Tablet alebo notebook? Komparatívna štúdia žiakovho vnímania rozdielnych technologických prístupov v počítačom podporovanom chemickom laboratóriu

Marek Skoršepa; Jarmila Kmeťová; Erika Horváthová

doi:10.14712/18047106.1322

Vol. 11 No. 1 (2020): sciED Research Reports

Tablet or Notebook? A Comparative study of Student’s Perception of Different Technological Approaches in Computer Supported Chemistry Labs

Marek Skoršepa, Jarmila Kmeťová, Erika Horváthová,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14712/18047106.1322

PDF (Czech)

How to Cite

Skoršepa, M., Kmeťová, J., & Horváthová, E. (2020). Tablet or Notebook? A Comparative study of Student’s Perception of Different Technological Approaches in Computer Supported Chemistry Labs. Scientia in Educatione, 11(1), 82-96. https://doi.org/10.14712/18047106.1322

Download Citation

Abstract

School experimenting assisted by computer devices has been reported as one of promising ways of learning science for a couple of decades. However, technology has been changing very often and quickly. This is why many technological approaches can be seen in the field of computer assisted laboratory work over the years. This paper deals with the comparison of student’s perception of experimenting with measuring systems using two different computer terminals: (i) notebooks and (ii) tablets. For the purpose of the study we designed a set of four computer-based laboratory activities for chemistry to be performed by two cohorts of Slovak grammar school students. While working on the same activities and with the same measuring system, one cohort operated measuring systems connected to notebooks and the other one operated measuring systems connected to tablets. The goal of the study is to find out whether different technological approaches are able to generate significant differences in students’ perceptions of such a type of experimenting.

References

Ambrose, B. S. (2004). Investigating student understanding in intermediate mechanics: Identifying the need for a tutorial approach to instruction. American Journal of Physics, 72(4), 453–459. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1648684 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Aksela, M.K. (2005). Supporting meaningful chemistry learning and higher-order thinking through computer-assisted inquiry: A design research approach [Dizertačná práca]. University of Helsinki. Search in Google Scholar
Aksela, M.K. (2011). Engaging students for meaningful chemistry learning through microcomputer-based laboratory (MBL) inquiry. Educació Química EduQ, 9, 30–37. https://doi.org/10.2436/20.2003.02.66 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
ASELL – Advancing science by enhancing learning in the laboratory website. (2014). http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/asell/asell.site/ Search in Google Scholar
Atar, H.Y. (2002). Chemistry students’ challenges in using MBL’s in science laboratories. In P.A. Rubba, J.A. Rye, W. J. DiBiase, & B.A. Crawford (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 Annual International Conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science (pp. 2–23). Charlotte, Association for the Education of Teachers in Science. Search in Google Scholar
Banchi, H., & Bell, R. (2008). The many levels of inquiry. Science and Children, 46(2), 26–29. Search in Google Scholar
Barton, R. (1997). How do computers affect graphical interpretation? School Science Review, 79(287), 55–60. Search in Google Scholar
Beichner, R. J. (1990). The effect of simultaneous motion presentation and graph generation in a kinematics lab. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(8), 803–815. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660270809 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Bernhard, J. (2003). Physics learning and microcomputer based laboratory (MBL) learning – effects of using MBL as a technological and as a cognitive tool. In D. Psillos, P. Kariotoglou, V. Tselfes, E. Hatzikraniotis, G. Fassoulopoulos, & M. Kallery (Eds.), Science Education Research in the Knowledge-Based Society (pp. 323–331). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0165-5 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Bílek, M., Kričfaluši, D., Budweiserová, K., & Danielová, M. (2002). Digitální váhy a počítač ve výuce chemie. In M. Bílek (Ed.), Profil učitele chemie II.: Sborník příspěvků z jednání v sekcích XI. mezinárodní konference o výuce chemie (s. 206–209). Gaudeamus. Search in Google Scholar
Borghi, L., De Ambrosis, A., Lunati, E., & Mascheretti, P. (2001). In-service teacher education: An attempt to link reflection on physics subjects with teaching practice. Physics Education, 36(4), 299–305. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/36/4/303 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Brasell, H. (1987a). Effectiveness of a microcomputer-based laboratory in learning distance and velocity graphs [Dizertačná práca]. University of Florida. Search in Google Scholar
Brasell, H. (1987b). The effect of real-time laboratory graphing on learning graphic representations of distance and velocity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(4), 385–395. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660240409 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Buntine, M.A., Read, J.R., Barrie, S. C., Bucat, R.B., Crisp, G.T., George, A.V., Jamie, I.M., & Kable, S.H. (2007). Advancing chemistry by enhancing learning in the laboratory (ACELL): A model for providing professional and personal development and facilitating improved student laboratory learning outcomes. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(2), 232–254. https://doi.org/10.1039/B6RP90033J Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Chen, G., Chang, C., & Wang, C. (2008). Ubiquitous learning website: Scaffold learners by mobile devices with information-aware techniques. Computers & Education, 50(1), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.03.004 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Academic Press. Search in Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Čtrnáctová, H., Čížková, V., Hlavová, L., & Řezníčková, D. (2012). Dovednosti žáků v badatelsky orientované výuce chemie. In J. Reguli (Ed.), Zborník z medzinárodnej konferencie „Aktuálne trendy vo vyučovaní prírodných vied (Smolenice 2012) (s. 31–36). Pedagogická fakulta Trnavskej univerzity. Search in Google Scholar
Euler, M., & Müller, A. (1999). Physics learning and the computer: A review, with a taste of meta-analysis. In M. Komorek, H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W. Gräber, & A. Kross (Eds.), Second International Conference of the European Science Education Research Association (pp. 1–3). Kiel, European Science Education Research Association. Search in Google Scholar
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics. 4th edition. SAGE Publications. Search in Google Scholar
Fu, Q., & Hwang, Q. (2018). Trends in mobile technology-supported collaborative learning: A systematic review of journal publications from 2007 to 2016. Computers & Education, 119, 129–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.01.004 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Gašparík, V. (2014) Školské počítačové meracie systémy vo vyučovaní chémie na základnej škole. Biológia, ekológia, chémia, 18(4), 48–53. Search in Google Scholar
George, A.V., Read, J.R., Barrie, S. C., Bucat, R.B., Buntine, M.A., Crisp, G.T., Jamie, I. M., & Kable, S.H. (2009). What makes a good laboratory learning exercise? Student feedback from the ACELL project. In M. Gupta-Bhowon, S. Jhaumeer-Laulloo, H. Li Kam Wah, & P. Ramasami (Eds.), Chemistry Education in the ICT Age (pp. 363–376). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9732-4 34 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Gilbert, J.K., & Treagust, D. (2009). Multiple representations in chemical education. Springer. Search in Google Scholar
Haksiz, M. (2014). Investigation of tablet computer use in special education teachers’ courses. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 1392–1399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.240 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Hedlington, L., White, H., & Curtis, S. (2019). “I cannot live without my [tablet]”: Children’s experiences of using tablet technology within the home. Computers in Human Behavior, 94, 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.043 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Held, Ľ., Žoldošová, K., Orolínová, M., Juricová, I., & Kotuľáková, K. (2011). Výskumne ladená koncepcia prírodovedného vzdelávania (IBSE v slovenskom kontexte). Typi Universitatis Tyrnaviensis. Search in Google Scholar
Hofstein, A. (2004). The laboratory in chemistry education: Thirty years of experience with developments, implementation and research. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 5(3), 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1039/B4RP90027H Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Horváthová, E. (2018). Počítačom podporované experimenty s dotykovými koncovými zariadeniami [Diplomová práca]. FPV UMB. Search in Google Scholar
Ješková, Z. (2004) Počítačom podporované experimenty z termiky a termodynamiky v prostredí IP COACH. Univerzita Pavla Jozefa Šafárika. Search in Google Scholar
Johnstone, A.H. (2010). You can’t get there from here! Journal of Chemical Education, 87(1), 22–29. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed800026d Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Kovalchick, A., & Dawson, K. (2004). Education & technology. An encyclopedia. ABC Clio. Search in Google Scholar
Lavonen, J., Aksela, M., Juuti, K., & Meisalo, V. (2003). Designing user-friendly datalogging for chemical education through factor analysis of teacher evaluations. International Journal of Science Education, 25(12), 1471–1487. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000072755 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B. (2011). Science learning and instruction. Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. Routledge. Search in Google Scholar
Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Routledge. Search in Google Scholar
Linn, M. C., Layman, J.W., & Nachmias, R. (1987). Cognitive consequences of microcomputer-based laboratories: Graphing skills development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12(3), 244–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-476X(87)80029-2 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Linn, M. C., & Songer, N.B. (1991). Teaching thermodynamics to middle school students: What are appropriate cognitive demands? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(10), 885–918. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660281003 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Liu, Ch., Wu, Ch., Wong, W., Lien, Y., & Chao, T. (2017). Scientific modeling with mobile devices in high school physics labs. Computers & Education, 105, 44–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.11.004 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Mamlok-Naaman, R., Eilks, I., Bodner, G., & Hofstein, A. (2018). Professional development of chemistry teacher. Theory and practice. The Royal Society of Chemistry. Search in Google Scholar
Mang, C., Brown, N., & Piper, L. (2017). “Old school” meets “new school”: Using books and tablets to improve information literacy and promote integrative learning among business students. The International Journal of Management Education, 15, 449–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2017.07.003 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Mann, H. B., & Whitney, D.R. (1947). On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 18(1), 50–60. Search in Google Scholar
Marcum-Dietrich, N. I., & Ford, D. J. (2002). The Place for the computer is in the laboratory: An investigation of the effect of computer probeware on student learning. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 21(4), 361–379. Search in Google Scholar
Metcalf, S. J., & Tinker, R. F. (2004). Probeware and handhelds in elementary and middle school science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(1), 43–49. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOST.0000019637.22473.02 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Mokros, J.R., & Tinker, R. F. (1987). The impact of microcomputer-based labs on children’s ability to interpret graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(4), 369–383. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660240408 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Montrieux, H., Vanderlinde, R., Courtois, C., Schellens, T., & Marez, L. (2014). A qualitative study about the implementation of tablet computers in secondary education: The teachers’ role in this process. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 112, 481–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1192 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Nachmias, R., & Linn, M. (1987). Evaluations of science laboratory data: The role of computer-presented information. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(5), 491–506. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660240509 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Oliemat, E., Ihmeideh, F., & Alkhawaldeh, M. (2018). The use of touch-screen tablets in early childhood: Children’s knowledge, skills, and attitudes towards tablet technology. Children and Youth Services Review, 88, 591–597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.03.028 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Pierri, E., Karatrantou, A., & Panagiotakopoulos, C. (2008). Exploring the phenomenon of change of phase of pure substances using the microcomputer-based-laboratory (MBL) system. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9(3), 234–239. https://doi.org/10.1039/B812412B Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Priest, S. J., Pyke, S.M., & Williamson, N.M. (2014). Student perceptions of chemistry experiments with different technological interfaces: A comparative study. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(11), 1787–1795. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed400835h Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Rane, L. (2013). The effectiveness of MBL experiments in developing conceptual understanding in kinematics among undergraduate physics students. In T. Bastiaens, & G. Marks (Eds.), World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (Las Vegas) (pp. 2495–2502). San Diego, USA, Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Search in Google Scholar
Redish, E. F., Saul, J.M., & Steinberg, R.N. (1997). On the effectiveness of active-engagement microcomputer-based laboratories. American Journal of Physics, 65(1), 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18498 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Reychav, I., & Wu, D. (2015). Mobile collaborative learning: The role of individual learning in groups through text and video content delivery in tablets. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 520–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.019 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Rideout, V. (2013). Zero to eight. Children’s media use in America. Report of Common sense media’s program for the study of children and media. Common Sence Media. https://www.commonsensemedia.org/file/zerotoeightfinal2011pdf-0/download Search in Google Scholar
Rogers, L.T. (1995). Computer as an aid for exploring graphs. School Science Review, 76(276), 31–39. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. 2nd ed. CA. Search in Google Scholar
Russell, D.W., Lucas, K.B., & McRobbie, C. J. (2003). The role of the microcomputer-based laboratory display in supporting the construction of new understandings in kinematics. Research in Science Education, 33(2), 217–243. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10129 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Sassi, E., Monroy, G., & Testa, I. (2005). Teacher training about real-time approaches: Research-based guidelines and training materials. Science Education, 89(1), 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20041 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Schauer, F., Lustig, F., Dvořák, J., & Ožvoldová, M. (2008). An easy-to-build remote laboratory with data transfer using the Internet School Experimental System. European Journal of Physics, 29(4), 753–766. https://doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/29/4/010 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Shuler, C., Winters, N., & West, M. (2013). The future of mobile learning: Implications for policy makers and planners. UNESCO working paper series on mobile learning. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000219637 Search in Google Scholar
Simsek, M., & Dogru, I.A. (2014). Tablet Pc based clasroom. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 4246–4249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.925 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Skoršepa, M. (2012). Ako „uhasiť pálenie záhy – príklad školského chemického experimentu s podporou výpočtovej techniky. Biológia, ekológia, chémia, 16(3–4), 8–11. Search in Google Scholar
Skoršepa, M. (2014). Stomach acid and antacids. Project No. 517587-LLP-1-2011-1-ES-COMENIUS-CMP. [online] http://comblab.uab.cat/ Search in Google Scholar
Skoršepa, M. (2015). Počítačom podporované experimenty v prírodovednom vzdelávaní. Belianum (Vydavateľstvo UMB). Search in Google Scholar
Skoršepa, M., & Melicherčík, M. (2001). Zaujímavé kontinuálne merania z chémie uskutočňované SM Systémom. In Proceedings of II. Conference for Ph.D. students (pp. 254–258). Nitra, FPV UKF. Search in Google Scholar
Skoršepa, M., Stratilová Urválková, E., Šmejkal, P., Tortosa Moreno, M., & Urban-Woldron, H. (2014). Activities with sensors in laboratory of biology: Students’ motivation and understanding the results. In M. Nodzy´nska„ P. Cie´sla, & A. Kania (Eds.), Experiments in teaching and learning natural sciences (pp. 25–33). Pedagogical University of Krakow. Search in Google Scholar
Skoršepa, M., & Šmejkal, P. (2018). Comprehending Computer Based Laboratory Activities by Slovak and Czech Students. In P. Ciesla, & A. Michniewska (Eds.), Science Teaching in the XXI Century (pp. 72–82). Pedagogical University of Krakow. Search in Google Scholar
Skoršepa, M., & Tortosa Moreno, M. (2014). Faktory ovplyvňujúce motivačnú orientáciu žiakov v počítačom podporovanom laboratóriu. Acta Universitatis Matthiae Belii, ser. chem., 15, 84–91. SPSS INC. PASW Statistics for Windows. (2009). Ver. 18.0. SPSS Inc., Ed. 2009. Search in Google Scholar
Stein, J. S. (1987). The computer as lab partner: Classroom experience gleaned from one year of Microcomputer-Based Laboratory use. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 15(3), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.2190/12PK-CDVR-EGP4-XDLW Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Svec, M. (1999). Improving graphing intrepretation skills and understanding of motion using microcomputer based laboratories. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 3(4). Search in Google Scholar
Šmejkal, P., & Stratilová Urválková, E. (2011). Školní měřicí systémy pro výuku chemie – mají o ně žáci vůbec zájem? In M. Ulrich, & K. Zatloukal (Eds.), Alternativní metody výuky 2011, 9. ročník mezinárodní konference (s. 1–9). Gaudeamus. Search in Google Scholar
Šmejkal, P., & Stratilová Urválková, E. (2012). Support for use of probeware in science for teachers and pupils. In P. Ciesla et al. (Eds.), Chemistry Education in the Light of the Research (pp. 118–123). Pedagogical University of Krakow. Search in Google Scholar
Testa, I., Monroy, G., & Sassi, E. (2002). Students’ reading images in kinematics: the case of real-time graphs. International Journal of Science Education, 24(3), 235–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110078897 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Tho, S.W., & Hussain, B. (2011). The development of a microcomputer-based laboratory (MBL) system for gas pressure law experiment via open source software. International Journal of Education & Development using Information & Communication Technology, 7(1), 42–55. Search in Google Scholar
Thornton, R.K. (1991). Using the microcomputer-based laboratory to improve student conceptual understanding in physics. Turkish Journal of Physics, 15(2), 316–335. Search in Google Scholar
Thornton, R.K., & Sokoloff, D.R. (1990). Learning motion concepts using real-time microcomputer-based laboratory tools. American Journal of Physics, 58(9), 858–867. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.16350 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Tinker, R.F. (1984). Microcomputers in the lab: Techniques and applications. Technical Educational Research Center. Search in Google Scholar
Tinker, R.F. (2000). A history of probeware. The Concord Consortium. [online] https://concord.org/sites/default/files/pdf/probeware history.pdf Search in Google Scholar
Tolvanen, S. (2012, nepublikované). Could oceans save us from climate change? Project No. 517587-LLP-1-2011-1-ES-COMENIUS-CMP. Search in Google Scholar
Tortosa Moreno, M. (2012). The use of microcomputer based laboratories in chemistry secondary education: Present state of the art and ideas for research-based practice. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13(3), 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1039/C2RP00019A Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Tortosa Moreno, M., Skoršepa, M., Guitart Mas, J., Urban-Woldron, H., Aksela, M.K., Tolvanen, S., Stratilová Urválková, E., & Šmejkal, P. (2013). Design of research-based lab sheets for the acquisition of science competencies using ICT real-time experiments. Do students get the point of what they are doing? In C.P. Constantinou, N. Papadouris, & A. Hadjigeorgiu, E-Book Proceedings of the ESERA 2013 Conference “Science Education Research For Evidence-based Teaching and Coherence in Learning”, Strand 4. (pp. 695–703). Nicosia, Cyprus, European Science Education Research Association. Search in Google Scholar
Trumper, R., & Gelbman, M.A. (2001). Microcomputer-Based Contribution to Scientific and Technological Literacy. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10(3), 213–221. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016673931746 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Urban-Woldron, H., Tortosa Moreno, M., & Skoršepa, M. (2013). Implementing learning with sensors in science education: Students’ motivational orientations toward using MBL. In In C. P. Constantinou, N. Papadouris, & A. Hadjigeorgiu (Eds.), E-Book Proceedings of the ESERA 2013 Conference “Science education research for Search in Google Scholar
evidence-based teaching and coherence in learning”, Strand 4. (pp. 848–854). Nicosia, Cyprus, European Science Education Research Association. Search in Google Scholar
Vernier Software & Technology. (2019). Company website (homepage). https://www.vernier.com/ Search in Google Scholar
Volk, M., Cotič, M., Zajc, M., & Starcic, A. I. (2017). Tablet-based cross-curricular maths vs. traditional maths classroom practice for higher-order learning outcomes. Computers & Education, 114, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.004 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Voogt, J., Tilya, F., & Akker, J. (2009). Science teacher learning of MBL-supported student-centered science education in the context of secondary education in Tanzania. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(5), 429–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9160-8 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Ward, N.D., Finley, R. J., Keil, R. G., & Clay, T.G. (2013). Benefits and limitations of iPads in the high school science classroom and a trophic cascade lesson plan. Journal of Geoscience Education, 61(4), 378–384. Search in Google Scholar
White, R.T., & Gunstone, R. F. (1992). Probing understanding. Routledge. Search in Google Scholar
Yang, X., Li, X., & Lu, T. (2015). Using mobile phones in college classroom settings: Effects of presentation mode and interest on concentration and achievement. Computers & Education, 88, 292–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.06.007 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Yeung, A., Pyke, S.M., Sharma, M.D., Barrie, S., Buntine, M.A., Burke da Silva, K., Kable, S.H., & Lim, K. F. (2011). The advancing science by enhancing learning in the laboratory (ASELL) project: The first Australian multidisciplinary workshop. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics, 19(2), 51–72. Search in Google Scholar
Zelenický, Ľ., Valovičová, Ľ., Jenisová, Z., & Štubňa, M. (2011). Počítačom podporované experimenty. UKF. Search in Google Scholar
Zydney, J. M., & Warner, Z. (2016). Mobile apps for science learning: Review of research. Computers & Education, 94, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.001 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of the published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

[1] Ambrose, B. S. (2004). Investigating student understanding in intermediate mechanics: Identifying the need for a tutorial approach to instruction. American Journal of Physics, 72(4), 453–459. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1648684 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[2] Aksela, M.K. (2005). Supporting meaningful chemistry learning and higher-order thinking through computer-assisted inquiry: A design research approach [Dizertačná práca]. University of Helsinki. Search in Google Scholar

[3] Aksela, M.K. (2011). Engaging students for meaningful chemistry learning through microcomputer-based laboratory (MBL) inquiry. Educació Química EduQ, 9, 30–37. https://doi.org/10.2436/20.2003.02.66 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[4] ASELL – Advancing science by enhancing learning in the laboratory website. (2014). http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/asell/asell.site/ Search in Google Scholar

[5] Atar, H.Y. (2002). Chemistry students’ challenges in using MBL’s in science laboratories. In P.A. Rubba, J.A. Rye, W. J. DiBiase, & B.A. Crawford (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 Annual International Conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science (pp. 2–23). Charlotte, Association for the Education of Teachers in Science. Search in Google Scholar

[6] Banchi, H., & Bell, R. (2008). The many levels of inquiry. Science and Children, 46(2), 26–29. Search in Google Scholar

[7] Barton, R. (1997). How do computers affect graphical interpretation? School Science Review, 79(287), 55–60. Search in Google Scholar

[8] Beichner, R. J. (1990). The effect of simultaneous motion presentation and graph generation in a kinematics lab. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(8), 803–815. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660270809 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[9] Bernhard, J. (2003). Physics learning and microcomputer based laboratory (MBL) learning – effects of using MBL as a technological and as a cognitive tool. In D. Psillos, P. Kariotoglou, V. Tselfes, E. Hatzikraniotis, G. Fassoulopoulos, & M. Kallery (Eds.), Science Education Research in the Knowledge-Based Society (pp. 323–331). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0165-5 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[10] Bílek, M., Kričfaluši, D., Budweiserová, K., & Danielová, M. (2002). Digitální váhy a počítač ve výuce chemie. In M. Bílek (Ed.), Profil učitele chemie II.: Sborník příspěvků z jednání v sekcích XI. mezinárodní konference o výuce chemie (s. 206–209). Gaudeamus. Search in Google Scholar

[11] Borghi, L., De Ambrosis, A., Lunati, E., & Mascheretti, P. (2001). In-service teacher education: An attempt to link reflection on physics subjects with teaching practice. Physics Education, 36(4), 299–305. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/36/4/303 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[12] Brasell, H. (1987a). Effectiveness of a microcomputer-based laboratory in learning distance and velocity graphs [Dizertačná práca]. University of Florida. Search in Google Scholar

[13] Brasell, H. (1987b). The effect of real-time laboratory graphing on learning graphic representations of distance and velocity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(4), 385–395. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660240409 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[14] Buntine, M.A., Read, J.R., Barrie, S. C., Bucat, R.B., Crisp, G.T., George, A.V., Jamie, I.M., & Kable, S.H. (2007). Advancing chemistry by enhancing learning in the laboratory (ACELL): A model for providing professional and personal development and facilitating improved student laboratory learning outcomes. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(2), 232–254. https://doi.org/10.1039/B6RP90033J Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[15] Chen, G., Chang, C., & Wang, C. (2008). Ubiquitous learning website: Scaffold learners by mobile devices with information-aware techniques. Computers & Education, 50(1), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.03.004 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[16] Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Academic Press. Search in Google Scholar

[17] Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[18] Čtrnáctová, H., Čížková, V., Hlavová, L., & Řezníčková, D. (2012). Dovednosti žáků v badatelsky orientované výuce chemie. In J. Reguli (Ed.), Zborník z medzinárodnej konferencie „Aktuálne trendy vo vyučovaní prírodných vied (Smolenice 2012) (s. 31–36). Pedagogická fakulta Trnavskej univerzity. Search in Google Scholar

[19] Euler, M., & Müller, A. (1999). Physics learning and the computer: A review, with a taste of meta-analysis. In M. Komorek, H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W. Gräber, & A. Kross (Eds.), Second International Conference of the European Science Education Research Association (pp. 1–3). Kiel, European Science Education Research Association. Search in Google Scholar

[20] Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics. 4th edition. SAGE Publications. Search in Google Scholar

[21] Fu, Q., & Hwang, Q. (2018). Trends in mobile technology-supported collaborative learning: A systematic review of journal publications from 2007 to 2016. Computers & Education, 119, 129–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.01.004 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[22] Gašparík, V. (2014) Školské počítačové meracie systémy vo vyučovaní chémie na základnej škole. Biológia, ekológia, chémia, 18(4), 48–53. Search in Google Scholar

[23] George, A.V., Read, J.R., Barrie, S. C., Bucat, R.B., Buntine, M.A., Crisp, G.T., Jamie, I. M., & Kable, S.H. (2009). What makes a good laboratory learning exercise? Student feedback from the ACELL project. In M. Gupta-Bhowon, S. Jhaumeer-Laulloo, H. Li Kam Wah, & P. Ramasami (Eds.), Chemistry Education in the ICT Age (pp. 363–376). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9732-4 34 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[24] Gilbert, J.K., & Treagust, D. (2009). Multiple representations in chemical education. Springer. Search in Google Scholar

[25] Haksiz, M. (2014). Investigation of tablet computer use in special education teachers’ courses. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 1392–1399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.240 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[26] Hedlington, L., White, H., & Curtis, S. (2019). “I cannot live without my [tablet]”: Children’s experiences of using tablet technology within the home. Computers in Human Behavior, 94, 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.043 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[27] Held, Ľ., Žoldošová, K., Orolínová, M., Juricová, I., & Kotuľáková, K. (2011). Výskumne ladená koncepcia prírodovedného vzdelávania (IBSE v slovenskom kontexte). Typi Universitatis Tyrnaviensis. Search in Google Scholar

[28] Hofstein, A. (2004). The laboratory in chemistry education: Thirty years of experience with developments, implementation and research. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 5(3), 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1039/B4RP90027H Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[29] Horváthová, E. (2018). Počítačom podporované experimenty s dotykovými koncovými zariadeniami [Diplomová práca]. FPV UMB. Search in Google Scholar

[30] Ješková, Z. (2004) Počítačom podporované experimenty z termiky a termodynamiky v prostredí IP COACH. Univerzita Pavla Jozefa Šafárika. Search in Google Scholar

[31] Johnstone, A.H. (2010). You can’t get there from here! Journal of Chemical Education, 87(1), 22–29. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed800026d Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[32] Kovalchick, A., & Dawson, K. (2004). Education & technology. An encyclopedia. ABC Clio. Search in Google Scholar

[33] Lavonen, J., Aksela, M., Juuti, K., & Meisalo, V. (2003). Designing user-friendly datalogging for chemical education through factor analysis of teacher evaluations. International Journal of Science Education, 25(12), 1471–1487. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000072755 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[34] Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B. (2011). Science learning and instruction. Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. Routledge. Search in Google Scholar

[35] Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Routledge. Search in Google Scholar

[36] Linn, M. C., Layman, J.W., & Nachmias, R. (1987). Cognitive consequences of microcomputer-based laboratories: Graphing skills development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12(3), 244–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-476X(87)80029-2 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[37] Linn, M. C., & Songer, N.B. (1991). Teaching thermodynamics to middle school students: What are appropriate cognitive demands? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(10), 885–918. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660281003 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[38] Liu, Ch., Wu, Ch., Wong, W., Lien, Y., & Chao, T. (2017). Scientific modeling with mobile devices in high school physics labs. Computers & Education, 105, 44–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.11.004 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[39] Mamlok-Naaman, R., Eilks, I., Bodner, G., & Hofstein, A. (2018). Professional development of chemistry teacher. Theory and practice. The Royal Society of Chemistry. Search in Google Scholar

[40] Mang, C., Brown, N., & Piper, L. (2017). “Old school” meets “new school”: Using books and tablets to improve information literacy and promote integrative learning among business students. The International Journal of Management Education, 15, 449–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2017.07.003 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[41] Mann, H. B., & Whitney, D.R. (1947). On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 18(1), 50–60. Search in Google Scholar

[42] Marcum-Dietrich, N. I., & Ford, D. J. (2002). The Place for the computer is in the laboratory: An investigation of the effect of computer probeware on student learning. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 21(4), 361–379. Search in Google Scholar

[43] Metcalf, S. J., & Tinker, R. F. (2004). Probeware and handhelds in elementary and middle school science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(1), 43–49. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOST.0000019637.22473.02 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[44] Mokros, J.R., & Tinker, R. F. (1987). The impact of microcomputer-based labs on children’s ability to interpret graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(4), 369–383. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660240408 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[45] Montrieux, H., Vanderlinde, R., Courtois, C., Schellens, T., & Marez, L. (2014). A qualitative study about the implementation of tablet computers in secondary education: The teachers’ role in this process. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 112, 481–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1192 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[46] Nachmias, R., & Linn, M. (1987). Evaluations of science laboratory data: The role of computer-presented information. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(5), 491–506. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660240509 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[47] Oliemat, E., Ihmeideh, F., & Alkhawaldeh, M. (2018). The use of touch-screen tablets in early childhood: Children’s knowledge, skills, and attitudes towards tablet technology. Children and Youth Services Review, 88, 591–597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.03.028 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[48] Pierri, E., Karatrantou, A., & Panagiotakopoulos, C. (2008). Exploring the phenomenon of change of phase of pure substances using the microcomputer-based-laboratory (MBL) system. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9(3), 234–239. https://doi.org/10.1039/B812412B Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[49] Priest, S. J., Pyke, S.M., & Williamson, N.M. (2014). Student perceptions of chemistry experiments with different technological interfaces: A comparative study. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(11), 1787–1795. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed400835h Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[50] Rane, L. (2013). The effectiveness of MBL experiments in developing conceptual understanding in kinematics among undergraduate physics students. In T. Bastiaens, & G. Marks (Eds.), World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (Las Vegas) (pp. 2495–2502). San Diego, USA, Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Search in Google Scholar

[51] Redish, E. F., Saul, J.M., & Steinberg, R.N. (1997). On the effectiveness of active-engagement microcomputer-based laboratories. American Journal of Physics, 65(1), 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18498 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[52] Reychav, I., & Wu, D. (2015). Mobile collaborative learning: The role of individual learning in groups through text and video content delivery in tablets. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 520–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.019 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[53] Rideout, V. (2013). Zero to eight. Children’s media use in America. Report of Common sense media’s program for the study of children and media. Common Sence Media. https://www.commonsensemedia.org/file/zerotoeightfinal2011pdf-0/download Search in Google Scholar

[54] Rogers, L.T. (1995). Computer as an aid for exploring graphs. School Science Review, 76(276), 31–39. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. 2nd ed. CA. Search in Google Scholar

[55] Russell, D.W., Lucas, K.B., & McRobbie, C. J. (2003). The role of the microcomputer-based laboratory display in supporting the construction of new understandings in kinematics. Research in Science Education, 33(2), 217–243. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10129 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[56] Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[57] Sassi, E., Monroy, G., & Testa, I. (2005). Teacher training about real-time approaches: Research-based guidelines and training materials. Science Education, 89(1), 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20041 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[58] Schauer, F., Lustig, F., Dvořák, J., & Ožvoldová, M. (2008). An easy-to-build remote laboratory with data transfer using the Internet School Experimental System. European Journal of Physics, 29(4), 753–766. https://doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/29/4/010 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[59] Shuler, C., Winters, N., & West, M. (2013). The future of mobile learning: Implications for policy makers and planners. UNESCO working paper series on mobile learning. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000219637 Search in Google Scholar

[60] Simsek, M., & Dogru, I.A. (2014). Tablet Pc based clasroom. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 4246–4249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.925 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[61] Skoršepa, M. (2012). Ako „uhasiť pálenie záhy – príklad školského chemického experimentu s podporou výpočtovej techniky. Biológia, ekológia, chémia, 16(3–4), 8–11. Search in Google Scholar

[62] Skoršepa, M. (2014). Stomach acid and antacids. Project No. 517587-LLP-1-2011-1-ES-COMENIUS-CMP. [online] http://comblab.uab.cat/ Search in Google Scholar

[63] Skoršepa, M. (2015). Počítačom podporované experimenty v prírodovednom vzdelávaní. Belianum (Vydavateľstvo UMB). Search in Google Scholar

[64] Skoršepa, M., & Melicherčík, M. (2001). Zaujímavé kontinuálne merania z chémie uskutočňované SM Systémom. In Proceedings of II. Conference for Ph.D. students (pp. 254–258). Nitra, FPV UKF. Search in Google Scholar

[65] Skoršepa, M., Stratilová Urválková, E., Šmejkal, P., Tortosa Moreno, M., & Urban-Woldron, H. (2014). Activities with sensors in laboratory of biology: Students’ motivation and understanding the results. In M. Nodzy´nska„ P. Cie´sla, & A. Kania (Eds.), Experiments in teaching and learning natural sciences (pp. 25–33). Pedagogical University of Krakow. Search in Google Scholar

[66] Skoršepa, M., & Šmejkal, P. (2018). Comprehending Computer Based Laboratory Activities by Slovak and Czech Students. In P. Ciesla, & A. Michniewska (Eds.), Science Teaching in the XXI Century (pp. 72–82). Pedagogical University of Krakow. Search in Google Scholar

[67] Skoršepa, M., & Tortosa Moreno, M. (2014). Faktory ovplyvňujúce motivačnú orientáciu žiakov v počítačom podporovanom laboratóriu. Acta Universitatis Matthiae Belii, ser. chem., 15, 84–91. SPSS INC. PASW Statistics for Windows. (2009). Ver. 18.0. SPSS Inc., Ed. 2009. Search in Google Scholar

[68] Stein, J. S. (1987). The computer as lab partner: Classroom experience gleaned from one year of Microcomputer-Based Laboratory use. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 15(3), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.2190/12PK-CDVR-EGP4-XDLW Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[69] Svec, M. (1999). Improving graphing intrepretation skills and understanding of motion using microcomputer based laboratories. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 3(4). Search in Google Scholar

[70] Šmejkal, P., & Stratilová Urválková, E. (2011). Školní měřicí systémy pro výuku chemie – mají o ně žáci vůbec zájem? In M. Ulrich, & K. Zatloukal (Eds.), Alternativní metody výuky 2011, 9. ročník mezinárodní konference (s. 1–9). Gaudeamus. Search in Google Scholar

[71] Šmejkal, P., & Stratilová Urválková, E. (2012). Support for use of probeware in science for teachers and pupils. In P. Ciesla et al. (Eds.), Chemistry Education in the Light of the Research (pp. 118–123). Pedagogical University of Krakow. Search in Google Scholar

[72] Testa, I., Monroy, G., & Sassi, E. (2002). Students’ reading images in kinematics: the case of real-time graphs. International Journal of Science Education, 24(3), 235–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110078897 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[73] Tho, S.W., & Hussain, B. (2011). The development of a microcomputer-based laboratory (MBL) system for gas pressure law experiment via open source software. International Journal of Education & Development using Information & Communication Technology, 7(1), 42–55. Search in Google Scholar

[74] Thornton, R.K. (1991). Using the microcomputer-based laboratory to improve student conceptual understanding in physics. Turkish Journal of Physics, 15(2), 316–335. Search in Google Scholar

[75] Thornton, R.K., & Sokoloff, D.R. (1990). Learning motion concepts using real-time microcomputer-based laboratory tools. American Journal of Physics, 58(9), 858–867. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.16350 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[76] Tinker, R.F. (1984). Microcomputers in the lab: Techniques and applications. Technical Educational Research Center. Search in Google Scholar

[77] Tinker, R.F. (2000). A history of probeware. The Concord Consortium. [online] https://concord.org/sites/default/files/pdf/probeware history.pdf Search in Google Scholar

[78] Tolvanen, S. (2012, nepublikované). Could oceans save us from climate change? Project No. 517587-LLP-1-2011-1-ES-COMENIUS-CMP. Search in Google Scholar

[79] Tortosa Moreno, M. (2012). The use of microcomputer based laboratories in chemistry secondary education: Present state of the art and ideas for research-based practice. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13(3), 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1039/C2RP00019A Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[80] Tortosa Moreno, M., Skoršepa, M., Guitart Mas, J., Urban-Woldron, H., Aksela, M.K., Tolvanen, S., Stratilová Urválková, E., & Šmejkal, P. (2013). Design of research-based lab sheets for the acquisition of science competencies using ICT real-time experiments. Do students get the point of what they are doing? In C.P. Constantinou, N. Papadouris, & A. Hadjigeorgiu, E-Book Proceedings of the ESERA 2013 Conference “Science Education Research For Evidence-based Teaching and Coherence in Learning”, Strand 4. (pp. 695–703). Nicosia, Cyprus, European Science Education Research Association. Search in Google Scholar

[81] Trumper, R., & Gelbman, M.A. (2001). Microcomputer-Based Contribution to Scientific and Technological Literacy. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10(3), 213–221. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016673931746 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[82] Urban-Woldron, H., Tortosa Moreno, M., & Skoršepa, M. (2013). Implementing learning with sensors in science education: Students’ motivational orientations toward using MBL. In In C. P. Constantinou, N. Papadouris, & A. Hadjigeorgiu (Eds.), E-Book Proceedings of the ESERA 2013 Conference “Science education research for Search in Google Scholar

[83] evidence-based teaching and coherence in learning”, Strand 4. (pp. 848–854). Nicosia, Cyprus, European Science Education Research Association. Search in Google Scholar

[84] Vernier Software & Technology. (2019). Company website (homepage). https://www.vernier.com/ Search in Google Scholar

[85] Volk, M., Cotič, M., Zajc, M., & Starcic, A. I. (2017). Tablet-based cross-curricular maths vs. traditional maths classroom practice for higher-order learning outcomes. Computers & Education, 114, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.004 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[86] Voogt, J., Tilya, F., & Akker, J. (2009). Science teacher learning of MBL-supported student-centered science education in the context of secondary education in Tanzania. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(5), 429–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9160-8 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[87] Ward, N.D., Finley, R. J., Keil, R. G., & Clay, T.G. (2013). Benefits and limitations of iPads in the high school science classroom and a trophic cascade lesson plan. Journal of Geoscience Education, 61(4), 378–384. Search in Google Scholar

[88] White, R.T., & Gunstone, R. F. (1992). Probing understanding. Routledge. Search in Google Scholar

[89] Yang, X., Li, X., & Lu, T. (2015). Using mobile phones in college classroom settings: Effects of presentation mode and interest on concentration and achievement. Computers & Education, 88, 292–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.06.007 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[90] Yeung, A., Pyke, S.M., Sharma, M.D., Barrie, S., Buntine, M.A., Burke da Silva, K., Kable, S.H., & Lim, K. F. (2011). The advancing science by enhancing learning in the laboratory (ASELL) project: The first Australian multidisciplinary workshop. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics, 19(2), 51–72. Search in Google Scholar

[91] Zelenický, Ľ., Valovičová, Ľ., Jenisová, Z., & Štubňa, M. (2011). Počítačom podporované experimenty. UKF. Search in Google Scholar

[92] Zydney, J. M., & Warner, Z. (2016). Mobile apps for science learning: Review of research. Computers & Education, 94, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.001 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

Scientia in educatione

Tablet or Notebook? A Comparative study of Student’s Perception of Different Technological Approaches in Computer Supported Chemistry Labs

How to Cite

Abstract

References

Downloads

License

Most read articles by the same author(s)