Social barriers to meaningful engagement in biology field trip group work

Science Education

Volumn 93, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 511-534

  Anderson, David ^a   Thomas, Gregory P ^b   Nashon, Samson M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 68049099123     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.20304     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Anderson, D., & Nashon, S. (2007). Predators of knowledge construction: Interpreting students' metacognition in an amusement park physics program. Science Education, 91(2), 298-320.
2. Anderson, D., Nashon, S., & Thomas,G. P. (In press). Evolution of research methods for probing and understanding metacognition. Research in Science Education.
3. Baird, J. R. (1986). Improving learning through enhanced metacognition: A classroom study. European Journal of Science Education, 8(3), 263-282.
4. Baird, J. R., & White, R. T. (1996). Metacognitive strategies in the classroom. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 190-200). New York: Teacher College Press.
5. Baskin, C. (2001). The Titanic, Volkswagen and collaborative group work: Remaking old favourites with new technologies. Australian Journal of Educational Technologies, 17(3), 265-278.
6. Bianchini, J. A. (1997).Where knowledge construction, Equity, and context intersect: Student learning of science in small groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(10), 1039-1065.
7. Billett, S. R. (1996). Situated learning: Bridging sociocultural and cognitive theorising. Learning and Instruction, 6(3), 263-280.
8. Brewer, M. B., & Brown, R. J. (1998). Intergroup relations. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindsey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 554-549). New York: McGraw-Hill.
9. Brewer, M. B., & Hewstone, M. (Eds.). (2004). Social cognition. Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishing.
10. Burnett, J. R. (1995). Small group interaction among senior science students during field instruction at a marine park. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
11. Claxton, G. (1993). Minitheories: A preliminary model for learning science. In P. J. Black & A. M. Lucas (Eds.), Children's informal ideas in science (pp. 45-61). London: Routledge.
12. Cotterell, J. (1996). Social networks and social influences in adolescence. London: Routledge.
13. Davis, B. G. (1993). Tools for teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
14. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J. Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.
15. Duschl, R. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teachers College Press.
16. Falk, I. (1997). Collaborative learning: Co-constructed meaning mediated by language. Critical Forum, 5(1 & 2), 52-70.
17. Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231-235), Hillsdale, NJ: Wiley.
18. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.
19. Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculation about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 21-29). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. Gallagher, J. J., & Tobin, K. G. (1991). Reporting interpretive research. In J. Gallagher (Ed.), NARST monograph, No. 4 (pp. 85-95). Reston, VA: NARST.
21. Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 7(1), 22-30.
22. Gunstone, R. F. (1994). The importance of specific science content in the enhancement of metacognition. In P. Fensham, R. F. Gunstone, & R. T. White (Eds.), The content of science: A constructivist approach to its teaching and learning (pp. 131-146). Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
23. Hays, R. B. (1988). Friendship. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 391-408). Chichester, England: Wiley.
24. Hartup,W. (1983). Peer relations. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 103-196). New York: Wiley.
25. Heaven, P. C. L. (2001). The social psychology of adolescence. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave.
26. Hogan, C. (1999). Semi-autonomous study groups. International Journal of Educational Management, 13(1), 31-44.
27. Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. Florence, KY: Taylor & Frances/Routledge.
28. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. (2000). "Doing the lesson"rdquo; or "doing science"rdquo;: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792.
29. Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D.W. (1986). Action research: Cooperative learning in the science classroom. Science and Children, 24, 31-32.
30. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Holubec (1998). Cooperation in the classroom (7th ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
31. Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., & O'Loughlin, M. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
32. Larkin, S. (2006). Collaborative group work and individual development of metacognition in the early years. Research in Science Education, 44(2), 1-6.
33. Lensmire, T. J. (1998). Rewriting student voice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 30(3), 261-291.
34. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
35. Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.
36. Pedretti, E. (1997). Septic tank crisis: A case study of science, technology and society education in an elementary school. International Journal of Science Education, 19(10), 1211-1230.
37. Rickinson, M., Dillon, J., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M. Y., Sanders, D., et al., P. (2004, March). A review of research on outdoor learning. Shrewsbury, England: National Foundation for Educational Research and King's College London.
38. Roth, W.-M. (1998). Designing communities. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
39. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40. Taylor, P.,&Collier, B. (1999). Group work for flexible learning. Brisbane: Griffith Institute for Higher Education, Griffith University.
41. Thomas, G. P. (1999). Student restraints to reform: Conceptual change issues in enhancing students' learning processes. Research in Science Education, 29(1), 89-109.
42. Thomas, G. P., & McRobbie, C. J. (2001). Using a metaphor for learning to improve students' metacognition in the chemistry classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 222-259.
43. Tindale, R. S., Meisenhelder, H.M., Dykema-Emgblade, A. A., & Hogg, M. A. (2004). Shared cognition in small groups. In M. Brewer & M. Houstone (Eds.), Social cognition (pp. 268-297). Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishing.
44. Yürük, N. (2005). An analysis of the nature of students' metaconceptual processes and the effectiveness of metaconceptual teaching practices on students' conceptual understanding of forces and motion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus.
45. Yürük, N. (2007). A case study of one student's metaconceptual processes and the changes in her alternative conceptions of forces and motion. Eurasian Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 3(4), 305-325.