Kesan interaksi media pengajaran, kaedah belajar, dan tahap pencapaian pelajar terhadap tahap kefahaman konsep gerakan melalui tugasan POE

Kesan interaksi media pengajaran, kaedah belajar, dan tahap pencapaian pelajar terhadap tahap kefahaman konsep gerakan melalui tugasan POE

In The Third International Mathematics and Science Study that is produced in every four years time, it is reported that Malaysians students are less capable to understand the concepts of Physics. Thus, this study aimed to identify the effects of a multimedia program on the level of understanding of...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Aminudin, Ab. Rahman
Format: Thesis
Language:eng
eng
Published: 2014
Subjects:
LB Theory and practice of education
Online Access:https://etd.uum.edu.my/4436/1/s92421.pdf
https://etd.uum.edu.my/4436/2/s92421_abstract.pdf
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id my-uum-etd.4436
record_format uketd_dc
institution Universiti Utara Malaysia
collection UUM ETD
language eng
eng
advisor Shaari, Ahmad Jelani
topic LB Theory and practice of education
spellingShingle LB Theory and practice of education
Aminudin, Ab. Rahman
Kesan interaksi media pengajaran, kaedah belajar, dan tahap pencapaian pelajar terhadap tahap kefahaman konsep gerakan melalui tugasan POE
description In The Third International Mathematics and Science Study that is produced in every four years time, it is reported that Malaysians students are less capable to understand the concepts of Physics. Thus, this study aimed to identify the effects of a multimedia program on the level of understanding of the concept of motion for Physics in secondary schools involving 240 students in twelve groups.The 2 X 2 X 3 factorial study involved three independent variables: instructional media (computer simulation and reading), study method (individual and pair) and students’ ability levels (high, medium and low), and one dependent variable (comprehension level in Physics). Findings showed that the main effect of instructional media (computer simulation and reading) and students’ ability levels (high, medium and low) were significant. Instructional had different effect on the comprehension level in Physics. Students sat for a post-test in Physics comprehension in this study. Findings also showed that students perceived positively towards the use of slow motion and replay features in the video clip when performing the Predict-Observe-Explain (POE) task. The findings from the student survey also found that discussion during the POE tasks helped them to better understand the concept of motion in Physics. Based on the findings of the study, computer-assisted instructional media should be given emphasis in science education, particularly for students with low ability level but not for high ability students. The combination of POE tasks and computer-assisted instructional media is an effective method in Science education.
format Thesis
qualification_name Ph.D.
qualification_level Doctorate
author Aminudin, Ab. Rahman
author_facet Aminudin, Ab. Rahman
author_sort Aminudin, Ab. Rahman
title Kesan interaksi media pengajaran, kaedah belajar, dan tahap pencapaian pelajar terhadap tahap kefahaman konsep gerakan melalui tugasan POE
title_short Kesan interaksi media pengajaran, kaedah belajar, dan tahap pencapaian pelajar terhadap tahap kefahaman konsep gerakan melalui tugasan POE
title_full Kesan interaksi media pengajaran, kaedah belajar, dan tahap pencapaian pelajar terhadap tahap kefahaman konsep gerakan melalui tugasan POE
title_fullStr Kesan interaksi media pengajaran, kaedah belajar, dan tahap pencapaian pelajar terhadap tahap kefahaman konsep gerakan melalui tugasan POE
title_full_unstemmed Kesan interaksi media pengajaran, kaedah belajar, dan tahap pencapaian pelajar terhadap tahap kefahaman konsep gerakan melalui tugasan POE
title_sort kesan interaksi media pengajaran, kaedah belajar, dan tahap pencapaian pelajar terhadap tahap kefahaman konsep gerakan melalui tugasan poe
granting_institution Universiti Utara Malaysia
granting_department Awang Had Salleh Graduate School of Arts & Sciences
publishDate 2014
url https://etd.uum.edu.my/4436/1/s92421.pdf
https://etd.uum.edu.my/4436/2/s92421_abstract.pdf
_version_ 1776103644412772352
spelling my-uum-etd.44362023-04-02T00:42:31Z Kesan interaksi media pengajaran, kaedah belajar, dan tahap pencapaian pelajar terhadap tahap kefahaman konsep gerakan melalui tugasan POE 2014 Aminudin, Ab. Rahman Shaari, Ahmad Jelani Awang Had Salleh Graduate School of Arts & Sciences Awang Had Salleh Graduate School of Arts and Sciences LB Theory and practice of education In The Third International Mathematics and Science Study that is produced in every four years time, it is reported that Malaysians students are less capable to understand the concepts of Physics. Thus, this study aimed to identify the effects of a multimedia program on the level of understanding of the concept of motion for Physics in secondary schools involving 240 students in twelve groups.The 2 X 2 X 3 factorial study involved three independent variables: instructional media (computer simulation and reading), study method (individual and pair) and students’ ability levels (high, medium and low), and one dependent variable (comprehension level in Physics). Findings showed that the main effect of instructional media (computer simulation and reading) and students’ ability levels (high, medium and low) were significant. Instructional had different effect on the comprehension level in Physics. Students sat for a post-test in Physics comprehension in this study. Findings also showed that students perceived positively towards the use of slow motion and replay features in the video clip when performing the Predict-Observe-Explain (POE) task. The findings from the student survey also found that discussion during the POE tasks helped them to better understand the concept of motion in Physics. Based on the findings of the study, computer-assisted instructional media should be given emphasis in science education, particularly for students with low ability level but not for high ability students. The combination of POE tasks and computer-assisted instructional media is an effective method in Science education. 2014 Thesis https://etd.uum.edu.my/4436/ https://etd.uum.edu.my/4436/1/s92421.pdf text eng public https://etd.uum.edu.my/4436/2/s92421_abstract.pdf text eng public Ph.D. doctoral Universiti Utara Malaysia Abell, S. K., & Lederman, N. G. (2007) Preface. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, Publisher. Abraham, M. R., Williamson, V. M., & Westbrook, S. L. (1994). A cross-age study of the understanding of five chemistry concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(2), 147-165. Adesoji, F. A. (1992). A comparative analysis of problem-solving and self-learning techniques in teaching electrolysis. Ile-Ife: Obafemi Awolowo University. Adesoji, F. A. (1995). Students’ ability levels and their competence in a self- directed problem-solving task. Ife Journal of Curriculum Studies and Development, 1(1), 55-61. Adesoji, F. A. (1997). Average Students and Effectiveness of Problem-Solving Instructional Strategies. Ife Journal of Educational Studies, 4(1), 16-19. Adesoji, F. A. (2008). Students’ ability levels and effectiveness of problem-solving instructional strategy. Journal Of Social Science, 17(1), 5-8. Adeyemi, B. A. (2008). Effect of cooperative learning and problem-solving strategies on junior secondary school students achievement in social studies. Electronic Journal of Research In Educational Psychology, 6(3), 691-708. Alessi S. M. & Trollip, S. R. (2001). Multimedia for learning: methods and development (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press. Anderson, A., Tolmie, A., McAteer, E., & Demissie, A. (1993). Software style and interaction around the microcomputer. Computers Education, 20(3), 235-250. Anderson, C. W. (2007). Perspectives on science learning. In S. K. Abell, & N. G. Lederman (ed.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 3-30). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Anderson, R. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–2. Anglin, G. J., Towers, R. L., & Levie, W. H. (1996). Visual message design and learning: The Role of Static and dynamic illustration. In D. H Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology, 755-794. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Aronson, E., Bridgeman, D., & Geffner, R. (1978). Interdependent interactions and pro-social behavior. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 12, 16-27. Ary, D., Jacob, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (1996). Introduction to research in education. Orlando: Holt, Rinehart & Winston Inc. Ash, K. (2009). High-tech simulations linked to learning. Education Week, 28(28), 20-23. Ashfahani Zakaria (2001). The use of web-based learning to improve students’ achievement and motivation on the topic of nuclear energy. Kuala Lumpur: Universiti Malaya. Azidah Abu Ziden & Muhammad Faizal (2013). The effectiveness of web-based multimedia applications simulation in teaching and learning. International Journal of Instruction, 6(2), 211-222. Azmitia, M. (1996). Peer interactive minds: Developmental, theoretical, and methodological issues. In P. B. Baltes & U. M Staudinger (Eds.), Interactive minds: Life-span perspectives on the social foundation of cognition (pp. 133-162). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Azzarito, L., & Ennisb, C. D. (2003). A sense of connection: Toward social constructivist physical education. Sport Educ. Soc., 8, 179-197. Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, 27(6), 12-25. Barrow, L. H. (2006). A Brief History of Inquiry: From Dewey to Standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(3), 265-278. Basden, B. H., Basden, D. R., & Henry, S. (2000). Cost and benefits of collaborative remembering. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 497-507. Beck, S. A., & Huse, V. E. (2007). A virtual spin on the teaching of probability. Teaching Children Mathematics, 13(9), 482-486. Beasley, W. (1982). Teacher demonstration: The effect on student task involvement, Journal of Chemical Education, 59(9), 789-790. Beichner, R. (1996). The Impact of video motion analysis on kinematics graph interpretation skill. AAPT Announcer, 26, 28. Bell, R. L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction: Assessing the inquiry level of classroom activities. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 30–33. Bello, F. O. (2011). Effect of group instructional strategy on students’ performance in selected physics concepts. An online journal of the African Educational Research Network. 11(1), 71-79. Ben-Ari, R., & Kedem-Friedrich, P. (2000). Restructuring heterogeneous classes for cognitive development: Social interactive perspective. Instructional Science, 28, 153-167. Bennett, N., & Dunne, E. (1991) The nature and quality of talk in cooperative classroom groups. Learning and Instruction, 1, 103-118. Berndt, T. (1999). Friends: influence on students’ adjustment to school. Educational Psychologist, 34, 15-28. Biggs, J. B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university (2nd ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press. Bitter, G. G., & Pierson, M. E. (2005). Using technology in the classroom (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Blumenfeld, P., 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, 369-398. Bolyard, J. J., & Moyer, P. S. (2003). Investigations in algebra with virtual manipulatives. ON Math Online Journal of School Mathematics, 2(2), 1-10. Bossert, S. T. (1988). Cooperative activities in the classroom. Review of Research in Education, 15, 225-250. Bosco, J. (1984). Interactive video: Educational tool or toy? Educational Technology, 24(3), 13-19. Breakey, K. M., Levin, D., Miller I., & Hentges, K. E. (2008). The use of scenariobased-learning interactive software to create custom virtual laboratory scenarios for teaching genetics. Genetics, 179(3), 1151-1155. Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development. Brown, J. S., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educ. Res., 18, 32-42. Burton, D. (2009). Developing teaching and learning strategies. In S. Capel, R. Heilbronn, M. Leask, & T. Turner (Eds.), Starting to Teach in the Secondary School: A Companion for the Newly Qualified Teacher. London: Routledge Falmer. Caffarella, R. (1993). Self-directed learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 57, 25-35. Campbell, B., & Lubben, F. (2000). Learning science through contexts: Helping pupils make sense of every situations. International Journal of Science Education, 22(3), 239-252. 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, 33, 625–656. Champagne, A. B., Gunstone, R. F., & Klopfer, L. E. (1985). Instructional consequences of students’ knowledge about physical phenomena. In L. H. T. West & A. L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change (pp. 61-68). New York: Academic Press. Chandler, P. (2004). The crucial role of cognitive processes in the design of dynamic visualizations. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 353-357. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive Load Theory and the Format of Instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293-332. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Children’s responses to anomalous scientific data: How is conceptual change impeded? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 327–343. Chiu, J., & Linn, M. (2008). Self-assessment and self-explanation for learning chemistry using dynamic molecular visualizations international perspectives in the learning sciences: creating a learning world. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (Vol. 3, pp. 16-17). Utrecht, The Netherlands: International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. Choi, H., & Yang, M. (2011). The effect of problem-based video instruction on student satisfaction, empathy, and learning achievement in the Korean teacher education context. Journal of High Education, 62, 551-561. Chou, P. N., & Chen, W. F. (2008). Exploratory study of the relationship between self-directed learning and academic performance in a web-based learning environment. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 11(1). Clark, D., & Sampson, V. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253-277. Clark, S. E., Hori, A., Putnam, A., & Martin, T. S. (2000). Group collaboration in recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(6) 1578-1588. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2002). The role of technology in early childhood learning. Teaching Children Mathematics, 8(6), 340-343. Cobern, W. (1993). Contextual constructivism: The impact of culture on the learning and teaching of science. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Elbraum. Cohen, E. (1994b). Restructuring the classroom: Condition for productive small group. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1-35. Corcoran, T., & Silander, M. (2009)Instruction in high schools: The evidence and the challenge. The future of children: America’s high schools, 19(1), 157– 183. Crook, C. (1994). Computer and the collaborative experience of learning. London: Routledge. Crook, C. (1998). Children as a computer users: The case of collaborative learning. Computer Education, 30(4), 237-147. Crooks, S. M., Klein, J. D., Savenye, W., & Leader, L. (1998). Effects of cooperative individual learning during learner-controlled computer instruction. The Journal of Experimental Education, 66(3), 223-224. Crooks, S. M.., Klein, J. D., Jones, E., & Dwyer, H. (1996). Effects of cooperative learning and learner-control modes in computer-based instruction. Journal of Research of Computing in Education, 29(2), 109-123. Damon, W., & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 9-21. Davidson, N. (1985). Small-group learning and teaching in mathematics: A selective review of the research. In R. E. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck (Eds.), Learning to cooperating to learn (pp. 211-230). New York: Plenum. De Jong, T. & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179–201. Demir, M. F. (2009). Effects of virtual manipulatives with open-ended versus structured questions on students' knowledge of slope. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. Dewey, J. (1916) Democracy and Education. An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Free Press. Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. (2009). Systematic design of instruction (7th ed.). Toronto: Allyn & Bacon. Drickey, N. A. (2000). A comparison of virtual and physical manipulatives in teaching visualization and spatial reasoning to middle school mathematics students Doctoral dissertation, Utah State University, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(02A), 499. Driver, R. (1983). The pupil as scientist? Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupil and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61-84. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Laech, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312. Duffy, T., & Cunninggham, D. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. New York: Macmillan. Duit, R., & Confrey, J. (1996). Reorganizing the curriculum and teaching to improve learning in science and mathematics. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics. New York and London: Teachers College Press. Duschl, R. & Gitomer, D. (1991). Epistemological perspectives on conceptual change: implications for educational practice. Journal Research of Science Teaching, 28(9), 839-858. Edelson, D. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technologysupported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355-385. Edelson, D. Gordon, D., & Pea, R. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquirybased learning through technology and curriculum design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3&4), 391-450. Effandi Zakaria. (2003). Kesan pembelajaran koperatif ke atas pelajar-pelajar dalam kelas matematik di matrikulasi. Tesis Ph.D. Fakulti Pendidikan. UKM. Ehindero, (1980). Cognitive Styles, Sex and Achievement in Biology. In S.O. Oyekan (Ed.), Journal of Education and Society, 2, 141-152. Escalada, L., & Zollman, D. (1997). An investigation on the effects of using interactive digital video in physics classroom on student learning and attitudes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 34(5), 467-489. Fagen, A. P. (2003). Assessing and enhancing the introductory science course in physics and biology; peer instruction, classroom demonstration and genetics vocabulary (Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64, 1586. Felder R. M. & Prince, M. J. (2007). The Case for Inductive Teaching. ASEE Prism, 17(2), 55. Finlay, F., Hitch, G. J, & Meudell, P. R. (2000). Mutual inhibition in collaborative recall: Evidence for a retrieval-based account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(6), 1556-1567. Fosnot, C. T., (2005). Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and Practice. (2nd ed.). New York: Teacher's College Press. Frankfort, C., & Nachmias, D. (2000). Research methods in the social science. (6th ed.). New York : Worth Publisher. Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., & Karns, K. (2001). Enhancing kindergartners’ mathematical development: Effects of peer-assisted learning strategies. The Elementary School Journal, 101(5), 495-510. Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Kazdan, S., & Allen, S. (1998). Effects of peer-assisted learning strategies in reading with and without training in elaborated help giving. The Elementary School Journal, 99(3), 201-219. Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Kazdan, S.,Karns, K., Calhoon, M., Hamlett, C., & Hewlett, S. (2000). Effects of workgroup structure and size on student productivity during collaborative work on complex tasks. The Elementary School Journal, 100(3), 183-212. Fuller, R. (1992). Millikan lecture 1992: Hypermedia and the knowing of physics: Standing on the shoulders of giants. American Journal of Physic, 61(4), 300-304. Furtak, E. M. (2009). Formative assessment for secondary science teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA; Corwin Press. Gabriele, A., & Montecinos, C. (2001). Collaborating with a skilled peer: The influence of achievement goals and perceptions of partners’ competence on the participation and learning of low-achieving students. The Journal of Experimental Education, 69(2), 152-178. Gagne, R., Wager, W., Golas, K., & Keller, J. (2005). Principles of instructional design (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/ Thompson Learning. Gall, M. D., Borg. W. R., Gall, J. P. (2003). Educational research: An introduction. (7th ed.). White Plains, New York: Longman. Gallagher, J. J. (2000) Teaching for understanding and application of sciences knowledge. School Science and Mathematics, 100(6), 310-318. Gamor, K. I. (2001). Moving virtuality into reality: A comparison study of the effectiveness of traditional and alternative assessments of learning in a multisensory, fully immersive physics program. Virginia: George Mason University. Gillies, R. (2000). The maintenance of cooperative and helping behaviors in cooperative groups. British Journal Of Education Psychology, 70, 97-111. Goor, M., & Schwenn, J. (1993). Accommodating diversity and disability with cooperative learning. Intervention in School and Clinic, 29, 6-16. Grayson, D. J., & McDermott, L. C. (1996). Use of the computer for research on student thinking in physics, American Journal of Physics, 64, 557-565. Green, D. (1998). Cognitive Sciences: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Greenwood, C., Delquadri, J., & Hall, R. (1989). Longitudinal effects of class wide peer tutoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 371-383. Gross, M. (1998). Analysis of human movement using digital video. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 7(4), 375-395. Guevara, F. D. (2009). Assistive technology as a cognitive developmental tool for students with learning disabilities using 2nd and 3rd computer objects. (Master’s thesis). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. Gunstone, R. (1990). Children’s science: A decade of developments in constructivism views of science teaching and learning. The Australian Science Teachers Journal, 34(3), 303-818. Gunstone, R. F. (1995). Constructivist learning and the teaching of science. In B. Hand & V. Prain (Eds.), Teaching and learning science: The constructivist classroom (pp. 3-20). Sydney: Harcourt Brace. Hannafin, M. J., & Hill, J. R. (2002). Epistemology and the design of learning environments. In R. A. Reiser, & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall. Hardwood, W., & McMahon, M. (1997). Effects of integrated video media on student achievement and attitudes in high school chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(6), 617-631. Harlen, W. (2002). Links to everyday life: The roots of scientific literacy. Primary Science Review, 71, 8-10. Harlow, S. M., & Cummings, S. R. (2006). Karl Popper and Jean Piaget: A Rational for Constructivism. The Educational Forum. West Lafayette, 71(1), 41. Hastie, R. (1986). Experimental evidence on group accuracy. In B. Grofman & G. Guillermo (Eds.), Information pooling a group decision making (pp. 129-157). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Hegarty, M., Kriz, S., & Cate, C. (2003). The roles of mental animations and external animations in understanding mechanical systems. Cognition and Instruction, 21(4), 325-360. Hegarty, M., Narayanan, N. H., & Freitas, P. (2002). Understanding machines from multimedia and hypermedia presentations. In J. Otero, A. C. Graesser, & J. Leon (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 357–384). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hegarty, M., Quilici, J., Narayanan, N. H., Holmquist, S., & Moreno, R. (1999). Multimedia instruction: Lessons from evaluation of a theory based design. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 8, 119– 150. Highfield, K., & Mulligan, J. (2007). The role of dynamic interactive technological tools in preschoolers’ mathematical patterning. In J. Watson & K. Beswick (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 372-381): MERGA Inc. Hitchcock, C. H., & Noonan, M. J. (2000). Computer-assisted instruction of early academic skills. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20(3), 145- 158. Hoffer, T., Radke, & Lord. R. (1992). Qualitative/quantitative study of the effectiveness of computer-assisted interaction Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 11(1), 3-12. Hoffman, B., & Ritchie, D. (1997). Using multi-technic to overcome the problems with problem based learning. Instructional Science, 25(2), 97–115. Hooper, S. (1992). Effects of peer interaction during computer-based mathematics instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 85(3), 180-189. Hooper, S. R., Ward, T. J., Hannafin, M. J., & Clark, H. T. (1989). The effects of aptitude composition on achievement during small-group learning. Journal Of Computer-Based Instruction, 16, 102-109. Hooper, S., & Hannafin, M. (1988). Cooperative CBI: The effects of heterogeneous versus homogeneous grouping on the learning of progressively complex concepts. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4(4), 413-424. Hunter, A. B., Laursen, S.L., Seymour, E., Thiry, H., & Melton, G. (2010). Summer scientists: Establishing the value of shared research for science faculty and their students. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Iroegbu, T. O. (1998). Problem-based learning, Numerical ability and Gender as Determinants of Achievement in Line Graphing Skills and Meaningful Learning in Energy Concepts. Ibadan: University of Ibadan, Nigeria. Jager, T. (2012). Using Visual Media to Enhance Science Teaching and Learning in Historically Disadvantaged Secondary Schools. International Proceedings of Economics Development and Research, 47(1), 1-6. Jarman, R. and McAleese, L. (1996). A survey of children’s reported use of school science in their everyday lives. Research Papers in Education, 55, 1-15. Jaworski, B., (1994). Investigating mathematics teaching: A constructivist enquiry. London: Falmer Press. Jehng, J. C. J. (1997). The psycho-social processes and cognitive effects of peerbased collaborative instructions with computers. Journal od educational Computing Research, 17(1), 19-46. Jimoyiannis, A., & Komis, V. (2001). Computer simulations in teaching and learning physics: A case study concerning students’ understanding of trajectory motion. Journal of Computers & Education, 36(2), 183-204. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. (2009). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1999) Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (6 th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1987). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning. New Jersey, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Johnson, P., & Gott, R. (1996). Constructivism and evidence from children’s ideas. Journal of Science Education, 80,561-577. Johnson, R. T., Johnson, D. W., & Stanne, M. (1985). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on computer assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 668–677. Johnson, R. T., Johnson, D. W., & Stanne, M. (1986). Comparison of computer assisted cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 382–392. Johnson, R., Johnson, D., & Stanne, M. (1995). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 668-677. Jonassen, D. H. (2009). Reconciling a human cognitive structure. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: success or failure? New York, NY: Routledge. Jonassen, D., Davidson M., Collins M., Campbell J. & Haag B. B. (1995). Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 9, 7-26. Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D.H. Jonassen (Eds.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp.693719). New York: Macmillan. Kearney, M. (2002). Classrooms used of multimedia-supported predict-observeexplain tasks to elicit and promote discussion about students’ physics conceptions. Perth: Curtin University of Technology. Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia. (2012). Pelan Pembangunan Pendidikan Malaysia 2013-2015 Kuala Lumpur: Bahagian Perancangan dan Penyelidikan Dasar Pendidikan. Kempa, R. F., & Dube C. E. (1974). Science Interest and Attitude Traits in Students Subsequent to the Study of Chemistry at the Ordinary Level of the G.C.E. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 11(4), 361-370. Kim, S. Y. (1993). The relative effectiveness of hands-on and computer-simulated manipulatives in teaching serration, classification, geometric, and arithmetic concepts to kindergarten children. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54-09A, 3319. King, A. (1992). Facilitating elaborative learning through guided student-generated questioning. Educational Psychologist, 27, 111-126. Klahr, D., Triona, L., & Williams, C. (2007). Hands on what? The relative effectiveness of physical versus virtual materials in an engineering design project by middle school children. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 183-203. Klein, J. D., & Pridemore, D. R. (1994) Effects of orienting activities on achievement, continuing motivation, and student behaviors in cooperative learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(3), 41-45. Kline, P. (1983). Personality measurement and theory. Great Britain: The Anchor Press Ltd. Kozma, R. B. (2000). The use of multiple representations and social constructions of understanding chemistry. In M. J. Jacobson & R. B. Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced design for technologies of learning (pp.11-46). Mahwah, JN: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15(3), 309-328. Kumpulainen, K., & Mutanen, M. (1996). Collaborative practice of science construction in a computer-based multimedia environment. Computer Education, 30(1/2), 75-85. Lamb, A., & Johnson, L. (2012). Jiminy Cricket Revisited: A Dozen Ways Can Activate Learning. Teacher Librarian, 39(6), 55-59. Laughlin, P., & Ellis, A. (1986). Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 177-189. Lavioe, D. R. (1993). The development, theory and application of cognitive network model of prediction problem solving in biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(7): 767–785. Laws, P., & Cooney, P. (1996). Constructing spreadsheet models of MBL and Video data. AAPT Announcer, 25, 32. Lawson, A. E. Alkhoury, S, Bedford, R. & Falconer, K.A. (2000). What kinds of scientific concepts exist? Concept construction and intellectual development in college biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 996-1018. Lea, S. J., Stephenson, D. & Troy, J. (2003). Higher education students’ attitudes toward student-centered learning: Beyond ‘educational bulimia’? Studies in Higher Education 28(3): 321–334. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Lewis, R. (2011). Developmental Classroom Management. in D. Hopkins, J. Munro & W. Craig (Eds). Powerful Learning: A strategy for system reform. Melbourne: A. C. E. R. Liang, L. L., & Gabel, D. L. (2005). Effectiveness of a constructivist approach to science instruction for prospective elementary teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1143-1162. Lind, K. K. (1999). Science in early childhood: Developing and acquiring fundamental concepts and skills. Paper presented at the Forum on Early Childhood Science Mathematics, and Technology Education. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. Lind, K. K. (2005). Exploring science in early childhood (4 th ed.). Clifton Park, NY: Thomson Delmar Learning. Lindgren, R. (2009). Perspective effects on learning in a virtual world simulation. Paper presented at the second annual Inter-Science of Learning Center Conference, Seattle, WA. Ling, A. Y. (2000). Implementing an inquiry-based primary science curriculum in Malaysia. Paper presented at the Seminar Penyelidikan Pendidikan Zon Sabah, 21-22 september 2000, Maktab Perguruan Gaya: Kota Kinabalu. Linn, M. C., & Songer, B. (1991). Teaching thermodynamics to middle school children: What are appropriate cognitive demands? Journal of research in Science Teaching, 28(10), 885-918. Long, J. C. (1981). The effect of a diagnostic- prescriptive teaching strategy on students’ achievement and attitude in biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18(6), 515-523. Lou, Y., Abrami, P., Spence, J., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., & Apollonia, S. (1996). Within a class ability grouping: Review of Educational Research, 66, 423-458. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Laporan Lembaga Peperiksaan Malaysia. (2001, 2002 & 2003). Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia. Majoka, M. I., Saeed, M. & Mehmood, T. (2007). effect of cooperative learning on academic achievement and retention of secondary grader mathematics Students. Journal of Educational Research, 10(1), 44-56. Manaf, E. B. A., & Subramaniam, R. (2004). Use of chemistry demonstrations foster conceptual understanding and cooperative learning among students. Paper presented at the International Association for the study of Cooperation in Education, Singapore. Martin, M. O. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College. Matthews, M. (1992). Constructivism and empiricism: An incomplete divorce. Research in Science Education, 22(1), 299-307. Mayer, R., & Sims, V. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of educational psychology, 86(3), 389- 401. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59, 14-19. Mayer, R. E. (2011b). Instruction based on visualizations. In R.E. Mayer & P.A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction. New York: Routledge. Merrill, M. D. (1991). Constructivism and instructional design. Educational Technology, 31, 45-53. McCloskey, M. (1983). Intuitive physics. Scientific American, 248(4), 122-130. McCoog, I. J. (2008). 21st century teaching and learning. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov:80/ ERICWEBPortal/. McRobbie, C., & Tobin, K. (1997) A social constructivism perspective on learning environments. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 193-208. Meloth, M., & Deering, P. (1992). Effects of two cooperative condition on peergroup discussions, reading comprehension, and metacognition. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 17, 175- 193. Millar, R., & Kragh, W. (1994). Alternative frameworks or context-specific reasoning? Children’s ideas about the motion of projectiles. School Science Review. 75(272), 27-34. Morgan, J., Barroso, L. R., & Simpson, N. (2007). Active demonstrations for enhancing learning. 37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Milwaukee, WI. Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., & Kemp, J. E. (2010). Designing effective instruction (6 th ed.). Toronto: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms, Buckingham : Open University Press. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Multimedia-supported metaphors for meaning making in mathematics. Cognition and Instruction, 17(3), 215-248. Moyer, P. S., Bolyard, J. J., & Spikell, M. A. (2002). What are virtual manipulatives? Teaching Children Mathematics, 8(6), 372-377. Moyer, P. S., Niezgoda, D., & Stanley, J. (2005). Young children’s use of virtual manipulatives and other forms of mathematical representations. In W. J. Masalski & P. C. Elliott (Eds.), Technology-supported mathematics learning environments: Sixty-seventh yearbook (pp. 17-34). Reston, VA: NCTM. Moyer-Packenham, P. S. (2005). Using virtual manipulatives to investigate patterns and generate rules in algebra. Teaching Children Mathematics, 11(8), 437-444. Moyer-Packenham, P. S., Westenskow, A., & Salkind, G. (2012). Effects of virtual manipulatives on mathematics learning and student achievement. Manuscript under review. Mustapa Abidin & Irfan Naufal Umar, (2007). The Effects of a Constructivist Approach in a Web Environment on Students’ Language Learning. Internet Journal of e-Language Learning & Teaching, 4 (2), 26-37. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Newman, R. (2000). Social influence on the development of children’s adaptive help seeking: The role of parents, teacher, and peers. Developmental Review, 20, 350-404. Niaz, N. (1996). Reasoning strategies of students in solving chemistry problems as a function of developmental level, functional mental capacity and disembedding ability. International Journal of Science Education, 18(5), 525–541. Nivalainen, V., Asikainen, M., & Hirvonen, P. E. (2003). Conceptual tests as a starting point in realizing the ideas of conceptual physics in physics teacher education [Online]. [Accessed 10 November, 2003]. Available from World Wide Web: http://www1.phys. uu.nl/esera2003/programme/pdf/131S.pdf. Novak, J. D. (1988). Learning science and the science of learning. Studies in Science Education, 15(1), 77-101. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Ogborn, J., Kress, G., Martin, I., & McGillicuddy, K. (1996). Explaining science in the classroom. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Okada, T. & Simon, H. A. (1997). Collaborative discovery in a scientific domain. Cognitive Science, 21, 109-146. Okebukola, P. A. O. (1992). Can good concept mappers be good problem solvers?. Education Psychology, 12(2), 113–129. O’Neill, G., & McMahon, T. (2005). Student-centered learning: what does it mean For students and lecturers? 27-36. Retrieved from http://www.aishe.org/readings/ 2005-1. Oyekan, S. O. (1974). Cognitive Styles, Sex and Achievement in Biology. Journal of Education and Society, 1, 10-19. Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345-375. Palmer, D., (2005). A motivational view of constructivist‐informed teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1853-1881. Palmiter, S. L., Elkerton, J., & Baggett, P. (1991). Animated demonstrations vs. written instructions for learning procedural tasks: A preliminary investigation. International Journal of Man–Machine Studies, 34, 687–701. Pane, J. F., Corbett, A. T., & John, B. E. (1996). Assessing dynamics in computerbased instruction. In M. J. Tauber (Ed.), Proceedings of the ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 797– 804). New York: ACM Press. Park, O. C., & Gittelman, S. S. (1992). Selective use of animation and feedback in computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40, 125–167. Park, O. (1998). Visual displays and contextual presentations in computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(3), 37-50. Pea, R. D. (1987). Cognitive technologies for mathematics education. In A. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 89-122). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pelech, J. (2010). The comprehensive handbook of constructivist teaching. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc. Perkins, D., & Unger, C. (1999). Teaching and learning for understanding. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models (pp. 91-114). NJ: Erlbaum. Perzylo, L. (1993). The application of multimedia CD-ROMs in schools. British Journal of Educational Technology, 24, 191-197. Phielix, C., Prins, F. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2010). Awareness of group performance in a CSCL-environment: Effects of peer feedback and reflection. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 151-161. Posner, G. J. (1982). Accommodation of scientific conception: Toward theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227. Prawat, R. (1993). The value of ideas: Problems versus possibilities in learning. Educational Researcher, 22(6), 5-16. Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-231. Pritchard, A., & Woollard, J. (2010). Psychology for the classroom: constructivism and social learning. New York, NY: Routledge. Program For International Student Assessment (2009). Performance of U.S. 15-Year-Old Students in Reading, Mathematics, and Science Literacy in an International Context. Alexandria: Department of Education. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386. Reimer, K., & Moyer, P. S. (2005). Third graders learn about fractions using virtual manipulatives: A classroom study. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24(1), 5-25. Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2012). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Boston: Pearson. Renken, M. D., & Nunez, N. (2010). Evidence for improved conclusion accuracy after reading about rather than conducting a belief-inconsistent simple physics experiment. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 792-811. Rieber, L. P. (1990). Using computer animated graphics with science instruction with children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 135–140. Rieber, L. P. (1991). Animation, incidental learning, and continuing education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 318–328. Rieber, L. P., & Hannafin, M. J. (1988). Effects of textual and animated orienting activities and practice on learning from computer-based instruction. Computers in the Schools, 5, 77–89. Roberts, J. B. (1995). A Study of the Problem-Solving Processes of Successful and Non-Successful Problem of Problem-Solving Instructional Strategies. Journal of Educational Studies, 4(1), 16-19. Rodrigues, S., Pearce., J & Livett, M. (2001). Using Video-Analysis or data loggers during practical work in first year physic. Education Studies, 27(1), 31-43. Rosita Jamari. (1990). Kajian mengesan pola pemahaman konsep asas fizik. Bangi: Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Ross, K., Lakin, L. & McKechnie, J. (2010). Teaching secondary science (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge. Rowe, M. B. (1974). Wait time and rewards as instructional variables, their influence in language, logic and fate control: Part II, rewards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 11(4), 291-308. Rubin, A., Bresnahan, S., & Ducas, T. (1996). Cartwheeling through CamMotion. Communications of the ACM, 39(8), 84-85. Rysavy, S. D., & Sales, G. C. (1991). Cooperative learning in computer-based instruction. Educational Technology, Research, and Development, 39(2), 70-79. Salami, I. O. (2000). Effect of Three Instructional Modes of Student Teachers’ Performance in Selected Teaching Skills. Ibadan: University of Ibadan. Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1996). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.) Designing constructivist learning environments. (pp. 135-148) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Scott, P., Asoko, H., & Leach, J. (2007). Student conceptions in conceptual learning in science. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 31-56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sekaran, U. (2003). Research methods for business: A skill building approach (4th.ed). USA: John Wiley & sons, inc. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Anna Sfard. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-13. Shapiro, A. (2006) Social constructivism. In F.W. English (Ed.) Encyclopedia of educational leadership and administration (pp. 199-201). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Reference. Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative Learning in Small Groups: Recent Methods and Effects on Achievement, Attitudes, and Ethnic Relations. Review of Educational Research, 50, 241-271. Sharan, S., Raviv, S., Kussell, P., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1984b) Cooperative and Competitive Behavior. In S. Sharan, P. Kussell, Y. Bejarano, S. Raviv, & Y. Sharan (Eds.), Cooperative learning in the classroom: Research in desegregated schools (pp 73-106) Hillsdale, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sharan, S., & Sharan, Y. (1976). Small-group Teaching. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Educational Technology Publications. Sharifah, M., & Lewin, K. M. (1993). Insights into science education: planning and policy priorities in Malaysia. International Institute for Educational Planning. Ministry of Education, Malaysia. Sharma, M. D., Johnson, I., Johnson, H., Varvell, K., Robertson, G., Hopkins, A., Stewart, C., Cooper, I., & Thornton, R. (2010). Use of interactive lecture demonstrations: A ten year study. Physical Review Special Topics– Physics Education Research, 6(2). Shayer, M., & Adey, P. S. (1993). Accelerating the development of formal thinking in middle and high school students IV: Three years after a two-year intervention. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 351–366. Shlechter, T. M. (1991, November). What do we really know about small group CBT? Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for the Development of Computer-Based Instructional Systems, St. Louis, MO. Short, K. G., & Harste, J. C. (1996). Creating classrooms for authors and inquirers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Singhanayok, C., & Hooper, S. (1998). The effects of cooperative learning and learner control on students’ achievement option selections, and attitudes. Educational, Technology, Research and Development 46(3), 17-33. Slavin, R. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Slavin, R. (1996). Research in cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43-69. Slavin, R. E. ( 1983). Cooperative Learning. New York, USA: Longman. Slavin, R. E. (1991). What cooperative learning has to offer the gifted? Cooperative Learning, 11(3), 22-23. Slavin, R. E. (2010). Cooperative learning: What makes group-work work? In H. Dumont, D. Istance & F. Benavides (Eds.), The nature of learning. Using research to inspire practice, 161-178. Paris, FR: OEGD Publishing. Smith, P. J., Disessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of The Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–163. Snir, J., Smith, C., & Raz, G. (2003) Linking Phenomena with Competing Underlying Models: A Software Tool for Introducing Students to the Particulate Model of Matter. Science Education, 87, 794-830. Solomon, J. (1987) New thoughts on teacher education, Oxford Review of Education, 13(3), 267-274. Solomon, J. (1998). About argument and discussion. School Science Review, 80(292), 57-62. Songer, N. B. (2007). Digital resources versus cognitive tools: A discussion of learning science with technology. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 471-492). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Sopiah Abdullah & Merza Abbas. (2003). Analysis of ‘O’ level SPM physics examination test items according to Lawson’s classification system. Paper presented at the MERA 2003 Conference, September 11-13, 2003, Residence Hotel, UNITEN. Soudani, M., Sivade, A., Cros, D., & Medimagh, M. S. (2000). Transferring knowledge from the classroom to the real world: Redox concept. School Science Review, 82(298), 65-72. Squires, D. (1999). Educational software for constructivism learning environments: Subversive use and volatile design. Education Technology. 39(3), 48-54. Stephenson, S. D. (1994). The use of small groups in computer-based training: A review of recent literature. Computers in Human behavior, 10(3), 243-259. Subahan, T. M. M. (1999). Dampak Penyelidikan Pembelajaran Sains terhadap Perubahan Kurikulum. Bangi: Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Suh, J. M., & Moyer, P. S. (2007). Developing students’ representational fluency using virtual and physical algebra balances. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26(2), 155-173. Suh, J. M., Moyer, P. S., Heo, H. J. (2005). Examining technology uses in the classroom: Developing fraction sense using virtual manipulative concept tutorials. The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 3(4), 1-22. Susman, E. B. (1998). Cooperative learning: A review of factors that increase the effectiveness of cooperative computer-based instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 18(4), 303- 322. Swetz, F. & Subahan, T. M. M. (1982). The reform of physics teaching in Malaysian schools: a case study of curriculum adaptation. Science Education, 66(2), 171-180. Tao, P. & Gunstone, R. (1999). The process of conceptual change in ‘Force and Motion’. International Journal of Science Education. 36(7), 859-882. Teo, T., Tan, S. C., Lee, C. B., Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Chen, W. L. (2010). The self- directed learning with technology scale (SDLTS) for young students: An initial development and validation. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1764- 1771. Tobin, K. (1990). Social constructivism perspectives on the reform of science education. The Australian Science Teachers' Journal, 36(4), 29-35. Tobin, K., & Tippins, D. (1993). Constructivism as a referent for teaching and learning. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education. Hilidale, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum. Trends in international mathematics and science study (2011). Findings From IEA’s Trends In International Mathematics And Science Study At The Fourth And Eighth Grades. Boston: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College. Trends in international mathematics and science study (2007). Findings From IEA’s Trends In International Mathematics And Science Study At The Fourth And Eighth Grades. Boston: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. Trends in international mathematics and science study (1999). Findings From IEA’s Trends In International Mathematics And Science Study At The Fourth And Eighth Grades. Boston: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. Treagust, D. F. (2007). General instructional methods and strategies. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 471-492). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Triona, L., & Klahr, D. (2003). Point and Click or Grab and Heft: Comparing the Influence of Physical and Virtual Instructional Materials on Elementary School Students Ability to Design Experiments. Cognition and Instruction, 21(2), 149-173. Tsui, C. Y., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Genetics reasoning with multiple external representation. Research in Science Education, 33(1), 111-135. Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 57, 247–262. Vrasidas, C. (2000). Constructivism versus objectivism: Implications for interaction, course design and evaluation in distance education. Int. J. Educ. Telecommun., 6, 339-362. Vygotsky, L. S., (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. (1st ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Webb, N. (1995). Group collaboration in assessment: Multiple objectives, processes, and outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17, 239-261. Webb, N. (1997). Assessing students in small collaborative group. Theory into Practice, 36(4), 607-651. Webb, N., Nemer, K., & Chizhik, A. (1998). Equity issues in collaborative group assessment: Group composition and performance. American Educational Research Journal, 35(4), 607-651. Weldon, M. S., & Bellinger, K. D. (1997). Collaborative memory: The nature of individual and collaborative recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory, and Cognition, 26(5), 1160-1175. Weller, H. (1996). Assessing the impact of computer-based learning in science. Journal of Research on Computing in Education. 28, 461-486. White, B. (1998). Computer micro worlds and science inquiry: An alternative approach science education. In B. Fraser, & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education. Great Britain: Kluwer. White, R. T., & Gunstone, R. F. (1992). Probing Understanding. Great Britain: Falmer Press. Wilson, B. (1995). Constructivism in education. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Wild, M. (1996). Investigating verbal interactions when primary children use computers. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 12, 66-77. Woo, Y. & Reeves, T. C. (2007). Meaningful interaction in web-based learning: A social constructivist interpretation. Internet Higher Educ. 10, 15-25. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100. Yerrick, R. (2009). How Notebook Computers, Digital Media, and Probeware Can Transform Science Learning in the Classroom. Technology and Science Teacher Education, 9(3), 1-27. Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of scientific literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689-725. Youngquist, J., & Pataray-Ching, J. (2004). Revisiting "play": Analyzing and articulating acts of inquiry. Early Childhood Education Journal, 31(3), 171–178. Zajac, R., & Hartup, W. (1997). Friends as coworkers: Research review and classroom implications. The Elementary school Journal, 98(1), 3-13. Zeigler, S. (1981). The effectiveness of classroom learning teams for increasing cross ethnic friendship: additional evidence. Human Organization, 40, 264-268. Zbiek, R. M., Heid, M. K., Blume, G. W., & Dick, T. P. (2007). Research on technology in mathematics education: The perspective of constructs. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 1169-1207).Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc.

Similar Items