References

  1. Adams, W.K., Paulson, A., & Wieman, C.E. (2008). What Levels of Guidance Promote Engaged Exploration with Interactive Simulations? AIP Conf. Proceedings, 1064, 59-62. (compadre), (AIP Conf. Proc.)
  2. Adams, W.K., Reid, S., LeMaster, R., McKagan, S.B., Perkins, K.K., Dubson, M., & Wieman, C.E. (2008). A Study of Educational Simulatinos Part I - Engagement and Learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(3), 397-419.(website)
  3. Christian, W. (n.d.). Physlets [Software]. Available from http://webphysics.davidson.edu/Applets/Applets.html
  4. Clark, D., Nelson, B., Sengupta, P., & D'Angelo, C. (2009). Rethinking Science Learning Through Digital Games and Simulations: Genres, Examples, and Evidence. Learning Science: Computer Games, Simulations, and Education Commissioned Papers. Board on Science Education: Center for Education.
  5. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural Psychology: a Once and Future Discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (amazon)
  6. Davidowitz, B., Chittleborough, G., & Murray, E. (2010). What can student-generated diagrams tell us about their understanding of chemical equations? SAARMSTE 2010: Proceedings of the 18th Annual Meeting of the Southern African Association for Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education: Crossing the Boundaries, 51-58. http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30025036
  7. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York, NY: Kappa Delta Pi. (amazon)
  8. Finkelstein, N.D. (2005). Learning physics in context: a study of student learning about electricity and magnetism International Journal of Science Education, 27(10), 1187-1209. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690500069491
  9. Finkelstein, N.D., Adams, W.K., Keller, C.J., Kohl, P.B., Perkins, K.K., Podolefsky, N.S., Reid, S., & LeMaster, R. (2005). When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., 1(1), 010103. (Phys. Rev.)
  10. Finkelstein, N.D., Adams, W.K., Keller, C.J., Perkins, K.K., & Wieman, C.E. (2006). High-Tech Tools for Teaching Physics: the Physics Education Technology Project. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 2(3), 109-121. (JOLT website), (pdf)
  11. Gizmos! Online Simulations that power inquiry and understanding. (2012). Retrieved December 9, 2012 from: http://www.explorelearning.com/ .
  12. Hawkins, D. (1974). The Informed Vision: Essays on Learning and Human Nature. New York: Agathon Press. (amazon)
  13. Hutchins, Edwin (1995). Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (amazon)
  14. Kearney, M. (2004). Classroom Use of Multimedia-Supported Predict-Observe-Explain Tasks in a Social Constructivist Learning Environment. Research In Science Education. 34 (4), 427-453. (springer link)
  15. Keller, C.J., Finkelstein, N.D., Perkins, K.K., & Pollock, S.J. (2005). Assessing the Effectiveness of A Computer Simulation In Conjunction With Tutorials In Introductory Physics In Undergraduate Physics Recitations. AIP Conf. Proceedings, 818, 109-112. (AIP Conf. Proc.)
  16. Kohl, P.B. & Finkelstein, N.D. (2008) Patterns of multiple representation use by experts and novices during physics problem solving. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Ed. Res. 4, 010111. (Phys. Rev.)
  17. Kuhn, T.S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (amazon)
  18. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (amazon)
  19. McKagan, S.B., Perkins, K.K., Dubson, M., Reid, S., LeMaster, R., Malley, C., & Wieman, C.E. (2008). Developing and researching PhET simulations for teaching quantum mechanics. Am. J. Phys 76(4&5), 406-417. (Am. J. Phys.)
  20. Mintzes, J.J., Wandersee, J.H., & Novak, J.D. (2005). Teaching Science for Understanding: A human constructivist view. Elsevier Inc. (amazon)
  21. Moore, E.B., Herzog, T., & Perkins, K.K. (2013). Interactive simulations as implicit support for guided-inquiry. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C3RP20157K
  22. National Research Council (2011). Learning Science Through Computer Games and Simulations. Committee on Science Learning: Computer Games, Simulations, and Education, Margaret A. Honey and Margaret L. Hilton, Eds. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. (NAS website)
  23. Otero, V. (2004). Cognitive processes and the learning of physics part II: Mediated action. Proceedings of the International School of Physics ``Enrico Fermi'', 156, 447-471. (IOS Press), (pdf)
  24. Perkins, K.K., Moore, E.B., Podolefsky, N.S., Lancaster, K., & Denison, C. (2011). Towards Research-based Strategies For Using PhET Simulations In Middle School Physical Science Classes. AIP Conf. Proceedings. 1413, 295-298. (compadre), (AIP Conf. Proc.)
  25. PhET: Free online physics, chemistry, biology, earth science and math simulations. (2012a). Retrieved November 11, 2012, from phet.colorado.edu/
  26. PhET Quantum Tunneling Simulation. (2012b). Retreived on Dec. 1, 2012 from phet.colorado.edu/en/simulation/quantum-tunneling
  27. PhET Build a Molecule Simulation. (2012c). Retreived on Nov. 11, 2012 from phet.colorado.edu/en/simulation/build-a-molecule
  28. Podolefsky, N.S., Perkins, K.K., & Adams, W.K. (2010). Factors promoting engaged exploration with computer simulations. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., 6(2), 020117. (Phys. Rev.)
  29. Podolefsky, N.S., Rehn, D.A., & Perkins, K.K. (2013). Affordances of play for student agency and student-centered pedagogy. AIP Conf. Proceedings, 1513, 306. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4789713.
  30. Redish, E.F. (2003). Teaching Physics with the Physics Suite. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (Book Website)
  31. Rieber, L. P. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational Technology Research & Development, 44(2), 43-58. (Mendeley), (full piece online)
  32. Roth, W. & Radford, L. (2011). A cultural-historical perspective on mathematics teaching and learning. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers. (amazon)
  33. Sanger, M.J. (2005). Evaluating students' conceptual understanding of balanced equations and stoichiometric ratios using a particulate drawing. Journal of Chemical Education, 82(1), 131-134. doi:http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1021/ed082p131
  34. Shaffer, P.S. & McDermott, L.C. (1991). Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. Part II: Design of instructional strategies. Am. J. Phys. 60(11), 1003-1013. (Am. J. Phys.)
  35. Singer, S.R., Hilton, M. L., & Schweingruber, H.A. (2005). America's Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science. The National Academies Press. (NAS website)
  36. Smith, M.K., Wood, W.B., Adams, W.K., Wieman, C.E., Knight, J.K., Guild, N., & Su, T.T. (2009). Why Peer Discussion Improves Student Performance on In-Class Concept Questions. Science, 323(5910), 122-124. (Science)
  37. StarLogo TNG [Software]. (2008). MIT Scheller Teacher Education Program. Available from http://education.mit.edu/projects/starlogo-tng.
  38. TEAL: Technology Enabled Active Learning [Software]. (1999). MIT iCampus. Available from http://icampus.mit.edu/projects/teal/.
  39. Vygotsky, L.S. & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (amazon)
  40. White, R. & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing Understanding. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press. (amazon)
  41. Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo [Software]. Available from http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/.