Category Archives: B. Knowledge Diffusion

“How can learning be distributed and accelerated with access to digital resources and specialized tools and what are the implications of learning math and science just in time and on demand?

We want to bring back the “wow” of learning in the classroom and help to avoid memorization versus understanding. Science classrooms often focus heavily on memorizing key terms, relationships, and interactions. Yet memorization is not enough for true learning. Yes we may have students acing exams based on a regurgitation of information, but the depth of that understanding is limited. We have an opportunity to create a learning environment that allows students to make personal constructions of meanings about natural phenomena resulting from their interactions with both physical and virtual events in their daily lives (Driver, Asoko, Leach, Scott & Mortimer, 1994). It is essential that we design learning activities in a way that encourages the “encounter” with their natural world and goes beyond the limited concepts that are found on the page alone. This page learning also limits the access to information and the self pacing that students can engage in using personal devices. Finally the page is isolating and does not take full advantage of learning constructed in a social context where students are actively engaged with others in attempting to understand and interpret this phenomena for themselves sharing differing perspectives and challenging each other with questions (Driver, Asoko, Leach, Scott & Mortimer, 1994). Students can once again experience encounters that motivate them to exclaim “how did you do that?!”

Augmented Reality(AR) allows us to take advantage of the supercomputers found in most of our students pockets. Students are already using their cell phones seamlessly to communicate and share information with their peers throughout the day, and we can build upon this social interaction by combining it with engaging learning tools found on the same device (Dunleavy, Dede & Mitchell, 2009). When we introduce AR for mobile devices we provide instant access to multiple layers of reality encouraging an encounter while the students are in the midst of their natural environments with their peers. This is a recipe for constructing knowledge. “AR games can be more than a standalone experience and instead integrate into the daily lives of students, challenging them to think differently about their communities and themselves. AR has the potential to engage students by seeing information in context and providing a platform through which they can creatively explore content by designing and exploring scenarios through the lens of games” (Klopfer & Sheldon, 2010, p.93).

Yesterday I was working with a group of students who were studying the human cell as part of their science program. This natural phenomena is not easily experienced with our naked eye beyond what has been described in a book. We decided to introduce three choices of different augmented reality experiences for the students to work together to make meaning. The first was using the Quivervision education pack that allowed students to colour and label a cell then scan it to bring it to life. The second was using the Play-doh Touch to build a human cell using playdough and then bring it to life through animation and AR. Finally they could use the Merge Cube to explore Mr. Body and Anatomy AR+. The classroom became an explosion of conversations, questions, excitement and engagement with every student asking “how did you do that” providing an opportunity for the teacher to demonstrate, challenge, and guide. Their classroom reality was enhanced and added to with simple tools that took advantage of the phone in their pockets.

As these tools become more prolific I wonder what platforms will become available for teachers and to create their own AR content without having a coding background? Are we asking too much from teachers to not only use these tools but to create content as well?

What AR tools are the most valuable to you in your classrooms?

Trish

References

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

Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of science Education and Technology, 18(1), 7-22.

Klopfer, E., & Sheldon, J. (2010). Augmenting your own reality: Student authoring of science‐based augmented reality games. New Directions for Student Leadership, 2010(128), 85-94.

▪ How is knowledge relevant to math or science constructed? How is it possibly generated in these networked communities? Provide examples to illustrate your points.

Throughout this course, we have been discussing how students construct knowledge and understanding. In short, I think we can all agree that the most practical way to teach students is to give them multiple opportunities to explore and collaborate while scaffolding their learning and providing different means for them to express and apply their understanding. Traditional methods of memorization are no longer viewed as best teaching practices. Instead, we want students to build knowledge through concepts so they can apply what they have learned in problem-solving contexts. In Erlwanger’s (1973) article he reminds us of the danger of teaching mathematics without ensuring that students have a proper conceptual understanding and that memorizing procedures through rote learning can be ineffective. I can definitely relate to this article as I have seen many examples of when students have memorized how to complete a set of questions but cannot apply what they know in a real life application or when they are given an open-ended problem. Many of my students go to Kumon so they can complete a long series of questions quickly but many have no idea what they are doing. They have simply memorized an algorithm. For instance, I have a student who can complete 20 2-digit by 2-digit multiplication questions in under 3 minutes. But when asked to complete 22 x 4 in his head he cannot. Other students in my class who have no idea what the traditional algorithm for multiplication is, let alone how to use it, could answer this question because they understand what multiplication is. They know that it is adding equal groups and can partition the numbers using mental math and will add 20 groups of 2 to 2 groups of 2.

It was very interesting to read about how to use informal spaces to construct knowledge and build conceptual understanding.  The topic of field trips is something we are continually talking about at school because we want them to enhance learning and help construct conceptual knowledge, but more often then not, they become stand-alone lessons where the students are learning in isolation information that isn’t necessarily connected to the goals we want to achieve. Yoon et. Al (2012)  examines the potential that these informal spaces can have to increase students conceptual understandings of science. They found that using augmented realities to replace tradition text guides would keep visitors more engaged and therefore “improve access to information and increase exhibit functionality.” (Yoon et al. 2011). After browsing the Exploratorium Museum’s website that is located in San Francisco, you can see that they have created many galleries and exhibits that would let visits explore concepts using elements of embodies learning. Instead of just viewing and listening to information, visitors have the opportunity to test and create and explore different ideas. This is very similar to the pedagogical model that we want to see in schools.

I think that using informal spaces and going on field trips can be influential in building conceptual understandings. When planned and executed in a meaningful way, it can give students opportunities to apply what they have learned in class in the real world as well as see ideas and gain new perspectives. Just like we have seen with materials like Jaspers, teachers don’t always need to be the ones who are delivering content. Using spaces like museums is another tool that we can utilize to help students inquire into the world around them and construct their own knowledge.

References:

Erlwanger, S. H. (1973). Benny’s conception of rules and answers in IPI mathematics. Journal of Children’s Mathematical Behavior, 1(2), 7-26.

Yoon, S. A., Elinich, K., Wang, J., Steinmeier, C., & Tucker, S. (2012). Using augmented reality and knowledge-building scaffolds to improve learning in a science museum. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(4), 519-541.

• Globe researchers have suggested that Globe is an example of anchored instruction. Do you agree or disagree with this statement and why?

Anchored instruction is a technology-centered learning approach where students are given math and science problems to solve in realistic contexts. The first example of an anchored instruction that I came across was the Jasper problems. Looking at Globe, a few weeks later, it only fills me with joy knowing that we started at Jasper and have landed at Globe in a couple of decades. The first article that I read on “Mathematics in the streets and in schools” by Carraher and Schliemann, is about children selling food on the street and being super-efficient at doing mental math while when those children are asked to perform mathematical calculations on a piece of paper, they were not as efficient. These authors raise an important question at the end of the paper, “(are) schools out to allow children simply to develop their own computational routines without trying to impose the conventional systems developed in the culture?” (Carraher and Schliemann, 1985, p. 28). I think the answer to this question will be ‘yes’ for the majority of the schools, while there are few schools that use TPCKs such as Globe can be excluded from the list.

Therefore, I think the answer to the posed question is obvious that, yes, Globe is not only an example of anchored instruction but the definition of what anchored instruction should look like. Globe offers collaboration and learning for K-12 grade students across the world in 110 countries that not only benefit students but also the teachers and the admin. The website is designed to be very welcoming where “anyone” can join and be a part of something bigger than we can imagine. There are mobile apps that can record videos and take pictures that can be uploaded in the form of data collection to the website. In result to all of this, Herron and Robertson explain in their paper how “Using the Globe program to educate students on the interdependence of Our planet and people” is possible and happening. “Students recognized how people in the city and surrounding areas might be impacted by research on biomass. Many students focused on the benefits that could be experienced by the immediate community, while other focused on the impact of local industry” (Herron and Robertson, 2013, p.30). Students from all around the world are not only helping third world countries make a difference in their lifestyles or help scientists make new inventions, but they are making difference in their own communities as stated by Herron and Robertson.

Although, as I familiarized myself with the program- Globe, I was a bit skeptical about the data that is collected from a variety of sources, whether the data can be trusted or not. Penuel and Means’ article on “Implementation Variations and Fidelity in an inquiry science program: analysis of Globe data reporting patterns” addressed my point. After they analyzed data and surveyed teachers and students, they there may be some lack of confidence in the data reported. I think there must be some sort of filter that is applied once the data is received by the staff working at Globe to verify whether the data is acceptable or not.

However, other than the above, I cannot think of anything else that I could pinpoint to make this program any better than it already is. In the end, I think there is no option left for all of us but to go global with Globe and make a real difference in the world.

References

Carraher, T. N., Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann, A. D. (1985). Mathematics in the streets and in schools. British journal of developmental psychology, 3(1), 21-29

Herron, S. S., & Robertson, J. L. (2013). Using the GLOBE Program to Educate Students on the Interdependence of Our Planet and People. Creative Education. 4(A). pg. 29-3

Peneul, W.R., & Means, B. (2004). Implementation variation and fidelity in an inquiry science program: Analysis of GLOBE data reporting patterns. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(3), 294-315

Compare the examples of networked communities you focused on. What are several cognitive and social affordances of membership in these networked communities? How might understanding of a math or science misconception be addressed in these technology-enhanced environments? Name the misconception and describe it in your post, drawing upon the reading(s) you did for the social construction of knowledge.

I can honestly say, I was excited to delve into the networked communities of the Exploratorium and various virtual field trips and web-based expeditions.

• The Exploratorium believes that “The Science of Sharing” experiences aren’t just about play but importantly thinking about critical challenges that can lead to knowledge and reflection of the worlds pressing problems.
• Various Virtual Field Trips and Web-Based Expeditions

Both of these networked communities have students engaged in practical and discovery activities which can lead to deeper understanding. Gutwill, J. P., & Allen, S. (2011) stated that experimental inquiry games, similar to tasks in Exploratorium, culminate two inquiry skills:

1. Proposing actions: making a plan or asking a question at the start of an investigation
2. Interpreting results: making observations, drawing conclusions, or giving explanations during or after an investigation. Furthermore, Gutwill, J. P., & Allen, S. (2011) recognized several key principles when students are embodied in the design of authentic learning experiences in math or science:
3. Builds on on learners prior knowledge
4. Teaches through modeling, scaffolding and fading
5. Identifies skills explicit
6. Supports metacognition
7. Supports collaboration
8. Strikes a balance between choice and guidance
9. Places realistic demands on teachers

I found that principle of finding “ a balance between choice and guidance” is the true essence of STEM. Earlier in this course, Confrey stated, “children develop ideas about their world, develop meanings for words used in science, and develop strategies to obtain explanations for how and why things behave as they do” (Confrey, 1990, p. 3). If this is true, teachers need to promote “change in pupils’ ideas is to show pupils the limitations of their discrepant event” (p.89). During a PL session for STEAM, we were given makerspace materials to create projects, and we were given time to consolidate with our group to make the project. Right before we started we told that we could “take” 1 item from someone elses group to enhance or better our own project. Unbeknownst to us, a major component for our project was taken! Morgan, A., & Barden, M. (. e. (2015) Constraint-Led method and mindset that embraces constraint when developing new ideas.

Image Source

This approach to addresses scientific content in an area where misconceptions are held, then through leading through constraints drives many students to reconstruct their thinking. Students can deconstruct their knowledge and reconstruct their thoughts using critical thinking and logical reasoning. Finally, Gutwill, J. P., & Allen, S. (2011) concluded that learners who were engaged in activity structure within a networked community tended to make correct interpretation after instruction (p. 149).

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

Gutwill, J. P., & Allen, S. (2011). Deepening students’ scientific inquiry skills during a science museum field trip. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(1), 130-181

Morgan, A., & Barden, M. (. e. (2015). A beautiful constraint: How to transform your limitations into advantages, and why it’s everyone’s business. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

• How is knowledge relevant to math or science constructed? How is it possibly generated in these networked communities? Provide examples to illustrate your points.

Morally Scientific

Lampert (1990) sought to change “the meaning of knowing and learning” in school by initiating and supporting social interactions appropriate to making mathematical arguments in response to students’ conjectures. Her aim was to give up conventional academic interaction, instead while seeking to help students act with “the moral qualities of a scientist” (p. 58). She compared the process, quite elegantly, to dancing, stating that it ““required some telling, some showing, some doing it with them along with regular rehearsals” (p. 58).

Perhaps the crux of her approach was an emphasis on avoidance of silence, and of a traditionally top-down approach to mathematics “learning”. She noted the importance of not keeping thinking implicit or private, suggesting that mathematics often involves “arguing,  defending, challenging, and providing one’s own ideas” (p. 56).

The Great Divide

I really appreciated how Lampert described the inconsistency of how math is approached in and out of the classroom. In “real life” mathematical and scientific ideas are questioned almost constantly, and often hotly debated, and uncertainty on all sides is expected as a natural component of the process. Sometimes, the “right answer” may not even exist, or if it does it could be nearly impossible to prove. Unfortunately, “classroom” mathematics is too often entirely void of this essential process of questioning, these heated debates, and this exciting layer of uncertainty hovering over the proceedings. Instead, mathematics teaching encourages a flow of knowledge from top-to-bottom, with the “best” teachers often considered the ones who help students achieve the highest marks in the most efficient number of steps. What a wasted opportunity for learning.

Lampart took several approaches to counteract this stagnant learning environment:

• Providing students with open-ended problems to solve
• Collecting student responses and having them explain why another student’s answer is incorrect, or explain why they believe those answers to be correct
• Engaging in “cross-country” mathematics

This last point, “cross-country” mathematics, suggests that the problem-solving terrain” is “jagged and uncertain” (p. 41), and that watching someone traverse it (be it a teacher or even another student) is a key to learning how to traverse that terrain themselves. To be more specific, if it is only the teacher clearly demonstrating the rules, students will only see a limited picture of what’s necessary for expertise in the area, and will not learn how to solve anything but the most straightforward problems, and only in one standard way (p. 42).

The Right Stuff

Lampert found that by essentially refusing to give “the right answer”, students were forced to search for solutions to their problems in more creative and collaborative ways, often leading them to discuss with each other. Over time, students assumed the role of more experienced “knowers”, and became more comfortable and competent in mathematical discourse and, better embodying “the moral qualities of a scientist”.

Knowledge Construction

Lampert’s work, although probably not as extensive or rigorous as some of the other papers I’ve encountered, does point to the importance of students being co-constructors of knowledge. Her report suggests that knowledge relevant to math (and science) is perhaps best constructed constant questioning and debate. This approach allows all aspects of a problem to be explored, for all students to be involved in the generating of an answer (even in the absence of an all-knowing sage-like answer-distributing teacher) while ensuring that the answer to any given problem is the result of a collaborative effort from “all” students. Note: I say “all” because, without some help and encouragement from teachers, some students may be extremely unwilling to “put themselves out there” in a classroom debate.

A GLOBE-al Network

This week, I explored GLOBE.

Aside: I was impressed that a program that was first formed in 1995 has had continuous development work done on it, which is clear in its modern website’s presentation. I also had a literal “LOL” at David Dykstra’s comment about WhaleNet, which acts as a nice reminder that websites from the 90’s don’t get modernized by themselves.

Networked communities like GLOBE are not dissimilar from the above approach to math and science learning: GLOBE takes a “cross country” approach in its lack of a well-marked path, and its emphasis on exploration and discussion without a clear “right answer”. Students are literally acting not just with the “moral qualities” of scientists, but literal scientists, as they collect a variety of data in a standardized way. Sure, the structure of the program is slightly constricting, but the rigidly-structured data collection allows for their results to be compared, discussed, and debated with an online community without the fear of having their data thrown out due to invalid collection technique. Plus, standardized approaches to data collection does not negate opportunity for scientific discovery or discourse. I enjoy how GLOBE invites students (and their teachers) to take a trek into the unknown as they collect real-life data based on their own contexts, then get to compare said data with thousands of other students worldwide.

Clear Direction… to a Fault?

I do wonder, however, how effective GLOBE might be for developing critical/independent thinking skills. While the data collection and community aspects can allow for discovery and engagement, the GLOBE lessons provided for teachers seem highly scaffolded, including very specific instructions and assessment methods. What do you think… do specific instructions for teachers risk detracting from the exploratory essence of the program? Do you think greater teacher with GLOBE could result in a more genuine experience which expects more from students in terms of generative learning?

Thanks for reading 🙂

Scott

References

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

Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27(1), 29-63.

According to Bielaczyc and Collins (1999): “The defining quality of a learning community is that there is a culture of learning in which everyone is involved in a collective effort of understanding. There are four characteristics that such a culture must have: (1) diversity of expertise among its members who are valued for their contributions and given support to develop, (2) a shared objective of continually advancing the collective knowledge and skills, (3) an emphasis on learning how to learn, and (4) mechanisms for sharing what is learned.” In what ways do the networked communities you examined represent this characterization of learning communities? What implications does this have for your practice and the design of learning activities?

After investigating the platforms in this module including Globe and Exploratorium, I have a couple thoughts about learning communities in the current context of educational technology.

(4) Mechanisms for sharing what is learned should be open

There is a noticeable difference in the ability for teachers/students/experts to (1) create an account, and (2) participate in the learning community. For GLOBE the pathway to create an account is relatively obvious; click on GLOBE Teachers and the information is readily available. In contrast, the pathway for students is not obvious; although, students can click on GLOBE Observer and participate directly by downloading the GLOBE Observer app (this requires an Android or Apple phone which is somewhat limiting). In contrast, joining and participating at the Exploratorium is difficult to find for all parties. Ultimately, organizations need to create clear pathways for people to join the learning community and make significant collaborative contributions. In addition, access should be device agnostic and include mechanisms and security for younger students to participate freely, and teachers to observe progress.

(2) The shared objective of continually advancing the collective knowledge and skills should be focused

GLOBE has a primary mandate to build a learning community to develop knowledge on environmental issues. This creates a place for like-minded individuals with similar goals; newcomers immediately know what they are getting into and how they can contribute. In contrasts sites like Exploratorium, PBS, and Discovery Education have such a wide variety of topics that members can easily get lost. These sites may have higher Internet traffic due to their strong brands, but the majority are transient visitors rather than actual contributors to the learning communities. In relation, informal communities of practice including the Scratch community for coding, and the Thingiverse community for 3D design, have very narrow objectives which create vibrant learning communities.

The implications for my current practice in a K-12 school is primarily with point (1). We have made a concerted effort to create small learning communities between our current students, industry experts, and distinguished alumni who have been successful in various fields including math and science. We have used various platforms including webconferencing (Skype/Google Hangouts) and video/file sharing (YouTube and Google Drive), to enable mentorship and collaboration on culminating problem-based projects. It would be fantastic if the technology-based environment was more seamless and less make shift. It is possible that environments like Slack could accommodate these interactions but I am not sure. If you have any suggestions, I would love to hear them!

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

Jessup‐Anger, J. E. (2015). Theoretical foundations of learning communities. New Directions for Student Services, 2015(149), 17-27.

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

I understand distributed learning to be the idea that knowledge construction does not occur from one source but from experiencing and engaging with many different sources of information. It is through the interaction with so many different, and sometimes conflicting sources, that a student can build a sophisticated understanding of a topic. The internet provides an excellent opportunity to expose students to a deep world of distributed learning. As educators our role in this is to help guide students through what they can find online and help them assess the content as being appropriate, relevant, etc. But even in this action student learn. In my other course we are developing a lesson on digital information literacy, where we lead students how to find and evaluate sources online across a number of dimensions. I believe, regardless the subject, when it comes to engaging students in distributed learning through online digital resources a lesson on digital information literacy is necessary. The implications of having access to JIT and on demand content is one of the major reasons why I think a lesson on digital information literacy is so important. With so much information at a students fingertips it is essential for them to learn how to evaluate content and determine if it should be consumed or not. While exposure to multiple view points is important, understanding that not all published content should be given the same level of consideration is an important lesson to learn, and to learn early.

I analyzed GLOBE and chose the following question for discussion: “In what ways do the networked communities you examined represent this characterization of learning communities? What implications does this have for your practice and the design of learning activities?”

GLOBE (https://www.globe.gov) is an international environmental science and science education program. It represents a form of citizen science, a term coined in the 1990th. In the 19^th century, nearly all scientific research was done by unpaid amateurs (Scheifinger, 2016). Then, science became an activity of professional scientists. Only in the last years, contributions by citizens are worshiped again. On example for this is GLOBE.

In my opinion, GLOBE indeed represents the four characteristics that a learning community should have, according to Bielaczyc and Collins (1999):

1. Diversity of expertise among its members who are valued for their contributions and given support to develop: Within GLOBE, young people are involved in collecting data for real scientific investigations (Peneul, 2004). Researchers, students, and teachers from all over the world participate, thus GLOBE shows a high diversity of participants. Contributions by students, under guidance of teachers, are core of GLOBE and thus these contributions are valued; students are seen as “contributors to actual scientific studies” (Peneul, 2004, p. 296). Partner universities train the teachers in the use of the offered GLOBE protocols.
2. A shared objective of continually advancing the collective knowledge and skills: As international education program, all participants share the objective to collect data to answer research questions and by this to advance science.
3. An emphasis on learning how to learn. The core objective of GLOBE is to educate students in inquiry-based science (Peneul, 2004). Teachers are first trained and then instruct and monitor their own students in collecting data. By this, students get a better understanding on how scientific inquiry works. Students are encouraged to work on questions they are interested in.
4. Mechanisms for sharing what is learned: All data collected by students are collected on the GLOBE website. Scientists, students and teachers can access the collected data, use them, and analyse them for various scientific questions. This GLOBEDataArchive is “a key element of GLOBE” (Peneul, 2004, p. 296).

So, overall, GLOBE as networked community display all attributes of a learning community.

Anyone every participated in GLOBE? Would you agree to my analysis?

References:

Bielaczyc, K.,  and Collins, A. (1999): Learning Communities in Classrooms: A Reconceptualization of Educational Practice. In: Reigeluth, C.M. (eds.). Instructional design theories and models, Vol. II, Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

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

Peneul, W.R., & Means, B. (2004). Implementation variation and fidelity in an inquiry science program: Analysis of GLOBE data reporting patterns. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(3), 294-315

Scheifinger, H., Templ, B., “Is Citizen Science the Recipe for the Survival of Paper-Based Phenological Networks in Europe?” BioScience, Oxford University Press. June 2016.