E–Learning and Digital Media Volume 11, Number 1, 2014 www.wwwords.co.uk/ELEA
Networked Environments that Create Hybrid Spaces for Learning Science KATHRIN OTREL-CASS Aalborg University, Denmark ELAINE KHOO & BRONWEN COWIE University of Waikato, New Zealand
ABSTRACT Networked learning environments that embed the essence of the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework utilise pedagogies that encourage dialogic practices. This can be of significance for classroom teaching across all curriculum areas. In science education, networked environments are thought to support student investigations of scientific problems, including the collection and processing of data, and construction of explanations and conclusions. Student engagement that involves thinking about and questioning key scientific processes and ideas is argued to address the challenges of making school science more relevant. In this article, examples from two studies are presented where New Zealand teachers employed networked technologies, including Moodle (a learning management system) and Wallwisher (an online notice board). These examples illustrate how face-to-face classroom teaching practices can be complemented with online learning practices. The CoI framework was used to examine how the social, cognitive and teaching dimensions of online student communities were similar and yet distinct to the face-to-face communities they belonged to. Findings showed that the CoI framework helped to unpack how networked environments created hybrid spaces where classroom interaction possibilities were extended, and new layers of knowledge construction added in support of students’ growing authority and accountability for their learning.
Introduction Learning scientists have taken an increased interest in environments created through online networked environments. This interest stems from the need to understand how different contexts for learning can support active student engagement (Kumpulainen et al, 2010). In discussing the idea of networked learning environments we draw on Ares’ (2008) explanation of networked classroom environments that refers to the ways technologies can link individuals so that ‘information can be aggregated and mutually exchanged and accessed, as well as being displayed visually for all to see’ (p. 302). Similarly, Goodyear (2000) defined networked learning as ‘learning in which information and communications technology (ICT) is used to promote connections: between one learner and other learners, between learners and tutors; between a learning community and its learning resources’ (p. 5). Essential in both Ares’ and Goodyear’s characterisation of networked learning environments is the notion that the technologies in their own right are insufficient to promote learning. Rather, networks offer additional possibilities for interaction between participants in the teaching and learning process. Networked technologies such as the Internet allow participants to interact in networked learning environments using various forms and modes of communication, including asynchronous and synchronous means and text, videos, pictures, voice and or a combination of these. From this perspective networking is concerned with the new spaces that can be opened up when learners come together as a community, face-to-face and online to engage in authentic and accountable learning experiences. 88
http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/elea.2014.11.1.88
Downloaded from ldm.sagepub.com by guest on August 21, 2015
Networked Environments that Create Hybrid Spaces for Learning Science The infusion of online environments into classroom work means also that students who are interacting within and between different networks need to learn how to be open, flexible and inclusive to appreciate how ideas and viewpoints can differ and change (Kumpulainen et al, 2010). In science education, the interest in networked learning environments is underpinned by a desire to engage students in authentic investigations that require them to think and act like a scientist (NRC, 1996) to address the concern that school science is failing to engage a significant amount of students (OECD, 2007). Our article draws from these ideas of multiple opportunities for extending the space for teaching and learning interactions in the classroom made possible through networked environments. Networked learning environments have been and continue to be of increasing educational interest and while there is a general consensus about their potential to benefit teaching and learning, there is a need to explore their effects and learning outcomes specific to disciplines, in this case, science. In our study, references made to networked environments in the science classroom refer to the use of web-based and online communication tools to share information, collaborate and communicate (Feldman et al, 2000). Such technologies may be used to gather, share or disseminate information, locally or remotely and may include websites, e-mail, as well as audio and video applications (Khoo, 2010). In this article, we adopted the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework to analyse the dialogic practices and pedagogies associated with productive educational interactions when online networks are being used. The CoI framework considers effective online learning as occurring within a community of teachers and students, through the holistic and coherent interaction of three core elements: the cognitive, the social, and the teaching presence. The interaction of these three dimensions defines the climate, the content and the supporting discourse that shape teachers’ and students’ educational experiences (Garrison et al, 1999). This framework acknowledges the learner, the content and the pedagogy and the interaction between the three and draws attention to the need for educational experiences to be viewed as a function of these elements. When teachers do not consider that students need physical, technological and conceptual tools, including online networks, to develop skills and understanding, they limit what can be achieved in an educational environment (Schwartz, 2008). We present examples from studies we conducted in one primary and two secondary schools in New Zealand to examine the nature of online networked, text-based educational environments that can support student dialogue and meaning making as part of ongoing classroom work in science. The CoI framework allows us to hone in on the different ways communities of inquiry construct meaning through sustained communication. When we examine such communities of inquiry we are interested to find out if network environments can maintain or change how ‘real people’ interact (Garrison et al, 1999, p. 89) while considering the dialectic nature of activities in which students and teachers work together (Roth, 2006). It is in essence this article’s aim to unpack the nature of primary and secondary school science inquiry when they include networked learning opportunities and create new environments or hybrid spaces for learning (Moje et al, 2004). The CoI Framework The CoI framework identifies three basic overlapping elements – social presence, cognitive presence and teaching presence. Social presence describes the identity that is created and shared by the members of an online community (Garrison et al, 1999; Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007). This identity has been described as the ‘ability of learners to project themselves socially and emotionally, thereby being perceived as ‘real people’ in mediated communication’ (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007, p. 159). Garrison and Arbaugh propose that this is signified through ‘affective expressions, open communication and group cohesion’ but also that the ‘sense of the community is based upon common purpose and inquiry’ (p. 159). Translated into the science classroom, this element considers that students develop an online identity that allows them to experience, learn and identify with the ways scientists think, communicate and construct an understanding of the world. Taken this way students learn how scientists communicate through and across different modes including the verbal, mathematical, visual and manual technical (Lemke, 2004). In this way online environments 89
Downloaded from ldm.sagepub.com by guest on August 21, 2015
Kathrin Otrel-Cass et al shape, contribute to and complement the identities that are made available in science. However, current studies also stress that engagement in the online environment needs to go further to consider how intellectual focus anchored in respectful practices can achieve ‘personal yet purposeful relationships’ (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007, p.160). Social presence, thus, becomes ‘transparent’ once relationships are established to shift the initial focus of the online learning community to more academic goals and tasks. Cognitive presence describes the active engagement of the learner during the process of ‘sustained reflection and discourse’ (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007, p. 161). Cognitive presence is enacted through four phases, where ideas and concepts move from being fuzzy and perhaps vague to becoming more concrete and definable. The four phases are: a triggering event, exploration, integration and resolution. The ‘triggering event’ opens up an opportunity to identify and explore an issue of interest. Exploration, both individually and/or as a group allows group members to reflect and discuss ideas concerning an issue so that these can then be integrated by learners to construct a new or redefined understanding. When new ideas have been explored to the satisfaction of the learner, new knowledge can be applied to a context. Integration and resolution of ideas requires more time compared to the exploration phase and this needs to be considered in the planning and design of learning tasks. It has been suggested that when learning activities are based on problems or cases and when learners have a clear understanding about the nature of their tasks and receive support and guidance along the way, learning outcomes are more readily achieved (McBurney, 1995). Teaching presence describes the knowledge needed about social and cognitive processes to develop pedagogical strategies that foster specific learning outcomes. Teaching presence aims for ‘personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes’ (Garrison et al, 2001, p. 5). Akyol and others, (2009, p. 1835) point out that the emphasis is on ‘teaching’ rather than the ‘teacher’ and highlight that there is a shared obligation for both teachers and students to achieve these outcomes. Teaching presence can be unpacked into design and organisation of instructions that are different in the absence of the usual norms of the classroom, but also in the way discourse needs to be facilitated to allow for cooperation and reciprocity. The facilitation of discourse means that those who are in the teaching role have to think about how groups can share meaning and negotiate understandings and reach consensus. This means they need to pay close attention and pick up on loose ends to move class discourse along and progress everyone’s thinking (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007). Facilitation of discourse is not to be mistaken with direct instruction, the third component of teaching presence. Direct instruction refers to a teacher’s expertise to guide, draw attention and inform students based on his or her intellectual leadership in the field (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007) and this may also include oversight of the interconnections between the conceptual, procedural, societal and technical skills and understandings (Khoo et al, 2010); students need in support of their inquiries in the online environment. In this sense teacher facilitation is concerned with the teacher’s role in the construction and orchestration of online talk while direct instruction refers to the relationship between the teacher-as-expert guiding students-as-apprentices in collective inquiry. Blended Learning and Hybrid Spaces In this article we are interested in exploring the nature of networked environments that are part of, and integrated with face-to-face classrooms, also referred to as blended learning environments (Vaughan, 2007; Garrison & Vaughan, 2008). While this is becoming more common in the tertiary environment, it is still a relatively new practice for classroom teaching. Schools are traditionally controlled learning environments while students at university have a much higher degree of freedom and responsibility. In schools class sizes and timetables are usually fixed, teaching is done face-to-face while at university class sizes and teaching times can vary a lot and teaching modes draw on a variety of formats including online work. Classroom teachers have included technology into their everyday teaching now for some time but this is often restricted to the time when teachers and students share the same physical space. Garrison and Vaughan (2008, p. 5) explain that for teachers to recognise the full potential of blended learning it requires a thoughtful integration of face-to-face and online learning including thinking about learning and teaching time spent outside 90
Downloaded from ldm.sagepub.com by guest on August 21, 2015
Networked Environments that Create Hybrid Spaces for Learning Science traditional classroom contact hours. While the physical presence of the classroom environment comes with expectations on how to behave and interact, expanding and sustaining a community of inquiry beyond this environment allows for new types of interactions and opportunities to share knowledge (Kumpulainen et al, 2010). Environments that allow for transformations of practices legitimise new discourses and allow community members to establish new ways to negotiate and share meaning. For this reason such environments have been described as hybrid spaces or third spaces (Goodyear, 2000; Moje et al, 2004; Barton et al, 2008). Wallace (2004) implements the notion of hybrid space in her theoretical model for scientific literacy and language use where she argues that the hybrid space offers a place for the ‘co-construction of interpretation or new hybrid meanings’ (p. 908). Moving students from the face-to-face to a new hybrid space in the networked environment requires teaching approaches that take account of the potential of each space (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008). Garrison and Vaughan highlight that the face-to-face environment is collaborative and spontaneous whereas online participation has the potential to be more reflective and considerate. There is evidence that although face-to-face discussions have the benefits of interpersonal, social and non-verbal communication cues, they are restricted to real time, limited by geographical distance and influenced by one’s inhibitions (Meyer, 2003). The main advantage of blended learning environments, especially those that are offered through asynchronous online environments is they offer students flexibility to access and respond, giving students time and space to read, think and reflect (Goodyear, 2000; Meyer, 2003; Song et al, 2004; Garrison & Vaughan, 2008). Additionally, the unique nature of text-based communication in online networked environments allows for students’ thoughts to be captured for further examination, elaboration and extension resulting in richer and more thoughtful discussions (Goodyear, 2000). Studies have indicated how students become less shy about participating online as the potential discriminating social cues in face-to-face interactions such as physical appearance, gender, ethnicity, accent, speech are minimised in textual modes of communication (Dutton et al, 2002). Students have reported on the benefits from active participation in collaboration, interaction and communication to enhance their ability to reflect in their learning assignments, develop a better understanding of concepts and analytical abilities, and cultivate a sense of cohesiveness to accomplish more than if they were to learn on their own (Harasim, 2000; Swan & Shea, 2005). Given each space has its strengths, teaching between the two could capitalise on these benefits for students. Online Networks for Authentic Scientific Practices School science has been tasked to provide students with opportunities to engage in authentic science practices (NRC, 2012). Authenticity involves engaging in activities in which people act in or respond to scenarios or real problems typical for a particular culture (Brown et al, 1989). Scientific inquiry as a cultural practice involves the negotiation of meaning between the members of the science community, and this includes the scientists of the past and the present (Lee & Butler, 2003). The notion behind students engaging in scientific inquiry is that this will provide them with opportunities to investigate their own questions by gathering and making sense of data and information, constructing explanations, and conveying conclusions (Duschl et al, 2007; Lee et al, 2010). When students engage in ‘real’ and relevant science inquiries they have an opportunity to take on more ownership and develop the skills to learn and find information. Many schools in New Zealand now provide and support the use of networked environments to complement face-to-face teaching practices. In this article, we examine students’ and teachers’ uses of two online tools, Moodle and Wallwisher that exemplify the use of networked learning environments. Moodle is an online Learning Management System (LMS) that allows users to participate in group discussions, upload information including assignments, conduct quizzes, create wikis, and announce events through news or the calendar (www.moodle.org). Within Moodle, students can work as individuals, pairs, small groups or as a whole class either synchronously or asynchronously to achieve specific learning goals. These benefits go beyond the mere delivery of pre-packed education and challenge the traditional perspective of learning as confined to the classroom where the role of the teacher is the expert in disseminating knowledge to students (Bonk & Dennen, 1999). Wallwisher, in contrast, is a free Web 2.0 online notice board 91
Downloaded from ldm.sagepub.com by guest on August 21, 2015
Kathrin Otrel-Cass et al (www.wallwisher.com). It provides a virtual wall space for individuals or groups to leave notes that are time and date stamped. Members that are assigned and invited to a wall can view other people’s contributions and leave their own one or respond to others. Users of Wallwisher can post brief questions and obtain quick short responses but in contrast to Moodle, it does not allow for continuous asynchronous discussions. In our study, the teachers used Moodle for group discussions and as repositories for resources and activities, while they used the Wallwisher to post brief questions, share or respond to ideas. Both online tools allowed teachers and students to network and connect with each other and/or the teacher and/or outside experts. We will discuss the methodological considerations for this research in respect to using the CoI framework in the context of our study next. Methodology, Analysis and Context of this Study The aim in this article is to discuss what networked inquiry learning looks like in primary and secondary New Zealand science classrooms and how the CoI framework can help to make sense of social, teaching and cognitive complexities when classroom discussions expand into new hybrid environments. Garrison and Arbaugh (2007, p. 68) describe the framework providing primarily ‘an exploratory qualitative approach’ making sense of online teaching and learning but one that offers opportunities to employ qualitative and quantitative approaches. In our study, we have been primarily interested in understanding transformations of practice through sociocultural theories, to conceptualise and theorise the nature and purpose of collaborations of classroom science inquiries (Gutierrez et al, 1999; Roth et al, 2009). This position has been adopted to understand the relationship between actors (students and teachers) and the goals and science outcomes (broadly defined) of their inquiries, the communities they belong to and access, and the tools that help them (or not) to achieve these goals. This approach resonates well in our opinion with the aims of the CoI framework for analyses that concentrate on interpretive rather than quantifiable ways to analyse text-based online discourse (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007). In this article, we present three examples of blended learning environments that exemplify, in our view, the practices of a community of inquiry. Although these cases occur in different contexts and at different times, similarities in their learning tasks will be highlighted and the CoI framework adopted to demonstrate how the online hybrid space fostered productive meaning making in ways distinct to a specific case. A qualitative, interpretive methodology framed the data collection and analysis based on evidence collected from classroom observations (field notes, audio and video recordings as well as student work collected from the online records on Moodle and Wallwisher) and teacher and student interviews. Consistent with qualitative research, a constant comparison approach to data analysis was adopted to identify emergent themes (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Elements Social presence
Categories Open communication Group cohesion Affective/personal
Indicators (examples only) Enabling risk free expression Encouraging collaboration Expressing emotions, camaraderie
Cognitive presence
Triggering event Exploration Integration Resolution Design & organisation Facilitation of discourse Direct instruction
Having sense of puzzlement Exchanging information Connecting ideas Applying new ideas Setting curriculum Sharing personal meaning Focusing discussion
Teaching presence
Table I. Indicators of Social, Cognitive and Teaching presence (from Garrison & Vaughan, 2008, p. 19).
As part of the analysis we use Garrison and Vaughan’s (2008) indicators (characteristics) of social, teaching and cognitive presence from the CoI framework to examine students’ and teachers’ practices in the networked environment to understand how these elements (social, cognitive and
92
Downloaded from ldm.sagepub.com by guest on August 21, 2015
Networked Environments that Create Hybrid Spaces for Learning Science teaching presence) were enacted (see Table I). This is done in an attempt to examine old and new practices (Wallace, 2004) and to ascertain if the networks opened up spaces for new discourses. The participants in this study represent a convenience sample of teachers and students in New Zealand primary and secondary school classroom context and although the findings cannot be generalised to a wider population, they could be related to similar science education contexts. The Research Context: three blended science classroom examples The three examples reported in this article are taken from two research projects the authors have been involved with – The SCIAnTICT (Science Classroom Investigations of the Affordances in Teaching with ICT) project (Otrel-Cass, Cowie et al, 2011) and the NILSS (Networked Science Inquiry: an investigation in junior secondary science classrooms) project (Otrel-Cass, Khoo et al, 2011). Both projects were concerned with the use of ICT, specifically online networking tools in support of classroom science inquiries. In both projects, we worked with teachers for a minimum of one year, paying particular attention to understanding teachers’ and students’ existing practices, access to ICT tools and online resources, in order to support and understand teachers’ pedagogical justifications in the context of their classroom situations. Names of teachers and students in these articles are all pseudonyms. Our first example is taken from Claire’s primary classroom from the SCIAnTICT project with her students who were in a Year 7/8 class (11-12 years of age). Claire had been involved in a previous project and this was our fourth year working together. Claire had been interested in expanding her use of ICT tools in support of her science teaching. The school had recently upgraded their classroom hardware and software. Claire had set up class and individual blogs as a way for her and her students to communicate and leave resources or work for each other to comment on. Claire included the Wallwisher on the class blog as well as on individual student blogs to share ideas and reflections. Claire commented about her expectations on the Wallwisher: ‘I think this will be a really useful tool to have, the students can leave their ideas and see what other people have posted’. Claire’s lesson unit focused on landforms and erosion over a seven week period. The unit included two fieldtrips to a local river where students collected a sample piece of rock. They investigated where it had come from, participated in practical activities, conducted information searches, and worked with a visiting expert. The study culminated in a group presentation to the parents of the children in Claire’s class and students from a partner class. Our second example is taken from Sean’s class from the NILSS project. Sean, a secondary science teacher had been working with us for a year. Being a secondary school class, his classroom teaching was confined to the 50-minute frame of contact time with his Year 9 (13 year old) students. Here we are focusing on four lessons we observed in Sean’s class where his students contacted an outside expert, a scientist at a nearby university, after having studied the lesson unit on light. The students were brainstorming questions they were going to ask the expert based on what they knew already about light and issues they were curious to find out. Sean was going to use Skype (a video call provider) for this purpose and had done this once before during our work with him. He reflected: ‘Last time I asked the students to come up with questions. They had to tell me in class and I would write questions on the whiteboard. This time I want to use the Wallwisher for the students to share their ideas and come up with their questions. This will give them an opportunity to see what the others have posted and think about their own questions’. Our final example is from Connor’s classroom. Similar to Sean, we had worked with Connor in the NILSS project for a year. Connor was teaching Year 10 (14 year old) students and prompted by his school implementing Moodle, he decided to trial and use it in support of his teaching the unit on acids and bases over eight lessons. Connor told us that: ‘This will be a good opportunity for me to find out how I can use Moodle in support of my teaching and keep some useful resources for me and the other teachers in my team’.
93
Downloaded from ldm.sagepub.com by guest on August 21, 2015
Kathrin Otrel-Cass et al Findings In our findings, contextualised interpretations drawing from participant excerpts and key representative examples of networked hybrid spaces are presented, organised into the three elements that shape the CoI framework. Social Presence Shaped by On- and Off-site Participation In our analysis using the CoI framework we started by looking at the impact of social presence, meaning the nature of student to student and student to instructor learning relationships, and how this presence was shaped by the hybrid networked environment. When we looked at our examples we found that the supportive nature of the interactions between the teachers and/or outside experts and students was affected by the interweaving of online and face-to-face communication. On-site synchronous uses of a networked environment involved students using, viewing, and sometimes responding to postings made at the same time in the same physical space, the classroom. So, for example, when Sean’s class engaged in the brainstorming activity using the Wallwisher, they were operating in a synchronous environment on individual laptops and in real time where they could see whenever someone in class added another question.
Figure 1. A screenshot of Sean’s class Wallwisher.
Sean reflected later on this activity and said that: ‘The students’ questions were shaped by what they saw on Wallwisher other people had posted. And when one of the students started asking questions such as, “Why did you study optics?”, other students were asking similar questions that were concerned with the nature of the scientists’ work and less so with information he could provide about the concept of light’. The following is a three-minute sequence of postings on Wallwisher at the beginning of the activity that lasted online for approximately 15 minutes: Matthew: Why did you choose to study light? (3 minutes ago) Irfan: What makes you interested in studying light? (3 minutes ago) Jason: Why is light so important in our daily lives? (2 minutes ago) Corey: Did you ever think of becoming a photographer? (2 minutes ago) Jessica: I was wondering what made you interested in light? (1 minute ago) May: Why did you study about light? (1 minute ago)
94
Downloaded from ldm.sagepub.com by guest on August 21, 2015
Networked Environments that Create Hybrid Spaces for Learning Science Brook: What got you interested in light? (1 minute ago) Kirsty: How fast does light travel? (less than 1 minute ago) Bella: How long have you been studying light for? (less than 1 minute ago)
The class collected in total 31 Wallwisher postings within 15 minutes (see Figure 1). After the brainstorming activity on the Wallwisher, Sean selected, based on the students’ suggestions, the questions the scientist should be asked. He reflected on this selection process later: ‘Perhaps it would have been better to let the students work in groups or individually before posting in an environment where they could see everyone’s ideas’. Sean felt that the students’ awareness in the classroom about the identity of the person who contributed and the nature of their contributions influenced what students posted. Claire’s students also used the Wallwisher to share their ideas and questions. However this was done as part of their homework and not during classroom time. The students had finished their data collection and reviewed information from books, the Internet and met with experts. The experts, Masters students in earth science from the local university, had visited Claire’s class to hear what students had found out about their rocks and how this information linked to their conclusions about the origin of their rocks. Later, the students posted these ideas on Wallwisher. Claire had granted the experts access to the Wallwisher so they were able to add prompts or make suggestions. Parents were also granted access to and occasionally made contributions on Wallwisher (see Figure 2). Social presence in this case was facilitated and supported through faceto-face meetings and relationships between the students and experts/community members prior to engaging in the networked environment. Illustrative examples are provided through the Wallwisher postings from Claire’s two students, Brett and Zoe.
Figure 2. A screenshot of Brett’s Wallwisher.
Here Brett invites others to share their ideas about rocks. Two peers provide thoughtful responses before his mother leaves him a note to say that she ‘loves all his work’. (Postings are in chronological order). Brett: Write what you know about rocks. Ralph: A landform is something that is caused by action of the earth e.g.: natural disasters. Chris: There are many different types of landforms. These are constantly changing. Mum: Loving all your work Brett.
95
Downloaded from ldm.sagepub.com by guest on August 21, 2015
Kathrin Otrel-Cass et al In the next example an expert affirms students’ thinking about erosion.
Figure 3. A screenshot of Zoe’s Wallwisher.
Zoe stimulated this series of postings by posing a question to which she offered an answer. Zoe: What is erosion? Erosion is a process of rocks and soil moved from one place to another. Ralph: How is erosion caused? Erosion is formed by wind ice and water or ocean waves chipping away at the land. Allan: There are three different erosions: wind, ice and water. Lydia: Erosion is a process that can move rock or soil and sometimes it can be helpful in making other landforms like volcanoes, hills, mountains, islands and more. Expert: You seemed to have a good understanding of erosion, well done. Maybe think about the processes your sample went through to get down the river.
Zoe’s Wallwisher question elicited responses from peers that extended and elaborated on her initial ideas. The expert posted a message of reassurance and encouragement suggesting collegial and supportive sentiments. In Claire’s case blending the classroom environment with the use of Wallwisher allowed students to share their evolving ideas about their rock inquiry and invited community members to view, input, feedback and affirm students’ learning, a culture the school was keen to establish. Our third example is from Connor’s class who used Moodle. Apart from uploading resources for his students he also set up three discussion forums where he asked students to share their ideas about different scenarios related to acids and bases. The discussion topics were: Acids and Bases, Common Household Cleaners, and Natural Indicators. The first contributions from his students were what we called ‘safe’ postings (postings that appeared to be responses students had copied and pasted from the Internet). Later when we asked the students about this they said that they ‘wanted to make sure they got the correct information’. However, they were not certain about the validity of some of the content they had found. Connor praised the students for going online to access information but also encouraged them to post from now on their own ideas and opinions. From this point on, the nature of the discussions changed. Students left comments that began with ‘I think’ type of statements and responded to each other’s messages, sometimes agreeing and sometimes disagreeing. Connor set up a ‘Questions, Questions, Questions’ forum to encourage students to ask questions and share their ideas with each other as noted in our field notes: Connor encouraged his students to participate so they can all contribute to each other’s learning (he is iterating this idea at the end of the class again). He pointed out to students that he set up an additional new discussion forum which he called ‘Questions, Questions, Questions’ where
96
Downloaded from ldm.sagepub.com by guest on August 21, 2015
Networked Environments that Create Hybrid Spaces for Learning Science students can post any questions they may have and others are welcome to add/contribute their thoughts to answer them (Field notes taken on 15th November 2011).
Having space on ‘Questions, Questions, Questions’ meant that students could continue their thinking outside class time. One example of this process was when the class discussed, that acids and bases neutralise each other to become a salt. Matthew had asked how salt got into the sea. Connor felt this question diverted from the focus of the day but accommodated it in the ‘Questions, Questions, Questions’ forum, where one student discussed with Matthew the science and another recounted a folk story explanation about a miller, suggesting a commitment to supporting Matthew and his learning. Connor’s students made a total of 30 posts over a seven-day period, including three posts made by the teacher (apart from his starting question, not included in this count). Students left 13 posts over the Saturday/Sunday weekend period, started with their contributions as early as 7.30 am before and 3.49 pm after school (New Zealand schools run from 9 am to 3 pm). The latest night posts were at 9.48 pm. Connor was particularly impressed that students responded to his posts before he shared the same idea in class, which indicated that they were checking online for contributions. Connor became more confident with using Moodle when he saw how his students built on one another’s contributions to take discussions to a deeper level than he had experienced in class. This insight was a real boost to his development as a novice user of a technological tool seeking to encourage student collaboration and discussion through a blended learning mode. Students’ social interactions across the examples were shaped by the permanency of student written contributions because this allowed them to reflect on and revisit ideas over time and beyond the classroom. The blended environment meant participants from outside the classroom could continue to contribute to class learning after their classroom visit. However, the teachers had to ensure students realised that the online environment was not a place for making judgments but rather another space where they could develop productive relationships that would help them in their learning. Table II details the indicators from our examples that indicate social presence. Element Social presence
Example
Categories Open communication
Indicators of Social Presence Permanency of contributions in the online environment supports more inclusive learning relationships.
Group cohesion
Ideas can be contributed by individuals and by groups and outside experts over time with opportunities to post multiple times.
Affective/personal
Networked activities that occur in the same physical space are affected by relationships between contributors.
Zoe’s Wallwisher where students and expert established a learning community.
Table II. Indicators of Social presence observed in our studies.
Teaching Presence Shaped by Considerations for Pedagogical Planning and Instruction Teachers making optimal use of the blended environment involved them in a different kind of planning and pedagogy. It was important that they had thought through how to facilitate online discussion forums. When Connor was preparing to support his science class with Moodle discussions, he contacted another teacher through Skype. Connor knew that Miriam, who was based in a different town but also involved in the NILSS project, had used Moodle with her students. They talked about things she did with her class that she felt worked well in terms of facilitating the online group discussions. This collegial discussion session facilitated Connor’s developing understanding of online teaching presence: Connor: So in terms of what sort of things do you ask the kids? … Miriam: Yeah, ask questions, given them a selection of things like whether different reactions are chemical change or physical change, so giving them sort of three or four choices. Sometimes run extension on what we’ve done in the class, ….to start the discussion ready for the next day.
97
Downloaded from ldm.sagepub.com by guest on August 21, 2015
Kathrin Otrel-Cass et al Connor: …. Is there anything you’d do differently …? Miriam: Yeah I think I probably need to go back and fix up some statements that students made that weren’t correct. Like I didn’t want to shut them down, I didn’t want to go ‘Oh. No. What does someone else think?’ So I kind of ‘Oh, that’s an interesting theory’ and then sort of put it out there for someone else to comment on. But I guess I could have done that in class.
Connor explained to us later that this discussion with Miriam was important for him to think about and prepare for his teaching with Moodle. Here we can see that Miriam alerted Connor that it was important not to provide right or wrong answers but rather to acknowledge students’ contributions and prompt them to unpack their explanations, or perhaps to look at posts left by other students. What follows is an example of one of Connor’s posts after a student left an explanation about what a base was: Connor: Great answer Orla. Orla and anybody else, are there any edible bases? If so can you give me an example?
Connor’s feedback was positive with an invitation to the class to further deepen their thinking. In our next example from Sean’s class, we noticed when his students were posting their queries for the scientist on the Wallwisher, their questions were converging on the scientist’s interest in studying light science and his career path. When Sean realised that the students were primarily interested in the scientist’s career he feared the conversation might lose the connection to his goals, which were for the students ‘to connect the very abstract ideas they learned about light with the work scientists actually do in this field and so they know why it is important to know about this’. He prompted the students to think further about any ideas or questions that might have to do with light. Following this redirection the students asked questions concerning light including: How fast does light travel? How much more light is supplied and/or used when using flash on a camera? Do larger photography cameras have more light settings? What kind of energy is light? How does the 3D camera make a 3D image? How do you encode the light? Why are laser lights so powerful?
When we interviewed the students they said their questions focused on things they were interested in and were also based on what they had learned in class and from a video of the scientist they were prepared to talk with. The students’ interview responses reinforced that they were interested in the scientist’s career as Lilli explained, ‘When I read the scientists’ question about how long it took him to study I really wanted to know how many years’. The students reiterated that they had needed Sean’s prompt to think about light questions rather than light science career questions. Element Teaching presence
Example
Categories Facilitation of online discussion
Indicators of teaching presence Acknowledge student contributions and encourage them to elaborate on their ideas
Direct instruction
Redirecting and focusing discussion to align with teacher intended learning outcomes.
Connor thinking about and shaping his students’ discussions on Moodle after having talked to another teacher, Miriam.
Table III. Indicators of teaching presence observed in our studies.
Table III shows the indicators of teaching presence we were able to identify, highlighting that teachers’ planning for and responding to students working in the networked environment meant
98
Downloaded from ldm.sagepub.com by guest on August 21, 2015
Networked Environments that Create Hybrid Spaces for Learning Science they had to carefully consider the opportunities and constraints the environment presented for their students’ learning. Cognitive Presence Shaped by Existing and New Knowledge and Practices This section sets out examples of how the blended environment supported the development of student science ideas. When students used Moodle in Connor’s class he encouraged students to talk and think about acids and bases and prompted them to think about acids and bases in their everyday experiences. For this to happen, Connor had to move students from leaving ‘safe’, ‘copy and paste’ posts of information they had found on the Internet to applying new vocabulary and trying to make sense of the questions their teacher asked them. The students were well aware of the distinction between copying and pasting and posting their own ideas. Michael, for example, discussed with the researchers that his first post was a ‘copy and paste’ from a website where he had spent time reading and selecting appropriate passages. He explained to us that over the course of the unit he had been encouraged to apply his own understanding rather than using ‘what other people had said’ and thought that this had added value to his learning. When we talked to the students they said that seeing how other students had rephrased ideas they had heard in class or read somewhere helped them to do this because they were able to make sense of peer postings more readily than information they had found on the Internet. Michael explained, ‘I learned a lot from the different opinions and also from the fact that Mr T [Connor] reviewed all the things ... ’. Jane stated that, ‘It’s nice to see what other people are thinking about a topic’. This was a common view. The students who were interviewed valued the way Moodle provided them access to ‘a lot more opinions’ than class discussions where, typically, only a few people might speak. The students also referred to the fact that conversations about ideas were sustained over days and outside the classroom and that this allowed them to reflect on their own ideas and to source ideas from others that they might then contribute. They looked forward to seeing if others had responded to their thoughts, as Michael explained, ‘I could post something and come back the next day and see if there was an answer’. In this way the online environment extended student opportunities receiving feedback as well as questioning and voicing opinions beyond those normally found in the classroom. When we asked Connor about how Moodle shaped the end of unit revision of students’ learning outcomes, he reflected: By having postings on Moodle it allowed students to have a variety of resources at their disposal for revision. By having these resources in Moodle this gave the students flexibility with what time they could complete revision. Some completed this at night and others in the morning. More students attempted revision as they felt there was something to their liking and piqued their interest. Also many felt that they had enough material to revise with. It also allowed students to communicate and ask other students questions regarding their revision. This unit’s assessment was the one that they performed best in out of the whole year. Many of my students felt that Moodle was a positive experience and helped bridged the gap between what happened in the classroom and home.
Students learning science-specific vocabulary is an important aspect of their learning science. Claire was aware of this and she used Wallwisher to encourage her students to post and practise their growing scientific knowledge by developing a ‘rock vocab list’ wall. The wall allowed the students to share ideas in text format and also through pictures/photos to clarify their points (see Figure 4). The permanency and ease of access of this material on the class blog meant that students could go back to ideas when they needed to do so. The Wallwisher provided a hybrid learning space that allowed for multimodal ways of practising and learning science ideas. While Claire’s students could have created a bulletin board and posted their ideas on the physical classroom wall, it was our impression that the Wallwisher created additional interest for the students. They checked and followed up on postings in a way we had not observed with posters or physical wall displays. In Claire’s class, students meeting with experts and their follow up postings on Wallwisher were additional prompts to students to review their ideas about their rock, what it was made of and how it had been formed. 99
Downloaded from ldm.sagepub.com by guest on August 21, 2015
Kathrin Otrel-Cass et al
Figure 4. A screenshot of the class Wallwisher established to develop student vocabulary in the rock lesson unit.
The wall postings illustrated in Figure 4 were collected over a three-day period from the first lesson of the unit. Students revisited these descriptions when they were classifying the rock samples collected from their fieldtrip and later when they were preparing for their presentations about their ‘rock stories’. Elements Cognitive presence
Example
Categories Triggering event
Indicators of Cognitive Presence Students presenting an observation or point of view on a particular topic/aspect
Exploration
Prompts from students, and invited network users
Integration
Exchanging information after careful guidance from the teacher
Resolution
Extended opportunities to define and use science vocabulary Developing confidence in connecting new ideas Applying new ideas through new practices
Claire’s students using Wallwisher to share their growing knowledge about rocks and communicate with experts to discuss their growing ideas about landforms.
Table IV. Indicators of Cognitive presence observed in our studies.
The examples of cognitive presence in our examples (see Table IV) were the result of careful teacher management of the interplay of existing and new knowledge and old and new practices. The teachers used Moodle and Wallwisher as a part of blended networked environments to expand the opportunities students had to develop ideas and express their growing science understanding. Having time and a new place to think and apply understanding provided for additional and alternative ways of learning and teaching. Conclusion This article aimed to unpack the nature of primary and secondary school inquiry when students are supported through networked learning environments. The networked environments reported in our studies offered new and different hybrid space possibilities for teachers and students to pursue teaching and learning over time and place. An examination of teacher and student practices within Moodle and Wallwisher indicated that networked environments can expand and complement faceto-face teaching interactions in support of inquiry learning in science. However, realising this potential is only possible when teachers have a clear pedagogical purpose for the use of an online 100
Downloaded from ldm.sagepub.com by guest on August 21, 2015
Networked Environments that Create Hybrid Spaces for Learning Science tool. The online tools per se would not have brought about the types of productive interactions and learning experiences reported in our study. It was the teachers’ consideration of the affordances of each online tool and how these could be appropriated and crafted to support their pedagogical goals and strategies that resulted in productive learning experiences for students (Webb, 2005; McDonough, 2011). This relied on the deliberate consideration of tool use during planning as well as resourcing in support of students’ learning with and through the tools (Kumpulainen et al, 2010). If teachers foreground and make visible to students the contribution an online tool can make to a particular learning process, their students can then take advantage of the tool and expand their opportunities to learn. The CoI framework (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008, 2011) proved valuable in explicating and exemplifying the complementary nature of cognitive, teaching and social presence. Unpacking these elements focuses attention on the role of the teacher and the need for teachers to be aware that moving into a networked environment will likely require a re-think of their teaching practice to optimise student learning opportunities in both spaces (face-to-face and online). Findings from our examples suggest a potential to enhance student understanding of science content and process through student access to sustained opportunities for interaction around an idea and also to a wider variety of ideas and opinions. Carefully managed, the blended environment can support collaborative work and build student confidence to question, voice opinions and use newly learned science language as part of developing a shared and agreed understanding of a concept. In the studies reported here Wallwisher, and Moodle, offered additional spaces and opportunities for discussion and for students to ask and respond to questions. In this way networked environments potentially afford students to explore and accommodate, in further developing their individual and cumulative knowledge and reflections to form a sense of inter-subjectivity, which can be brought about by negotiating a common ground (Dennen & Wieland, 2007). In addition, the permanency of postings affords more opportunities to provide feedback, which increases the possibilities for exchanges of ideas between teachers and students and amongst students, supporting students to articulate and build on their ideas, rather than judging them right and wrong. The ability of a networked environment to support student access to feedback from the wider community (experts, parents) adds greater transparency, accountability and relevance to the learning and learning process when compared with a sole focus on learning in the classroom (Kalantzis & Cope, 2004; Vaughan, 2007). Applying the analytical CoI framework draws attention to the challenges of blending traditional teaching environments with networked environments. Since this approach is still novel in most primary and secondary school settings, the use of a networked teaching and learning environment requires careful planning. Many of the networked practices we observed were similar to those seen in face-to-face contexts but with an added dimension that complemented students’ other learning experiences. For instance, consideration of social presence in a blended environment highlights the need for forming more inclusive learning relationships as part of building a learning community. Honing in on teaching presence drew attention to the particular strategies for facilitation and guidance that work in Moodle and Wallwisher. Attention to cognitive presence foregrounded the value of student access to a range of ideas and the role of the cumulative development of ideas as integral to student science understanding. If the aim of learning in science should be to go beyond mere memorisation of facts there will need to be opportunities for students to develop skills and understandings to hypothesise, share, analyse and reason (McBurney, 1995). To conclude, the skilful combination of face-to-face and networked environments can expand student opportunities to learn science and enhance the possibilities students have to express, discuss and develop their ideas. Establishing and orchestrating productive blended environments requires careful planning and facilitation. The CoI framework of social, cognitive and teaching presence is one tool that teachers and researchers can use to understand and design such blended environments. The CoI framework allowed us to illustrate where and how networked environments can be used to create hybrid spaces, where the classroom interaction possibilities are extended, and new layers of knowledge construction added in support of students’ growing authority and accountability for their learning.
101
Downloaded from ldm.sagepub.com by guest on August 21, 2015
Kathrin Otrel-Cass et al Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge funding received for both studies used in this article from the New Zealand Teaching and Learning Research Initiative and its host the New Zealand Council of Educational Research. References Akyol, Z., Garrison, D.R. & Ozden, M.Y. (2009) Development of a Community of Inquiry in Online and Blended Learning Contexts, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 1834-1838. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.324 Ares, N. (2008) Cultural Practices in Networked Classroom Learning Environments, International Journal of Computer-supported Collaborative Learning, 3(3), 301-326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11412-008-9044-6 Barton, A.C., Tan, E. & Rivet, A. (2008) Creating Hybrid Spaces for Engaging School Science among Urban Middle School Girls, American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 68-103. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831207308641 Bonk, C.J. & Dennen, V.P. (1999) Teaching on the Web: with a little help from my pedagogical friends, Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 11(1), 3-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02940840 Brown, J.S., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989) Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning, Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018001032 Dennen, V.P. & Wieland, K. (2007) From Interaction to Intersubjectivity: facilitating online group discourse processes, Distance Education, 28(3), 281-297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587910701611328 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. Dutton, J., Dutton, M. & Perry, J. (2002) How do Online Students Differ from Lecture Students? Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 1-20. Feldman, A., Konold, C. & Coulter, B. (2000) Network Science, a Decade Later: the Internet and classroom learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Garrison, R., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (1999) Critical Thinking in a Text-based Environment: computer conferencing in higher education, Internet and Higher Education, 2(2), 87-105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6 Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2001) Critical Thinking, Cognitive Presence, and Computer Conferencing in Distance Education, American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08923640109527071 Garrison, D. & Arbaugh, J.B. (2007) Researching the Community of Inquiry Framework: review, issues, and future directions, Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157-172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001 Garrison, D.R. & Vaughan, N.D. (2008) Blended Learning in Higher Education: framework, principles, and guidelines. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons. Garrison, D.R. & Vaughan, N.D. (2011) Blended Learning in Higher Education: framework, principles, and guidelines. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Goodyear, P. (2000) Networked Learning in Higher Education Project (JCALT): final report. Lancaster, UK: Lancaster University. http://csalt.lancs.ac.uk/jisc/guidelines.htm Gutiérrez, K.D., Baquedano-López, P., Alvarez, H.H. & Chiu, M.M. (1999) Building a Culture of Collaboration through Hybrid Language Practices, Theory into Practice, 38(2), 87-93. Harasim, L. (2000) Shift Happens: online education as a new paradigm in learning, Internet and Higher Education, 3(1-2), 41-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00032-4 Kalantzis, M. & Cope, B. (2004) Designs for Learning, E-Learning, 1(1), 38-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/elea.2004.1.1.7 Khoo, E.G.L. (2010) Developing an Online Learning Community: a strategy for improving lecturer and student learning experiences. PhD dissertation, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz//handle/10289/3961 Khoo, E., Forret, M. & Cowie, B. (2010) Lecturer-student Views on Successful Online Learning Environments, Waikato Journal of Education, 15(3), 17-34.
102
Downloaded from ldm.sagepub.com by guest on August 21, 2015
Networked Environments that Create Hybrid Spaces for Learning Science Kumpulainen, K., Krokfors, L., Lipponen, L., et al (2010) Learning Bridges – Toward Participatory Learning Environments. Helsinki: CICERO Learning, University of Helsinki. https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/15631 Lee, H.-S. & Butler, N. (2003) Making Authentic Science Accessible to Students, International Journal of Science Education, 25(8), 923-948. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690305023 Lee, H.-S., 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.20304 Lemke, J.L. (2004) The Literacies in Science, in E.W. Saul (Ed.) Crossing Borders in Literacy and Science Instruction: perspectives in theory and practice, pp. 13-32. Newark, DE: International Reading Association/National Science Teachers Association. Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. McBurney, D.H. (1995) The Problem Method of Teaching Research Methods, Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 36-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top2201_11 McDonough, W. (2011) A Study of Multimedia to Enhance Teaching, Social, and Cognitive Presence in Online Courses. Paper presented at the 17th annual Sloan Consortium international conference for online learning, 9 November, in Lake Buena Vista, Florida: The Sloan Consortium. http://sloanconsortium.org/conferences/2011/aln/use-multimedia-enhance-teaching-social-andcognitive-presence-online-courses Meyer, K.A. (2003) Quality in Distance Education: focus on on-line learning, ASHE - ERIC Higher Education Report, 29(4), 1-121. Moje, E.B., Ciechanowski, K.M.I., Kramer, K., et al (2004) Working Toward Third Space in Content Area Literacy: an examination of everyday funds of knowledge and discourse, Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.39.1.4 National Research Council (NRC) (1996) National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Research Council (NRC) (2012) A Framework for K-12 Science Education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2007) PISA 2006 Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World. Paris: OECD. Otrel-Cass, K., Cowie, B. & Khoo, E. (2011) Augmenting Primary Teaching and Learning Science through ICT: summary report. Wellington, New Zealand: Teaching Learning Research Initiative. http://www.tlri.org.nz/tlri-research/research-completed/school-sector/augmenting-primary-teachingand-learning-science Otrel-Cass, K., Khoo, E., Cowie, B. & Basel, A. (2011) Student, Teacher and Researcher Collaborations using E-networks: examples from a secondary science research project. Paper presented at the New Zealand Association for Research in Education (NZARE) conference and annual meeting, 28 November1 December, at Bay of Plenty Polytechnic, Tauranga, New Zealand. Roth, W.M. (2006) Activity Theory, in N.J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human Development, Vol. 1, pp. 16-23. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Roth, W.M., Lee, Y. & Hsu, P. (2009) A Tool for Changing the World: possibilities of cultural-historical activity theory to reinvigorate science education, Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 131-167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057260903142269 Schwartz, N.H. (2008) Exploiting the Use of Technology to Teach: the value of distributed cognition, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(3), 389-404. Song, L., Singleton, E.S., Hill, J.R. & Koh, M.H. (2004) Improving Online Learning: student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics, Internet & Higher Education, 7(1), 59-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2003.11.003 Swan, K. & Shea, P. (2005) The Development of Virtual Learning Communities, in S.R. Hiltz & R. Goldman (Eds), Learning Together Online: research on asynchronous learning networks, pp. 239-260. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Vaughan, N. (2007) Perspectives on Blended Learning in Higher Education, International Journal on ELearning, 6(1), 81. Wallace, C.S. (2004) Framing New Research in Science Literacy and Language Use: authenticity, multiple discourses, and the ‘third space’, Science Education, 88(6), 901-914. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.20024
103
Downloaded from ldm.sagepub.com by guest on August 21, 2015
Kathrin Otrel-Cass et al Webb, M. (2005) Affordances of ICT in Science Learning: implications for an integrated pedagogy, International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 705-735. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690500038520
KATHRIN OTREL-CASS is Associate Professor in science education at the Department for Learning and Philosophy, Aalborg University, Denmark. Kathrin is interested in primary, secondary and tertiary classroom-based research, and she has a particular interest in the role of information and communication technology, educational culture and assessment for learning. Kathrin is experienced in video-based analysis and has been involved in a number of research projects in New Zealand and Denmark. Correspondence:
[email protected] ELAINE KHOO is a Research Fellow at the Wilf Malcolm Institute of Education, University of Waikato, New Zealand. Elaine’s research interests include teaching and learning in information and communication technology (ICT) supported learning environments, e-learning contexts with a particular interest in online learning communities, participatory learning cultures and collaborative research contexts. Elaine has been involved with a number of funded research projects across the compulsory schooling sector and tertiary level. Correspondence:
[email protected] BRONWEN COWIE is is the director of the Wilf Malcolm Institute of Educational Research, University of Waikato, New Zealand. Her research interests include formative assessment, culturally responsive pedagogy and curriculum implementation. Her research has spanned projects that include long-term national evaluation studies and in-depth classroom studies involving surveys, focus groups and observation. Correspondence:
[email protected]
104
Downloaded from ldm.sagepub.com by guest on August 21, 2015
