Advertisement

Supporting Citizen Inquiry: An Investigation of Moon Rock

  • Eloy David Villasclaras-Fernandez
  • Mike Sharples
  • Simon Kelley
  • Eileen Scanlon
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8095)

Abstract

Citizen inquiry is an innovative way for non-professionals to engage in practical scientific activities, in which they take the role of self-regulated scientists in informal learning contexts. This type of activity has similarities to inquiry-based learning and to citizen science, but also important differences. To understand the challenges of supporting citizen inquiry, a prototype system and activity has been developed: the Moon Rock Explorer. Based on the nQuire Toolkit, this offers people without geology expertise an open investigation into authentic specimens of Moon rock, using a Virtual Microscope. The Moon Rock Explorer inquiry has been evaluated in an informal learning context with PhD students from the Open University. Results of the evaluation raise issues related to motivation and interaction between inquiry participants. They also provide evidence that the integration of scientific tools was successful and that the nQuire Toolkit is suitable to deploy and enact citizen inquiries.

Keywords

Citizen inquiry nQuire Science learning Informal learning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alberts, B.: Editorial: Science Breakthroughs. Science 334(6063), 1604 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Raddick, J., Lintott, C.J., Schawinski, K., Thomas, D., Nichol, R.C., Andreescu, D., Bamford, S., et al.: Galaxy Zoo Team: Galaxy Zoo: An Experiment in Public Science Participation. Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society 38, 892 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cooper, S., Khatib, F., Treuille, A., Barbero, J., Lee, J., Beenen, M., Leaver-Fay, A., et al.: Predicting protein structures with a multiplayer online game. Nature 466(7307), 756–760 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dewey, J.: Science as Subject-matter and as Method. Science 31(787), 121–127 (1910)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kasl, E., Yorks, L.: Collaborative inquiry for adult learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 2002(94), 3–12 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    White, B.Y., Frederiksen, J.R.: Inquiry, Modeling, and Metacognition: Making Science Accessible to All Students. Cognition and Instruction 16(1), 3–118 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Anastopoulou, S., Sharples, M., Ainsworth, S., Crook, C., O’Malley, C., Wright, M.: Creating personal meaning through technology-supported science inquiry learning across formal and informal settings. International Journal of Science Education 34(2), 251–273 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Woelfle, M., Olliaro, P., Todd, M.H.: Open science is a research accelerator. Nature Chemistry 3, 745–748 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wilderman, C.C.: Models of community science: design lessons from the field. In: McEver, C., Bonney, R., Dickinson, J., Kelling, S., Rosenberg, K., Shirk, J.L. (eds.) Citizen Science Toolkit Conference. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    van Joolingen, W., de Jong, T., Lazonder, A., Savelsbergh, E., Manlove, S.: Co-Lab: research and development of an online learning environment for collaborative scientific discovery learning. Computers in Human Behavior 21(4), 671–688 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Quintana, C., Reiser, B.J., Davis, E.A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R.G., Kyza, E., et al.: A Scaffolding Design Framework for Software to Support Science Inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 13(3), 337–386 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sharples, M., Anastopoulou, S.: Designing orchestration for inquiry learning. In: Littleton, K., Scanlon, E., Sharples, M. (eds.) Orchestrating Inquiry Learning, pp. 69–85. Routledge (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Linn, M.C., Clark, D., Slotta, J.D.: WISE Design for Knowledge Integration. Science Education 87(4), 517–538 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Linn, M.C., Slotta, J.D.: Enabling participants in online forums to learn from each other. Collaborative Learning, Reasoning, and Technology, 61–97 (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bonney, R., Cooper, C.B., Dickinson, J., Kelling, S., Phillips, T., Rosenberg, K.V., Shirk, J.: Citizen Science: A Developing Tool for Expanding Science Knowledge and Scientific Literacy. BioScience 59(11), 977–984 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Clow, D., Makriyannis, E.: iSpot Analysed: Participatory Learning and Reputation. Learning, 34–43 (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mulholland, P., Anastopoulou, S., Collins, T., Feisst, M., Gaved, M., Kerawalla, L., Paxton, M., et al.: nQuire: technological support for personal inquiry learning. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies First publ.(99), 1–14 (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Scanlon, E., Anastopoulou, S., Kerawalla, L.: Inquiry learning reconsidered: contexts, representations and challenges. In: Littleton, K., Scanlon, E., Sharples, M. (eds.) Orchestrating Inquiry Learning, pp. 69–85. Routledge (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nielsen, J., Molich, R.: Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. In: Proc. ACM CHI 1990 Conf., Seattle, WA, April 1-5, pp. 249–256 (1990)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cairns, P., Cox, A.L.: Research methods for human-computer interaction. Cambridge University Press (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eloy David Villasclaras-Fernandez
    • 1
  • Mike Sharples
    • 1
  • Simon Kelley
    • 2
  • Eileen Scanlon
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Educational TechnologyThe Open UniversityUK
  2. 2.Faculty of ScienceThe Open UniversityUK

Personalised recommendations