Impacts of students' experimentation using a dynamic visualization on their understanding of motion

Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Conference, CSCL

Volumn , Issue PART 2, 2008, Pages 51-58

  McElhaney, Kevin W ^a   Linn, Marcia C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CAR COLLISIONS; CONTENT KNOWLEDGE; DYNAMIC VISUALIZATION; EMBEDDED ASSESSMENT; NEW TECHNOLOGIES; PRIOR KNOWLEDGE; REGRESSION MODEL; STUDENT INTERACTIONS;

EXPERIMENTS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; VISUALIZATION;

STUDENTS;

EID: 84880429913     PISSN: 15734552     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. Buckley, B., Gobert, J. & Horwitz, P. (2006). Using Log Files To Track Students' Model-based Inquiry. In S. A., Barab, K. E Hay & D. T. Hickey (Eds.) Making a difference: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 57-63). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Edelson, D., Gordin, D. & Pea, R. (1999). Addressing the Challenges of Inquiry-Based Learning Through Technology and Curriculum Design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8 (3&4), 391-450.
3. Hegarty, M., Kriz, S., & Cate, C. (2003). The role of mental animations and external animations in understanding mechanical systems. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 325-360.
4. Kali, Y., (2006). Collaborative knowledge-building using the Design Principles Database. International Journal of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 187-201.
5. Klahr, D. & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15(10), 661-667.
6. Lee, H.-S., & Songer, N. B. (2003). Making authentic science accessible to students. International Journal of Science Education, 25(8), 923-948.
7. Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., & Petrosino, A.J. (2001). Reconsidering the role of experiment in science education. In K. Crowley, C. Schunn, & T. Okada (Eds.), Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom, and professional settings (pp. 251-277). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. Linn, M. C., Clement, C., & Pulos, S. (1983). Is it formal if it's not physics? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 755-770.
9. Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (Eds.). (2004). Internet Environments for Science Education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Linn, M.C. & Eylon, B.-S. (2006). Science Education: Integrating Views of Learning and Instruction. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology, 2nd edition (pp. 511-544). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, Teachers, Peers: Science Learning Partners. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. 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.
13. Mandinach, E. B., & Cline, H. F. (1994). Classroom dynamics: Implementing a technology-based learning environment. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
14. Schauble, L. (1996). The development of scientific reasoning in knowledge-rich contexts. Developmental Psychology. 32(1), 102-119.
15. Spitulnik, M. W., Krajcik, J., and Soloway, E. (1999). Construction of models to promote scientific understanding. In Feurzeig, W., and Roberts, N. (Eds.), Modeling and Simulation in Science and Mathematics Education, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 70-94.
16. Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Betrancourt M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57, 247-262.
17. Varma, K., Husic, F., & Linn, M. (in press). Targeted support for using technology-enhanced science inquiry modules. Journal of Science Education and Technology.
18. White, B.Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition & Instruction, 16(1), 3-118.