Abstract
Monoplant is a prototype of an educational construction kit that provides teachers and secondary school students with hands-on experience on plant biology. We present the design rationale of Monoplant and report on its 3-week deployment in a high school classroom. The students (N = 14) used Monoplant to solve a photosynthesis assignment requiring them to compare the growth of two plants (one exposed to natural light and another to artificial green light). We used a qualitative approach to collect and analyze data, with observation, video recording, and interaction analysis as the main methods. The students worked in groups, and we video-recorded the verbal and nonverbal interactions of one group (N = 4). The two plants and Monoplant’s visualizations of the plants’ growth, together with the textbook, were the resources that the students used when solving the assignment. These material conditions provided an explorative design space for students’ collaborative learning, and many hypotheses were raised during the hands-on activity with materials and representations. Furthermore, we suggest an emergent practice based on our findings, in which teachers, and not only students, need maker spaces for creating material conditions for students’ domain-specific collaborative knowledge construction.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Arduino. (2017). Open-source electronics prototyping platform. Retrieved from https://www.arduino.cc
Barricelli, B. R., Fischer, G., Fogli, D., Mørch, A., Piccinno, A., & Valtolina, S. (2016). Cultures of participation in the digital age: from “have to” to “want to” participate. In Proc. NordiCHI’16. New York, NY: ACM. Article 128, 3 pages.
Bdeir, A. (2009). Electronics as material: littleBits. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction (TEI ’09) (pp. 397–400). New York, NY: ACM.
Black, J. B., Segal, A., Vitale, J., & Fadjo, C. L. (2012). Embodied cognition and learning environment design. In D. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments. New York, NY: Routledge.
Cerratto Pargman, T., Knutsson, O., & Karlström, P. (2015). Materiality of online students’ peer-review activities in higher education. In Proceedings of CSCL 2015. Exploring the material conditions of learning: Opportunities and challenges for CSCL (pp. 308–315). Gothenburg: ICLS Press.
Fielding, R. T. (2000). Architectural styles and the design of network-based software architectures. PhD thesis, Department of Information and Computer Science, University of California, Irvine.
Fischer, G. (2009). End-user development and meta-design: Foundations for cultures of participation. In Proceedings IS-EUD 2009 (pp. 3–14). Berlin: Springer.
Hoadley, C. (2002). Creating context: Design-based research in creating and understanding CSCL. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Proc. CSCL 2002 (pp. 453–462). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Jahnke, I. (2015). Digital didactical designs: teaching and learning in CrossActionSpaces. New York, NY: Routledge.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Rodriguez, A., & Duschl, R. (2000). “Doing the Lesson” or “Doing Science”: Argument in high school genetic. Science Education, 84, 757–792.
Johri, A., & Olds, B. M. (2011). Situated engineering learning: Bridging engineering education research and the learning sciences. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), 151–185.
Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 39–103.
Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen, (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 693–719). New York: Macmillan.
Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Ludvigsen, S. R., & Mørch, A. I. (2010). Computer-supported collaborative learning: Basic concepts, multiple perspectives, and emerging trends. In P. Peterson & B. McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (pp. 290–296). Oxford: Elsevier.
Marshall, P. (2007). Do tangible interfaces enhance learning? In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction (TEI’07) (pp. 163–170). New York, NY: ACM.
Murad, H., Mørch, A. I., Herstad, J., Seibt, A., & Kjelling, M. O. (2015). Monoplant: Developing an innovative CSCL application for teaching photosynthesis using multiple representations. In Proc. CSCL 2015 (pp. 817–818). Gothenburg: The International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Mørch, A. I., Hartley, M. D., Ludlow, B. L., Caruso, V., & Thomassen, I. (2014). The teacher as designer: Preparations for teaching in a second life distance education course. In 2014 IEEE 14th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, Athens, 2014 (pp. 691–693). Washington, DC: IEEE.
Nishio, J. N. (2000). Why are higher plants green? Evolution of the higher plant photosynthetic pigment complement. Plant, Cell & Environment, 23, 953–961.
Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95, 123–138.
Resnick, L. B. (1987). Constructing knowledge in school. In L. S. Liben (Ed.), The Jean Piaget Symposium series. Development and learning: Conflict or congruence? (pp. 19–50). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Resnick, M., Martin, F., Berg, R., Borovoy, R., Colella, V., Kramer, K., et al. (1998). Digital manipulatives: New toys to think with. In Proceedings of CHI’98 (pp. 281–287). New York, NY: ACM.
Raspberry Pi Foundation. (2017). What is Raspberry Pi. Retrieved from https://www.raspberrypi.org/
Säljö, R. (2010). Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: Technologies, social memory and the performative nature of learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 53–64.
Seibt, M., & Kjelling, M. (2014). Problems and opportunities in students’ scientific inquiry with monoplant. M.S. thesis, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo, Norway.
Simonsen, J., & Robertson, T. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of participatory design. London: Routledge.
Sletbakk, M., Gjærevoll, I., Håpnes, A., Hessen, D., Røsok, Ø., Borge, O., et al. (2008). BIOS Biologi 2. Oslo: Cappelen Damm.
Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for collaborative knowledge building. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mørch, A.I., Murad, H., Herstad, J., Seibt, S., Kjelling, M. (2019). Material Conditions of Collaborative Knowledge Construction: The Case of Monoplant. In: Cerratto Pargman, T., Jahnke, I. (eds) Emergent Practices and Material Conditions in Learning and Teaching with Technologies. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10764-2_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10764-2_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-10763-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-10764-2
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)