Computer tools that link assessment and instruction: Investigating what makes electricity hard to learn

Computers As Cognitive Tools: Volume II, No More Walls

Volumn , Issue , 2020, Pages 273-307

  Schwartz, Daniel L ^a   Biswas, Gautam ^a   Bransford, John D ^a   Bhuva, Bharat ^a   Balac, Tamara ^a   Brophy, Sean ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85118350452     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1201/9781315045337-12     Document Type: Chapter

References (42)

1. Barron, B. J., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., Bransford, J. D., & the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 271-312.
2. Biswas, G., Schwartz, D., Brophy, S., Bhuva, B., Balac, T., & Bransford, J. (1997). Combining mathematical and everyday models of electricity. In M. G. Shafto & P. Langley (Eds.), Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
3. Bransford, J. D., Delclos, V., Vye, N., Burns, S., & Hasselbring, T. (1987). Approaches to dynamic assessment: Issues, data, and future directions. In C. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potentials (pp. 479-495). New York: Guilford Press.
4. Bransford, J. D., Franks, J. J., Vye, N. J., & Sherwood, R. D. (1989). New approaches to instruction: Because wisdom can't be told. In S. Vosdiadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
5. Bransford, J. D., & Nitsch, K. E. (1978). Coming to understand things we could not previously understand. In J. F. Kavanagh & W. Strange (Eds.), Speech and language in the laboratory, school, and clinic (pp. 267-307). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6. Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education (Vol. 24, pp. 61-101). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
7. Bransford, J. D., & Stein, B. S. (1993). The ideal problem solver: A guide for improving thinking, learning, and creativity (2nd ed.). New York: Freeman.
8. Brophy, S. P., & Schwartz, D. L. (1998). Interactive analogies. In A. Bruckman, M. Guzdial, J. Kolodner, & A. Ram (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 56-62). Charolttesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
9. Campione, J. C, & Brown, A. L. (1987). Linking dynamic assessment with school achievement. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 82-114). New York: Guilford Press.
10. Chi, M., T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.
11. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). The Japser project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12. Cole, M., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1987). Contextual factors in education. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
13. Cooke, N. J., & Breedin, S. D. (1994). Constructing naive theories of motion on the fly. Memory and Cognition, 22, 474-493.
14. diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition & Instruction, 10, 105-225.
15. Feurestein, R. (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The learning potential assessment device, theory, instruments, and techniques. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
16. Fredette, N., & Lochhead, J. (1980). Student conceptions of simple circuits. Physics Teacher, 18, 194-198.
17. Gentner, D., & Gentner, D. (1983). Flowing waters or teeming crowds: Mental models of electricity. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18. Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1995). Prospects for scientific visualization as an educational technology. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 249-279.
19. Groen, G., & Resnick, L. B. (1977). Can preschool children invent addition algorithms? Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 645-652.
20. Halloun, I. A., & Hestenes, D. (1985). The initial knowledge state of college physics students. American Journal of Physics, 53, 1043-1055.
21. Heller, P. M., & Finley, F. N. (1992). Variable uses of alternative conceptions: A case study in current electricity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 259-275.
22. Hunt, E., & Minstrell, J. (1994). A cognitive approach to the teaching of physics. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 51-74). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23. Koedinger, K. R., & Anderson, J. R. (1993). Reifying implicit planning geometry: Guidelines for model-based intelligent tutoring system design. In S. Lajoie & S. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools: Technology in education (pp. 15-45). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
24. Lajoie, S. P., & Lesgold, A. M. (1992). Dynamic assessment of proficiency for solving procedural knowledge tasks. Educational Psychologist, 27, 365-384.
25. Levidow, B. B., Hunt, E., & McKee, C. (1991). The DIAGNOSER: A HyperCard tool for building theoretically based tutorials. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 23, 249-252.
26. Lidz, C. S. (1987). Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential. New York: Guilford.
27. Magnusson, S. J., Templin, M., & Boyle, R. A. (1997). Dynamic science assessment: A new approach for investigating conceptual change. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 91-142.
28. McCloskey, M. (1983). Naive theories of motion. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
29. Murray, T. (1998). Authoring knowledge-based tutors: Tools for content, instructional strategy, student model, and interface design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 5-64.
30. Parchman, S. (1997). The Bee Sim simulator package. Available at: http:llcswww.vuse.vanderbilt.edu/~tamara/Web.I/table.htm.
31. Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 24, 477-524.
32. Schwartz, D. L., Brophy, S., Lin, X. D., & Bransford, J. D. (1999). Software for managing complex learning: An example from an educational psychology course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47, 39-59.
33. Schwartz, D. L., Lin, X., Brophy, S., & Bransford, J. D. (1999). Towards the development of flexibly adaptive instructional design. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: New paradigms of instructional theory (pp. 183-214). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
34. Schwartz, D. L., & Moore, J. L. (1998). On the role of mathematics in explaining the material world: Mental models for proportional reasoning. Cognitive Science, 22, 471-516.
35. Shipstone, D. (1988). Pupils' understanding of simple electrical circuits. Physics Education, 23, 92-96.
36. Smith, C, Snir, J., & Grosslight, L. (1992). Using conceptual models to facilitate conceptual change: The case of weight-density differentiation. Cognition and Instruction, 9, 221-283.
37. Spiro, R. J., & Jehng, J. C. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the nonlinear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix & R. J. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
38. Stocklmayer, S. M., & Treagust, D. F. (1994). A historical analysis of electrical currents in textbooks: A century of influence on physics education. Science and Education, 3, 131-154.
39. Vye, N. J., Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., Barron, B. J., Zech, L. and Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1998). SMART environments that support monitoring, reflection, and revision. In D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 305-346). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
40. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
41. White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 3-118.
42. White, B. Y, Frederiksen, J. R., & Spoehr, K. T. (1993). Conceptual models of understanding the behavior of electrical circuits. In M. Caillot (Ed.), Learning electricity and electronics with advanced technology. New York: Springer-Verlag.