Life in the Hive: Supporting Inquiry into Complexity Within the Zone of Proximal Development

Journal of Science Education and Technology

Volumn 20, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 454-467

  Danish, Joshua A ^a   Peppler, Kylie ^a   Phelps, David ^a   Washington, DiAnna ^a  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Complex systems; Inquiry; Science education; Zone of proximal development

Indexed keywords

EID: 80053308277     PISSN: 10590145     EISSN: 15731839     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10956-011-9313-4     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Chaiklin S (2003) The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky's analysis of learning and instruction. In: Kozulin A, Gindis B, Ageyev VS, Miller SM (eds) Vygotsky's educational theory in cultural context. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
2. Cole M (1996) Cultural psychology: a once and future discipline. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
3. Cole M, Engeström Y (1993) A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In: Salomon G (ed) Distributed cognitions: psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 47-87.
4. Danish JA (2009a) BeeSign: a computationally-mediated intervention to examine K-1 students' representational activities in the context of teaching complex systems concepts. Unpublished Dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles.
5. Danish JA (2009b) BeeSign: a design experiment to teach kindergarten and first grade students about honeybees from a complex systems perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
6. Danish JA (under review) BeeSign: the role of activity in shaping kindergarten and first-grade students' engagement with honeybees collecting nectar as a complex system.
7. Engeström Y (1987) Learning by expanding: an activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Orienta-Konsultit Oy, Helsinki.
8. Engeström Y (1990) Learning, working and imagining: twelve studies in activity theory. Orienta-Konsultit Oy, Helsinki.
9. Engeström Y (1999) Activity theory and individual and social transformation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
10. Erickson F (2006) Definition and analysis of data from videotape: some research procedures and their rationales. In: Green J, Camilli G, Elmore P (eds) Handbook of complementary methods in educational research, 3rd edn. American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
11. Griffin P, Cole M (1984) Current activity for the future: the Zo-ped. New Dir Child Dev 23: 45-64.
12. Hmelo-Silver CE, Azevedo R (2006) Understanding complex systems: some core challenges. J Learn Sci 15(1): 53-62.
13. Hmelo-Silver CE, Pfeffer MG (2004) Comparing expert and novice understanding of a complex system from the perspective of structures, behaviors, and functions. Cogn Sci 28(1): 127-138.
14. Hmelo-Silver CE, Marathe S, Liu L (2007) Fish swim, rocks sit, and lungs breathe: expert-novice understanding of complex systems. J Learn Sci 16(3): 307-331.
15. Jacobson MJ, Wilensky U (2006) Complex systems in education: scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. J Learn Sci 15(1): 11-34.
16. Kaptelinin V, Nardi BA (2006) Acting with technology: activity theory and interaction design. MIT Press, Cambridge.
17. Metz KE (1995) Reassessment of developmental constraints on children's science instruction. Rev Educ Res 65(2): 93-127.
18. Metz KE (1997) On the complex relation between cognitive developmental research and children's science curricula. Rev Educ Res 67(1): 151-163.
19. NRC (1996) National science education standards. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
20. Peppler K, Danish JA, Zaitlen B, Glosson D, Jacobs A, Phelps D (2010). BeeSim: leveraging wearable computers in participatory simulations with young children. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on interaction design and children. ACM, Barcelona, pp 246-249.
21. Resnick M (1996) Beyond the centralized mindset. J Learn Sci 5(1): 1-22.
22. Resnick M (1999) Decentralized modeling and decentralized thinking. In: Feurzeig W, Roberts N (eds) Modeling and simulation in precollege science and mathematics. Springer, New York, pp 114-137.
23. Resnick M, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Epistemology & Learning Research Group (1990) Overcoming the centralized mindset: towards an understanding of emergent phenomena. Epistemology and Learning Group, MIT Media Laboratory, Cambridge, MA.
24. Roth W-M (2007) On mediation: toward a cultural-historical understanding. Theory Psychol 17(5): 655-680.
25. Sabelli NH (2006) Complexity, technology, science, and education. J Learn Sci 15(1): 5-9.
26. Sandoval WA (2004) Developing learning theory by refining conjectures embodied in educational designs. Educ Psychol 39(4): 213-223.
27. Seeley TD (1995) The wisdom of the hive: the social physiology of honey bee colonies. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
28. Vygotsky LS (1978) Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
29. Wertsch JV (1981) The concept of activity in soviet psychology: an introduction. In: Wertsch JV (ed) The concept of activity in soviet psychology. M. E. Sharpe, Armonk, pp 3-36.
30. White B (1993) Thinker tools: causal models, conceptual change, and science education. Cogn Instruc 10(1): 1-100.
31. Wilensky U, Reisman K (2006) Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a firefly: learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories-an embodied modeling approach. Cogn Instruc 24(2): 171-209.
32. Wilensky U, Resnick M (1999) Thinking in levels: a dynamic systems perspective to making sense of the world. J Sci Educ Technol 8(1): 3-19.
33. Wilensky U, Stroup W (2000) Networked gridlock: students enacting complex dynamic phenomena with the HubNet architecture. Paper presented at the fourth annual international conference of the learning sciences, Ann Arbor.
34. Witte SP, Haas C (2005) Research in activity: an analysis of speed bumps as mediational means. Written Commun 22(2): 127-165.