Advertisement

Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 24, Issue 5, pp 610–627 | Cite as

Empowering Prospective Teachers to Become Active Sense-Makers: Multimodal Modeling of the Seasons

  • Mi Song KimEmail author
Article

Abstract

Situating science concepts in concrete and authentic contexts, using information and communications technologies, including multimodal modeling tools, is important for promoting the development of higher-order thinking skills in learners. However, teachers often struggle to integrate emergent multimodal models into a technology-rich informal learning environment. Our design-based research co-designs and develops engaging, immersive, and interactive informal learning activities called “Embodied Modeling-Mediated Activities” (EMMA) to support not only Singaporean learners’ deep learning of astronomy but also the capacity of teachers. As part of the research on EMMA, this case study describes two prospective teachers’ co-design processes involving multimodal models for teaching and learning the concept of the seasons in a technology-rich informal learning setting. Our study uncovers four prominent themes emerging from our data concerning the contextualized nature of learning and teaching involving multimodal models in informal learning contexts: (1) promoting communication and emerging questions, (2) offering affordances through limitations, (3) explaining one concept involving multiple concepts, and (4) integrating teaching and learning experiences. This study has an implication for the development of a pedagogical framework for teaching and learning in technology-enhanced learning environments—that is empowering teachers to become active sense-makers using multimodal models.

Keywords

A technology-rich learning environment Embodied engagement Multimodal modeling activities Empowering teachers Sense-makers Informal learning Seasons 

References

  1. Bakas C, Mikropoulos T (2003) Design of virtual environments for the comprehension of planetary phenomena based on students’ ideas. Int J Sci Educ 25(8):949–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barab SA (2006) Design-based research: A methodological toolkit. In: Sawyer RK (ed) The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 153–170Google Scholar
  3. Barab SA, Squire K (2004) Design-based research: putting a stake in the ground. J the Learn Sci 13(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barab SA, Hay KE, Barnett M, Squire K (2001) Constructing virtual worlds: tracing the historical development of learner practices. Cogn Instr 19(1):47–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barab SA, Schatz S, Scheckler R (2004) Using activity theory to conceptualize online community and using online community to conceptualize activity theory. Mind Cult Act 11(1):25–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barnett M, Yamagata-Lynch L, Keating T, Barab SA, Hay KE (2005) Using virtual reality computer models to support student understanding of astronomical concepts. J Comput Math Sci Teach 24(4):333–356Google Scholar
  7. Birchfield DB, Thornburg H, Megowan-Romanowicz C, Hatton S, Mechtley B, Dolgov I, Burleson W (2008) Embodiment, multimodality, and composition: convergent themes across HCI and education for mixed-reality learning environments. Retrieved on 05 Dec 2013 from http://www.public.asu.edu/~idolgov/pubs/SMALLab_HCI_v32.pdf
  8. Blown EJ, Bryce TGK (2010) Conceptual coherence revealed in multi-modal representations of astronomy knowledge. Int J Sci Educ 32(1):31–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boler M (1999) Feeling power: emotions and education. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown AL (1992) Design experiments: theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. J Learn Sci 2(2):141–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bryce TGK, Blown EJ (2006) Cultural mediation of children's cosmologies: a longitudinal study of the astronomy concepts of Chinese and New Zealand children. Int J Sci Educ 28(10):1113–1160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chin C (2006) Classroom interaction in science: teacher questioning and feedback to students’ responses. Int J Sci Educ 28(11):1315–1346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chin C, Osborne J (2010) Students’ questions and discursive interaction: their impact on argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science. J Res Sci Teach 47(7):883–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clement J (2000) Model based learning as a key research area for science education. Int J Sci Educ 22(9):1041–1053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Collins A (1992) Towards a design science of education. In: Scanlon E, O’Shea T (eds) New directions in educational technology. Springer, Berlin, pp 15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dede C (2005) Why design-based research is both important and difficult. Educ Technol 45(1):5–8Google Scholar
  17. DiPardo A, Potter C (2003) Beyond cognition: A Vygotskian perspective on emotionality and teachers’ professional lives. In: Kozulin A, Gindis B, Ageyev VS, Miller SM (eds) Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 317–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Engeström Y (2008). From design experiments to formative interventions. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on International conference for the learning sciences, vol 1, pp 3–24Google Scholar
  19. Gee JP (2004) Language in the science classroom: academic social languages as the heart of school-based literacy. In: Saul EW (ed) Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice. International Reading Association and National Science Teachers Association, Newark, pp 10–32Google Scholar
  20. Gobert JD, Buckley BC (2000) Introduction to model-based teaching and learning in science education. Int J Sci Educ 22(9):891–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hansen JA, Barnett M, MaKinster JG, Keating T (2004) The impact of three- dimensional computational modeling on student understanding of astronomical concepts: a quantitative analysis. Int J Sci Educ 26(11):1365–1378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hsu YS, Wu H-K, Hwang FK (2008) Fostering high school students’ conceptual understandings about seasons: the design of a technology-enhanced learning environment. Res Sci Educ 38(2):127–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hull A, Nelson ME (2005) Locating the semiotic power of multimodality. Writ Commun 22(2):224–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Keating T, Barnett M, Barab SA, Hay KE (2002) The virtual solar system project: developing conceptual understanding of astronomical concepts through building three-dimensional computational models. J Sci Educ Technol 11(3):261–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ketelhut DJ (2007) The impact of student self-efficacy on scientific inquiry skills: an exploratory investigation in River City, a multi-user virtual environment. J Sci Educ Technol 16(1):99–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kim, MS (2012) CHAT perspectives on the construction of ICT-mediated teaching metaphors. Eur J Teach Educ 35(4):435–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kim, MS (2013) Technology-mediated collaborative learning environments for young CLD children and their families: Vygotsky revisited. Br J Educ Stud 61(2):221–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kling R, McKim G, King A (2003) A bit more to it: scholarly communication forums as socio-technical interaction networks. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 54(1):47–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kucukozer H, Korkusuz ME, Kucukozer HA, Yurumezoglu K (2009) The effect of 3D computer modeling and observation-based instruction on the conceptual change regarding basic concepts of astronomy in elementary school students. Astron Educ Rev 8(1):010104–010118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kuhn M, Hoppe U, Lingnau A, Wichmann A (2006) Computational modelling and simulation fostering new approaches in learning probability. Innov Educ Teach Int 43(2):183–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Latour B (1987) Science in sction. How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Open University Press, Milton KeynesGoogle Scholar
  32. Latour B (1993) We have never been modern. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Latour B (1999) Pandora’s hope: essays on the reality of science studies. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Lehrer R, Schauble L (2000) The development of model-based reasoning. J Appl Dev Psychol 21(1):39–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lemke JL (1998) Metamedia literacy: transforming meanings and media. In: Reinking D, McKenna MC, Labbo LD, Kieffer RD (eds) Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world. Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 283–301Google Scholar
  36. Lemke JL (2004) The literacies of science. In: Saul EW (ed) Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: perspectives on theory and practice. International Reading Association and National Science Teachers Association, Arlington, pp 33–47Google Scholar
  37. Lesh R, Doerr HM (2003) Beyond constructivism: models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching. Erlbaum, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  38. Lincoln YS, Guba EG (1985) Naturalistic inquiry. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  39. Mahn H, John-Steiner V (2002) The gift of confidence: a Vygotskian view of emotions. In: Wells G, Claxton G (eds) Learning for life in the 21st century: sociocultural perspectives on the future of education. Blackwell, New York, pp 46–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Padalkar S, Ramadas J (2008) Modeling the round earth through diagrams. Astron Educ Rev 6(2):54–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. PISA, OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (2009) PISA 2009 results: what students know and can do. Retrieved on 22 May 2011 from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/61/48852548.pdf
  42. Rosenbaum E, Klopfer E, Perry J (2007) On location learning: authentic applied science with networked augmented realities. J Sci Educ Technol 16(1):31–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Roth WM, Lawless D (2002) Science, cultures and the emergence of language. Sci Educ 86:368–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shen J, Confrey J (2007) From conceptual change to transformative modeling: a case study of an elementary teacher in learning astronomy. Sci Educ 91(6):948–966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sherrod SE, Wilhelm J (2009) A study of how classroom dialogue facilitates the development of geometric spatial concepts related to understanding the cause of moon phases. Int J Sci Educ 31(7):873–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stake R (2005) Qualitative case studies. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  47. Stratford SJ, Krajcik J, Soloway E (1998) Secondary students’ dynamic modeling processes: analyzing, reasoning about, synthesizing, and testing models of stream ecosystems. J Sci Educ Technol 7(3):215–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Trundle KC, Atwood RK, Christopher JE, Sackes M (2010) The effect of guided inquiry-based instruction on middle school students’ understanding of lunar concepts. Res Sci Educ 40(3):451–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vygotsky LS (1978) Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  50. Vygotsky LS (1987a) Thinking and speech (trans: Minick N). In: Rieber RW, Carton AS (eds) The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky, vol 1. Problems of general psychology. Plenum Press, New York, pp 39–285Google Scholar
  51. Vygotsky LS (1987b) Emotions and their development in childhood (trans: Minick N). In: Rieber RW, Carton AS (eds) The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: vol 1. Problems of general psychology. Plenum, New York, pp 325–338Google Scholar
  52. Vygotsky LS (1994) The problem of the environment. In: Van deer Veer R, Valsiner J (eds) The Vygotsky reader. Blackwell, Cambridge, pp 338–354Google Scholar
  53. Yin RK (2009) Case study research: design and methods, 4th edn. Sage, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Curriculum StudiesUniversity of Western OntarioLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations