Research in Science Education

, Volume 46, Issue 5, pp 667–684

Investigating and Promoting Trainee Science Teachers’ Conceptual Change of the Nature of Science with Digital Dialogue Games ‘InterLoc’

  • Nasser Mansour
  • Rupert Wegerif
  • Nigel Skinner
  • Keith Postlethwaite
  • Lindsay Hetherington
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Online discussion Nature of science Constructive knowledge Online-structured dialogue environment Digital games Dialogue games InterLoc 

References

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1(45), 101–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Blanchette, J. (2001). Questions in the online learning environment. Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 37–57.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Choi, A., Hand, B., & Norton-Meier, L. (2014). Grade 5 students’ online argumentation about their in-class inquiry investigations. Research in Science Education, 44, 267–287. doi:10.1007/s11165-013-9384-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. De Laat, M. (2006). Networked learning. The Netherlands: Politieacademie.Google Scholar
  9. Garrison, D., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: a framework for research and practice. London: Routledge flamer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goodyear, P., & Zenios, M. (2007). Discussion, collaborative knowledge work and epistemic fluency. British Journal of Educational Studies, 55(4), 351–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hand, B., Prain, V., Lawrence, C., & Yore, L. D. (1999). A writing in science framework designed to enhance science literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 21(10), 1021–1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hew, K., & Cheung, W. (2013). Audio-based versus text-based asynchronous online discussion: two case studies. Instructional Science, 41(2), 365–380. doi:10.1007/s11251-012-9232-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Huang, L., Chiu, C., Sung, K., & Farn, C. (2011). A comparative study on the flow experience in web-based and text-based interaction environments. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 14(1–2), 3–11. doi:10.1089/cyber.2009.0256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnson, M. L., & Sinatra, G. M. (2013). Use of task-value instructional inductions for facilitating engagement and conceptual change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 51–63. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.09.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Limon, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: a critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11, 357–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. Lumpe, A. T., & Staver, J. R. (1995). Peer collaboration and concept development: learning about photosynthesis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(1), 71–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Markauskaite, L., Sutherland, L., & Howard, S. (2008). Knowledge labels and their correlates in an asynchronous text-based computer-supported collaborative learning environment: who uses and who benefits? Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 3(1), 65–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McConnell, D. (2000). Implementing computer supported cooperative learning. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  21. Mercer, N. (2008). Changing our minds: a commentary on conceptual change: a discussion of theoretical, methodological and practical challenges for science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 351–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Miller, B., Anderson, R., Morries, J., Lin, T.-J., Jadallah, M., & Sun, J. (2014). The effects of reading to prepare for argumentative discussion on cognitive engagement and conceptual growth. Learning and Instruction, 33, 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 5(21), 553–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nott, M., & Wellington, J. (1993). Your nature of science profile—an activity for science teachers. School Science Review, 75(270), 109–112.Google Scholar
  25. Penttinen, M., Anto, E., & Mikkilä-Erdmann, M. (2013). Conceptual change, text comprehension and eye movements during reading. Research in Science Education, 43, 1407–1434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibrium of cognitive structure. Chicago: Chicago University.Google Scholar
  27. Ravenscroft, A. (2007). Promoting thinking and conceptual change with digital dialogue games. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(6), 453–465.Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 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.
  30. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. She, H. C., & Liao, Y. W. (2010). Bridging scientific reasoning and conceptual change through adaptive web-based learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(1), 91–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Tao, P. K., & Gunstone, R. (1999). Conceptual change in science through collaborative learning at the computer. International Journal of Science Education, 21(1), 39–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Taylor, J. A. (2001). Using a practical context to encourage conceptual change: an instructional sequence in bicycle science. School Science & Mathematics, 101(3), 117–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Wegerif, R. (1998). The social dimension of asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2(1), 34–49.Google Scholar
  40. Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Wu, X., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., & Miller, B. (2013). Enhancing motivation and engagement through collaborative discussion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 622–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yuan, T., Moore, D., Reed, C., Ravenscroft, A., & Maudet, N. (2011). Informal logic dialogue games in human-computer dialogue. Knowledge Engineering Review, 26(2), 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nasser Mansour
    • 1
  • Rupert Wegerif
    • 1
  • Nigel Skinner
    • 1
  • Keith Postlethwaite
    • 1
  • Lindsay Hetherington
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate School of EducationUniversity of Exeter, St. Luke’s CampusExeterUK
  2. 2.Tanta UniversityTantaEgypt

Personalised recommendations