Aula de ciências em laboratório de informática: uma construção discursiva do monopólio participativo

Autores

  • Bruno de Oliveira-Jayme University of Victoria
  • Giuliano Reis University of Ottawa
  • Michiel van Eijck Eindhoven University of Technology
  • Wolf-Michael Roth University of Victoria

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.26512/lc.v18i35.3843

Palavras-chave:

Tecnologia e educação, Trabalho colaborativo, Aprendizagem baseadano uso de computadores, Educação em ciências, Análise do discurso

Resumo

No presente estudo, examinamos como a natureza das interações entre os membros de  um  grupo  de estudantes durante uma  atividade  escolar mediada pelo uso de computadores não só é influenciada pela disposição física dos componentes do grupo,  como também possibilita a ocorrência de monopolização. Utilizando uma perspectiva sociocultural  da  aprendizagem  em  conjunto   com  a  análise  do  discurso como ferramentas de análise e interpretação dos dados,  investigou-se as trocas verbais  e não verbais  entre  participantes um grupo de trabalho numa  sala de aula do ensino fundamental para discutir  as consequências negativas de tal dinâmica de grupo para  a coesão grupal  e o ensino e aprendizagem de ciências em tais ambientes escolares.

Downloads

Não há dados estatísticos.

Referências

AZEVEDO, Roger. Computers environments as metacognitive tools for enhancing learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), p. 193-197, 2005.

BLATCHORD Peter; KATNICK, Peter; BAINES, Ed.; GALTON, Maurice. Changes in grouping practicesover primary and secondary school. International Journal of Education Research, 39,p. 9-34, 2003.

BROWN, Annemarie Sullivan; PALINCSAR, Ann. Guided cooperative learning and individual knowledge, acquisition. In: L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1989, p. 393-451.

CALDERON, Muriel; HERTZ-LAZAROWITZ, Rachel; SLAVIN, Robert. Effects of bilingual cooperative integrated reading and composition on students making the transition from Spanish to Englishreading. Elementary School Journal, 99,p. 153-165, 1998.

EDWARDS, Derek; POTTER, Jonathan. Discursive psychology. London: Sage, 1992.

EGAN, Gerard. The skilled helper: A systematic approach to effective helping. Pacific Grove, CA:Brooks/Cole, 1997.

GOODWIN, Charles. Gestures as a resource for the organization of mutual orientation. Semiotica, 62,p. 29-49, 1986.

HAMMERSLEY, Martin. Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: Methods or paradigms?Discourse & Society, 14(6), p. 751-781, 2003.

De OLIVEIRA”“JAYME, Bruno; REIS, Giuliano; ROTH, Wichael”“Wolff (2011). Egomorphism in simplewords: Discursive pedagogical artefact in/for environmental education. Journal of Education Research,4(4). Disponível em: <https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=24164&osCsid=b17406f46d25c202a8c2998398043182>. Acesso em: 20 ago. 2011.

JOHNSON, David; JOHNSON, Roger; MITCHEL, John; FREDRICKSON, John. The impact of conflict resolution training on middle school students. Journal of Social Psychology, 137, p. 11-21, 1997.

KAPUT, James. Technology and mathematics education. In: D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for researchon mathematics teaching and learning. New York: Macmillan, p. 515-556, 1992.

KULIK, James. (Meta-analytic studies of findings on computer-based instruction. In: E. L. Baker; H.F. O’Neil Jr. (Eds.), Technology assessment in education and training. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum, p. 9-34, 1994.

LAVE, Jean; WENGER, Etienne. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge,England: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

LEONT’EV, Alexei Nikolaevich. The problem of activity in psychology. In: J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Theconcept of activity in Soviet psychology. Armonk, NY: Sharpe, 1981, p. 37-71.

LINDGREN, Rob; SCHWARTS, Daniel. Spatial learning and computer simulations in science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(3), p. 419-438, 2009.

LOUCAS, Louca; ZACHARIAH, Zachariah. The use of computer-based programming environments ascomputer modeling tools in early science education: the cases of textual and graphical programlanguages. International Journal of Science Education, 30(3), p. 285-321, 2008.

MARBACH-AD, Gili; SOKOLOVE, Phillip. Can undergraduate biology students learn to ask higher level questions? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, p. 854-870, 2000.

MCNEILL, David. Action, thought, and language. In P. Llyod; C. Fernyhough (Eds.), Lev Vygotsky:Critical assessments: Thought and language, Vol. II, p. 23”“30. Florence, KY: Taylor & Francis/Routledge, 1999.

MACNEILL, David. Catchments and contexts: non-modular factors in speech and gesture production.In: D. McNeill (Ed.), Language and gesture. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2000,p. 312”“328.

MILLER, Judith, TRIMBUR, John.; WILKES, John. Group dynamics: Understanding group success andfailure in collaborative learning. In K. Bosworth; S. Hamilton (Eds.), Collaborative learning: Underlyingprocesses and effective techniques. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994, p. 56-73.

MOOS, Daniel,; AZEVEDO, Roger. Learning with computer-based learning environments: a literature review of computer self-efficacy. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), p. 576-600, 2009.

NORRIS, Cathleen; SMOLKA, Jennifer; SOLOWAY, Elliot. Extracting value from research: A guide forthe perplexed. Techonology & Learning, 20, p. 45-48, 2000.

PAPADOURIS, Nicos; CONSTANTINOS, Constantinou. A methodology for integrating computer-basedlearning tools in science curricula. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(4), p. 521-538, 2009.

REIS, Giuliano. Committing treason to oneself: Neglecting the effectiveness of translated activities inscience and environmental education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4(1), p. 133-140, 2009.

ROBERTS, Tim; MCINNERENY, Joanne. Collaborative or cooperative learning? In: T. S. Roberts (Ed.),Online collaborative learning: Theory and practice. Hersey, PA: Information Science Publishing, 2004,p. 203”“241.

ROTH, Michael”“Wolff; WOSZCZYNA, Carolyn; SMITH, Gillian. Affordances and constraints of computersin science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, p. 995-1017, 1996.

SCHMUCK, Richard; SCHMUCK, Patricia. Group process in the classroom.Dubuque, IA: William C.Brown, 1979.

STAARMAN, Judith; AARNOUTSE, Cor; VERHOEVEN, Ludo. Connecting discourses: Intertextuality ina primary school CSCL practice. International Journal of Educational Research, 39,p. 807-816, 2003.

VALANIDES, Nicos; ANGELI, Charoula. Professional development for computer-enhanced learning: acase study with science teachers. Research in Science & Technological Education, 26(1), p. 3-12, 2008.

VAN JOOLINGEN, Wouter; DE JONG, Ton; DIMITRAKOPOULOU, Angelique. Issues in computersupported inquiry learning in science. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, p. 111-119, 2007.

VAN JOOLINGEN, Wouter; DE JONG, Ton; LAZONDER, Ard; SAVELSBERGH, Elwin; MANLOVE, Sarah.Co-Laboratory: research and development of an online learning environment for collaborativescientific discovery learning. Computers in Human Behavior 21, p. 671-688, 2005.

VYGOTSKY, Lev Semyonovich. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978.

Downloads

Publicado

27.04.2012

Como Citar

Oliveira-Jayme, B. de, Reis, G., Eijck, M. van, & Roth, W.-M. (2012). Aula de ciências em laboratório de informática: uma construção discursiva do monopólio participativo. Linhas Crí­ticas, 18(35), 107–125. https://doi.org/10.26512/lc.v18i35.3843

Edição

Seção

Dossiê: Ensino de Ciências e Matemática

Artigos Semelhantes

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 > >> 

Você também pode iniciar uma pesquisa avançada por similaridade para este artigo.