\u201c\u2026learners of science have everyday representations of the phenomena that science explains. These representations are constructed, communicated, and validated within everyday culture. They evolve as individuals live within a culture\u201d (Driver, et al., 1994, p. 11).<\/p>\n
I am from a small community of approximately 6,000 people in northwestern British Columbia. While we have a small museum\/art gallery (half of the ground floor of the building is the museum, the other half is the art gallery), we do not have many resources as far as math and science field trips go. We do have a fish hatchery, as well as mineral exploration sites, past mines, forests, and so on relatively nearby, but we are limited as far as more diverse hands-on experiences outside the classroom go. While I agree that students construct knowledge through immersion in their surrounding environments and cultures, I also know that if I simply left it at that, many of my students would not be provided with the opportunities needed to extend their thinking and to continue to develop a sense of inquiry as they got older. Because of this, I am finding virtual learning environments for science and math increasingly important the more I learn about previously inaccessible opportunities and options now available. <\/p>\n
As Driver et al. (1994) point out, \u201cthe symbolic world of science is now populated with entities such as atoms, electrons, ions, fields and fluxes, genes and chromosomes; it is organized by ideas such as evolution and encompasses procedures of measurement and experiment. These ontological entities, organizing concepts, and associated epistemology and practices of science are unlikely to be discovered by individuals through their own observations of the natural world. Scientific knowledge as public knowledge is constructed and communicated through the culture and social institutions of science\u201d (p. 6). Classrooms by nature have the potential to support this \u201cculture and social institutions of science.\u201d Students actively engage with peers, both socially and collaboratively, sharing perspectives and knowledge, generating ideas, and developing questions and hypotheses; \u201cknowledge is not transmitted directly from one knower to another, but is actively built up by the learner\u2026\u201d (Driver, et al., 1994, p. 5). However, at the same time, Yoon et al., (2012) point out that, \u201cas noted in the NRC (2009) report and elsewhere (Squire and Patterson 2009; Honey and Hilton 2011), learning in informal spaces is fluid, sporadic, social, and participant driven \u2014 characteristics that contrast with the highly structured formal classroom experience\u201d (p. 521). While the \u201cstructured formal classroom experience\u201d is changing, virtual environments, or environments that integrate digital technology to create an inquiry-based classroom, continue to create a much different classroom experience for learners. Sherry Hsi (2008) argues that it is through this \u201c\u2026direct experience and manipulation with virtual objects\u201d that informal learners are given the opportunity to build \u201ctheir intuitions about basic scientific phenomena\u201d (p. 892). In this way, Hsi points out, information technologies have \u201ctransformed\u2026informal learning institutions\u201d through the creation of \u201c\u2026freely available educational resources accessible over computer networks and the Web to create extended learning opportunities outside of formal schooling\u201d (p. 891), as well as providing opportunities for educators to use pre- or post-visit activities with their classes, and to access virtual explorations for remote learners via the internet.<\/p>\n
The next question is how to effectively integrate digital technologies and virtual environments into existing curriculums. Yoon et al., (2012) conducted a study at \u201ca premiere science museum in a large urban city in northeast USA using augmented reality visualization technologies\u201d (p. 520). Their study focused on electrical conductivity and circuits, and research was conducted on four groups using digital technology and increasing levels of scaffolding to support learning. The traditional \u201chands-on\u201d group was presented with two metal spheres; one connected to a battery by a wire and the other connected to a light bulb. When a student grabbed the spheres, the circuit was completed and the light bulb lit up. The second group was presented with the same scenario, but this time, the addition of digital technology allowed for a visual representation as well, as the completion of the circuit triggered a projection of the animated flow of electricity onto the student\u2019s hands, arms, and shoulders. Groups three and four also had the digitally enhanced experience, along with varying levels of additional scaffolding to support learning. Yoon et al.\u2019s research concluded \u201cthat the digital augmentation, in and of itself, is an effective scaffold\u201d (p. 531); however, the results of their study also found \u201c\u2026increased cognitive abilities in terms of theorizing about the phenomenon from students in Condition 4, suggesting that scaffolds might be necessary to reach more advanced learning\u201d (p. 538). True learning should represent a balance. As Driver et al. (1994) point out, \u201cIf students are to adopt scientific ways of knowing, then intervention and negotiation with an authority, usually the teacher, is essential\u201d (p. 11). Driver et al. offer that the teacher must introduce new ideas or cultural tools, provide support\/guidance as needed, allow students to make sense of the ideas\/tools themselves, and then assess students\u2019 understanding to inform further action. Yoon et al. noted that \u201cWhen asked what they thought was the most and least helpful scaffold, 100% of the students identified collaborating in a group as most helpful. The least helpful scaffolds were identified as the knowledge prompts (57%) and the directions (37%)\u201d (p. 532).<\/p>\n