1998 Conference Attendees

Our ongoing program of research has explored the most effective uses of Internet technology, including: the best interface functionality (e.g., what are the best forms of guidance for students, and what tools help students succeed in evaluating scientific arguments); the most effective kinds of activities (e.g., different approaches to critique projects); and the effect of different forms of evidence (e.g., multimedia content, or the use of visual models of heat or light). We have continuously refined the KIE software and curriculum according to this research, which has been guided by a theoretical framework we call “Scaffolded Knowledge Integration.” This framework, based on a decade of research in the Computer as Learning Partner (CLP) Project, describes how students can integrate their understanding of science principles from class with their everyday understanding, as well as with new evidence they might encounter. As we continue to develop the KIE software and curriculum, we work in partnership with scientists, researchers, and teachers to construct effective projects in many disciplines. This includes the authoring of Web-based science materials (referred to as “evidence”) for purposes of the project.

• 1) New goals for science learning place an emphasis on providing students with accessible models of new or difficult concepts. An example is to provide instruction in thermodynamics concepts using a “heat flow” model rather than a sophisticated molecular account, because the former model is more accessible to students who hold intuitive conceptions of heat as a caloric-like substance.

• 2) Make thinking visible to students by developing technology and tools to provide them with visible models (i.e., animations), as well as visual feedback about their own models and those of their peers. Such visual representations will help scaffold students as they acquire more sophisticated models, as well as a more diverse repertoire of models.

• 3) Promote autonomous student learning through activities such as design or critique, which best occur in “project-sized” curriculum modules. These activities help students become autonomous learners, providing them with skills that they can apply throughout their lives. A focus is also placed on the use of personally relevant topics and activities, which help students relate the curriculum material to their existing “world knowledge”.

• 4) Social supports for learning should be provided to help students profit from the social dimension of classroom learning, as well as to learn valuable skills of collaboration and peer interchange.

The Scaffolded Knowledge Integration (SKI) framework focuses on providing students with accessible models, social supports, and lifelong learning activities. Two major emphases which characterize all of our work in the KIE Project are: (1) depth of coverage, rather than breadth, and (2) personally relevant, autonomous learning activities.

Making Thinking Visible:

Because an important focus of this workshop is the use of visualization tools and models, we will expand our description of the second Scaffolded Knowledge Integration principle outlined above, “Making Thinking Visible.” An important aspect of helping students work within their own repertoire of models is to provide them with visual representations of their own models, as well as those used by scientists and other students. This is a skill well-known to scientists, as they think visually and make use of various external representations of their personal models and problems. We have recognized the value of providing students with tools and opportunities to represent their own models, as well as those of scientists and classmates. Such representations will provide students with feedback about their current models, and will help scaffold them in acquiring more sophisticated models, as well as a more diverse repertoire of models. KIE employs several types of scaffolding for this purpose, including cognitive, procedural, and metacognitive supports.

Two software components of KIE that support this principle are the SenseMaker argument editor and the Speakeasy discussion tool. In SenseMaker, students work collaboratively to create argument "frames" (represented by the nested boxes) and sort evidence into similarity-based groupings to support their argument (Bell and Davis, 1996). For example, when students are asked to compare two theories of "How far does light go?", they are provided with initial SenseMaker frames labeled, "Light goes forever", and "Light dies out" which represent the two major theories being considered for the debate. Students then review a dozen or so items of "evidence" on the Web (e.g., a Web site that describes how telescopes work), and return to SenseMaker where they categorize each item into a relevant frame (this is done by dragging a representative icon into one frame or the other). New frames can be created, either within the higher-level frames, or in parallel to them. In this way, students use visual representations of the evidence to create their own argument about a topic in the physical sciences. This visible model of an argument allows them to reflect and make connections between the evidence and their existing repertoire of models. We have also used the SenseMaker to present students with alternative sortings of the evidence, corresponding to fictitious or historical scientists' thinking. In this way, students have a highly accessible means of comparing, integrating, and simply relating their own beliefs to those of others.

The Speakeasy discussion tool enables students to share their ideas about a controversial science topic like, "Does light go forever?" (as in the project described above) or "Are scientists always right?" Speakeasy conversations employ socially relevant representations, such as students' names and faces, as well as pictorial representations of the conversation itself, in the form of a hierarchically structured "tree" of student comments. When students first log in to a Speakeasy conversation, they are asked to state their opinion about its overall topic, which is then displayed next to an image of their own face, along with their first name. This visual display of students' initial ideas allows each student to articulate her own view, as well as to read the views of her peers. After stating her initial opinion, the student may enter comments into the body of the discussion, expanding the tree which represents the overall conversation. Each student comment may be added at the top level of the discussion, or as a descendant of another student's comment. Every student comment is represented as a node in the tree, with an icon depicting whether it is (a) a statement, (b) a question, (c) an answer to a question, or (d) an addition to its parent comment, or (e) a rebuttal to its parent comment. This icon is presented along with the contributing student's picture and first name. In this way, students participate in a structured asynchronous conversation, where they are able to see and respond to pictorial representations of their own ideas, as well as those of their peers.

An important development challenge has been the need to choose technology platforms. Choosing a specific development language or hardware environment for KIE (e.g., Macintosh computers) was destined to preclude large numbers of users in schools with incompatible technology. Furthermore, the development of any software that relies heavily on the Internet is challenged by fundamental uncertainties in the growth of Internet technologies. For example, the choice of Java as a development environment was attractive three years ago (when we started programming KIE applications) because of its inherent platform-independence. But at that time, it was not at all certain (and still isn't) that Java would emerge as a stable platform independent coding environment. Other challenges concerned whether students and schools would store student work (e.g., KIE Projects in progress) on local machines, or would access them via central servers. We experienced trade-offs in making many of these decisions.

An ongoing implementation challenge is that of scalability. Clearly, we cannot devote extensive KIE Project resources to every teacher or natural scientist who takes an interest in KIE. Working successfully with a single teacher in a school does not assure that we can extend KIE to all science teachers in that school. We must therefore enable teachers and scientists to connect with the KIE technology and pedagogical approach in ways that are scalable and sustainable. While few educational initiatives have ever succeeded in meeting this challenge, we have worked from the start to design KIE as a sustainable resource for science teachers. We have intentionally scrutinized our early partnerships with the goal of developing electronic resources to support more remote partners over the long run. Another implementation challenge has been to Include teachers as an important learner group in our process, and we have developed several ways to respond to this challenge (including support materials, teacher training workshops, and electronic resource centers). We have held three teacher workshops in the past three years, where we were able to observe teachers as they learned about KIE, and develop methods of facilitating this learning.