Negotiated representational mediators: How young children decide what to include in their science representations

Science Education

Volumn 91, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 1-35

  Danish, Joshua A ^a   Enyedy, Noel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33847673153     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.20166     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Azevedo, F. (2000). Designing representations of terrain: A study in meta-representational competence. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 443-480.
2. Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing Web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797-817.
3. Callaghan, T. C. (1999). Early understanding and production of graphic symbols. Child Development, 70(6), 1314-1324.
4. Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Participating in classroom mathematical practices. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 113-163.
5. Cox, M. V. (1992). Children's drawings. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
6. DeLoache, J. S., & Burns, N. M. (1994). Early understanding of the representational function of pictures. Cognition, 2(52), 83-110.
7. diSessa, A. A. (2004). Meta-representation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293-331.
8. diSessa, A. A., Hammer, D., Sherin, B., & Kolpakowski, T. (1991). Inventing graphing: Meta-representational expertise in children. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10, 117-160.
9. diSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. (2000). Meta-representation: An introduction. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19(4), 385-398.
10. Engestrom, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
11. Engestrom, Y. (1990). Learning, working and imagining: Twelve studies in activity theory. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
12. Engestrom, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 13-38). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13. Enyedy, N. (2003). Knowledge construction and collective practice: At the intersection of learning, talk, and social configurations in a computer-mediated mathematics classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 361-408.
14. Enyedy, N. (2005). Inventing mapping: Creating cultural forms to solve collective problems. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 427-466.
15. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.
16. Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606-633.
17. Greeno, J. G. (1987). Instructional representations based on research about understanding. In A. Shoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 61-88). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
18. Greeno, J. G., & Hall, R. P. (1997). Practicing representation. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(5), 361-367.
19. Gutierrez, K. (2002). Studying cultural practices in urban learning communities. Human Development, 45(4), 312-321.
20. Hall, R. (1996). Representation as shared activity: Situated cognition and Dewey's cartography of experience. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(3), 209-238.
21. Hall, R. (2001). Schedules of practical work for the analysis of case studies of learning and development. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 203-222.
22. Hall, R., & Rubin, A. (1998). There's five little notches in here: Dilemmas in teaching and learning the conventional structure of rate. In J. G. Greeno & S. V. Goldman (Eds.), Thinking practices in mathematics and science learning (pp. 189-236). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
23. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266.
24. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Holton, D. L., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 247-298.
25. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Pfeffer, M. G. (2004). Comparing expert and novice understanding of a complex system from the perspective of structures, behaviors, and functions. Cognitive Science, 28(1), 127-138.
26. Hutchins, E. (1993). Learning to navigate. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 35-63). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
27. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28. Kaput, J. (1991). Notations and representations as mediators of constructive processes. In E. V. Glasersfeld (Ed.), Constructivism and mathematics education (pp. 53-74). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
29. Kotovsky, K., Hayes, J. R., & Simon, H. A. (1985). Why are some problems hard - Evidence from Tower of Hanoi. Cognitive Psychology, 17(2), 248-294.
30. Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth 10000 words. Cognitive Science, 11(1), 65-99.
31. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
32. Latour, B. (1988). Drawing things together. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp. 19-68). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33. Lehrer, R., & Pritchard, C. (2002). Symbolizing space into being. In K. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, B. V. Oers, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Symbolization, modeling and tool use in mathematics education (pp. 59-86). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
34. Lehrer, R., Strom, D., & Confrey, J. (2002). Grounding metaphors and inscriptional resonance: Children's emerging understanding of mathematical similarity. Cognition and Instruction, 20(3), 359-398.
35. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
36. Lynch, M. (1988). The externalized retina: Selection and mathematization in the visual documentation of objects in the life sciences. Human Studies, 11, 201-234.
37. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
39. Norman, D. A. (1991). Cognitive artifacts. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), Designing interaction: Psychology at the human-computer interface (pp. ix, 333). Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
40. Ochs, E., Jacoby, S., & Gonzales, P. (1994). Interpretive journeys: How physicists talk and travel through graphic space. Configurations, 2(1), 151-171.
41. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1966/1978). Mental imagery in the child. London: Routledge.
42. Roth, W.-M. (1996). Knowledge diffusion in a grade 4-5 classroom during a unit on civil engineering: An analysis of a classroom community in terms of its changing resources and practices. Cognition and Instruction, 14(2), 179-220.
43. Roth, W.-M. (1997). Graphing: Cognitive ability or practice? Science Education, (81), 91-106.
44. Roth, W.-M., & McGinn, M. K. (1998). Inscriptions: Toward a theory of representing as social practice. Review of Educational Research, 68(1), 35-59.
45. Stevens, R., & Hall, R. (1998). Disciplined perception: Learning to see in technoscience. In M. Lampert & M. L. Blunk (Eds.), Talking mathematics in school: Studies of teaching and learning (pp. 107-149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46. Suthers, D. (2005). Technology affordances for intersubjective learning: A thematic agenda for CSCL. In T. Koschmann, D. Suthers, & T. W. Chan (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning 2005: The next 10 years! (pp. 662-671). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
47. Tversky, B., Kugelmass, S., & Winter, A. (1991). Cross-cultural and developmental-trends in graphic productions. Cognitive Psychology, 23(4), 515-557.
48. White, B. Y. (1993). Intermediate causal models: A missing link for successful science education? In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 177-252). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
49. Wilenksy, U., & Stroup, W. (1999). Learning through participatory simulations: Network-based design for systems learning in classrooms. Paper presented at the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 1999 Conference, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.
50. Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems perspective to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 3-19.