The Implementation of e-Networks to Support Inquiry Learning in Science

  • P. John Williams
  • K. Otrel-Cass
  • E. Khoo
  • B. Cowie
  • K. Saunders
  • S. Van Der Merwe
Chapter

Abstract

The successful implementation of an e-networked and information and communication technology (ICT)-supported science inquiry learning approach in secondary classrooms is dependent on a range of factors within the milieu of teacher, school and students. The teacher must have a clear understanding of the goals of the activity, the school leadership must provide effective technological infrastructure and sympathetic curriculum parameters, and the students need to be carefully scaffolded to the point of engaging with the inquiry process.

This chapter is based on the findings from a 2-year Teaching and Learning Research Initiative project—Networked Inquiry Learning in Secondary Science classrooms (NILSS)—which involved collaboration with six junior secondary science teachers in three New Zealand schools to support and investigate their planning and implementation of inquiry learning projects.

Within the study, e-networks motivated students to exercise agency, collaborate and co-construct knowledge using a wide range of resources for meaning making and expression of ideas. These outcomes were, however, contingent on the interplay of teacher organization and school provision of an effective technological infrastructure and support for flexible curriculum design.

Keywords

e-Networks ICT Inquiry learning Collaboration Student agency 

References

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., & Tuan, H.-l. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88, 397–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bolstad, R., & Buntting, C. (2013). E-in-science: future-oriented science learning. Wellington: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  3. Bolstad, R., & Gilbert, J. (2012). Supporting future-oriented learning and teaching—a New Zealand perspective. Report prepared for the Ministry of Education. Wellington: NZCER.Google Scholar
  4. Bruce, B. C., & Bishop, A. P. (2002). Using the web to support inquiry-based literacy development. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 45(8), 706–714.Google Scholar
  5. Chen, B., & Bryer, T. (2012). Investigating instructional strategies for using social media in formal and informal Learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(1), 87–104. (Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1027/2073).
  6. Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  8. Erickson, F. (2007). Ways of seeing video: Toward a phenomenology of viewing minimally edited footage. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. J. Derry, (Eds.) Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 145–155). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Engeström, Y. (1991). Developmental work research: reconstructing expertise through expansive learning. In M. Nurminen & G. Weir (Eds.), Human jobs and computer interfaces (pp. 265–290). New York, NY: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  10. Feldman, A., Konold, C., & Coulter, B. (2000). Network science, a decade later: The Internet and classroom learning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Gilbert, J. (2012). Science 2.0 and school science. New Zealand Science Teacher, 131, 5–9.Google Scholar
  12. Goldman, R., Pea, R., Barron, B. & Derry, S. J. (2007). Video research in the learning sciences. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Hipkins, R. (2006). Learning to do research: Challenges for students and teachers. Wellington: New Zealand Council For Educational Research.Google Scholar
  14. Kvavik, R. B. (2005). Convenience, communications, and control: How students use technology. In D. Oblinger & J. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the net generation (pp. 7.1–7.20). Washington, DC: EDUCAUSE. (http://www.educause.edu/research-and-publications/books/educating-net-generation).
  15. Lee, H., Linn, M. C., Varma, K., & Liu, O. L. (2010). How do technology-enhanced inquiry science units impact classroom learning? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(1), 71–90. doi:10.1002/tea.20304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2007). Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era. ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007. http://www.dlc-bc.ca/wordpress_dlc_mu/educ500/files/2011/07/mcloughlin.pdf. Accessed 24 June 2013.
  17. Merriam, S. B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  18. Roth, W. M., van Eijck, M., Reis, G., & Hsu, P. L. (2008). Authentic science revisited. Praise of diversity, heterogeneity, hybridity. Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  19. Sefton-Green, J. (2004). Literature review in informal learning with technology outside school. Bristol, UK: NESTA Futurelab. http://www.futurelab.org.uk/research/lit_reviews.htm#lr07. Accessed 24 Feb 2013.
  20. Sefton-Green, J., Nixon, H., & Erstad, O. (2009). Reviewing approaches and perspectives on “digital literacy.” Pedagogies, 4(2), 107–125. doi:10.1080/15544800902741556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Williams, J., Cowie, C., Khoo, E., Saunders, K., Taylor, S., & Otrel-Cass, K. (2013). Networked inquiry learning in secondary science classrooms. Wellington: Teaching Learning Research Initiative. Available at http://www.tlri.org.nz/sites/default/files/projects/9291_summaryreport.pdf. Accessed 24 July 2013.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. John Williams
    • 1
  • K. Otrel-Cass
    • 2
  • E. Khoo
    • 3
  • B. Cowie
    • 3
  • K. Saunders
    • 3
  • S. Van Der Merwe
    • 3
  1. 1.Technology, Environment, Maths and Science Education Research CentreUniversity of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand
  2. 2.Aalborg University, DenmarkDenmarkNew Zealand
  3. 3.University of Waikato, HamiltonHamiltonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations