Internet-based science learning: A review of journal publications

Silvia Wen Yu Lee, Chin-Chung Tsai*, Ying Tien Wu, Meng Jung Tsai, Tzu Chien Liu, Fu-Kwun Hwang, Chih Hung Lai, Jyh Chong Liang, Huang Ching Wu, Chun Yen Chang

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

57 Citations (Scopus)


Internet-based science learning has been advocated by many science educators for more than a decade. This review examines relevant research on this topic. Sixty-five papers are included in the review. The review consists of the following two major categories: (1) the role of demographics and learners' characteristics in Internet-based science learning, such as demographic background, prior knowledge, and self-efficacy; and (2) the learning outcomes derived from Internet-based science learning, such as attitude, motivation, conceptual understanding, and conceptual change. Some important conclusions are drawn from the review. For example, Internet-based science learning is equally favorable, or in some cases more so, to learning for female students compared to male students. The learner's control is essential for enhancing students' attitudes and motivation toward learning in Internet-based science learning environments. Nevertheless, appropriate guidance from teachers, moderators, or the Internet-based learning environment itself is still quite. crucial in Internet-based science learning. Recommendations for future research related to the effects of Internet-based science learning on students' metacognitive reflections, epistemological development, and worldviews are suggested.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1893-1925
Number of pages33
JournalInternational Journal of Science Education
Issue number14
Publication statusPublished - 2011 Sept


  • Internet
  • Literature review
  • Science learning
  • Technology-based learning environment
  • Web

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education


Dive into the research topics of 'Internet-based science learning: A review of journal publications'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this