Problem solving in a middle school robotics design classroom

Research in Science Education

Volumn 37, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 261-277

  Norton, Stephen J ^a   McRobbie, Campbell J ^b   Ginns, Ian S ^b  

^a GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Activity theory; Design technology; Robot design; Student learning; Teacher beliefs

Indexed keywords

EID: 34250016821     PISSN: 0157244X     EISSN: 15731898     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11165-006-9025-6     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Alexander, P. A. (1996). The past, present, and future of knowledge research: A re-examination of the role of knowledge in learning and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 31(2), 89-92.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Anning, A. (1994). Technological capability in the primary classroom. Report published by University of Leeds, School of Education, Education for Capability Research Group.
4. Bergen, D. (2001). Learning in the robotic world: Active or reactive? Childhood Education, 77(4), 249-250.
5. Crew, T., & Butterfield, J. (2003). Improving the learning environment in beginning programming classes: An experiment in gender equity. Journal of Information Systems Education, 14(1), 69-76.
6. Davydov, V. (1999). The content and unsolved problems of activity theory. In Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 39-53). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7. Deek, F., Hiltz, S. R., Kimmel, H., & Rotter, N. (1999). Cognitive assessment of students' problem solving and program development skills. Journal of Engineering Education, 88(3), 317-326.
8. Education Queensland (2001). New basics project: Technical paper. Retrieved July 1, 2003 from http://www.education.qut.edu.au/nortonsj/ Curriculum/New-Basics-paper.rtf.
9. Engestrom, Y., & Miettinen, R. (1999). Introduction. In Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 1-18). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10. Erickson, F. (1998). Qualitative research methods for science education. In B. J. Fraser, & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (Part 2, pp. 1155-1173). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
11. Leontyev, A. N. (1977). Activity and consciousness: Philosophy in the USSR, problems of dialectical materialism: Progress. Retrieved February 17, 2004 from, http://www.marxists.org/archive/leontev/works/1977/ leon1977.htm.
12. Levien, K., & Rochefort, W. (2002). Lessons with LEGO - Engaging students in engineering courses. In Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Oregon State University, Oregon. American Society for Engineering Education.
13. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 163-188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14. Mauch, E. (2001). Using technological innovation to improve the problem-solving skills of middle school students: Educators' Experiences with the LEGO Mindstorms Robotic Invention System. Clearing House, 74(4), 211-214.
15. McRobbie, C. J., Norton, S. J., & Ginns, I. S. (2003, April). Student designing in a robotics classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois.
16. National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (NACCCE) (1998). All or futures: Creativity, culture and education. Nottingham, UK: DfEE.
17. Noble, M. (2001). The educational impact of LEGO Dacta materials. Sheffield Hallam University. Retrieved November 2, 2004 from, http://www.lego.com/education/download/sheffield_hallam.doc.
18. Oxman, R. (1999). Educating the designerly thinker. Design Studies, 20(2), 105-122.
19. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situated constructivism. Retrieved February 21, 2002 from, http://www.papert.com/articles/ SituatingConstructionism.html.
20. Queensland School Curriculum Council (1999). Science years 1 to 10 syllabus. Brisbane, Queensland: The Office of the Queensland School Curriculum Council.
21. Queensland Studies Authority (2004). Technology: Years 1-10 syllabus. Brisbane, Queensland: The State of Queensland. Retrieved February 10, 2004 from, http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/yrs1_10/kla/technology/index.html.
22. Roth, W.-M. (2001). Modelling design as situated and distributed. Learning and Instruction, 11(2), 11-239.
23. Roth, W.-M., Tobin, K., Zimmerman, A., Natasia, B., & Davis, C. (2002). Lessons on and from the dihybrid cross: An activity-theoretical study of learning in co-teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 253-282.
24. Satchwell, R. (1997). Using functional flow diagrams to enhance technical systems understanding. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 34(2), 1-28. Available http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/ JITE/v34n2/Satchwell.html.
25. Skemp, R. R. (1978). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Arithmetic Teacher, 26(3), 9-15.
26. Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In: D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 127-146). New York: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
27. Tolman, C. (1999). Society versus context in individual development: Does theory make a difference? In Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 70-86). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.