Family engagement at aquarium touch tanks-exploring interactions and the potential for learning

Understanding Interactions at Science Centers and Museums: Approaching Sociocultural Perspectives

Volumn 9789460917257, Issue , 2012, Pages 63-77

  Rowe, Shawn ^a   Kisiel, James ^b  

^a OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84934273814     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-94-6091-725-7_5     Document Type: Chapter

References (19)

1. Allen, S. (2004), Designs for learning: Studying science museum exhibits that do more than entertain. Science Education, 88, S17-S33.
2. Ash, D. (2003). Dialogic Inquiry in Life Science Conversations of Family Groups in a Museum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(2), 138-162.
3. Ash, D., Crain, R., Brandt, C., Loomis, M., Wheaton, M., & Bennett, C. (2008) Talk, tools, and tensions: Observing biological talk over time. International Journal of Science Education. 29(12), 1581-1602.
4. Borun, M., Chambers, M., and Cleghorn, A. (1996). Families are learning in science museums. Curator, 39(2), 123-138..
5. Falk, J.H., Reinhard, E.M., Vernon, C.L., Bronnenkant, K., Heimlich, J.E., & Deans, N.L. (2007). Why zoos and aquariums matter: Assessing the impact of a visit to a zoo or aquarium. Silver Springs, MD: Association of Zoos and Aquariums.
6. Fraser, J. & Sickler, J. (2009). Why aquariums & zoos matter handbook. Silver Spring, Maryland: Association of Zoos & Aquariums.
7. Goldman, R., Pea, R., Barron, B., and Derry, S. (2007). Video research in the learning sciences. London: Routledge.
8. Gutwill, J. P. and Allen, S. (2010). Facilitating family group inquiry at science museum exhibits.Science Education, 94(4), 710-742.
9. Lave J, & Wenger E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
10. Lincoln, Y., and Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
11. Luria, A.R. (1982). Language and cognition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
12. Phipps, M. (2010). Research Trends and Findings From a Decade (1997-2007) of Research on Informal Science Education and Free-Choice Science Learning. In Visitors Studies, 13 (1). 3-22.
13. Rogoff, B., Paradise, R., Mejia Arauz, R., Correa-Chavez, M., & Angelillo, C. (2003). Firsthand learning through intent participation. In Annual Review of Psychology, 54: 175-203.
14. Rowe, S. (2011). Discourse in activity and activity as discourse. In R. Rogers (Ed.), An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education, 2nd edition (pp. 227-241). New York: Routledge.
15. Rowe, S., and Bachman-Kise, J., (in press). Mediated Action as a Framework for Exploring Learning in Informal Settings. In D. Ash, J. Rahm, and L. Melbher (Eds.), Methodologies for informal science learning research.
16. Rowe, S., & Wertsch, J.V. (2002). Vygotskys model of cognitive development. In U. Goshwami (Ed.), Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development (pp. 538-554). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
17. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: Vol. 1. Problems of general psychology. New York: Plenum.
18. Wertsch, J. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19. Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.