Effects of instructional support within constructivist learning environments for elementary school students' understanding of "floating and sinking."

Journal of Educational Psychology

Volumn 98, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 307-326

  Hardy, Ilonca ^a   Jonen, Angela ^b,c   Möller, Kornelia ^b   Stern, Elsbeth ^a  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MÜNSTER   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WÜRZBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Conceptual change; Constructivist learning environments; Elementary schoolchildren; Physics concepts; Structural support

Indexed keywords

EID: 33745158634     PISSN: 00220663     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.307     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
2. Bullock, M., & Ziegler, A. (1999). Scientific reasoning: Developmental and individual differences. In F. E. Weinert & W. Schneider (Eds.), Individual development from 3 to 12 (pp. 38-54). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
3. Caravita, S. (2001). A re-framed conceptual change theory? Learning & Instruction, 11, 421-429.
4. Carey, S. (2000). Science education as conceptual change. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21, 13-19.
5. Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 161-199.
6. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1-49.
7. Christianson, R. G., & Fisher, K. M. (1999). Comparison of student learning about diffusion and osmosis in constructivist and traditional classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 687-698.
8. Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and socioculturel perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23, 13-20.
9. Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 91-142.
10. Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scaffolding students' knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 819-837.
11. Davis, E., & Miyake, N. (2004). Explorations of scaffolding in complex classroom systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 265-272.
12. Sessa, A. A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P. B. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age: The Jean Piaget symposium series (pp. 49-70). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. Greeno, J., & the Middle School Mathematics Through Applications Project Group. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53, 5-26.
14. Halford, G. S., Brown, C. A., & Thompson, R. M. (1986). Children's concepts of volume and flotation. Developmental Psychology, 22, 218-222.
15. Hogan, K., & Pressley, M. (1997). Scaffolding scientific competencies within classroom communities of inquiry. In K. Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues (pp. 74-107). Louiseville, Quebec, Canada: Brookline Books.
16. Kohn, A. S. (1993). Preschoolers' reasoning about density: Will it float? Child Development, 64, 1637-1650.
17. Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., Strom, D., & Pliggie, M. (2001). Similarity of form and substance. Modeling material kind. In M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 39-74). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
18. Linn, M. C. (1995). Designing computer learning environments for engineering and computer science: The scaffolded knowledge integration framework. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4, 103-126.
19. Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59, 14-19.
20. McCloskey, M. (1983). Naive theories of motion. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 299-324). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. Möller, K. (1999). Konstruktivistisch orientierte Lehr-Lernprozessforschung im naturwissenschaftlich-technischen Bereich des Sachunterrichts [Research of constructivist learning and teaching processes in science and technical domains of science instruction]. In W. Köhnlein (Ed.), Vielperspektivisches Denken im Sachunterricht [Thinking in mul tiple perspectives in science education] (pp. 125-191). Bad Heilbrunn, Germany: Klinkhardt.
22. Pea, R. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 423-451.
23. Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, P., & Gertzog, W. (1982). Accomodation of scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227.
24. Reiser, B. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 273-304.
25. Smith, C., Carey, S., & Wiser, M. (1985). On differentiation: A case study of the development of the concepts of size, weight, and density. Cognition, 21, 177-237.
26. Smith, C., Maclin, D., Grosslight, L., & Davis, H. (1997). Teaching for understanding. A study of students' preinstruction theories of matter and a comparison of the effectiveness of two approaches to teaching about matter and density. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 317-393.
27. Smith, C., Snir, J., & Grosslight, L. (1992). Using conceptual models to facilitate conceptual change: The case of weight-density differentiation. Cognition and Instruction, 9, 221-283.
28. Smith, J., diSessa, A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 115-163.
29. Staub, F., & Stern, E. (2002). The nature of teachers' pedagogical content beliefs matters for students' achievement gains: Quasi-experimental evidence from elementary mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 344-355.
30. Toth, E. E., Klahr, D., & Chen, Z. (2000). Bridging research and practice: A cognitively based classroom intervention for teacliing experimentation skills to elementary school children. Cognition & Instruction, 18, 423-459.
31. Tynjälä, P. (1999). Towards expert knowledge? A comparison between a contructivist and a traditional learning environment in university. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 357-442.
32. Tyson, L. M., Venville, G. J., Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1997). A multidimensional framework for interpreting conceptual change events in the classroom. Science Education, 81, 387-404.
33. Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. learning and Instruction, 4, 45-69.
34. Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535-585.
35. Vosniadou, S., Ioannides, C., Dimitrakopoulou, A., & Papademetriou, E. (2001). Designing learning environments to promote conceptual change in science. Learning and Instruction, 15, 317-419.
36. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
37. Wandersee, J., Mintzes, J., & Novak, J. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 177-210). New York: Macmillan.
38. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17, 89-100.