Scientific inquiry in educational multi-user virtual environments

Educational Psychology Review

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 265-283

  Nelson, Brian C ^a   Ketelhut, Diane Jass ^b  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b TEMPLE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Engagement; Multi user virtual environment; Scientific inquiry; Self efficacy

Indexed keywords

EID: 34548558540     PISSN: 1040726X     EISSN: 1573336X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10648-007-9048-1     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., et al. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397-419.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Project 2061: Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
4. American Association of University Women (2000). Tech-savvy: Educating girls in the new computer age. Washington, DC.
5. Annetta, L. & Park, J. C. (2006). Video games in science: A model for students and teachers creating 3D role playing games. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, Orlando, FL.
6. Barab, S., Arici, A., & Jackson, C. (2005a). Eat your vegetables and do your homework: A design based investigation of enjoyment and meaning in learning. Educational Technology, 45(1), 15-20.
7. Barab, S., Sadler, T., Heiselt, C., Hickey, D., & Zuiker, S. (2007). Relating narrative, inquiry, and inscriptions: supporting consequential play. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 59-82.
8. Barab, S., Thomas, M., Dodge, T., Carteaux, R., & Tuzan, H. (2005b). Making learning fun: Quest Atlantis, a game without guns. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(1), 86-107.
9. Bers, M. U. (1999). Zora: A graphical multi-user environment to share stories about the self. Paper presented at the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL'99).
10. Bowers, A. (1987). Creative C.O.W. or a moo is worth a thousand words. Pointer, 32(1), 9-13.
11. Brdicka, B. (1999). Multi user virtual environment and its possible use in education. Retrieved 9/28, 2003, from http://it.pedf.cuni.cz/~bobr/MUVE/ muveen.htm.
12. Bruckman, A. (1996). Finding one's own space in cyberspace. Technology Review, 99(1), 48-54.
13. Bruckman, A. (2000). Uneven achievement in a constructivist learning environment. Paper presented at the International Conference on Learning Sciences, Ann Arbor, MI.
14. Bruckman, A., Jensen, C., & DeBonte, A. (2002). Gender and programming achievement in a CSCL environment. Paper presented at the CSCL 2002, Boulder, CO.
15. Bybee, R. W. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. H. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 20-46). Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
16. Chinn, C., & Hmelo-Silver, C. (2002). Authentic inquiry: Introduction to the special section. Science Education, 86, 171-174.
17. Clarke, J., & Dede, C. (2005). Making learning meaningful: An exploratory study of using multi-user environments (MUVEs) in middle school science. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, Montreal, Canada.
18. Clarke, J., Dede, C., Ketelhut, D. J., & Nelson, B. (2006). A design-based research strategy to promote scalability for educational innovations. Educational Technology 46 (3), 27-36.
19. Cobb, S., Neale, H., Crosier, J., & Wilson, J. R. (2002). Development and evalution of virtual learning environments. In K.M. Stanney (Ed.), Handbook of Virtual Environments: Design, Implementation, and Applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. Corbit, M. (2002). Building virtual worlds for informal science learning (SciCentr and SciFair) in the Active Worlds Educational Universe (AWEDU). Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environment 11 (1), 55-67.
21. Dede, C., Ketelhut, D. J., & Ruess, K. (2002). Motivation, usability, and learning outcomes in a prototype museum-based multi-user virtual environment. In P. Bell, R. Stevens & T. Satwicz (Eds.), Keeping learning complex: The proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the Learning Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. Dede, C., Ketelhut, D. J., & Nelson, B. (2004). Design-based research on gender, class, race, and ethnicity in a multi-user virtual environment. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, San Diego, CA.
23. Dewey, J. (1944). Democracy and education (First free press paperback-1966 ed.): Macmillan Company.
24. Dickey, M. D. (2000). 3D virtual worlds and learning: An analysis of the impact of design affordances and limitations in active worlds, blaxxun interactive, and onlive! Traveler: and a study of the implementation of active worlds for formal and informal education. The Ohio State University.
25. Dickey, M. D. (2003). Teaching in 3D: Pedagogical affordances and constraints of 3D virtual worlds for synchronous distance learning. Distance Education, 24(1), 105-121.
26. DuVall, R. (2001). Inquiry in science: From curiosity to understanding. Primary Voices K-6, 10, 3-9.
27. Fanderclai, T. L. (1995). MUDs in education: New environments, new pedagogies. Computer Mediated Education Magazine, 2(1), 8.
28. Falk, J., & Drayton, B. (2004). State testing and inquiry-based science: Are they complementary or competing reforms? Journal of Educational Change, 5, 345-387.
29. Falsetti, J. (1995). What the heck is a MOO? And what's the story with all those cows? Paper presented at the Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (29th, Long Beach, CA, March 26-April 1, 1995).
30. Foley, B. & Kobaissi, A. (2006). Using virtual chat to study in informal learning in online environments. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
31. Galas, C. (2006). Why Whyville? Learning and Leading with Technology, 34(6), 30-33.
32. Gibson, H., & Chase, C. (2002). Longitudinal impact of an inquiry-based science program on middle school students' attitudes toward science. Science Education, 86, 693-705.
33. Jorgnenson, O., & Vanosdall, R. (2002). The death of science? What we risk in the rush toward standardized tesing and the three R's. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(8), 601-606.
34. Ketelhut, D. J. (2006). Do students with higher self-efficacy exhibit greater and more diverse scientific inquiry skills: An exploratory investigation in "River City," a multi-user virtual environment. Unpublished dissertation, Harvard University.
35. Ketelhut, D. J., Clarke, J., Dede, C., Nelson, B., & Bowman, C. (2005). Inquiry teaching for depth and coverage via multi-user virtual environments. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas.
36. Leonard, W. H., & Chandler, P. M. (2003). Where is the inquiry in biology textbooks? The American Biology Teacher, 65(7), 485-487.
37. Leonard, W. H., Speziale, B. J., & Penick, J. E. (2001). Performance Assessment of a Standards-Based High School Biology Curriculum. American Biology Teacher, 63(5), 310-316.
38. Lim, C. P., Nonis, D., & Hedberg, J. (2006). Gaming in a 3D multiuser virtual environment: Engaging students in Science lessons. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2), 211-231.
39. Marshall, J., & Dorward, J. (2000). Inquiry experiences as a lecture supplement for preservice elementary teachers and general education students. American Journal of Physics, 68, S27-S36.
40. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards: Observe, interact, change, learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
41. National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
42. National Research Council (NRC) (2005). America's Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science. Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision. In M. L. H. Susan, R. Singer & H. A. Schweingruber (Ed.), Board on science education, center for education, division of behavioral and social sciences and education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
43. National Science Teachers Association (2004). NSTA position statement: scientific inquiry. Draft. Retrieved August 9, 2004, from http://www.nsta.org/ main/forum/showthread.php?t=1175.
44. Nelson, B. (2005). Investigating the impact of individualized, reflective guidance on student learning in an educational multi-user virtual environment. Unpublished dissertation, Harvard University.
45. Nelson, B., & Ketelhut, D. J. (2006, October). Desiging for real-world inquiry in virtual environments. Paper presented at AECT 2006, Dallas, TX.
46. Nelson, B., Ketelhut, D. J., Clarke, J., Bowman, C., & Dede, C. (2005). Design-based research strategies for developing a scientific inquiry curriculum in a multi-user virtual environment. Educational Technology, 45(1), 21-34.
47. Neulight, N., Kafai, Y. B., Kao, L., Foley, B., & Galas, C. (2007). Childrens participation in a virtual epidemic in the science classroom: Making connections to natural infectious diseases. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 47-58.
48. Panel Urges Shift of Focus for School Science Courses (1995, December 7). New York Times.
49. Phelps, A., & Lee, C. (2003). The power of practice: What students learn from how we teach. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(7), 829-832.
50. Roehrig, G., & Luft, J. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning secondary science teachers in implementing scientific inquiry lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 3-24.
51. Roth, K. (1989). Science education: It's not enough to 'do' or 'relate.' The American Educator, 13(4), 16-22, 46-48.
52. Simons, K., & Clark, D. (2004). Supporting inquiry in science classrooms with the web. Computers in the Schools, 21(3/4), 23-36.
53. Socially-Responsive Design Group (2004). Creating a socially-responsive play space for learning: Something for girls and boys. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
54. Subrahmanyam, K., & Greenfield, P. M. (1998). Computer games for girls: What makes them play? In J. Cassell & H. Jenkins (Eds.), From Barbie to Mortal Kombat: Gender and computer games (pp. 46-71). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
55. The National Academies (2005). U.S. High school science lab experiences often poor, but research points way to improvements. Available: http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309096715?OpenDocument [2005, August].
56. Trumball, D., Bonney, R., & Grudens-Schuck, N. (2005). Developing materials to promote inquiry: Lessons learned. Science Education, 89(6), 879-900.
57. Tuzan, H. (2004). Motivating learners in educational computer games. Bloomington: Indiana University.
58. Urban Teacher Collaborative (2000). The urban teacher challenge: Teacher demand and supply in the great city schools. Available: http://www.cgcs.org/ pdfs/utc.pdf [2005, August].
59. Wallace, J., & Louden, W. (2002). Introduction to "laboratories." In J. Wallace & W. Louden (Eds.), Dilemmas of science teaching (pp. 36-37). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
60. Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of "inquiry:" How preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 481-512.
61. Wright, J., & Wright, C. (1998). A commentary on the profound changes envisioned by the national science standards. Teachers College Record, 100(1), 122-143.