Digital Resources Versus Cognitive Tools: A Discussion of Learning Science with Technology

Handbook of Research on Science Education

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 471-491

  Songer, Nancy Butler ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85145513250     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203824696-20     Document Type: Chapter

References (41)

1. American Association of University Women. (2000). Tech-Savvy: Educating girls in the new computer age. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.
2. Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., and Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
3. Bruckman, A. (2000). Situated support for learning: Storm’s weekend with Rachael. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 9(3), 329-372.
4. Cohen, D., Raudenbush, S., and Ball, D. (2000). Resources, instruction, and research. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
5. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and overused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6. Davis, E. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 91-142.
7. Edelson, D., and Reiser, B. (2006). Making authentic practices accessible to learners. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 335-354). New York: Cambridge University Press.
8. Freidman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
9. Gobert, J. D., and Pallant, A. (2004). Fostering students’ epistemologies of models via authentic model-based tasks. Journal of Science education and Technology, 13(1), 7-22 (invited paper).
10. Grimm, V., Revilla, E., Berger, I., Jeltsch, F., Mooij, W., Railsback, S., et al. (2005). Pattern-oriented modeling of agent-based complex systems: Lessons from ecology. Science (310) 5750, 987-991.
11. Guzdial, M., and Turns, J. (2000). Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored forum. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 91(4), 437-469.
12. Haak, W., Forster, P., Bramanti, B., Matsumura, S., Brandt, G., Tanzer, M., et al. (2005). Ancient DNA from the first European farmers in 7500-year-old neolithic sites. Science (310) 5750, 1016-1018.
13. Hsi, S., and Hoadley, C. (1997). Productive discussion in science: Gender equity through electronic discourse. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 6(1), 23-36.
14. Keating, T., Barnett, M., Barab, S., and Hay, K. (2002). The Virtual Solar System Project: Developing conceptual understanding of astronomical concepts through building three-dimensional computational models. The Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(2), 261-275.
15. Lee, H. S., and Songer, N. B. (2003). Making authentic science accessible to students. International Journal of Science Education, 25(1), 1-26.
16. Levin, D., and Arafeh, S. (2002). The digital disconnect: The widening gap between internet-savvy students and their schools. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved November 14, 2005 from www.pewinternet.org
17. Loh, B., Radinsky, J., Reiser, B., Gomez, L., Edelson, D., and Russell, E. (1997). The Progress Portfolio:Promoting reflective inquiry in complex investigation environments. Paper presented at the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) meeting, Toronto, Canada.
18. Linn, M. C. (2003). Technology and science education: Starting points, research programs and trends. International Journal of Science Education, 6(25), 727-758.
19. Linn, M. C., Davis, E., and Bell, P. (2004). Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20. Linn, M. C., and Slotta, J. D. (2002). WISE science. Educational Leadership, x(x), p. 29-32.
21. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
22. National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
23. National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
24. O’Neill, K. D. (2004). Building social capital in a knowledge-building community: Telementoring as a catalyst. Interactive Learning Environments, 12(3), 179-208.
25. O’Neill, K., and Gomez, L. (1998). Sustaining mentoring relationships on-line. Proceedings of Computer Support for Collaborative Work 1998, Seattle, WA, pp. 325-334.
26. Parr, C., Jones, T., and Songer, N. B. (2004). Evaluation of a handheld data collection interface for science. Journal of Science Education and Technologym, 13(2), 233-242.
27. Penuel, W. R., and Yarnal, L. (2005). Designing handheld software to support classroom assessment:An analysis of conditions for teacher adoption. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 3(5), 3-45.
28. Quintana, C., Reiser, B., Davis, B., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337-386.
29. Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273-304.
30. Scardamalia, M., and Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283.
31. Schwartz, D. L., Lin, X., Brophy, S., and Bransford, J. (1999). Towards the development of flexibly adaptive instructional designs. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models:A new paradigm of instructional theory Vol. II, pp. 183-213. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
32. Soloway, E., Guzdial, M., and Hay, K. (1994). Learner-centered design: The challenge for HCI in the 21st century. Interactions, 1(2), 36-48.
33. Songer, N. B. (2005). Persistence of inquiry: Evidence of complex reasoning among inner city middle school students. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) annual meeting.
34. Songer, N. B. (2006). BioKIDS: An animated conversation on the development of curricular activity structures for inquiry science. In R. Keith Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 355-369). New York: Cambridge University Press.
35. Tinker, R., and Vahey, P. (2002). CILT2000: Ubiquitous computing-Spanning the digital divide. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(3), 301-304.
36. U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Technology in schools: Suggestions, tools and guidelines for assessing technology in elementary and secondary education. NCES 2003-313. Washington, DC:Technology in Schools Task Force, National Forum on Educational Statistics.
37. U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Toward a new golden age in American education: How the internet, the law and today’s students are revolutionizing expectations. Retrieved November 15, 2005 from http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/plan/2004/plan_pg20.html
38. U.S. House of Representatives. (2001). Hearing charter: Classrooms as laboratories: The science of learning meets the practice of teaching. Retrieved November 14, 2005, from http://www.house. gov/science/research/may10/res_charter_051001.htm
39. White, B. T., and Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3-118.
40. Wood, D., Bruner, J., and Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17, 89-100.
41. Zembal-Saul, C., and Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding the construction of scientific arguments by prospective teachers using inquiry-empowering technologies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.