Design-project-proposal Chen Lawson Smith

7/31/2019 Design-project-proposal Chen Lawson Smith

1/19

Running head: DESIGNING A CONSTRUCTIVIST ONLINE MODULE 1

Project Proposal: Designing a Constructivist Module for an

Online High School Biology Class

Dy Chen, SN 37264009

Peggy Lawson, SN 18568097

Doug Smith, SN 40766883

University of British Columbia

ETEC 510: Design of Technology Supported Learning Environments


2/19

Running head: DESIGNING A CONSTRUCTIVIST ONLINE MODULE 2Key Frameworks

The purpose of our design project is to develop an online learning module for human

genetics for a high school biology class, based on constructivist pedagogical principles. High

school science classes have traditionally been very teacher-centered with teachers as the expert

providers of knowledge and students as the mostly passive absorbers of knowledge. Science

education often faces criticism due to its strong focus on knowledge acquisition at the expense of

building the foundation and skills needed for lifelong learning (Vedder-Weiss & Fortus, 2011).

As reported by Logan & Skamp (2008), students attitudes, interests and motivation in science

tend to decline as they enter high school for a variety of reasons including excessive note taking

and lecture; a paucity of student-centered instruction; lack of time for practical work,

discussions and debate of contemporary issues; and a perceived lack of relevance to students

lives. Interestingly, Dearing (as cited in Osborne, Simon, & Collins, 2003) showed that while

science in society is viewed as positive, the views for school science are negative. This suggests

that science education is not providing a positive experience for students. Current educational

trends are challenging this notion, and there is a gradual but powerful movement toward a

learner-centered pedagogy.

The implications of these studies indicate that in order to promote motivation for science

learning and to achieve meaningful learning, there is a need to make content relevant and provide

student-centered instruction that allows for more student-to-student interactions and active

learning rather than the traditional transmission style of teaching. In response to these

challenges seen in science education, the constructivist principles guiding our module design are

based on meaningful learning in a social and cultural setting. Vygotskys work on

developmental learning will be reflected in the design, as will Piagets pioneering work on


3/19

Running head: DESIGNING A CONSTRUCTIVIST ONLINE MODULE 3constructivism. Furthermore, Ausubels theories on meaningful learning will be incorporated by

the projects promotion of collaboration and subsumption of ideas.

We propose to integrate these theories by promoting a knowledge building community

with an emphasis on the student communitys collective knowledge (Scardamalia & Bereiter,

1994). In order to enhance student motivation, anchored instruction and inquiry will be used.

Anchored instruction, a type of practice field, creates scenarios that incorporate activities which

learners will encounter outside of school (Barab & Duffy, 2000). Practice fields are similar to

Problem Based Learning (PBL), which has been shown to promote intrinsic motivation (Hmelo-

Silver, 2004). Scientific inquiry allows for learners to structure their understanding by

connecting their background knowledge with newer information (Tan, Yeo, & Lim, 2005) and

can be considered a part of meaningful learning. These instructional methodologies will be

central to our human genetics project as choice and freedom afforded by constructivism and

knowledge building acts as motivators for adolescents.

The functional design of this project will be aided by the use of Dick and Careys (1990)

systems approach model, which allows for targeted treatment of our set goals in instructional

design. The components of the systems approach model begins with assessing the needs to set

up goals, conduct instructional analysis, analyze learner needs, write performance objectives,

develop instructional instruments, materials and strategies, and design formative and summative

assessments. It is important to note that the intentional embedding of assessment in instructional

design, as promoted by this model, is seen as being an important component of the project.

Assessment for learning and formative assessment drives student learning (Black, Harrison, Lee,

Marshall, & Wiliam, 2004) and research shows that embedding formative assessment can lead to

improved student outcomes (Shavelson et al., 2008).


4/19

Running head: DESIGNING A CONSTRUCTIVIST ONLINE MODULE 4Creative thinking and engaging students in real-world issues will be promoted by

wrapping the specific learning outcomes around a selection of problem-based scenarios

involving current, real-life issues. The use of collaborative web-based tools such as discussion

boards, wikis, shared online documents, mind-mapping/presentation tools will supplement the

use of a learning management system, Moodle, and other online content, including but not

limited to online simulations of laboratory activities. The module will be structured to require co-

operative knowledge building in order to answer the problem scenarios. Expectations will be for

frequent group contact on the order of three to four times per week. Options will be provided for

both formative and summative assessments, allowing for individualized student demonstrations

of knowledge gained.

The Curriculum Problem

An oft-heard complaint of high school science teachers in Saskatchewan (and elsewhere

in North America), consistent with Logan & Skamps (2008) findings, is of a content-heavy

curriculum full of facts and figures. In order to address all of the course content in the available

time, teacher-centered instruction in the form of lectures is often seen as the most efficient way

to deliver content. Such content-heavy curriculum emphasizes the absorption of specific pieces

of information by the student, with a skillful teacher aiding the student in making meaningful

connections. Students typically play a passive role, taking in the information but often not

actively participating in constructing relationships. This can lead to a reductionist perspective of

the knowledge gained. Learning in this environment is an individual process, and often

competitive. Student attention and motivation is often minimal in such a learning environment,

not surprising in the age of the millennial student who typically experiences high levels of

stimulation from pervasive personal technology and electronic social networks. Unfortunately,


5/19

Running head: DESIGNING A CONSTRUCTIVIST ONLINE MODULE 5such cognitive approaches to learning rarely seem to produce the depth of understanding or long-

term retention that results in meaningful knowledge.

To answer some of these growing concerns, many provincial Ministries of Education are

making a shift to 21st

Century Learning (21C). In 21st

Century Learning, students use

educational technologies to apply knowledge to new situations, analyze information, collaborate,

solve problems, and make decisions,(British Columbia Ministry of Education, n.d.).

Constructivist approaches to learning embody these principles, and tend to enhance student

motivation (Palmer, 2005).

An Online Learning Solution

There are many reasons for providing learning via distance and Saskatchewan has a long

history of distance education due to its large rural population. Rural communities often face

particular challenges arising from difficulties in attracting teaching specialists and, even when

found the result is typically low student-teacher ratios which results in higher per pupil costs

(Picciano & Seaman, 2009). These low per class ratios are often resolved by extensive use of

multigraded and multiclass sections. Credit recovery, greater course selection, and the

opportunity to take university level courses are additional reasons for providing distance

education (Picciano & Seaman, 2009). Online learning is also particularly situated to develop

21st century learning skills including self-direction and responsibility in learning, time

management, technological literacy, problem solving skills, and global awareness (Cavanaugh

and Clark, 2007; Watson, as cited in Duncan & Barnett, 2009). It is our intention that a

constructivist online learning environment will help address both the curricula problems noted


6/19

Running head: DESIGNING A CONSTRUCTIVIST ONLINE MODULE 6above and the situational issues specific to Saskatchewan and other communities that desire

distance education.

As brick-and-mortar classrooms become more learner-centered and inquiry-based, so

must the online classroom. Evolving from traditional paper-and-mail correspondence courses,

distance education is currently mediated by a variety of tools and modalities but is typically

defined as teacher-directed instruction where the teacher and the students are separated

geographically (Cavanaugh & Clark, 2007; Watson, Murin, Vashaw, B. Gemin, & Rapp, 2010).

Asynchronous courses add separation by time. A variety of terms apply to current models of

distance educationweb-based learning, e-learning, and online learning. Regardless of delivery

mode, it is essential that any distance education course or program offer its students a quality of

education comparable to face-to-face instruction. Several recent meta-analytical studies suggest

that well-designed distance learning programs are at least as effective as well-designed

traditional learning environments (Cavanaugh & Clark, 2007).

We then need to ask what is required to create online opportunities that fully meet these

needs and goals. The Canadian Council of Learning (as cited in Barbour, 2009, p. 7) made clear

the importance of effective course delivery and instruction by stating that the delivery of

resources . . . does not guarantee learning. Relevant factors to consider in designing and

managing an effective distance education program can be narrowed down to several areas

(Cavanaugh & Clark, 2007)recognition of intrinsic student characteristics, instructional

factors, course design, technology, and administrative practices. Watson and Gemin (2009)

provide recommendations for managing and operating online programs in the categories of

curriculum development and course quality, teacher management, student support, technology

management, and program evaluation.


7/19

Running head: DESIGNING A CONSTRUCTIVIST ONLINE MODULE 7In his review Conrad (2007) noted several key roles and attributes of successful online

teachers: a constructivist, learner-centered pedagogy, strong planning and management skills,

technological skills, and the ability to engage students in collaborative and social learning.

Online teachers need particularly effective communication skills. Kearsley and Bloymeyer (as

cited in Davis & Rose, 2007) provide specifics that are useful when evaluating online teachers

providing timely and meaningful feedback, creating engaging learning activities, the ability to

keep students motivated and interested, promoting effective interactions between students, and

encouraging critical and reflective skills in students. Both the Southern Regional Education

Board (2006a, 2006b) and iNACOL (Watson & G. Gemin, 2009) have released several

publications relating to providing quality in online programs in terms of both course design and

teacher attributes.

What course design features promote student success? Some factors directly relate

pedagogy to design. Clear expectations, concrete deadlines with some flexibility, strategies to

aid student such as time sheets and study guides, and outlines of course requirements are all

critical (Cavanaugh & Clark, 2007). The Southern Regional Education Board (2006c)

categorizes course design standards into course content, instructional design, student assessment,

technology, and course evaluation and management. This aligns well with Dick and Careys

(1990) systems approach model. Thus developing an online module requires consideration and

interplay of pedagogy and design considerations, including proper incorporation of the

affordances provided by technology and administration.

Anderson and Dron (2011) identify what should be the proper relationship between

pedagogy and technology when designing online courses : the technology sets the beat and

creates the music, while the pedagogy defines the moves (p. 81) and cautions when the


8/19

Running head: DESIGNING A CONSTRUCTIVIST ONLINE MODULE 8technology takes on too much influence and become the leader rather than the partner of the

dance. This interplay is often skewed; Anderson and Dron highlight how the use of a LMS may

encourage content-laden pedagogies.

In order to achieve the desired online learning goals, one needs to be cautious with the

instructional design. As technologies evolve quickly, curriculum or module changes may be

required in order to stay up to date (Guthrie & McCracken, 2010). This can be one of the more

difficult aspects of implementing an online learning environment. Furthermore, it should be said

that while online learning provides a perceived affordance of collaboration, much work and

supervision is required to ensure collaborative learning actually takes place (Wang, 2009).

All Saskatchewan curricula are currently undergoing a renewal and these changes reflect

the shift in pedagogical thinking that is needed to prepare our students as 21st

Century learners.

Renewed K- 9 Saskatchewan science courses specify four goals, or broad statements, identifying

what students are expected to know and be able do (Saskatchewan Ministry of Education, 2011).

Senior science curricula are yet to be rewritten but are expected to continue along this path.

These goals and their relationship to one another and to curricular outcomes (Figure 1) recognize

that a successful science program must focus on developing the process of learning by students,

not just content mastery.

Understand the Nature of Science and STSE Interrelationships Construct Scientific Knowledge Develop Scientific and Technological Skills Develop Attitudes that Support Scientific Habits of Mind


9/19

Running head: DESIGNING A CONSTRUCTIVIST ONLINE MODULE 9It is worth highlighting that central to the nature of science is the collaboration and

knowledge-building relationships between scientists. As identified by Scardamalia and Bereiter

(1994), encouraging the development of this practice is a desired approach for classroom

learning. This also plays a part in what is referred to as thinking about thinking, or meta-

cognition.

Figure 1. The four goals of K-12 science education in Saskatchewan. Graphic

provided by Dean Elliott, Saskatchewan Ministry of Education science consultant.

Key Concepts and Contexts

The module we are developing is targeted to specific curricular goals based on the

Saskatchewan learning objectives for grade 12 biology. These goals include both conceptual

understandings, along with broader scientific/procedural knowledge. The unit on human genetics


10/19

Running head: DESIGNING A CONSTRUCTIVIST ONLINE MODULE 10covers several broad topics; our primary focal point will deal with the following learning

objectives (Saskatchewan Ministry of Education, 1992, p. 129), although other outcomes may

also be incorporated:

1. Explain the significance of Mendels experiments and observations, and the laws derivedfrom them.

1.1.Explain the concept of independent events.1.2.Understand that the probability of an independent event is not altered by the

outcomes of previous events.

1.3.Describe Mendels experiments and observations.1.4.Describe the relationship between genotype and phenotype.1.5.Use the concept of the gene to explain Mendels laws.1.6.Describe the ideas of dominant and recessive traits with examples.1.7.Consider the value of the punnet square by creating examples of mono and

dihybrid crosses.

1.8.Explain the law of segregation.

Cognitive approaches to presenting conceptual material to students is typically very

teacher-driven, lecture oriented, with some time given to lab work to verify and experience

firsthand basic genetic principles of inheritance (Drosophila breeding experiments are common).

Converting this content into an online module is a relatively simple task if the pedagogical

approach to instruction is left unchanged. Posting text-based content, or even video-lessons, into

an LMS is straight-forward. Online genetics simulations, such as found at

http://www.cgslab.com/drosophila/can easily replace standard lab work. Research shows that
http://www.cgslab.com/drosophila/http://www.cgslab.com/drosophila/http://www.cgslab.com/drosophila/


11/19

Running head: DESIGNING A CONSTRUCTIVIST ONLINE MODULE 11student motivation is critical to their success, and this is made even more important when dealing

with online learning (Sansone, Fraughton, Zachary, Butner, & Heiner, 2011). Our challenge,

however, will be to demonstrate a pedagogical shift in this approach, to a constructivist, student-

centered approach. From a scientific literacy point of view, it is equally important to ensure

students make the connection from the text they are reading to their existing schemata (Tovani,

2005). Thus, activities and modules will be designed to demonstrate how objectives can lend

themselves to the daily lives of the students, with concept maps playing an integral part (Novak,

2003). The proposed context for learning the conceptual outcomes of the project will be based

on inquiry and practice fields, where aspects of problem based learning will provide motivation

and meaningful learning (Araz & Sungur, 2007).

The constructivist approach that we are proposing, although set in sound pedagogy, does

have its problems. The reality is that constructivist methodologies are not always the most

efficient ways to learn and they carry with them other tangible drawbacks such as increased

workload on instructors and course designers (Airasian & Walsh, 1997). Not only may course or

lesson preparations take longer to create, but more attention may be required for students to

ensure that they have constructed meanings which make sense in a broad context. This creates a

need for an increased role in assessment for learning. Assessment for learning has been shown

to be one of the most effective ways to increase student learning (Black et al., 2004), and is a

type of assessment that should be followed regardless of whether a constructivist environment is

created or not. However, the success of a constructivist environment depends on strong

formative assessment to ensure that targeted learning is achieved (Airasian & Walsh, 1997;

Nikitina, 2010). If formative assessment and feedback are not done properly, the students will be

in danger of carrying misconceptions in their new knowledge (Novak, 2003).


12/19

Running head: DESIGNING A CONSTRUCTIVIST ONLINE MODULE 12Interactivities

The module will be introduced to the students with a selection of at least two problem-

based scenarios and the students will be asked to select one to complete. Students will then be

grouped according to their scenario selection. Visual representations will be provided as a hook.

The scenarios will draw upon the students connections to culture and their daily lives. During

the module learners will acquire and build on and subsume their knowledge of the concepts

required to fully address the scenario. The module is expected to take 20 hours of classtime to

complete, and as a concluding project learners will be required to demonstrate their

understandings by presenting their solution to their original problem. A variety of acceptable

formats for this demonstration will be offered as suggestions but the teacher should be prepared

to receive any acceptable format. Separate summative assessments for individual students will

also be required, in addition to the group project assessment.

Students will be provided with a selection of online presentations and external internet

hyperlinks to gain information of the concepts. Visual representations are crucial in providing

learners the ability to view concepts that are otherwise unable to be viewed in the classroom due

to budgetary and time constraints. Consideration for multiple learning styles will be incorporated

into the lessons.

Collaboration between students will be an essential aspect of the learning. Throughout

the duration of the module, students will be expected to post on the discussion forum to

comment, generate ideas or request clarification of ideas and learning content. The teacher will

be encouraged to act as a facilitator to knowledge building, rather than a content expert. The goal

is to build upon a community of knowledge where all learners play a role in contributing to the

knowledge base. Although instructors should limit their contribution to the forum in terms of


13/19

Running head: DESIGNING A CONSTRUCTIVIST ONLINE MODULE 13providing knowledge, it is important that they promote student participation in the forum.

Instructors can do this by commenting and providing positive feedback to further encourage less

willing participants to participate. The instructor will also participate by asking reflective

questions to students, rather than providing the correct answer to questions, so as to promote

thinking about learning concept (Barab & Duffy, 2000).

Other opportunities for student collaboration will also be provided, and options given to

students as to what methods they select. Online concept mapping software will be used as a

collaborativebrainstorming tool by the full class to identify students base knowledge. This will

assist the teacher in determining an appropriate zone of proximal development and providing

necessary scaffolding to fill in missing gaps in knowledge. Concept mapping will continue to be

used throughout the module as students build on their base. This will allow for higher order

thinking skills in Blooms taxonomy and provide opportunities for learners to analyze concepts

taught and separate the relevant information from the irrelevant information as a visual

representation (Allen & Tanner, 2002). One of the weakness to web-based courses is its

overwhelming wealth of information, be it through the lectures or through various discussions,

and thus representing the information presented throughout various outputs will allow for

enhanced learning and information processing by students (Chang, Sung, & Chiou, 2002).

Students will collaborate on their scenarios using other web-based collaborative tools

such as wikis, blogs, shared documents, VoiceThreads, or other suitable tools. After learners

have a chance to view the contents presented within the concept maps, they will be responsible

to create a wiki with their group members and revisiting one of the scenarios that was presented

at the beginning of the module. Wikis, for example, afford students the ability to demonstrate


14/19

Running head: DESIGNING A CONSTRUCTIVIST ONLINE MODULE 14their construction of knowledge through synthesis and evaluation along Blooms taxonomy

(Allen & Tanner, 2002).

By the conclusion of the module, groups of students will have constructed a solution to

their scenario. Students will present the knowledge they have gathered and their reasoning

behind their thinking in a format of their choosing, after consulting with the teacher regarding

acceptable options.

Taken as a whole it is our intention that the process and flow of knowledge, starting with

discussion forums, to concept maps and then the use of collaborative tools, will serve as a model

for knowledge building, similar to the more comprehensive Knowledge Forum (Scardamalia &

Bereiter, 1994).

Lastly, learners will be required to present a summary of their learning journey during the

module, including their contributions to the collective knowledge. This reflective aspect serves

three purposes. First, it is central to allow for learners to analyze their knowledge acquiring

process (Barab & Duffy, 2000) and discover areas of strength and weaknesses. Secondly, it is a

key part of assessment for learning strategies. Finally, the reflective process also assists the

knowledge building community, especially the course instructors, in analyzing their own course

and instructions and make improvements or adjustments on the course.


15/19

Running head: DESIGNING A CONSTRUCTIVIST ONLINE MODULE 15References

Airasian, P. W., & Walsh, M. E. (1997). Constructivist cautions. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(6), 444-

49.

Allen, D., & Tanner, K. (2002). Approaches to cell biology teaching: questions about questions.

Cell Biology Education, 1(3), 63-67.

Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy.

International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 80-97.

Araz, G., & Sungur, S. (2007). The interplay between cognitive and motivational variables in a

problem-based learning environment.Learning and Individual Differences, 17(4), 291-

297. doi:16/j.lindif.2007.04.003

Barab, S., & Duffy, T. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D. Jonassesn

& S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments. Mahweh, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Barbour, M. K. (2009). State of the nation: k-12 online learning in canada. International

Association for K-12 Online Learning.

Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the black

box: assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 8.

British Columbia Ministry of Education. (n.d.). 21st century learning. Retrieved March 5, 2011,

from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/dist_learning/21century_learning.htm

Cavanaugh, C., & Clark, T. (2007). The landscape of k-12 online learning. In C. Cavanaugh &

R. Blomeyer (Eds.), What works in K-12 online learning (pp. 5-20). Washington, DC:

International Society fo Technology in Education.


16/19

Running head: DESIGNING A CONSTRUCTIVIST ONLINE MODULE 16Chang, K.-E., Sung, Y.-T., & Chiou, S.-K. (2002). Use of hierarchical hyper concept map in

web-based courses.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 27(4), 335-53.

Conrad, D. (2007). The plain hard work of teaching online: strategies for instructors. In M.

Bullen & D. P. Janes (Eds.),Making the transition to online learning. Hershey, PA:

Information Publishing.

Davis, N., & Rose, R. (2007). Professional development for virtual schooling and online

learning (pp. 17-19). International Association for K-12 Online Learning. Retrieved from

http://www.inacol.org/research/docs/NACOL_PDforVSandOlnLrng.pdf

Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1990). Introduction to instructional design. The systematic design of

instruction (pp. 2-11). New York: Harper Collins.

Duncan, H. E., & Barnett, J. (2009). Learning to teach online: what works for pre-service

teachers.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40(3), 357-376.

Guthrie, K. L., & McCracken, H. (2010). Reflective pedagogy: making meaning in experiential

based online courses.Journal of Educators Online, 7(2).

Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: what and how do students learn?

Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266.

doi:10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3

Logan, M., & Skamp, K. (2008). Engaging students in science across the primary secondary

interface: listening to the students voice.Research in Science Education, 38(4), 501-527.

Nikitina, L. (2010). Addressing pedagogical dilemmas in a constructivist language learning

experience.Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 90-106.

Novak, J. D. (2003). The promise of new ideas and new technology for improving teaching and

learning. Cell Biology Education, 2(2), 122-132.


17/19

Running head: DESIGNING A CONSTRUCTIVIST ONLINE MODULE 17Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: a review of the literature

and its implications.International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049-1079.

doi:10.1080/0950069032000032199

Palmer, D. (2005). A motivational view of constructivist-informed teaching.International

Journal of Science Education, 27(15), 1853-1881.

Picciano, A. G., & Seaman, J. (2009). K-12 online learning: a 2008 follow-up of the survey of

u.s. school district administrators. The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved from

http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/k-12online2008

Sansone, C., Fraughton, T., Zachary, J. L., Butner, J., & Heiner, C. (2011). Self-regulation of

motivation when learning online: the importance of who, why and how.Educational

Technology Research and Development, 59(2), 199-212. doi:10.1007/s11423-011-9193-6

Saskatchewan Ministry of Education. (1992).Biology 20 & 30 curriculum. Retrieved from

http://www.education.gov.sk.ca/adx/aspx/adxgetmedia.aspx?DocID=&MediaID=1788&

Filename=biology2030.pdf

Saskatchewan Ministry of Education. (2011). Grade 9 science curriculum, aims and goals.

Retrieved from https://www.edonline.sk.ca/webapps/moe-

curriculumBBLEARN/index.jsp?view=goals&lang=en&XML=science_9.xml

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities.

The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283.

Shavelson, R. J., Young, D. B., Ayala, C. C., Brandon, P. R., Furtak, E. M., Ruiz-Primo, M. A.,

Tomita, M. K., et al. (2008). On the impact of curriculum-embedded formative

assessment on learning: a collaboration between curriculum and assessment developers.

Applied Measurement in Education, 21(4), 295-314. doi:10.1080/08957340802347647


18/19

Running head: DESIGNING A CONSTRUCTIVIST ONLINE MODULE 18Southern Regional Education Board. (2006a). Standards for quality online teaching ( No.

06T02). Retrieved from

http://publications.sreb.org/2006/06T02_Standards_Online_Teaching.pdf

Southern Regional Education Board. (2006b). Online teaching evaluation for state virtual

schools ( No. 06T04). Retrieved from

http://publications.sreb.org/2006/06T04_Online_teaching_evaluation_checklist.pdf

Southern Regional Education Board. (2006c). Standards for quality online courses ( No. 06T05).

Retrieved from

http://publications.sreb.org/2006/06T05_Standards_quality_online_courses.pdf

Tan, S. C., Yeo, A. C. J., & Lim, W. Y. (2005). Changing epistemology of science learning

through inquiry with computer-supported collaborative learning.Journal of Computers in

Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24(4), 367-386.

Tovani, C. (2005). The power of purposeful reading.Educational Leadership, 63(2), 48-51.

Vedder-Weiss, D., & Fortus, D. (2011). Adolescents declining motivation to learn science:

inevitable or not?Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 199-216.

Wang, Q. (2009). Design and evaluation of a collaborative learning environment. Computers &

Education, 53(4), 1138-1146. doi:16/j.compedu.2009.05.023

Watson, J., & Gemin, G. (2009).Inacol promising practices in online learning: management and

operations of online programs: ensuring quality and accountability. International

Association for K-12 Online Learning. Retrieved from

http://www.inacol.org/research/promisingpractices/iNACOL_PP_MgmntOp_042309.pdf

Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. (2010). Keeping pace with k-12

online learning: a review of state-level policy and practice. Learning Point Associates /


19/19

Running head: DESIGNING A CONSTRUCTIVIST ONLINE MODULE 19North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL). Retrieved from

http://www.kpk12.com/wp-content/uploads/KeepingPaceK12_2010.pdf

Documents

Design-project-proposal Chen Lawson Smith