Advertisement

Learning Environments Research

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 267–283 | Cite as

Cultivating constructivist science internships for high school students through a community of practice with cogenerative dialogues

  • Pei-Ling Hsu
  • Penelope Espinoza
Original Paper

Abstract

Working with scientists has been suggested as an effective way for high-school students to learn authentic science. However, little research has involved students’ perceptions of science learning environments in a university internship. This study drew on the theoretical framework of community of practice with cogenerative dialogues to design an internship program that aims to build a constructivist internship for students. Students who learned science in the internship program developed stronger constructivist learning perceptions than those who learned science in school. Specifically, students perceived that they had more opportunities to think independently of the instructors and other students. Three effective principles for program design are: (a) high school students conduct open-inquiry projects with the support of scientists; (b) high school students and scientists conduct cogenerative dialogues regularly to address issues and share experiences; and (c) high school students present their project proposals and scientific findings at open house events. Implications of the results are discussed.

Keywords

Cogenerative dialogues Community of practice Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) Student–scientist partnership 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DRL 1322600. Any opinion, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

References

  1. Abraham, L. M. (2002). What do high school science students gain from field-based research apprenticeship programs? The Clearing House, 75, 229–232. doi: 10.1080/00098650209603945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acat, M. B., Anilan, H., & Anagun, S. S. (2010). The problems encountered in designing constructivist learning environments in science education and practical suggestions. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 212–220.Google Scholar
  3. Aydeniz, M., Baksa, K., & Skinner, J. (2011). Understanding the impact of an apprenticeship-based scientific research program on high school students’ understanding of scientific inquiry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(4), 403–421. doi: 10.1007/s10956-010-9261-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barab, S. A., & Hay, K. E. (2001). Doing science at the elbow of experts: Issues related to the science apprenticeship camp. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 70–102. doi: 10.1002/1098-2736(200101)38:1%3C70::AID-TEA5%3E3.0.CO;2-L.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bell, R., Blair, L., Crawford, B., & Lederman, N. (2003). Just do it? The impact of a science apprenticeship program on high school students’ understandings of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 487–509. doi: 10.1002/tea.10086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burgin, S. R., & Sadler, T. D. (2016). Learning nature of science concepts through a research apprenticeship program: A comparative study of three approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(1), 31–59. doi: 10.1002/tea.21296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ChanLin, L. J. (2008). Technology integration applied to project-based learning in science. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(1), 55–65. doi: 10.1080/14703290701757450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charney, J., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Sofer, W., Neigeborn, L., Coletta, S., & Nemeroff, M. (2007). Cognitive apprenticeship in science through immersion in laboratory practices. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 195–213. doi: 10.1080/09500690600560985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daley, S. M. (2000). Public science day and the public understanding of science in America. Public Understanding of Science, 9(2), 175–181. doi: 10.1088/0963-6625/9/2/306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davies, S. R. (2009). Doing dialogue: Genre and flexibility in public engagement with science. Science as Culture, 18, 397–416. doi: 10.1080/09505430902870591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Emdin, C. (2011). Citizenship and social justice in urban science education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 24, 285–301. doi: 10.1080/09518398.2010.539582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gibson, H. L., & Chase, C. (2002). Longitudinal impact of an inquiry-based science program on middle school students’ attitudes toward science. Science Education, 86, 693–705. doi: 10.1002/sce.10039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grindstaff, K., & Richmond, G. (2008). Learners’ perceptions of the role of peers in a research experience: Implications for the apprenticeship process, scientific inquiry, and collaborative work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(2), 251–271. doi: 10.1002/tea.20196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gupta, P. (2009). Identity development in pre-service teachers who are explainers in a science center: Dialectically developing theory and praxis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Graduate Faculty in Urban Education, City University of New York.Google Scholar
  15. Helle, L., Tynjälä, P., & Olkinuora, E. (2006). Project-based learning in post-secondary education–Theory, practice and rubber sling shots. Higher Education, 51(2), 287–314. doi: 10.1007/s10734-004-6386-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hsu, P.-L., & Roth, W.-M. (2010). From a sense of stereotypically foreign to belonging in a science community: Ways of experiential descriptions about high school students’ science internships. Research in Science Education, 40, 291–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnson, B., & McClure, R. (2004). Validity and reliability of a shortened, revised version of the constructivist learning environment survey (CLES). Learning Environments Research, 7, 65–80. doi: 10.1023/B:LERI.0000022279.89075.9f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kerr, A., Cunningham-Burley, S., & Tutton, R. (2007). Shifting subject positions: Experts and lay people in public dialogue. Social Studies of Science, 37(3), 385–411. doi: 10.1177/0306312706068492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kingir, S., Tas, Y., Gok, G., & Vural, S. S. (2013). Relationships among constructivist learning environment perceptions, motivational beliefs, self-regulation and science achievement. Research in Science & Technological Education, 31(3), 205–226. doi: 10.1080/02635143.2013.825594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koh, N. K., & Fraser, B. J. (2014). Learning environments associated with use of mixed mode delivery model among secondary business studies students in Singapore. Learning Environments Research, 17(2), 157–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lawless, J. G., & Rock, B. N. (1998). Student–scientist partnerships and data quality. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7, 5–13. doi: 10.1023/A:1022575914118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lawrenz, F. P. (1976). Student perception of the classroom learning environment in biology, chemistry and physics courses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 13, 351–353. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660130405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee, H.-S., & Songer, N. B. (2003). Making authentic science accessible to students. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 923–948. doi: 10.1080/09500690305023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Martin, S. (2006). Where practice and theory intersect in the chemistry classroom: Using cogenerative dialogue to identify the critical points in science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1, 693–720. doi: 10.1007/s11422-006-9031-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Martin, S., & Scantlebury, K. (2009). More than a conversation: Using cogenerative dialogues in the professional development of high school chemistry teachers. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(2), 119–136. doi: 10.1007/s11092-008-9062-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McCombs, G. B., Ufnar, J. A., & Shepherd, V. L. (2007). The virtual scientist: Connecting university scientists to the K–12 classroom through videoconferencing. Advances in Physiology Education, 31, 62–66. doi: 10.1152/advan.00006.2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mumba, F., Mejia, W. F., Chabalengula, V. M., & Mbewe, S. (2010). Resident scientists’ instructional practices and their perceived benefits and difficulties of inquiry in schools. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 9, 187–195.Google Scholar
  29. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  30. Ozkal, K., Tekkaya, C., Cakiroglu, J., & Sungur, S. (2009). A conceptual model of relationships among constructivist learning environment perceptions, epistemological beliefs, and learning approaches. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(1), 71–79. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2008.05.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Richmond, G., & Kurth, L. A. (1999). Moving from outside to inside: High school students’ use of apprenticeships as vehicles for entering the culture and practice of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 677–697. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199908)36:6%3C677::AIDTEA6%3E3.0.CO;2-%23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Roth, W.-M., & Tobin, K. (2005). Implementing coteaching and cogenerative dialoguing in urban science education. School Science and Mathematics, 105(6), 313–322. doi: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.2005.tb18132.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Roth, W.-M., Tobin, K., Elmesky, R., Carambo, C., McKnight, Y., & Beers, J. (2004). Re/making identities in the praxis of urban schooling: A cultural historical perspective. Mind, Culture, & Activity, 11, 48–69. doi: 10.1207/s15327884mca1101_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Roth, W.-M., Tobin, K., & Zimmerman, A. (2002). Coteaching/cogenerative dialoguing: Learning environments research as classroom praxis. Learning Environments Research, 5(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Scantlebury, K., Gallo-Fox, J., & Wassell, B. (2008). Coteaching as a model for preservice secondary science teacher education. Teaching & Teacher Education, 24(4), 967–981. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2007.10.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shein, P. P., & Tsai, C. Y. (2015). Impact of a scientist–teacher collaborative model on students, teachers, and scientists. International Journal of Science Education, 37(13), 2147–2169. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2015.1068465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Simpson, R. D., & Oliver, J. S. (1990). A summary of major influences on attitude toward and achievement in science among adolescent students. Science Education, 74, 1–18. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730740102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stake, J., & Mares, K. (2005). Evaluating the impact of science-enrichment programs on adolescents’ science motivation and confidence: The splashdown effect. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(4), 359–375. doi: 10.1002/tea.20052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stith, I., & Roth, W.-M. (2008). Students in action: Cogenerative dialogues from secondary to elementary schools. Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  40. Talton, E. L., & Simpson, R. D. (1987). Relationships of attitude toward classroom environment with attitude toward and achievement in science among tenth grade biology students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 507–526. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660240602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Taylor, P. C., & Fraser, B. J. (1991). CLES: An instrument for assessing constructivist learning environments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Lake Geneva, WI.Google Scholar
  42. Taylor, P. C., Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1997). Monitoring constructivisit classroom learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 27(4), 293–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tobin, K. (2006). Learning to teach through coteaching and cogenerative dialogue. Teaching Education, 17(2), 133–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tobin, K., & Alexakos, K. (2013). Coteaching heuristic (I|Other). New York: The City University of New York.Google Scholar
  45. Tsai, C.-C. (2000). Relationships between student scientific epistemological beliefs and perceptions of constructivist learning environments. Educational Research, 42(2), 193–205. doi: 10.1080/001318800363836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  47. Wigbels, L. D. (2004). The GLOBE program: A worldwide student/scientists partnership in earth science research and education. Acta Astronautica, 55, 701–706. doi: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2004.05.04.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Teacher Education, College of EducationUniversity of Texas at El PasoEl PasoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Educational Leadership and Foundations, College of EducationUniversity of Texas at El PasoEl PasoUSA

Personalised recommendations