Where it is used
Each entry identifies the volume, edition, chapter or appendix in which the work appears.
The evidence behind the series
Follow the research.
Explore every source.
Browse the scientific research and professional literature used across all seven volumes of The Science of Learning for Educators.
7book volumes
8author ranges
1searchable library
Search the collection
Find a paper, author or idea.
Choose an author range, search a title or concept, or narrow the collection by source type. Open any result to see where it appears in the books, read its evidence summary and follow available source links.
4 references
-
- Vol 3 RE: Chapters 5, 9
- Vol 7 RE: Chapter 5, App B
computer-supported collaborative learningscience, technology, engineering, and mathematics educationcollaborative knowledge constructioninstructional scaffoldinggroup processeslearning outcomesJournal article Evidence summaryAt a glance
Jeong, Hmelo-Silver, and Jo meta-analyse computer-supported collaborative learning in STEM education published from 2005 through 2014. The review codes studies across science, mathematics, engineering, computer science, health, and education-related domains and examines learning outcomes alongside instructional, technological, and contextual characteristics.
Key ideas
Overall, CSCL produces a positive moderate effect, with variation across designs and settings. The authors investigate how collaboration is structured, what technologies mediate activity, which supports are provided, and whether studies occur in classrooms, laboratories, or other environments. Classroom effects are not significantly different from other settings in the reported comparison, underscoring that location alone does not explain success. Technology is not treated as an independent causal ingredient: outcomes depend on tasks, group processes, pedagogy, scaffolds, and how tools enable interaction and shared knowledge construction.
Why it matters
The synthesis is bounded by the quality and reporting of included studies and by heterogeneity in interventions and measures. Its practical implication is to design the collaborative process deliberately rather than assume that placing learners together around digital tools will produce effective STEM learning.
-
- Vol 7 PE: App D
- Vol 7 RE: Chapters 2, 3
communities of learnersconstructivist learningcognitive apprenticeshipknowledge constructionintellectual toolsteacher scaffoldingJournal article Evidence summaryAt a glance
Jonassen presents a vision of schools as communities in which learners collaboratively construct knowledge and technology supports, rather than delivers, that activity. Drawing on constructivism and cognitive apprenticeship, he characterizes meaningful learning as active, constructive, intentional, authentic, and cooperative.
Key ideas
Learners should investigate problems, articulate interpretations, share representations, and negotiate understanding with others. In this model, computers are not primarily tutors that transmit predetermined content or test recall. They serve as intellectual partners and tools for accessing information, representing knowledge, communicating, modelling, and reflecting. Teachers organize rich contexts, model expert practices, coach inquiry, and provide scaffolding while gradually transferring responsibility to students. The short article therefore reframes technology integration as a pedagogical and cultural question: purchasing devices or software does not create a learning community.
Why it matters
Productive integration depends on tasks, roles, discourse, and assessment that value knowledge construction and collaboration. Technology is useful when it enables learners to do meaningful cognitive and social work that would otherwise be difficult, not when it merely automates conventional instruction.
View or buy the cited work >>Read a similar article free online >>
-
- Vol 4 RE: Chapters 7, 22
- Vol 4 TE: App C
generative questioningknowledge constructionexplanatory dialogueprior knowledge activationpeer learningcausal reasoningcollaborative discourseJournal article Evidence summaryAt a glance
King tests whether teaching children how to ask questions and generate explanations can improve peer learning after teacher-presented science lessons. Fourth- and fifth-grade students studied in pairs using self-generated questions.
Key ideas
One condition used prompts connecting ideas within the lesson; another added questions designed to activate prior knowledge and link it with new material; controls received less generative support. All treatment students learned to explain answers rather than exchange short responses. Analyses of dialogue, knowledge maps, and comprehension showed more complex knowledge construction when questioning explicitly connected new ideas with prior experience, with lesson-based generative questioning also offering benefits. The mechanism is not questioning frequency alone. Productive prompts invite comparison, causal reasoning, prediction, justification, and integration, while explaining makes understanding visible and gives partners material to examine. Teachers must model the discourse, provide stems, and establish norms for listening and elaborating.
Why it matters
The study involved particular ages, science lessons, and structured pair work, so transfer requires care. Its practical contribution is a teachable method for turning peer discussion from answer trading into collaborative knowledge construction.
-
- Vol 2 RE: Chapter 6, App D, App F
active knowledge constructionprior conceptionsmetacognitioncognitive conflictinquiry-oriented teachingstudent agencyemotional engagementcreative thinkingBook Evidence summaryAt a glance
Lonka presents learning as an active, emotionally charged process in which insight emerges when prior knowledge, curiosity, motivation, collaboration, and reflection are coordinated. Drawing on educational psychology, she explains memory, conceptions, metacognition, interest, emotion, creativity, and social interaction, then connects them to activating and inquiry-oriented teaching.
Key ideas
Learners do not simply receive information: they interpret it through existing beliefs, construct and revise explanations, test ideas, and regulate effort. Productive teaching therefore surfaces prior conceptions, poses meaningful problems, creates cognitive conflict without overwhelming students, and provides feedback and support for reflection. Stories, cases, phenomena, and collaborative tasks can stimulate curiosity, while technology is valuable when it expands inquiry, participation, and knowledge construction rather than digitizing passive transmission. The book also attends to wellbeing and the reciprocal influence of emotion and cognition.
Why it matters
Its practical message is that durable learning combines disciplined knowledge building with wonder, agency, and creativity, and that teachers should design environments in which students can become aware of and increasingly regulate their own learning.
View or buy the cited work >>Read a similar article free online >>
A transparent research trail
More than a bibliography.
What it contributes
Evidence summaries explain the central idea and why the source matters to educators.
How to access it
Entries link to lawful full text where available, or to a publisher, library or purchase page.
Edition abbreviations
- TE
- Teacher Edition
- PE
- Practice Edition
- RE
- Research Edition
Citation checks
References are checked against publisher records, scholarly indexes, DOI or ISBN metadata, repositories and author records where available. An entry marked [Citation not verified] preserves the wording found in the relevant volume without attributing findings to an unconfirmed work.
From sources to a coherent pathway