7
This article was downloaded by: [University of Tennessee At Martin] On: 07 October 2014, At: 12:54 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Innovations in Education and Teaching International Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/riie20 The Use of Internet-Based Learning in Biology Chen-Yung Lin , Yeong-Jing Cheng , Yung-Ta Chang & Reping Hu Published online: 10 Dec 2010. To cite this article: Chen-Yung Lin , Yeong-Jing Cheng , Yung-Ta Chang & Reping Hu (2002) The Use of Internet-Based Learning in Biology, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39:3, 237-242, DOI: 10.1080/13558000210150054 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13558000210150054 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Use of Internet-Based Learning in Biology

  • Upload
    reping

  • View
    213

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: The Use of Internet-Based Learning in Biology

This article was downloaded by: [University of Tennessee At Martin]On: 07 October 2014, At: 12:54Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Innovations in Education and TeachingInternationalPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/riie20

The Use of Internet-Based Learning inBiologyChen-Yung Lin , Yeong-Jing Cheng , Yung-Ta Chang & Reping HuPublished online: 10 Dec 2010.

To cite this article: Chen-Yung Lin , Yeong-Jing Cheng , Yung-Ta Chang & Reping Hu (2002) The Use ofInternet-Based Learning in Biology, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39:3, 237-242,DOI: 10.1080/13558000210150054

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13558000210150054

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, ouragents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to theaccuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the viewsof or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied uponand should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francisshall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses,damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access anduse can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Page 2: The Use of Internet-Based Learning in Biology

INTRODUCTION

The use of information technology (the latest in a long line of instructional technologies) in teaching andlearning could revolutionize the learning process. Earlyuse, however, concentrated on the presentation of drilland practice scenarios in elementary schools, and wordprocessing in secondary schools (Mergendoller, 1996).Furthermore, Jonassen (1996) found almost 85% ofsoftware in use was designed to support rote learning.It seems that this new technology has not been fullyand appropriately used. However, the development ofthe Internet, with information being added on an almosthourly basis, now provides a variety of resources forresearchers, teachers and students, where graphics,sound files, documents, data, software and onlinediscussion or consultation can be easily accessed.Consequently, science teachers should be encouragedto use the Internet in their classrooms, as it haspreviously been reported that there are good scienceresources available, although few teachers are willingto include these materials in their own classrooms(Wiesenmayer and Meadows, 1997). There is alsosome doubt as to the effect of these resources onlearning outcomes (Collis et al., 2000). Moreover,problems associated with using the Internet effectivelyin teaching and learning still need to be addressed.These are: unreliability of network connections;potential availability of inappropriate resources to

students; difficulty in integrating resources into thecurriculum and preferred teaching methods; the needto develop effective search strategies; and studentcomprehension of the technology (Jackson et al.,1997).

The Internet is both conceptually and practically new, and its potential as a tool for teaching and learningis still being explored. However, experiences of usingthe Internet are slowly being documented from primarythrough to tertiary education – see, for example, thework of Ingebritsen et al. (1997), Silva (1995) andWallace et al. (2000). Ways of using the Internet inscience teaching include: facilitation of productiveinteractions; � nding new sources of information; help-ing users seek assistance; staying informed; extendingclassroom instruction; doing research; getting involvedin projects; and enriching personal experience (Hauryand Milbourne, 1999). Among these, the use ofprojects as an effective teaching and learning strategyhas been advocated for use in science classrooms,where the very nature of the Internet, in terms of its accessibility and abundance of resource, can beexploited.

The Use of Internet-Based Learning in BiologyChen-yung Lin, Yeong-jing Cheng, Yung-ta Chang, and Reping Hu, National Taiwan NormalUniversity, Taiwan

SUMMARY

Previous research has suggested that Internet-based project learning might sustain both psychologicaland cognitive engagement of learners over an extended period of time. The study described hereimplemented an Internet-based project in a biology class and investigated its effect on the cognitivepreferences held by students and on their performance. The data showed an effect on students’cognitivepreferences, with a shift from disfavour to favour of questioning. It was also found that students whodid the Internet-based project had higher scores for short-answer questions than those who hadexperienced more traditional teaching, while students who experienced the latter had higher scores inmultiple-choice tests.

Innovations in Education and Teaching Internationa lISSN 1470-3297 print ISSN 1470-3300 online © 2002 Taylor & Francis Ltd

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journalsDOI: 10.1080/1355800021015005 4

237 IETI 39,3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

At M

artin

] at

12:

54 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 3: The Use of Internet-Based Learning in Biology

INTERNET-BASED LEARNING USINGPROJECTS

The use of the Internet is relatively new, but the ideaof using project work for learning is not. Since the1960s, science educators have been advocating usingprojects in science classrooms to avoid passive learning(DeBoer, 1991). There have been many practitionersand researchers who have been very enthusiastic aboutthe educational potential of project learning. Scott, a science teacher in a middle school, conducted anInternet-based learning project in her classroom andbelieved that it ‘was worth the energy and timeinvestment’. After acknowledging the new dimensionsof student achievement stimulated by project-basedscience, she advocated the use of these types of learn-ing experiences in preference to the more traditionalapproach to science teaching (Scott, 1994).

In project-based learning, the learning is active ratherthan passive and involves two major components: a question or problem that serves to organize and driveactivities; and a result of a series of artefacts thatculminate in a final product that address the drivingquestion. The process of learning requires students topursue solutions to problems by asking and refiningquestions, debating ideas, making predictions, design-ing plans and/or experiments, collecting and analysingdata, drawing conclusions, communicating their ideasand � ndings others, asking new questions and creatingartefacts (Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Crawford et al.,1999; Krajcik, et al., 1998; Wallace, et al., 2000).

COGNITIVE PREFERENCES

Heath first introduced the concept of cognitivepreference in 1964, in order to evaluate a new sciencecurriculum. Four modes of cognitive preference weresuggested (Heath, 1964; van den Berg et al., 1978;Tamir, 1985). These are:

(1) recall (R): acceptance of information withoutconsideration of its implications or applications;

(2) principles (P): acceptance of information becauseit is a representation or explanation of fundamentalprinciples or relationships;

(3) questioning (Q): critical questioning of informationfor completeness, general validity, or limitations;

(4) application (A): application of information insolving problems in real-life situations.

Cognitive preferences can be considered as strategiesfor information-processing that characterize one’s

normal way of dealing with scienti� c information(Tamir, 1985). In Heath’s original sense, it was desirablethat students prefer modes of principles (P) andquestioning (Q) to modes of recall (R) and application(A). More recently, it has been noted that a shift towardapplication (A) and away from recall (R) has occurred,due to the incorporation of Science-Technology-Societyissues into school science (Tamir, 1988). From now on,these abbreviations of R, P, Q and A will be used torepresent the four modes of cognitive preference.

BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

‘Senior-high’ students in Taiwan have passed rigorousexaminations in order to be selected for the ‘senior-high’ level. The personal goal of these students is to enter college. They have to work very hard foralmost three years and take an even more competitivematriculation examination to fulfil their goals. Theexamination contains mainly multiple-choice ques-tions with a small number of short-answer questions.The teaching at the junior- and senior-high levels inTaiwan is mainly driven by examinations, and focuseson text description using only ‘chalk and talk’ teachingstrategies. The learning is very passive (receptive), and students usually sit in the classroom quietly andare busy taking notes of lectures presented by theirteachers.

An apparent difference between Internet-based projectlearning and traditional text description teaching is theway students deal with information. Active planning,searching, assessing, organizing and representing isvery different from pure reception and rote memory in a science class. Therefore, it is hypothesized thatInternet-based project learning will affect students’cognitive preferences, such that students would prefermodes P, Q and A, to R. The second hypothesis of the study is that Internet-based project learning willenhance students’ understanding when compared totraditional text description teaching.

METHODOLOGIES

In this paper, the effectiveness of using the Internet-based project on student learning was investigated. Theexperiment involved two classes of grade ten students,which were taught and examined by the same biologyteacher. Internet-based project learning was imple-mented in the experimental class for two months, whiletraditional text description teaching was used in thecontrol class.

238 IETI 39,3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

At M

artin

] at

12:

54 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 4: The Use of Internet-Based Learning in Biology

For this project, the topic ‘Organisms and TheirEnvironment’ was chosen. Students were assigned toeither the control group or the experimental group.Those in the experimental group worked independentlyon their topics without receiving lectures from theteacher in regular meetings. They had to conceptualizetheir topics and look for materials on the Internet. Oncethey had found some material, they had to determine ifit was suitable for inclusion in their portfolios, and toconsider how to put these together. Then, the studentspresented the materials as a Web page. Finally, thestudents shared their Web pages with their classmatesand teacher. During this project-based learning activ-ity, students were not passively memorizing pieces of knowledge; instead, they were actively planning,searching, assessing, organizing and presenting theirmaterials.

Students’ learning outcomes were measured by a mid-term examination before the experimental period(pre-test) and in a � nal examination after the experi-mental period (post-test). The mid-term examinationconsisted exclusively of multiple-choice items, whilethe final examination contained 70% of multiple-choice items and 30% of short-answer questions. Theexaminations were prepared and marked by the samebiology teacher.

Students’ cognitive preferences were determined bythe Test of Biology Cognitive Preference (TBCP),developed by Cheng et al. (1993). The TBCP wasadministrated before and after the implementation ofthe Internet-based Project teaching. The TBCP wasbased on the work of Heath (1964) and van den Berg(1978) and contained 32 items. Each item contained

four options, corresponding to the four modes – R, P,Q and A – of cognitive preference, respectively. Theresearchers used appropriate statistical tests to comparethe cognitive preferences held by different subjectgroups. In this study, however, criteria-referencedassessment was used to determine cognitive prefer-ence. The total score for the four modes of cognitivepreference in the TBCP is 320 and the average is 80.Therefore, students, with scores higher than 80 for anymode of cognitive preference, are considered to havethat cognitive preference. On the other hand, any modeof cognitive preference for which a student scores lessthan 80 is considered not to be held.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Mean scores and standard deviations for the fourmodes of cognitive preference are presented in Table1. The order of preferences for the students in theexperimental class was A>P>80>Q>R in the pre-testand A>P>Q>80>R in the post-test of TBCP. The orderpattern was the same, but the mean scores of mode Q improved from below to above the average (80),indicating that there was an increase in student pref-erences for questioning during their Internet-basedproject learning. This shift could be a result of thestudents’ active involvement in collecting, assessing,organizing and presenting information.

Table 1 also shows that the order of preferences for the students in the control class was P>A>80>Q>R inthe pre-test, which is the same order as for the experi-mental class. In the post-test, however, the order was R>P>80>Q>A, indicating a remarkable shift in

Internet-Based Learning in Biology 239

Table 1 A summary of mean and SD in the TBCP

Experimental class Control class

n Mean SD n Mean SD

P Pre-test 39 83.15 11.36 38 90.06 7.92

Post-test 39 81.26 9.31 38 81.63 9.21

Q Pre-test 39 79.54 17.81 38 73.24 15.35

Post-test 39 81.15 15.54 38 79.25 11.51

A Pre-test 39 84.46 9.24 38 85.12 7.09

Post-test 39 81.92 10.77 38 77.44 5.55

R Pre-test 39 72.85 16.47 38 71.59 16.02

Post-test 39 73.00 15.65 38 81.69 7.41

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

At M

artin

] at

12:

54 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 5: The Use of Internet-Based Learning in Biology

both a preference for recall (R) and application (A).From demonstrating a preference for principles andapplication over questioning and recall, these studentsshifted to having a high preference for recall. Theteaching encouraged rote learning and, with thisemphasis on the recall of knowledge, students changedtheir learning preference to accommodate the teachingstyle. It can be seen that the perceived environment of the teaching style may in� uence students’ perfor-mance. This needs further exploration.

In order to determine the effect of the Internet-basedproject on learning outcomes, the examination resultsof the experimental group were compared with thoseof the control group. The mean scores and standarddeviations of � nal examination results are presented inTable 2; here the mean scores were adjusted with thecovariate of mid-term scores.

An ANCOVA test was also performed to compare thescores of short-answer questions, multiple-choiceitems, and total � nal examination scores between thetwo groups with the scores for mid-term examinationas covariate. There was no significant difference in the total scores for the � nal examination, as shown inTable 3. However, the experimental group achievedsigni� cantly higher scores than the control group in theshort-answer questions and the control group achievedsigni� cantly higher scores than the experimental groupin the multiple-choice items, both at the 0.01 level (seeTables 4 and 5).

The findings reveal a contrasting effect of thesedifferent teaching modes on different types of assess-ment. Traditional teaching would appear to lead tohigher performance on multiple-choice items, probablybecause teachers would present detailed and completeinformation for the coverage of the curriculum ortextbook during the teaching (which may be missed bythe experimental group). Likewise, teachers tend toemphasize the key concepts or mistaken concepts oftenheld by students, which might have considerable help

for multiple-choice testing. In addition, multiple-choice items often test only content and thus advantagethe rote learners. Comparing the students’ performanceon short-answer questions shows that those who took responsibility for the material covered (theexperimental group) achieved better scores than thecontrol group. It can be argued that the students in theInternet-based learning group were using deeperlearning strategies than those used by fellow studentsin the control group.

240 IETI 39,3

Table 2 Adjusted mean and SD in � nal examination

Experimental class Control class

n Mean SD n Mean SD

Short answer 39 26.26 3.97 38 22.25 5.20

Multiple choice 39 57.87 4.61 38 60.76 5.52

Total 39 84.13 6.67 38 83.01 7.27

Table 3 ANCOVA summary table in total � nal scores

Source SS’ df MS’ F Sig.

CLASS 0.24 1 0.24 0.013 0.911

Error 1412.33 74 19.10

Total 1412.57 75

Table 4 ANCOVA summary table in final short answerscores

Source SS’ df MS’ F Sig.

CLASS 253.01 1 253.01 13.59 0.00**

Error 1377.44 74 18.61

Total 1630.45 75

Table 5 ANCOVA summary table in � nal multiple choicesscores

Source SS’ df MS’ F Sig.

CLASS 237.62 1 237.62 19.72 0.00**

Error 891.79 74 12.05

Total 1129.41 75

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

At M

artin

] at

12:

54 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 6: The Use of Internet-Based Learning in Biology

CONCLUSIONS AND REFLECTIONS

Science educators and school science teachers havebeen continually looking for ways to create environ-ments for active learning – in which, students’ attentionis captured and their minds are engaged. The use ofprojects in encouraging active learning has beendemonstrated. Previous research has suggested thatInternet-based project learning might sustain bothpsychological and cognitive engagement of learnersover an extended period of time.

From this study, it may be argued that active learningstrategies in� uence cognitive preferences, as shown bythe shift from disfavour to favour of the questioningmode. This is a desirable achievement for scienceteaching and learning. It was also found that the moretraditional teaching might be associated with acognitive preference for favouring the recall mode and disfavouring the application mode. With respectto the in� uence of Internet-based project learning onexamination performance of biology students, it wasfound that these students achieved better in the short-answer questions than those experiencing traditionaltext description teaching, while the latter studentsperformed better in multiple-choice items.

With the � ndings of this study on the effect of Internet-based project learning, science teachers in Taiwan andelsewhere might be encouraged to reflect on theirteaching methods. Science teachers may be reluctant toemploy inquiry-based teaching because they believethat students need to be closely guided through thelearning material by an experienced teacher. This studysuggests that students bene� t from the experience oforganizing and representing scientific knowledge intheir own way.

With respect to the choice of assessment items, both multiple-choice and short-answer formats should be used, so that different learning styles areaccommodated in the assessment. In addition, Keyssuggests that using more written work encouragesbetter science learning outcomes (Keys, 1999). Thedesirable outcomes for students include the ability tocommunicate as well as be able to conceptualize andapply knowledge in the desired discipline area. Thereis an increasing need for the scientists of the future tohave well-developed generic skills. Policy makers andscience teachers must consider this.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study is part of a major study funded by theNational Science Council, Taiwan, ROC. The authorsacknowledge and are grateful for their support. Boththe authors and the editors are indebted to Dr MaryPeat, School of Biological Sciences, University ofSydney, who acted as a guest editor for this paper.

REFERENCES

Blumenfeld, P C, Soloway, E, Marx, R W, Krajcik, J S,Guzdial, M and Palincsar, A (1991) Motivating project-based learning: sustaining the doing, supporting thelearning, Educational Psychologist, 26, 3 & 4, 369–98.

Cheng, Y-J, Tsai, T-S, Huang, C-C and Liaw, B-J (1993) Astudy on biology cognitive preferences of junior highstudents, Bulletin of National Taiwan Normal University,38, 223–249.

Collis, B, Peters, O and Pals, N (2000) In� uences on theEducational use of the WWW, e-mail and video-conferencing, Innovations in Education and TeachingInternational, 37, 2, 108–19.

Crawford, B A, Krajcik, J S and Mark, R W (1999)Elements of a community of learners in a middle-schoolscience classroom, Science Education, 83, 6, 701–23.

DeBoer, G E (1991) A History of Ideas in ScienceEducation: Implications for Practice, Teachers CollegePress, New York.

Heath, R H (1964) Curriculum, cognition and educationalmeasurement, Educational and PsychologicalMeasurement, 24, 239–53.

Haury, D L and Milbourne, L A (1999) Using the Internetto enrich science teaching and learning, ERICDocument, ED433218.

Ingebritsen, T S, Brown, G G and Pleasants, J M (1997)Teaching biology on the Internet, ERIC Document,ED429536.

Jackson, D F, Bourdeau, G, Sampson, A and Hagen, T J(1997) Internet resources for middle school science:Golden opportunity or ‘silicon snake oil?’, Journal ofScience Education and Technology, 6, 1, 49–57.

Jonassen, D H (1996) Computers in the classroom, MerrilCo., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Keys, C W (1999) Revitalising instruction in scienti� cgenres: connecting knowledge production with writing tolearn in science, Science Education, 83, 2, 115–30.

Krajcik, J S, Blumenfeld, P C, Marx, R W, Bass, K M andFredricks, J (1998) Inquiry in project-based scienceclassrooms: initial attempts by middle school students,The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 3 & 4, 313–50.

Mergendoller, J R (1996) Moving from technologicalpossibility to richer student learning: revitalizedinfrastructure and reconstructed pedagogy, EducationalResearcher, 25, 43–6.

Scott, C A (1994) Project-based science: re� ections of amiddle school teacher, The Elementary School Journal,95, 1, 75–94.

Internet-Based Learning in Biology 241

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

At M

artin

] at

12:

54 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 7: The Use of Internet-Based Learning in Biology

Silva, M (1995) The process of introducing Internet-basedclassroom projects and the role of school librarian,Educational for Information, 13, 243–52.

Tamir, P (1985) Meta-analysis of cognitive preferences andlearning, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22, 1,1–17.

Tamir, P (1988) The relationship between cognitivepreferences, student background and achievement inscience, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 3,201–16.

Van Den Berg, E, Lunetta, V N and Tamir, P (1978)Cognitive preferences: a validation study, Studies inEducational Evaluation, 4, 2, 107–20.

Wallace, R M, Kupperman, J, Krajcik, S and Soloway, E(2000) Science on the web: students online in a sixth-grade classroom, The Journal of the Learning Sciences,9, 1, 75–104.

Wiesenmayer, R L and Meadows, G R (1997) Addressingscience teachers’ initial perceptions of the classroomuses of the Internet and World Wide Web-based resourcematerial, Journal of Science Education and Technology,6, 4, 329–35.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

Yeong-jing Cheng is Professor, and Chen-yung Linand Yung-Ta Chang are Associate Professors in theDepartment of Biology at the National Taiwan NormalUniversity. Reping Hu is a graduate student in theDepartment. Their research focuses on biologyteaching and learning.

Address for correspondence: Dr. Chen-yung Lin,Department of Biology, College of Science, NationalTaiwan Normal University, 88, Ting Chou Road,Section 4, Taipei, Taiwan.Tel: +886-2-29333149 ext. 325;e-mail: [email protected]

242 IETI 39,3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

At M

artin

] at

12:

54 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014