You are here:

Learning Life Sciences: Design and Development of a Virtual Molecular Biology Learning Lab
Article

, , University of Heidelberg, Germany ; , University of Sydney, Australia ; , University of Heidelberg, Germany

JCMST Volume 25, Number 3, ISSN 0731-9258 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

The life sciences, in particular molecular genetics, have become a pivotal area of research and innovation, and at the same time are amongst the most controversially discussed in today's society. Despite this discussion, the demand for life science expertise increases rapidly, creating a growing need for life science education in particular and for science education in general, given that progress in this area depends on progress in biology, chemistry, computer science, and some others. In this article, an approach to science education is suggested that combines guided knowledge acquisition with hands-on experience in a computer-based learning environment. The pedagogical rationale for the learning environment are delineated and grounded in research in the learning sciences. The re-sults of a first evaluation of the main features, comprising in addition to a virtual experimental workbench various scaffolding tools, among them a pedagogical agent, and a report/presentation tool, are reported. Findings indicate that stu-dents profited equally form working with the program, independent of differences in prior knowledge and interest.

Citation

Zumbach, J., Schmitt, S., Reimann, P. & Starkloff, P. (2006). Learning Life Sciences: Design and Development of a Virtual Molecular Biology Learning Lab. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 25(3), 281-300. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved June 10, 2023 from .

© 2006 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Alessi, S. M., & Trollip, S. R. (2001). Multimedia for learning: Methods and development (3
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for scientifi c literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
  3. Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (1999). Learning communities in classrooms: A reconceptualization of educational practice. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models (pp. 269-292). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  4. Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2001). The use of embedded scaffolds with hypermediasupported student-centered learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10(4), 333-356.
  5. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science education. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1-49.
  6. Chinn, C.A., & Malhotra, B.A. (2001). Epistemologically authentic scientifi c reasoning. In K. Crowley, C.D. Schunn, & T. Okada (Eds), Designing for science: Implications from professional, instructional, and everyday science (pp. 351-392). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  7. Collins, H., & Pinch, T. (1993). The golem: What everyone should know about science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  8. De Jong, T., & Van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientifi c discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68, 179-202.
  9. Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientifi c reasoning in realworld laboratories. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Davidson (Eds.), Mechanisms of insight (pp. 365-395). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  10. Edelson, D. (1998). Realising authentic scientifi c science learning through the adaption of scientifi c practice. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of sciemce education (pp. 317-331). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  11. Germann, P. J., Haskins, S., & Auls, S. (1996). Analysis of nine high school biology laboratory manuals: Promoting scientifi c inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 475-499.
  12. Jonassen, D. H. (1999a). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall.
  13. Jonassen, D. (1999b). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models (pp. 215-239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  14. Kozma, R., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The role of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 105-143.
  15. Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96(4), 674-689.
  16. Latour, B. (1990). Drawing things together. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientifi c practice (pp. 19-68). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  17. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientifi c facts (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  18. Lave, J. (1996). Teaching as learning in practice. Mind, culture, and activity, 3(3), 149-164
  19. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1992). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  20. Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., & Petrosino, A. J. (2001). Reconsidering the role of experiment in science education. In K. Crowley, C. D. Schunn & T. Okada (Eds.), Designing for science (pp. 251-278). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  21. Linn, M. (1998). The impact of technology on science instruction: Historical trends and current opportunities. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (Vol. 1, pp. 265-294). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
  22. Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. L. (2004). Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  23. Linn, M. & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers. Science Learning Partners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  24. McGinn, M. & Roth, W-M. (1999). Preparing students for competent scientifi c practice: Implications of recent research in science and technology studies. Educational Researcher, 28(3), 14-24.
  25. Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H. A., & Lester, J. C. (2001). The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction, 19, 177-213.
  26. Prenzel, M., Carstensen, C. H., Rost, J. & Senkbeil, M. (2002). Naturwissenschaftliche Grundbildung im Ländervergleich. In OECD/Deutsches PISAKonsortium. PISA 2000 – Die Länder der Bundesrepublik Deutschland im
  27. Reimann, P. (1991). Detecting functional relations in a computerized discovery environment. Learning & Instruction, 1(1), 45-65.
  28. Reiser, B. J. (2002). Why scaffolding should sometimes make tasks more dif- fi cult for learners. In G, Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning foundations for a CSCL community (pp. 255-264). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  29. Rheinberg, F., Vollmeyer, R. & Burns, B.D. (2001). FAM: Ein fragebogen zur erfassung aktueller motivation in lern- und leistungssituationen. Diagnostica, 2, 57-66.
  30. Sandoval, W. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientifi c explanations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5-51.
  31. Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Duschl, R. A., Schulze, S., & John, J. (1995). Students’ understanding of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 131-166.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Cited By

View References & Citations Map

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.