SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2005a, February). Modeling science classrooms after scientific laboratories: Sketching some affordances and constraints drawn from examining underlying assumptions. Paper presented at the Inquiry Conference on Developing a Consensus Research Agenda, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.
  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2005b). Instructional technology in secondary science teaching. In I.Osta (Ed.), Education and information technology in the Arab countries: Issues and trends (pp. 329355). Beirut, Lebanon: Lebanese Association for Educational Sciences. (In Arabic)
  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R.A., Hofstein, A., Lederman, N.G., Mamlok, R., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., & Tuan, H. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397419.
  • Adams, D.D., & Shrum, J.W. (1990). The effects of microcomputer-based laboratory exercises on the acquisition of line-graph construction and interpretation skills by high school biology students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(8), 777787.
  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Apple, M.W. (1998). Teaching and technology: The hidden effects of computers on teachers and students. In L.E.Beyer & M.W.Apple (Eds.), The curriculum. Problems, politics, and possibilities (pp. 314336). Albany: State University of New York Press.
  • Bigum, C. (1998). Solutions in search of educational problems: Speaking for computers in schools. Educational Policy, 12, 586601.
  • Brewer, W. (2005, February). In what sense can the child be considered to be a “little scientist”? Paper presented at the Inquiry Conference on Developing a Consensus Research Agenda, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.
  • Bruce, B.C., & Hogan, M.P. (1998). The disappearance of technology: Towards an ecological model of literacy. In D.Reinking, M.McKenna, L.D.Labbo, & R.D.Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 269281). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Bruce, B.C., & Peyton, J.K. (1999). Literacy development in network-based classrooms: Innovation and realizations. International Journal of Educational Technology, 1, 123. Retrieved February 3, 2003 from IJET website: http://www.outreach.uiuc.edu/ijet/v1n2/bruce/index.html
  • Bryson, M., & de Castell, S. (1998). New Technologies and the cultural ecology of primary schooling: Imagining teachers as luddites in/deed. Educational Policy, 12, 542567.
  • Chinn, C.A., & Malhotra, B.A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175218.
  • Cosgrove, M., & Schaverien, L. (1996). Children's conversations and learning science and technology. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 105116.
  • Crawford, B.A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916937.
  • Czerniak, C.M., Lumpe, A.T., Haney, J.J., & Beck, J. (1999). Teachers' beliefs about using educational technology in the science classroom. International Journal of Educational Technology, 1, 117. Retrieved on September 8, 2001 from IJET website: http:/www.outreach. uiuc.edu/ijet/v1n2/czerniak/index.html
  • De Vaney, A. (1998). Will educators ever unmask that determiner, Technology? Educational Policy, 12, 568585.
  • Docherty, S., & Sandelowski, M. (1999). Focus on qualitative methods: Interviewing children. Research in Nursing and Health, 22, 177185.
  • Edelson, D.C. (1998). Realising authentic science learning through the adaptation of scientific practice. In B.J.Fraser & K.G.Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 317332). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Eick, C.J., & Reed, C.J. (2002). What makes an inquiry-oriented science teacher? The influence of learning histories on student teacher role identity and practice. Science Education, 86, 401416.
  • Geban, O., Askar, P., & Ozkan, I. (1992). Effects of computer-simulations and problem-solving approaches on high school students. Journal of Educational Research, 86(1), 510.
  • Hammer, D. (1995). Student inquiry in a physics class discussion. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 401430.
  • Hammer, D. (2000). Teacher Inquiry. In J.Minstrell & E.van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 184215). New York: AAAS.
  • Haney, J.J., Lumpe, A.T., Czerniak, C.M., & Egan, V. (2002). From belief to actions: The beliefs and actions of teachers implementing change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 171187.
  • Hannafin, M.J., & Land, S.M. (1997). The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced student-centered learning environments. Instructional Science, 25, 167202.
  • Idhe, D. (1990). Technology and the life world. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
  • Joy, B. (2000). Why the future doesn't need us. Retrieved April 30, 2002 from WIRED website: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html.
  • Keys, C.W., & Bryan, L.A. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 631645.
  • Krathwohl, D.R. (1998). Methods of educational and social science research: An integrated approach. New York: Addison-Wesley.
  • Linn, M.C. (1998). The impact of technology on science instruction: Historical trends and current opportunities. In B.J.Fraser & K.G.Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 265294). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Mackenzie, A.H. (2001). The role of teacher stance when infusing inquiry questioning into middle school science classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 101, 143153.
  • Maor, D., & Fraser, B.J. (1996). Use of classroom environment perceptions in evaluating inquiry-based computer-assisted learning. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 401421.
  • Mauthner, M. (1997). Methodological aspects of collecting data from children: Lessons from three research projects. Children & Society, 11, 1628.
  • Minstrell, J., & Stimpson, V. (1996). A classroom environment for learning: Guiding students' reconstruction of understanding and reasoning. In L.Schauble & R.Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 175202). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
  • 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, 459479.
  • Nakhleh, M.B., & Krajcik, J.S. (1994). Influence of levels of information as presented by different technologies on students' understanding of acid, base, and pH concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(10), 10771096.
  • National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • Olson, S., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (Eds.). (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • Pajares, M.F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307332.
  • Pedretti, E., Mayer-Smith, J., & Woodrow, J. (1998). Technology, text and talk: Students' perspectives on teaching and learning in a technology-enhanced secondary science classroom. Science Education, 82, 569589.
  • Rakes, G.C., & Casey, H.B. (2002). An analysis of teacher concerns toward instructional technology. International Journal of Educational Technology, 3, 117. Retrieved on September 8, 2001 from IJET website: http://www.outreach.uiuc.edu/ijet/v3n1/rakes/index.html
  • Rop, C.J. (2003). Spontaneous inquiry questions in high school chemistry classrooms: Perceptions of a group of motivated learners. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1333.
  • Roth, W.M. (1995). Affordances of computers in teacher-student interactions: The case of Interactive Physics™. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(4), 329347.
  • Settlage, J., Jr. (1995). Children's conceptions of light in the context of a technology-based curriculum. Science Education, 79, 535553.
  • Songer, N.B. (1996). Exploring learning opportunities in coordinated network-enhanced classrooms: A case of kids as global scientists. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5, 297327.
  • Songer, N.B. (1998). Can technology bring students closer to science? In B.J.Fraser & K.G.Tobin (Eds.), The international handbook of science education (pp. 333348). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Songer, N.B., Lee, H., & Kam, R. (2002). Technology-rich inquiry science in urban classrooms: What are the barriers to inquiry pedagogy? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 128150.
  • Turner, S.V., & Dipinto, V.M. (1992). Students as hypermedia authors: Themes emerging from a qualitative study. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25(2), 187199.
  • van Zee, E.H. (2000a). Analysis of a student-generated inquiry discussion. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 115142.
  • van Zee, E.H. (2000b). Ways of fostering teachers' inquiries into science learning and teaching. In J.Minstrell & E.van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 100119). New York: AAAS.
  • Yildirim, Z., Ozden, M.Y., Aksu, M. (2001). Comparison of hypermedia learning and traditional instruction on knowledge acquisition and retention. Journal of Educational Research, 94(4), 207214.