Looking under the hood: Productive messiness in design for argumentation in science, literature, and history

Design as Scholarship: Case Studies from the Learning Sciences

Volumn , Issue , 2016, Pages 71-85

  Ko, Mon Lin ^a   Goldman, Susan R ^a   Radinsky, Joshua ^a   James, Katherine ^a   Hall, Allison ^a   Popp, Jacquelynn ^a   Bolz, Michael ^a   George, MariAnne ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84969215571     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781315709550-6     Document Type: Chapter

References (29)

1. Archer, L.B. (1979). Whatever became of design methodology? Design Studies, 1(1), 17-20.
2. Barab, S., Zuiker, S., Warren, S., Hickey, D., Ingram-Goble, A., Kwon, E.J.,. .. Herring, S.C. (2007). Situationally embodied curriculum: Relating formalisms and contexts. Science Education, 91(5), 750-782.
3. Bransford, JD., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
4. Britt, M.A., & Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving students’ ability to identify and use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 485-522.
5. Brown, A.L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0202_2.
6. Cross, N. (2007). Forty years of design research. Design Studies, 28(1), 1-4.
7. Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2007). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
8. diSessa, A.A., & Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 77-103. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1301_4.
9. Donovan, M.S., & Bransford, J. (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
10. Gee, J.P. (1992). The social mind: Language, ideology, and social practice. New York, NY: Bergin & Garvey.
11. Goldman, S.R. (2012). Adolescent literacy: Learning and understanding content. Future of Children, 22(2), 89-116.
12. Goldman, S.R., & Bisanz, G.L. (2002). Toward a functional analysis of scientific genres: Implications for understanding and learning processes. In J. Otero, J.A. León, & A.C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 19-50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. Goldman, S.R., Braasch, J.L., Wiley, J., Graesser, A.C., & Brodowinska, K. (2012). Comprehending and learning from Internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(4), 356-381.
14. Goldman, S.R., Britt, M.A., Brown, W., Cribb, G., George, M., Greenleaf, C., Lee, C.D., & Shanahan, C. (submitted). A conceptual framework for disciplinary literacy. Educational Psychologist.
15. Lee, C.D. (2007). Culture, literacy, and learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
16. Lee, C.D., & Spratley, A. (2010). Reading in the disciplines: The challenges of adolescent literacy. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
17. Manz, E. (2014). Representing student argumentation as functionally emergent from scientific activity. Review of Educational Research. doi:10.3102/0034654314558490.
18. McNeill, K.L., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Synergy between teacher practices and curricular scaffolds to support students in using domain-specific and domain-general knowledge in writing arguments to explain phenomena. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(3), 416-460.
19. Monte-Sano, C., De La Paz, S., & Felton, M. (2014). Reading, thinking, and writing about history. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
20. New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92.
21. Radinsky, J., Loh, B., & Lukasik, J. (2008). GIS tools for historical inquiry: Issues for classroom-centered design: Ann Arbor, MI: MPublishing, University of Michigan Library.
22. Sandoval, W. (2014). Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 18-36. doi:10.1080/10508406.2013.778204.
23. Schoenbach, R., Greenleaf, C., & Murphy, L. (2012). Reading for understanding: How reading apprenticeship improves disciplinary learning in secondary and college classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
24. Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40-59.
25. Smith, S., Smith, G., & Shen, Y.-T. (2012). Redesign for product innovation. Design Studies, 33(2), 160-184.
26. The Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8. doi:10.3102/0013189X032001005.
27. Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1984). An introduction to reasoning. New York, NY: Macmillan.
28. Voogt, J., Laferrière, T., Breuleux, A., Itow, R.C., Hickey, D.T., & McKenney, S. (2015). Collaborative design as a form of professional development. Instructional Science, 43(2), 259-282.
29. Wiley, J., & Voss, J.F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 301.