近年來，互動式電子白板(Interactive Whiteboard, IWB)整合白板與電腦間雙向互動操作以及多媒體整合呈現之創新，讓IWB融入教學成為各國政府之支持與推動的政策，我國亦於2006年起政策性推動IWB融入各級學校之教學；因此，本研究嘗試探究IWB融入國中細胞分裂主題之教學效益。本研究由文獻分析，依據細胞分裂主題之資訊融入教學的建議與IWB之教學應用的建議，並參考Richard E. Clark、Robert B. Kozma與Richard E. Mayer之論點，發展出「科技輔助科學學習效益之三元決定論：學習科技屬性、教學方法、學習者特質」以及「質量並重的研究方法可以釐清科技輔助科學學習的全貌」兩個論點作為本研究之立論基礎，發展以IWB為基礎之課室互動教學活動，並針對IWB融入國中細胞分裂主題教學之效益進行深入評估。

本研究採準實驗研究設計，將參與研究之國中一年級學生共107人，分為「傳統資訊融入教學組」(n=57)與「IWB融入教學組」(n=50)，「傳統資訊融入教學組」於傳統課室環境中應用Microsoft PowerPoint進行教學，「IWB融入教學組」則是於傳統課室環境中應用IWB進行教學。在教學進行前，先針對研究對象實施細胞分裂主題之總結性評量前測、細胞分裂之二階層診斷式測驗(Two-tier Diagnostic Test for Cell Division, TDTCD)前測與Kolb學習風格量表，以收集量化資料；接著進行為期一週的教學，在教學過程中，進行全程課室錄影，以收集質性資料；教學結束後，再實施細胞分裂主題之總結性評量後測、TDTCD問卷後測與建構式多媒體學習環境問卷(Constructivist Multimedia Learning Environment Survey, CMLES)，以蒐集量化資料。本研究針對蒐集到的質性與量化資料進行分析，結果發現：

一、相較於傳統資訊融入教學，學生在IWB融入國中細胞分裂主題教學之環境中進行學習，有較佳之學習效益與概念改變情形。
二、相較於傳統資訊融入教學，學生認為IWB融入國中細胞分裂主題之教學環境較符合建構式學習環境。
三、相較於傳統資訊融入教學，在IWB融入國中細胞分裂主題教學之環境中進行教學，師生互動模式偏向於教師減少講述教學而學生主動參與教學活動之情形增加。
四、不同學習風格學生於不同資訊融入教學模式下學習細胞分裂主題，其學習效益與概念改變具有差異。
1. 經驗攫取偏好為「具體經驗」之學生，在IWB融入細胞分裂主題教學環境之學習效益與概念改變情形，顯著優於傳統資訊融入教學環境。
2. 經驗攫取偏好為「抽象概念」之學生，在IWB融入教學與傳統資訊融入教學環境下學習細胞分裂主題，均能獲得相等之學習效益與概念改變情形。
3. 經驗轉換偏好為「主動實驗」之學生，在IWB融入教學與傳統資訊融入教學環境下學習細胞分裂主題，均能獲得相等之學習效益；但是在概念改變情形上，則以IWB融入教學環境下之概念改變情形顯著較傳統資訊融入教學佳。
4. 經驗轉換偏好為「省思觀察」之學生在IWB融入教學與傳統資訊融入教學環境下學習細胞分裂主題，能獲得相等之整體學習效益與概念改變情形。

五、不同學習風格學生於不同資訊融入教學模式下學習細胞分裂主題，其在CMLES問卷中呈現之對於學習環境的感受情形具有差異。經驗攫取偏好為「抽象概念」之學生，對於IWB融入教學環境之感受顯著較傳統資訊融入教學環境佳，特別是在「學習探究」、「學習思考」、「相關性」、「易用性」與「挑戰性」之學習感受上，經驗轉換偏好為「主動實驗」之學生，對於「學習探究」、「學習思考」與「挑戰性」的學習感受，顯著較傳統資訊融入教學環境來得正向，經驗攫取偏好為「具體經驗」與經驗轉換偏好為「省思觀察」之學生則對於兩種資訊融入教學環境有相同正向的學習感受。
六、不同學習風格個案學生於不同資訊融入教學模式下學習細胞分裂主題，其課程參與度具有差異。經驗攫取偏好為「具體經驗」與經驗轉換偏好為「主動實驗」之學生在IWB融入教學環境下有較高之參與度，經驗攫取偏好為「抽象概念」之學生在兩種資訊融入教學環境下均有高參與度，經驗轉換偏好為「省思觀察」之學生在兩種資訊融入教學環境下多有高參與度，但在「減數分裂之意義與過程」子概念之學習，以在IWB融入教學環境下之參與度較高。

In recent years, Interactive Whiteboard (IWB) triggers the innovation of combining the bi-directional interactive operation between whiteboards and computers with multi-media presentation, which makes many countries support and promote the policy of integrating IWB into teaching. Taiwan also launched the policy to promote integrating IWB into teaching in various levels of schools in 2006. This study tries to investigate the effectiveness of integrating IWB into teaching of the ‘cell division’ concept in junior high school Biology. Referring to related literature, this study concludes the suggestions for effective teaching of ‘cell division’ concept. This study also refers to the viewpoints proposed by Richard E. Clark, Robert B. Kozma and Richard E. Mayer to develop two statements as its own theoretical basis: ‘Triadic Determinism of the Effectiveness of Technology-enhanced Science Learning: Attributes of Learning Technology, Teaching Methods and Learner Characteristics’ and ‘Research Methodology Emphasizing Both Quality and Quantity can Help Clarify the Full View of Technology-enhanced Science Learning.’ Based on above, this study develops IWB-based classroom interaction teaching activities and evaluates its effectiveness of integrating IWB into the teaching of ‘cell division’ concept in junior high school.

This study adopts the quasi-experimental design. There are 107 junior high school first-graders participating in this research. They are divided into the ‘integrating traditional technology into teaching group (n=57)’ and the ‘integrating IWB into teaching group (n=50).’ Microsoft PowerPoint is used to teach those in the ‘integrating traditional technology into teaching group’ in traditional classroom. On the other hand, IWB is used to teach students in the ‘integrating IWB into teaching group’ in traditional classroom. Before instruction, quantitative data is collected by administering the pre-test of summative assessment for ‘cell division’, pre-test of two-tier diagnostic test for ‘cell division’ (TDTCD) and ‘Kolb’s Learning Style Scale’. During one-week instruction, qualitative data is collected by recording the classroom teaching activities. After instruction, quantitative data is collected by administering the post-test of summative assessment for ‘cell division’, post-test of TDTCD and ‘Constructivist Multimedia Learning Environment Survey (CMLES).’ This study analyzes the collected qualitative and quantitative data and the results are listed below:

1. Compared to the students learning in the environment of integrating traditional technology into teaching, those who learn in the environment of integrating IWB into teaching of the ‘cell division’ concept in junior high school have better effectiveness in learning and conceptual change.
2. Compared to integrating traditional technology into teaching, students think that integrating IWB into teaching of the ‘cell division’ concept in junior high school better fits into the constructivist learning environment.
3. Compared to integrating traditional technology into teaching, reduced teacher instruction and improved student active participation in teaching activities are more commonly observed in teacher-student interaction in the environment of integrating IWB into teaching of the ‘cell division’ concept in junior high school.
4. Students of different learning styles have different effectiveness in learning and conceptual change when learning the ‘cell division’ concept in different types of integrating technology into teaching.
(1). Students who prefer ‘concrete experience’ in grasping learning experience have significantly better effectiveness in learning and conceptual change when learning the ‘cell division’ concept in IWB-integrated teaching environment than in traditional technology-integrated environment.
(2). Students who prefer ‘abstract conception’ in grasping learning experience have similar effectiveness in learning and conceptual change when learning the ‘cell division’ concept in IWB-integrated teaching environment and in traditional technology integrated environment.
(3). Students who prefer ‘active experiencing’ in transforming learning experience have similar effectiveness in learning when learning the ‘cell division’ concept in IWB-integrated teaching environment and in traditional technology integrated environment. However, they have better effectiveness in conceptual change when learning in IWB-integrated teaching environment than in traditional technology integrated environment.
(4). Students who prefer ‘reflective observation’ in transforming learning experience have similar effectiveness in learning and conceptual change when learning the ‘cell division’ concept in IWB-integrated teaching environment and in traditional technology-integrated environment.

5. Students of different learning styles have different attitudes toward learning environment in the CMLES when learning the ‘cell division’ concept in different types of integrating technology into teaching. Students who prefer ‘abstract conception’ in grasping learning experience have significantly more positive attitudes toward IWB-integrated teaching environment, especially for ‘Learning to Investigate,’ ‘Learning to Think,’ ‘Relevance,’ ‘Ease to Use’ and ‘Challenge’ subscales, than toward traditional technology-integrated environment. Students who prefer ‘active experiencing’ in transforming learning experience have more positive attitudes toward IWB-integrated teaching environment in ‘Learning to Investigate,’ ‘Learning to Think’ and ‘Challenge’ subscales than toward traditional technology-integrated environment. Students who prefer ‘concrete experience’ in grasping learning experience and those who prefer ‘reflective observation’ in transforming learning experience have the same positive attitudes toward the two types of integrating technology into teaching.
6. Students of different learning styles have different levels of classroom participation when learning the ‘cell division’ concept in different types of integrating technology into teaching. Students who prefer ‘concrete experience’ in grasping learning experience and those who prefer ‘active experiencing’ in transforming learning experience have higher participation in the IWB-integrated teaching environment. Students who prefer ‘abstract concepts’ in grasping learning experience have high participation in the two types of integrating technology into teaching. Students who prefer ‘reflective observation’ in transforming learning experience also have high participation in the two types of integrating technology into teaching; however when learning the sub-concept of ‘meaning and process of meiosis,’ they have higher participation in the IWB-integrated teaching environment.

一、中文文獻
成章瑜(2002)。新科學創造台灣競爭力。遠見雜誌，197，82-87。
何秋萱(2004)。Flash融入五階段概念改變教學策略對國中生遺傳概念改變的影響。國立彰化師範大學生物研究所碩士論文，未出版，彰化縣。
南一書局（2009）。國民中學自然與生活科技(下冊)。台南市：南一書局企業股份有限公司。
孫旻儀(2007)。師生互動關係量表之編制及模式之驗證研究。教育學術彙刊，1(2)，23-40。
教育部（2006）。「建構縣市e 化學習環境」建置參考說明。2010年9月27日，取自http://www.edu.tw/files/site_content/b0089/e-environment.pdf。
教育部（2008）。中小學資訊教育白皮書2008-2011。2010年9月27日，取自http://www.edu.tw/files/site_content/B0010/97-100year.pdf。
陳美玉(1998)。教室觀察—一項被遺漏的教師專業能力(下)。研習資訊雙月刊，15(6)，60-69。
陳彥君、董修齊(2010)。互動式電子白板融入數學領域對國小高年級學生學習動機之影響。工業科技教育學刊，3，1-7。
陳奎憙、王淑俐、單文經、黃德祥(1996)。師生關係與班級經營。臺北市：三民書局。
楊坤原、張賴妙理(2004)。遺傳學迷思概念的文獻探討及其對教學的啟示。科學教育學刊，12(3)，365-398。
楊凱悌、王子華、邱美虹(2011a)。生物學細胞分裂主題之資訊融入教學設計原則。科學教育月刊，342，9-19。
楊凱悌、王子華、邱美虹(2011b)。探討互動式電子白板對於不同認知風格國中學生學習效益之影響—以細胞分裂單元為例。課程與教學季刊，14(4)，187-208。
鄭湧涇、楊坤原(1998)。國中學生對生物的態度。師大學報，43(2)，37-54。
簡馨瑩(2010)。學生提問策略教學對教室理師生互動與教學序列結構之影響研究。當代教育研究，18(3)，125-163。

二、英文文獻
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1998). Blueprints for Reform: Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education. NY: Oxford University Press.
Amidon, E., & Flanders, N. A. (1961). The effects of direct and indirect teacher influence on dependent-prone students learning geometry. Journal of Educational Psychology, 52(6), 286-291.
Anderson, H. H. (1943). Domination and socially integrative behavior. InR. G. Barker, J. S. Kounia, & H. F. Wright (Eds.). Child Behavior and Development. New York: McGraw Hill.
Anderson, L., Ryan, D. W. L., & Shapiro, B. J. (1989). The IEA Classroom Environment study. Oxford: Pergamnon Press.
Anderson, G. J., & Walberg, H. J. (1974). Learning environments. In H. J. Walberg (Ed.), Evaluating educational performance: A sourcebook of methods, instruments, and examples. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Aragon, S. R., Johnson, S. D., & Shaik, N. (2002). The influence of learning style preferences on student success in online vs. face-to-face environments. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(4), 227-243.
Arnott, S. (2004). Computers to replace school blackboards. Computing, 9 August. Retrieved January 1, 2012, from http://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news/1860992/computers-replace-school-blackboards
Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556–559.
Baddeley, A. (1998). Human Memory. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Barak, M., Ashkar, T., & Dori, Y. J. (2011). Learning science via animated movies: Its effect on students’ thinking and motivation. Computers & Education, 56(3), 839-846.
Barnes D. (1992) The role of talk in learning. In K. Norman (Ed.), Thinking Voices. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Bayraktar, S. (2001). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction in science education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34, 173-188.
Blake, T. (1977). Motion in instructional media: Some subject-display mode interactions. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 44, 975-985.
Bloom, B. S. (1964). Stability and Change in Human Characteristics. New York: Wiley.
British Educational Communications and Technology (2003). What the research says about interactive whiteboards. Retrieved January 1, 2012, from https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/15006MIG2793.pdf
British Educational Communications and Technology (2004). Getting the most from your interactive whiteboard: A guide for secondary schools. Retrieved January 1, 2012, from https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/15091.pdf
British Educational Communications and Technology (2006). The BECTA review 2006: Evidence on the progress of ICT in education. Retrieved January 1, 2012, from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1427/1/becta_2006_bectareview_report.pdf
British Educational Communications and Technology (2007). Harnessing Technology schools survey 2007. Retrieved January 1, 2012, from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1554/1/becta_2007_htssfindings_report.pdf
Bovy, R. A. (1983). Defining the psychologically active features of instructional treatments designed to facilitate cue attendance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, USA.
Bransford J., Brown A., & Cocking R. (2000). How People Learn: Mind, Brain, Experience and School, Expanded Edition. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Brok, P., Brekelmans, M., & Wubbels, T. (2004). Interpersonal teacher behaviour and student outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15(3-4), 407-442.
Brown, C. R. (1995). The Effective Teaching of Biology. New York, USA: Longman publishing.
Browning, M. E., & Lehman, J. D. (1988). Identification of student misconceptions in genetics problem solving via computer program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(9), 747-761.
Campell, N. A., Reece, J. B., Urry, L. A., Cain, M. L., Wasserman, S. A., Minorsky, P. V., & Jackson, R. B. (2008). Biology (8th ed.). San Francisco: Benjamin Cummings.
Cassidy, S. (2004). Learning styles: An overview of theories, models, and measures. Educational Psychology, 24(4), 419-444.
Chang, V., & Fisher, D. L. (2001). A new learning instrument to evaluate online learning in higher education. In M. Kulski & A. Herrmann (Eds.), New horizons in university teaching and learning (pp.23-34). Perth: Curtin University of Technology.
Chen, S. Y.(2003). Editorial: Individual differences in web-base instruction—an overview. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 385-392.
Chen, S. Y., Magoulas, G. D., & Dimakopoulos, D. (2005). A flexible interface design for web directories to accommodate different cognitive styles. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56, 70-83.
Chen, S. Y., & Macredie, R. D. (2004). Cognitive modelling of student learning in web-based instructional programmes. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 17(3), 375-402.
Chinnici, J. P., Yue, J. W., & Torres, K. M. (2004). Students as “human chromosomes” in role-playing mitosis and meiosis. The American Biology Teacher, 66(1), 35-39.
Chou, H-W. (2001). Influences of cognitive style and training method on training effectiveness. Computer & Education, 37(1), 11-25.
Clark, D. C., & Mathis, P.M. (2000). Modeling mitosis and meiosis: A problem-solving activity. The American Biology Teacher, 62(3), 204-206.
Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 149–210.
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445-459.
Clark, R. E. (1985). Confounding in educational computing research. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1(2), 445-460.
Clark, R. E. (1992). Facilitating domain-general problem solving: Computers, cognitive processes and instruction. In R. E. Clark (Ed.), Learning from Media: Arguments, Analysis, and Evidence. USA: Information Age Publishing Inc.
Clark, R. E. (1994a). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29.
Clark, R. E. (1994b). Media and method. Educational Technology and Development, 42(3), 7-10.
Clark, R. E. (2001). What is next in the media and methods debate? In R. E. Clark (Ed.), Learning from Media: Arguments, Analysis, and Evidence. USA: Information Age Publishing Inc.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt(1992). An anchored instruction approach to cognitive skills acquisition and intelligent tutoring. In J. W. Regian & V. Shute(Eds.), Cognitive Approaches to Automated Instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Science. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Council of Ministers of Education of Canada. (1997). Common Framework of Science Learning Outcomes. Toronto: CMEC Secretariat.
Crawford, T., Chen, C. & Kelly, G. J.(1997). Creating authentic opportunities for presenting science: The influence of audience on student talk. The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 32, 1-13.
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813-834.
Daeson, P. (2010). Networked interactive whiteboards: Rationale, affordances and new pedagogies for regional Australian higher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 523-533.
Darst, P. W., Mancini, V. H., & Zakrajsek, D. B. (Eds.)(1983). Systematic Observation Instrumentation for Physical Education. West Point, NY: Leisure Press.
DeTure, M. (2004). Cognitive style and self-efficacy: predicting student success in online distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 18(1), 21-38.
Dori, Y. J., & Barak, M. (2001). Virtual and physical molecular modeling: Fostering model perception and spatial understanding. Educational Technology & Society, 4(1), 61-74.
Dori, Y. J., Barak, M., & Adir, N. (2003). A web-based chemistry course as a means to foster freshmen learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(9), 1084-1092.
Dori, Y. J., & Sasson, I. (2008). Chemical understanding and graphing skills in an honors case-based computerized chemistry laboratory environment: The value of bidirectional visual and textual representations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(2), 219-250.
Duff, A., & Duffy, T. (2002). Psychometric properties of Honey and Mumford’s learning style questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 147-163.
Duncan, R. G., Rogat, A. D., & Yarden, A.(2009). A learning progression for deepening students’ understanding of modern genetics across the 5th-10th grades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 655-674.
Duran, D., & Monereo, C. (2005). Styles and sequences of cooperative interaction in fixed and reciprocal peer tutoring. Learning & Instruction, 15, 179-199.
Ebenezer, J., Kaya, O. N., & Ebenezer, D. L. (2011). Engaging students in environmental research projects: Perceptions of fluency with innovative ttechnologies and levels of scientific inquiry abilities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(1), 94-116.
Ernest, H. J., & Federico, E. G. (2000). Measuring learning effectiveness: A new look at no-significant-difference findings. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(1), 33-39.
Federico, P. (2000). Learning styles and student attitudes toward various aspects of network-based instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 16, 359-379.
Flanders, N. A.(1960). Teacher Influence, Pupil Attitudes, and Achievement. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, Cooperative Research Project No. 397. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Flanders, N. A. (1961). Analyzing teaching behavior. Educational Leadership, 19, 173-180.
Flanders, N. A. (1970). Analyzing Teaching Behavior. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Flanders,N. A., & Amidon, E. J.(1962). “Two approaches to the teaching process.” NEA Journal, 51, 43-45.
Frank, B. M., & Keane, D. (1993). The effect of learner’s field independence, cognitive strategy instruction, and inherent word-list organisation on free-recall memory and strategy use. Journal of Experimental Education, 62(1), 14-25.
Fraser, B. J. (1989). Twenty years of classroom climate work: progress and prospect. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 21(4), 307-327.
Fraser, B. J. (1998). Science learning environment: Assessment, effects, and determinants. In B. J. Fraser and K. G. Tobin (Eds.), The International Handbook of Science Education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Fraser, B. J. (1994). Research on classroom and school climate. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Science Teaching and Learning. New York: MacmiUan.
Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1982). Predicting students’ outcomes from their perceptions of classroom psychosocial environment. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 498-518.
Fraser, B. J., & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.)(1991). Educational Environments: Evaluation, Antecedents and Consequences. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
Ford, N., & Chen, S. Y. (2000). Individual differences, hypermedia navigation and learning: an empirical study. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9(4), 281-312.
Gagne, R. M., Briggs, L.J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of Instructional Design (4th ed.). Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Germann, P. J. (1988). Development of the attitudes toward science in school assessment and its use to investigate the relationship between science achievement and attitudes toward science in school. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 689-703.
Gillen, J., Littleton, K., Twiner, A., Staarman, J. K., & Mercer, N. (2008). Using the interactive whiteboard to resource continuity and support multimodal teaching in a primary science classroom. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(4), 348-358.
Gilman, S. L. (2006). Do online labs work? An assessment of an online lab on cell division. The American Biology Teacher, 68(9), 131-134.
Glover, D., Miller, D., Averis, D., & Door, V. (2005). The interactive whiteboard: A literature survey. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 14(2), 155-170.
Haldane, M. (2007). Interactivity and the digital whiteboard: weaving the fabric of learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 257-270
Hall, I., & Higgins, S. (2005). Primary school students' perceptions of interactive whiteboards. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 102-117.
Haladyna, T., & Shaughnessy, J. (1982). Attitudes toward science: A quantitative synthesis. Science Education, 66, 547-563.
Harris, R. N., Dwyer, W. O., & Leeming, F. C. (2003). Are learning styles relevant in web-based instruction? Journal Educational Computing Research, 29(1), 13-28.
Hastings, N. B., & Tracey, M. W. (2005). Do media affect learning: Where are we now? TechTrends, 49(2), 28-30.
Hennessy, S., Deaney, R. , Ruthven, K., & Winterbottom, M. (2007). Pedagogical strategies for using the interactive whiteboard to foster learner participation in school science. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 283-301.
Hickey, D. T., Kindfield, A. C. H., Horwitz, P., & Christie, M. A. T. (2003). Integrating curriculum, instruction, assessment, and evaluation in a technology-supported genetics learning environment. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 495-538.
Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G., & Miller, D. (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 213-225.
Holliman, R., & Scanlon,E. (2004). Introduction. In R. Holliman & E. Scanlon (Ed.), Mediating Science Learning through Information and Communications Technology. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Holmes, K. (2009). Planning to teach with digital tools: Introducing the interactive whiteboard to pre-service secondary mathematics teachers. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(3), 351-365.
Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1992). The Manual of Learning Styles Maidenhead,UK: Peter Honey.
Hopkins, D. (1993). A Teacher’s Guide to Classroom Research(2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.
House, E. (1991). Realism in research. Educational Researcher, 20(6), 2-9.
Jaggars, S. S., & Bailey, T. (2010). Effectiveness of Fully Online Courses for College Students: Response to a Department of Education Meta-analysis. NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center.
Jegede, O. J., Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. (1995). The development and validation of a distance and open learning environment scale. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(1), 89-94.
Jewitt, C., Moss, G., & Cardini, A. (2007): Pace, interactivity and multimodality in teachers’ design of texts for interactive whiteboards in the secondary school classroom. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 303-317
Jonassen, D. H., Campbell, J. P., & Davidson, M. E. (1994). Learning with media: restructuring the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 31-39.
Kang, H., & Lundeberg, M. A. (2010). Participation in science practices while working in a multimedia case-based environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(9), 1116-1136.
Keefe, J. W. (1979). Learning style: An overview. In National association of secondary school principals (Ed.), Student Learning Styles: Diagnosing and Prescribing Programs. Reston, Virginia: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Kennewell, S., & Higgins, S. (2007). Introduction to IWBs. Learning, Media and Technology. 32(3), 207-212.
Kettanurak, V., Ramamurthy, K., & Haseman, W. D. (2001). User attitude as a mediator of learning performance improvement in an interactive multimedia environment: An empirical investigation of the degree of interactivity and learning styles. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 54, 541-583.
Kindfield, A. C. H. (1991). Confusing chromosome number and structure: A common student error. Journal of Biological Education, 14(2), 137-146.
Kindfield, A. C. H. (1994). Assessing understanding of biological process: Elucidating students’ models of meiosis. The American Biology Teacher, 56(6), 367-371.
Knippels, M. P. J., Waarlo, A. J., & Boersma, K. T. (2005). Design criteria for learning and teaching genetics. Journal of Biological Education, 39(3), 108-112.
Kolb, D. A.(1976). The Learning Styles Inventory: Technical manual. Boston: McBer & Company.
Kolb, D. A.(1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Kolb, D. A.(1976). Learning Styles Inventory and Technical manual. Boston: McBer & Company.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). The Kolb Learning Style Inventory- Version 3.1 2005 Technical Specifications. Boston: Hay Group, Hay Resources Direct.
Koumi, J. (1994). Media comparison and deployment: A practitioner’s view. British Journal of Educational technology, 25(1), 41-57.
Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179-212.
Kozma, R. B. (1994a). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19.
Kozma, R. B. (1994b). A reply: Media and methods. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(3), 11-14.
Kozma, R. B. (1994c). The influence of media on learning: The debate continues. School Library Media Quarterly: Journal of American Association of School Librarians, 22(4), 233-240.
Kozma, R. B. (2003). Technology and classroom practices: An International study. Journal of Research on Technology in education, 36(1), 1-14.
Krajcik, J. S., & Czerniak, C. M. (2007). Using learning technologies to support students in inquiry. In J. S. Krajcik, C. M. Czerniak, C. F. Berger, & C. Berger, Teaching Children Science in Elementary and Middle School: A Project-based Approach. NY: Routledge.
Kulik, J., Bangert, R., & Williams, G. (1983). Effects of computer-based teaching on secondary school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 19-26.
Kulik, J., Kulik, C., & Cohen, P. (1979). Research on audio-tutorial instruction: A meta-analysis of comparative studies. Research in Higher Education, 11(4), 321-341.
Kulik, C., Kulik, J., & Cohen, P. (1980). Instructional technology and college teaching. Teaching of Psychology, 7(4), 199-205.
Kulik, C.-L. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based Instruction: An updated analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 75-94.
Lai, H-j. (2010). Secondary school teachers’ perceptions of interactive whiteboard training workshops: A case study from Taiwan. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 511-522.
Levy, P. (2002). Interactive whiteboards in learning and teaching in two Sheffield schools: A developmental study. Retrieved January 1, 2012, from http://dis.shef.ac.uk/eirg/projects/wboards.htm
Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created “social climates.” The Journal of social psychology, 10, 271-299.
Lewis, J., & Wood-Robinsoon, C. (2000). Genes, chromosomes, cell devision and inheritance – do students see any relationship? International Journal of Science Education, 22, 177-197.
Lewis, J, Leach, J, & Wood-Robinsoon, C. (2000a). What’s in a cell? – young people’s understanding of the genetic relationship between cells, within an individual. International Journal of Biological Education, 34, 129-132.
Lewis, J, Leach, J, & Wood-Robinsoon, C. (2000b). Chromosomes: The missing link – young people’s understanding of mitosis, meiosis, and fertilisation. International Journal of Biological Education, 34, 189-199.
Linn, M. C. (2003). Technology and science education: Starting points, research programs, and trends. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 727-758.
Liao, Y-k, C. (2007). Effects of computer-assisted instruction on students’ achievement in Taiwan: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 48(2), 216-233.
Lazarowitz, R., & Penso, S. (1992). High school students’ difficulties in learning biology concepts. Journal of Biological Education, 26(3), 215-223.
Manochehri, N., & Young, J. I. (2006). The impact of student learning styles with web-based learning or instructor-based learning on student knowledge and satisfaction, The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(3), 313–316.
Manochehri, N. (2008). Individual learning style effects on student satisfaction in a web-based environment. International Journal of Instructional Media, 35(2), 221-228.
Maor, D., & Fraser, B. J. (2005). An online questionnaire for evaluating students’ and teachers’ perceptions of constructivist multimedia learning environments. Research in Science Education, 35, 221-244.
Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32, 1–19.
Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13, 125-1139.
Means, B., Toyama,Y., Murphy. R., Bakia, M., and Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of Evidence-based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-analysis and Review of Online-learning Studies. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
Mercer, N. (2005) Sociocultural discourse analysis: Analyzing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 137–168.
Mertens, T. R., & Walker, J. O. (1992). A paper-&-pencil strategy for teaching mitosis & meiosis, diagnosing learning problems & predicting examination performance. The American Biology Teacher, 49(4), 229-233.
Mielke, K. (1980). Commentary. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 28(1), 66-69.
Morrison, G. R. (1994). The media effects question:”Unresolvable” or asking the right question? Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 41-44.
Morrison, G. R. (2001). The equivalent evaluation of instructional media: The next round of media comparison studies. In R. E. Clark (Ed.), Learning from Media: Arguments, Analysis, and Evidence. USA: Information Age Publishing Inc.
Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning Making in Secondary Science Classrooms. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Mousavi, S., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 319–334.
Murcia, K. (2008). Teaching for scientific literacy with an interactive whiteboard. Teaching Science, 54(4), 17-21.
Murcia, K., & Sheffield, R. (2010). Talking about science in interactive whiteboard classrooms. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 417-431.
Myers Ⅲ, R. E., & Fouts, J. T. (1992). A cluster analysis of high school classroom environments and attitude toward science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 929-937.
Nakhleh, M. B. (1994). A review of microcomputer-based labs: How have they affected science learning? Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 13, 367-381.
National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Northcote, M., Mildenhall, P., Marshall, L., & Swan, P. (2010). Interactive whiteboards: Interactive or just whiteboards? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 494-510.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2001). Schooling for Tomorrow: Learning to Change: ICT in Schools. Paris, France: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, OECD.
Oztap, H., Ozay, E., & Oztap, F. (2003). Teaching cell division to secondary school students: An investigation of difficulties experienced by Turkish teachers. International Journal of Biological Education, 38, 13-15.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Prior, G., & Hall, L. (2004). ICT in schools survey 2004: Findings from a survey conducted in Spring 2004. Retrieved January 1, 2012, from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/6213/1/ict_in_schools_survey_2004.pdf
Rakap, S. (2010). Impacts of learning styles and computer skills on adult students’ learning online. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 108-115.
Rovai, A. P., & Barnum, K. T. (2003). On-line course effectiveness: An analysis of student interactions and perceptions of learning. Journal of Distance Education, 18(1), 57-73.
Reiser, R. A. (1994). Clark’s invitation to the dance: An instructional designer’s response. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 45-48.
Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part I: A history of instructional media. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 49(1), 53-64.
Ross, S. M. (1994). Delivery trucks or groceries? More food for thought on whether media(will, may, can’t) influence learning. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 42(2), 5-6.
Sahlberg, P. (2010). Hope of cooperative learning: intentional talk in Albanian secondary school classrooms. Intercultural Education, 21(3), 205-218.
Sahlberg, P., & Boce, E. (2010). Are teachers teaching for a knowledge society? Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 16(1), 31-48.
Salomon, G. (1974). Internalization of filmic schematic operations in interaction with learners’ aptitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 499-511.
Salomon, G. (1979). Interaction of Media, Cognition and Learning. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Salomon, G. (1984). Television is “easy” and print is “tough”: The differential investment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 647-658.
Salomon, G. (1991). Transcending the qualitative-quantitative debate: The analytic and systemic approaches to educational research. Educational Research, 20(6), 10-18.
Saracho, O. N. (1998). Research directions for cognitive style and education. International Journal of Educational Research, 29(3), 287-290.
Schantz, B. N. (1963). An Experimental Study Comparing the Effects of Verbal Recall by Children in Direct and Indirect Teaching Methods as A Tool for Measurement. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Schibeci, R. A. (1984). Attitudes to science: An update. Studies in Science Education, 11, 26-59.
Schibeci, R. A. (1989). Home, school, and peer group influences on student attitudes and achievement in science. Science Education, 73, 13-24.
Schmeck, R. R. (1988). Individual differences and learning strategies. In Weinstein C. E., Goetz, E. T., & Alexander, P.A.(Eds.). Learning and Study Strategies: Issues in Assessment, Instruction and Evaluation, San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Sein, M., & Robey, D. (1991). Learning style and the efficacy of computer training methods. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 72, 243–248.
She, H-C., & Fisher, D. (2000). The development of a questionnaire to describe science teacher communication behavior in Taiwan and Australia. Science Education, 84(6), 706–726.
Shrock, S. A. (1994). The media influence debate: Read the fine print, but don’t lose sight of the big picture. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 49-53.
Simpson, C. L., Pollacia, L., Speers, J., Willis, T. H., & Tarver, R.(2003). An analysis of certain factors related to the use of powerpoint. Communications of the International Information Management Association, 3(2), 73-83.
Simpson, R. D., & Oliver, J. S. (1985). Attitudes toward science and achievement motivation profiles of male and female science students in grade six through ten. Science Education, 69, 511-526.
Slay, H., Sieborger, I., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2008). Interactive whiteboard: Real beauty or just lipstick? Computers & Education, 51(3), 1321-1341.
Smith, M. U. (1991). Teaching cell division: Students’ difficulties and teaching recommendations. Journal of College Science Teaching, 21, 28-33.
Smith, M. U., & Kindfield, A. C. H. (1999). Teaching cell division: Basics and recommendations. The American Biology Teacher, 61(5), 366-371.
Smith, H. J., Higgins, S., Wall, K., & Miller, J. (2005). Interactive whiteboards: Boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 91- 101.
Smith, D., & Kolb, D. (1986). User Guide for the Learning-Style Inventory. Boston: McBer & Company.
Somekh, B., Haldane, M., Jones, K., Lewin, C., Steadman, S., Scrimshaw, P., Sing, S., Bird, K., Cummings, J., Downing, B., Stuart, T. H., Jarvis, J., Mavers, D., & Woodrow, D. (2007). Evaluation of the Primary Schools Whiteboard Expansion Project. Report to the Department for Children, Schools and Families. Retrieved January 1, 2012, from http://archive.teachfind.com/becta/research.becta.org.uk/upload-dir/downloads/page_documents/research/whiteboards_expansion.pdf
Somyurek, S., Atasoy, B., & Ozdemir, S. (2009). Board’s IQ: What makes a board smart? Computers & Education, 53(2), 368-374.
Stewart, J., Cartier, J. L., & Passmore, C. M. (2005). Developing understanding through model-based inquiry. In M. S. Donovan & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), How Students Learn: Science in the Classroom.Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Summer, J., A. Waigandt, & Whittaker, T. (2005). A comparison of student achievement and satisfaction in an online versus a traditional face-to-face statistics class. Innovative Higher Education, 29(3), 233–250.
Susskind, J. E. (2005). PowerPoint’s power in the classroom: Enhancing students’ self-efficacy and attitudes. Computers & Education, 45(2), 203-215.
Talton, E. L., & Simpson, R. D. (1986). Relationships of attitudes toward self, family, and school with attitudes toward science among adolescents. Science Education, 70, 365-374.
Taylor, P., & Maor, D. (2000). Assessing the efficacy of online teaching with the constructivist on-line learning environment survey. In A. Herrmann and M. M. Kulski (Eds), Flexible Futures in Tertiary Teaching. Proceedings of the 9th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, Perth: Curtin University of Technology.
Terrell, S. R. (2002). The effect of learning style on doctoral course completion in a Web-based learning environment. Internet and Higher Education, 5, 345-352.
Thomas, M., & Jones, A. (2010). Interactive whiteboards: An Australasian perspective. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), iii-vi.
Torff, B., & Tirotta, R. (2010). Interactive whiteboards produce small gains in elementary students’ self-reported motivation in mathematics. Computers & Education, 54(2), 379-383.
Ullmer, E. (1994). Media and learning: Are there two kinds of truth? Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(1), 21-32.
Walker, S. L., & Fraser, B. J. (2005). Development and validation of an instrument for assessing distance education learning environments in higher education: The distance education learning environments Survey (DELES). Learning Environments Research, 8(3), 289-308.
Wall, K., Higgins, S., & Smith, H. (2005). ‘The visual helps me understand the complicated things’: Pupil views of teaching and learning with interactive whiteboards. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 851-867.
Waller, W. (1932). The sociology of teaching. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Wang, T. H. (2007). What strategies are effective for formative assessment in an e-Learning environment? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(3), 171-186.
Wang, K. H., Wang, T. H., Wang, W. L., & Huang, S. C. (2006). Learning styles and formative assessment strategy: enhancing student achievement in Web-based learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(3), 207-217.
Wellington, J. (2005). Has ICT come of age? Recurring debates on the role of ICT in education, 1982-2004. Research in Science and Technological Education, 23(1), 25-39.
Weinburgh, M. (1995). Sex differences in student attitudes toward science: A meta-analysis of the literature from 1970 to 1991. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 387–398.
White, B. (1984). Designing computer games to help physics students understand Newton’s law of motion. Cognition and Instruction, 1(1), 69-108.
White, B. (1993). ThinkerTools: Causal models, conceptual change, and science education. Cognition and Instruction, 10(1), 1-100.
White, B., & Schwarz, C. (1998). Alternative approaches to using modeling and simulation tools for teaching science. In N. Roberts, W. Feurzeig, & B. Hunter (Eds.), Computer Modeling and Simulation in Science Education. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Wu, H.-K. (2003). Linking the microscopic view of chemistry to real life experiences: Intertextuality in a high-school science classroom, Science Education, 87, 868-891.
Wu, H.-K., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting conceptual understanding of chemical representations: students' use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 821-842.
Wubbels, T & Levy, J (1993). Do You Know What You Look Like: Interpersonal Relationships in Education. London: Falmer.
Wubbels, T., Levy, J., & Brekelmans, M. (1997). Paying attention to relationships. Educational Leadership, 54(2), 82-86.
Yager, R. E., Tamir, P., & Huang, D-S. (1992). An STS approach to human Biology instruction affects achievement & attitudes of elementary Science majors. The American Biology Teacher, 54(6), 349-355.
Yang, K.T., & Wang, T. H. (2012). Interactive WhiteBoard: Effective interactive teaching strategy designs for Biology teaching. In Anderson Silva, Elvis Pontes, Adilson Guelfi and Sergio Takeo Kofuji (Eds.), E-Learning - Engineering, On-Job Training and Interactive Teaching (pp. 139-156). InTech, Croatia.
Yelas, J., & Engles, P. (2010). Project ACTIVate: Innovations from New Zealand. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 432-446.
Yelland, N. (2008). New times, new learning, new pedagogies: ICT and education in the 21st century. In N. Yelland, G. A. Neal, & E. Dakich(Eds.), Rethinking Education with ICT(pp.1-10). Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Zacharis, N. Z. (2010). The impact of learning styles on student achievement in a web-based versus an equivalent face-to-face course. College Student Journal, 44(3), 591-597.