Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-04T15:31:52.974Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

20 - Making Authentic Practices Accessible to Learners

Design Challenges and Strategies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Daniel C. Edelson  and
Brian J. Reiser
Edited by
R. Keith Sawyer
Daniel C. Edelson
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
Brian J. Reiser
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
R. Keith Sawyer
Affiliation:
Washington University, St Louis
Get access

Summary

In recent years, it has become increasingly common for researchers and educators to advocate engaging learners in authentic practices as part of their learning experiences. In the United States, authentic practices are central to many educational standards documents. For example, the National Geographic Standards argue that “students should be given the opportunity to ask geographic questions, acquire geographic information, organize geographic information, analyze geographic information, and answer geographic questions” (Geography Education Standards Project, 1994, p. 47). These are the same tasks that geographers and others who use geographic knowledge perform in the course of their professional practice. Similarly, the National Science Education Standards state, “Students at all grade levels and in every domain of science should have the opportunity to use scientific inquiry and develop the ability to think and act in ways associated with inquiry …” (National Research Council, 1996, p. 10).

The arguments for engaging learners in authentic practices tend to focus on three benefits. First, learning to participate in a particular practice may be valuable to a population of students because they will engage in that practice outside of the learning environment. Second, engaging learners in authentic practices can provide a meaningful context that may increase their motivation to learn and may improve their learning of content by focusing their attention in ways that will enhance their ability to apply what they have learned in the future (Edelson, 2001; Kolodner et al., 2003; Rivet, 2003).

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences , pp. 335 - 354
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barron, B. J. S., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L.. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3–4), 271–311.Google Scholar
Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumenfeld, P. C., Fishman, B. J., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2000). Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: Scaling-up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist, 35, 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In McGilly, K. (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229–272). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brunner, C. (1990). Designing INQUIRE (Technical Report No. 50): Center for Children and Technology.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355–385.3.0.CO;2-M>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., Clark, B. A., Brown, M., & Griffin, D. (1997). Worldwatcher [Computer Software]. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.Google Scholar
Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3&4), 391–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelson, D. C., Pea, R. D., & Gomez, L. M. (1996, April 1996). The collaboratory notebook: Support for collaborative inquiry. Communications of the ACM, 39, 32–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelson, D. C., Slusher, D., Owns, L., Pitts, V., Matese, G., & Marshall, S. (2004). Planetary forecaster. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.Google Scholar
Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Science Education, 85, 554–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geography Education Standards Project. (1994). Geography for life: National geography standards 1994. Washington, DC: National Geographic.
Herrenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 431–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrenkohl, L. R., Palincsar, A. S., DeWater, L. S., & Kawasaki, K. (1999). Developing scientific communities in classrooms: A sociocognitive approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3–4), 451–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollan, J. D., Hutchins, E., & Kirsh, D. (2000). Distributed cognition: Toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7, 174–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaput, J. J. (1989). Linking representations in the symbol systems of algebra. In Wagner, S. & Kieran, C. (Eds.), Research issues in the learning and teaching of algebra. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J.. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design into practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozma, R. B., Russell, J., Jones, T., Marx, N., & Davis, J. (1996). The use of multiple, linked representations to facilitate science understanding. In Vosniadou, S., Glase, R., DeCorte, E., & Mandel, H. (Eds.), International perspective on the psychological foundations of technology-based learning environments (pp. 41–60). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Krajcik, J., & Reiser, B. J. (Eds.). (2004). IQWST: Investigating and questioning our world through science and technology. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Kuhn, L., & Reiser, B. J. (2005, April). Students constructing and defending evidence-based scientific explanations. Paper to be presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.
Kyza, E. (2004). Understanding reflection-in-action: An investigation into middle-school students' reflective inquiry practices in science and the role that software scaffolding can play. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
Linn, M. C., Bell, B., & Davis, E. A. (2004). Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Linn, M. C., & Slotta, J. D. (2000, October). Wise science. Educational Leadership, 29–32.Google Scholar
Loh, B., Radinsky, J., Reiser, B. J., Gomez, L. M., Edelson, D. C., & Russell, E. (1997). The progress portfolio: Promoting reflective inquiry in complex investigation environments. In Hall, R., Miyake, N., & Enyedy, N. (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL 97: Computer support for collaborative learning, Toronto, Canada, December 10–14, 1997 (pp. 169–178). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loh, B., Reiser, B. J., Radinsky, J., Edelson, D. C., Gomez, L. M., & Marshall, S. (2001). Developing reflective inquiry practices: A case study of software, the teacher, and students. In Crowley, K., Schunn, C. D., & Okada, T. (Eds.), Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom, and professional settings (pp. 279–323). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (in press). Middle school students' use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In Lovett, M. C. & Shah, P. (Eds.), Thinking with data: The proceedings of the 33rd carnegie symposium on cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.Google Scholar
Pitts, V. M., & Edelson, D. C. (2004). Role, goal, and activity: A framework for characterizing participation and engagementin project-based learning environments. In Kafai, Y. B., Sandoval, W. A., Enyedy, N., Nixon, A. S., & Herrera, F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth international conference of the learning sciences, Santa Monica, CA, June 23–26, 2004 (pp. 420–426). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Quintana, C., Reiser, B., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Golan, R., Kyza, E., et al. (2002). Evolving a scaffolding design framework for designing educational software. In Bell, P., Stevens, R., & Satwicz, T. (Eds.), Keeping learning complex: The proceedings of the fifth international conference of the learning sciences (icls). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G.. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 387–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiser, B. J., Carney, K., Holum, A., Laczina, E., Rodriguez, C., & Steinmuller, F. (2000). The struggle for survival. Evanston, IL: The Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B. K., Steinmuller, F., & Leone, A. J. (2001). BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In Carver, S. M. & Klahr, D. (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 263–305). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rivet, A. E. (2003). Contextualizing instruction and student learning in middle school project-based science classrooms. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students' scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1987). What's all the fuss about metacognition? In Schoenfeld, A. H. (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 189–215). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Smith, C. L., Maclin, D., Houghton, C., & Hennessey, M. G. (2000). Sixth-grade students' epistemologies of science: The impact of school science experiences on epistemological development. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 349–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Reiser, B. J., & Steinmuller, F. (2000). The Galapagos finches, in Jungck, J. & Vaughan, V. (Eds.), The BIOQUEST library volume ⅵ [Computer Software]. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×