Educational Psychology Review

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 265–283 | Cite as

Scientific Inquiry in Educational Multi-user Virtual Environments

Original Article

Abstract

In this paper, we present a review of research into the problems of implementing authentic scientific inquiry curricula in schools and the emerging use of educational Multi-User Virtual Environments (MUVEs) to support interactive scientific inquiry practices. Our analysis of existing literature in this growing area of study reveals three recurrent themes: (1) with careful design and inclusion of virtual inquiry tools, MUVE-based curricula can successfully support real-world inquiry practices based on authentic interactivity with simulated worlds and tools, (2) Educational MUVEs can support inquiry that is equally compelling for girls and boys, and (3) research on student engagement in MUVE-based curricula is uneven. Based on these themes, we suggest that future large-scale research should investigate (1) the extent to which MUVE-based inquiry learning can be a viable substitute for the activities involved in real-world inquiry; (2) the impact of MUVEs on learning and engagement for currently underserved students, and (3) the impact on engagement and learning of individual aspects of MUVE environments, particularly virtual experimentation tools designed to scaffold student inquiry processes and maintain engagement. Additionally, we note that two identified issues with integrating scientific inquiry into the classroom are currently not addressed by MUVE research. We urge researchers to investigate whether (1) MUVE-based curriculum can help teachers meet state and national standards with inquiry curricula; and (2) scientific inquiry curricula embedded in MUVE environments can help teachers learn how to integrate interactive scientific inquiry into their classroom.

Keywords

Scientific inquiry Multi-user virtual environment Engagement Self-efficacy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to gratefully acknowledge the collaboration and contribution of the River City design and research team: Chris Dede, Jody Clarke and Catherine Bowman.

References

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., et al. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Project 2061: Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. American Association of University Women (2000). Tech-savvy: Educating girls in the new computer age. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  5. Annetta, L. & Park, J. C. (2006). Video games in science: A model for students and teachers creating 3D role playing games. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
  6. Barab, S., Arici, A., & Jackson, C. (2005a). Eat your vegetables and do your homework: A design based investigation of enjoyment and meaning in learning. Educational Technology, 45(1), 15–20.Google Scholar
  7. Barab, S., Sadler, T., Heiselt, C., Hickey, D., & Zuiker, S. (2007). Relating narrative, inquiry, and inscriptions: supporting consequential play. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barab, S., Thomas, M., Dodge, T., Carteaux, R., & Tuzan, H. (2005b). Making learning fun: Quest Atlantis, a game without guns. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(1), 86–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bers, M. U. (1999). Zora: A graphical multi-user environment to share stories about the self. Paper presented at the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL'99).Google Scholar
  10. Bowers, A. (1987). Creative C.O.W. or a moo is worth a thousand words. Pointer, 32(1), 9–13.Google Scholar
  11. Brdicka, B. (1999). Multi user virtual environment and its possible use in education. Retrieved 9/28, 2003, from http://it.pedf.cuni.cz/∼bobr/MUVE/muveen.htm.
  12. Bruckman, A. (1996). Finding one’s own space in cyberspace. Technology Review, 99(1), 48–54.Google Scholar
  13. Bruckman, A. (2000). Uneven achievement in a constructivist learning environment. Paper presented at the International Conference on Learning Sciences, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
  14. Bruckman, A., Jensen, C., & DeBonte, A. (2002). Gender and programming achievement in a CSCL environment. Paper presented at the CSCL 2002, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
  15. Bybee, R. W. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. H. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 20–46). Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
  16. Chinn, C., & Hmelo-Silver, C. (2002). Authentic inquiry: Introduction to the special section. Science Education, 86, 171–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clarke, J., & Dede, C. (2005). Making learning meaningful: An exploratory study of using multi-user environments (MUVEs) in middle school science. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  18. Clarke, J., Dede, C., Ketelhut, D. J., & Nelson, B. (2006). A design-based research strategy to promote scalability for educational innovations. Educational Technology 46 (3), 27–36.Google Scholar
  19. Cobb, S., Neale, H., Crosier, J., & Wilson, J. R. (2002). Development and evalution of virtual learning environments. In K.M. Stanney (Ed.), Handbook of Virtual Environments: Design, Implementation, and Applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Corbit, M. (2002). Building virtual worlds for informal science learning (SciCentr and SciFair) in the Active Worlds Educational Universe (AWEDU). Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environment 11 (1), 55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dede, C., Ketelhut, D. J., & Ruess, K. (2002). Motivation, usability, and learning outcomes in a prototype museum-based multi-user virtual environment. In P. Bell, R. Stevens & T. Satwicz (Eds.), Keeping learning complex: The proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the Learning Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Dede, C., Ketelhut, D. J., & Nelson, B. (2004). Design-based research on gender, class, race, and ethnicity in a multi-user virtual environment. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  23. Dewey, J. (1944). Democracy and education (First free press paperback-1966 ed.): Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
  24. Dickey, M. D. (2000). 3D virtual worlds and learning: An analysis of the impact of design affordances and limitations in active worlds, blaxxun interactive, and onlive! Traveler: and a study of the implementation of active worlds for formal and informal education. The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  25. Dickey, M. D. (2003). Teaching in 3D: Pedagogical affordances and constraints of 3D virtual worlds for synchronous distance learning. Distance Education, 24(1), 105–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. DuVall, R. (2001). Inquiry in science: From curiosity to understanding. Primary Voices K-6, 10, 3–9.Google Scholar
  27. Fanderclai, T. L. (1995). MUDs in education: New environments, new pedagogies. Computer Mediated Education Magazine, 2(1), 8.Google Scholar
  28. Falk, J., & Drayton, B. (2004). State testing and inquiry-based science: Are they complementary or competing reforms? Journal of Educational Change, 5, 345–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Falsetti, J. (1995). What the heck is a MOO? And what’s the story with all those cows? Paper presented at the Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (29th, Long Beach, CA, March 26-April 1, 1995).Google Scholar
  30. Foley, B. & Kobaissi, A. (2006). Using virtual chat to study in informal learning in online environments. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  31. Galas, C. (2006). Why Whyville? Learning and Leading with Technology, 34(6), 30–33.Google Scholar
  32. Gibson, H., & Chase, C. (2002). Longitudinal impact of an inquiry-based science program on middle school students’ attitudes toward science. Science Education, 86, 693–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jorgnenson, O., & Vanosdall, R. (2002). The death of science? What we risk in the rush toward standardized tesing and the three R's. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(8), 601–606.Google Scholar
  34. Ketelhut, D. J. (2006). Do students with higher self-efficacy exhibit greater and more diverse scientific inquiry skills: An exploratory investigation in “River City,” a multi-user virtual environment. Unpublished dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  35. Ketelhut, D. J., Clarke, J., Dede, C., Nelson, B., & Bowman, C. (2005). Inquiry teaching for depth and coverage via multi-user virtual environments. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas.Google Scholar
  36. Leonard, W. H., & Chandler, P. M. (2003). Where is the inquiry in biology textbooks? The American Biology Teacher, 65(7), 485–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leonard, W. H., Speziale, B. J., & Penick, J. E. (2001). Performance Assessment of a Standards-Based High School Biology Curriculum. American Biology Teacher, 63(5), 310–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lim, C. P., Nonis, D., & Hedberg, J. (2006). Gaming in a 3D multiuser virtual environment: Engaging students in Science lessons. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2), 211–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Marshall, J., & Dorward, J. (2000). Inquiry experiences as a lecture supplement for preservice elementary teachers and general education students. American Journal of Physics, 68, S27–S36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards: Observe, interact, change, learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  41. National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  42. National Research Council (NRC) (2005). America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science. Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision. In M. L. H. Susan, R. Singer & H. A. Schweingruber (Ed.), Board on science education, center for education, division of behavioral and social sciences and education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  43. National Science Teachers Association (2004). NSTA position statement: scientific inquiry. Draft. Retrieved August 9, 2004, from http://www.nsta.org/main/forum/showthread.php? t=1175.
  44. Nelson, B. (2005). Investigating the impact of individualized, reflective guidance on student learning in an educational multi-user virtual environment. Unpublished dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  45. Nelson, B., & Ketelhut, D. J. (2006, October). Desiging for real-world inquiry in virtual environments. Paper presented at AECT 2006, Dallas, TX.Google Scholar
  46. Nelson, B., Ketelhut, D. J., Clarke, J., Bowman, C., & Dede, C. (2005). Design-based research strategies for developing a scientific inquiry curriculum in a multi-user virtual environment. Educational Technology, 45(1), 21–34.Google Scholar
  47. Neulight, N., Kafai, Y. B., Kao, L., Foley, B., & Galas, C. (2007). Childrens participation in a virtual epidemic in the science classroom: Making connections to natural infectious diseases. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Panel Urges Shift of Focus for School Science Courses (1995, December 7). New York Times.Google Scholar
  49. Phelps, A., & Lee, C. (2003). The power of practice: What students learn from how we teach. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(7), 829–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Roehrig, G., & Luft, J. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning secondary science teachers in implementing scientific inquiry lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Roth, K. (1989). Science education: It’s not enough to ‘do’ or ‘relate.’ The American Educator, 13(4), 16–22, 46–48.Google Scholar
  52. Simons, K., & Clark, D. (2004). Supporting inquiry in science classrooms with the web. Computers in the Schools, 21(3/4), 23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Socially-Responsive Design Group (2004). Creating a socially-responsive play space for learning: Something for girls and boys. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  54. Subrahmanyam, K., & Greenfield, P. M. (1998). Computer games for girls: What makes them play? In J. Cassell & H. Jenkins (Eds.), From Barbie to Mortal Kombat: Gender and computer games (pp. 46–71). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  55. The National Academies (2005). U.S. High school science lab experiences often poor, but research points way to improvements. Available: http://www4.nationalacademies.org/ news.nsf/isbn/0309096715? OpenDocument [2005, August].
  56. Trumball, D., Bonney, R., & Grudens-Schuck, N. (2005). Developing materials to promote inquiry: Lessons learned. Science Education, 89(6), 879–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tuzan, H. (2004). Motivating learners in educational computer games. Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
  58. Urban Teacher Collaborative (2000). The urban teacher challenge: Teacher demand and supply in the great city schools. Available: http://www.cgcs.org/pdfs/utc.pdf [2005, August].
  59. Wallace, J., & Louden, W. (2002). Introduction to “laboratories.” In J. Wallace & W. Louden (Eds.), Dilemmas of science teaching (pp. 36–37). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  60. Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of “inquiry:” How preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 481–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wright, J., & Wright, C. (1998). A commentary on the profound changes envisioned by the national science standards. Teachers College Record, 100(1), 122–143.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Arizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Curriculum, Instruction, and Technology in EducationTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations