Student-generated visualization as a study strategy for science concept learning

Educational Technology and Society

Volumn 9, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 137-148

  Hsieh, Yi Chuan Jane ^a   Cifuentes, Lauren ^b  

^a CHING YUN UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^b TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Concept mapping; Science learning; Study strategy; Visualization

Indexed keywords

EID: 33746896956     PISSN: 11763647     EISSN: 14364522     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (37)

1. Anderson-Inman, L. (1992). Computer-supported studying for students with reading and writing difficulties. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Disabilities, 8, 317-319.
2. Anderson-Inman, L. (1996). Computer-assisted outlining: Information organization made easy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 39 (4), 316-320.
3. Anderson-Inman, L., & Ditson, L. (1999). Computer-based concept mapping: A tool for negotiating meaning. Learning and Leading with Technology, 26 (8), 6-13.
4. Anderson-Inman, L., Knox-Quinn, C., & Horney, M. A. (1996). Computer-based study strategies for students with learning disabilities: Individual differences associated with adoption level. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29 (5), 461-484.
5. Anderson-Inman, L., & Zeitz, L. (1993). Computer-based concept mapping: Active studying for active learners. The Computer Teacher, 21 (1), 6-8, 10-11.
6. Bliss, J., Askew, M., & Macrae, S. (1996). Effective teaching and learning: Scaffolding revisited. Oxford Review of Education, 22 (1), 37-61.
7. Bloom, B. S., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals, handbook I: cognitive domain, New York: Longmans.
8. Bransford, J. D. (Eds.) (2000). How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school, Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning and Committee on Learning Research and Educational Practice, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. Washington, DC.
9. Cifuentes, L. (1992). The effects of instruction in visualization as a study strategy, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina.
10. Cifuentes, L., & Hsieh, Y. C. (2004a). Visualization for middle school students' engagement in science learning. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 23 (2), 109-137.
11. Cifuentes, L., & Hsieh, Y. C. (2004b). Visualization for Construction of Meaning during Study Time: A Quantitative Analysis. International Journal of Instructional Media, 30 (3), 263-273.
12. Cifuentes, L., & Hsieh, Y. C. (2004c). Visualization for Construction of Meaning during Study Time: A Qualitative Analysis. International Journal of Instructional Media, 30 (4), 407-417.
13. De Bono, E. (1995). Mind power, New York: Dorling Kindersky.
14. Deny, S. J., & Lajoie, S.P. (1993). A middle camp for (un)intelligent instructional computing: An introduction. In S. P. Lajoie and S. J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1-11.
15. Downes, T. (2000). The computer as a "playable" tool. Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 442 454).
16. Driver, R. (1983). The pupil as scientist?, Milton Keynes, England: Open University.
17. Earnshaw, R. A., & Wiseman, N. (1992). An introductory guide to scientific visualization, New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
18. Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Constructivism: theory, perspectives, and practice, New York, NY: Teachers College.
19. Jonassen, D. H. (1996,). Computers in the Classroom: mindtools for critical thinking, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
20. Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M Reigeluth (Eds.), Instructional design theories and models: a new paradigm of instructional theory, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 215-239.
21. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking, Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill.
22. Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen, (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, New York: Macmillan, 693-719.
23. Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, E. G. (1999). Learning with technology: a constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
24. Julyan, C., & Duckworth, E. (1996). A constructivist perspective on teaching and learning science. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: theory, perspectives, and practice, New York, NY: Teachers College Press, 55-72.
25. Kinchin, I. M. (2000). Concept mapping in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 34 (2), 61-68.
26. Lajoie, S. P. (1993). Computer environments as cognitive tools for enhancing learning. In S. P. Lajoie & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, 261-288.
27. Lanzing, J.W.A. (1998). Concept mapping: Tools for echoing the minds eye. Journal of Visual Literacy, 18 (1), 1-14.
28. Lee, P-L. H. (1997). Integrating concept mapping and metacognitive methods in a hypermedia environment for learning science, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, West Lafayette: Purdue University.
29. Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30. Peltzer, A. (1988). The intellectual factors believed by physicists to be most important to physics students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25 (9), 721-731.
31. Perkins, D. N., & Unger, C. (1999). Teaching and learning for understanding. In C. M Reigeluth (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models: a new paradigm of instructional theory, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 91-114.
32. Plotnick, E. (1997). Concept mapping: A graphical system for understanding the relationship between concepts, ERIC Clearinghouse on information and Technology, Syracuse University, 4-194 Center for Science and Technology, Syracuse, NY 13244-4100 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 407 938).
33. Strauss, E., & Lisowski, M. (1998). Biology: the web of life, Menlo, CA: Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley.
34. Taiwan National Institute for Compilation and Translation (2000). Middle school biology: volume one, Taipei: National Institute for Compilation and Translation.
35. Torrance, E. P., & Safter, H. T. (1999). Making the creative leap beyond..., Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation Press.
36. Wileman, R. E. (1993). Visual communicating, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
37. Wittrock, M.C. (1990). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24 (4), 345-376.