Interactive processes between university students: Structures of interactions and related cognitive development

Research in Science Education

Volumn 33, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 341-374

  Aufschnaiter, Claudia V ^a  

^a LEIBNIZ UNIVERSITY HANNOVER   (Germany)

Author keywords

Cognitive development; Peer interactions; Physics laboratory; Physics learning

Indexed keywords

EID: 0141804213     PISSN: 0157244X     EISSN: 15731898     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1025452430958     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Alexopoulou, E., & Driver, R. (1996). Small-group discussion in physics: Peer interaction modes in pairs and fours. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(10), 1099-1114.
2. Bliss, J., Askew, M., & Macrae, S. (1996). Effective teaching and learning: Scaffolding revisited. Oxford Review of Education, 22(1), 37-61.
3. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated learning and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42.
4. Case (1997). The development of conceptual structures. In D. Kuhn & R. S. Siegler (Eds.), Carmichael's handbook of child development (pp. 745-804). New York: McGraw-Hill.
5. Clancey, W. J. (1993). Situated action: A neuropsychological interpretation. Response to Vera and Simon. Cognitive Science, 17, 87-116.
6. Cobb, P., & Bowers, J. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and practice. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 4-15.
7. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23, 5-12.
9. Duit, R., Goldberg, F., & Niedderer, H. (Eds.). (1992 March). Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies. Proceedings of an International Workshop, University of Bremen, Kiel, IPN.
10. Glassman, M. (2001). Dewey and Vygotsky: Society, experience, and inquiry in educational practice. Educational Researcher, 30(4), 3-14.
11. Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64-74.
12. Haller, K. (1999). Über den Zusammenhang von Handlungen und Zielen. Eine empirische Untersuchung zu Lernprozessen im physikalischen Praktikum (About the relation of activities and aims. An empirical investigation about learning processes during the physics laboratory). Dissertation am Fachbereich I (Physik/Elektrotechnik) der Universitat Bremen. Berlin: Logos.
13. Hart, C., Mulhall, P., Berry, A., Loughran, J., & Gunstone, R. (2000 . What is the purpose of this experiment? Or can students learn something from doing experiments? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 655-675.
14. Heller, P., Keith, R., & Anderson, S. (1992). Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: Group vs. individual problem solving. American Journal of Physics, 60(7), 627-636.
15. Järvelä, S. (1995). The cognitive apprenticeship model in a technologically learning environment: Interpreting the learning interaction. Learning and Instruction, 5, 237-259.
16. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Díaz de Bustamante, J., & Duschl, R. A. (1999). Plant, animal or thief? Solving problems under the microscope. In M. Bandiera, S. Caravita, E. Torracca, & M. Vicentini (Eds.), Research in science education in Europe (pp. 31-40). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
17. Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849-871.
18. Kirshner, D., & Whitson, J. A. (Eds.). (1997). Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19. Lave, J. (1997). The culture of acquisition and the practice of understanding. In D. Kirshner & J. A. Whitson (Eds.) Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives (pp. 17-36). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
21. Lemke, J. L. (1997). Cognition, context, and learning: A social semiotic perspective. In D. Kirshner & J. A. Whitson (Eds.) Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives (pp. 37-56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22. Lonning, R. A. (1993). Effect of cooperative learning strategies on student verbal interactions and achievement during conceptual change instruction in 10th grade general science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(9), 1087-1101.
23. Lunetta, V. N. (1997). The school science laboratory: Historical perspectives and contexts for contemporary teaching. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 249-262). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
24. Matthews, M. R. (Ed.). (1997). Philosophy and constructivism in science education (Special Issue). Science & Education, 6(1-2).
25. Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26. Minsky, M. (1980). K-lines: A theory of memory. Cognitive Science, 4, 117-133.
27. Norman, D. A. (Ed.). (1993). Cognition in the head and in the world (Special Issue). Cognitive Science, 17.
28. Oevermann, U., Allert, T., Konau, E., & Krambeck, J. (1979). Die Methodologie einer 'objektiven Hermeneutik' und ihre allgemeine forschungslogische Bedeutung in den Sozialwissenschaften (The methodology of 'Objective Hermeneutics' and its implications for research in the social sciences). In H.-G. Soeffner (Ed.), Interpretative Verfahren in den Sozial- und Textwissenschaften (Qualitative research in psychology. Main questions, approaches, and areas of application) (pp. 352-434). Stuttgart, Germany: Metzler.
29. Osborne, J. F., Simon, S., Erduran, S, & Monk, M. (2001, September). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. School Science Review, 82(301), 63-70.
30. Piaget, J., & Garcia, R. (1991). Toward a logic of meanings. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31. Pöppel, E. (1994). Temporal mechanisms in perception. International Review of Neurobiology, 37, 185-202.
32. Roth, W.-M. (1995). Inventors, copycats and everyone else: The emergence of shared resources as defining aspects of classroom communities. Science Education, 79(5), 475-502.
33. Roth, W.-M., McGinn, M. K., Woszczyna, C., & Boutonné, S. (1999). Differential participation during science conversation: The interaction of focal artifacts, social configurations, and physical arrangements. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3&4), 293-347.
34. Schneider, G. (1989). Strukturkonzept und Interpretationspraxis der objektiven Hermeneutik (Concept and practical procedure of Objective Hermeneutics). In G. Jüttemann (Ed.), Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie. Grundfragen, Verfahrensweise, Anwendungsfelder (Qualitative research in psychology. Main questions, approaches, and areas of application) (pp. 71-91). Heidelberg, Germany: Roland Asanger.
35. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2),4-13.
36. Smolé, A. (2000). Kognitive Entwicklung von Studierenden in den Dimensionen Inhalt, Komplexität und Zeit. Eine Laborstudie zu einer kartenbasierten Lernumgebung mit Aufgaben unterschiedlicher Kompliziertheit (Student's cognitive development in the dimensions of content, complexity, and time). Dissertation am Fachbereich I (Physik/Elektrotechnik), der Universitat Bremen, Germany.
37. von Aufschnaiter, C. (1999). Bedeutungsentwicklungen, Interaktionen und situatives Erleben beim Bearbeiten physikalischer Aufgaben (Situated cognitions, interactions, and situated experiences while working on physics tasks). Dissertation am Fachbereich I (Physik/Elektrotechnik), der Universitat Bremen. Berlin, Germany: Logos.
38. von Aufschnaiter, C., & von Aufschnaiter, S. (2003). Theoretical framework and empirical evidence on students' cognitive processes in three dimensions of content, complexity, and time. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(1).
39. von Aufschnaiter, S. (2001). Development of complexity through dealing with physical qualities: One type of conceptual change? In H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, N. Gräber, M. Komorek, A. Kross, & P. Reiska (Eds.), Research in science education - past, present, and future (pp. 199-204). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
40. von Aufschnaiter, S., & Welzel, M. (1997). Wissensvermittlung durch Wissensentwicklung. Das Bremer Komplexitätsmodell zur quantitativen Beschreibung von Bedeutungsentwicklung und Lernen (Instruction through development of knowledge. The Bremen model of complexity for a quantitative development of situated cognition and learning). Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 3(2), 43-58.
41. von Aufschnaiter, S., & Welzel, M. (1999). Individual learning processes - a research programme with focus on the complexity of situated cognition. In M. Bandiera, S. Caravita, E. Torracca, & M. Vicentini (Eds.), Research in science education in Europe (pp. 209-215). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
42. von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80, 121-140.
43. von Glaserfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London: Palmer.
44. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
45. Welzel, M., von Aufschnaiter, C., & Schoster, A. (1999). How to interact with students? The role of teachers in a learning situation. In J. Leach & A. C. Paulsen (Eds.), Practical work in science education - recent research studies (pp. 313-327). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.