Advertisement

Linking teacher beliefs, practices and student inquiry-based learning in a CSCL environment: A tale of two teachers

  • Yangjie Song
  • Chee-Kit Looi
Article
First Online:

Abstract

The links uncovered by research connecting teacher beliefs to classroom practice and student inquiry-based learning are tenuous. This study aims at examining (a) how teacher beliefs influenced practices; and (b) how the influence on practices, in turn, impacted student inquiry learning in a CSCL environment. Through a fine-grained comparative analysis of two cases, this study explores how two teachers with different collections of beliefs enacted the same mathematics lesson on division and fractions in a CSCL environment premised on inquiry principles, and what the connections between different enactments and students’ progressive inquiry process and outcomes were. The findings suggest that the two teachers’ adherence to different beliefs led to different practices, which in turn contributed to different student learning processes and outcomes. We interpret these differences that shaped the students’ opportunities for progressive inquiry in the CSCL environment. We conclude that the teacher holding “innovation-oriented” beliefs tended to enact the lesson in patterns of inquiry-principle-based practices and technology-enhanced orchestration; these patterns interacted with each other to contribute to student inquiry learning and effective use of technology affordances.

Keywords

Teacher beliefs Teacher practices Student learning CSCL Progressive inquiry learning Inquiry principle-based practices 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This material is based on the work supported by the National Research Foundation (Singapore) under Grant NRF2007-IDM003-MOE-001. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Research Foundation.

References

  1. Barab, S., & Luehmann, A. L. (2003). Building sustainable science curriculum: Acknowledging and accommodating local adaptation. Science Education, 87(4), 454–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beyer, C. J., & Davis, E. A. (2008). Fostering second graders’ scientific explanations: A beginning elementary teacher’s knowledge, beliefs, and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(3), 381–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blumenfeld, P., Fishman, B. J., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2000). Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: Scaling up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, A., & Campione, J. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In L. S. R. Glaser (Ed.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289–325). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  5. Chan, C. K. K. (2011). Bridging research and practice: Implementing and sustaining knowledge building in Hong Kong classrooms. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(2), 147–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chan, C., K., K., & Song, Y. (August 3–6, 2010). Towards a principle-based approach for knowledge creation in teacher professional development. Paper presented at the Summer Institute, University of Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
  7. Chen, F.-H., Looi, C.-K., & Chen, W. (2009). Integrating technology in the classroom: A visual conceptualization of teachers’ knowledge, goals and beliefs. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(5), 470–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Colburn, A. (2000). An Inquiry Primer. Science Scope, 23, 42–44.Google Scholar
  9. Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 613–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dillenbourg, P., Jarvela, S., & Fischer, F. (2009). The evolution of research on computer-supported collaborative learning: From design to orchestration. Technology-Enhanced Learning, 1, 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dillenbourg, P., Zufferey, G., Alavi, H., Jermann, P., DoLenh, S., Bonnard, Q., et al. (2011). Classroom orchestration: The third circle of usability. In H. Spada, G. Stahl, N. Miyake, & N. Law (Eds.), 9th International Conference of Computer-supported Collaborative Learning, vol I (pp. 510–517). Hong Kong: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  13. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fishman, B. J., Marx, R. W., Best, S., & Tal, R. T. (2003). Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(6), 643–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2008). What do teachers believe? Developing a framework for examining beliefs about teachers’ knowledge and ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(2), 134–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Glazer, E. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (2006). The collaborative apprenticeship model: Situated professional development within school settings. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(2), 179–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goos, M. (2004). Learning mathematics in a classroom community of inquiry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(4), 258–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Progressive Inquiry in a computer-supported biology class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1072–1088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hakkarainen, K., Lipponen, L., & Jarvela, S. (2002). Epistemology of inquiry and computer-supported collaborative learning. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation. Computers, cognition, and work (pp. 129–156). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. Harasim, L. (2002). What makes online learning communities successful. In C. Vrasidas & G. V. Glass (Eds.), Distance education and distributed learning (pp. 181–200). US: Information Age Publishing Inc.Google Scholar
  21. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cognition and Instruction, 26(1), 48–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Bromme, R. (2007). Coding discussions and discussing coding: Research on collaborative learning in computer-supported environments. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 460–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jacobson, M. J., So, H.-J., Teo, T., Lee, J., Pathak, S., & Lossman, H. (2010). Epistemology and learning: Impact on pedagogical practices and technology use in Singapore schools. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1694–1706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jaworski, B. (2006). Theory and practice in Mathematics teaching development: Critical inquiry as a mode of learning in teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9(2), 187–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. (2006). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 317–334). New York: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  27. Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lieberman, A., & Mace, D. H. P. (2008). Teacher learning: The key to educational reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(3), 226–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Looi, C. K., Chen, W., & Ng, F.-K. (2010). Collaborative activities enabled by GroupScribbles (GS): An exploratory study of learning effectiveness. Computers in Education, 54(1), 14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Looi, C. K., So, H.-J., Toh, Y., & Chen, W. (2011). The Singapore experience: Synergy of national policy, classroom practice and design research. International Journal of CSCL, 6(1), 9–37.Google Scholar
  31. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Oshima, J., Oshima, R., Murayama, I., Inagaki, S., Takenaka, M., Nakayama, H., et al. (2004). Design experiments in Japanese elementary science education with computer support for collaborative learning: Hypothesis testing and collaborative construction. International Journal of Science Education, 26(10), 1199–1221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Puntambekar, S., Stylianou, A., & Goldstein, J. (2007). Comparing classroom enactments of an inquiry curriculum: Lessons learned from two teachers. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(1), 81–130.Google Scholar
  35. Salomon, G. (1998). Novel constructivist learning environments and novel technologies: Some issues to be concerned with. Learning and Instruction, 8(1), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sandoval, W. A., & Daniszewski, K. (2004). Mapping trade-offs in teachers’ integration of technology-supported inquiry in high school science classes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2), 161–178.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: Open Court.Google Scholar
  38. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., pp. 1370–1373). New York: Macmillan Reference, USA.Google Scholar
  39. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2008). Pedagogical biases in educational technologies. Educational Technology Magazine: The magazine for managers of change in education, 48(3), 3–11.Google Scholar
  40. Schoenfeld, A. (2002). Making mathematics work for all children: Issues, standards, testing and equity. Educational Researcher, 31(1), 13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schwarz, C. (2009). Developing preservice elementary teachers’ knowledge and practices through modeling-centered scientific inquiry. Science Education, 93(4), 720–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. So, H.-J. (2009). When groups decide to use asynchronous online discussions: Collaborative learning and social presence under a voluntary participation structure. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(2), 143–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Speer, N. M. (2008). Connecting beliefs and practices: A fine-grained analysis of a college mathematics teacher’s collections of beliefs and their relationship to his instructional practices. Cognition and Instruction, 26(2), 218–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stahl, G. (Ed.). (2002). Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  45. Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: A historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 406–427). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Staples, M. (2007). Supporting whole-class collaborative inquiry in a secondary mathematics classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 25(2–3), 161–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge Cambridgeshire: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tillema, H., & Orland-Barak, L. (2006). Constructing knowledge in professional conversations: The role of beliefs on knowledge and knowing. Learning and Instruction, 16(6), 592–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tirosh, D. (2000). Enhancing prospective teachers’ knowledge of children’s conceptions: The case of division of fractions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(1), 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. van Aalst, J., & Chan, C. K. K. (2007). Student-directed assessment of knowledge building using electronic portfolios. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(2), 175–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Van Driel, J. H., Bulte, A. M. W., & Verloop, N. (2007). The relationships between teachers’ general beliefs about teaching and learning and their domain specific curricular beliefs. Learning and Instruction, 17(2), 156–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wallace, C. S., & Kang, N.-H. (2004). An investigation of experienced secondary science teachers’ beliefs about inquiry: An examination of competing belief sets. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(9), 936–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Education, 46(1), 71–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2007). Knowledge convergence in collaborative learning: Concepts and assessment. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 416–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yim, J. (2010). Children’s strategies for division by fractions in the context of the area of a rectangle. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 73(2), 105–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zemel, A., Xhafa, F., & Cakir, M. (2007). What’s in the mix? Combining coding and conversation analysis to investigate chat-based problem solving. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 405–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of EducationNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options