Abstract
The conception of Global Learning Communities (GLCs) was researched to discover potential benefits of the use of online technologies that facilitated communication and scientific data sharing outside of the normal classroom setting. 1,419 students in 635 student groups began the instructional unit. Students represented the classrooms of 33 teachers from the USA, 6 from Thailand, 7 from Australia, and 4 from Germany. Data from an international environmental education project were analyzed to describe grades 7–9 student scientific writing in domestic US versus international–US classroom online partnerships. The development of an argument analytic and a research model of exploratory data analysis followed by statistical testing were used to discover and highlight different ways students used evidence to support their scientific claims about temperature variation at school sites and deep-sea hydrothermal vents. Findings show modest gains in the use of some evidentiary discourse components by US students in international online class partnerships compared to their US counterparts in domestic US partnerships. The analytic, research model, and online collaborative learning tools may be used in other large-scale studies and learning communities. Results provide insights about the benefits of using online technologies and promote the establishment of GLCs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cavanaugh C, Gillan KJ, Kromrey J, Hess M, Blowmeyer R (2004) The effects of distance education on K-12 student outcomes: a meta-analysis. Learning Point Associates, North Central Regional Educational Laboratory funded by the Institute for Education Services, US Department of Education contract number ED-01-CO-0011
Driver R, Newton P, Osborne J (2000) Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Sci Educ 84:287–312
Emerson RM, Fretz RI, Shaw LL (1995) Writing ethnographic field notes. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Erduran S (2008) Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms. In: Erduran S, Jimenez-Aleixandre MP (eds) Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research. Springer, The Netherlands, pp 47–69
Finarelli M (2004) GLOBE: a worldwide environmental science and education partnership. J Sci Educ Technol 7(1):77–84
Hug B, McNeill KL (2008) Use of first-hand and second-hand data in science: does data type influence classroom conversations? Int J Sci Educ 30(13):1725–1751
Jimenez-Aleixandre MP, Reigosa C (2006) Contextualizing practices across epistemic levels in the chemistry laboratory. Sci Educ 90:707–733
Jimenez-Aleixandre MP, Rodriguez AB, Duschl RA (2000) “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: argument in high school genetics. Sci Educ 84:757–792
Kelly GJ, Chen C (1999) The sound of music: constructing science as sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse. J Res Sci Teach 36(8):883–915
Kelly GJ, Regev J, Prothero WAJ (2005) Assessing lines of evidence with argumentation analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas
Kerlin S (2009) Global learning communities: science classrooms without walls. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park
Kerlin S, McDonald S, Kelly G (2010) Complexity of secondary scientific data sources and students’ argumentative discourse. Int J Sci Educ 32(9):1207–1225
Means B, Haertel G (2004) A blueprint for a national research agenda to evaluate educational technology. In: Means B, Haertel G (eds) Using technology evaluation to enhance student learning. Teachers College Press, New York
Means B, Toyama Y, Murphy R, Bakia M, Jones K (2009) Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: a meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Project report for the US Department of Education (Contract number ED-04-CO-0040 Task 0006 with SRI International). Centre for Learning Technology
Misanchuk M, Anderson T, Craner J, Eddy P, Smith CL (2000) Strategies for creating and supporting a community of learners. Paper presented at the annual convention of the association for educational communications and technology, Denver, Colorado
National Research Council (1996) National science education standards. National Academy Press, Washington
National Research Council (2012) A Framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a conceptual framework for new K-12 science education standards. Board on science education, division of behavioral and social sciences and education. The National Academies Press, Washington
Osborne J, Erduran S, Simon S (2004) Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. J Res Sci Teach 41(10):994–1020
Picciano AG, J Seaman (2007) K-12 online learning: a survey of US school district administrators. Boston: Sloan Consortium. http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/K-12_06.asp. Accessed March 5, 2009
Sabelli N (2004) Policy, planning, and the evaluation of learning technology. In: Means B, Haertel G (eds) Using technology evaluation to enhance student learning. Teachers College Press, New York
Schwier RA, Daniel BK (2008) Implications of a virtual learning community model for designing distributed communities of practice in higher education. In: Kimbel C, Hildreth P (eds) Communities of practice: creating learning environments for educators. Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, pp 347–366
The GLOBE Program (2008) The GLOBE program. Retrieved December 15, 2008 from http://globe.gov/fsl/html/aboutglobe.cgi?vision&lang=en
Toulmin S (1958) The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Wenger E (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix 1: Examples of Discourse Component Coding
Appendix 1: Examples of Discourse Component Coding
The examples that follow illustrate coding of the five argument components identified in Stage I (Causality, Contrast, Definition, Experience, and Quantification).
The first example is a written response to a question in FLEXE Forum A from a student group in a domestic US classroom partnership. The students claim that their partner school environment has the greatest seasonal variation. The students define ‘greatest seasonal variation’ as a location that receives all seasons. Next they contrast the temperature at the three environments by describing differences between the three sites. Finally, the students’ account of their school’s local climate is based in part on experience, because they make reference to spring temperatures (the formal analyses they did as part of the activity looked at only summer and winter temperatures).
Example 1
The environment that has the greatest seasonal variation would be our partner school because they receive all seasons while here at our local school (in Florida), we mainly receive hot temperature seasons such as summer and spring, and the deep-sea hydrothermal vents have extreme heat because they are underwater volcanoes and are always producing heat.
The second example is a student argument from the FLEXE Forum B activity. This student group was in an international classroom partnership. The students claim that the energy flow processes of conduction and convection are present in all three study environments. They begin by attempting to define the process of conduction to show the range of their local air temperature. However, their description of conduction is incorrect. The students provide quantification of their local school environment and their partner school’s environment in the form of quantified temperature ranges. They contrast the two school environments by providing each temperature range. Finally, the students support their argument with causal statements. They relate warm water to changes in air temperature, stating that ocean currents move from the equator to the North Pole, causing changes in seasons.
Example 2
Conduction and convection are in all 3 environments. Conduction makes the air molecules move more rapidly when it is warmer. This shows because our air temperature goes from −5.6 to 22.2 °C and our partner school’s from −11 to 28 °C. Convection proves that the ocean currents from the equator to the North Pole give us seasons because warm water from the equator changes our seasons. Warm air in the water changes the air temperature in our region.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kerlin, S.C., Carlsen, W.S., Kelly, G.J. et al. Global Learning Communities: A Comparison of Online Domestic and International Science Class Partnerships. J Sci Educ Technol 22, 475–487 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9407-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9407-7