Technology-enhanced inquiry tools in science education: An emerging pedagogical framework for classroom practice

Science Education

Volumn 91, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 1010-1030

  Kim, Minchi C ^a   Hannafin, Michael J ^b   Bryan, Lynn A ^a  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 35948957846     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.20219     Document Type: Article

References (117)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Anderson, R. D. (1995). Curriculum reform: Dilemmas and promise. Phil Delta Kappan, 77, 33-36.
4. Anderson, R. D., & Helms, J. V. (2001). The ideal of standards and the reality of schools: Needed research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 3 -16.
5. Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., & Duffy, T. (1998). Grounded constructions and how technology can help. Technology Trends, 43(2), 15-23.
6. Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., Squire, K., Barnett, M., Schmidt, R., Karrigan, K., et al. (2000). Virtual Solar System Project: Learning through a technology-rich, inquiry-based, participatory learning environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 9(1), 7-25.
7. Barab, S. A., & Luehmann, A. L. (2003). Building sustainable science curriculum: Acknowledging and accommodating local adaptation. Science Education, 87(4), 454-467.
8. Barab, S. A., MaKinster, J. G., Moore, J. A., & Cunningham, D. J. (2001). Designing and building an on-line community: The struggle to support sociability in the inquiry learning forum. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(4), 71-96.
9. Barron, L., Bransford, J., Campbell, O., Ferron, B., Goin, L., Goldman, E., et al. (1992). The Jasper experiment - An exploration of issues in learning and instructional-design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 65-80.
10. Benenson, G. (2001). The unrealized potential of everyday technology as a context for learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 730-745.
11. Bianchini, J. A., & Kelly, G. J. (2003). Challenges of standards-based reform: The example of California's science content standards and textbook adoption process. Science Education, 87(3), 378-389.
12. Blumenfeld, P. C., Fishman, B. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2000). Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: Scaling up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 149-164.
13. Brickhouse, N. W. (1990). Teacher beliefs about the nature of science and their relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 53-62.
14. Brickhouse, N. W. (2006). Celebrating 90 years of Science Education: Reflections on the gold standard and ways of promoting good research. Science Education, 90(1), 1-7.
15. Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16. Bryan, L. A. (2003). Nestedness of beliefs: Examining a prospective elementary teacher's belief system about science teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(9), 835-868.
17. Bryan, L. A., & Abell, S. K. (1999). Development of professional knowledge in learning to teach elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 121-139.
18. Bryan, L. A., & Atwater, M. M. (2002). Teacher beliefs and cultural models: A challenge for science teacher preparation programs. Science Education, 86(6), 821-839.
19. Chan, K. W., & Elliott, R. G. (2004). Relational analysis of personal epistemology and conceptions about teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 817-831.
20. Chinn, C. A., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2002). Authentic inquiry: Introduction to the special section. Science Education, 86(2), 171-174.
21. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175-218.
22. Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916-937.
23. Crawford, B. A., & Cullin, M. J. (2004). Supporting prospective teachers' conceptions of modelling in science. International Journal of Science Education, 26(11), 1379-1401.
24. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold & underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25. Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3-14.
26. DeWert, M. H., Babinski, L. M., & Jones, B. D. (2003). Safe passages-Providing online support to beginning teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 311-320.
27. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Macmillan.
28. Edelson, D. C (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355-385.
29. Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3-4), 391-450.
30. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25-39.
31. Fishman, B., Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2004). Creating a framework for research on systemic technology innovations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 43-76.
32. Fishman, B. J., & Krajcik, J. (2003). What does it mean to create sustainable science curriculum innovations? A commentary. Science Education, 87, 564-573.
33. Flick, L., & Bell, R. (2000). Preparing tomorrow's science teachers to use technology: Guidelines for science educators. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1(1), 39-60.
34. Gagne, R. M., & Briggs, L. J. (1974). Principles of instructional design (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
35. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.
36. Glazer, E. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (2006). The collaborative apprenticeship model: Situated professional development within school settings. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(2), 179-193.
37. Harlen, W., & Doubler, S. J. (2004). Can teachers learn through enquiry on-line? Studying professional development in science delivered on-line and on-campus. International Journal of Science Education, 26(10), 1247-1267.
38. Harrington, H. L., & Garrison, J. W. ( 1992). Cases as shared inquiry - A dialogical model of teacher preparation. American Educational Research Journal, 29(4), 715-735.
39. Hill, J. R., & Hannafin, M. J. (2001). Teaching and learning in digital environments: The resurgence of resourcebased learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3), 37-52.
40. Hoffman, J. L., Wu, H. K., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2003). The nature of middle school learners' science content understandings with the use of on-line resources. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(3), 323-346.
41. Iiyoshi, T., Hannafin, M. J., & Wang, F. (2005). Cognitive tools and student-centered learning: Rethinking tools, functions, and applications. Educational Media International, 42(4), 281-296.
42. Jackson, S., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2000). Model-IT: A design retrospective. In M. J. Jacobson & R. B. Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced design for technologies of learning (pp. 77-116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
43. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63-85.
44. Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 693-719). New York: Macmillan.
45. Keys, C. W., & Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 631-645.
46. Kim, G., & Stein, M. K. (2006, April). Analysis of the teacher learning demands of everyday mathematics and investigations. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
47. Kim, H., & Hannafin, M. J. (in press-a). Grounded design and Web-enhanced, case-based reasoning. Educational Technology Research and Development.
48. Kim, H., Hannafin, M. J., & Kim, M. C. (2005). Online case-based learning: Components, applications, and assessment. Distance Learning, 1(5), 23-31.
49. Kim, M. C. (2006). Scaffolding middle school students' problem-solving in Web-enhanced learning environments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
50. Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2004). Designing online learning environments to support scientific inquiry. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 5(1), 1-10.
51. Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (in press-b). Foundations and practice for Web-enhanced science inquiry. In R. Luppicini (Ed.), Trends in distance education: Information age.
52. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., & Fredricks, J. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3-4), 313-350.
53. Krueger, K., Boboc, M., Smaldino, S., Cornish, Y., & Callahan, W. (2004). INTIME impact report: What was INTIME's effectiveness and impact on faculty and preservice teachers? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(2), 185-210.
54. Kuiper, E., Volman, M., & Terwel, J. (2005). The Web as an information resource in K-12 education: Strategies for supporting students in searching and processing information. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 285-328.
55. Lajoie, S. P. (2000). Introduction: Breaking camp to find new summits. In S. P. Lajoie (Ed.), Computers as cognitive tools: No more walls (Vol. 2, pp. xv-xxxii). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
56. Land, S., & Hannafin, M. (1997). Patterns of understanding with open-ended learning environments: A qualitative study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(2), 47-73.
57. Land, S. M., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2003). Scaffolding reflection and articulation of scientific explanations in a data-rich, project-based learning environments: An investigation of Progress Portfolio. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(4), 65-84.
58. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
59. Lee, O., Hart, J. E., Cuevas, P., & Enders, C. (2004). Professional development in inquiry-based science for elementary teachers of diverse student groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1021-1043.
60. Linn, M. C. (2003). Technology and science education: Starting points, research programs, and trends. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 727-758.
61. Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538.
62. Linn, M. C., & Slotta, J. D. (2000). WISE science. Educational Leadership, 58(2), 29-32.
63. Luft, J. A. (1999). Teachers' salient beliefs about a problem-solving demonstration classroom in-service program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 141-158.
64. Luft, J. A., Roehrig, G. H., & Patterson, N. C. (2003). Contrasting landscapes: A comparison of the impact of different induction programs on beginning secondary science teachers' practices, beliefs, and experiences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(1), 77-97.
65. Lynch, S. (1997). Novice teachers' encounter with national science education reform: Entanglements or intelligent interconnections? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 3-17.
66. Mistier-Jackson, M., & Songer, N. B. (2000). Student motivation and Internet technology: Are students empowered to learn science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 459-479.
67. Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (2005). Growing the tree of teacher knowledge: Ten years of learning to teach elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(7), 767-790.
68. National Council for the Social Studies. (1994). Expectations of excellence: Curriculum standards for social studies. Silver Spring, MD: Author.
69. National Council of Teachers of English. (1996). Guidelines for the preparation of teachers of English language arts. Urbana, IL: Author.
70. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
71. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards: Observe, interact, change, learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
72. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
73. Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19, 317-328.
74. Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
75. Ng, W., & Gunstone, R. (2002). Students' perceptions of the effectiveness of the World Wide Web as a research and teaching tool in science learning. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 489-510.
76. Norris, C. A., & Soloway, E. M. (2003). The viable alternative: Handhelds. School Administrator, 60(4), 26-28.
77. Oliver, K., & Hannafin, M. (2001). Developing and refining mental models in open-ended learning environments: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(4), 5-32.
78. Otero, V., Peressini, D., Meymaris, K. A., Ford, P., Garvin, T., Harlow, D., et al. (2005). Integrating technology into teacher education - A critical framework for implementing reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(1), 8-23.
79. Palincsar, A. S., Magnusson, S. J., Marano, N., Ford, D., & Brown, N. (1998). Designing a community of practice: Principles and practices of the GIsML community. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(1), 5-19.
80. Papert, S. (1987). Computer criticism vs. technocentric thinking. Educational Researcher, 16(1), 22-30.
81. Parke, H. M., & Coble, C. R. (1997). Teachers designing curriculum as professional development: A model for transformational science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(8), 773-789.
82. Pea, R. D. (1985). Beyond amplification: Using the computer to reorganize mental functioning. Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 167-182.
83. Pedretti, 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), 569-589.
84. Piaget, J. (1976). The grasp of consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
85. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337-386.
86. Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273-304.
87. Rodriguez, A. J. (1997). The dangerous discourse of invisibility: A critique of the national research council's national science education standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 19-37.
88. Roth, W. M., Masciotra, D., & Boyd, N. (1999). Becoming-in-the- classroom: A case study of teacher development through coteaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(7), 771-784.
89. Roth, W. M., Tobin, K., Carambo, C., & Dalland, C. (2005). Coordination in coteaching: Producing alignment in real time. Science Education, 89(4), 675-702.
90. Sadler, P. M., Whitney, CA., Shore, L., & Deutsch, F. (1999). Visualization and representation of physical systems: Wavemaker as an aid to conceptualizing wave phenomena. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(3), 197-209.
91. Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2-9.
92. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37-68.
93. Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2005). Enacting reform-based science materials: The range of teacher enactments in reform classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 283-312.
94. Settlage, J., & Meadows, L. (2002). Standards-based reform and its unintended consequences: Implications for science education within America's urban schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(2), 114-127.
95. Shiland, T. W. (1998). The atheoretical nature of the National Science Education Standards. Science Education, 82(5), 615-617.
96. Songer, N. B., Lee, H. S., & Kam, R. (2002). Technology-rich inquiry science in urban classrooms: What are the barriers to inquiry pedagogy? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(2), 128-150.
97. Songer, N. B., Lee, H. S., & McDonald, S. (2003). Research towards an expanded understanding of inquiry science beyond one idealized standard. Science Education, 87(4), 490-516.
98. Stratford, S. J. (1997). A review of computer-based model research in precollege science classrooms. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 16(1), 3-23.
99. Tobin, K., & Lamaster, S. U. (1995). Relationships between metaphors, beliefs, and actions in a context of science curriculum change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(3), 225-242.
100. Toth, E. E, Suthers, D. D., & Lesgold, A. M. (2002). "Mapping to know": The effects of representational guidance and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry. Science Education, 86, 264-286.
101. van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers' practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137-158.
102. Voithofer, R. (2005). Designing new media education research: The materiality of data, representation, and dissemination. Educational Researcher, 34(9), 3-14.
103. Volkmann, M. J., Abell, S. K., & Zgagacz, M. (2005). The challenges of teaching physics to preservice elementary teachers: Orientations of the professor, teaching assistant, and students. Science Education, 89(5), 847-869.
104. von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80, 121-140.
105. von Glasersfeld, E. (1993). Questions and answers about radical constructivism. In K. G. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
106. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
107. Wallace, R. M. (2002). The Internet as a site for changing practice: The case of Ms. Owens. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 465-487.
108. Wallace, R. M. (2004). A framework for understanding teaching with the Internet. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 447-488.
109. Wallace, R. M., Kupperman, J., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2000). Science on the Web: Students online in a sixth-grade classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(1), 75-104.
110. White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 3-118.
111. White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (2000). Metacognitive facilitation: An approach to making scientific inquiry accessible to all. In J. Minstrell & E. H. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
112. White, B. Y., Shimoda, T. A., & Frederiksen, J. R. (2000). Facilitating students' inquiry learning and metacognitive development through modifiable software advisers. In S. P. Lajoie (Ed.), Computers as cognitive tools: No more walls (Vol. 2, pp. 97-132). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
113. Williams, M., & Linn, M. C. (2002). WISE inquiry in fifth grade biology. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 415-436.
114. Windschitl, M. (2002). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87(1), 112-143.
115. Windschitl, M. (2005). Guest editorial: The future of science teacher preparation in America: Where is the evidence to inform program design and guide responsible policy decisions? Science Education, 89(4), 525-534.
116. Wong, S. L., Yung, B. H. W., Cheng, M. W., Lam, K. L., & Hodson, D. (2006). Setting the stage for developing pre-service teachers' conceptions of good science teaching: The role of classroom videos. International Journal of Science Education, 28(1), 1-24.
117. 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.