Abstract
We describe how science education partnerships composed of educational researchers, technologists, classroom teachers, natural scientists, and pedagogy experts can create effective instructional innovations using Internet technologies. We show that our Scaffolded Knowledge Integration framework gives partnerships a head start on effective designs. We illustrate this process with the Deformed Frogs partnership and the Rats in Space partnership. We conclude with suggestions for future partnerships.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Annenberg/CPB. (1995). Science images: Computer as Learning Partner (Doug Kirkpatrick) [video]. S. Burlington, VT: NCREL.
Bell, P. (1996).Debate as an instructional form in science education. Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
Bell, P. (1997). Using argument representations to make thinking visible. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.),Proceedings of CSCL '97: The Second International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (pp. 10–19). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Bell, P. (1998).Designing for students' conceptual change in science using argumentation and classroom debate. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
Bell, P., Davis, E.A., & Linn, M.C. (1995). The knowledge integration environment: Theory and design. InProceedings of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Conference (CSCL '95: Bloomington, IN) (pp. 14–21). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brickhouse, N.W. (1994). Children's Observations, Ideas, and the Development of Classroom Theories about Light.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(6), 639–656.
Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings.The Journal of Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.
Davis, E.A. (1998).Scaffolding students' reflection for science learning. Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
Eylon, B.S., & Linn, M.C. (1988). Learning and instruction: An examination of four research perspectives in science education.Review of Educational Research, 58(3), 251–301.
Hsi, S., & Hoadley, C.M. (1997). Productive discussion in science: Gender equity through electronic discourse.Journal of Science Education and Technology, 6(1), 23–36.
Keller, E.F. (1983).A feeling for the organism: The life and work of Barbara McClintock. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman.
Lakatos, I., & Musgrave, A. (Ed.). (1970).Criticism and the growth of knowledge. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, E.L. (1995).Educating hearts and minds: Reflections on Japanese preschool and elementary education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Linn, M.C. (1992). The computer as learning partner: Can computer tools teach science? In K. Sheingold, L.G. Roberts, & S.M. Malcom (Eds.),This year in school science 1991: Technology for teaching and learning (pp. 31–69). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Linn, M.C. (1995). Designing computer learning environments for engineering and computer science: The scaffolded knowledge integration framework.Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4(2), 103–126.
Linn, M., Bell, P., & Hsi, S. (in press). Using the Internet to enhance student understanding of science: The Knowledge Integration Environment.Interactive Learning Environments.
Linn, M.C., & Burbules, N.C. (1993). Construction of knowledge and group learning. In K. Tobin (Ed.),The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 91–119). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
Linn, M.C., & Clark, H.C. (1997). When are science projects learning opportunities?Research Matters. http://science.coe.uwf.edu\narst\research\projects.htm
Linn, M.C., & Eylon, B.-S. (1996). Lifelong science learning: A longitudinal case study. InProceedings of Cognitive Science Society, 1996 (pp. 597–602). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Linn, M.C., & Muilenburg, L. (1996). Creating lifelong science learners: What models form a firm foundation?Educational Researcher, 25(5), 18–24.
Linn, M.C., & Hsi, S. (in press.)Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
National Research Council. (1996).National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
Novak, J.D. (1968). A case study of curriculum change—Science since PSSC.School Science and Mathematics, 374–384.
Office of Technology Assessment (1995).Teachers and technology: Making the connection. OTA-HER-616. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Pea, R.D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.),Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47–87). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Salomon, G. (1990). Studying the flute and orchestra: Controlled experimentation vs. whole classroom research on computers.International Journal of Educational Research, 14, 37–47.
Shear, L. (1998).When science learners are language learners: Designing linguistically aware instruction to teach science “the knew way.” (Unpublished Master's Thesis). Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley.
Slotta, J.D., & Linn, M.C. (in press). The knowledge integration environment: Helping students use the Internet effectively. In M.J. Jacobson & R. Kozma (Eds.),Learning the sciences of the 21st century. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
Welch, W.W. (1979). Twenty years of science curriculum development: A look back. In D.C. Berliner (Ed.),Review of research in education (pp. 282–308). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Wineburg, S., & Grossman, P. (1998). Creating a community of learners among high school teachers.Phi Delta Kappan (79), 350–353.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
The authors appreciate the insights, enthusiasm, and good humor contributed by the members of the KIE projects and the Interactive University partnership. Special thanks to the children and teachers of our participating schools. Thanks also to Christina Kinnison, Cynthia Lou, Benjamin Liwnicz, and Carole Strickland who helped with production of this manuscript.
This material is based on research supported by grant NSF96-138, MDR 91-55744, and MDR 94-53861. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Linn, M.C., Shear, L., Bell, P. et al. Organizing principles for science education partnerships: Case studies of students' learning about ‘rats in space’ and ‘deformed frogs’. ETR&D 47, 61–84 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299466
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299466