Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 22, Issue 8, 2000, Pages 797-817

  Bell, Philip ^a   Linn, Marcia C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 7744229721     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/095006900412284     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. BANNON, L. J. and BØDKER, S. (1991) Beyond the interface: Encountering artifacts in use. In J. M. Carroll (ed.), Designing Interaction: Psychology at the Human-Computer Interface (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 227-252.
2. BELL, P. (1996) Debate as an instructional form in science education. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
3. BELL, P. (1997) Using argument representations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups. In R. Hall, N. Miyake and N. Enyedy (eds) Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL 1997), Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press, 10-19.
4. BELL, P. (1998) Designing for students’ conceptual change in science using argumentation and classroom debate. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
5. BELL, P., DAVIS, E. A. and LINN, M. C. (1995) The knowledge integration environment: Theory and design. In J. L. Schnase and E. L. Cunnius (eds) Proceedings of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Conference (CSCL 1995: Bloomington, IN), Majway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 14-21.
6. BROWN, A. (1992) Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178.
7. BURBULES, N. C. and LINN, M. C. (1991) Science education and the philosophy of science: Congruence or contradiction? International Journal of Science Education, 13(3), 227-241.
8. CAREY, S., EVANS, R., HONDA, M., JAY, E. and UNGER, C. (1989) ‘An experiment is when you try it and see if it works’: A study of grade 7 students’ understanding of the construction of scientific knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 11 (Special Issue), 514-529.
9. CAVALLI-SFORZA, V., WEINER, A. and LESGOLD, A. (1994) Software support for students engaging in scientific activity and scientific controversy. Science Education, 78(6), 577-599.
10. CLARK, H. C. (1996) Design of performance based assessments as contributors to student knowledge integration. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
11. COLLINS, A., BROWN, J. S. and HOLUM, A. (1991).Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator, 15(3), 6-11, 38-39.
12. DAVIS, E. A. (1998). Scaffolding students’ reflection for science learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
13. DISESSA, A. A. (1991) Local sciences: Viewing the design of human-computer systems as cognitive science. In J. M. Carroll (ed.), Designing Interaction: Psychology at the Human-Computer Interface (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 162-202.
14. DRIVER, R., LEACH, J., MILLAR, R. and SCOTT, P. (1996) Young People’s Images of Science (Buckingham: Open University Press).
15. GIPPS, C. and MURPHY, P. (1994) A fair test? Assessment, achievement and equality (Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press).
16. HOADLEY, C. (1999) Scaffolding scientific discussion using socially relevant representations in networked mutimedia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
17. HSI, S. and HOADLEY, C.M. (1997) Productive discussion in science: Gender equity through electronic discourse. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 6(1), 23-36.
18. HYDE, J. S. and LINN, M. C. (1988) Gender differences in verbal ability: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 104(1), 53-69.
19. KOSLOWSKI, B. (1996) Theory and Efficence: The development of scientific reasoning (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
20. KUHN, D. (1993) Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337.
21. LINN, M. C. (1992) The computer as learning partner: Can computer tools teach science? In K. Sheingold, L. G. Roberts and S. M. Malcolm (eds), This Year in School Science 1991: Technology for Teaching and Learning (Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science), 31-69.
22. LINN, M. C. (1995) Designing computer learning environments for engineering and computer science: The scaffolded knowledge integration framework. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4(2), 103-126.
23. LINN, M. C. (1997) Scaffolded knowledge integration and assessment. R. Shavelson and P. Black (chair), paper presented at the Science Education Standards: The Assessment of Science Meets the Science of Assessment, Washington, DC (Board on Testing and Assessment: National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council).
24. LINN, M., BELL, P. and HSI, S. (1998) Using the internet to enhance student understanding of science: The knowledge integration environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 6 (1-2), 4-38.
25. LINN, M. C. and HSI, S. (in press) Computers, Teachers, Peers: Science Learning Partners (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbeum Associates).
26. LINN, M. C. and MUILENBURG, L. (1996) Creating lifelong science learners: What models form a firm foundation? Educational Researcher, 25(5), 18-24.
27. LINN, M. C., SONGER, N. B., LEWIS, E. L. and STERN, J. (1993) Using technology to teach thermodynamics: Achieving integrated understanding. In D. L. Ferguson (ed.), Advanced Educational Technologies for Mathematics and Science (Berlin: Springer- Verlag), vol. 107, 5-60.
28. NOVAK, J. D. and GOWIN, D. B. (1985) Learning How to Learn (New York: Cambridge University Press).
29. REINER, M., PEA, R. D. and SHULMAN, D. J. (1995) Impact of simulator-based instruction on diagramming in geometrical optics by introductory physics students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4(3), 199-226.
30. SONGER, N. B. and LINN, M. C. (1992) How do students’ views of science influence knowledge integration? In M. K. Pearsall (ed.), Scope, Sequence and Coordination of Secondary School Science, Volume II: Relevant Research (Washington, DC: The National Science Teachers Association), 197-219.
31. TOULMIN, S. (1958) The layout of arguments. In S. Toulimin (ed.) The Uses of Argument (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 94-145.
32. VAN DER VALK, T. (1989) Waves or particles?: The cathode ray debate in the classroom. In R. Millar (ed.), Doing Science: Images of Science in Science Education (London: Falmer Press), 160-179.
33. WISNUDEL, M., STRATFORD, S., KRAJCIK, J. and SOLOWAY, E. (1997) Using technology to support students’ artifact construction in science. In K. Tobin and B. Fraser (ed.), International Handbook of Science Education (The Netherlands: Kluwer).