You are here:

The Effect of Educational Networking on Students’ Performance in Biology PROCEEDINGS

, University of Malaya, Malaysia

TCC Worldwide Online Conference, ISSN 1937-1659 Publisher: TCCHawaii

Abstract

Citation

Nee, C. (2014). The Effect of Educational Networking on Students’ Performance in Biology. In Proceedings of TCC Worldwide Online Conference 2014 (pp. 73-97). TCCHawaii. Retrieved August 17, 2018 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: theory and empirical tests. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(2), 7180.
  2. Annetta L.A., Minogue J., Holmes S.Y. & Cheng M.T. (2009) Investigating the impact of videogames on high school students’ engagement and learning about genetics. Computers& Education 53, 74–85.
  3. Astin A. (1984) Student involvement: a developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel 25, 297–308.
  4. Bahar, M., Johnstone, A.H., & Hansell, M.H. (1999). Revisiting learning difficulties in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 33(2), 84–86.
  5. Blaikie, N. (2003). Analyzing quantitative data: From description to explanation. Thousand Oaks: CA: SAGE Publishers Ltd.
  6. Boogart V, Robert M (2006). Uncovering the social impacts of “Facebook” on a college campus. Master’s thesis, Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology, Kansas State Uniyersity.
  7. Cepni S, Tas E, Kose S (2006). The effects of computer-assisted material on students’ cognitive levels, misconceptions and attitudes towards science. Comp. Edu. 46(2): 192-205.
  8. Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7.
  9. Chinnici, J.P., Yue, J.W. And Torres, K.M. (2004) Students as ‘human chromosomes’ in roleplaying mitosis and meiosis. Am. Biol. Teach. 66, 35–41
  10. Çimer A (2004). A study of Turkish biology teachers’ and students’ views of effective teaching in schools and teacher education. EdD Dissertation, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, U.K.
  11. Clark DC, Mathis PM (2000). Modeling mitosis and meiosis, a problem solving activity. The Am. Bio. Teach. 62(3): 204-206.
  12. Cordero RE, Szweczak CA (1994). The developmental importance of cell division. The Am. Bio. Teach. 56(3): 176-179.
  13. Corn, J., Pittendrigh, B.R., & Orvis, K.S. (2004). Genomics analogy model for educators (GAME): from jumping genes to alternative splicing. Journal of Biological Education, 39(1), 24-26.
  14. Creswell, J. (1994). Research design: Qualitative& Quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks: CA, Sage Publications.
  15. Flores F, Tovar M, Gallegos L (2003). Representation of the cell and its processes in high school students: An integrated view. Int. J. Sci. Edu. 25(2): 269-286.
  16. Hatcher, L. And Stepanski, E.J. (1994) A Step-by-Step Approach to Using the SAS System forUnivariate and Multivariate statistics (Cary, NC: SAS Institute).
  17. Hoffman, E. (2009). Evaluating social networking tools for distance learning. Presented at TCC 2009 Proceedings, Retrieved from http://etec.hawaii.edu/proceedings/2009/hoffman.pdf. Jonassen, D. (2000). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models (volume ii): A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 215-239). Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  18. Kruger J., Epley N., Parker J. & Ng Z.-W. (2005) Egocentrism over e-email: can we communicate as well as we think? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 89, 925– 936.
  19. Law, N., & Lee, Y. (2004). Using an iconic modeling tool to support the learning of genetics concepts. Journal of Biological Education, 38(3), 118-141.
  20. Lawson, A.E., & Thompson, L.D. (1988). Formal reasoning ability and biological misconceptions concerning genetics and natural selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 733–746.
  21. Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2007). Social networking websites and teens: an overview. Pew Internet and American life project. Retrieved 22.09.2013, from. Http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2007/PIP_SNS_Data_Memo_Jan_20 07.pdf.pdf
  22. Lewis J, Leach J, Robinson CW (2000) Chromosomes: the missing link-young people’s understanding of mitosis, meiosis, and fertilization. J Biol Educ 34(4):189–199
  23. Lewis J. And Wood-Robinson C. (2000). Genes, chromosomes, cell division and inheritance-do students see any relationship? International Journal of Science Education, 22, 177-197.
  24. Lucking, R., & Manning, M.L. (1996). Instruction for low-achieving young adolescents: Addressing the challenge of a generation imperiled. Preventing School Failure, 40(2), 82–87.
  25. Marbach-Ad, G., & Stavy, R. (2000). Students’ cellular and molecular explanations of genetic phenomena. Journal of Biological Education, 34, 200–210.
  26. Mason, R. (2006). ‘Learning technologies for adult continuing education’. Studies in Continuing Education, 28(2), 121-133.
  27. Nkpa N (1997). Educational research for modern students. Enugu: Fourth Dimension.
  28. Novak JD, Canas A (2004). Building on new constructivist ideas and Cmaptools to create a new model for education. Proceedings of the First Int. Conference on Concept Mapping, Pamplona, Spain.
  29. Oztas H, Ozay E, Oztas F (2003). Teaching cell division to secondary school students: An investigation of difficulties experienced by Turkish teachers. J. Bio. Edu. 38(1): 13-15.
  30. Pashley M (1994). A-level students: Their problems with gene an allele. J. Bio. Edu. 28(2): 120126.
  31. Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  32. Richard, M. (1997). Selected attitudinal factors related to students’ success in high school. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 43(2–3), 165–168.
  33. Riemeier T, Gropengießer H (2008). On the roots of difficulties in learning about cell division: Process-based analysis of students’ conceptual development in teaching experiments. Int. J. Sci. Edu. 30(7): 923-939.
  34. Smith MU (1991). Teaching cell division: Student difficulties and teaching recommendations. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 21(1): 28-33.
  35. Smith MU, Kindfield ACH (1999). Teaching cell division: Basics and recommendations. The Am. Bio. Teach. 61(5): 366-371.
  36. Suter W.N. (1998). Primer of educational research. London: Allyn.
  37. Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  38. Tekkaya C (2003). Remediating high schools’ misconceptions concerning diffusion and osmosis through concept mapping and conceptual change text. Res. Sci. Technol. Edu. 21(1): 516.
  39. Tsui, C.Y., & Treagust, D. (2003). Learning genetics with computer dragons. Journal of Biological Education, 37(2), 96-98.
  40. Wandersee JH, Mintzes JJ, Novak D (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science. In D.L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. New York: Macmillan pp. 177-210.
  41. Wise, L., Skues, J., & Williams, B. (2011). Facebook in higher education promoted social but not academic agents. In G. Williams, P. Statham, N. Brown& B. Cleland (Eds.), Changing Demands, Changing Directions. Proceedings ascilite Hobart 2011, 1332-1342.
  42. Yip DY (1998) Identification of misconceptions in naive biology teachers and remedial strategies for improving biology learning. Int J Sci Educ 20:461–477
  43. Zhao, C. & Kuh, G. (2004). Adding value: Learning communities and student engagement. Research in Higher education, 45(2), 115-138. Doi 0361-0365/04/0300-0115/0 97

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.