Students' roles in group-work with visual data: A site of science learning

Cognition and Instruction

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 145-194

  Radinsky, Josh ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 42149128801     PISSN: 07370008     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/07370000801980779     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Andriessen, J. (2005). Collaboration in computer conferencing. In A. O'Donnel, C. Hmelo & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaboration, reasoning, and technology (pp. 277-321). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
2. Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 79-96). New York: Cambridge University Press.
3. Audet, R., & Ludwig, G. S. (2000). GIS in Schools. Redlands, CA: ESRI Press.
4. Baker, M. J. (2004). Recherches sur l'élaboration de connaissances dans le dialogue [Research on knowledge elaboration in dialogues]. Synthèse pour l'habilitation à diriger les recherches. Université Nancy 2.
5. Bell, P. (2002). Science is argument: Developing sociocognitive supports for disciplinary argumentation. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 449-455). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6. Bowers, J., Cobb, P., & McClain, K. (1999). The evolution of mathematical practices: A case study. Cognition & Instruction, 17(1), 25-64.
7. Brown, B. (2004). Discursive identity: Assimilation into the culture of science and its implications for minority students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(8), 810-834.
8. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
9. Cobb, P. (2002). Reasoning with tools and inscriptions. Journal of the Learning Sciences. 11(2/3), 187-216.
10. Cornelius, L., & Herrenkohl, L. (2004). Power in the classroom: How the classroom environment shapes students' relationships with each other and with concepts. Cognition & Instruction, 22(4), 467-498.
11. DeJong, T., & VanJoolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179-201.
12. Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In R. J. Sternbert & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 365-395). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13. Dunbar, K., & Fugelsang, J. (2005). Scientific thinking and reasoning. In K. Holyoak & R. Morrison (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 705-725). New York: Cambridge University Press.
14. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press.
15. Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition & Instruction, 20(4), 399-483.
16. Enyedy, N. (2003). Knowledge construction and collective practice: At the intersection of learning, talk, and social configurations in a computer-mediated mathematics classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 361-408.
17. Enyedy, N. (2005). Inventing mapping: Creating cultural forms to solve collective problems. Cognition & Instruction, 23(4), 427-466.
18. Gee, J. P. (2002). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25, 99-125.
19. Goldman, S., Radinsky, J., & Rodriguez, C. (2007). Teacher interactions with small groups during investigations: Scaffolding the sense-making process and pushing students to construct arguments with data. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Chicago IL, April 2007.
20. Goldman, S., Sacay, R., Singer, M., Oliva, S., Allende-Pellot, F., Liceaga, I., & Radinsky, J. (2006). Emerging conceptual understandings in GIS investigations. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), San Francisco CA, April 2006.
21. Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist,96(3), 606-633.
22. Goodwin, C. (2000). Practices of seeing: Visual analysis: An ethnomethodological approach. In T. VanLeeuwen & C. Jewitt (Eds.), Handbook of visual analysis (pp. 157-182). London: Sage Publications.
23. Greeno, J. G. (2006). Learning in activity. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 79-96). New York: Cambridge University Press.
24. Greeno, J., & van de Sande, C. (2007). Perspectival understanding of conceptions and conceptual growth in interaction. Educational Psychologist, 42(1), 9-23.
25. Hall, R. (1999). The organization and development of discursive practices for "having a theory." Discourse Processes, 27(2), 187-218.
26. Holland, D., & Leander, K. (2004). Ethnographic studies of positioning and subjectivity: An introduction. Ethos, 32(2), 127-139.
27. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28. Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1982). Structuring cooperative learning. New Brighton, MN: Interaction Book Company.
29. Kagan, S. (1992). Cooperative learning. San Juan Capistrano, CA: Resources for Teachers, Inc.
30. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
31. Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition & Instruction, 15(3), 287-315.
32. Latour, B. (1990). Drawing things together. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp.19-68). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
33. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
34. Lave, J., & E. Wenger (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
35. Lehrer, R., & Pritchard, C. (2002). Symbolizing space into being. In K. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, B. van Oers, &. L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Symbolization, modeling and tool use in mathematics education (pp. 59-86). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
36. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2000). Developing model-based reasoning in mathematics and science. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 39-48.
37. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2002). Symbolic communication in mathematics and science: Co-constituting inscription and thought. In E. D. Amsel & J. Byrnes (Eds.), Language, literacy, and cognitive development. The development and consequences of symbolic communication (pp. 167-192). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
38. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 371-388). New York: Cambridge University Press.
39. Leitao, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43(6), 332-360.
40. Lemke, J. L. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science (pp.87-113). London: Routledge.
41. Linn, M., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers,peers: Science learning partners. London: Routledge.
42. Loh, B., Reiser, B. J., Radinsky, J., Edelson, D. C., Gomez, L. M., & Marshall, S. (2001). Developing reflective inquiry practices: A case study of software, the teacher, and students. In K. Crowley, C. Schunn, & T. Okada (Eds.), Designing for science: implications from everyday, classroom, and professional settings (pp. 279-323). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
43. Lynch, M. (1990). The externalized retina: Selection and mathematization in the visual documentation of objects in the life sciences. In M. Lynch and S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp.153-186). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
44. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
45. National Research Council (2006). Learning to think spatially. Washington, DC: National Academies Press
46. New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92.
47. Palincsar, A. S., & A. L. Brown (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition & Instruction, 1(2), 117-175.
48. Radinsky, J. (2000). Making sense of complex data : A framework for studying students' development of reflective inquiry dispositions. Learning Sciences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston IL: 349.
49. Radinsky, J., Alamar, K., Leimberer, J., Rodriguez, C., & Trigueros, J. (2005). Science investigations with GIS: Helping students develop the need to know more. Spectrum: Journal of the Illinois Science Teachers' Association, 31(2), 34-42.
50. Radinsky, J., Goldman, S., & Singer, M. (in press) . Students' sense-making with visual data in small-group argumentation. Paper to be presented at The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS), Utrecht, the Netherlands.
51. Radinsky, J., Leimberer, J. M., & Gomez, L. M. (2000). Reflective inquiry with complex data: A case study of dispositional learning. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Researchers Association (AERA), New Orleans, LA.
52. Richmond, G., & Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in classrooms: Social processes in smallgroup discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 839-858.
53. Saxe, G. B. (2002). Children's developing mathematics in collective practices: A framework for analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(2/3), 275-300.
54. Sfard, A., & McClain, K. (2002). Analyzing tools: Perspectives on the role of designed artifacts in mathematics learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(2/3), 153-161.
55. Singer, M., Radinsky, J. & Goldman, S. (in press). The role of gesture in meaning construction.Discourse Processes.
56. Smagorinsky, P. (2001). If meaning is constructed, what is it made from? Toward a cultural theory of reading. Review of Educational Research,71(1), 133-169.
57. Tabak, I., (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Sciences,13(3), 305-355.
58. Toulmin, S. (1969). The uses of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
59. vanJoolingen, W.R., deJong, T., & Dimitrakopoulou, A. (2007). Issues in computer supported inquiry learning in science. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 111-119.
60. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
61. Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
62. Wertsch, J. V. (2000). Vygotsky's two minds on the nature of meaning. In C. D. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research: Constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry (pp. 19-30). New York: Cambridge University Press.
63. Wertsch, J. V., & Rupert, L. J. (1993). The authority of cultural tools in a sociocultural approach to mediated agency. Cognition & Instruction, 11(3/4), 227-239.
64. White, B., & Frederickson, J. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition & Instruction, 16(1), 3-118.
65. Yin, R. K. (2002). Case Study Research, Design and Methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.