Research question: How can use of technology in university level science education increase student understanding of core concepts?
Keywords: education* technology “post secondary”; biology education* technology; education* technology university science; education* technology AND biology AND university OR post secondary OR tertiary AND understanding.
Reference manager application: RefWorks
References
Bennett, S., Agostinho, S., & Lockyer, L. (2001). Technology tools to support learning design: Implications derived from an investigation of university teachers’ design practices. Computers and Education, 81, 211-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.016
Borokhovski, E., Bernard, R. M., Tamim, R. M., & Schmid, R. F. (2001). Technology-supported student interaction in post-secondary education: A meta-analysis of designed versus contextual treatments. Computers and Education, 96, 15-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.004
Dantas, A. M., & Kemm, R. E. (2008). A blended approach to active learning in a physiology laboratory-based subject facilitated by an e-learning component. Advances in Physiology Education, 32(1), 65-75. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00006.2007
Förster, M., Weiser, C., & Maur, A. (2001). How feedback provided by voluntary electronic quizzes affects learning outcomes of university students in large classes. Computers and Education, 121, 100-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.012
Goff, E. E., Reindl, K. M., Johnson, C., McClean, P., Offerdahl, E. G., Schroeder, N. L., & White, A. R. (2017a). Efficacy of a meiosis learning module developed for the virtual cell animation collection. CBE Life Sciences Education, 16(1), Article 9. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-03-0141
Goff, E. E., Reindl, K. M., Johnson, C., McClean, P., Offerdahl, E. G., Schroeder, N. L., & White, A. R. (2017b). Variation in external representations as part of the classroom lecture: An investigation of virtual cell animations in introductory photosynthesis instruction. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 45(3), 226-234. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21032
Henderson, M., Selwyn, N., Finger, G., & Aston, R. (2015). Students’ everyday engagement with digital technology in university: Exploring patterns of use and ‘usefulness’. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 37(3), 308-319. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2015.1034424
Kara, Y., & Yeşilyurt, S. (2008). Comparing the impacts of tutorial and edutainment software programs on students’ achievements, misconceptions, and attitudes towards biology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(1), 32-41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-007-9077-z
Lowerison, G., Sclater, J., Schmid, R. F., & Abrami, P. C. (2006). Student perceived effectiveness of computer technology use in post-secondary classrooms. Computers & Education, 47(4), 465-489. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.10.014
Makransky, G., Thisgaard, M. W., & Gadegaard, H. (2016). Virtual simulations as preparation for lab exercises: Assessing learning of key laboratory skills in microbiology and improvement of essential non-cognitive skills. PloS One, 11(6), Article e0155895. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155895
Riffell, S., & Sibley, D. (2005). Using web-based instruction to improve large undergraduate biology courses: An evaluation of a hybrid course format. Computers & Education, 44(3), 217-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.01.005
Sadler, T. D., Romine, W. L., Stuart, P. E., & Merle-Johnson, D. (2013). Game-based curricula in biology classes: Differential effects among varying academic levels. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(4), 479-499. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21085
Swan, A. E., & O’Donnell, A. M. (2009). The contribution of a virtual biology laboratory to college students’ learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(4), 405-419. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290903301735