Learning with Web Tools, Simulations, and Other Technologies in Science Classrooms

Journal of Science Education and Technology

Volumn 19, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 505-511

  Campbell, Todd ^a   Wang, Shaing Kwei ^b   Hsu, Hui Yin ^b   Duffy, Aaron M ^a   Wolf, Paul G ^a  

^a UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NEW YORK INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Cognitive tools; Formal and informal settings; Information communication and technologies (ICTs); Inquiry; Reform; Simulations; Technologies; Web tools

Indexed keywords

EID: 77956655382     PISSN: 10590145     EISSN: 15731839     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10956-010-9217-8     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1989) Science for all Americans. Oxford University Press, New York.
2. Aypay A, Erdoǧan M, Sözer MA (2007) The variation among schools on classroom practices in science based on TIMSS-1999 in Turkey. J Res Sci Teach 44(10): 1417-1435.
3. Baylor A, Ritchie D (2002) What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms? Comput Educ 39(4): 395-414.
4. Bell R, Gess-Newsome J, Luft J (2008) Technology in the secondary science classroom. NSTA Press, Arlington, VA.
5. Bennett S, Maton K, Kervin L (2008) The 'digital natives' debate: a critical review of the evidence. Brit J Educ Technol 39(5): 775-786.
6. Besnoy KD, Housand BC, Clarke LW (2008) Changing nature of technology and the promise of educational technology for gifted education. In: Karnes FA, Bean SM (eds) Methods and materials for teaching the gifted, 3rd edn. Prufrock Press, Inc, Waco, Texas.
7. Blumenfeld P, Fishman B, Krajcik J, Marx RW, Soloway E (2000) Creating useable innovations in systemic reform: scaling-up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educ Psychol 35(3): 149-164.
8. Carlone H, Webb S (2006) On (not) overcoming our history of hierarchy: complexities of university/school collaboration. Sci Educ 90(3): 544-568.
9. Campbell T, Bohn C (2008) Science laboratory experiences of high school students across one state in the U. S.: descriptive research from the classroom. Sci Educ 17(1): 36-48.
10. Clarke LW, Besnoy KD (2009) Introduction: technology and the evolving classroom. In: Besnoy KD, Clarke L (eds) High-tech teaching success! A step-by-step guide to using innovative technology in your classroom. Prufrock Press, Waco, TX, pp 2-18.
11. Cuban L (2001) Oversold and underused: computers in the classroom. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
12. Dede C (2000) Emerging influences of information technology on school curriculum. J Curric Stud 32(2): 281-303.
13. Dunleavy M, Dede C, Mitchelle R (2009) Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. J Sci Educ Technol 18: 7-22.
14. Fetters MK, Czerniak CM, Fish L, Shawberry J (2002) Confronting challenging, and changing teachers' beliefs: implications from a local systemic change professional development program. J Sci Teacher Educ 12(2): 101-130.
15. Friedman T (2005) The world is flat: a brief history of the twenty-first century. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
16. Hsu H-Y, Wang S-K (in press a) The exploration of New York City high school students' global literacy. Multicult Educ Technol J.
17. Hsu H-Y, Wang S-K (in press b) The impact of using blogs on college students' reading comprehension and learning motivation. Literacy Res Instruct.
18. Ito M et al (2008) Living and learning with new media: summary of findings from the digital youth project. Retrieved from http://www. macfound. org/atf/cf/%7BB0386CE3-8B29-4162-8098-E466FB856794%7D/DML_ETHNOG_WHITEPAPER. PDF.
19. Ito M et al (2009) Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out: kids living and learning with new media. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
20. Johnston A (2008) Demythologizing or dehumanizing? A response to settlage and the ideals of open inquiry. J Sci Teacher Educ 19: 11-13.
21. Jonassen DH (1996) Computers in the classroom: mindtools for critical thinking. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
22. Jonassen DH, Reeves TC (1996) Learning with technology: using computers as cognitive tools. In: Jonassen DH (ed) Handbook of research for educational communications, technology. New York, Macmillan, pp 693-719.
23. Kim M, Hannafin M, Bryan L (2007) Technology-enhanced inquiry tools in science education: an emerging pedagogical framework for classroom practice. Sci Educ 96(6): 1010-1030.
24. Kinchin I (2002) Why professional development should challenge teachers' core beliefs. School Sci Rev 84(306): 77-81.
25. Krause GF, Judd TS, Churchward A, Gray K, Krause K (2008) First year students' experiences with technology: are they really digital natives? Aus J Educ Technol 24(1): 108-122.
26. Lajoie SP, Derry SJ (eds) (1993) Computers as cognitive tools. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
27. Lee H, Linn MC, Varma K, Liu OL (2010) How do technology-enhanced inquiry science units impact classroom learning? J Res Sci Teach 47(1): 71-90.
28. Lenhart A, Arafeh S, Smith A, Rankin A (2008) Writing, technology and teens. Washington, DC: Pew/Internet. Available from: http://www. pewinternet. org.
29. Leu DJ Jr, Kinzer CK, Coiro J, Cammack D (2004) Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the internet and other information and communication tecnologies. In: Ruddell RB, Unrau N (eds) Theoretical models and processes of reading, 5th edn. International Reading Association, Newark, DE, pp 1568-1611.
30. Levin D, Arafeh S (2002) The digital disconnect: the widening gap between internet-savvy students and their schools. Retrieved on February 20, 2006, from http://www. pewinternet. org/pdfs/PIP_Schools_Internet_Report. pdf.
31. Lewin C, Mavers D, Somekh B (2003) Broadening access to the curriculum through using technology to link home and school: a critical analysis of reforms to improve attainment for all K12 students. Curric J 14(1): 23-53.
32. Livingstone S, Bober M (2005) UK children go online: final report of key project findings. Economic and Social Research Council, London.
33. Loucks-Horsley S, Hewson P, Love N, Stiles K (1997) Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA.
34. Luft JA, Roehrig GH, Patterson NC (2003) Contrasting landscapes: a comparison of the impact of different induction programs on beginning secondary science teachers' practices, beliefs, and experiences. J Res Sci Teach 40(1): 77-97.
35. Lussier C, Gomez S, Hurst R, Hendrick S (2007) Improving science classroom instruction by means of constructivism and technology. In: Montgomerie C, Seale J (eds) Proceedings of world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications 2007. AACE, Chesapeake, VA, pp 2282-2284.
36. Mistler-Jackson M, Songer NB (2000) Student motivation and internet technology: are students empowered to learn science? J Res Sci Teach 37: 459-479.
37. Mumtaz S (2000) 'Factors affecting teachers' use of information and communications technology: a review of the literature. Technol Pedagog Educ 9(3): 319-342.
38. National Research Council (2008) Ready, set, science: putting research to work in K-8 science classrooms. National Academy Press, Washington.
39. National Research Council (NRC) (1996) National science education standards. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
40. National Research Council (NRC) (2000) How people learn: brain, experience and school. Bransford JR, Brown AL, Cocking RR (Eds.) Committee on developments in the science of learning, commission on behavioral and social sciences and education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
41. National Research Council (NRC) (2005) America's lab report: investigations in high school science. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
42. National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) (2007) NSTA position statement. Scientific inquiry. http://www. nsta. org/about/positions/inquiry. aspx.
43. Pew Internet & American Life report (2002) Use of the internet at major life moments. Retrieved December 9, 2008, Web site: http://www. pewinternet. org/reports/toc. asp?Report=58.
44. Ping Lim C, Sing Chai C (2008) Teachers' pedagogical beliefs and their planning and conduct of computer-mediated classroom lessons. Brit J Educ Technol 39(5): 807-828.
45. Prensky M (2001) Digital native's digital immigrants. Horizon 9(5): 1-7.
46. Quintana C, Reiser BJ, Davis EA, Krajcik J, Fretz E, Duncan RG et al (2004) A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. J Learn Sci 13(3): 337-386.
47. Reif F (2008) Applying cognitive science to education. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
48. Reynard R (2008) Web 2. 0 meets conventional Ed. Campus Technol 18-19.
49. Salomon G, Perkins DN, Globerson T (1991) Partners in cognition: extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educ Res 20(3): 2-9.
50. Waight N, Abd-El-Khalick F (2007) The impact of technology on the enactment of "Inquiry" in a technology enthusiast's sixth grade science classroom. J Res Sci Teach 44(1): 154-182.
51. Wang S, Hsu H-Y, Campbell T (2009) Science learning, literacy, and the development of 21st century digital literacy. In: Besnoy KD, Lane C (eds) High-tech teaching success! A step-by-step guide to using innovative technology in your classroom. Prufrock Press, Waco, TX.
52. Weiss I, Pasley J, Smith S, Banilower E, Heck D (2003) Looking inside the classroom: a study of K-12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Horizon Research, Inc, Chapel Hill, NC.
53. Windschitl M (2003) Inquiry projects in science teacher education: what can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Sci Educ 87(1): 112-143.
54. Zhao Y, Cziko GA (2001) Teacher adoption of technology: a perceptual control theory perspective. J Technol Teach Educ 9(1): 5-30.