. Doppelt, Y., Mehalik, M. M., Schunn, C. D., & Krysinski, D. (2008). Engagement and achievements in design-based learning. Journal of Technology Education, 19(2), 21-38. pdf
  47. Mehalik, M. M., & Doppelt, Y., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Middle-school science through design-based learning versus scripted inquiry: Better overall science concept learning and equity gap reduction. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 71-85. pdf
  48. Moin, L., Dorfield, J., & Schunn, C. D. (2005). Where Can We Find Future K-12 Science & Math Teachers? A Search by Academic Year, Discipline, and Achievement Level. Science Education, 89, 980-1006. pdf
  49. Schunn, C. D., & Anderson, J. R. (2001). Science education in universities: Explorations of what, when, and how. In K. Crowley, C.D. Schunn, & T. Okada (Eds.), Designing for Science: Implications from Professional, Instructional, and Everyday Science. Mawah, NJ: Erlbaum. pdf

Web-Based Peer Interaction

  1. Zhang, F., Schunn, C.D., & Baikadi, A. (2017). Charting the routes to revision: An interplay of writing goals, peer comments, and self-reflections from peer review. Instructional Science, 45(5), 679-707. 10.1007/s11251-017-9420-6 pdf
  2. Patchan, M. M., Schunn, C.D., & Clark, R. (in press). Accountability in peer assessment: examining the effects of reviewing grades on peer ratings and peer feedback. Studies in Higher Education. pdf
  3. Patchan, M. M., Schunn, C. D., & Correnti, R. (2016). The nature of feedback: how feedback features affect students' implementation rate and quality of revisions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(8), 1098-1120.pdf
  4. Schunn, C. D., Godley, A. J., & DiMartino, S. (2016). The reliability and validity of peer review of writing in high school AP English classes. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 60(1), 13–23. pdf
  5. Schunn, C. D. (2016). Writing to learn and learning to write through SWoRD. In S.A. Crossley & D.S. McNamara (Eds.), Adaptive Educational Technologies for Literacy Instruction. NY: Taylor & Francis, Routledge. pdf
  6. Patchan, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2016). Understanding the effects of receiving peer feedback for text revision: relations between author and reviewer ability. Journal of Writing Research, 8(2), 227-265. pdf
  7. Patchan, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2015). Understanding the benefits of providing peer feedback: How students respond to peers' texts of varying quality. Instructional Science, 43(5), 591-614. 10.1007/s11251-015-9353-x. pdf
  8. Abramovich, S., Schunn, C., D., Correnti, R. J. (2013). The role of evaluative metadata in an online teacher resource exchange. Educational Technology Research & Development, 61, 863-883. pdf
  9. Abramovich, S., & Schunn, C. D. (2012). Studying teacher selection of resources in an ultra-large scale interactive system: Does metadata guide the way? Computers & Education, 58(1), 551-559. pdf
  10. Patchan, M. M., Hawk, B. H., Stevens, C. A., & Schunn, C. D. (2013). The effects of skill diversity on commenting and revisions. Instructional Science, 41(2), 381-405. pdf
  11. Xiong, W., Litman, D., & Schunn, C. D. (2012). Redesigning peer review interactions using computer tools. Journal of Writing Research, 4(2), 155-176. pdf
  12. Lee, C. J., & Schunn, C.D. (2011). Social biases and solutions for procedural objectivity. Hypatia, 26(2), 352-373. pdf
  13. Patchan, M. M., Schunn, C.D., & Clark, R. (2011). Writing in natural sciences: Understanding the effects of different types of reviewers on the writing process. Journal of Writing Research, 2(3), 365-393. pdf
  14. Kaufman, J. H., & Schunn, C. D. (2011). Students' perceptions about peer assessment for writing: Their origin and impact on revision work. Instructional Science, 39(3), 387-406. pdf
  15. Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2010). Developing writing skills through students giving instructional explanations. In M. K. Stein & L. Kucan (Eds.), Instructional Explanations in the Disciplines: Talk, Texts and Technology. New York: Springer. pdf
  16. Patchan, M. M., Charney, D., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). A validation study of students’ end comments: Comparing comments by students, a writing instructor, and a content instructor. Journal of Writing Research, 1(2), 124-152. pdf
  17. Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 27(4), 375-401. pdf
  18. Cho, K., Chung, T. R., King, W. R., & Schunn,C. D. (2008). Peer-based computer-supported knowledge refinement: An empirical investigation. Communications of the ACM, 51(3), 83-88. pdf
  19. Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2007). Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers and Education, 48(3), 409-426. pdf
  20. Cho, K., Schunn, C. D., & Charney, D. (2006). Commenting on writing: Typology and perceived helpfulness of comments from novice peer reviewers and subject matter experts. Written Communication, 23(3), 260-294. pdf
  21. Cho, K., Schunn, C. D., & Wilson, R. (2006). Validity and reliability of scaffolded peer assessment of writing from instructor and student perspectives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 891-901. pdf

Neuroscience of Complex Learning

  1. Wong, A., Moss, J., & Schunn, C. D. (2016). Tracking reading strategy utilization through pupillometry. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32(6). pdf
  2. Moss, J., & Schunn, C. D. (2015). Comprehension through explanation as the interaction of the brain’s coherence and cognitive control networks. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9(562). doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00562 link
  3. Liu, A. S., Kallai, A. Y., Schunn, C. D., & Fiez, J. (2015). Using mental computation training to improve complex mathematical performance. Instructional Science, 43(4), 463-485. 10.1007/s11251-015-9350-0 pdf
  4. Richey, J. E., Phillips, J. S., Schunn, C. D., & Schneider, W. (2014). Is the link from working memory to analogy causal? No analogy improvements following working memory training gains. PLOS One, 9(9), e106616. pdf
  5. Moss, J., Schunn, C.D., Schneider, W., McNamara, D. S. (2013). The nature of mind wandering during reading varies with the cognitive control demands of the reading strategy. Brain Research, 1539, 48-60. pdf
  6. Kallai, A. Y., Schunn, C. D., & Fiez, J. A. (2012). Mental arithmetic activates analogic representations of internally generated sums. Neuropsychologia, 50, 2397–2407. pdf
  7. Verstynen, T., Phillps, J., Braun, E., Schneider, W., & Schunn, C. D. (2012). Dynamic sensorimotor planning during long-term sequence learning: the role of variability, response chunking and planning errors. PLoS ONE, 7(10), e47336. pdf
  8. Moss, J., Schunn C.D., Schneider, W., McNamara, D. S., & VanLehn, K. (2011). The neural correlates of strategic reading comprehension: cognitive control and discourse comprehension. NeuroImage, 58(2), 675-686. pdf

Engagement & Learning

  1. Bathgate, M. E., & Schunn, C. D. (In press). The psychological characteristics of experiences that influence science motivation and content knowledge. International Journal of Science Education.
  2. Dorph, R., Bathgate, M.E., Schunn, C. D., & Cannady, M. (In press). When I grow up: The relationship of science learning activation to STEM career preference. International Journal of Science Education.
  3. Akiva, T., Schunn, C., & Louw, M. (2017). What drives attendance at informal learning activities?: A study of two art programs. Curator: The Museum Journal.pdf
  4. Marshman, E., Kalender, Z. Y., Schunn, C. D., Nokes-Malach, T., & Singh, C. (In press). A longitudinal analysis of underrepresented students’ motivational characteristics in introductory physics courses. Canadian Journal of Physics. pdf
  5. Higashi, R. M., Schunn, C. D., & Flot, J. B. (In press). Different underlying motivations and abilities predict students’ versus teachers' persistence in an online course. Educational Technology Research and Development. pdf
  6. Bathgate, M. E., & Schunn, C. D. (2017). Factors that deepen or attenuate decline of science utility value during the middle school years. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 215–225. pdf
  7. Vincent Ruz, P., & Schunn, C. D. (2017). The increasingly important role of science competency beliefs for science learning in girls. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. pdf
  8. Dorph, R., Schunn, C. D., & Crowley, K. (2017). Crumpled molecules and edible plastic: science learning activation in out of school time. Afterschool Matters. pdf
  9. Akiva, T., Kehoe, S., & Schunn, C. D. (2017). Are we ready for citywide learning? Examining the nature of within- and between-program pathways in a community-wide learning initiative. Journal of Community Psychology, 45(3), 413-425. pdf
  10. Lin, P.-Y. & Schunn, C. D. (2016). The dimensions and impact of informal science learning experiences on middle schoolers’ attitudes and abilities in science. International Journal of Science Education, 38(17), 2551-2572. pdf
  11. Dorph, R., Cannady, M., & Schunn, C. D. (2016). How science learning activation enables success for youth in science learning. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 20(8). pdf
  12. Bathgate, M. E., & Schunn, C. D. (2016). Disentangling intensity from breadth of science interest: What predicts learning behaviors? Instructional Science, 44(5), 423-440. pdf
  13. Sha, L., Schunn, C. D., Bathgate, M., & Ben-Eliyahu, A. (2016). Families support their children’s success in science learning by influencing interest and self-efficacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(3), 450–472. 10.1002/tea.21251. pdf
  14. Sha, L., Schunn, C. D. & Bathgate, M. (2015). Measuring choice to participate in optional science learning experiences during early adolescence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(5), 686-709. 10.1002/tea.21210 pdf
  15. Bathgate, M., Schunn, C. D., Correnti, R. J. (2014). Children’s motivation towards science across contexts, manner-of-interaction, and topic. Science Education, 98(2), 189-215. pdf
  16. Abramovich, S., Schunn, C. D., & Higashi, R. M (2013). Are badges useful in education?: It depends upon the type of badge and type of learner. Educational Technology Research & Development, 61(2), 217-232. pdf
  17. Bathgate, M., Schunn, C. D. (2013). Exploring and encouraging metacognitive awareness in novice music students. In M. Stakelum (Ed.), Developing the Musician, SEMPRE Studies in the Psychology of Music series. Ashgate.
  18. Bathgate, M. & Sims-Knight, J., & Schunn, C. D. (2012). Thoughts on thinking: Engaging novice music students in metacognition. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(3), 403-409. pdf

Human Computer Interaction & Learning

  1. Patchan, M. M., Schunn, C. D., Sieg, W., & McLaughlin, D. (2016). The effect of blended instruction on accelerated learning. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 25(3), 269-286. 10.1080/1475939X.2015.1013977 pdf
  2. Jang, J., & Schunn, C. D. (2014). A Framework for Unpacking Cognitive Benefits of Distributed Complex Visual Displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20(3), 260-269. pdf
  3. Kirschenbaum, S. S., Schunn, C. D., & Trafton, J. G. (2014). Visualizing uncertainty: The impact on performance. Human Factors, 56(3), 509-520. pdf
  4. Jang, J., Trickett, S. B., Schunn, C. D., & Trafton, J. G. (2012). Unpacking the temporal advantage of distributing complex visual displays. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 70, 812-827. pdf
  5. Jang, J., & Schunn, C. D. (2012). Performance benefits of spatially distributed vs. stacked information on integration tasks. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 207-214.pdf
  6. Jang, J., & Schunn, C. D. (2012). Physical design tools support and hinder innovative engineering design. Journal of Mechanical Design, 134(4), 041001-1-9. pdf
  7. Jang, J., Schunn, C.D., & Nokes, T. J. (2011). Spatially distributed instructions improve learning outcomes and efficiency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 60-72. pdf
  8. MacWhinney, B., St. James, J., Schunn, C., Li, P., Schneider, W. (2001). STEP --- A system for teaching experimental psychology using E-Prime. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 33 (2), 287-296. pdf

Strategy Use & Learning

  1. Winsler, A., Abar, B., Feder, M., Rubio, D.A., & Schunn, C. D. (2007). Private speech and executive functioning among high functioning children with autistic spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 37(9), 1617-1635. pdf
  2. Hansberger, J. T., Schunn, C. D., & Holt, R. W. (2006). Strategy variability: How too much of a good thing can hurt performance. Memory & Cognition, 34(8), 1652-1666. pdf
  3. Schunn, C. D., McGregor, M., Saner, L. D. (2005). Expertise in ill-defined problem solving domains as effective strategy use. Memory & Cognition, 33(8), 1377-1387. pdf
  4. Morris, B. J., & Schunn, C. D. (2004). Rethinking logical reasoning skills from a strategy perspective. In M. J. Roberts & E. Newton (Eds.), Methods of thought: Individual differences in reasoning strategies. Psychology Press. pdf
  5. Schunn, C. D. (2002). Why motivation only sometimes affects base-rate sensitivity: The mediating role of representations on adaptive performance. In S. P. Shohov (Ed.), Advances in Psychology Research. New York: NovaScience. pdf
  6. Schunn, C. D., Lovett, M., & Reder, L. M. (2001). Awareness and working memory in strategy adaptivity. Memory & Cognition, 29(2), 256-266. pdf
  7. Schunn, C. D., & Reder, L. M. (2001). Another source of individual differences: Strategy adaptivity to changing rates of success. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(1), 59-76. pdf
  8. Lovett, M. C., & Schunn, C. D. (2000). The importance of frameworks for directing empirical questions: Reply to Goodie and Fantino. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129(4), 453-456. pdf
  9. Lovett, M. C., & Schunn, C. D. (1999). Task representations, strategy variability and base-rate neglect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128(2), 107-130. pdf
  10. Reder, L. M., & Schunn, C. D. (1999). Bringing Together the psychometric and strategy worlds: Predicting adaptivity in a dynamic task. In D. Gopher & A. Koriat (Eds), Cognitive regulation of performance: Interaction of theory and application. Attention and Performance XVII.pdf
  11. Schunn, C. D., & Reder, L. M. (1998). Individual differences in strategy adaptivity. In D. L. Medin (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation. pdf
  12. Schunn, C. D., Reder, L. M., Nhouyvanisvong, A., Richards, D. R., & Stroffolino, P.J. (1997). To calculate or not calculate: A source activation confusion (SAC) model of problem-familiarity's role in strategy selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 23(1), 3-29. pdf
  13. Reder, L., & Schunn, C. D. (1996). Metacognition does not imply awareness: Strategy choice is goverened by implicit learning and memory. In L. M. Reder (Ed.), Implicit memory and metacognition (pp. 45-78). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. pdf

General Cognitive Science & Learning Science

  1. Liu, A. S., & Schunn, C. D. (2016). The central questions of spatial cognition. In S. Chipman (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Science. Oxford University Press. pdf
  2. Alfieri, L., Nokes, T. N., & Schunn, C. D. (2013). Learning through case comparisons: a meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 48(2), 87-113. pdf
  3. Altmann, E. M. & Schunn, C. D. (2012). Decay versus Interference: A new look at an old interaction. Psychological Science, 23(11), 1435-1437. pdf
  4. Kong, X., Schunn, C. D., Wallstrom, G. L. (2010). High regularities in eye-movement patterns reveal the dynamics of visual working memory allocation mechanism. Cognitive Science, 34(2), 322-337. pdf
  5. Nokes, T. J., Schunn, C. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2010). Problem solving and human expertise.In E. Baker, B. McGraw, & P. Peterson (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education, Third Edition. Oxford, UK: Elsevier. pdf
  6. Schunn, C. D. & Nelson, M. M. (2009). Expert-novice studies: An educational perspective. In Eric Anderman (Ed)Psychology of Classroom Learning: An Encyclopedia. Detroit, MI: Macmillan Reference. pdf
  7. Schunn, C. D., (2009). John Robert Anderson biography. In Eric Anderman (Ed.), Psychology of Classroom Learning: An Encyclopedia. Detroit, MI: Macmillan Reference.
  8. Kong, X., & Schunn, C. D. (2007). Global vs. local information processing in visual/spatial problem solving: The case of traveling salesman problem. Cognitive Systems Research, 8(3), 192-207. pdf
  9. Schunn, C. D., & Wallach, D. (2005). Evaluating goodness-of-fit in comparison of models to data. In W. Tack (Ed.), Psychologie der Kognition: Reden and Vorträge anlässlich der Emeritierung von Werner Tack (pp. 115-154). Saarbrueken, Germany: University of Saarland Press. pdf
  10. Reder, L. M., Nhouyvansivong, A., Schunn, C. D., Ayers, M. S., Angstadt, P., Hiraki, K. (2000). A mechanistic account of the mirror effect for word frequency: A computational model of remember/know judgments in a continuous recognition paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26 (2), 294-320. pdf
  11. Schunn, C. D., & Vera, A. H. (2004). Cross-cultural similarities in category structure. Thinking & Reasoning, 10(3), 273-287. pdf
  12. Schunn, C. D., & Gray, W. D. (2002). Introduction to the special issue on computational cognitive modeling. Cognitive Systems Research3, 1-3. pdf
  13. Duric, Z., Gray, W., Heishman, R., Li, F., Rosenfeld, A., Schoelles, M. J., Schunn, C., & Wechsler, H. (2002). Integrating perceptual and cognitive modeling for adaptive and intelligent human-computer interaction. Proceedings of the IEEE. 90(7), 1272-1289. pdf
  14. Anderson, J. R., & Schunn, C. D. (2000). Implications of the ACT-R learning theory: No magic bullets. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology: Educational design and cognitive science, Vol. 5 (pp. 1-33). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. pdf
  15. Schunn, C. D., & Klahr, D. (1998). Stances: Production systems. In W. Bechtel and G. Graham (Eds.), A Companion to Cognitive Science. Blackwell. pdf
  16. Schunn, C. D., & Vera, A. H. (1995). Causality and the categorization of objects and events. Thinking & Reasoning, 1(3), 237-284. Full paper

books

  1. Derry, S. J., Schunn, C. D., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (Eds.), (2005). Interdisciplinary Collaboration: An Emerging Cognitive Science. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  2. Schunn, C. D., Lovett, M. C., Munro, P., & Lebiere, C. (Eds.) (2004). Proceedings of the 2004 Sixth International Conference on Cognitive Modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  3. Gray, W. D., & Schunn, C. D. (Eds.) (2002). Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. pdf
  4. Altmann, E. M., Cleeremans, A., Schunn, C. D., & Gray, W. D. (Eds.) (2001). Proceedings of the 2001 Fourth International Conference on Cognitive Modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  5. Crowley, K., Schunn, C. D., & Okada, T. (Eds.). (2001). Designing for Science: Implications from Professional, Instructional, and Everyday Science. Mawah, NJ: Erlbaum. Table of contents

Sharon J. Derry (Editor),
Christian D. Schunn (Editor),
Morton Ann Gernsbacher (Editor)
Interdisciplinary Collaboration:
An Emerging Cognitive Science

Interdisciplinary Collaboration calls attention to a serious need to study the problems and processes of interdisciplinary inquiry, to reflect on the current state of scientific knowledge regarding interdisciplinary collaboration, and to encourage research that studies interdisciplinary cognition in relation to the ecological contexts in which it occurs. It contains reflections and research on interdisciplinarity found in a number of different contexts by practitioners and scientists from a number of disciplines and several chapters represent attempts by cognitive scientists to look critically at the cognitive science enterprise itself.

Kevin Crowley (Editor),
Christian D. Schunn (Editor),
Takeshi Okada (Editor)
Designing for Science

This volume explores the integration of recent research on everyday, classroom, and professional scientific thinking. It brings together an international group of researchers to present core findings from each context; discuss connections between contexts, and explore structures; technologies, and environments to facilitate the development and practice of scientific thinking.