SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

REFERENCES

  • Blumenfeld, P. C., & Meece, J. L. (1988). Task factors, teacher behavior and students' involvement and use of learning strategies in science. Elementary School Journal, 88, 238249.
  • Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2000). Implementation and evaluation of a student-centered learning unit: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 79100.
  • Capie, W., & Tobin, K. (1981). Pupil engagement in learning tasks: A fertile area for research in science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18(5), 409417.
  • Chang, C. Y. (2003). Teaching earth sciences: should we implement teacher-directed or student-controlled CAI in the secondary classroom? International Journal of Science Education, 25(4), 427438.
  • Cheng, R.-F. (2002). Junior high school students' conceptual understandings about force and motion. Unpublished master's thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
  • Christian, W. (1999). Physlets: Delivering media-focused problems anytime anywhere. Computer Physics Communications, 121–122, 569572.
  • Corno, L., & Mandinach, E. B. (1983). The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18(2), 88108.
  • Cox, A. J., Belloni, M., Dancy, M., & Christian, W. (2003). Teaching thermodynamics with Physlets in introductory physics. Physics Education, 38(5), 433440.
  • Cuban, L., Kirkpartick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813834.
  • de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179201.
  • Dwyer, D. C., Ringstaff, C., & Sandholtz, J. H. (1991). Changes in teachers' beliefs and practices in technology-rich classrooms. Educational Leadership, 48, 4552.
  • Enzle, M. E., & Anderson, S. C. (1993). Surveillant intentions and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 257266.
  • Erickson, F. (1998). Qualitative research methods for science education. In B. J.Fraser & K. G.Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 11551173). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
  • Flowerday, T., & Schraw, G. (2003). Effect of choice on cognitive and affective engagement. Journal of Educational Research, 96(4), 207215.
  • Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59109.
  • Gallagher, J. J., & Tobin, K. (1987). Teacher management and student engagement in high school science. Science Education, 71(4), 535555.
  • Greenwood, C. R., Horton, B. T., & Utley, C. A. (2002). Academic engagement: Current perspectives on research and practices. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 328349.
  • Hannafin, M. J., & Land, S. M. (1997). The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced student-centered learning environments. Instructional Science, 25, 167202.
  • Hannafin, R. D., & Sullivan, H. J. (1996). Preferences and learner control over amount of instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 162173.
  • Herrenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 431473.
  • Hestenes, D. (1992). Modeling games in the Newtonian world. American Journal of Physics, 60, 440454.
  • Huang, S.-J. (2002). Development of an attitude survey to gauge junior high school students' attitude toward computer-based learning. Unpublished master's thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
  • Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39103.
  • Kozma, R. B., Russell, J., Jones, T., Marx, N., & Davis, J. (1996). The use of multiple, linked representations to facilitate science understanding. In S.Vosniadou, E. D.Corte, R.Glaser, & H.Mandel (Eds.), International perspective on the psychological foundations of technology-based learning environments (pp. 4160). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Krajcik, J. S., Czerniak, C. M., & Berger, C. (1999). Teaching children science: A project-based approach. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
  • Lau, S., & Roeser, R. W. (2002). Cognitive abilities and motivational processes in high school students' situational engagement and achievement in science. Educational Assessment, 8(2), 139162.
  • Lee, O., & Anderson, C. W. (1993). Task engagement and conceptual change in middle school science classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 585610.
  • Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., & Baldwin, W. (1992). Learner control of context and instructional support in learning elementary school mathematics. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 40, 513.
  • Nystrand, M. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional discourse, student engagement, and literature achievement. Research in Teaching of English, 25(3), 261290.
  • Patrick, B. C., Skinner, E. A., & Connell, J. P. (1993). What motivates children's behavior and emotion? Joint effects of perceived control and autonomy in the academic domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 625633.
  • Pedersen, S., & Liu, M. (2003). Teachers' beliefs about issues in the implementation of a student-centered learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(2), 5776.
  • Polman, J. L., & Pea, R. D. (2001). Transformative communication as a cultural tool for guiding inquiry science. Science Education, 85, 223238.
  • Ryan, A. M., & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in adolescents' motivation and engagement during middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 437460.
  • Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 29.
  • Sansone, C., & Thoman, D. B. (2005). Does what we feel affect what we learn? Some answers and new questions. Learning and Instruction, 15, 507515.
  • Singh, K., Granville, M., & Dika, S. (2002). Mathematics and science achievement: Effects of motivation, interest, and academic engagement. Journal of Educational Research, 95(6), 323332.
  • Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571581.
  • Tobin, K., & Capie, W. (1982). Relationships between formal reasoning ability, locus of control, academic engagement and integrated process skill achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19(2), 113121.
  • White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3118.
  • Wu, H.-K., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students' use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 821842.
  • Wu, H.-K., & Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science Education, 88, 465492.