Advertisement

Instructional Science

, Volume 46, Issue 4, pp 563–592 | Cite as

Forming shared inquiry structures to support knowledge building in a grade 5 community

  • Dan Tao
  • Jianwei ZhangEmail author
Article

Abstract

This study explores the reflective processes by which a grade 5 science community co-constructed shared inquiry structures to focus and guide its inquiry about human body systems over a school year supported by a collaborative online environment. The co-constructed structures included a list of collective wondering areas as the shared focus of inquiry and models of the inquiry process in the form of “research cycle.” Qualitative analyses of field notes, classroom videos, student notebooks and interviews elaborate the evolution of the inquiry areas and the “research cycle” model as well as students’ adaptive use of the structures to guide deeper inquiry. Content analyses of students’ individual research questions and collaborative online discourse indicate that students used the structures to develop more advanced inquiry and make productive contributions. The results contribute to elaborating a reflective structuration approach to co-organizing and sustaining long-term, open-ended inquiry in knowledge building communities.

Keywords

Learning community Knowledge building Reflective structuration Inquiry structures 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was sponsored by the U.S. National Science Foundation (#1441479). We owe special thanks to the teacher and students for their creative work enabling this research; and to the special issue editors and anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions.

References

  1. Archer, M. S. (1982). Morphogenesis versus structuration: On combing structure and action. British Journal of Sociology, 33, 455–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barzilai, S., & Chinn, C. A. (2018). On the goals of epistemic education: Promoting apt epistemic performances. Journal of the Learning Sciences.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2017.1392968.Google Scholar
  3. Bereiter, C., Cress, U., Fischer, F., Hakkarainen, K., Scardamalia, M., & Vogel, F. (2017). Scripted and unscripted aspects of creative work with knowledge. In B. K. Smith, M. Borge, E. Mercier, & K. Y. Lim (Eds.), Making a difference: Prioritizing equity and access in CSCL, 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL2017) (Vol. 2, pp. 751–757). Philadelphia, PA: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  4. Bielaczyc, K. (2006). Designing social infrastructure: Critical issues in creating learning environments with technology. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 301–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (1999). Learning communities in classrooms: A reconceptualization of educational practice. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 269–292). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  6. Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (2006). Fostering knowledge-creating communities. In A. M. O’Donnell, C. E. HmeloSilver, & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaborative learning, reasoning, and technology (pp. 37–60). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Bielaczyc, K., & Ow, J. (2014). Multi-player epistemic games: Guiding the enactment of classroom knowledge building communities. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9, 33–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., Osborne, J. W., Sampson, V. D., Annetta, L. A., & Granger, E. M. (2010). Is inquiry possible in light of accountability? A quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction. Science Education, 94, 577–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289–325). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Chen, B., & Hong, H.-Y. (2016). Schools as knowledge-building organizations: Thirty years of design research. Educational Psychologist, 51, 266–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analysis of verbal data: A practical guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 271–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Damşa, C. I. (2014). The multi-layered nature of small-group learning: Productive interactions in object-oriented collaboration. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9, 247–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Derry, S. J., Pea, R. D., Barron, B., Engle, R. A., Erickson, F., Goldman, R., et al. (2010). Conducting video research in the learning sciences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 3–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL (pp. 61–91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.Google Scholar
  18. Duggan, S., & Gott, R. (2002). What sort of science education do we really need? International Journal of Science Education, 24, 661–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 399–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Stegmann, K., & Wecker, C. (2013). Toward a script theory of guidance in computer supported collaborative learning. Educational Psychologist, 48, 56–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Flum, H., & Kaplan, A. (2006). Exploratory orientation as an educational goal. Educational Psychologist, 41, 99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Cambridge, Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Progressive inquiry in a computer-supported biology class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 1072–1088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2003). Analyzing collaborative knowledge construction: Multiple methods for integrated understanding. Computers & Education, 41, 397–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Marathe, S., & Liu, L. (2007). Fish swim, rocks sit, and lungs breathe: Expert-novice understanding of complex system. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16, 307–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Pfeffer, M. G. (2004). Comparing expert and novice understanding of a complex system from the perspective of structures, behaviors, and functions. Cognitive Science, 28, 127–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hod, Y., Basil-Shachar, J., & Sagy, O. (2018). The role of productive social failure in fostering creative collaboration: A grounded study exploring a classroom learning community. Thinking Skills and Creativity.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.03.006.Google Scholar
  28. Kirschner, P. A., & Erkens, G. (2013). Toward a framework for CSCL research. Educational Psychologist, 48, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Krajcik, J. S., & Shin, N. (2014). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 275–297). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kuhn, D. (2007). Is direct instruction an answer to the right question? Educational Psychologist, 42, 109–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Littleton, K., & Kerawalla, L. (2012). Trajectories of inquiry learning. In K. Littleton, E. Scanlon, & M. Sharples (Eds.), Orchestrating inquiry learning (pp. 31–47). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  34. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  35. Osborne, J. F., & Collins, S. (2001). Pupils’ views of the role and value of the science curriculum: A focus-group study. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 441–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sawyer, R. K. (2005). Social emergence: Societies as complex systems. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67–98). Chicago, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
  38. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–115). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2007). Fostering communities of learners and knowledge building: An interrupted dialogue. In J. C. Campione, K. E. Metz, & A. S. Palinscar (Eds.), Children’s learning in the laboratory and in the classroom: Essays in honor of Ann Brown. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  40. Sewell, W. H., Jr. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Slotta, J., Suthers, D., & Roschelle, J. (2014). CIRCL primer: Collective inquiry and knowledge building. In CIRCL primer series. Retrieved from http://circlcenter.org/collective-inquiry-knowledge-building/
  42. Tao, D., Zhang, J., & Huang, Y. (2015). How did a grade 5 community formulate progressive, collective goals to sustain knowledge building over a whole school year? In O. Lindwall & S. Ludvigsen (Eds.), Exploring the material conditions of learning: Proceedings of the 11 th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (Vol. 1, pp. 419–426). Gothenburg, Sweden: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  43. van Aalst, J. (2009). Distinguishing knowledge-sharing, knowledge-construction, and knowledge-creation discourses. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 259–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhang, J. (2013). Foster a self-sustained, collective trajectory of inquiry through adaptive collaboration. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  45. Zhang, J., Hong, H.-Y., Scardamalia, M., Teo, C., & Morley, E. (2011). Sustaining knowledge building as a principle-based innovation at an elementary school. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20, 262–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zhang, J., & Messina, R. (2010). Collaborative productivity as self-sustaining processes in a Grade 4 knowledge building community. In K. Gomez, J. Radinsky, & L. Lyons (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 49–56). Chicago, IL: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  47. Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Lamon, M., Messina, R., & Reeve, R. (2007). Socio-cognitive dynamics of knowledge building in the work of nine- and ten-year-olds. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55, 117–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18, 7–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zhang, J., Tao, D., Chen, M.-H., Sun, Y., Judson, D., & Naqvi, S. (2018). Co-organizing the collective journey of inquiry with Idea Thread Mapper. Journal of the Learning Sciences.  https://doi.org/10.1080/105-8406.2018.1444992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational Theory and PracticeUniversity at Albany, SUNYAlbanyUSA

Personalised recommendations