Moodle as a learning environment in promoting conceptual understanding for secondary school students

Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 11-21

  Psycharis, Sarantos ^a   Chalatzoglidis, Georgios ^b   Kalogiannakis, Michail ^c  

^a LIVERPOOL HOPE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b University of Crete ^*

^c UNIVERSITY OF CRETE   (Greece)

Author keywords

Blended learning; e learning; LMS; Moodle; Science education; TAM

Indexed keywords

EID: 84875480993     PISSN: 13058215     EISSN: 13058223     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.12973/eurasia.2013.912a     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Abdullah, S., & Shariff, A. (2008). The Effects of Inquiry-Based Computer Simulation with Cooperative Learning on Scientific Thinking and Conceptual Understanding of Gas Laws. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 4(4), 387-398.
2. Alonso, F., López, G., Manrique, D., & Vines, J. M. (2005). An instructional model for Web-based e-learning education with a blended learning process approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 217-235.
3. Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004) Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning, A systematic and critical review. Learning and skills research center. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre. Available at: http://sxills.nl/lerenlerennu/bronnen/Learning%20styles%20by%20Coffield%20e.a..pdf (Accessed 10 Dec 2012).
4. Cohen R., Eylon B., & Ganiel U. (1983) Potential difference and current in simple electric circuits: a study of students' concepts. American Journal of Physics 51, 407-412.
5. Davis, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results, Doctoral Dissertation, Cambridge-MA: MIT, Sloan School of Management.
6. Davis, F. D. (1993). User Acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal Man-Machine Studies, 38(3), 475-487.
7. Dertouzos, M. (1995). What Will Be in the New Century?. San Francisco: Harper Edge.
8. Dougiamas, M., & Taylor, P. C. (2003). Moodle: using learning communities to create an open source course management system. Paper presented at ED-MEDIA 2003. Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.
9. Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupil and paradigms: a review of the literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5(1), 61-84. doi: 10.1080/03057267808559857
10. Duit, R. (1995). The constructivist view: A fashionable and fruitful paradigm for science education teaching research and practice. In L. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.) Constructivism in Education (pp. 271-285). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11. Garrison, R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95-105. Doi:10.1016/j.iheduc. 2004.02.001
12. Graf, S. (2007). Adaptivity in Learning Management Systems Focusing on Learning Styles. Ph.D. Thesis. Vienna University of Technology. Available at: http://sgraf.athabascau.ca/publications/PhDthesis_SabineGraf.pdf (Accessed 10 Dec 2012).
13. Hestenes, D. (1999). The scientific method. American Journal of Physics, 67, 273-276.
14. Hughes, G. (2007). Using blended learning to increase learner support and improve retention. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(3), 349-363.
15. Jaakkola, T., & Nurmi, S. (2008). Fostering Elementary School Students' Understanding of Simple Electricity by Combining Simulation and Laboratory Activities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(4), 271-283.
16. Kalogiannakis, M. (2010). Training with ICT for ICT from the trainer's perspective. A Greek case study. Education and Information Technologies, 15(1), 3-17.
17. Kalogiannakis, M., & Lantzaki, A. (2012). Teaching electricity in preschool education: a dilemma under negotiation with the use of ICT. Exploring the world of child, Journal of the World Organisation for Early Childhood Education (O.M.E.P.), 11a, 11-21 (in Greek).
18. Kanninen, E. (2008) Learning styles in virtual learning environments. Master of Science Thesis. Tampere University of Technology. Available at: http://hlab.ee.tut.fi/video/bme/evicab/astore/delivera/wp4style.pdf (Accessed 10 Dec 2012)
19. Katsamani, M., Retalis, S., & Boloudakis, M. (2012). Designing a Moodle course with the CADMOS learning design tool,. Educational Media International, 49(4), 317-331.
20. Kear, K. L., & Heap, N. W. (2007). 'Sorting the wheat from the chaff': Investigating overload in educational discussion systems. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(3), 235-247.
21. Kidney, G., Cummings, L., & Boehm, A. (2007). Toward a Quality Assurance Approach to e-Learning Courses. International Journal on E-Learning, 6(1), 17-30.
22. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359.
23. Lee, Y., & Law, N. (2001) Explorations in promoting conceptual change in electrical concepts via ontological category shift. International Journal of Science Education, 23(2), 111-149.
24. Lijnse, P. (2006). Models of/for Teaching Modeling. In E. van de Berg, T. Ellermeijer & O. Slooten (Eds). Proceedings of the GIREP Conference: Modeling in Physics and Physics Education, (pp. 20-33). Amsterdam, Netherlands, 20-25 August 2006. Available at: http://home.medewerker.uva.nl/o.slooten/bestanden/Girep%20Proceedings%20CD.pdf (Accessed 10 Dec 2012).
25. Limon, M., & Mason, L. (2002). Reconsidering Conceptual Change: Issues in Theory and Practice. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
26. Manochehr, N.-N. (2006). The Influence of Learning Styles on Learners in E-Learning Environments: An Empirical Study. Computers in Higher Education Economics Review, 18(1), 10-14.
27. Martin-Blas, T., & Serrano-Fernandez, A. (2009). The role of new technologies in the learning process: Moodle as a teaching tool in Physics. Computers & Education, 52(1), 35-44.
28. Martin-Blas, T., & Serrano-Fernandez, A. (2009). The role of new technologies in the learning process: Moodle as a teaching tool in Physics. Computers & Education, 52(1), 35-44.
29. McDermott L. C., & Shaffer, P. S. (1992) Research as a guide for curriculum development: an example from introductory electricity. Part I: investigation of student understanding. American Journal of Physics, 60(1992), 994-1013.
30. McGill, T. J., & Hobbs, V. J. (2008). How students and instructors using a virtual learning environment perceive the fit between technology and task. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(3), 191-202.
31. Osborne, R. (1983) Towards modifying children's ideas about electric current. Research in Science and Technological Education, 1(1), 73-82.
32. Osborne, R. & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in Science. London, Heinemann
33. Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended learning environments: Definitions and directions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227-233.
34. Planinic M., Boone W.-J., Krsnik R., & Beilfuss M. (2006). Exploring alternative conceptions from Newtonian dynamics and simple DC circuits: links between item difficulty and item confidence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(2), 150-171.
35. Psillos, D., & Niedderer, H. (Eds.) (2002). Teaching and learning in the science laboratory, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
36. Psycharis, S. (2009). Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) introduction to Education -ICT Pedagogic Applications. Athens: Edition Papazisis (in Greek).
37. Psycharis, S. (2011). The Computational Experiment and its Effects on approach to Learning and Beliefs on Physics, Computers & Education, 56(3), 547-555.
38. Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D., Walberg-Henriksson, H., & Hemmo, V. (2007). Science Education NOW: A Renewed Pedagogy for the Future of Europe. European Commission: High Level Group on Science Education.
39. Saadé, G., Nebebe, F., & Tan, W. (2007). Viability of the technology acceptance model in multimedia learning environments: Comparative study. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 3(2007), 175-184.
40. Selim, H. M. (2003). An empirical investigation of student acceptance of course web sites, Computers & Education, 40(4), 343-360.
41. Shepardson, D. P. & Moje, E. B. (1999). The role of anomalous data in restructuring fourth graders' frameworks for understanding electric circuits. International Journal of Science Education 21(1), 77-94.
42. Shipstone, D. M. (1985). Electricity in simple circuits. In R. Driver, E. Guesne & A. Tiberghien (Eds.) Children's ideas in science (pp. 33-51). Philadelphia: Open University Press.
43. Shipstone, D. M. (1984). A study of children's understanding of electricity in simple DC circuits. European Journal of Science Education, 6(2), 185-198.
44. Singh, H. (2003). Building Effective Blended Learning Programs. Educational Technology, 43(6), 51-54.
45. Smeets, E. (2005). Does ICT contribute to powerful learning environments in primary education?. Computers and Education, 44(3) 343-355.
46. Solomonidou, C., & Kakana, D. M. (2000). Preschool Children's Conceptions About the Electric Current and the Functioning of Electric Appliances. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 8(1), 95-107.
47. Tolmie, A., & Boyle, J. (2000). Factors influencing the success of computer mediated communication (CMC) environments in university teaching: A review and case study. Computers & Education, 34(2), 119-140.
48. Tselios, N., Avouris, N., & Komis, V. (2008). The effective combination of hybrid usability methods in evaluating educational applications of ICT: Issues and challenges. Education and Information Technologies, 13(1), 55-76.
49. Uribe-Tirado, A., Melgar-Estrada, L.-M., & Bornacelly-Castro, J.-A. (2007). Moodle learning management system as a tool for information, documentation, and knowledge management by research groups. Profesional de la Información, 16(5), 468-474.
50. Watson, W. R., & Watson, S. L. (2007). An argument for clarity: What are learning management systems, what are they not, and what should they become?. TechTrends, 51(2), 28-34.
51. Weller, M., Pegler, C., & Mason, R. (2005). Students' experience of component versus integrated virtual learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(4), 253-259