Published Issues
Volume 14 (2019)(2019)
(2019)
(2019)
(2019)
(2019)
(2019)
(2019)
(2019)
(2019)
(2018)
(2018)
(2018)
(2018)
(2018)
(2018)
(2018)
(2018)
(2018)
(2018)
(2017)
(2017)
(2017)
(2017)
(2017)
(2017)
(2017)
(2017)
(2017)
(2017)
(2016)
(2016)
Special Issue - (2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2015)
(2015)
Special Issue - (2015)
(2015)
(2015)
(2015)
(2012)
(2012)
(2012)
Special Issue - (2012)
Volume 12 Issue 6 (2017)
| 1 |
Implementing an Environmental Citizen Science Project: Strategies and Concerns from Educators’ PerspectivesYurong He & Andrea Wiggins
pp. 1459-1481 | Article Number: ijese.2017.094
Abstract Citizen science seems to have a natural alignment with environmental and science education, but incorporating citizen science projects into education practices is still a challenge for educators from different education contexts. Based on participant observation and interview data, this paper describes the strategies educators identified for implementing an environmental citizen science project in different education contexts (i.e., classroom teaching, aquarium exhibits, and summer camp) and discusses the practical concerns influencing independent implementation by educators. The results revealed different implementation strategies that are shaped by four categories of constraints: 1) organizational and institutional policies, 2) educators’ time and material resources, 3) learners’ needs and abilities, and 4) aspects of citizen science project design that constitute a higher barrier to entry for educators managing student contributions. We developed a simple two-dimensional model to demonstrate the types of adaptations that educators made to citizen science projects and discussed the potential role of persuasive technologies to address some of the gaps and better facilitate educator and learner participation. Keywords: Citizen science; science educators; formal and non-formal education; practical concerns, implementation strategies References Ballard, H. L., Dixon, C. G., & Harris, E. M. (2017). Youth-focused citizen science: Examining the role of environmental science learning and agency for conservation. Biological Conservation, 208, 65-75. Berkowitz A. R. (1997). A simple framework for considering the benefits of SSPs. National Conference on Student and Scientist Partnerships: Conference Report. Cambridge, MA: TERC. pp. 38–41. Brossard, D., Lewenstein, B., & Bonney, R. (2005). Scientific knowledge and attitude change: The impact of a citizen science project. International Journal of Science Education, 27(9), 1099-1121. Butler, D. M., & MacGregor, I. D. (2003). GLOBE: Science and education. Journal of Geoscience Education, 51(1), 9-20. Cohn, J. P. (2008). Citizen science: Can volunteers do real research?. AIBS Bulletin, 58(3), 192-197. Crowston, K. (2000). Process as theory in information systems research. In Organizational and social perspectives on information technology (pp. 149-164). Springer US. Dickinson, J. L., Zuckerberg, B., & Bonter, D. N. (2010). Citizen science as an ecological research tool: challenges and benefits. Annual review of ecology, evolution, and systematics, 41, 149-172. Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of advanced nursing, 62(1), 107-115. Eshach, H. (2007). Bridging in-school and out-of-school learning: Formal, non-formal, and informal education. Journal of science education and technology, 16(2), 171-190. Fogg, B. J. (2002). Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do. Ubiquity, 5. Gray, S. A., Nicosia, K., & Jordan, R. C. (2012). Lessons learned from citizen science in the classroom. a response to" the future of citizen science." Democracy and Education, 20(2), 14. Houseal, A. K., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Destefano, L. (2014). Impact of a student–teacher–scientist partnership on students' and teachers' content knowledge, attitudes toward science, and pedagogical practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(1), 84-115. Jordan, R. C., Gray, S. A., Howe, D. V., Brooks, W. R., & Ehrenfeld, J. G. (2011). Knowledge gain and behavioral change in citizen science programs. Conservation Biology, 25(6), 1148-1154. Kelling, S., Johnston, A., Hochachka, W. M., Iliff, M., Fink, D., Gerbracht, J., ... & Wong, W. K. (2015). Can observation skills of citizen scientists be estimated using species accumulation curves?. PloS one, 10(10), e0139600. Loarie, S. (2016). What is it. Retrieved from http://www.inaturalist.org/pages/what_is_it Lostal, E., Serrano, F., Carrodeguas, J. A., Martínez, P., Sanz, F. & Val, C. (2013). A case of Citizen Science for Cell Biology Images Analysis. In: Proceedings of the XXXIII Congresso da Sociedade Brasileira de Computação (CSBC 2013). Maceió, Brazil, pp. 1855–1862. Malmberg, J. S., & Maull, K. E. (2013). Supporting Climate Science Research With 21st Century Technologies and a Virtual Student Conference for Upper Elementary to High School Students. LEARNing Landscapes, 6 (2), 249-264. Masters, K., Oh, E. Y., Cox, J., Simmons, B., Lintott, C., Graham, G., ... & Holmes, K. (2016). Science learning via participation in online citizen science. arXiv preprint arXiv:1601.05973. Monroe, M. C., Andrews, E., & Biedenweg, K. (2008). A framework for environmental education strategies. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 6(3-4), 205-216. Paige, K., Hattam, R., & Daniels, C. B. (2015). Two models for implementing Citizen Science projects in middle school. The Journal of Educational Enquiry, 14(2). Penuel, W. R., Bienkowski, M., Gallagher, L., Korbak, C., Sussex, W., Yamaguchi, R., & Fishman, B. J. (2006). GLOBE Year 10 evaluation: Into the next generation. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Rahm, J., Miller, H. C., Hartley, L., & Moore, J. C. (2003). The value of an emergent notion of authenticity: Examples from two student/teacher-scientist partnership programs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(8), 737-756. Roy, H. E., Pocock, M. J. O., Preston, C. D., Roy, D. B., Savage, J., Tweddle, J. C., & Robinson, L. D. (2012). Understanding citizen science and environmental monitoring: final report on behalf of UK Environmental Observation Framework. Sadler, T.D., Burgin, S., McKinney, L., & Ponjuan, L. (2010). Learning science through research apprenticeships: a critical review of the literature. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 47 (3), 235–256. Silva, C. G., Monteiro, A., Manahl, C., Lostal, E., Holocher-Ertl, T., Andrade, N., ... & Brito, R. M. (2016). Cell Spotting: educational and motivational outcomes of cell biology citizen science project in the classroom. JCOM, 15(01), A02-2. Schwartz, M. D., Beaubien, E. G., Crimmins, T. M., & Weltzin, J. F. (2013). North America. In Phenology: an integrative environmental science (pp. 67-89). Springer Netherlands. Shah, H. R., & Martinez, L. R. (2016). Current approaches in implementing citizen science in the classroom. Journal of microbiology & biology education, 17(1), 17. Silvertown, J. (2009). A new dawn for citizen science. Trends in ecology & evolution, 24(9), 467-471. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research (Vol. 15). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques: Techniques and Sullivan, B. L., Aycrigg, J. L., Barry, J. H., Bonney, R. E., Bruns, N., Cooper, C. B., ... & Fink, D. (2014). The eBird enterprise: an integrated approach to development and application of citizen science. Biological Conservation, 169, 31-40. Tinati, R., Van Kleek, M., Simperl, E., Luczak-Rösch, M., Simpson, R., & Shadbolt, N. (2015, April). Designing for citizen data analysis: A cross-sectional case study of a multi-domain citizen science platform. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 4069-4078). ACM. The European Citizen Science Association (ECSA) Working Group "Sharing Best Practice and Building Capacity". (2015). ECSA 10 Principles of Citizen Science. Retrieved from http://ecsa.citizen-science.net/engage-us/10-principles-citizen-science Trautmann, N. M, Shirk J, Fee J, & Krasny M. E. (2012). Who poses the question? Using citizen science to help K–12 teachers meet the mandate for inquiry. In: Dickinson JL and Bonney R (Eds). Citizen science: public collaboration in environmental research. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Wormstead, S. J., Becker, M. L., & Congalton, R. G. (2002). Tools for successful student–teacher– scientist partnerships. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(3), 277-287. Wiggins, A. (2013). Free as in puppies: compensating for ICT constraints in citizen science. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work (pp. 1469-1480). ACM. Yong, E. (2017). Finally: An App That Can Identify the Animal You Saw on Your Hike. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/07/ Zoellick, B., Nelson, S. J., & Schauffler, M. (2012). Participatory science and education: bringing both views into focus. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(6), 310-313. |
View
Abstract
References
 Full text PDF
|
| 2 |
Evaluating the Implementation of Green School (Adiwiyata) Program: Evidence from IndonesiaWarju, Slamet Prawiro Harto, Soenarto, Martin D. Hartmann
pp. 1483-1501 | Article Number: ijese.2017.095
Abstract One of the strategic efforts to teach education for sustainable development is implement a green school (called, hereafter, adiwiyata) program through formal education. The aim of this study is to evaluate the implementation of adiwiyata program in 33 schools in Indonesia. The main findings indicate that: first, the results of the context evaluation from the aspects of awareness and public expectations; the relevance of the programs; government’s regulations and policies categorized as excellent. Second, the results of the input evaluation were referred to the characteristic aspects of the headmasters, teachers, administrative staffs, individual services officers, and school committees; the characteristics of students; curriculum; and the characteristics of environmentally-friendly infrastructure and facilities which are all categorized as good. Third, the results of the evaluation process were obtained from the aspects of learning preparation, learning process, and collaboration with other institutions which are classified as good. Fourth, the results of the product evaluation were based on the aspects of student’s achievements and competence, and public response and satisfaction which are categorized as good. Therefore, adiwiyata program can be continued as an effort to promote the sustainable development paradigm. Keywords: adiwiyata (green schools) program, evaluation, CIPP model, sustainable development References Chin, J. (2004). Bay Area Environmental Education: How Do We Know We’re Making a Difference? San Francisco. Retrieved from http://www.peecworks.org/PEEC/PEEC_Gen/01795C68-001D0211.5/ Diep, P. C., & Hartmann, M. (2016). Green Skills in Vocational Teacher Education – a model of pedagogical competence for a world of sustainable development. The Online Journal for Technical and Vocational Education and Training in Asia, (6), 1–19. Retrieved from http://www.tvet-online.asia/issue6/diep_hartmann_tvet6.pdf Gleissner, K. (2013). Greening TVET for Sustainable Development. Bonn. Retrieved from http://www.unevoc.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/docs/e-Forum_Synthesis_report_Greening_TVET.pdf Gordon, D. E. (2010). Green Schools as High Performance Learning Facilities. Washington, D.C.: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. Retrieved from http://www.ncef.org/pubs/greenschools.pdf Hartmann, M. D. (2016). Theory and Method of Reflection Levels – Its Use in Vocational Education and Training. In VET Development Symposium “Current Situation and Development of Further Education and Research in Vocational Education and Training in Subsahara Africa”, 23th-25th August 2016 (pp. 1–9). Windhoek (Namibia): The Namibia University of Science and Technology and the University of Rostock. Kats, G., Perlman, J., & Jamadagni, S. (2005). National Review of Green Schools: Costs, Benefits, and Implications for Massachusetts. Massachusetts. Retrieved from http://legacy.azdeq.gov/ceh/download/natreview.pdf MJHR. Law No. 32 of 2009 on the Protection and Environmental Management (2009). Jakarta, Indonesia. Retrieved from http://prokum.esdm.go.id/uu/2009/UU 32 Tahun 2009 (PPLH).pdf MoE. (2011). Guidelines for Adiwiyata: School which Care and Environment Cultured. Jakarta: Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of National Education of the Republic of Indonesia. Retrieved from http://klh.kebumenkab.go.id/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Panduan-Adiwiyata-2012.pdf MoE. Minister of Environment Regulation No. 05 of 2013 on Guidelines for Adiwiyata Program (2013). Indonesia. Retrieved from http://blh.jogjaprov.go.id/po-content/uploads/Permen-LH-No-05-th-2013-Tentang-Pedoman-Adiwiyata.pdf NAAEE. (2004). Environmental Education Materials: Guidelines for Excellence. Washington, D.C.: North American Association for Environmental Education. Retrieved from https://naaee.org/sites/default/files/materialsglcomplete.pdf Olson, S. L., & Kellum, S. (2003). The Impact of Sustainable Buildings on Educational Achievements in K-12 Schools. Wisconsin: Leonardo Academy Inc. Retrieved from http://www.cleanerandgreener.org/download/sustainableschools.pdf PCA. The Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia of 1945 (2011). Indonesia: People’s Consultative Assembly of the Republic of Indonesia. Retrieved from http://stmik.teknokrat.ac.id/peraturan/uud1945.pdf Pisciotta, A. A. (2015). POST-2015 DEVELOPMENT GOALS FOR GENDER EQUALITY AND EMPOWERMENT OF WOMEN. Southwestern Journal of International Law, 21, 303–309. Retrieved from http://www.swlaw.edu/pdfs/lawjournal/21_2pisciotta Ramli, N. H., Masri, M. H., Taib, M. Z. H. M., & Hamid, N. A. (2012). A Comparative Study of Green School Guidelines. In Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences (Vol. 50, pp. 462–471). http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.08.050 Stufflebeam, D. F. & Shinkfield, A. J. (1988). Systematic Evaluation: A Self-Instructional Guide to Theory and Practice (3rd Ed.). Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing. UN. (2015a). The Millennium Development Goals Report 2015. New York: United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2015_MDG_Report/pdf/MDG 2015 rev (July 1).pdf UN. (2015b). Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030 Agenda for Sustainable Development web.pdf UNESCO. (1975). The Belgrade Charter: A Framework for Environmental Education. Retrieved October 12, 2016, from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0001/000177/017772eb.pdf UNESCO. (1977). Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education. Tbilisi. Retrieved from http://www.gdrc.org/uem/ee/EE-Tbilisi_1977.pdf UNESCO. (2012a). Education for Sustainable Development Sourcebook. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/926unesco9.pdf UNESCO. (2012b). Shaping the Education of Tomorrow: 2012 Report on the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, Abridged. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002166/216606e.pdf UNRIC. (2015). 17 Sustainable Development Goals are set and welcomed. Retrieved from http://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29844-17-sustainable-development-goals-are-set-and-welcomed Wahyuhadi, U. (2012). Adiwiyata School Management at SMK Negeri 1 Salatiga. Eprints.ums.ac.id, 1–22. Retrieved from http://eprints.ums.ac.id/18951/10/Naskah_Publikasi.pdf ZAS Architechs Inc. (n.d.). Green Schools Resource Guide: A Practical Resource for Planning and Building Green Schools in Ontario. ZAS Architechs Inc. in association with Halsall Associates. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/GreenSchools_Guide.pdf Zint, M., Kraemer, A., & Kolenic, G. (2014). Evaluating Meaningful Watershed Educational Experiences: An exploration into the effects on participating students’ environmental stewardship characteristics and the relationships between these predictors of environment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 41(Evaluating Environmental Education), 4–17. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.07.002 |
View
Abstract
References
Full text PDF
|
| 3 |
The Perceptions of Early Childhood Educators Regarding the Uses of the Interactive WhiteboardVeronica Marín-Diaz, Jorge Figueroa-Flores & Carmen Varo
pp. 1503-1524 | Article Number: ijese.2017.096
Abstract Nowadays, there is an increase in the use of the Interactive White Board (IWB) in the classroom. This allows the instructor to integrate new and more attractive learning methodologies towards the learning process. In early childhood education the instructor relies too much on images, making the IWB a great teaching resource. However, are teachers prepared to use and implement the IWB? Do they consider it a good resource towards this educational stage? From these questions and through an ad-hoc questionnaire, a multiple case study was conducted with early childhood educators (N=30) from different public schools in Córdoba, Spain. From these questions and through an ad-hoc questionnaire, a multiple case study was conducted with early childhood educators (N=30) from different public schools in Córdoba, Spain. As a result, it’s recommended that the government takes action and implement a teacher training program along with improving the Internet accessibility of the schools. Keywords: Interactive WhiteBoard, teachers' knowledge, teachers’ competence, information technology References Albaaly, E., & Higgins, S. (2012). The impact of interactive whiteboard technology on medical students’ achievement in ESL essay writing: an early study in Egypt. The Language Learning Journal, 40(2), 207-222. DOI: 10.1080/09571736.2010.543953. Alonso, M. O., & Martín, E. (2011). Pizarras digitales interactivas: una nueva forma de enseñar. Salamanca: JET PRINT. Retrieved from http://anpesalamanca.net/formacion/descargas/libro/Pizarra_Digital_Libro.pdf Balta, N., & Duran, M. (2015). Attitudes as students and teachers towards the use of interactive whiteboards in elementary and secondary school classrooms. TOJET, The Turkish Online Journal of educational Technology, 14(2), 15-23, Retrieved from http://www.tojet.net/articles/v14i2/1423.pdf Bidaki, M. Z., & Mobasheri, N. (2013). Teachers’ views of the effects of the Interactive White Board (IWB) on teaching. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83, 140-144. DOi:10.1016/jsbspro.2013.06.027. Buckingham, D. (2008). Más allá de la tecnología: aprendizaje infantil en la era de la cultura digital. Buenos aires: Manantial. Cakirogly, O. (2015). Teachers’ views on the use of interactive whiteboards in secondary schools. Eurasian Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(2), 252-259. DOI: 10.12973/eurasia.2015.1335a. Retrieved from http://ejmste.com/Ek/1168-eurasia.2015.1335a.pdf Cao, A. P. (2015). The Application of Information Technology in China’s Classroom Teaching. Cross-Cultural Communication, 11(5), 61-64. Retrieved from http//www.cscanada.net/index.php/ccc/article/view/7012 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/7012 Coyle, Y., Yanez. L., & Verdu, M. (2010). The impact of the interactive whiteboard on the teacher and children’s language use in an ESL immersion classroom. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 38(4), 614-625. Digregorio, P., & Sobel-Lojeski, K. (2010). The effects of interactive whiteboards (IWBs) on student performance and learning: a literature review. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 38(3), 255–312. DOI:10.2190/ET.38.3.b. Domínguez, R. (2009). La sociedad del conocimiento y los nuevos retos educativos. Etic@net, 8. Retrieved from http://www.google.es/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ugr.es%2F~sevimeco%2Frevistaeticanet%2Fnumero8%2FArticulos%2FFormato%2Farticulo9.pdf&ei=J72ZU-uuI6mc0AX_64GACw&usg=AFQjCNH0FXDDn_JmLOz_t9Z7V7TOE43nMg&bvm=bv.68911936,d.d2k Dulac, J. (2006). La Pizarra Digital, ¿Una nueva metodología en el aula? Retrieved from http://www.google.es/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dulac.es%2Finvestigaciones%2Fpizarra%2FInforme%2520final.%2520Web.pdf&ei=n9aYU4e4Famg0QWctoDYBA&usg=AFQjCNEis3sFAxBnxr-kJXOzGVJ93asnMw&bvm=bv.68693194,d.d2k Gallego, D. J., Gatica, N., Valdivia, J., Alonso, C. M., Krause, A., Jiménez, R., Cacheiro, M., Venegas, L. & Palma, C. (2010). La pizarra digital: una ventana al mundo desde las aulas. Sevilla: MAD. Garavaglio, A., Garonzia, V., & Petti, L. (2013). The integration of computer into the classroom as school equipment. A Primary School study. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83, 323-327. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2031.06.063. Harlow, A., Cowie, B., & Heazlewood, M. (2010). Keeping in touch with learning: the use of an interactive whiteboard in the junior school. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2), 237-243. DOI: 10.1016/sbspro.2014.03.413. Heemskert, I., Kuiper, E., & Meijer, J. (2014). Interactive whiteboard and virtual learning environment combined: effects on mathematics education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(5), 465-478. DOI:10.1111/jcal.12060. Korkmaz, O., & Cakil, I. (2013). Teachers’ difficulties about using smart boards. Procedia Social and Bheavioral Sciencies, 83, 595-579. DOI: 10.1016/jsbspro.2013.06.113. Marqués, P. & Domingo, M. (2010). Aplicaciones educativas de las pizarras digitales interactivas (PDI). In R. Roig & M. Fiorucci (Eds.). Claves para la investigación en innovación y calidad educativas. La integración de las Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación y la Interculturalidad en las aulas (pp. 273-286). Alcoy: Marfil. Marqués, P. (2006). La pizarra digital en el aula de clase. Barcelona: Grupo Edebé. Mateo, J. (2004). La investigación ex post-facto. In R. Bisquerra (coord.). Metodología de la investigación educativa (pp. 195-230). Madrid. La Muralla. Pérez, A. (2012). Educarse en la era digital. Madrid: Morata. Prats, M. A., Riera, J., Gandol, F., & Carrillo, E. (2012). Autopercepción y demandas del profesorado de infantil y primaria sobre formación en pizarra digital interactiva. Píxel-Bit, 40, 89-100. Reche, E. (2012). El conocimiento tecnológico del alumnado de nuevo ingreso, como factor de desarrollo del sistema educativo en el marco de la convergencia europea. Tesis Doctoral Inédita. Sad, S. N., & Özhan, U. (2012). Honeymoon with IWBs: A qualitative insight in Primary students’ views on instruction with interactive whiteboard. Computers & Education, 59, 1184-1191. DOI: 10.1016.jcompedu.2012.05.010. Sad, S. N. (2012). An attitude scale for smart board use in education: Validity and reliability studies. Computers & Education, 58, 900-907. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.017. Sancho, J. M., & Correa, J.M. (2013). Aprender a ser maestra: perplejidades y paradojas. Cuadernos de Pedagogía, 436, 18-21. Schmid, E. C. (2008). Potential pedagogical benefits and drawbacks of multimedia use in the English language classroom equipped with interactive whiteboard technology. Computers and Education, 51, 1553–1568. DOI: 10.1016/jcompedu.2008.02.005. Schuck, S., & Kearney, M. (2007). Exploring pedagogy with interactive whiteboards. Retrieved from https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/detresources/pedagogy_sVIYVjvNJH.pdf Tertemiz, N., Sahin, D., Can B., & Duzgun, S. (2015). Views of Primary School Teachers and Students about the Interactive Whiteboard. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 186, 1289-1297. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.099. Troff, B., & Tirotta, R. (2010). Interactive whiteboard produce small gains in elementary students’ self-reported motivation in mathematics. Computes & Education, 54, 379-383. DOI: 10.1016.jcompedu.2009.08.019. Yang, K-T., Wang, T-H, & Khao, Y-C. (2012). How an interactive whiteboard impacts a traditional classroom. Education as Change, 16(2), 313-332. |
View
Abstract
References
Full text PDF
|
| 4 |
Towards a Theory–driven Integration of Environmental Education: The Application of Piaget and Vygotsky in Grade RHeadman N Hebe
pp. 1525-1545 | Article Number: ijese.2017.097
Abstract Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky’s respective theories on human development have made meaningful contributions to numerous fields, including education. Hence, various authors have spelled out the applicability of these theories, jointly or individually, in areas such as mathematics, language, assessment and so forth, mainly; in senior classes within the field of education. However, there seems to be a dearth of scholarly work that brings to light the applicability of these theories in the integration of Environmental Education (EE) in the realm of Early Childhood Education (ECE). The author contends that this paucity could be attributed to the general ‘neglect’ of ECE. Thus, through this article, the author tries to demonstrate how the two theories can be applied in the integration of EE in Grade R. He uses a theme drawn from the mathematics National Curriculum Statement (NCS) pursued in the South African public school system to make his point. Keywords: Piaget, Vygotsky, Assimilation, Environmental Education, Early Childhood Education, Grade R, Scaffolding, Internalization References Adegbami, A. & Adewole, O.S., (2013). Early childhood training and education neglect and its implication on children’s future achievements, national peace and development: A critical review of literature. Journal of Education and Practice, 4(22), 43 – 50. Anghileri, J. (2006). Teaching number sense (2nd ed.). London: Continuum International Publishing Group. Bennett, W.L. (1981). Perception and cognition: An information–processing framework for politics. In Long, S.L. (Ed.), The handbook of political behaviour: Volume 1(pp. 69 – 193). New York: Plenum Press. Berk, L. (2009). Child development (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education. Blake, B. & Pope, T. (2008). Developmental psychology: Incorporating Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s theories in classrooms. Journal of Cross–disciplinary Perspectives in Education, 1(1), 59 – 67. Bobis, J. (2008). Early spatial thinking and the development of number sense. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 13(3), 4 – 9. Bodrova, E., Germeroth, C. & Leong, D. (2013). Play and self–regulation: Lessons from Vygotsky. American Journal of Play, 6 (1), 111 – 123. Brandimonte, M.A., Bruno, N. & Collina, S. (2006). Cognition. In Pawlik, P. & d’Ydewalle, G. (Eds.), Psychological Concepts: An International Perspective (101 – 139). Hove, UK: Psychology Press. Calman, L.J. & Tarr–Whelan, L. (2005). Early childhood education for all: A wise investment. New York, NY: Legal Momentum. Cutter–Mackenzie, A., Edwards, S., Moore, D. & Boyd, W. (2014). Young children’s play and environmental education in early childhood education. Switzerland: Springer. Davis, J.M. (2009). Revealing the research ‘hole’ of early childhood education for sustainability: A preliminary survey of the literature. Environmental Education Research, 15(2), 227 – 241. Denhere, C., Chinyoka, K. & Mambeu, J. (2013). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development theory: What are its implications for mathematical teaching? Greener Journal of Social Sciences, 3(7), 371 – 377. Department of Basic Education (DBE). (2011a). National curriculum statement (NSC), Curriculum and assessment policy statement (CAPS) English home language foundation phase grade R – 3. Pretoria: Government Printer. Department of Basic Education (DBE). (2011b). National curriculum statement (NSC) Curriculum and assessment policy statement (CAPS) English mathematics foundation phase grade R. Pretoria: Government Printer. Department of Basic Education (DBE). (2011c). National curriculum statement (NSC) Curriculum and assessment policy statement (CAPS) English life skills foundation phase grade R – 3. Pretoria: Government Printer. Donald, D., Lazarus, S. & Lolwana, P. (2010). Educational psychology in social context: Ecosystemic application in Southern Africa (4th ed.). Cape Town: Oxford University Press. Fleming, J.S. (2005). Piaget, Kohlberg, Gilligan and others on moral development, Retrieved from: http://swppr.org/Textbook/Ch%207%20Morality.pdf on 25 February 2017. Gordon, A.M. & Browne, K.W. (2011). Beginnings and beyond: Foundations in early childhood education (8th ed.). Belmont, California: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Greeno, J., Collins A. & Resnick, L. (1996). Cognition and learning. In Berliner, D. & Calfee, R. (Eds.), Handbook in Educational Psychology (pp. 15 – 46). New York: Macmillan. Hägglund, S. & Pramling Samuelsson, I. (2009). Early childhood learning for sustainable development and citizenship. International Journal of Early Childhood, 41(2), 49 – 63. Hamachek, D. (1995). Psychology in teaching, learning and growth (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Hean, S., Craddock, D. & O’Halloran, C. (2009). Learning theories and interpersonal education: A user’s guide. Learning in Health and Social Care, 1 – 13. Hebe, H.N. (2015). Exploring the implementation of environmental education in grade R: A case study of selected early childhood development (ECD) centres. PhD Thesis Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University. Heo, J.C., Han, S., Koch, C. & Aydin H. (2011). Piaget’s egocentrism and language learning: Language egocentrism (LE) and language differentiation (LD). Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(4), 733 – 739. Jones, M.G. & Brader–Araje, L. (2002). The impact of constructivism on education: Language, discourse and meaning. American Communication Journal, 5 (3). Kamerman, S.B. (2006). A global history of early childhood education and care – Background paper prepared for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2007 Strong foundations: Early Childhood Care and Education. Paris: UNESCO. Kopelke, D. (2012). Environmental education through listening to children. D.Ed. Thesis. Queensland, Australia: Queensland University of Technology. Laird, S.G., McFarland–Piazza, L. & Allen, S. (2014). Young children’s opportunities for unstructured environmental exploration of nature: Links to adults’ experiences in childhood, International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 2 (1), 58 – 75. Louw, D.A., van Ede, D.M. & Louw, A.E. (1998). Human development (2nd ed.). Pretoria: Kagiso. Lucas, A.M. (1972). Environment and environmental education: Conceptual issues and curriculum implications. PhD Thesis. Ohio: The Ohio State University. Lutz, S. & Huitt, W. (2004). Connecting cognitive development and constructivism: Implications from theory for instruction and assessment. Constructivism in the Human Sciences, 9(1), 67 – 90. McMonagle, A. (2012). Professional pedagogy project: Supporting every child’s rights to early childhood education. Donegal: Donegal County Childcare Committee Ltd (DCCC). Mkhize, N. (2004). Sociocultural approaches to psychology: Dialogism and African conceptions of the self. In Duncan, N., Ratele, K., Hook, D., Mkhize, N., Kiguwa, P. & Collins, A. (Eds.); Self, Community and Psychology (Chapter 5, pp. 1 – 31). Cape Town: UCT Press. Muthivhi, A. & Broom, Y. (2009). School as cultural practice: Piaget and Vygotsky on learning and concept development in post–apartheid South Africa. Journal of Education, 47, 1 – 18. Nicolopoulou, A. (1993). Play, cognitive development and the social world: Piaget, Vygotsky and beyond. Human Development, 36, 1 – 23. Ojose, B. (2008). Applying Piaget’s theory of cognitive development to mathematics instruction. The Mathematics Educator, 18(1), 26 – 30. One potato, two potato (Handclapping rhyme) (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.scrapbook.com/poems/docs/2948.html on 27 July 2017 Palmer, J.A. (1998). Environmental education in the 21st century: Theory, practice, progress and promise. London: Routledge. Phillips, D.C. (1995). The good, the bad and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5 – 12. Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children, (Translated by Cook, M.). New York: International Universities Press. Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Robottom, I. (2007). Re–badged environmental education: Is ESD more than just a slogan? African Journal of Environmental Education, 14, 90 – 96. Rosenberg, E. (2009). Teacher education workbook for environment and sustainability education. Howick: Share–Net. Russell, J., Jarvis, M. & Gorman, P. (2004). Angles on psychology (2nd ed.). Cheltenham, UK: Nelson Thornes Ltd. Shabani, K., Khatib, M. & Ebadi, S. (2010). Vygotsky's zone of proximal development: Instructional implications and teachers' professional development. English Language Teaching, 3(4), 237 – 248. Shaffer, D.R. & Kipp, K. (2014). Developmental psychology: childhood and adolescence (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. Shelley, L.M. (2012). Student handbook to psychology: Developmental psychology – Volume V. New York: Facts on File, Inc. Simatwa, E.M.W. (2010). Piaget’s theory of intellectual development and its implication for instructional management at pre–secondary school level. Educational Research and Reviews, 5(7), 366 – 371. Ten in a bed (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.kididdles.com/lyrics/t003.html on 12 May 2017 The singing walrus English songs for kids (n.d.). Retrieve from http://thesingingwalrus.com on 10 May 2017 Vygotsky, L.S. (1976). Play and its Role in mental development of the child. In Bruner, J.S., Jolly, A., and Sylva, K. (Eds.), Play its role in development and evolution (pp. 461 – 463). New York: Penguin. Vygotsky, L.S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In Wertsch, J.V. (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet Psychology (pp. 144 – 188). Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe Publishers. Vygotsky, L.S. (1986). Thought and language. Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Webb, P.K. (1980). Piaget: Implications for Teaching, Theory into Practice, 19(2), 93 – 97. White, H.C. (2011). Constructivism. In Newman J. & Robbins, P. (Eds.), Green Education: An A to Z Guide (pp. 90 – 91). Los Angeles: SAGE. Woolfolk, A. (2010). Educational psychology (11th ed.). London: Pearson Education. |
View
Abstract
References
Full text PDF
|
| 5 |
Integrating Character Building into Mathematics and Science Courses in Elementary SchoolSardjijo & Hapzi Ali
pp. 1547-1552 | Article Number: ijese.2017.098
Abstract The learning condition in elementary school lately shows that it considers to emphasize the aspect of knowledge and tends to set aside the learning process involving students actively. Teacher’s deficiency of knowledge about the importance of character building is caused by less information and socialization of character building. Minister of Education Regulation (PEMERDIKNAS) No. 41 (2007) hints types of character needed to be integrated into school courses. The research is intended to review teacher’s effort in choosing and deciding type of character integrated into specific school-courses: Mathematics and science. The result shows that deciding the types of character are found convenient for teachers to be applied in RPP; but in its implementation, it says that most of teachers do not understand about the types of character written in RPP are had to be emphasized in learning process. The learning process of those two courses are still dominated by the teacher, while the core activities in RPP claims that teachers have planned involving students actively through activities of exploration, elaboration and confirmation. Keywords: Character building, Mathematics, science, elementary school References Anshory A.M, Ichan (2007), Paradigm of Values Education and Budi Pekertidalam Learning in Cultural Based Elementary School, Malang, FKIP Muhamadiyah University of Malang Asri Budiningsih, (2004), Moral Learning, Based on Student Character and Culture, Jakarta, Rieneka Cipta Clark, Kate Stevenson, (2009), Character Education: Handling Peer Pressure, New York; Chelcea House Publihing Depdiknas (2006). Education Unit Level Curriculum. Jakarta: Balibang Depdikbud Minister of Education Regulation (PEMERDIKNAS) no. 41 (2007), Education Unit Level Curriculum. Jakarta: Balibang Depdikbud Koesoema, Doni (2007). Character Education, Child Educational Strategy in Global Age, Jakarta, Grasindo Lickona, T. (1992), Educating for Character: How Our Schools Can Teach Respect an Responsibility. New York: Bantam Books McCollum, Sean, (2009), Character Education: Managing Conflict Resolution, New York: Chelcea House Publishing Megawangi, Ratna, (2003), Character Education to Build Civil Society, IPPK Indonesia Heritage Foundation Oetama, Jacob. (2006), Media Role, Building Nation Character, http://www.forum-rektor.org/opini.php?hal=36=21( March 19, 2008) Sardjijo, (2011), Study of value education as academic support for Character Education (Case study in UPI Bandung), Dissertation, Bandung. Wahyudin (2013), Building the Character of learning learning Mathematics Curriculum 2013, Journal Education UT vol. 14 September No.2 2013 Zaim, Elmubarok, (2008), Grounding Value Education, Gathering the Scattered, Connecting the Disconnected, and Unifying the Disintegrated, Bandung, Alfabeta |
View
Abstract
References
Full text PDF
|
| 6 |
Comparison of Male and Female Primary School Student Reasoning Profiles in Solving Fractional ProblemsIis Holisin, I Ketut Budayasa & St. Suwarsono
pp. 1553-1565 | Article Number: ijese.2017.099
Abstract This study aims to describe the comparison of students male and female primary school students reasoning problems in solving fractional problems. This research includes explorative research with qualitative approach which reveal the symptoms that occur in the subject of research. The results of the study showed that female students in solving the problem of fractions presented the mathematical statement orally by looking at the word or phrase that existed on the problem, connecting the facts in Known problems with the questions asked; Create a solution plan by looking at the key words in the problem; Complete the multiplication of fractions by the technique of crossing out and using the formula; Re-examine the results of the solution by doing mental calculations, rework the problem in the same way. Students believe the result is correct because the result must be the same, there is no other way. A male student in solving a fractional problem presents an oral mathematical statement by looking at the word or phrase that exists in the problem, linking the facts in the problem of what is known to the question; Make a plan of solution by paying full attention to the meaning of the sentence, by experimenting in order that the results are not negative; Complete the multiplication of fractions by the technique of crossing out and using the formula; Re-examine the results by doing mental calculations, recalculating. Keywords: Fractional Problems, Reasoning, Elementary School Students References Artzt, Alice F. and Yaloz-Femia, Shirel. (1999). “Mathematical reasoning during small-group problem solving”. In Lee V. Stiff and Frances R. Curcio (Ed). Developing mathematical reasoning in grades K-12, 115-126. Reston, Virginia:National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Bancong, H., Subaer. (2013). “Profil penalaran logis berdasarkan gaya berpikir dalam memecahkan masalah fisika peserta didik“. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia. JPII 2 (2) (2013) 195-202 Chaplin, J.P. (1989). Kamus lengkap psikologi (terjemahan Kartini Kartono). Jakarta: Rajawali Press. Depdiknas. Kamus besar bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta : Balai Pustaka. Depdiknas. (2002). Kurikulum berbasis kompetensi mata pelajaran matematika. Jakarta: Pusat Kurikulum-Balitbang. Depdiknas. (2006). Standar kompetensi dan kompetensi dasar. Jakarta:Badan Standar Nasional Pendidikan. Hudojo, Herman. (1979). Pengembangan kurikulum matematika dan pelaksanaannya di depan kelas. Surabaya : Usaha Nasional. Jensen, Eric. (2011). Pemelajaran berbasis otak paradigma pengajaran baru. Edisi Kedua. Jakarta:PT Indeks. Kamus Bahasa Indonesia Online. http://kamusbahasaindonesia.org/mampu. Diakses tanggal 15 Okteober 2014. Kariadinata, R. (2012). ”Menumbuhkan daya nalar (power of reason) siswa melalui pembelajaran analogi matematika”. Jurnal Ilmiah Program Studi Matematika STKIP Siliwangi Bandung Vol. 1 No.1 Keraf, G. (1982). Argumen dan narasi. Komposisi lanjutan III. Jakarta:Gramedia. Krulik, Stephen & Rudnick, Jesse A. (1995). The new sourcebook for teaching reasoning and problem solving in Elementary School. Boston:Allyn and Bacon. Mueller,Mary & Maher,Carolyn. (2009). “Learning to reason in an informal math after-school program”. Mathematics Education Research Journal Vol. 21, No. 3, 7-35 Pape, Stepen J. (2004). “Middle School children’s problem-solving Behavior: a Cognitive Analysis from a reading comprehension perspective”. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Vol. 35, No. 3, 187-219. Polya. (1973). How to solve it. Princetown, NJ: Princetown University Press. Robbins, Stephen P.; Judge, Timothy A. (2008). Perilaku organisasi buku 1, Jakarta: Salemba Empat. Royer, James M. dan Garofoli,Laura M. (2005). Cognitive contributions to sex differences in math performance. in gender defferences in mathematics an integrative psychological approach. Cambridge University Press. Santrock, John W. (2003). Adolescense perkembangan remaja. Edisi Keenam. Alih Bahasa: Dra. Shinto B. Adelar, M.Sc. Jakarta:Erlangga. Sasongko, Sri Sundari. (2009). Konsep dan teori gender. Pusat Pelatihan Gender dan Peningkatan Kualitas Perempuan, BKKBN. Shadiq, F. (2004). Pemecahan masalah, penalaran, dan komunikasi. Yogyakarta: Depdiknas, dirjendikdasmen PPPG Matematika. Shadiq, F. (2007). Penalaran atau reasoning, mengapa perlu dipelajari di sekolah. https://fadjarp3g.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/okpenalaran_gerbang_pdf. Shadiq, F. (2009). Kemahiran matematika. Yogyakarta: Pusat Pengembangan dan Pemberdayaan Pendidik dan Tenaga Kependidikan Dirjen Peningkatan Mutu Pendidik dan Tenaga Kependidikan Depdiknas. Siswono, Tatag Yuli Eko. (2008). Model pembelajaran matematika berbasis pengajuan dan pemecahan masalah untuk meningkatkan kemampuan berpikir kreatif. Surabaya:Unesa University Press. Solso. (1995). Cognitive psychology. Boston : Allyn and Bacon. Subanji. (2007). Proses berpikir pseudo penalaran kovariasional dalam mengkonstruksi grafik fungsi kejadian dinamik berkebalikan. (Disertasi doktor tidak dipublikasikan). Universitas Negeri Surabaya. Sukayasa. (2011). Karakteristik penalaran siswa SMP dalam memecahkan masalah geometri ditinjau dari perbedaan gender. (Disertasi doktor tidak dipublikasikan). Universitas Negeri Surabaya. Sumarmo, Utari. (1987).Kemampuanpemahamandan penalaranmatematika siswa SMA dikaitkandengan kemampuan penalaranlogic siswadanbeberapaunsur proses belajar mengajar.(Disertasi doktor tidak dipublikasikan). FPS IKIP Bandung. Suriasumantri, Jujun S. (1988). Filsafat ilmu sebuah pengantar populer. Jakarta:Pustaka Sinar Harapan. Yankelewitz, Dina. (2009). The development of mathematical reasoning in Elementary School students’ exploration of fraction ideas. A dissertation submitted to the Graduate School of Education Rutgers. The State University of New Jersey in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Education Graduate Program in Mathematics Education. http://mss3.libraries.rutgers.edu/dlr/TMP/rutgers-lib_28410-PDF-1.pdf. Zhu, Zheng. (2007). “Gender differences in mathematical problem solving patterns: A review of literature”. International Education Journal, 8(2), 187-203 |
View
Abstract
References
Full text PDF
|