Microgenetic methods

The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, Second Edition

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 171-190

  Chinn, Clark A ^a   Sherin, Bruce L ^b  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84954167213     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139519526.012     Document Type: Chapter

References (36)

1. Bakeman, R., Adamson, L. B., & Strisik, P. (1989). Lags and logs: Statistical approaches to interaction. In Marc H. Bornstein & Jerome S. Bruner (Eds.), Interaction in human development: Crosscurrents in contemporary psychology (pp. 241-260). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
2. Broaders, S. C., Cook, S. W., Mitchell, Z., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2007). Making children gesture brings out implicit knowledge and leads to learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 539-550.
3. Buckland, L. A., Chinn, C. A., & Duncan, R. G. (2010, May). Epistemic growth in model-based argumentation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.
4. Catan, L. (1986). The dynamic display of process: Historical development and contemporary uses of the microgenetic method. Human Development, 29, 252-263.
5. Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 271-315.
6. Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.
7. Chinn, C. A. (2006). The microgenetic method: Current work and extensions to classroom research. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 439-456). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
8. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1-49.
9. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10. Crowley, K., Shrager, J., & Siegler, R. S. (1997). Strategy discovery as a competitive negotiation between metacognitive and associative mechanisms. Developmental Review, 17, 462-489.
11. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Revised Edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12. Goldin-Meadow, S., Alibali, M. W, & Church, R. B. (1993). Transitions in concept acquisition: Using the hand to read the mind. Psychological Review, 100, 279-297.
13. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42, 99-107.
14. Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Miller, B. W., Kim, I.-H., Kuo, L.-J., & Wu, X. (2011). Influence of a teacher’s scaffolding moves during child-led small-group discussions. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 194-230.
15. Kuhn, D. (1995). Microgenetic study of change: What has it told us? Psychological Science, 6, 133-139.
16. Kuhn, D., & Phelps, E. (1979). A methodology for observing development of a formal reasoning strategy. New Directions for Child Development, 5, 45-57.
17. Kuhn, D., & Phelps, E. (1982). The development of problem-solving strategies. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 17, 1-44.
18. Kuhn, D., Schauble, L., & Garcia-Mila, M. (1992). Cross-domain development of scientific reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 9, 285-327.
19. Lavelli, M., Pantoja, A. P. F., Hsu, H.-C., Messinger, D. S., & Fogel, A. (2005). Using microgenetic designs to study change processes. In D. M. Teti (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in developmental science (pp. 40-65). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
20. Lin, X., & Lehman, J. D. (1999). Supporting learning of variable control in a computer-based biology environment: Effects of prompting college students to reflect on their own thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 837-858.
21. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59, 14-19.
22. Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. London: Routledge.
23. Mercer, N. (2013). The social brain, language and goal-directed collective thinking: A social conception of cognition and its implications for understanding how we think, teach, and learn. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 148-168.
24. Parnafes, O. (2012). Developing explanations and developing understanding: Students explain the phases of the moon using visual representations. Cognition and Instruction, 30, 359-403.
25. Rittle-Johnson, B., & Alibali, M. W. (1999). Conceptual and procedural knowledge of mathematics: Does one lead to the other? Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 175-189.
26. Schauble, L. (1996). The development of scientific reasoning in knowledge-rich contexts. Developmental Psychology, 32, 102-119.
27. Schoenfeld, A. H., Smith, J. P., & Arcavi, A. (1993). Learning: The microgenetic analysis of one student’s evolving understanding of a complex subject matter domain. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructionalpsychology (vol. 4, pp. 55-175). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
28. Sherin, B. L., Krakowski, M., & Lee, V. R. (2012). Some assembly required: How scientific explanations are constructed during clinical interviews. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 166-198.
29. Siegler, R. S. (1996). Emerging minds: The process of change in childrens thinking. New York: Oxford University Press.
30. Siegler, R. S. (2006). Microgenetic analyses of learning. In D. Kuhn & R. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (pp. 464-510). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
31. Siegler, R. S., & Chen, Z. (1998). Developmental differences in rule learning: A microgenetic analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 36, 273-310.
32. Siegler, R. S., & Crowley, K. (1991). The microgenetic method: A direct means for studying cognitive development. American Psychologist, 46, 606-620.
33. Siegler, R. S., & Jenkins, E. (1989). How children discover new strategies. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
34. Siegler, R. S., & Stern, E. (1998). Conscious and unconscious strategy discoveries: A microgenetic analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4, 377-397.
35. Smith, C., Snir, J., & Grosslight, L. (1992). Using conceptual models to facilitate conceptual change: The case of weight-density differentiation. Cognition and Instruction, 9, 221-283.
36. Taylor, J., & Cox, B. D. (1997). Microgenetic analysis of group-based solution of complex two-step mathematical word problems by fourth graders. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 183-226.