Uncovering the potential: The role of technologies on science learning of middle school students

International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 329-350

  Reid Griffin, Angelia ^a   Carter, Glenda ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA WILMINGTON   (United States)

^b NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Calculators; Conceptual thinking; Instructional model; Middle school; Probe ware; Scaffolding; Technology

Indexed keywords

EID: 44849126206     PISSN: 15710068     EISSN: 15731774     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10763-007-9105-8     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Adams, D. & Shrum, J. W. (1990). The effects of microcomputer-based laboratory exercises on the acquisition of line graph construction and interpretation skills by high school biology students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(8), 777-787.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1989). Science for all Americans: A project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics, and technology. Washington, DC: Author.
3. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.
4. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1998). Blueprints for reform science, mathematics, and technology education. New York: Oxford University Press.
5. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. (2000/2002). The ASHRAE handbook-fundamentals. Available at http://www.ashrae.org/publications/page/158. Retrieved Jan. 1, 2002.
6. Brasell, H. (1987). The effect of real-time laboratory graphing on learning graphic representations of distance and velocity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(4), 385-395.
7. Bush, G. W. (2001). Enhancing education through technology. No child left behind. Available at http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/esea/nclb/partx.html. Retrieved May 16, 2001.
8. Cajas, F. (2001). The science/technology interaction: implications for science literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 715-729.
9. Carter, G., Westbrook, S. & Thompkins, C. (1999). Examining science tools as mediators of students' learning about circuits. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 89-105.
10. Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: the language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books.
11. Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design qualitative & quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12. ENC Focus. (2001). National educational technology standards and profiles for technology-literate students. Available at http://www.enc.org/professional/ standards/national/ http://cnets.iste.org/c_standards.htm. Retrieved February 21, 2001.
13. Fleer, M. (1992). Identifying teacher-child interaction which scaffolds scientific thinking in young children. Science Education, 76(4), 373-397.
14. Friedler, Y., Nachmias, R. & Linn, M. (1990). Learning scientific reasoning skills in microcomputer-based laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(2), 173-191.
15. Hale, P. L. (1996). Building conceptions and repairing misconceptions in student understanding of kinematic graphs using student discourse in calculator based laboratories. Doctoral Dissertation, Oregon State University, USA.
16. Jonassen, D., Peck, K. & Wilson, B. (1999). Learning with technology: a constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
17. Jones, M. G., Brader-Araje, L., Carboni, L. W., Carter, G., Rua, M. J., Banilower, E., et al. (2000). Tool time: gender and students' use of tools, control, and authority. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 760-783.
18. Krajcik, J. S. (1993). Learning science by doing science. In R. Yager (Ed.), What research says to the science teacher: science, society and technology. Washington, DC: National Science Teacher Association.
19. Krajcik, J. S. & Layman, J. W. (1992). Microcomputer-based laboratories in the science classroom. In F. Lawrenz, K. Cochran, J. Krajcik & P. Simpson (Eds.), Research matters to the science teacher. Reston, VA: National Association of Research in Science Teaching.
20. Krajcik, J. S. & Layman, J. W. (2000). Research matters to the science teacher: microcomputer-based laboratories in the science classroom. Available at http://www.edu.sfc.ca/narstsite/publications/research/ microcomputer.htm. Retrieved May, 2004.
21. Kreuger, A. & Rawls, G. (1998). Connecting points: teacher decision-making about student data-collection technology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7(3), 279-283.
22. Lapp, D. A. & Cyrus, V. F. (2000). Using data-collection devices to enhance students' understanding. Mathematics Teacher, 93(6), 504-510.
23. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
24. Lewis, E. L. & Linn, M. (1994). Heat energy and temperature concepts of adolescents, adults, and experts: implications for curricular improvements. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(6), 657-677.
25. Linn, M. C. (2000). Designing the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 781-796.
26. Linn, M. C., Layman, J. & Nachmias, R. (1987). The cognitive consequences of microcomputer-based laboratories: graphing skills development. Journal of Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12, 244-253.
27. Linn, M. C. & Songer, N. B. (1991). Teaching thermodynamics to middle school students: What are appropriate cognitive demands? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(10), 885-918.
28. Mergendoller, J. R. (1996). Moving from technological possibility to richer student learning: revitalized infrastructure and reconstructed pedagogy. Educational Researcher, 25(8), 43-46.
29. Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: a qualitative approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
30. Metcalf, S. J. & Tinker, R. F. (2004). Probeware and handhelds in elementary and middle school science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(1), 43-49.
31. Miller, P. H. (1983). Theories of developmental psychology, 3rd ed. New York: W.H. Freeman.
32. Mokros, J. & Tinker, R. F. (1987). The impact of microcomputer-based labs on children's ability to interpret graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(4), 369-383.
33. National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
34. Nicaise, M., Gibney, T. & Crane, M. (2000). Toward an understanding of authentic learning: student perceptions of an authentic classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 9(1), 79-94.
35. Novak, A. M., Gleason, C., Mahoney, J. & Krajcik, J. S. (2002). Inquiry through portable technology. Science scope. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association, 26(3), 18-21.
36. Office of Educational Technology. (1999). e-Learning putting a world-class education at the fingertips of all children: The national education technology plan. Available at http://www.ed.gov/Technology/elearning/index.html. Retrieved May 11, 2001.
37. Reid-Griffin, A. & Carter, G. (2004). Technology as a tool: applying an instructional model to teach middle school students to use technology as a mediator of learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4, 495-504.
38. Roblyer, M. D. & Edwards, J. (2000). Integrating educational technology into teaching, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
39. Roth, W.-M. (2001). Learning science through technological design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 768-790.
40. Russell, D. W., Lucas, K. B. & McRobbie, C. (2003). The role of the microcomputer-based laboratory display in supporting the construction of new understandings in kinematics. Research in Science Education, 33(2), 217-243.
41. Seiler, G., Tobin, K. & Sokolic, J. (2001). Design, technology, and science: sites for learning, resistance, and social reproduction in urban schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 746-767.
42. Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
43. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44. Taylor, R. P. (1980). The computer in the school: Tutor, tool, tutee. New York: Teachers College Press.
45. Thornton, R. K. & Sokoloff, D. R. (1990). Learning motion concepts using real-time microcomputer-based laboratory tools. American Journal of Physics, 58(9), 858-867.
46. Trumper, R. (2003). The physics laboratory: a historical overview and future perspectives. Science Education, 12, 645-670.
47. U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Teachers' tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers' use of technology (statistical analysis report no. NCES 2000-102). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
48. U.S. House of Representatives. (1994). Goals 2000: Educate America act H.R. 1804. Available at http://www.ed.gov/legislation/GOALS2000/TheAct/intro. html. Retrieved May 22, 2001.
49. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
50. Wake County Public School System. (2000/2001). Gifted and talented magnet school: middle school program description guide. Raleigh, NC: WCPSS.
51. Wetzel, D. R. (2000). Calculator-based laboratory probeware implementation and integration by middle school science teachers. Doctoral Dissertation, George Mason University, Dissertation Abstracts International, Fairfax, Virginia.