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

REFERENCES

• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Bruckman, A. (2000). Situated support for learning: Storm’s weekend with Rachael. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 329–372.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Chang, K. E., Sung, Y. T., & Lee, C. L. (2003). Web-based collaborative inquiry learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(1), 56–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cronbach, L., & Snow, R. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. New York, NY: Irvington.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durndell, A., Glissov, P., & Siann, G. (1995). Gender and computing: Persisting differences. Educational Research, 37(3), 219–227.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eder, D. (1981). Ability grouping as a self-fulfilling prophecy: A micro-analysis of teacher-student interaction. Sociology of Education, 54(3), 151–162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2008). Flash Eurobarometer: Young people and science: Analytical report. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_239_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• Greene, B. A., & Miller, R. B. (1996). Influences on achievement: Goals, perceived ability, and cognitive engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(2), 181–192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenfield, T. (1996). Gender, ethnicity, science achievement, and attitudes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 259–275.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Howe, K. (1998). The interpretive turn and the new debate in education. Educational Researcher, 27(8), 13–21.
   Google Scholar
• Hox, J. J. (1994). Applied multilevel analysis. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: TT-publikaties.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, M. G., & Wheatley, J. (1990). Gender differences in teacher-student interactions in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 861–874.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (2004). Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B.-S. (2011). Science learning and instruction: Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2007). Science competencies for tomorrow’s world. Retrieved from http://www.oei.es/evaluacioneducativa/InformePISA2006-FINALingles.pdf
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. M. (1994). Failing at fairness: How America’s schools cheat girls. New York, NY: Scribner.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sjøberg, S., & Schreiner, C. (2010). The ROSE project: An overview and key findings. Oslo, Norway: Oslo Institutt for lærerutdanning og skoleutvikling, University of Oslo.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Slotta, J. D., & Linn, M. C. (2009). WISE science, Web-based inquiry in the classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stark, R., & Gray, D. (1999). Gender preferences in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 633–643.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Technology Enhanced Learning in Science. (2010). Sample scoring rubric using the knowledge integration framework. Retrieved from http://telscenter.org/projects/tels/assessments/rubric
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 3–118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zohar, A., Degani, A., & Vaaknin, E. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs about low-achieving students and higher order thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 469–485.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar