Enhancing the Student Experiment Experience: Visible Scientific Inquiry Through a Virtual Chemistry Laboratory

Research in Science Education

Volumn 43, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 1571-1592

  Donnelly, Dermot ^a   O'Reilly, John ^a   McGarr, Oliver ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIMERICK   (Ireland)

Author keywords

Practical work; Scientific inquiry; Simulation; Virtual laboratories

Indexed keywords

EID: 84880132621     PISSN: 0157244X     EISSN: 15731898     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11165-012-9322-1     Document Type: Review

References (52)

1. Abrahams, I. (2009). Does practical work really motivate? A study of the affective value of practical work in secondary school science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(17), 2335-2353.
2. Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1945-1969.
3. Abrahams, I. & Saglam, M. (2010). A study of teachers' views on practical work in secondary schools in England and Wales. International Journal of Science Education, 32(6), 753-768.
4. Abrams, E., Southerland, S., & Evans, C. (2007). Inquiry in the classroom: necessary components of auseful definition. In E. Abrams, S. A. Southerland, & P. Silva (Eds.), Inquiry in the science classroom: realities and opportunities. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
5. Adlong, W., Bedgood, D., Bishop, A., Dillon, K., Haig, T., Helliwell, S., et al. (2003). On the path to improving our teaching-reflection on best practices in teaching chemistry. Herdsa Conference Presentation and Publication, Canterbury.
6. Baggott, L., & Nichol, J. (1998). Multimedia simulation. A threat to or enhancement of practical work in science education? In J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science (pp. 252-270). London: Routledge.
7. Blanchard, M., Southerland, S., Osborne, J., Sampson, V., Annetta, L., & Granger, E. (2010). Is inquiry possible in light of accountability?: A quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction. Science Education, 94(4), 577-616.
8. Bourdieu, P. (1979). La distinction: critique sociale du jugement [Distinction: social critique of judgment]. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit.
9. Brandon, P., Young, D., Pottenger, F., & Taum, A. (2009). The inquiry science implementation scale: development and applications. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 1135-1147.
10. Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11. Chadderton, C., & Torrance, H. (2011). Case Study. In B. Somekh & C. Lewin (Eds.), Theory and methods in social research (2nd ed., pp. 53-60). London: Sage.
12. Cobern, W., Schuster, D., Adams, B., Applegate, B., Skjold, B., Undreiu, A., et al. (2010). Experimental comparison of inquiry and direct instruction in science. Research in Science & Technological Education, 28(1), 81-96.
13. Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science Scope, 23(6), 42-44.
14. Donnelly, D., McGarr, O., & O'Reilly, J. (2011a). A framework for teachers' integration of ICT into their classroom practice. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1469-1483.
15. Donnelly, D., O'Reilly, J., & McGarr, O. (2011b). The promotion of scientific inquiry in Irish post-primary schools through the use of a virtual chemistry laboratory: implications for teacher education. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education (SITE), Nashville, TN, March 7-11.
16. Ermeling, B. (2010). Tracing the effects of teacher inquiry on classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 377-388.
17. Ertmer, P. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47-61.
18. Garnett, P. J., Garnett, P. J., & Hackling, M. (1995). Students' alternative conceptions in chemistry: a review of research and implications for teaching and learning. Studies in Science Education, 25, 69-95.
19. Gerard, L., Spitulnik, M., & Linn, M. C. (2010). Teacher use of evidence to customize inquiry science instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(9), 1037-1063.
20. Gerring, J. (2007). Case study research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21. Guthrie, G. (2010). Basic research methods. London: Sage.
22. Herrenkohl, L., Tasker, T., & White, B. (2011). Pedagogical practices to support classroom cultures of scientific inquiry. Cognition and Instruction, 29(1), 1-44.
23. Hmelo-Silver, C., Duncan, R., & Chinn, C. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.
24. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. (2004). The laboratory in science education: foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28-54.
25. Hofstein, A., Shore, R., & Kipnis, M. (2004). Providing high school chemistry students with opportunities to develop learning skills in an inquiry-type laboratory: a case study. International Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26, 47-62.
26. Ketelhut, D., & Nelson, B. (2010). Designing for real-world scientific inquiry in virtual environments. Educational Research, 52(2), 151-167.
27. Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75-86.
28. Korthagen, F. (2010). Situated learning theory and the pedagogy of teacher education: towards an integrative view of teacher behavior and teacher learning. Teacher and Teacher Education, 26, 98-106.
29. National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (2009). Towards learning report. Retrieved 14 October 2010 from http://www. ncca. ie/en/Curriculum_and_Assessment/Post-Primary_Education/Senior_Cycle/Towards_Learning_an_overview_/Towards_learning_listening_to_schools. pdf.
30. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
31. Nuthall, G. (2005). The cultural myths and realities of classroom teaching and learning: a personal journey. Teachers College Record, 107(5), 895-934.
32. Pantelidis, V. (1997). Keynote speech. In M. Bevan (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Virtual Reality in Education and Training. Loughborough (pp. 7-12).
33. Piburn, M., Sawada, D., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., Bloom, I., et al. (2000). Reformed teaching observation protocol (RTOP): reference manual (ACEPT Technical Report No. INOO-3). Tempe, AZ: Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers.
34. Quellmalz, E., Timms, M., Silberglitt, M., & Buckley, B. (2012). Science assessments for all: integrating science simulations into balanced state science assessment systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(3), 363-393.
35. Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W., & van der Veen, J. (2011). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers in Education, 58(1), 136-153.
36. Sawada, D., Piburn, M., Judson, E., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., et al. (2002). Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: the reformed teaching observation protocol. School Science and Mathematics, 102(6), 245-253.
37. Scalise, K., Timms, M., Moorjani, A., Clark, L., Holtermann, K., & Irvin, P. (2011). Student learning in science simulations: design features that promote learning gains. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(9), 1050-1078.
38. Science Community Representing Education (SCORE) (2010). Practical work in science: a report and proposal for a strategic framework. Retrieved 14 April 2011 from http://www. score-education. org/media/3668/report. pdf.
39. Schwab, J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J. Schwab & P. Brandwein (Eds.), The teaching of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
40. Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data. London: Sage.
41. Solomon, J., Scott, L., & Duveen, J. (1996). Large-scale exploration of pupils' understanding of the nature of science. Science Education, 80, 493-508.
42. Tobin, K., & Gallagher, J. J. (1987). What happens in high school science classrooms. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19, 549-560.
43. Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., Bell, T., Mansfield, A., & Holmes, J. (2010). Role of the teacher in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. International Journal of Science Education, 32(2), 221-243.
44. van der Valk, T., & de Jong, O. (2009). Scaffolding science teachers in open-inquiry teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 31(6), 829-850.
45. Vedder-Weiss, D., & Fortus, D. (2011). Adolescents' declining motivation to learn science: inevitable or not? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 199-216.
46. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
47. Wallace, C., & Kang, N. (2004). An investigation of experienced secondary science teachers' beliefs about inquiry: an examination of competing belief sets. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(9), 936-960.
48. Webb, M. (2005). Affordances of ICT in science learning: implications for an integrated pedagogy. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 705-735.
49. Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2008). From the horse's mouth: what scientists say about scientific investigation and scientific knowledge. Science Education, 93(1), 109-130.
50. Yaron, D., Cuadros, J., Karabinos, M., Leinhardt, G., & Evans, K. (2006). Virtual laboratories and scenes to support chemistry instruction: lessons learned. In S. Cunningham, Y. George (Eds.), About invention and impact: building excellence in undergraduate science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education, (pp. 177-182). Washington, DC.
51. Zacharia, Z. (2007). Comparing and combining real and virtual experimentation: an effort to enhance students' conceptual understanding of electric circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 120-132.
52. Zacharia, Z., & Olympiou, G. (2011). Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 317-331.