Biomedical engineering topics in high school science instruction: Initial development and field studies

ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings

Volumn , Issue , 2003, Pages 4951-4957

  Sherwood, Robert D ^a,b   Klein, Stacy S ^a,c  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COURSE DEVELOPMENT; INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGNS; NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (NSF);

CURRICULA; DOPPLER EFFECT; ELECTROCARDIOGRAPHY; ENGINEERING EDUCATION; KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION; LEARNING SYSTEMS; PROBLEM SOLVING; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT; STUDENTS; TEACHING;

BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING;

EID: 8744224349     PISSN: 01901052     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (22)

1. Bransford, J., Sherwood, R., Vye, N., & Rieser, J. (1986). Teaching thinking and problem solving: Suggestions from research. American Psychologist, 41, 1078-1089.
2. Chase, W. & Simon, H. (1973). The mind's eye in chess. In W. Chase (Ed.), Visual information processing (pp. 215-281). New York: Academic Press.
3. Chi, M., Feltovich, P., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152.
4. Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D., & Simon, H. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems, Science, 208, 1335-1342.
5. Gick, M. & Holyoak, K (1980). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306-365.
6. Perfetto, G., Bransford, J., Franks, J. (1983). Constraints on access in a problem solving context, Memory and Cognition, 11, 24-31.
7. Whitehead, A. (1929). The aims of education. New York: Macmillan.
8. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1985). Cognitive coping strategies and the problem of "inert" knowledge. In S. Chipman, J. Segal, & r. Glaser (Eds.). Thinking and learning skills: Current research and open questions. (Vol. 2, pp. 65-80). Hillsdale. NJ: Earlbaum.
9. Sherwood, R., Kinzer, C., Bransford, J. & Franks, J. (1987). Some benefits of creating macro-contexts for science instruction: initial findings. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 417-435.
10. Bransford, J., Hasselbring, T., Barron, B., Kulewicz, S., Littlefield, J., & Goin, L. (1988). Uses of macro-contexts to facilitate mathematical thinking. In R. Charles & E. Silver (Eds.), The Teaching and Assessment of Mathematical Problem Solving (pp. 125-147). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11. McLarty, K., Goodman, J., Risko, V. J., Kinzer, C. K., Vye, N., Rowe, D. W., & Carson, J. (1990). Implementing anchored instruction: Guiding principles for curriculum development. In J. Zutell & S. McCormick (Eds.), Literacy theory and research: Analysis from multiple perspectives (39th NRC Yearbook, pp. 109-120). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
12. Bransford, J., Sherwood, R., Hasselbring, T., Kinzer, C., & Williams, S. (1990). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, Education, and Multimedia (pp. 115-141). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2-10.
14. Schwartz, D., Lin, X., Brophy, S., & Bransford, J. (1999). Toward the development of flexibly adaptive instructional designs. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: Volume 11. pp. 183-213. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15. Sherwood, R. (2002). Problem-based multimedia software for middle grades science: Development issues and an initial field study. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 21(2), 147-165.
16. Kolodner, J. L., Crismond, D. Gray, J. Holbrook, J. & Puntambekar, S. (1998). Learning by Design from Theory to Practice. Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 98). Charlottesville, VA: AACE, pp. 16-22.
17. Krajcik, J.S., Blumenfeld, P.C., Marx, R.W., Bass, K.M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7 (3&4), 313-350.
18. Linn, M. & His, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers - Science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
19. Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B., Steinmuller, F., Leone, T. J. (2001). BGuILE: Strategic and Conceptual Scaffolds for Scientific Inquiry in Biology Classrooms. In S.M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.) Cognition and Instruction: Twenty five years of progress. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. White, B. Y. (1998). Computer microworlds and scientific inquiry: An alternative approach to science education. In B.J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 349-362). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
21. Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cockings, R. (Eds.) (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
22. Sherwood, R., & Klein, S. (in review). Challenge based biomedical engineering instruction in secondary classrooms: Development and an initial field study. Science Education.