Heavenly Talk: Discourse, Artifacts, and Children’s Understanding of Elementary Astronomy

255 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Some Assembly Required: How Scientific Explanations Are Constructed during Clinical Interviews. (2012, result): “…dependence of student responses as suggesting a problem with the very idea that knowledge, in the form of mental representations, should be the output of our research (e.g., Halldén, Haglund, & Strömdahl, 2007; Halldén & Strömdahl, 2002; Roth & Middleton, 2006; Schoultz et al., 2001).”
Students' Ideas about Reaction Rate and its Relationship with Concentration or Pressure (2006, background): “These results suggest that students' approach to explanations may significantly depend on the social and cultural contexts of questions and methods used (Schoultz, Saljo, & Wyndhamm, 2001 ).”
Modes of Knowing and Ways of Reasoning in Elementary Astronomy. (2004, background): “A common characteristic of the studies that are critical of Vosniadou and Brewer (1992) is that they either used a forced-choice method of questioning (Nobes et al., 2003), or they presented the children with a spherical model of the earth ( Schoultz et al., 2001 ), or both (Siegal et al., in press)”
The Cognitive-Situative Divide and the Problem of Conceptual Change (2007, background): “They claim that these difficulties disappear when thinking and reasoning is analyzed from a discursive point of view and as a tool-dependent activity (eg, Nobes et al. 2003 ; Nobes, Martin, & Panagiotaki, 2005 ; Schoultz, Saljo, & Wyndhamn, 2001 ).”