Learning with ecosystem models: A tale of two classrooms

Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Conference, CSCL

Volumn , Issue PART 1, 2008, Pages 289-296

  Gray, Steven ^a   Hmelo Silver, Cindy E ^a   Liu, Lei ^a   Jordan, Rebecca ^a   Jeong, Heisawn ^a   Schwartz, Russell ^a   Finkelstein, Heather ^a   Wolsten, Daniel ^a   Demeter, Marylee ^a   Sinha, Suparna ^a  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLASSROOM CULTURE; COMPUTER MODELS; ECOSYSTEM MODEL; HYPERMEDIA; LEARNING GAIN; MULTIPLE-PATH; PHYSICAL MODEL; TEACHER BELIEFS;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; ECOSYSTEMS; LARGE SCALE SYSTEMS; MODELS; TOOLS;

TEACHING;

EID: 84880435636     PISSN: 15734552     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (27)

1. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141-178.
2. Cole, M. (1999). Cultural psychology: Some general principles and a concrete example. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19-38). New York: Cambridge University Press.
3. Clement, J. (2000). Model based learning as a key research area for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 1041-1053.
4. Crawford, K. (1991) Cultural processes and learning: expectations actions and outcomes. Paper presented to the Cultural Perspectives Subgroup of the Theory Group at ICME 7, Quebec.
5. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grade K-8. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press.
6. Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory & individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (19-38). New York: Cambridge University Press.
7. Feltovich, P. J., Coulson, R. L., & Spiro, R. J. (2001). Learners' (mis)understanding of important and difficult concepts. In K. D. Forbus & P. J. Feltovich (Eds.), Smart machines in education: The coming revolution in educational technology (pp. 349-375). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI/MIT Press.
8. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. & Barrows, H. S. (in press). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cognition and Instruction.
9. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Understanding complex systems: Some core challenges. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 53-61.
10. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Educational Psychologist, 42, 99-107.
11. Sweller, and Clark Jacobson, M. J., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 11-34.(2006).
12. Holbrook, J. & J.L. Kolodner. (2000). Scaffolding the development of an inquiry-based (science) classroom. In B. Fishman & S. O'Connor-Divelbiss (eds.) Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (p. 221-227). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. Jacobson, M. J., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 11-34.
14. Jeong, H., & Songer, N. B. (in press). Understanding scientific evidence and the data collection process: Explorations of why, who, when, what, and how. In F. Columbus (Ed.), Science education: Issues and challenges. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
15. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 39-103.
16. Krajcik, J., P. Blumfield, R. Marx, K. Bass, J. Fredricks, and E. Soloway. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 313:350.
17. Lajoie, S. P., Lavigne, N. C., Guerrera, C., & Munsie, S. D. (2001). Constructing knowledge in the context of Bio World. Instructional Science, 29, 155-186.
18. Lee, H., & Songer, N. B. (2003). Making science accessible to students. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 923-948.
19. Liu, L. (2007). Trajectories of collaborative scientific conceptual change: A classroom study in a CSCL environment. In C. Chinn, G. Erkens, S. Puntambekar (Eds.), Proceedings of Computer-supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference 2007 (CD-ROM), (pp.429-431).
20. Liu, L. Hmelo-Silver, C., & Marathe, S. (2007). RepTools: Representational tools to support learning about complex systems. In Proceedings of the NARST 2007 Annual Meeting (CD-ROM).
21. Leinhardt, G., & Steele, M. D. (2005). Seeing the complexity of standing to the side: Instructional dialogues. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 87-163.
22. Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 345-375.
23. Puntambekar, S., Stylianou, A., & Goldstein, J. (2007). Comparing classroom enactments of an inquiry curriculum: Lessons learned from two teachers. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16, 81-130.
24. Reiser, B., B. Smith, I. Tabak, F. Steinmiller, W. Sandoval, & A. Leone. (2000), BeGuile: Strategies and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. Cognition and Instruction
25. Sabelli, N. (2006). Complexity, technology, science, and education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 5-10.
26. Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., & Ing, M. (2006). Small group reflections: Parallels between teacher discourse and student behavior in peer-directed groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 63-119.
27. Wilensky, U. & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep or firefly: Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories - an embodied modeling approach. Cognition and Instruction, 24, 171-209.