Learning elemental structures and dynamic processes in technological systems: A cognitive framework

International Journal of Technology and Design Education

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 323-340

  Barak, M ^a   Williams, P ^a  

^a BEN GURION UNIVERSITY OF THE NEGEV   (Israel)

Author keywords

Dynamic response; Interdisciplinary thinking; Modeling; Structure; Systems

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SIMULATION; ENGINEERING EDUCATION; FEEDBACK CONTROL; STUDENTS; TEACHING;

DYNAMIC PROCESSES; INSTRUCTIONAL FRAMEWORK; INTERDISCIPLINARY THINKING;

LEARNING SYSTEMS;

EID: 34548787847     PISSN: 09577572     EISSN: 15731804     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10798-006-9006-0     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Barak, M. (1990). Imparting basics in technology through an instructional system for computerized process control. Research in Science and Technological Education, 8(1), 53-67.
4. Barak, M. (2004). The use of computers in technological studies: Significant learning or superficial activity? Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 23(4), 329-346.
5. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). Intentional learning as a goal of instruction. In: L. Resnick (Ed.), Motivation, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 361-392). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6. Bertalanffy, L. V. (1968). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. New York: George Braziller.
7. Booth-Sweeny, L., & Sterman, J. (2000). Bathtub dynamics: Initial results of a systems thinking inventory. System Dynamics Review, 16(4), 249-286.
8. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.) (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.
9. Brown, J. L., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
10. Chen, D., & Stroup, W. (1993). General systems theory: Toward a conceptual framework for science and technology education for all. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2(3), 447-459.
11. de Kleer, J., & Brown, J. (1983). Assumptions and ambiguities in mechanistic mental models. In: D. Gentner, & A. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 157-190). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12. de Vries, M. J. (2005). Teaching about technology. Dordrecht: Springer.
13. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.
14. Doyle, J. J., & Lunetta, V. N. (1978). Piaget in perspective. School of Science and Mathematics, 78(6), 475-480.
15. Driver, R. (1978). When is a stage not a stage? A critique of Piaget's theory of cognitive development and its application to science education. Educational Research, 21(1), 54-61.
16. Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674-681.
17. Forrester, J. W. (1968). Principles of systems. Cambridge: MIT Press.
18. Gentner, D., & Holyoak, K. J. (1997). Reasoning and learning by analogy. American Psychologist, 52(1), 32-34.
19. Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., & Thompson, L. (2003). Learning and transfer: A general role for analogical encoding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 393-408.
20. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306-355.
21. Gilbert, J. K. (2004). Models and modeling: Routs to more authentic science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2, 115-130.
22. Grosslight, L., Unger, C., Jay, E., & Smith, C. (1991). Understanding models and their use, in science: Conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 799-822.
23. Harrison, A.G., & Treagust, D.F. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1011-1026.
24. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York: Basic Books.
25. International Technology Education Association (ITEA) (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.
26. Jackson, S., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2000). Model-IT: A design retrospective. In: M. J. Jacobson, & R. B. Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies of learning (pp. 77-115). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
27. Krajcik, J.S., & Haney, R.E. (1987). Proportional reasoning and achievement in high school chemistry. School Science and Mathematics, 87(1), 25-32.
28. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. New York: Cambridge University Press, Lawrence Erlbaum.
29. Marian, P., & Blaine, P. (2004). Using robotics to motivate "back door" learning. Education and Information Technologies, 9(2), 147-158.
30. Mayer, V.J., & Kumano, Y. (1999). The role of system science in future school science curricula. Studies in Science Education, 34, 71-91.
31. McCormick, R. (2004). Issues of learning and knowledge in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(1), 21-44.
32. Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
33. National Research Council (NRC) (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC.: National Academy Press
34. Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In: I. Harel, & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
35. Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1988). Teaching for transfer. Educational Leadership, 46(1), 22-32.
36. Piaget, J. (1957). Logic and psychology. New York: Basic Books.
37. Resnick, L. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
38. Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105(9), 1623-1640.
39. Schwarz, C. V. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students' understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165-205.
40. Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.
41. Spector, J. M. (2000). System dynamics and interactive learning environments: Lessons learned and implications for the future. Simulation & Gaming, 31(4), 509-512.
42. Sterman, J. (1994). Learning in and about complex systems. Systems Dynamics Review, 10(2-3), 291-330.
43. Wankat, P., & Oreovicz, F.S. (1993). Teaching Engineering. New York: McGraw Hill.