Research in Science Education

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 427–453 | Cite as

Classroom Use of Multimedia-Supported Predict–Observe–Explain Tasks in a Social Constructivist Learning Environment

  • Matthew Kearney


This paper focuses on the use of multimedia-based predict–observe–explain (POE) tasks to facilitate small group learning conversations. Although the tasks were given to pairs of students as a diagnostic tool to elicit their pre-instructional physics conceptions, they also provided a peer learning opportunity for students. The study adopted a social constructivist perspective to analyse and interpret the student’s conversations, focussing on students’ articulation and justification of their own science conceptions, clarification of and critical reflection on their partners’ views, and negotiation of new, shared meanings. Two senior science classes participated in this interpretive study. Data sources were mainly qualitative and included audio and video recordings of students’ small group discussions at the computer, interviews with selected students and their teachers, classroom observations, and student surveys. Findings indicate that the computer-based POE tasks supported students’ peer learning conversations, particularly during the prediction, reasoning and observation stages of the POE strategy. The increased level of student control of the POE tasks, combined with the multimedia nature of the program, initiated quality peer discussions. The findings have implications for authentic, technology-mediated learning in science.

interactive multimedia peer learning physics learning 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R., Soloway, E., & Krajcik, J. (1996). Learning with peers. From small group cooperation to collaborative communities. Educational Researcher, 25(8), 37–40.Google Scholar
  2. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1998). Qualitative research for education. An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  3. Carr, M. (1991). Methods for studying personal construction. In B. Fraser (Ed.), Key centre monograph No. 3 (pp. 16–22). Perth, Western Australia: Key Centre for School Science and Mathematics.Google Scholar
  4. Champagne, A., Klopfer, L., & Anderson, J. (1980). Factors influencing the learning of classical mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 48(12), 1074–1079.Google Scholar
  5. Crooks, C. (1999). Computers in the community of classrooms. In K. Littleton & P. Light (Eds.), Learning with computers. Analysing productive interaction (pp. 102–117). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61–84.Google Scholar
  7. Driver, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Curriculum development as research: A constructivism approach to science curriculum development and teaching. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 94–108). New York and London: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  8. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.Google Scholar
  9. Duit, R., & Confrey, J. (1996). Reorganising the curriculum and teaching to improve learning in science and mathematics. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 79–93). New York and London: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  10. Duit, R., Treagust, D., & Mansfield H. (1996). Investigating student understanding as a prerequisite to improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 17–31). New York and London: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  11. Escalada, L., & Zollman, D. (1997). An investigation on the effects of using interactive digital video in a physics classroom on student learning and attitudes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(5), 467–489.Google Scholar
  12. Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1981). Effective evaluation. London: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  13. Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  14. Harper, B., & Hedberg, J. (1997, December). Creating motivating interactive learning environments: A constructivist view. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, Perth, Australia.Google Scholar
  15. Jonassen, D., & Reeves, T. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 693–719). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  16. Kearney, M. (2002). Classroom use of multimedia-supported predict–observe–explain tasks to elicit and promote discussion about students’ physics conceptions. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia.Google Scholar
  17. Kearney, M., & Treagust, D. F. (2001). Constructivism as a referent in the design and development of a computer program which uses interactive digital video to enhance learning in physics. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 17(1), 64–79.Google Scholar
  18. Kearney, M., & Wright, R. (2002). Predict–Observe–Explain eShell. Retrieved September 17, 2003, from Scholar
  19. Kearney, M., Treagust, D. F., Yeo, S., & Zadnik, M. (2001). Student and teacher perceptions of the use of multimedia supported predict–observe–explain tasks to probe understanding. Research in Science Education, 31(4), 589–615.Google Scholar
  20. Koschmann, T. (1994). Toward a theory of computer support for collaborative learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 30(3–4), 219–221.Google Scholar
  21. Kozma, R. (2000). The use of multiple representations and the social construction of understanding in chemistry. In M. Jacobson & R. Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education. Advanced designs for technologies of learning. A constructivism perspective (pp. 11–46). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Linn, M. (1998). The impact of technology on science instruction: Historical trends and current opportunities. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 265–294). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  23. Lin, X., Hmelo, C., Kinzer, C., & Secules, T. (1999). Designing technology to support reflection. Educational Technology Research & Development, 47(3), 43–62.Google Scholar
  24. Linn, M., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers. Science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. McRobbie, C., & Tobin, K. (1997). A social constructivism perspective on learning environments. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 193–208.Google Scholar
  26. Merriam, S. (1988). Case study research in education. A qualitative approach. London: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  27. Pea, R. (1993). Learning scientific concepts through material and social activities: Conversational analysis meets conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 28(3), 265–277.Google Scholar
  28. Prawat, R. (1993). The value of ideas: Problems versus possibilities in learning. Educational Researcher, 22(6), 5–12.Google Scholar
  29. Roth, W., Woszczyna, C., & Smith, G. (1996). Affordances and constraints of computers in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(9), 995–1017.Google Scholar
  30. Russell, D., Lucas, K., & McRobbie, C. (1999, November). Microprocessor based laboratory activities as catalysts for student construction of understanding in physics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  31. Salomon, G., & Almog, T. (1998). Educational psychology and technology: A matter of reciprocal relations. Teachers College Record, 100(1), 222–241.Google Scholar
  32. Salomon, G., Perkins, D., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2–9.Google Scholar
  33. Solomon, J. (1987). Social influences on the construction of pupils’ understanding of science. Studies in Science Education, 14, 63–82.Google Scholar
  34. Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  35. Taber, K. (1999). Ideas about ionisation energy: A diagnostic instrument. School Science Review, 81(295), 97–104.Google Scholar
  36. Tao, P. K. (2000, April). Computer supported collaborative learning: Developing understanding of image formation by lenses. Paper presented at the annual general meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  37. Tao, P. K., & Gunstone, R. (1999a). Conceptual change in science through collaborative learning at the computer. International Journal of Science Education, 21(1), 39–57.Google Scholar
  38. Tao, P. K., & Gunstone, R. (1999b). The process of conceptual change in force and motion during computer-supported physics instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 859–882.Google Scholar
  39. Taylor, P., Fraser, B., & White, L. (1994, April). A classroom questionnaire for science educators interested in the constructivism reform of school science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Anaheim, USA.Google Scholar
  40. Weller, H. (1996). Assessing the impact of computer-based learning in science. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(4), 461–485.Google Scholar
  41. White, R. (1988). Learning science. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  42. White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. London and New York: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew Kearney
    • 1
  1. 1.University of TechnologyNSWAustralia

Personalised recommendations