FOSTERING NEAR AND FAR TRANSFER IN THE CHEMISTRY CASE-BASED COMPUTERIZED LABORATORY ENVIRONMENT

Avoiding Simplicity, Confronting Complexity: Advances in Studying and Designing (Computer-Based) Powerful Learning Evironments

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 285-296

  Sasson, Lrit ^a   Dori, Yehudit J ^b  

^a TECHNION ISRAEL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Israel)

^b MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85141076153     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1163/9789087901189_029     Document Type: Chapter

References (31)

1. Ainsworth, S. & VanLabeke, N. (2004). Multiple forms of dynamic representation. Learning and Instruction, 14, 241-255.
2. Ardac, D. & Akaygun, S. (2004). Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasizes molecular representations on students' understanding of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 317-337.
3. Brasell, H. (1987). The effect of real time laboratory graphing on learning graphic representation of distance and velocity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 385-395.
4. Detterman, D. K. (1993). The case for the prosecution: Transfer as an epiphenomenon. In D. K. Detterman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition and instruction (pp. 1-24). Norwood, NJ:Ablex.
5. Dori, Y. J., & Hameiri, M. (2003). Multidimensional analysis system for quantitative chemistry problems - symbol, macro, micro and process aspects. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 40, 278-302.
6. Dori, Y. J., & Herscovitz, O. (1999). Question - posing capability as an alternative evaluation method: Analysis of an environmental case study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 441-430.
7. Dori, Y. J., & Sasson, I. (submitted). Chemical understanding and graphing skills in an honors casebased computerized laboratory environment. The value of bidirectional visual and textual representations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
8. Dori, Y. J., Sasson, I., Kaberman, Z., & Herscovitz, O. (2004). Integrating case-based computerized laboratories in high school chemistry. The Chemical Educator, 9, 4-8.
9. Dori, Y. J., Tall, R. T., & Tsaushu, M. (2003). Teaching biotechnology through case studies - Can weimprove higher order thinking skills of nonscience majors? Science Education, 84.
10. Gabel, D. L., & Bunce, D. M. (1994). Research on problem solving: Chemistry. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, 301-326.
11. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twentyfirst century. Science Education, 88, 28-54.
12. Jones, L., & Atkins, P. (2000). Chemistry: Molecules, Matter and Change (4th Ed.). New York, NY: W.H. Freeman.
13. Johnstone, A. H (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75-83.
14. Johnston, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33, 14-26.
15. Kobballa, T. R., & Tippins, D. J. (Eds.). (2000). Cases in middle and secondary science education: The promise and dilemmas. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Pearson Education.
16. Kown, O. N. (2002). The effect of calculator-based ranger activities on students' graphing ability. School Science and Mathematics, 102. 57-67.
17. Kozma, R., Chin, E., Russel, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The roles of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 9(2), 105-144.
18. Lee, M. C., & Thompson, A. (1997). Guided instruction in Logo programming and the development of cognitive monitoring strategies among college students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 16, 125-144.
19. Nakhleh, M. B., & Krajcik, J. S. (1994). Influence of levels of information as presented by different technologies on students' understanding of acid, base and pH concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1077-1096.
20. Osborne, H. M., & Wittrock, M. (1985). The generative learning modeling its implication for learning in science. Studies in Science Education, 12, 59-87.
21. Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1998). Teaching for transfer. Educational Leadership, 37, 22-32.
22. Race, P. (1998). An education and training toolkit for the new millennium? Innovations in Education and Training International, 35, 262-271.
23. Resnick, L. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
24. Rivet, A. E., & Krajcik, J. S. (2004). Achieving standards in urban system reform: An example of a sixth grade project-based science curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 669-692.
25. Rosenfeld, M., & Rosenfeld, S. (2006). Understanding teacher responses to constructivist learning environments: Challenges and resolutions. Science Education, 90, 385-399.
26. Russell, D. W., Lucas, K. B., & McRobbie, C. J. (2004). Role of the microcomputer-based laboratory display in supporting the construction of new understanding in thermal physics. Journal of Research in Science Education, 41, 165-185.
27. Sassi, E., Monroy, G., & Testa, I. (2005). Teacher training about real-time approaches: Research-based guidelines and training materials. Science Education, 89, 28-37.
28. Tal, R., & Hochberg, N. (2003). Assessing higher order thinking of students' participating in the "WISE" project in Israel. Studies in Education Evaluation, 29, 69-89.
29. Tobin, K., Kahle, J.B., & Fraser, B.J. (1990). Windows into science classrooms: Problems associated with higher level cognitive learning in science. London: Falmer Press.
30. Von Glaserfeld, E. (1991). Knowing without metaphysics: Aspects of the radical constructivist position. In F. Steier (Ed.), Research and reflecting (pp. 12-29). London. Sage.
31. Wassermann, S. (1994). Introduction to case method teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.