A paradigm shift in the teaching and learning of science using
technology in Mauritius: Making a case for incorporating the affective
domain.
Yashwantrao Ramma1, Ajeevsing Bholoa1, Mike Watts2 , Martin Samy2
1Mauritius
Institute of Education, Brunel University, U. K, 3Leeds Metropolitan University,
U.K
STRUCTURED ABSTRACT
Through a systematic review of the literature we indicate how the affective domain has been
consistently overlooked by current frameworks for integrating technology in the teaching and learning
of Science. We argue that presently technology is overwhelmingly employed in education in
Mauritius as a source of information rather than a process-based means of knowledge construction
which is the premise for conceptual understanding. In this theoretical paper we propose a framework,
pedagogical technological integrated medium (PTIM), that builds on the existing premises of
pedagogy, content/contextual knowledge and technology to include the affective domain at the
common intersection of these three premises. The affective dimension is further explored as a space
for interaction between learners, teachers, parents and the social dimension in a series of stages
encapsulating, home tasks based on prior knowledge with the lesson delivery at school. We posit that
a succinct synchronisation of these various elements would ensure successful implementation of the
framework.
Key words: affective domain, pedagogical technological integrated medium, knowledge construction,
conceptual understanding
1. INTRODUCTION
Technology has permeated all spheres of our lives such that it is no more considered a luxury and its
avoidance would leap us backwards and counter advancement in every aspect of our undertakings.
Science and technology have always been closely linked, given that the principles of science are the
foundations for technology (Snyder, 2004). However, most of the time, in education, technology is
used as a source of information and innovation in this domain is related to hardware and software
(Dwyer, Ringstaff & Sandholtz, 1991) rather than as a process-based means for knowledge
construction.
This study has been carried out on the basis of a different perspective: that technology is not only a
stand-alone discipline but also a tool which permeates the teaching-learning process. In many
1
instances, in education, technology is considered as a tool that teachers use to teach a given concept.
However, it makes a difference when technology is used as a pedagogical tool for teaching and
learning as it encompasses the technological competence as promulgated by Dyrenfurth (1990) and
Layton (1994), namely, technological knowledge, technological skill and technological will. Autio
(2011) confirms that in technology classes in Finland, some teachers are well organised in guiding
learners. This competency, an element of the 21st century skills (Shelly, Gunter & Gunter, 2012),
should permeate across the whole curriculum.
For the purpose of this study, technology for the teaching and learning of science has been considered.
The technological tools are in the form of personal computers/laptops, video projectors, data logging
devices and tablets constituting a suitable set which facilitate the interaction between teachers and
learners, while pedagogy is taken to be the medium that acts as a catalyst to activate the process of
knowledge construction in the learner. Moreover, it is understood that technology can provide the
appropriate medium for teachers to nurture higher-level thinking in students by means of carefully
structured activities. While the cognitive domain is essential in knowledge acquisition, Autio &
Hansen (2002) and Autio (2011) adds in the interplay the significant role of the emotional will which
is encapsulated in the affective domain. However, literature on use of technology in education is
mostly directed towards the cognitive domain and in cases where the affective domain is considered
there is little insight of its incorporation in the teaching –learning process. Questions are still being
asked as to whether teachers are giving due consideration to the affective dimension of students’
learning with technology.
In this paper, we propose a framework for integrating technology in teaching and learning which
captures the affective domain by putting forth a proposal for the inclusion of the affective domain
with the collusion of the social dimension. This work We extends on the our previous research on
technology integration (Ramma, Tan & Mariaye, 2009) in science and which includes the three
domains- contextual knowledge, pedagogy and technology - together with an additional one – the
affective domain for purposeful knowledge construction by learners. Meaningful learning decreases
reliance on rote memorization and assists learners in internalising concepts thereby leading to
conceptual understanding. Such an internalization is personal to the individual and is a function of
his/her emotional will. Illeris (2003) argues that the social dimension is a non-negligible element for a
learner as it is amenable to ‘participation, communication and co-operation’ (p. 399). In such a
context, technology is referred to as being a pedagogical technological integrated medium that
teachers use to engage learners in the construction of purposeful knowledge structures with the
intention of developing in them a critical mind.
2
The paper thus contributes to theory in that it may inform researchers as well as practitioners on how
to better build their research design centered about the affective domain within a growing
technological-mediated perspective.
2. CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING AND KNOWLEDGE CONSTRUCTION
Technology is facing a challenging phase where it is under constant pressure to display the desired
outcomes (Schrum et al., 2007) in terms of improving the quality of teaching and learning. Clarke
(1983) emphasizes this idea of what constitute media to be the vehicle for conveying instruction rather
than bringing appropriate benefits in performance. After Clarke made such a thought-provoking
reflection, nothing much has changed in the way teaching and learning take place in the classroom
when technology is used. And thirty years later, we are still making such similar observation. The
traditional instructional mode is still prevalent (Bah-lalya, 2006; Seebaluck & Seegum, 2012; Kim et
al., 2013) despite the fact that we are living in a touch-button/touch-screen world. Though learners
display imaginative configurations outside the classroom, a majority of them become mere observers
and demonstrate remoteness from those technology-savvy experiences and finally adopt a passive
mode in ‘receiving’ knowledge.
The construction of knowledge by learners through conceptual change (Posner et al., 1982; Chi et al.,
1994) entails dissatisfactions with the existing knowledge in the very first instance, and the
acquisition of conceptual knowledge, it is to be noted, takes into consideration cognitive as well as
emotional elements (Zembylas, 2005). More importantly, Vosniadou and Brewer (1994) are of the
view that the neglect of motivational beliefs may constrain conceptual change. Intrinsic motivation
(Covington & Mueller, 2001; Ryan & Desi, 2000) becomes the determining factor to satisfy one’s
curiosity, inducing self-satisfactions (Ryan, 1993). Knowledge construction and the development of
cognitive structures are closely associated with the inducement of ‘personally meaningful goals’
(Covington & Mueller, 2001, p. 166) or by ‘designing their [students’] own knowledge base’
(Jonassen, 1995, p. 43) and the readiness to learn and explore is a natural behaviour of mankind.
The learner centered pedagogy builds on a constructivist paradigm and emphasizes students’
readiness (Richardson, 2003) as one of the determining factors for their engagement in developing
cognitive structures around prior knowledge (Zohar, 2002; Otero & Nathan, 2008) or ‘dissonant
events’ (Cakir, 2008, p. 4). Knowledge construction heavily depends on prior knowledge of learners
(Jonassen, 1995; Richardson, 2003; Cooperstein and Kosevar-Weidinger, 2004; Cakir, 2008; Dixon,
2012) and the latter acts as a baseline for the development of conceptual change and critical thinking.
The acquisition of concepts is evidenced by the appropriate transfer of learning based on an ‘actororiented transfer model’ (Lobato, 2003). This model recognizes the social and cultural dimensions as
determinants in structuring learners’ generalising experiences.
3
Teacher preparation (Lee & Krapfl, 2002; Hudson, English & Dawes, 2009) is also an additional
element that should not be ignored for bringing about conceptual change in learners. It is unfortunate
that teachers’ knowledge about the prominence of prior knowledge is either not given due importance,
or is simply treated as uniformly acquired by all learners. In addition to prior knowledge, Redish
(1994) propounds the contact between the teacher and learners as enabling the teacher to capture the
mental model of the learners and to guide them to construct cognitive structures in their minds.
Therefore, it rests upon teachers to guide learners to structure the content into well-organised mental
models (Redish, 1994; Zohar, 2004) or to reformulate the naïve mental models that some learners
might have and which will impinge upon the construction of new cognitive structures.
The integration of technology, in particular computers, in the traditional classroom necessitates a
paradigm shift in the way interactions between the teacher and learners occur. This shift must have the
potential to pay attention, not only to knowledge and skills, but also to the beliefs and attitudes of the
learners (Bransford et al., 2000). Zohar (2004) adds a note of caution on the different form that an
innovative project may take when teachers continue to hold the transmission-of- knowledge model.
The beliefs and attitudes developed by learners in the context of the classroom environment should in
no way be in contradiction to those acquired in society in general. It is crucial that the classroom
environment reflects the social dimension in which learners operate in their day to day interactions.
3. TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION AND THE AFFECTIVE DOMAIN
The integration of technology in education is, in most instances, motivated by the behaviourist model
of Skinner or the cognitive learning theories of Piaget, Bruner or Ausubel, whereby the learner is
believed to be the recipient of knowledge and has to follow instructions to be able to manage the
content. These learning theories place lots of emphasis on the ‘internal psychological process’ (Illeris,
2003, p. 397) of learners rather than on the ‘external interaction process’ (Illeris, p. 398). The author
explains that this external interaction process takes into consideration the social dimension, as
advocated by Vygotsky (2004). In the light of the above, a paradigm shift is thus an essential factor
contributing towards the successful integration of technology in teaching and learning, especially in a
situation where technology is expected to ‘play a central role … in enhanc[ing] and support[ing] the
higher order thinking skills’(Pope, Hare & Howard, 2005, p. 2) of learners.
Many researchers accentuate the need for learners not to rely on content learning but to consider the
three areas of learning – cognitive, psychomotor and affective domains, and also to pay much
attention to the interrelationship among them. The lessons to be taught demand that they be carefully
planned, designed and pitched at the appropriate level so that learners can construct purposeful
knowledge structures (which are misconception free) through argumentation (Kuhn, 1993; Osborne,
4
Erduran & Simon, 2004; Berland & Hammer, 2012; Sampson & Blanchard, 2012; Osborne et al.,
2013; Walker & Sampson, 2013) and through evaluative behaviours. Osborne et al. (2004) indeed
bring out the fact that ‘both epistemological and social structures in the classrooms are important
factors for designing activities that foster argumentation’ (p. 997). Argumentation offers both teachers
and students with the opportunity to interact and to value the shared information.
The acceptance of technology in the classroom is no more a debatable issue. It is generally
acknowledged that we cannot ignore the use of technology in classroom transactions as it has already
permeated all spheres of our lives. However, the question that we, educationists, keep on asking - is
technology in education bringing substantial gains in outcomes? Cuban (2001) is of the view that
‘computers and other technologies have had little tangible effect on either classroom teaching or
learning’ (p. 105) for the simple reason that they are used within the behaviouristic model. Cuban’s
view is also shared by Clark (1983) who posits that confounding the use and purpose of technology in
the classroom has contributed to accrediting learning gains when many studies have demonstrated no
appreciable differences in outcomes. On the other hand, Roschelle et al., (2010) are of the view that a
different approach to technology would produce robust effects in performance. Most research
conducted on the use of technology (in particular personal computers, laptops, tablets, data logging
devices, the Internet and other related accessories) revolves around the appreciation of these tools in
teaching and learning since to be able to confirm the benefits of technology in gains demands both
long term longitudinal and vertical studies. Moreover, we do not dispute the fact that the use of
technology can transform teaching while creating adequate opportunities for learning (Groth et al.,
2009; Borko, Whitcomb & Liston, 2009; Kim et al., 2013) when an ‘actor-oriented transfer’
perspective (Lobato, 2003) is adopted. The amalgam between argumentation and the actor-oriented
transfer approach in learning activities create such a dynamism in the classroom that learners are
pushed (through intrinsic motivational factors) to formulate optimal solutions to poorly
conceptualised problems (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).
Barber (2012) offers significant consideration to the notion of integration of learning and considers
that knowledge has become, for the past few decades, mobile such that it allows the ‘practices [to]
facilitate the process’ (p. 3). Mobility in knowledge therefore offers a rich platform for technology
integration in the classroom provided teachers’ beliefs match their understanding of the benefits of the
effectiveness on students’ learning (Guzey & Roehrig, 2012). Teachers’ beliefs and motivation
become the salient factors that need consideration for effective integration of technology in teaching
and learning. Moreover, the emphasis on the social negotiation within a collaborative endeavour
among key partners is essential in the process of technology integration.
An exhaustive literature search on embracing the affective domain in the use of technology in
teaching and learning has revealed, as far as we can vouchsafe, one rare study conducted by Rovai et
5
al. (2009) about measuring teachers’ perception of the affective domain in the use of technology and
which has been conducted only at Higher Education level. Although some indication of the influence
of the affective domain on technology surfaces out from their instruments, still it is not clear how such
an interface between the affective domain and technology integration can actually take place in
practice. The literature on the use of technology abounds, essentially in relation to the cognitive and
psychomotor domains. However, the absence of the affective domain in technology integration is
owing, primordially, to a lack of a meaningful framework that would conceptualise its raison d’être.
As highlighted earlier, this paper is an attempt to address this gap by introducing a framework that
captures the affective dimension in and outside the classroom.
4. THE
FRAMEWORK:
PEDAGOGICAL
TECHNOLOGICAL
INTEGRATED
MEDIUM
Based on an earlier framework (Ramma, Tan & Mariaye, 2009), promulgated by the leading author,
and also referring to the outcomes of three projects: the ICT-data logging in Physics Project,
Engaging in Thinking Project (which introduces the use of PDA and data logging in teaching and
learning of primary science) and the completed Conceptual Physics Project (with technology in focus
to address misconceptions - http://science.mie.mu/physics/), the present authors have developed a
framework which integrate the affective domain into an interrelated element and which focuses on
construction of knowledge (by learners) as the ultimate goal. Learning with technology has somehow
downplayed the importance of the affective domain in teaching and learning though social networks
constitute ‘platforms for virtual social lives’ (Tiryakioglu & Erzurum, 2011, p. 135). It should be
highlighted that the UTAUT model (Ventatesh et al., 2003) makes an attempt to combine a number of
constructs including behaviour and social influence with the use of technology. However, this model
is better applicable to the business sector and its operationalization in schools is problematic.
The initial framework captured contextual knowledge, pedagogy and technology as the core elements
in technology integration (for instance, Hughes, 2005) in the teaching and learning of science. Though
content knowledge formed an integral component of contextual knowledge, its non-visibility in the
framework limited its implementation when it comes to integrating teacher’s content knowledge with
pedagogy and technology. The present framework is derived from the work of Koehler & Mishra
(2005), Mishra and Koehler (2006) and Schmidt et al., (2009) on TPACK (Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge) and on ICT-TPCK by Angeli and Valanides (2009), while drawing on
Shulman’s (1986) conception of content, pedagogical content knowledge and curricular knowledge.
Figures 1 & 2 below depict the interrelationships among the following core elements:
content/contextual knowledge, technology and pedagogy. All the three elements are interconnected
through technological content/contextual knowledge, pedagogical content/contextual knowledge, and
6
technological/pedagogical knowledge, and are directly focused at learning, a construct that we
strongly emphasise on. In contrast with the model proposed by Mishra and Koehler (2006) and that of
Angeli and Valanides (2009), ours places learning at the centre of the various constructs. We consider
these connections to be dynamic and flexible to accommodate changes in superimposing layers.
Content and contextual knowledge are considered as a single integrated component which has a direct
focus on learning, be it at the pre-primary, primary, secondary or tertiary levels. Content and
contextual knowledge form a singular component as learning is best sustained when content and
context form an integral configuration (Barab et al., 2001; Barab & Kishner, 2001; Mishra and
Koehler, 2006).
We lay strong emphasis on the need to connect content with context as content should all the time be
related to real life situations, a most important point also highlighted by Cuban (2001) while
introducing his second goal to ‘transform teaching and learning into an engaging and active process
connected to real life’ (p. 14) that allows learners to ‘come to grip with real world issues’ (p. 15).
After all, is not the goal of education to prepare the current generation for the future workplace? Such
a connection of content with context can be a source of intrinsic motivation for learners when they are
required to relate theory and practice with process.
Figure 2: Learning – teachers, students,
parent(s), society
Figure 1: Pedagogical Technological Integrated Medium (PTIM),
adapted from Mishra’s & Koehler’s TPACK model
The novelty in our framework, in addition to embedding context with the content domain, is the
inclusion of the affective domain (Figure 1) as a mediating construct in the process of technology
7
integration in teaching and learning. In education, the affective domain should be considered in
juxtaposition with the other domains of learning as the social dimension is influential enough to
provide directions for technology integration. All the various components illustrated in Figure 1 focus
at the learner for meaningful construction of knowledge. Figure 2 (which is an abstraction of the
central segment of Figure 1) illustrates the different partners that influence learning (for example
students) in particular, teachers, parents and society. Rodriguez, Plax & Kearner (1996) significantly
draw attention to the mediating factor of the affective domain being responsible to create a state of
motivation to learn, and adding that its omission renders cognitive learning comparatively low. An
attempt is made to include the affective domain in the use of technology in teaching and learning with
a view to creating an adequate social learning environment for knowledge construction by learners.
The dodging of the affective domain in teaching and learning makes any subject matter alien from the
social milieu (society) and which is fundamental, given the strong view that Tsoukas (1996) holds
about learning being a social endeavour.
Within the constructivist perspective of technology integration (Pope, Hare & Howard, 2005), the
teacher has a facilitating role and is responsible for enabling learners to be engaged and contained by
the following relationship: student-student; student-teacher; and teacher-student. The interaction
student-teacher-student during the science lesson using technology is facilitated and carefully
monitored by the teacher who has the task to also inculcate values while the interactions proceed.
Prior preparation from teachers in content/context knowledge, technology and technological
pedagogical content/context knowledge is an essential aspect of technology integration. The teacher
conducts design experiments and makes the technology science lessons as interactive as possible
which should eventually result in a learning ecology (Cobb et al., 2003) – a sort of multifaceted
interconnecting system which comprises a combination of various layers within a group of activities.
The carefully designed science technology activity lessons should motivate the learners to display
interest in the subject; some of the pertinent tasks can be extended as homework to elaborate on
concepts introduced in the classroom for if they find the homework irrelevant, they soon lose interest
(Turanli, 2009).
Moreover, teachers are to maintain a constant rapport with parents with (and without) the support of
technology to provide and receive feedback to and from parents. Monitoring children in doing their
homework (Bursuck, 1994; Reynolds, 2005) and communicating should enable a relationship of trust
to be established between school and home partnership (Epstein & Salinas, 2004). Technology-savvy
parents will follow-up the learning of their children at home and report to teachers through an
appropriate web platform (Merkley et al., 2006). Such a type of communication is twofold: both
parents and teachers speaking the same language, and maintaining a capacity building exercise
through the use of technology. The teacher will have the free hand to set a checklist for parents to
report whether certain tasks, including problem solving activities have been completed by their
8
children at home. Non-technology-savvy parents will have the possibility to communicate by phone
(Merkley et al., 2006) or by a checklist predetermined by the teachers in the learner’s diary/message
book. It is not required that parents be knowledgeable about the subject as their role is limited to
ensuring that whatever tasks have been assigned or done at school are being completed and reflected
upon at home. Typically, the reporting to teachers by parents and vice versa is the missing link that
we are presently witnessing in our educational system. A significant number of parents are not able to
balance work and family life, and tend to shy away from their responsibilities in supporting their
children in their learning at home. It is imperative that such a rapport of trust be established, fostering
parent-teacher collaboration through dialogue, and which will eventually have to be sustained. Figure
3 illustrates the collaboration undertaken by parents and the teacher with the use of technology or via
other traditional means.
Figure 3: Classroom interactions - teacher and parents within a specific discipline
Lastly, society refers to the social and physical environment in which the way children are raised
influence their educational achievement (Sacker, Schoon & Bartley, 2002; Jethro & Aina, 2012).
Many activities are happening in society and students are participating independent of the school
premises. To what extent these structured (or unstructured) after-school activities (Dunn, Kinney &
Hofferth, 2003) and experiences of students are ploughed back into the education system is an
important question. For instance, students involved in scouting have the opportunity to interact
thoroughly with the environment and parents can channel these constructs to teachers to be infused in
the teaching-learning process. When it comes to out-of-school activities, collaboration among teachers
of various disciplines is an added benefit to the children. Figure 4 offers an insight into the type of
collaboration that has to be established whether with the use of technology or by traditional means.
Non-technology-savvy parents are not ignored in this framework and their voices can be heard during
regular Parent Teacher Association (PTA) meetings.
9
Figure 4: Out-of-school interactions
5. CONCLUSION
This paper attempts to introduce the integration of technology in teaching and learning within a
constructivist perspective while placing the affective domain as an essential component for
knowledge construction by learners. The successful integration of technology in school entails a
change in the curriculum, teachers’ beliefs, motivation and mindset. A change in the curriculum is a
tedious and lengthy process which can be overcome by activating the different elements underpinning
the framework. Various studies have shown the existence of barriers to the effective integration of
technology in schools (for example, Ertmer, 1999; Tsai & Chai, 2012). While these studies focused on
issues such as lack of adequate access, time, training, support, teachers’ beliefs, pedagogical beliefs,
technology beliefs, willingness to change and experimental design, the social dimension, which
subsumes the affective domain, has received little attention. In cases, where references are made to
the affective dimension, there is little evidence that the implementation of proposed frameworks (e.g.
Venkatesh, et al., 2003) could be carried out with minimum hindrance. Taken together, these findings
indicate that more sophisticated frameworks, although helping in identifying critical factors, but could
be difficult to put into practice.
The present work proposes a pedagogical technological integrated medium (PTIM) to facilitate the
practical fusion of the affective domain in technology integration in schools within a constructivist
10
perspective. Many education models of teaching and learning, although they significantly emphasise
on the affective domain, minimize its integration in teaching and learning in the school set-up, more
so, in the case of technology integration. The novelty in this model, that is the PTIM, is that it places
learning at the intersection of content/contextual knowledge, pedagogy and technology, without
downplaying the importance of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Moreover, the
collaboration among teachers, learners, technology-savvy and non-technology-savvy parents has been
promoted within the context of the affective domain. The extent of collaboration is pre-determined by
both teachers and parents. Consideration is also given to ‘society’ as a key determinant for learning
while reflecting, sharing and collaborating through various out-of-school activities. The proposed
framework underpins the constructivist theory for teaching and the social learning theory (Bandura,
1977) that relates the social context as a determining factor in students’ learning. According to this
theory, much learning is influenced by the behaviours of peers, friends, and parents, amongst others,
and which should not be casted aside in the process of knowledge construction to become functional
adults. A succinct synchronization of the various elements in the proposed framework would ensure
its effective implementation.
6. FUTURE DIRECTIONS
In future, we would be embarking in the implementation of some science lessons, conceptualised
using the PTIM model of technology integration by working through an implementation plan, in
collaboration with teachers, students and parents. Training programmes for in-service and pre-service
teachers would also be undertaken in our teacher education programmes for capacity building.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of Ajit Gopee and Sanabee Shaumtally for
their work in the preliminary phases of this study.
11
REFERENCES
Angeli, C. & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the
conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT-TPCK: Advances in technological
pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52, 154-168
Autio, O., & Hansen, R. (2002). Defining and measuring technical thinking: Students technical
abilities in Finnish comprehensive schools. Journal of Technology Education, 14(1), 5-19
Autio, O. (2011). The development of technological competence from adolescence to adulthood.
Journal of Technology Education, 22(2), 71-89
Barab, S. A., & Kirshner, D. (2001). Guest Editors’ Introduction: Rethinking methodology in the
learning sciences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1&2), 5-15
Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E, Barnett, M., & Squire, K. (2001). Constructing virtual worlds: Tracing the
historical development of learner practices. Cognition and Instruction, 19(1), 47-94
Barber, J. P. (2012). Integration of learning: A grounded theory analysis of college students’ learning.
American Educational Research Journal, 49(3), 590-617
Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 49(1), 68-94
Borko, H., Whitcomb, J., & Liston, D. (2009). Wicked problems and other thoughts on issues of
technolohy and teacher learning [Editorial]. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 3-7
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind,
Experience, and School: Expanded Edition. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press
Bursuck, W. (1994). Introduction to the special serious on homework. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 27, 466-469
Cakir, M. (2008). Constructivist approaches to learning of science and their implications for science
pedagogy: A literature review. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education,
3(4), 193-206
Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & Deleeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: a theory of conceptual
change for learning science concepts. Learning & Instruction, 4, 27-43
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research,
53(4), 445-459
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R. and Schauble, L. (2003). Designs experiments in
educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9-13
12
Cooperstein, S. E., & Kosevar-Weidinger, E. (2004). Beyond active learning: a constructivist
approach to learning. Reference Services Review, 32(2), 141-148
Covington, M. V., & Mueller, K. J. (2001). Intrinsic versus extrinsic motivations: An approach
avoidance reformulation. Educational Psychology Review. 13(2), 157-176
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press
Dixon, R. A., & Brown, R. A. (2012). Transfer of learning: Connecting concepts during problem
solving. Journal of Technology Education, 24(1), 2-17; Retrieved on 03 August 2013 at:
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v24n1/dixon.html
Dunn, J. S., Kinney, D. A, & Hofferth, S. L. (2003). Parental ideologies and children’s after-school
activities. American Behavioral Scientist, 46(10), 1359-1386
Dwyer, D. C., Ringstaff, C, & Sandholtz, J. H. (1991). Changes in teachers’ beliefs and practices in
technology-rich classrooms. Educational Leadership, 48(8), 45-52
Dyrenfruth, M. J. (1990). Technological literacy: Characteristics and competencies, revealed and
detailed. In H. Szydlowski & R. Stryjski (Eds.0, Technology and school: Report of the PATT
conference (pp. 26-50). Zielona Gora, Poland: Pedagogical University Press
Epstein, J. L., & Salinas, K. C. (2004). Partnering with families and communities. Educational
Leadership, 61, 12-18
Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology
integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47-61
Groth, R., Spickler, D., Bergner, J., & Bardzell, M. (2009). A qualitative approach to assessing
technological pedagogical content knowledge. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
Education, 9(4), 392-411
Guzrey, S. S. & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Integrating educational technology into the secondary science
teaching. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 12(20), 162-183
Hudson, P., English, L. D., & Dawes, L, (2009). Analysing preservice teachers’ potential for
implementing engineering education in the middle school. Australasian Journal of Engineering
Education, 15(3), 165-174
Hughes, J. E. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming technologyintegrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2), 377-402
Illeris, K. (2003). Towards a contemporary and comprehensive theory of learning. International
Journal of Lifelong Education, 22(4), 396-406
Jesson, J. K., Matheson, L., & Lacey, F. M. (2011), Doing your Literature Review: Traditional and
Systematic Techniques, London: SAGE
13
Jethro, O. O., & Aina, F. F. (2012). Effects of parental involvement on the academic performance of
student in elementary schools. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and
Social Sciences, 2(1), 196-202
Jonassen, D. H. (1995). Computers as cognitive tools: learning with technology, not with technology.
Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 6(2), 40-73
Kim, C. M., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., & Spector, J. M., DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and
technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 76-85
Koehler, M. J. & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The
development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational
Computing Research. 32(2), 131-152
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking.
Science Education, 77, 319–337
Layton, D. (1994). A school subject in the making? The search for fundamentals. In D. Layton (Ed.),
Innovations in science and technology education (Vol. 5). Paris: Unesco
Lee, C. & Krapfl, L. (2002). Teaching as you would have them teach: an effective elementary science
teacher preparation program. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(3), 247-265
Lobato, J. (2003). How design experiments can inform a rethinking of transfer and vice versa.
Educational Researcher, 32(1), 17-20
Merkley, D., Schmidt, D., Dirksen, C, & Fuhler, C. (2006). Enhancing parent-communication using
technology: A reading improvement clinic example. Contemporary Issues in Technology and
Teacher Education, 6(1), 11-41
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for
teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school
science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020
Osborne, J., Simon, S., Christodoulou, A., Howell-Richardson, C., & Richardson, K. (2013). Learning
to argue: a study of four schools and their attempt to develop the use of argumentation as a
common instructional practice and its impact on students. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 50(3), 315-347
Otero, V. K., & Nathan, M. J. (2008). Preservice elementary teachers’ views of their students’ prior
knowledge of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(4), 497-523
Pope, M., Hare, D, Howard, E. (2005). Enhancing technology use in student teaching: A case study.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 573-618
14
Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, P., & Gertzog, W. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception:
toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227
Ramma, Y., Tan K. C., & Mariaye, H. (2009). Engaging Mauritian primary school pupils to develop
core construct in science using PDA with a learner centered pedagogy. Proceedings of
International Science Education Conference, NIE, Singapore
Redish, E. F. (1994). Implications of cognitive studies for teaching physics. American Journal of
Physics, 62(9), 796-803
Reynolds, J. (2005). Parents’ involvement in their children’s and school. How should their
responsibilities relate to the role of the state? Policy Discussion Paper. Published by Family and
Parenting Institute. Retrieved on 10 August 2012 at http://familyandparenting.webplatform.net/Filestore/Documents/publications/Parental_Involvement_Reynolds.pdf
Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105(9), 1623-1640
Rodriguez, J. I., Plax, T. G., & Kearney, P. (1996), Clarifying the relationship between teacher
nonverbal immediacy and student cognitive learning: Affective learning as the central causal
mediator. Communication Education, Vol. 45, 293- 305
Roschelle, J., Shechtman, N., Tatar, D., Hegedus, S., Hopkins, B., Empson, S., Knudsen, J.,
Gallagher, L.P. (2010). Integration of technology, curriculum and professional development for
advancing middle school mathematics: Three large scale studies. American Educational
Research Journal, 47(4), 833-878
Rovai, A. P., Wighting, M. J., Baker, J. B., & Grooms, L. D. (2009). Development of an instrument to
measure perceived cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning in traditional and virtual
classroom higher education settings. Internet and Higher Education, 12, 7-13
Ryan, R. M. (1993). Agency and organization: Intrinsic motivation, autonomy and the self in
psychological development. In Jacobs, J. (ed.). Nebraska Symposium on Motivation:
Development Perspectives on Motivation, Vol. 40, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 1-56
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new
directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67
Sacker, A, Schoon, I, & Bartley, M. (2002). Social inequality in educational achievement and
psychosocial adjustment throughout childhood: magnitude and mechanisms. Social Science
and Medicine, 55 (5), 863 – 880
Sampson, V., & Blanchard, M. R. (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in
views and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1122-1148
Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J. & Shin, T. S. (2009).
Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an
15
assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 42(2), 123-149
Schrum, L., Thomson, A., Maddux, C., Sprague, D., Bull, G., & Bell, L. (2007). Editorial: research on
the effectiveness of technology in schools: The role of pedagogy and content. Contemporary
Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7(1), 456-460
Shelly, G. B., Gunter, G. A. & Gunter, R. E. (2012). Teachers discovering computers: Integrating
technology in a connected world, (7th edition), Boston: Cengage Learning
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand:
Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher. 15(2), 4-14
Snyder, M. S. (2004). Defining the role of technology by its heart and its heritage. The Journal of
Technology Studies, 30(1), 19-27
Tiryakioglu, F., & Erzurum, F. (2011). Use of social networks as an educational tool. Contemporary
Educational Technology, 2(2), 135-150
Tsai, C-C. and Chai, C. S. (2012), The third-order barrier for technology integration instruction:
Implications for teacher education, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(6),
1057 – 1060
Tsoukas, H. (1996). The Firm as a Distributed Knowledge System: A Constructionist Approach.
Strategic Management Journal, 17 [Special Issue], 11–25
Turanli, A. S. (2009). Students’ and parents’ perceptions about homework. Education and Science,
34(153), 61-73
Ventatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, F. D., & Davis, G. B. (2003). User Acceptance of Information
technology: Towards Unified View, MIS Quartely, 27, 425-478
Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. (1994). Mental models of the day/night cycle. Cognitive Science, 18,
123-183
Vygotsky, L. C. (2004). Psychology of child development. Eksmo Press. Moscow [Выготский, Л. С.
(2004). Психология развития ребёнка, Изд-во Эксмо, Москва]
Walker, J. P., & Sampson, V. (2013). Learning to argue and arguing to learn: Argument-driven
inquiry as a way to help undergraduate chemistry students learn how to construct arguments and
engage in argumentation during a laboratory course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
50(5), 561-596
Zembylas, M. (2005). Three perspectives on linking the cognitive and the emotional in science
learning: conceptual change, socio-constructivism and post structuralism. Studies in Science
Education, 41, 91-116
16
Zohar, A. (2004). Elements of teachers’ pedagogical knowledge regarding instruction of higher order
thinking. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(4), 293-312
Bah-lalya, I. (2006), Mauritius 2000-2005 Educational Reform: Initiating and Conducting an
Experimental Peer Review Exercise in Africa, International Institute for Educational Planning,
UNESCO
Seebaluck, A. K. & Seegum, T. D. (2012). Motivation among public primary school teachers in
Mauritius. International Journal of Educational Management, 27(4), 446-464
17