Technology and science education: Starting points, research programs, and trends

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 25, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 727-758

  Linn, Marcia C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EDUCATION; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY;

EID: 0345098628     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500690305017     Document Type: Article

References (92)

1. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN (2000) Tech-Savvy: educating girls in the new computer age. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women
2. ANDERSON, J. R., and SCHUNN, C. D. (2000) Perspectives on learning, thinking, and activity. Educational Researcher, 29, 227.
3. BADDELEY, A. D., and LONGMAN, D. J. A. (1978) The influence of length and frequency of training session on the rate of learning to type. Ergonomics, 21, 627-635.
4. BARAB, S., and LUEHMANN, A. (in press) Building sustainable science curriculum: acknowledging and accommodating local adaptation. Science Education.
5. BARGH, J. A. (2001) The psychology of the mere. In J. A. Bargh, & D. K. Apsley (Eds.), Unraveling the complexities of social life (pp. 25-37). Washington, DC: American Psychology Association.
6. BAUMGARTNER, E. (in press) Synergy research and knowledge integration: customizing activities around stream ecology. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7. BELL, P. (1998) Designing for students' conceptual change in science using argumentation and classroom debate. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Berkeley, CA: University of California,.
8. BELL, P. (in press) The educational opportunities of contemporary controversies in science. In M. C. Linn, Davis, E. A., & P. Bell (Ed.), Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9. BELL, P., and LINN, M. C. (2000) Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: designing for learning from the Web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797-817.
10. BELL, P., and LINN, M. C. (2002) Beliefs about science: how does science instruction contribute? In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: the psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 321-346). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11. BEREITER, C., and SCARDAMALIA, M. (1993) Surpassing ourselves: an inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago: Open Court.
12. BJORK, R. A. (1994) Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: knowing about Knowing (pp. 185-205). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13. BJORK, R. A. (1999) Assessing our own competence: heuristics and illusions. In D. Gopher & A. Koriat (Eds.), Attention and performance XVII. Cognitive regulation of performance: Interaction of theory and application (pp. 435-459). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14. BLUMENFELD, P., MARX, R. W., KRAJCIK, J., FISHMAN, B., and SOLOWAY, E. (2000) Creating research on practice: scaling inquiry supported by technology in urban middle schools. Educational Psychologist, 35, 149-164.
15. BRANSFORD, J. D., BROWN, A. L., and COCKING, R. R. (Eds.) (1999) How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
16. BROWN, A. L., and CAMPIONE, J. C. (1994) Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229-270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.
17. BRUER, J. T. (1993) Schools for thought: a science of learning in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18. CHAMPAGNE, A. B., KLOPFER, L. E., and GUNSTONE, R. F. (1982) Cognitive research and the design of science instruction. Educational Psychologist, 17, 31-53.
19. CHI, M. T. H. (1996) Constructing self-explanations and scaffolded explanations in tutoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, S33-S49.
20. CLANCY, M., TITTERTON, N., RYAN, C., SLOTTA, J., and LINN, M. (2003) New roles for students, instructors, and computers in a lab-based introductory programming course. Proceedings of the SIGCSE, Reno, NV, February 2003.
21. CLARK, D. (2000) Scaffolding knowledge integration through curricular depth. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
22. CLEMENT, J. (2000) Model based learning as a key research area for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 1041-1053.
23. CLEMENTS, D. H., and GULLO, D. F. (1984) Effects of computer programming on young children's cognition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1051-1058.
24. CLINE, H. and MANDINACH, E. (1994) Classroom dynamics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25. COBB, P., CONFREY, J., dISESSA, A., LEHRER, R., and SCHAUBLE, L. (2003) Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32, 9-13.
26. COGNITION AND TECHNOLOGY GROUP AT VANDERBILT (1990) Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19, 2-10.
27. COHEN, E. G. (1982) Expectation states and inter-racial interaction in school settings. American Review of Sociology, 8, 209-235.
28. COLELLA, V. S., KLOPFER, E., and RESNICK, M. (2001) Adventures in modeling. New York: Teachers College Press.
29. CUTHBERT, A. (2002) Learning science through the design of passive solar dwellings: can specialization contribute to improved learning outcomes and design methods. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
30. DAVIS, E. A, (in press) Creating critique projects. In M. Linn, E. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
31. DAVIS, E. A., and LINN, M. C. (2000) Scaffolding students' knowledge integration: prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 819-837.
32. DESIGN-BASED RESEARCH COLLECTIVE (2003) Design-based research: an emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32, 5-8.
33. DISESSA, A. A. (2000) Changing minds: computers, learning and literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34. DUSCHL, R. A., and OSBORNE, J. (2002) Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
35. EDELSON, D. C. (1999) Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 391-450.
36. FELDMAN, A., KONOLD, C., and COULTER, B. (2000) Network science, a decade later: the internet and classroom learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
37. FOLEY, B. (2000) Visualization tools: models, representations and knowledge integration. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
38. GILBERT, J. K., and BOULTER, C. J. (2000) Developing models in science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
39. GORDIN, D. N., POLMAN, J. L., and PEA, R. D. (1994) The climate visualizer: sense-making through scientific visualization. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 3, 203-226.
40. HEGARTY, M., CARPENTER, P. A., and JUST, M. A. (1990) Diagrams in the comprehension of scientific texts. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. II (pp. 641-668). New York: Longman.
41. HOADLEY, C. (in press) Fostering productive collaboration offline and online: learning from each other. In M. Linn, E. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet Environments for Science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
42. HOADLEY, C. M., and LINN, M. C. (2000) Teaching science through on-line peer discussions: Speakeasy in the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 839-857.
43. HSI, S. (1997) Facilitating knowledge integration in science through electronic discussion: the Multimedia Forum Kiosk. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
44. JIME'NEZ-ALEIXANDRE, M. (2002) Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1171-1190
45. JOHNSON, D. W., and JOHNSON, R. T. (1999) Making cooperative learning work. Theory into Practice, 38, 67-73.
46. KALI, Y. (in press) A virtual journey within the rock-cycle: a software kit for the development of systems-thinking in the context of the earth's crust. Journal of Geosciences Education.
47. KALI, Y. and ORION, N. (1996) Spatial abilities of high-school students in the perception of geologic structures. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 369-391.
48. KENDREW, J. C. (1958) A three dimensional model of the myoglobin molecule obtained by X-ray analysis. Nature, 181, 662-666.
49. KINTSCH, W. (1998) Comprehension: a paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50. KOEDINGER, K. R., and ANDERSON, J. R. (1998) Illustrating principled design: the early evolution of a cognitive tutor for algebra symbolization. Interactive Learning Environments, 5, 161-180.
51. KOLODNER, J. (1993) Case-based reasoning. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.
52. KOLODNER, J. L., CRISMOND, D., GRAY J., HOLBROOK, J., and PUNTAMBEKAR, S. (1998) Learning by design from theory to practice. Proceedings Third International Conference of the Learning Sciences '98 (pp. 16-22) [http://www.cc.gatech.edu/edutech/projects/lbdpubs.html].
53. KRAJCIK, J. S., BLUMENFELD, P. C., MARX, R. W., and SOLOWAY, E. (1994) A collaborative model for helping middle grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 94, 483-497.
54. KRAJCIK, J., BLUMENFELD, P., MARX, R., and SOLOWAY, E. (1999) Instructional, curricular, and technological supports for inquiry in science classrooms. In J. Minstrell & E. V. Zee (Eds), Inquiry into Inquiry: Science learning and teaching. Washington, DC: AAAS Press.
55. KRAJCIK, J., BLUMENFELD, P. C., MARX, R. W., BASS, K. M., FREDERICKS, J., and SOLOWAY, E. (1998) Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3-4), 313-350.
56. LAJOIE, S. P., and LESGOLD, A. M. (1992) Dynamic assessment of proficiency for solving procedural knowledge tasks. Educational Psychologist, 27, 365-384.
57. LEHRER, R., CARPENTER, S., SCHAUBLE, L., and PUTZ, A. (2000) Designing classrooms that support inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. Van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
58. LEPPER, M. R. (1985) Microcomputers in education: motivational and social issues. American Psychologist, 40, 1-18.
59. LEWIS, E. L. (1991) The process of scientific knowledge acquisition among middle school students learning thermodynamics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
60. LEVINTHAL, C. (1966) Molecular Model-Building by Computer. Scientific American, 214(6), 42-52.
61. LIBEN, L. S., KASTENS, K. A. and STEVENSON, L. M. (2002) Real-world knowledge through real-world maps: a developmental guide for navigating the educational terrain. Developmental Review, 22, 267-322.
62. LINN, M. C. (1992) How can hypermedia tools help teach programming? Learning and Instruction, 2, 119-139.
63. LINN, M. C. (2003) Technology and Gender Equity: What works. In N. F. Russo, C. Chan, M. B. Kenkel, C. B. Travis, & M. Vasquez (Eds), Women in Science and Technology. New York: American Psychological Association.
64. LINN, M. C., CLARK, D., and SLOTTA, J. D. (in press) WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education.
65. LINN, M. C., DAVIS, E. A., and BELL, P. (in press) Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
66. LINN, M. C., and HSI, S. (2000) Computers, teachers, peers: science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
67. LINN, M. C., and J. D. SLOTTA (2000) WISE science. Educational Leadership, 58, 29-32.
68. LONG, J. S. (2001) From scarcity to visibility: gender differences in the careers of doctoral scientists and engineers. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
69. MOKROS, J. R., and TINKER, R. F. (1987) The impact of micro-computer based labs on children's ability to interpret graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 369-383.
70. NOVAK, J. D. (1995) Concept mapping: a strategy for organizing knowledge. In S. M. Glynn, & R. Duit (Eds.), Learning Science in the Schools (pp. 229-246). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
71. PAPERT, S. (1968) Mindstorms. New York: Basic Books.
72. REDISH, E. F., and WILSON, J. M. (1993) Student programming in the introductory physics course - Muppet. American Journal of Physics, 61, 222-232.
73. REISER, B. J., TABAK, I., SANDOVAL, W. A., SMITH, B. K., STEINMULLER, F., and LEONE, A. J. (2001) BGuILE: strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: twenty-five years of progress (pp. 263-305). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
74. REPENNING, A., IOANNIDOU, A., PAYTON, M., YE, W., and ROSCHELLE, J. (2001) Using components for rapid distributed software-development. IEEE Software, 18, 38-45.
75. REPENNING, A., and PERRONE, C. (2000) Programming by analogous examples. Communications of the ACM, 43, 90-97.
76. ROGERS, L., and NEWTON, L. (2001) Learning Systems - an 'open' approach. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 405-422.
77. SCARDAMALIA, M., and C. BEREITER (1992) A knowledge building architecture for computer supported learning. In E. De Corte, M. C. Linn, H. Mandl, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Computer-based learning environments and problem solving. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
78. SCHMIDT, W. H., RAIZEN, S. A., BRITTON, E. D., BIANCHI, L. J., and WOLFE, R. G. (1997) Many visions, many aims: a cross-national investigation of curricular intentions in school science. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
79. SLAVIN, R. E. (1983) Cooperative learning. New York: Longmann.
80. SLOTTA, J. D. (in press) The Web-based Inquiry Service Environment (WISE): Scaffolding knowledge integration in the science classroom. In M. C. Linn, E. Davis & P. Bell (Eds) Internet Environment for Science Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
81. SLOTTA, J. D., and ZIMMERMAN, T. (2002) Designing marine science technology-mediated curricula that integrate formal and informal learning environments. Poster presentation at CILT Ubiquitous Computing: Handhelds in Education Conference, Hillsboro, OR.
82. SNYDER, L., AHO, A. V., LINN, M. C., PACKER, A., TUCKER, A., ULLMAN, J., & VAN DAM, A. (1999) Be FIT! Being fluent with information technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
83. SOLOWAY, E., and SPOHRER, J. (Eds.) (1989) Studying the novice programmer. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
84. SONGER, N. B. (1996) Exploring learning opportunities in coordinated network-enhanced classrooms: a case of kids as global scientists. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5, 297-327.
85. SONGER, N. B., and LINN, M. C. (1991) How do students' views of science influence knowledge integration? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 761-784.
86. SPITULNIK, M. W., KRAJCIK, J., and SOLOWAY, E. (1999) Construction of models to promote scientific understanding. In W. Feurzig, & Roberts, N. (Eds.), Modeling and simulation in precollege science and mathematics education. New York: Springer-Verlag.
87. SPOEHR, K. T., and SPOEHR, L. W. (1994) Learning to think historically. Educational Psychologist, 29, 71-77.
88. STOCKLMAYER, S., and GILBERT, J. K. (2002) New experiences and old knowledge: towards a model for the personal awareness of science and technology. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 835-858.
89. TURKLE, S. (1995) Life on the screen: identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster.
90. TVERSKY, B. (2000) Some ways that maps and diagrams communicate. Spatial Cognition, 72-79.
91. VOSNIADOU, S., DE CORTE, E., GLASER, R., and MANDLE, H. (1996) International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments. Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
92. WHITE, B. Y., and FREDERIKSEN, J. R. (1998) Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 3-118.