Cooperative inquiry as a community of practice

Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Conference, CSCL

Volumn 2, Issue , 2013, Pages 145-148

  Ryan, Stephanie ^a   Yip, Jason ^b   Stieff, Mike ^a   Druin, Allison ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE; COOPERATIVE INQUIRY; CREATIVE DESIGN; DESIGN PROCESS; IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURES; LEARNING OUTCOME; STUDENT INVOLVEMENTS; TECHNOLOGY-BASED;

CURRICULA;

STUDENTS;

EID: 84886539640     PISSN: 15734552     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (15)

1. Atweh, B. (2003). On PAR with young people: Learnings from the SARUA project. Educational Action Research, 11(1), 23-40.
2. Barnett, J., & Hodson, D. (2001). Pedagogical context knowledge: Toward a fuller understanding of what good science teachers know. Science Education, 85(4), 426-453.
3. Bland, D., & Atweh, B. (2007). Students as researchers: Engaging students' voices in PAR. Educational Action Research, 15(3), 337-349.
4. Cook-Sather, A. (2002). Authorizing students' perspectives: Toward trust, dialogue, and change in education. Educational Researcher, 31(4), 3-14.
5. Druin, A. (2002). The role of children in the design of new technology. Behaviour and Information Technology, 21(1), 1-25.
6. Grundy, S. (1998). Research partnerships: Principles and possibilities. In Bill Atweh, S. Kemmis, & P. Weeks (Eds.), Action research in practice: partnerships for social justice in education (pp. 37-46). Psychology Press.
7. Könings, K. D., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2010). An approach to participatory instructional design in secondary education: An exploratory study. Educational Research, 52(1), 45-59.
8. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
9. Mannion, G. (2007). Going spatial, going relational: Why "listening to children" and children's participation needs reframing. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 28(3), 405-420.
10. Penuel, W. R., and Fishman., B. J., Haugan Cheng, B., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331-337.
11. Squire, K. D., and MaKinster., J. G., Barnett, M., Luehmann, A. L., & Barab, S. L. (2003). Designed curriculum and local culture: Acknowledging the primacy of classroom culture. Science Education, 87(4), 468-489.
12. Stieff, M. (2011). Improving representational competence using molecular simulations embedded in inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1137-1158.
13. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology. In N. Den. & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273-285). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
14. Thomson, P. (2009). Involving children and young people in educational change: Possibilities and challenges. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational change (Vol. 23, pp. 809-824). New York, NY, USA: Springer.
15. Whitehead, J., & Clough, N. (2004). Pupils, the forgotten partners in education action zones. Journal of Education Policy, 19(2), 215-227.