|
Bodzin, A. M. (2005). Implementing web-based scientific inquiry in preservice science
methods courses. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 5(1). Available: http://www.citejournal.org/vol5/iss1/general/article1.cfm

Implementing Web-based Scientific Inquiry in Preservice Science
Methods Courses
Alec M. Bodzin
Lehigh University
Abstract
This paper describes how the Web-based Inquiry for Learning Science
(WBI) instrument was used with preservice elementary and secondary science
teachers in science methods courses to enhance their understanding of
Web-based scientific inquiry. The WBI instrument is designed to help teachers
identify Web-based inquiry activities for learning science and classify
those activities along a continuum from learner directed to materials
directed for each of the five essential features of inquiry, as described
in Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards (National Research
Council, 2000). Implementations of WBI analysis activities in preservice
science methods courses are discussed.
|
According to the National Science Education Standards
(National Research Council [NRC], 1996), inquiry refers to the diverse ways
in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on
evidence derived from their work. Inquiry also refers to activities through
which students develop knowledge and understanding of scientific ideas and how
scientists study the natural world. Inquiry-based teaching and learning activities
can vary in the amount of structure and guidance they provide a learner, or
the extent to which students initiate and design an investigation (NRC, 2000).
Materials-directed inquiries are often highly structured and provide step-by-step
instructions that present learners with a scientifically oriented question and
then ask them to manipulate materials, make observations and measurements, record
results, and formulate conclusions. In contrast, learner-directed inquiries
are more open-ended, providing learners with opportunities to formulate a question
or hypothesis to be investigated, design experimental procedures, and work according
to their own designs.
As the NRC (2000) noted, both types of experiences are appropriate for classroom
learning: While materials-directed inquiry activities can be used to focus learning
on the development of particular science concepts, learner-directed inquiries
can provide students with opportunities for cognitive development and scientific
reasoning. Variations in the openness of the inquiry are based, in part, upon
the goals for learning outcomes and upon the material developers' perceptions
of how students learn in the context of school environments.
Although recent documents addressing reform in science education emphasize
the importance of providing classroom students with opportunities to engage
in learner-directed inquiries, it is important to note that learners will likely
require practice with guided experiences before being able to engage in more
open-ended activities (see for example, American Association for the Advancement
of Science, 1993, and NRC, 1996).
An important goal of recent science education reform is to bring scientific
inquiry experiences into pK-16 classrooms. These documents argue for de-emphasizing
didactic classroom instruction that focuses on memorizing science facts. Instead,
they contend, teachers should emphasize engaging students in inquiry-based learning
to assist in their understanding of science. Participation in inquiry can help
learners acquire scientific thinking skills while developing a deeper understanding
of science content and processes (Glasson, 1989; Metz, 1995; White & Frederiksen,
1998). In actual classrooms, inquiry calls for students to exercise a wide range
of skills, including formulating questions, making observations, collecting
and analyzing data, using logical and critical thinking to formulate conclusions,
evaluating alternative explanations, and communicating their findings.
Inquiry in today’s science classrooms may take a variety of forms. For
instance, a teacher might engage students with authentic questions for local
and global investigations, ask them to learn through project-based science activities,
or participate in role-playing debate simulations. An authentic activity is
one that is coherent and meaningful, and its purpose is to help the learner
acquire the culture and practices of those active in the real-world practice
of the field under study (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). The key common
components here are that each activity involves students with meaningful questions
about everyday experiences, emphasizes using investigation to evaluate evidence
critically, and engages learners in social discourse to promote knowledge construction.
Thus, such inquiry-based approaches allow students to learn scientific practices
through implementing and testing those practices realistically. Learners who
experience inquiry-based activities and instructional methods may, therefore,
have a better chance of developing a broad understanding of science, along with
the critical reasoning and problem solving skills involved in scientific reasoning.
Given the emphasis on incorporating inquiry teaching and learning in science
specified in current science education reform initiatives, I have developed
a method to help preservice science teachers in both my elementary and secondary
science methods courses gain a theoretical and practical understanding of how
to take advantage of Web-enhanced instructional materials to promote inquiry
learning with classroom students. The activity described in this paper illustrates
how I help preservice teachers understand the variations of inquiry and how
they align with the learning goals of classroom students by analyzing what the
Web has to offer and determining how to use such materials in the classroom
to enhance the use of classroom scientific inquiry. This entails exploring when
implementing materials-directed inquiries is appropriate, when using more learner-directed
approaches is better, and how best to take advantage of the Web to support inquiry
learning in differing classroom contexts.
The Science Methods Courses
I teach two science methods courses in Lehigh University’s Technology-Based
Teacher Education (TBTE) graduate program. One course is an elementary science
methods course for students seeking teacher certification for grades K-6. The
other course is a secondary science methods course for students seeking certification
in general science, biology, chemistry, physics, and earth and space science.
The science methods course is usually one of the first courses students take
in the TBTE program, and it is often taken concurrently with a the course, Tools
for K-12 Teaching and Learning. In this course students develop artifacts integrating
Web design, video production, and concept mapping into K-12 instructional activities.
Inquiry-based pedagogical practices infused with a technology-integrated approach
are emphasized in both science methods courses. Technologies such as Web-based
resources, real-time data collection with probeware, simulations, and Geographic
Information Systems are used to model the implementation of curricular activities
with inquiry-based pedagogical strategies. The first five class sessions primarily
focus on implementing instructional models in curricular contexts, understanding
the inquiry continuum, developing lesson plans, and investigating the Lehigh
River watershed (http://www.leo.lehigh.edu/envirosci/watershed/).
The Lehigh River watershed is investigated using Web-based GIS, a virtual photojournal,
a water quality data collection field trip to the Monocacy Creek, data analysis
with a PHP server database of tributary data, real-time and archived USGS flow
rates, and curricular activities designed to assist learners in understanding
environmental issues in the watershed (http://www.leo.lehigh.edu/envirosci/enviroissue/).
The main objective of the sixth class session is to help students understand
the instructional design of Web-based inquiry materials. The entire class session
is spent analyzing and discussing Web-based inquiry (WBI) activities using the
WBI Instrument and Manual (Bodzin & Cates, 2002). The WBI instrument
is a tool designed to identify Web-based inquiry activities for learning science
and to classify activities along a continuum from learner-directed to materials-directed
for each of the five essential features of inquiry, as described in Inquiry
and the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 2000).
Although individual teachers may hold different opinions about the desirability
of the positions along this continuum, the instrument is neutral. That is, it
classifies where the activity falls, rather than making a value judgment about
the desirability of that position on the continuum (Bodzin, Cates, & Vollmer,
2001). A copy of the WBI instrument manual is available online at http://www.lehigh.edu/~amb4/wbi/wbi-v1_0.pdf.
To confirm that the instrument helped preservice teachers produce predictable
and consistent analyses of scientific Web sites, we calculated internal reliability
for the instrument’s use by 14 students in one of my elementary science
methods courses. The instrument proved highly reliable, producing a Cronbach
alpha of +.811 (p < .001) across 25 categorical assignments for
the 14 student raters involved.
Many instructional materials and activities that are used in my courses are
available online at http://www.lehigh.edu/~amb4.
My course syllabi are available online at http://www.lehigh.edu/~amb4/courses.
Description of the WBI Instrument
A copy of the WBI instrument is provided in Appendix A.
It is a matrix made up of five rows and four columns. The five rows describe
the five possible essential features of inquiry. The four columns describe the
degree to which the WBI is either learner directed (left two columns) or materials
directed (right two columns). A column descriptor is located at the top of each
of the four columns. These statements summarize the guiding philosophy for all
cells in that column. Each cell in the matrix contains a sentence or two that
describes what WBIs falling into that cell would exhibit as properties. To qualify
as a science WBI, the activity must meet six criteria, which are listed in Table
1.
Table 1
WBI Qualification Criteria |
Criteria |
Title |
Descriptor |
| 1 |
Three Inquiry
Essentials |
A WBI must contain at least
the first three essential features of classroom inquiry described in Inquiry
and the National Science Education Standards:
- Learners are engaged by scientifically oriented questions that are
stated explicitly or implied as a task.
- Learners give priority to evidence, which allows them to draw conclusions
and/or develop and evaluate explanations that address scientifically
oriented questions.
- Learners draw conclusions and/or formulate explanations from evidence
to address scientifically oriented questions.
|
| 2 |
Learner Centered |
The WBI should be phrased in such
a way that learners would perceive it as directed at them. The majority
of the wording used in the WBI should be directed at the learner (“you”),
not at the teacher (“your students”). |
| 3 |
Student Learning
Science Concept or Content |
The WBI must support student learning
of a science concept or science content. Science WBIs must fall into a recognized
science discipline (biology, chemistry, physics, environmental sciences,
astronomy, oceanography, and the like). |
| 4 |
Web-Based |
The WBI must be Web-based. A WBI
is more than reformatted text from printed sheets placed on the Web, describing
how an inquiry activity may be completed. Instead, it should be enhanced
or customized to take advantage of the features of the Web to deliver instruction.
|
| 5 |
Scientific
Evidence |
Evidence used in a WBI should be
of the same type an actual scientist would use. |
| 6 |
Conclusions
or Explanations Involve Reasoning |
Conclusions and/or explanations
in WBIs should be more than simple data analysis and reporting. They must
involve reasoning. |
Twenty-nine classification rules (see Appendix B)
are provided to guide users in making placement decisions on the instrument.
The manual provides a detailed description of each rule, accompanied by examples.
Users are instructed to work methodically row by row, classifying the WBI into
the cell that best matches how it addresses that essential feature of inquiry.
Users are to write the exact words from the Web site that most closely match
the descriptive sentence or sentences for the properties of that cell. If exact
words cannot be provided, then a brief written description describing a rationale
for placing the WBI into a particular cell of the row should be provided.
Implementation in Preservice Methods Courses
In my science methods courses, students read the WBI manual prior to a class
session. During the next class session, the WBI activity is conducted. Learners
are provided with a list of Web site addresses that contain both (a) large Web
sites with multiple science activities consisting of WBIs and non-WBIs and (b)
Web addresses to specific WBIs. (Links to selected sites that have been used
in my courses are available online at http://www.lehigh.edu/~amb4/wbi/).
Students work in pairs to complete the instrument for five WBIs using a unanimous
consensus analysis, with all students agreeing on all decisions and classifications.
This consensus forces them to discuss what they see, what they know, and how
scientific inquiry is facilitated by the Web site. After completing an instrument
for a specific WBI, students discuss each placement with me before moving on
to the next WBI.
After this one-day, in-class activity, the preservice teachers develop a Web-based
science activity to engage classroom learners in a science-specific curricular
topic of interest, thus applying what they have learned immediately to design
of their own instruction. As part of the assignment, they develop an assessment
handout for the activity. The resultant Web site is tested out with a target
learner, and the preservice teacher prepares a brief report on its effectiveness
in bringing about science learning. This step, in turn, helps to lock in the
knowledge on how WBIs promote learning with intended learners. (A description
of my Web-based Science Activity assignment is available as part of my science
methods courses syllabi available online at http://www.lehigh.edu/~amb4/courses/).
The WBIs created by my preservice students are of high quality and are well-designed
to promote inquiry with K-12 students. Evidence of this is provided by the fact
that many of my students’ exemplary WBIs (see Figure 1, for example) are
indexed in the U.S. Department of Education’s
Gateway to Educational Materials and are listed in Appendix
C. (Editor’s note: See the Online Resources
section at the end of this paper for URLs of Web sites mentioned in this paper.)
I selected specific Web-based activities for WBI analysis to help preservice
teachers understand the variations of inquiry and how they align with the learning
goals of classroom students. Exemplary WBIs are selected, as well as others
that are not as commendable to help preservice teachers see how they differ.
The WBIs selected also provide students with opportunities to see how both learner-directed
and materials-directed inquiries are appropriate forms of inquiry learning.
Specific WBIs are select to promote understanding of the variations of each
essential feature of inquiry. The selected WBIs also illustrate advantages a
Web-enhanced activity may have over traditional text-based classroom instruction.
In addition, I include at least a few WBIs that engage learners in authentic
learning tasks that mirror the work of scientists. Examples of how some sites
are used are discussed below.
WhaleNet, Athena
- Earth and Space Science for K-12, and Carolina
Coastal Science are examples of Web sites containing multiple activities.
Large Web sites with multiple activities allow students to review many different
types of science activities to see if they met the six WBI qualification criteria.
Students come to realize that locating WBIs in a large Web site with multiple
activities is a time-consuming process. In addition, these sites provide students
with opportunities to view activities that fail to qualify as WBIs in their
present form. Certain activities are examined later to identify ways to augment
them and make them qualify as WBIs.
Other WBIs are selected to provide students a chance to analyze collaborative
experiments. These include the WBIs on the CIESE (Center for Improved Engineering
and Science Education) Online
Classroom Projects and Walking
with Woodlice sites. Collaborative experiments represent a subsample of
WBIs that illustrate two ways to utilize evidence. First, the learner is provided
with a protocol to collect certain data. These data are contributed to a collective
database. Next, the WBI provides learners with cumulative data from remote geographical
placements and instructs the learner in how to analyze the cumulative data.
In each of these collaborative experiments, there is first a learner-directed
component that is then followed by a materials-directed component. Such experiments
take advantage of distributed information sources to promote inquiry. Discussion
of these sites in my courses concentrates on the role of collaboration to enhance
knowledge of all participants.
The selected CIESE WBIs include two collaborative projects and a real-time
data project. Two WBIs—Human
Genetics: A Worldwide Search for the Dominant Trait - Do You Have It? and
The Stowaway Adventure—are
highly structured, materials-directed WBIs that provided learners with step-by-step
detailed instructions and procedures to follow. Another CIESE WBI, Sun
Times: Global Sun Temperature Project, exhibits a more learner-directed
philosophy, especially in the use of evidence. In each CIESE WBI, drawing conclusions
and formulating explanations is little more than verification because learners'
attention is directed (often through questions) to specific pieces of evidence
leading them to a predetermined conclusion/explanation. Therefore, these activities
merely measure the experimental and methodological proficiency of learners.
In class, I contrast these activities with the Walking With Woodlice
WBI, in which the conclusion/explanation cannot be predicted in advance and
learners must analyze evidence to reach their own conclusions/explanations,
thus helping preservice teachers understand how each approach develops different
skills and processes.
The Carolina Coastal Science Web site contains a science-technology-society
(STS) issues-based approach simulation, in which students are presented with
a real-world controversial issue: Should a hard structure be built to stabilize
a migrating inlet? Students investigate the issue from differing perspectives
using online primary sources. After students complete their investigation, they
participate in a public forum to debate the best course of action on the issue.
This role-playing simulation provides a motivating context that engages learners
in solving an authentic problem. Classroom debates on STS issues offer students
a forum for communicating evidence and conclusions to an audience (NRC’s
fifth essential feature of scientific inquiry). In class, we discuss how an
authentic scientific problem with no known solution frames a motivating context
for learners to engage in a scientifically oriented question. Once again, this
is contrasted with classroom use of a verification-type activity, in which a
conclusion or explanation is already well established in the scientific community.
WBIs from the WISE (Web-based Inquiry Science
Environment) Web site are included in the secondary methods course. The
WISE Web site contains a variety of secondary science projects that use a Scaffolded
Knowledge Integration Framework design (Linn & Hsi, 2000). In this framework,
students are encouraged to question, criticize, analyze, reflect upon, and interpret
the explanations they encounter. Many of the activities model effective use
of instructional technologies including simulations, visualizations, and Internet
materials to promote inquiry learning.
Inclusion of the WISE WBIs facilitates discussion of how scaffolding affects
the placement of a WBI on the continuum from learner-directed to materials-directed.
WISE WBIs provide scaffolding (support to help one know how to complete an activity)
in the form of learner-selectable hints. In the WBIs, an avatar (a helpful character)
is used to provide hints and suggestions to reduce the complexity of a task.
Often the avatar’s presence changes the activity to a more materials-directed
activity. In class, I discuss how avatars may support the learning needs of
students who require additional guidance and structure to complete activities.
Students with learning disabilities or learners without much prior experience
using inquiry methodologies are likely to require more task structuring to complete
an inquiry. In addition, the use of the site’s customization features
are discussed in terms of design challenges teachers face as they tailor existing
curricular materials to the educational needs of their students.
To assist learners in thinking about design process of a WBI for their assignment
to create a Web-based science activity, I discuss how partial WBIs may be enhanced
to become full inquiries. Many partial WBIs contain only the first three essential
features of inquiry. In many cases, adding a sentence to an existing WBI that
states, “Can you think of other reasons that might cause this?”
would prompt learners to think about alternative explanations. In addition,
various forms of classroom presentations, such as poster sessions and oral presentations
can be discussed as ways learners can communicate and justify their proposed
conclusions and/or explanations.
I also talk about the way a teacher’s philosophical beliefs about inquiry
affect how learner-centered or teacher-centered his or her class activities
may be. I discuss how WBIs may be modified to be more or less learner centered.
Often the wording of an activity may be modified in a few sentences to transform
the activity from one design intent to another.
Finally, I discuss how sites that do not currently qualify as WBIs may be modified
or utilized to become WBIs. The Web offers many good resources and activities,
including authentic data sets, simulations, scientific visualizations, virtual
reality, animations, and video clips that can be used to assist students in
learning science. I discuss with my students how they can take advantage of
these resources to create their own Web-based inquiries using the framework
offered by the WBI instrument.
Summary
The critical analysis of WBIs using the instrument in my preservice science
methods courses promotes student awareness of important characteristics of WBIs
typifying the intent of recent science reform initiatives. My instructional
methods enable preservice teachers to analyze what the Web has to offer and
determine how to use such materials in the classroom to enhance classroom scientific
inquiry. Analyzing WBIs provides many opportunities to discuss instructional,
curricular, and technological supports that may aid students in the inquiry
process.
These discussions address the nature of Web-based collaborative inquiry, the
role of using scientific visualizations to promote learning, provisions in the
instructional design of materials to motivate learners, the role of scaffolding
in reducing the complexity of a task, and design features for promoting autonomous
learning. Analyzing the instructional design of WBIs provides opportunities
to discuss curricular customizations to meet the needs of diverse types of learners
and provides a context for considering practical constraints of the classroom
learning environment, such as time restrictions imposed by fixed schedules.
I believe my instructional methods have had an impact on my student understanding
of how to use Web-based materials appropriately to promote inquiry-based learning.
During intern teaching field placements, some of my preservice teachers have
facilitated a Web-based inquiry process by presenting their students with a
driving question to investigate a particular phenomenon. They provide their
students with available Web-based data to analyze. Data sources have included
elephant seal migration maps to investigate where elephant seals spend their
time, drifter buoy data to investigate ocean currents, satellite images to investigate
changes in land areas, and monarch butterfly migration data to investigate the
monarch life cycle. In each of these cases, activity handouts were developed
to assist learners in examining evidence to formulate conclusions.
Often, classroom learners were prompted by the preservice teacher to think
about alternative explanations and communication has occurred in various formats
including mini-poster sessions and brief classroom presentations. These examples
illustrate that incorporating WBI methodologies in my science methods courses
may have assisted preservice teachers with understanding a design process for
using appropriate Web-based resources to promote inquiry-based learning with
classroom learners.
References
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks
for scientific literacy: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bodzin, A. & Cates, W. (2002). Web-based inquiry for learning science
(WBI) instrument manual. Version 1.0. Retrieved April 14, 2005, from http://www.lehigh.edu/~amb4/wbi/wbi-v1_0.pdf
Bodzin, A., Cates, W., & Vollmer, V. (2001, March). Codifying Web-based
inquiry activities: Preliminary instrument development. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching,
St. Louis, MO.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and
the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42.
Glasson, G. E. (1989). The effects of hands-on and teacher demonstration laboratory
methods on science achievement in relation to reasoning ability and prior knowledge.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(2), 121-131.
Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers. Teachers. Peers. Mahwah,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Metz, K. E. (1995). Re-assessment of developmental constraints on children’s
science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 65(2), 93-127.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education
standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
White, B.Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition:
Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Science, 16(1),
3-118.
Online Resources
Athena - Earth and Space Science for K-12 - http://vathena.arc.nasa.gov/
Carolina Coastal Science - http://www.ncsu.edu/coast/
CIESE Online Classroom Projects - http://k12science.org/currichome.html
Gateway to Educational Materials - http://www.thegateway.org
Human Genetics: A worldwide search for the dominant trait - Do you have it?
- http://k12science.org/curriculum/genproj/
The Stowaway Adventure - http://k12science.org/curriculum/shipproj/
Sun Times: Global Sun Temperature Project - http://www.k12science.org/curriculum/tempproj3/en/
Walking with Woodlice - http://www.nhm.ac.uk/interactive/woodlice/
WhaleNet - http://whale.wheelock.edu
WISE - The Web-based Inquiry Science Environment - http://wise.berkeley.edu/
Author Note:
Alec M. Bodzin
Lehigh University
Email: amb4@lehigh.edu
Appendix A
WBI Instrument
| Web site Name: ________________________ |
Web site URL: __________________ |
| Specific Activity Name: ________________________ |
Specific Activity (Root) URL: __________________ |
| Essential Feature of Inquiry |
Learner Directed |
Materials Directed |
| |
L2: Learner-driven with much initiative and independence. |
L1: Decisions to make, but support & scaffolding,
particularly with process. |
M1: Much selecting from provided materials. Limited
choices. |
M2: Materials-driven. Few choices and much direction
given. |
| Learners are engaged by scientifically oriented QUESTIONS. |
Prompts learner to formulate own question or hypothesis to be tested. |
Suggests topic areas or provides samples to help learner formulate own
question or hypothesis. |
Offers learner lists of questions or hypotheses from which to select. |
Provides learner with specific stated (or implied) question/
hypothesis to be investigated. |
|
Learners give priority to EVIDENCE, which allows them
to draw conclusions and/or develop and evaluate explanations that address
scientifically oriented questions.
|
Learner determines what constitutes evidence and develops procedures and
protocols for gathering and analyzing relevant data (as appropriate). |
Directs learner to collect certain data, or only provides portion of needed
data. Often provides protocols for data collection. |
Provides data and asks learner to analyze. |
Provides data and gives specific direction on how data to be analyzed. |
| Learners formulate CONCLUSIONS and/or EXPLANATIONS
from evidence to address scientifically oriented questions. |
Prompts learner to analyze evidence (often in the form of data) and
formulate own conclusions/
explanations.
|
Prompts learner to think about how analyzed evidence leads to conclusions/
explanations, but does not cite specific evidence. |
Directs learner attention (often through questions) to specific pieces
of analyzed evidence (often in the form of data) to draw conclusions and/or
formulate explanations. |
Directs learner attention (often through questions) to specific pieces
of analyzed evidence (often in the form of data) to lead learner to predetermined
correct conclusion/
explanation (verification). |
| Learners evaluate their conclusions and/or explanations in
light of ALTERNATIVE CONCLUSIONS/ EXPLANATIONS, particularly
those reflecting scientific understanding. |
Prompts learner to examine other resources and make connections to conclusions
and/or explanations independently ("Catalyst"). Provides no hyperlinks to
relevant scientific knowledge intended to help learner formulate alternative
conclusions and/or explanations. |
Provides hypertext links to relevant scientific
knowledge that may help identify alternative conclusions and/or explanations.
May or may not direct learner to examine these links, however. |
Does not provide hypertext links to relevant scientific knowledge to help
learner formulate alternative conclusions and/or explanations. Instead,
(1) identifies related scientific knowledge that could lead to such alternatives
or (2) suggests or implies possible connections to such alternatives. |
Explicitly states specific connections to alternative conclusions and/or
explanations, but does not provide hypertext links to support formulating
such alternatives. |
| Learners COMMUNICATE and justify their proposed conclusions
and/or explanations. |
Reminds learner of general purpose of communication and/or need for communication,
but gives no specific guidance. |
Talks about how to improve communication, but does not suggest
content or layout. |
Suggests possible content to include and/or layout that might be used. |
Specifies content to be included and/or layout to be used. |
Appendix B
WBI Classification Rules
| Row Topic |
# |
Rule |
| General Classification |
1 |
When in doubt, use philosophy column
description located at top of each column to make decisions. These
descriptions guide your cell selections. |
| 2 |
When several activities are presented in clear
sequence leading to final activity that is dependent upon
completing those earlier activities, treat full set of activities as one
WBI. |
| 3 |
When WBI consists of multiple activities and
these activities fall into different cells, note each activity’s URL
in appropriate cell when completing instrument. |
| Question |
4 |
Place in L2 if learners are prompted to formulate
their own explanation or hypothesis. |
| 5 |
Place in L1 if suggests topic areas
or provides samples that help learners formulate own explanation
or hypothesis. |
| 6 |
If offers lists of questions
or hypotheses from which to select, goes in M1 cell. |
| 7 |
When provides learner with
specific stated (or implied) question/hypothesis to investigate, goes in
M2 cell. |
| Evidence |
8 |
If the learner collects data
outside Web site, then WBI placed on L side of instrument.
If WBI provides learner with data, WBI is placed on the M
side of the instrument. |
| 9 |
When learner determines what
constitutes evidence and develops procedures and protocols for gathering
relevant data (as appropriate), classified as L2. |
| 10 |
When WBI directs learner to collect
certain data or only provides a portion of needed data,
classified as L1. |
| 11 |
WBIs that provide data and
ask learners to analyze them classified as M1. |
| 12 |
If provides data and gives
specific direction on how data are to be analyzed, classified
as M2. |
| Conclusions
and Explanations |
13 |
Amount of direction WBI provides
learner is main determinant of whether placed on L or M
side in this row. |
| 14 |
Classified as L2 if prompts
learner to analyze data and formulate own conclusions/explanations.
|
| 15 |
Classified as L1 if prompts
learner to think about how evidence leads to conclusions/explanations, but
does not cite specific evidence. |
| 16 |
What distinguishes M1 and M2 WBIs from one
another is whether are verification-type activities or
not:
If directs learner attention (often through questions) to specific pieces
of evidence to draw own conclusions or formulate explanations, classified
as M1.
If directs learner attention (often through questions) to specific pieces
of evidence to lead learners to predetermined correct conclusion/explanation,
classified as M2. |
| Alternative
Conclusions and Explanations |
17 |
WBIs that provide a “catalyst” to
prompt learners to examine other resources and form connections
to alternative conclusions/explanations independently (without
guidance) are classified as L2. Catalysts designed to encourage learner
to think about possibilities, but L2 alternative conclusions/explanations
WBIs provide no hypertext links to sources of information
for alternative conclusions/explanations. |
| 18 |
If WBI contains hypertext links
to relevant scientific knowledge useful in formulating alternative conclusions/explanations,
classified as L1. WBI may or may not refer to the provided links. |
| 19 |
When identifies relevant scientific
knowledge that could be useful or suggests/implies possible connections,
but does not provide hypertext links, classified as M1.
|
| 20 |
If explicitly states specific
connections, but does not provide hypertext links, classified
as M2. |
| Communications |
21 |
Intent of communication is to share explanations
and conclusions to permit fellow scientists to "ask questions, examine
evidence, identify faulty reasoning, point out statements that go beyond
the evidence, and suggest alternative explanations for the same observations"
(NRC, 2000, p. 27). |
| 22 |
Simply sharing data on Web-based
form does not constitute communication. Communication is of conclusion/explanation,
not data. |
| 23 |
Communication requires learner justify
conclusions and/or explanations and that information be shared with "audience,"
not simply submitting that information to teacher for assessment. Audience
might consist of fellow students, other users of Web site, Web site's developer(s),
or scientist. |
| 24 |
Using right-sounding words not enough; WBI must
actually solicit communication. |
| 25 |
Communication is determined by what WBI solicits,
not what learners submit. |
| 26 |
If instructions in WBI about communication do
not address content and/or layout, classified as L1 or L2. If instructions
focus on content and/or layout, classified as M1 or M2. |
| 27 |
WBIs that are very open-ended
in terms of learners making decisions about techniques to use in presenting
results fall into L2 cell. These WBIs remind learner of
general purpose of communication and need for communication, but do
not provide specific guidance. |
| 28 |
When WBIs talk about how to improve
communication, but do not suggest specific content
or layout approaches to be used, classified as L1. |
| 29 |
Distinguishing between M1 and M2 WBIs in
this row based on how directive about learner’s
presentation:
WBIs that suggest possible content and/or layout for
presentation classified as M1.
WBIs with clear specifications for content and/or layout
classified as M2. |
Appendix C
Preservice Teachers’ WBIs Indexed in the Gateway to Educational Materials
Shark Report
http://www.lehigh.edu/~amb4/wbi/clemon/home_1.htm
The Design Challenge
http://www.lehigh.edu/~amb4/wbi/kwardlow/sciwebquest.htm
What's Wrong With Dave's Door?
http://www.lehigh.edu/~amb4/wbi/sanderson/index.html
Plant Nutrition
http://www.lehigh.edu/~amb4/wbi/bcurran/index.htm
Understanding Electric Fields and Field Lines
http://www.lehigh.edu/~amb4/wbi/aglancy/efield1.htm
Free-fall Acceleration
http://www.lehigh.edu/~amb4/wbi/jphile/index.htm
To See or Not to See....Inheritance of Color Blindness
WBIs for Elementary Learners
http://www.lehigh.edu/~amb4/wbi/mcastronova/index.htm
How Do You Design an Awesome Roller Coaster?
http://www.lehigh.edu/~amb4/wbi/aporawski/rollercoasters.html
Bald Eagle Migration
http://www.lehigh.edu/~amb4/wbi/apriester/index.htm
Nutrition and Exercise
http://www.lehigh.edu/~amb4/wbi/rrohn/index.html
How Does a Shark Survive in Its Environment?
http://www.lehigh.edu/~amb4/wbi/cmichalerya/problem.htm
|