Technology-enhanced learning in science

Technology-Enhanced Learning: Principles and Products

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 121-134

  Kyza, Eleni A ^a   Erduran, Sibel ^b   Tiberghien, Andrée ^c  

^a CYPRUS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Cyprus)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITÉ DE LYON   (France)

Author keywords

Inquiry; Learning technologies; Science education

Indexed keywords

EID: 84892305928     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-9827-7_8     Document Type: Chapter

References (72)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Anderson. C. W. (2007). Perspectives on science learning. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 3-30). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3. Annetta, L. A., Cook. M., & Schultz. M. (2007). Video games: A vehicle for problem-based learning. e-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 10 (1).
4. Baumgartner. E. (2004). Synergy research and knowledge integration: Customizing activities around stream ecology. In M. C. Linn. E. A. Davis & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 73-85). Mahwah. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5. Bell. P., & Davis. E. A. (2000). Designing Mildred: Scaffolding students' reflection and argumentation using a cognitive software guide. In B. Fishman & S. O'Connor-Divelbiss (Eds.), Fourth international conference of the learning sciences (pp. 142-149). Mahwah. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6. Bransford, J., Brown. A. L., & Cocking. R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington. DC: National Academy Press.
7. Brown. J. S., Collins. A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18 (1). 32-42.
8. Carey. S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge. MA: The MIT Press.
9. Chinn. C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175-218.
10. Coll. R. K., France. B., & Taylor. I. (2005). The role of models/and analogies in science education: Implications from research. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 183-198.
11. Davis. E. A. (1998). Scaffolding students' reflection for science learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California. Berkeley. CA.
12. Davis. E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 91-142.
13. Design-based Research Collective (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.
14. Dimitracopoulou, A., & Komis, V. (2005). Design principles for the support of modelling and collaboration in a technology-based learning environment. International Journal of Continued Engineering Education and Lifelong Learning, 15, 30-55.
15. Di Sessa, A. (2006). A history of conceptual change research: Threads and fault lines. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 265-282). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
16. Duval, R. (1995). Sémiosis et pensée humaine, registres sémiotiques et apprentissage intellectuels [Semiosis and human thought, semiotic registers and intellectual learning]. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
17. Edelson, D. (1997). Realising authentic science learning through the adaptation of scientific practice. In K. Tobin & B. Fraser (Eds.), International handbook of science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
18. Edelson, D. C., & Russell, E. (2006). MyWorld GIS (Version 4.0) [computer software]. Roseville, CA: Pasco Scientific.
19. Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.). (2008). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
20. Frederiksen, J., & White, B. (1998). Teaching and learning generic modeling and reasoning skills. Journal of Interactive Learning Environments, 5, 33-55.
21. Giere, R. N. (1991). Understanding scientific reasoning. New York: Holt Reinhart and Winston.
22. Gilbert, J. K. (2004). Models and modelling: Routes to more authentic science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Educa tion, 2, 115-130.
23. Halloun, I. A. (2006). Modeling theory in science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
24. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2003). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88, 28-54.
25. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
26. Jackson, S. L., Stratford, S. J., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1994). Making dynamic modeling accessible to precollege science students. Interactive Learning Environments, 4, 233-257.
27. De Jong, T. (2006). Technological advances in inquiry learning. Science, 312, 532-533.
28. Van Joolingen, W. R., & De Jong, T. (1991). Characteristics of simulations for instructional settings. Education and Computing, 6, 241-262.
29. Van Joolingen, W. R., & De Jong, T. (2003). Simquest, authoring educational simulations. In T. Murray, S. Blessing & S. Ainsworth (Eds.), Authoring tools for advanced technology learning environments: Toward cost-effective adaptive, interactive, and intelligent educational software (pp. 1-31). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
30. Van Joolingen, W. R., De Jong, T., & Manlove, S. (2007, April). CIEL: Setting the stage for integrated inquiry learning. Paper presented at the AERA 2007 Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.
31. Van Joolingen, W. R., De Jong, T., Lazonder, A. W., Savelsbergh, E. R., & Manlove, S. (2005). Co-lab: Research and development of an online learning environment for collaborative scientific discovery learning. Computers in Human Behaviour, 21, 675-688.
32. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The stmcture of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
33. Kyza, E. A., & Constantinou, C. P. (2007). STOCHASMOS: A web-basedplatfonn for reflective, inquiry-based teaching and learning, [computer software]. Cyprus: Learning in Science Group.
34. Lajoie, S. P., Lavigne, N. C., Guerrera, C., & Munsie, S. D. (2001). Constructing knowledge in the context of Bioworld. Instructional Science, 29, 155-186.
35. Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2003). Individual and sociocultural perspectives on learning in science education. Science and Education, 12, 91-113.
36. Lee, H. S., & Songer, N. B. (2003). Making authentic science accessible to students. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 923-948.
37. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
38. Linn, M. C. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87, 517-538.
39. Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (2004a). Inquiry and technology. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 3-27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
40. Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (Eds.). (2004b). Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
41. Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Eylon, B. (2004). The scaffolded knowledge integration framework for instruction. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 29-46). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
42. Loh, B. (2003). Using articulation and inscription as catalysts for reflection: Design principles for reflective inquiry. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
43. Loh, B., Radinsky, J., Russell, E., Gomez, L. M., Reiser, B. J., & Edelson, D. C. (1998). The Progress Portfolio: Designing reflective tools for a classroom context. In C. M. Karat & A. Lund (Eds.), Proceedings of CHI 98 (pp. 627-634). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
44. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
45. Nelson, B., Ketelhut, D., Clarke, J., Bowman, C., & Dede, C. (2005). Design-based research strategies for developing a scientific inquiry curriculum in a multi-user virtual environment. Educational Technology, 54(1), 21-28.
46. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2004). Problem solving for tomorrow's world: First measures of cross-curricular competencies from Pisa 2003. Paris: OECD Publications.
47. Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. A report to the Nuffield Foundation. London: The Nuffield Foundation.
48. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzhog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227.
49. Quintana, C., Eng, J., Carra, A., Wu, H., & Soloway, E. (1999). SYMPHONY: A case study in extending learner-centered design through process-space analysis. In M. G. Williams, M. W. Altom, K. Ehrlich, W. Newman & S. Pemberton (Eds.), Proceedings of CHI 99 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 473-480). New York: ACM Press (Addison-Wesley).
50. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 337-386.
51. Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B. K., Steinmuller, F., & Leone, A. J. (2001). BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 263-305). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
52. Richmond, B., & Peterson, S. (1990). STELLA II. Hanover, NH: High Performance Systems, Inc.
53. Rogoff, B., Matusov, E., & White, C. (1996). Models of teaching and learning: Participation in a community of learners. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), The handbook of education and human development (pp. 388-414). London: Blackwell.
54. Sandoval, W. A. (1998). Explanation Constmctor [computer software]. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
55. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In T. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, (pp. 97-117). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
56. Schwarz, C. V., & White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students' understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 165-205.
57. Scott, P., Asoko, H., & Leach, J. (2007). Student conceptions and conceptual learning in science. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 31-56). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
58. Sensevy, G., Tiberghien, A., Santini, J., Laube, S., & Griggs, P. (2008). An epistemological approach to modeling: Cases studies and implications for science teaching. Science Education, 92, 424-446.
59. Siegel, H. (1995). Why should educators care about argumentation? Infonnal Logic, 17 (2). 159-176.
60. Sjøberg, S., & Schreiner, C. (2006). How do learners in different cultures relate to science and technology? Results and perspectives from the project Rose (the relevance of science education). Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 6, 1-17.
61. Slotta, J. D. (2005, January). A Scalable Architecture for Interactive Learning (SAIL): Poster presentation of the next generation TELS technology platfonn. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Winter Conference on Discourse, Text and Cognition, Jackson Hole, WY.
62. Smith, D. C., & Cypher, A. (1999). Making programming easier for children. In A. Druin (Ed.), Design of children's technology (pp. 202-221). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
63. Songer, N. B. (1996). Exploring learning opportunities in coordinated network-enhanced classrooms: A case of kids as global scientists. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5, 291-327.
64. Songer, N. B. (2007). Digital resources versus cognitive tools: A discussion of learning science with technology. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 471-491). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
65. Suthers, D. D. (2003). Representational guidance for collaborative learning. In H. U. Hoppe, F. Verdejo & J. Kay (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education (pp. 3-10). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
66. Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 305-355.
67. Tiberghien, A., Gaidioz, P., & Vince, J. (2007, January). Design of teaching sequences in physics at upper secondary school infonned by research results on teaching and learning: Case of a sequence on mechanics. Paper presented at the 15th Annual Conference of the Southern African Association for Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education (SAARMSTE), Eduardo Mondlane University, Maputo, Mozambique.
68. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
69. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
70. Wilensky, U. (1999). Netlogo [computer software]. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University, Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling.
71. Wilensky, U. (2001, August). Modeling nature's emergent patterns with multi-agent languages. Paper presented at EuroLogo 2001, Linz, Austria.
72. Zacharia, Z. C. (2007). Comparing and combining real and virtual experimentation: An effort to enhance students' conceptual understanding of electric circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 120-132.