Conceptual representations for transfer: A case study tracing back and looking forward

Frontline Learning Research

Volumn 1, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 3-23

  Sinha, Suparna ^a   Gray, Steven ^b   Hmelo Silver, Cindy E ^a   Jordan, Rebecca ^a   Eberbach, Catherine ^a   Goel, Ashok ^c   Rugaber, Spencer ^c  

^a The State University of New Jersey   (United States)

^b University of Hawaii   (United States)

^c GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Systems thinking; Teacher learning; Technology; Transfer

Indexed keywords

EID: 84920101997     PISSN: None     EISSN: 22953159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.14786/flr.v1i1.14     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Bechtel, W., & Abrahamson, A. (2005). Explanation: A mechanist alternative. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36, 421-441.
2. Bransford, J. D., Vye. N„ Kinzer, C, & Risko, V. (1990). Teaching thinking and content knowledge: Toward an integrated approach. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction: Implications for educational reform. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Bransford, J. D. & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of research in education, 24, 61-100.
4. Bridges, S., Botelho, M., Green, J. L., & Chau, A. C. M. (2012). Multimodality in Problem-Based Learning
5. (PBL): An Interactional Ethnography. In S. Bridges, C. McGrath & T. L. Whitehill (Eds.), Problem-Based Learning in Clinical Education (pp. 99-120). Dordrecht Netherlands: Springer.
6. Castanheira, M. L., Green, J. L., & Yeager, E. (2009). Investigating inclusive practices: An interactional ethnographic approach. In K. Kumpalainen, C. E. Hmelo-Silver & M. César (Eds.), Investigating classroom interaction: Methodologies in action (pp. 145-178). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
7. Cobb, P., & Bowers, J. S. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and practice. Educational Researcher, 28, 4-15.
8. Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 597-604.
9. Feltovich, P. J., Coulson, R. L., & Spiro, R. J. (2001). Learners‘ (mis)understanding of important and
10. 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.
11. Greeno, J.G. (1997). Response: On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational Researcher, 26, 5-17.
12. Goel, A. K., Gomez de Silva Garza, A., Grué, N., Murdock, J. W., Recker, M. M., & Govinderaj, T. (1996). Towards designing learning environments-I: Exploring how devices work. In C. Fraisson, G. Gauthier & A. Lesgold (Eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Lecture notes in computer science. NY: Springer.
13. Grotzer, T.A., & Bell-Basca, B. (2003). How does grasping the underlying causal structures of ecosystems impact students‘ understanding? Journal of Biological Education, 38, 16-28.
14. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Jordan, R., Honwad, S., Eberbach, C., Sinha, S., Goel, A., Rugaber, S., & Joyner, D. (2011). Foregrounding behaviors and functions to promote ecosystem understanding. Proceedings of Hawaii International Conference on Education (pp. 2005-2013). Honolulu HI: HICE.
15. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Marathe, S., & Liu, L. (2007). Fish swim, rocks sit, and lungs breathe: Expert-novice understanding of complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16, 307-331.
16. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Liu, L., & Jordan, R. (2009). Visual Representation of a Multidimensional Coding Scheme for Understanding Technology-Mediated Learning about Complex Natural Systems. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning Environments, 4, 253-280
17. Hogan, K., & Fisherkeller, J. (1996). Representing students‘ thinking about nutrient cycling in ecosystems: Bidimensional coding of a complex topic. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 941– 970.
18. Hogan, K. (2000). Exploring a process view of students' knowledge about the nature of science. Science Education, 84, 51-70.
19. 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.
20. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 39-103.
21. Konkola, R., Tuomi-Grohn, T., Lambert, P., & Ludvigsen, S. (2007). Promoting learning and transfer between school and workplace. Journal of Education and Work, 20, 211-238.
22. Leach, J., Driver, R., Scott, P. & Wood-Robinson, C.: 1996, ‗Children‘s Ideas about Ecology 3: Ideas about the Cycling of Matter found in Children aged 5–16. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 129-142.
23. Liu, L., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2009). Promoting complex systems learning through the use of conceptual representations in hypermedia. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 9, 1023-1040.
24. Lobato, J., Ellis, A. B., & Munoz, R. (2003). How Focusing Phenomena in the Instructional Environment Support Individual Students Generalizations. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5, 1-36.
25. Lobato, J. (2004). Abstraction, situativity, and the ―actor-oriented transfer‖ perspective. In J. Lobato (Chair), Rethinking abstraction and de contextualization in relationship to the ―transfer dilemma.‖ Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the AERA, San Diego, CA.
26. Lobato, J. (2006). Alternative Perspectives on the Transfer of Learning: History, Issues, and Challenges for Future Research. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 431-449.
27. Machamer, P., Darden, D., & Craver, C. F. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 67, 1-25.
28. Moore, J. L., & Schwartz, D. L. (1998). On learning the relationship between quantitative properties and symbolic representations. In Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 209-214). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
29. Moreno, R., (2004). Decreasing Cognitive Load for Novice Students: Effects of Explanatory versus Corrective Feedback in Discovery-Based Multimedia. Instructional Science, 32, 99-113.
30. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC.
31. Okita, S., & Schwartz, D. L. (in press). Learning by teaching human pupils and teachable agents: The importance of recursive feedback Journal of the Learning Sciences.
32. Powell, A. B., Francisco, J., & Maher, C. A. (2003). An analytical model for studying the development of learners' mathematical ideas and reasoning using videotape data. Journal of Mathematical Behaviour,
33. 22, 405-435.
34. Reiner, M., & Eilam, B. (2001). Conceptual classroom environment: A system view of learning. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 551-568.
35. Sabelli, N. (2006). Complexity, technology, science, and education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 5-10.
36. Stake, R. E. (1998). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 86-109). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
37. Tan, J., & Biswas, G., (2006). The Role of Feedback in Preparation for Future Learning: A Case Study in Learning by Teaching Environments. Intelligent Tutoring Systems, 2, 370-381.
38. Van Oers, B. (1998). From Context to Contextualizing. Learning and Instruction, 8, 473-488.
39. Vattam, S., Goel, A., Rugaber, S., Hmelo-Silver, C., Jordan, R., Gray, S., & Sinha, S. (2011) Understanding Complex Natural Systems by Articulating Structure-Behavior-Function Models. Educational Technology & Society, 14, 66-81.
40. Wilensky, U. & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep or firefly: Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories – an embodied modelling approach. Cognition and Instruction, 24, 171-209.
41. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Fourth ed.). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.