Technology supports for science learning

International Encyclopedia of Education

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 197-203

  Delgado, C ^a   Krajcik, J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

Computers; Constructivism; Inquiry; Internet; Learning environments; Learning technology; Probeware; Science learning; Simulations; Technology; Web 2.0

Indexed keywords

EID: 84884422704     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.00729-6     Document Type: Chapter

References (45)

1. Ainsworth S. The educational value of multiple-representations when learning complex scientific concepts. Visualization: Theory and Practice in Science Education 2008, 191-208. Springer, Dordrecht. J.K. Gilbert, M. Reiner, M. Nakhleh (Eds.).
2. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School 1999, National Academy Press, Washington, DC. J. Bransford, A. Brown, R. Cocking (Eds.).
3. Davis E.A., Smithey J., Petish D. Designing an online learning environment for new elementary science teachers: Supports for learning to teach. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, ICLS 2004 2004, 594. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. Y.B. Kafai, W.A. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A.S. Nixon, F. Herrera (Eds.).
4. Edelson D., Gordin D., Pea R. Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences 1999, 8(3/4):391-450.
5. Jackson S., Krajcik J.S., Soloway E. Model-It: A design retrospective. Innovations in Science and Mathematics Education: Advanced Designs for the Technologies of Learning 2000, 77-116. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. M. Jacobson, R. Kozma (Eds.).
6. Jones M.G., Andre T., Superfine R., Taylor R. Learning at the nanoscale: The impact of students' use of remote microscopy on concepts of viruses, scale, and microscopy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2003, 40(3):303-322.
7. Judson E., Sawada D. Learning from past and present: Electronic response systems in college lecture halls. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching 2002, 21(2):167-181.
8. Kuhn T.S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions 1962, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
9. Latour B., Woolgar S. An anthropologist visits the laboratory. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts 1986, 43-90. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. B. Latour, S. Woolgar (Eds.).
10. Mayer R. Multimedia Learning 2001, Cambridge University Press, New York.
11. Michalchik V., Rosenquist A., Kozma R., Kreikemeier P., Schank P. Representational resources for constructing shared understandings in the high school chemistry classroom. Visualization: Theory and Practice in Science Education 2008, 233-282. Springer, Dordrecht. J.K. Gilbert, M. Reiner, M. Nakhleh (Eds.).
12. Nakhleh M.B., Postek B. Learning chemistry using multiple external representations. Visualization: Theory and Practice in Science Education 2008, 209-231. Springer, Dordrecht. J.K. Gilbert, M. Reiner, M. Nakhleh (Eds.).
13. Panel on Educational Technology. Report to the President on the Use of Technology to Strengthen K-12 Education in the United States 1997, President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Washington, DC. D.E. Shaw (Ed.).
14. Quintana C., Zhang M., Krajcik J.S. A framework for supporting metacognitive aspects of online inquiry through software-based scaffolding. Educational Psychologist 2005, 40(4):235-244.
15. Reiser B. Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences 2004, 13(3):273-304.
16. Resnick M. Turtles, Termites, and Traffic Jams: Explorations in Massively Parallel Microworlds 1994, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
17. Roschelle J., Kaput J., Stroup W. SimCalc: Accelerating students' engagement with the mathematics of change. Innovations in Science and Mathematics Education: Advanced Designs for the Technologies of Learning 2000, 47-75. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. M.J. Jacobson, R.B. Kozma (Eds.).
18. Rubin A. Educational technology: Support for inquiry-based learning. Technology Infusion and School Change: Perspectives and Practices. Model Schools Partnership Research Monograph 1996, TERC, Cambridge, MA. http://rapb.mspnet.org/index.cfm/8353, K. Fulton, A. Feldman, J.D. Wasser (Eds.).
19. America's Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science 2006, National Academies Press, Washington, DC. R.S. Singer, M.L. Hilton, H.A. Schweingruber (Eds.).
20. Songer N.B. Exploring learning opportunities in coordinated network-enhanced classrooms: A case of kids as global scientists. Journal of the Learning Sciences 1996, 5(4):297-327.
21. Songer N.B. BioKIDS: An animated conversation on the development of curricular activity structures for inquiry science. Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences 2006, 355-369. Cambridge University Press, New York. R.K. Sawyer (Ed.).
22. Steinkuehler C., Duncan S. Scientific habits of mind in virtual worlds. Journal of Science Education and Technology 2008, 17(6):530-543.
23. Williams M., Linn M.C. WISE inquiry in fifth grade biology. Research in Science Education 2002, 32(4):415-436.
24. Wright S.P., Horn S.P., Sanders W.L. Teacher and classroom context effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 1997, 11(1):57-67.
25. Blumenfeld P., Fishman B., Krajcik J.S., Marx R.W., Soloway E. Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: Scaling up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist 2000, 35(3):149-164.
26. Corley A.-M. A cell-phone microscope for disease detection. Technology Review 2009, Retrieved from. http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/23059/.
27. Fagen A.P., Crouch C.H., Mazur E. Peer instruction: Results from a range of classrooms. Physics Teacher 2002, 40(4):206-209. (personal response systems).
28. Finarelli M.G. GLOBE: A worldwide environmental science and education partnership. Journal of Science Education and Technology 1998, 7(1):77-84.
29. Krajcik J.S., Blumenfeld P. Project-based learning. The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences 2006, 317-334. Cambridge University Press, New York. R.K. Sawyer (Ed.).
30. Internet Environments for Science Education 2004, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. M.C. Linn, E.A. Davis, P. Bell (Eds.).
31. Fostering learning in the networked world: The cyberlearning opportunity and challenge NSF Task Force on Cyberlearning (Borgman, C. L., chair), (accessed August 2009). http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2008/nsf08204/nsf08204.pdf.
32. Quintana C., Reiser B.J., Davis E.A., et al. A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences 2004, 13(3):337-386.
33. Rieber L.P. Multimedia learning in games, simulations, and microworlds. The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning 2005, 549-567. Cambridge University Press, New York. R. Mayer (Ed.).
34. Roschelle J.M., Pea R.D., Hoadley C.M., Gordin D.N., Means B.M. Changing how and what children learn in school with computer-based technologies. The Future of Children 2000, 10(2):76-101.
35. - BioKIDS. http://www.biokids.umich.edu.
36. - BioLogica. http://biologica.concord.org.
37. - CASES. http://cases.soe.umich.edu.
38. - Chemistry simulations. http://www.chem.uci.edu/undergrad/applets/.
39. - Geology (Plate tectonics). http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/tectonics.html.
40. - Molecular Workbench. http://mw.concord.org.
41. - Project FeederWatch. http://www.birds.cornell.edu/pfw/.
42. - Project GLOBE. http://www.globe.gov.
43. - Virtual frog dissection. http://froggy.lbl.gov.
44. - WISE: Web-based Inquiry Science Environment. http://wise.berkeley.edu.
45. - WorldWatcher. http://www.geode.northwestern.edu.