Engaging students in environmental research projects: Perceptions of fluency with innovative technologies and levels of scientific inquiry abilities

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 48, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 94-116

  Ebenezer, Jazlin ^a   Kaya, Osman Nafiz ^b   Ebenezer, Devairakkam Luke ^c  

^a WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b FIRAT UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^c Northern Caribbean University   (Jamaica)

Author keywords

biology life science; science teacher education; secondary; technology education

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGY/LIFE SCIENCE; ENGAGING STUDENTS; ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES; ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCHES; ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES; HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS; HIGHER ORDER; INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY; IT FLUENCIES; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; RESEARCH PAPERS; RESEARCH STUDIES; SCIENCE TEACHER EDUCATIONS; SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY; SCIENTIFIC RESEARCHES; SECONDARY; STATISTICAL FINDING; TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION;

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; INNOVATION; RESEARCH; TEACHING;

STUDENTS;

EID: 78650617745     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.20387     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy: A tool for curriculum reform. Project. 2061. New York: Oxford University Press. 448 p.
2. Adams, D.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, 777-787.
3. Bednarz, S.W., (2004). Geographic Information Systems: A tool to support geography and environmental education? GeoJournal, 60, 191-199.
4. Bednarz, S.W., &, Van der Schee, J., (2006). Europe and the United States: The implementation of geographic information systems in secondary education in two contexts. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 15 (2), 191-205.
5. Bell, R., &, Trundle, K., (2008). The use of a computer simulation to promote scientific conceptions of moon phases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 346-372.
6. Bransford J.D., Brown A., &, Cocking R., (Eds.), (2000). How people learn: Mind, brain, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
7. Campbell, D.T., &, Stanley, J.C., (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
8. Cañas, A.J., Ford, K.M., Novak, J.D., Hayes, P., Reichherzer, T., &, Suri, N., (2001). Online concept maps: Enhancing collaborative learning by using technology with concept maps. The Science Teacher, 68 (4), 49-51.
9. Chang, H., Quintana, C., &, Krajcik, J.S., (2010). The impact of designing and evaluating molecular animations on how well middle school students understand the particulate nature of matter. Science Education, 94 (1), 73-94.
10. Clark, D.B., &, Sampson, V., (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45 (3), 293-321.
11. Council of Ministers of Education of Canada. (1997). Common framework of science learning outcomes. Toronto: Author.
12. Davis, E.A., &, Linn, M.C., (2000). Scaffolding students' knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 819-837.
13. Department for Education and Employment. (1999). The national curriculum for England. London: HMSO. Retrieved September 25, 2008, from.
14. Dori, Y.J., &, Sasson, I., (2008). Chemical understanding and graphing skills in an honors case-based computerized chemistry laboratory environment: The value of bidirectional visual and textual representations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45 (2), 219-250.
15. Duschl R.A., Grandy R.E., (Eds.), (2008). Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendation for research and implementation. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
16. Ebenezer, J.V., (2001). A hypermedia environment to explore and negotiate students' conceptions: Animation of the solution process of table salt. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10 (1), 73.
17. Ebenezer, J.V., &, Puvirajah, A., (2005). WebCT dialogues on particle theory of matter: Presumptive reasoning schemes. Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice, 11 (6), 561-589. Special Issue: The Role of Research in Using Technology to Enhance Learning in Science. Guest Editors: Zacharias C. Zacharia and Constantinos P. Constantinou.
18. 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.
19. Flick, L., &, Bell, R., (2000). Preparing tomorrow's science teachers to use technology: Guidelines for Science educators. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 1 (1), Available:.
20. Friedrichsen, P., Munford, D., &, Zembal-Saul, C., (2003). Using inquiry empowering technologies to support prospective teachers' scientific inquiry & science learning. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 3 (2), 223-239.
21. Glazer, E.M., &, Hannafin, M.J., (2006). The collaborative apprenticeship model: Situated professional development within school settings. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 179-193.
22. Griffin, A.R., &, Carter, G., (2008). Uncovering the potential: The role of technologies on science learning of middle school students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6 (2), 329-350.
23. Hess, G.R., &, Cheshire, H.M., (2002). Integrating spatial information technologies into forestry and natural resources curricula. Journal of Forestry, 100 (1), 29-34.
24. Hoadley, C.M., &, Linn, M.C., (2000). Teaching science through on-line peer discussions: Speakeasy in the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 839-857.
25. International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). National Educational Technology Standards for Students. Retrieved September 12, 2008, from http:/ /www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForTeachers/2008Standards/ NETS-forTeachers-2008.htm.
26. Jackson, S., Krajcik, J., &, Soloway, E., (2000). Model-It: A design retrospective. In, Jacobson M., &, Kozma R., (Eds.), Advanced designs for the technologies of learning: innovations in science and mathematics education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
27. Kerski, J., (2003). The implementation and effectiveness of GIS technology and methods in secondary education. Journal of Geography 102 (3), 128-137.
28. Kolodner, J.L., Owensby, J.N., &, Guzdial, M., (2004). Case-based learning aids. In, D.H. Jonassen, (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Education Communications and Technology (2nd ed., pp. 829-861). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
29. Knezek, G., &, Christensen, R., (2002). Impact of new information technologies on teachers and students. Education and Information Technologies, 7 (4), 369-376.
30. Kwon, O.H., (2002). The effect of calculator-based ranger activities on students' graphing ability. School Science and Mathematics, 102, 5-15.
31. Lambert, J., Gong, Y., &, Cuper, P., (2008). Technology, transfer, and teaching: The Impact of a single technology course on preservice teachers' computer attitudes and ability. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16 (4), 385-410.
32. Lapp, D.A., &, Cyrus, V.F., (2000). Using data-collection devices to enhance students' understanding. Mathematics Teacher, 93 (6), 504-510.
33. Lederman, N.G., (2004). Syntax of nature of science within inquiry and science instruction. In, L.B. Flick, &, N.G. Lederman, (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 301-317). Bordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
34. Levin, T., &, Wadmany, R., (2008). Teachers' views on factors affecting effective integration of information technology in the classroom: Developmental scenery. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16 (2), 233-263.
35. Liang, L.L., Ebenezer, J., &, Yost, D.S., (2010). Characteristics of pre-service teachers' online discourse: The study of local streams. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19 (1), 69.
36. Marcum-Dietrich, N.I., &, Ford, D.J., (2002). The place for the computer is in the laboratory: An investigation of the effect of computer probeware on student learning. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 21 (4), 361-379.
37. Metcalf, S.J., &, Tinker, R., (2004). Probeware and handhelds in elementary and middle school science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13 (1), 43-49.
38. National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Coordination Office. (2009). Global Positioning System: Serving the world. U.S. Government/Coast Guard Navigation Center. Retrieved on April 13, 2010 http://www.gps.gov/.
39. National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (NCTFAF). (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching. NY: Author, Teachers College, Columbia University.
40. National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century. (2000). Before it's too late, a report to the nation from the National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century U.S. Department of Education, Retrieved on September 27th, 2009 from http://www.ed.gov/inits/Math/glenn/report.pdf.
41. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
42. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
43. Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Technology access and instructional use in schools today. Washington, DC: U.S. Congress. Retrieved on March 23, 2009 from.
44. Parr, C.S., Jones, T., &, Songer, N.B., (2004). Evaluation of a handheld data collection interface for science learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13, 233-243.
45. Polman, J., &, Pea, R., (2001). Transformative communication as a cultural tool for guiding inquiry science. Science Education, 85 (3), 223-238.
46. Ramos, B., Miller, S., &, Korfmacher, K., (2003). Implementation of a geographic information system in the chemistry laboratory: An exercise in integrating environmental analysis and assessment. Journal of Chemical Education, 80 (1), 50-53.
47. Rutherford, J.F., &, Ahlgren, A., (1989, 1990). Science for all Americans. American Association for the Advancement of Science: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press. 272 p.
48. SAMPI. (2005, 2006, 2007). Translating innovative technologies into classrooms. External evaluation report submitted to the National Science Foundation. MI: Western Michigan University.
49. Sanders, R.L.J., Kajs, L.T., &, Crawford, C.M., (2001). Electronic mapping in education: The use of geographic information systems. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34 (2), 121-129.
50. Sandoval, W.A., &, Reiser, B.J., (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345-372.
51. Schultz, S., (2003). Probe science teaching and learning. Stanford Educator. Stanford University, Spring 2000, 13 June.
52. Tate, E., (2005). Hanging with friends, velocity style! A preliminary investigation of how technology-enhanced instruction impacts students' understanding of multiple representations of velocity. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
53. Wiske, et al. (2001). New technologies to support teaching for understanding. International Journal of Educational Research, 35, 483-501.
54. Yildirim, S., (2009). Effects of an educational computing course on preservice and inservice teachers: A discussion and analysis of attitudes and use. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32 (4), 479.
55. Zerger, A., Bishop, L.D., Escobar, F., &, Hunter, G.J., (2002). A self-learning multimedia approach for enriching GIS education. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 26 (1), 67-680.