| Images of connected features: |
| | | TAPPED IN uses familiar academic setting |  |
| | | Meshing Perceptual and Conceptual Ideas in eSTEP |  |
| | | Alternated Individual and Group Discourse (eStep) |  |
| | | Discussion Maker (Automated Sorting) |  |
| | | Supports for teacher collaboration in eStep |  |
|
Connections 
|
|
|
| Description: |
| This principle calls for designing activities to promote productive and respectful interactions among learners, and between learners and teachers. Properly designed interactions, with or without computer support, can encourage learners to participate in individual and group knowledge-building processes, which can foster integrated understanding. Interactions with peers and teachers provide opportunities for individuals to learn about each other and develop an appreciation of the knowledge and experience of other participants; this assists in generating a productive climate for peer learning. |
|
Theoretical background:
|
Promote productive interactions takes advantage of the collective knowledge in the classroom community.
Many argue that students can learn from each other in class discussions but others complain that discussions often involve only a few students who dominate the discourse (Hsi, 1997; Wellesley College Center for Research on Women, 1992). Frequently participants are primarily males who enthusiastically shout out answers. Females and individuals who are less interested in science may end up feeling unwelcome in scientific discourse (AAUW, 2000; Mayberry, 1998).
Online, asynchronous discussion tools such as the Multimedia Forum Kiosk (Hoadley, 2004; Hsi, 1997; Hsi & Hoadley, 1997; Yerushalmi & Eylon, 2000), when properly designed, can encourage all learners to participate. Classroom assignments to contribute to online discussions typically have far more success than do similar assignments when used for class discussion.
In online discussion, students have time to reflect, incorporate ideas of others, and compose their contributions carefully rather than rapidly forming imperfect arguments. Often, in these class discussions, students pay little attention to the contributions of others and make contributions that lack reflection or connection to classroom evidence. In online discussions, students may consider more ideas generated by peers, provide more warrants for their ideas, and articulate their norms for evidence more carefully (e.g., Hsi, 1997).
Hoadley (2002) shows how design studies can refine discussion tools to increase the opportunity of students to learn from each other. As Hoadley & Linn (2000) report, students can learn complex material from discussion alone but they are more successful when the distinct views of experts are attributed to separate scientists than when all the comments are attributed to a teacher-like guide. Furthermore, groups vary in their success—some discussions have few participants and limited impact while others engage all the learners. Research suggests that there is no straightforward connection between participate in discussion and learning—some students profit from minimal contact with the discussion and others who participate frequently fail to gain understanding (e.g., Cuthbert et al., 2002).
Design challenges include ensuring that persuasive, unproductive, or unfruitful ideas are balanced with alternative views (Linn & Burbules, 1993), providing equitable opportunities for students to participate in scientific discourse (Brown & Campione, 1994; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Lemke, 1990; Sadker & Sadker, 1994), and enabling communities to devise agreed-upon norms or criteria (e.g., Saxe et al., 1993).
|
|
|
| Tips (Challenges, Limitations, Tradeoffs, Pitfalls): |
It is not easy to encourage all learners to participate; discussions often involve only a few students who dominate the discourse.
Groups vary in their success—some discussions have few participants and limited impact while others engage all the learners.
|
| References (Off-line): |
Kali, Y., Fortus, D., & Ronen-Fuhrmann, T. (in press). Synthesizing TELS and CCMS design knowledge. In Y. Kali, M. C. Linn & J. E. Roseman (Eds.), Designing Coherent Science Education. NY: Teachers College Press.
Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S., 2000. Computers, Teachers, Peers: Science Learning Partners. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wellesley College Center for Research on Women. (1992). How schools shortchange girls (Executive Summary). Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.
Hsi, S. (1997). Facilitating knowledge integration in science through electronic discussion: The Multimedia Forum Kiosk. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
AAUW. (2000). Tech-Savvy: Educating girls in the new computer age. Washington, D.C.: AAUW.
Mayberry, M. (1998). Reproductive and resistant pedagogies: The comparative roles of collaborative learning and feminist pedagogy in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(4), 443-459.
Yerushalmi, E., and Eylon, B. (2000). Teachers' Approaches to promoting self-monitoring in Physics problem solving by their students. Paper presented at the International Conference: Physics Teacher Education Beyond 2000.
Hsi, S., & Hoadley, C. M. (1997). Productive discussion in science: Gender equity through electronic discourse. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 6(1), 23-26.
Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., Bell, P., & Eylon, B.-S. (2004). Final Thoughts: Internet Environments for Science Education (Ch.14). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hoadley, C. M. (2004). Fostering productive collaboration offline and online: learning from each other. In M. Linn, E. Davis & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet Environments for Science Education (pp. 145-174). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
|
| Summary of changes (wiki): |
- Change description
- add references |
|
History
|
|
|
|
|
Login
