Students' conceptual practices in science education: Productive disciplinary interactions in a participation trajectory

Cultural Studies of Science Education

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 171-203

  Krange, Ingeborg ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

Author keywords

Computer based 3D models; Conceptual practices; Design experiment; Free and forced moves; Interaction analysis; Mediated actions; Mediating knowledge domains; Participation trajectories; Productive disciplinary interactions; Science education

Indexed keywords

EID: 34249009236     PISSN: 18711502     EISSN: 18711510     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11422-006-9040-y     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Arnseth, H. C. (2004). Discourse and artefacts in learning to argue - Analysing the practical management of computer supported collaborative learning. Dissertation, University of Oslo.
2. Barab, S. A., Barnett, M., Yamagata-Lynch, L., Squire, K., & Keating, T. (2002). Using activity theory to understand the contradictions characterizing a technology-rich introductory astronomy course. Mind, Culture and Activity, 9(2), 76-107.
3. Boaler, J., & Greeno, J. G. (2000). Identity, agency, and knowing in mathematics worlds. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 171-200). London: Ablex Publishing.
4. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178.
5. Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Participating in classroom mathematical practices. The Journal of the Leaning Sciences, 10(1&2), 113-163.
6. Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. The Journal of Leaning Sciences, 12(1), 91-142.
7. Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners' classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399-483.
8. Fjuk, A., & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (1997). Articulation of actions in distributed collaborative learning. Scandinavian Journal of Information System, 9(2), 3-24.
9. Gorman, P. J., Meier, A. H., & Krummel, T. M. (1999). Simulations and virtual reality in surgical education. Archives of Surgery, 134(11), 1189-1196.
10. Ivarsson , J., Schoultz, J., & Säljö, R. (2002). Map reading versus mind reading: Revisiting children's understanding of the shape of the earth. In M. L. Mason (Ed.), Reconsidering conceptual change. Issues in theory and practice (pp. 77-99). Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
11. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39-103.
12. Krange, I., & Fjuk, A. (2004). Design and use of a 3D learning environment: The situated conditions of awareness information. International Journal of Human Resources: Development and Management, 4(1).
13. Krange, I., Larsen, A., Fjuk, A., & Ludvigsen, S. (2002). Describing construction of knowledge through identification of collaboration patterns in 3D learning environments. Paper presented at the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL Community, Boulder.
14. Ludvigsen, S. (in press). What counts as knowledge: Learning to use categories in computer environments. In R. Säljö (Ed.), ICT and transformation of learning practices. Amsterdam: Pergamon Press.
15. Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
16. Merrill, D. C., Reiser, B. J., Ranney, M., & Trafton, J. G. (1992). Effective tutoring techniques: A comparison of human tutors and intelligent tutoring systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 277-305.
17. Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practices - Time, agency, and science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
18. Rasmussen, I. (2005). Project work and ICT: Studying learning as participation trajectories. Dissertation, University of Oslo.
19. Roth, W.-M. (2006). Learning sciences. A plureal singular perspective. Rotterdam: SensePublishers.
20. Scrimshaw, P., & Perkins, G. (1997). Tinker town: Working together. In R. Wegerif, P. Scrimshaw (Eds.), Computers and talk in the primary classroom (pp. 113-132). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
21. Stenning, K., Greeno, J. G., Hall, R., Sommerfeld, M., & Wiebe, M. (2002). Coordinating mathematical with biological multiplication: Conceptual learning as the development of heterogenous reasoning systems. In M. Baker, P. Brna, K. Stenning, & A. E. Tiberghien (Eds.), The role of communication in learning to model. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
22. Strauss, A. (1993). Continual permutations of action. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
23. Säljö, R. (2000). Lärande i praktiken - ett sosiokulturelt perspektiv [Learning in practice - A sociocultutal perspective]. Stocholm: Bokforlaget Prisma.
24. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. London: Harvard University Press.
25. Wartofsky, M. W. (1979). Models: Representation and the scientific understanding. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Pub. Co.
26. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind - A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
27. Wertsch, J. V. (1995). The need for action in sociocultural research. In J. V. Wertsch, P. del Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 56-74). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press.