Abdel-Salam, T., Kauffman, P. J., & Crossman, G. (2006). Does the lack of hands-on experience in a remotely delivered laboratory course affect student learning? European Journal of Engineering Education, 31, 747–756.
Article
Google Scholar
Abrahamson, D. (2014). Building educational activities for understanding: an elaboration on the embodied-design framework and its epistemic grounds. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 2, 1–16.
Article
Google Scholar
Abrahamson, D., Gutiérrez, J. F., Lee, R. G., Reinholz, D., & Trninic, D. (2011). From tacit sensorimotor coupling to articulated mathematical reasoning in an embodied design for proportional reasoning. In R. Goldman (Chair), H. Kwah & D. Abrahamson (Organizers), & R. P. Hall (Discussant), Diverse perspectives on embodied learning: What’s so hard to grasp? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association SIG Advanced Technologies for Learning. New Orleans, April 8-12, 2011.
Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: a conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183–198.
Article
Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Bilgin, I. (2006). The effects of hands-on activities incorporating a cooperative learning approach on eight-grade students’ science process skills and attitudes toward science. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 9, 27–37.
Boo, H. K., & Watson, J. R. (2001). Progression in high school students’ (aged 16–18) conceptualizations about chemical reactions in solution. Science Education, 85, 568–585.
Article
Google Scholar
Brown, M. C., McNeil, N. M., & Glenberg, A. M. (2009). Using concreteness in education: real problems, potential solutions. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 160–164.
Article
Google Scholar
Butts, D. P., Hofman, H. M., & Anderson, M. (1993). Is hands-on experience enough? A study of young children’s views of sinking and floating objects. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 5, 50.
Article
Google Scholar
Carlson, L. E., & Sullivan, J. F. (1999). Hands-on engineering: learning by doing in the integrated teaching and learning program. International Journal of Engineering Education, 15, 20–31.
Google Scholar
Case, J. M., & Fraser, D. M. (1999). An investigation into chemical engineering students’ understanding of the mole and the use of concrete activities to promote conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 1237–1249.
Article
Google Scholar
Castillo, R. D. (2014). The emergence of cognitive patterns in learning: implementation of an ecodynamic approach (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3622022).
Castillo, R. D., & Kloos, H. (2013). Can a flow-network approach shed light on children’s problem solving? Ecological Psychology, 25, 281–292.
Article
Google Scholar
Castillo, R. D., Kloos, H., Richardson, M. J., & Waltzer, T. (2015). Beliefs as self-sustaining networks: drawing parallels between networks of ecosystems and adults’ predictions. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1723.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Chemero, A. (2011). Radical embodied cognitive science. Cambridge: MIT press.
Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: a theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175–218.
Article
Google Scholar
Chiu, M. H., Chou, C. C., & Liu, C. J. (2002). Dynamic processes of conceptual change: analysis of constructing mental models of chemical equilibrium. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 688–712.
Article
Google Scholar
Clark, A. (2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 181–204.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Diakidoy, I. A. N., & Kendeou, P. (2001). Facilitating conceptual change in astronomy: a comparison of the effectiveness of two instructional approaches. Learning and Instruction, 11, 1–20.
Article
Google Scholar
Edens, K. M., & Potter, E. (2003). Using descriptive drawings as a conceptual change strategy in elementary science. School Science and Mathematics, 103, 135–144.
Article
Google Scholar
Ferguson, E. L., & Hegarty, M. (1995). Learning with real machines or diagrams: application of knowledge to real-world problems. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 129–160.
Article
Google Scholar
Flick, L. B. (1993). The meanings of hands-on science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 4, 1–8.
Article
Google Scholar
Garrison, J., Erdeniz, B., & Done, J. (2013). Prediction error in reinforcement learning: a meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 37, 1297–1310.
Article
Google Scholar
Gibbs Jr, R. W. (2005). Embodiment and cognitive science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Goldin-Meadow, S., Cook, S. W., & Mitchell, Z. A. (2009). Gesturing gives children new ideas about math. Psychological Science, 20, 267–272.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S., & Wagner, S. M. (2005). How our hands help us learn. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 234–241.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Hardy, I., Jonen, A., Möller, K., & Stern, E. (2006). Effects of instructional support within constructivist learning environments for elementary school students’ understanding of “floating and sinking”. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 307–326.
Article
Google Scholar
Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2001). Conceptual change using multiple interpretive perspectives: two case studies in secondary school chemistry. Instructional Science, 29, 45–85.
Article
Google Scholar
Haury, D. L., & Rillero, P. (1994). Perspectives of Hands-on Science Teaching. Columbus: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
Google Scholar
Hsin, C. T., & Wu, H. K. (2011). Using scaffolding strategies to promote young children’s scientific understandings of floating and sinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20, 656–666.
Article
Google Scholar
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York: Basic Books.
Book
Google Scholar
Iverson, J. M., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2005). Gesture paves the way for language development. Psychological Science, 16, 367–371.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Kahle, J. B., & Damnjanovic, A. (1994). The effect of inquiry activities on elementary students’ enjoyment, ease, and confidence in doing science: an analysis by sex and race. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 1(1), 17–28.
Kaminski, J. A., Sloutsky, V. M., & Heckler, A. F. (2008). The advantage of abstract examples in learning math. Science, 320, 454–455.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Kang, S., Scharmann, L. C., & Noh, T. (2004). Reexamining the role of cognitive conflict in science concept learning. Research in Science Education, 34, 71–96.
Article
Google Scholar
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86.
Article
Google Scholar
Klahr, D., Triona, L. M., & Williams, C. (2007). Hands on what? The relative effectiveness of physical versus virtual materials in an engineering design project by middle school children. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 183–203.
Article
Google Scholar
Kloos, H., & Amazeen, E. L. (2002). Perceiving heaviness by dynamic touch: an investigation of the size-weight illusion in preschoolers. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20, 171–183.
Article
Google Scholar
Kloos, H., Fisher, A., & Van Orden, G. C. (2010). Situated naïve physics: task constraints decide what children know about density. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139, 625–637.
Article
Google Scholar
Kloos, H., & Somerville, S. C. (2001). Providing impetus for conceptual change: the effect of organizing the input. Cognitive Development, 16, 737–759.
Article
Google Scholar
Kloos, H., & Van Orden, G. C. (2005). Can preschoolers’ mistaken beliefs benefit learning? Swiss Journal of Psychology, 64, 195–205.
Article
Google Scholar
Kohn, A. S. (1993). Preschoolers’ reasoning about density: will it float? Child Development, 64, 1637–1650.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Kontra, C., Goldin-Meadow, S., & Beilock, S. L. (2012). Embodied learning across the lifespan. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4, 731–739.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Kontra, C., Lyons, D. J., Fischer, S. M., & Beilock, S. L. (2015). Physical experience enhances science learning. Psychological Science, 26, 737–749.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Lee, Y., & Law, N. (2001). Experiences in promoting conceptual change in electrical concepts via ontological category shift. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 111–149.
Article
Google Scholar
Louwerse, M. M. (2007). Symbolic or embodied representations: a case for symbol interdependency. In T. Landauer, D. McNamara, S. Dennis, & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Handbook of latent semantic analysis (pp. 107–120). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Google Scholar
Louwerse, M. M. (2008). Embodied representations are encoded in language. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 15, 838–844.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2006). Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: a comparative literature review. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 38, 7.
Article
Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 312.
Article
Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational psychologist, 38, 43–52.
Article
Google Scholar
Mazens, K., & Lautrey, J. (2003). Conceptual change in physics: children’s naïve representations of sound. Cognitive Development, 18, 159–176.
Article
Google Scholar
McNeil, N. M., Uttal, D. H., Jarvin, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (2009). Should you show me the money? Concrete objects both hurt and help performance on mathematics problems. Learning and Instruction, 19, 171–184.
Article
Google Scholar
McNeil, N., & Jarvin, L. (2007). When theories don’t add up: disentangling he manipulatives debate. Theory Into Practice, 46, 309–316.
Article
Google Scholar
Meindertsma, H. B. (2014). Predictions and explanations: short-term processes of scientific reasoning in young children (Doctoral dissertation). Groningen: University of Groningen.
Mikkilä-Erdmann, M. (2001). Improving conceptual change concerning photosynthesis through text design. Learning and Instruction, 11, 241–257.
Article
Google Scholar
Murphy, P. K., & Alexander, P. A. (2008). The role of knowledge, beliefs, and interest in the conceptual change process: a synthesis and meta-analysis of the research. In International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change (pp. 583–616).
Google Scholar
Ohlsson, S. (2000). Deep Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ohlsson, S. (1999). Theoretical commitment and implicit knowledge: why anomalies do not trigger learning. Science & Education, 8, 559–574.
Article
Google Scholar
Park, C. S., & Han, I. (2002). A case-based reasoning with the feature weights derived by analytic hierarchy process for bankruptcy prediction. Expert Systems with Applications, 23, 255–264.
Article
Google Scholar
Penner, D. E., & Klahr, D. (1996). The interaction of domain-specific knowledge and domain-general discovery strategies: a study with sinking objects. Child Development, 67, 2709–2727.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Pfundt, H., & Duit, R. (1993). Bibliography: students’ alternative frameworks and science education. Kiel: Institute for Science Education.
Google Scholar
Pozo, J. I., & Gomez Crespo, M. A. (2005). The embodied nature of implicit theories: the consistency of ideas about the nature of matter. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 351–387.
Article
Google Scholar
Rappolt-Schlichtmann, G., Tenenbaum, H. R., Koepke, M. F., & Fischer, K. W. (2007). Transient and robust knowledge: contextual support and the dynamics of children’s reasoning about density. Mind, Brain, and Education, 1, 98–108.
Article
Google Scholar
Sipos, Y., Battisti, B., & Grimm, K. (2008). Achieving transformative sustainability learning: engaging head, hands and heart. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9, 68–86.
Article
Google Scholar
Skoumios, M. (2009). The effect of sociocognitive conflict on students’ dialogic argumentation about floating and sinking. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4, 381–399.
Google Scholar
Smith, C., Carey, S., & Wiser, M. (1985). On differentiation: a case study of the development of the concepts of size, weight, and density. Cognition, 21, 177–237.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: a constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 115–163.
Article
Google Scholar
Smith, L. B. (2005). Cognition as a dynamic system: Principles from embodiment. Developmental Review, 25, 278–298.
Article
Google Scholar
Son, J. Y., Smith, L. B., & Goldstone, R. L. (2008). Simplicity and generalization: short-cutting abstraction in children’s object categorizations. Cognition, 108, 626–638.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Spivey, M. (2008). The continuity of mind. Chicago: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Stohr-Hunt, P. M. (1996). An analysis of frequency of hands-on experience and science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 101–109.
Article
Google Scholar
Unal, S. (2008). Changing students’ misconceptions of floating and sinking using hands-on activities. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 7, 134–146.
Google Scholar
Van Hasselt, H. (2012). Reinforcement learning in continuous state and action spaces. In Reinforcement Learning (pp. 207–251). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Chapter
Google Scholar
Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: a study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535–585.
Article
Google Scholar
Weber, E. H. (1978). The sense of touch (H. E. Ross, Ed. & Trans.). London: Academic Press. (Original work published 1834)
Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625–636.
Article
Google Scholar
Wilson, R. A. & Clark, A. (2009). How to situate cognition: letting nature take its course. In M. Aydede & P. Robbins (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Windschitl, M. (2001). Using simulations in the middle school: does assertiveness of dyad partners influence conceptual change? International Journal of Science Education, 23, 17–32.
Article
Google Scholar