Beyond transparency: How students make representations meaningful

ICLS 2006 - International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Proceedings

Volumn 1, Issue , 2006, Pages 397-403

  Lee, Victor R ^a   Sherin, Brace ^a  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EXTERNAL REPRESENTATIONS; MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS; SCIENCE EDUCATION;

LIGHT REFLECTION;

STUDENTS;

EID: 84884410501     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (19)

1. diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293-331.
2. diSessa, A. A., Hammer, D., Sherin, B., & Kolpakowski, T. (1991). Inventing graphing: Meta-representational expertise in children. Journal of 'Mathematical Behavior, 10, 117-160.
3. Driver, R. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children's ideas. New York: Routledge.
4. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. InP. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
5. Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J. E. (2002). How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from project 2061's curriculum review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 522-549.
6. Lee, V. R., & Sherin, B. L. (2004). What makes teaching special? In Y. Kafai, W. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. Nixon & F. Herrera (Eds.), Sixth international conference of the learning sciences (pp. 302-309). Santa Monica, CA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7. Lehrer, R., & Schäuble, L. (2004). Modeling natural variation through distribution. American Education Research Journal, 41(3), 635-679.
8. Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. M. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60, 1-64.
9. McDougalLittell. (2005). Waves, sound, and light. Evanston, IL: McDougal Littell.
10. Nemirovsky, R. (1992). On the basic forms of variation. Cambridge, MA: Technical Educational Research Center.
11. Ramadas, J., & Shayer, M. (1993). Schematic representation in optics. InP. J. Black, Lucas, A. M. (Ed.), Children's informal ideas in science (pp. 172-189). London: Routledge.
12. Ronen, M., & Eylon, B. (1993). To see or not to see: The eye in geometrical optics - when and how? Physics Education, 28(1), 52-59.
13. Roschelle, J. (1990). Designing for conversations. Paper presented at the AAAI Symposium on Computer-Based Environments for Learning and Teaching, Stanford, CA.
14. Roschelle, J. (1991). Students construction of qualitative physics knowledge: Learning about velocity and acceleration in a computer microworld. University of California, Berkeley.
15. Sherin, B. (1996). The symbolic basis of physical intuition: A study of two symbol systems in physics instruction. Unpublished dissertation, UC Berkeley.
16. Sherin, B. (2000). How students invent representations of motion: A genetic account. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19(A), 399-441.
17. Sherin, B. (2001a). A comparison of programming and algebraic notation as expressive languages for physics. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6, 1-61.
18. Sherin, B. (2001b). How students understand physics equations. Cognition and Instruction, 19(A), 479-541.
19. Sherin, B., & Lee, V. (2005). On the interpretation of scientific representations, 2005 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Montreal, Canada.