DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN ENGINEERING

Models and Modeling in Engineering Education: Designing Experiences for All Students

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 271-291

  Lesh, Richard ^a  

^a Indiana University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84857726878     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1163/9789087904043_015     Document Type: Chapter

References (26)

1. Altrichter, H., Posch, P., & Somekh, B. (1993). Teachers investigate their work: An introduction to the methods of action research. New York: Routledge.
2. EAC (Engineering Accreditation Commission) (2004), Criteria for Accrediting Engineering programs 2004-2005. Retrieved October 15, 2004, www.abet.org.
3. ETS (Educational Testing Service) (1995). PACKETS. Princeton, NJ: The Author.
4. Hjalmarson, M., & Lesh, R. (in press). Design research: Engineering, systems, products, and processes for innovation. In L. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5. Hrabowski, F. A., III. (2002/03). Raising minority achievement in science and math. Educational Leadership, 60 (4), 44-48.
6. Kahn, J. (2006, June). Nano’s big future. National Geographic, 98-119.
7. Kaput, J., Lesh, R., & Hegedus, S. (2007). Technology becoming infrastructural in mathematics education. In R. Lesh, E. Hamilton, & J. Kaput (Eds.), Foundations for the future in mathematics education (pp. 173-192). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. Kelly, A., & Lesh, R. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9. Lesh, R. (2006). Modeling students’ modeling abilities: The teaching and learning of complex systems in education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 75(1), 45-52.
10. Lesh, R. (2007). What changes are occurring in the kind of elementary-but-powerful mathematics concepts that provide new foundations for the future? In R. Lesh, E. Hamilton, & J. Kaput (Eds.), Foundations for the future in mathematics education (pp. 155-160). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11. Lesh, R., Byrne, S. K., & White, P. (2003). Technology and distance learning in education: Focusing on complexity, collaboration, and communication rather than transmission of information. In T. Duffy (Ed.), Web based learning environments to support learning at a distance (pp. 261-283). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12. Lesh, R., Crider, J., & Gummer, E. (2001). Emerging possibilities for collaborating doctoral programs. In R. Reys & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), One field, many paths: U.S. doctoral programs in mathematics education (pp. 113-128). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13. Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. M. (Eds.) (2003). Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspective on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates.
14. Lesh, R., Hamilton, E., & Kaput, J. (Eds.). (2007). Foundations for the future in mathematics education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15. Lesh, R., & Kaput, J. (2007). What kind of instructional activities are needed to developme new levels and types of understanding and ability? In R. Lesh, E. Hamilton, & J. Kaput (Eds.), Foundations for the future in mathematics education (pp. 297-300). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16. Lesh, R., & Kelly, E. A. (2000). Multitiered teaching experiments. In E. A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17. Lesh, R., & Lamon, S. (Eds.). (1992). Assessment of authentic performance in school mathematics. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
18. Lesh, R., & Zawojewski, J. S. (2007). Problem solving and modeling. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 763-804). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
19. Doerr, H. M., & English, L. (2003). A modeling perspective on students’ reasoning about data. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(2), 110-136.
20. Woodfield, R. (2000). Women, work and computing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21. Sagor, R. (2000). Guiding school improvement with action research. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
22. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
23. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge of teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
24. Shulman, L. S. (1992). Towards a pedagogy of cases. In J. H. Shulman (Ed.), Case methods in teacher education (pp. 1-30). New York: Teachers College Press.
25. Shulman, L. S. (2006). Just in case: Reflections on learning from experience. In J. A. Colbert, P. Desberg, & K. Trimble (Eds.), The case for education: Contemporary approaches for using case methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
26. Tate, W. F. (1997). Race-ethnicity, SES, gender, and language proficiency trends in mathematics achievement: An update. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 652-697.