Efforts to make effective use of technology offer a promising direction for science education research. In this study, we investigated how a teacher and students used an inquiry-based, visualization-focused chemistry unit. The chemistry unit was designed for American students and takes advantage of dynamic, interactive computer visualizations. Features of the unit enable innovative learning activities such as online construction and critiquing of dynamic visualizations of chemical reactions. These kinds of activities are unfamiliar to teachers and students who are used to traditional teacher-centered instruction. We investigated how a teacher in Taiwan customized and implemented the unit to address the needs of her teaching in Taiwan, and what the impact of the unit was on the students’ understanding of chemical reactions. The results provide insights into the impact of innovative practices that new technology brings to local classrooms, and reflections on the adaptation of reform-based science instruction are made.
Keywords: Adaptation Web-based inquiry curriculum Visualization Chemical reactionAbraham, 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.
Aikenhead, G. S., & Jegede, O. J. (1999). Cross-cultural science education: A cognitive explanation of a cultural phenomenon. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(3), 269–287.
Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333(6046), 1096–1097.
Ardac, D., & Akaygun, S. (2004). Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasizes representations on students’ understanding of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 317–337.
Atar, H. Y. (2011). Investigating the factors that impede or facilitate the integration of inquiry into middle school science. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 20(3), 543–558.
Atweh, B., & Abadi. (2012). Investigating teachers’ pedagogical beliefs in Indonesia and Australia. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 21(2), 325–335.
Barab, S. A., & Luehmann, A. L. (2003). Building sustainable science curriculum: Acknowledging and accommodating local adaptation. Science Education, 87(4), 454–467.
Barnea, N., & Dori, Y. (1996). Computerized molecular modeling as a tool to improve chemistry teaching. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences, 36, 629–636.
Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B.-S., & Silberstein, J. (1987). Students’ visualization of a chemical reaction: Research work pinpoints student difficulties in understanding chemical reactions. Education in Chemistry, 24, 117–120.
Blumenfeld, P., Fishman, B., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2000). Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: Scaling-up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 149–164.
Borgman, C. L., Abelson, H., Dirks, L., Johnson, R., Koedinger, K. R., Linn, M. C., et al. (2008). Fostering learning in the networked world: The cyberlearning opportunity and challenge. Report of the NSF task force on cyberlearning (pp. 59).
Buaraphan, K. (2012). Multiple perspectives on desirable characteristics of science teachers for educational reform. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 21(2), 384–393.
Chang, H.-Y., Quintana, C., & Krajcik, J. S. (2010). The impact of designing and evaluating molecular animations on how well middle school students understand the particulate nature of matter. Science Education, 94, 73–94.
Chiu, M.-H. (2007). A national survey of students’ conceptions of chemistry in Taiwan. International Journal of Science Education, 29(4), 421–452.
Cobern, W. W. (1996). Constructivism and non-western science education research. International Journal of Science Education, 18(3), 295–310.
Davis, E. A. (2006). Preservice elementary teachers’ critique of instructional materials for science. Science Education, 90(2), 348–375.
de Jong, T. (2006). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Science, 312(5773), 532–533.
diSessa, A. A. (2000). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Duncan, R., Pilitsis, V., & Piegaro, M. (2010). Development of preservice teachers’ ability to critique and adapt inquiry-based instructional materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(1), 81–102.
Fahrenkamp-Uppenbrink, J., Szuromi, P., Yeston, J., & Coontz, R. (2008). Theoretical possibilities. Science, 321(5890), 783.
Fensham, P. (2008). Science education policy-making. UNESCO, Section for Science.
Forbes, C. T., & Davis, E. A. (2008). Exploring preservice elementary teachers’ critique and adaptation of science curriculum materials in respect to socioscientific issues. Science & Education, 17, 829–854.
Frailich, M., Kesner, M., & Hofstein, A. (2009). Enhancing students’ understanding of the concept of chemical bonding by using activities provided on an interactive website. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(3), 289–310.
Gilbert, J. K. (2008). Visualization: An emergent field of practice and enquiry in science education. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization: Theory and practice in science education (pp. 3–24). Dordrecht: Springer.
Gyllenpalm, J., Wickman, P. O., & Holmgren, S. O. (2010). Teachers’ language on science inquiry: Methods of teaching or methods of inquiry? International Journal of Science Education, 32(9), 1151–1172.
Hesse, J. J., & Anderson, C. W. (1992). Students’ conceptions of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(3), 277–299.
Hoffler, T. N., & Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 722–738.
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kali, Y. (2006). Collaborative knowledge-building using the design principles database. International Journal of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 187–201.
Kock, Z.-J., Taconis, R., Bolhuis, S., & Gravemeijer, K. (2013). Some key issues in creating inquiry-based instructional practices that aim at the understanding of simple electric circuits. Research in Science Education, 43, 579–597.
Kozma, R. B., Russell, J., Jones, T., Marx, N., & Davis, J. (1996). The use of multiple, linked representations to facilitate science understanding. In S. Vosniadou, E. D. Corte, R. Glaser, & H. Mandl (Eds.), International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments (pp. 41–60). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Krajcik, J. (1991). Developing students’ understanding of chemical concepts. In S. M. Glynn, R. H. Yeany, & B. K. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science (pp. 117–147). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lee, O. (1999). Science knowledge, world views, and information sources in the social and cultural contexts: Marking sense after a natural disaster. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 187–219.
Lee, O. (2005). Science education and student diversity: Synthesis and research agenda. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(4), 431–440.
Lee, O., Eichinger, D. C., Anderson, C. W., Berkheimer, G. D., & Blakeslee, T. D. (1993). Changing middle school students’ conceptions of matter and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 249–270.
Lee, O., Fradd, S. H., & Sutman, F. X. (1995). Science knowledge and cognitive strategy use among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 797–816.
, H.-S., & Liu, O. L. (2010). Assessing learning progression of energy concepts across middle school grades: The knowledge integration perspective. Science Education, 94(4), 665–688.
Lee, H.-S., Liu, O. L., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Validating measurement of knowledge integration in science using multiple-choice and explanation items. Applied Measurement in Education, 24(2), 115–136.
Leung, W. L. A. (2008). Teacher concerns about curriculum reform: The case of project learning. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 17(1), 75–97.
Linn, M. C. (2006). The knowledge integration perspective on learning and instruction. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 243–264). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B. S. (2006). Science education: Integrating views of learning and instruction. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 511–544). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, and peers: Science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Linn, M. C., Lee, H.-S., Tinker, R., Husic, F., & Chiu, J. L. (2006). Teaching and assessing knowledge integration in science. Science, 313(5790), 1049–1050.
Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting project-based science. The Elementary School Journal, 97(4), 341–358.
Marx, R. W., Freeman, J. G., & Krajcik, J. S. (1998). Professional development of science teachers. In B. J. Fraser & K. B. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (Vol. 2, pp. 667–680). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Ministry of Education, Taiwan. (2008). The outline for the nine-year integrated curriculum. Taipei: Ministry of Education, Taiwan.
Nakhleh, M. B., Samarapungavan, A., & Saglam, Y. (2005). Middle school students’ beliefs about matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 581–612.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy.
National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, D.C.: National Academy.
National Research Council. (2010). Exploring the intersection of science education and 21st century skills: A workshop summary. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2010). PISA 2009 results: What students know and can do—Student performance in reading, mathematics and science. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264091450-en.
Osborne, R. J., & Cosgrove, M. M. (1983). Children’s conceptions of the changes of state of water. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 825–838.
Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. London: King’s College.
Pulmones, R. (2007). Learning chemistry in a metacognitive environment. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 16(2), 165–183.
Roth, K. J., Druker, S. L., Garnier, H. E., Lemmens, M., Chen, C., Kawanaka, T., et al. (2006). Teaching science in five countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Statistical Analysis Report NCES 2006-011. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office.
Schank, P., & Kozma, R. B. (2002). Learning chemistry through the use of a representation-based knowledge building environment. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 21(3), 253–279.
Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D., et al. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632–654.
Shanahan, M. C., & Nieswandt, M. (2011). Science student role: Evidence of social structural norms specific to school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(4), 367–395.
Slotta, J. (2010). Evolving the classrooms of the future: The interplay of pedagogy, technology and community. In K. Mäkitalo-Siegl, J. Zottmann, F. Kaplan, & F. Fischer (Eds.), Classroom of the future: Orchestrating collaborative spaces (pp. 215–242). Rotterdam: Sense.
Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57, 247–262.
Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imaging science education—Engaging students in science for Australia’s future. Camberville, VIC: ACER.
Wu, H.-K., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students’ use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 821–842.
Xie, C., Tinker, R., Tinker, B., Pallant, A., Damelin, D., & Berenfeld, B. (2011). Computational experiments for science education. Science, 332(6037), 1516–1517.
Zhang, Z. H., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Can generating representations enhance learning with dynamic visualizations? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 1177–1198.