Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Jacksonville, Florida, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-07-0 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA
This paper details the process of creating, developing and testing a mobile science application rubric so as to aid secondary science classroom teachers in selecting and rating science applications for a K-12 student target population and its curricular needs. Quantitative and qualitative data collected during four design cycles resulted in the Mobile App Selection for Science (MASS) Rubric, comprising six items on a four-point response scale. Further comparison of the science content-specific MASS rubric with a general mobile app selection rubric (Evaluation Rubric for Mobile Applications; ERMA) revealed expected results with three item pairs (Pair A, Pair C, and Pair D) demonstrating concurrent validity through significant correlations and one pair (Pair B) displaying the expected divergent validity. Additionally, paired t-tests among each pair indicated a significant difference in participants’ ratings of the apps using the two rubrics.
Santos Green, L., Chassereau, K. & Hechter, R. (2014). Developing a Rubric for the Evaluation of 5th-12th Grade Science Mobile Applications: The Design of MASS. In M. Searson & M. Ochoa (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2014--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2332-2340). Jacksonville, Florida, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 24, 2019 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/131129/.
© 2014 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)
- Ahmed, S., & Parsons, D. (2013). Abductive science inquiry using mobile devices in the classroom. Computers& Education, 63, 62-72.
- Banister, S. (2010). Integrating the iPod touch in K-12 education: Visions and vices. Computers in the Schools, 27(2), 121-131.
- Chen S., Kao T., & Sheu, J. (2003) A mobile learning system for scaffolding bird watching learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 347-359.
- Clark, R.E. (2005). Five common but questionable principles of multimedia learning. In R.E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- De Waal, C. (2001). On Pierce. Bedmont, CA: Wadsworth.
- Ertmer, P.A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A.T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers& Education, 59, 423-435.
- Guba, E. & Lincoln, Y. (1988). Do inquiry paradigms imply inquiry methodologies? In D.M Fettermen (Ed.), Qualitative approaches to evaluation in education: The silent scientific revolution. (pp. 89-115). New York: Praeger.
- Huang, Y.-M., Lin, Y.-T., & Cheng, S.-C. (2010). Effectiveness of a mobile plant learning system in a science curriculum in Taiwanese elementary education. Computers& Education, 54, 47-58.
- Hwang, G.-J., & Chang, H.-F. (2011). A formative assessment-based mobile learning approach to improving the learning attitudes and achievements of students. Computers& Education, 56, 1023-1031.
- Johnson, R.B. & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
- Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Burden, K., & Aubusson, P. (2012). Viewing mobile learning from a pedagogical perspective. Research in Learning Technology, 20, 1-17.
- Li, S.C., & Pow, J.C. (2011). Affordance of dep infusion of the one-to-one tablet-PCs into and beyond the classroom. International Journal of Instructional Media, 38(4), 319-326.
- Luft, J. (1999). Rubrics: Design and use in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10(2), 107-121.
- Murray, O., & Olcese, N. (2011). Teaching and learning with iPads, ready or not? TechTrends, 55(6), 42-48.
- National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
- National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
- Onquegbuzie, A.J., & Leech, N.L. (2004). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(5), 375387.
- Park, J., Parsons, D., & Ryu, H. (2010). To flow and not to freeze: Applying flow experience to mobile learning. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 3(1), 56-67.
- Patton, C. (2002). Project WHIRL Design Rubric. SRI International, Menlo Park: CA.
- Peng, H., Su, Y.-J., Chou, C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2009). Ubiquitous knowledge construction: Mobile learning re-defined and a conceptual framework. Innovations in Education& Teaching International, 46, 171-183.
- Radinsky, J., Bouillion, L., Lento, E.M., & Gomez, L.M. (2001). Mutual benefit partnership: A curricular design for authenticity. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(4), 405-430.
- Sha, L, Looi, C.-K., Chen, W., & Zhang, B.H. (2012). Understanding mobile learning from the perspective of selfregulated learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28, 366-378.
- Schrock, K. (2013). IPads in the classroom. Retrieved February 18, 2013, from http://www.schrockguide.net/ipads-inthe-classroom.html
- Sung, E., & Mayer, R.E. (2013). Online multimedia learning with mobile devices and desktop computers: An experimental test of Clark’s methods-not-media hypothesis. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 639-647.
- Traxler, J. (2007). Current state of mobile learning. International Review on Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(2), 1-10.
- Ting, Y.-L. (2012). The pitfalls of mobile devices in learning: A different view and implications for pedagogical design. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(2), 119-134.
- Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. MIT Press: Cambridge.
- Walker, H. (2011). Evaluating the effectiveness of apps for mobile devices. Journal of Special Education Technology, 26(4), 59-63.
These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact email@example.com.