Six Levels of Organization for Curriculum Design and Teaching

  • John Clement
Part of the Models and Modeling in Science Education book series (MMSE, volume 2)

Keywords

Respiration Boiling Lution Macro Cycle Spiro 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2005). Analyzing the quality of argumentation supported by personally seeded discussions. Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (pp. 76–85), International Society of the Learning Sciences. May 30 – June 04, 2005, Taipei, Taiwan.Google Scholar
  2. Clement, J. (1989). Learning via model construction and criticism: Protocol evidence on sources of creativity in science. In J. Glover, R. Ronning, & C. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity: Assessment, theory and research. NY: Plenum, 341–381.Google Scholar
  3. Clement, J. (2000) Model based learning as a key research area for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1041–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clement, J. (to appear). The role of explanatory models in teaching for conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), Handbook of research on conceptual change.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Clement, J., & Rea-Ramirez, M. (1998). The role of dissonance in conceptual change,Proceedings of National Association for Research in Science Teaching.Google Scholar
  6. Cobb, P. (1988). The tension between theories of learning and instruction in mathematics education. Educational Psychologist, 23(2), 87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. di Sessa, A. A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P. B. Pufall(Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Driver, R. (1983). The pupil as a scientist? Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Driver, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Curriculum development as research: A constructivist approach to science curriculum development and teaching. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 94–108). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  10. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education,2002; 38, 39–72.Google Scholar
  11. Minstrell, J., & Krauss, P. (2005). Guided inquiry in the science classroom. In M. S. Donovan & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn: Science in the classroom (pp. 475–514). Washington: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  12. Nersessian, N. J. (1992). How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamics of conceptual change in science. In R. N. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of science (Vol. 15, pp. 3–44). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  13. Niedderer, H. (2001). Physics learning as cognitive development. In R. H. Evans, A. M. Andersen, & H. Sørensen (Eds.), Bridging research methodology and research aims. The Danish University of Education. (ISBN: 87-7701-875-3), (pp. 397–414). http://didaktik.physik.uni-bremen.de/niedderer/personal.pages/ niedderer/Pubs.html#lpiptGoogle Scholar
  14. Osborne, J. F., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2001). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. School Science Review, 82 (301), 63–70.Google Scholar
  15. Rea-Ramirez, M. A. (1998). Models of conceptual understanding in human respiration and strategies for instruction. DAI – 9909208, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  16. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1998). Toward a theory of teaching-in-context. Issues in Education, 4(1), 1–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Scott, P. H., Asoko, H. M., & Driver, R. (1992). Teaching for conceptual change: A review of strategies. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg, & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies(pp. 310–329). Kiel: IPN.Google Scholar
  18. Scott, P. H. (1992). Conceptual pathways in learning science: A case study of the development of one student’s ideas relating to the structure of matter. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg, & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies(pp. 203–224. Kiel: IPN.Google Scholar
  19. Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Coulson, R. I., & Anderson, D. K. (1991). Multiple analogies for complex concepts: Antidotes for analogy-induced misconception in advanced knowledge acquisition. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. van Zee, E. H., & Minstrell, J. (1997). Reflective discourse: Developing shared understandings in a high school physics classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 209–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Williams, E. G., & Clement, J. (April 2006). Teacher moves during large-group discussions of electricity concepts: Identifying supports for model-based learning. Proceedings of the NARST annual Meeting – San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Clement
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Massachusetts, AmherstAmherstUSA 01003

Personalised recommendations