Computer support in (Hi)Story construction: Using technology to scaffold student understanding

Interactive Literacy Education: Facilitating Literacy Environments Through Technology

Volumn , Issue , 2023, Pages 217-244

  Kinzer, Charles K ^a   Wilber, Dana J ^b  

^a Columbia University ^*  (United States)

^b MONTCLAIR STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77957569261     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781003417965-10     Document Type: Chapter

References (42)

1. Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. B. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255-292). New York: Longman.
2. Aronson, E. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. London: Sage.
3. Baumeister, R., & Newman, L. (1994). How stories make sense of personal experiences: Motives that shape autobiographical narratives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 676-690.
4. Birkmire, D. (1985). Text processing: The influence of text structure, background knowledge, and purpose. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 314-326.
5. Bloome, D., & Egan-Robertson, A. (1993). The social construction of intertextu-ality in classroom reading and writing lessons. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 304-333.
6. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school: Expanded edition. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
7. Bransford, J. D., Goin, L., Hasselbring, T. S., Kinzer, C. K., Sherwood, R. D., & Williams, S. (1989). Learning with technology: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Peabody Journal of Education, 64, 5-26.
8. Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (2000). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Educational Research, 24, 61-100.
9. Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717-726.
10. Bransford, J. D., Sherwood, R. D., Hasselbring, T. S., Kinzer, C. K., & Williams, S. (1990). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 115-141). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11. Britt, M. A., Rouet, J. E, & Perfetti, C. A. (1996). Using hypertext to study and reason about historical evidence. In J. F. Rouet, J. J. Levonen, A. P. Dillon, & R. J. Spiro (Eds.), Hypertext and cognition (pp. 43-72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40, 65-80.
13. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). The Jasper project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
14. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (2000). Adventures in anchored instruction: Lessons from beyond the ivory tower. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology: Educational design and cognitive science (pp. 35-100). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15. Deitch, D. (Director). (1999). The Devil's Arithmetic [Motion picture made for television]. United States: Showtime Productions.
16. Hastie, R., & Pennington, N. (1995). Cognitive approaches to judgment and decision making. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 32, pp. 1-31). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
17. Kariuki, M., & Duran, M. (2004). Using anchored instruction to teach preservice teachers to integrate technology into the curriculum. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12, 431-445.
18. Kinzer, C. K., McLarty, K., & Martin, G. (1989, April). Some effects of macrocontexts on vocabulary learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
19. Kinzer, C. K., & Rieth, H. J. (2000). Evaluating the use and implementation of anchored instruction enhance the literacy and social studies learning of mildly disabled students: Year one progress report to the national science foundation. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University.
20. Kinzer, C. & Risko, V. (1998). Multimedia and enhanced learning: Transforming preservice education. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. Labbo, & R. Kieffer, (Eds.), Handbook of technology and literacy: Transformations in apost-typographic world (pp. 185-202). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
21. Kinzer, C. K., & Williams, S. M. (1992, February). The "Young Sherlock" project. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Association of College Teacher Educators, San Antonio, TX.
22. Korenblit, M., & Janger, K. (1995). Until we meet again: A true story of love and survival in the Holocaust. Manfield, MA: Charles River Press.
23. Langer, J. (1984). Examining background knowledge and text comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 468-481.
24. Lee, C., & Tsai, l.-C. (2004). No kidding: Exploring the effects of stories through the window of schema theory. Association for Educational Computing and Technology. Retrieved June 1, 2006, from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=RecordDetails&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED485158&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&objectld=0900000b80249ed9
25. Mandler, J. (1984). Stories, scripts and scenes: Aspects of schema theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
26. McLarty, K., Goodman, J., Risko, V. J., Kinzer, C. K., Vye, N., Rowe, D. W, & Carson, J. (1990). Implementing anchored instruction: Guiding principles for curriculum development. In J. Zutell & S. McCormick (Eds.), Literacy theory and research: Analysis from multiple perspectives (39th NRC Yearbook, pp. 109-120). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
27. McNamara, T. P., Miller, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1991). Mental models and reading comprehension. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Vol. 11 (pp. 490-511). White Plains, NY: Longman.
28. Pichert, J. W, Flannery, M. E., Davis, D. D., & Kinzer, C. K. (1995). Impact of problem-based instruction on knowledge, blood glucose, and self-efficacy in adolescents with IDDM. Diabetes, 44 (Suppl 1), 120A.
29. Pichert, J. W, Smeltzer, C., Snyder, G. M., Gregory, R. P., Smeltzer, R., & Kinzer, C. K. (1994). Traditional vs. anchored instruction for diabetes-related nutritional knowledge, skills, and behavior. The Diabetes Educator, 20(1), 45-48.
30. Pressley, M., Wood, E., Woloshyn, V. E., Martin, V., King, A., & Menke, D. (1992). Encouraging mindful use of prior knowledge: Attempting to construct explanatory answers facilitates learning. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 91-109.
31. Read, S., & Miller, L. (1995). Stories are fundamental to meaning and memory: For social creatures, could it be otherwise? In R. Wyer (Ed.), Advances in social cognition (pp. 139-152). Hillsdale, NJ: Lakiwrence Erlbaum Associates.
32. Rieth, H. J., Bryant, D. P., Kinzer, C. K., Colburn, L., Hur, S., Hartman, P., et al. (2003). An analysis of the impact of anchored instruction on teaching and learning activities in two ninth grade classrooms. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 173-184.
33. Schank, R., & Abelson, R. (1995). Knowledge and memory: The real story. In R. Wyer (Ed.), Advances in social cognition (pp. 1-87). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
34. Schwartz, D. L., Brophy, S., Lin, X., & Bransford, J. D. (1999). Software for managing complex learning: Examples from an educational psychology course. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 47(2), 39-60.
35. Schwartz, D. L., Lin, X., Brophy, S., & Bransford, J. D. (1999). Toward the development of flexibly adaptive instructional designs. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: New paradigms of instructional theory: Vol. 2(pp. 183-213). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
36. Stahl, S. A., Hynd, C. R., Britton, B. K., McNish, M. M., & Bosquet, D. (1996). What happens when students read multiple source documents in history? Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 430-456.
37. Stein, N., & Glenn, C. (1979). An analysis for story comprehension in elementary school. In R. Freedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing (Vol. 2, pp. 53-120). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
38. Story. (2000). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, www.bartleby.com/61/. accessed April 29,2006.
39. Taylor, M. B., & Williams, J. P. (1983). Comprehension of learning-disabled readers: Task and text variations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(5) 743-751.
40. Turner, M. (1998). The literary mind: The origins of thought and language. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
41. Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education. New York: Macmillan.
42. Williams Glaser, C., Rieth, H. J., Kinzer, C. K., Colburn, L. K., & Peter, J. (2000). A description of the impact of multimedia anchored instruction on classroom interactions. Journal of Special Education Technology, 14(2), 27-43.