Computer-Based manipulatives for teaching scientifc reasoning: An example

Innovations in Science and Mathematics Education: Advanced Designs for Technologies of Learning

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 163-192

  Horwitz, Paul ^a   Christie, Mary Ann ^a  

^a The Concord Consortium ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85070942216     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781410602671-12     Document Type: Chapter

References (17)

1. Carey, S. (1986). Cognitive science and science education. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1123-1130.
2. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). The Jasper project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
3. Dufresne, R.J., Gerace, W.J., Hardiman, P.T., & Mestre, J.P. (1992). Constraining novices to perform expertlike problem analyses: Effects on schema acquisition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 307-331.
4. Goldman-Segall, R. (1998). Points of viewing children’s thinking: A digital ethnographer’s journey. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5. Green, J., & Wallat, C. (1981). Mapping instructional conversations: A sociolinguistic ethnography. In J.Green & C.Wallat (Eds.), Ethnography and language in educational settings (pp. 161-205). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
6. Johnstone, A. El. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7(20), 75-83.
7. Johnston-Slack, S., & Stewart, J. (1990). Eligh school students’ problem-solving performance on realistic genetics problems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(1), 55-67.
8. Kelly, G.J., & Crawford, T. (1996). Students’ interactions with computer representations: Analysis of discourse in laboratory groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(1), 693-707.
9. Kindfield, A.C. H. (1994). Understanding a basic biological process: Expert and novice models of meiosis. Science Education, 78(3), 255-283.
10. Levine, El.G. (1990). Models of qualitative data use in the assessment of classroom-based microcomputer education programs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 6(4), 461-477.
11. Mendel, G. (1866). “Versuche uber Pflanzen-Elybriden,�? Verhandlungen des Naturforschenden Vereines Abhandlungen, Brunn, Vol. 4, pp. 3-17.
12. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
13. Rogoff, B., & Lave, J. (Eds., 1983). Everyday cognition: Its development in social context.Cambridge, MA: Elarvard University Press.
14. Sheingold, K., Kane, J.H., & Endreweit, M.E. (1983). Microcomputer use in schools: Developing a research agenda. Harvard Educational Review, 53(4), 412-432.
15. Stewart, J., & Elafner, R. (1994). Research on problem solving: Genetics. In D.Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 284-300). New York: Macmillan.
16. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.Cambridge, MA: Elarvard University Press.
17. Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation ofmind. Cambridge, MA: Elarvard University Press.