Teaching strategies to promote concept learning by design challenges

References

• Abdul Gafoor, K., and P. T. Akhilesh. 2013. “Strategies for Facilitating Conceptual Change in School Physics.” Researches and Innovations in Education 3 (1): 34–42.
   Google Scholar
• Bamberger, Y. M., and C. S. Cahill. 2013. “Teaching Design in Middle-School: Instructors’ Concerns and Scaffolding Strategies.” Journal of Science Education and Technology 22 (2): 171–185.10.1007/s10956-012-9384-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandsford, J. D., A. L. Brown, M. S. Donovan, and J. W. Pellegrino. 2003. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academy.
   Google Scholar
• Bruinsma, M. 2003. Effectiveness of Higher Education: Factors that Determine Outcomes of University Education Doctoral dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Groningen.
   Google Scholar
• Burghardt, M., and M. Hacker. 2004. “Informed Design: A Contemporary Approach to Design Pedagogy as the Core Process in Technology.” Technology Teacher 64 (1): 6–8.
   Google Scholar
• Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory. a Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Churukian, A. D. 2002. Interactive Engagement in an Introductary University Physics Course: Learning Gains and Perceptions Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
   Google Scholar
• Cobern, W. W. 1994. Worldview Theory and Conceptual Change in Science Education. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Anaheim.
   Google Scholar
• Coletta, V. P., and J. A. Phillips. 2005. “Interpreting FCI Scores: Normalized Gain, Preinstruction Scores, and Scientific Reasoning Ability.” American Journal of Physics 73 (12): 1172–1182.10.1119/1.2117109
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cosgrove, M., and R. Osborne. 1985. “Lesson Frameworks for Changing Childrens Ideas.” In Learning in Science: The Implications of Childrens Science, edited by R. Osborne and P. Freybergs, 101–111. London: Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Crouch, M., and H. McKenzie. 2006. “The Logic of Small Samples in Interview-Based Qualitative Research.” Social Science Information 45 (4): 483–499.10.1177/0539018406069584
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engelhardt, P. V., and R. J. Beichner. 2004. “Students’ Understanding of Direct Current Resistive Electrical Circuits.” American Journal of Physics 72 (1): 98–115.10.1119/1.1614813
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fortus, D., R. C. Dershimer, J. Krajcik, R. W. Marx, and R. Mamlok-Naaman. 2004. “Design-Based Science and Student Learning.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41 (10): 1081–1110.10.1002/(ISSN)1098-2736
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hake, R. 1998. “Interactive-Engagement versus Traditional Methods: A Six-Thousand-Student Survey of Mechanics Test Data for Introductory Physics Courses.” American Journal of Physics 66 (1): 64–74.10.1119/1.18809
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hennessy, S., and R. McCormick. 1994. “The General Problem-Solving Capability Process in Technology Education. Myth or Reality?” In Teaching Technology, edited by F. Banks, 94–108. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Horton, W. K. 2006. E-Learning by Design. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons Inc.
   Google Scholar
• International Technology Education Association. 2007. Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology. 3rd ed. Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, S. 1997. “Learning Technological Concepts and Developing Intellectual Skills.” International Journal of Technology and Design Education 7: 161–180.10.1023/A:1008861003553
   Google Scholar
• Kolodner, J. L. 2002a. “Facilitating the Learning of Design Practices: Lessons Learned from an Inquiry into Science Education.” Journal of Industrial Teacher Education 39 (3): 9–40.
   Google Scholar
• Kolodner, J. L. 2002b. “Learning by Design: Iterations of Design Challenges for Better Learning of Science Skills.” Bulletin of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society 9 (3): 338–350.
   Google Scholar
• Kolodner, J. L., P. J. Camp, D. Crismond, B. Fasse, J. Gray, J. Holbrook, S. Puntambekar, and M. Ryan. 2003. “Problem-Based Learning Meets Case-Based Reasoning in the Middle-School Science Classroom: Putting Learning by Design into Practice.” Journal of the Learning Sciences 12 (4): 495–547.10.1207/S15327809JLS1204_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolodner, J. L., J. T. Gray, and B. B. Fasse. 2003. “Promoting Transfer through Case-Based Reasoning: Rituals and Practices in Learning by Design Classrooms.” Cognitive Science Quarterly 3 (2): 1–28.
   Google Scholar
• Kolodner, J. L., C. Hmelo, and N. Narayanan. 1996. “Problem-Based Learning Meets Case-Based Reasoning.” The Journal of the Learning Sciences 12 (4): 495–547.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krajcik, J., P. C. Blumenfeld, R. W. Marx, K. M. Bass, and J. Fredricks. 1998. “Inquiry in Project-Based Science Classrooms: Initial Attempts by Middle School Students.” Journal of the Learning Sciences 7 (3–4): 313–350.10.1080/10508406.1998.9672057
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lustig, F., E. West, B. Martinez, M. Staszel, M. T. Borgato, I. Iosub, and U. Weber-Hüttenhoff. 2009. Experiences and Results from the European Project ‘Integrated Subject Science Understanding in Europe’. Paper presented at the ESERA conference, Istanbul.
   Google Scholar
• McCormick, R. 1997. “Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge.” International Journal of Technology and Design Education 7: 141–159.10.1023/A:1008819912213
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, P., and S. Hennessy. 2001. “Realising the Potential – And Lost Opportunities – For Peer Collaboration in a D&T Setting.” International Journal of Technology and Design Education 11: 203–237.10.1023/A:1011286331859
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Science and Technology Council. 2013. Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education: 5-Year Strategic Plan. Washington, D.C.: Executive Office of the President.
   Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, J., and S. Novick. 1982. “Alternative Frameworks, Conceptual Conflict and Accommodation: Toward a Principled Teaching Strategy.” Instructional Science 11 (3): 183–200.10.1007/BF00414279
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Office of the Chief Scientist. 2013. Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in the National Interest: A Strategic Approach. Canberra: Australian Government.
   Google Scholar
• Office of the Prime Minister’s Science Advisory Committee. 2011. Looking Ahead: Science Education for the Twenty-First Century. Auckland: New Zealand Council for Educational Research (NZCER).
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, J., and J. Dillon. 2008. Science Education in Europe: Critical Reflections. http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/science-education-europe.
   Google Scholar
• Parkinson, E. 2001. “Teacher Knowledge and Understanding of Design and Technology for Children in the 3–11 Age Group: A Study Focussing on Aspects of Structures.” Journal of Technology Education 13 (1): 44–55.
   Google Scholar
• Parliamentary Office of Science & Technology. 2013. STEM Education for 14–19 Year Olds. London: Houses of Parliament.
   Google Scholar
• Penner, D. E., N. D. Giles, R. Lehrer, and L. Schauble. 1997. “Building Functional Models: Designing an Elbow.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 34 (2): 125–143.10.1002/(ISSN)1098-2736
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popovic, V. 2004. “Expertise Development in Product Design-Strategic and Domain-Specific Knowledge Connection.” Design Studies 25 (5): 527–545.10.1016/j.destud.2004.05.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rennie, L., G. Venville, and J. Wallace. 2012. Integrating Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Roth, W.-M. 1995. “Inventors, Copycats, and Everyone Else: The Emergence of Shared Resources and Practices as Defining Aspects of Classroom Communities.” Science Education 79: 475–502.10.1002/(ISSN)1098-237X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roth, W.-M. 2001. “Learning Science through Technological Design.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 38 (7): 768–790.10.1002/(ISSN)1098-2736
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler, P. M., H. P. Coyle, and M. Schwartz. 2000. “Engineering Competitions in the Middle School Classroom: Key Elements in Developing Effective Design Challenges.” Journal of the Learning Sciences 9 (3): 299–327.10.1207/S15327809JLS0903_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sidawi, M. 2009. “Teaching Science through Designing Technology.” International Journal of Technology and Desing Education 19 (3): 269–287.10.1007/s10798-007-9045-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sjöberg, S., and C. Schreiner. 2010. The ROSE Project: An Overview and Key Findings. http://roseproject.no/network/countries/norway/eng/nor-Sjoberg-Schreiner-overview-2010.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Stoddart, T., R. Abrams, E. Gasper, and D. Canaday. 2010. “Concept Maps as Assessment in Science Inquiry Learning – A Report of Methodology.” The International Journal of Science Education 22 (12): 1221–1246.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Breukelen, D. H. J., M. J. De Vries, and F. A. Schure. 2016. “Concept Learning by Direct Current Design Challenges in Secondary Education.” International Journal of Technology and Design Education: 1–24. doi:10.1007/s10798-016-9357-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van der Veen, T., and J. Van der Wal. 2012. Van leertheorie naar onderwijspraktijk [From Learning Theory to Educational Practice]. Groningen: Noordhoff Uitgevers B.V.
   Google Scholar
• Verhagen, P. 2011. Reflectie met de STARR-methode [Reflection by the STARR Method] Kwaliteit met beleid [Quality by Policy]. Bussum: Coutinho.
   Google Scholar
• Wendell, K. B. 2008. The Theoretical and Empirical Basis for Design-Based Science Instruction for Children. Unpublished Qualifying Paper. Tufts University.
   Google Scholar
• Wiggins, G. 2012. “7 Keys to Effective Feedback.” Educational Leadership 70 (1): 10–16.
   Google Scholar
• Zainal, Z. 2007. “Case Study as a Research Method.” Jurnal Kemanusiaan 9: 1–6. http://psyking.net/htmlobj-3837/case_study_as_a_research_method.pdf.
   Google Scholar