I believe that Exploratorium, Globe, and Virtual Fieldtrips and Web-based Exploration can all meet Bielaczyc and Collins’ (1999) criteria for a learning community. Exploratorium has many resources such as videos and activities for sharing with teachers, students and others in the scientific community. These resources are developed by experts in various areas, and new ones are continually added, building the collective knowledge of the community. Likewise, Globe, and Virtual Fieldtrips such as Students on Ice also support knowledge building by connecting classrooms with knowledgeable experts, by sharing a digital experience through resources, and by embedding it in a real-life context and a culture of learning – “engaging students… in authentic exploration and discovery”, (Moss, 2003). To me, the true value of the learning community is when students are “initiated into scientific ways of knowing… through the cultural institutions of science” (Driver et al, 1994). It is when students begin to experience science – the different ways of thinking, the process of growth, development of theories, gathering real data, that they become part of a scientific community, and are motivated and excited about contributing both now and perhaps in their future (Driver et al, 1994, Moss, 2003, Niemitz et al, 2008).
Contrasts:
While all of them fit the definition of learning communities, it is Globe and the web-based expeditions that emphasize the networking and interaction that truly characterize sense of community. While Exploratorium and Virtual Field Trips are interactive and embedded in a context, they are primarily a platform for imbuing knowledge content in a more engaging platform. What sets Globe, JASON, and other interactive virtual expeditions (IVE) apart is the students’ involvement in the process of science, and the real-time engagement with real scientist. Globe has students participate in data collection but has been criticized for using students as lab techs rather than involving them in all aspects of the process. JASON and similar IVEs have students interact with scientists in real time, sharing in their projects, their findings, and their excitement of discovery, albeit from a distance. I would modify Bielaczyc and Collins definition to emphasize the necessary interactivity of a community of learning by putting it as #1, rather than under the umbrella of #4.
Limitations:
My first instinct when browsing the virtual fieldtrips and expeditions was that students would perceive them to be boring. While the real-time element of some of the explorations would help, many of the sites were limited in interactivity and in design (one look at WhaleNet was all it took). The best ones had student participation – involvement in data collection for GLOBE, tracking of the ship in School of Rock and Students on Ice- as well as direct engagement with scientists and experts. “The greatest potential for learning occurs when students work at the elbows of practicing scientists while being closely mentored to think like experts within the context of a community of practice”, (Moss, 2003). It is one thing to watch a video, quite another to speak with someone personally and have opportunity for questions. This is even better when face-face opportunities are provided before and after an expedition to give personal connection and meaning to the students, “the connection between an active scientist and a learner forms a basic mentorship of a kind that has been shown to have benefits for student learning and motivation” (Niemitz et al, 2008). In the examples I saw, I am not convinced to try a virtual field trip but would be interested in some Exploratorium resources and in opportunities for working with GLOBE or real-time expeditions should there be a good fit with my class.
- Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Scott, P., & Mortimer, E. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12. 10.3102/0013189X023007005
- Niemitz, M., Slough, S., Peart, L., Klaus, A. D., Leckie, R. M., & John, K. S. (2008). Interactive virtual expeditions as a learning tool: The school of rock expedition case study.Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17(4), 561.
- Moss, D. M. (2003). A window on science: Exploring the JASON project and student conceptions of science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(1), 21-30. 10.1023/A:1022151410028
Hi David,
I think you raise an interesting point by suggesting that some of these online tools maybe a little boring for our children. This is something that I have experienced first hand. There have been times where I would find an online tool or an activity to be interesting and fitting for my class but they wouldn’t reciprocate in the same way. I don’t know whether you want to call it the age gap (which is not much- as I am a young teacher) or my standards are lower than my students. Also, there have been times where I thought a certain activity wouldn’t work so well but my students loved it. I think it is just a hit and miss so I would try all these tools with my students if I were teaching at the moment and see how they respond to it. As you never know how they are going to take it, them being teenagers. 🙂
Just my 2 cents!
GK
Hi Gursimran.
While it’s true students may respond to certain things differently than teachers, for eg. their sense of humour, for the most part, I believe there are certain elements that can indicate good design, and many times we can predict if it is worthwhile. I think that the longer I teach high school, the better that judgement is, as I understand them better (though perhaps relate less :). One big thing to keep in mind is the constant exposure kids have to Youtube, social media, and other digital “quick hits”. The short, high intensity clips condition our students to constant digital excitement. Chances are, if there’s much talking, poor graphic design or a slower pace, they will find it boring.
Dear David,
Through your post, it seems that science and math education is taking utilizing digital resources in order to support students to learn via cognitive apprenticeship (i.e. like you said, students are to experience science). For example, virtual fieldtrips allow students to be part of a scientist’s lab and understand concepts from the practitioner’s point of view. Students are learning by modelling after experts. However, how would educators best scaffold learning when students lack strategies to identify the same conceptual understanding as experts?
Moreover, just to expand the conversation, given this premise, how would this practice limit originality and creativity?
Thank you for your thoughts.
Sincerely,
Alice
Hi Alice.
In response to your question, I’m not sure that the point is to have students identify the same understanding or points of view as the experts. I believe the point of the digital immersion is to give the student the opportunity to put themselves in the position of the scientist and find their own answers and discoveries, (which may be different from the expert) and then to evaluate various hypotheses to see which is best. The idea is not to get the same answer, but to address the same problem. If a set answer is not the goal, then there is no reason that creativity should be discouraged. In fact, there is always the chance that a forward thinking student may bring an idea with greater merit than the expert.
Dave