Using data comparison and interpretation to develop procedural understandings in the primary classroom: Case study evidence from action research

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 28, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 44-467

  Warwick, Paul ^a   Siraj Blatchford, John ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33645130178     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500690500277896     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Alexander, R. (2004). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. Cambridge, England: Dialogos.
2. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). Discourse in the novel. In M. Holquist (Ed.), The dialogic imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press. (Original work published 1934).
3. Bassey, M. (2001). The concept of fuzzy generalisation. Paper presented at the British Education Research Association Symposium at the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA, April.
4. Brotherton, P., & Preece, P. (1996). Teaching science process skills. International Journal of Science Education, 18(1), 65–74.
5. Bruner, J. S. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6. Collins, S., Osborne, J., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2001). What “ideas about science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA, April.
7. Daniels, H. (2000). Vygotsky and pedagogy. London: Routledge Falmer.
8. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham, England: Open University Press
9. Duschl, R. (2000). Making the nature of science explicit. In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: The contribution of research. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
10. Fernandez, M., Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Rojas-Drummond, S. (2001). Re-conceptualizing “scaffolding” and the zone of proximal development in the context of symmetrical collaborative learning. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 36(2), 40–54.
11. Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Towards an interpretive theory of culture. In C. Geertz (Ed.), The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
12. Goldsworthy, A., Watson, R., & Wood-Robinson, V. (2000). AKSIS investigations: Developing understanding. Hatfield & Cambridge, England: ASE & Black Bear.
13. Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (1995a). Investigative work in the science curriculum. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
14. Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (1995b). The place of investigations in practical work in the UK National Curriculum for science. International Journal of Science Education, 17(2), 137–147.
15. Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (1996). Practical work: Its role in the understanding of evidence in science. International Journal of Science Education, 18(7), 791–806.
16. Gott, R., & Mashiter, J. (1991). Practical work in science—A task-based approach? In B. E. Woolnough (Ed.), Practical science. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
17. Hodson, D. (1998). Teaching and learning science: Towards a personalized approach. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
18. Hodson, D., & Hodson, J. (1998). From constructivism to social constructivism: A Vygotskian perspective on teaching and learning science. School Science Review, 79(2), 33–41.
19. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
20. Leach, J., Driver, R., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1997). A study of progression in learning about “the nature of science”: Issues of conceptualisation and methodology. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 147–166.
21. Lubben, F., & Millar, R. (1996). Children’s ideas about the reliability of experimental data. International Journal of Science Education, 18(8), 955–968.
22. McFarlane, A., Friedler, Y., Warwick, P., & Chaplain, C. (1995). Developing an understanding of the meaning of line graphs in primary science investigations, using portable computers and data logging software. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 14(4), 461–480.
23. Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
24. Millar, R., & Driver, R. (1987). Beyond processes. Studies in Science Education, 14, 32–62.
25. Millar, R., Lubben, F., Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (1994). Investigating in the school science laboratory: Conceptual and procedural knowledge and their influence on performance. Research Papers in Education, 9(2), 207–248.
26. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000, science education for the future. London: Nuffield Foundation.
27. Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
28. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (1999). Measuring student knowledge and skills. In J. Gilbert (Ed.), The RoutledgeFalmer reader in science education. London: RoutledgeFalmer
29. QCA/DfES (2004). Teaching through dialogue. London: QCA/DfES.
30. Radnor, H. (2001). Researching your professional practice: Doing interpretive research. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
31. Robson, C. (2000). Real world research (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
32. Siraj-Blatchford, J., & Macleod-Brudenell, I. (1999). Supporting science, design and technology in the early years. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
33. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
34. Warwick, P., & Stephenson, P. (2002). Reconstructing science in education: Insights and strategies for making it more meaningful. Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 143–151.
35. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.