| Images of connected features: |
| | | Neutral space for stating non-objective viewpoints in peer-evaluation |  |
|
Connections 
|
|
|
| Description: |
| The principle calls to scaffold groups to consider cultural values and to design criteria and standards. Students groups may subtly or even blatantly base their behavior on social norms that have more to do with status than with evidence. Instead, designers can focus attention on negotiating group standards and criteria and enable each participant to contribute to the process. To become a community of learners, students negotiate shared criteria for scientific reasoning and shared standards for scientific argument. Developing shared criteria for science projects can improve group progress on scientific understanding (White & Frederiksen, 1998). For example, when students devise principles to explain scientific phenomena and then discuss their productions with their peers they learn more than when they only generate principles (H. Clark, 1996).
|
|
Theoretical background:
|
|
To help students sort out culturally constructed perspectives we have studied the criteria students evoke in classroom discussions. Clark & Slotta (2000) report design studies that investigate how students assess the validity of Internet sites. A well-established finding in the psychology literature concerns “cite-amnesia” where citizens, scientists, students, and others frequently pay more attention to the information reported in a communication than the authorship (Jacoby & Dallas, 1981). Thus, individuals might quote statements from advertisements as authoritative. When asked, these respondents do not recall that the material they now take as established was originally in a persuasive message. Working in groups, students can help each other by questioning the authority of Internet sites and by discussing criteria for validity. For example, students might jointly agree that evidence requires more than testimonials from so-called experts before being incorporated into an argument or ask their peers to back up assertions with data.
To become a community of learners, students negotiate shared criteria for scientific reasoning and shared standards for scientific argument. Developing shared criteria for science projects can improve group progress on scientific understanding (White & Frederiksen, 1998). For example, when students devise principles to explain scientific phenomena and then discuss their productions with their peers they learn more than when they only generate principles (H. Clark, 1996).
|
|
|
| Tips (Challenges, Limitations, Tradeoffs, Pitfalls): |
| - |
| References (Off-line): |
| Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S., 2000. Computers, Teachers, Peers: Science Learning Partners. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
|
| References (Online): |
| http://www.internetscienceeducation.org/chapter13.html |
|
History
|
This Principle does not have versions history.
|
|
|
Login
