Investigating and Promoting Trainee Science Teachers’ Conceptual Change of the Nature of Science with Digital Dialogue Games ‘InterLoc’
The purpose of this study is to explore how an online-structured dialogue environment supported (OSDE) collaborative learning about the nature of science among a group of trainee science teachers in the UK. The software used (InterLoc) is a linear text-based tool, designed to support structured argumentation with openers and ‘dialogue moves’. A design-based research approach was used to investigate multiple sessions using InterLoc with 65 trainee science teachers. Five participants who showed differential conceptual change in terms of their Nature of Science (NOS) views were purposively selected and closely followed throughout the study by using key event recall interviews. Initially, the majority of participants held naïve views of NOS. Substantial and favourable changes in these views were evident as a result of the OSDE. An examination of the development of the five participants’ NOS views indicated that the effectiveness of the InterLoc discussions was mediated by cultural, cognitive, and experiential factors. The findings suggest that InterLoc can be effective in promoting reflection and conceptual change.
KeywordsOnline discussion Nature of science Constructive knowledge Online-structured dialogue environment Digital games Dialogue games InterLoc
InterLoc was developed by a team led by Andrew Ravenscroft with funding from the UK JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee) ‘e-learning tools’ programme, and from the JISC Capital Programme.
- Axelsson, K., & Goldkuhl, G. (2004). Theory Modelling-Action focus when building a multi-grounded theory. Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Research methods in Business and Management, Reading UK.Google Scholar
- Blanchette, J. (2001). Questions in the online learning environment. Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 37–57.Google Scholar
- Chen, C.-H., & She, H.-C. (2012). The impact of recurrent on-line synchronous scientific argumentation on students’ argumentation and conceptual change. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 197–210.Google Scholar
- Clark, D., Weinberger, A., Jucks, R., Spitulnik, M., & Wallace, R. (2003). Designing effective science inquiry in text-based computer-supported collaborative learning environments. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research, & Practice, 4(1), 55–82.Google Scholar
- De Laat, M. (2006). Networked learning. The Netherlands: Politieacademie.Google Scholar
- Lim C., & Tan S. (2001). Online discussion boards for focus group interviews: an exploratory study. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 2(1), 50–60.Google Scholar
- Luebeck, L. J., & Bice, R. L. (2005). Online discussion as a mechanism of conceptual change among mathematics and science teachers. Journal of Distance Education, 20(2), 21–39.Google Scholar
- McConnell, D. (2000). Implementing computer supported cooperative learning. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
- Nott, M., & Wellington, J. (1993). Your nature of science profile—an activity for science teachers. School Science Review, 75(270), 109–112.Google Scholar
- Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibrium of cognitive structure. Chicago: Chicago University.Google Scholar
- Ravenscroft, A. (2007). Promoting thinking and conceptual change with digital dialogue games. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(6), 453–465.Google Scholar
- Ravenscroft, A., & McAlister, S. (2008). Investigating and promoting educational argumentation: towards new digital practices. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 31(3), 317–335.Google Scholar
- Ravenscroft, A., McAlister, S., & Sagar, M. (2012). Digital dialogue games and InterLoc: a deep leaning design for collaborative argumentation on the Web. In N. Pinkwart and B. McLaren (Eds.), Educational technologies for teaching argumentation skills (pp. 277-315). Bentham Science E-Books. doi: 10.2174/97816080501541120101.
- Sardone, N., & Devlin-Scherer, R. (2009). Teacher candidates’ views of digital games as learning devices. Issues in Teacher Education, 18(2), 47–67.Google Scholar
- Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). New York: Cambridge University.Google Scholar
- Swan, K. (2003). Learning effectiveness: what the research tells us. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education, practice and direction (pp. 13–45). Needham: Sloan Center for Online Education.Google Scholar
- Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University.Google Scholar
- Wallace, C. S., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2004). Introduction: does writing promote learning in science? In C. S. Wallace, B. Hand, & V. Prain (Eds.), Writing and learning in the science classroom (pp. 1–8). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
- Wegerif, R. (1998). The social dimension of asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2(1), 34–49.Google Scholar
- Wishart, J., Green, D., Joubert, M., & Triggs, P. (2011). Discussing ethical issues in school science: an investigation into the opportunities to practise and develop arguments offered by online and face‐to‐face discussions. International Journal of Science Education Part B, 1(1), 47–69. doi: 10.1080/21548455.2010.543863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar