Implementing an innovation cluster in educational settings in order to develop constructivist-based learning environments

Educational Technology and Society

Volumn 8, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 7-15

  Russell, Donna ^a   Schneiderheinze, Art ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI KANSAS CITY   (United States)

^b Project Construct National Center   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 23844505476     PISSN: 11763647     EISSN: 14364522     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (30)

1. Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The Jigsaw classroom, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
2. Barab, S. A., & Duffy, T. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments (pp. 25-56), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3. Brown, A. (1995). The advancement of learning. Educational Researcher, 23 (8), 4-12.
4. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
5. Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuition to deal with students' preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30 (10), 1241-1257.
6. Greeno, J. G. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong question. Educational Researcher, 26 (1), 5-17.
7. Hinrichs, T. R. (1992). Problem solving in open worlds: A case study in design, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8. Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill-Prentice Hall.
9. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48 (4), 63-85.
10. Kolodner, J., & Leake, D. (1996). A Tutorial Introduction to Case-Based Reasoning. In Leake, D. (Ed.), Case-Based Reasoning: Experiences, Lessons and Future Directions (pp. 31-65), Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
11. Laffey, J., Musser, D., & Espinosa, L. (2000). Shadow netWorkspace™ Learning Systems Project. In Kinshuk, Jesshope C., & Okamoto T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Workshop on Advanced Learning Technologies (pp. 188-189), Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.
12. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13. Lawson, B. R. (1984). Cognitive studies in architectural design. In N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in design methodology (pp. 209-220), NY: Wiley.
14. Mestre, J. (1987). Why should mathematics and science teachers be interested in cognitive research findings? Academic Connections, Summer, 3-5, 8-11.
15. Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (1996). The Missouri Show-Me Standards, retrieved April 2, 2005, from http://www.dese.state. mo.us/standards/process.html.
16. Pea, R. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp 47-87). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17. Petraglia, J. (1998). Reality by design: The rhetoric and technology of authenticity in education, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18. President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (1997). Report to the President on the use of technology to strengthen K-12 education in the United States, Washington, DC.
19. Resnick, L. B. (1983). Mathematics and Science Learning: A New Conception. Science, 220, 477-478.
20. Resnick, L., Levine, J., & Teasley, S. (Eds.) (1991). Perspectives on socially shared cognition, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
21. th Ed.), NY: The Free Press.
22. Roschelle, J. M., Pea, R. D., Hoadley, C. M., Gordin, D. N., & Means, B. M. (2000). Changing how and what children learn in school with computer-based technologies. Children and Computer Technology, 10 (2), 76-101.
23. Roth, W. M., & Bowne, G. M. (1995). Knowing and interacting: A study of culture, practices, and resources in a grade 8 open-inquiry science classroom guided by a cognitive apprenticeship metaphor. Cognition and Instruction. 13 (1), 73-128.
24. Salomon, G. (1993). No distribution without individuals' cognition: A dynamic interactional view. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations, NY: Cambridge University Press.
25. Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1996). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35 (5), 31-38.
26. Schank, R. C. (1994). Goal-based scenarios. In R. C. Schank, R. P. Abelson, & E. Langer (Ed.), Beliefs, reasoning, and decision making: Psycho-logic in honor of Bob Abelson (pp. 1-32), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
27. Schank, R. C., Fano, A., Bell, B., & Jona, M. (1994). The design of goal-based scenarios. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3 (4), 305-345.
28. Shulman, L. (1992). Toward a pedagogy of cases. In J. H. Shulman (Ed.), Case methods in teacher education, NY: Teachers College Press.
29. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language, Cambridge: The MIT Press.
30. Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action, NY: Oxford University Press.