Ecological factors and relations are both explicit and implicit components of many high school science courses, but are often explored in manner disconnected from the authentic experiences and tangible data. In response to this problem, GLOBE represents a resource around which teachers can create inquiry based learning opportunities.
Wherein the students are required to create conceptual knowledge that is relevant and available for later use and the design follows a Learning-for-Use approach (Edelson, 2001). As the LfU model provides an approach to the overall design of an exploration with GLOBE. The collection, evaluation, and interpretation of the data can be supported using GEM so that scaffolding can be provided during the exploration (Khan, 2007).
The tools and guidelines for collecting data are outlined by GLOBE, providing consistent data collection guidelines, and freeing the educator to facilitate the GEM process. Initial discussions about data analysis and collection can be carried out with the previous acquired data stored on GLOBE, thereby providing some experience for novice learners. More importantly GLOBE actively encourages students to collect new local data, which students can then add to the database and compare to others. As well as being interpreted by the learners, the data is also analyzed by the larger scientific community providing a authentic and meaningful reasons to collect the data (Means & Coleman, 2000). Therefore the physical collection of data provides students with both the practice of scientific processes, as well as, meaningful real world connection to data, which may be lost in pure simulations (Srinivasan, Perez, Palmer, Brooks, Wilson, & Fowler, 2006) or the abstract analysis of the correct data supplied by the teacher.
The missing component of authentic scientific processes then remains to be communication. Since all learning essentially boils done to interactions between various factions:
- Environment
- People
- Information
- Combinations of the above
Then the logical progression of the information age is a shift to the interaction age (Milne, 2007). While GLOBE does include tools and resources for communication and interaction with other learners, issues were noted with appropriate pairings of class capabilities and inconsistent communication (Means & Coleman, 2000). 
This is where virtual worlds like Whyville (aimed for a teen audience) or Second Life can provide opportunities for peer-to-peer discussions of the data and the generation, evaluation, and modification of hypothesis based upon the data in real-time.
Made possible by capitalizing on the virtually inseparable tendencies of students from their phones and the increased ability of these tools to act as stand alone platforms capable of accessing any number of web tools. By having students in the field collecting data and drawing upon their mobile platforms to communicate within Whyville, learning can be moved out of the classroom (Milne, 2007) further creating authentic learning experiences. The educator can also monitor student progress via Whyville; questioning the students’ assumptions, interpretations, and hypotheses.
Lomas (2007) notes that the design of virtual worlds are often influenced by the laws of the real world though they need not actually be confounded by these physical laws. Thus assessment could occur by having students examine the virtual world for various ecological relations related to their particular study, and or explain what limitations their particularly virtual world might have on such ecological relations. Means and Coleman (2000) also noted that students tended to critique the results of students from other schools, but not necessarily their own data. Thus, in order to help students analyze their own data, and develop their communication skills students would be required to create, track, and reflect on both their own data and that of other global learners. Followed up then by the generation and revision of hypotheses and the explanation of phenomena in relation to the hypothesized mechanisms.
Reference:
Edelson, D.C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,38(3), 355-385.
Lomas, C. (2007). Second Life for Learning: From virtual worlds to augmented classrooms, laboratories and field trips. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2007 (pp. 606-607). Chesapeake, VA.
Khan, S. (2007). Model-based inquiries in chemistry. Science Education, 91(6), 877-905.
Means, B. & Coleman, E. (2000). Technology supports for student participation in science investigations. In M.J. Jacobson & R. B. Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies of learning (pp. 287-320). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Milne, A. (2007). Entering the Interaction Age Today. Educause January/February 2007. Vol. 42, 1, 12-31.
Srinivasan, S., Perez, L. C., Palmer,R., Brooks,D., Wilson,K., & Fowler. D. (2006). Reality versus simulation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15 (2), 1-5.