Why Educate "Little Scientists?" Examining the Potential of Practice-Based Scientific Literacy

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 41, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 234-266

  O'Neill, D Kevin ^a   Polman, Joseph L ^b  

^a SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI ST LOUIS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ENGINEERING RESEARCH; LEARNING SYSTEMS; NATURAL SCIENCES; PLANNING; PROJECT MANAGEMENT; STUDENTS;

CURRICULUM REFORMS; SCIENTIFIC LITERACY;

EDUCATION;

EID: 1642330711     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.20001     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
2. Bell, P. & 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.
3. Berger, J. (1994). The young scientists: America's future and the winning of the Westinghouse. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
4. Blumenfeld, P.C., Krajcik, J.S., Marx, R.W., & Soloway, E. (1994). Lessons learned: How collaboration helped middle grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. Elementary School Journal, 94, 539-551.
5. Brown, J.S., Collins, A., et al. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42.
6. Collins, A. & Ferguson, W. (1993). Epistemic forms and epistemic games: Structures and strategies to guide inquiry. Educational Psychologist, 28, 25-42.
7. Cremin, L. (1961). The transformation of the school. New York: Knopf.
8. Dewey, J. (1910/1964). Science as subject matter and as method. In R.D. Archambault (Ed.), John Dewey on Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 182-192.
9. Feldman, A., Konold, C., et al. (2000). Network science: A decade later. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Feyerabend, P. (1993). Against method. London: Verso.
11. Herrenkohl, L.R. & Guerra, M.R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 431-473.
12. Kolodner, J.L. & Gray, J. (2002, April). Understanding the affordances of ritualized activity structures for project-based classrooms. International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Seattle, WA.
13. Kong, D. (1996). The painful quest for fertility. Boston Globe. A1, A34.
14. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
15. Lemke, J.L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
16. Meier, D. (1995). The power of their ideas: Lessons for America from a small school in Harlem. Boston: Beacon Press.
17. Myers, G. (1990). Writing biology: Texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
18. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
19. Newman, D., Griffin, P., et al. (1989). The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school. New York: Cambridge University Press.
20. O'Neill, D.K. (1998). Engaging science practice through science practitioners: Design experiments in K-12 telementoring, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University.
21. O'Neill, D.K. (2001). Knowing when you've brought them in: Scientific genre knowledge and communities of practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20, 223-264.
22. O'Neill, D.K., Abeygunawardena, H., et al. (2000). The telementor's guidebook: A field guide to supporting student inquiry on-line. Ottawa: Office of Learning Technologies, Human Resources Development Canada. [on-line] Available: http://www.telementoring.ca
23. O'Neill, D.K. & Gomez, L.M. (1998, November). Sustaining mentoring relationships on-line. ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Association for Computing Machinery, Seattle, WA.
24. O'Neill, D.K. (in press). Building social capital in a knowledge-building community: Telementorism as a catalyst. Interactive Learning Environments.
25. O'Neill, D.K. & Weiler, M.J. (2003). Telementoring orchestrator. Burnaby, British Columbia: Simon Fraser University. [on-line] Available: http://www.telementoring.ca
26. O'Neill, D.K., Weiler, M.J., et al. (2003). The telementoring orchestrator: Research, design and implementation. Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
27. Ødegaard, M. & Kyle, W.C. Jr. (2000, April). Imagination and critical reflection: Cultivating a vision of scientific literacy. Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
28. Pea, R.D. (1993, May). Distributed multimedia learning environments: The collaborative visualization project. Communications of the ACM, pp. 60-63.
29. Pea, R.D. (1994). Seeing what we build together: Distributed multimedia learning environments for transformative communications. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 285-299.
30. Pearson, W.J. & Fechter, A. (1994). Who will do science? Educating the next generation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
31. Pitt, J.C. (1990). The myth of science education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 10, 7-17.
32. Polman, J.L. (1997). Guiding science expeditions: The design of a learning environment for project-based science. Northwestern University.
33. Polman, J.L. (2000). Designing project-based science: Connecting learners through guided inquiry. New York: Teachers College Press.
34. Polman, J.L. (in press). Dialogic activity structures for project-based learning environments. Cognition and Instruction.
35. Polman, J.L. & Pea, R.D. (2001). Transformative communication as a cultural tool for guiding inquiry science. Science Education, 85, 223-238.
36. Popper, K.R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Basic Books.
37. Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
38. Roth, W.-M. (1995). Authentic school science: Knowing and learning in open-inquiry science laboratories. Dortrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
39. Ruopp, R., Gal, S., et al. (1993). LabNet: Toward a community of practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
40. Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1, 37-68.
41. Schmidt, W.A., McKnight, C.C., et al. (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
42. Science News. (1996). Adults score low in science literacy. Science News. 149, 367.
43. SCOPE Research Group. (2003). SCOPE: Science Controversies Online Partnerships in Education. [on-line] Available: http://scope.educ.washington.edu/
44. Shamos, M.H. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
45. 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, 297-327.
46. Suppe, F. (1995). Credentialing scientific claims. Perspectives on Science, 1, 153-203.
47. Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. New York: Cambridge University Press.
48. Vogel, G. (1996, October). Global review faults U.S. curricula. Science, 274 (335).
49. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
50. Wasley, P.A. (1994). Stirring the chalkdust: Tales of teachers changing classroom practice. New York: Teachers College Press.