Elliot Soloway, Joseph Krajcik, and ElizabethA. Finkel

The University of Michigan

Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1259

Paper presented as part of a Symposium, Finkel, E., (Chair), TheInvestigators' Workshop Project: Supporting Modeling and Inquiry viaComputational Media and Technology, conducted at the annualmeeting of the National Association for Research on ScienceTeaching, April 1995, San Francisco, CA.

Introduction

The four papers in this symposium explore the ways in whichthe routine, daily use of computational media and technology in amodeling-intensive, project-based science classroom (in whichstudents pursue solutions to authentic problems throughinvestigation and collaboration) affects students' attitudestowards school science, their understanding of science concepts,and the ways in which they represent and communicate thatunderstanding.

Investigators' Workshop: Rationale & Context

Objectives and Underlying Philosophy

The Investigators' Workshop Project is a three year project, funded by theNational Science Foundation, in which we are attempting toprovide an integrated suite of computer-based tools embedded inan open-architecture environment that can support learners asthey engage in the full range of model building activities.

Our belief that modeling is central to science education stemsfrom several concerns. At the heart of a working science literacyis the ability to create models that explain real-worldphenomena. However, constructing, simulating, verifying andvalidating models poses a serious challenge for students. Whileprofessional scientists are supported with technology for theirmodel building activities, there is precious little technologicalsupport available that is geared to the needs of students.

Moreover, in order to build a model there are many activitiesin which people must engage, e.g., data collecting, datavisualizing, and reporting. In addition, there are differenttypes of models, e.g., classification models, static models, anddynamic models of process flow. All these tasks need to beexplicitly supported if students are to engage in the activity ofmodel-building.

There is also a final challenge: students are not professionalscientists. For example, students' understanding of sciencecontent and process is considerably different from that ofpracticing professional scientists, and students' motivation forpursuing long-term, systematic research cannot be taken forgranted.

The over-riding educational goal of this effort, then, is toenable students to explore science through the construction ofcomputationally-based models, which in turn should lead to adeepening understanding of natural phenomena. The disposition tothen see such phenomena as analyzable systems should also developas students gain expertise over the course of successiveinvestigations. Given the importance that is being placed onhaving students build models of natural phenomena, it isimperative that a new generation of computer-based tools andenvironments be developed to explicitly support the special needsof learners.

Three interacting themes guide this work:

Science : Modeling.

While there are many topics that can be the focus of learningin science, our effort is directed at supporting students indeveloping the process and content knowledge that is needed todevelop scientifically-defensible, intellectually-provocativemodels. A model, for us, is a representation of phenomena that isan abstraction from the details of the phenomena, but which isstill grounded in particulars of the phenomena. For example, inbuilding a classification tree for insects in a stream ecosystem,students differentiate insects by such features as number oflegs, presence of a tail, etc., and create a key to help other'sidentify similar insects. Unlike most textbook keys, this keyrepresents insects that were collected by the students themselvesin a stream in which they have some genuine interest andownership, e.g., the stream that is just behind the school. Theabstraction effort is serious science, while the particularcontext enhances motivation.

Modeling, however, as it is currently practiced in secondaryschools requires too much prior knowledge and mathematicalability, making the process inaccessible to students. Severalresearchers have used computer-based modeling in high school andmiddle school classrooms and found that the modeling wasextremely difficult for students (Mandinach & Thorpe, 1988;Mandinach & Cline, 1992). The challenge in making modelingaccessible to pre-college science students is to create amodeling environment which requires minimal prior knowledge fromother domains, which incorporates advanced interface design,which requires no programming experience, which enables rapidgeneration of simple models, and which facilitates the learner'stransition toward more expert-like modeling practices.

There are also many activities that we feel need to besupported if students -- and teachers -- are to develop seriousscientific models. These activities include: planning,investigating, data visualizing, modeling, reporting,collaborating and accessing information; modeling is not asolitary activity; rather, it results from engaging in a range ofactivities.

Pedagogy : Project-Based Science (PBS).

Recent conceptions of learning and motivation assign primaryimportance to the ways in which learners attempt to make sense ofwhat they are learning, rather than to the way they receiveinformation. The current view of learning pictures students asactively constructing their knowledge by working with and usingideas (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Resnick, 1989).Drawing analogies from everyday learning, researchers point tothe fact that knowledge is contextualized, that learners solvereal (complex and ambiguous) problems in situations where theyuse cognitive strategies, tools and other individuals asresources. Integrated and usable knowledge is possible whenlearners develop multiple representations of ideas and, throughtheir work in school and beyond, are engaged in activities thatrequire them to use this knowledge. Cognitive tools, such ascomputers and accompanying software programs, should helplearners solve complex and ambiguous problems. Moreover, learningoccurs in a social context; learners interact with andinternalize modes of knowing and thinking represented andpracticed in a community and draw on different expertise of groupmembers. The coherent understanding and usable knowledge that weenvision is fostered through communities of learners workingtogether to negotiate meaning and solve problems.

The educational paradigm that underlies our effort isProject-Based Science (PBS), where students are engaged ininquiry over extended periods of time exploring a drivingquestion (e.g., Is the Huron River water safe?), draw on allscientific disciplines as needed, work collaboratively, employtechnology routinely, and construct all manner of artifacts(text, spreadsheets, presentations, video). Investigators' Workshop is notdeveloping PBS per se; rather, we are drawing on work of theUniversity of Michigan team (Blumenfeld, et al, 1991; Krajcik, etal, 1994) as well as that of others (Roupp et al, 1993). This isnot the only way to frame science teaching; however, it is oneapproach that is consistent with the principles of learning.Table 1 presents a summary of learning theory and the ways thatit underlies key features of project-based science.

Table 1: Framework of Project-based Science

There are five essential components to project-based science.PBS projects 1) require a question or problem that serves toorganize and drive activities; 2) result in a series ofartifacts, or products, that address the question/problem; 3)allow students to engage in authentic investigations; 4) involvecommunities of students, teachers, and members of society indiscourse about the problem as well as collaborating together asa community of inquiry; and 5) promote the use of cognitivetools. Below, we amplify on each of these components.

The Driving Question. Project-based Science requires aquestion or problem that serves to organize and drive activities.Students can be responsible for the creation of both the questionand the activities. In addition, teachers or curriculumdevelopers can create questions and activities. However, inneither case can these be so highly constrained that the outcomesare predetermined, leaving students with little room to developtheir own approaches to answering the question. Good question orproblems will be (a) feasible (students can design and performinvestigations to answer the question/problem), (b) worthwhile(contain rich science content, relate what scientists really do,and can be broken down into smaller questions), and (d)contextualized (real world, non-trivial and important) andmeaningful (interesting, and exciting to learners). As studentspursue solutions to the driving question/problem, they developmeaningful understanding of some key scientific concepts such asacid and bases or solar energy.

The Production of Artifacts. Project-based scienceresults in a series of artifacts, or products, that representstudents' problem solutions which reflect emergent states ofknowledge and understanding that addresses the drivingquestion/problem. Because artifacts are concrete and explicit(e.g., a physical model, report, videotape, or computer program)they are shareable and critiquable. This allows others (students,teachers, parents, and members of the community) to providefeedback and permits learners to reflect upon and extend theiremergent knowledge and revise their artifacts. The creation andsharing of artifacts makes doing project-based science like doingreal science and mirrors the performance of individuals in thework world.

Authentic Investigation. Project-based science involvesstudents in developing and carrying-out investigations. Studentspursue solutions to non-trivial problems by asking and refiningquestions, debating ideas, making predictions, designing plansand/or experiments, collecting and analyzing data and/orinformation, drawing conclusions, making inferences,communicating their ideas and findings to others, and asking newquestions.

Collaboration. Project-based science involves students,teachers, and members of society collaborating together as acommunity of inquiry to find a resolution to the drivingquestion/problem. A project-based science classroom allowsstudents to discuss their ideas, challenge the ideas of othersand try out their ideas. The use of telecommunication allowsstudents access to a wider community in which they cancommunicate with knowledgeable individuals, take advantage ofresources others have to offer, communicate with other studentsin different communities, and share data with other studentscientists and professional scientists.

The Use of Cognitive Tools. Project-based scienceinvolves students and teachers in the use of cognitive tools suchas computers and associated software programs. The incorporationof technological tools such as telecommunication,microcomputer-based laboratories, microworlds, and graphingpackages can help transform the science classroom into anenvironment in which learners actively construct knowledge(Tinker & Papert, 1989; Linn, 1989; White & Fredrickson,1987). Using technology in project-based science makes theenvironment more authentic to students because the computer canaccess real data, expand interaction and collaboration withothers via networks and emulate tools used by experts to produceartifacts. The multimodal and multimedia capabilities oftechnology not only enhance the physical accessibility of theinformation, they facilitate its intellectual accessibility aswell. Technology also allows students to manipulate and constructtheir own representations easily and to do so in several media.

Technology : Learner-Centered Design.

In the mid 80's, the human-computer interaction communitydeveloped the "user-centered design" paradigm. Finally,there was sufficient computer horsepower that some of it could bedevoted to making applications easier to use. Now, in the mid90's, that horsepower has grown by an order of magnitude, from1-2 MIPS to 100-200 MIPS on the desktop; and as a result there iseven more horsepower that can be devoted to the interface. A newparadigm -- Learner Centered Design -- is arising that focusesnot just on users, but on learners (Soloway, et al. 1994). Simplyput, ease of use is no longer the only goal of the human-computerinteraction community; rather, addressing the special needs oflearners -- their diversity, their oftentimes waveringmotivation, their initial lack of understanding and thesubsequent growth in their understanding -- is coming to be seenas the new challenge.

The central claim of LCD is that software can support--scaffold--learning.In designing software for schools, we are mindfully designing forlearners. Scaffolding is important because it enablesstudents to achieve goals or accomplish processes that arenormally out of learner's reach and that would impossible withoutthe support (Vygotsky, 1978; Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1975).Previously, we have described a general framework forsoftware-realized scaffolding (Soloway et al., 1995). In thissymposium, however, we will focus on scaffolding strategies thatare particularly appropriate for supporting model building andtesting.

The Investigators' Workshop Project is a multi-disciplinary, collaborativeeffort involving, during Years One and Two, over 25 individualsfrom (1) the College of Engineering/UM (2) the School ofEducation/UM and (3) the Community High School (CHS) in AnnArbor, (4) the GREEN Project, (5) Northwestern University (RoyPea).

At Community High, three teachers have committed themselves toredesigning their science curriculum around project-based scienceand Investigators' Workshop. During the 1993-1994 school year, 22 studentstook the 2 semester Foundations of Science I (FOS I) class, thispast year (1994-1995) 100 students (all of the ninth gradestudents at CHS) enrolled in FOS I, and 22 tenth grade studentswere part of a pilot year for Foundations of Science II (FOS II).Next year (1995-1996) all ninth and tenth grade students atCommunity High will enroll in FOS I and FOS II, and one sectionof Foundations of Science III (FOS III) will be piloted, and bythe 1996-1997 school year, all ninth, tenth, and eleventh gradestudents at CHS will be taking Foundations of Science.

CHS teachers from other disciplines (English, Math, SocialStudies) have observed the excitement and enthusiasm of thestudents -- and teachers -- in the Foundations class, and theyhave begun working with the science teachers. Starting in1994-95, in fact, ninth grade English and Science were blockscheduled, and science writing assignments were counted forcredit in the English class.

In FOS I, subtitled The Tools Of Science, students focus onstream ecology; besides adopting a local stream, students learnabout a range of related topics, from chemistry to geology. FOSII, subtitled The Grand Themes of science, allows students tofocus on topics ranging from cells, to evolution, to platetectonics. In the final year of the three-year sequence, FOS II,subtitled Advanced Applications of Science, students develop andcarry out independent investigations on topics which they choose.

Work in each of the three years consists of a series long-termprojects focused on different topics. In all cases, students'projects are developed with the idea that not only will teachersevaluate the work, but peers and community members will be giventhe opportunity to see and comment on students' artifacts. Forexample, in FOS I, students conduct investigations to determinewater quality and prepare slide presentations to communicatetheir conclusions to members of the local watershed council. FOSI students also create museum exhibits to illustrate the geologyof local parks which are then exhibited publicly in thecommunity. Students in FOS II design HyperCard stacks to teachtheir peers about evolution and natural selection.

As a part of the Investigators' Workshop project, at the beginning of YearOne, 1 Apple 165c (color) Powerbook was purchased for every 2students, in addition to ancillary technology (Internet, Apple660AV, video microscopes, MBL, etc.). In order to prepare forYear Two, 50 additional color Powerbooks were purchased with thehelp of the Ann Arbor Public Schools and the NSF grant. Thisinfusion of technology has had a considerable impact on theFoundations of Science curriculum. Teachers plan projects withthe idea that all students have many opportunities to usetechnology in all aspects of their work. As a result, students inFOS use a variety of software packages, including commerciallyavailable software, as well as software developed as a part ofInvestigators' Workshop, to collect, analyze, and synthesize data, to preparepresentations and illustrations of their work, and to communicatewith others.

Symposium Presentations

The papers in this symposium illustrate three aspects ofstudents' experiences with Foundations of Science andInvestigators' Workshop. In the first paper, we describe the results of apair of attitude surveys administered to Foundations I studentsand to students in a traditional Biology class. In the secondpaper, we discuss the theories, strategies, and techniques thatwere applied in the design and implementation of a computermodeling tool called Model-It. We then discuss three studieswhich focused on students using Model-It. In particular, we willdescribe the scaffolding designed into Model-It that supports themodel building process and the types of models students createdusing Model-It. In the third paper, we examine the sociallyorganized practices in the classroom which provide a contextwithin which students' develop multi-media artifacts, and henceliteracy.

Conclusion

The goal of this symposium is to illustrate some of the waysin which students' experiences with Investigators' Workshop and Foundationsof Science affects their science learning, their attitudestowards science and science classes, and their ability tocommunicate ideas about science to peers and others. Inparticular, we are interested in the ways in which providingstudents with opportunities to conduct long-term authenticinvestigations, using many, readily available, computer andtechnological tools can scaffold students in the development ofscientific literacy. We are also interested in the types ofscaffolds that are needed to support the model building process.

References

Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S.,Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A., (1991). "MotivatingProject-Based Learning: Sustaining the Doing, Supporting theLearning," Educational Psychologist, Vol. 26.(3 & 4),369-398.

Brown, J., Collins, A., Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognitionand the culture of learning. Educational Researcher,18(1), 32-42.

Krajcik, J, (1993). Learning Science by Doing Science. In:NSTA, STS in the Classroom.

Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R., & Soloway, E.,(1994). A Collaborative Model for Helping Science Teachers LearnProject-based Instruction. Elementary School Journal, Vol. 94,No. 5, May 1994.

Kreutzer, W. (1986) Systems Simulation: Programming Styles andLanguages, Addison-Wesley, Wokingham, England.

Mandinach, E., & Thorpe, M. (1988). The systemsthinking and curriculum innovation project (Technical report).

Mandinach, E., & Cline, H. (1992). The impact oftechnological curriculum innovation on teaching and learningactivities. Paper presented at the American EducationalResearch Association.

Marx, R., Blumenfeld, P., Krajcik, J., Blunk, M., Crawford,B., Kelly, B., & Meyer, K., (1994). Enacting Project-basedScience: Experiences of Four Middle Grade Teachers. ElementarySchool Journal, Vol. 94, No. 5, May 1994.

Papert, S. (1990) Introduction to Constructionist Learning: Afifth anniversary collection of papers, I. Harel, (Ed.), MITMedia Laboratory: Cambridge, MA.

Perkins, D. N. (1986) Knowledge as Design, Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Hillsdale, NJ.

Resnick, L. B., & Glaser, R. (1976). Problem solving andintelligence. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature ofintelligence. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Roupp, R., Gal, S., Drayton, B., & Pfister, M, (1993).LabNet: Toward a Community of Practice, Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Hillsdale, NJ.

Scribner, S. & Cole, M. (1981) The Psychology of Literacy.Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Soloway, E., Guzdial, M., & Hay, K. E. (1994)Learner-Centered Design: The Challenge for HCI in the 21stCentury, Interactions, Vol. 1, No. 2, April, 36-48.

Tinker, R.F. (1990) Teaching Theory Building: Modeling:Instructional Materials and Software for Theory Building, NSFFinal Report, TERC.

Back to hi-ce Office