Abstract
This paper presents a small-scale study investigating the use of two different computer-based programming environments (CPEs) as modeling tools for collaborative fifth grade science learning. We analyze student conversations while working with CPEs using Contextual Inquiry. Findings highlight the differences in activity patterns between groups using different CPEs. Students using Stagecast Creator (SC) did twice as much planning but half as much debugging compared with students using Microworlds (MW). Students working with MW used written code on the computer screen to communicate their ideas whereas students working with SC used the programming language (pl) to talk about their ideas prior to any programming. We propose three areas for future research. (1) Exploring different types of communication styles as compared with the use of different CPEs. (2) Identifying students’ nascent abilities for using CPEs to show functionality in science. (3) Further understanding CPEs’ design characteristics as to which may promote or hamper learning with models in science.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Ball, L., D. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. The elementary school journal, 93(4), 373–397.
Constantinou, C., P. (1996). The Cocoa microworld as an environment for modeling physical phenomena. International journal of Continuing Education and Life-Long Learning, 8(2), 65–83.
diSessa, A. A., Abelson, H., and Ploger, D. (1991). An overview of Boxer. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10, 3–15.
diSessa, A. A., Hammer, D., Sherin, Br., and Kolapakowski, T. (1991). Inventing graphing: Metarepresentational Expertise in Children. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10, 117–160.
Druin, A. (1999) Cooperative Inquiry: Developing New Technologies for Children with Children. CHI99 Conference Proceedings ACM Press, 223-230.
Druin, A. (2002) The Role of Children in the Design of New Technology. Behavior and Information Technology (BIT) 21(1), 1–25.
Gallas, K. (1995). Talking their way into science: hearing children’s questions and theories, responding with curricula. NY: Teachers College Press.
Gilmore, D. J., Pheasey, K., Underwood, J., and Underwood, G. (1995). Learning graphical programming: An evaluation of KidSim. In K. Nordby, P. H. Helmersen, D. J. Gilmore and S. A. Arnesen (Eds.), Human-Computer Interaction: Interact’ 95 (p. 145–150). London: Chapman and Hall.
Golin, G. (1997). Structure of scientific knowledge and curriculum design. Interchange, 28(2, 3), 159–169.
Louca, L. and Constantinou, C. Using computer-based microworlds for constructing modeling skills in physical science: an example from light. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Louca, L. and Hammer, D. (2002, April). Elementary student inquiry in physical science: Answers, explanations, and arguments in a 5-6th grade discussion about a dropped pendulum. Paper presented in AERA 2002 conference, New Orleans, LA.
National Research Council. (1990). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy.
Penner, D. E., Giles, N. D., Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L. (1997). Building functional Models: Designing an Elbow. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 125–143.
Redish, E. F. and Wilson, J. M. (1993). Student programming in the introductory physics course: M.U.P.P.E.T. American Journal of Physics, 61(3), 222–232.
Samarapungavan, A. (1992). Children’s judgments in theory choice tasks: Scientific rationality in childhood. Cognition, 45, p. 1–32.
Sherin, Br. (1996). The Symbolic Basis of Physical Intuition. A Study of Two Symbol Systems in Physics Instruction. Unpublished dissertation Thesis.
Sherin, Br., diSessa, A. A., and Hammer, D. (1993). Dynaturtle revisited: Learning physics through collaborative design of a computer model. Interactive Learning Environments, 3(2), 91–118.
Smith, D., C. and Cypher, Al. (1999). Making programming easier for children. In A. Druin (Ed.), The design of children’s technology. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.
Smith, D. C., Cypher, A. and Tesler, L. (2000). Novice programming comes of age. Communications of Association for Computer Machinery (ACM), 43(3), 75–81.
White, B. Y. and Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(11), 3–118.
Wilensky, Ur., and Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in Levels: A Dynamic Systems Approach to Making Sense of the World. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 3–19.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Louca, L., Druin, A., Hammer, D., Dreher, D. (2003). Students’ Collaborative use of Computer-Based Programming Tools in Science:. In: Wasson, B., Ludvigsen, S., Hoppe, U. (eds) Designing for Change in Networked Learning Environments. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0195-2_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0195-2_15
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-6321-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-0195-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive