CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 17Science Education and PedagogyOnline and Blended LearningTeacher Education and Leadership Studies

Targeting disciplinary practices in an online learning environment

Jaber, Lama Z., Dini, Vesal, Hammer, David, Danahy, Ethan·2018·Science Education
DOI 10.1002/sce.21340
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The Framework for K–12 Science Education (National Research Council, 2012) outlines eight practices to represent the diverse ways scientists construct and evaluate knowledge. Engaging students in these practices is a key instructional target in the science classroom. This target, however, creates particular challenges for online instruction, which has predominantly focused on delivering content. This study shows the possibility of addressing disciplinary practices online, here in the context of a professional development course for in‐service science teachers, which we designed based on previous work in responsive teaching. We examine an episode of the participants’ engagement in an online text‐based message board and identify evidence of disciplinary practices in their work. We discuss design elements and instructional choices that supported disciplinary engagement: building instruction around learners’ ideas, developing online spaces in interaction with learners, and privileging learners’ engagement in disciplinary practices as an objective.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/sce.21340

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The ability of learners and teachers to interact, collaborate and build relationships with other members was a source of satisfaction for students and influenced the cohesion of learning communities, the co-construction of knowledge among participants, and the impact of online teaching and learning practices.

    “The ability of learners and teachers to interact, collaborate and build relationships with other members was a source of satisfaction for students (Biasuttie 2011) and greatly influenced the cohesion of learning communities (Komninou 2017), the co-construction of knowledge among participants (Jaber et al. 2018;Jackson and Jones 2019) and the impact of online teaching and learning practices (Bicen,”

    From COVID-19 and teacher education: a literature review of online teaching and learning practices (2020) · cites this paper as Jaber et al. 2018

  • The asynchronous features of some online tools provided participants with additional time to reflect about each other's ideas, integrate different perspectives into their own thinking or address pedagogical challenges.

    “In the process of sharing personal experiences, the asynchronous features of some of these tools provided participants with additional time to reflect about each other's ideas, integrate different perspectives into their own thinking or address pedagogical challenges (Jaber et al. 2018;Rodeslier 2015).”

    From COVID-19 and teacher education: a literature review of online teaching and learning practices (2020) · cites this paper as Jaber et al. 2018

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 98

  1. Adamson D. &Rosé C. P.(2012).Coordinating multi‐dimensional support in collaborative conversational agents. InProceedings of the 11th international conference on intelligent tutoring systems(Vol.7315 pp.346–351).Heidelberg Germany:Springer. · DOI
  2. Atkins L., 2015, Responsive teaching in science and mathematics, 56
  3. 10.1080/01587919.2013.876142 · DOI
  4. 10.1086/461730 · DOI
  5. 10.1002/tea.21257 · DOI
  6. Bigelow C. A., 2009, Comparing student performance in an online versus a face to face introductory turfgrass science course: A case study, NACTA Journal, 53, 2
  7. 10.1088/0031-9120/46/6/009 · DOI
  8. Brandes A.(1997).Seeds of science practice: Parallels between the science thinking and activities of sixth‐grade children and professional scientists(Unpublished doctoral dissertation).Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge MA.
  9. Bruner J. B., 2003, The process of education
  10. Charmaz K., 2006, Constructing grounded theory
  11. 10.1002/sce.10001 · DOI
  12. 10.1207/s15327809jls0603_1 · DOI
  13. 10.1080/00461520.2011.587722 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Coffey J. E., Improving education standards, Science, 339, 489, 10.1126/science.1235590 · DOI
  15. 10.1002/tea.20440 · DOI
  16. Coopey E. Danahy E. &Schneider L.(2013).InterLACE: Interactive learning and collaboration environment.Proceedings of the 2013 conference on computer supported cooperative work companion.New York NY:ACM 11–14 · DOI
  17. Dede C., 2016, Teacher learning in the digital age: Online professional development in STEM education
  18. 10.1177/0022487108327554 · DOI
  19. 10.1111/1467-9604.00005 · DOI
  20. Dillenbourg P., 2002, Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL, 61
  21. 10.1080/07370008.1985.9649008 · DOI
  22. Doubler S., 2016, Teacher learning in the digital age: Online professional development in STEM education, 33
  23. 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A · DOI
  24. Duckworth E., 2001, “Tell me more”: Listening to learners explain, 1
  25. 10.17763/haer.61.1.c66250342483j56l · DOI
  26. Duckworth E., 2006, “The having of wonderful ideas” and other essays on teaching and learning
  27. 10.1016/S0016-0032(36)91047-5 · DOI
  28. 10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_1 · DOI
  29. 10.1002/sce.20012 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Eurydice Network, 2011, Science education in Europe: National policies, practices and research
  31. Finkelstein C. Jaber L. Z. &Dini V.(under review).“That's all I got to say about that!”: Relational dynamics in inquiry‐based science PD. Manuscript submitted for publication.
  32. 10.1207/s15327809jls1404_1 · DOI
  33. 10.1007/s11191-006-9045-7 · DOI
  34. 10.1002/sce.21188 · DOI
  35. 10.3102/0091732X030001001 · DOI
  36. 10.1016/j.ijer.2013.07.009 · DOI
  37. 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01330.x · DOI
  38. 10.1007/978-0-387-36949-5_15 · DOI
  39. 10.1207/s1532690xci1303_3 · DOI
  40. 10.1207/s1532690xci1504_2 · DOI
  41. Hammer D., 2005, Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective, 89
  42. Hammer D., 2012, Responsive teaching and the beginnings of energy in a third grade classroom, Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education, 6, 51
  43. Harlen W., 2004, Online professional development for teachers, 87
  44. Hawkins D., 1965, Messing about in science, Science and Children, 2, 5
  45. 10.1002/sce.20373 · DOI
  46. 10.1088/0031-9120/45/2/006 · DOI
  47. 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00789.x · DOI
  48. Jeong H. &Hmelo‐Silver C. E.(2010).An overview of CSCL methodologies.Proceedings of the 9th international conference of the learning sciences(Vol.1 pp.921–928).Chicago IL:International Society of the Learning Sciences.
  49. 10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F · DOI
  50. 10.1002/sce.20395 · DOI
  51. 10.1207/s1532690xci1701_4 · DOI
  52. 10.1037/0003-066X.64.8.759 · DOI
  53. 10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy216 · DOI
  54. Lemke J. L., 1990, Talking science: Language, learning, and values
  55. 10.1080/10508406.2014.930707 · DOI
  56. 10.1002/sce.10086 · DOI
  57. Manz E., 2014, Representing student argumentation as functionally emergent from scientific activity, Review of Educational Research, 85, 1
  58. 10.1080/07370008.2014.1000490 · DOI
  59. 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.005 · DOI
  60. 10.1119/1.4872414 · DOI
  61. 10.1002/tea.21007 · DOI
  62. 10.1002/sce.21274 · DOI
  63. 10.1002/tea.20201 · DOI
  64. 10.1159/000085516 · DOI
  65. 10.1177/1932202X1002200102 · DOI
  66. National Research Council, 2012, A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas
  67. NGSS Lead States, 2013, Next Generation Science standards: For states, by states
  68. 10.1525/aeq.1993.24.4.04x0063k · DOI
  69. Office of the Chief Scientist, 2014, Science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Australia's future
  70. Organization for the Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2013, PISA 2015 Draft science framework
  71. Paretti M., 2009, Engaging audience: Writing in an age of new literacies
  72. Perry W. B., 1970, Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme
  73. Petraglia J., 1995, Spinning like a kite: A closer look at the pseudotransactional function of writing, Journal of Advanced Composition, 15, 19
  74. Reiser B. J., 2001, Cognition and instruction: Twenty‐five years of progress, 263
  75. Richards J., 2015, Responsive teaching in science and mathematics, 36
  76. 10.1119/1.3543576 · DOI
  77. 10.4324/9781315689302 · DOI
  78. 10.4324/9781315689302 · DOI
  79. Rocard M., 2007, Rocard report of the European Commission. Science education now. A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe
  80. 10.1080/10508406.2010.491752 · DOI
  81. 10.1007/s10972-011-9250-3 · DOI
  82. 10.1002/sce.20421 · DOI
  83. 10.1002/sce.10130 · DOI
  84. Scardamalia M., 2002, Liberal education in a knowledge society, 67
  85. Scardamalia M., 2004, Education and technology: An encyclopedia, 183
  86. 10.5408/1089-9995-54.3.215 · DOI
  87. 10.1080/10627197.2010.530563 · DOI
  88. 10.3847/AER2004003 · DOI
  89. Sohmer R., 2009, Transformation of knowledge through classroom interaction, 105
  90. 10.1002/sce.20366 · DOI
  91. 10.1007/s10857-005-3849-2 · DOI
  92. 10.1002/tea.1017 · DOI
  93. Warren B., 2005, Everyday matters in science and mathematics: Studies of complex classroom events, 119
  94. Watkins J., 2017, Teachers’ personal epistemologies: Evolving models for informing practice, 89
  95. 10.1002/tea.21431 · DOI
  96. 10.1007/978-0-387-36949-5_12 · DOI
  97. 10.1007/s10956-014-9497-5 · DOI
  98. 10.1080/10508400802581676 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jaber, L. Z., Dini, V., Hammer, D., & Danahy, E.
Affiliations
  • Florida State University (US)
  • Tufts University (US)
Corresponding author
Jaber, Lama Z.
ORCID
Venue
Science Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-03-26
Volume
102
Issue
4
Pages
668-692
ISSN
  • 0036-8326 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-237X
DOI
10.1002/sce.21340
OpenAlex
W2795356040
Cited by
17
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2
FWCI
8.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
Science Education (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
Keywords
disciplinary practices, online learning, Framework for K-12 Science Education, in-service science teachers, teacher professional development, responsive teaching, online forums, student-centered learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review