Category Archives: B. Knowledge Diffusion

When considering networked communities we must first look at how to establish this sort of community and what principles are important in a successful one. In constructivist models, problem solving is at the heart of learning, thinking, and development.  Learners solve problems and discover consequences by reflecting their experience and thus construct their own understanding.  That being said, research shows that knowledge construction is rarely done in isolation but rather by creating and forming a knowledge building community (Lamon, Laferriere & Breuleux, in press). In fact, the goal for learning communities is for a group of people with focused common issues or problems to discourse and work to find solutions to problems, complete tasks, or refine processes beyond the capabilities of any single person. (Lamon et al., in press). The building of a classroom community of learners must be paramount for this type of community to foster.

When considering science knowledge generation in this sphere, several things need to be considered. Research shows that students may misinterpret or overlook important information in a simulation and teachers may be tempted to believe that simulations are automatically effective in communicating complex models to students (Stephens & Clement, 2015). Following this, in order to support knowledge generation teachers need to support students to promote reasoning and comprehension during use of simulations. As part of this, research has suggested that many teachers may need more guidance provided along with simulations to help them identify which features and relationships may be overlooked by students (Stephens & Clement, 2015). Virtual reality alone will not suffice and educators require information and guidance on how to support learners through the science knowledge generation process in networked communities.

To expand on this, research has shown that new knowledge is created in a social process and in concrete situations, and this will occur if a community has reached the boundaries of its existing knowledge and are exposed to conflicting concepts (Johannes, 2011). Using virtual reality to meet the goals of knowledge generation in science is prescient in several ways. Learner object interaction in virtual reality provides the model of a cognitive operation that learners have to carry out mentally in order to create their own mental model of certain facts or of a topic of instruction. It may support knowledge building especially in such domains in which spatial information is essential for understanding. In addition, in networked communities personal and social presence is fostered within the community and is amplified if students are affected personally and see some connection between their own person and what happens in a virtual reality. This also increases collective cognitive responsibility of a group for succeeding together (Johannes, 2011). Educators can provide for rich knowledge generation in networked communities through providing virtual reality experiences that tap into connections or experiences that students feel are relevant to them.

The educator is an integral part of creating the sustainability of knowledge generation through virtual reality as the educator sets up the environment for knowledge generation to occur. The educator must consider the needs of the students, gently guide them back on the right path if they have strayed too far, and always keep in mind the dynamics of the networked community and how to facilitate discussion and reflection. In addition, the educator must critically examine the virtual reality to ensure it is not creating more misconceptions, and this is done through assessing on an ongoing basis throughout the process and making corrections as necessary. So, in my mind, knowledge generation in a networked community depends more on frontloading the experience, carefully monitoring the process of social interaction and knowledge generation and providing time for all of this plus time to reflect on the learning.  I look forward to your views about this.

Johannes, M. (2011). Knowledge building in user-generated online virtual realities. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Web Intelligence 3, 1. DOI: 10.4304/jetwi.3.1.38-46.

Lamon, M., & Laferrière, T., & Breuleux, A. (in press). Networked communities. In P. Resta, Ed., Teacher development in an e-learning age: A policy and planning guide, UNESCO.

Stephens, A., & Clement, J. (2015). Use of physics simulations in whole class and small group settings: Comparative case studies. Journal of Computers & Education. 86, C, pp. 137-156.

From the article by Driver, Asoko, Leach, Scott & Mortimer (1994), knowledge in science is constructed at an individually and socially. Specifically, students learn as an individual when previous knowledge schemes are modified after encountering disequilibration (Driver et al., 1994). For example, when students’ misconceptions (e.g. informal science ideas, commonsense knowledge) are challenged, they learn by changing their previous knowledge about a topic based on information that contradicts or conflicts with what they know. Furthermore, at the social level, scaffolding opportunities encourage individuals to engage socially in discussions about phenomena. Classrooms are the most typical environments where this “process of conceptual change” (Driver et al., 1994, p. 8) occurs because they provide a place for students to be actively engaged and where social interaction with peers offer different perspectives for them to reflect upon. That is, students become introduced to science concepts and rules of the scientific community. A summary point of the article, “Scientific knowledge is socially constructed, validated and communicated” (Driver et al., 1994, p. 11) resonated with me because it shows that science is not a “top-down” or “teacher-directed” learning process. Rather, scientific knowledge is learned through a collaborative effort involving exploration, discussions and reflections. As well, the role of the teacher is to inspire new ideas and inquiries to support students. Collectively, this view also reminds me of PCK because it emphasizes the pedagogical knowledge of teachers (e.g. facilitator, guide, provide scaffolding opportunities, etc.) and the delivery of content knowledge (e.g. socially constructed) I chose to explore GLOBE and Virtual Field Trips as my two networked communities to validate and further expand on Driver et al. (1994)’s article on knowledge construction in science.

GLOBE is an educational resource aimed at strengthening students’ understanding of math, science and geography as well as expanding their environmental awareness (Butler & MacGregor, 2003). One of its main features is the student-scientist interaction component where they exchange data, and communicate with each other to study problems. At the individual level, students construct knowledge by contributing data to the GLOBAL database. Knowledge is socially constructed through “active participation of scientists as research collaborators with students” (Butler & MacGregor, 2003, p. 9) where the scientists also act as mentors. The benefits of this aspect is that students’ learning is enriched, their commitment to science education is strengthened and they receive training for future career endeavors. In terms of PCK, both pedagogical and content knowledge are supported. Teachers are provided with quality training through a GLOBE Teacher’s Guide that emphasizes hands-on, inquiry-based pedagogy. As for content knowledge, there are a variety of investigation areas such as the atmosphere, soil, land cover, water, etc. and teachers are able to reach out to other educators as well as scientists to provide information.

Virtual Field Trips (VFTs) is another learning resource for students to connect with scientists. In Adedokun, Hetzel, Parker, Loizzo, Burgess, & Paul Robinson (2012), researchers explored how VFTs can be utilized to connect scientists and enrich students’ views of science, careers in science and scientists. The study was based on three limitations regarding VFTS: the use of VFTs to explore careers in science, characteristics of effective VFTs, and benefits of building student-scientist interactions through VFTs (Adedokun et al, 2012). Specifically, the VFT focused was using Purdue zipTrips, which were real time 45 minute interactive programs with 4 aspects: audience’s, interaction with scientists, pre-recorded segments, and integrated activities. Through current literature on VFTs, the researchers collated 8 guidelines of effective VFTs and applied a VFT like zipTrip to them. One of the guidelines that highlights the construction of scientific knowledge are the constructivist elements where zipTrip respects students’ prior knowledge but supplement structured tasks to provide opportunities for students to alter their beliefs. This reflects Driver et al. (1994) and the individual level of knowledge construction. As well, the interactivity aspect of zipTrips also supports Driver et al. (1994)’s social construction of knowledge where students interact with scientists to see their work environments, for instance. Furthermore, PCK is integrated in VFTs in general because it emphasizes authentic learning environments (e.g. inquiry-based pedagogy) and clear learning outcomes (e.g. curriculum-linked content).

Adedokun, O. A., Hetzel, K., Parker, L. C., Loizzo, J., Burgess, W. D., & Paul Robinson, J. (2012). Using Virtual Field Trips to Connect Students with University Scientists: Core Elements and Evaluation of zipTrips™. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(5), 1-12.

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

Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Scott, P., & Mortimer, E. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational researcher, 23(7), 5-12.