Inquiry learning and opportunities for technology

International Handbook of the Learning Sciences

Volumn , Issue , 2018, Pages 221-233

  Linn, Marcia C ^a   McElhaney, Kevin W ^b   Gerard, Libby ^a   Matuk, Camillia ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b SRI INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

^c NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85049271902     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781315617572     Document Type: Chapter

References (56)

1. Basu, S., Biswas, G., Sengupta, P., Dickes, A., Kinnebrew, J. S., & Clark, D. (2016). Identifying middle school students’ challenges in computational thinking-based science learning. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 11(1), 1-35.
2. Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797-817.
3. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities’ adaptations of the practice of scientific argu-mentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191-216.
4. Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and “making” in education: The democratization of invention. In J. Walter-Herrmann & C. Büching (Eds.), FabLabs: Of machines, makers and inventors. Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript.
5. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P.(1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
6. Chinn, C., & Sandoval, W. (2018). Epistemic cognition and epistemological development. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 24-33). New York: Routledge.
7. Danish, J., & Gresalfi, M. (2018). Cognitive and sociocultural perspective on learning: Tensions and synergy in the Learning Sciences. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 34-43). New York: Routledge.
8. de Jong, T., Lazonder, A., Pedaste, M., & Zacharia, Z. (2018). Simulations, games, and modeling tools for learning. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences. New York: Routledge.
9. DeVane, B., Durga, S., & Squire, K. (2010). “Economists Who Think Like Ecologists”: Reframing systems thinking in games for learning. E-Learning and Digital Media, 7(1), 3-20.
10. Donnelly, D. F., Linn, M. C., & Ludvigsen, S. (2014). Impacts and characteristics of computer-based sci-ence inquiry learning environments for precollege students. Review of Educational Research, 20(10), 1-37. doi: 10.3102/0034654314546954
11. Fields, D. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2018). Games in the learning sciences: Reviewing evidence from playing and mak-ing games for learning. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 276-284). New York: Routledge.
12. Franzke, M., Kintsch, E., Caccamise, D., Johnson, N., & Dooley, S. (2005). Summary Street®: Computer sup-port for comprehension and writing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33, 53-58.
13. Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental stud-ies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300-329. doi: 10.3102/0034654312457206
14. Gerard, L., Matuk, C., McElhaney, K., & Linn, M.C. (2015). Automated, adaptive guidance for K-12 educa-tion. Educational Research Review, 15, 41-58.
15. Halverson, E., & Peppler, K. (2018). The Maker Movement and learning. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 285-294). New York: Routledge.
16. Herrenkohl, L. R., & Polman J. L. (2018). Learning within and beyond the disciplines. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 106-115). New York: Routledge.
17. Hoadley, C. (2018). A short history of the learning sciences. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 11-23). New York: Routledge.
18. Järvelä, S., Hadwin, A., Malmberg, J., & Miller, M. (2018). Contemporary perspectives of regulated learning in collaboration. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International hand-book of the learning sciences (pp. 127-136). New York: Routledge.
19. Kafai, Y. B., Lee, E., Searle, K., Fields, D., Kaplan, E., & Lui, D. (2014). A crafts-oriented approach to comput-ing in high school: Introducing computational concepts, practices, and perspectives with electronic textiles. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 14(1), 1-20.
20. Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., Puntambekar, S., & Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design (tm) into practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495-547.
21. Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning effects of guidance. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681-718. doi: 10.3102/0034654315627366
22. Linn, M. (2016a). 15 minutes about inquiry learning [Video file]. In NAPLeS video series. Retrieved October 19, 2017, from http://isls-naples.psy.lmu.de/video-resources/guided-tour/15-minutes-linn/index.html http://isls-naples.psy.lmu.de/video-resources/guided-tour/15-minutes-linn/index.html
23. Linn, M. (2016b). Interview about inquiry learning [Video file]. In NAPLeS video series. Retrieved October 19, 2017, from http://isls-naples.psy.lmu.de/video-resources/interviews-ls/linn/index.html
24. Linn, M. (2016c). Inquiry learning [Webinar]. In NAPLeS video series. Retrieved October 19, 2017, from http://isls-naples.psy.lmu.de/intro/all-webinars/linn_video/index.html
25. Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B.-S. (2011). Science learning and instruction: Taking advantage of technology to promote knowl-edge integration. New York: Routledge.
26. Linn, M. C., Gerard, L. F., Matuk, C. F., & McElhaney, K. W. (2016). Science education: From separation to integration. Review of Research in Education, 40(1), 529-587. doi: 10.3102/0091732X16680788
27. Liu, L., Rios, J., Heilman, M., Gerard, L., & Linn, M. (2016). Validation of automated scoring of science assess-ments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(2), 215-233.
28. Lyons, L. (2018). Supporting informal STEM learning with technological exhibits: An ecosystemic approach. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 234-245). New York: Routledge.
29. Matuk, C. F., & Linn, M. C. (2015). Examining the real and perceived impacts of a public idea repository on literacy and science inquiry. CSCL’15: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference for Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (Vol. 1, pp. 150-157). Gothenburg, Sweden: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
30. McElhaney, K. W., Chang, H. Y., Chiu, J. L., & Linn, M. C. (2015). Evidence for effective uses of dynamic visualisations in science curriculum materials. Studies in Science Education, 51(1), 49-85.
31. McElhaney, K. W., Matuk, C. F., Miller, D. I., & Linn, M. C. (2012). Using the Idea Manager to Promote Coherent Understanding of Inquiry Investigations. In J. van Aalst, K. Thompson, M. J. Jacobson, & P. Reimann (Eds.), The future of learning: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (Vol. 1, Full papers, pp. 323-330). Sydney, NSW, Australia: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
32. National Research Council (NRC) (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. doi: 10.17226/13165
33. NSF Task Force on Cyberlearning (2008). Fostering learning in the networked world: The cyberlearning opportunity and challenge (C. L. Borgman, Ed.). Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2008/nsf08204/index.jsp
34. Nilsson, E. M., & Jakobsson, A. (2011). Simulated sustainable societies: Students’ reflections on creating future cities in computer games. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(1), 33-50.
35. Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York: Basic Books.
36. Pellegrino, J. W. (2018). Assessment of and for learning. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 410-421). New York: Routledge.
37. Puntambekar, S. (2018). Design-based research (DBR). In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 383-392). New York: Routledge.
38. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Golan, R. D., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337-386. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1303_4
39. Raes, A., Schellens, T., & De Wever, B. (2013). Web-based collaborative inquiry to bridge gaps in sec-ondary science education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(3), pp. 316-347. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2013.836656
40. Razzaq, L., & Heffernan, N. T. (2009). To tutor or not to tutor: That is the question. In M. Dimitrova, du Boulay, & Graesser (Eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 457-464). Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.
41. Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273-304
42. Renninger, K. A., Ren, Y., & Kern, H. M. (2018). Motivation, engagement, and interest: “In the end, it came down to you and how you think of the problem.” In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 116-126). New York: Routledge.
43. Repenning, A., Webb, D. C., Koh, K. H., Nickerson, H., Miller, S. B., Brand, C., et al. (2015). Scalable game design: A strategy to bring systemic computer science education to schools through game design and simulation creation. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 15(2), 1-34. doi: 10.1145/2700517
44. Rosé, C. P. (2018). Learning analytics in the Learning Sciences. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 511-519). New York: Routledge.
45. Rousseau, J.-J. (1979). Emile, or on education (Allan Bloom, Trans.). New York: Basic Books.
46. Ryoo, K., & Linn, M.C. (2015). Designing and validating assessments of complex thinking in science. Theory into Practice, 54(3), 238-254.
47. Sadler, P., Coyle, H. A., & Schwartz, M. (2000). Successful engineering competitions in the middle school classroom: Revealing scientific principles through design challenges. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 299-327.
48. Schwarz, B. B. (2018). Computer-supported argumentation and learning. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 318-329). New York: Routledge.
49. Sharples, M., Scanlon, E., Ainsworth, S., Anastopoulou, S., Collins, T., Crook, C., et al. (2015). Personal inquiry: Orchestrating science investigations within and beyond the classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(2), 308-341. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2014.944642
50. Slotta, J. D., Quintana, R., & Moher, T. (2018). Collective inquiry in communities of learners. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 308-317). New York: Routledge.
51. Tabak, I., & Kyza., E. (2018). Research on scaffolding in the learning sciences: A methodological perspective. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 191-317). New York: Routledge.
52. Tansomboon, C., Gerard, L., Vitale, J., & Linn, M. C. (2017). Designing automated guidance to promote productive revision of science explanations. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 27(4), 729-757. doi: 10.1007/s40593-017-0145-0
53. Toth, E., Suthers, D., & Lesgold, A. M. (2002). Mapping to know: The effects of representational guidance and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry skills. Science Education, 86(2), 264-286.
54. van Zee, E., & Minstrell, J. (1997). Using questioning to guide student thinking. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(2), 227-269. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls0602_3
55. Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep or a firefly: Learning biology through con-structing and testing computational theories-An embodied modeling approach. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 171-209.
56. Xie, C., Zhang, Z., Nourian, S., Pallant, A., & Hazzard, E. (2014). A time series analysis method for assessing engineering design processes using a CAD tool. International Journal of Engineering Education, 30(1), 218-230.