Design-based science and student learning

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 41, Issue 10, 2004, Pages 1081-1110

  Fortus, David ^a   Dershimer, R Charles ^b   Krajcik, Joseph ^b   Marx, Ronald W ^c   Mamlok Naaman, Rachel ^d  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

^d WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DESIGN-BASED SCIENCE (DBS); SCIENCE PEDAGOGIES; STUDENT LEARNING;

CURRICULA; PROBLEM SOLVING; SCHOOL BUILDINGS; STUDENTS; TRAJECTORIES;

EDUCATION;

EID: 10844248098     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.20040     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. AAAS. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Anderson, C.W. & Hogan, K. (1999). Editorial and call for papers: Design in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 975-976.
3. Barrows, H.S. (1985). How to design a problem-based curriculum for the preclinical years. New York: Springer.
4. Bartel, A.P., Lichtenberg, F.R., & Vaughan, R.J. (1992). Technological change, trade, and the need for educated employees: Implications for economic policy (NCEE Brief). Washington, DC: National Center on Education and Employment.
5. Baynes, K. (1994). Designerly play. Loughborough, UK: Loughborough University of Technology.
6. Bjork, R.A. & Richardson-Klavhen, A. (1989). On the puzzling relationship between environment context and human memory. In C. Izawa (Ed.), Current issues in cognitive processes: The Tulane Flowerree Symposium on Cognition (pp. 313-344). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. Blumenfeld, P.C., Soloway, E., Marx, R.W., Krajcik, J.S., Guzdial, M. & Palincsar, A.S. (1991). Motivating project-based learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3& 4), 369-398.
8. Blumenfeld, P.C., Marx, R.W., Soloway, E., & Krajcik, J.S. (1996). Learning with peers: From small group cooperation to collaborative communities. Educational Researcher, 25, 37-40.
9. Blumenfeld, P.C., Marx, R.W., Patrick, H., Krajcik, J.S., & Soloway, E. (1997). Teaching for understanding. In B.J. Biddle, T.L. Good, & I.F. Goodson (Eds.), International handbook of teachers and teaching (pp. 819-878). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
10. Blumenfeld, P.C., Fishman, B.J., Krajcik, J.S., Marx, R.W., & Soloway, E. (2000). Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: Scaling-up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist, 35, 149-164.
11. Bransford, J.D. & Schwartz, D.L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24, 61-100.
12. Brown, J.H. & Shavelson, R.J. (1996). Assessing hands-on science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
13. Bucciarelli, L.L. (1994). Designing engineers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14. Chiapetta, E.L., Koballa, Jr., T.R., & Collette, A.T. (2002). Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools (5th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
15. Cohen, E.G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1-35.
16. CTGV. (1992). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program description, and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27, 291-315.
17. Davis, M. (1998). Making a case for design-based learning. Arts Education Policy Review, 100, 7-14.
18. Davis, M., Hawley, P., McMullan, B., & Spilka, G. (1997). Design as a catalyst for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
19. Driver, R. & Bell, B. (1986). Student's thinking and the learning of science: A constructivist view. School Science Review, 67, 443-456.
20. Evans, J.S.B.T. (1989). Bias in human reasoning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. Fasse, B.B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J.K., Camp, P.J., & Ryan, M. (2001). Scaffolding teachers' development through curriculum materials. Presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
22. Frederiksen, N. (1986). Toward a broader conception of human intelligence. In R.J. Sternberg & R.K. Wagner (Eds.), Practical intelligence: Nature and origins of competence in the everyday world (pp. 84-116). New York: Cambridge University Press.
23. Gick, M.L. & Holyoak, K.J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1-38.
24. Glass, A.L., Holyoak, K.J., & Santa, J.L. (1979). Cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
25. ITEA. (2002). Standards for technological literacy. Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association.
26. Kafai, Y. & Ching, C.C. (1998). Talking science through design: Children's science discourse within software design activities. Presented at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Georgia Tech University, Atlanta, GA.
27. Kimbell, R., Stables, K., & Green, R. (1996). Understanding practice in design and technology. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
28. Kolodner, J.L. (1993). Case-based reasoning. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
29. Kolodner, J.L., Crismond, D., Gray, J., Holbrook, J.K., & Puntambekar, S. (1998). Learning by design from theory to practice. Presented at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Georgia Tech University, Atlanta GA.
30. Krajcik, J.S., Blumenfeld, P.C., Marx, R.W., Bass, K.M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 313-350.
31. Krajcik, J.S., Czerniak, C., & Berger, C. (2003). Teaching children science in elementary and middle school classrooms: A project-based approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.
32. Layton, D. (1993). Technology's challenge to science education. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
33. Linn, M.C. (1992). The computer as learning partner: Can computer tools teach science? In L. Sheingold, G. Roberts, & S.M. Malcolm (Eds.), This year in school science 1991: Technology for teaching and learning (pp. 31-69). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
34. Linn, M.C. (1997). Learning and instruction in science education: Taking advantage of technology. In D. Tobin & B.J. Fraser (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 265-293). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
35. Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
36. Mamlok, R., Dershimer, R.C., Fortus, D., Krajcik, J.S., & Marx, R.W. (2001). Learning science by designing artifacts (LSDA) - A case study of the development of a design-based science curriculum. Presented at NARST, 2001.
37. Michigan Department of Education. (1996). Michigan curriculum framework. Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Education.
38. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
39. Nickerson, R.S. (1994). The teaching of thinking and problem solving. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Thinking and problem solving (pp. 409-449). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
40. NRC. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
41. NRC. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
42. Penner, D.E., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (1998). From physical models to biomechanics: A design-based modeling approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 429-449.
43. Pintrich, P.R., & Schunk, D.H. (1995). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
44. Reitman, W. (1964). Heuristic decision procedures, open constraints, and the structure of ill-defined problems. In M.W. Shelley & G.L. Bryan (Eds.), Human judgments and optimality (pp. 282-315). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
45. Roberts, P. (1995). The place of design in technology education. In D. Layton (Ed.), Innovations in science and technology education (pp. 27-38). UNESCO.
46. Roth, K.J. (1990). Developing meaningful conceptual understanding in science. In B.F. Jones& L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 139-175). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
47. Roth, W.-M. (1996). Art and artifact of children's designing: A situated cognition perspective. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5, 129-166.
48. Royal College of Art. (1976). Design in general education. Part 1: Summary of findings and recommendations. London: Royal College of Art.
49. Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1992). Text-based and knowledge-based questioning by children. Cognition and Instruction, 9, 177-199.
50. Schön, D.A. (1985). The design studio: An exploration of its traditions and potentials. London: RIBA.
51. Schwartz, D.L. & Bransford, J.D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 475-522.
52. Sharan, Y. & Sharan, S. (1989). Group investigation expands cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 47, 17-21.
53. Shavelson, R.J., Baxter, G.P., & Pine, J. (1991). Performance assessment in science. Applied Measurement in Education, 4, 347-362.
54. Simon, H.A. (1999). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
55. Singer, J., Marx, R.W., Krajcik, J.S., & Chambers, J.C. (2000). Designing curriculum to meet national standards. Presented at AERA 2000.
56. Songer, N.B. (1996). Exploring learning opportunities in coordinated network-enhanced classrooms: A case of kids as global scientists. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5, 297-328.
57. Songer, N.B., Lee, H.-S., & Kam, R. (2002). Technology-rich inquiry science in urban classrooms: What are the barriers to inquiry pedagogy? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 128-150.
58. Strike, K. & Posner, G. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. Duschl & R. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive science and educational theory and practice (pp. 15-41). Albany, NY: SUNY.
59. TERC. (2000). Construct-A-Glove. Cambridge, MA: NSTA Press.
60. Thompson, B. (2002). What future quantitative social science research could look like: Confidence intervals for effect sizes. Educational Researcher, 31, 25-32.
61. Vye, N.J., Schwartz, D.L., Bransford, J.D., Barron, B.J., Zech, L., & CTGV. (1998). VSMART environments that support monitoring, reflection, and revision. In D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graessner (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 337-365). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
62. Vygotsky, L.S. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
63. Wason, P.C. & Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1972). Psychology of reasoning: Structure and content. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
64. Wineburg, S.S. & Fournier, J.E. (1994). Contextualized thinking in history. In M. Carretero & J.F. Voss (Eds.), Cognitive and instructional processes in history and the social sciences (pp. 285-308). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
65. Wittrock, M.C. (1974). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 11, 87-95.