Dai, D. Y. (2000). To be or not to be (challenged), That is the question: Task and ego orientations among high-ability, highachieving adolescents. The Journal of Experimental Education, 68(4), 311–330. Dawson, C. (2000). Upper primary boys’ and girls’ interests in science: Have they changed since 1980? International Journal of Science Education, 22(6), 557–570. Ding, N., & Harskamp, E. (2006). How partner gender influences female students’ problem solving in physics education. Journal of Science Education and <strong>Technology</strong>, <strong>15</strong>(5–6), 331–343. Eccles, J. (1989). Bringing young women to math and science. In M. Crawford & M. Gentry (Eds.), Gender and thought: Psychological perspectives (pp. 36 –58). New York: Springer-Verlag. Ellis, R. A. (2004). University student approaches to learning science through writing. International Journal of Science Education, 26(<strong>15</strong>), 1835–1853. Engstrom, J., & Noonan, R. (1990). Science achievement and attitudes in Swedish schools. Studies in <strong>Educational</strong> Evaluation, 16, 443–456. Erickson, G., & Erickson, L. (1984). Females and science achievement: Evidence, explanations and implications. Science Education, 68(2), 63–89. Erickson, G., & Farkas, S. (1991). Prior experience and gender differences in science achievement. The Alberta Journal of <strong>Educational</strong> Research, 37, 225–239. Felder, R. M. (1993). Reaching the second tier: Learning and teaching styles in college science education. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23(5), 286–290. Felder, R. M., & Spurlin, J. (2005). Applications, reliability and validity of the index of learning styles. International Journal of Engineering Education, 21(1), 103–112. Ferreira, M. M. (2003). Gender issues related to graduate student attrition in two science departments. International Journal of Science Education, 25(8), 969–989. Francis, L. J., & Greer, J. E. (1999). Attitude toward science among secondary school pupils in Northern Ireland: Relationship with sex, age and religion. Research in Science and Technological Education, 17(1), 67–74. Fraser, B. J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity and applications. Learning Environment Research, 1(1), 7–33. Fraser, B. J., Williamson, J. C., & Tobin, K. (1987). Use of classroom and school climate scales in evaluating alternative high schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3, 219–231. Freedman, M. P. (1997). Relationships among laboratory instruction, attitudes toward science, and achievement in science knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(4), 343–357. Gozutok, F. D. (2003). Türkiye’de program geliştirme çalışmaları (Curriculum development studies in Turkey). Milli Egitim, 160. Green, M. F. (Ed.). (1989). Minorities on campus: A handbook for enriching diversity, Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Greenfield, T. A. (1996). Gender, ethnicity, science achievement, and attitudes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 901–933. Greenfield, T. A. (1997). Gender-and grade-level differences in science interest and participation. Science Education, 81(3), 259– 276. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis with readings. New York: Prentice- Hall. Hofstein, A., Scherz, Z., & Yager, R. E. (1986). What students say about science teaching, science teachers and science classes in Israel and the U.S. Science Education, 70, 21–30. James, R. K., & Smith, S. (1985). Alienation of students from science in grades 4–12. Science Education, 69(1), 39–45. Jewett, T. (1996). “And they is us”: Gender issues in the instruction of science. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 402202). Johnson, S. (1987). Gender differences in science: Parallels in interest, experience and performance. International Journal of Science Education, 9(4), 467–481. Johnson, S., & Murphy, P. (1984). The underachievement of girls in physics: Toward explanations. European Journal of Science Education, 4(4), 399–409. Jones, M. G., Howe, A., & Rua, M. J. (2000). Gender differences in students’ experiences, interests, and attitudes toward science and scientists. Science Education, 84(2), 180–192. Jovanovic, J., & King, S.S. (1998). Boys and girls in the performance-based science classroom: Who’s doing the performing? American <strong>Educational</strong> Research Journal, 35, 477–496. 123
Kahle, J. B. (1983). The disadvantaged majority: Science education for women. Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 242 561). Kahle, J. B., & Lakes, M. K. (1983). The myth of equality in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 131–140. Kahle, J.B., & Meece, J. (1994). Research on gender issues in the classroom. In D. Gable (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching (pp.542–557). New York: MacMillan Publishing Company. Kemp, R. L. (2005). The impact of gender-specific and mixed-gender cooperative groups on female gifted students using computer-assisted, problem-based learning. Action Research Exchange, 4(1). Retrieved November 12, 2010, from http://teach.valdosta.edu/are/vol4no1/pdf/KempRArticle.pdf Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Bertram, B. M. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook II affective domain. New York: David McKay Company, Inc. Kurth, K. (1987). Factors which influence a female’s decision to remain in science (Exit Project S 591). Indiana University, South Bend, IN. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 288 739). Labudde, P., Herzog, W., Neuenschwander, M. P., Violi, E., & Gerber, C. (2000). Girls and physics: Teaching and learning strategies tested by classroom interventions in grade 11. International Journal of Science Education, 22(2), 143–<strong>15</strong>7. Lawrenz, F. (1987). Gender effects for student perception of the classroom psychosocial environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(8), 689–697. Leder, G. C. (1989). Mathematics learning and socialisation processes. In L. Burton (Ed.), Girls into maths can go, (pp. 77–89). London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Lee, V. E., & Burkam, D. T. (1996). Gender differences in middle grade science achievement: Subject domain, ability level, and course emphasis. Science Education, 80(6), 613–650. Linn, M., & Hyde, J. (1989). Gender mathematics and science. <strong>Educational</strong> Researcher, 18(8), 17–27. Lundeberg, M., Fox, P. & Puncochar, J. (1994). Highly confidant but wrong: Gender differences and similarities in confidence judgements. Journal of <strong>Educational</strong> Psychology, 86, 114–121. Lyons, J. B. (2001). Do school facilities really affect a child’s education? Retrieved December <strong>15</strong>, 2006, from http://www.cefpi.org/pdf/issue14.pdf Massachusetts Department of Education (2006). Massachusetts Science and <strong>Technology</strong>/Engineering Curriculum Framework. Retrieved December 18, 2006, from http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/scitech/1006.pdf Meece, J. L., & Holt, K. (1993). A pattern analysis of students’ achievement goals. Journal of <strong>Educational</strong> Psychology, 85(4), 582–590. Meyer, K. (1998). Reflections on being female in school science: Toward a praxis of teaching science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(4), 463–471. Meyer, M., & Koehler, M. S. (1990). Internal influences on gender differences in mathematics. In E. Fennema & G. Leder (Eds.), Mathematics and gender (pp. 60–95). New York: Teachers College Press. Norman, C. (1988). Math education: A mixed picture. Science, 241(4864), 408–409. Ogunjuyigbe, P. O., Ojofeitimi, E. O., & Akinlo, A. (2006). Science education in Nigeria: An examination of people’s perceptions about female participation in science, mathematics and technology. Journal of Science Education and <strong>Technology</strong>, <strong>15</strong>(3–4), 277– 284. Otto, P. B. (1991). One science. One sex? School Science and Mathematics, 91(8), 367–372. Owens, L., & Straton, R. (1980). The development of a cooperative, competitive, and individualized learning preference scale for students. British Journal of <strong>Educational</strong> Psychology, 50, 147–63. Panagiotopoulou, G., Christoulas, K., Papanckolaou, A., & Mandroukas, K. (2004). Classroom furniture dimensions and anthropometric measures in primary school. Applied Ergonomics, 35(2), 121–128. Piburn, M., & Baker, D. (1989). Sex differences in formal reasoning ability: Task and interviewer effects. Science Education, 73, 101–113. Popham, W. (1994). <strong>Educational</strong> assessment's lurking lacuna: The measure of affect. Education and Urban Society, 26 (4), 404– 416. Prokop, P., Tuncer, G., & Chuda, J. (2007). Slovakian students’ attitudes toward biology. Euroasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & <strong>Technology</strong> Education, 3(4), 287–295. Raat, J. H., & de Vries, M. (1985). What do 13-year old students think about technology? The conception of and the attitude towards technology of 13-year old girls and boys. Eindhoven University of <strong>Technology</strong>, The Netherlands. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 262–998). 124
- Page 1 and 2:
January 2012 Volume 15 Number 1
- Page 3 and 4:
Supporting Organizations Centre for
- Page 5 and 6:
Analyzing the Learning Process of a
- Page 7 and 8:
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2012).
- Page 9 and 10:
ased on an integration and evaluati
- Page 11 and 12:
ased on the assumption that no sing
- Page 13 and 14:
Diagram type D thinking (shown in F
- Page 15 and 16:
collaborative task in terms of inte
- Page 17 and 18:
Table 4. Descriptive statistics for
- Page 19 and 20:
Hong, N. S., Jonassen, D. H., & McG
- Page 21 and 22:
commercial off-the-shelf digital ga
- Page 23 and 24:
The post-questionnaire was used aft
- Page 25 and 26:
Phase Table 1. Phases and activitie
- Page 27 and 28:
Research results Describing student
- Page 29 and 30:
Assessment results for each one of
- Page 31 and 32:
References Annetta, L.A., Minogue,
- Page 33 and 34:
Huang, T.-W. (2012). Aberrance Dete
- Page 35 and 36:
Detection power Typically, the rela
- Page 37 and 38:
Results Detection rates As seen in
- Page 39 and 40:
2 .00 .05 3 .02 .10 1 .60 .40 ECI 4
- Page 41 and 42:
their easily understandable devices
- Page 43 and 44:
Ifenthaler, D. (2012). Determining
- Page 45 and 46:
activities is assumed to be reflect
- Page 47 and 48:
that the problem representations (i
- Page 49 and 50:
deductive reasoning inventory (33 m
- Page 51 and 52:
HIMATT structural measures The part
- Page 53 and 54:
outcomes, r = .297, p < .01. Accord
- Page 55 and 56:
Azevedo, R. (2009). Theoretical, co
- Page 57 and 58:
Seel, N. M. (1999b). Educational se
- Page 59 and 60:
Initially this paper explores defin
- Page 61 and 62:
gamers were boys, and 35% were girl
- Page 63 and 64:
Teachers underwent eight hours of p
- Page 65 and 66:
A correlation analysis was used to
- Page 67 and 68:
playing the game. This would mean P
- Page 69 and 70:
Yu, F. Y. (2012). Any Effects of Di
- Page 71 and 72:
Considering that identity concealme
- Page 73 and 74:
In the nickname group, the student
- Page 75 and 76:
Attitudes toward assessors Percepti
- Page 77 and 78: Liu, Z. F., Chiu, C. H., Lin, S. S.
- Page 79 and 80: Appendix A: Attitudes toward Peer-A
- Page 81 and 82: Appendix C: Perception toward the I
- Page 83 and 84: Han, H., & Johnson, S. D. (2012). R
- Page 85 and 86: Research participants The target po
- Page 87 and 88: that its value of cross-loading is
- Page 89 and 90: The canonical variable for the emot
- Page 91 and 92: Literature in the field of online l
- Page 93 and 94: Cornelius, R. R. (1996). The scienc
- Page 95 and 96: Shih, W.-C., Tseng, S.-S., Yang, C.
- Page 97 and 98: To provide personalized (e-)learnin
- Page 99 and 100: Figure 3. An illustrative example o
- Page 101 and 102: elementary schools. Thus they are b
- Page 103 and 104: Table 5. Descriptive statistics for
- Page 105 and 106: References Abowd, G. D., & Atkeson,
- Page 107 and 108: Tseng, K.-H., Chang, C.-C., Lou, S.
- Page 109 and 110: Figure 1. The five stages of KT (Gi
- Page 111 and 112: The use of learning strategies, mon
- Page 113 and 114: Additionally, the above two scales
- Page 115 and 116: Figure 3. Canonical structure betwe
- Page 117 and 118: highly positive perception of CM an
- Page 119 and 120: Langan-Fox, J., Platania-Phung, C.,
- Page 121 and 122: Gömleksiz, M. N. (2012). Elementar
- Page 123 and 124: any statistically significant diffe
- Page 125 and 126: consideration in an educational set
- Page 127: conditions of a learning environmen
- Page 131 and 132: Appendix A Science and Technology S
- Page 133 and 134: (Guuawardena, Nola, Wilson, Lopez-I
- Page 135 and 136: Questionnaire on student satisfacti
- Page 137 and 138: G4 53 (12.5) 48.9 (13.4) 0.39 G5 51
- Page 139 and 140: across the five levels of knowledge
- Page 141 and 142: Santhanam, R., Sasidharan, S., Webs
- Page 143 and 144: This paper reports only the early e
- Page 145 and 146: Figure 1 illustrates how the abovem
- Page 147 and 148: teacher/instructor continues to dom
- Page 149 and 150: The instructor plays a significant
- Page 151 and 152: Data collection and data sources Fi
- Page 153 and 154: y turning over the responsibility t
- Page 155 and 156: Brophy, J. (1999). Toward a model o
- Page 157 and 158: Lawanto, O., Santoso, H. B., & Liu,
- Page 159 and 160: such as grades and evaluation by ot
- Page 161 and 162: students’ interest, expectancy fo
- Page 163 and 164: constructs that measure students’
- Page 165 and 166: Bandura, A. (1978). Reflections on
- Page 167 and 168: Lin, J. M.-C., & Liu, S.-F. (2012).
- Page 169 and 170: Table 1. The MSWLogo commands learn
- Page 171 and 172: other words, we had prepared a set
- Page 173 and 174: lab. When she returned and found th
- Page 175 and 176: Attitudes toward Programming and Co
- Page 177 and 178: Table 5 successfully, it took four
- Page 179 and 180:
Kuter, S., Altinay Gazi, Z., & Alti
- Page 181 and 182:
not only the means for trainees’
- Page 183 and 184:
Data Collection Techniques and Anal
- Page 185 and 186:
organizations was highlighted by on
- Page 187 and 188:
provides the means for professional
- Page 189 and 190:
Kohonen, V. (2001). Towards experie
- Page 191 and 192:
As Rogers (1995) postulates in his
- Page 193 and 194:
Instrument and data collection Afte
- Page 195 and 196:
“Raising our computer skills in C
- Page 197 and 198:
teachers deploy ICT tools in langua
- Page 199 and 200:
Ma, W., Anderson, R., & Streith, K.
- Page 201 and 202:
APPENDIX A. Questionnaire for Dista
- Page 203 and 204:
consistency with other ideas, and a
- Page 205 and 206:
conceptions, justifying their belie
- Page 207 and 208:
each group. The experimental group
- Page 209 and 210:
specifically, instructional approac
- Page 211 and 212:
Table 3 shows that the mean frequen
- Page 213 and 214:
previous Web-based instructional le
- Page 215 and 216:
Millar, R., & Osborne, J.F. (1998).
- Page 217 and 218:
Several studies explore the roles t
- Page 219 and 220:
understand the content structures o
- Page 221 and 222:
teacher was not allowed to provide
- Page 223 and 224:
two coding schemes, as illustrated
- Page 225 and 226:
also very limited. Teachers and sof
- Page 227 and 228:
learning activities. British Journa
- Page 229 and 230:
2009; Bernard & Cathryn, 2006) or p
- Page 231 and 232:
In this study, the focus of the ins
- Page 233 and 234:
The student’s degree of mastery i
- Page 235 and 236:
The questionnaire for the acceptanc
- Page 237 and 238:
the t-test result, it is found that
- Page 239 and 240:
Scale Questionnaire item Mean S.D.
- Page 241 and 242:
Hwang, G. J. (2003). A conceptual m
- Page 243 and 244:
sharing, problem solving, and achie
- Page 245 and 246:
Virtual learning environment In the
- Page 247 and 248:
Class Table 1. The survey questions
- Page 249 and 250:
“…the distance and the lack of
- Page 251 and 252:
collaboration within EVS, thus prev
- Page 253 and 254:
Huang, T.-H., Liu, Y.-C., & Chang,
- Page 255 and 256:
y personalised context examples in
- Page 257 and 258:
Students’ Problem-Solving Guidanc
- Page 259 and 260:
Research Method Figure 8. The scree
- Page 261 and 262:
Table 4. Abstract of Pairwise Compa
- Page 263 and 264:
questions designed for the system h
- Page 265 and 266:
Lee, J. (2012). Patterns of Interac
- Page 267 and 268:
This study focused on online fora i
- Page 269 and 270:
Results and Discussion Due date-cen
- Page 271 and 272:
In addition, all groups developed 8
- Page 273 and 274:
future. Therefore, they had an oppo
- Page 275 and 276:
surprising that most interaction wa
- Page 277 and 278:
Pawan, F., Paulus, T. M., Yalcin, S
- Page 279 and 280:
systems by using 18 personalization
- Page 281 and 282:
Short-Term Sensory Memory is a temp
- Page 283 and 284:
with respect to articles by using a
- Page 285 and 286:
system also computes a review value
- Page 287 and 288:
DFL. d ( yi ) is the degree of mem
- Page 289 and 290:
the experimental group can understa
- Page 291 and 292:
Finally, Figure 10(A) and Figure 10
- Page 293 and 294:
Appendix # Question Description Par
- Page 295 and 296:
mental models, are cognitive struct
- Page 297 and 298:
Based on the theoretical implicatio
- Page 299 and 300:
Data analysis To test the model fit
- Page 301 and 302:
may be considered an effective inte
- Page 303 and 304:
Hsu, I.-C. (2012). Intelligent Disc
- Page 305 and 306:
(Gradinarova, Zhelezov et al. 2006)
- Page 307 and 308:
RLO denotes a remote learning objec
- Page 309 and 310:
Figure 2. The flow-oriented LOFinde
- Page 311 and 312:
if x include with y, and y include
- Page 313 and 314:
Similarly, the relation metadata of
- Page 315 and 316:
(defrule student-advisor (triple (p
- Page 317 and 318:
References ADL. (2006). Sharable Co
- Page 319 and 320:
determinants of how people think, b
- Page 321 and 322:
Mediating effect of learning flow A
- Page 323 and 324:
The instrument used to measure lear
- Page 325 and 326:
addition, the cross-loadings of the
- Page 327 and 328:
and ease of use had significant eff
- Page 329 and 330:
Connell, J. P., Spencer, M. B., & A
- Page 331 and 332:
Despotović-Zrakić, M., Marković,
- Page 333 and 334:
Learning is a cognitive activity th
- Page 335 and 336:
The survey consisted of 30 question
- Page 337 and 338:
Created data mining model needs to
- Page 339 and 340:
dealt with the matter taught at the
- Page 341 and 342:
Conclusion Conducted research showe
- Page 343 and 344:
Romero, C., Ventura S., García E.,
- Page 345 and 346:
prompts as scaffolding strategy to
- Page 347 and 348:
Reflection Types This study attempt
- Page 349 and 350:
All the three groups completed the
- Page 351 and 352:
Results Learning Outcomes Pre- and
- Page 353 and 354:
Map Analysis in Transfer Test Figur
- Page 355 and 356:
Generic Prompts and Specific Prompt
- Page 357 and 358:
Biswas, G., Schwartz, D., Bransford
- Page 359 and 360:
Chen, Y.-H., Looi, C.-K., Lin, C.-P
- Page 361 and 362:
of correct response, answer until c
- Page 363 and 364:
Figure 7 shows a screenshot of one
- Page 365 and 366:
Collaboration Questionnaire results
- Page 367 and 368:
following diagrams. The double-arro
- Page 369 and 370:
“Most students were encouraged to
- Page 371 and 372:
Bangert-Drowns, R.L., Kulick, C. C.
- Page 373 and 374:
primary research questions. First,
- Page 375 and 376:
Individual learning Figure 2. Scree
- Page 377 and 378:
Experimental Tools This study emplo
- Page 379 and 380:
Table 3 shows that almost all items
- Page 381 and 382:
I usually engaged myself in listeni
- Page 383 and 384:
References Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (195
- Page 385 and 386:
APPENDIX 2. Taxonomy for Informatio
- Page 387 and 388:
understand how we can effectively u
- Page 389 and 390:
5. Is there a relationship between
- Page 391 and 392:
correlation between teachers’ IWB
- Page 393 and 394:
Q7. IWB provides advantages to me t
- Page 395 and 396:
training regarding this topic. This
- Page 397 and 398:
Conclusion This study provides a so
- Page 399:
Smith, H. J., Higgins, S., Wall, K.