Web-based Collaborative Inquiry to Bridge Gaps in Secondary Science Education

Journal of the Learning Sciences

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 316-347

  Raes, Annelies ^a   Schellens, Tammy ^a   De Wever, Bram ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84905701299     PISSN: 10508406     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10508406.2013.836656     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
2. Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the Web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797-817.
3. Bennett, J., Lubben, F., & Hogarth, S. (2007). Bringing science to life: A synthesis of the research evidence on the effects of context-based and STS approaches to science teaching. Science Education, 91, 347-370. doi:10.1002/sce.20186
4. Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26, 369-398.
5. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
6. Bruckman, A. (2000). Situated support for learning: Storm's weekend with Rachael. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 329-372.
7. Chan, C. K. K., & Lee, E. Y. C. (2007). Fostering knowledge building using concurrent, embedded and transformative assessment for high- and low-achieving students. In C. A. Chinn, G. Erkens, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), CSCL'07 Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 108-117). New Brunswick, NJ: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
8. Chang, K. E., Sung, Y. T., & Lee, C. L. (2003). Web-based collaborative inquiry learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(1), 56-69.
9. Cox, M., Webb, M., Abbott, C., Blakely, B., Beauchamp, T., & Rhodes, V. (2003). ICT and pedagogy: A review of the research literature (ICT in Schools Research and Evaluation Series No. 18). London, England: Department for Education and Skills and Coventry, British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
10. Cress, U. (2008). The need for considering multilevel analysis in CSCL research: An appeal for the use of more advanced statistical methods. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 69-84. doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9032-2
11. Cronbach, L., & Snow, R. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. New York, NY: Irvington.
12. d'Apollonia, S. (2010, June-July). Learners, not lurkers: Connecting conceptual and social networks in science education. Contribution to preconference workshop conducted at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Chicago, IL.
13. De Meyer, I. (2008). Science competencies for the future in Flanders: The first results from PISA 2006. Retrieved from http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/publicaties/eDocs/pdf/332.pdf
14. De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2007). Applying multilevel modelling to content analysis data: Methodological issues in the study of role assignment in asynchronous discussion groups. Learning and Instruction, 17, 436-447. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.04.001
15. DeBacker, T. K., & Nelson, R. M. (2000). Motivation to learn science: Differences related to gender, class type, and ability. Journal of Educational Research, 93(4), 245-254.
16. DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 582-601.
17. Ding, N., Bosker, R. J., & Harskamp, E. G. (2011). Exploring gender and gender pairing in the knowledge elaboration processes of students using computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 56(2), 325-336.
18. Durndell, A., Glissov, P., & Siann, G. (1995). Gender and computing: Persisting differences. Educational Research, 37(3), 219-227.
19. Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 391-450.
20. Eder, D. (1981). Ability grouping as a self-fulfilling prophecy: A micro-analysis of teacher-student interaction. Sociology of Education, 54(3), 151-162.
21. European Commission. (2008). Flash Eurobarometer: Young people and science: Analytical report. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_239_en.pdf
22. Flemish Government. (2006). Rapport jongerenbevraging: Wetenschap maakt knap [Report youth survey: Science makes smart]. Retrieved from http://publicaties.vlaanderen.be/docfolder/10705/Resultaten_enquete_natuurwetenschappen.pdf
23. Greene, B. A., & Miller, R. B. (1996). Influences on achievement: Goals, perceived ability, and cognitive engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(2), 181-192.
24. Greenfield, T. (1996). Gender, ethnicity, science achievement, and attitudes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 259-275.
25. Haury, D. L., & Milbourne, L. A. (1999). Should students be tracked in math or science? Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science Mathematics and Environmental Education. Retrieved from http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS24048
26. Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1(1), 77-89.
27. Howe, K. (1998). The interpretive turn and the new debate in education. Educational Researcher, 27(8), 13-21.
28. Hox, J. J. (1994). Applied multilevel analysis. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: TT-publikaties.
29. Jones, M. G., & Wheatley, J. (1990). Gender differences in teacher-student interactions in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 861-874.
30. Kahle, J. B., & Meece, J. (1994). Research on gender issues in the classroom. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research in science teaching and learning (pp. 543-557). New York, NY: Macmillan.
31. Kahle, J. B., Parker, L. H., Rennie, L. J., & Riley, D. (1993). Gender differences in science education: Building a model. Educational Psychologist, 28, 379-404.
32. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 313-350.
33. Lee, H. S., Linn, M. C., Varma, K., & Liu, O. L. (2010). How do technology-enhanced inquiry science units impact classroom learning? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(1), 71-90. doi:10.1002/Tea.20304
34. Lee, M. K., & Erdogan, I. (2007). The effect of science-technology-society teaching on students' attitudes toward science and certain aspects of creativity. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1315-1327. doi:10.1080/09500690600972974
35. Leong, W. C., & Hawamdeh, S. (1999). Gender and learning attitudes in using Web-based science lessons. Information Research, 5(1). Retrieved from http://informationr.net/ir/5-1/paper66.html
36. Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (2004). Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
37. Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B.-S. (2011). Science learning and instruction: Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. New York, NY: Routledge.
38. Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
39. Linn, M. C., Lee, H. S., Tinker, R., Husic, F., & Chiu, J. L. (2006, August 25). Teaching and assessing knowledge integration in science. Science, 313, 1049-1050. doi:10.1126/science.1131408
40. Machina, K., & Gokhale, A. (2010). Maintaining positive attitudes toward science and technology in first-year female undergraduates: Peril and promise. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 523-540. doi:10.1080/09500690902792377
41. Mayer-Smith, J., Pedretti, E., & Woodrow, J. (2000). Closing of the gender gap in technology enriched science education: A case study. Computers & Education, 35(1), 51-63.
42. Meulders, D., Plasman, R., & Rigo, A. (2009). Meta-analysis of gender and science research: D31-Country report Belgium. Retrieved from http://www.genderandscience.org/doc/CReport_Belgium.pdf
43. Mistler-Jackson, M., & Songer, N. B. (2000). Student motivation and Internet technology: Are students empowered to learn science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 459-479.
44. Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors affecting teachers' use of information and communication technology: A review of the literature. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9(9), 319-341.
45. Murphy, J., & Whitelegg, E. (2006). Girls in the physics classroom: Review of research on girls' participation. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/6499/1/Girls_and_Physics_Report.pdf
46. Nieswandt, M., & Shanahan, M. C. (2008). "I just want the credit!": Perceived instrumentality as the main characteristic of boys' motivation in a grade 11 science course. Research in Science Education, 38(1), 3-29. doi:10.1007/s11165-007-9037-x
47. Niu, H., & van Aalst, J. (2005, August). Is knowledge building only for certain students? An exploration of online interaction patterns in two grade 10 social studies courses. Paper presented at the IKIT Summer Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
48. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
49. Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
50. Okebukola, P. A., & Benwoda, A. (1993). The gender factor in computer anxiety and interest among some Australian high school students. Educational Research, 35(2), 181-189.
51. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2007). Science competencies for tomorrow's world. Retrieved from http://www.oei.es/evaluacioneducativa/InformePISA2006-FINALingles.pdf
52. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2009). Equally prepared for life? How 15-year-old boys and girls perform in school. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/59/50/42843625.pdf
53. Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1049-1079. doi:10.1080/0950069032000032199
54. Palincsar, A. S., Magnusson, S. J., Collins, K. M., & Cutter, J. (2001). Making science accessible to all: Results of a design experiment in inclusive classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24(1), 15-32.
55. Park, H., Khan, S., & Petrina, S. (2008). ICT in science education: A quasi-experimental study of achievement, attitudes toward science, and career aspirations of Korean middle school students. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 1277-1277. doi:10.1080/09500690802287965
56. Peters, V. L., & Slotta, J. D. (2009). Co-designing curricula to promote collaborative knowledge construction in secondary school science. In C. O'Malley, D. Suthers, P. Reimann, & A. Dimitracopoulou (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning practices: CSCL2009 Conference Proceedings. (pp. 204-213). Rhodes, Greece: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
57. Pickens, M., & Eick, C. J. (2009). Studying motivational strategies used by two teachers in differently tracked science courses. Journal of Educational Research, 102(5), 349-362.
58. Prinsen, F. R., Volman, M. L. L., & Terwel, J. (2007). Gender-related differences in computer-mediated communication and computer-supported collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(5), 393-409. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00224.x
59. Rakow, S. J. (1985). Prediction of the science inquiry skill of 17-year-olds: A test of the model of educational productivity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(4), 289-302.
60. Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. M. (1994). Failing at fairness: How America's schools cheat girls. New York, NY: Scribner.
61. Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education Review, 26, 387-409.
62. Sjøberg, S., & Schreiner, C. (2010). The ROSE project: An overview and key findings. Oslo, Norway: Oslo Institutt for lærerutdanning og skoleutvikling, University of Oslo.
63. Slotta, J. D., & Linn, M. C. (2000). The knowledge integration environment: Helping students use the Internet effectively. In Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies of learning (pp. 193-226). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
64. Slotta, J. D., & Linn, M. C. (2009). WISE science, Web-based inquiry in the classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
65. So, H. J., Seah, L. H., & Toh-Heng, H. L. (2010). Designing collaborative knowledge building environments accessible to all learners: Impacts and design challenges. Computers & Education, 54, 479-490. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.031
66. Stark, R., & Gray, D. (1999). Gender preferences in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 633-643.
67. Taasoobshirazi, G., & Carr, M. (2008). Gender differences in science: An expertise perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 20(2), 149-169. doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9067-y
68. Technology Enhanced Learning in Science. (2010). Sample scoring rubric using the knowledge integration framework. Retrieved from http://telscenter.org/projects/tels/assessments/rubric
69. VLOR & VRWB. (2008). Advies 119: Onderwijs: kiem voor onderzoek en innovatie [Advice note 119: Education: Inspiration for research and innovation]. Retrieved from http://www.vrwi.be/pdf/advies119.pdf
70. Wallace, R. M., Kupperman, J., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2000). Science on the Web: Students online in a sixth-grade classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 75-104.
71. White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 3-118.
72. Zohar, A., Degani, A., & Vaaknin, E. (2001). Teachers' beliefs about low-achieving students and higher order thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 469-485.
73. Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2003). Higher order thinking skills and low-achieving students: Are they mutually exclusive? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 145-181.