The use of the physical laboratory of computer networks as a learning tool

References

• Aleixandre, M. P. J., and B. Crujeiras. 2017. “Epistemic Practices and Scientific Practices in Science Education.” Science Education, 69–80. Brill Sense. doi:10.1007/978-94-6300-749-8_5.
   Google Scholar
• Alter, P., and T. Haydon. 2017. “Characteristics of Effective Classroom Rules: A Review of the Literature.” Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children 40 (2): 114–127. doi:10.1177/0888406417700962.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, T. 2003. “Getting the Mix Right Again: An Updated and Theoretical Rationale for Interaction.” The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 4 (2): 1–14. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v4i2.149.
   Google Scholar
• Bardin, L. 2002. Análise de Conteúdo. Tradução de Luís Antero Reta e Augusto Pinheiro. Edições 70 Lda. http://books.google.com/books?id=AFpxPgAACAAJ%5Cnhttp://cliente.argo.com.br/~mgos/analise_de_conteudo_moraes.html#_ftn1.
   Google Scholar
• Barzilai, S., and C. A. Chinn. 2018. “On the Goals of Epistemic Education: Promoting Apt Epistemic Performance.” Journal of the Learning Sciences 27 (3): 353–389. doi:10.1080/10508406.2017.1392968.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belland, B. R. 2014. “Scaffolding: Definition, Current Debates, and Future Directions.” In Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 505-518. New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5.
   Google Scholar
• Bernhard, J. 2018. “What Matters for Students’ Learning in the Laboratory? Do Not Neglect the Role of Experimental Equipment!.” Instructional Science 46 (6): 819–846. doi:10.1007/s11251-018-9469-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, L., L. Manion, and K. Morrison. 2018. Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge – Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Cunningham, C. M., and G. Y. J. Kelly. 2017. “Epistemic Practices of Engineering for Education.” Science Education 101 (3): 486–505. doi:10.1002/sce.21271.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Draper, S. W., J. Cargill, and Q. Cutts. 2002. “Electronically Enhanced Classroom Interaction.” Australian Journal of Educational Technology 18 (1): 13–23. doi:10.14742/ajet.1744.
   Google Scholar
• Drijvers, P., M. Doorman, P. Boon, H. Reed, and K. Gravemeijer. 2010. The Teacher and the Tool: Instrumental Orchestrations in the Technology-Rich Mathematics Classroom, 213–234. doi:10.1007/s10649-010-9254-5.
   Google Scholar
• Drijvers, P., M. Doorman, P. Boon, and S. van Gisbergen. 2009. “Instrumental Orchestration: Theory and Practice.” Proceedings of the Sixth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education 2004: 1349–1358.
   Google Scholar
• Eady, M. J., and L. Lockyer. 2013. “Tools for Learning: Technology and Teaching Strategies.” Learning to Teach in the Primary School, 1: 1–24.
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y. 1999. “Activity Theory and Individual and Social Transformation.” Perspectives on Activity Theory 19 (38): 19–30.
   Google Scholar
• Engle, R. A., and F. R. Conant. 2002. “Guiding Principles for Fostering Productive Disciplinary Engagement: Explaining an Emergent Argument in a Community of Learners Classroom.” Cognition and Instruction 20 (4): 399–483. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI2004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Francis, J. 2017. The Effects of Technology on Student Motivation and Engagement in Classroom-Based Learning. University of New England. http://dune.une.edu/theseshttp://dune.une.edu/theses/121.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbs, G. 2009. “Análise de dados qualitativos: Coleção pesquisa qualitativa.” In Book Editora.
   Google Scholar
• Guin, D., and L. Trouche. 2002. “Mastering by the Teacher of the Instrumental Genesis in CAS Environments: Necessity of Intrumental Orchestrations.” Zentralblatt Für Didaktik Der Mathematik 34 (5): 204–211. doi:10.1007/BF02655823.
   Google Scholar
• Gutiérrez Ortiz, F. J., J. J. Fitzpatrick, and E. P. Byrne. 2021. “Development of Contemporary Engineering Graduate Attributes Through Open-Ended Problems and Activities.” European Journal of Engineering Education 46 (3): 441–456. doi:10.1080/03043797.2020.1803216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hair, J. F., Jr., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, R. E. Anderson, and R. L. Tatham. 2009. Análise multivariada de dados. São Paulo: Bookman Editora.
   Google Scholar
• Henri, D. C., L. J. Morrell, and G. W. Scott. 2018. “Student Perceptions of Their Autonomy at University.” Higher Education 75 (3): 507–516. doi:10.1007/s10734-017-0152-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofstein, A. 2017. “The Role of Laboratory in Science Teaching and Learning.” In Science Education, 357–368. Brill Sense. doi:10.1007/978-94-6300-749-8_26.
   Google Scholar
• Hopwood, N., and M. Nerland. 2019. “Epistemic Practices in Professional-Client Partnership Work.” Vocations and Learning 12 (2): 319–339. doi:10.1007/s12186-018-9214-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., and C. Reigosa. 2006. “Contextualizing Practices Across Epistemic Levels in the Chemistry Laboratory.” Science Education 90 (4): 707–733. doi:10.1002/sce.20132.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahu, E. R., and K. Nelson. 2018. “Student Engagement in the Educational Interface: Understanding the Mechanisms of Student Success.” Higher Education Research and Development 37 (1): 58–71. doi:10.1080/07294360.2017.1344197.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelly, G. 2008. “Inquiry, Activity and Epistemic Practice.” In Teaching Scientific Inquiry, 99–117. Brill Sense. doi:10.1163/9789460911453_009.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly, G. J. 2014. “Inquiry Teaching and Learning: Philosophical Considerations.” In International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching, 1363–1380. Dordrecht: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-7654-8.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly, G. J., and C. M. Cunningham. 2019. “Epistemic Tools in Engineering Design for K-12 Education.” Science Education 103 (4): 1080–1111. doi:10.1002/sce.21513.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelly, G. J., and P. Licona. 2018. “Epistemic Practices and Science Education.” In History, Philosophy and Science Teaching. Science: Philosophy, History and Education, edited by M. Matthews. Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, O.-K. 2018. “Teacher Decisions on Lesson Sequence and Their Impact on Opportunities for Students to Learn.” In Research on Mathematics Textbooks and Teachers’ Resources, 315–339. Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-73253-4_15.
   Google Scholar
• Kirschner, P. A., and M. A. M. Meester. 1988. “The Laboratory in Higher Science Education: Problems, Premises and Objectives.” Higher Education 17 (1): 81–98.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knorr-Cetina, K. 2007. “Culture in Global Knowledge Societies: Knowledge Cultures and Epistemic Cultures.” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 32 (4): 361–375. doi:10.1179/030801807X163571.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kul, U., and S. Celik. 2017. “Exploration of Pre-Service Teachers’ Beliefs in Relation to Mathematics Teaching Activities in Classroom-Based Setting.” International Journal of Research in Education and Science 3 (1): 245–257.
   Google Scholar
• Lawn, M., and I. Grosvenor. 2005. “Materialities of Schooling: Design, Technology, Objects, Routines.” Symposium Books Ltd 217. doi:10.1177/0268580906067823.
   Google Scholar
• Leontiev, A. N. 1978. Activity, Consciousness, and Personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. https://www.marxists.org/archive/leontev/works/activity-consciousness.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Lidar, M., E. Lundqvist, and L. Östman. 2006. “Teaching and Learning in the Science Classroom: The Interplay Between Teachers’ Epistemological Moves and Students’ Practical Epistemology.” Science Education 90 (1): 148–163. doi:10.1002/sce.20092.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin, T. C., Y. S. Hsu, S. S. Lin, M. L. Changlai, K. Y. Yang, and T. L. Lai. 2012. “A Review of Empirical Evidence on Scaffolding for Science Education.” International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 10 (2): 437–455. doi:10.1007/s10763-011-9322-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindfors, M., M. Bodin, and S. Simon. 2020. “Unpacking Students’ Epistemic Cognition in a Physics Problem-Solving Environment.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 57 (5): 695–732.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lopes, J. B. 2009. A mediação do professor de ciências físicas em sala de aula: Explorando novas possibilidades. 37–45. Actas: XIII Encontro Nacional de Educação em Ciências. http://home.utad.pt/~idf/mediacao/publicacoes/CongressoNacional_2009_Mediacao_Professor.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Lopes, J. B. 2019. “Visual Representation Artifacts Used as Epistemic Tools to Improve the Quality of Mathematics and Science Teaching Practices.” In Teaching Practices – Implementation, Challenges and Outcomes, edited by B. Vogler, 45–74. NewYork: Nova Science Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Lopes, J. B., and C. Costa. 2019. “Digital Resources in Science, Mathematics and Technology Teaching – How to Convert Them Into Tools to Learn.” In TECH-EDU, 1–13. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-20954-4_18.
   Google Scholar
• Lopes, J. B., and C. Costa. 2021. “Converting Digital Resources Into Epistemic Tools Enhancing STEM Learning.” In Technology and Innovation in Learning, Teaching and Education, edited by A. Reis, et al., Vol. 2, 3–20. Springer Nature. TECH-EDU 2020, CCIS 1384. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-73988-1.
   Google Scholar
• Lopes, J. B., J. P. Cravino, M. Branco, E. Saraiva, and A. A. Silva. 2008. “Mediation of Student Learning: Dimensions and Evidences in Science Teaching.” Problems of Education in the 21st Century 9: 42–52. http://oaji.net/articles/2014/457-1392298120.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Lopes, J. B., A. E. Cunha, C. A. Santos, E. Saraiva, J. P. Cravino, and F. Dinis. 2012. “Envolver os alunos produtivamente em aulas de física e química durante uso de simulações computacionais: Dois professores com mediações distintas e uso distinto das simulações.” Revista Do Centro de Investigação e Inovação Em Educação 2 (2): 121–137.
   Google Scholar
• Lopes, J. B., A. A. Silva, J. P. Cravino, C. Viegas, A. E. Cunha, E. Saraiva, and C. A. Santos. 2010. Investigação sobre a mediação de professores de ciências físicas em sala de aula. Vila Real: Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro.
   Google Scholar
• Lopes, J. B., A. A. Silva, J. P. Cravino, C. Viegas, A. E. Cunha, E. Saraiva, and C. A. Santos. 2012. “Instrumentos de ajuda à mediação do professor para promover a aprendizagem dos alunos e o desenvolvimento profissional dos professores.” Revista Do Centro de Investigação e Inovação Em Educação 2 (1): 125–171. http://recipp.ipp.pt/bitstream/10400.22/6298/1/Sensos 3–Instrumentos de ajuda à mediação do professor para promover aprendizagem dos alunos.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Lopes, J., C. Viegas, and A. Pinto. 2018. Melhorar Práticas de Ensino de Ciências e Tecnologia – Registar e Investigar com Narrações Multimodais. Lisbon: 1a Edição. Edições Sílabo, Lda.
   Google Scholar
• Lopes, J. B., M. C. Viegas, and J. A. Pinto. 2019. “The Importance of Making Teaching Practices Public, Shareable, and Usable: The Role of Multimodal Narratives.” In Multimodal Narratives in Research and Teaching Practices, 1–42. IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-8570-1.ch001.
   Google Scholar
• Markauskaite, L., and P. Goodyear. 2017. “Epistemic Tools and Artefacts in Epistemic Practices and Systems.” In Epistemic Fluency and Professional Education, edited by Lina Markauskaite and Peter Goodyear, 233–264. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• McDonald, G., H. Le, J. Higgins, and V. Podmore. 2005. “Artifacts, Tools, and Classrooms.” Mind, Culture, and Activity 12 (2): 113–127.
   Google Scholar
• Méheut, M. 2005. “Teaching-Learning Sequences Tools for Learning and/or Research.” In Research and the Quality of Science Education, 195–207. Dordrecht: Springer. doi:10.1007/1-4020-3673-6_16.
   Google Scholar
• Méheut, M., and D. Psillos. 2004. “Teaching-Learning Sequences: Aims and Tools for Science Education Research.” International Journal of Science Education 26 (5): 515–535. doi:10.1080/09500690310001614762.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menekse, M., and M. T. H. Chi. 2019. “The Role of Collaborative Interactions Versus Individual Construction on Students’ Learning of Engineering Concepts.” European Journal of Engineering Education 44 (5): 702–725. doi:10.1080/03043797.2018.1538324.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, E., D. Stroupe, and R. Russ. 2018. “Addressing the Epistemic Elephant in the Room: Epistemic Agency and the Next Generation Science Standards.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 55 (7): 1053–1075. doi:10.1002/tea.21459.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monaghan, J., L. Trouche, and J. M. Borwein. 2016. Tools and Mathematics. Berlin: Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Nerland, M., and K. Jensen. 2012. “Epistemic Practices and Object Relations in Professional Work.” Journal of Education and Work 25 (1): 101–120. doi:10.1080/13639080.2012.644909.
   Google Scholar
• Nolen, S. B., and M. D. Koretsky. 2018. “Affordances of Virtual and Physical Laboratory Projects for Instructional Design: Impacts on Student Engagement.” IEEE Transactions on Education 61 (3): 226–233. doi:10.1109/TE.2018.2791445.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park, Y., and I. H. Jo. 2016. “Using Log Variables in a Learning Management System to Evaluate Learning Activity Using the Lens of Activity Theory.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 42 (4): 531–547. doi:10.1080/02602938.2016.1158236.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rabardel, P. 1995. Les hommes et les technologies; approche cognitive des instruments contemporains. Armand Colin.
   Google Scholar
• Reveles, J. M., R. Cordova, and G. J. Kelly. 2004. “Science Literacy and Academic Identity Formulation.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41 (10): 1111–1144. doi:10.1002/tea.20041.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sannino, A., and Y. Engeström. 2018. “Cultural-Historical Activity Theory: Founding Insights and New Challenges.” Cultural-Historical Psychology 14 (3): 43–56. doi:10.17759/chp.2018140304.
   Google Scholar
• Sansone, N., I. Bortolotti, and S. Buglass. 2016. “The Trialogical Learning Approach in Practices: Reflections from Pedagogical Cases.” Qwerty-Open and Interdisciplinary Journal of Technology, Culture and Education 11 (2): 99–120.
   Google Scholar
• Saraiva, E., A. E. Cunha, C. A. Santos, J. B. Lopes, and J. P. Cravino. 2012. “Papel da mediação do professor na promoção do trabalho epistémico dos alunos durante o uso de simulações computacionais.” Física, 51–58. https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/38813134/2012FISICA_Saraiva_et_al_EpistemicPractices_CS.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1519989306&Signature=rXUXqF3nQlqLkWO96L2gAKzR%2FRw%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B filename.
   Google Scholar
• Sasseron, L. H., and R. A. Duschl. 2016. “Ensino de ciências e as práticas epistêmicas: O papel do professor e o engajamento dos estudantes.” Investigações Em Ensino de Ciências 21 (2): 52. doi:10.22600/1518-8795.ienci2016v21n2p52.
   Google Scholar
• Sezen-Barrie, A., M. K. Stapleton, and G. Marbach-Ad. 2020. “Science Teachers’ Sensemaking of the Use of Epistemic Tools to Scaffold Students’ Knowledge (Re)Construction in Classrooms.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 57 (7): 1058–1092. doi:10.1002/tea.21621.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shapin, S. 1988. “The House of Experiment in Seventeenth-Century England.” Isis 79 (3): 373–404. doi:10.1086/354773.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silva, A. C. T. 2015. “Interações discursivas e práticas epistêmicas em sala de aula de ciências.” Ensaio Pesquisa Em Educação Em Ciências (Belo Horizonte) 17 (SPE): 69–96.
   Google Scholar
• Silva, E. L., and E. J. Wartha. 2018. “Estabelecendo relações entre as dimensões pedagógica e epistemológica no Ensino de Ciências.” Ciência & Educação (Bauru) 24: 337–354. doi:10.1590/1516-731320180020006.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, K. A. 1995. “Cooperative Learning: Effective Teamwork for Engineering Classrooms.” Proceedings Frontiers in Education 1995 25th Annual Conference. Engineering Education for the 21st Century 1: 208–213. doi:10.1109/fie.1995.483059.
   Google Scholar
• Stefanou, C. R., K. C. Perencevich, M. Dicintio, and J. C. Turner. 2004. “Supporting Autonomy in the Classroom: Ways Teachers Encourage Student Decision Making and Ownership.” Educational Psychologist 39 (2): 97–110. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3902.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stojanov, Z., D. Dobrilovic, and T. Zorić. 2017. “Exploring Students’ Experiences in Using a Physical Laboratory for Computer Networks and Data Security.” Computer Applications in Engineering Education 25 (2): 290–303. doi:10.1002/cae.21797.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tondeur, J. D. B., E. Driessche, M. Van Den, S. McKenney, and D. Zandvliet. 2015. “The Physical Placement of Classroom Technology and Its Influences on Educational Practices.” Cambridge Journal of Education 45 (4): 537–556. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2014.998624.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verillon, P., and P. Rabardel. 1995. “Cognition and Artifacts: A Contribution to the Study of Though in Relation to Instrumented Activity.” European Journal of Psychology of Education 10 (1): 77–101. doi:10.1007/BF03172796.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vince, J., and A. Tiberghien. 2002. “Modelling in Teaching and Learning Elementary Physics.” In The Role of Communication in Learning to Model, 49–68. Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Voerman, L., P. C. Meijer, F. A. Korthagen, and R. J. Simons. 2012. “Types and Frequencies of Feedback Interventions in Classroom Interaction in Secondary Education.” Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (8): 1107–1115. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.06.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woods, D. D., and E. M. Roth. 1988. “Cognitive Engineering: Human Problem Solving With Tools.” Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 30 (4): 415–430. doi:10.1177/001872088803000404.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yin, R. K. 2018. “Case Study Research and Applications.” In Design and Methods, edited by R. K. Yin. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/case-study-research-andapplications/book250150.
   Google Scholar