SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Agha, A. (2007). Language and social relations. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Aikenhead, G. S. (1996). Science education: Border crossing into the subculture of science. Studies in Science Education, 27, 152.
  • Allen, S. (2002). Looking for learning in visitor talk: A methodological exploration. In G.Leinhardt, K.Crowley, & K.Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. 259304). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Anderson, D., Lucas, K. B., & Ginns, I. S. (2003). Theoretical perspectives on learning in an informal setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(2), 177199.
  • Ash, D. (2002). Negotiations of thematic conversations about biology. In G.Leinhardt, K.Crowley, & K.Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. 357400). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Ash, D. (2007). Using video data to capture discontinuous science meaning making in nonschool settings. In R.Goldman, R.Pea, B.Barron, & S. J.Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 207226). Routledge.
  • Barman, C. R., Barman, N. S., Cox, M. L., Newhouse, K. B., & Goldston, M. J. (2000). Students' ideas about animals: Results from a national study. Science and Children, 38, 4247.
  • Bell, P. (2002). Using argument map representations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups. In T.Koschmann, R.Hall, & N.Miyake (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 449485). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Bell, P., Bricker, L. A., Lee, T. R., Reeve, S., & Zimmerman, H. T. (2006). Understanding the cultural foundations of children's biological knowledge: Insights from everyday cognition research. In S. A.Barab, K. E.Hay, & D.Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS; pp. 10291035) Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A. W., & Feder, M. A. (Eds.). (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  • Bell, P., Zimmerman, H. T., & Clark, T. H. (2006) Technical report: Recommended fieldwork & analysis equipment for video-based ethnographic research (version 1, March 2006). Retrieved March 10, 2006, from www.life-slc.org.
  • Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24(3), 61100.
  • Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92(3), 473498.
  • Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (In preparation). Linguistic markers as evidence of interdiscursive learning in youth talk across encounters.
  • Brickhouse, N., Lowery, P., & Schultz, K. (2000). What kind of a girl does science? The construction of a school science identity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 441458.
  • Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K.McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom (pp. 229270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G.Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 146). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Cole, M., Hood, L., & McDermott, R. (1997). Concepts of ecological validity: Their differing implications for comparative cognitive research. In M.Cole, Y.Engeström, & O.Vasquez (Eds.), Mind, culture, and activity: Seminal papers from the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition (pp. 4956). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Crowley, K., Callanan, M. A., Tenenbaum, H. R., & Allen, E. (2001). Parents explain more often to boys than to girls during shared scientific thinking. Psychological Science, 12(3), 258261.
    Direct Link:
  • Crowley, K., & Jacobs, M. (2002). Building islands of expertise in everyday family activity. In G.Leinhardt, K.Crowley, & K.Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. 333356). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • diSessa, A. (2002). Why “conceptual ecology” is a good idea. In M.Limón & L.Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 2960). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
  • Ellenbogen, K. M. (2002). Museums in family life: An ethnographic case study. In G.Leinhardt, K.Crowley, & K.Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. 81102). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C.Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119161) New York: Macmillan.
  • Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2000). The museum experience. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.
  • Fine, G. A. (1983) Shared fantasy: Role playing games as social worlds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London: Routledge.
  • Gilbert, J., & Priest, M. (1997). Models and discourse: A primary school science class visit to a museum. Science Education, 81(6), 749762.
  • Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.
  • Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606633.
  • Goodwin, C. (2000). Practices of color classification. Mind, Culture and Activity, 7(1–2), 1936.
  • Goodwin, M. H., & Goodwin, C. (1987). Children's arguing. In S. U.Phillips, S.Steele, & C.Tanz (Eds.), Language, gender, and sex in comparative perspective (pp. 200248). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gutiérrez, K., Baquedano-Lopez, P. & Tejada, C. (1999). Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6(4), 286303.
  • Gutiérrez, K., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 22(5), 1925.
  • Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R. E., & Redish, E. F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J.Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning: Research and perspectives Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
  • Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • James, W. (1911). The varieties of religious experience: A study in human nature (Being the Gifford lectures on natural religion delivered at Edinburgh in 1901–1902). London: Longmans, Green & Co.
  • Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39103.
  • Keil, F. C. (1992). Origins of an autonomous biology. In M. R. Gunnar & M. P. Maratsos (Eds). Modularity and constraints in language and cognition: Minnesota symposia on child psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 103139). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Korpan, C. A., Bisanz, G. L., Bisanz, J., Boehme, C., & Lynch, M. A. (1997). What did you learn outside of school today? Using structured interviews to document home and community activities related to science and technology. Science Education, 81(6), 651662.
  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  • Lemke, J. L. (2000). Cognition, context, and learning: A social semiotic perspective. In D.Kirshner & J. A.Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives (pp. 3755). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Linn, M. C. (2006). The knowledge integration perspective on learning and instruction. In R. K.Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 243264). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Meltzoff, A., Kuhl, P., Movellan, J., & Sejnowski, T. (2009). Foundations for a new science of learning. Science, 325(5938), 284288.
  • Nasir, N. S., Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., & Lee, C. D. (2006). Learning as a cultural process: Achieving equity through diversity. In R. K.Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 489504). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Ochs, E., & Taylor, C. (1992). Science at dinner. In C.Kramsch & S.McConnell-Ginet (Eds.), Text and context: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on language study (pp. 2945). Lexington, MA: DC Heath.
  • Ochs, E., Taylor, C., Rudolph, D., & Smith, R. (1992). Storytelling as a theory-building activity. Discourse Process, 15, 3772.
  • Pea, R. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G.Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 4787). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J. V.Wertsch, P.Del Rio, & A.Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 139164). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Rorty, R. (1999). Philosophy and social hope. London: Penguin.
  • Rose, M. (2004). The mind at work: Valuing the intelligence of the American worker. New York: Penguin.
  • Saxe, G. B. (1996). Studying cognitive development in sociocultural context: The development of a practice-based approach. In R.Jessor, A.Colby, & R. A.Shweder (Eds.), Ethnography and human development (pp. 275303). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Schauble, L., & Bartlett, K. (1997). Constructing a science gallery for children and families: The role of research in an innovative design process. Science Education, 81(6), 781793.
  • Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., & Sears, D. (2005). Efficiency and innovation in transfer. In J.Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 151). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
  • Scribner, S. (1986). Thinking in action: Some characteristics of practical thought. In R. J.Sternberg & R. K.Wagner (Eds.), Practical intelligence: Nature and origins of competence in the everyday world Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Silverstein, M. (2005). Axes of evals: Token versus type interdiscursivity. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 15(1), 622.
  • Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
  • Squire, K. (2005). Changing the game: What happens when video games enter the classroom? Innovate, 1(6). Retrieved July 1, 2008, from http://innovateonline.info/index.php?view=issue&id=9.
  • Stevens, R., Satwicz, T., & McCarthy, L. (2007). In-game, in-room, in-world: Reconnecting video game play to the rest of kids' lives. In K.Salen (Ed.), Ecology of games: Macarthur Foundation series on digital media and learning Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51(2), 273286.
  • Tenenbaum, H. R., & Leaper, C. (2003). Parent–child conversations about science: The socialization of gender inequities? Developmental Psychology, 39(1), 3447.
  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Tools and symbols in child development. In M.Cole, V.John-Steiner, S.Scribner, & E.Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society (pp. 1930). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.