Cathy SooHoo
March 19, 2001
Electronic Network Environments for Science Learning across Classrooms
I. Introduction
The BioSITE program, a program funded by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and developed by the Children’s Discovery Museum of San Jose, engages students in authentic hands-on research that focuses on the ecological health of the nearby Guadalupe River. Twelve classes of fourth graders from five different schools in San Jose, including underserved populations in the downtown area, make bi-weekly visits to the watershed. Although there are five study sites along the Guadalupe River, each class only visits the site nearest their school.
Once at the study site the students collect and analyze water samples for turbidity, conductivity, salinity, temperature, phosphates, nitrates, pH levels and dissolved oxygen content. Students use this data and their observations of wildlife and vegetation along the riverbank, to draw conclusions about the ecological health of the watershed and the possible environmental impacts of humans.
While these hands-on inquiry-based activities help students to learn ecological concepts and scientific processes on a specific study site, students do not currently have the means or opportunity to compare data with other groups of young scientists investigating similar phenomena on different sites of the watershed. Without this component, are students missing a more comprehensive view of river ecology?
How can new technologies be used to help elementary school students’ develop intellectually and socially as critical thinkers and communicators, especially in the area of science? What, if any, specific learning opportunities do electronically networked environments afford that are missing in traditional (non-technology) classrooms? What practical constraints are there to these technologies?
To attempt to answer some of these questions, I consulted literature on the use of networks in classrooms specifically for science learning. Since this technology has only recently been widely available, studies in this area are limited. Following a summary of prior research will be a critique of the literature, and finally a discussion of the design principles that can be gleaned from the research.
II. Prior Research
Increasing Productive Scientific Discourse
Unlike professional scientists, student work in the classroom is fairly self-contained in terms of resources, process, and audience. Building on the concept of “coordinated investigations” (Newman et al., 1989) students should understand that scientific work is a social activity. An important aspect to the scientific work is sharing data and communicating with other scientists, including those who are located in distant places. Even scientists who work alone are held socially accountable by peers who review scientists’ data, conclusions and theories (Newman et al., 1989).
Students can learn a great deal from each other, both in terms of content knowledge and skills as well as appropriate social interactions (Linn and Hsi, 2000). Linn and Hsi (2000) propose several reasons why learning from other peers may help students to “understand new scientific perspectives better when they hear them in the words of their peers rather than when they hear them from scientists or read them in textbooks.” Peers may use more familiar language, connect ideas to personal experiences that other students understand, and motivate their peers to make new connections to the material. Another benefit of peer interactions is that students can act as role models for each other, and provide an audience with which to compare, explain, and discuss predictions, experiment results, and conclusions (Linn and Hsi, 2000).
As mentioned above, participation in scientific discourse is a vital part of science learning (Cohen and Scardamalia, 1998), and though many classes make use of in-class group discussion, research has shown that these discussions frequently reinforce social roles rather than contributing to knowledge integration (Linn and Hsi, 2000). Despite a teacher’s efforts to call on boys and girls equally, boys raise their hands more often and tend to dominate discussions by speaking out of turn (Sadker and Sadker, 1994).
The use of electronic networks to facilitate scientific discussion may significantly increase discourse within a single classroom, as well as across classrooms in different schools. Students must reflect upon and develop written responses to hypotheses, differences in data, observations, sampling techniques, and conclusions (Levin et al., 1989). Software applications on the network may also be used to increase the productivity of these discussions by structuring conversations more explicitly.
Sherry Hsi and Christopher Hoadley developed an asynchronous electronic discussion tool, the Multimedia Forum Kiosk, to encourage more meaningful discourse in the ways discussed above. The discussions are structured to support two representations of discourse: opinions and arguments on new topics or responses to other comments. The responses are represented onscreen visually to show relationships between comments. Students can contribute their thoughts with their name attached, or anonymously (Hsi and Hoadley, 1997).
Hsi studied online discussions using the Multimedia Forum Kiosk between groups of 8, 15, and 30 students within and between classes. The study found a significant increase in the overall percentage of students participating in discussions, 90% online compared to 15% in-class. The study also found that students participated more often with peers from other classes than within their own class, and that groups of 15 had the best discussions. Smaller groups did not “disagree enough”, while larger group discussions became difficult for students to follow.
According to Hsi, girls especially liked the option of using the anonymity feature, reporting that they were able to express their ideas more freely under these conditions. Contributions from boys and girls were nearly equivalent using the Multimedia Forum Kiosk (87% of girls, 88% of boys), while in face-to-face discussions boys are heard 50% more often than girls. Students, both boys and girls, worried less about confrontation or embarrassment by having the option of anonymity, which encouraged them to participate more. Often, the female students began to attribute their comments after gaining confidence by seeing other students had favorable responses to their own.
Another successful project using networks to promote science learning is Carl Bereiter and Marlene Scardamalia’s Computer Supported Intentional Learning Environment (CSILE), which supports collaborative learning and inquiry by allowing students and teachers to create a communal database. Students can enter text and graphic notes into the database on any topic their teacher has created. All students on the network can read the notes and students may build, or comment on, each others' ideas (Cohen and Scardamalia, 1998).
As in the Multimedia Forum Kiosk developed by Hsi and Hoadley, Cohen and Scardamalia (1998) found that students who rarely spoke in face-to-face discussions participated significantly more often in the online environment. Cohen and Scardamalia also found that students who participated in CSILE discussions in addition to in-class face-to-face conversations expressed more reflective thinking compared to those who only participated in face-to-face discussions.
Increasing Metacognitive and Critical Thinking Skills
The process of reflective thinking is interwoven with problem-solving ability (Gordon, 1996) and is another essential aspect to lifelong learning. This important element may be lost during in-class discussions. Class discussions may not give students enough to time to reflect about their own or others’ ideas before articulating their responses aloud (Linn and Hsi, 2000).
The use of networked learning environments has shown to increase students’ metacognitive, and critical thinking skills by making metacognitive activity intentional and explicit (Ryser, Beeler, McKenzie, 1995). By examining and evaluating peers’ ideas, and knowing that one’s own ideas are subject to consideration by others through peer review students are more likely to engage in reflective activity. This process of constructing knowledge makes “metacognitive activity, which is normally hidden and private, overt and a subject for public consideration.” (Ryser, Beeler, McKenzie, 1995)
The online discussion format developed by Hsi and Hoadley (discussed above) encouraged students to back up their ideas with evidence and judge other ideas more critically. On entering their ideas, students were aware that other students would scrutinize the ideas and compare them to alternatives, and therefore included single or multiple backings to preclude arguments they could foresee. Approximately 80% of the student comments had at least one piece of evidence to support it, and 42% had multiple backings. An online asynchronous format also enables students to spend more time reflecting on their thoughts before they articulate their responses, promoting more reflective thinking.
In Cohen and Scardamalia’s study (1998) on the pedagogical effectiveness of CSILE, students showed gains in monitoring their own ideas, and significant progress in monitoring others’ ideas. Ryser, Beeler and McKenzie (1995) proposed a plausible explanation for students’ increase in metaprocesses – the use of CSILE “assists in making metacognitive activity intentional and subject to consideration by others.” Students who used CSILE to evaluate and critically examine their peers’ work improved their ability to make credible judgments about other students’ assertions.
The “Audience Effect” on Students’ Writing
The use of networks requires students to articulate their ideas in writing for a much wider audience than just their teacher. The audience is expanded to include remote peers, professional scientists, parents, friends, and virtually anyone with access to the Internet. Research has shown that the “audience effect” of “publishing” to an electronic network motivates students to produce higher quality writing (Cohen and Riel, 1989).
The process of peer review may also be enhanced by the use of technology. Although students in one class may review their own classmates’ work, they are already very familiar with each other’s work, having completed it together. An outside group of peers may provide more diverse critiques. By encompassing a wider community of learners from which to learn, online discussion also prompts greater consideration of multiple perspectives (Hsi and Linn, 2000).
Sharing Scientific Data, Geographical Information Systems
The use of network technology enables students from different schools to easily share information and ideas. By facilitating the exchange of data across schools, students have the opportunity to extend their range of observations and see the river’s ecosystem on a larger scale. Students are able to compare the relative health of different sections of the river, correlating these results with the amount of human disturbance on each study site, important concepts in environmental studies (North American Association for Environmental Education, 1999).
A third network-based project focusing on scientific communication is Earth Lab: A Network for Young Scientists, a program funded by the National Science Foundation intended to facilitate collaborative efforts between classrooms (Newman, et al., 1989). The project curriculum consisted of hands-on research, database, and writing activities. Newman et al. studied a weather-related unit where students exchanged data on the weather. The researchers describe the importance of student contributions to a larger picture than any individual or small group could have constructed in the Earth Lab project. The use of network technologies helped students to “[see] new patterns which were not evident in the separate contributions” (Newman et al., 1989). The data collected and submitted by the young scientists became part of a larger set of data in which a higher level of interpretation was possible.
Specifically concerning environmental education, Haskin (1999) describes “place-based learning” as building an awareness of one’s environmental locale in context, encouraging more meaningful study. “Awareness building is the crucial element in the development of an environmental ethic” (Haskin, 1999). Towards this end, environmental educators have recently begun integrating Geographical Information Systems (GIS) into environmental curricula. GIS are comprised of software, hardware, and data, usually in the form of databases, to describe the spatial distributions of certain features or attributes (Haskin, 1999). Awareness of one’s own place in relation to others can be increased through the use of this technology. GIS can be used to generate maps layered with information contributed by students from other schools, states, and countries.
Another example of this is the Internet-based environmental education program, Journey North. Over 200,000 students from all over the world contribute observations of wildlife migrations, first yearly blooms, and animal behavior by season through the Internet (Journey North web site). All of this information is sorted into a GIS database system that allows students to query and dynamically access regional maps that track migrations of monarch butterflies and other creatures. They can also then add a visual layer showing the dates of flowering plants to see if there are any correlations with animal migrations. More than just being able to access other students’ data to gain a conceptual understanding of a large-scale scientific phenomenon, participants begin to view their “own backyards as part of a global ecological system” (Haskin, 1999). By making problems more meaningful, students are more engaged in the learning process.
Practical Constraints
Although there are many benefits to using network-enabled technologies in the classroom, Levin and Thurston (1996) also describe some of the many barriers including unequal access to the technology, inadequate technical or administrative support, and lack of teacher experience with technology. These issues are important to keep in mind when planning the implementation of electronic networks in classrooms. Research has found that lack of teacher expertise is the most significant obstacle to the effective implementation of networks, and that 30-40% of technology budgets should be allocated towards teacher training.
Other key constraints articulated by Riel (1994) include coordinating school schedules for cross-classroom collaboration. Schools may have different vacation periods, etc., variations in the number of students in each classroom, access to communication equipment and technical skills, differences in teacher’s approaches to teaching. Some solutions for dealing with these constraints are to build flexibility into the design, allowing for varying time constraints, teacher experience, providing support and guidance (vs. leaving it completely open), and encouraging teachers to communicate and experiment with their ideas (Riel, 1994).
Earth Lab researchers also found that classroom management became much more difficult due to the complex nature of coordinating network activities (Newman et al., 1989). In turn, teachers were reluctant to try more complicated projects, which may have provided greater learning opportunities. In the beginning of the study, some students had difficulties understanding the nature of a networked database. The researchers observed a few students inputting the same data into the same database, not comprehending that only one students needed to submit the data, which would then be accessible to all students. By the end of the study, however, students were able to use the Earth Lab tools effectively and demonstrated through year-end interviews their understanding of the organization of the online workspaces.