Teacher candidates’ conceptualization of guided inquiry and lesson planning in social studies following web-assisted instruction?

Theory and Research in Social Education

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 243-264

  Sunal, Cynthia Szymanski ^a   Sunal, Dennis W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84993004671     PISSN: 00933104     EISSN: 21631654     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00933104.2003.10473224     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Britt, M. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Perfetti, C. A. (1996). Using hypertext to study and reason about historical evidence. In J. F. Rouet, Levonen, J. J., Dillon, A. P. & Spiro, R. J. (Ed.), Hypertext and cognition (pp. 43-72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
2. Carretero, M., & Voss, J. F. (Ed.) (1994). Cognitive and instructional processes in history and the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
3. Foster, S. & Padgett, C. (1999). Authentic historical inquiry in the social studies classroom, Clearing House, 72(6), 357-363.
4. Fraenkel, J. R. (1992). Hilda Taba’s contributions to social studies education. Social Education 56(3). 172-178.
5. Gagne, R.M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of Instructional Design. Orlando, FL: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
6. Ginsburg, H. P. & Opper, S. (1988). Piaget’s theory of intellectual development, third edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
7. Hooper, P. K. (1996). “They have their own thoughts": A story of constructionist learning in an alternative African-centered community school. In Y. Kafai & Resnick, M. (Ed.). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world (pp. 241-254). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. Joy, E. & Garcia, F. (2000). Measuring learning effectiveness: A new look at no-significant-difference findings. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, [online serial], 4(1).
9. Kauchak, D. & Eggen, P. (1998). Learning and teaching: Research based methods. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
10. Koppel, G. (1973). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook. Boston, MA: Prentice Hall.
11. Linn, M. C. & His, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, and peers. Hillsdale, NY: Erlbaum.
12. Myerson, P. & Secules, T. (November/December, 2001). Inquiry cycles can make social studies meaningful-learning about the controversy in Kosovo. The Social Studies, 92(6), 267-271.
13. National Council for the Social Studies (1994). Expectations of Excellence: Curriculum Standards for Social Studies.: Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies.
14. Odom, A. L. & Settlage, Jr., J. (1996). Teachers' understandings of the learning cycle as assessed with a two-tier test, Journal of Science Teacher Education, 7(2), 123-142.
15. Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research 63(2), 167-200.
16. Polman, J. L. (April, 2002). Re-creating the past: Building historical simulations with hypermedia to learn history. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana.
17. Polman, J. L. (2000). Designing project-based science: Connecting learners through guided inquiry. New York: Teachers College Press.
18. Saunders, W. (1992). The constructivist perspective: Implications for teaching strategies for social studies. School Science and Mathematics, 92(3).
19. Scardemalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Lamon, M. (1994). The CSILE project: Trying to bring the classroom into World 3. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 201-228). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20. Sunal, C. & Christensen, L. (2002). Culture and citizenship: Teachers from two continents share perspectives via a website. The International Social Studies Forum, 2(2), 121-140.
21. Sunal, D., Staples, K., Shwery, C., Sunal, C., Geisen, J. (April, 2002). Best practice in online instruction: A research model. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA.
22. Sunal, C., Sunal, D., & Haas, M. (1996). Meaningful learning in social studies through conceptual reconstruction: A strategy for secondary students. Inquiry in Social Studies, 32 (1), 1-17.
23. Sunal, D., Sunal, C., & Odell, M. (in press, May, 2003). Best practice in online instruction. Journal of Interactive Online Learning 1(4).
24. Taba, H. (1967). Teacher’s handbook for elementary social studies. Palo Alto, CA: Addison Wesley.
25. Tafoya, E., Sunal, D. W., & Knecht, P. (1980). Assessing inquiry potential: A took for curriculum decision-makers. School Science and Mathematics, 80, 43-48.
26. Their, H. D., Davis, B. (2001). Developing inquiry-based science materials: A guide for educators. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
27. Tobin, K., Tippins, D. J., & Gallard, A. J. (1994). Research on instructional strategies for teaching science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 45-93). New York: Macmillan.
28. Tyson, L. M., Venville, G. J., Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1997). A multidimensional framework for interpreting conceptual change events in the classroom. Science Education, 81(4), pp. 387-404.
29. Watson, J. R., Prieto, T., & J. S. Dillon (1997). Consistency of students' explanations about combustion. Science Education, 81(4): 425-443.
30. Weil, M. & Joyce, B. (1978). Information processing models of teaching: Expanding your teaching repertoire. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
31. Welch, W. W., Klopfer, L. E., Aikenshead, G. S., & Robinson, J. T. (1981). The role of inquiry in science education: Analysis and recommendations. Science Education, 65(1), 33-50.
32. White, R. T. (1991). Episodes and the purpose and conduct of practical work. In B. Woolnough (Ed.), Practical science. pp. 78-86. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
33. White, B. Y. & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition & Instruction, 16(1), 3-118.