Impact of participation in NASA’s Digital Learning Network on science attitudes of rural, mid-level students

The purpose of this research was to determine whether videoconferencing combined with face-to-face instruction, as used in the delivery of the NASA Digital Learning Network Can A Shoebox Fly? Challenge module, was a feasible instructional method to increase positive student attitudes towards science. Overall, the data indicated that this was the case. This study utilized a mixed method approach to data collection. A pre-test, post-test one group design was used to collect quantitative data obtained from a science attitudinal survey. Qualitative data were gathered from face-to-face interviews with the subjects as well as informal observations by the researcher during the design process. Social presence theory, a sub-area of communication theory, was used as the theoretical framework for this study. It was determined that the NASA Digital Learning Network modules do create social presence within the distance learning environment.

[1]  S. Fiske,et al.  Social Psychology , 2019, Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences.

[2]  M. Mustafa.  Web-assisted instruction and its effect on students’ achievements and attitudes in Nizwa College of Technology in Oman , 2012 .

[3]  K. Perreault,et al.  Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches , 2011 .

[4]  John Short,et al.  The social psychology of telecommunications , 1976 .

[5]  Alan Greenberg,et al.  Navigating the Sea of Research on Video Conferencing-Based Distance Education , 2004 .

[6]  W. Schramm,et al.  Big Media, Little Media , 1973 .

[7]  Christian D. Schunn.  Design Principles for High School Engineering Design Challenges: Experiences from High School Science Classrooms , 2011 .

[8]  S. Shapiro,et al.  An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality (Complete Samples) , 1965 .

[9]  J. W. Asher,et al.  A meta‐analysis of the effectiveness of telecourses in distance education , 2000 .

[10]  Scott D. Johnson,et al.  An Instructional Strategy Framework for Online Learning Environments , 2002 .

[11]  Scott D. Johnson,et al.  Comparative analysis of learner satisfaction and learning outcomes in online and face-to-face learning environments , 2000 .

[12]  S. Simon,et al.  Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications , 2003 .

[13]  John Clayton,et al.  Validation of the online learning environment survey , 2007 .

[14]  William J. Boone.  Advanced distance education technology and hands-on science , 1996 .

[15]  Ronald A. Phipps,et al.  What''s the Difference? A Review of Contemporary Research on the Effectiveness of Distance Learning , 1999 .

[16]  J. Steve Oliver,et al.  A summary of major influences on attitude toward and achievement in science among adolescent students , 1990 .

[17]  Molly H. Weinburgh,et al.  Gender differences in student attitudes toward science: A meta‐analysis of the literature from 1970 to 1991 , 1995 .

[18]  Ingrid. Novodvorsky.  Development of an instrument to assess attitudes toward science. , 1993 .

[19]  Bruce O. Barker,et al.  Satellite: Student perceptions on the effectiveness of college credit courses taught via satellite , 1988 .

[20]  Marie Martin,et al.  Videoconferencing for Schools in the Digital Age , 2009 .

[21]  Lev Vygotsky.  Mind in society , 1978 .

[22]  Starr Roxanne Hiltz,et al.  The Online Interaction Learning Model: An Integrated Theoretical Framework for Learning Networks , 2004 .

[23]  Patrick R. Lowenthal.  The evolution and influence of social presence theory on online learning , 2010 .

[24]  Cathy Cavanaugh,et al.  The effectiveness of interactive distance education technologies in K-12 learning: A meta-analysis , 2001 .

[25]  C. Gunawardena,et al.  Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer‐mediated conferencing environment , 1997 .

[26]  A. P. Rovai.  Building Sense of Community at a Distance , 2002, Distances et médiations des savoirs.

[27]  David S. Stein,et al.  2003 Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education Role of Social Presence, Choice of Online or Face-to-Face Group Format, and Satisfaction with Perceived Knowledge Gained in a Distance Learning Environment , 2003 .

[28]  Steven McGee,et al.  NASA Education: Using Inquiry in the Classroom So that Students See Learning in a Whole New Light , 2005 .

[29]  Rosemary Blieszner,et al.  PROMISES AND PITFALLS OF THE INTERACTIVE TELEVISION APPROACH TO TEACHING ADULT DEVELOPMENT AND AGING , 1999 .

[30]  Diane L. Schallert,et al.  Middle School Focus: Examining the Interplay between Middle School Students Achievement Goals and Self-Efficacy in a Technology-Enhanced Learning Environment. , 2008 .

[31]  Hüsamettin Akçay,et al.  Effects of Computer Based Learning on Students' Attitudes and Achievements towards Analytical Chemistry. , 2006 .

[32]  Thomas S. Ingebritsen,et al.  Development and Assessment of Web Courses That Use Streaming Audio and Video Technologies. , 1998 .

[33]  Linda M. Harasim,et al.  Online Education: Perspectives on a New Environment , 1990 .

[34]  Peter Navarro,et al.  The power of cyberlearning: An empirical test , 1999, J. Comput. High. Educ..

[35]  C. E. Wieman,et al.  Correlating Student Attitudes With Student Learning Using The Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey , 2004 .

[36]  C. Gunawardena.  Social Presence Theory and Implications for Interaction and Collaborative Learning in Computer Conferences , 1995 .

[37]  Lorraine Sherry,et al.  Issues in Distance Learning , 1995 .

[38]  D. Garrison,et al.  Assessing Social Presence In Asynchronous Text-based Computer Conferencing , 1999 .

[39]  Joan P. Sebastian,et al.  Learners’ perceptions of instructional delivery systems: Conventional and television , 1992 .

[40]  Gary Greenberg,et al.  Distance education technologies: best practices for K-12 settings , 1998, IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag..

[41]  Herbert J. Walberg,et al.  A Structural Model of Science Achievement. , 1991 .

[42]  Vahid Motamedi.  A Critical Look at the Use of Videoconferencing in United States Distance Education , 2001 .

[43]  M. Allen,et al.  Comparing Student Satisfaction With Distance Education to Traditional Classrooms in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis , 2002 .

[44]  Sophia Catsambis,et al.  Gender, race, ethnicity, and science education in the middle grades , 1995 .

[45]  A. Glenn,et al.  A Comparison of Distance Learning and Traditional Learning Environments. , 2001 .

[46]  Arthur L. Wilson.  The promise of situated cognition , 1993 .

[47]  Martin L. Maehr,et al.  Affect, Ability, and Science Achievement: A Quantitative Synthesis of Correlational Research , 1983 .

[48]  Bassem Alhalabi,et al.  Real laboratories: an innovative rejoinder to the complexities of distance learning , 1998 .

[49]  Victor L. Willson,et al.  A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Science Achievement and Science Attitude: Kindergarten through College. , 1983 .

[50]  S. Sharan.  Cooperative Learning in Small Groups: Recent Methods and Effects on Achievement, Attitudes, and Ethnic Relations , 1980 .

[51]  Paul A. Asunda,et al.  Critical Features of Engineering Design in Technology Education. Research in Engineering and Technology Education. , 2007 .

[52]  Alan F. Smeaton,et al.  An analysis of the use of virtual delivery of undergraduate lectures , 1999, Comput. Educ..

[53]  Daniel A. Showalter,et al.  Why Rural Matters 2011-12: The Condition of Rural Education in the 50 States. A Report of the Rural School and Community Trust Policy Program. , 2012 .

[54]  Helen R. Quinn,et al.  NASA's Elementary and Secondary Education Program: Review and Critique , 2008 .