"Virtual inquiry" in the science classroom: What is the role of technological pedagogial content knowledge?

International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education

Volumn 5, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 78-87

  Toth, Eva Erdosne ^a  

^a WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Inquiry learning; Science education; Technological pedagogical content knowledge; Technology for teaching and learning

Indexed keywords

EID: 70350060005     PISSN: 15501876     EISSN: 15501337     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4018/jicte.2009041008     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Abell, S., Magnusson, S., Schmidt, J., & Smith, D. C. (1996). Building a pedagogical content knowledge base for elementary science teacher education. Symposium for the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.
2. Ainsworth, S. (2008). How do animations influence learning? In Robinson & Schraw (Eds.), Current Perspectives on Cognition, Learning and Instruction: Recent Innovations in Educational Technology that Facilitate Student Learning (pp. 37-67).
3. Azevedo, R., & Jacobson, M. (2008). Advances in scaffolding learning with hypertext and hypermedia: a summary and critical analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 93-100. doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9064-3
4. Barron, B. (2003). When Smart Groups Fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307-359. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1203-1
5. Bell, R., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005, October). Simplifying Inquiry Instruction. The Science Teacher.
6. Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Children's acquisition of the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70(5), 1098-1120. PubMeddoi:10.1111/1467-8624.00081
7. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: Howe students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 145-182.
8. Chinn, C., & Malhotra, B. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175-218. doi:10.1002/sce.10001 (Pubitemid 37230332)
9. Fay, A. L., & Klahr, D. (1996). Knowing about guessing and guessing about knowing: Preschoolers' understanding of indeterminacy. Child Development, 67, 689-716. PubMeddoi:10.2307/1131841 http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record- id=9596&page=R1
10. Jeong, H., & Chi, M. T. H. (2007). Knowledge convergence during collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 35, 287-315. doi:10.1007/s11251- 006-9008-z
11. Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, M. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers & Education, 49(3) 740-762. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.012
12. Kozlowski, B. (1996). Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x (Pubitemid 43824310)
14. National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Retrieved January 1, 2008, from
15. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
16. Ormrod, J. E. (2008). Educational Psychology: Developing Learners (6th ed.). Prentice Hall.
17. Pea, R. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423-451. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1303-6
18. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Golan-Duncan, R., et al. (2004). A Scaffolding Design Framework for Software to Support Science Inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337-386. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1303-4 (Pubitemid 39057719)
19. Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding Complex Learning: The Mechanisms of Structuring and Problematizing Student Work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273-304. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1303-2
20. Renkl, A. (1997). Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences. Cognitive Science, 21(1), 1-29. (Pubitemid 127165906)
21. Rezba, R. J., Auldridge, T., & Rhea, L. (1999). Teaching and learning basic science skills. Retrieved January 2, 2008, from www.doe.virginia.gov/ VDOE/Instruction/TLBSSGuide.doc
22. Roth, W. M. (1995). Authentic School Science: Knowing and Learning in Open-Inquiry Science Laboratories. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
23. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 76-95). London: John Wiley & Sons.
24. Scardamalia, M. (2004). CSILE/Knowledge Forum. Education and Technology: An encyclopeida (pp. 183-192). Santa Barbara:ABC-CLIO.
25. Schauble, L. (1996). The development of scientific reasoning in knowledge rich contexts. Developmental Psychology, 32, 102-109. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.32. 1.102
26. Shulman, L. S., & Grossman, P. (1988). The Intern Teacher Casebook. San Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development.
27. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge of teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
28. Suthers, D. D. (2001). Towards a Systematic Study of Representational Guidance for Collaborative Learning Discourse. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 7(3), 2001.
29. Toth, E. E. (2000). Representational scaffolding during scientific Inquiry: Interpretive and expressive use of inscriptions in classroom learning. Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society, Philadelphia, PA.
30. Toth, E. E. (2008, March). Representational Tools for Teaching Science: Designing a Research-Based Approach. Proceedings of the 2008 National Association of Research on Science Teaching Annual Convention, Baltimore, MD.
31. Toth, E. E., Cianciarulo, F. L., Post, J. C., & Ehrlich, G. D. (2007, April). Supporting Conceptual Change Via Collaborative Inquiry Using Virtual Laboratories in an Introductory College Classroom. Proceedings of the 2007 National Association of Research on Science Teaching Annual Convention, New Orleans.
32. Toth, E. E., Klahr, D., & Chen, Z. (2000). Bridging research and practice: A cognitively-based classroom intervention for teaching experimentation skills to elementary school children. Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 423-459. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI1804-1
33. Toth, E. E., Post, J. C., & Ehrlich, G. D. (2006, March). Supporting Inquiry with Representational Tools: How inner city students learn to design scientific experiments to isolate DNA. Proceedings of the 2006 National Association of Research on Science Teaching Annual Convention, San Francisco.
34. Toth, E. E., Suthers, D. D., & Lesgold, A. (2002). Mapping to know: The effects of representational guidance and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry skills. Science Education, 86(2), 264-286. doi:10.1002/sce.10004
35. Vandersee, H. J. (1990). Concept mapping and the cartography of cognition. (10), 923-936.