Ninth-grade student engagement in teacher-centered and student-centered technology-enhanced learning environments

Science Education

Volumn 91, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 727-749

  Wu, Hsin Kai ^a   Huang, Ya Ling ^b  

^a NATIONAL TAIWAN NORMAL UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^b Chien Chen Junior High School   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34548597162     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.20216     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Blumenfeld, P. C., & Meece, J. L. (1988). Task factors, teacher behavior and students' involvement and use of learning strategies in science. Elementary School Journal, 88, 238-249.
2. Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2000). Implementation and evaluation of a student-centered learning unit: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 79-100.
3. Capie, W., & Tobin, K. (1981). Pupil engagement in learning tasks: A fertile area for research in science teaching, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18(5), 409-417.
4. Chang, C. Y. (2003). Teaching earth sciences: should we implement teacher-directed or student-controlled CAI in the secondary classroom? International Journal of Science Education, 25(4), 427-438.
5. Cheng, R.-F. (2002). Junior high school students' conceptual understandings about force and motion. Unpublished master's thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
6. Christian, W. (1999). Physlets: Delivering media-focused problems anytime anywhere. Computer Physics Communications, 121-122, 569-572.
7. Como, L., & Mandinach, E. B. (1983). The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18(2), 88-108.
8. Cox, A. J., Belloni, M., Dancy, M., & Christian, W. (2003). Teaching thermodynamics with Physlets in introductory physics. Physics Education, 38(5), 433-440.
9. Cuban, L., Kirkpartick, H., & Peck, C., (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813-834.
10. de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179-201.
11. Dwyer, D. C., Ringstaff, C., & Sandholtz, J. H. (1991). Changes in teachers' beliefs and practices in technology-rich classrooms. Educational Leadership, 48, 45-52.
12. Enzle, M. E., & Anderson, S. C. (1993). Surveillant intentions and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 257-266.
13. Erickson, F. (1998). Qualitative research methods for science education. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 1155-1173). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
14. Flowerday, T., & Schraw, G. (2003). Effect of choice on cognitive and affective engagement. Journal of Educational Research, 96(4), 207-215.
15. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109.
16. Gallagher, J. J., & Tobin, K. (1987). Teacher management and student engagement in high school science. Science Education, 71(4), 535-555.
17. Greenwood, C., R., Horton, B. T., & Utley, C., A. (2002), Academic engagement: Current perspectives on research and practices. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 328-349.
18. Hannafin, M. J., & Land, S. M. (1997). The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced student-centered learning environments. Instructional Science, 25, 167-202.
19. Hannafin, R. D., & Sullivan, H. J. (1996). Preferences and learner control over amount of instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 162-173.
20. Herrenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 431-473.
21. Hestenes, D. (1992). Modeling games in the Newtonian world. American Journal of Physics, 60, 440-454.
22. Huang, S.-J. (2002). Development of an attitude survey to gauge junior high school students' attitude toward computer-based learning. Unpublished master's thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
23. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39-103.
24. Kozma, R. B., Russell, J., Jones, T., Marx, N., & Davis, J. (1996). The use of multiple, linked representations to facilitate science understanding. In S. Vosniadou, E. D. Corte, R. Glaser, & H. Mandel (Eds.), International perspective on the psychological foundations of technology-based learning environments (pp. 41-60). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
25. Krajcik, J. S., Czerniak, C. M., & Berger, C. (1999). Teaching children science: A project-based approach. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
26. Lau, S., & Roeser, R. W. (2002). Cognitive abilities and motivational processes in high school students' situational engagement and achievement in science. Educational Assessment, 8(2), 139-162.
27. Lee, O., & Anderson, C. W. (1993). Task engagement and conceptual change in middle school science classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 585-610.
28. Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
29. Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., & Baldwin, W. (1992). Learner control of context and instructional support in learning elementary school mathematics. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 40, 5-13.
30. Nystrand, M. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
31. Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional discourse, student engagement, and literature achievement. Research in Teaching of English, 25(3), 261-290.
32. Patrick, B. C., Skinner, E. A., & Connell, J. P. (1993). What motivates children's behavior and emotion? Joint effects of perceived control and autonomy in the academic domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 625-633.
33. Pedersen, S., & Liu, M. (2003). Teachers' beliefs about issues in the implementation of a student-centered learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(2), 57-76.
34. Polman, J. L., & Pea, R. D. (2001). Transformative communication as a cultural tool for guiding inquiry science. Science Education, 85, 223-238.
35. Ryan, A. M., & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in adolescents' motivation and engagement during middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 437-460.
36. Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2-9.
37. Sansone, C., & Thoman, D. B. (2005). Does what we feel affect what we learn? Some answers and new questions. Learning and Instruction, 15, 507-515.
38. Singh, K., Granville, M., & Dika, S. (2002). Mathematics and science achievement: Effects of motivation, interest. and academic engagement. Journal of Educational Research, 95(6), 323-332.
39. Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571-581.
40. Tobin, K., & Capie, W. (1982). Relationships between formal reasoning ability, locus of control, academic engagement and integrated process skill achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19(2), 113-121.
41. White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3-118.
42. Wu, H.-K., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students' use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 821-842.
43. Wu, H.-K., & Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science Education, 88, 465-492.