A Design Framework and Research Program for Enacting Science Cyberlearning

A Design Framework and Research Program for Enacting Science CyberlearningCindy L. KernUniversity of New HavenUnited Statesckern@Kent J. CrippenUniversity of FloridaUnited Stateskcrippen@Abstract: In this paper we detail the 5-Featured Dynamic Inquiry Enterprise (5-DIE), a framework for enacting cyberlearning and describe a program of design-based research intent on enacting this innovation in the complex and constrainedreality of contemporary science classrooms. The results of two recent studiesthat were completed as the first iterations of the design-test-redesign process areused to illustrate the concurrent generation of theoretical and practicalknowledge.IntroductionThe continued evolution of learning technologies has created a need for innovative ways to leverage networked resources to support the enactment of more authentic science learning (National Science Foundation [NSF], 2008). The current trend of blended learning, coupled with the continued evolution of online learning adds further need. However, addressing the bigger issue of cyberlearning, “learning that is mediated by networked computing and communications technologies" (p. 10), is neither simple nor straightforward. In the context of a contemporary classroom, enacting cyberlearning is often complicated by restrictive school policies that limit access and curriculum models that have not considered the pragmatic constraints of technology integration (Keengwe, Onchwari, & Wachira, 2008). When science classrooms are evaluated, technology facilitated, inquiry-based instruction seems to be more the exception than the norm (Kim & Hannafin, 2011). However, addressing the issue of using inquiry as the recursive, reflective, and collaborative learning strategy in a cyberlearning environment is not as simple as adopting inquiry-based methods (Kern, Crippen & Skaza, In Press). Thus, design frameworks are needed that: (a) work within the constraints of a typical school environment, (b) match the affordances of networked computing technologies with the demands of a science lesson, (c) account for the practical needs of teachers and (d) include authentic science learning activities that make explicit the essential features of inquiry for all learners. In this paper we detail the 5-Featured Dynamic Inquiry Enterprise (5-DIE), a design framework for enacting cyberlearning and describe a program of design-based research intent on enacting this innovation in the complex and constrained reality of contemporary science classrooms.Science CyberlearningIt has been nearly twenty years since the National Science Education Standards (NSES) ushered in the formal movement towards inquiry-based science education in the United States (NRC, 2000; 1996). The NSES were developed as a way to address the need for critical thinking, problem solving, and the development of science literacy in classrooms. The NSES approach to inquiry recognizes five essential features that can be enacted along a continuum from heavily guided by a teacher to open and entirely student directed (National Research Council [NRC], 2000). The recently released Next Generation Science Standards further builds on the tradition of the NSES by recognizing the practice of science as one of the three core dimensions of the framework (NRC, 2011). Such forms of instruction, when combined with cyberlearning and appropriate scaffolding offer tremendous potential for impacting the knowledge, skills and dispositions of students, as well as teachers (Crippen & Archambault, 2012).Beyond developing science literate students, cyberlearning can provide technology-enhanced scaffolds that allow learners to engage in a task that is beyond their independent abilities (Kim & Hannafin, 2011). Researchers have developed Web-based guided activities, prompting, visualization and modeling tools, as well as communication tools for supporting self-regulated learning (Linn, Clark, & Slotta, 2003). Examples include the Web-Based Inquiry Science Environment (WISE), the Biology Guided Inquiry Learning Environment (BGuILE), and the Physics Education Technology Project (PhET) (e.g., Linn, Bell, & Davis, 2004; Reiser, Tabak, Sandoval, Smith, Steinmuller, & Leone, 2001; Scardamalia, 1989; Stern, 2000).The 5-Featured Dynamic Inquiry Enterprise (5-DIE) was created to address the specific need for an inquiry-based cyberlearning environment. 5-DIE is designed to promote critical thinking, problem-solving, and science literacy while acting as a design framework that supports the existing practices of teachers in secondary schools (Kern, Crippen & Skaza, In Press).The 5-Featured Dynamic Inquiry EnvironmentThe research and development of 5-DIE comes as a response to the need for an online, inquiry-based, science-learning environment meant to promote critical thinking, problem solving, and scientific literacy. Specific design goals include the development of an authentic scientific inquiry learning experience, addressing and implementing scientific practices, developing the skills and abilities associated with the evaluation and development of scientific inscriptions, and scaffolding collaborative argumentation in a way productive to the acquisition and retention of scientific content knowledge, all within a cyberlearning environment. The process of 5-DIE is represented as Figure 1 with the numerical label on each feature indicating the order of completion. Arrows indicate the possible progression through the lesson.Figure 1. Process diagram illustrating the partially sequenced structure of 5-DIE.As Table 1 illustrates, 5-DIE draws from a number of theoretical frameworks to specifically target students with minimal prior knowledge and self-regulation experiences. Like the scientific inquiry process, 5-DIE is non-linear, allowing learners to progress through and revisit features to meet their individual learning needs.Table 1. The components of 5-DIE and supporting theoretical frameworks.Theoretical Framework∙Inquiry-Based Learning via the 5-essential features (NRC, 2000)Table 2 shows the alignment of 5-DIE with the essential features of inquiry. Feature-1 of each 5-DIE lesson is focused on a scientific question (i.e., Big Question) that lends itself to empirical investigation. Feature-2 is an evidence collection activity in which learners engage in systematic observations to collect evidence to address the Big Question. In Feature-3, learners analyze evidence and use it to generate a claim statement (e.g., evidence, claim, relationship) related to the science concepts inherent in the Big Question. For Feature-4, learners are given the opportunity to compare their personal claims with the accepted scientific understanding for the content of the lesson. Finally, Feature-5 involves learners communicating their personal claim statements with peers and the teacher then engaging them in a collaborative discussion about the science content.Table 2. Enactment of inquiry within 5-DIE.Achieving Enactment of 5-DIE with Design-Based ResearchOur long-term venture of research and development for the successful enactment of 5-DIE follows the tenants of design-based research (DBR) (Edelson, 2002; Wang & Hannafin, 2005). This recursive process has focused on usability and scalability within a technology-infused learning environment (Blumenfeld, Fishman, Krajcik, Marx, & Soloway, 2000; Fishman, Marx, Blumenfeld, Krajcik, & Soloway, 2004). This implies that our designed environment includes accessible, open-source technologies, delivered within a blended learning model that has been built around the activities and practices of everyday science teachers in existing secondary schools. We consistently deal with very pragmatic issues, such as access through a restrictive firewall and limited power outlets. We are accustomed to working with the most diverse group of learners, in the climate and accountability of high-stakes testing, and within a 45-minute class period.Since we embrace the complexity of working in situ, our research is consistent with Rochelle, Knudsen & Hegedus’s (2010) concept of a curriculum activity system. Student learning across a 5-DIE lesson involves a sequence of ideas that target specific learning outcomes. Scaffolding is used to maximize the capacity for autonomous student work in the practice of science and to allow a teacher to work naturally as a knowledgeable mentor and expert. This allows for a great deal of flexibility in the potential modes and structures of delivery. Classroom technologies are considered up-front and professional development is delivered with a just-in-time approach.In the next sections, with the results of two recent studies that were completed as the first iterations of our design-test-redesign process, we illustrate the concurrent generation of theoretical and practical knowledge from our application of DBR.Study 1 – Fidelity and Usability for All StudentsUsing a cyberlearning instructional unit about climate change, this study focused on student achievement as a measure of fidelity and teacher implementation as usability (Kern, Crippen & Skaza, In Press). The modules were built as parallel-learning experiences to adopted district curricula with classroom teachers embedded in all aspects of the design. The results show significant improvement for all students, including those classified as requiring special services. Three usability themes were identified in relation to the teachers' experience: anxiety associated with technology issues, modifications for special education students, and the emergence of student autonomy. Implications for development included a need for embedded content area literacy strategies, a more limited use of multiple windows in a display, and a tighter integration of the lesson to the affordances of the course management system. In addition, new questions were raised concerning how best to implement collaborative learning along with establishing the differential impact of this strategy on students.Study 2 – The Effect of Scaffolding StrategiesThis study was meant to inform the design and development of 5-DIE and to advance theory associated with the difficulties learners have with scientific inscriptions and the consequences related to using argumentation to learn science content. In an attempt to engage participants in the process of learning science content with scientific inscriptions and in argumentation, two learning strategies were embedded in a 5-DIE lesson. The two learning strategies were (1) self-explanation prompts paired with a scientific inscription and (2) faded worked examples for the evaluation and development of scientific knowledge claims. The participants consisted of ninth and tenth grade students enrolled in one of three state-mandated biology courses taught by four different teachers. Results indicated that self-explanation prompts and faded worked example learning strategies did not influence acquisition and retention of science content in a positive (i.e., learning) way. Based on these results, it may be concluded that the use of general prompts is as effective as self-explanation prompts and faded worked examples for scaffolding learner engagement with scientific inscriptions and in argumentation. Furthermore, the findings indicated additional research is warranted that evaluates the generalizability of scaffolds from college to pre-college populations (Kern, 2013).ReferencesAndriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (Eds.). (2003). Arguing to Learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Blumenfeld, P., Fishman, B. J., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2000). Creating Usable Innovations in Systemic Reform: Scaling Up Technology-Embedded Project-Based Science inUrban Schools. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 149-164. doi: 10.1207/s1*******ep3503_2 Crippen, K. J., & Archambault, L. M. (2012). Scaffolded inquiry-based instruction with technology: A signature pedagogy for STEM education. Computers in the Schools, 29(1-2), 157-173. doi:10.1080/07380569.2012.658733Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11 (1), 105-121.Fishman, B., Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2004). Creating a Framework for Research on Systemic Technology Innovations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 43-76.doi: 10.1207/s1*******jls1301_3Jona, K., Adsit, J., & Powell, A. (2008). Goals, Guidelines, and Standards for Student Scientific Investigations: North American Council for Online Learning.Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Wachira, P. (2008). Computer Technology Integration and Student Learning: Barriers and Promise. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(6), 560-565. doi:10.1007/s10956-008-9123-5Kern, C. (2013). The Effect of Scaffolded Strategies on Content Learning in a Designed Science Cyberlearning Environment. (PhD Doctoral Dissertation), University of Nevada Las Vegas, LasVegas, Nevada.Kern, C., Crippen, K. J., & Skaza, H. (In Press). The fidelity and usability of 5-DIE: A design study of enacted cyberlearning. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching.Linn, M. C. (2006). The knowledge integration perspective on learning and instruction. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 243-264). New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.Martinez, M. E., & Peters Burton, E. E. (2011). Cognitive affordances of the cyberinfrastructure for science and math learning. Educational Media International, 48(1), 17-26. doi:10.1080/09523987.2010.535333National Research Council [NRC]. (2011). A framework for K12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas: National Academy Press.National Research Council [NRC]. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.National Science Foundation [NSF]. (2008). Fostering Learning in the Networked World: The Cyberlearning Opportunity and Challenge. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation TaskForce on Cyberlearning.Roschelle, J., Knudsen, J., & Hegedus, S. (2010). From new technological infrastructures to curricular activity systems: Advanced designs for teaching and learning. In M. J. Jacobson & P. Reimann(Eds.), Designs for Learning Environments of the Future: International Perspectives from theLearning Sciences (pp. 233-262). New York: Springer.Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning. In R. K.Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 409-425). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Schunk, D. H. (2001). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H.Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (Vol.2, pp. 125–152). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5-25.。