Teacher support in computer-supported lab work: bridging the gap between lab experiments and students’ conceptual understanding
Tóm tắt
This paper reports on a study of teacher support in a setting where students engaged with computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) in science. The empirical basis is an intervention study where secondary school students and their teacher performed a lab experiment in genetics supported by a digital learning environment. The analytical focus is on student-teacher interactions taking place in help-seeking settings during group-based activities where students analysed and reported their findings from the lab experiment. A combination of quantitative methods in the form of frequency counts of students’ help requests and detailed micro-analyses of student-teacher interactions are used. The findings are that the majority of challenges faced by students concerned conceptually oriented issues and procedural challenges in the sense of how to practically solve the assignments provided to them in the digital learning environment. Most importantly, the analyses of student-teacher interactions provide insight into the considerable amount of support that is needed from the teacher to bridge the conceptual gap between the lab experiment and the students’ understanding of the underlying scientific principles and procedures. The findings are discussed according to possible implications for the design of digital support tools and instruction.
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Aleven, V., Stahl, E., Schworm, S., Fischer, F., & Wallace, R. (2003). Help seeking and help design in interactive learning environments. Review of Educational Research, 73(3), 277–320.
Clarebout, G., & Elen, J. (2006). Tool use in computer-based learning environments: towards a research framework. Computers in Human Behaviour, 22, 389–411.
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
de Jong, T. (2006). Scaffolds for computer simulation based scientific discovery learning. In J. Elen, & R. E. Clark (Eds.), Dealing with complexity in learning environments (pp. 107–128). London: Elsevier Science Publishers.
de Jong, T., Weinberger, A., Girault, I., Kluge, A., Lazonder, A. W., Pedaste, M., et al. (2012). Using scenarios to design complex technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research & Development, 60(5), 883–901.
de Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 340, 305–308.
de Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M., & Paas, F. (2009). Towards a framework for attention cueing in instructional animations: guidelines for research and design. Educational Psychology Review, 21(2), 113–140.
Derry, S. J., Pea, R. D., Barron, B., Engle, R. A., Erickson, F., Goldman, R., et al. (2010). Conducting video research in the learning sciences: guidance on selection, analysis, technology, and ethics. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 3–53.
Dolonen, J. A., & Ludvigsen, S. R. (2012). Analyzing students’ interaction with a 3D geometry learning tool and their teacher. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(3–4), 167–182.
Furberg, A. (2009). Sociocultural aspects of prompting students’ reflection in web-based learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 397–409.
Furberg, A. L., & Ludvigsen, S. (2008). Students’ meaning making of socioscientific issues in computer mediated settings: exploring learning through interaction trajectories. International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1775–1799.
Furberg, A., Kluge, A., & Ludvigsen, S. (2013). Student sensemaking with diagrams in a computer-based setting. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8, 41–64.
Gillen, J., Littleton, K., Twiner, A., Staarman, J. K., & Mercer, N. (2008). Using the interactive whiteboard to resource continuity and support multimodal teaching in a primary science classroom. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 348–358.
Greiffenhagen, C. (2012). Making rounds: the routine work of the teacher during collaborative learning with computers. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(1), 11–42.
Hakkarainen, K., Lipponen, L., & Järvelä, S. (2002). Epistemology of inquiry and computer-supported collaborative learning. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 129–156). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2003). Analyzing collaborative knowledge construction: multiple methods for integrated understanding. Computers & Education, 41, 397–420.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cognition and Instruction, 26(1), 48–94.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2003). The laboratory in science education: foundation for the 21st century. Science Education, 88, 28–54.
Jaakkola, T., & Nurmi, S. (2008). Fostering elementary school students’ understanding of simple electricity by combining simulation and laboratory activities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(4), 271–283.
Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Visualization of agreement and discussion processes during computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1105–1125.
Jefferson, G. (1984). Transcription notation. In J. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social interaction (pp. ix–xvi). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Jordan, B., & Henderson, K. (1995). Interaction analysis: foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.
Jornet, A., & Roth, W.-M. (2015). The joint work of connecting multiple (re)presentations in science classrooms. Science Education, 99(2), 378–403.
Kershner, R., Mercer, N., Warwick, P., & Kleine Staarman, J. (2010). Can the interactive whiteboard support young children’s collaborative communication and thinking in classroom science activities? Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 5, 359–383.
Kluge, A. (2014). Combining laboratory experiments with digital tools to do scientific inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 36(13), 2157–2179.
Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13, 205–226.
Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking language, mind and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc..
Linn, M., & Eylon, B.-S. (2011). Science learning and instruction. taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. New York: Routledge.
Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A., & Clough, M. (2007). Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory, and practice. In N. Lederman, & S. Abel (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 393–441). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mäkitalo-Siegl, K., & Fischer, F. (2011). Stretching the limits in help seeking research: theoretical, methodological, and technological advances. Learning and Instruction, 21(2), 243–246.
Mäkitalo-Siegl, K., Kohnle, C., & Fischer, F. (2011). Computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning and classroom scripts: effects on help seeking processes and learning outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 21(2), 257–266.
Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: analysing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 137–168.
Mercer, N. (2013). The social brain, language, and goal-directed collective thinking: A social conception of cognition and its implications for understanding how we think, teach, and learn. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 148–168.
Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children's thinking: A sociocultural approach. London: Routledge.
Olympiou, G., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2011). Blending physical and virtual manipulatives: An effort to improve students’ conceptual understanding through science laboratory experimentation. Science Education, 96(1), 21–47.
Puustinen, M., & Rouet, J.-F. (2009). Learning with new technologies: help seeking and information searching revisited. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1014–1019.
Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.
Reid, D. J., Zhang, J., & Chen, Q. (2003). Supporting scientific discovery learning in a simulation environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 9–20.
Renken, M. D., & Nunez, N. (2013). Computer simulations and clear observations do not guarantee conceptual understanding. Learning and Instruction, 23, 10–23.
Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education, 58, 136–153.
Säljö, R. (2010). Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: technologies, social memory and the performative nature of learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 53–64.
Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating. the key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page.
Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345–372.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Smetana, L. K., & Bell, R. L. (2012). Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 34(9), 1337–1370.
Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2007). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(4), 421–447.
Strømme, T. A., & Furberg, A. (2015). Exploring teacher intervention in the intersection of digital resources, peer collaboration, and instructional design. Science Education, 99(5), 837–862.
van Joolingen, W. R., de Jong, T., & Dimitrakopoulout, A. (2007). Issues in computer supported inquiry learning in science. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 111–119.
van Leeuwen, A., Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Brekelmans, M. (2013). Teacher interventions in a synchronous, co-located CSCL setting: analyzing focus, means, and temporality. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1377–1386.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher social processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 3–118.
White, T., & Pea, R. (2011). The emergence of abstract representations in dyad problem solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 489–547.
Zhang, J., Chen, Q., Sun, Y., & Reid, D. J. (2004). Triple scheme of learning support design for scientific discovery learning based on computer simulation: experimental research. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 269–292.