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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
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.
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.
Blanchette, J. (2001). Questions in the online learning environment. Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 37–57.
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.
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.
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.
De Laat, M. (2006). Networked learning. The Netherlands: Politieacademie.
Garrison, D., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: a framework for research and practice. London: Routledge flamer.
Goodyear, P., & Zenios, M. (2007). Discussion, collaborative knowledge work and epistemic fluency. British Journal of Educational Studies, 55(4), 351–368.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Limon, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: a critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11, 357–380.
Lim C., & Tan S. (2001). Online discussion boards for focus group interviews: an exploratory study. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 2(1), 50–60.
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.
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.
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.
McConnell, D. (2000). Implementing computer supported cooperative learning. London: Kogan Page.
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.
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.
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.
Nott, M., & Wellington, J. (1993). Your nature of science profile—an activity for science teachers. School Science Review, 75(270), 109–112.
Penttinen, M., Anto, E., & Mikkilä-Erdmann, M. (2013). Conceptual change, text comprehension and eye movements during reading. Research in Science Education, 43, 1407–1434.
Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibrium of cognitive structure. Chicago: Chicago University.
Ravenscroft, A. (2007). Promoting thinking and conceptual change with digital dialogue games. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(6), 453–465.
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.
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.
Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345–372.
Sardone, N., & Devlin-Scherer, R. (2009). Teacher candidates’ views of digital games as learning devices. Issues in Teacher Education, 18(2), 47–67.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University.
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.
Wegerif, R. (1998). The social dimension of asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2(1), 34–49.
Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33(1), 1–30.
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.
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.
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.
Acknowledgments
InterLoc was developed by a team led by Andrew Ravenscroft with funding from the UK JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee) ‘e-learning tools’ programme, and from the JISC Capital Programme.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mansour, N., Wegerif, R., Skinner, N. et al. Investigating and Promoting Trainee Science Teachers’ Conceptual Change of the Nature of Science with Digital Dialogue Games ‘InterLoc’. Res Sci Educ 46, 667–684 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9475-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9475-9