You are here:

Examining the Effectiveness of Web-Based Learning Tools in Middle and Secondary School Science Classrooms
ARTICLE

, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada

IJELLO Volume 7, Number 1, ISSN 1552-2237 Publisher: Informing Science Institute

Full Text

Abstract

The purpose of the following study was to examine the impact of web-based learning tools (WBLTs) in science classrooms (grades 7 to 10) from the perspective of both teachers and stu- dents. Survey, qualitative, and student performance data were collected from a sample of 11 teachers and 371 students. Teachers were very positive about the learning benefits, design, and engagement value of WBLTs. Students were more critical, but still positive about these same features. Qualitative data suggested that students appreciated visual scaffolding, ease of use, en- gagement, and using technology. Student performance based on five knowledge categories (remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, and evaluating) increased significantly when WBLTs were used. Finally, middle and secondary school students had similar attitudes toward WBLTs, but older students showed higher learning performance gains.

Citation

Kay, R. (2011). Examining the Effectiveness of Web-Based Learning Tools in Middle and Secondary School Science Classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 7(1), 359-374. Informing Science Institute. Retrieved August 10, 2024 from .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Agostinho, S., Bennett, S., Lockyear, L., & Harper, B. (2004). Developing a learning object metadata application profile based on LOM suitable for the Australian higher education market. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(2), 191-208. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet20/agostinho.html
  2. Akinpar, Y., & Bal, V. (2006). Student tools supported by collaboratively authorized tasks: The case of work learning unit. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17(2), 101-119.
  3. Barkley, E.F. (2010). Student engagement techniques. San Francisco: John Wiley& Sons. Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  4. Butson, R. (2003). Learning objects: Weapons of mass instruction. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(5), 667-669.
  5. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press.
  6. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159.
  7. Colley, A. (2003). Gender differences in adolescents’ perceptions of the best and worst aspects of computing at school. Computers in Human Behaviour, 19(6) 673-682. Doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(03)00022-0
  8. Colley, A., & Comber, C. (2003). Age and gender differences in computer use and attitudes among secondary school students: What has changed? Educational Research, 45(2), 155-165.
  9. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  10. Duval, E., Hodgins, W., Rehak, D., & Robson, R. (2004). Learning objects symposium special issue guest editorial. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(4), 331-342.
  11. Gadanidis, G., Gadanidis, J., & Schindler, K. (2003). Factors mediating the use of online applets in the lesson planning of pre-service mathematics teachers. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 22(4), 323-344.
  12. Haughey, M., & Muirhead, B. (2005). Evaluating learning objects for schools. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(4), 470-490. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet21/haughey.htmlKay,R.H.(2011a).AppendixA–ListofWBLTsusedinsciencestudy.Retrievedfromhttp://faculty.uoit.ca/kay/res/lo/sci.html
  13. Kay, R.H., & Knaack, L. (2007). Evaluating the use of learning objects for secondary school science. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26(4), 261-289. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org.uproxy.library.dc-uoit.ca/p/23577 Kay, R.H., & Knaack, L. (2008a). An examination of the impact of learning objects in secondary school. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(6), 447-461. Doi:10.1111/J.1365-2729.2008.00278.x
  14. Kay, R.H., Knaack, L., & Muirhead, B. (2009). A formative analysis of instructional strategies for using learning objects. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 20(3), 295-315. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org.uproxy.library.dc-uoit.ca/p/26233 Kay, R.H., Knaack, L., & Petrarca, D. (2009). Exploring teacher perceptions of web-based learning tools. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 5, 27-50. Retrieved from http://ijklo.org/Volume5/IJELLOv5p027-050Kay649.pdf
  15. Liu, M. & Bera, S. (2005). An analysis of cognitive tool use patterns in a hypermedia learning environment. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 53(1), 5-21. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/content/l5l1560w3t653182/fulltext.pdf Lowe, K., Lee, L., Schibeci, R., Cummings, R., Phillips, R., & Lake, D. (2010). Learning objects and engagement of students in Australian and New Zealand schools. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 227-241. Doi:10.1111/J.1467-8535.2009.00964.x
  16. Montgomery, K.C. (2009). Generation digital. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
  17. Nurmi, S., & Jaakkola, T. (2006). Effectiveness of learning objects in various instructional settings. Learning, Media, and Technology, 31(3), 233-247. Doi:10.1080/17439880600893283Organizationfor Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2006). Education at a glance, P. 414.
  18. Parrish, P.E. (2004). The trouble with learning objects. Educational Technology Research& Development, 52(1), 49-67. Doi:10.1007/BF02504772
  19. Robertson, H. (2003). Toward a theory of negativity: Teacher education and information and communications technology. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 280-296. Doi:10.1177/0022487103255499
  20. Russell, M., Bebell, D., O’Dwyer, L., & O’Connor, K. (2003). Examining teacher technology use: Implications for preservice and inservice teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 297-310.
  21. Strudler, N., & Wetzel, L. (1999) Lessons from exemplary colleges of education: Factors affecting technology integration in preservice programs. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 63-81. Doi:10.1007/BF02299598
  22. Tapscott, D. (2008). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  23. Thompson, A.D., Schmidt, D.A., & Davis, N.E. (2003). Technology collaboratives for simultaneous renewal in teacher education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 73-89.
  24. Wiley, D., Waters, S., Dawson, D., Lambert, B., Barclay, M., & Wade, D. (2004). Overcoming the limitations of learning objects. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(4), 507-521.
  25. Willingham, D.T. (2009). Why don't students like school? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  26. Wlodkowski, R.J. (2008). Enhancing adult motivation to learn: A comprehensive guide for teaching all adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Biography Robin Kay, Ph.D. Is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Cited By

View References & Citations Map

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

Links

Also Read

Related Collections

Pages You've Visited

Abstracts