Student and teacher perceptions of the use of multimedia supported predict-observe-explain tasks to probe understanding

Research in Science Education

Volumn 31, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 589-615

  Kearney, Matthew ^a   Treagust, David F ^b   Yeo, Shelley ^b   Zadnik, Marjan G ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b CURTIN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Computer mediated learning; Constructivist software; Interactive multimedia and digital video; Peer learning; Physics learning; Predict observe explain strategy

Indexed keywords

EID: 14544279427     PISSN: 0157244X     EISSN: 15731898     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1013106209449     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Baird, J., & Mitchell, I. (1986). Improving the quality of teaching and learning: An Australian case study - the PEEL project. Melbourne: Faculty of Education, Monash University.
2. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
3. Bosco, J. (1984). Interactive video: Educational tool or toy? Educational Technology, 24(3), 13-19.
4. Caramazza, A., McCloskey, M., & Green, B. (1981). Naive beliefs in 'sophisticated' subjects: Misconceptions about trajectories of objects. Cognition, 9, 117-123.
5. Champagne, A., Klopfer, L., & Anderson, J. (1980). Factors influencing the learning of classical mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 48(12), 1074-1079.
6. Chen, S. E. (1995, August). Quicktime VR - an image-based approach to virtual environment navigation. Paper presented at the 22nd International Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, Los Angeles, USA.
7. Clement, J. (1982). Students' preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50, 66-71.
8. Driver, R. (1983). The pupil as scientist? Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
9. Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children's' ideas in science. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
10. Driver, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Curriculum development as research: A constructivist approach to science curriculum development and teaching. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 94-108). New York and London: Teachers College Press.
11. Duit, R., & Confrey, J. (1996). Reorganising the curriculum and teaching to improve learning in science and mathematics. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 79-93). New York and London: Teachers College Press.
12. Duit, R., Treagust, D., & Mansfield, H. (1996). Investigating student understanding as a prerequisite to improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 17-31). New York and London: Teachers College Press.
13. Eckstein, S. (1997). Parallelism in the development of children's ideas and the historical development of projectile motion theories. International Journal of Science Education, 19(9), 1057-1073.
14. Enderstein, L., & Spargo, P. (1996). Beliefs regarding force and motion: A longitudinal study and cross-cultural study of South African school pupils. International Journal of Science Education, 18(4), 463-478.
15. Escalada, L., & Zollman, D. (1997). An investigation on the effects of using interactive digital video in a physics classroom on student learning and attitudes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(5), 467-489.
16. Fischbein, E., Stavy, R., & MaNaim, H. (1989). The psychological structure of naive impetus conceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 11(1), 71-81.
17. Goldberg, F., & Bendall, S. (1996). Computer video-based tasks for assessing understanding and facilitating learning in geometrical optics. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 54-64). New York and London: Teachers College Press.
18. Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. London: Sage Publications.
19. Gunstone, R. F. (1990). Children's science: A decade of developments in constructivist views of science teaching and learning. The Australian Science Teachers Journal, 36(4), 9-19.
20. Gunstone, R. F. (1995). Constructivist learning and the teaching of science. In B. Hand, & V. Prain (Eds.), Teaching and learning in science. The constructivist classroom (pp. 3-20). Sydney: Harcourt Brace.
21. Gunstone, R., & Champagne, A. (1990). Promoting conceptual change in the laboratory. In E. Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.), The student laboratory and the science curriculum (pp. 159-182). London: Routledge.
22. Gunstone, R., & White, R. (1981). Understanding of gravity. Science Education, 65(3), 291-299.
23. Gunstone, R., Champagne, A., & Klopfer, L. (1981). Instruction for understanding: A case study. The Australian Science Teachers Journal, 27(3), 27-32.
24. Halloun, I., & Hestenes, D. (1985a). The initial knowledge state of college students. American Journal of Physics, 53, 1043-1055.
25. Halloun, I., & Hestenes, D. (1985b). Common sense concepts about motion. American Journal of Physics, 53, 1056-1064.
26. Hardwood, W., & McMahon, M. (1997). Effects of integrated video media on student achievement and attitudes in high school chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(6), 617-631.
27. Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141-158.
28. Hoffer, T., Radke, J., & Lord, R. (1992). Qualitative/quantitative study of the effectiveness of computer-assisted interactive video instruction. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 11, 3-12.
29. Jonassen, D., & Reeves, T. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 693-719). New York: Simon and Shuster Macillan.
30. Kearney, M., & Treagust, D. F. (2000, April). An investigation of the classroom use of prediction-observation-explanation computer tasks designed to elicit and promote discussion of students' conceptions of force and motion. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, USA.
31. Kearney, M., & Treagust, D. F. (2001). Constructivism as a referent in the design and development of a computer program which uses interactive digital video to enhance learning in physics. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 17(1), 64-79.
32. Kozma, R. (2000). The use of multiple representations and the social construction of understanding in Chemistry. In M. Jacobson, & R. Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education. Advanced designs for technologies of learning. A constructivism perspective (pp. 11-46). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
33. Liew, C. W., & Treagust, D. F. (1995). A predict-observe-explain teaching sequence for learning about understanding of heat and expansion of liquids. Australian Science Teachers' Journal, 41(1), 68-71.
34. McCloskey, M. (1983a). Intuitive physics. Scientific American, 248(4), 114-122.
35. McCloskey, M. (1983b). Naive theories of motion. In D. Gentner, & A. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 229-324). Hillsdale, NJ: Elbraum.
36. McDermott, L. (1984). Research on conceptual understanding in mechanics. Physics Today, 37(7), 24-32.
37. Madian, J. (1995). Multimedia - why and why not? The Computing Teacher, 22(5), 16-18.
38. Millar, R., & Kragh, W. (1994). Alternative frameworks or context-specific reasoning? Children's ideas about the motion of projectiles. School Science Review, 75, 27-34.
39. Palmer, D. (1995). The POE in the primary school: An evaluation. Research in Science Education, 25(3), 323-332.
40. Parker, L. (1992). Language in science education: Implications for teachers. Australian Science Teachers' Journal, 39(2), 26-32.
41. Roth, W., McRobbie, C., Lucas, K., & Boutonne, S. (1997). Why may students fail to learn from demonstrations? A social practice perspective on learning in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(5), 509-533.
42. Russell, D., Lucas, K., & McRobbie, C. (1999, November). Microprocessor based laboratory activities as catalysts for student construction of understanding in physics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Melbourne.
43. Salomon, G., Perkins, D., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2-9.
44. Searle, P. (1995). Teaching the senior physics topic of force and motion using conceptual change approaches. In B. Hand, & V. Prain (Eds.), Teaching and learning in science. The constructivist classroom (pp. 170-192). Sydney: Harcourt Brace.
45. Searle, P., & Gunstone, R. (1990, April). Conceptual change and physics instruction: A longitudinal study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, USA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 320767).
46. Tao, P., & Gunstone, R. (1999). The process of conceptual change in force and motion during computer-supported physics instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 859-882.
47. Taylor, P., Fraser, B., & White, L. (1994, April). A classroom questionnaire for science educators interested in the constructivist reform of school science. Paper presented at the annual general meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Anaheim, CA.
48. The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1991). Technology and the design of generative learning environments. Educational Technology, 31(5), 34-40.
49. Tobin, K., Tippins, D., & Gallard, A. (1996). Research on instructional strategies for teaching science. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research in science teaching and learning (pp. 45-93). New York: Macmillan.
50. Treagust, D., Duit, R., & Fraser, B. (Eds.). (1996). Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics. New York: Teachers College Press.
51. Twigger, D., Byard, M., Driver, R., Draper, S., Hartley, R., Hennessy, S., Mohamed, R., O'Malley, C., O'Shea, T., & Scanlon, E. (1994). The conception of force and motion of students aged between 10 and 15 years: An interview study designed to guide instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 16(2), 215-229.
52. Warner, J., & Wallace, J. (1994). Creative writing and students' science learning in a science and technology context. Australian Science Teachers' Journal, 40(4), 71-78.
53. Weller, H. (1996). Assessing the impact of computer-based learning in science. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(4), 461-485.
54. Whitaker, R. (1983). Aristotle is not dead: Student understanding of trajectory motion. American Journal of Physics, 51(4), 352-357.
55. White, R. (1988). Learning science. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
56. White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. London and New York: The Falmer Press.
57. Yeo, S., Loss, R., Zadnik, M., Harrison, A., & Treagust, D. (1998, April). What do students really learn from interactive multimedia? A physics case study. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Diego, USA.