Advertisement

Material Conditions of Collaborative Knowledge Construction: The Case of Monoplant

  • Anders I. MørchEmail author
  • Hani Murad
  • Jo Herstad
  • Sjur Seibt
  • Morten Kjelling
Chapter

Abstract

Monoplant is a prototype of an educational construction kit that provides teachers and secondary school students with hands-on experience on plant biology. We present the design rationale of Monoplant and report on its 3-week deployment in a high school classroom. The students (N = 14) used Monoplant to solve a photosynthesis assignment requiring them to compare the growth of two plants (one exposed to natural light and another to artificial green light). We used a qualitative approach to collect and analyze data, with observation, video recording, and interaction analysis as the main methods. The students worked in groups, and we video-recorded the verbal and nonverbal interactions of one group (N = 4). The two plants and Monoplant’s visualizations of the plants’ growth, together with the textbook, were the resources that the students used when solving the assignment. These material conditions provided an explorative design space for students’ collaborative learning, and many hypotheses were raised during the hands-on activity with materials and representations. Furthermore, we suggest an emergent practice based on our findings, in which teachers, and not only students, need maker spaces for creating material conditions for students’ domain-specific collaborative knowledge construction.

Keywords

Collaborative inquiry Collaborative knowledge construction Curriculum-driven vs. self-driven learning Design-based research Empirical analysis Material conditions Monoplant Photosynthesis Participatory design Physical context 

References

  1. Arduino. (2017). Open-source electronics prototyping platform. Retrieved from https://www.arduino.ccGoogle Scholar
  2. Barricelli, B. R., Fischer, G., Fogli, D., Mørch, A., Piccinno, A., & Valtolina, S. (2016). Cultures of participation in the digital age: from “have to” to “want to” participate. In Proc. NordiCHI’16. New York, NY: ACM. Article 128, 3 pages.Google Scholar
  3. Bdeir, A. (2009). Electronics as material: littleBits. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction (TEI ’09) (pp. 397–400). New York, NY: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Black, J. B., Segal, A., Vitale, J., & Fadjo, C. L. (2012). Embodied cognition and learning environment design. In D. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Cerratto Pargman, T., Knutsson, O., & Karlström, P. (2015). Materiality of online students’ peer-review activities in higher education. In Proceedings of CSCL 2015. Exploring the material conditions of learning: Opportunities and challenges for CSCL (pp. 308–315). Gothenburg: ICLS Press.Google Scholar
  6. Fielding, R. T. (2000). Architectural styles and the design of network-based software architectures. PhD thesis, Department of Information and Computer Science, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
  7. Fischer, G. (2009). End-user development and meta-design: Foundations for cultures of participation. In Proceedings IS-EUD 2009 (pp. 3–14). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Hoadley, C. (2002). Creating context: Design-based research in creating and understanding CSCL. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Proc. CSCL 2002 (pp. 453–462). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Jahnke, I. (2015). Digital didactical designs: teaching and learning in CrossActionSpaces. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Rodriguez, A., & Duschl, R. (2000). “Doing the Lesson” or “Doing Science”: Argument in high school genetic. Science Education, 84, 757–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Johri, A., & Olds, B. M. (2011). Situated engineering learning: Bridging engineering education research and the learning sciences. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), 151–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 39–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen, (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 693–719). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  14. Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  15. Ludvigsen, S. R., & Mørch, A. I. (2010). Computer-supported collaborative learning: Basic concepts, multiple perspectives, and emerging trends. In P. Peterson & B. McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (pp. 290–296). Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Marshall, P. (2007). Do tangible interfaces enhance learning? In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction (TEI’07) (pp. 163–170). New York, NY: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Murad, H., Mørch, A. I., Herstad, J., Seibt, A., & Kjelling, M. O. (2015). Monoplant: Developing an innovative CSCL application for teaching photosynthesis using multiple representations. In Proc. CSCL 2015 (pp. 817–818). Gothenburg: The International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  18. Mørch, A. I., Hartley, M. D., Ludlow, B. L., Caruso, V., & Thomassen, I. (2014). The teacher as designer: Preparations for teaching in a second life distance education course. In 2014 IEEE 14th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, Athens, 2014 (pp. 691–693). Washington, DC: IEEE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nishio, J. N. (2000). Why are higher plants green? Evolution of the higher plant photosynthetic pigment complement. Plant, Cell & Environment, 23, 953–961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95, 123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Resnick, L. B. (1987). Constructing knowledge in school. In L. S. Liben (Ed.), The Jean Piaget Symposium series. Development and learning: Conflict or congruence? (pp. 19–50). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  22. Resnick, M., Martin, F., Berg, R., Borovoy, R., Colella, V., Kramer, K., et al. (1998). Digital manipulatives: New toys to think with. In Proceedings of CHI’98 (pp. 281–287). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  23. Raspberry Pi Foundation. (2017). What is Raspberry Pi. Retrieved from https://www.raspberrypi.org/Google Scholar
  24. Säljö, R. (2010). Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: Technologies, social memory and the performative nature of learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Seibt, M., & Kjelling, M. (2014). Problems and opportunities in students’ scientific inquiry with monoplant. M.S. thesis, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo, Norway.Google Scholar
  26. Simonsen, J., & Robertson, T. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of participatory design. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Sletbakk, M., Gjærevoll, I., Håpnes, A., Hessen, D., Røsok, Ø., Borge, O., et al. (2008). BIOS Biologi 2. Oslo: Cappelen Damm.Google Scholar
  28. Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for collaborative knowledge building. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anders I. Mørch
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hani Murad
    • 2
  • Jo Herstad
    • 2
  • Sjur Seibt
    • 2
  • Morten Kjelling
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of EducationUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  2. 2.Department of InformaticsUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations