An investigation of software scaffolds supporting modeling practices

Research in Science Education

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 567-589

  Fretz, Eric B ^a   Wu, Hsin Kai ^a   Zhang, BaoHui ^a   Davis, Elizabeth A ^a   Krajcik, Joseph S ^a   Soloway, Elliot ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

Modeling practices; Modeling software; Scaffolding; Scaffolds

Indexed keywords

EID: 15944420087     PISSN: 0157244X     EISSN: 15731898     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1022400817926     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (2000). Designs for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., Barnett, M., & Squire, K. (2001). Constructing virtual worlds: Tracing the historical development of learner practices. Cognition and instruction, 19(1), 47-94.
4. Bell, P., & Davis, E. (2000, June). Designing Mildred: Scaffolding students' reflection and argumentation using a cognitive software guide. Paper presented at the International Conference on the Learning Sciences, Ann Arbor, MI.
5. Buckley, B. C. (2000). Interactive multimedia and model-based learning in biology. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 895-935.
6. Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271-315.
7. Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. Clement, J. (2000). Model based learning as a key research area for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1041-1053.
9. Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (2001, April). Design principles for scaffolding students' reflection and argumentation in science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
10. Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scaffolding students' knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819-837.
11. Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C., & Rutherford, M. (1998). Models in explanations, part 1: Horses for courses? International Journal of Science Education, 20(1), 83-97.
12. Gilbert, S. W. (1991). Model building and a definition of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(1), 73-79.
13. Glynn, S. M., Britton, B. K., Semrud-Clikeman, M., & Muth, K. D. (1989). Analogical reasoning and problem solving in science textbooks. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity: Perspectives on individual differences (pp. 383-398). New York, NY Plenum Press.
14. Gobert, J., & Discenna, J. (1997, March). The relationship between students' epistemologies and model-based reasoning. Paper presented at the the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
15. Gobert, J. D., & Buckley, B. C. (2000). Introduction to model-based teaching and learning in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 891-895.
16. Griffin, P., Belyaheva, A., Soldatova, G., & VHC. (1993). Creating and reconstituting contexts for educational interactions, including a computer program. In E. A. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning (pp. 120-152). New York, NY Oxford University Press.
17. Guzdial, M., Konneman, M., Walton, C., Hohmann, L., & Soloway, E. (1998). Layering scaffolding and CAD on an integrated workbench: An effective design approach for project-based learning support. Interactive Learning Environments, 1(1), 1-37.
18. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1996). Secondary students' mental models of atoms and molecules: Implications for teaching chemistry. Science Education, 80(5), 509-534.
19. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1011-1026.
20. Hestenes, D. (1992). Modeling games in the Newtonian world. American Journal of Physics, 60(8), 732-748.
21. Hogan, D., & Pressley, M. H. (1997). Becoming a scaffolder of student's learning. In D. Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding student learning (pp. 185-191). New York, NY Brookline Books.
22. Ingham, A. M., & Gilbert, J. K. (1991). The use of analogue models by students of chemistry at higher education level. International Journal of Science Education, 13. 193-202.
23. Jackson, S. L. (1999). The design of guided learner-adaptable scaffolding in interactive learning environments. Unpublished dissertation. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
24. Jackson, S. L., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1999). Model-It: A design retrospective. In M. Jacobson & R. Kozma (Eds.), Advanced designs for the technologies of learning: Innovations in science and mathematics education (pp. 77-115). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
25. Krajcik, J., Simmons, P. E., & Lunetta, V. N. (1988). A research strategy for the dynamic study of students' concepts and problem solving strategies using science software. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(2), 147-155.
26. Leinhardt, G., Zsalavsky, O., & Stein, M. K. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60, 1-64.
27. Linn, M., & Songer, N. (1991). Teaching thermodynamics to middle school students: What are appropriate cognitive demands? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 885-918.
28. Linn, M. C. (1998). The impact of technology on science instruction: Historical trends and current opportunities. In B. Froser & G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 265-294). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
29. Magnani, L., Nersessian, N. J., & Thagard, P. (Eds.). (1999). Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery. New York, NY US Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
30. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York, NY Cambridge University Press.
31. Metz, K. (1995). Reassessment of developmental constraints on children's science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 65(2), 93-127.
32. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
33. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
34. Novak, A., & Gleason, C. (2001). Incorporating portable technology to enhance in inquiry, project-based middle school science classroom. In R. Tinker & J. Krajcik (Eds.), Portable technologies: Science learning in context (pp. 29-62). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
35. Penner, D. E. (2001). Cognition, computers, and synthetic science: Building knowledge and meaning through modeling. Review of Research in Education, 25, 1-36.
36. Penner, D. E., Lehrer, R., & Schäuble, L. (1998). From physical models to biomechanics: A design-based modeling approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences: Special Issue: Learning through problem solving, 7(3-4), 429-449.
37. Quintana, C. (2001). Symphony: A case study for exploring and describing design methods and guidelines for learner-centered design. Unpublished dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
38. Roth, W.-M. (1996). Knowledge diffusion in a grade 4-5 classroom during a unit on civil engineering: An analysis of a classroom community in terms of its changing resources and practices. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 179-220.
39. Shah, P. (2002). Review of graph comprehension research: Implications for instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 47-69.
40. Soloway, E., Guzdial, M., & Hay, K. H. (1994). Learner centered design: The challenge for HCI in the 21st century. Interactions, 1(2), 36-48.
41. Stewart, J., Hafner, R., Johnson, S., & Finkel, E. (1992). Science as model building: Computers and high-school genetics. Educational Psychologist, 27, 317-336.
42. Stratford, S. J. (1996). Investigating processes and products of secondary science students using dynamic software. Unpublished dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
43. Stratford, S. J. (1997). A review of computer-based model research in precollege science classrooms. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 16(1), 3-23.
44. Stratford, S. J., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Secondary students' dynamic modeling processes: Analysing, reasoning about, synthesizing, and testing models of stream ecosystems. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7(3), 215-234.
45. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
46. Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
47. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practices: Learning, meaning, and identity. London: Cambridge University Press.
48. White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition & Instruction, 16(1), 3-118.
49. Windschitl, M. (2000). Supporting the development of science inquiry skills with special classes of software. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(2), 81-95.
50. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). Role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17(2), 89-100.