Nurturing students' critical knowledge using technology-enhanced scaffolding strategies in science education

Journal of Science Education and Technology

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 1-12

  Shen, Ji ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Critique; Design; Scaffolding; Science education; Technology enhanced learning

Indexed keywords

EID: 73649098499     PISSN: 10590145     EISSN: 15731839     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10956-009-9183-1     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR (eds) (2001) A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: a revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman, New York.
2. Andriessen J, Baker M, Suthers D (eds) (2003a) Arguing to learn: confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
3. Andriessen J, Erkens G, van de Laak C, Peters N, Coirier P (2003b) Argumentation as negotiation in electronic collaborative writing. In: Andriessen J, Baker M, Suthers D (eds) Arguing to learn: confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 79-115.
4. Bailin S (2002) Critical thinking and science education. Sci Educ 11(4): 361-375.
5. Bloom BS, Krathwohl DR (1956) Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals, by a committee of college and university examiners. Handbook 1: cognitive domain. Longmans, New York.
6. Brown AL, Campione JC (1996) Guided discovery in a community of learners. In: McGilly K (ed) Classroom lessons: integrating cognitive theory and classroom practices. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 3-21.
7. Chang H-Y (2009) Use of critique to enhance learning with an interactive molecular visualization of thermal conductivity. In: Shen J (ed) Critique to learn science. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Garden Grove, CA.
8. Chinn CA, Brewer WF (2001) Models of data: a theory of how people evaluate data. Cogn Instr 19(3): 323-393.
9. Clark DB, Sampson V (2007) Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. Int J Sci Educ 29(3): 253-277.
10. Clark DB, Sampson V (2008) Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. J Res Sci Teach 45(3): 293-321.
11. Clark DB, Slotta JD (2000) Evaluating media-enhancement and source authority on the internet: the knowledge integration environment. Int J Sci Educ 22(8): 859-871.
12. Clark DB, Sampson V, Weinberer A, Erkens G (2007) Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments. Educ Psychol Rev 19: 343-374.
13. Coll R, France B, Taylor I (2005) The role of models and analogies in science education: implications from research. Int J of Sci Educ 27(2): 183-198.
14. Cuthbert A, Hoadley C (1998) Using KIE to help students develop common criteria for house designs. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), San Diego, CA.
15. Cuthbert AF, Slotta JD (2004) Designing a web-based design curriculum for middle school science: the WISE 'houses in the desert' project. Int J Sci Educ 26(7): 821-844.
16. Davis EA (2003) Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: generic and directed prompts. J Learn Sci 12(1): 91-142.
17. Davis EA, Kirkpatrick D (2002) It's all the news: critiquing evidence and claims. Sci Scope 25(5): 32-37.
18. diSessa AA (2002) Students' criteria for representational adequacy. In: Gravemeijer K, Lehrer R, van Oers B, Verschaffel L (eds) Symbolizing, modeling and tool use in mathematics education. Kluwer, Boston, pp 105-129.
19. diSessa AA (2004) Meta-representation: native competence and targets for instruction. Cogn Instr 22(3): 293-331.
20. diSessa AA, Elby A, Hammer D (2002) J's epistemological stance and strategies. In: Sinatra GM, Pintrich PR (eds) Intentional conceptual change. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp 237-290.
21. Driver R, Newton P, Osborne J (2000) Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Sci Educ 84: 287-313.
22. Duschl RA, Osborne J (2002) Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Stud Sci Educ 38: 39-72.
23. Engeström Y (1999) Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In: Engeström Y, Miettinen R, Punamaki R-l (eds) Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 19-38.
24. Enyedy N (2005) Inventing mapping: creating cultural forms to solve collective problems. Cogn Instr 23(4): 427-466.
25. Erduran S, Simon S, Osborne J (2004) TAPing into argumentation: developing in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Sci Educ 88(6): 915-933.
26. Ford MJ (2009) Critique and learning to construct scientific meaning. In: Shen J (ed) Critique to learn science. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Garden Grove, CA.
27. Gilbert JK (ed) (2005) Visualization in science education: models and modeling in science education, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht.
28. Goldstone R, Wilensky U (2008) Promoting transfer by grounding complex systems principles. J Learn Sci 17(4): 465-516.
29. 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. J Res Sci Teach 28: 799-822.
30. Guindon R (1990) Designing the design process: exploiting opportunistic thoughts. Human Comput Interact 2-3(combined issue): 305-344.
31. Guzdial M (1995) Software-realized scaffolding to facilitate programming for science learning. Interact Learn Environ 4: 1-44.
32. Hammer D, Elby A (2003) Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics. J Learn Sci 12(1): 53-90.
33. Hannafin MJ, Land SM (1997) The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced student-centered learning environments. Instr Sci 25: 167-202.
34. Hart C (2008) Models in physics, models for physics learning, and why the distinction may matter in the case of electric circuits. Res Sci Educ 38(5): 529-544.
35. Hartman HJ (2001) Metacognition in learning and instruction: theory, research and practice. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
36. Hattie J, Timperley H (2007) The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res 77(1): 81-112.
37. Izsak A (2004) Students' coordination of knowledge when learning to model physical situations. Cogn Instr 22(1): 81-128.
38. Janssen J, Erkens G, Jaspers J, Kanselaar G (2006) Visualizing participation to facilitate argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Bloomington, IN.
39. Jeong H, Chi MTH (2007) Knowledge convergence during collaborative learning. Instr Sci 35: 287-315.
40. Jungwirth E (1987) Avoidance of logical fallacies: a neglected aspect of science education and science-teacher education. Res Sci Technol Educ 5(1): 43-58.
41. Kali Y, Linn MC, Roseman JE (eds) (2008) Designing coherent science education. Teachers College Press, New York.
42. Kelly GJ, Druker S, Chen C (1998) Students' reasoning about electricity: combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. Int J Sci Educ 20: 849-871.
43. Kirschner PA, Buckingham Shum S, Carr CS (2003) Visualizing argumentation: software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. Springer, London.
44. Kolodner JL, Camp PJ, Crismond D, Fasse B, Gray J, Holbrook J, Puntambekar S, Ryan M (2003) Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: putting learning by design™ into practice. J Learn Sci 12(4): 495-547.
45. Kozma RB, Russell J (1997) Multimedia and understanding: expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. J Res Sci Teach 34: 949-968.
46. Latour B (1990) Drawing things together. In: Lynch M, Woolgar S (eds) Representation in scientific practice. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 19-68.
47. Lave J, Wenger E (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, New York.
48. Lederman NG (1992) Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: a review of the research. J Res Sci Teach 29: 331-359.
49. Lehrer R, Schauble L (2000) Inventing data structures for representational purposes: elementary grade students' classification models. Math Think Learn 2(1& 2): 51-74.
50. Lehrer R, Schauble L (2004) Modeling natural variation through distribution. Am Educ Res J 41(3): 635-679.
51. Lehrer R, Schauble L (2006) Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In: Sawyer RK (ed) The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 371-388.
52. Linn MC, Eylon B-S (2006) Science education: integrating views of learning and instruction. In: Alexander PA, Winne PH (eds) Handbook of educational psychology, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp 511-544.
53. Linn MC, Clement C, Pulos S, Sullivan P (1989) Scientific reasoning in adolescence: the influence of instruction in science knowledge and reasoning strategies. J Res Sci Teach 26(2): 171-187.
54. Linn M, Bell P, Hsi S (1998) Using the Internet to enhance student understanding of science: the knowledge integration environment. Interact Learn Environ 6: 4-38.
55. Linn MC, Davis EA, Bell P (eds) (2004) Internet environments for science education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah NJ.
56. Mathison MA (1996) Writing the critique, a text about a text. Written Commun 13(3): 314-354.
57. Mayer RE (2008) Applying the science of learning: evidence-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction. Am Psychol 63(8): 760-769.
58. Novak JD (1998) Learning, creating, and using knowledge: concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
59. Penner DE (2001) Cognition, computers, and synthetic science: building knowledge and meaning through modeling. Rev Res Educ 25: 1-37.
60. Penner DE, Gilles ND, Lehrer R, Schauble L (1997) Building functional models: designing an elbow. J Res Sci Teach 34(2): 125-143.
61. Perry M (2003) Distributed cognition. In: Carroll JM (ed) HCI Models, theories, and frameworks: toward an interdisciplinary science. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, pp 193-223.
62. Quintana C, Zhang M, Krajcik J (2005) A framework for supporting metacognitive aspects of online inquiry through software-based scaffolding. Educ Psychol 40(4): 235-244.
63. Recker M, Pirolli P (1995) Modeling individual differences in students' learning strategies. J Learn Sci 4: 1-38.
64. Redish EF, Steinberg RN, Saul JM (1998) Student expectations in introductory physics. Am J Phys 66: 212-224.
65. Robberecht R (2007) Interactive nonlinear learning environments. Electron J e-Learn 5(1): 59-68.
66. Schauble L, Glaser R, Duschl R, Schulze S, John J (1995) Students' understanding of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. J Learn Sci 4: 131-166.
67. Schwab JJ (1962) The teaching of science as enquiry. In: Schwab JJ, Brandwein PF (eds) The teaching of science. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 3-103.
68. Schwarz CV, White BY (2005) Metamodeling knowledge: developing students' understanding of scientific modeling. Cogn Instr 23(2): 165-205.
69. Schwendimann B (2009) Critiquing concepts maps for a coherent understanding of biology. In: Shen J (ed) Critique to learn science. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Garden Grove, CA.
70. Shen J, Confrey J (2007) From conceptual change to transformative modeling: a case study of an elementary teacher in learning astronomy. Sci Educ 91(6): 948-966.
71. Shen J, Confrey J (2009) Justifying alternative models in learning the solar system: a case study on K-8 science teachers' understanding of frames of reference. Int J Sci Educ (in press).
72. Spiro R, Jengh J (1990) Cognitive flexibility, random access instruction, and hypertext: theory and technology for non-linear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In: Nix D, Spiro R (eds) Cognition, education, and multimedia: exploring ideas in high technology. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 163-205.
73. Tabak I, Weinstock M, Zviling-Beiser H (2009) Epistemology and learning in the disciplines: cross-domain epistemological views of science versus humanities students. In: Shen J (ed) Critique to learn science. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Garden Grove, CA.
74. Taylor R (2009) The influence of students' epistemic beliefs on their judgments of science explanation quality. In: Shen J (ed) Critique to learn science. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Garden Grove, CA.
75. Thissen-Roe A, Hunt E, Minstrell J (2004) The DIAGNOSER project: combining assessment and learning. Behav Res Methods Instr Comput 36(2): 234-240.
76. Varma K (2009) Critique vs. design as instructional practice for experimentation strategies. In: J Shen (Ed), Critique to learn science. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Garden Grove, CA.
77. Weinberger A, Fischer F (2006) A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Comput Educ 46: 71-95.
78. Wenger E (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press, London.
79. White B (1993) Thinker tools: causal models, conceptual change, and science education. Cogn Instr 10: 1-100.
80. Wieman C, Adams WK, Perkins KK (2008) PhET: simulations that enhance learning. Science 322: 682-683.
81. Xie Q, Tinker R (2006) Molecular dynamics simulations of chemical reactions for use in education. J Chem Educ 83(1): 77-83.