Learning by creating and exchanging objects: The SCY experience

British Journal of Educational Technology

Volumn 41, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 909-921

  De Jong, Ton ^a   Van Joolingen, Wouter R ^a   Giemza, Adam ^d   Girault, Isabelle ^f   Hoppe, Ulrich ^d   Kindermann, Jörg ^g   Kluge, Anders ⁱ   Lazonder, Ard W ^a   Vold, Vibeke ^b   Weinberger, Armin ^a   Weinbrenner, Stefan ^d   Wichmann, Astrid ^d   Anjewierden, Anjo ^a   Bodin, Marjolaine ^f   Bollen, Lars ^a   D'Ham, Cédric ^f   Dolonen, Jan ⁱ   Engler, Jan ^d   Geraedts, Caspar ^e   Grosskreutz, Henrik ^g   Hovardas, Tasos ^c   Julien, Rachel ^f   Lechner, Judith ^k   Ludvigsen, Sten ⁱ   Matteman, Yuri ^e   Meistadt, Øyvind ^e   Næss, Bjørge ^b   Ney, Muriel ^f   Pedaste, Margus ^j   Perritano, Anthony ⁱ   Rinket, Marieke ^k   Von Schlanbusch, Henrik ^e   Sarapuu, Tago ^j   Schulz, Florian ^g   Sikken, Jakob ^a   Slotta, Jim ^h   Toussaint, Jeremy ⁱ   Verkade, Alex ^e   Wajeman, Claire ^f   Wasson, Barbara ^b   Zacharia, Zacharias C ^c   Van Der Zanden, Martine ^k   more..

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN   (Norway)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CYPRUS   (Cyprus)

^d UNIVERSITY OF DUISBURG ESSEN   (Germany)

^e ENOVATE ^*  (Norway)

^f UNIV GRENOBLE ALPES   (France)

^g FRAUNHOFER IAIS   (Germany)

^h UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^j UNIVERSITY OF TARTU   (Estonia)

^k Stichting Technasium   (Norway)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADVICE TO STUDENTS; LEARNING ACTIVITY; LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS; LEARNING OBJECTS; LEARNING PROCESS; LEARNING SITUATION; MULTIPLE RESOURCES; PEDAGOGICAL APPROACH; PRODUCTIVE PROCESS; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY;

SCAFFOLDS; TEACHING;

STUDENTS;

EID: 78349260046     PISSN: 00071013     EISSN: 14678535     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01121.x     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Anderson, L. W., &, Kraftwohl, D. R., (Eds) (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
2. Black, P., &, Wiliam, D., (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, and Practice, 5, 7-74.
3. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., &, Cocking, R. R., (Eds) (1999). How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.
4. Crismond, D., (2001). Learning and using science ideas when doing investigate-and-redesign tasks: a study of naive, novice, and expert designers doing constrained and scaffolded design work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 791-820.
5. Etkina, E., Karelina, A., Ruibal-Villasenor, M., Rosengrant, D., Jordan, R., &, Hmelo-Silver, C. E., (2010). Design and reflection help students develop scientific abilities: learning in introductory physics laboratories. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 54-98.
6. Eysink, T. H. S., De Jong, T., Berthold, K., Kollöffel, B., Opfermann, M., &, Wouters, P., (2009). Learner performance in multimedia learning arrangements: an analysis across instructional approaches. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 1107-1149.
7. Gijlers, H., &, De Jong, T., (2009). Sharing and confronting propositions in collaborative inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 27, 239-268.
8. Hestenes, D., (1987). Towards a modeling theory of physics instruction. American Journal of Physics, 55, 440-454.
9. Hickey, D. T., Kindfield, A. C. H., Horwitz, P., &, Christie, M. A., (2003). Integrating curriculum, instruction, assessment, and evaluation in a technology-supported genetics environment. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 495-538.
10. Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D. L., &, Kolodner, J. L., (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 247-298.
11. Hoppe, H. U., Pinkwart, N., Oelinger, M., Zeini, S., Verdejo, F., Barros, B., etal. (2005). Building bridges within learning communities through ontologies and 'thematic objects'. In Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning. (pp. 211-220). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12. Jonassen, D. H., (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39, 5-14.
13. De Jong, T., (2006). Computer simulations-technological advances in inquiry learning. Science, 312, 532-533.
14. Kafai, Y. B., &, Resnick, M., (Eds) (1996). Constructionism in practice: designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. Mawhaw, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15. Lee, M. J. W., McLoughlin, C., &, Chan, A., (2008). Talk the talk: learner-generated podcasts as catalysts for knowledge creation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 501-521.
16. Linn, M. C., Lee, H.-S., Tinker, R., Husic, F., &, Chiu, J. L., (2006). Teaching and assessing knowledge integration in science. Science, 313, 1049-1050.
17. Lou, Y., (2004). Understanding process and affective factors in small group versus individual learning with technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31, 337-369.
18. Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., &, D'Apollonia, S., (2001). Small group and individual learning with technology: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71, 449-521.
19. Mason, R., Pegler, C., &, Weller, M., (2004). E-portfolios: an assessment tool for online courses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35, 717-727.
20. Mayer, R. E., (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory into Practice, 41, 226-232.
21. Mayer, R. E., &, Fay, A. L., (1987). A chain of cognitive changes with learning to program in logo. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 269-279.
22. Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., &, Century, J., (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction-what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 474-496.
23. Novak, J. D., (1990). Concept mapping: a useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 937-949.
24. Pata, K., &, Sarapuu, T., (2006). A comparison of reasoning processes in a collaborative modelling environment: learning about genetics problems using virtual chat. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1341-1368.
25. Shute, V. J., (2007). Tensions, trends, tools, and technologies: time for an educational sea change. In, C. A. Dwyer, (Ed.), The future of assessment: shaping teaching and learning (pp. 139-187). New York: Taylor & Francis.
26. Shute, V. J., (2009). Simply assessment. International Journal of Learning and Media, 1, 1-11.
27. Vreman-de Olde, C., &, De Jong, T., (2006). Scaffolding the design of assignments for a computer simulation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 63-74.
28. Weinberger, A., Dolonen, J., Hovardas, A., Pedaste, M., Kluge, A., Ludvigsen, S., etal. (2009). SCY scenario handbook and pedagogical plans, version 1. Enschede: University of Twente.
29. Wichmann, A., Engler, J., &, Hoppe, H. U., (2010). Sharing educational scenario designs in practitioner communities. Paper presented at the ICLS, Chicago (USA).