Graphic literacy in elementary science education: Enhancing inquiry, engineering problem solving and reasoning skills

ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages

  Bedward, John ^a   Wiebe, Eric ^a   Madden, Lauren ^a   Minogue, James ^a   Carter, Mike ^a  

^a NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CURRICULA; EDUCATION; EDUCATION COMPUTING; ENGINEERING EDUCATION; SEMIOTICS; STUDENTS; TEACHING;

ELEMENTARY SCIENCE EDUCATION; ENGINEERING PROBLEM SOLVING; LEARNING AND TEACHINGS; PROBLEM SOLVING CYCLES; PROBLEM SOLVING SKILLS; SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY; VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS;

PROBLEM SOLVING;

EID: 85029093116     PISSN: None     EISSN: 21535965     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (47)

1. Appleton, K. (2007). Elementary science teaching. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (eds) Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
2. Cunningham, C. M., &Hester, K. (2007). Engineering is elementary: An engineering and technology curriculum for children. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference. Honolulu, HI.
3. Cunningham, C. M., C. Lachapelle, &A. Lindgren-Streicher. (2005). Assessing elementary school students' conceptions of engineering and technology. In Proceedings of the Annual conference of the American Society of Engineering Education. Portland, OR.
4. PLTW, Project Lead The Way (2007). Retrieved January, 2009 from http://www.pltw.org.
5. Douglas, J., Iversen, E., &Kalyandurg, C. (2004). Engineering in the K-12 classroom: An analysis of current practices and guidelines for the future. Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education.
6. Pearson, G., &Young, A. T. (2002). Technically speaking: Why all Americans need to know more about technology. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
7. National Science Resources Center (2004). Motion and Design. Burlington, NC: Carolina Biological Supply Company.
8. Lewis, T. (2006). Design and Inquiry: Bases for an Accommodation between Science and Technology Education in the Curriculum? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(3), 255-281.
9. National Academy of Engineering. (2005). Educating the engineer of 2020: Adapting engineering education to the new century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
10. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington DC: National Academies Press.
11. International Technology Education Association, (Ed). (2000/2002). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Resten, VA: International Technology Education Association.
12. International Technology Education Association, 2000/2002
13. North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (2008). North Carolina standard course of study. Retrieved January, 2009 from http://www.dpi. state.nc.us/curriculum/
14. National Science Resource Center, 2004.
15. Hubber, P., Tytler, R. &Haslam, F. (2008). Teaching and learning force as a representational issue: Insights from a classroom video study. Presented at the National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST) Meeting, Baltimore, MD.
16. Tytler, R., Prain, V., Peterson, S. (2007). Representational issues in students learning about evaporation. Journal of Research in Science Education, 37, 313-331.
17. Lee, V. R., &Sherin, B. (2006). Beyond transparency: How students make representations meaningful. Paper presented at the ICLS 2006: Seventh International Conference of the Learning Sciences.
18. Tytler, 37, 314.
19. diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293-331.
20. Edens, K., &Potter, E. (2003). Using Descriptive Drawings as a Conceptual Change Strategy in Elementary Science. School science and mathematics, 103(3), 135.
21. Tytler, 37.
22. Wu, H.-K., &Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Inscriptional Practices in Two Inquiry-Based Classrooms: A Case Study of Seventh Graders' Use of Data Tables and Graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1), 66-95.
23. Schwartz-Bloom, R. D. &Halpin, M. J. (2003). Integrating pharmacology topics in high school biology and chemistry classes improves performance. Journal of research in Science Teaching, 40(9), 922-938.
24. Liu, X., &Lesniak, K. (2006). Progression in Children's Understanding of the Matter Concept from Elementary to High School. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(3), 320-347.
25. Cobert, J. D. (2000). Introduction to model-based teaching and learning in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 891-894.
26. Coker, P & Ganderton, P. (2005). Environmental Biogeography. England: Pearson Education Limited.
27. Gilbert, S. W. (1991). Model building and a definition of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(1), 73-79.
28. Gilbert, S. W. (1995). The role of models and modeling in some narratives in science learning. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American educational research Association, April 18-22. San Francisco, CA.
29. Van Driel, J. H. &Verloop, N. (1999). Teachers' knowledge of models and modeling in science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(11), 1141-1153.
30. Cobert, 22.
31. Treagust, D. F. (2002). Students' understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 357-368.
32. Van Driel & Verloop, 21.
33. Mathewson, J. H. (2005). The visual core of science: definition and applications to education. International Journal of Science Education, 27(5), 529-548.
34. Gilbert, J. K. (2005). Visualization: A metacognitive skill in science and science education. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in Science Education (pp. 9-27). Amsterdam: Springer.
35. Smith, D. W. (2002). Introducing EDG students to the design process. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual EDGD Mid-Year Conference (pp. 1-6). Berkely, CA: ASEE-EDGD.
36. Mathewson, 27, 533.
37. Mathewson, 27, 532.
38. Mathewson, 27.
39. Wiebe, E. N. (1992). Scientific visualization: An experimental introductory course for scientific and engineering students. Engineering Design Graphics Journal, 56(1), 39-44.
40. Ault, H. K. (2002). Engineering Design Graphics as a Communications Tool for Mechanical Design: A Broader View. Engineering Design Graphics Journal, 66(3), 12-19.
41. Bertoline, G. R., &Wiebe, E. N. (2005). Fundamentals of graphics communication (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
42. Wiebe, E. N., Hare, T. M., Carter, M., Fahmy, Y., Russell, R., &Ferzli, M. (2001). Supporting Lab Report Writing in an Introductory Materials Engineering Lab. In ASEE (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference. Washington, DC: ASEE.
43. Scheiter, K., Wiebe, E. N., &Holsanova, J. (2008). Theoretical and Instructional Aspects of Learning with Visualizations. In R. Zheng (Eds.), Cognitive effects of multimedia learning (pp. 67-88). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
44. National Science Resource Center, 2004.
45. Mathewson, J.H. (1999). Visual-spatial thinking: An aspect of science overlooked by educators. Science Education, 83, 33-54.
46. Russel, T. &McGuigan, L. (2003). Promoting understanding through representational rediscription: An exploration referring to young pupils' ideas about gravity. In Science Education Research in Knowledge Based Society. Netherlands: Klewer Academic Publishers.
47. Hubber, 2008.