The use of virtual and simulated teaching and learning environments: Inviting gifted students into science,technology,engineering,and mathematics careers (STEM) through summer partnerships
Restricted accessReview articleFirst published online January, 2012
The use of virtual and simulated teaching and learning environments: Inviting gifted students into science,technology,engineering,and mathematics careers (STEM) through summer partnerships
New technologies and virtual environments are emerging globally, yet the way these tools can impact the learning and future career paths of students who are gifted is limited in the literature at this time. The purpose of this article is to provide a summary of how a science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) summer camp, based on virtual and simulated environments, impacted the self-confidence of targeted diverse secondary science students from low socioeconomic backgrounds who were considered gifted with strong potential in these future STEM fields.
AdlerN.StewartJ. (2004). Self-esteem. JohnD.MacArthurCatherine T.Research Network on Socioeconomic Status and Health.
2.
AndreasenJ.B.HaciomerogluE.S.AkyuzD.CoskunS.CristwellP.WhitbyP.S. (2008). Teacher training in multiple environments: microteach versus virtual. Florida Association of Teacher Education E-Journal1(8): 1–20.
3.
DiekerL.HynesM.StapletonC.HughesC. (2007). Virtual classrooms: STAR simulator building virtual environments for teacher training in effective classroom management. New Learning Technology SALT4: 1–22.
4.
DuncanG.J.YeungJ.W.Brooks-GunnJ.SmithJ.R. (1998). How much does childhood poverty affect the life chances of children?American Sociological Review60(3): 406–423.
GriggW.S.LaukoM.A.BrockwayD.M. (2006). The Nation’s Report Card: Science 2005(NCES 2006–466). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
7.
HughesC.E.StapletonC.B.HughesD.E.SmithE. (2005). Mixed reality in education, entertainment and training: an interdisciplinary approach. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications26(6): 24–30.
8.
HughesC.E.StapletonC.B.O’ConnorM. (2006). The evolution of a framework for mixed reality experiences. In ThomasB.HallerM.BillinghurstM. (eds.), Emerging Technologies of Augmented Reality: Interfaces and DesignHershey, PA:Idea Group, Inc., pp. 198–216.
9.
MantzicopoulosP.PatrickH.SamarapungavanA. (2008). Young children’s motivational beliefs about learning science. Early Childhood Research Quarterly23: 378–394.
10.
MiriB.Ben-ChaimD.ZollerU. (2007). Purposely teaching for the promotion of higher-order thinking skills: a case of critical thinking. Research in Science Education37: 353–369.
11.
National Center for Education Statistics (2009). The Condition of Education 2009(NCES Publication No. 2009-042). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
12.
SirinS.R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research75(3): 417–453.
13.
StoneS.GlascottK. (1997). The affective side of science instruction. Childhood Education74(2): 102–104.
14.
TavaniC.M.LoshS.C. (2003). Motivation, self-confidence, and expectations as predictors of the academic performances among our high school students. Child Study Journal33(3): 141–151.
