Collaborative Action Research on Technology Integration for Science Learning

Journal of Science Education and Technology

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 125-132

  Wang, Chien hsing ^a   Ke, Yi Ting ^a   Wu, Jin Tong ^a   Hsu, Wen Hua ^a  

^a NATIONAL CHANGHUA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Elementary education; Pedagogical issues; Science learning; Teaching learning strategies; Technology integration

Indexed keywords

EID: 84856761431     PISSN: 10590145     EISSN: 15731839     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10956-011-9289-0     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Almås AG, Krumsvik R (2007) Digitally literate teachers in leading edge schools in Norway. J In-Service Educ 33(4): 479-497.
2. American Association of School Librarians (AASL) and Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) (1998) Information literacy standards for student learning. http://www. ala. org/ala/mgrps/divs/aasl/aaslarchive/pubsarchive/informationpower/InformationLiteracyStandards_final. pdf. Retrieved 1 March 2010.
3. Auer NJ, Krupar EM (2001) Mouse click plagiarism: the role of technology in plagiarism and the librarian's role in combating it. Libr Trends 49(3): 415-432.
4. Barak M, Dori YJ (2005) Enhancing undergraduate students' chemistry understanding through project-based learning in an IT environment. Sci Educ 89(1): 117-139.
5. Barron B, Schwartz D, Vye N, Moore A, Petrosino A, Zech L, Bransford, & The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbit (1998) Doing with understanding: lessons from research on problem-and project-based learning. J Learn Sci 7(3): 271-311.
6. Bartsch RA, Cobern KM (2003) Effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations in lectures. Comput Educ 41(1): 77.
7. Baumfield V, Hall E, Wall K (2008) Action research in the classroom. Sage, Los Angeles.
8. Burke LA, James K, Ahmadi M (2009) Effectiveness of PowerPoint-Based lectures across different business disciplines: an investigation and implications. J Educ Bus 84(4): 246-251.
9. Churchill D (2009) Educational applications of Web 2. 0: using blogs to support teaching and learning: original articles. Br J Educ Technol 40(1): 179-183.
10. Clark J (2008) Powerpoint and pedagogy: maintaining student interest in university lectures. Coll Teach 56(1): 39-44.
11. Danielson C (2007) Enhancing professional practice: a framework for teaching, 2nd edn. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria.
12. Dastani M (2002) The role of visual perception in data visualization. J Vis Lang Comput 13(6): 601-622.
13. Dawson V, Forster P, Reid D (2006) Information communication technology (ICT) integration in a science education unit for preservice science teachers; students' perceptions of their ICT skills, knowledge and pedagogy. Int J Sci Math Educ 4(2): 345-363.
14. Dede C (1998) The scaling-up process for technology-based education innovations. In: Dede C (ed) Learning with technology. ASCD, Alexandria, pp 199-215.
15. Eisenberg MB (2008) Information literacy: essential skills for the information age. J Lib Inf Technol 28(2): 39-47.
16. Ellery K (2008) An investigation into electronic-source plagiarism in a first-year essay assignment. Assess Evaluation High Educ 33(6): 607-617.
17. Grant M (2002) Getting a grip on project-based learning: theory, cases and recommendations. Meridian: A Middle School Comput Technol J 5(1): 83.
18. Kerawalla L, Minocha S, Kirkup G, Conole G (2009) An empirically grounded framework to guide blogging in higher education. J Comput Assist Learn 25(1): 31-42.
19. Kinchin I (2006) Developing PowerPoint handouts to support meaningful learning. Br J Educ Technol 37(4): 647-650.
20. Krumsvik R (2006) The digital challenges of school and teacher education in Norway: some urgent questions and the search for answers. Educ Inf Technol 11(3-4): 239-256.
21. Marx R, Blumenfeld P, Krajcik J, Soloway E (1997) Enacting project-based science. Elem School J 97(4): 341-358.
22. McPherson S (2009) A dance with the butterflies: a metamorphosis of teaching and learning through technology. J Early Child Educ 37(3): 229-236.
23. Metros SE (2008) The educator's role in preparing visually literate learners. Theory Pract 47(2): 102-109.
24. Pettersson R (2009) Visual literacy and message design. TechTrends 53(2): 38-40.
25. Probert E (2009) Information literacy skills: teacher understandings and practice. Comput Educ 53(1): 24-33.
26. Savoy A, Proctor RW, Salvendy G (2009) Information retention from PowerPoint™ and traditional lectures. Comput Educ 52(4): 858-867.
27. Sosa T (2009) Visual literacy: the missing piece of your technology integration course. TechTrends 53(2): 55-58.
28. Stringer E (2007) Action research in education, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.
29. Su KD (2008) An integrated science course designed with information communication technologies to enhance university students' learning performance. Comput Educ 51(3): 1365-1374.
30. Thomas JW (2000) A review of research on project-based learning. Autodesk Foundation, San Rafael. http://bobpearlman. org/BestPractices/PBL_Research. pdf. Retrieved 9 March 2011.
31. Walraven A, Brand-gruwel S, Boshuizen HPA (2008) Information-problem solving: a review of problems students encounter and instructional solutions. Comput Hum Behav 24(3): 623-648.
32. Wilson B (ed) (1996) Constructivist learning environments: case studies in instructional design. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs.
33. Yeh HT, Cheng YC (2010) The influence of the instruction of visual design principles on improving pre-service teachers' visual literacy. Comput Educ 54(1): 244-252.
34. Yore LD, Bisanz GL, Hand BM (2003) Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. Int J Sci Edu 25(6): 689-725.