Supporting Outdoor Inquiry-Learning (SOIL

This document is a pre-print of: Kali, Y., Levy, K., Levin-Peled, R., & Tal, T. (2018). Supporting Outdoor Inquiry-Learning (SOIL): Teachers as designers of mobile-assisted seamless learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12698

Supporting Outdoor Inquiry-Learning (SOIL): Teachers as Designers of Mobile-assisted Seamless Learning

Yael Kali, University of Haifa* Keren-Sarah Levy, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology Rachel Levin-Peled, University of Haifa Tali Tal, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology

*Contact details: Email—[email protected] Tel—972-54-7838028 Yael Kali is an associate professor of technology-enhanced learning at the University of Haifa. She is the director of the Learning-In-a-NetworKed-Society (LINKS) Israeli-Center-of-Research-Excellence (ICORE), and the Taking-Citizen-Science-to-School (TCSS) Center. Keren-Sarah Levy's MEd and PhD are in biology education, from the Technion, Haifa. She studies how involvement of teachers in the design of technology-enhanced learning contributes to their professional development as mentors of outdoor-inquiry. Rachel Levin-Peled PhD, leads teacher-professional-development programs at the Department of Lifelong-Learning and Professional Development in Education, University of Haifa. Her research focuses on professional-development, technology-enhanced, and inquiry-based learning. Tali Tal is an associate professor at the, Technion, Haifa. Her research focuses on learning science in informal settings, inquiry-based learning, environmental-education and learning with socio-scientific issues. Tal is the president elect of NARST.

1

This document is a pre-print of: Kali, Y., Levy, K., Levin-Peled, R., & Tal, T. (2018). Supporting Outdoor Inquiry-Learning (SOIL): Teachers as designers of mobile-assisted seamless learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12698 Abstract Extending teaching beyond the classroom walls has been known for its potential to promote inquirylearning in various disciplinary domains. Current technologies can enhance these benefits, especially by enabling supports for seamless learning between contexts. But even without technology, teachers tend to refrain from implementing outdoor-inquiry due to the many complexities involved. To address this challenge, a design-based research (DBR) was employed to develop and explore a teacher professional development (TPD) model for supporting teachers in designing TEL-environments for outdoor-inquiry. The study included two exploratory iterations, both implemented within TPD programs comprised of three stages (teachers-as-learners, teachers-as-designers, teachers-asenactors). Analysis of the TEL-environments teachers designed in the first iteration revealed insufficient supports for students’ seamless learning. Based on these findings, we developed the Supporting Outdoor Inquiry-Learning (SOIL) guidelines to support teachers in designing seamless flows of activities for learning within and between four dimensions: scientific practices, outdoor learning, physical settings, and social activity structures. Findings from the second iteration, in which the SOIL guidelines were embedded in each of the TPD stages indicate that they enabled teachers to productively analyze and design TEL-environments for outdoor-inquiry. Keywords: teachers-as-designers; outdoor-inquiry-learning; technology-enhanced learning; mobileassisted seamless learning; design-based research Practitioner notes What is already known about this topic ● Outdoor-inquiry yields important learning outcomes but is challenging to implement ● Mobile technologies can support seamless learning between in-school and out-of-school ● When teachers design their own TEL-environments they are more likely to use them What this paper adds ● Supporting seamlessness is the biggest challenge for teachers in designing mobile-assisted outdoor-inquiry-learning environments ● Four dimensions of seamlessness are involved in supporting outdoor-inquiry-learning (SOIL): scientific practices, outdoor teaching principles, physical settings, and social activity structures Implications for practice and/or policy ● Efforts should be devoted to support teachers-as-designers of mobile-assisted outdoorinquiry-learning ● Gradually embedding the SOIL dimensions in a three-stage TPD model (teachers-as-learners, teachers-as-designers, teachers-as-enactors) can assist teachers in overcoming the challenges involved

2


INTRODUCTION For decades, research in education has called for extending teaching beyond the classroom walls. Dewey, in his seminal book “Experience and Education” (1938) criticized traditional teaching for confining the learning environment to “the school environment of desks, blackboards, a small schoolyard” (p.40). Since then, it has been largely shown that settings such as nature reserves, museums and zoos can serve as exciting arenas for student learning, which can enhance the learning of content, empower students, socially and cognitively, and develop lifelong-learning (NRC, 2009). However, implementing outdoor-inquiry as a pedagogical strategy is quite challenging. As a result, many teachers refrain from extending their teaching to out-of-school environments, even if they are aware of the vast potential of such environments to support their students’ inquiry-learning. Recent advancements in information communication technologies, and especially the proliferation of cellphones and their abundance among large parts of society, have brought about new and exciting opportunities for implementing outdoor-inquiry-learning and amplifying its potential benefits. Specifically, such mobile technologies enable seamless flow of learning across contexts (Sharples, Arnedillo-Sanchez, Milard & Vavoula, 2009), which is especially useful for supporting learning that flows between the outdoors, home and classrooms. But despite the potential of mobile technologies to support outdoor inquiry-teaching and learning, new challenges are involved, as we explain below. To address these challenges, we opted to develop and explore ways to support teachers in designing their own Technology-Enhanced Learning (TEL) environments for outdoor-inquiry. Based on the literature on teachers-as-designers (e.g., Kali, McKenney & Sagy, 2015), and on teacher learning (e.g., Borko, 2004) and professional growth (e.g., Clarke and Hollingsworth, 2002), which we describe below, we conjectured that such supports would increase teachers’ likelihood to insightfully implement mobile-supported outdoor inquiry teaching. The goals of this research were to: (a) highlight the potential of implementing a teachers-as-designers of TEL approach to outdoor-inquiry-teaching, (b) point to specific challenges it involves, and (c) explore means for addressing them.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK The research literature on inquiry-based science teaching is enormous. It involves discussions and debates around questions such as what inquiry and project-based learning are, how inquiry can be taught, what are common student and teacher challenges, and what are merits and potential learning outcomes. In this short section, we narrowed our review to focus on three main challenges associated with teaching inquiry in the outdoors: challenges related to teaching inquiry in general, specific challenges related to outdoor teaching and those related to using mobile technology in outdoorinquiry. Our review of the literature culminates with the potential of teachers-as-designers of TEL, as a potential approach to address these challenges.

Inquiry-teaching Teaching through inquiry-based learning aims to develop understanding of scientific ideas and the nature of science, understanding, and use of scientific practices in conjunction with learning subject 3

This document is a pre-print of: Kali, Y., Levy, K., Levin-Peled, R., & Tal, T. (2018). Supporting Outdoor Inquiry-Learning (SOIL): Teachers as designers of mobile-assisted seamless learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12698 matter ideas and principles, and thinking skills (Crawford, 2014). In the social and cognitive domains, inquiry-teaching requires engaging students in collaborative tasks that involve reading science-related resources, asking questions, planning ways to answer questions, collecting and interpreting data, drawing conclusions, and offering new understandings. A great body of literature indicates successful inquiry-based and project-based learning (e.g., Marx et al., 2004). Yet, despite much evidence on the merits of inquiry-based learning, teachers avoid teaching through inquiry for many reasons. Epistemological, procedural, pedagogical and organizational challenges prevent meaningful fulfilment of inquiry-learning (e.g., Crawford, 2014). Often, teachers focus on teaching technical skills of measurement, documenting data, and the conditions for ensuring a successful experiment. Occasionally, hands-on activity is performed, but without enough attention to higher-order thinking (Osborne, 2014). Even less attention is given to the conceptual and epistemic aspects of the inquiry design and the data analysis processes involved in interpretation and reasoning, exploring relationships between evidence and explanations, and meaning-making activities. Students, as well, struggle mainly with epistemic characteristics of inquiry (Osborne, 2014), maybe because unlike experimental procedures these aspects do not get enough attention in classrooms. When teachers understand the multiple ways inquiry can be conducted and are comfortable about teaching non-prescriptive inquiry, student learning outcomes, and student and teacher satisfaction increase (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007). TPD programs can help teachers overcome these challenges by supporting their development of the concept of inquiry-learning and by providing them with opportunities to practice inquiry-teaching in a variety of settings (Blanchard, Southerland & Granger, 2009).

Outdoor education Studies show the important role that nature plays in child development and in human wellbeing. Natural environments provide children with many opportunities for play and learning, enabling sensory experiences, wonder, and amusement (White, 2004). A comprehensive review of outdoor education indicated the substantial contribution of fieldwork, when it: addresses the unique features of the environment, makes connections to students' life experiences, enables choice, encourages social interaction, and is well-mediated (Dillon et al., 2006; Tal, 2016). When children are involved in collaborative out-of-classroom learning practice, their experiences boost their self-confidence and self-esteem, and also lead to knowledge development and more meaningful learning (Bamberger & Tal, 2008; NRC, 2009). With all these merits, one might wonder why the implementation of outdoor learning as a pedagogical approach decreases internationally. Some reasons include: safety issues; physical challenges; controlling student behavior; teachers’ struggle to cover curriculum in a high-stake assessment climate; and inadequate content knowledge (Dillon et al., 2006). In addition to these administrative challenges of implementing outdoor learning, inquiry-learning in an outdoor environment is even more challenging because natural phenomena cannot easily be represented by simple relationships, and the hypothetico-deductive approach, typically used in schoollabs, cannot provide a “one-fits-all” procedure to follow. Thus, in planning valuable outdoor-inquiry, it is important that good preparation and follow-up activities are planned and executed, in order to promote seamless learning across contexts, and active learning in various scientific practices (Orion, 1993). Furthermore, it is important to allow enough opportunities for students to engage with the 4

This document is a pre-print of: Kali, Y., Levy, K., Levin-Peled, R., & Tal, T. (2018). Supporting Outdoor Inquiry-Learning (SOIL): Teachers as designers of mobile-assisted seamless learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12698 environment, and that the teacher will be involved throughout the process (Lavie-Alon & Tal, 2017; Tal et al., 2014). The challenges of implementing outdoor-inquiry and applying appropriate teaching approaches has led to a decrease in the scope of fieldwork required by the Ministry of Education in Israel, where this study took place, and to outsourcing its practice in the form of “prêt-à-porter” programs offered to schools by informal organizations, and less direct involvement of teachers in outdoor education (Tal, 2016).

Using mobile technology in outdoor-inquiry The use of mobile devices for educational purposes has been growing rapidly in recent years, and is considered, together with other technologies such as probeware and sensors, social media, and cloud computing, as technologies that have the potential to “revolutionize science teaching and learning” (Metz, 2014). However, alongside the excitement that various research projects have conveyed regarding this potential, challenges have also been reported. A recent systematic review of research on the use of mobile technology-based programs in K-12 settings between 2010 and 2015 (Crompton, Burke & Gregory, 2017) revealed that although most studies report positive outcomes, too often mobile technologies are used to enable students’ consumption of information in various settings, rather than to support inquiry-learning and co-creation of knowledge. Furthermore, a meta-analysis on the integration of mobile devices with teaching and learning (Sung, Chang and Liu, 2016) indicates that “one of the largest obstacles to implementing effective mobile learning programs is insufficient preparation of the teachers” (p.266). This is especially true in programs that seek to implement the full potential of mobile technologies to support seamless learning across contexts. An example of such a program is described by Sharples et al. (2015) who used a system called nQuire. The system guides students through an entire inquiry process that connects structured learning in the classroom with discovery and data collection at home or outdoors. Following their analysis of the ways nQuire was used by teachers and students, Sharples et al. found that lessons designed to integrate data collected outside the classroom, which require teacher support in helping students share and interpret their findings are particularly demanding. They conclude that “if this method of personally meaningful inquiry-learning is to be more widely adopted, then teachers will require professional training and development to manage the new pedagogy” (p.336). Some of the challenges for teachers in implementing mobile outdoor-inquiry are also illustrated in Jong and Tsai’s (2016) study regarding their use of EduVenture—a mobile-assisted learning system designed to help teachers facilitate their students’ outdoor-inquiry. In this study, the concerns of more than 300 Liberal Arts teachers in Hong Kong were analyzed. Findings indicate that management concerns were most prominent. To address some of these challenges, efforts have been made in recent years to design TPD programs to support enactment of mobile-supported curricula. For instance, Looi et al. (2017) describe a TPD model designed to support teachers in the delivery of a science curriculum that utilizes a mobile application specifically designed for this purpose, and highlight the model’s potential to encourage teachers to employ constructivist-oriented patterns of teaching (as opposed to more traditional patterns). The types of efforts described above typically involve the use of dedicated tools and programs designed to support teachers and students in the implementation of mobile-supported curricula. However, mobile-assisted learning environments can easily (at least in terms of technicality) be developed and enacted nowadays using free Web apps that are designed for general purposes. These can support co-creation of knowledge using the smartphone standard capabilities of recording and 5

This document is a pre-print of: Kali, Y., Levy, K., Levin-Peled, R., & Tal, T. (2018). Supporting Outdoor Inquiry-Learning (SOIL): Teachers as designers of mobile-assisted seamless learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12698 sharing text, sound and video, embedded into collaborative documents. In the current research we chose to use the Google Apps set of tools (i.e., Docs, Sheets, Sites and Forms), to serve as the technological infrastructure for our TPD program due to their wide use and familiarity among teachers and students in Israeli schools.

Design-based research and principled-practical knowledge Since our approach in this study was exploratory, using interventionist and design means, we opted to employ a design-based research (DBR) methodological approach. DBR aims at deriving new understandings about learning through conducting exploratory iterative interventions in specific educational contexts, each involving refinements to designed learning environments, their enactment, and data analysis, to inform both theoretical and practical outcomes (e.g., DBRC, 2003). Typically, these outcomes are based on analyses that refer to design-principles of an intervention, rather than aspire to isolate the effect of specific variables (e.g., Kali 2006). DBR has been developed to bring research and practice closer together since it takes place in authentic complex settings and therefore has the potential to be ecologically valid, leading to findings that may be usable and adaptable by practitioners. In recent years, though, critical reports have questioned the applicability and adaptability of many DBR outcomes (e.g., Bereiter, 2014; 2015) and calls have been made for design researchers to produce more generalizable and practical knowledge outcomes. Bereiter argues that the outcomes of DBR should include what he named Principled-Practical Knowledge (PPK). PPK, he maintains, has some characteristics of scientific theory (‘know-why’), being explanatory in its nature, and based on coherence with other explanatory propositions in the field. However, PPK‘s main function is practical guidance (‘know-how’), which speaks directly to the types of problems that practitioners address in the course of their work. Kidron and Kali (2017) show how instructional models, which embed, and make visible design-principles that have been iteratively enhanced with practical knowledge, can serve as such PPK. The current research takes the notion of PPK a step further by seeking not only to use DBR outcomes to produce practical guidelines for teaching technologyenhanced outdoor-inquiry, but also to assess their principled-practical use, as we explain in the analysis section.

METHOD We base our analysis on a combination of three lenses: SOIL, PPK, and the interconnected model of professional growth (IMPG)—which we describe below. Table-1 maps out the rationale and use of these lenses throughout the research. Table-1. Rationale and use of the SOIL, PPK and IMPG lenses SOIL

PPK

IMPG

Rationale

Enable characterization of TEL environments designed by teachers

Enable characterization of the knowledge developed by teachers

Enable characterization of teacher professional development

Use

 Emerged inductively. Used to characterize TEL-environments designed in iteration-1

 Used to analyze knowledge developed by Hana in iteration2, and to examine whether the whether the SOIL dimensions served as PPK

 Used to analyze professional growth that Hana went through during, and following TPD program

See Findings/Iteration-1: Challenges

See Findings/Itreation-2: Hana’s Professional growth

6

This document is a pre-print of: Kali, Y., Levy, K., Levin-Peled, R., & Tal, T. (2018). Supporting Outdoor Inquiry-Learning (SOIL): Teachers as designers of mobile-assisted seamless learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12698  Used to analyze TELenvironment in case-study iteration-2

See Findings/Itreation-2: Hana’s development of PPK

See Findings/Itreation-2: Analysis of Hana’s team TELenvironment

Teachers-as-designers of TEL The decision to employ a teachers-as-designers of TEL approach in the current study was based on a review of the literature, published as an introduction to a special issue regarding this approach (Kali, McKenney & Sagy, 2015), delineating five main types of motives for its implementation: (1) potential for improved student learning due to teachers’ tailoring of TEL-environments for specific classrooms with particular learners (e.g., Corcoran & Siladner, 2009; Matuk, Linn & Eylon, 2015), (2) means for achieving curricular change and adoption of innovation (e.g., McKenney, 2005), (3) way to increase practicality and applicability of the designed TEL-environments (e.g., Goodyear, 2015; Kidron & Kali, 2017), (4) method for increasing ownership and commitment of teachers for implementation (e.g., Cober, Tan, Slotta, So, & Könings, 2015; Cviko, McKenney, & Voogt, 2014), and (5) providing a rich, authentic and practical context for teacher learning about technology use in education (e.g., Koehler & Mishra, 2005; Voogt et al., 2015). It is important to note though, that in addition to the potential benefits delineated above, adopting a teachers-as-designers of TEL approach poses various challenges for teachers. McKenny, Kali, Markauskaite and Voogt (2015), in their review of what they call the “realist strand” in the teachersas-designers of TEL literature (i.e., what designers actually do, how they do it and why they do it, including teachers’ design beliefs, design thinking, design cognition and design knowledge) conclude that “teachers often take a pragmatic approach toward design: prioritizing the practical use of designs and privileging feasibility, in ways that are congruent with their own beliefs and convictions” (p.187). Although such a pragmatic approach is extremely important considering the likelihood that teachers would take a role of designers—supporting teachers throughout the design process is crucial.

The interconnected model of professional growth (IMPG) Highly relevant to designing supports for teachers-as-designers is the body of knowledge that has been developed through decades of research in the area of teacher learning (e.g., Putnam & Borko, 2000) and professional development (e.g., Borko 2004). In this regard, Clarke and Hollingsworth (2002) developed the IMPG as a conceptual model for understanding teacher professional development (Figure-1). They identified four distinct domains, which encompass the teacher's world, and serve, through mediating processes of enactment or reflection, as resources for change: An external domain (e.g., a professional discussion with a colleague); teacher's personal domain (individual knowledge, beliefs and attitudes); teacher's domain of practice (the class, or any other practical experience); and the domain of consequences (salient outcomes that result from pedagogical experimenting). The IMPG framework refers to professional growth as a never-ending process of learning in which a change (through enactment or reflection) in one domain may lead to a change in another. Professional growth is indicated by "growth networks"—change sequences that involve long term improvement. In the current study the IMPG framework is used to characterize teacher professional growth in relation to a TPD program that we have developed to support teachers-as-designers of outdoor-inquiry-learning. 7


Figure-1. The interconnected model of professional growth (from Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002)

Iterations and design of the TPD model and the SOIL dimensions The study included two exploratory iterations, both implemented within TPD programs that took place at a science and technology education oriented department of a university in Israel. The design of the TPD program in both iterations was based on a three-stage approach for supporting teaching as design (Levy et al., 2015): (a) teachers-as-learners who experience outdoor-inquiry-learning, (b) teachers-asdesigners who develop their own outdoor-inquiry TEL-environments, and (c) teachers-as-enactors of innovation who pilot enactment of the activities they design. The teachers-as-designers stage in both iterations was conducted using Kali and Ronen-Fuhrmann’s (2011) model for teaching educationaltechnology design, including three main constructs: structuring the design process, building on expert design-knowledge, and dialogic learning in a design-studio format. In both iterations teachers worked in teams of 2-4 to develop a pilot TEL-environment for outdoor-inquiry-learning in a botanical garden located within the university. However, a major change was incorporated within the design of the TPD program in the second iteration, as a result of our analysis of the first one. As we illustrate in the findings, the greatest challenge teachers struggled with in the first iteration was designing activities that support seamless learning across various contexts and practices. Based on the analysis of these challenges, we identified four dimensions across which seamlessness is required for supporting outdoor-inquiry-learning (SOIL): (a) employing various scientific practices, (b) applying outdoor teaching pedagogical principles, (c) acting in multiple physical settings, and (d) working within various social activity structures. This finding served to refine the design of the TPD model for iteration2. That is, the SOIL dimensions, which emerged from our analysis of iteration-1, were added to the design of the TPD model in the second iteration to better guide teachers’ design of SOIL activities in their TEL-environments. We assumed that embedding the SOIL model within each of the three stages of the TPD would support teachers, specifically in those areas that we identified as challenging. To support teachers in developing deep understanding and insightful employment of the SOIL dimensions we embedded them gradually (experience-reflect-analyze-employ-enact-reflect on practice), as illustrated in Table-2.

8


Table-2. The TPD model in iteration-2: Embedding the SOIL dimensions into the design of the threestage program Stage in TPD

Teachers-aslearners

TPD activities and use of the SOIL dimensions (increasing application)

Teachers experience three cycles of mobile-enhanced outdoor-inquiry-learning in three content areas: archaeology, social sciences, ecology Each cycle is designed to support teachers’ seamless learning in each of the four SOIL dimensions. This enables teachers to experience the pedagogical approach, including mobile-supported seamless learning, as an anchor for conceptualization of the SOIL dimensions in the next stage.

Teachers-asdesigners

To support teachers in developing deep understanding of the SOIL dimensions introduced to them at this stage, the first f2f activity in this stage involves teachers in reflection and analysis of their own experiences in the outdoor-inquiry activities from the previous stage, in terms of the SOIL dimensions.

Time allocated in TPD (Total: 60 hours spanning 6 months) 36 hours: 3 field-trips, each with preparation and follow-up activities that took place asynchronously

20 hours: 4 f2f meetings of 4 hours each, and one synchronous meeting (with each design group)

To support teachers in insightful employment of the SOIL dimensions, the rest of the meetings are conducted using Kali and Ronen-Fuhrmann’s (2011) model for teaching educational-technology design, in which the SOIL dimensions serve as means to employ the “building on expert design-knowledge”. Teachers-asenactors of innovation

Teachers pilot enactment of the TEL-environments with the TPD peer teachers. Teachers reflect on practice based on peer-feedback using the SOIL dimensions

4 hours: 1-hour online preparation 2-hour parallel enactments in botanical garden 1-hour f2f peer feedback and reflection in class

It is important to note that the SOIL dimensions resonate well with ten dimensions identified by Wong and Looi (2011) in their review of the literature on mobile-assisted seamless learning (MSL).

Participants Iteration-1 included 24 (7 teams) leading teachers in biology and environmental studies, all with considerable teaching-experience (M=17.5, Range 10-to-30 years). We assumed that teachers with such experience and leadership will be able to handle the complications involved in a first designiteration (DBRC, 2003). Iteration-2 included 17 (6 teams) teachers in various content areas, with less teaching-experience (M=8.8, Range 1-to-20 years), who were interested in outdoor-inquiry-teaching. The rationale was to examine the use of the SOIL-enhanced TPD model, with more ‘ordinary’ teachers. 9


Data-Sources 1. 13 TEL-environments designed and developed in both iterations 2. 13 Reflective analysis documents teachers wrote regarding the TEL-environments they designed (as part of the “reflection-on-practice” part of the TPD in Table-1) 3. 18 transcripts of 45-minute post interviews with teachers (9 for each iteration)

Analysis Iteration-1: Content analysis Inductive content analysis of the 7 TEL-environments designed by teachers in iteration-1 was used for identifying challenges in designing outdoor inquiry TEL-environments. Two of the researchers who conducted the analysis initially suggested various categories for characterizing the activities in the TELenvironments in terms of their potential to support outdoor-inquiry-learning. These categories were merged and refined in several cycles until the four SOIL dimensions for supporting seamless learning between activities were derived, and validated with the other two researchers. Deductive content analysis using the SOIL dimensions was employed to characterize the supports for seamless learning between activities in the 7 TEL-environments designed by teachers. We used both an ‘activity’ and a ‘whole environment’ as units of analysis. Individual activities were characterized for their quality in terms of the relevant items in the SOIL dimensions. Then, the whole TEL-environment was characterized for its capacity to support seamless learning across activities in each of the SOIL dimensions. The analysis was corroborated through inter-rater reliability conducted by the two researchers who coded the activities and the two other researchers, reaching nearly a 100% agreement.

Iteration-2: Exemplary case-study approach An exemplary case-study approach was used to characterize the potential of the SOIL-enhanced TPD model to support teachers in designing mobile-supported TEL-environments for outdoor-inquirylearning. The exemplary case approach enables to convey profound information about a case that allows readers to anchor the described case to their own working or research context (Tal et al., 2014; Yin, 2009). Exemplary case analysis often involves data collected from various resources such as observations, interviews and artifacts, which are analyzed according to a relevant conceptual framework. For the exemplary case in iteration-2, the IMPG framework was used to characterize professional growth in relation to the SOIL dimensions (which emerged from iteration-1). The rationale for choosing the case was guided by our wish to characterize the potential of the SOIL dimensions to support teachers-as-designers of seamless outdoor-inquiry-learning, as well as our commitment to provide a rich description of a representative case. We chose to focus on one team of two teachers, one of which—Hana—was specifically prominent. During the TPD meetings Hana was one of the most active teachers in the program. She participated in all meetings, completed all assignments, and was especially dominant within her team during the teachers-as-designers stage. Therefore, we view her case as highlighting the potential of the program. We also view Hana as a representative case, since she had eight years of experience as a biology teacher, which is just below the average of the ‘ordinary’ cohort of participants in iteration-2. Like many of the other teachers, Hana held a first degree (in Biology). Hana also held a (non-thesis) second degree in educational 10

This document is a pre-print of: Kali, Y., Levy, K., Levin-Peled, R., & Tal, T. (2018). Supporting Outdoor Inquiry-Learning (SOIL): Teachers as designers of mobile-assisted seamless learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12698 technology, but as indicated from the analysis, it was her commitment to the program, much more than her background, which enabled her to realize the potential of the program.

FINDINGS Iteration-1: Challenges in designing supports for seamless learning To convey the challenges encountered by teachers in this iteration, we provide a brief description and examples from the various teams’ designs illustrating poor supports for seamless learning between activities in each of the SOIL dimensions (Table-3). Table-3. Supports designed by teachers in iteration-1 illustrating poor seamlessness SOIL dimension

Supports designed by teachers

SOIL-1 Scientific practices

All teams designed supports for students to carry out various scientific processes, but, in most teams, coherence and seamlessness between these practices was lacking. E.g., a TELenvironment with good explanations on using sticky-traps to estimate the number of insects, but missing supports for deciding where to place these traps in relation to a water source (team-7); Well-designed supports for students to collect data on plankton in the field, but no instructions or supports for their interpretation (team-3).

SOIL-2 Outdoor teaching pedagogical principles

Most teams designed preparation, fieldwork and follow-up activities, and used the mobile technologies to do so. However, in most cases the seamless flow between them was lacking. E.g., a TEL-environment in which information needed for the preparation at home, appeared in the data collection sheet introduced and used in the field (team-4); A pre-questionnaire aimed to contextualize the inquiry activity was given as an individual preparation activity, but was not addressed in the field or in the follow-up activity (team-1).

SOIL-3 Physical settings

All teams designed activities for various physical settings, but most lacked supports for a good flow between them. E.g., activities, designed to be carried out in the outdoors were placed in the “homework” sections (team-6).

SOIL-4 Social activity structures

None of the teams designed activities that reused student created artifacts between individuals, teams and whole class. E.g., a TELenvironment in which all activities were designed for teamwork with no whole-class activities at all. The only individual work was the preparation questionnaire, which was not reused in later activities (team-2).

Iteration-2: The potential of the SOIL-enhanced TPD model to support teachersas-designers of seamless outdoor-inquiry-learning Hana’s team developed a 13-hour TEL-environment spanning three weeks for high-school students’ exploration of biotic and abiotic factors influencing plants. In this section we first describe the TEL11

This document is a pre-print of: Kali, Y., Levy, K., Levin-Peled, R., & Tal, T. (2018). Supporting Outdoor Inquiry-Learning (SOIL): Teachers as designers of mobile-assisted seamless learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12698 environment, then analyze it using the SOIL dimensions, and finally, characterize Hana’s professional growth and development of PPK with relation to SOIL using Clarke and Hollingsworth’s (2002) IMPG framework.

The TEL-environment designed by Hana’s team ●

●

●

Preparation activities were designed to take place at the students’1 homes in four asynchronous hours, spanning ten days. The website’s homepage included a presentation of the topic indicating goals and describing the learning process. Additional pages included links to various information resources. Students were asked to choose one of the resources and contribute a short summary in a designated area in a shared document embedded in the website. Then, using another shared document, students were guided to organize into groups. Each group was asked to raise three inquiry questions related to the main theme of the wholeclass inquiry topic. All questions were pooled for the use of all students. The preparation also included information about available data collection tools, so that groups would be able to plan their fieldwork, as well as detailed information regarding activities, timelines, and ways to prepare for the physical settings. Fieldwork activities were designed for three hours in the botanical garden, which started with a short whole-group tour, guided by Hana’s team. Then each group collected data to answer the inquiry question they chose earlier. The website, which Hana and her team adapted for mobile use, included guidelines for conducting the inquiry, as well as a form to be used with cell-phones for logging the data. Students were advised to replicate measurements, and contribute more data than needed to answer their own question, to generate a rich pool of data for the use of all groups. Follow-up activities were designed for six hours in two face-to-face meetings and individual asynchronous work at home. These included detailed guidelines for processing and analyzing the data collected in the field, which automatically transferred to a collaborative sheet. Students were guided to contribute graphs and charts representing their findings into shared slides towards a whole-class presentation and discussion that Hana and her team led. At home, students were asked to search for technological implications that exemplify principles they found during the inquiry. Students contributed their examples using a shared notepad app, and commented on peers’ notes, using prompts prepared by Hana’s team.

Analysis of Hana’s team TEL-environment according to the SOIL dimensions We claim that the TEL-environment designed by Hana and her teammate described above constitutes a sequence of activities that productively supports a seamless flow of learning in all SOIL dimensions. It also takes good advantage of mobile and stable technologies, as well as of the Google Apps affordances, to design simple (in terms of technology), but powerful (in terms of pedagogy) seamless learning. Following is our interpretation of the quality of this sequence of activities in terms of the SOIL dimensions: ● SOIL-1. The supports for seamless learning of scientific practices start with providing students with scientific resources to be summarized and shared for the purpose of raising research 1

Activities were designed for students, but piloted with peer teachers. Still, we use the term ‘students’ when describing both the design and pilot enactment.

12


●

●

●

questions. Then, the use of these questions guide data-collection and consideration of appropriate tools. These data are then corroborated with data collected by others, before they are used to develop insights with regards to the research questions. Finally, this is followed by discussing insights, and considering (technological) implications. SOIL-2. The sequence described above also demonstrates supporting a seamless flow of learning between outdoor-inquiry-teaching principles. Specifically, Hana’s team designed preparation activities to reduce cognitive, geographic, and psychologic novelty (Orion, 1993) by providing students with information and experiences regarding ideas, places and situations they are to encounter in the fieldwork. Then, they made sure to activate students’ prior knowledge while engaging in active fieldwork, and finally, they designed activities to further use resources from the fieldwork in the follow-up activities to develop insights regarding the phenomena explored. SOIL-3. This sequence aligns almost one-to-one with supporting seamless learning between multiple physical settings, with pre-activities designed to take place at home; fieldwork in the outdoors; and the follow-up in class and at home. SOIL-4. Supports for seamless learning between multiple social activity structures were much more abundant in the design, moving back and forth between individual, small group and whole-class work.

Hana’s Professional growth and development of PPK The post-interview with Hana provides an additional lens for characterizing the potential of the SOILenhanced TPD to support teachers in designing, but also in enacting mobile-supported inquirylearning with their students. As indicated in the excerpts below, this involves professional growth in the three interconnected domains in Clarke & Hollingsworth’s (2002) model, i.e., the personal domain (knowledge, beliefs and attitude), the domain of practice (professional experimentation), and domain consequence (salient outcomes). This growth can also be interpreted as the development of PPK (Bereiter, 2014; 2015) with regards to the SOIL dimensions. Below, we provide evidence for each of these processes, as depicted by five excerpts from the interview with Hana: Excerpt-a. …the TPD program combined several things together; the inquiry-teaching, which I was very familiar with, the technology and the pedagogy. Having all these put together—this was the thing that contributed mostly for me in the program. The above excerpt indicates a change in Hana’s knowledge (personal domain), as she perceives it, which resulted mainly from making new connections between previously developed areas of knowledge during the TPD program. More direct evidence about Hana’s development of deep understanding of the SOIL dimensions (knowledge in the personal domain) can be found in her written reflective analysis of her teams’ TELenvironment. For instance, in relation to supporting seamless learning within scientific practices (SOIL1), she says: Excerpt-b. …[in the TEL-environment we designed] students collect data and need to choose which data is relevant to their inquiry. They need to process them and represent

13

This document is a pre-print of: Kali, Y., Levy, K., Levin-Peled, R., & Tal, T. (2018). Supporting Outdoor Inquiry-Learning (SOIL): Teachers as designers of mobile-assisted seamless learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12698 them graphically, which indicates a cognitive process for which the outcome is that the learner acquires and presents knowledge. In relation to supporting seamless learning between physical settings (SOIL-3), she says: Excerpt-c. We supported seamless learning between physical settings of the home, where students learned in front of their computers, to the field and back to the classroom, which contributed to the processing of data and the summary. This flow provides students with an opportunity to learn in various environments in a sequence that makes sense for inquiry work. Another piece of evidence that the interview with Hana exposed the value she found in the threestage TPD program in which the SOIL dimensions were embedded, and the change of attitude she shows toward designing and developing TEL-environments: Excerpt-d. In the second stage [teacher-as-designers stage of the program] I learned how to implement this. If I would have settled with [participating only in] the first stage, which I really liked, I wouldn’t have implemented it in class. It’s a fact—I didn’t. But building it [the TEL-environment] gave me a big push. Hana also experienced change that involved professional experimentation (domain of practice) following the TPD program, as part of her continued work as a teacher: Excerpt-e. …[following the TPD program] I have built a PBL [problem-based learning] website for my students, which is a little bit similar to the one we built in the TPD program. I used the same principles of [supporting the work of] the individual, the group and the whole class…. The above excerpt also indicates that the change in her practical knowledge has been rooted and coupled with principled knowledge (i.e., the SOIL dimensions served as PPK) regarding ways to support seamless learning between various social activity structures (SOIL-4), and that she had transferred this knowledge to an additional context (supporting PBL). Figure-2 illustrates Hana’s professional growth network using the IMPG framework (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002). The sequence of processes is represented by the numbered arrows: 1-growth in knowledge regarding the SOIL dimension (personal domain) [excerpts-a,b,c]; 2-growth in domain of practice as part of TPD [excerpts-b,c]; 3,4-positive change in attitude towards designing TEL environments [excerpt-d]; 5-growth in domain of practice on own, following TPD [excerpt-e].

14


Figure-2. Analysis of Hana’s growth network based on Clarke and Holligsworth’s (2002) IMPG framework

LESSONS LEARNED As indicated earlier, the research literature documents many challenges teachers face while teaching inquiry in general, and outdoor inquiry, in particular. The SOIL dimensions, embedded within the TPD model served as guidelines for teachers to design their own outdoor-inquiry-learning and to insightfully employ research-based pedagogical principles regarding ways to support students to develop and use scientific practices. In addition, the SOIL-enhanced TPD model helped teachers design sequences of activities that insightfully span over multiple social activity structures (Kali, Levin-Peled & Dori, 2009), use various physical environments in ways that encourage lifelong-learning regardless of where this learning takes place (Wong & Looi, 2011), and finally—feel comfortable with using multiple technological tools to enable all the above in coherent ways, supporting seamless flow of learning across contexts (Sharples et al., 2009). We add to previous work on mobile-assisted learning the evidence that with proper support, teachers can successfully overcome the challenges involved in supporting both mobile learning and outdoor-inquiry-learning, and experience meaningful professional growth (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002) in these areas. In this way, this paper bridges four fields of research: teachers-as-designers, teacher professional learning, seamless mobile learning and outdoor education. Furthermore, the case of Hana and her teammate illustrates how teachers who participated in the SOIL-enhanced TPD not only developed their practical knowledge to design mobile-assisted outdoorinquiry, but also developed a deep understanding of its underlying principles, as well as positive attitude toward designing TEL-environments. If we refer to Bereiter’s (2014; 2015) call for researchers to generate PPK that would provide practitioners with guidance that combines ‘know-how’ and ‘knowwhat’ notions, emerging from DBR studies—the current study illustrates how this can be achieved. Specifically, insights gained through iteration-1 in our DBR study, in which the four dimensions of challenges in supporting seamless learning emerged, served well to generate PPK—the SOIL

15

This document is a pre-print of: Kali, Y., Levy, K., Levin-Peled, R., & Tal, T. (2018). Supporting Outdoor Inquiry-Learning (SOIL): Teachers as designers of mobile-assisted seamless learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12698 guidelines. These in turn, assisted teachers both in their practice and in their development of principled understanding in iteration-2. Finally, earlier research studies (e.g., Wong & Looi, 2011) have identified gaps, characterized dimensions and provided design-principles for guiding practitioners in designing activities that support seamless learning between the in-school and out-of-school environments. The current study indicates that such guidelines (e.g., the SOIL dimensions) can serve as a productive means for practitioners when gradually embedded within a three-stage TPD program, in which the guidelines are used to reflect and analyze learning experiences (teachers-as-learners), guide design of TEL-environments (teachers-asdesigners), practice enactment and provide peer-feedback (teachers-as-enactors).

Acknowledgements This research was supported by the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology and by the I-CORE Program of the Planning and Budgeting Committee and The Israel Science Foundation grant 1716/12.

Statements on ethics and conflict of interest There are no conflicts of interest involved in this study. We followed ethics rules and regulations—all teachers gave their consent to participate in the study and to publish its findings. All names in this article have been replaced with pseudonyms and identifying information has been removed.

REFERENCES Bamberger, Y., & Tal, T. (2008). Multiple outcomes of class visits to natural history museums: The students’ view. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(3), 274–284. Bereiter, C. (2014). Principled practical knowledge: Not a bridge but a ladder. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 4-17. Bereiter, C. (2015). The Practicality of Principled Practical Knowledge: A Response to Janssen, Westbroek, and Doyle. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(1), 187–192. Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., & Granger, E. M. (2009). No silver bullet for inquiry: Making sense of teacher change following an inquiry‐based research experience for teachers. Science Education, 93(2), 322–360. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational researcher, 33(8), 3-15. Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and teacher education, 18(8), 947-967. Cober, R., Tan, E., Slotta, J., So, H. J., & Könings, K. D. (2015). Teachers as participatory designers: Two case studies with technology-enhanced learning environments. Instructional Science, 43(2), 203-228. Corcoran, T., & Silander, M. (2009). Instruction in high schools: The evidence and the challenge. The Future of Children, 19(1), 157-183. Crawford, B. A. (2014). From inquiry to scientific practices in the science classroom. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 515–541). New York: Routledge. Crompton, H., Burke, D., & Gregory, K. H. (2017). The use of mobile learning in PK-12 education: A systematic review. Computers and Education, 110, 51–63. 16

This document is a pre-print of: Kali, Y., Levy, K., Levin-Peled, R., & Tal, T. (2018). Supporting Outdoor Inquiry-Learning (SOIL): Teachers as designers of mobile-assisted seamless learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12698 Cviko, A. McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2014). Teachers as co-designers of a technology-rich learning activities for emergent literacy. Technology, Pedagogy and Education. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education New York. Touchstone, 18. Dillon, J., Rickinson, M., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M.-Y., Sanders, D., & Benefield, P. (2006). The value of outdoor learning: evidence from research in the UK and elsewhere. School Science Review, 87, 107–111. Goodyear, P. (2015). Teaching as design. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 2, 27-50. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and inquiry-learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107. Jong, M. S. Y., & Tsai, C. C. (2016). Understanding the concerns of teachers about leveraging mobile technology to facilitate outdoor social inquiry-learning: the EduVenture experience. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(2), 328-344. Kali, Y. (2006). Collaborative knowledge building using the Design Principles Database. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 187-201. Kali, Y., Levin-Peled, R., & Dori, Y. J. (2009). The role of design-principles in designing courses that promote collaborative learning in higher-education. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(5), 1067-1078. Kali, Y., McKenney, S., & Sagy, O. (Eds.). (2015). Teachers as designers of technology-enhanced learning [Special issue]. Instructional Science, 43(2). Kali, Y., & Ronen-Fuhrmann, T. (2011). Teaching to design educational technologies. International Journal of Learning and Technology, 6(1), 4-23. Kidron,A., & Kali,Y. (2017). Extending the applicability of design-based research through researchpractice partnerships. EDeR. Educational Design Research, 1(2). Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131-152. Lavie-Alon, N., & Tal, T. (2017). Teachers as secondary players: Involvement in field trips to natural environments. Research in Science Education, 47, 869-887. Levy, K. S., Kali, Y., & Tal, T. (2015). Teachers as Designers of Technology-Enhanced outdoor-inquiry. Interdisciplinary Journal of e-Skills and Lifelong Learning, 11, 209-235. Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., Geier, R., & Tal, R. T. (2004). Inquiry‐based science in the middle grades: Assessment of learning in urban systemic reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1063–1080. Matuk, C. F., Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B. S. (2015). Technology to support teachers using evidence from student work to customize technology-enhanced inquiry units. Instructional Science, 43(2), 229-257. McKenney, S. (2005). Technology for curriculum and teacher development: Software to help educators learn while designing teacher guides. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(2) 167-190. McKenney, S., Kali, Y., Markauskaite, L., & Voogt, J. (2015). Teacher design knowledge for technology enhanced learning: an ecological framework for investigating assets and needs. Instructional science, 43(2), 181-202. 17

This document is a pre-print of: Kali, Y., Levy, K., Levin-Peled, R., & Tal, T. (2018). Supporting Outdoor Inquiry-Learning (SOIL): Teachers as designers of mobile-assisted seamless learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12698 Metz, S. (2014). Science teaching and learning in the 21st century. The Science Teacher, 81(6), 6. NRC. (2009). Learning science in informal environments. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council. Orion, N. (1993). A model for the development and implementation of field trips as an integral part of the science curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 93(6), 325-331. Osborne, J. (2014). Scientific Practices and Inquiry in the Science Classroom. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 579–599). NY: Routledge. Sun, D., & Looi, C.-K. (2017). Boundary interaction: Towards developing a mobile technology-enabled science curriculum to integrate learning in the informal spaces. British Journal of Educational Technology, https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12555. Sharples, M., Arnedillo-Sanchez, I., Millard, M., & Vavoula, G. (2009). Mobile learning: Small devices, big issues. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. De Jong, A. Lazonder, & S. Barnes (Eds.), TechnologyEnhanced Learning: Principles and Products. Sharples, M., Scanlon, E., Ainsworth, S., Anastopoulou, S., Collins, T., Crook, C., ... & O’Malley, C. (2015). Personal inquiry: Orchestrating science investigations within and beyond the classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(2), 308-341. Sung, Y.-T., Chang, K.-E., & Liu, T.-C. (2016). The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching and learning on students’ learning performance: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Computers & Education, 94, 252–275. Tal, T. (2016). From schools to nature: Bridging learning environments in Israel. In: M-H.Chiu (Ed.). Science education research and practices in Asia: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 539-552). Springer. Tal, T., Lavie-Alon, N., & Morag, O. (2014). Exemplary practices in field trips to natural environments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(4), 430–461. Voogt, J., Laferrière, T., Breuleux, A., Itow, R.C., Hickey, D.T., & McKenney, S. (2015). Collaborative design as a form of professional development. Instructional Science, 43(2), 259-282. White, R. (2004). Young children’s relationship with nature: Its importance to children’s development & the earth’s future. White Hutchinson Leisure & Learning Group, 1–9. Wong, L.-H., & Looi ,C.-K. (2011). What seams do we remove in mobile assisted seamless learning? A critical review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2364–2381. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (applied social research methods). London and Singapore: Sage.

18