nach oben

Journal of Science Education and Technology

Erschienen in:

29.11.2022

The Go-Lab Platform, an Inquiry-learning Space: Investigation into Students’ Technology Acceptance, Knowledge Integration, and Learning Outcomes

verfasst von: Chi-Jung Sui, Hsin-Chueh Chen, Ping-Han Cheng, Chun-Yen Chang

Erschienen in: Journal of Science Education and Technology | Ausgabe 1/2023

Einloggen

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

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Utilizing an inquiry-learning space (ILS) via the Go-Lab platform, we investigated students’ technology acceptance, knowledge integration [KI] process, and learning outcomes of both the high-achiever KI student and low-achiever KI student. This study aimed to understand how students engage in knowledge integration tasks using an inquiry-learning space to learn Mendelian genetics and realize the relationship between student KI and domain knowledge. Using a quasi-experimental design, we examined 41 seventh-grade students in Taiwan completing Mendelian genetics KI tasks in ILS, pre/post-testing of domain knowledge tests, and a technology acceptance questionnaire. The analysis of students’ interaction in the ILS and domain knowledge tests was conducted through descriptive statistics, t-tests, Pearson’s correlation, and content analysis to indicate the direction and relationship between students’ KI processes and learning outcomes. A technology acceptance questionnaire was analyzed through descriptive statistics and Pearson’s correlation to reveal whether students accepted learning on the Go-Lab platform. The study showed that (i) students responded positively to the perceived usefulness of the Go-Lab platform, (ii) the high-achiever KI students could gradually construct links from simple to complex and diverse among genetic ideas, and the low-achiever almost built simple links, but (iii) the high-achiever and low-achiever KI students had similar learning outcomes. These findings have implications that the instruction design of knowledge integration tasks promotes students’ Mendelian genetics conceptual understanding and KI progress.

Vorheriger Artikel A Phenomenography Study of STEM Teachers’ Conceptions of Using Three-Dimensional Modeling and Printing (3DMP) in Teaching

Nächster Artikel A Study of Students Engaged in Electronic Circuit Wiring in an Undergraduate Course

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

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690050044044CrossRef

Ageitos, N., Puig, B., & Colucci-Gray, L. (2019). Examining reasoning practices and epistemic actions to explore students’ understanding of genetics and evolution. Science & Education, 28(9), 1209–1233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00086-6CrossRef

Ali, F., Nair, P. K., & Hussain, K. (2016). An assessment of students’ acceptance and usage of computer supported collaborative classrooms in hospitality and tourism schools. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 18, 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2016.03.002CrossRef

Allen, R. D. (1987). Student difficulties with Mendelian genetics problems. The American Biology Teacher, 49(4), 229–233. https://doi.org/10.2307/4448497CrossRef

Alqahtani, M., & Mohammad, H. (2015). Mobile applications’ impact on student performance and satisfaction. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 14(4), 102–112.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. In. New York: Oxford University Press.

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(8), 797–817. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900412284CrossRef

Brinson, J. R. (2015). Learning outcome achievement in non-traditional (virtual and remote) versus traditional (hands-on) laboratories: A review of the empirical research. Computers & Education, 87, 218–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.003CrossRef

Browning, M. E., & Lehman, J. D. (1988). Identification of student misconceptions in genetics problem solving via computer program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(9), 747–761. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280410CrossRef

Buckley, B. C., Gobert, J. D., Kindfield, A. C. H., Horwitz, P., Tinker, R. F., Gerlits, B., & Willett, J. (2004). Model-based teaching and learning with BioLogica™: What do they learn? How do they learn? How do we know? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(1), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOST.0000019636.06814.e3CrossRef

Cairns, D., Dickson, M., & McMinn, M. (2021). “Feeling like a Scientist”: Factors affecting students’ selections of technology tools in the science classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30(6), 766–776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-021-09917-0CrossRef

Campbell, T., Oh, P. S., Maughn, M., Kiriazis, N., & Zuwallack, R. (2015). A review of modeling pedagogies: Pedagogical functions, discursive acts, and technology in modeling instruction. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(1), 159–176. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1314aCrossRef

Cavallo, A. M. L. (1996). Meaningful learning, reasoning ability, and students’ understanding and problem solving of topics in genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 33(6), 625–656. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199608)33:6<625::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-Q

Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175–218. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10001CrossRef

Cho, H. H., Kahle, J. B., & Nordland, F. H. (1985). An investigation of high school biology textbooks as sources of misconceptions and difficulties in genetics and some suggestions for teaching genetics. Science Education, 69(5), 707–719. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730690512CrossRef

Clark, D., & Linn, M. C. (2003). Designing for knowledge integration: The impact of instructional time. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 451–493. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022057409189001-210CrossRef

Corbett, A., Kauffman, L., Maclaren, B., Wagner, A., & Jones, E. (2010). A cognitive tutor for genetics problem solving: Learning gains and student modeling. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(2), 219–239. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.42.2.eCrossRef

Dasgupta, S., Granger, M., & McGarry, N. (2002). User acceptance of e-collaboration technology: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Group Decision and Negotiation, 11(2), 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.001CrossRef

Davis, E. A. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819–837. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900412293CrossRef

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008CrossRef

Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982CrossRef

de Jong, T., Gillet, D., Rodríguez-Triana, M. J., Hovardas, T., Dikke, D., Doran, R., & Law, E. (2021). Understanding teacher design practices for digital inquiry–based science learning: The case of Go-Lab. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(2), 417–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09904-zCrossRef

de Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 340(6130), 305–308. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1230579CrossRef

de Jong, T., Sotiriou, S., & Gillet, D. (2014). Innovations in STEM education: The Go-Lab federation of online labs. Smart Learning Environments, 1(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-014-0003-6CrossRef

de Jong, T., Joolingen, V., & R, W. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179–201. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068002179CrossRef

Develaki, M. (2019). Methodology and epistemology of computer simulations and implications for science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28(4), 353–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09772-0CrossRef

Duncan, R. G., Rogat, A. D., & Yarden, A. (2009). A learning progression for deepening students’ understandings of modern genetics across the 5th–10th grades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 655–674. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20312CrossRef

Fang, S.-C., Hsu, Y.-S., Chang, H.-Y., Chang, W.-H., Wu, H.-K., & Chen, C.-M. (2016). Investigating the effects of structured and guided inquiry on students’ development of conceptual knowledge and inquiry abilities: A case study in Taiwan. International Journal of Science Education, 38(12), 1945–1971. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1220688CrossRef

Glasson, G. E. (1989). The effects of hands-on and teacher demonstration laboratory methods on science achievement in relation to reasoning ability and prior knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(2), 121–131. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660260204CrossRef

Gnesdilow, D., & Puntambekar, S. (2021). Comparing middle school students’ science explanations during physical and virtual laboratories. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-021-09941-0CrossRef

Gnidovec, T., Žemlja, M., Dolenec, A., & Torkar, G. (2020). Using augmented reality and the structure behavior function model to teach lower secondary school students about the human circulatory system. Journal of Science Education Technology, 29(774), 784. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09850-8CrossRef

Heradio, R., de la Torre, L., & Dormido, S. (2016). Virtual and remote labs in control education: A survey. Annual Reviews in Control, 42, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arcontrol.2016.08.001CrossRef

Hickey, D. T., Kindfteld, A. C. H., Horwitz, P., & Christie, M. A. (1999). Advancing educational theory by enhancing practice in a technology-supported genetics learning environment. Journal of Education, 25–55.

Hovardas, T., Pedaste, M., Zacharia, Z., & de Jong, T. (2018). Model-based inquiry in computer-supported learning environments: The case of go-lab. In Cyber-physical laboratories in engineering and science education (pp. 241–268). Springer.

Johnson, M. A., & Lawson, A. E. (1998). What are the relative effects of reasoning ability and prior knowledge on biology achievement in expository and inquiry classes? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(1), 89–103. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199801)35:1<89::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-J

Keselman, A. (2003). Supporting inquiry learning by promoting normative understanding of multivariable causality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(9), 898–921. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10115CrossRef

Leijen, Ä., Valtna, K., Leijen, D. A. J., & Pedaste, M. (2012). How to determine the quality of students’ reflections? Studies in Higher Education, 37(2), 203–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.504814CrossRef

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/10.1080/095006900289949CrossRef

Linn, M. C. (1995). Designing computer learning environments for engineering and computer science: The scaffolded knowledge integration framework. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4(2), 103–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02214052CrossRef

Linn, M. C. (2000). Designing the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 781–796. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900412275CrossRef

Linn, M. C., Lee, H.-S., Tinker, R., Husic, F., & Chiu, J. L. (2006). Teaching and assessing knowledge integration in science. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1131408CrossRef

Liu, O. L., Lee, H.-S., Hofstetter, C., & Linn, M. C. (2008). Assessing knowledge integration in science: Construct, measures, and evidence. Educational Assessment, 13(1), 33–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627190801968224CrossRef

Ministry of Education. (2014). Curriculum guidelines of 12-year basic education: General guidelines. In Taipei: Ministry of Education.

Ministry of Education. (2018). Curriculum guidelines of 12-year basic education for elementary, junior high schools and general senior high schools – Natural sciences. In Taipei: Ministry of Education.

Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction—What is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20347CrossRef

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. National Academies Press.

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. In. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., Van Riesen, S. A., Kamp, E. T., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003CrossRef

Potkonjak, V., Gardner, M., Callaghan, V., Mattila, P., Guetl, C., Petrović, V. M., & Jovanović, K. (2016). Virtual laboratories for education in science, technology, and engineering: A review. Computers & Education, 95, 309–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.02.002CrossRef

Schwartz, R., Lederman, N., & Crawford, B. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 610–645. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10128CrossRef

Slack, S. J., & Stewart, J. (1990). High school students’ problem-solving performance on realistic genetics problems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(1), 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660270106CrossRef

Smith, M., & Gericke, N. (2013). Mendel in the modern classroom. Science & Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-9629-yCrossRef

Stewart, J. (1983). Student problem solving in high school genetics. Science Education, 67(4), 523–540. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730670408CrossRef

Stewart, J. (1988). Potential learning outcomes from solving genetics problems: A typology of problems. Science Education, 72(2), 237–254. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730720211CrossRef

Stewart, J. H. (1982). Difficulties experienced by high school students when learning basic Mendelian genetics. The American Biology Teacher, 44(2), 80–89. https://doi.org/10.2307/4447413CrossRef

Sullivan, S., Gnesdilow, D., Puntambekar, S., & Kim, J.-S. (2017). Middle school students’ learning of mechanics concepts through engagement in different sequences of physical and virtual experiments. International Journal of Science Education, 39(12), 1573–1600. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1341668CrossRef

Teo, T. (2009). Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers. Computers & Education, 52(2), 302–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.08.006CrossRef

Tsui, C.-Y., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Genetics reasoning with multiple external representations. Research in Science Education, 33(1), 111–135. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429443961-7CrossRef

Tsui, C. Y., & Treagust, D. (2010). Evaluating secondary students’ scientific reasoning in genetics using a two-tier diagnostic instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), 1073–1098. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902951429CrossRef

Tsui, C. Y., & Treagust, D. F. (2007). Understanding genetics: Analysis of secondary students’ conceptual status. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: THe Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 44(2), 205–235. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20116CrossRef

Ulus, B., & Oner, D. (2020). Fostering middle school students’ knowledge integration using the Web-based inquiry science environment (WISE). Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(2), 242–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09809-4CrossRef

VanVoorhis, C. R. W., & Morgan, B. L. (2007). Understanding power and rules of thumb for determining sample sizes. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 3(2), 43–50.CrossRef

Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision sciences, 27(3), 451–481. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1996.tb01822.xCrossRef

Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926CrossRef

White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1601_2CrossRef

Yenilmez, A., Sungur, S., & Tekkaya, C. (2006). Students’ achievement in relation to reasoning ability, prior knowledge and gender. Research in Science & Technological Education, 24(1), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140500485498CrossRef

Zhai, X., & Shi, L. (2020). Understanding how the perceived usefulness of mobile technology impacts physics learning achievement: A pedagogical perspective. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(6), 743–757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09852-6CrossRef

Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27(2), 172–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2006.12.001CrossRef

Titel: The Go-Lab Platform, an Inquiry-learning Space: Investigation into Students’ Technology Acceptance, Knowledge Integration, and Learning Outcomes
verfasst von: Chi-Jung Sui
Hsin-Chueh Chen
Ping-Han Cheng
Chun-Yen Chang
Publikationsdatum: 29.11.2022
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Journal of Science Education and Technology / Ausgabe 1/2023
Print ISSN: 1059-0145
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-1839
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-10008-x

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 1/2023

A Phenomenography Study of STEM Teachers’ Conceptions of Using Three-Dimensional Modeling and Printing (3DMP) in Teaching

Examining Science and Technology/Engineering Educators’ Views of Teaching Biomedical Concepts Through Physical Computing

The Impact of Physics Education Technology (PhET) Interactive Simulation-Based Learning on Motivation and Academic Achievement Among Malawian Physics Students

Enhancing Students’ Understanding of Nerve Cells’ Structures and Their Symbiotic Functioning by Using Technology-Enhanced Instruction Incorporating Virtual Labs and Animations

Exploration of Students’ Social Presence in Web-Based Discussion for Conceptual Learning of Organic Chemistry

A Study of Students Engaged in Electronic Circuit Wiring in an Undergraduate Course

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten