Organizing principles for science education partnerships: Case studies of students' learning about ‘rats in space’ and ‘deformed frogs’

  • Marcia C. Linn
  • Linda Shear
  • Philip Bell
  • James D. Slotta


We describe how science education partnerships composed of educational researchers, technologists, classroom teachers, natural scientists, and pedagogy experts can create effective instructional innovations using Internet technologies. We show that our Scaffolded Knowledge Integration framework gives partnerships a head start on effective designs. We illustrate this process with the Deformed Frogs partnership and the Rats in Space partnership. We conclude with suggestions for future partnerships.


Natural Scientist Science Education Educational Technology Head Start Classroom Teacher 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Annenberg/CPB. (1995). Science images: Computer as Learning Partner (Doug Kirkpatrick) [video]. S. Burlington, VT: NCREL.Google Scholar
  2. Bell, P. (1996).Debate as an instructional form in science education. Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  3. Bell, P. (1997). Using argument representations to make thinking visible. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.),Proceedings of CSCL '97: The Second International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (pp. 10–19). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bell, P. (1998).Designing for students' conceptual change in science using argumentation and classroom debate. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  5. Bell, P., Davis, E.A., & Linn, M.C. (1995). The knowledge integration environment: Theory and design. InProceedings of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Conference (CSCL '95: Bloomington, IN) (pp. 14–21). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  6. Brickhouse, N.W. (1994). Children's Observations, Ideas, and the Development of Classroom Theories about Light.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(6), 639–656.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings.The Journal of Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.Google Scholar
  8. Davis, E.A. (1998).Scaffolding students' reflection for science learning. Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  9. Eylon, B.S., & Linn, M.C. (1988). Learning and instruction: An examination of four research perspectives in science education.Review of Educational Research, 58(3), 251–301.Google Scholar
  10. Hsi, S., & Hoadley, C.M. (1997). Productive discussion in science: Gender equity through electronic discourse.Journal of Science Education and Technology, 6(1), 23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Keller, E.F. (1983).A feeling for the organism: The life and work of Barbara McClintock. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  12. Lakatos, I., & Musgrave, A. (Ed.). (1970).Criticism and the growth of knowledge. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Lewis, E.L. (1995).Educating hearts and minds: Reflections on Japanese preschool and elementary education. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Linn, M.C. (1992). The computer as learning partner: Can computer tools teach science? In K. Sheingold, L.G. Roberts, & S.M. Malcom (Eds.),This year in school science 1991: Technology for teaching and learning (pp. 31–69). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
  15. Linn, M.C. (1995). Designing computer learning environments for engineering and computer science: The scaffolded knowledge integration framework.Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4(2), 103–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Linn, M., Bell, P., & Hsi, S. (in press). Using the Internet to enhance student understanding of science: The Knowledge Integration Environment.Interactive Learning Environments.Google Scholar
  17. Linn, M.C., & Burbules, N.C. (1993). Construction of knowledge and group learning. In K. Tobin (Ed.),The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 91–119). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).Google Scholar
  18. Linn, M.C., & Clark, H.C. (1997). When are science projects learning opportunities?Research Matters.\narst\research\projects.htmGoogle Scholar
  19. Linn, M.C., & Eylon, B.-S. (1996). Lifelong science learning: A longitudinal case study. InProceedings of Cognitive Science Society, 1996 (pp. 597–602). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. Linn, M.C., & Muilenburg, L. (1996). Creating lifelong science learners: What models form a firm foundation?Educational Researcher, 25(5), 18–24.Google Scholar
  21. Linn, M.C., & Hsi, S. (in press.)Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  22. National Research Council. (1996).National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Research Council.Google Scholar
  23. Novak, J.D. (1968). A case study of curriculum change—Science since PSSC.School Science and Mathematics, 374–384.Google Scholar
  24. Office of Technology Assessment (1995).Teachers and technology: Making the connection. OTA-HER-616. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  25. Pea, R.D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.),Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47–87). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Salomon, G. (1990). Studying the flute and orchestra: Controlled experimentation vs. whole classroom research on computers.International Journal of Educational Research, 14, 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shear, L. (1998).When science learners are language learners: Designing linguistically aware instruction to teach science “the knew way.” (Unpublished Master's Thesis). Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
  28. Slotta, J.D., & Linn, M.C. (in press). The knowledge integration environment: Helping students use the Internet effectively. In M.J. Jacobson & R. Kozma (Eds.),Learning the sciences of the 21st century. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.Google Scholar
  29. Welch, W.W. (1979). Twenty years of science curriculum development: A look back. In D.C. Berliner (Ed.),Review of research in education (pp. 282–308). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  30. Wineburg, S., & Grossman, P. (1998). Creating a community of learners among high school teachers.Phi Delta Kappan (79), 350–353.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcia C. Linn
    • 1
  • Linda Shear
    • 1
  • Philip Bell
    • 2
  • James D. Slotta
    • 1
  1. 1.the Graduate School of EducationUniversity of California at BerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.the College of EducationUniversity of WashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations