You are here:

Interactive virtual expeditions as a learning tool: the School of Rock Expedition case study
Article

, Harvard Graduate School of Education, United States ; , Texas A&M University, United States ; , Joint Oceanographic Institutions, United States ; , Integrated Ocean Drilling Program, United States ; , University of Massachusetts - Amherst, United States ; , James Madison University, United States

Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia Volume 17, Number 4, ISSN 1055-8896 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

Invited as a paper from ED-MEDIA 2006 The use of interactive virtual expeditions in classroom learning environments is an effective means to engage learners in understanding science as an inquiry process, infusing current research and relevant science into the classroom, and positively affecting learner attitudes towards science as a process and a career. A comparative analysis of the School of Rock Expedition interactive virtual expedition case study yields recommendations about the use of real-time or near real-time interaction with expedition scientists – in particular, that a combination of live and near real-time interaction may be most effective and that scientists who are trained in effective means to communicate with target audiences may be productive in shifting learner attitudes about science to the positive.

Citation

Niemitz, M., Slough, S., Peart, L., Klaus, A., Leckie, R.M. & St. John, K. (2008). Interactive virtual expeditions as a learning tool: the School of Rock Expedition case study. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17(4), 561-580. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved May 30, 2023 from .

© 2008 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Abraham, L. M. (2002). What do high school science students gain from fieldbased research apprenticeship programs? The clearing house, 75(5), 229232.
  2. Ba, H., Martin, W. & Diaz, O. (2001). The jason project’s multimedia science curriculum impact on student learning: Final evaluation report year one. New York: Center of Children and Technology, Education Development Center.
  3. Ba, H., Admon, N. & Anderson, L. (2002). A quantitative investigation of teachers and the JASON multimedia science curriculum: Reported use and impact: Year Two Evaluation Report. New York: Center of Children and Technology, Education Development Center.
  4. Bazler, J. A., Spokane, A. R., Ballard, R., & Fugate, M. S. (1993). The JASON project experience and attitudes toward science as an enterprise and career. Journal of Career Development, 20(2), 101-112.
  5. Berliner, D. & Pinero, U. C. (1985). The field trip: frill or essential? Instructor, 94(9), 14-15.
  6. Disinger, J. F. (1984). Field instruction in school settings. Environmental Education Digest, 1, 2-3.
  7. Duchovnay, B. & Joyce, C. (2000). The spirit of discovery. Science, 287, 15951597.
  8. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.) (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  9. Garner, L. C., & Gallo, M. A. (2005). Field trips and their effect on student achievement and attitudes. Journal of College Science Teaching, 34(5), 1417.
  10. Goldenberg, L., Ba, H., Heinze, J., & Hess, A. (2003). JASON multimedia science curriculum impact on student learning: Final evaluation report. New York: Center of Children and Technology, Education Development Center.
  11. Green, T. (2001). Tech talk for social studies teachers. The Social Studies, 92(4), 177-179.
  12. Hofstein, A. & Rosenfeld, S. (1996). Bridging the gap between formal and informal science learning. Studies in Science Education, 28, 87-112.
  13. Holden, C. (1993). Computer networks bring ‘real science’ to the schools. Science, 261, 980-981.
  14. Jossi, F. (2000). Online adventures: The motivation factor. Technology & Learning, 20(9), 32-37.
  15. Klemm, E. B., & Tuthill, G. (2003). Virtual field trips: Best practice. International Journal of Instructional Media, 30(2), 177-186.
  16. Knox, K. L., Moynihan, J. A., & Markowitz, D. G. (2003). Evaluation of shortterm impact of a high school summer science program on students’ perceived knowledge and skills. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(4), 471-478.
  17. Krepel, W. J., & DuVall, C. R. (1981). Field trips: A guide for planning and conducting educational experiences. Analysis and Action Series, U.S., District of Columbia, 7-31.
  18. Leckie, R. M., St. John, K., Peart, L., Klaus, A., Slough, S., & Niemitz, M. (2006). Education and Science Connect at Sea. Eos Trans. AGU, 87, 240241.
  19. Markowitz, D. G. (2004). Evaluation of the long-term impact of a university high school summer science program on students’ interest and perceived abilities in science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(3), 395-407.
  20. Radinsky, J., Bouillion, L., Lento, E. M., & Gomez, L. M. (2001). Mutual benefit partnership: A curricular design for authenticity. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(4), 405-430.
  21. Spicer, J. I., & Stratford, J (2001). Student perceptions of a virtual field trip to replace a real field trip. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 345354.
  22. Surr, S. (1999). Online expeditions lead students into learning. Library Talk, 12(3), 30-31.
  23. Templin, M. A., Doran, R. L., & Engemann, J. F. (1999). A locally based science mentorship program for high achieving students: Unearthing issues that influence affective outcomes. School Science and Mathematics, 99(4), 205211.
  24. Tuthill, G., & Klemm, E. B. (2002). Virtual field trips: Alternatives to actual field trips. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(4), 453-464.

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

Suggest Corrections to References