Tag Archives: scientific inquiry

Radinsky et al (2009) and “Science-Talk”

by

0

Given its social and cognitive affordances, extend discussion by describing several active student and teacher roles and one activity you could envision with this technology. Suggest how the activity and roles are aligned with LfU principles.

The goal of Radinsky, Oliva, and Alimar (2009) was to help educators recognize, assess, and promote the process of constructing scientific ideas as shared intellectual property in the classroom (p.622). The researchers observed students using meteorological and climatological data from the internet as well as the MyWorld geographic system, to access large amounts of data and “to reason about these phenomena, generate explanations, test those explanations against more data, and revisit their evolving ‘theories’” (Radinsky, Oliva, and Alimar, 2009, p.622).

An interesting method was discussed in this article. The “Science-talk” is a free-flowing, dialogue centered discussion in which there are no wrong answers; only brainstorming to generate ideas, theories, and avenues of exploration. This is authentic scientific work – the students are told the rules, and that it is one thing scientists do when they begin to study phenomena. Students in the study were encouraged to engage in science-talk in more than just English, but in their other language (Spanish). The talks also allowed the teacher to access the student’s thinking, which acts as a guide for direction in future instruction and discussion.

Teaching science in this way models for all students the process of using many tools in the environment around them for explaining and theorizing about natural phenomena: their own experiences, the words of their peers, and even objects and bodies in the room. It prioritizes wonderment, questioning,and collective exploration of ideas (Radinsky, Oliva, and Alimar, 2009, p.637).

Active student and teacher roles are important in co-constructing knowledge. It is necessary to step away from the teacher as the sole source of knowledge, meting it out to students in small doses. Students in small groups can collectively access their prior knowledge, from meaning from new data, brainstorm solutions, theories and explanations, and in accessing new information, refining their ideas – discarding what does not work and modifying that which does. What is the teacher doing while this is happening? Listening carefully for the right moments to step in, direct students to resources, NOT correcting wrong theories but allowing students to discover this themselves, and generally aiding in the simulation of authentic scientific investigations, method, and practices. These activities which focus on collaborative construction of knowledge are all rooted firmly in Edelson‘s principles of LfU (Learning for Use) below.

4 principles

(Edelson, 2000, p.357).
1. Learning takes place through the construction and modifcation of knowledge structures.
2. Knowledge construction is a goal-directed process that is guided by a combination of
conscious and unconscious understanding goals.
3. The circumstances in which knowledge is constructed and subsequently used determine
its accessibility for future use.
4. Knowledge must be constructed in a form that supports use before it can be applied.

3 steps

(Edelson, 2000, p.358-359).
Motivation: Experiencing the Need for New Knowledge. (create demand and elicit curiosity)
Knowledge Construction: Building New Knowledge Structures. (observe and communication)
Knowledge Refinement: Organizing and Connecting Knowledge Structures.(reflect and apply)
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.
Radinsky, J., Oliva, S., & Alamar, K. (2009). Camila, the earth, and the sun: Constructing an idea as shared intellectual property. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(6), 619-642

Focus on Edelson and Technology-Supported Inquiry Activities

by

0

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.

Based on the reading, what broader educational challenges have provoked the author to do this research?

Edelson recognizes that the traditional approach to education in general and science in particular is an emphasis on memorization and repeating back facts and figures. This, however, leads t a shallow understanding. Edelson feels that in an inquiry learning model, students develop deep, content knowledge and inquiry skills through activities that incorporate authentic forms of scientific inquiry. This inquiry-based pedagogy is embodied by the. Also, there is a need for connection between science and computers/technology which can assist in many of the inquiry-based activities including data collection, data analysis, modeling, and the communication of results in scientifc research. Recent National Science Standards invite teachers to focus o inquiry learning to foster deeper and more robust conceptual understandings through firsthand use of authentic scientific practice (p.355).

What is the author’s theory of learning?

Edelson focuses on multiple theories of learning in his article. Inquiry-based constructivism seems to be at the core of much of his approach. The authentic practice of actual scientific observations, and creating a desire or motivation to learn further are based in situated theories of Cognition. Edelson indicates that “motivation must precede construction, and to insure accessibility and applicability, refinement must follow construction” (Edelson, 2000, p.359).

4 principles

(Edelson, 2000, p.357).
1. Learning takes place through the construction and modifcation of knowledge structures.
2. Knowledge construction is a goal-directed process that is guided by a combination of
conscious and unconscious understanding goals.
3. The circumstances in which knowledge is constructed and subsequently used determine
its accessibility for future use.
4. Knowledge must be constructed in a form that supports use before it can be applied.

3 steps

(Edelson, 2000, p.358-359).
Motivation: Experiencing the Need for New Knowledge. (create demand and elicit curiosity)
Knowledge Construction: Building New Knowledge Structures. (observe and communication)
Knowledge Refinement: Organizing and Connecting Knowledge Structures.(reflect and apply)

Becoming a WISE guy

by

0

A short summary of my findings while investigating the Web-based inquiry Science Environment

  • What was the motivation to create WISE?

    • WISE was created as a platform to host curriculum designed for scientific inquiry. Fully customizable by teachers, it allows students to explore, reflect, investigate, observe and immerse themselves in different project-based environments. With prompts, challenges, animations and many other features, it is less like learning and more like exploration.

  • In what ways does WISE promote knowledge integration through its technological and curriculum design?

    • With the many activities offered in the WISE design, students can view text, animations, movies, pictures, drawings and many other forms of knowledge, from one platform. Students can review, take tests and quizzes, complete questionnaires, and more importantly students can communicate with each other in small groups, and with users in other schools, cities or countries. Different students learn in different ways, and WISE appeals to students with its bright, fast-paced and varied activity platform.

  • Describe a typical process for developing a WISE project. How does this design process compare with the Jasper Adventures?

    • The WISE projects are easier to develop in some ways. WISE is a platform that any teacher can use to develop their lessons into a larger project. If the user has access to the internet, a unit can be developed. It is; however, both time-consuming and knowledge dependent. If a user is not tech0capable, this would be hard to develop a unit. The Jasper Series, aside from the proprietary affiliation with Vanderbilt University, would be easier to replicate. Anyone with a digital videocamera (smartphone, iPad etc…) could film sequences interspersed with charts, questions, and data.

  • What are some perceived limitations, hindrances or constraints related to WISE?

    • The knowledge-specific requirement of being able to type text, find and paste media, and the time it takes to do so are limitations. The fact that it is strictly science-based may be seen as a limitation, but that is the purpose for which it was developed. While projects can be customized, they are for set grade levels – something designed for grade 5’s is not really appropriate for grade 9’s. And lastly, there does not seem to be very many WISE projects in the archives.

  • How could you use a WISE project in your school or another learning environment? What about WISE would you wish to customize?

    • Actually, I would like to see the scope of the platform expanded to include other disciplines. The humanities could benefit from a platform like this. The project focus in Social Studies classes would fit well with the inquiry-based technological platform design.

Check out the WISE for yourself!

Exploring the WISE TELE

by

0

(Web-based Inquiry Science Environment)(Technology-Enhanced Learning Experiences)

Process Questions:

  • What broader questions about learning and technology have provoked WISE research?

    • The difficulties of incorporating research-based curriculum into the classroom are at the root of the WISE design. I am not familiar at all with the curriculum for science at any grade level, but I assume that there is a learning outcome or strand that asks students to consider the value of research, or even a lab or experiment that requires students to do some research. However, Linn, Clark, and Slotta (2002) suggest that inquiry-based practices are not common in today’s classroom. Philosophically, if we are trying to teach students about science, we need to allow them to become scientists and emulate experts in the field (USBSE, 2000; Furtak, 2006). This was something that The Jasper Series offered us, and is one of the tenets underpinning the constructivist learning environment. The presence of a WISE design would seem to be the kind of tool that would address these needs. The use of technology is a further acknowledgement of the professional requirements of a scientist.

  • Describe the authors’ pedagogical design considerations that shaped the development of “What’s on your Plate?”

    • The authors designed an inquiry map system that allows students to work individually and independently without constant instruction. WISE also incorporates prompts, hints, and evidence to allow students to reflect and give them ideas on proceeding forward. The collaborative affordances of the WISE environment allow the creation of new inquiry projects, which the authors acknowledge is in keeping with the quest for recent research and projects. The Scaffolded Knowledge Integration framework and developed design principles (Linn & Hsi, 2000). The framework has four main tenets including (1) making thinking visible, (2) making science accessible,(3) helping students learn from each other, and (4) promoting lifelong learning.
    The ‘What’s on Your Plate” unit was designed with two main pedagogical design considerations; making thinking visible, and helping students learn from one another. Both of these considerations were based on an inquiry-based framework. The classroom teacher who used the “What’s on your Plate” unit was able to embed her instruction within the WISE design, and students were able to benefit from materials she was able to develop, deliver, and assess from within the WISE environment. This was not a one-sided benefit however, the WISE technology also benefitted from the classroom teacher’s use.

  • How and where was WISE integrated into a larger sequence of activities?

    • The project began in 1996 at The University of California, Berkeley, and has grown with contributions from researchers, teachers and scientists from across North America, Europe, and Asia. Since its inception, the developers of the WISE TELE have improved WISE by incorporating the latest results from science education research, including from the findings from studies of curriculum and instruction carried out in numerous science classrooms. The developers have released a new open source version of the software that will enable researchers and other developers to adopt and adapt the WISE technology and curriculum materials for their own purposes.
    The “What’s on Your Plate” unit was used with approximately 1100 middle school students from California and Massachusetts who collaborated on-line during the 2 week unit. Results for the author’s study were based on 360 students. (Gobert, Snyder& Houghton, 2002) Students were administered an identical pre- and post- test outside the WISE environment – with pencil and paper. In the WISE design, students constructed models and wrote explanations, and then read texts which forced them to analyze their work. They read other students work from partner classes, and revised and justified their work. Students visited websites and wrote reflection notes for themselves and their partner classes. They read text and viewed models and continued reflection.

  • Analyze the evidence and author’s conclusions. Are the conclusions justified?

    • It is far too easy for the classroom teacher to sit and lecture on a topic in depth and put students to sleep. In accordance with allowing students the opportunity to create their own knowledge, we need to provide them an environment that allows this. One of the goals behind the development of the WISE design was to provide a solid technology platform that allows teachers to adopt new forms of inquiry-based instruction. In the WISE TELE design, students collaborate in pairs or small groups to perform inquiry activities. These positions are fully justified in the constructivist model of learning. Gobert et al (2002) conclude that students did “achieve a deeper understanding of the nature of models through their interactions with the unit” (p.17). The authors defend their approach by citing new education standards and how the WISE design specifically addresses them.

  • In what ways does WISE support the processes commonly associated with “inquiry” in science? How might these processes be used to support math instruction?

    • The ability to contribute new projects to WISE is a benefit of the inquiry process. If a project is well designed and meets the requirements of the WISE design then it can be added. The collaborative element, as well as the built in “prompts” allows students to investigate with some guidance from WISE, peers, and teachers. For math instruction, this is a little different. One solution could be if the math was part of a larger project, requiring an inter-disciplinary approach. The Jasper Series also showed us this – basic math skills were required for scenarios that also needed mapping skills, and biological skills. The collaborative element with the Design environment, peers, and teacher would work with math. Math classes use peer collaboration and teacher assistance already, but the technological collaboration is not as commonly found.

  • What might be the cognitive and social affordances of the WISE TELE for students? Use “What’s on your Plate?” or “Plants in Space” as an example to support your hypotheses.

    One affordance for students in the “What’s on your Plate?” WISE design is the negotiated and shared knowledge constructed during the learning process. The communication with students in other schools (states!) requires technology skills, communication skills, discipline-specific skills, and interpersonal skills as well. The co-construction of knowledge and shared opinions builds an understanding that is deeper than a simple lecture. The prompts inherent in the WISE environment are designed to encourage thought and development in specific directions, construct scaffolds for further thought, and help students formulate knowledge and avenues of inquiry.

References

Furtak, E. M. (2006). The problem with answers: An exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching. Science Education, 90(3), 453-467. http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.20130
Gobert, J., Snyder, J., & Houghton, C. (2002, April). The influence of students’ understanding of models on model-based reasoning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), New Orleans, Louisiana.
Linn, M., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. (2003). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538.
U.S. Board of Science Education, (2000). “1 Inquiry in Science and in Classrooms.” Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press,