Abstract
In the science and technology-driven twenty-first century, we have the tools and knowledge to collaboratively solve increasingly complex problems. However, do we have sufficient people with the capacity to do this? To develop this citizenry, recent educational approaches authentically engage students in collaboratively building knowledge, re-imaging students as active members of a community of novice scientists. Information and communication technology tools are essential in this process. For example, with the open source web software, Future Learning Environment 4 (FLE4) students take ownership for their community’s knowledge production as they seek to answer scientific questions. By reaching out to rich information sources (web, books, teacher, each other, etc.), students develop, debate, and improve theories. FLE4’s scaffolding enables this sophisticated classroom discourse. Simultaneously, the online dialog provides teachers with rich and authentic data to incrementally assess student learning. Additionally, assessing these student discourses allows teachers to evaluate their class’ collaborative skills and science abilities, which are impossible to assess through standardized assessments. This chapter provides a pedagogical model that helps teachers grow knowledge-building communities, a software program that supports this instructional model, and possible investigative strategies for assessing learning, from the level of diverse individuals up to the community level.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (2009). Benchmarks for science literacy [online]. Retrieved May 9, 2011, from http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/index.php?home=true
Armstrong, V., Barnes, S., Sutherland, R., Curran, S., Mills, S., & Thompson, I. (2005). Collaborative research methodology for investigating teacher and learning: The use of interactive whiteboard technology. Educational Review, 57(4), 455–468.
Becker, H. J. (2001). How are teachers using computers in instruction? Retrieved November 30, 2009, from http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/conferences-pdf/how_are_teachers_using.pdf
Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brickner, D. (1995). The effects of first and second order barriers to change on the degree and nature of computer usage of secondary mathematics teachers: A case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32–42.
Friedrichsen, P. M., Dana, T. M., Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., & Tsur, C. (2001). Learning to teach with technology model: Implementation in secondary science teacher education. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 20(4), 377–394.
Hug, B., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. (2005). Using innovative learning technologies to promote learning and engagement in an urban science classroom. Urban Education, 40(4), 446–472.
Hurd, P. D. (1998). Scientific literacy: New minds for a changing world. Science Education, 82(3), 407–416.
Law, N., Pelgrum, W., Monsuer, C., Brese F., Cartens, R., Voogt, J., Plomp, T., & Anderson, R. (2008). Study design and methodology. In N. Law et al. (Eds), Pedagogy and ICT use in schools around the world (pp. 13–36). New York: Springer. Retrieved April 14, 2010, from http://www.springer.com/education+%26+language/learning+%26+instruction/book/978-1-4020-8927-5
Lemke, C. (2010). Innovation through technology. In J. Bellanca & R. Brandt (Eds.), 21st century skills: How students learn (pp. 243–275). Retrieved April 10, 2011, from http://www.solution-tree.com/Public/Media.aspx?ShowDetail=true&ProductID=BKF389
National Academies Press. (2006). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved on April 1, 2011, from http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11463.html
National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE). (2007). Tough choices or tough Times: The report of the new commission on the skills of the American workforce. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
National Education Association (NEA). (2008). Access, adequacy, and equity in education technology: Results of a survey of America’ s teachers and support professionals on technology in public schools and classrooms. Retrieved May 12, 2009, from the SC Education of SC07-09 web site: http://sc08.sc-education.org/conference/k12/sat/stem/08gainsandgapsedtech.pdf
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovative knowledge communities and three metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 557–576.
Pearlman, B. (2010). Designing new learning environments to support 21st century skills. In J. Bellanca & R. Brandt (Eds.), 21st century skills: How students learn (pp. 117–149). Retrieved April 10, 2011, from http://www.solution-tree.com/Public/Media.aspx?ShowDetail=true&ProductID=BKF389
Sandholtz, J., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., pp. 1370–1373). New York: Macmillan Reference, USA.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). New York: Cambridge University Press.
US Department of Education. (2003). Federal funding for educational technology and how it is used in the classroom: A summary of findings from the integrated studies of educational technology. Retrieved December 10, 2009, from http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/iset/summary2003.pdf.
Windshitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165–205.
Yerrick, R., & Hoving, T. (1999). Obstacles confronting technology initiatives as seen through the experience of science teachers: A comparative study of science teachers’ beliefs, planning, and practice. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(4), 291–307.
Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49–58.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89, 357–377.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Roehrig, G.H., Groos, D., Guzey, S.S. (2014). Developing Collective Decision-Making Through Future Learning Environments. In: Mueller, M., Tippins, D., Stewart, A. (eds) Assessing Schools for Generation R (Responsibility). Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education, vol 41. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2748-9_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2748-9_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2747-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2748-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)