Advertisement

Elementary students enhancing their understanding of energy-saving through idea-centered collaborative knowledge-building scaffolds and activities

  • Huang-Yao Hong
  • Pei-Yi LinEmail author
Research Article
  • 168 Downloads

Abstract

Effective energy education depends on continuing research designed to identify instructional strategies that will proof effective in particular learning contexts. The aim of this study was to help Taiwanese students learn about energy-saving related concepts through idea-centered, collaborative knowledge-building activities carried out in an online environment. The participants were 34 fifth-grade Taiwanese students. The data were taken mainly from students’ online interaction logs and discourse content. We found that knowledge-building activities helped to transform students into more collaborative, autonomous and creative learners, capable of working innovatively with ideas to address the energy-related issues under discussion. The students also demonstrated deeper understanding of the energy-related topics they explored. This study suggests that knowledge-building, an innovative pedagogical approach, was conducive to collaborative learning even in young students.

Keywords

Energy education Collaborative learning Knowledge-building scaffolds 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Funding for this research was in part provided by a NCCU university grant and by the Ministry of Science and Technology in Taiwan (Grant #: MOST 104-2511-S-004-001-MY3 & MOST 106-2511-S-004-008-MY2). The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author only and do not reflect the opinions of the MOST. We own special thanks to the students for their participation in this study and the research opportunities enabled by their work.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Aronson, E., & Patnoe, S. (1997). The Jigsaw classroom. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
  2. Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
  3. Biehl, J. T., Baker, W. T., Bailey, B. P., Tan, D. S., Inkpen, K. M., & Czerwinski, M. (2008). Impromptu: A new interaction framework for supporting collaboration in multiple display environments and its field evaluation for co-located software development. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 939–948). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  4. Boyes, E., & Stanisstreet, M. (1993). The greenhouse-effect—Childrens perceptions of causes, consequences and cures. International Journal of Science Education, 15, 531–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1990). Communities of learning and thinking, or a context by any other name. In D. Kuhn (Ed.), Developmental perspectives on teaching and learning thinking skills (pp. 108–126). Basel: Karger.Google Scholar
  6. Chan, C. K., Lam, I. C., & Leung, R. W. (2012). Can collaborative knowledge building promote both scientific processes and science achievement? International Journal of Educational Psychology, 1(3), 199–227.Google Scholar
  7. Collins, A. (1996). Design issues for learning environments. In S. Vosniadou, E. De Corte, R. Glaser & H. Mandl (Eds.), International perspectives on the psychological foundations of technology-based learning environments (pp. 347–361). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  8. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Cuseo, J. (1992). Cooperative learning vs. small-group discussions and group projects: The critical differences. Cooperative Learning and College Teaching, 2(3), 5–10.Google Scholar
  10. Deutsch, M. (1949). An experimental study of the effects of cooperation and competition upon group processes. Human Relations, 2, 199–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dias, R. A., Mattos, C. R., & Balestieri, J. A. P. (2004). Energy education: Breaking up the rational energy use barriers. Energy Policy, 32(11), 1339–1347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL? (pp. 61–91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.Google Scholar
  13. Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In E. Spada & P. Reiman (Eds.), Learning in humans and machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  14. Evans, P., & Wolf, B. (2005). Collaboration rules. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 33(4), 50–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Mandl, H., & Haake, J. M. (Eds.). (2007). Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (Vol. 6). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Stegmann, K., & Wecker, C. (2013). Toward a script theory of guidance in computer-supported collaborative learning. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 56–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  18. Hansen, J. K. P. (2010). Knowledge about the greenhouse effect and the effects of the ozone layer among norwegian pupils finishing compulsory education in 1989, 1993, and 2005—What now? International Journal of Science Education, 32, 397–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hewitt, J. (2002). From a focus on tasks to a focus on understanding: The cultural transformation of a Toronto classroom. Computer Supported Cooperative Learning, 2, 11–41.Google Scholar
  20. Hong, H.-Y., & Beyond Group Collaboration. (2011). Facilitating an idea-centered view of collaboration through knowledge building in a science class of fifth-graders. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 20(2), 248–262.Google Scholar
  21. Hong, H.-Y., Chang, Y. H., & Chai, C. S. (2014). Fostering a collaborative and creative climate in a college class through idea-centered knowledge-building. Instructional Science, 42(3), 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hong, H.-Y., Chen, F. C., Chai, C. S., & Chan, W. C. (2011). Teacher-education students’ views about knowledge building theory and practice. Instructional Science, 39(4), 467–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hong, H.-Y., & Lin, S. P. (2010). Teacher-education students’ epistemological belief change through collaborative knowledge building. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 19(1), 99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hong, H.-Y., & Scardamalia, M. (2014). Community knowledge assessment in a knowledge building environment. Computers & Education, 71, 279–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hong, H.-Y., Scardamalia, M., Messina, R., & Teo, C. L. (2015). Fostering sustained idea improvement with principle-based knowledge building analytic tools. Computers & Education, 89, 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hong, H.-Y., & Sullivan, F. R. (2009). Towards an idea-centered, principle-based design approach to support learning as knowledge creation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(5), 613–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Huang, C. C., & Lin, P. H. (1996). Cooperative learning. Taipei: Wunan.Google Scholar
  28. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1993). Cooperative learning. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  29. Kirschner, P. A. (2001). Using integrated electronic environments for collaborative teaching/learning. Learning and Instruction, 10, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kukkonen, J. E., Kärkkäinen, S., Dillon, P., & Keinonen, T. (2014). The effects of scaffolded simulation-based inquiry learning on fifth-graders’ representations of the greenhouse effect. International Journal of Science Education, 36(3), 406–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lipponen, L. (2000). Towards knowledge building: From facts to explanations in primary students’ computer mediated discourse. Learning Environments Research, 3(2), 179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moreno, M., Vivacqua, A., & de Souza, J. (2003). An agent framework to support opportunistic collaboration. In J. Favela & D. Decouchant (Eds.), Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 224–231). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Noroozi, O., Biemans, H. J., Weinberger, A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2013a). Scripting for construction of a transactive memory system in multidisciplinary CSCL environments. Learning and Instruction, 25, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2013b). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction through a transactive discussion script in CSCL. Computers & Education, 61, 59–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2002). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom: The realities of online teaching. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  36. Rycroft, R. W. (2003). Technology-based globalization indicators: the centrality of innovation network data. Technology in Society, 25(3), 299–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67–98). Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
  38. Scardamalia, M. (2004). CSILE/Knowledge Forum®. In A. Kovalchick & K. Dawson (Eds.), Education and technology: An encyclopedia (pp. 183–192). Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.Google Scholar
  39. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., pp. 1370–1373). New York: Macmillan Reference.Google Scholar
  40. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Scheuer, O., McLaren, B. M., Weinberger, A., & Niebuhr, S. (2014). Promoting critical, elaborative discussions through a collaboration script and argument diagrams. Instructional Science, 42(2), 127–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Skamp, K., Boyes, E., & Stanisstreet, M. (2013). Beliefs and willingness to act about global warming: Where to focus science pedagogy? Science Education, 97(2), 191–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  44. So, H. J., & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers & Education, 51(1), 318–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Solbes, J., Guisasola, J., & Tarín, F. (2009). Teaching energy conservation as a unifying principle in physics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(3), 265–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  48. Tchounikine, P. (2016). Contribution to a theory of CSCL scripts: Taking into account the appropriation of scripts by learners. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(3), 349–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thagard, P. (1989). Explanatory coherence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 435–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tsai, P. S., Chai, C. S., Hong, H.-Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2017). Students’ conceptions of and approaches to knowledge building and its relationship to learning outcomes. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(6), 749–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. van Dijk, A. M., Gijlers, H., & Weinberger, A. (2014). Scripted collaborative drawing in elementary science education. Instructional Science, 42(3), 353–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vogel, F., Kollar, I., Ufer, S., Reichersdorfer, E., Reiss, K., & Fischer, F. (2016). Developing argumentation skills in mathematics through computer-supported collaborative learning: The role of transactivity. Instructional Science, 44(5), 477–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vogel, F., Wecker, C., Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2017). Socio-cognitive scaffolding with computer-supported collaboration scripts: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 29(3), 477–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  55. Zhang, J., Hong, H. Y., Scardamalia, M., Teo, C. L., & Morley, E. A. (2011). Sustaining knowledge building as a principle-based innovation at an elementary school. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 262–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zografakis, N., Menegaki, N. A., & Tsagarakis, P. K. (2008). Effective education for energy efficiency. Energy Policy, 36, 3226–3232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationNational Chengchi UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.Ontario Institute for Studies in EducationUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations