Bev's ETEC 533 Blog

The two networked communities that I looked at are Globe and virtual field trips.
As I surveyed these two different communities I evaluated them according to to Bielaczyc and Collins’ (1999) criteria for a learning community.

1) diversity of expertise among its members who are valued for their contributions and given support to develop.

The Globe community of participants definitely has a wide diversity of expertise including scientists, teachers trained in pedagogy, and students. Each person plays a valuable role whether it be to analyze data, collect the data, or train someone how to collect and/or analyze the data. In an study on the Globe project completed by Butler & MacGregor (2003) both teachers and students reported that the fact that data was really being used by the scientists was really rewarding. Scientists also reported that they learned a great deal from both the teachers and students about how to present something in a meaningful way. It helped them to view their subject matter in a new light. The Globe project places a high emphasis on helping students develop their scientific inquiry skills and continues to focus on ways to help students improve in this area.

The virtual field trip (vft) community varies depending on the field trip. The amount of interactivity for students also varied. In the ones that I looked at students interaction was mostly in the form of asking questions although in the preamble to this section it did say that students did participate in some experiments. From my investigation I would say that in most of these vfts there was diversity in expertise- mostly scientists and students- but that their contributions were not equally valued. The students did not play any active role in the investigations.

(2) a shared objective of continually advancing the collective knowledge and skills.

The Globe community could not exist without a shared objective. Students are responsible for collecting the data that is analyzed by both scientists and students. Scientists and teachers seek to improve data collection methods, and pedagogical approaches.
Some of the vft’s may have a shared objective, but it would be difficult to generalize . It appears that many the scientific studies completed in the vft are not done solely for educational purposes and happen independently of the vft. Students may share the objectives of the scientists but these objectives are not developed collaboratively.

(3) an emphasis on learning how to learn

The Globe project focuses on helping students become engaged in scientific methods of inquiry- to do science the way real scientist “do” it. Butler & MacGregor, (2003) noted that teachers and scientists had concluded that they still needed to work on how to help students integrate the basic conceptual understandings. This is an indication of the high priority this project places on student learning.
Again it is difficult to make a general statement about vft in this regard. In the vft’s that I surveyed there was an explanation of why the scientists were doing what they were doing. In this way scientists were encouraging a scientific approach to inquiry and learning but it would be an indirect approach and not the emphasis of the field trip.

(4) mechanisms for sharing what is learned

Both the Globe project and the vft’s post the research results on the websites. Students involved in both types of communities have access to the scientists and can continue to ask questions about the research. Students involved in the Globe project can also share their individual results with other Globe schools around the world, and engage in discussions about them.

The Globe project is an excellent example of a learning community. It is no surprise that Butler & MacGregor (2003) concluded that “When well implemented by trained teachers, Globe has had a positive impact on students’’ ability to use scientific data in decision-making and on students’ scientifically informed awareness of the environment.” (p. 17) The lesson I take from the Globe project is that when students feel what they do has value, they will become more engaged. Having students observe from the virtual “side” is not the most effective learning experience.

Some virtual field trips may have all the characteristics of a learning community, but most of the ones that I looked at would not be considered a true one. However, they still provide valuable learning opportunities for students. In a study conducted by Spicer & Stratford, (2001) students reported that vft’s would be valuable for helping them to prepare for real field trips. They also reported that vft’s were far more engaging than traditional teaching methods. Students clearly stated that vft’s could not replace real ones.

Bielaczyc and Collins (1999) from https://www.vista.ubc.ca/webct/urw/lc5116011.tp0/cobaltMainFrame.dowebct

Butler, D.M., & MacGregor, I.D. (2003). GLOBE: Science and education. Journal of Geoscience Education, 51(1), 9-20.

Spicer, J., & Stratford, J. (2001). Student perceptions of a virtual field trip to replace a real field trip. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 345-354.

Virtual Field Trips

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/adventures/

http://www.worldwildlife.org/expeditions/car/index.html

http://scripps.ucsd.edu/volcano/