nach oben

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

Erschienen in:

15.04.2020 | Original research

Tablets, Plants, and Primary School Students: A Study

verfasst von: Emmanuel Fokides, Penelope Atsikpasi, Dorothea Karageorgou

Erschienen in: Technology, Knowledge and Learning | Ausgabe 3/2020

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Primary school students have trouble grasping concepts related to plants. Their misconceptions are also notable. On the other hand, mobile devices (such as tablets) and their apps, are considered effective educational tools. For examining whether the same holds true in relation to plants, we carried out a project, having as a target-group 263 students aged 11–12, divided into five groups. Two were taught using printed material, one using laptops and webpages, while the last two were taught using tablets (one with a commercial app and one with a tailor-made one). We chose Bybee’s 5Es as the teaching framework for all groups except the first, in which lecturing was applied. Six two-hour sessions were allocated in each group. We collected data through evaluation sheets and a questionnaire. The results suggested that students in the tablets groups established a solid base of declarative and procedural knowledge regarding plants. Their misconceptions were eased, at least when compared with the groups that used printed material. We also observed a positive impact on motivation and enjoyment. On the basis of the findings, we recommend the active involvement of teachers in the development of apps and the corresponding learning material, so as to be able to gain valuable insights on how mobile learning is implemented. We also propose a teaching framework that would allow the full exploitation of mobile devices’ advantages.

Vorheriger Artikel Unpacking the Inherent Design Principles of Mobile Microlearning

Nächster Artikel Technology Enhanced Teaching and Learning: Exploration of Faculty Adaptation to iPad Delivered Curriculum

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Akçayır, M., & Akçayır, G. (2017). Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Research Review,20, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.002.CrossRef

Allagui, B. (2019). Writing a descriptive paragraph using an Augmented Reality application: An evaluation of students’ performance and attitudes. Technology, Knowledge, and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-019-09429-2.CrossRef

Amir, R., & Tamir, P. (1994). In-depth analysis of misconceptions as a basis for developing research-based remedial instruction: The case of photosynthesis. The American Biology Teacher,56(2), 94–100. https://doi.org/10.2307/4449760.CrossRef

Anderson, J. L., Ellis, J. P., & Jones, A. M. (2014). Understanding early elementary children’s conceptual knowledge of plant structure and function through drawings. CBE-Life Sciences Education,13(3), 375–386. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-12-0230.CrossRef

Anderson, C. W., Sheldon, T. H., & Dubay, J. (1990). The effects of instruction on college nonmajors’ conceptions of respiration and photosynthesis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,27(8), 761–776. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660270806.CrossRef

Antink-Meyer, A., & Meyer, D. Z. (2016). Science teachers’ misconceptions in science and engineering distinctions: Reflections on modern research examples. Journal of Science Teacher Education,27(6), 625–647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9478-z.CrossRef

Bano, M., Zowghi, D., Kearney, M., Schuck, S., & Aubusson, P. (2018). Mobile learning for science and mathematics school education: A systematic review of empirical evidence. Computers & Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.006.CrossRef

Barman, C. R., Stein, M., McNair, S., & Barman, N. S. (2006). Students’ ideas about plants & plant growth. The American Biology Teacher,68(2), 73–79. https://doi.org/10.2307/4451935.CrossRef

Bates, B. (2019). Learning theories simplified: And how to apply them to teaching. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Limited.

Bebell, D., & O’Dwyer, L. (2010). Educational outcomes and research from 1: 1 computing settings. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment,9(1), 5–15.

Bell, B. F. (1981). What is a plant? Some children’s ideas. New Zealand Science Teacher,31(3), 10–14.

Berge, Z. L., & Muilenburg, L. (2013). Seamless learning: An international perspective on next-generation technology-enhanced learning. In Z. L. Berge & L. Y. Muilenburg (Eds.), Handbook of mobile learning (pp. 133–146). Abingdon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203118764.CrossRef

Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1995). Multiple significance tests: The Bonferroni method. British Medical Journal,310(6973), 170–171. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.310.6973.170.CrossRef

Brossard, D., Lewenstein, B., & Bonney, R. (2005). Scientific knowledge and attitude change: The impact of a citizen science project. International Journal of Science Education,27(9), 1099–1121. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500069483.CrossRef

Bujak, K. R., Radu, I., Catrambone, R., Macintyre, B., Zheng, R., & Golubski, G. (2013). A psychological perspective on augmented reality in the mathematics classroom. Computers & Education,68, 536–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.017.CrossRef

Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., et al. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. Colorado Springs Co: BSCS,5, 88–98.

Cañal, P. (1999). Photosynthesis and’inverse respiration’in plants: An inevitable misconception? International Journal of Science Education,21(4), 363–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290598.CrossRef

Carr, J. M. (2012). Does math achievement h’APP’en when iPads and game-based learning are incorporated into fifth-grade mathematics instruction? Journal of Information Technology Education: Research,11(1), 269–286. https://doi.org/10.28945/1725.CrossRef

Chen, C. P., & Wang, C. H. (2015). Employing augmented-reality-embedded instruction to disperse the imparities of individual differences in earth science learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology,24(6), 835–847. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9567-3.CrossRef

Chen, X. B. (2013). Tablets for informal language learning: Student usage and attitudes. Language Learning & Technology,17(1), 20–36.

Chiang, T. H. C., Yang, S. J., & Hwang, G. J. (2014). An augmented reality-based mobile learning system to improve students’ learning achievements and motivations in natural science inquiry activities. Educational Technology & Society,17(4), 352–365.

Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Abingdon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587.CrossRef

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Crompton, H. (2013). Mobile learning: New approach, new theory. In Z. L. Berge & L. Y. Muilenburg (Eds.), Handbook of mobile learning (pp. 47–58). Abingdon: Routledge.

Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2015). Research trends in the use of mobile learning in Mathematics. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning,7(4), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJMBL.2015100101.CrossRef

Crompton, H., Burke, D., Gregory, K. H., & Gräbe, C. (2016a). The use of mobile learning in science: A systematic review. Journal of Science Education and Technology,25(2), 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9597-x.CrossRef

Crompton, H., Olszewski, B., & Bielefeldt, T. (2016b). The mobile learning training needs of educators in technology-enabled environments. Professional Development in Education,42(3), 482–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2014.1001033.CrossRef

Culén, A., & Gasparini, A. (2012). Tweens with the iPad classroom-Cool but not really helpful? In Proceedings of the 2012 international conference on e-learning and e-technologies in education (ICEEE) (pp. 1–6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICeLeTE.2012.6333771.

Cumming, T. M., Strnadová, I., & Singh, S. (2014). iPads as instructional tools to enhance learning opportunities for students with developmental disabilities: An action research project. Action Research,12(2), 151–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750314525480.CrossRef

Dass, P. M. (2001). Implementation of instructional innovations in K-8 science classes: Perspectives of inservice teachers. International Journal of Science Education,23(9), 969–984. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690010025021.CrossRef

DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications (Vol. 26). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Diemer, T. T., Fernandez, E., & Streepey, J. W. (2012). Student perceptions of classroom engagement and learning using iPads. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology,1(2), 13–25.

Doolittle, P. E., & MaRIanO, G. J. (2008). Working memory capacity and mobile multimedia learning environments: Individual differences in learning while mobile. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia,17(4), 511–530.

Dündar, H., & Akçayır, M. (2017). Tablet vs. paper: The effect on learners’ reading performance. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education,4(3), 441–450.

Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology,18(1), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9119-1.CrossRef

Fančovičová, J., & Prokop, P. (2010). Development and initial psychometric assessment of the plant attitude questionnaire. Journal of Science Education and Technology,19(5), 415–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9207-x.CrossRef

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods,39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146.CrossRef

Fernández-López, Á., Rodríguez-Fórtiz, M. J., Rodríguez-Almendros, M. L., & Martínez-Segura, M. J. (2013). Mobile learning technology based on iOS devices to support students with special education needs. Computers & Education,61, 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.09.014.CrossRef

Ferrer-Torregrosa, J., Torralba, J., Jimenez, M. A., García, S., & Barcia, J. M. (2015). ARBOOK: Development and assessment of a tool based on augmented reality for anatomy. Journal of Science Education and Technology,24(1), 119–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9526-4.CrossRef

Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using SPSS: (And sex and drugs and rock ‘n’ roll) (4th ed.). London: SAGE.

Fisher, B., Lucas, T., & Galstyan, A. (2013). The role of iPads in constructing collaborative learning spaces. Technology, Knowledge, and Learning,18(3), 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-013-9207-z.CrossRef

Fokides, E., & Atsikpasi, P. (2017). Tablets in education. Results from the initiative ETiE, for teaching plants to primary school students. Education and Information Technologies,22(5), 2545–2563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9560-3.CrossRef

Fokides, E., Atsikpasi, P., Kaimara, P., & Deliyannis, I. (2019). Let players evaluate serious games. Design and validation of the Serious Games Evaluation Scale. International Computer Games Association Journal,31(3), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3233/ICG-190111.CrossRef

Frohberg, D., Göth, C., & Schwabe, G. (2009). Mobile learning projects—A critical analysis of the state of the art. Journal of Computer Assisted learning,25(4), 307–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00315.x.CrossRef

Furió, D., GonzáLez-Gancedo, S., Juan, M. C., Seguí, I., & Costa, M. (2013). The effects of the size and weight of a mobile device on an educational game. Computers & Education,64, 24–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.015.CrossRef

Garzón, J., Pavón, J., & Baldiris, S. (2019). Systematic review and meta-analysis of augmented reality in educational settings. Virtual Reality. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-019-00379-9.CrossRef

Goktas, Y., Yildirim, S., & Yildirim, Z. (2009). Main barriers and possible enablers of ICTs integration into pre-service teacher education programs. Journal of Educational Technology & Society,12(1), 193.

Grossman, P., & Thompson, C. (2004). District policy and beginning teachers: A lens on teacher learning. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,26(4), 281–301. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737026004281.CrossRef

Gurel, D. K., Eryilmaz, A., & McDermott, L. C. (2015). A review and comparison of diagnostic instruments to identify students’ misconceptions in science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science, & Technology Education,11(5), 989–1008. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1369a.CrossRef

Harlen, W., & Qualter, A. (2014). The teaching of science in primary schools (6th ed.). Routledge: Abingdon.

Hedges, L., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York: Academic Press.

Heinrich, P. (2012). The iPad as a tool for education—A case study. Longfield Academy, Kent: Naace.

Henderson, S., & Yeow, J. (2012). iPad in education: A case study of iPad adoption and use in a primary school. In Proceedings of the 45th Hawaii international conference in system science (HICSS), 2012 (pp. 78-87). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2012.390.

Hershey, D. R. (2004). Avoid misconceptions when teaching about plants. Retrieved 24 March 2020 from http://www.actionbioscience.org/education/hershey.html.

Hsiao, H. S., Chang, C. S., Lin, C. Y., & Wang, Y. Z. (2016). Weather observers: a manipulative augmented reality system for weather simulations at home, in the classroom, and at a museum. Interactive Learning Environments,24(1), 205–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2013.834829.CrossRef

Huang, T. C., Chen, C. C., & Chou, Y. W. (2016). Animating eco-education: To see, feel, and discover in an augmented reality-based experiential learning environment. Computers & Education,96, 72–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.02.008.CrossRef

Iserbyt, P., Charlier, N., & Mols, L. (2014). Learning basic life support (BLS) with tablet PCs in reciprocal learning at school: Are videos superior to pictures? A randomized controlled trial. Resuscitation,85(6), 809–813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.01.018.CrossRef

Jeno, L. M., Vandvik, V., Eliassen, S., & Grytnes, J. A. (2019). Testing the novelty effect of an m-learning tool on internalization and achievement: A self-determination theory approach. Computers & Education,128, 398–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.008.CrossRef

Kearney, M., Burden, K., & Rai, T. (2015). Investigating teachers’ adoption of signature mobile pedagogies. Computers & Education,80, 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.009.CrossRef

Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Burden, K., & Aubusson, P. (2012). Viewing mobile learning from a pedagogical perspective. Research in Learning Technology. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v20i0.14406.CrossRef

Keller, J. M., & Suzuki, K. (2004). Learner motivation and E-learning design: A multinationally validated process. Journal of Educational Media,29(3), 229–239.

Kilty, T. J., & Burrows, A. C. (2019). Secondary science preservice teachers’ perceptions of engineering: A learner analysis. Education Sciences,9(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9010029.CrossRef

Kinash, S., Brand, J., & Mathew, T. (2012). Challenging mobile learning discourse through research: Student perceptions of blackboard mobile learn and iPads. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,28(4), 639–655. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.832.CrossRef

Lally, D., Brooks, E., Tax, F. E., & Dolan, E. L. (2007). Sowing the seeds of dialogue: Public engagement through plant science. The Plant Cell,19(8), 2311–2319. https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.107.053587.CrossRef

Lazarowitz, R., & Penso, S. (1992). High school students’ difficulties in learning biology concepts. Journal of Biological Education,26(3), 215–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1992.9655276.CrossRef

Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2008). Teachers’ views on factors affecting effective integration of information technology in the classroom: Developmental scenery. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,16(2), 233–263.

Lewis, J., & Wood-Robinson, C. (2000). Genes, chromosomes, cell division and inheritance-do students see any relationship? International Journal of Science Education,22(2), 177–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900289949.CrossRef

Li, S. C., Pow, J. W., Wong, E. M., & Fung, A. C. (2010). Empowering student learning through tablet PCs: A case study. Education and Information Technologies,15(3), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-009-9103-2.CrossRef

Lin, C. P., Wong, L. H., & Shao, Y. J. (2012). Comparison of 1:1 and 1:m CSCL environment for collaborative concept mapping. Journal of Computer Assisted learning,28(2), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00421.x.CrossRef

Lindemann-Matthies, P. (2002). The influence of an educational program on children’s perception of biodiversity. The Journal of Environmental Education,33(2), 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958960209600805.CrossRef

Lindemann-Matthies, P. (2005). “Loveable” mammals and “lifeless” plants: How children’s interest in common local organisms can be enhanced through observation of nature. International Journal of Science Education,27(6), 655–677. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500038116.CrossRef

Marmaroti, P., & Galanopoulou, D. (2006). Pupils’ understanding of photosynthesis: A questionnaire for the simultaneous assessment of all aspects. International Journal of Science Education,28(4), 383–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500277805.CrossRef

McClanahan, B., Williams, K., Kennedy, E., & Tate, S. (2012). A breakthrough for Josh: How use of an iPad facilitated reading improvement. TechTrends,56(3), 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-012-0572-6.CrossRef

McNair, S., & Stein, M. (2001). Drawing on their understanding: Using illustrations to invoke deeper thinking about plants. In Proceedings of the 2001 annual international conference of the association for the education of teachers in science (pp. 1364–1375).

Metz, S. (2014). Science teaching and learning in the 21st century. The Science Teacher,81(6), 6. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/tst14_081_06_6.CrossRef

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Research Council.

Nedungadi, P., & Raman, R. (2012). A new approach to personalization: Integrating e-learning and m-learning. Educational Technology Research and Development,60(4), 659–678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9250-9.CrossRef

Nguyen, L., Barton, S. M., & Nguyen, L. T. (2015). iPads in higher education-hype and hope. British Journal of Educational Technology,46(1), 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12137.CrossRef

Nuhoğlu Kibar, P., Gündüz, A. Y., & Akkoyunlu, B. (2019). Implementing bring your own device (BYOD) model in flipped learning: Advantages and challenges. Technology, Knowledge, and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-019-09427-4.CrossRef

Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections (Vol. 13). London: The Nuffield Foundation.

Özay, E., & Öztaş, H. (2003). Secondary students’ interpretations of photosynthesis and plant nutrition. Journal of Biological Education,37(2), 68–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2003.9655853.CrossRef

Özdemir, M. (2017). Educational augmented reality (AR) applications and development process. In Mobile technologies and augmented reality in open education (pp. 26-53). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-2110-5.ch002.

Özdemir, M., Sahin, C., Arcagok, S., & Demir, M. K. (2018). The effect of augmented reality applications in the learning process: A meta-analysis study. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research,18(74), 165–186. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2018.74.9.CrossRef

Poll, H. (2014). Pearson student mobile device survey 2014. Retrieved 24 March 2020 from http://www.pearsoned.com/wp-content/uploads/Pearson-K12-Student-Mobile-Device-Survey-050914-PUBLIC-Report.pdf.

Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research,75(2), 211–246. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075002211.CrossRef

Roth, K. J. (1984). Using classroom observations to improve science teaching and curriculum materials. In C. W. Anderson (Ed.), Observing science classrooms: Perspectives from research and practice. Yearbook of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science (pp. 77–102). Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC.

Ryman, D. (1974). Children’s understanding of the classification of living organisms. Journal of Biological Education,8(3), 140–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1974.9653932.CrossRef

Sahin, A., Cavlazoglu, B., & Zeytuncu, Y. E. (2015). Flipping a college calculus course: A case study. Journal of Educational Technology & Society,18(3), 142–152.

Sanders, D. L. (2007). Making public the private life of plants: The contribution of informal learning environments. International Journal of Science Education,29(10), 1209–1228. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600951549.CrossRef

Schussler, E., & Winslow, J. (2007). Drawing on students’ knowledge. Science and Children,44(5), 40–44.

Sharples, M., Arnedillo-Sánchez, I., Milrad, M., & Vavoula, G. (2009). Mobile learning. In Technology-enhanced learning (pp. 233-249). Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9827-7_14.

Simpson, M., & Arnold, B. (1982). Availability of prerequisite concepts for learning biology at certificate level. Journal of Biological Education,16(1), 65–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1982.9654420.CrossRef

Sloan, R. H. (2012). Using an eTextbook and iPad: Results of a pilot program. Journal of Educational Technology Systems,41(1), 87–104. https://doi.org/10.2190/ET.41.1.g.CrossRef

Smith, E. L., & Anderson, C. W. (1984). Plants as producers: A case study of elementary science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,21(7), 685–698. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660210703.CrossRef

Strgar, J. (2007). Increasing the interest of students in plants. Journal of Biological Education,42(1), 19–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2007.9656102.CrossRef

Sung, Y.-T., Chang, K.-E., & Liu, T.-C. (2016). The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching and learning on students’ learning performance: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Computers & Education,94, 252–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.008.CrossRef

Tamim, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Bernard, R. M., Schmid, R. F., Abrami, P. C., & Sokolovskaya, A. (2014). Technology use in teacher training programs: Lessons learned from a systematic review. Paper presented at the AERA 2014 annual meeting in Philadelphia, PA.

Tamim, R. M., Pickup, D., Borokhovski, E., Bernard, R. M., & El Saadi, L. (2015). Tablets for teaching and learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Commonwealth of Learning. Retrieved 24 March 2020 from http://oasis.col.org/bitstream/handle/11599/1012/2015_Tamim-et-al_Tablets-for-Teaching-and-Learning.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Tarng, W., Ou, K. L., Lu, Y. C., Shih, Y. S., & Liou, H. H. (2018). A sun path observation system based on augment reality and mobile learning. Mobile Information Systems. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5950732.CrossRef

Tingir, S., Cavlazoglu, B., Caliskan, O., Koklu, O., & Intepe-Tingir, S. (2017). Effects of mobile devices on K-12 students’ achievement: a meta-analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted learning,33(4), 355–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12184.CrossRef

Trundle, K. C., Atwood, R. K., & Christopher, J. E. (2002). Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of moon phases before and after instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,39(7), 633–658. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10039.CrossRef

Wandersee, J. H., & Schussler, E. E. (2001). Toward a theory of plant blindness. Plant Science Bulletin,47(1), 2–9.

Ward, N. D., Finley, R. J., Keil, R. G., & Clay, T. G. (2013). Benefits and limitations of iPads in the high school science classroom and a trophic cascade lesson plan. Journal of Geoscience Education,61(4), 378–384.

Warschauer, M., Zheng, B., Niiya, M., Cotten, S., & Farkas, G. (2014). Balancing the one-to-one equation: Equity and access in three laptop programs. Equity & Excellence in Education,47(1), 46–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2014.866871.CrossRef

Wilkinson, K., & Barter, P. (2016). Do mobile learning devices enhance learning in higher education anatomy classrooms? Journal of Pedagogic Development,6(1), 14–23.

Wojciechowski, R., & Cellary, W. (2013). Evaluation of learners’ attitude toward learning in ARIES augmented reality environments. Computers & Education,68, 570–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.014.CrossRef

Wu, H. K., Lee, S. W. Y., Chang, H. Y., & Liang, J. C. (2013). Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers & Education,62, 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.024.CrossRef

Zhang, J., Sung, Y. T., Hou, H. T., & Chang, K. E. (2014). The development and evaluation of an augmented reality-based armillary sphere for astronomical observation instruction. Computers & Education,73, 178–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.01.003.CrossRef

Titel: Tablets, Plants, and Primary School Students: A Study
verfasst von: Emmanuel Fokides
Penelope Atsikpasi
Dorothea Karageorgou
Publikationsdatum: 15.04.2020
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Technology, Knowledge and Learning / Ausgabe 3/2020
Print ISSN: 2211-1662
Elektronische ISSN: 2211-1670
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09445-7

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten

Die im Laufe eines Jahres in der „adhäsion“ veröffentlichten Marktübersichten helfen Anwendern verschiedenster Branchen, sich einen gezielten Überblick über Lieferantenangebote zu verschaffen.

Zur Marktübersicht

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2020

The Role of Achievement Goals and Self-regulated Learning Behaviors in Clinical Reasoning

Multiple Agent Designs in Conversational Intelligent Tutoring Systems

Open Textbooks: A Balance Between Empowerment and Disruption

Unpacking the Inherent Design Principles of Mobile Microlearning

A Study on the Actual Use of Digital Competence in the Practicum of Education Degree

Technology Enhanced Teaching and Learning: Exploration of Faculty Adaptation to iPad Delivered Curriculum

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten