This is a report of a qualitative emergent design study of a Science, Technology, Society Interaction (STS) Web-enhanced course. Students' discomfort during the pilot test provided insight to the intellectual scaffolding preservice secondary science teachers needed to optimize their performance when required to develop understanding through open-ended inquiry in a Web environment. Eight factors identified contributed to students' discomfort: computer skills, paradigm shifts, trust, time management, thinking about their own thinking, systematic inquiry, self-assessment, and scientific discourse. These factors suggested developing understanding through inquiry by conducting a self-designed, open-ended, systematic inquiry required autonomous learning involving metacognitive skills and time management skills. To the extent students either came into the course with this scaffolding, or developed it during the course, they were successful in learning about STS and its relationship to science teaching. Changes in the Web site made to accommodate learners' needs as they surfaced were described.
SpectorB. S.Generating a Desired State for a Master's Degree Program in Science Education through Grounded Theory Research, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22:4, pp. 327–345, 1985
3.
SpringJ.The Profession of Teaching, American Education(9th Edition), McGraw-Hill, Boston, 2000
4.
National Research Council, National Science Education Standards, National Academy Press, Washington, DC1996
5.
American Association for the Advancement of Science, Benchmarks for Science Literacy, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1993
6.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, The Jasper Series as an Example of Anchored Instruction: Theory, Program Description, and Assessment Data, Educational Psychologist, 27, pp. 291–315, 1992, as cited in SherwoodR. D.PetrosinoA. J.LinX., and Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, Problem-Based Macro Contexts in Science Instruction: Design Issues and Applications, in International Handbook of Science Education, FrazerB. J.TobinK. G. (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 1998. (Page 350 is cited in the handbook.)
7.
SpectorB. S.LaPortaT.SimpsonP. R.A Template for Developing an STS Course for Preservice Science Teachers, Science/Technology/Society Center, University of South Florida, 1995
8.
HolmbergB.Growth and Structure of Distance Education, Croom Helm, London, 1986
HopeyC. E.GinsburgL.Distance Learning New Technologies: You Can't Predict the Future but You Can Plan For It, Adult Learning, 8:1, pp. 22–24, 1996
11.
WilkesC. W.BurnhamB. R.Adult Learner Motivations and Electronic Distance Education, The American Journal of Distance Education, 5:1, pp. 43–50, 1991
12.
MooreM. G.KearsleyG.Distance Education: A Systems View, Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont California and National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1996
13.
GubernickL.EbelingA.I Got My Degree through Email, Forbes, 159, pp. 84–92, June 16, 1997
LaneC.Strategic Planning: Providing Interaction through Mixed Media in University Distance Learning Programs [Online], available at http://www.wested.org/tie/dlrn/strategic.html, 1999
16.
LinnM.C.The Impact of Technology on Science Instruction: Historical Trends and Current Opportunities, as cited in International Handbook of Science Education, FrazerB. J.TobinK. G. (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 1998
17.
JacobsE.Qualitative Research Traditions: A Review, Review of Educational Research, 57:1, pp. 1–50, 1987
18.
LaPortaT.SpectorB.How Various Teacher Education Audiences Construct Their Understanding of STS, paper presented at the National Association of Science, Technology and Society, Arlington, Virginia, February 8–11, 1996
19.
SpectorB. S.BurkettR.A Constructivist Web CT Science/Technology/Society Interaction (STS) Course, paper presented at the 14th International Conference on Teaching and Learning, Jacksonville, Florida, April 2000
20.
LewisB.SpectorB.BurkettR.A Constructivist Model of an Online Course, paper presented at Association for Educational Communication Technology, Denver, October 2000
21.
SteffenC.SpectorB.BurkettR.DeVertueilN.Students' Reactions to Constructivist Web-Based Learning of STS, paper presented at the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Costa Mesa, California, January 2001
22.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L.The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Aldine, Chicago, 1967
23.
CorbinJ.StraussA.Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Cannons, and Evaluative Criteria, Qualitative Sociology, 13:1, 1990
24.
GallM. D.BorgW. R.GallJ.Educational Research: An Introduction, Longman, White Plains, New York, 1996
25.
NovakJ. D.Learning, Creating, and Using Knowledge: Concepts Maps as Facilitative Tools in Schools and Corporations, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey, 1998
26.
HurdP. D.Feedback to paper presented at the National Association of Science Technology and Society Annual conference, Arlington, Virginia, February 8–11, 1996 by T. LaPorta and B. Spector, in How Do Various Teacher Education Audiences Construct Their Understanding of STS?, 1996
27.
WigginsG.McTigheJ.Understanding By Design, ASCD, Alexandria, Virginia, 1998
28.
NovakJ. D.GowinD. B.Learning How to Learn, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1984
29.
SpectorB. S.Science, Technology, Society, Interactions Course Syllabus [Online], available at http://www.scholar.acomp.usf.edu, 1999
30.
BairdJ. R.Metacognition, Purposeful Enquiry and Conceptual Change, in The Student Laboratory and the Science Curriculum, Routledge, London, pp. 183–200, as cited in International Handbook of Science Education (Part 1), FraserB. J.TobinK. G. (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 1998
31.
FlavellJ. H.Metacognitive Aspects of Problem Solving, in The Nature of Intelligence, ResnickL. B. (ed.), Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 231–235, 1976, as cited in KeevesJ. P., Methods and Processes in Research in Science Education, in International Handbook of Science Education, FrazerB. J.TobinK. G. (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 1998. (Page 1132 is cited in the handbook.)
32.
National Research Council, Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, in How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and School, BransfordJ. D.BrownA. L.CockingR. R. (eds.), National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1999
33.
HewsonP. W.Conceptual Change Instruction, paper presented at annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Fontane, Wisconsin, 1991, as cited in HewsonP. W.BeethM. E.ThorleyN. R., Teaching for conceptual Change, in International Handbook of Science Education, FrazerB. J.TobinK. G. (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 1998.
