[1] R. Driver, A. Squires, P. Rushworth, and V. Wood-Robinson. Making sense of secondary science: Research into children's ideas. Rutledge, London, 1994.
[ bib | Abstract ]

This book can be considered as a reference book for the studies in children's misconceptions. There are several fields that result important for our research: 1. living things; 2. nutrition; 3. growth; 4. responding to the environment; 5. ecosystems. in addition to those there is an interesting part in the abiotic components of the environment: 6. water; 7. air; 8. light; 9. heating. Humidity is not addressed directly by this research, although we could infer interesting ideas in the water section.

[2] S. Papert. Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. Basic Books, 1980.
[ bib ]
[3] M. Resnick, R. Berg, and M. Eisenberg. Beyond black boxes: Bringing transparency and asthetics back to scientific investigation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(1):7-30, 2000.
[ bib ]
[4] M. Resnick. Thinking like a tree (and other forms of ecological thinking). International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 2003. in press.
[ bib ]
[5] J. Smith, A. diSessa, and J. Roschelle. Misconception reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2):115-163, 1993.
[ bib ]
[6] E. Ackermann, C. Strohecker, and A. Agarwala. The magix series of playful learning environments. Paper TR97-24, MERL - Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratory, 1997.
[ bib ]
[7] E. Ackermann and C. Strohecker. Build, launch, reconvene: Sketches for constructive-dialogic play kits. Paper TR99-30, MERL - Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratory, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1999.
[ bib ]
[8] M.Resnick. Turtles, Termites, and Traffic Jams: Explorations in Massively Parallel Micorworlds. MIT Press, 1994.
[ bib ]
[9] E. Ackermann and C. Strohecker. Patternmagix construction kit software. In CHI (Design Expo), 2000. Extended Abstracts.
[ bib ]
[10] U. Wilensky. Netlogo, 1999.
[ bib | http | Abstract ]
[11] V. Bar and A. S. Travis. Children's view concerning phase changes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(4):363-82, 1991.
[ bib ]
[12] M. Bers and J. Cassell. Children as designers of interactive storytellers: let me tell you a story about myself. Human Cognition and Social Agent Technology, pages 61-83, 2000.
[ bib ]
[13] R. Berman. Preschool knowledge of language: What five-year olds know about language structure and language use. Writing development: An interdisciplinary view, pages 61-76, 1977.
[ bib ]
[14] Children's learning in science - clis in the classroom: approaches to teaching energy, particulate theory of matter, plant nutrition. a pack of teaching materials with teacher's guide, 1987.
[ bib ]
[15] V. Colella, R. Borovoy, and M. Resnick. Participatory simulations: Using computational objects to learn about dynamic systems. In Extended Abstracts of Human Factors in Computing Systems: CHI 98, pages 9-10, 1998.
[ bib ]
[16] E. Engel Clough and R. Driver. Secondary students' conceptions of the conduction of heat: bringing together scientific and personal views. Physics Education, (20):176-82, 1985.
[ bib ]
[17] G. Erickson. Children's conceptions of heat and temperature phenomena. In Symposium on 'Patterns of students beliefs - implications for science teachings'. CCSE convention, June 1977. Fredericton.
[ bib ]
[18] W. Friedman. About time: Inventing the fourth dimension. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990.
[ bib ]
[19] H. Gash and M. Cherubini. A digital seed: designing a toy plant to facilitate cognitive growth. In Irish Psychological Society, editor, Annual Conference of the Psychological Society of Ireland, Waterford, November 2002.
[ bib | Abstract ]
[20] E. Guesne. Light. In R. Driver, E. Guesne, and A. Tiberghien, editors, Children's Ideas in Science. Open University Press, Milton Keynes, 1985.
[ bib ]
[21] J. Piaget. The child's conception of time. Basic Books, New York, 1970.
[ bib ]
[22] K. J. Roth, E. L. Smith, and C. W. Anderson. Students' conceptions of photosynthesis and food for plants. Technical report, Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1983.
[ bib ]
[23] T. Russell and D. Watt. Growth. Primary SPACE Project Research Report. Liverpool University Press, Liverpool, January 1990.
[ bib | Abstract ]

This is a large scale research project involving several school in UK. The researcher did some interviews at the beginning to assess children previous conceptions, then asked the teachers to follow a particular unit of teaching and then made a posttest to assess the impact of this activity on children's reasoning. The tools proposed to the students to explore growth were the ``classical'' ones. No technological support was offered. Their results are in accord with Gash [19].

[24] P. Starr. Seductions of sim, policy as a simulation game. The American Prospect, 5(17), March 21 1994. http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V5/17/starr-p.html.
[ bib ]
[25] P. Tamir. Some issues related to the use of justifications to multiple choices answers. Journal of Biological Education, 4(23):285-92, 1989.
[ bib ]
[26] 'students' misconceptions about photosynthesis: a cross-age study. volume International Seminar: Misconceptions in Science and Mathematics. Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y., 20-22 June 1983. 441-6.
[ bib ]
[27] C. Wood-Robinson. Young people's ideas about plants. Studies in Science Education, 19:119-35, 1991.
[ bib ]
[28] A. Keselman and D. Kuhn. Facilitating self-directed experimentation in the computer environment, November 2002.
[ bib | .html | Abstract ]

The authors buit a computer prototype environment called ``simulation earthquake'', in which to experiment with multivariate causality. They found that student's beliefs are not strong because they thought of a variable as causal in one instance and non-causal in another instance depending on the situation so the variable's effect are not constant. They suggest that faulty mental models of multivarible causality may impede students' ability to conduct good scientific investigations and that improvements in these models leads to better scientific thinking skills.

[29] K. S. Taber. Multiple frameworks?: Evidence of manifold conceptions in individual cognitive structure. International Journal of Science Education, 22(4):399-417, 2000.
[ bib | .html | Abstract ]

Altough some students seem to hold stable manifold conceptions in congitive structure, this does not implyh that all the contraddictory or incoherent explainations can be explained in terms of 'multiple frameworks'. Some of the observed situations may be 'ephemeral reflections' of the process of learners constructing ideas in situ. This ability, ideed, of constructing alternative understanding of a topic, without committing to them, could be a key aspect of conceptual change. In addittion to this first alternative to the manifold explaination there can be another possibility of considering these empirical 'glitch' as transitional states of belief in one's framework (this is in accord with Maloney and Siegler, 1993).

[30] Z. Chen and D. Klahr. All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70(5):1098-1120, September/October 1999.
[ bib | Abstract ]

The authors were interested in understanding how the transfer of specific skills in the control of variables strategy can affect the learning process. Initially they discreiminate between Discovery learning and Formal learning. They believe that Discovery learning may be effective when problems outcomes provide informative feedback (Siegler, 1976). Therefore they envisioned the transfer of the above strategy as the result of explicit training (using examples and direct instraction to teach the general strategy) and implicit training via probes (providing systematic questions following children's activities). Their findings showed that with appropiate instruction, elementary schoolchildren are capable of understanding, learning, and transferring the basic strategy when designing and evaluationg simple tests. For them the analogical reasoning (analogical = ANALOGIES) plays a central role in the real world of scientific discovery. In the literature of analogical transfer and problem solving appears several major cognitive processes: 1. contruct a representation of the source problem; 2. when encoutering a similar problem, students need to access the relevant source information and notice the similarity shared by the problems; 3. the key components of the problems needs to be mapped, so that the source solutions or strategies can be extended; 4. the relevant solution needs to be implemented in the new context or domain. Finally the authors concluded that one critical factor facilitating schema construction is the opportunity to process diverse instances that share a similar goal structure or solution principle. In addition to this point, they report that when the task or problems generate outcomes that provide clear feedback, children are capable of modifying their initial mental modeland discovering a rule or principle.

[31] T. A. Grotzer and B. B. Basca. Helping students to grasp the underlying casual structures when learning about ecosystems: How does it impact understanding? In Proceedings of National Association for Research in Science Teaching Annual Conference, New Orleans, April 28-30 2000.
[ bib | http | Abstract ]

The authors of this paper suggest that many misunderstanding in the field have at their core, a simplistic understanding of the nature of causality. Students have difficulties in reasoning about causality in a systematic senseas well as an inability to deal with the specific types of causal patterns embedded in ecosystems. They state that Students tend to think locally and miss the larger picture. this is in accord with Resnick [8]. Interesting findings are that often children seems to ignore indirect effect and considering the abiotic factors in the environment. Also student may think that a factor is necessary without considering that is not sufficient. In addition people often tend to ``overcorrect'' because the outcome they want is not immediate rather than waiting to let the system dynamics play out and acting on the overall process. Onother point of interest in their research is that they considered ``hidden causes'' as a factor in the learning process: there is no reason they would assume that there is a causal mechanism that they cannot see. We argue that an exploration process have to be placed in contrast with teaching activities.

[32] S. Papert. A learning environment for children. Computers and communication: Implications for education, pages 271-278, 77.
[ bib ]
[33] A. Druin, J. Stewart, D. Proft, B. Bederson, and J. Hollan. Kidpad: A design collaboration between children, technologists, and educators. In ACM Press, editor, Proceedings of CHIí97, Atlanta, GA, 1997.
[ bib ]
[34] A. Druin. Cooperative inquiry: Developing new technologies for children with children. In ACM Press, editor, Proceedings of CHI'99, 1999.
[ bib ]
[35] Bioblast: Better learning through adventure, simulation and telecommunications, February 2003.
[ bib | http | Abstract ]

BioBLAST is a simulation software that incorporates some collaborative features of interaction over the internet.

[36] Simlife, 1992.
[ bib | .html | Abstract ]

SimLIFE is a very old game. I think was one of the precursor of the Sim like kind of games. It has some interesting features in the interface because it allows the player to chose which lifeform to import in the terraform environment and to cheat on the genetic code of such lifeform. It is a mere simulation in which users cannot access the underneath algorithm.

[37] P. D. Fernhout and C. F. Kurtz. Garden with insight, 1999.
[ bib | http | Abstract ]

As for the SimLIFE environment, this software package is a mere simulation. It is not possible to access the model underneath. It present some nice features of the graphical interface because users can play around with garden tools keeping care of the plant. The algorithm seems to be very accurate altough we couldn't find any documents that describe the theoretical framework in which it ahs been developed.

[38] B. Damer, K. Marcelo, and F. Revi. Nerve garden: a public terrarium in cyberspace, 1997.
[ bib | http | Abstract ]

Nerve Garden is a collaborative environment in which the user can design his/her own plant and can test this design on an island in which the plant can grow. Other users over the internet will use the same island to ``plant'' other plants. This is considered a collaborative experimental environment.

[39] G. Bekey, S. Gentner, R. Morris, C. Sutter, J. Wiegley, and E. Berger. The telegarden, February 2003 1996.
[ bib | http | Abstract ]

This was a physical installation in California in which a robotic gardener keeps care of potted plants accordingly with users commands over the Internet. This design present some interesting features like the usage of real plants, altough the user can access them only virtually.

[40] D. M. Eagleman and A. O. Holcombe. Causality and the perception of time. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 6(8):323-325, August 2002.
[ bib | http | Abstract ]

This study highlight the fact that events that are close togheter in space and time are more likely than spatiotemporally dinstant events to be perceived as casually related. Therefore, children like adults use spatiotemporal relationship to infer causal relation between objects. Our design solution try to push toghether events and time trying to create more proximity to highlight any eventual relation between varibles.

[41] M. Barker and M. Carr. Teaching and learning about photosyntesis. part 1: An assessment in terms of students' prior knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 11(1):49-56, 1989.
[ bib ]
[42] J. A. Palmer. From santa claus to sustainability: emergent understanding of concepts and issues in environmental science. International Journal of Science Education, 15(5):487-495, 1993.
[ bib ]
[43] R. Driver, H. Asoko, J. Leach, E. Mortimer, and P. Scott. Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7):5-12, 1994.
[ bib ]
[44] J. Piaget. The Child's Conception of the World. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1929.
[ bib ]
[45] M. Wiser and S. Carey. Mental Models, chapter 12, When Heat and Temperature Were One, pages 267-297. Cognitive Science. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London, 1983.
[ bib | Abstract ]

Temperature is an intensive variable whereas heat is an extensive one. In the past the Experimenters made the same mistake children do nowadays. For them heat and temperature were not differentiate.

[46] S. D. Tunnicliffe and M. J. Reiss. Building a model of the environment: how do children see plants? Journal of Biological Education, 34(4):172-177, 2000.
[ bib | Abstract ]

This study concentrated on the way children classify plants. In this particular context the authors place mental models versus accepted knowledge. In their educational implications they found that 'plants readily engage pupil interest' but they can be helped to observe more carefully. In addition they think that documentation and indirect observation may be less important that the direct one.

[47] S. D. Tunnicliffe and M. J. Reiss. Talking about brine shrimps: three ways of analysing pupil conversations. Research in Science & Technological Education, 17(2):203-217, 1999.
[ bib | Abstract ]

This paper present thee different methods to analyse pupils' conversation. The first one is called Systemic Network Analysis (Tunnicliffe, 1995), which consist in coding qualitative parts of the speech for quantitative analysis; the second one is called Context of Meaning (Bloom, 1992), which consist in deviding part of the speech that refer to personal experiences, emations, methapors, and interpretative framework; the last one is the approach of Cosgrove and Schaverien (1996). This last approach consist in focusing on the ways in which pupils use conversations to deepen their understanding about the processes of science. They describe three kind of conversation: 1. coffe table, demonstration of something; 2. 'Feynman' discussion, discussion on an observed phenomena; 3. Critical or Galilean, actions carried out to test ipothesis. Each approach present an advantage on the others: Tunnicliffe's one is the best way for quantitative analisys; Bloom's approach shows how pupils made observations and talked about them through methaphors; Cosgrove and Schaveriens's approach highlight the significance of inter-pupil conversation.

[48] L. Aberg-Bengtsson and T. Ottosson. Primary school childrens understanding of bar charts and line graphs: A preliminary analysis. In 6th EARLI Conference, pages 1-20, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, August 26-31 1995.
[ bib | Abstract ]

Two are the purposes of this study: to inverstigate different ways of conceiving graphics and to study the conceptual processes necessary for developing an understanding of graphs and charts. This study reports that children often have problems in going beyond the elementary level in interpreting the information when it is presented in a more elaborate way. The authors present a comparison between several studies on the field. The reviewed researchers' conceptions needed to understand graph are: perceptions of directions, references and distance. An interesting part of the study is dedicated to time. Real time is not quantitative (Bertin, 1967) and seeing time as continuous is an artefact (Gibson, 1979).

[49] S. D. Tunnicliffe and M. J. Reiss. Conceptual development. Journal of Biological Education, 34(1):13-16, 1999.
[ bib ]
[50] M. Peat and A. Fernandez. The role of information technology in biology education: an australian perspective. Journal of Biological Education, 34(2):69-73, 2000.
[ bib ]
[51] S. D. Tunnicliffe. Talking about plants - comments af primary school groups looking at plant exhibits in a botanical garden. Journal of Biological Education, 36(1):27-34, 2002.
[ bib ]
[52] K. Schmucker. The world of science contest. http://www.apple.com/education/LTReview/spring98/contest.html, September 2002.
[ bib ]
[53] A. K. Hickling and S. A. Gelman. How does your garden grow? early conceptualization of seeds and their place in the plant growth cycle. Child Development, (66):856-876, 1995.
[ bib | Abstract ]

This study highligths two important bias: Bias of Attribuition, preschool and early elementary-school-age children from several cultures consistently fail to classify plants as living or to attribute properties of living things to them, whereas alder children generally respond in an adult manner; Bias of Meaning, The nature of the term ``alive'' is confusing because children might interpret it as synonymous with ``animate''.

[54] J. E. Opfer and S. A. Gelman. Children's and adult's models for predicting teleological action: The development of a biology-based model. Child Development, 72(5):1367-1381, September/October 2001.
[ bib | Abstract ]

Chidren (11-13 y.o.) have access to the biology based model for predicting teleological actions.

[55] B. Zubrowski. Integrating science into design technology projects: Using a standard model in the design process. Journal of Technology Education, 13(2):19, Spring 2002.
[ bib | .html | Abstract ]

The author reflect on the idea that students need to reflect on the processes by which they arrive at a final prototype in order to develop an understanding of the design process. The paper underlines that in order to have a meaningful integration of science-type activities during the course of a design project is possible to use a three-phase approach: 1. open exploration, students are free to try out their own ideas attempting to build something that is functional but usually not very efficient; 2. standard model, this is used to carry out sistematic testing; 3. raturn to the design process. Why do we need to push students to follow specific task to learn the ``standard model''? And besides, how can the standard model be learned?

[56] J. Osborne, P. Wadsworth, and P. Black. Processes of life. Technical report, Primary SPACE Project Research Report, University of Liverpool, 1992.
[ bib ]
[57] A. diSessa. Local Science: Viewing the design of human-computer systems as cognitive science, pages 162-202. Cambridge University Press, New York, j. m. carroll (ed.), designing interaction: psychology at the human-computer interface edition, 1991.
[ bib ]
[58] D. W. Sunal and C. S. Sunal. Young children learn to restructure personal ideas about growth in trees. School Science and Mathematics, 91(7):314-317, November 1991.
[ bib ]
[59] R. Driver. The pupil as a scientist? Milton Keynes, Open University Press, 1983.
[ bib ]
[60] R. Driver and V. Oldham. A contructivist approach to curriculum development in science. Studies in Science Education, 13:105-122, 1986.
[ bib ]
[61] K. Inagaki and G. Hantano. Young children's spontaneous personification as analogy. Child Development, 58:1013-1020, 1987.
[ bib ]
[62] S. D. Tunnicliffe and M. J. Reiss. Building a model of the environment: how do children see animals? Journal of Biological Education, 33(3):142-148, 1999.
[ bib ]
[63] Natalie Jewell. Examining children's models of seed. Journal of Biological Education, 36(3):116-122, 2002.
[ bib ]
[64] S. Kuhn. Learning from the architecture studio: Implications for project-based pedagogy. International Journal of Engineering Education, 17(4 and 5), 2001. http://www.ijee.dit.ie/latestissues/Vol17-4and5/Ijee1214.pdf.
[ bib ]
[65] C. Tsai and C. Huang. Development of cognitive structures and information processing strategies of elementary school students learning about biological reproduction. Journal of Biological Education, 36(1):21-26, 2001.
[ bib ]
[66] D. Kuhn and E. Phelps. The development of Problem-Solving Strategies, volume 17, pages 1-44. Academic, New York, h. reese (ed.), advances in child development and behaviour edition, 1982.
[ bib ]
[67] K. Schmucker. A taxonomy of simulation software. Technical report, Apple Computer Inc., 2000. http://www.apple.com/education/LTReview/spring99/simulation/.
[ bib ]
[68] J. Montangero. Understanding Changes in Time. Taylor & Francis Ltd., London, 1996.
[ bib ]
[69] P. A. White. Naive ecology: Causal judgments about a simple ecosystem. British Journal of Psychology, 88:219-233, 1997.
[ bib ]
[70] A. P. Lightman. Magic on the mind. physicists' use of metaphor. American Scholar, pages 97-101, Winter 1989.
[ bib ]
[71] S. Carey. Conceptual Change in Childhood. the MIT Press series in learning, development, and conceptual change. A Bradford book, Cambridge, Massachussetts, 1985.
[ bib ]
[72] A. Michotte. The Perception of Causality. Methuen's Manuals of Modern Psychology. Hazell Watson and Winey Ltd, London, 1963.
[ bib ]
[73] L. S. Eyster and J. S. Tashiro. Using manipulatives to teach quantitative concepts in ecology: A hands-on method for detecting & correcting misconceptions about limiting factors in eutrophication and vegetarianism. The American Biology Teacher, 59(6):360-364, June 1997.
[ bib | Abstract ]

This paper support the idea that manipulatives are helpful in the learning process enhancing problem solving and critical thinking skills. Another interesting point of this paper is that the authors focused on limiting factors in a ecosystem. In this perspective they dealed with a Multivariate system in which factors influence each others. They decided to stick on the idea of ``limiting factor'': the one abiotic factor that is most limiting to a given species in a given location at a given time. Altough an over-presence of such factor can also be limiting, they decided to focus only with substances that are limiting due to their low availability. Acoordingly with Ball (1992), authors affirm that students will not automaticaly draw conclusions their teachers want simply interacting with particular manipulatives. So, in this regard an istructional strategy is proposed. A 12 step process is proposed. Some of these phases seem to be relevant for our context: 1. Examination of Materials and Their Attributes 2. Problem Solving Using the Manipulatives 3. Discussion of How Students Have Represented the Processes and Solutions to the Problem 4. Extension of the Experience by Exploring Context that Have the Same or Similar Problem Solving Requirements 5. Discussion of the General Similarities and Differencies in the Problems This seems to be a good framework in which situate our evaluation. Is this framework going to be raised spontanously by the children? Can be superimposed on the activities to enhance and contextualise the learning process? Is there any cognitive KEY in this process?

[74] M. Resnick and U. Wilensky. Diving into complexity: Developing probabilistic decentralized thinking through role-playing activities. The Journal of The Learning Sciences, 7(2):153-172, 1998.
[ bib | Abstract ]

In this paper several role-playing activities are presented. The basic assumption made is that thinking with your own body makes the pushes the learning process. Papert describes this process as ``sintonic learning''. Through a series of activities participants are encouraged to start thinking in a decentralized manner and reflecting on real phenomena that follow the same patterns. Technological solution to support these exploration are envisioned (Borovoy, 1996).

[75] O. Zuckerman and M. Resnick. A physical interface for system dynamics simulation. In ACM, editor, CHI2003 Proceedings, Ft. Lauredale, Florida, USA, April 5-10 2003.
[ bib | Abstract ]

This paper describe a phisical interface for system dinamics simulation. The System Blocks a prototype wood-box kit has been developed to support the exploration of feedback systems. Six blocks have been developed: Sender, Accumulator, Delay, Multiplier, Converter and MIDI. Using these blocks is possible to create several different configurations like a 'reinforcing feedback loop' or a 'balancing feedback loop'. The evaluation side is not well developed.

[76] W. Friedman. About time: Inventing the fourth dimension, chapter 6, The Child's Discovery of Time, pages 85-102. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990.
[ bib | Abstract ]

This paper report on children perception of time form the classical Piaggetian studies up to the most recent discoveries in the psychology of perception.

[77] R. Driver, E. Guesne, and A. Tiberghien. Children's Ideas in Science. Open University Press, Bristol, USA, 1985.
[ bib ]

Do the ideas that children's possess represent coherent models of the phenomena that are frequentely presented in classroom settings?Experienced teachers realize that children do have their own ideas about phenomena , even if at times, these ideas may seem incoherent. These ideas iften persist even when they are not consisten with experimental results or the explaination of the teacher. They are stablke ideas. This book present a possible moden on how these ideas affect the learning process. One of the possible solution reported seems to suggest that student must have choice of learning experiences so that, possibly, misconceptions can be challenged directly by experiences which conflict with expectations.

[78] E. Soloway, W. Grant, R. Thinker, J. Roschelle, M. Mills, M. Resnick, R. berg, and M. Eisemberg. Science in the palms of their hands. Communications of the ACM, 42(8):21-26, August 1999.
[ bib ]

This article describes the usage of handheld technolgy in a classrom environment. This kind of technology can be used for datalogging as an enquiry tool.

[79] B. Bell. Students' ideas about plant nutrition: what are they? Journal of Biological Education, 3(19):213-218, 1985.
[ bib | Abstract ]

This paper summarizes the distance between the misconceptions found in children's thinking by several authors and the goal conception expected at the end of formal instruction.

[80] L. Hanna, K. Risden, and K. Alexander. Guidelines for usability testing with children. Interactions, 5(4):9-14, SeptemberOctober 1997.
[ bib | Abstract ]

This paper descirbes some basic usability guidelines when working with children. It suggest the need to devide children in three common target age ranges: preschool (from 2 to 5), elementary school ( from 6 to 10 years) and middle school (from 11 to 14).

[81] K. Van Laerhoven. Augmenting the ipaq with sensor boards via the serial port, April, 11 2001.
[ bib | http ]

This document explain the basic for the connection of a sensor board to the iPaq PocketPC.

[82] A. diSessa and B. L. Sherin. What changes in conceptual change? International Journal of Science Education, 10(20):1155-1191, December 1998.
[ bib | Abstract ]
[83] A. Peacock. What education do you miss by going to school? children's 'coming-to-knowing' about science and their environment. Interchange, 31(2 & 3):197-210, 2000.
[ bib ]
[84] M. Resnick. The pie network, 2001.
[ bib | http | Abstract ]
[85] R. Stavy and W. Naomi. Children's conceptions of plants as living things. Human Development, (32):88-94, 1989.
[ bib | Abstract ]
[86] K. Springer and F. C. Keil. Early differentiation of causal mechanisms appropriate to biological and nonbiological kinds. Child Development, (62):767-781, 1991.
[ bib | Abstract ]
[87] K. Springer and F. C. Keil. On the development of biological specific beliefs: The case of inheritance. Child Development, (60):637-648, 1989.
[ bib | Abstract ]
[88] W. J. Friedman. Arrows of time in early childhood. Child Development, 74(1):155-167, JanuaryFebruary 2003.
[ bib | http | Abstract ]

This study reports on the understanding of particular subset of dynamic events, temporally unidirectional or ``arrows of time'' (Friedman, 2002). Arrows of time are common in everyday perception and include such events as the motion of pouring a liquid and breaking an objects in pieces. This study shows that children of about 4 years of age are sensitive to the anomaly of backward presentation of such events. This study support the idea that accelerating or reversing an unidirectional process we are not altering the comprehension of the phenomena.

[89] N. Winters, M. Cherubini, and C. Strohecker. Biosphera: A prototype design for learning about multivariate systems. In Association for Computing Machinery, editor, CHI2003 Learning Workshop proccedings, Fort Lauredale, Florida, USA, 6 and 7 April 2003.
[ bib | .html | Abstract ]
[90] D. D. Richards and R. S. Siegler. The effects of task requirements on children's life judgements. Child Development, (55):1687-1696, 1984.
[ bib | Abstract ]

This file has been generated by bibtex2html 1.57