Inscriptional practices in two inquiry-based classrooms: A case study of seventh graders' use of data tables and graphs

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 43, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 63-95

  Wu, Hsin Kai ^a   Krajcik, Joseph S ^b  

^a NATIONAL TAIWAN NORMAL UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GRAPHS; LEARNING ENVIRONMENT;

GRAPH THEORY; SCAFFOLDS; STUDENTS; WATER QUALITY;

MATHEMATICAL MODELS;

EID: 33645652725     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.20092     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks 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, 47-94.
4. Barab, S.A., Hay, K.E., & Yamagata-Lynch, L.C. (2001). Constructing networks of action-relevant episodes: An in situ research methodology. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 63-112.
5. Barnett, M., MaKinster, J., Barab, S., Squire, K., & Kelly, C. (2001, March). Addressing the challenges of designing an on-line environment to support student learning through the use of inscriptions and technology-rich resources. St. Louis, MO: Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
6. Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1987). Students' visualization of a chemical reaction. Education in Chemistry, July, 117-120.
7. 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. The Elementary School Journal, 94, 539-551.
8. Bowen, G.M., Roth, W.-M., & McGinn, M.K. (1999). Interpretations of graphs by university biology students and practicing scientists: Toward a social practice view of scientific representation practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 1020-1043.
9. Brasell, H.M. & Rowe, M.B. (1993). Graphing skills among high school physics students. School Science and Mathematics, 93, 63-70.
10. Brown, A.L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom setting. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141-178.
11. Borko, H. & Putnam, R. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673-708). New York: Macmillan.
12. Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42.
13. Cobb, P. (2002). Reasoning with tools and inscriptions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 187-215.
14. Crawford, B.A. (1999). Is it realistic to expect a preservice teacher to create an inquiry-based classroom? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10, 175-194.
15. Crawford, B.A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916-937.
16. Cromwell, M., Delhagen, E., Hartman, J., Reese, R., & Zweizig, M. (2000). Water studies for younger folks. Alexandria, VA: Earth Force.
17. Eick, C.J. & Reed, C.J. (2002). What makes an inquiry-oriented science teacher? The influence of learning histories on student teacher role identity and practice. Science Education, 86, 401-416.
18. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119-161). New York: Macmillan.
19. Flick, L.B. (2000). Cognitive scaffolding that fosters scientific inquiry in middle level science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11, 109-129.
20. Fretz, E.B., Wu, H.-K., Zhang, B.H., Krajcik, J.S., & Soloway, E. (2002). An investigation of software scaffolds as they support modeling practices. Research in Science Education, 32, 567-589.
21. Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L. (1963). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
22. Gordin, D.N. & Pea, R.D. (1995). Prospects for scientific visualization as an educational technology. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 249-279.
23. Greeno, J.G. & Hall, R.P. (1997). Practicing representation: Learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappan, January, 361-367.
24. Jordan, B. & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 39-103.
25. Karmilloff-Smith, A. (1986). From meta-processes to conscious access: Evidence from children's metalinguistic and repair data. Cognition, 23, 95-147.
26. Klahr, D. & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1-48.
27. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1983). The ethnographic study of scientific work: Towards a constructivist interpretation of science. In K. Knorr-Cetina & M. Mulkay (Eds.), Science observed: Perspectives on the social study of science (pp. 115-140). London: Sage.
28. Kozma, R.B., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The roles of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry instruction. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 105-143.
29. Kozma, R.B. & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 949-968.
30. Krajcik, J.S. (1991). Developing students' understanding of chemical concepts. In S.M. Glynn, R.H. Yeany, & B.K. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science: International perspective on the psychological foundations of technology-based learning environments (pp. 117-145). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
31. 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.
32. Krajcik, J.S., Czerniak, C.M., & Berger, C. (1999). Teaching children science: A project-based approach. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
33. Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96, 674-689.
34. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
35. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
36. Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M.K. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60, 1-64.
37. Lemke, J. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J.R. Martin & R. Veil (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 87-113). New York: Routledge.
38. Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Lynch, M. & Woolgar, S. (Eds.) (1990). Representation in scientific practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39. Marx, R.W., Blumenfeld, P.C., Krajcik, J.S., & Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting project-based science. Elementary School Journal, 97, 4-13, 22.
40. McKenzie, D.L. & Padilla, M.J. (1984, April). Effects of laboratory activities and written simulations on the acquisition of graphing skills by eighth grade students. New Orleans, LA: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
41. Moschkovich, J.N. & Brenner, M.E. (2000). Integrating a naturalistic paradigm into research on mathematics and science cognition and learning. In A.E. Kelly & R.A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 457-486). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
42. Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
43. Novak, A.M. & Gleason, C.I. (2000). Incorporating portable technology to enhance an inquiry, project-based middle school science classroom. In R.T. Tinker & J.S. Krajcik (Eds.), Portable technologies science learning in context (pp. 29-62). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
44. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
45. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
46. Palinscar, A.M. & Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 117-175.
47. Penner, D.E. (2001). Cognition, computers, and synthetic science: Building knowledge and meaning through modeling. Review of Research in Education, 25, 1-35.
48. Preece, J. & Janvier, C. (1992). A study of the interpretation of trends in multiple curve graphs of ecological situations. School Science and Mathematics, 92, 299-306.
49. Rop, C.F. (2002). The meaning of student inquiry questions: A teacher's beliefs and responses. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 717-736.
50. Roth, W.-M. & Bowen, G.M. (1994). Mathematization of experience in a Grade 8 open-inquiry environment: An introduction to the representational practices of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 293-318.
51. Roth, W.-M. & Bowen, 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, 73-128.
52. Roth, W.-M. & McGinn, M.K. (1997). Graphing: Cognitive ability or practice? Science Education, 81, 91-106.
53. Roth, W.-M. & McGinn, M.K. (1998). Inscriptions: Toward a theory of representing as social practice. Review of Educational Research, 68, 35-59.
54. Schliemann, A.D. (2002). Representational tools and mathematical understanding. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 301-317.
55. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14.
56. Smith, L.D., Best, L.A., Stubbs, D.A., Johnston, J., & Archibald, A.B. (2000). Scientific graphs and the hierarchy of the sciences: A Latourian survey of inscription practices. Social Studies of Science, 30, 73-94.
57. Stapp, W.B. & Mitchell, M. (1995). The field manual for global low-cost water quality monitoring. Alexandria, VA: Thomson-Shore.
58. Tabak, I.E. (1999). Unraveling the development of scientific literacy: Domain-specific inquiry support in a system of cognitive and social interactions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
59. Tafoya, E., Sunal,D., & Knecht, P. (1980). Assessing inquiry potential: A tool for curriculum decision makers. School Science and Mathematics, 80, 43-48.
60. White, B.Y. & Frederiksen, J.R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 3-118.
61. Wood, D.J., Bruner, J.S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.
62. Wu, H.-K. (2002). Middle school students' development of inscriptional practices in inquiry-based science classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
63. Yin, R.K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.