|
Integrating Visual Technologies, Constructivistic Pedagogy, Informal Science
Education, and Web-based PBL: Toward a Theoretical Framework
Scott Slough sloughs@uhd.edu,
Jon Aoki aokij@uhd.edu, and
Brad Hoge hogeb@uhd.edu
Department of Natural Sciences, University of Houston-Downtown
Abstract
The National Science Education Standards call for a shift in emphasis from “focusing on student acquisition
of information to focusing on student understanding and use of scientific knowledge, ideas, and inquiry
processes” (NRC, 1996 p. 52). Scientists explore the physical world for reproducible patterns which they
represent by models and organize into theories according to laws (Hestenes, 2004). Emerging web-based
computer technologies have dramatically affected classroom teachers’ ability to guide students’ search
for these reproducible patterns in nature by displaying real-time data in visual forms that are more easily
understood by learners at increasingly younger ages. This paper will discuss the development of a
theoretical framework to guide the development of the Houston Urban Network for Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (HUNSTEM). This large interactive electronic network will link thousands of
preK-12 students, their parents and teachers, college and university faculty, STEM (Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics) experts (local and national), other adults, and area
community/civic/educational/industrial/professional organizations to STEM-related activities. Major
partners with University of Houston–Downtown (UHD) and Baylor College of Medicine (BCM) include: the
Engineering, Science and Technology Council of Houston; Houston Independent School District (serving more
than 200,000 mainly minority students); the Houston Museum of Natural Science; the Children's Museum of
Houston; the Houston Natural Discovery Center; the Houston Arboretum and Nature Center; the Armand Bayou
Nature Center; the Houston Museum of Health & Medical Science; Shell Oil companies SAY Yes To A Youngsters
Future program designed by the National Urban Coalition; and the Science, Engineering Fair of Houston which
serves public and private grade 7-12 students from more than 200 schools in the greater Houston area. Key
components of the framework to be discussed include an overview of visual technologies, constructivistic
pedagogy, informal science education, web-based Project/Problem-Based Learning (PBL), and conclude with an
integrated framework.
Visualization Tools in Science Education
In science and mathematics education, visualization tools go beyond the old standbys of paper and pencil or
even the more modern paint and draw computer programs to today’s complex 2-D and 3-D visualization programs
by scaffolding and clarifying difficult-to-understand text and abstract concepts. In his book, Computers as
Mindtools for Schools: Engaging Critical Thinking, David H. Jonassen promotes the idea of “using selected
computer applications as cognitive tools for engaging and enhancing multiple forms of thinking in learners”,
which he calls Mindtools (Jonassen, 2000).
Traditional computer learning applications assess the effects of computer technologies on the learner where
the learner has no input into the process. Mindtools assess the effects of learning with computer
technologies when learners enter into an intellectual partnership with the computer (Jonassen, 2000, p. 4).
Jonassen (2000) called the visualization tools the meaning-making tools. According to Gordin, Edelson, and
Gomez (1996) visualization tools can have two major uses, interpretive and expressive. Interpretive
illustrations help to clarify difficult-to-understand text and abstract concepts, making them more
comprehensible (Levin, Anglin, & Carney, 1987). Expressive visualization helps learners to visually convey
meaning so that idea can be communicated to viewers (Jonassen, 2000).
Computer generated visualization/representations represent a new way of thinking, discussing, and building
scientific understanding in an inquiry-oriented environment (Schank & Kozma, 2002). And, the use of
multiple representations in combination supports higher comprehension of phenomena (Kozma, Russell, Jones,
Marx, & Davis, 1996). Several studies suggest that student generation and continued manipulation of the
representation, lead to higher comprehension levels as compared to viewing teacher-generated representations,
including “moment-by-moment sequences of events and causality” (Shank & Kozma, 2002), and “subsequent
measures of causal and dynamic reasoning” (Gobert & Clement, 1999). As students produce and share
representations, teachers serve as models and guides to interactive peer collaboration by using various
representations in their own teaching and discourse (Lemke, 2000; Crawford, 2000; Schank & Kozma, 2002).
Digital technologies provide “mindful engagement” that allow students to build conceptual knowledge
(Saloman, Perkins, & Globerson, 1991), “instantaneous visual information” as student perform experiments
(Kuech & Lunetta, 2002), which allows students to modify hypotheses, and evaluate results (Friedler,
Nachmias, & Linn, 1990) via the multiple representations such as tables, graphs, simulations, and animations.
Digital technologies have been suggested as providing the real-time link between a concrete experience and
its symbolic representation (Mokros & Tinker 1987).
These phenomena include events that are unobservable in the classroom due to their size, duration, or
location and the accompanying multimedia databases (Furness, Winn, & Yu, 1997). Static images, animations,
simulations, virtual reality, and distributed learning environments (Bodzin, 2002) can be used to transition
from passive learning to intuitive learning (Yair, Mintz, & Litvak, 2001).
Constructivism
Constructivistic thinking in American education can be traced back to John Dewey (Dewey, 1959, 1938a, 1938b,
1910a, 1910b). Dewey believed that knowledge is structured and that it could not be structured from outside
the learner. Knowledge must be constructed from within the individual. Thus, Dewey emphasized that the
focus of learning must be on the student and not the teacher. Dewey (1959) believed that the child is the
starting point, the center and the end. In addition, he advocated the concept of guiding students to find
their own answers to problems. In other words, Dewey believed children learn by engagement in an activity,
through extended experiences in real-world problem solving and from group discussion (Crawford, 2000).
Therefore, the role of the teacher is that of a facilitator which parallels Vygotsky’s social constructivism.
Jonassen (1991) states that constructivism is child-centered and that learning environments should support
multiple perspectives or interpretations of reality, knowledge construction, context-rich, experience-based
activities. In essence, constructivism advocates knowledge construction and not knowledge reproduction.
Constructivism posits that individuals build their own knowledge and understanding by assimilating their
prior knowledge with the new experience with which they are confronted (Richardson, 1997). Individuals do
not obtain knowledge by internalizing it from the outside but by constructing it from within, in interaction
with the environment (Kamii, Manning, & Manning, 1991; Perkins, 1992; Piaget, 1969; Vygotsky, 1978)). Thus,
constructivism is based on the premise that, by reflecting on our experiences, we construct our own
understanding of the world we live in. Each of us makes sense of the world based on our personal experiences.
Learning is a process of modifying our mental models to accommodate new experiences. In other words, new
information is assimilated to prior conceptions and new understandings are created.
There are several “types” of constructivism, however, only two - cognitive constructivism and social
constructivism - are germane to HUNSTEM. The development of constructivism has moved from a Piagetian
individual development model to the recognition of cognitive development within a social context
(Plourde & Alawiye, 2003). Piaget's theory of cognitive development proposes that humans cannot be "given"
information that they immediately understand and use. Instead, humans must "construct" their own knowledge;
therefore, knowledge is built from their experiences. The experiences enable the individuals to create schemas
that are mental models in their heads. The complimentary processes of assimilation and accommodation change,
enlarge, and make the schema more sophisticated. Two important Piagetian principles for teaching and
learning should be noted. First, assimilation and accommodation of information requires direct experience
because learning is an active process. Second, students should be given meaningful activities because
learning should be authentic and whole. In addition, whole activities should take priority over activities
that emphasize isolated skills. In short, cognitive constructivism depicts learning and knowing from the
perspective of the individual.
In contrast to cognitive constructivism, socio-cultural constructivism places the mind in the
individual-in-social action. Thus, learning becomes a process of enculturation into a community of
practice. Lev Vygotsky (1978) emphasized the social context of learning. In a classroom setting,
teachers play a limited role in cognitive constructivism, but in Vygotsky’s socio-cultural constructivism,
teachers play a very significant role in learning. A major difference between the two constructs is that
socio-cultural constructivism has more room for an active, involved teacher as compared to cognitive
constructivism. The teachers act as conduits for the tools of the culture and language. Sometimes the
teacher is the giver of knowledge, but most often the teacher is a facilitator (Strommen & Lincoln, 1992).
The culture provides cognitive tools needed for development to the child according to Vygotsky. The type
and quality of those tools, which includes cultural history, social context, and language, establishes the
pattern and rate of development. Vygotsky highlighted the importance of culture and social context for
cognitive development. His best-known concept is the zone of proximal development that posits students
can, with help from teacher, master concepts and ideas that they cannot understand on their own. The zone
of proximal development is the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent
problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult
supervision, or in collaboration with more competent peers (Vygotsky, 1978). What children can do with the
assistance of others is even more indicative of their mental development than what they can do alone
(Vygotsky, 1978).
Two features of social constructivism deserve consideration. First, the idea of play and experimentation
are valuable methods of learning which originated from research in child development (Daiute, 1989; Garvey,
1977; Herron & Sutton-Smith, 1971). Play encompasses the novel amalgamations of ideas and the hypothetical
outcomes of imagined situations and events (Strommen & Lincoln, 1992). Thus, play is a thought exploration
in which students construct, contemplate, and work out their conceptions. The second feature of social
constructivism is collaborative or cooperative learning. Research (Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson, &
Skon, 1981; Rysavy & Sales, 1991) has demonstrated the benefits of children working in collaborative
learning efforts. Collaboration allows children to share the process of constructing ideas, instead of
toiling individually (Strommen & Lincoln, 1992). Thus, the children can reflect not only on their own
conceptions, but also those of their peers as well. Children become mutual tutors and a sense of teamwork
materializes which has been shown to increase learning (Strommen & Lincoln, 1992). Social and cultural
influences must be considered on learning in addition to the cognitive constructivist framework (Cobb, 1994;
Eisenhart, Finkel, & Marion, 1996; Gergen, 1995; Keys & Bryan, 2001; O’Loughlin, 1992; Richards, 1995;
Shotter, 1995).
Constructivism is the theoretical framework for inquiry (including scientific inquiry and inquiry-based
instruction) which has become a critical element in the science education reform movement (Aoki, 2003).
Inquiry is a fundamental component of effective science teaching and learning (Lunetta, 1997; Roth, 1995).
New constructivist and social constructivist approaches to science instruction highlights inquiry as
essential for student learning (Krajcik, Soloway, Blumenfled, & Marx, 1998). Inquiry-based instruction
allows students to make connections between the classroom experience and their personal lives. Learning
becomes relevant to students. In comparison, traditional science instruction often has little or no
connection to students’ everyday lives (Papert, 1980).
Informal Science Education
HUNSTEM will rely on informal science education as a key component of our overall framework. Traditionally,
formal and informal education have been separate entities connected mainly by isolated school field trips
or free-choice excursions. It has been recognized for quite some time that nearly every experience a child
has with the natural world generates science learning at some level (Ramey-Gassert, 1997; ; Russel, 1996;
Falk, et.al., 1995; Crane, 1994; Fraser, 1994), but this has only recently been recognized as a process
important to science education in the classroom (Anderson, 1999; Knapp, 1997; Brice Heath and Smyth, 1999;
Epstein, 1995; St. John and Perry, 1993). As George Tressel puts it, “children growing up in a rich
environment for informal learning are very likely to become better students” (Tressel, 2001). And, as John
Falk and Lynn Dierking say, “although people rarely engage in free-choice learning to become experts in a
subject, they invariably emerge more knowledgeable and more motivated to learn in the future (Falk and
Dierking, 2000).
St. John and Perry (1993) describe this as the educational infrastructure, and current research strongly
suggests that the more families, school, work and elective learning overlap in student’s lives, the more
likely students are to become successful life-long learners (Brice Heath and Smyth, 1999; Epstein, 1995).
These learning experiences are available from a wide range of sources (Brice Heath and Smyth, 1999; Caillot
and Nguyen-Xuan, 1995; Crane, Nicholson, Chen and Bitgood, 1994; Falk, Brooks and Amin, 1998; Griffin, 1989;
Hacker and Harris, 1992; Miller and Pifer, 1996; Rogoff and Lave, 1984), and as Knapp (1997) states, “The
more these various components work together toward improving the quality of science education, the more
likely all will be successful. Research indicates that “self-motivated” learning is more successful than
traditional strategies (Prather, 1993; Saunders, 1992; Wise and Okey, 1983). Informal science education
encourages learning by being engaging (Ramey-Gassert, Walberg and Walberg, 1994). This facet of informal
science education can certainly be utilized by teachers (Madden, 1985; Wolf, 1986). In fact, Resnick (1987)
and Semper (1990) found that informal science education encouraged more group learning. Chambers (1990)
also found that the most beneficial motivators are “intrinsic”, and as Bitgood (1991) and Kubota and Olstad
(1991) showed, this benefit is enhanced by “novelty”.
Tuckey (1992) found that peer teaching is more evident in informal science education environments. Feher
and Diamond (1990) and Eratuuli and Sneider (1990) also found family interactions were improved by informal
science education. Stevenson (1991) found this particular benefit to be “long-lasting.”
Smylie (1994), Shroyer, Wright and Ramey-Gassert (1996) found that participation of teachers in “learning
communities” enhanced the science learning environment, yet even though these communities of learners are
crucial to educational success, teachers are still the keys to educational reform (Haney and Lumpe, 1995).
Informal science education for teachers, therefore, should not be overlooked. Chesebrough (1994), Bodzin
and Cates (2003) and Kelly (2000) elucidate benefits of informal science education to preservice teachers
by providing teachers with unique insights into how children understand and learn about the natural world,
and about what motivates them. Ramey-Gassert, Shroyer and Staver (1996) suggest “science-shy” teachers are
encouraged to teach more science when done in informal science education settings or where training is done
in informal science education settings, particularly where relevance of science with other topics is
provided.
According to Clark (1994), “it is crucial to recognize that a successful community of inquiry is not one in
which everyone is the same, but instead is one that accommodates plurality and difference.” (as quoted in
Bishop, 2002a ). HUNSTEM will be a community of inquiry using web-based technology to connect all facets of
a learning community. HUNSTEM will utilize computer-based technology to accomplish this goal. Tech
activists stress the importance of nurturing individuals and indigenous community organizations (Benton
Foundation, 1998). As Bruce and Hogan (1998) point out, “technology literacy flourishes with an open
“discovery” approach to training (Bishop, 2002b). Hung et.al. (2003) further emphasize the collaborative
and social dimensions (benefits) of learners involvement with computer learning. Finally, Bodzin and Cates
(2003) state, “Web-based activities act as a bridge between classroom experience and traditionally “informal”
though now more aptly described “learner-directed” science communities.” HUMSTEM will serve as this bridge.
Project-Based Learning (PBL)
A plethora of terms and acronyms describe an inquiry-based, long-term, project-oriented approach to science
teaching and learning that draws on a variety of best-practice and research-based approaches to science
teaching and learning. These include Project-Based Learning or Problem-Based Learning (PBL), inquiry-based
instruction, and Project-Based Science (PBS) (Harel & Papert, 1991; Krajcik, et. al 1994; Moursund, 1998;
Krajcik, et. al 1998; Krajcik, et. al 1999; Krajcik, Czerniak, & Berger, 1999). While inherently similar --
each of these approaches seek to engage students in open-ended, authentic or “real-world” tasks that have
more than one solution – there are some subtle differences -- Project-based learning typically begins with
an end product or "artifact" in mind, Problem-based learning begins with a problem for the student to solve
in novel ways, and inquiry-based instruction is a generic term that is applied to both. Project-Based
Science evolved from PBL and includes an emphasis on “constructing understanding of important science
concepts (emphasis added) as they inquire into a real life problem” (Schneider et. al, 2002 p. 3).
PBS pedagogy (Schneider, Krajcik, Marx, & Soloway, 2002) assumes that students constantly ask and refine
questions; design and conduct multiple investigations; gather, analyze, interpret, and draw conclusions
from data; and report findings. Students build shared understandings of ideas and the nature of science as
they collaborate and discourse with team members, teachers, and adults outside the classroom (Krajcik,
Blumenfeld, Marx, & Soloway, 1999). Technologically-supported PBL has been linked the increased performance
in science (Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Means & Olsen, 1997), standardized exams in science (Schneider,
Krajcik, Marx, & Soloway, 2002), and a variety of K-12 content areas other than science-including urban and
special needs districts (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1992).
Constructivism provided the theoretical framework for all forms of project-based learning (Grant, 2002).
In American education, project-based learning and constructivism share common roots. Both can be traced
back to the “learning by doing” writings of John Dewey during the early 1900s. Project-based learning
strives for “considerable individualization of curriculum, instruction, and assessment – in other words,
the project is learner-centered (Moursund, 1998, p. 4). Rather than following a set lesson plan that
directs a student down a specific path of learning objectives, project-based learning allows in-depth
study of a topic worth learning more about (Harris & Katz, 2001). The construction of a personally
meaningful artifact, which may be in the form of a play, a poem, or a multimedia presentation, represents
what students learned (Harel & Papert, 1991; Kafai & Resnick, 1996). Research (Tassinari, 1996; Wolk, 1994;
Worthy, 2000) indicates that learners typically have more autonomy over what they learn, maintaining an
interest and motivating learners to take more responsibility for their learning. As autonomy increases,
learners “shape their projects to fit their own interests and abilities” (Moursund, 1998, p. 4). In short,
project-based learning and the construction of artifacts facilitate the expression of diversity in learners,
such as interests, abilities, and learning styles (Grant, 2002).
Two exemplary programs, one at the national level, the Co-Vis Project (e.g., Pea, 1993; Krajcik, Czerniak,
& Berger, 1998) at the University of Michigan and one at the local level, Mechanisms (http://www.visualrealization.com
and see Appendix), a newsletter that promotes effective and proven Methodologies and Strategies for teaching
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics are examples of how technology can enhance Project Based
Learning/Problem Based Learning (PBL). The Co-Vis project is a NSF-funded project long-term project that
focuses on the potential of project based science to include the visualization potential of technology, the
data collection and sharing potential of the Internet, and the increased communication efficiency between
teachers of the Internet. Mechanisms, edited by Barbara Foots (Project Consultant for HUNSTEM), is locally
written, edited, and distributed in electronic and print formats. Mechanisms uniquely recognizes the needs
of the classroom, and fulfills them with a synergistic solution that integrates three key components:
Dynamic "Visual Realization"™ Multi-media Authoring Technology, Innovative Project-Based-Study (PBS) and
Problem-Based Learning (PBL) Models and Engaging Professional Development Activities.
Integrating Constructivism, Inquiry, Informal Science Education, Project-Based Learning, and Visual Technologies to Guide HUNSTEM
Integrating technology in a constructivistic learning environment is a central theme of HUNSTEM.
Constructivism provides a framework for using computers and other types of technology in productive,
interesting ways (Adams & Burns, 1999). “The foremost role of a teacher today should be to teach students
how to learn… there has probably never been a piece of technology more fittingly applicable to this
constructivisitic philosophy of education” (Churach & Fisher, 2001, p. 221). Davis and Botkin (1994) state
that the responsibility for learning shifts to the learner who turns to technology for content which allows
the teacher to concentrate on the process of learning and interpersonal relationships. The increase use of
technology requires that students become active learners and teachers become co-learners (Loader, 1993).
Information technology adds a new dimension to project-based learning which increases its value in
curriculum, instruction, and assessment (Moursand, 1998). A number of researchers consider a
constructivistic process orientation to technology education is critical (Dwyer, Ringstaff, & Sandholf,
1990; Strommen & Lincoln, 1993; White, 1995; Wilson, 1996). This is supported by a number of studies
(Dwyer et al.,1990; Faison, 1996; Jonassen, 1996; Stromment & Lincoln, 1992; White, 1995; Wilson, 1996)
that discuss the advantages of implementing a constructivisitic learning environment with the integration
of technology into the classroom. Technology may be used to promote reflection, metacognition, and
self-directedness among learners to help them apply knowledge and skills to novel situations (Perkins, 1992).
In one study, teachers that used technology in a student-centered learning environment discovered that
their students, for the most part, displayed increased enthusiasm, motivation, and self-esteem (Faison,
1996). There was increased student collaboration in terms of shared responsibility and interdisciplinary
study. Furthermore, students were more receptive to exploring and risk taking when problem solving. An
added benefit of integrating technology in a constructivistic learning environment is the positive impact
on affect. Donaldson (2001) implemented a program that integrated technology and biology. This
investigation provided the following comments: (1) a third grade student indicated that using the computer
was fun and that life science was fun after initially hating life science, and (2) a high school student
commented that using technology was only something that she heard of, but now she feels she is part of the
future and its capabilities.
Lamon and Laferriere (2003) discuss the importance of three innovative developments in basic cognitive
research: (1) a change in the locus of research; (2) the advance of new methodological tools and new
conceptual tools; and (3) new insights into skills such as independent learning, critical thinking, and
teamwork. These researchers indicate that the use of new tools allows for greater analysis of thinking
skills and the effects of information and communication technology have already revolutionized education.
For example, a class of nine and ten year olds was studying biology via scientific inquiry. The innovative
tool was the use of “public forums” - Knowledge Forum(R) technology - which provided students with a
cumulative database and a means to record information and ideas. In particular, it acted as a tool for
encouraging creative thinking and made thinking explicit.
Goals for HUNSTEM
UHD proposes to establish a regional center for providing electronically STEM-based materials. It will
develop a large interactive web site for the accumulation and distribution of these materials to many
students, parents, teachers, schools, universities, professional societies, industries, and research
facilities in the greater Houston area. UHD and other Houston-based organizations are poised to make major
commitments toward HUNSTEM in order to provide a unique global learning environment for Houston. HUNSTEM
will be an ideal model of how technology can be utilized in an effective manner to promote the interests of
many diversified groups in a particular geographic area, who all share a common interest in STEM education
and awareness. This project, once operational, should become a national model for resource sharing and
community involvement centered on the promotion of STEM-related Project-Based Learning. Houston is
internationally recognized as a leader in STEM. Its population base is larger than most states and it
continues to expand at a fast rate, especially with respect to minority groups. There is no question that
the future growth and economic success of Houston in particular, and the United States in general, will be
STEM-based and will require an appropriately educated populace from all ethnic groups.
HUNSTEM will provide: (1) interactive ISE programs for learners of all ages, ethnicities, gender, and
physical conditions; (2) a central network for the many local STEM professional societies to promote their
individual educational outreach activities; (3) an active STEM news source for items of particular interest
to the Houston area with emphasis on informal science education opportunities; (4) pre-screened STEM
educational materials by subject and grade level which promotes PBL with respect to state and national
mathematics and science standards; (5) a comprehensive site to assist pre-college students who wish to
develop and pursue STEM-related projects outside their formal classrooms; (6) programs which promote
STEM-related careers in academia, business, industry and government; (7) connections to STEM activities and
programs in universities and national laboratories; (8) an increased capability for many local ISE
organizations to serve more people of all ages utilizing modern instructional technology; (9) PBL on-line
materials for STEM activities that can be used for after-school programs (an important issue for HISD),
(10) increased collaborations among many ISE organizations, schools, colleges and universities, STEM
professional societies and others, centered around ISE; and (11) a communication network for all students,
parents and other adults, teachers, faculty and related agencies and organizations promoting STEM awareness
and appreciation in the Houston area.
Conclusions
HUNSTEM will utilize visualization technologies which provides a novel way of thinking and understanding.
Visualization offers more than 3-D effects of paint-and-draw computer programs by scaffolding learning for
difficult or abstract concepts. This scaffolding principle is based on constructivism which posits that
students must be given authentic experiences so that they can construct meaning between the novel experience
and their prior knowledge. In addition, social interaction is vital because it allows student peers or the
teacher to scaffold learning which maximizes the students’ learning potential. The authentic experiences
should be relevant or meaningful to the student, therefore, informal science education becomes crucial in
the development of HUNSTEM. Nearly every experience a child has with the natural world generates science
learning to some degree. HUNSTEM recognizes this engagement process and will include informal science
education as a key component of the theoretical framework. Both constructivism and informal science
education make use of project-based learning. Project-based learning involves open-ended activities that
engage students in real-world tasks. In short, students will go through a process of learning which
requires critical thinking, process skills, and collaboration.
HUNSTEM separates itself from other technology-based projects by utilizing a theoretical underpinning that
goes beyond technology by encompassing constuctivistic learning and pedagogy theories, informal science
education outlets, and project-based science strategies. Furthermore, it is guided by the National Science
Education Standards (NRC, 1996) and the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills. UHD intends to launch HUNSTEM,
a website for on-line STEM-based learning, which will be accessible to the greater Houston area community
which includes students, parents, teachers, schools, universities, professional societies, industries, and
research facilities. HUNSTEM will help increase science literacy in society regardless of one’s background.
References
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, D. (1999) Understanding the impact of post-visit activities on students' knowledge
construction of electricity and magnetism as a result of a visit to an interactive science centre. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Aoki, J.M. (2003). The perceptions of inquiry held by Greater Houston-area science supervisors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Houston.
Benton Foundation (1998) Losing ground bit by bit: Low-income communities in the information age. Washington, DC.
Bishop, A.P. (2002a) Using the web to support inquiry-based literacy development. In B.C. Bertram (ed.), Literacy in the information age: Inquiries into meaning making with new technologies. International Reading Association.
Bishop, A.P. (2002b) Communities for the new century. In
B.C. Bertram (ed.), Literacy in the information age: Inquiries into meaning making with new technologies. International Reading Association.
Bitgood, S. (1991) What do we know about school field trips? What research says. in Serrell, B., (Ed.), What research says about learning in science museums Vol.1 (pp. 23-25). Washington, DC. Association of Science and Technology Centers.
Bitgood, S., Serrell, B. and Thompson, D. (1994) The impact of informal education on visitors to museums. In V. Crane, M. Chen, S. Bitgood, B. Serrell, D. Thompson, H. Nicholson, F. Weiss and P. Campbell (Eds.) Informal science learning: What the research says about television, science museums, and community-based projects. Ephrata, PA: Science Press.
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(3&4), 369-398.
Bodzin, A. M. (2002). Teaching science methods courses with web-enhanced activities. Proceedings of the 2002 Annual International Conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 465 603
Bodzin, A.M. and Cates, W.M. (2003) Enhancing preservice teachers' understanding of web-based scientific inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14(4), 237-257.
Brice Heath, S., and Smyth, L. (1999) ArtShow: Youth and community development. Washington, DC: Partners for Livable Communities.
Bruce, B.C. and Hogan, M.P. (1998) The disappearance of technology: Toward an ecological model of literacy. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. Labbo and R. Kieffer (Eds.) Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 269-281). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Caillot, M. and Nguyen-Xuan, A. (1995) Adults' understanding of electricity. Public Understanding of Science, 4(2), 131-152.
Campoy, R. (1992). The role of technology in the school reform movement. Educational Technology, 32, 17-22.
Chambers, M. (1990) Beyond "aha": Motivating museum visitors. in Serrell, B., (Ed.), What research says about learning in science museums Vol. 1. (pp. 23-25). Washington, DC. Association of Science and Technology Centers.
Chesebrough, D.E. (1994) Informal science teacher preparation. Science Education International, 5(2), 28-34.
Chiappetta, E.L., Koballa, T.R., & Collette, A.T. (1998). Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Clark, G. (1994) Rescuing the discourse of community. College composition and
communication, 45, 61-74.
Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23, 13-20.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The Jasper Series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program description, and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 291-315.
Crane, V. (1994) Informal science learning: What the research says about television, science museums, and community-based projects. Ephrata, PA: Science Press.
Crane, V., Nicholson, H., Chen, M., and Bitgood, S. (Eds.). (1994) Informal science learning: What the research says about television, science museums, and community-based projects. Ephrata, PA: Science Press.
Crawford, B.A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37 (9), 916-937.
Dauite, C. (1989). Play as thought: Thinking strategies of young writers. Harvard Educational Review, 59, 1, pp.1-23.
Dewey, J. (1910a). Science as subject matter and as method. Science, 121-127.
Dewey, J. (1910b). How We Think. Boston: Heath.
Dewey, J. (1938a). Logic: the theory of inquiry. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Dewey, J. (1938b). The school and society. In M. Dworkin (Ed.), Dewey on Education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Dewey, J. (1959). My pedagogic creed. In Dewey on Education (p. 30). New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Eisehhart, M., Finkel, E., & Marion, S. (1996). Creating the conditions for scientific literacy: A reexamination. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 261-296.
Epstein, J.L. (1995) School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(9), 701-711.
Eratuuli, M. and Sneider, C. (1990) The experiences of visitors in a physics discovery room. Science Education, 74(4), 481-493.
Falk, J.H., Brooks, P. and Amin, R. (1998) The Los Angeles science education research project: Quarterly report (Tech. Rep.). Annapolis, MD: Institute for Learning Innovation.
Falk, J.H. and Dierking, L.D. (2000) Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the making of meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Falk, J.H., Dierking, L.D. and Holland, D.G. (1995) What do we think people learn in museums? In Falk, J.H. and Dierking, L.D. (Eds.). Public Institutions for Personal Learning: Establishing a Research Agenda. American Association of Museums.
Feher, E. and Diamond, J. (1990) Science centers as research laboratories. In Serrell, B., (Ed.), What research says about learning in science museums Vol. 1. (pp. 23-25). Washington, DC. Association of Science and Technology Centers.
Friedler, Y., Nachmias, R., & Linn, M. C. Learning scientific reasoning skills in
Microcomputer-based laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27.2 (1990): 173-191.
Furness, T. A., Winn, W., & Yu, R. (1997). The impact of three-dimensional immersive virtual environments on modern pedagogy Global change, VR, and learning. [Online]. Available: http://www.hitl.washington.edu/publications/r-97-32/.
Garvey, C. (1977). Play. London: Open Books.
Gergen, K.L. (1995). Social construction and the educational process. In L.P. Steffe, & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education. (pp. 17-40). Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gobert, J. & Clement, J. (1999). The effects of student-generated diagrams versus student-generated summaries on conceptual understanding of spatial, causal, and dynamic knowledge in plate tectonics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 39-53.
Gordin, D., Edelson, D. C., & Gomez, L. (1996, July). Scientific visualization as an interpretive and expressive medium. In D. Edelson & E. Domeshek (Eds.), Proceedings of the second international conference on the learning sciences (pp. 409-414). Charlottesville, VA: Association of the Advancement of Computers in Education.
Grant, M. M. (2002). Getting a grip on project-based learning: Theories, cases, and recommendations. Meridian: A Middle Schools Computer Technologies Journal [Online] Available: http://www.ncsu.edu/meridian/win2002/514/project-based.pdf.
Griffin, R.J. (1989) Communication and the adoption of energy conservation measures for the elderly. Journal of Environmental Education, 20, 19-28.
Hacker, R. and Harris, M. (1992) Adult learning of science for scientific literacy: Some theoretical and methodological perspectives. Studies in the Education of Adults, 24(2), 217-224.
Haney, J.J. and Lumpe, A.T. (1995) A teacher professional development framework guided by reform policies, teachers' needs and research. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 6(4), 187-196.
Harel, I., & Papert, S. (Eds.). (1991). Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Harris, J. H., & Katz, L. G. (2001). Young investigators: The project approach in the early years. New York.
Herron, R.E. & Sutton-Smith, B. (1971). Child’s Play. NY: Wiley.
Hung, D., Chen, D-T., Tan, S.C. (2003) A social-constructivist adaptation of case-based reasoning: Integrating goal-based scenarios with computer-supported collaborative learning. Educational Technology, 43(2), 30-35.
Johnson, D. W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta- analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 47-62.
Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Evaluating constructivistic learning. Educational Technology, 31, 28-33.
Jonassen, D. (2000). Computers as Mindtools for Schools: Engaging Critical Thinking. 2nd Ed. Upper Saddle River: NJ: Merrill- Prentice Hall.
Kafai, Y. & Resnick, M. (1996). Constructionism in practice designing, thinking and learning in a digital world. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Kamii, C., Manning, M., & Manning, G. (1991). Early literacy: A constructivist foundation for whole language. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association Professional Library.
Kelly, J. (2000) Rethinking the elementary science methods course: A case for content, pedagogy, and informal science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 755-777.
Keys, C.W., & Bryan, L.A. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38 (6), 631-645.
Knapp, M.S. (1997). Between systemic reforms and the mathematics and science
classroom: The dynamics of innovation, implementation and professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(2), 227-266.
Kozma, R., Russell, J., Jones, T., Marx, N., and Davis, J. (1996). The Use of Multiple, Linked Representations to Facilitate Science Understanding. In S. Vosniadou, E. De Corte, R. Glaser, and H. Mandl (eds.), International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 41-60.
Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (1999). Instructional, curricular, and technological supports for inquiry in science classrooms. In. J. Minstrell & E. Van Zee (Eds.). Inquiry into inquiry science learning and teaching. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science Press.
Krajcik, J., Czerniak, C. M., & Berger, C. (1999). Teaching children science: A project-based approach. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Krajcik, J.S., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R.W., Bass, K.M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Middle school students’ initial attempts at inquiry in project-based science classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences. 7(3&4), 313-350.
Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (1994). A collaborative model for helping science teachers learn project-based instruction. Elementary School Journal, 94(5), 483-498.
Krajcik, J.S., Soloway, E., Blumenfeld, P., & Marx, R.W. (1998). Scaffolded technology tools to promote teaching and learning in science. In C. Dede (Ed.), 1998 ASCD Yearbook: Learning and Technology (31-45).
Kubota, C.A. and Olstad, R.G. (1991) Effects of novelty-reducing preparation on
exploratory behavior and cognitive learning in a science museum setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(3), 225-234.
Lemke. (2000). Encounter with complementary perspectives in science education research. In D. Wong (Ed.) Articulating Communities: Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
Levin, J. R., Anglin, G. J., & Carney, R. N. (1987). On empirically validating functions of pictures in prose. In D. M. Willows & H. A. Houghton (Eds.), The psychology of illustration, vol. 1, Basic research. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Lunetta, V.N. (1997). The role of laboratory in school science. In Tobin, D. & Fraser, B.J. (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education. The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Madden, J.C. (1985) To realize our museums' full potential. Journal of Museum
Education, 10(4), 3-5.
Mann, C. (1994). New technologies and gifted education. Roeper Review, 16, 172-176.
Means, B. & Olsen, K. (1997). Technology and education reform (ORAD 96-1330). Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
Miller, J. and Pifer, L. (1996). Science and technology: The public's attitudes and the public's understanding. Science and Engineering Indicators. Washington, DC: National Science Board.
Mokros, J. R., & Tinker, R. F. (1987). The Impact of microcomputer-based labs on children's ability to interpret graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(4), 369-383.
National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
O’Loughlin, M. (1992). Rethinking science education: Beyond Piagetian constructivism toward a sociocultural model of teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 791-820.
Papert, S. (1980). Midstorms. New York: Basic Books.
Payer, A., Voss, M. J., & Spargue., L. (1993). Development of virtual environments for medical education and training. In 1993 Conference on Intelligent Computer-Aided and Virtual Environment Technology, 1993.
Pea, R.D. (1993). Distributed multimedia learning environments: The Collaborative Visualization Project. Communications of the ACM, 36(5), 60-63.
Perkins, D.N. (1992). What constructivism demands of the learner. Educational Technology, 31, 18-23.
Piaget, J. (1969). Science of education and the psychology of the child. NY: Viking.
Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent. NY: Grossman.
Plourde, L.A. & Osman, A. (2003). Constructivism and elementary preservice science teacher preparation: knowledge to application. College Science Journal [on-line], Available: http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0FCR/3_37/108836898/p3/article.jhtml?term=
Prather, J.P. (1993) Reform revisited: The trend toward constructivist learning. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 5, 52-70.
Ramey-Gassert, L. (1997). Learning science beyond the classroom. , 97(4), 433-450.
Ramey-Gassert, L., Shroyer, M.G., and Staver, J. (1996) A qualitative study of factors influencing science teaching self-eficacy or elementary level teachers. Science Education, 80(3), 283-315.
Ramey-Gassert, L., Walberg, H.J., III, and Walberg, H.J. (1994). Reexamining connections: Museums as science learning environments. Science Education, 78(4), 345-363.
Resnick, L.B. (1987) The 1987 Presidential address: Learning in and out of school. Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13-19.
Richards, J. (1995). Construct[ion/iv]ism: Pick one of the above. In L.P. Steffe & J. Gale. (Eds.), Constructism in education (pp. 57-64). Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.
Richardson, V. (1997). Constructivist teaching and teacher education: Theory and practice. In V. Riachardson (Ed.), Constructivist teacher education: Building a world of new understandings (pp. 3-14). Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
Roddick, C. S. (1995). How students use their knowledge of calculus in an engineering mechanics course. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 389 546.
Rogoff, B. and Lave, J. (1984) Everyday cognition: Its development in social contexts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Roth, W.-M. (1995). Authentic school science: knowledge and learning in open-inquiry laboratories. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Russel, R.L. (1996) The role of science museums in teacher education. Informal Science Review, 19, 16.
Rysavy, S. D. M., & Sales, G. C. (1991). Cooperative learning in computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39, 70-79.
Saunders, W.L. (1992) The constructivist perspective: Implications and teaching strategies for science. School Science and Mathematics, 92, 136-141.
Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20 (3), 2-9.
Schank, P., & Kozma, R. (2002). Learning Chemistry Through the Use of a Representation-Based Knowledge Building Environment. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 21(3), 253-279.
Schneider, R.M., Krajcik, J., Marx, R., & Soloway, E. (2001). Performance of student in project-based science classrooms on a national measure of science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 821 – 842.
Semper, R.J. (1990) Science museums as environments for learning. Physics Today, 43, 2-8.
Shotter, J. (1995). In dialogue: Social constuctionism and radical constructivism. In L.P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructism in education (pp. 41-56). Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shroyer, M.G., Wright, E.L., and Ramey-Gassert, L. (1996) Science education reform: The role of professional development schools. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 7(3) 151-168.
Smylie, M. (1994) Redesigning teachers' work: Connections to the classroom. In Darling, L. (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 20). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
St. John, M. and Perry, D. (1993). A framework for evaluation and research: Science, infrastructure and relationships. In S. Bicknell and G. Farmelo (Eds.), Museum visitor studies in the 90s. London: Science Museum.
Stevenson, J. (1991) The long-term impact of interactive exhibits. International Journal of Science Education, 13(5), 521-531.
Strommen, E.F., & Lincoln, B. (1992). Constructivism, technology, and the future of classroom learning. Education and Urban Society, 24, 466-476.
Tassinari, M. (1996). Hands-on projects take students beyond the book. Social Studies Review, 34(3), 16-20.
Tressel, G. (2001) Introduction: The symbiosis of formal and informal education. In P. Katz (Ed.) Community connections for science education Vol. II: History and theory you can use. NSTA Press.
Tuckey, C.J. (1992) School children's reactions to an interactive science center. Curator, 35(1), 28-38.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scriber, & E. Souberman (Eds. and trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wise, K. and Okey, J. (1983) A meta-analysis of the effects of various science teaching strategies on achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 419-435.
Wolf, R.L. (1986) The missing link: A look at the role of orientation in enriching the museum experience. Journal of Museum Education, 11(1), 17-21.
Wolk, S. (1994). Project-based learning: Pursuits with a purpose. Educational Leadership, 52(3), 42-45.
Worthy, J. (2000). Conducting research on topics of student interest. Reading Teacher, 54(3), 298-299.
Yair, Y., Mintz, R., & Litvak, S. (2001). 3D-virtual reality in science education: An implication for Astronomy Teaching. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 20(3), 293-305.
| |