You are here:

What Do the Participants Gain from Exposure to Technology Enabled Active Learning (TEAL): A High School Case Study

, Kainan University, Taiwan

Global Learn, in Melbourne, Australia ISBN 978-1-880094-85-3 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)


Technology Enabled Active Learning (TEAL) is a pedagogical reform implemented in a technology-rich, multimedia classroom, emphasizing interactive and collaborative learning. This study examined the impact of TEAL on students learning science in a high school in Taiwan. A quasi-experimental research was employed to conduct the study. Data sources included pre-/post-tests and interviews. The preliminary results indicate that the TEAL (experimental) students outperformed the traditional classroom (control) students in the test examining their conceptual understanding. They were also more active in participating in science competition activities held by outside institutions. Promoting students to learn sciences in a more active, engaging manner through TEAL appears promising in the high school context in Taiwan. This study also reveals that the benefits the participants gained from exposure to innovative instruction might be reflected in various aspects, such as in their outside school activities, as well as in their test results.


Shieh, R. (2011). What Do the Participants Gain from Exposure to Technology Enabled Active Learning (TEAL): A High School Case Study. In S. Barton, J. Hedberg & K. Suzuki (Eds.), Proceedings of Global Learn Asia Pacific 2011--Global Conference on Learning and Technology (pp. 1487-1494). Melbourne, Australia: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 21, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Beichner, R., Bernold, L., Burniston, E., Dail, P., Felder, R., Gastineau, J., Gjersten, M., & Risley, J. (1999). Case study of the physics components of an integrated curriculum. American Journal of Physics, 67, S16-S24.
  2. Belcher, W.J. (2001). Studio Physics at MIT. MIT Physics Annual Report 2001. Retrieved October 31, 2006, from All_ 01.pdf.
  3. Breslow, L. (2010). Wrestling with pedagogical change: The TEAL initiative at MIT. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 42(5), 23-29.
  4. Cross, P.K. (1987). Teaching for learning. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 39, 3-7.
  5. Dewey, J. (1938). John Dewey Experience& Education. London: Collier Books.
  6. Dewey, J. (1997). How we think. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, Inc. (Original work published 1933).
  7. Duffy, T.M., & Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Constructivism: New implications for instructional technology? Educational Technology, 31(5), 7-12.
  8. Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.) New York: Teachers’ College Press.
  9. Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-students-survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics course. American Journal of Physics, 66, 67-74.
  10. Hake, R. (2007). Six lessons from the physics education reform effort. Lat. American Journal of Physics Education, 1(1), 24-31.
  11. Hestenes, D, Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force Concept Inventory, Physics Teach, 30 (3), 141-158
  12. Hestenes, D. & Wells, M. (1992). A mechanics baseline test. The physics Teacher, 30(3), 159-166.
  13. Jonassen, D.H., Howland, J., Moore, J., & Marra, R.M. (2003). Learning to solve problems with technology: A constructivist perspective. New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.
  14. Jonassen, D.H. & Reeve, T.C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. New York: Simon& Schuster Macmillan.
  15. Kennedy, M. (1991). Policy issues in teaching education. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(9), 658-665.
  16. Kozma, R.B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19.
  17. Lee, O., Deaktor, R., Enders, C., & Lambert, J. (2008). Science achievement among elementary students from diverse languages and cultures. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(6), 726-747.
  18. Liu, O.L., Lee, H.S., & Linn, M.C. (2010). An investigation of teacher impact on student inquiry science performance using a hierarchical linear model. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 807-819.
  19. Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  20. Lowerison, G., Sclater, J., Schmid, R.F., & Abrami, P.C. (2006). Are we using technology for learning? Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 34(4), 401-425.
  21. Mazur, E. (1996). Peer instruction: A users’ manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall.
  22. Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M. (1994). An Expanded Sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis. (2nd Eds.) (pp. 50-89). Thousand
  23. Oliveira, A.W. & Sadler, T.D. (2008). Interactive patterns and conceptual convergence during student collaborations in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(5), 634-658.
  24. Palincsar, A.S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review Psychology, 49, 345-375.
  25. Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research& Evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  26. Prawat, R.S. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning: A constructivist perspective. American Journal of Education, 100(3), 354-395.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact