You are here:

Development of an E-Learning Framework for Web-based Project-Based Learning in Science
PROCEEDINGS

, , , , University of Houston-Downtown, United States

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Washington, DC, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-54-9 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA

Full Text

Abstract

HUNSTEM (Houston Urban Network for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) is a technology-based project that is rooted in a solid theoretical framework. Visualization tools, constructivism, informal science education, and project-based learning form the foundation of this interactive network that will provide a new way of thinking and understanding. Furthermore, it is guided by the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) and the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills. HUNSTEM can serve as a model of how technology can be utilized in an effective manner to promote the interests of many diversified groups in a particular geographic area, who all share a common interest in STEM education and awareness.

Citation

Slough, S., Aoki, J., Hoge, B. & Spears, L. (2004). Development of an E-Learning Framework for Web-based Project-Based Learning in Science. In J. Nall & R. Robson (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2004--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 957-962). Washington, DC, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 11, 2024 from .

© 2004 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Anderson, D. (1999). Understanding the impact of post-visit activities on students' knowledge construction of electricity and magnetism as a result of a visit to an interactive science centre. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
  2. Aoki, J.M. (2003). The perceptions of inquiry held by Greater Houston-area science supervisors. Unpublished doct oral dissertation, University of Houston.
  3. Benton Foundation (1998). Losing ground bit by bit: Low-income communities in the information age. Washington, DC.
  4. Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 369- 398.
  5. Brice Heath, S., and Smyth, L. (1999) ArtShow: Youth and community development. Washington, DC: Partners for Livable Communities.
  6. Clark, G. (1994). Rescuing the discourse of community. College composition and communication, 45, 61-
  7. Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23, 13- 20.
  8. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The Jas per Series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program description, and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 291- 315. Crawford, B.A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37 (9), 916- 937.
  9. Dewey, J. (1959). My pedagogic creed. In Dewey on Education (P. 30). New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
  10. Epstein, J.L. (1995) School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the childre n we share . Phi Delta Kappan , 79(9), 701 - 711.
  11. Friedler, Y., Nachmias, R., & Linn, M. C. (1990). Learning scientific reasoning skills in Microcomputerbased laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 27(2), 173- 191.
  12. Gobert, J. & Clement, J. (1999). The effects of student-generated diagrams versus student-generated summaries on conceptual understanding of spatial, causal, and dynamic knowledge in plate tectonics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 36(1), 39- 53.
  13. Gordin, D., Edelson, D. C., & Gomez, L. (1996, July). Scientific visualization as an interpretive and expressive medium. In D. Edelson & E. Domeshek (Eds.), Proceedings of the second international conference on the learning sciences (pp. 409 - 414). Charlottesville, VA: Association of the Advancement of Computers in Education.
  14. Hestenes, D. (1997). Modeling Methodology for Physics Teachers. In E. Redish & J. Rigden (Eds.) The changing role of the physics department in modern universities, American Institute of Physics Part II. P . 935- 957. Hung, D., Chen, D -T., Tan, S.C. (2003). A social-constructivist adaptation of case-based reasoning: Integrating goal-based scenarios with computer-supported collaborative learning. Educational Technology, 43(2), 30 -35.
  15. Johnson, D.W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 47- 62. Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Evaluating constructivistic learning. Educational Technology, 31, 28- 33. Jonassen, D. (2000). Computers as Mindtools for Schools: Engaging Critical Thinking. 2nd Ed. Upper Saddle River: NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
  16. Knapp, M.S. (1997). Between systemic reforms and the mathematics and science classroom: The dynamics
  17. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (1999). Instructional, curricular, and technological supports for inquiry in science classrooms. In. J. Minstrell & E. Van Zee (Eds.). Inquiry into inquiry science learning and teaching. Washington, DC: American Associatio n for the Advancement of Science Press. Krajcik, J.S., Soloway, E., Blumenfeld, P., & Marx, R.W. (1998). Scaffolded technology tools to promote teaching and learning in science. In C. Dede (Ed.), 1998 ASCD Yearbook: Learning and Technology (31- 45). Lemke. (2000). Articulating Communities: Sociocultural Perspectives on Science Education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 38, 296- 316 .
  18. Levin, J. R., Anglin, G. J., & Carney, R. N. (1987). On empirically validating functions of pictures in prose. In D. M. Willows & H. A. Houghton (Eds.), The psychology of illustration, vol. 1, Basic research. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  19. Lunetta, V.N. (1997). The role of laboratory in school science. In Tobin, D. & Fraser, B.J. (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Educa tion. The Netherlands: Kluwer.
  20. Madden, J.C. (1985) To realize our museums' full potential. Journal of Museum Education, 10(4), 3- 5. Mokros, J. R., & Tinker, R. F. (1987). The Impact of microcomputer-based labs on children's ability to interpret graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(4), 369- 383.
  21. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
  22. O’Loughlin, M. (1992). Rethinking science education: Beyond Piagetian constructivism toward a sociocultural model of teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 791 - 820. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms. New York: Basic Books.
  23. Prather, J.P. (1993). Reform revisited: The trend toward constructivist learning. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 5, 52 -70.
  24. Ramey-Gassert, L. (1997). Learning science beyond the classroom. The Elementary School Journal, 97(4), 433 -450.
  25. Ramey-Gassert, L., Shroyer, M.G., and Staver, J. (1996). A qualitative study of factors influencing science teaching self-efficacy or elementary level teachers. Science Education, 80(3), 283 -315.
  26. Resnick, L.B. (1987). The 1987 Presidential address: Learning in and out of school. Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13 -19.
  27. Russel, R.L. (1996). The role of science museums in teacher education. Informal Science Review, 19, 16. Rysavy, S. D. M., & Sales, G. C. (1991). Cooperative learning in computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39, 70 -79.
  28. Saunders, W.L. (1992). The constructivist perspective: Implications and teaching strategies for science. School Science and Mathematics, 92, 136- 141.
  29. Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20 (3), 2-9 .
  30. Schank, P., & Kozma, R. (2002). Learning Chemistry Through the Use of a Representation-Based
  31. Semper, R.J. (1990). Science museums as environments for learning. Physics Today, 43, 2- 8.
  32. Shotter, J. (1995). In dialogue: Social constuctionism and radical constructivism. In L.P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructism in education (pp. 41- 56). Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.
  33. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scriber, & E. Souberman (Eds. And trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References