Abstract
The purpose of this chapter is to present how the technology-infused learning environment (TILE) research team in Taiwan developed and evaluated innovative learning environments for science education. The three environments presented in this chapter cover important scientific topics and involve real-life issues such as the seasons, air pollution, and water reservoirs. These learning environments aim at facilitating students’ conceptual understanding, cultivating their inquiry abilities, and contributing to the goal of developing independent learners. To achieve these goals, the features of these environments include: (1) helping students visualize scientific concepts and principles to enhance their conceptual understanding; (2) providing multiple linked representations and web-based sharing tools to promote sharing and communication; and (3) integrating innovative and advanced technologies that enable teachers to utilize digital resources and support students in conducting authentic scientific investigations . In the past 5 years, multiple sources of data were collected to evaluate the effectiveness of these environments, and the results suggest that by providing well-designed features, TILEs could support students’ engagement in authentic inquiry and demonstration of desirable learning practices.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers and Education, 33, 131–152.
Chiu, M. H., & Wu, H.-K. (2009). Ways forward: Eliciting students’ mental models and exploring multimedia in science learning. In J. Gilbert & D. Treagust. (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 297–327). New York: Springer.
Dalgarno, B., & Lee, M. J. W. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 10–32. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01038.x.
de Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38(2), 105–134..
Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3&4), 391–450.
Erickson, F. (1998). Qualitative research methods for science education. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 1155–1173). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers’ use of educational technology in U.S. public schools: 2009 (NCES 2010-040). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education.
Hsu, Y. S. (2006). “Lesson rainbow”: The use of multiple representations in an internet-based, discipline-integrated science lesson. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(4), 539–557.
Hsu, Y. S. (2008). Learning about seasons in a technologically enhanced environment: The impact of teacher-guided and student-centered instructional approaches on the process of students’ conceptual change. Science Education, 92(2), 320–344.
Hsu, Y. S., Wu, H.-K., & Hwang, F. K. (2008). Fostering high school students’ conceptual understandings about seasons: The design of a technology-enhanced learning environment. Research in Science Education, 38(2), 127–147.
Lee, Y.-C., & Grace, M. (2012). Making about a socioscientific issue: A cross-context comparison. Science Education, 96(5), 787–807.
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. S. (2009). Synergy between teacher practices and curricular scaffolds to support students in using domain-specific and domain-general knowledge in writing arguments to explain phenomena. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(3), 416–460.
Ministry of Education. (1999). Curriculum outlines for “nature science and living technology”. Taipei: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. (2008). White paper on information technology education for elementary and junior high schools 2008–2011. Taipei, Taiwan.
National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a conceptual framework for new K-12 science education standards. Board on science education, division of behavioral and social sciences and education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Ploetzner, R., Fehse, E., Kneser, C., & Spada, H. (1999). Learning to relate qualitative and quantitative problem representations in a model-based setting for collaborative problem-solving. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 177–214.
Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E. B., Duncan, R. G., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.
Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers and Education, 58(1), 136–153. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.017.
Svenson, O. (1996). Decision making and the search for fundamental psychological regularities: What can be learned from a process perspective? Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 65, 252–267.
Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305–336.
Verdi, M. P., Johnson, J. T., Stock, W. A., Kulhavy, R. W., & Whitman-Ahern, P. (1997). Organized spatial displays and texts: Effects of presentation order and display type on learning outcomes. Journal of Experimental Education, 65(4), 303–317.
White, T. (2008). Debugging an artifact, instrumenting a bug: Dialectics of instrumentation and design in technology-rich learning environments. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 13(1), 1–26. doi:10.1007/s10758-007-9119-x.
Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 165–205.
Wu, H.-K. (2010). Modelling a complex system: Using novice-expert analysis for developing an effective technology-enhanced learning environment. International Journal of Science Education, 32(2), 195–219. doi:10.1080/09500690802478077.
Wu, H.-K., & Puntambekar, S. (2012). Pedagogical affordances of multiple external representations in scientific processes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(6), 754–767. doi:10.1007/s10956-011-9363-7.
Wu, H.-K., & Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science Education, 88, 465–492. doi:10.1002/sce.10126.
Wu, H.-K., Hsu, Y. S., & Hwang, F. K. (2010). Designing a technology-enhanced learning environment to support scientific modeling. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(4), 58–65.
Wu, H.-K., Lin, Y. F., & Hsu, Y. S. (2013a). Effects of representation sequences and spatial ability on students’ scientific understandings about the mechanism of breathing. Instructional Science, 41(3), 555–573. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01379.x.
Wu, H.-K., Wu, P. H., Zhang, W. X., & Hsu, Y. S. (2013b). Investigating college and graduate students’ multivariable reasoning in computational modeling. Science Education, 97, 337–366. doi:10.1002/sce.21056.
Wu, P. H., Wu, H.-K., Kuo, C. Y., & Hsu, Y. S. (in press). Supporting scientific modeling practices in atmospheric sciences: Intended and actual affordances of a computer-based modeling tool. Interactive Learning Environments. doi:10.1080/10494820.2013.807844.
Zhang, J. (2007). A cultural look at information and communication technologies in Eastern education. Education Technology Research Development, 55(3), 301–314.
Zhang, W.-X., Hsu, Y. S., Wang, C. Y., & Ho, Y.-T. (2015). Exploring the impacts of cognitive and metacognitive prompting on students scientific inquiry practices within an E-Learning environment. International Journal of Science Education, 37(3), 529–553. doi:10.1080/09500693.2014.996796.
Zeidler, D. L., Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2003). The role of argument during discourse about socioscientific issues. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 97–116). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
Alternative conceptions of the cause of seasonal change
Mental model | Types of alternative conception |
---|---|
No concept | 1. No conception |
Phenomenal | 2. Pre-experience of phenomena |
 | 2-1. The sun is covered by clouds |
 | 2-2. The moon absorbs the radiation of the sun |
 | 2-3. The tides and ocean flows |
 | 2-4. The planetary wind systems and air pressure |
 | 3. Facing toward or away from the sun |
 | 4. The duration of the sun’s irradiation of the earth |
 | 4-1. The change in the sun’s radiation |
 | 4-2. The length of day and night |
 | 4-3. The duration of sunshine in the northern and southern hemispheres due to the tilt of the earth’s axis |
Assimilatory | 5. The tilt of the earth’s axis causes the change in earth–sun distance and/or sunshine area |
 | 5-1. The angle of the earth’s tilt changes during revolution around the sun |
 | 5-2. The tilt of the earth’s axis means some locations on the earth are close to the sun and some are far away from the sun |
 | 5-3. The “sunshine area” in the northern hemisphere is bigger than that in the southern hemisphere because of the earth’s tilt |
 | 6. It is winter at the aphelion and summer at the perihelion in the northern hemisphere |
Scientific | Â |
 | 7. Partial explanations |
 | 8. Complete scientific explanations |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hsu, YS., Wu, HK. (2016). Development and Evaluation of Technology-Infused Learning Environments in Taiwan. In: Chiu, MH. (eds) Science Education Research and Practices in Taiwan. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-472-6_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-472-6_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-287-471-9
Online ISBN: 978-981-287-472-6
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)