Affordances of ICT in science learning: Implications for an integrated pedagogy

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 27, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 705-735

  Webb, Mary E ^a  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 19644365837     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500690500038520     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Adey, P. (1999). Thinking science as a gateway to general thinking ability. in J.H.M. Hamers, J.E.H. Van Luit, & B. Csapo (Eds.) Teaching and Learning Thinking Skills (pp. 63-80). Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
2. Adey, P., & Shayer, M. (1994). Really Raising Standards: Cognitive Intervention and Academic Achievement. London: Routledge.
3. Barnea, N., & Dori, Y.J. (1999). High-school chemistry students' performance and gender differences in a computerized molecular modeling learning environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(4), 257-271.
4. Barton, R. (1997). Does data-logging change the nature of children's thinking in experimental work in science? in N. Davis (Ed.) Using Information Technology Effectively in Teaching and Learning (pp. 63-72). London: Routledge.
5. Bell, R., & Bell, L. (2003). A bibliography of articles on instructional technology in science education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 2(4), 427-447.
6. Black, P., & Harrison, C. (2004). Science Inside the Black Box: Assessment for Learning in the Science Classroom. London: NFERNelson.
7. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7-74.
8. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Theory and practice in the development of formative assessment. American Educational Research Journal (forthcoming).
9. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2002). Working Inside the Black Box: Assessment for Learning in the Classroom. London King's College, London, Department of Education & Professional Studies.
10. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for Learning: Putting it into Practice. Buckingham: Open University.
11. Bliss, J., & Ogborn, J. (1993). Tools for Exploratory Learning Programme: End of Award Reports. London: King's College London.
12. Brodie, T., Gilbert, J., Hollins, M., Raper, G., Robson, K., Webb, M., et al. (1994). Models and Modelling in Science Education. London: Association for Science Education.
13. Brumby, M. (1984). Misconception about the concept of natural selection by medical biology students. Science Education, 68, 493-550.
14. Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual Change in Childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15. Clough, E., Driver, R., & Wood Robinson, C. (1987). How do children's ideas change over time? School Science Review, 69(247), 255-267.
16. Cox, M.J. (1993). The project design and method. In D. Watson (Ed.) Impact-An Evaluation of the Impact of the Information Technology on Children's Achievements in Primary and Secondary Schools (Vol. 1 pp. 7-25). London: Department for Education, King's College London.
17. Cox, M.J. (1997). The Effects of Information Technology on Students' Motivation. Coventry: Council for Educational Technology.
18. Cox, M.J., & Abbott, C. (2004). ICT and Attainment: A Review of the Research Literature. Coventry and London: British Educational Communications and Technology Agency/Department for Education and Skills.
19. Cox, M.J., & Webb, M.E. (2004). ICT and Pedagogy: A Review of the Research Literature. Coventry and London: British Educational Communications and Technology Agency/Department for Education and Skills.
20. Dori, Y.J., & Barak, M. (2001). Virtual and physical molecular modeling: fostering model perception and spatial understanding. Educational Technology & Society, 4(1), 61-74.
21. Downes, T. (2002). Blending play, practice and performance: children's use of the computer at home. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 3(2), 21-34.
22. Draper, S.W. (1998). Niche-based success in CAL. Computers & Education, 30(1-2), 5-8.
23. Draper, S.W., Mohamed, R., Byard, M., Driver, R., Hartley, R., Mallen, C., et al. (1992). Conceptual Change in Science: Final Report to ESRC, No. 167. Buckingham: CITE, Open University.
24. Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: a review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61-84.
25. Driver, R., Guesne, F., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children's Ideas in Science. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
26. Duit, R., & Treagust, D.F. (2003). Conceptual change: a powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671-688.
27. Dweck, C.S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10) (Special Issue: psychological science and education), 1040-1048.
28. Gaver, W.W. (1991). Technology affordances. Paper presented at the CHI'91 (Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems), New Orleans, 28 April-2 May, 1991.
29. Gibson, J.J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
30. Gilbert, J.K., & Watts, O.M. (1983). Concepts, misconceptions and alternative conceptions: changing perspectives in science education. Studies in Science Education, 10, 61-98.
31. Haass, U., Seeber, F., & Weininger, U. (2001). Case Studies of ICT and School Improvement in Germany, OECD/CERI ICT PROGRAMME ICT and the Quality of Learning. Grünwald: FWU Institut für Film und Bild in Wissenschaft und Unterricht gemeinnützige GmbH.
32. Harlen, W. (1999). Effective Teaching of Science: A Review of Research. Edinburgh: Scottish Council for Research in Education.
33. Hawkridge, D. (1990). Who needs computers in schools, and why? Computers and Education, 15, 1-3.
34. Hinton, T. (1978). Computer assisted learning in physics. Computers & Education, 2, 71-88.
35. Hollow, R.P. (2000). The student as scientist: secondary student research projects in astronomy. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 17(2), 162-167.
36. Hoyles, C., Sutherland, R., & Evans, J. (1986). Using LOGO in the mathematics clasroom. What are the implications of pupil devised goals? Computers & Education, 10, 61-72.
37. Huppert, J., Yaakobi, J., & Lazarowitz, R. (1998). Learning microbiology with computer simulations: students' academic achievement by method and gender. Research in Science and Technological Education, 16(2), 231-245.
38. Huppert, J., Lomask, M.S., & Lazarowitz, R. (2002). Computer simulations in the high school: students' cognitive stages, science process skills and academic achievement in microbiology. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 803-821.
39. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The Growth of Logical Thinking. London: Routledge.
40. Jimoyiannis, A., & Komis, V. (2001). Computer simulations in physics teaching and learning: a case study on students' understanding of trajectory motion. Computers & Education, 36(2), 183-204.
41. Kafai, Y.B., Carter, C.C., & Marshalla, S. (1997). Children as designers of educational multimedia software. Computers & Education, 29 (2-3), 117-126.
42. Kelly, G.A. (1971). Ontological acceleration. In B. Maher (Ed.) Clinical Psychology and Personality: The Selected Papers of George Kelly. London: Wiley.
43. Kemmis, S., Atkin, R., & Wright, E. (1977). How do Students Learn? Working Papers on Computer Assisted Learning. Norwich: Centre for Applied Research in Education, UEA.
44. Kennewell, S. (2001). Using affordances and constraints to evaluate the use of information and communications technology in teaching and learning. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 10(1/2), 101-116.
45. Kozma, R.B. (Ed.) (2003). Technology, Innovation, and Educational Change-A Global Perspective (Eugene, OR: International Society for Educational Technology (ISTE)).
46. Laurillard, D., Stratford, M., Luckin, R., Plowman, L., & Taylor, J. (2000). Affordances for learning in a non-linear narrative medium. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2. Available online at: http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/00/2/Laurillord-00-2.pdf (accessed 4 March 2005).
47. Linn, M.C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, Teachers, Peers: Science Learning Partners. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
48. Mayer-Smith, J., Pedretti, E., & Woodrow, J. (2000). Closing of the gender gap in technology enriched science education: a case study. Computers & Education, 35(1), 51-63.
49. McGrenere, J., & Ho, W. (2000). Affordances: clarifying and evolving a concept. Paper presented at the Graphics Interface 2000, Montreal, May.
50. McLoughlin, C., & Oliver, R. (1999). Pedagogic roles and dynamics in telematics environments. In M. Sellinger and J. Pearson (Eds.) Telematics in Education: Trends and Issues (pp. 32-50). Oxford: Elsevier Science.
51. Mellar, H., Bliss, J., Ogborn, J., & Tompsett, C. (1994). Learning with Artificial Worlds: Computer Based Modelling in the Curriculum. London: Falmer Press.
52. Michel, R.G., Cavallari, J.M., Znamenskaia, E., Yang, K.X., Sun, T., & Bent, G. (1999). Digital video clips for improved pedagogy and illustration of scientific research - with illustrative video clips on atomic spectrometry. Spectrochimica Acta Part B-Atomic Spectroscopy, 54(13), 1903-1918.
53. Millar, R., & Osborne, J.F. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science Education for the Future. London: King's College London.
54. Minstrell, J. (2001). The role of the teacher in making sense of classroom experiences and effecting better learning. In S.M. Carver and K.D. (Eds.) Cognition and Instruction: 25 Years of Progress (pp. 121-143). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
55. Monaghan, J.M., & Clement, J. (1999). Use of a computer simulation to develop mental simulations for understanding relative motion concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 21(9), 921-944.
56. Newton, L., & Rogers, L. (2003). Thinking frameworks for planning ICT in science lessons. School Science Review, 84(309), 113-120.
57. Norman, D.A. (1988). The Psychology of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.
58. Norman, D.A. (2002). Affordances and design. Available online at: http:// www.jnd.org/dn.mss/affordances-and-design.html (accessed 4 March 2005).
59. Osborne, J., & Hennessy, S. (2003). Literature Review in Science Education and the Role of ICT: Promise, Problems and Future Directions (NESTA Futurelab). Available online at: http:// www.nestafuturelab.org/research/lit_reviews.htm (accessed 4 March 2005).
60. Osborne, R.J., Bell, B.F., & Gilbert, J.K. (1986). Science teaching and children's view of the world. In J. Brown, A. Cooper, & T. Horton (Eds.) Science in Schools (pp. 316-332). Buckingham: Open University Press.
61. Pedretti, J.E., Mayer-Smith, J., & Woodrow, J. (1998). Technology, text, and talk: students' perspectives on teaching and learning in a technology-enhanced secondary science classroom. Science Education, 82(5), 569-590.
62. Reid, M., Burn, A., & Parker, D. (2002). Evaluation report of the Becta Digital Video Pilot Project Available online at: http:// www.becta.org.uk/research/reports/docs/drreport_241002.pdf (accessed 4 March 2005).
63. Rogers, L., & Finlayson, H. (2003). Does ICT in science really work in the classroom? Part 1, the individual teacher experience. School Science Review, 84(309), 105-111.
64. Scanlon, E., Morris, E., Di Paolo, T., & Cooper, M. (2002). Contemporary approaches to learning science: technologically-mediated practical work. Studies in Science Education, 38, 73-114.
65. Scott, P., Asoko, H., & Driver, R. (1991). Teaching for conceptual change: a review of strategies. In Duit, R., Goldberg, F., & Niedderer, H. (Eds.) Research in Physics Learning: Theoretical Issues and Empirical Studies (pp. 310-329). Kiel: University of Kiel.
66. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22.
67. Somekh, B., & Davies, R. (1991). Towards a pedagogy for information technology. The Curriculum Journal, 2(2), 153-170.
68. Squires, D., & McDougall, A. (1994). Choosing and Using Educational Software: A teachers' guide. London: The Falmer Press.
69. Tao, P.-K., & Gunstone, R.F. (1999). Conceptual change in science through collaborative learning at the computer. International Journal of Science Education, 21(1), 39-57.
70. Taylor, R. P. (1980). The Computer in the School: Tutor, Tool, Tutee. New York: Teachers College Press.
71. Watson, R. (2000). The role of practical work. In M. Monk, & J. Osborne (Eds.) Good Practice in Science Teaching: What Research has to Say (pp. 57-71). Buckingham, PA: Open University Press.
72. Webb, M.E. (1993). Computer based modelling in school science. School Science Review, 74(269), 33-47.
73. Whitelock, D., Taylor, J., O'Shea, T., Scanlon, E., Clark, P., & O'Malley, C. (1991). How students construct a shared understanding of collisions in Newtonian mechanics. Proceedings of the 1991 International Conference on the Learning Sciences, Illinois, August 1991.
74. Wilson, J. (2001). Putting life back into biology coursework. School Science Review, 83(302), 98-100.