You are here:

Integrating Computational and Modeling Technology with Problem-based Learning to Improve Teaching and Learning in the Core STEM Curriculum
PROCEEDINGS

, , , , , UNC Wilmington, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in San Diego, CA, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-78-5 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

The “Using Squeak to Infuse Information Technology Project (USeIT)” is a NSF funded project. The project is designed to offer expanded Information Technology (IT) experiences to middle and high school students and teachers by exploiting the Squeak Etoys media authoring tool as a simulation and modeling environment and problem-based learning as a core pedagogy to infuse IT skills into the core STEM curriculum. The purpose of this paper is to describe the professional development component of the USeIT project, its scope, conceptual framework and research questions, the methods and strategies used to collect data regarding improvement in teaching and learning process in the STEM curriculum.

Citation

Moallem, M., Morge, S., Narayan, S., Tagliarini, G. & Daniels, K. (2010). Integrating Computational and Modeling Technology with Problem-based Learning to Improve Teaching and Learning in the Core STEM Curriculum. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2010--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 3319-3326). San Diego, CA, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 6, 2021 from .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Akpan, J.R., & Andre, T. (2000). Using computer simulation before dissection to help students learn anatomy. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 19, pp. 997-313.
  2. Bell, P.L. (2004). On the theoretical breadth of design-based research in education. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 243-253. 141-178.
  3. Biggs, J.B.(1996) Enhancing Teaching Through Constructive Alignment. Higher Education, 32, 1-18.
  4. Boylan, H.R. (2002). What Works: Research-Based Best Practices in Developmental Education. Continuous Quality Improvement Network/National Center for Developmental Education.
  5. Bransford, J. & Brown, A.L. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition. National Research Council Committee on Learning Research and Educational Practice.
  6. Brown, A.L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2).
  7. Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon& T.O'Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology (pp. 15-22). New York: Springer-Verlag.
  8. Collins, A., Bielaczyc, K., & Joseph, D. (2004). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15-42.
  9. Collins, A., Brown, J.S., & Newman, S.E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
  10. Edelson, D.C. (2002). Design Research: What we learn when we engage in design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105-121.
  11. Flavell, J.H. (1987). Speculation about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp.21-29). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  12. Hartman, H. (2001). Developing Students’ Metacognitive Knowledge and Skills. In H.J. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in Learning and Instruction. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  13. Hmelo-Silver, C.E., Duncan, R.G., & Chinn, C.A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42, 99– 107.
  14. Hobden, P. (1998). The role of routine problem tasks in science teaching. In B.J.T. Fraser, K.G. (Ed.), International Handbook of Science Education (Vol. Part 1, pp. 219-231). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  15. Hollingworth, R.W., & McLoughlin, C. (2001). Developing science students' metacognitive problem solving skills online, Australian Journal of Educational Technology 2001, 17(1), 50-63.
  16. Jonassen, D. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools. Engaging critical thinking (2nd ed.). Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Matthews, Christine M. (Sept. 2007) Congressional Research Service, Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Status and Issues. Available online[ http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1036&context=crs:], 21-22.
  17. Papert, S (1993). The children's machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York, NY: BasicBooks.
  18. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.
  19. Roueche, J.E. & Snow, J. (1977). Overcoming Learning Problems. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Schwartz, J.L.: 1987, 'The geometricMathematics,
  20. Schwartz, J.L. (1987). 'The geometric supposer: Using microcomputers to restore invention to the learning of mathematics. In I. Wirszup and R. Streit (eds.), Developments in School Mathematics Education Around the World, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, VA, pp. 623-636.
  21. Simons, K.D., & Ertmer, P.A. (2006). Scaffolding disciplined inquiry in problem-based learning environments. International Journal of Learning, 12(6), 297–305.
  22. Steinberg, R.N. (2000). Computers in teaching science: To simulate or not to simulate? Phys. Educ. Res., Am. J. Phys. Suppl. 68, 16-24.
  23. Yerushalmy, M., Chazan, D., Gordon, M., & Houde, R. (1986). Guided inquiry and technology: A year-long study of children and teachers using the Geometric Supposer (Technical report No. 88-6). Educational Technology Center, Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, MA.
  24. Vahey, P., Enyedy, N., & Gifford, B. (2001). Learning probability through the use of a collaborative, inquirybased simulation environment. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11(1), pp. 51-84.
  25. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  26. Wang, F., & Hannafin, M.J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5-23.

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

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections