You are here:

Teaching Science with Technology: A decade of research
PROCEEDINGS

, James Madison University, United States ; , University of Kentucky, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Nashville, Tennessee, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-84-6 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

In this review of recent literature on the use of technology to teach science content, 143 articles from 8 science education journals were selected and analyzed for the use of technologies in teaching science, pedagogies employed, and successes of the implementations. The resultant data provides a snapshot on how technology is being used in the teaching and learning of science, and the research methods used to explore these issues. Levels of research and levels of success were developed and applied to the article data set to characterize the types of research and technology implementations described in the literature. Articles that showed high levels of successful implementation of technology along with a high level of research were explored and explained in greater detail. The review underscores the research trend toward using technology to illustrate abstract concepts and make objects that are invisible to the naked eye, visible and malleable in computer modeling programs. Implications for successful use of technology to teach science are discussed.

Citation

Slykhuis, D. & Krall, R. (2011). Teaching Science with Technology: A decade of research. In M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2011--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 4142-4151). Nashville, Tennessee, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved July 2, 2022 from .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Ardac, D., & Akaygun, S. (2004). Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasizes molecular representations on students' understanding of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 317-337.
  2. Ardac, D. & Sezen, A.H. (2002). Effectiveness of computer-based chemistry instruction in enhancing the learning of content and variable control under guided versus unguided conditions. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11, 39-48.
  3. Barak, M., & Dori, Y.J. (2005). Enhancing undergraduate students' chemistry understanding through project-based learning in an IT environment. Science Education, 89, 117-139.
  4. Baser, M. (2006). Effects of conceptual change and traditional confirmatory simulations on pre-service teachers' understanding of direct currents. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15, 367-381.
  5. Buckley, B., Gobert, J.D., Kindfield, A.C., Horwitz, P., Tinker, R.F., Gerlits, B., Wilensky, U., Dede, C., & Willett, J. (2004). Model-based teaching and learning with BiologicaTM: What do they learn? How do they learn? How do we know? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13, 23-41.
  6. Chang, C-Y., Tsai, C-C. (2005). The interplay between different forms of CAI and students' preferences of learning environment in the secondary science class. Science Education, 89, 707-724.
  7. Cooper, H., Hedges, L.V., & Valentine, J.C. (Eds.) (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
  8. Crippen, K.J. & Earl, B.L. (2004). Considering the efficacy of web-based worked examples in introductory chemistry. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 23, 151-167.
  9. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Dori, Y.J., Hult, E. Breslow, L. & Belcher, J.W. (2007). How much have they retained? Making unseen concepts seen in a freshman electromagnetism course at MIT. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16, 299-323.
  10. Ealy, J. (2004). Students understanding enhanced through molecular modeling. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14, 461-471.
  11. Frailich, M., Kesner, M., Hoftein, A. (2009). Enhancing students' understanding of the concept of chemical bonding by using activities provided on an interactive website. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 289310.
  12. Fies, C., & Marshall, J. (2008). The C3 framework: Evaluating classroom response system interactions in the university classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 483-499.
  13. Flick, L., & Bell, R. (2000). Preparing tomorrow's science teachers to use technology: Guidelines for Science educators. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1(1), 39-60.
  14. Friedman, T.A. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
  15. Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers’ use of educational technology in U.S. Public schools: 2009 (NCES 2010-040). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
  16. Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Progressive inquiry in a computer-supported biology class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 1072-1088.
  17. Huffman, D., Goldberg, F., & Michlin, M. (2003). Using computers to create constructivist learning environments:
  18. Jones, G., Andre, T., Superfine, R., & Taylor, R. (2003). Learning at the nanoscale: The impact of students' use of remote microscopy on concepts of viruses, scale, and microscopy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 303-322.
  19. Jones, G., Minogue, J., Tretter, T., Negishi, A., & Taylor, R. (2006). Haptic augmentation of science instruction: Does touch matter? Science Education 90, 111-123.
  20. Kara, Y., & Yesilyurt, S. (2008). Comparing the impacts of tutorial and edutainment software on students' achievements, misconceptions, and attitudes towards biology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 32-41.
  21. Kay, R. & Knaack, L. (2009). Exploring the use of audience response systems in secondary school science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 382-392.
  22. Keating, T., Barnett, M., Barab, S.A., Hay, K.E. (2002). The Virtual Solar System Project: Developing conceptual understanding of astronomical concepts through building three-dimensional computational models. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11, 261-275.
  23. Kelly, R.M., & Jones, L.L. (2007). Exploring how different features of animations of sodium chloride dissolution affect students' explanations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16, 413-429.
  24. Kiboss, J.K., Ndirangu, M., & Wekesa, E.W. (2004). Effectiveness of a computer-mediated simulations program in school biology on pupils' learning outcomes in cell theory. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13, 207-213.
  25. 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.
  26. Linn, M.C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J.D. (2002). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87, 517538.
  27. Luehmann, A.L., & Frink, J. (2009). How can blogging help teachers realize the goals of reform-based science instruction? A study of nine classroom blogs. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 275-290.
  28. MacKinnon, G.R., McFadden, C.P., & Forsythe, T. (2002). The tension between hypertext environments and science learning. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 6(3). Retrieved June 10, 2010, from http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/ejsev7n3.html
  29. Marbach-Ad, G., Rotbain, Y., & Stavy, R. (2008). Using computer animation and illustration activities to improve high school students’ achievement in molecular genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 273-292.
  30. Metiri Group. (2003). EnGauge 21st century skills for 21st century learners. Washington, DC: North Central Region Educational Laboratory. Retrieved June 21, 2010, from http://www.metiri.com/21/MetiriNCREL21stSkills.pdf
  31. Muller, D.A., Sharma, M.D., & Reimann, P. (2008). Raising cognitive load with linear multimedia to promote conceptual change. Science Education, 92, 278-296.
  32. Nagy-Shadman, E. & Desrochers, C. (2008). Student response technology: Empirically grounded or just a gimmick? International Journal of Science Education, 30(15), 2023-2066.
  33. National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Teacher use of computers and the Internet in public schools. Retrieved June 21, 2010, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000090.pdf National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  34. Nicolaou, C.T., Nicolaidou, I.A., Zacharia, Z.C., & Constantinou, C.P. (2007). Enhancing fourth graders' ability to interpret graphical representations through the use of microcomputer-based labs implemented within an inquiry-based activity sequence. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26, 75-99.
  35. Papanastasiou, E.E., Zembylas, M., & Vrasidas, C. (2003). Can computer use hurt science achievement? The USA results from PISA. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12, 325-242.
  36. Park, J.C., & Slykhuis, D.A. (2006). Guest Editorial: Technology proficiencies in science teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 6(2). Available: http://www.citejournal.org/vol6/iss2/science/article1.cfm Pata, K. & Sarapuu, T. (2006). A Comparison of Reasoning Processes in a Collaborative Modeling Environment: Learning About Genetics Problems Using a Virtual Chat. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1347-1368.
  37. Patrick, M.D., Carter, G., & Wiebe, E.N. (2005). Visual representations of DNA replication: Middle grades students' perceptions and interpretations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14, 353-365.
  38. Royuk, B., & Brooks, D.W. (2003). Cookbook procedures in MBL physics exercises. Journal of Science Education Technology, 18, 291-300.
  39. Songer, N.B., Lee, H-S, & Kam, R. (2002). Technology-rich inquiry science in urban classrooms: What are the barriers to inquiry pedagogy? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 128-150.
  40. Steinburg, R. (2003). Effects of computer-based laboratory instruction on future teachers' understanding of the nature of science. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 22, 185-205.
  41. Tatar, D., & Robinson, M. (2003). Use of digital camera to increase student interest and learning in high school biology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12, 89-95.
  42. Thompson, A.D., & Mishra, P. (2007). Breaking news: TPCK becomes TPACK! Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24(2), 38, 64.
  43. Voogt, J., Tilya, F., & Van den Akker, J. (2009). Science teacher learning of MBL-supported student-centered science education in the context of secondary education in Tanzania. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18,429-438.
  44. Waxman, H.C., Lin, M-F., & Michko, G. (2003). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of teaching and learning with technology on student outcomes. Napier, IL: Learning Point Associates. Retrieved June 21, 2010, from http://www.ncrel.org/tech/effects2/
  45. Wilder, A. & Brinkerhoff, J. (2007). Supporting representational competence in high school biology with computer-based biomolecular visualizations. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26, 5-26.
  46. Yang, K-Y., Heh, J-S. (2007). The impact of Internet virtual physics laboratory instruction on the achievement in physics, science process skills and computer attitudes of 10th grade students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16, 451-461.
  47. Yerrick, R., & Johnson, J. (2009). Meeting the needs of middle grade science learners through pedagogical and
  48. Zacharia, Z. (2005). The Impact of Interactive Computer Simulations on the Nature and Quality of Postgraduate Science Teachers' Explanations in Physics. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1741-1767.
  49. Zucker, A.A., Tinker, R., Staudt, C., Mansfield, A., & Metcalf, S. (2008). Learning science in grades 3-8 using probeware and computers: Findings from the TEEMSS II project. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 42-48.
  50. Zumbach, J., Schmitt, S., Reimann, P., & Starkloff, P. (2006). Learning life sciences: Design and development of

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

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections