- Email: [email protected]
Learning with multiple online texts as part of scientific inquiry in the classroom
Accepted Manuscript Learning with multiple online texts as part of scientific inquiry in the classroom Sarah Sullivan, Sadhana Puntambekar PII:
S0360-1315(18)30240-9
DOI:
10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.004
Reference:
CAE 3447
To appear in:
Computers & Education
Received Date: 5 February 2018 Revised Date:
16 August 2018
Accepted Date: 15 September 2018
Please cite this article as: Sullivan S. & Puntambekar S., Learning with multiple online texts as part of scientific inquiry in the classroom, Computers & Education (2018), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.compedu.2018.09.004. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Learning with Multiple Online Texts as Part of Scientific Inquiry in the Classroom
[email protected]
RI PT
Corresponding author: Sarah Sullivan
600 Highland Ave. H4/785B CSC Madison, WI 53792
M AN U
608-262-1240
SC
University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health
Sadhana Puntambekar, [email protected]
Acknowledgments
TE D
University of Wisconsin, Department of Educational Psychology
AC C
EP
This work is supported in part by U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, Grant No. R305A080507 and the U.S. National Science Foundation Education Core Research Program, Grant No. DRL-1431904. We thank the teachers and students who participated in and made this study possible.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1 Abstract The aim of this study was to investigate how teachers interact with students in order to prepare them to conduct research with multiple online texts as part of the process of scientific
RI PT
inquiry in the classroom. The specific focus of this work was on understanding how teachers used classroom dialogue to create an environment that supports the use of multiple online textbased resources as part of the process of doing science. Data collection for this study occurred in
SC
the 6th grade classrooms of two teachers in a Midwestern school district. Each of the teachers taught three science classes for a total of 150 students. A test of students’ content knowledge of
M AN U
physics was used in order to evaluate students’ understanding of the physics concepts targeted in the curriculum. An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) revealed that the students from one teacher’s classes performed significantly better on the physics test than the students of the other teacher (p < .05). To qualitatively investigate the differences between the whole class dialogue
TE D
used by the two teachers, teachers’ interactions with students as they prepared them to engage in research with the multiple texts were coded. Coding of the dialogue revealed that the teacher whose students exhibited higher learning outcomes engaged in more deep level facilitation
EP
strategies during whole class discussion, including setting learning goals for text interactions,
AC C
connecting to prior knowledge, and discussing the use of multiple texts as part of doing science.
Keywords • applications in subject areas • improving classroom teaching • multimedia/hypermedia systems • teaching/learning strategies
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 2 Learning with Multiple Online Texts as Part of Scientific Inquiry in the Classroom 1. Introduction Learners now encounter many of the texts they engage with online. A strength of online
RI PT
text environments is their potential for knowledge visualization, or the “representation of conceptual knowledge” (Keller & Tergan, 2005, p. 7). Online environments can support
information search and conceptual understanding by linking and structuring resources in
SC
intentional ways. This structure can provide visual cues to the reader about the relationships among concepts or ideas presented in the texts (e.g., Rouet et al., 2005; Gerjets et al., 2009). For
M AN U
example, maps overviewing the content in online texts can increase students’ knowledge of content structure and semantic connections among informational texts (Vörös, Rouet, Pléh, 2011). Multiple online texts can be utilized not only to increase learning, engagement, and understanding, but also to present information from a variety of different perspectives to help
TE D
increase learners’ cognitive flexibility, or ability to understand and apply concepts in multiple contexts (Spiro et al., 1987; Spiro et al., 2003; Spiro et al., 2007). For these reasons, multiple texts presented in online environments can be powerful learning tools for students.
EP
The study reported in this paper looks at how learning from multiple online texts is supported in the classrooms of two sixth grade teachers. The aim is to explore whether the
AC C
strategies used by teachers to support students’ learning with multiple texts facilitate the use of science concepts within the context of middle school physics. A review of the literature on learning with multiple texts in science and the role of the teacher in facilitating the process of learning with texts in science is presented. Then, the mixed-methods study that was conducted to examine the relationship between teachers’ facilitation strategies and students’ learning of scientific concepts from multiple texts is described and results and conclusions discussed.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 3 1.1 Learning with Multiple Texts in Scientific Domains In the domain of science there are numerous conceptual relationships that learners need to understand. One advantage to using multiple online text environments to present science
RI PT
content is that readers can use the navigational structure of the environment, such as an index or concept map, to aid in the reading process and establish meaning across multiple texts. Accessing multiple texts in online environments has the potential to increase learners’
SC
meaningful interactions with texts and their conceptual understanding by making these
conceptual relations apparent. Indeed, many science texts are now presented online in multiple
M AN U
text formats. Due to the essential role that texts play in storing, representing, and disseminating scientific information, scientific inquiry is a natural context in which to embed opportunities for interacting with multiple texts. The inquiry process, which requires learners to engage in higherorder thinking and problem-solving activities related to scientific information and issues, can
TE D
develop both conceptual knowledge and reasoning abilities related to scientific information (Cavagnetto, 2010; Gee, 2004; Zohar & Nemet, 2002). For example, both problem-based and project-based approaches to science can be categorized as inquiry. In this definition of inquiry,
EP
students are solving open-ended problems, working in groups, coming up with multiple ideas and designs, and following different paths while engaging with different sources of information
AC C
to solve problems related to science. Within an inquiry-based environment, skilled readers of online texts approach online reading as a problem-solving task and do better when these tasks are embedded in inquiry activities in which content-specific goals have been set requiring them to make connections across sources (Coiro, 2010). Rather than being a supplement to experiments or lab-based experiences, according to Palincsar and Magnusson (2001), texts can be seen as a form of second-hand investigation that is just as much a legitimate form of conducting scientific
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 4 inquiry as designing experiments and collecting data. Importantly in this text-based inquiry, students are not simply searching for information that can be found verbatim in the multiple documents. Rather, they need to integrate the multiple sources of information in a way that
RI PT
allows them to go beyond the information given in a single document and understand how the multiple sources complement each other to give an overall picture of a concept. Moreover,
scientific inquiry with a focus on reading multiple texts as part of the process has been found to
SC
increase proficiency with reading and comprehension of science content (Cervetti, Pearson, Barber, Hiebert, & Bravo, 2007; Cromley, Snyder-Hogan, & Luciw-Dubas, 2010; Herman,
M AN U
Perkins, Hansen, Gomez, & Gomez, 2010; Greenleaf et al., 2009; Guthrie et al., 2004; Romance & Vitale, 1992; Vitale, & Romance, 2007). Programs that focus on developing students’ literacy with online information can improve both literacy skills and content knowledge, particularly when students are allowed to engage in collaborative inquiry activities (Kuiper et al., 2009).
TE D
Inquiry-based science programs are well positioned to provide a context for collaborative learning with multiple online texts.
1.2 The Role of the Teacher in Supporting Learning from Multiple Online Texts
EP
In classroom settings, students do not engage with online informational texts devoid of any support other than the online text environment itself. The design of curricula or text
AC C
environments may be more or less effective depending on the kinds of facilitation that the teacher provides in the classroom (Cervetti, Barber, Dorph, Pearson, & Goldschmidt, 2012). Therefore, the ways teachers approach the use of these resources and the ways in which they make these approaches known to their students greatly impact students’ successes with using these texts (Molyneux & Godinho, 2012). Similar to Rowell and Ebbers’ (2004) reflection on the lack of research reporting on the kinds of experiences students have with informational texts in
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 5 school science, the same can be said of the lack of research reporting on the kinds of experiences teachers have facilitating students’ learning with multiple online texts in science classrooms. Research is needed related to disciplinary literacies and the use of online resources (Goldman et
RI PT
al., 2012).
There are many ways in which teachers can support students in using online resources as part of science. Prior research has shown an advantage for a learner-centered teaching approach
SC
to facilitating learning with multi-media resources as part of the process of inquiry. This form of facilitation appeared to allow students more time to use and process the resources and also
M AN U
resulted in better learning outcomes and a more positive perspective on the lesson and the use of online sources (So & Kong, 2007). Strategies such as helping students to activate their prior knowledge and experiences related to a topic can support comprehension of expository texts read by middle school students (Bråten, Johansen, & Stromso, 2017). Other strategies include using
TE D
the structure of the online text environment to facilitate the establishment of meaning across multiple texts, revisiting information in order to solidify or revise understanding (Afflerbach & Cho, 2009), and investigating seemingly goal-related information (Coiro, 2010). Nystrand (2006)
EP
argues that teachers can improve learning outcomes when students are engaging with texts by promoting discussion, authentic questioning and questions that build upon previous questions.
AC C
Culminating this culture of discussion and questioning may help to facilitate a classroom environment in which utilizing text resources is seen as part of “doing science” and essential to the process of scientific investigation. There are numerous reasons for teachers to support their students in using multiple texts
to support scientific reasoning and claims. Previous work has found that a belief in the justification of scientific arguments based on multiple sources was a significant positive
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 6 predictor of high school students’ multiple documents comprehension (Bråten et al., 2013). Although the degree to which students take advantage of online text structures and integrate across multiple texts is variable, studies have found that when students do integrate across
RI PT
multiple documents, they produce work that that indicates higher-level understanding of content and more evaluation of informational sources (Anmarkrud et al. 2014; Hagen et al. 2014).
Further, a belief in justification by multiple sources appears to be positively related to high
SC
school students’ science achievement as well as their perceived self-efficacy for reading in
science, which was also positively related to their achievement (Bråten et al., 2014). Teaching
M AN U
the importance and skill of integrating across multiple texts as part of scientific investigation and problem solving can potentially benefit both students’ abilities to learn from multiple online texts and achievement in science. Teachers’ support of students in learning from multiple texts is often accomplished through the use of effective classroom discussion techniques and discourse
TE D
strategies.
1.2.1 Discourse Strategies in Classroom Teaching Recent work on promoting reading comprehension and mathematical understanding
EP
through classroom dialogue has identified discourse strategies used by teachers that appear to be particularly effective at promoting learning and achievement. For example, open-ended questions
AC C
with subsequent follow up by teachers on students’ thinking about them have been found to facilitate development of conceptual knowledge (Wilkinson et al., 2015). Additionally, engaging in collaborative reasoning during discussion while setting the stage for small group reading and reasoning can support students in jointly engaging with multiple information sources (Webb et al., 2017). Another effective teacher facilitation strategy is shared control between teachers and students and gradual release of responsibility for the discussion to students. However, it is
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 7 important that the teacher continues to guide and support the students using teacher guiding moves, such as summarizing and modeling (Li et al, 2014). Finally, other comprehension facilitation strategies, such as support in identifying and activating the appropriate prior
RI PT
knowledge (Li et al, 2014), challenging students’ thinking and guiding them towards the shared goal of the activity (Gillies & Baffour, 2017), and supported practice in generating deep-level questions about the text (Murphy et al., 2016) have all be found to be successful teacher
SC
strategies for supporting learning from multiple texts. Overall, reviews of the research suggest that at the least, there is a modest level of evidence to support that classroom discussion can
M AN U
impact reading and comprehension, even independently of the texts discussed as part of the lesson (Murphy et al 2011; Murphy et al 2009). Much more needs to be known about how to best support teachers in conducting discussions about texts in ways that have been found to be successful in supporting learning (Wilkinson et al., 2015; Li et al, 2014). In order to do this,
TE D
more extensive, longitudinal explorations and research into teachers’ use of discussion and support of students’ discussion to facilitate learning are required (Murphy et al., 2016). Another revealing approach to the study of interactions between teachers and students is
EP
that of discourse structures. Discourse structures in the classroom are patterns of interaction among teachers and students that are repeated across lessons and contexts. For example, one
AC C
common discourse structure is initiation, response, feedback (IRF), which is also sometimes referred to as initiation, response, evaluation (IRE). Researchers who focus on discourse structures in classrooms have made the argument that the third slot should be used and thought of as “feedback” rather than evaluation and its role should be to extend and reinforce responses (Cazden, 2001). Further, the nature of teacher questions as part of this process is essential. For example, metaprocess questions, such as, “How do you know this?” can be used to prompt
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 8 longer and more complex responses. Multiple activities and goals can be accomplished by the same discourse structure, and to say that a particular discourse structure can only be used to accomplish a single learning or educational goal is an oversimplification. Teachers need a
RI PT
repertoire of discourse structures and ways to approach lessons. They must understand what is most appropriate for facilitating learning of complex information and skills in a variety of
environments with ever more complex educational objectives (Cazden, 2001). The IRE discourse
SC
structure is a quite common communication mechanism observed in classrooms, but the use of discourse structures by teachers communicating with students around learning from multiple
M AN U
online texts in science has not been investigated.
In sum, in a classroom, the teacher plays a critical role in helping students to see texts as an integral part of the process of doing science. The role of the teacher is particularly important when students are engaging in collaborative learning with online resources (Coiro, 2010;
TE D
Urhahne, Schanze, Bell, Mansfield, & Holmes, 2010). Our prior work has found that regardless of how students engage with multiple online texts (either individually or collaboratively), the way in which the teacher frames the task will impact the way in which students engage with the
EP
system of texts (Smith, Sullivan, & Puntambekar, 2009). This pilot study found that if teachers used a fact-finding approach when discussing learning with multiple texts while supporting
AC C
students working on text-based inquiry in small groups, the students approached the reading of the online texts from this perspective. This meant that students overlooked the features of the texts that were designed to facilitate the understanding of complex and interrelated concepts. However, this work did not investigate how teachers approached facilitating the inquiry process with multiple online texts when engaging their whole class of students and how this may have impacted learning outcomes. Thus, the current study sought to explore this.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 9 Revealing ways teachers interact with students as they learn with multiple online texts is of the utmost importance when studying learning from multiple text-based resources within the context of the science classroom. Learning from texts is an essential, yet often complicated,
RI PT
aspect of doing scientific inquiry. As the research discussed above illustrates, engaging with multiple online texts offers affordances for learning but can also be difficult for students if they are not supported in the process of reading in online texts environments. It is important to
SC
acknowledge that before making suggestions about how teachers should support their students, the existing practices of teachers around these types of texts need to be explored. Then, ideas for
M AN U
enhancing already existing practices can be provided based on the kinds of interactions that have been shown to be fruitful in reading and science instruction (Mortimer & Scott, 2003). Therefore, the goal of this study is to investigate how teachers interact with their whole classes of students in order to prepare them to conduct research with multiple online texts as part of the
2. Methods
TE D
process of scientific inquiry in the classroom.
For this study, the focus was on teacher interactions with students to prepare learners to
EP
use multiple online texts as part of the inquiry process. As discussed in the previous section, online texts can play an essential supportive role in the process of scientific investigation.
AC C
However, the teacher is critical in framing the way that these texts will be used in the context of inquiry. Although there have been studies that look at the ways in which teachers incorporate texts into science, research is sparse that investigates how teachers create an environment that supports the use of multiple online text-based resources as part of the process of doing science. Given this gap in the literature, the following question was investigated in this study:
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 10 How do teachers interact with students to prepare them to use multiple online texts as part of conducting scientific investigations? A mixed-methods approach was used to investigate how two science teachers interacted with
RI PT
their students to prepare them to use multiple online texts as part of learning science in the
classroom. The primary objective was to investigate the ways in which the teachers facilitated
inquiry-based process of learning about physics concepts. 2.1 Participants
SC
the class just prior to students conducting research with multiple online texts as part of an
M AN U
Data for this study was collected in the 6th grade classrooms of two teachers in a Midwestern school district, George and Lauren. Both teachers were in their fourth year of participation with the CoMPASS project, which is a curriculum designed to teach students physics via inquiry-based science. Each of the teachers taught three science classes for a total N
TE D
= 150 students. The implementation of a Forces and Motion unit in their classrooms took each teacher approximately 12 weeks. For most activities in the unit, students worked in small groups of three to four students. The teachers had been implementing a Simple Machines CoMPASS
EP
unit for three years prior to collection of data for this study, but this was their first year implementing the Forces and Motion unit.
AC C
2.3 Materials
Students used the CoMPASS eTextbook (Puntambekar, 2006) as part of a design-based
physics inquiry unit on Forces and Motion. The overall goal of the unit was for students to design a fun, yet safe, roller coaster for an amusement park. Students worked in a student notebook (aka Scientist’s Journal) that has been designed to allow multiple opportunities to engage in reading and writing practices necessary in the domain of science. During the design
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 11 process, students were required to read and integrate information from multiple sources. As part of the curriculum, students engaged in design challenges, utilizing the CoMPASS eTextbook and publicly available websites to conduct their background research. The role of the teacher was to
RI PT
support and facilitate students’ use of the multiple curricular materials (e.g. student notebook, multiple text resources, and design materials) to help learners construct understandings of the physics concepts related to designing a roller coaster. Teachers participated in professional
questions before implementing the unit in their classrooms.
M AN U
2.3.1 CoMPASS eTextbook
SC
development and had the opportunity to engage with the various curriculum materials and ask
CoMPASS supports students in developing a rich understanding of physics concepts and their relationships by providing navigable concept maps that are designed to mirror the conceptual structure in physics. The CoMPASS system provides two representations: a navigable
TE D
concept map and text that describes the concepts (see Figure 1). The concept maps are dynamically constructed and displayed with the fisheye technique (Bedersen & Hollan, 1995; Furnas, 1986). The maps are designed such that the concept that the student selects becomes the
EP
center (focal) point of the map and the other concepts move accordingly based on the strength of their relationship to the center concept. CoMPASS was used by students to learn about concepts
AC C
related to forces and motion in order to help them with their roller coaster. Students navigated CoMPASS four times throughout the curriculum for approximately 30 minutes per navigation session to research concepts for their design challenges. Students used a laptop to navigate on CoMPASS in groups of three or four. The interactions of the teachers with the whole class to develop questions before each CoMPASS research session were analyzed for this study.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 12 Figure 1. Screenshot of the CoMPASS eTextbook. This figure shows the navigable
M AN U
SC
RI PT
concept map and text for the concept of momentum in the topic of linear motion.
TE D
2.3.2. Reading excursions
In addition to using CoMPASS, students also conducted research using multiple online texts during Reading Excursion activities. For the Reading Excursion activities, students were
EP
asked to integrate multiple websites as part of collaboratively conducting research in their small groups. Websites with reliable and complementary information were chosen by the curriculum
AC C
development team and were included as part of the unit. This was done in order to make sure students would have access to online texts that would allow them to get the background information that they needed for their design challenges. The websites contained accurate, and complementary information about physics concepts, such as momentum and Newton’s Laws, related to students’ roller coaster designs. This included detailed text-based descriptions of the concepts and their applications as well as illustrations and graphic examples to help students understand the relevance to their roller coasters. However, no single website contained all of the
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 13 information that students needed to apply to their designs, so they had to be thoughtful about navigating to multiple sites and integrating their information. Websites were also provided so that school districts could make sure they were not blocked by schools’ website filters. Students
RI PT
conducted four Reading Excursions throughout the curriculum, covering topics including forces and vectors, efficiency and friction, the law of conservation of energy and Newton’s Laws,
respectively. For each Reading Excursion activity, students were asked to answer a series of
SC
questions related to the targeted concepts. Students conducted four Reading Excursions during the curriculum, each taking approximately one 45-minute class period. Teachers’ interactions
M AN U
with students before each of the reading excursions were analyzed. 2.4 Measures and analyses
Analyses determined whether there were any differences between the students of the two teachers in terms of prior knowledge and learning outcomes. First, an independent samples t-test
TE D
assessed whether there was a significant difference on pretest scores on a subset of content questions relevant to the reading excursions from the Physics Fiesta (discussed below) between the students of the two teachers. Next, paired samples t-tests were done, using the same subset of
EP
questions as the pretest, for the students of each teacher in order to look at improvement from pre to posttest. Finally, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted to see whether the two
AC C
teachers’ students differed significantly on the posttest after controlling for pretest score. For the analysis, a subset of questions from a Physics Fiesta content test was used to examine students’ scores across teachers.
2.4.1 Physics Fiesta content test Members of the CoMPASS research team designed a test of students’ content knowledge of physics, the Physics Fiesta, in order to evaluate students’ understanding of the physics
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 14 concepts targeted in the curriculum. The test consists of 29 multiple choice questions for a total possible score of 29 and addresses a range of physics concepts and relationships such as mass, work, force, potential and kinetic energy, velocity, acceleration, efficiency, the conservation of
RI PT
energy, and Newton’s Laws. There were three or four possible choices for each question. Five questions had three answer choices and ten questions had four answer choices. Cronbach’s alpha with data from this sample of students was .757, indicating acceptable internal consistency. For
SC
this study, a subset of questions that tested the concepts specifically targeted in the reading
activities was used. The subset consisted of 15 questions (Appendix A) that addressed forces,
M AN U
vectors, efficiency, friction, conservation of energy and Newton’s First and Second Laws. Cronbach’s alpha = .656 for the subset of questions. The first three questions asked about factual knowledge while the remaining 12 questions tested students’ conceptual knowledge rather than memorization of definitions. Students took the Physics Fiesta test as a pretest before beginning
TE D
the curriculum and as a posttest after the end of the curriculum, which resulted in approximately 12 weeks between the time they took the pre-test and the post-test. 2.4.2 Qualitative analyses
EP
Whole class discussions of one of each of the teachers’ three classes were videoed when the teachers were introducing any of the activities related to conducting research with multiple
AC C
online text resources. Video of group interactions has been used successfully in previous studies of the CoMPASS curriculum materials to inform understanding of both teachers’ and students’ behaviors (Bopardikar, Sullivan, & Puntambekar, 2009; 2010; Puntambekar, Stylianou, & Goldstein, 2007). As such, this technique was utilized in the qualitative analysis for this study. To investigate our research question, teachers’ interactions with students as they prepared them to engage in research with the multiple texts were coded.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 15 The video of teachers’ interactions with the whole class when discussing the CoMPASS eTextbook and the Reading Excursions was transcribed. In all, ten whole class interactions, which are referred to as episodes in the following analysis sections, were transcribed for each
RI PT
teacher, for a total of approximately four hours of transcribed classroom video. A coding rubric (See Table 2 and Appendix B) was developed based on prior work investigating teachers’
strategies for enacting the CoMPASS curriculum (Puntambekar et al., 2007) as well as other
SC
research examining teacher facilitation of the use of texts as part of the scientific inquiry process (Coiro, 2010; Dymock & Nicholson, 2010; Olry-Louis, 2009; Urhahne et al., 2010). The rubric
M AN U
was applied to the transcripts and modified based on the teacher facilitation strategies that emerged from the videos in order to conduct a thematic analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Strauss & Corbin, 1998) of what the teacher did during the whole class discussions related to multiple informational science texts.
TE D
Members of the CoMPASS research team developed a coding rubric to capture interactions that teachers had with students around supporting their learning from the multiple texts as part of the inquiry process. This included goal setting and monitoring, critically
EP
evaluating and integrating information, putting emphasis on collecting information from multiple texts, discussing the process of reading in a group, explaining text features and how to navigate
AC C
texts, making connections to the content being read, discussing texts as part of the process of scientific inquiry, and developing questions to guide reading and text research. The goal in coding for these interactions was to see if any disparities between the two teachers could inform differences in learning outcomes among the teachers’ students. The codes and examples can be found in Appendix B. Two levels of codes were assigned. Level 1 codes were assigned when a teacher was acknowledging, or talking about one of the themes captured by the codes at a surface
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 16 or descriptive level. Level 2 codes were assigned when a teacher was elaborating, or talking about one of the themes captured by the codes and, at the same time, elaborating on these ideas. Ways that teachers might elaborate included providing an extended explanation or discussion
RI PT
with the students related to the theme of the code or talking through the process of applying the strategies represented by the codes. In Appendix B, the first example of dialogue represents a Level 1 interaction, and the second example represents a Level 2 interaction. Transcripts were
SC
coded at the episode level. All episodes collected for each teacher throughout the unit were coded, resulting in ten coded episodes per teacher, for a total of 20 coded episodes. Two
M AN U
researchers who were involved in the development of the coding rubric independently coded ten percent of the transcripts and reached an interrater reliability of 93.75% agreement. All disagreements were resolved through discussion. A single researcher then coded the remaining episodes.
3.1 Quantitative analysis
TE D
3. Results
In order to see how the students of the two teachers compared on the pretest, an
EP
independent samples t-test was conducted. The t-test showed that there was a significant difference on students’ pretest scores between the two teachers. George’s students (Mean =
AC C
6.38, SD = 1.93), did significantly better than Lauren’s students (Mean = 5.26, SD = 2.02), t(141) = -3.044, p = .003. Both teachers’ students made significant improvement from the pre to the posttest, as indicated by repeated measures t-tests. However, Lauren’s students (Mean difference = 3.33, SD = 2.60, t(65) = 10.42, p = .000, Cohen’s d = 1.29) made more of an improvement than George’s students (Mean difference = 1.65, SD = 2.78, t(71) = 5.04, p = .000 Cohen’s d = .60). The effect size from the pretest to posttest for Lauren was large in contrast to
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 17 the medium effect size for George. Finally, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was run to see if the teachers’ students differed on their posttest scores after controlling for prior knowledge. Lauren’s students (Mean = 8.59, SD = 2.42) did significantly better than George’s
RI PT
students on the posttest (Mean = 8.02, SD = 2.39, F(1,135) = 4.84, p = .029). 3.2 Qualitative analyses
The results of the quantitative analyses provided further impetus to qualitatively examine
SC
how the two teachers interacted with their students. As discussed above, this was done through transcription of classroom video and coding of transcripts from episodes during which the
M AN U
teachers were introducing and discussing reading activities with their classes. The rubric (Appendix B) attempts to capture the prominent interactions teachers had with the classes while preparing their students to conduct research with the online texts. Table 1 displays the total number of codes assigned to the 10 episodes that were coded for both Lauren
TE D
and George. There was a total of approximately two hours of episode video for each teacher from the beginning to the end of the unit. The codes that are indicative of the strategies used by the teachers are listed vertically on the left of the table and include a line for both level one and
EP
level two strategy use. See Table 2 for a review of the strategy codes. For an example of each of
AC C
the strategies, see Appendix B.
George
Lauren
Codes
1’s
2’s
1’s
2’s
GSM CEI UMT DCR ETF MC
3 4 1 0 2 6
5 0 0 1 1 2
4 3 4 3 2 5
6 1 2 0 2 4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 18 3 0 2 1 1 3 1 3 19 12 24 19 Total 61% 39% 56% 44% Percentage Table 1. Number of codes & total and percentage of level 1 and 2 codes for each teacher
SC
RI PT
DT FDQ
Table 2. Coding categories for strategies used by the two teachers
M AN U
Strategy Coding Categories
Goal Setting and Monitoring (GSM) – Setting meaningful goals for reading and navigating the texts • i.e. reading for and checking understanding versus copying information Critically Evaluating and Integrating Multiple Information Sources (CEI) • i.e. using reliable resources
TE D
Emphasizing the Use of Multiple Texts for Learning (UMT) • Emphasizing how to use the multiple texts in order to gain knowledge or answer questions. • i.e. explaining how to navigate among multiple sources Discussing Collaborative Reading (DCR)
Explaining the Features of Different Kinds of Texts and How to Navigate (ETF) • i.e. how texts are structured
AC C
EP
Making Connections to Prior Knowledge, Experience, Content, or Activities (MC) • e.g. connection to challenge or “real world” content • e.g. connection to how reading CoMPASS is similar to or different from reading a textbook or other form of text Discussing using Texts as Part of the Scientific Practice (DT) • i.e. how texts are part of the process of doing science Facilitating the Development of Focus Questions (FDQ) • i.e. promoting authentic questions • e.g. questions that build upon previous questions
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 19 Lauren typically used more varied types of strategies to interact with her students around multiple texts than George, and she also more frequently had interactions with her students on an in-depth level (level 2 from the rubric). This means that she was doing more elaborating by
RI PT
providing an extended explanation or discussion with the students. In particular, she talked more about the processes of critically evaluating and integrating multiple texts, using online texts as part of inquiry and to support students’ designs, and emphasizing the use of multiple texts for
SC
learning and knowledge construction. Thus, although George spent more total time than Lauren preparing students to conduct research with multiple texts throughout the unit, two hours and 20
M AN U
minutes versus one hour and 40 minutes respectively, the depth at which Lauren discussed using texts as part of the inquiry process was more substantial. Lauren used more varied types of strategies and level two strategies during her discussion episodes with students than George. Table 1 presents the number of times the teachers were assigned each code and the percentage of
TE D
level one and level two codes assigned to each teacher.
The two teachers had some similarities in their whole class interactions related to the use of texts, but they also had some important differences. For goal setting and monitoring (GSM)
EP
George and Lauren had an approximately equal number of codes assigned at each of the levels. For critically evaluating and integrating multiple information sources (CEI), the two teaches
AC C
talked about this the same number of times, but Lauren talked about evaluating websites at a deeper level than George on one occasion. For emphasizing the use of multiple texts for learning (UMT), Lauren talked about this many more times than George and did so at a deeper level on two occasions by explicitly modeling how students might use the navigational affordances of the digital texts to gain knowledge or answer questions related to their roller coaster design. In terms of discussing the process of collaborative reading, or reading as a group, Lauren did this
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 20 more often than George, but George did it at a deeper level. Both teachers were fairly well matched in the number of times and level at which they explained the features of the different kinds of texts (e.g. CoMPASS eTextbook, websites) and how to navigate them (ETF). For
RI PT
making connections (MC) Lauren had more interactions that were at a level two than George. This means that she more often made deep connections to students’ prior knowledge and
experiences and asked students to elaboration on how those experiences related to what they
SC
were doing in the CoMPASS unit. The teachers discussed texts as part of the scientific practice (DT) a similar amount; however, Lauren did on one occasion go into greater depth about how
M AN U
scientists build upon the work of others as part of their practice and that it’s important that scientists and engineers gather information from texts about what others have already done to guide and develop their designs. The teachers were equally well matched on facilitating the development of focus questions (FDQ) to research with the CoMPASS eTextbook. They both
TE D
had in depth interactions with their students related to how to develop appropriate questions that would help them understand conceptual relationships important to interpreting the data from their activities and designing a good roller coaster. Across all codes, Lauren had a higher
EP
proportion of level two codes and had more total interactions (Total = 43) that were coded as supporting students to learning from the digital text resources than George Total = 31).
AC C
It is worth noting that although there were differences in the content of the teachers’
interactions with students, their dialogic structures were similar. These similarities can be discussed further based on the strategies teachers used for interacting with their classes. In terms of discussing Goal Setting and Monitoring (GSM), both George and Lauren used this strategy with similar frequencies. Thus, both teachers were helping their students clarify what the purpose of the research with the texts was and what their goals should be during reading. They also did
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 21 this in much the same way, using an IRE discourse structure that, while interactive, was mostly authoritative, focusing on arriving at the question that the teacher felt students should be researching. An example of this is provided in the following transcript excerpt from George’s
RI PT
class:
T: Acceleration. How many of you have written down the, an acceleration definition or taken notes on acceleration yet? Okay. Don't you think that would be important to
SC
understand? … But is there a question that we can show a relationship to follow up with
Camden?
M AN U
this? Once we know what that is. What are we tying acceleration to, do you think?
S: Um, like that, how and what it's affected by?
T: So, what is? What are, what are we about to test? S: Um, how height affects acceleration.
TE D
T: Okay. So the height of what?
From this excerpt, it can be seen that although George is requesting students’ input, he is
EP
structuring his communication with students to guide them toward developing a question that he already has in mind, which he knows they will need to understand to complete the next steps in
AC C
their roller coaster design.
Both teachers engaged in many facilitation practices with regard to using the multiple
online texts to facilitate the understanding of physics concepts, Lauren had more interactions with students in which she discussed Using Multiple Texts for Learning (UMT). She did this at a deep level by doing things such as modeling for students how they could use the navigational structure of the online text environment to investigate questions related to their roller coaster
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 22 design. Modeling this process for students can help them understand not only how but also why to navigate the texts using the navigational features. Despite Lauren’s engagement of students in greater depth content wise, interestingly, both teachers once again primarily utilized the IRE
discussing the concept maps in the CoMPASS eTexbook:
RI PT
discourse structure, as illustrated below in a transcript excerpt from Lauren’s class as they were
T: When it goes toward the outside it gets lighter. Why do you think as it goes toward the
S: It's becoming more distant from the main topic.
SC
outside it gets lighter? Do you have any ideas of why that might be? Zoe?
M AN U
T: Exactly. It's becoming more distant from the main topic. It means, it's still related. But the colors that are this brighter blue color, these four here, are more closely related to energy than these that are far out here.
TE D
For Making Connections (MC), Lauren had more elaborate interactions with students than George that made deep connections to students’ prior knowledge and experiences. She also required students to elaborate on how those experiences related to what they were doing in the
EP
CoMPASS unit. Importantly, both teachers engaged in Discussing Texts as Part of the Scientific Practice (DT). This is encouraging because this is an aspect of using texts as part of inquiry that
AC C
is easy to take for granted, and therefore not make explicit to students. Perhaps the best example of this across all of the episodes was when Lauren explained to students that scientists build upon the work of others as part of their practice and that it’s important for scientists and engineers to gather information from texts about what others have already done to guide and develop their designs. Finally, both teachers supported their students in developing focus questions (FDQ) that would help guide their research in the online texts in ways that would support them in understand
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 23 conceptual relationships important to their design process. This finding is promising, given that establishing the goal of reading is essential for understanding and facilitating text comprehension, and one way to help students establish this goal is through developing focused questions for
RI PT
research (Murphy et al., 2016).
In all, there were several ways in which both the teachers facilitated students’ learning from multiple online texts. Lauren tended to engage the class in conversations regarding facets of
SC
learning from multiple online resources more often and at a deeper level than George, despite
transcript excerpt below from her class.
M AN U
both teachers using the same form of discourse structure. An example of this is illustrated in the
T: What causes us to, to, or what makes something less efficient? What’s something that makes it less efficient, as you found in one of your experiments? What makes something less efficient? Ryan.
TE D
S: Friction.
T: Friction, yes. So friction. So friction makes this less. Friction kind of makes our machine or our job, or whatever we're doing, less efficient. So when we're talking about
EP
efficiency, it's whatever you put into a job and how much you get out of it. And, we would like to get out what we put in, wouldn't we? Wouldn't we like to do something and
AC C
have it, get out of it what we put into it? That would be nice. That would, that would give us a higher percentage, but sometimes friction causes us to not get out what we put into it, like if you were dragging a box along, um, or even pushing this book on the table. This table is nice and what? S: Smooth.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 24 T: Smooth. So if I, if I pushed it, it would go a long way, maybe even off the table. Now if this were covered in gravel, what would happen if I pushed the book?
RI PT
Overall, the primary differences between Lauren and George were in the emphasizing the Use of Multiple Texts for Learning (UMT) and Making Connections (MC) categories. Lauren had many more UMT interactions than George, but perhaps just as importantly, she discussed the
SC
use of the multiple online texts as part of reaching students’ design goals for the inquiry process. She did this by demonstrating and discussing the kind of thinking that students might engage in
M AN U
while navigating the texts to allow them to find information that would help them with their challenges. Further, although both teachers engaged in quite a few interactions that made connections to prior knowledge or experiences, Lauren tended to do this on a deeper level than George, which allowed students to explore their prior conceptions of an idea or topic and
TE D
understand why learning more about certain concepts was important. Finally, one area in which there was certainly room for improvement for both teachers was in Discussing Collaborative Reading (DCR). Since all of the reading of the online texts was
EP
done in groups, the collaborative dynamic of the reading surely played a role in how the students learned from the texts. Yet, the teachers did not spend much time discussing this, and when it
AC C
was discussed, it tended to be done so at a surface level that was akin to reminding students that they needed to take turns controlling the mouse for reading in their group. Additionally, the teachers also could have spent more time discussing the ways that scientists and engineers use texts as part of their practice (DT). This may have helped to make even clearer for students the purpose of using the online texts throughout the unit. 4. Discussion
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 25 The goal of this study was to investigate how two teachers interacted with their students to prepare them to use multiple online texts as part of conducting scientific investigations. This was done by analyzing learning outcomes related to science content in combination with a
RI PT
qualitative analysis of the strategies teachers used to interact with students in relation to the multiple texts utilized in the curriculum. Although no causal claims can be made due to the
nature of the data and the primarily qualitative analyses, the results show that teachers set up the
SC
environments for engaging with multiple online texts in different ways. They did this not by their use of varied discourse structures, but rather by the extent to which they used discussion
M AN U
opportunities presented within these structures to help students understand how and why to use different reading strategies related to scientific inquiry and learning from multiple online texts. Teachers could potentially have used discourse structures that allowed for more student-led dialogue and conversation with regard to learning from these texts as part of a collective process
TE D
of scientific inquiry. However, it is also feasible that this approach would not have been productive, as students may need more teacher-directed support at this point to have these conversations. Unfortunately, no further comment can be made on this based on the results of
discourse structure.
EP
this study, as the teachers predominantly used an authoritative initiate, response, evaluate (IRE)
AC C
A potentially critical difference between the teachers was in the interactions that involved
explaining and modeling for students the ways in which the multiple online texts could be used to research information that connected to students prior experiences and learning goals. This may have reinforced the use of the online texts as part of inquiry to support the scientific process, rather than as a means to understanding conceptual relationships in and of themselves. Whatever the case, our study suggests that the ways in which teachers set up the goals of reading from
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 26 multiple online texts impact the ways in which students will learn from these resources and what they will learn in the process (Molyneux & Godinho, 2012). The results of this study of two teachers confirms this assertion, and also fills a needed gap in the literature investigating how
inquiry in the domain of science (Goldman et al., 2012).
RI PT
content area teachers interact with students to prepare them to use multiple online texts as part of
The results of our quantitative analysis of learning outcomes showed that the students of
SC
both teachers made significant gains from the pretest to the posttest in their knowledge of the physics concepts presented in the online texts. However, it is interesting to note the difference in
M AN U
effect size between the two student groups, with Lauren’s students exhibiting a large effect size and George’s students a medium effect size. Further, controlling for prior knowledge, which Lauren’s students started with significantly less of, Lauren’s students significantly outperformed George’s students on the posttest. These findings support previous work that found an impact of
TE D
the way in which the teacher framed the reading task on interactions with the texts and learning outcomes (e.g., Coiro, 2010; Smith, Sullivan & Puntambekar, 2009; Urhahne, Schanze, Bell, Mansfield, & Holmes, 2010).
EP
Both of the teachers devoted a substantial portion of a class period to introducing the CoMPASS eTextbook to students. However, in George’s case, he primarily maintained control
AC C
of this introduction to CoMPASS and overall created an environment in which he informed students about the features of the online text space rather than asking students for their input on what they noticed about how the texts were structured in the eTextbook. Further, George makes a point to explain to students that the concept maps represent many connections that will be helpful for their learning, but he doesn't discuss why students might want to use the connections in the navigable concept map to help them in their research for their design activities. In contrast,
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 27 in Lauren’s classroom students played a central role in offering their input on things that they ?
noticed about the CoMPASS eTextbook, such as how to use navigation features and what their purpose might be. Lauren also put emphasis on modeling for students that understanding the
RI PT
connections among concepts is important and that there are relationship that students might choose to investigate by utilizing the features of the eTextbook system as they make navigation decisions to read information that they will need for their design challenges. Although both
SC
teachers supported their students in understanding the features of the CoMPASS eTextbook, Lauren put more emphasis on allowing students to share their ideas about reading the online
M AN U
texts and also made a stronger connection to the purpose of the multiple online texts in their inquiry-based design process. Setting the stage in this way for engaging with a system of multiple texts and supporting students in working toward their goals for the learning activity via classroom discussion has been found in previous studies to support students’ learning (Webb et
TE D
al., 2017; Gillies & Baffour, 2017).
The two teachers also took quite different approaches to talking with students about the second reading excursion. George emphasized to his students that they should develop an
EP
understanding of efficiency in relation to the other concepts that they were learning about. As such, he did a nice job of emphasizing for students that they should focus on understanding
AC C
conceptual relationships as they read and should think about how concepts would fit together in a concept map. However, he could have taken this a step further and emphasized for his students why they should learn about efficiency in relation to other conceptual relationships and how specifically understanding these relationships would help them to think about their data. Lauren takes a different approach that works to make the need to understand efficiency meaningful for her students as she engages with their ideas about machines that they are familiar with and why it
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 28 is important for these machines to be efficient. She also tries to connect the learning of efficiency to prior conceptual knowledge by questioning students on their understanding of concepts that they’ve learned about so far that would affect efficiency, such as friction. Similar to the
RI PT
CoMPASS introduction, the teachers took different approaches to Reading Excursion #2.
Although both of them engaged in interactions that would support students in their reading of the online texts, Lauren went further in terms of making students’ research on efficiency more
SC
personally relevant and more conceptually relevant to their design challenge. Making these
connections to prior knowledge and other activities is essential for forming an understanding of
M AN U
the texts (Li et al, 2014; Alvermann, 2004; Varelas & Pappas, 2006). Interactions captured by the codes that the two teachers differed most on, emphasizing reading and integrating information across texts and making connections between the information and prior knowledge, have been found to influence learning from multiple texts (Nicholson, 2010). Indeed, although both
TE D
teachers engaged their students in interactions meant to help them conduct research with multiple online texts as part of the inquiry process. Nonetheless, overall, Lauren engaged in these interactions more often than George, at a deeper level, and more frequently tried to convey the
EP
importance of texts in the research and design process. Scholars of reading are increasingly recognizing that learning with multiple online texts
AC C
is an important skill that needs to be understood in terms of both similarities and differences as compared to reading printed texts (e.g. Castek et al., 2011; Leu et al. 2009; 2011; 2013). The need to understand how teachers are supporting learning from online texts will continue to grow as access to a multitude of online resources by learners continues to increase. This study takes a step towards increasing our understanding of interactions around multiple online texts that are fruitful for supporting learners engaged in scientific inquiry in the classroom. For example,
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 29 modeling the use of navigation features, making connections among multiple texts, and other behaviors exhibited by Lauren, seemed to facilitate students’ learning from the online texts. Additionally, this study also supports the idea that similar discourse structures can be used for
RI PT
multiple purposes. For the middle school students in this context, what was being communicated and the depth at which it was being done seemed to matter more. Future work can investigate the
comprehension when learning in online environments.
SC
impact of systematically implementing these strategies in the classroom to support multiple text
There are some limitations to this study. First, only one class for each teacher was video
M AN U
recorded, and it was assumed that teachers had similar interactions with students in their other classes. It could have been the case that interactions regarding multiple online texts were more variable across the classes of each teacher than anticipated. However, given that the classes for each teacher had similar levels of prior knowledge and learning gains, this does not appear to be
TE D
the case. Second, even though scores on multiple choice questions relevant to the reading activities were examined, other parts of the curriculum could have influenced scores on the tests. Arguably, this finding would still be related to teacher facilitation of other portions of the
EP
curriculum, although it is unknown which other aspects of the unit were most influential and how they were facilitated. In addition, the same test was used as both a pre and post measure.
AC C
However, since the pre-and post-test were given approximately 12 weeks apart, it is unlikely that question retention played a role in the results. Finally, our video data contained other aspects of the whole class discussion that we chose not to include in this analysis, including gestures made by teachers and students, and the responses and interactions between students. We chose not to focus on these aspects of the data as there was little variability in gestures across teachers and classrooms and students rarely interacted with each other, but mostly with the teacher, which was
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 30 captured by the predominance of the authoritative initiate, response, evaluate (IRE) discourse structure. There is the potential that some strategies used by teachers were not captured by the coding rubric, but given that the coding rubric was developed both from prior research and
RI PT
inductively based on transcripts of classroom dialogue, it is likely that critical differences between teachers were captured.
Based on the results of this exploratory study, suggestions can be made for future
SC
research to expand upon these findings. First, as there was not a planned intervention, but rather the goal of this study was to explore teachers’ current practices, follow up work could implement
M AN U
a systematic professional development program targeted at teaching facilitation strategies but also enacting them at a deep level to connect conceptual knowledge from the readings to the processes of design and testing in science. Further work could also spend time eliciting teachers’ perspectives on learning with texts as part of scientific inquiry. For example, discussions with the
TE D
teachers revealed that George did not think that his students improved in their abilities to use the digital texts throughout the unit whereas Lauren felt that her students did improve somewhat. George acknowledged that perhaps he should be discussing or modeling interactions with the
EP
texts differently in order to help his students improve at accessing all the available multiple texts to find information about concepts that they can integrate. Lauren made a comment about her
AC C
students not using CoMPASS or the Reading Excursion sites during the simulation activities even though she felt they were able to use these resources effectively in the context of specified text research times. This response may indicate that Lauren was thinking about the use of the digital texts within the bigger context of supporting the inquiry process more so than George, which could have influenced the kinds of interactions they had with their students related to the
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 31 texts. Better understanding teachers’ pre-conceived ideas about texts as part of science will allow for a stronger foundation on which to develop facilitation skills. 4.1 Conclusions
RI PT
In conclusion, an important part of reading activities in science classrooms is the way in which the teacher sets up the task of reading. This study found that this includes how the teacher discusses and facilitates the purpose of the reading experience as part of science, how to use the
SC
eTextbook system, and the connection to prior knowledge and unit activities. The support of the teacher is particularly critical when trying to help students engage in the reading process as part
M AN U
of inquiry-based science. Accessing multiple texts online adds another layer of complication in that learners must also be supported in navigating and integrating the online texts. The results of our study suggest that teachers’ facilitation strategies influence how students interact with these texts as part of the process of doing science and that the depth at which teachers engage students
TE D
regarding multiple text navigation and comprehension skills influences learning. While both teachers worked to support their students in learning with digital texts, they had distinct styles of doing so, as evidenced by their interactions with students. This rich
EP
description of digital text use as part of inquiry in two middle school science classrooms allow for a more nuanced understanding of how to support teachers in their facilitation strategies.
AC C
Future work can be done to support teachers in ways that they may be conscientious of their interactions with their students to better support learning with digital texts, such as developing programs that teach the instructors these strategies and allow venues for practice and feedback on their implementation. We can also systematically examine the impact of these interventions on students’ interactions with texts and their learning outcomes by testing the impact of targeted teacher professional development programs at a school and system-wide level.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
32
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 33 5. Appendices Appendix A Physics Fiesta Question Subset
RI PT
Name:______________________________School:______________________________ Teacher:______________________________Class:______________________________
SC
Group:_______________________________Date: ______________________________
Instructions: Read each question carefully and choose the best option. Choose only one option to indicate your answer to the question.
The sum of the forces acting on an object. The force of a surface supporting an object. An outside force applied to an object. The force pulling an object toward the center of the earth.
TE D
1. Net force is: a. b. c. d.
M AN U
Important: All of the situations are in an environment with no friction, unless otherwise stated in the question.
EP
2. Force vectors represent the ____________of forces acting on an object. a. Time and direction b. Size and time c. Size and direction d. Direction only
AC C
3. The Law of Conservation of Energy states that: a. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. b. Total energy within a system will remain constant. c. Energy decreases when forces are added. d. Both A and B
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 34
RI PT
4. If you increase the friction between the surface of a ramp and the object you are lifting, you will not change the: a. Efficiency of the ramp. b. Applied force needed to lift the object. c. Work done in lifting the object. d. Potential energy of the object at the top of the ramp.
SC
5. The amount of potential energy that a roller coaster car has at the top of the initial drop must be _________ the potential energy at the top of the hill. a. More than b. Less than c. The same amount as
M AN U
6. If there is a great deal of friction between a roller coaster car and track, the amount of potential energy at the top of the hill will be greater than the amount of kinetic energy at the bottom of the hill. a. True b. False c. Not enough information to decide
TE D
7. If there is no friction, the amount of potential energy that a roller coaster car has at the top of a hill is _________ the kinetic energy at the bottom of the hill. a. More than b. Less than c. The same amount as
EP
8. A book is sitting on a dashboard of a car that is stopped at a traffic light. As the car starts to move forward, the book slides off the dashboard. The most correct explanation is: a. Newton’s First Law. b. Newton’s Second Law. c. Both A and B. d. Not enough information to decide.
AC C
9. The best example of Newton’s Second Law is a bowling ball: a. At rest on a rack. b. Accelerating due to the force exerted by a person. c. Both A and B. d. Moving at a constant speed. 10. According to Newton’s Second Law, if two balls have the same mass, a larger force will produce _________ acceleration. a. A larger b. A smaller c. The same
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 35 11. If the net force acting on a cart doubles, the cart’s acceleration: a. Increases. b. Decreases. c. Stays the same. d. Not enough information to decide
SC
RI PT
12. You are designing a roller coaster ride. Your roller coaster car has a mass of 500 kg and you need it to accelerate at 10 m/s2 so that your ride will be fun. Use the equation from Newton’s Second Law to calculate how much force you would need to move the car at this rate. a. 1500 N b. 5000 N c. 15000 N d. Not enough information to decide
M AN U
13. A hockey puck sliding across a frictionless ice rink is moving at a constant velocity. According to Newton’s First Law, which of the following is true: a. The net force acting on it must be greater than 0. b. The net force acting on it must be 0. c. The puck is accelerating. d. Not enough information to decide
TE D
14. If an object’s acceleration is zero, its motion could be described as: a. Increasing or decreasing in velocity. b. Not moving. c. Moving at a constant velocity. d. Both B and C
AC C
EP
15. Which force is most often responsible for the slowing of moving objects? a. Normal Force b. Gravitational Force c. Friction Force
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 36 Appendix B
Codes for Classroom Video of Reading Activities Examples of a 1 and 2 T: So don't write something down if it's not helping you or if you don't understand what it is. That's not beneficial to you, you're writing down a bunch of stuff that you don't need or don't know and you're not learning.
RI PT
Code Goal Setting and Monitoring (GSM) – Setting meaningful goals for reading and navigating the texts • i.e. reading for and checking understanding versus copying information
Critically Evaluating and Integrating Multiple Information Sources (CEI) • i.e. using reliable resources
M AN U
SC
T: You guys don't do a lot of just copying word for word. Don't just, don't do that off the website. If you don't understand what it means, it's not helpful to you. So write it down, and if you're not sure what it's saying, talk about it in your group or ask me and I'll come over and kinda help guide you though it. T: So take note of the reading excursion, um sites that you can go to along with your compassproject.net site.
AC C
EP
TE D
T: Anyone can put anything on the internet that they want to. So we need to make sure that we're looking at websites that are actually true and giving us good information.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 37 T: Just a little hint, what seemed to work well for my last class is they had one window opened up the CoMPASS website and then another window opened up the main menu so that they could click to the different links, they didn't have to keep like logging out and logging in and logging out and logging in as they switched back and forth from the CoMPASS website to the different links.
RI PT
Emphasizing the Use of Multiple Texts for Learning (UMT) – Emphasizing how to use the multiple texts in order to gain knowledge or answer questions. • i.e. explaining how to navigate among multiple sources
M AN U
SC
T: So the concept maps are also going to give you help on what you should maybe be looking at and what you should be clicking on. So if you were, if you were looking for energy and you were thinking, oh I wonder what might, I wonder what, I wonder what some things that might be related to energy are? Well, here it shows you some things that are very closely related and some things that are not as closely related, but still would maybe be some good things to check out.
T: So again, I'm just gonna encourage you when you're in your groups, be very wise about how you're clicking through things, for a couple of reasons. Because it's gonna make your work more efficient. You'll be able to learn more in a shorter period of time than if you click around and not really concentrate on where you're clicking.
AC C
EP
TE D
Discussing Collaborative Reading (DCR)
T: …write the order of which kids will take turns navigating. Now this doesn't mean that nobody else in the group can't touch the computer - can't navigate at all. It just means that initially, logging in and getting stuff up- if you guys are reading, k? If you're doing a set read, this person is doing the actual navigating, k? You guys will be seated around, k? You guys can offer where you should go in that navigation, and so forth, but primarily, that person is in control of the computer.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 38 T: So, some writing, and the nice thing about CoMPASS that I think is very kid friendly is that the writing, the written information kind of comes in short paragraphs, so it's not like you're given three pages to read about something at once. And it's also nice 'cause it sometimes will have diagrams, or little, like little clips of things that you can watch. Like an animation, that you can watch to help you understand.
RI PT
Explaining the Features of Different Kinds of Texts and How to Navigate (ETF) • i.e. how texts are structured
M AN U
SC
T: So just keep that in mind, that if you're just typing in things in the search button, your concept map is not going to change. You're just going to be getting information, which is okay. You can still find some things out, but if you wanna see how other things are related, then you're gonna have to start clicking on the map to get that to work. Does that make sense to everybody? Does it, does it not make sense to anybody?
T: …most parents are expecting it time to time that you'll be coming home with a textbook. This is your textbook. Okay?
AC C
EP
TE D
Making Connections to Prior Knowledge, Experience, Content, or Activities (MC) • Can distinguish between making connections to content and reading sources or tools • e.g. connection to challenge or “real world” content • e.g. reading CoMPASS like using like a textbook
T: Has anyone heard the word vector before? Okay, where have you heard it used?
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 39 Discussing using Texts as Part of the Scientific Practice (DT) • i.e. how texts are part of the scientific process
T: Think like an en- think like scientists.
RI PT
S: (Reading from the notebook with no follow up from the teacher.) Think like scientists and en- engineers. Scientists and engineers often use different sources of information to learn about concepts that are important to their research…
M AN U
SC
T: Scientists and engineers often read what others have written about a topic to help guide them in their explorations. So that's what you're doing, you're reading about information that is already, has already been found for you, and you are picking out the important stuff that you want to know about to make your roller coaster fun, efficient and safe.
T: What I want you to do when you get to your groups is to read off your questions. If you hear something as a group that you're like, yes let's do that one or something like that, do that… Okay. So. Anything that you find feasible that support um your, your goals here and your overall design challenge, uh, please use.
EP
TE D
Facilitating the Development of Focus Questions (FDQ) • i.e. promoting authentic questions • e.g. questions that build upon previous questions
T: What do you think of, of his question? Does it, as far as the rules that we've talked about when it comes to writing questions, what do you think?
AC C
Three levels of quality of the interactions: • 0 – code did not appear in the video (No code) • 1 – acknowledging: talking about one of the codes above at a surface or descriptive level • 2 – elaborating: talking about one of the codes above and elaborating on these ideas by providing an extended explanation or discussion with the students and/or talking through the process of applying the strategies represented by the codes above
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 40 References
RI PT
Alvermann, D. E., (2004). Multiliteracies and self-questioning in the service of science learning. In E.W. Saul (Ed.) Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 226-238). Newark, DE: International Reading Association, & Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association. Anmarkrud, Ø., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2014). Multiple-documents literacy: Strategic processing, source awareness, and argumentation when reading multiple conflicting documents. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 64-76.
SC
Bedersen, B. B., & Hollan, J. (1995). Pad++: A zooming graphical interface for exploring alternate interface physics. In P. Szekely (Ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (17–26). New York: ACM Press.
M AN U
Bopardikar, A., Sullivan, S. A., & Puntambekar, S. (2010, May). Analyzing group dialogue to explore collaborative use of hypertext systems. Poster presented in S. A. Sullivan & S. Puntambekar (Chairs), Finding Common Ground: Documenting and Analyzing Student Learning with Hypertext, Multimedia and Hypermedia. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO. Bopardikar, A., Sullivan, S. A., & Puntambekar, S. (2009, April). Small group science talk in a design-based classroom: An exploratory study. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Garden Grove, CA.
TE D
Bråten, I., Johansen, R. P., & Strømsø, H. I. (2017). Effects of different ways of introducing a reading task on intrinsic motivation and comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 40(1), 17-36.
EP
Bråten, I., Ferguson, L. E., Strømsø, H. I., & Anmarkrud, Ø. (2013). Justification beliefs and multiple-documents comprehension. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(3), 879-902.
AC C
Bråten, I., Ferguson, L. E., Anmarkrud, Ø., Strømsø, H. I., & Brandmo, C. (2014). Modeling relations between students’ justification for knowing beliefs in science, motivation for understanding what they read in science, and science achievement. International Journal of Educational Research, 66, 1-12. Castek, J., Zawilinski, L., McVerry, G., O’Byrne, I., & Leu, D. J. (2011). The new literacies of online reading comprehension: New opportunities and challenges for students with learning difficulties. In C. Wyatt-Smith, J. Elkins, & S. Gunn (Eds.) Multiple perspectives on difficulties in learning literacy and numeracy (pp. 91-110). New York, NY: Springer. Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K-12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336-371.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 41 Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
RI PT
Cervetti, G. N., Barber, J., Dorph, R., Pearson, P. D., & Goldschmidt, P. G. (2012). The impact of an integrated approach to science and literacy in elementary school classrooms. Journal of research in science teaching, 49(5), 631-658. Cervetti, G., Pearson, P. D., Barber, J., Hiebert, E., & Bravo, M. (2007). Integrating literacy and science. In Pressley, Billman, Perry, Refitt, Reynolds (Eds.) Shaping literacy achievement: The research we have, the research we need (157-74). New York: Guilford.
SC
Coiro, J. (2010). Talking about reading as thinking: Modeling the hidden complexities of online reading comprehension. In Hansfield, L. J. & Jaminez, R. T. (Chairs) New Perspective in Comprehension Strategy Instruction. Alternative session presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver. CO.
M AN U
Cromley, J. G., Snyder-Hogan, L. E., & Luciw-Dubas, U. A. (2010). Reading comprehension of scientific text: A domain-specific test of the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 687-700. Dymock, S., & Nicholson, T. (2010). “High 5!” Strategies to Enhance Comprehension of Expository Text. The Reading Teacher, 64(3), 166-178.
TE D
Furnas, G. W. (1986). Generalized fisheye views. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 16–23). New York: ACM Press. Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated Language and Learning: A Critique of Traditional Schooling. London: Routledge.
EP
Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., Opfermann, M., Hesse, F. W., & Eysink, T. H. S. (2009). Learning with hypermedia: The influence of representational formats and different levels of learner control on performance and learning behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 360370.
AC C
Gillies, R. M., & Baffour, B. (2017). The effects of teacher-introduced multimodal representations and discourse on students’ task engagement and scientific language during cooperative, inquiry-based science. Instructional Science, 1-21. Goldman, S. R., Braasch, J. L., Wiley, J., Graesser, A. C., & Brodowinska, K. (2012). Comprehending and learning from Internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(4), 356-381. Greenleaf, C., Hanson, T., Herman, J., Litman, C., Madden, S., Rosen, R., Boscardin, C., Schneider, S., & Silver, D. (2009). Integrating literacy and science instruction in high school biology: Impact on teacher practice, student engagement, and student
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 42 achievement. Final report to the National Science Foundation (NSF), Grant #0440379, available at www.wested.org/sli/downloads/nsf-final-report.pdf.
RI PT
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., Scafiddi, N. T., & Tonks, S. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 403-423. Hagen, Å. M., Braasch, J. L., & Bråten, I. (2014). Relationships between spontaneous note taking, self reported strategies and comprehension when reading multiple texts in different task conditions. Journal of Research in Reading, 37(S1).
SC
Herman, P., Perkins, K., Hansen, M., Gomez, L. M., & Gomez, K. (2010). The effectiveness of reading comprehension strategies in high school science classrooms. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 857-864).
M AN U
Keller, T., & Tergan, S. O. (2005). Visualizing knowledge and information: An introduction. In S. O. Tergan & T. Keller (Eds.), Knowledge and information visualization (pp. 1-23). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Leu, D. J., Forzani, E., Burlingame, C., Kulikowich, J., Sedransk, N., Corio, J., & Kennedy, C. (2013). The new literacies of online research and comprehension: Assessing and preparing students for the 21st century with Common Core State Standards. Quality reading instruction in the age of common core standards, 219-236.
TE D
Leu, D. J., McVerry, J. G., O'Byrne, W. I. , Kiili, C., Zawilinski, L., Everett Cacopardo, H., Kennedy, C., & Forzani, E. (2011). The new literacies of online reading comprehension: Expanding the literacy and learning curriculum. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(1), 5-14.
EP
Leu, D. J., O’Byrne, W. I., Zawilinski, L., McVerry, J. G., & Everett-Cacopardo, H. (2009). Expanding the new literacies conversation. Educational Researcher, 38(4), 264-269.
AC C
Li, M., Murphy, P. K., Wang, J., Mason, L. H., Firetto, C. M., Wei, L., & Chung, K. S. (2016). Promoting reading comprehension and critical–analytic thinking: A comparison of three approaches with fourth and fifth graders. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 46, 101-115. Li, M., Murphy, P. K., & Firetto, C. M. (2014). Examining the Effects of Text Genre and Structure on Fourth-and Fifth-Grade Students’ High-Level Comprehension as Evidenced in Small-Group Discussions. International Journal of Educational Psychology, 3(3), 205234. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 43 Molyneux, P., & Godinho, S. (2012). 'This is my thing!': Middle years students' engagement and learning using digital resources. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(8), 1466-1486.
RI PT
Mortimer, E.F. & Scott, P.H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Buckingham: Open University Press. Murphy, P. K., Firetto, C. M., Wei, L., Li, M., & Croninger, R. M. (2016). What REALLY Works: Optimizing Classroom Discussions to Promote Comprehension and CriticalAnalytic Thinking. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(1), 27-35.
SC
Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A., & Soter, A. O. (2011). Instruction based on discussion. Handbook of research on learning and instruction, 382-407.
M AN U
Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A., Soter, A. O., Hennessey, M. N., & Alexander, J. F. (2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 740-764. Nystrand, M. (2006). Research on the role of classroom discourse as it affects reading comprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 392-412. Olry-Louis, I. (2009). Effects of different forms of tutor action in a conditional reasoning task: An experimental approach to the tutorial dialogue. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24(2), 169-180.
TE D
Palincsar, A., & Magnusson, S. J. (2001). The interplay of first-hand and second-hand investigations to model and support the development of scientific knowledge and reasoning. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and Instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 151-193). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
EP
Puntambekar, S. (2006). Learning from digital text in inquiry-based science classes: lessons learned in one program. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 564-570).
AC C
Puntambekar, S., Stylianou, A., & Goldstein, J. (2007). Comparing classroom enactments of an inquiry curriculum: Lessons learned from two teachers. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(1), 81-130. Romance, N.R., & Vitale, M.R. (1992). A curriculum strategy that expands time for in-depth elementary science instruction by using science-based reading strategies: Effects of a year-long study in grade four. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 545-554. Rouet, J-F., Potelle, H., & Goumi, A. (2005). The role of content representations in hypermedia learning: Effects of task and learner variables. In S.-O. Tergan & T. Keller (Eds.), Knowledge and Information Visualization (pp. 343-354). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 44 Rowell, P. M., & Ebbers, M. (2004). School science constrained: Print experiences in two elementary classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(3), 217-230.
RI PT
Smith, G. W., & Sullivan, S. A., & Puntambekar, S. (2009, June). When to collaborate: Individual and group exploration of a hypertext environment within an inquiry science classroom. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning. Rhodes, Greece: International Society of the Learning Sciences. So, W. M. W., & Kong, S. C. (2007). Approaches of inquiry learning with multimedia resources in primary classrooms. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26(4), 329.
SC
Spiro, R. J., Collins, B. P., & Ramchandran, A. R. (2007). Modes of openness and flexibility in “Cognitive Flexibility Hypertext” learning environments. In B. Khan (Ed.), Flexible learning. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publications.
M AN U
Spiro, R. J., Collins, B. P. Thota, J. J., & Feltovich, P. J. (2003). Cognitive flexibility theory: Hypermedia for complex learning, adaptive knowledge application, and experience acceleration. Educational Technology, 44(5), 5-10. Spiro, R. J., Vispoel, W. L., Schmitz, J., Samarapungavan, A., & Boerger, A. (1987). Knowledge acquisition for application: Cognitive flexibility and transfer in complex content domains. In B. C. Britton & S. Glynn (Eds.), Executive control processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
TE D
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
EP
Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., Bell, T., Mansfield, A., & Holmes, J. (2010). Role of the Teacher in Computer supported Collaborative Inquiry Learning. International Journal of Science Education, 32(2), 221-243.
AC C
Varelas, M., & Pappas, C.C. (2006). Intertextuality in read-alouds of integrated science-literacy units in urban primary classrooms: Opportunities for the development of thought and language. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 211-259. Vitale, M. R., & Romance, N. R. (2007). A knowledge-based framework for unifying contentarea reading comprehension and reading comprehension strategies. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.) Reading Comprehension Strategies: Theories, Interventions and Technologies (pp. 73-104). New York, NY: Erlbaum. Vörös, Z., Rouet, J. F., & Pléh, C. (2011). Effect of high-level content organizers on hypertext learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 2047-2055. Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., Ing, M., Turrou, A. C., Johnson, N. C., & Zimmerman, J. (2017).
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 45 Teacher practices that promote productive dialogue and learning in mathematics classrooms. International Journal of Educational Research. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.07.009
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
Wilkinson, I. A., Murphy, P. K., & Binici, S. (2015). Dialogue-intensive pedagogies for promoting reading comprehension: What we know, what we need to know. Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue, 35-48. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Highlights
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
Teachers differed in their facilitation strategies but not in discourse structure Deep level facilitation strategies were associated with better learning outcomes Setting learning goals for text interactions seemed to impact knowledge development Stressing personal and conceptual relevance helped students to connect with texts Discussing use of multiple texts as part of science was a key facilitation strategy
AC C
• • • • •
S0360-1315(18)30240-9
DOI:
10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.004
Reference:
CAE 3447
To appear in:
Computers & Education
Received Date: 5 February 2018 Revised Date:
16 August 2018
Accepted Date: 15 September 2018
Please cite this article as: Sullivan S. & Puntambekar S., Learning with multiple online texts as part of scientific inquiry in the classroom, Computers & Education (2018), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.compedu.2018.09.004. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Learning with Multiple Online Texts as Part of Scientific Inquiry in the Classroom
[email protected]
RI PT
Corresponding author: Sarah Sullivan
600 Highland Ave. H4/785B CSC Madison, WI 53792
M AN U
608-262-1240
SC
University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health
Sadhana Puntambekar, [email protected]
Acknowledgments
TE D
University of Wisconsin, Department of Educational Psychology
AC C
EP
This work is supported in part by U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, Grant No. R305A080507 and the U.S. National Science Foundation Education Core Research Program, Grant No. DRL-1431904. We thank the teachers and students who participated in and made this study possible.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1 Abstract The aim of this study was to investigate how teachers interact with students in order to prepare them to conduct research with multiple online texts as part of the process of scientific
RI PT
inquiry in the classroom. The specific focus of this work was on understanding how teachers used classroom dialogue to create an environment that supports the use of multiple online textbased resources as part of the process of doing science. Data collection for this study occurred in
SC
the 6th grade classrooms of two teachers in a Midwestern school district. Each of the teachers taught three science classes for a total of 150 students. A test of students’ content knowledge of
M AN U
physics was used in order to evaluate students’ understanding of the physics concepts targeted in the curriculum. An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) revealed that the students from one teacher’s classes performed significantly better on the physics test than the students of the other teacher (p < .05). To qualitatively investigate the differences between the whole class dialogue
TE D
used by the two teachers, teachers’ interactions with students as they prepared them to engage in research with the multiple texts were coded. Coding of the dialogue revealed that the teacher whose students exhibited higher learning outcomes engaged in more deep level facilitation
EP
strategies during whole class discussion, including setting learning goals for text interactions,
AC C
connecting to prior knowledge, and discussing the use of multiple texts as part of doing science.
Keywords • applications in subject areas • improving classroom teaching • multimedia/hypermedia systems • teaching/learning strategies
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 2 Learning with Multiple Online Texts as Part of Scientific Inquiry in the Classroom 1. Introduction Learners now encounter many of the texts they engage with online. A strength of online
RI PT
text environments is their potential for knowledge visualization, or the “representation of conceptual knowledge” (Keller & Tergan, 2005, p. 7). Online environments can support
information search and conceptual understanding by linking and structuring resources in
SC
intentional ways. This structure can provide visual cues to the reader about the relationships among concepts or ideas presented in the texts (e.g., Rouet et al., 2005; Gerjets et al., 2009). For
M AN U
example, maps overviewing the content in online texts can increase students’ knowledge of content structure and semantic connections among informational texts (Vörös, Rouet, Pléh, 2011). Multiple online texts can be utilized not only to increase learning, engagement, and understanding, but also to present information from a variety of different perspectives to help
TE D
increase learners’ cognitive flexibility, or ability to understand and apply concepts in multiple contexts (Spiro et al., 1987; Spiro et al., 2003; Spiro et al., 2007). For these reasons, multiple texts presented in online environments can be powerful learning tools for students.
EP
The study reported in this paper looks at how learning from multiple online texts is supported in the classrooms of two sixth grade teachers. The aim is to explore whether the
AC C
strategies used by teachers to support students’ learning with multiple texts facilitate the use of science concepts within the context of middle school physics. A review of the literature on learning with multiple texts in science and the role of the teacher in facilitating the process of learning with texts in science is presented. Then, the mixed-methods study that was conducted to examine the relationship between teachers’ facilitation strategies and students’ learning of scientific concepts from multiple texts is described and results and conclusions discussed.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 3 1.1 Learning with Multiple Texts in Scientific Domains In the domain of science there are numerous conceptual relationships that learners need to understand. One advantage to using multiple online text environments to present science
RI PT
content is that readers can use the navigational structure of the environment, such as an index or concept map, to aid in the reading process and establish meaning across multiple texts. Accessing multiple texts in online environments has the potential to increase learners’
SC
meaningful interactions with texts and their conceptual understanding by making these
conceptual relations apparent. Indeed, many science texts are now presented online in multiple
M AN U
text formats. Due to the essential role that texts play in storing, representing, and disseminating scientific information, scientific inquiry is a natural context in which to embed opportunities for interacting with multiple texts. The inquiry process, which requires learners to engage in higherorder thinking and problem-solving activities related to scientific information and issues, can
TE D
develop both conceptual knowledge and reasoning abilities related to scientific information (Cavagnetto, 2010; Gee, 2004; Zohar & Nemet, 2002). For example, both problem-based and project-based approaches to science can be categorized as inquiry. In this definition of inquiry,
EP
students are solving open-ended problems, working in groups, coming up with multiple ideas and designs, and following different paths while engaging with different sources of information
AC C
to solve problems related to science. Within an inquiry-based environment, skilled readers of online texts approach online reading as a problem-solving task and do better when these tasks are embedded in inquiry activities in which content-specific goals have been set requiring them to make connections across sources (Coiro, 2010). Rather than being a supplement to experiments or lab-based experiences, according to Palincsar and Magnusson (2001), texts can be seen as a form of second-hand investigation that is just as much a legitimate form of conducting scientific
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 4 inquiry as designing experiments and collecting data. Importantly in this text-based inquiry, students are not simply searching for information that can be found verbatim in the multiple documents. Rather, they need to integrate the multiple sources of information in a way that
RI PT
allows them to go beyond the information given in a single document and understand how the multiple sources complement each other to give an overall picture of a concept. Moreover,
scientific inquiry with a focus on reading multiple texts as part of the process has been found to
SC
increase proficiency with reading and comprehension of science content (Cervetti, Pearson, Barber, Hiebert, & Bravo, 2007; Cromley, Snyder-Hogan, & Luciw-Dubas, 2010; Herman,
M AN U
Perkins, Hansen, Gomez, & Gomez, 2010; Greenleaf et al., 2009; Guthrie et al., 2004; Romance & Vitale, 1992; Vitale, & Romance, 2007). Programs that focus on developing students’ literacy with online information can improve both literacy skills and content knowledge, particularly when students are allowed to engage in collaborative inquiry activities (Kuiper et al., 2009).
TE D
Inquiry-based science programs are well positioned to provide a context for collaborative learning with multiple online texts.
1.2 The Role of the Teacher in Supporting Learning from Multiple Online Texts
EP
In classroom settings, students do not engage with online informational texts devoid of any support other than the online text environment itself. The design of curricula or text
AC C
environments may be more or less effective depending on the kinds of facilitation that the teacher provides in the classroom (Cervetti, Barber, Dorph, Pearson, & Goldschmidt, 2012). Therefore, the ways teachers approach the use of these resources and the ways in which they make these approaches known to their students greatly impact students’ successes with using these texts (Molyneux & Godinho, 2012). Similar to Rowell and Ebbers’ (2004) reflection on the lack of research reporting on the kinds of experiences students have with informational texts in
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 5 school science, the same can be said of the lack of research reporting on the kinds of experiences teachers have facilitating students’ learning with multiple online texts in science classrooms. Research is needed related to disciplinary literacies and the use of online resources (Goldman et
RI PT
al., 2012).
There are many ways in which teachers can support students in using online resources as part of science. Prior research has shown an advantage for a learner-centered teaching approach
SC
to facilitating learning with multi-media resources as part of the process of inquiry. This form of facilitation appeared to allow students more time to use and process the resources and also
M AN U
resulted in better learning outcomes and a more positive perspective on the lesson and the use of online sources (So & Kong, 2007). Strategies such as helping students to activate their prior knowledge and experiences related to a topic can support comprehension of expository texts read by middle school students (Bråten, Johansen, & Stromso, 2017). Other strategies include using
TE D
the structure of the online text environment to facilitate the establishment of meaning across multiple texts, revisiting information in order to solidify or revise understanding (Afflerbach & Cho, 2009), and investigating seemingly goal-related information (Coiro, 2010). Nystrand (2006)
EP
argues that teachers can improve learning outcomes when students are engaging with texts by promoting discussion, authentic questioning and questions that build upon previous questions.
AC C
Culminating this culture of discussion and questioning may help to facilitate a classroom environment in which utilizing text resources is seen as part of “doing science” and essential to the process of scientific investigation. There are numerous reasons for teachers to support their students in using multiple texts
to support scientific reasoning and claims. Previous work has found that a belief in the justification of scientific arguments based on multiple sources was a significant positive
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 6 predictor of high school students’ multiple documents comprehension (Bråten et al., 2013). Although the degree to which students take advantage of online text structures and integrate across multiple texts is variable, studies have found that when students do integrate across
RI PT
multiple documents, they produce work that that indicates higher-level understanding of content and more evaluation of informational sources (Anmarkrud et al. 2014; Hagen et al. 2014).
Further, a belief in justification by multiple sources appears to be positively related to high
SC
school students’ science achievement as well as their perceived self-efficacy for reading in
science, which was also positively related to their achievement (Bråten et al., 2014). Teaching
M AN U
the importance and skill of integrating across multiple texts as part of scientific investigation and problem solving can potentially benefit both students’ abilities to learn from multiple online texts and achievement in science. Teachers’ support of students in learning from multiple texts is often accomplished through the use of effective classroom discussion techniques and discourse
TE D
strategies.
1.2.1 Discourse Strategies in Classroom Teaching Recent work on promoting reading comprehension and mathematical understanding
EP
through classroom dialogue has identified discourse strategies used by teachers that appear to be particularly effective at promoting learning and achievement. For example, open-ended questions
AC C
with subsequent follow up by teachers on students’ thinking about them have been found to facilitate development of conceptual knowledge (Wilkinson et al., 2015). Additionally, engaging in collaborative reasoning during discussion while setting the stage for small group reading and reasoning can support students in jointly engaging with multiple information sources (Webb et al., 2017). Another effective teacher facilitation strategy is shared control between teachers and students and gradual release of responsibility for the discussion to students. However, it is
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 7 important that the teacher continues to guide and support the students using teacher guiding moves, such as summarizing and modeling (Li et al, 2014). Finally, other comprehension facilitation strategies, such as support in identifying and activating the appropriate prior
RI PT
knowledge (Li et al, 2014), challenging students’ thinking and guiding them towards the shared goal of the activity (Gillies & Baffour, 2017), and supported practice in generating deep-level questions about the text (Murphy et al., 2016) have all be found to be successful teacher
SC
strategies for supporting learning from multiple texts. Overall, reviews of the research suggest that at the least, there is a modest level of evidence to support that classroom discussion can
M AN U
impact reading and comprehension, even independently of the texts discussed as part of the lesson (Murphy et al 2011; Murphy et al 2009). Much more needs to be known about how to best support teachers in conducting discussions about texts in ways that have been found to be successful in supporting learning (Wilkinson et al., 2015; Li et al, 2014). In order to do this,
TE D
more extensive, longitudinal explorations and research into teachers’ use of discussion and support of students’ discussion to facilitate learning are required (Murphy et al., 2016). Another revealing approach to the study of interactions between teachers and students is
EP
that of discourse structures. Discourse structures in the classroom are patterns of interaction among teachers and students that are repeated across lessons and contexts. For example, one
AC C
common discourse structure is initiation, response, feedback (IRF), which is also sometimes referred to as initiation, response, evaluation (IRE). Researchers who focus on discourse structures in classrooms have made the argument that the third slot should be used and thought of as “feedback” rather than evaluation and its role should be to extend and reinforce responses (Cazden, 2001). Further, the nature of teacher questions as part of this process is essential. For example, metaprocess questions, such as, “How do you know this?” can be used to prompt
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 8 longer and more complex responses. Multiple activities and goals can be accomplished by the same discourse structure, and to say that a particular discourse structure can only be used to accomplish a single learning or educational goal is an oversimplification. Teachers need a
RI PT
repertoire of discourse structures and ways to approach lessons. They must understand what is most appropriate for facilitating learning of complex information and skills in a variety of
environments with ever more complex educational objectives (Cazden, 2001). The IRE discourse
SC
structure is a quite common communication mechanism observed in classrooms, but the use of discourse structures by teachers communicating with students around learning from multiple
M AN U
online texts in science has not been investigated.
In sum, in a classroom, the teacher plays a critical role in helping students to see texts as an integral part of the process of doing science. The role of the teacher is particularly important when students are engaging in collaborative learning with online resources (Coiro, 2010;
TE D
Urhahne, Schanze, Bell, Mansfield, & Holmes, 2010). Our prior work has found that regardless of how students engage with multiple online texts (either individually or collaboratively), the way in which the teacher frames the task will impact the way in which students engage with the
EP
system of texts (Smith, Sullivan, & Puntambekar, 2009). This pilot study found that if teachers used a fact-finding approach when discussing learning with multiple texts while supporting
AC C
students working on text-based inquiry in small groups, the students approached the reading of the online texts from this perspective. This meant that students overlooked the features of the texts that were designed to facilitate the understanding of complex and interrelated concepts. However, this work did not investigate how teachers approached facilitating the inquiry process with multiple online texts when engaging their whole class of students and how this may have impacted learning outcomes. Thus, the current study sought to explore this.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 9 Revealing ways teachers interact with students as they learn with multiple online texts is of the utmost importance when studying learning from multiple text-based resources within the context of the science classroom. Learning from texts is an essential, yet often complicated,
RI PT
aspect of doing scientific inquiry. As the research discussed above illustrates, engaging with multiple online texts offers affordances for learning but can also be difficult for students if they are not supported in the process of reading in online texts environments. It is important to
SC
acknowledge that before making suggestions about how teachers should support their students, the existing practices of teachers around these types of texts need to be explored. Then, ideas for
M AN U
enhancing already existing practices can be provided based on the kinds of interactions that have been shown to be fruitful in reading and science instruction (Mortimer & Scott, 2003). Therefore, the goal of this study is to investigate how teachers interact with their whole classes of students in order to prepare them to conduct research with multiple online texts as part of the
2. Methods
TE D
process of scientific inquiry in the classroom.
For this study, the focus was on teacher interactions with students to prepare learners to
EP
use multiple online texts as part of the inquiry process. As discussed in the previous section, online texts can play an essential supportive role in the process of scientific investigation.
AC C
However, the teacher is critical in framing the way that these texts will be used in the context of inquiry. Although there have been studies that look at the ways in which teachers incorporate texts into science, research is sparse that investigates how teachers create an environment that supports the use of multiple online text-based resources as part of the process of doing science. Given this gap in the literature, the following question was investigated in this study:
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 10 How do teachers interact with students to prepare them to use multiple online texts as part of conducting scientific investigations? A mixed-methods approach was used to investigate how two science teachers interacted with
RI PT
their students to prepare them to use multiple online texts as part of learning science in the
classroom. The primary objective was to investigate the ways in which the teachers facilitated
inquiry-based process of learning about physics concepts. 2.1 Participants
SC
the class just prior to students conducting research with multiple online texts as part of an
M AN U
Data for this study was collected in the 6th grade classrooms of two teachers in a Midwestern school district, George and Lauren. Both teachers were in their fourth year of participation with the CoMPASS project, which is a curriculum designed to teach students physics via inquiry-based science. Each of the teachers taught three science classes for a total N
TE D
= 150 students. The implementation of a Forces and Motion unit in their classrooms took each teacher approximately 12 weeks. For most activities in the unit, students worked in small groups of three to four students. The teachers had been implementing a Simple Machines CoMPASS
EP
unit for three years prior to collection of data for this study, but this was their first year implementing the Forces and Motion unit.
AC C
2.3 Materials
Students used the CoMPASS eTextbook (Puntambekar, 2006) as part of a design-based
physics inquiry unit on Forces and Motion. The overall goal of the unit was for students to design a fun, yet safe, roller coaster for an amusement park. Students worked in a student notebook (aka Scientist’s Journal) that has been designed to allow multiple opportunities to engage in reading and writing practices necessary in the domain of science. During the design
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 11 process, students were required to read and integrate information from multiple sources. As part of the curriculum, students engaged in design challenges, utilizing the CoMPASS eTextbook and publicly available websites to conduct their background research. The role of the teacher was to
RI PT
support and facilitate students’ use of the multiple curricular materials (e.g. student notebook, multiple text resources, and design materials) to help learners construct understandings of the physics concepts related to designing a roller coaster. Teachers participated in professional
questions before implementing the unit in their classrooms.
M AN U
2.3.1 CoMPASS eTextbook
SC
development and had the opportunity to engage with the various curriculum materials and ask
CoMPASS supports students in developing a rich understanding of physics concepts and their relationships by providing navigable concept maps that are designed to mirror the conceptual structure in physics. The CoMPASS system provides two representations: a navigable
TE D
concept map and text that describes the concepts (see Figure 1). The concept maps are dynamically constructed and displayed with the fisheye technique (Bedersen & Hollan, 1995; Furnas, 1986). The maps are designed such that the concept that the student selects becomes the
EP
center (focal) point of the map and the other concepts move accordingly based on the strength of their relationship to the center concept. CoMPASS was used by students to learn about concepts
AC C
related to forces and motion in order to help them with their roller coaster. Students navigated CoMPASS four times throughout the curriculum for approximately 30 minutes per navigation session to research concepts for their design challenges. Students used a laptop to navigate on CoMPASS in groups of three or four. The interactions of the teachers with the whole class to develop questions before each CoMPASS research session were analyzed for this study.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 12 Figure 1. Screenshot of the CoMPASS eTextbook. This figure shows the navigable
M AN U
SC
RI PT
concept map and text for the concept of momentum in the topic of linear motion.
TE D
2.3.2. Reading excursions
In addition to using CoMPASS, students also conducted research using multiple online texts during Reading Excursion activities. For the Reading Excursion activities, students were
EP
asked to integrate multiple websites as part of collaboratively conducting research in their small groups. Websites with reliable and complementary information were chosen by the curriculum
AC C
development team and were included as part of the unit. This was done in order to make sure students would have access to online texts that would allow them to get the background information that they needed for their design challenges. The websites contained accurate, and complementary information about physics concepts, such as momentum and Newton’s Laws, related to students’ roller coaster designs. This included detailed text-based descriptions of the concepts and their applications as well as illustrations and graphic examples to help students understand the relevance to their roller coasters. However, no single website contained all of the
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 13 information that students needed to apply to their designs, so they had to be thoughtful about navigating to multiple sites and integrating their information. Websites were also provided so that school districts could make sure they were not blocked by schools’ website filters. Students
RI PT
conducted four Reading Excursions throughout the curriculum, covering topics including forces and vectors, efficiency and friction, the law of conservation of energy and Newton’s Laws,
respectively. For each Reading Excursion activity, students were asked to answer a series of
SC
questions related to the targeted concepts. Students conducted four Reading Excursions during the curriculum, each taking approximately one 45-minute class period. Teachers’ interactions
M AN U
with students before each of the reading excursions were analyzed. 2.4 Measures and analyses
Analyses determined whether there were any differences between the students of the two teachers in terms of prior knowledge and learning outcomes. First, an independent samples t-test
TE D
assessed whether there was a significant difference on pretest scores on a subset of content questions relevant to the reading excursions from the Physics Fiesta (discussed below) between the students of the two teachers. Next, paired samples t-tests were done, using the same subset of
EP
questions as the pretest, for the students of each teacher in order to look at improvement from pre to posttest. Finally, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted to see whether the two
AC C
teachers’ students differed significantly on the posttest after controlling for pretest score. For the analysis, a subset of questions from a Physics Fiesta content test was used to examine students’ scores across teachers.
2.4.1 Physics Fiesta content test Members of the CoMPASS research team designed a test of students’ content knowledge of physics, the Physics Fiesta, in order to evaluate students’ understanding of the physics
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 14 concepts targeted in the curriculum. The test consists of 29 multiple choice questions for a total possible score of 29 and addresses a range of physics concepts and relationships such as mass, work, force, potential and kinetic energy, velocity, acceleration, efficiency, the conservation of
RI PT
energy, and Newton’s Laws. There were three or four possible choices for each question. Five questions had three answer choices and ten questions had four answer choices. Cronbach’s alpha with data from this sample of students was .757, indicating acceptable internal consistency. For
SC
this study, a subset of questions that tested the concepts specifically targeted in the reading
activities was used. The subset consisted of 15 questions (Appendix A) that addressed forces,
M AN U
vectors, efficiency, friction, conservation of energy and Newton’s First and Second Laws. Cronbach’s alpha = .656 for the subset of questions. The first three questions asked about factual knowledge while the remaining 12 questions tested students’ conceptual knowledge rather than memorization of definitions. Students took the Physics Fiesta test as a pretest before beginning
TE D
the curriculum and as a posttest after the end of the curriculum, which resulted in approximately 12 weeks between the time they took the pre-test and the post-test. 2.4.2 Qualitative analyses
EP
Whole class discussions of one of each of the teachers’ three classes were videoed when the teachers were introducing any of the activities related to conducting research with multiple
AC C
online text resources. Video of group interactions has been used successfully in previous studies of the CoMPASS curriculum materials to inform understanding of both teachers’ and students’ behaviors (Bopardikar, Sullivan, & Puntambekar, 2009; 2010; Puntambekar, Stylianou, & Goldstein, 2007). As such, this technique was utilized in the qualitative analysis for this study. To investigate our research question, teachers’ interactions with students as they prepared them to engage in research with the multiple texts were coded.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 15 The video of teachers’ interactions with the whole class when discussing the CoMPASS eTextbook and the Reading Excursions was transcribed. In all, ten whole class interactions, which are referred to as episodes in the following analysis sections, were transcribed for each
RI PT
teacher, for a total of approximately four hours of transcribed classroom video. A coding rubric (See Table 2 and Appendix B) was developed based on prior work investigating teachers’
strategies for enacting the CoMPASS curriculum (Puntambekar et al., 2007) as well as other
SC
research examining teacher facilitation of the use of texts as part of the scientific inquiry process (Coiro, 2010; Dymock & Nicholson, 2010; Olry-Louis, 2009; Urhahne et al., 2010). The rubric
M AN U
was applied to the transcripts and modified based on the teacher facilitation strategies that emerged from the videos in order to conduct a thematic analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Strauss & Corbin, 1998) of what the teacher did during the whole class discussions related to multiple informational science texts.
TE D
Members of the CoMPASS research team developed a coding rubric to capture interactions that teachers had with students around supporting their learning from the multiple texts as part of the inquiry process. This included goal setting and monitoring, critically
EP
evaluating and integrating information, putting emphasis on collecting information from multiple texts, discussing the process of reading in a group, explaining text features and how to navigate
AC C
texts, making connections to the content being read, discussing texts as part of the process of scientific inquiry, and developing questions to guide reading and text research. The goal in coding for these interactions was to see if any disparities between the two teachers could inform differences in learning outcomes among the teachers’ students. The codes and examples can be found in Appendix B. Two levels of codes were assigned. Level 1 codes were assigned when a teacher was acknowledging, or talking about one of the themes captured by the codes at a surface
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 16 or descriptive level. Level 2 codes were assigned when a teacher was elaborating, or talking about one of the themes captured by the codes and, at the same time, elaborating on these ideas. Ways that teachers might elaborate included providing an extended explanation or discussion
RI PT
with the students related to the theme of the code or talking through the process of applying the strategies represented by the codes. In Appendix B, the first example of dialogue represents a Level 1 interaction, and the second example represents a Level 2 interaction. Transcripts were
SC
coded at the episode level. All episodes collected for each teacher throughout the unit were coded, resulting in ten coded episodes per teacher, for a total of 20 coded episodes. Two
M AN U
researchers who were involved in the development of the coding rubric independently coded ten percent of the transcripts and reached an interrater reliability of 93.75% agreement. All disagreements were resolved through discussion. A single researcher then coded the remaining episodes.
3.1 Quantitative analysis
TE D
3. Results
In order to see how the students of the two teachers compared on the pretest, an
EP
independent samples t-test was conducted. The t-test showed that there was a significant difference on students’ pretest scores between the two teachers. George’s students (Mean =
AC C
6.38, SD = 1.93), did significantly better than Lauren’s students (Mean = 5.26, SD = 2.02), t(141) = -3.044, p = .003. Both teachers’ students made significant improvement from the pre to the posttest, as indicated by repeated measures t-tests. However, Lauren’s students (Mean difference = 3.33, SD = 2.60, t(65) = 10.42, p = .000, Cohen’s d = 1.29) made more of an improvement than George’s students (Mean difference = 1.65, SD = 2.78, t(71) = 5.04, p = .000 Cohen’s d = .60). The effect size from the pretest to posttest for Lauren was large in contrast to
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 17 the medium effect size for George. Finally, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was run to see if the teachers’ students differed on their posttest scores after controlling for prior knowledge. Lauren’s students (Mean = 8.59, SD = 2.42) did significantly better than George’s
RI PT
students on the posttest (Mean = 8.02, SD = 2.39, F(1,135) = 4.84, p = .029). 3.2 Qualitative analyses
The results of the quantitative analyses provided further impetus to qualitatively examine
SC
how the two teachers interacted with their students. As discussed above, this was done through transcription of classroom video and coding of transcripts from episodes during which the
M AN U
teachers were introducing and discussing reading activities with their classes. The rubric (Appendix B) attempts to capture the prominent interactions teachers had with the classes while preparing their students to conduct research with the online texts. Table 1 displays the total number of codes assigned to the 10 episodes that were coded for both Lauren
TE D
and George. There was a total of approximately two hours of episode video for each teacher from the beginning to the end of the unit. The codes that are indicative of the strategies used by the teachers are listed vertically on the left of the table and include a line for both level one and
EP
level two strategy use. See Table 2 for a review of the strategy codes. For an example of each of
AC C
the strategies, see Appendix B.
George
Lauren
Codes
1’s
2’s
1’s
2’s
GSM CEI UMT DCR ETF MC
3 4 1 0 2 6
5 0 0 1 1 2
4 3 4 3 2 5
6 1 2 0 2 4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 18 3 0 2 1 1 3 1 3 19 12 24 19 Total 61% 39% 56% 44% Percentage Table 1. Number of codes & total and percentage of level 1 and 2 codes for each teacher
SC
RI PT
DT FDQ
Table 2. Coding categories for strategies used by the two teachers
M AN U
Strategy Coding Categories
Goal Setting and Monitoring (GSM) – Setting meaningful goals for reading and navigating the texts • i.e. reading for and checking understanding versus copying information Critically Evaluating and Integrating Multiple Information Sources (CEI) • i.e. using reliable resources
TE D
Emphasizing the Use of Multiple Texts for Learning (UMT) • Emphasizing how to use the multiple texts in order to gain knowledge or answer questions. • i.e. explaining how to navigate among multiple sources Discussing Collaborative Reading (DCR)
Explaining the Features of Different Kinds of Texts and How to Navigate (ETF) • i.e. how texts are structured
AC C
EP
Making Connections to Prior Knowledge, Experience, Content, or Activities (MC) • e.g. connection to challenge or “real world” content • e.g. connection to how reading CoMPASS is similar to or different from reading a textbook or other form of text Discussing using Texts as Part of the Scientific Practice (DT) • i.e. how texts are part of the process of doing science Facilitating the Development of Focus Questions (FDQ) • i.e. promoting authentic questions • e.g. questions that build upon previous questions
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 19 Lauren typically used more varied types of strategies to interact with her students around multiple texts than George, and she also more frequently had interactions with her students on an in-depth level (level 2 from the rubric). This means that she was doing more elaborating by
RI PT
providing an extended explanation or discussion with the students. In particular, she talked more about the processes of critically evaluating and integrating multiple texts, using online texts as part of inquiry and to support students’ designs, and emphasizing the use of multiple texts for
SC
learning and knowledge construction. Thus, although George spent more total time than Lauren preparing students to conduct research with multiple texts throughout the unit, two hours and 20
M AN U
minutes versus one hour and 40 minutes respectively, the depth at which Lauren discussed using texts as part of the inquiry process was more substantial. Lauren used more varied types of strategies and level two strategies during her discussion episodes with students than George. Table 1 presents the number of times the teachers were assigned each code and the percentage of
TE D
level one and level two codes assigned to each teacher.
The two teachers had some similarities in their whole class interactions related to the use of texts, but they also had some important differences. For goal setting and monitoring (GSM)
EP
George and Lauren had an approximately equal number of codes assigned at each of the levels. For critically evaluating and integrating multiple information sources (CEI), the two teaches
AC C
talked about this the same number of times, but Lauren talked about evaluating websites at a deeper level than George on one occasion. For emphasizing the use of multiple texts for learning (UMT), Lauren talked about this many more times than George and did so at a deeper level on two occasions by explicitly modeling how students might use the navigational affordances of the digital texts to gain knowledge or answer questions related to their roller coaster design. In terms of discussing the process of collaborative reading, or reading as a group, Lauren did this
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 20 more often than George, but George did it at a deeper level. Both teachers were fairly well matched in the number of times and level at which they explained the features of the different kinds of texts (e.g. CoMPASS eTextbook, websites) and how to navigate them (ETF). For
RI PT
making connections (MC) Lauren had more interactions that were at a level two than George. This means that she more often made deep connections to students’ prior knowledge and
experiences and asked students to elaboration on how those experiences related to what they
SC
were doing in the CoMPASS unit. The teachers discussed texts as part of the scientific practice (DT) a similar amount; however, Lauren did on one occasion go into greater depth about how
M AN U
scientists build upon the work of others as part of their practice and that it’s important that scientists and engineers gather information from texts about what others have already done to guide and develop their designs. The teachers were equally well matched on facilitating the development of focus questions (FDQ) to research with the CoMPASS eTextbook. They both
TE D
had in depth interactions with their students related to how to develop appropriate questions that would help them understand conceptual relationships important to interpreting the data from their activities and designing a good roller coaster. Across all codes, Lauren had a higher
EP
proportion of level two codes and had more total interactions (Total = 43) that were coded as supporting students to learning from the digital text resources than George Total = 31).
AC C
It is worth noting that although there were differences in the content of the teachers’
interactions with students, their dialogic structures were similar. These similarities can be discussed further based on the strategies teachers used for interacting with their classes. In terms of discussing Goal Setting and Monitoring (GSM), both George and Lauren used this strategy with similar frequencies. Thus, both teachers were helping their students clarify what the purpose of the research with the texts was and what their goals should be during reading. They also did
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 21 this in much the same way, using an IRE discourse structure that, while interactive, was mostly authoritative, focusing on arriving at the question that the teacher felt students should be researching. An example of this is provided in the following transcript excerpt from George’s
RI PT
class:
T: Acceleration. How many of you have written down the, an acceleration definition or taken notes on acceleration yet? Okay. Don't you think that would be important to
SC
understand? … But is there a question that we can show a relationship to follow up with
Camden?
M AN U
this? Once we know what that is. What are we tying acceleration to, do you think?
S: Um, like that, how and what it's affected by?
T: So, what is? What are, what are we about to test? S: Um, how height affects acceleration.
TE D
T: Okay. So the height of what?
From this excerpt, it can be seen that although George is requesting students’ input, he is
EP
structuring his communication with students to guide them toward developing a question that he already has in mind, which he knows they will need to understand to complete the next steps in
AC C
their roller coaster design.
Both teachers engaged in many facilitation practices with regard to using the multiple
online texts to facilitate the understanding of physics concepts, Lauren had more interactions with students in which she discussed Using Multiple Texts for Learning (UMT). She did this at a deep level by doing things such as modeling for students how they could use the navigational structure of the online text environment to investigate questions related to their roller coaster
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 22 design. Modeling this process for students can help them understand not only how but also why to navigate the texts using the navigational features. Despite Lauren’s engagement of students in greater depth content wise, interestingly, both teachers once again primarily utilized the IRE
discussing the concept maps in the CoMPASS eTexbook:
RI PT
discourse structure, as illustrated below in a transcript excerpt from Lauren’s class as they were
T: When it goes toward the outside it gets lighter. Why do you think as it goes toward the
S: It's becoming more distant from the main topic.
SC
outside it gets lighter? Do you have any ideas of why that might be? Zoe?
M AN U
T: Exactly. It's becoming more distant from the main topic. It means, it's still related. But the colors that are this brighter blue color, these four here, are more closely related to energy than these that are far out here.
TE D
For Making Connections (MC), Lauren had more elaborate interactions with students than George that made deep connections to students’ prior knowledge and experiences. She also required students to elaborate on how those experiences related to what they were doing in the
EP
CoMPASS unit. Importantly, both teachers engaged in Discussing Texts as Part of the Scientific Practice (DT). This is encouraging because this is an aspect of using texts as part of inquiry that
AC C
is easy to take for granted, and therefore not make explicit to students. Perhaps the best example of this across all of the episodes was when Lauren explained to students that scientists build upon the work of others as part of their practice and that it’s important for scientists and engineers to gather information from texts about what others have already done to guide and develop their designs. Finally, both teachers supported their students in developing focus questions (FDQ) that would help guide their research in the online texts in ways that would support them in understand
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 23 conceptual relationships important to their design process. This finding is promising, given that establishing the goal of reading is essential for understanding and facilitating text comprehension, and one way to help students establish this goal is through developing focused questions for
RI PT
research (Murphy et al., 2016).
In all, there were several ways in which both the teachers facilitated students’ learning from multiple online texts. Lauren tended to engage the class in conversations regarding facets of
SC
learning from multiple online resources more often and at a deeper level than George, despite
transcript excerpt below from her class.
M AN U
both teachers using the same form of discourse structure. An example of this is illustrated in the
T: What causes us to, to, or what makes something less efficient? What’s something that makes it less efficient, as you found in one of your experiments? What makes something less efficient? Ryan.
TE D
S: Friction.
T: Friction, yes. So friction. So friction makes this less. Friction kind of makes our machine or our job, or whatever we're doing, less efficient. So when we're talking about
EP
efficiency, it's whatever you put into a job and how much you get out of it. And, we would like to get out what we put in, wouldn't we? Wouldn't we like to do something and
AC C
have it, get out of it what we put into it? That would be nice. That would, that would give us a higher percentage, but sometimes friction causes us to not get out what we put into it, like if you were dragging a box along, um, or even pushing this book on the table. This table is nice and what? S: Smooth.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 24 T: Smooth. So if I, if I pushed it, it would go a long way, maybe even off the table. Now if this were covered in gravel, what would happen if I pushed the book?
RI PT
Overall, the primary differences between Lauren and George were in the emphasizing the Use of Multiple Texts for Learning (UMT) and Making Connections (MC) categories. Lauren had many more UMT interactions than George, but perhaps just as importantly, she discussed the
SC
use of the multiple online texts as part of reaching students’ design goals for the inquiry process. She did this by demonstrating and discussing the kind of thinking that students might engage in
M AN U
while navigating the texts to allow them to find information that would help them with their challenges. Further, although both teachers engaged in quite a few interactions that made connections to prior knowledge or experiences, Lauren tended to do this on a deeper level than George, which allowed students to explore their prior conceptions of an idea or topic and
TE D
understand why learning more about certain concepts was important. Finally, one area in which there was certainly room for improvement for both teachers was in Discussing Collaborative Reading (DCR). Since all of the reading of the online texts was
EP
done in groups, the collaborative dynamic of the reading surely played a role in how the students learned from the texts. Yet, the teachers did not spend much time discussing this, and when it
AC C
was discussed, it tended to be done so at a surface level that was akin to reminding students that they needed to take turns controlling the mouse for reading in their group. Additionally, the teachers also could have spent more time discussing the ways that scientists and engineers use texts as part of their practice (DT). This may have helped to make even clearer for students the purpose of using the online texts throughout the unit. 4. Discussion
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 25 The goal of this study was to investigate how two teachers interacted with their students to prepare them to use multiple online texts as part of conducting scientific investigations. This was done by analyzing learning outcomes related to science content in combination with a
RI PT
qualitative analysis of the strategies teachers used to interact with students in relation to the multiple texts utilized in the curriculum. Although no causal claims can be made due to the
nature of the data and the primarily qualitative analyses, the results show that teachers set up the
SC
environments for engaging with multiple online texts in different ways. They did this not by their use of varied discourse structures, but rather by the extent to which they used discussion
M AN U
opportunities presented within these structures to help students understand how and why to use different reading strategies related to scientific inquiry and learning from multiple online texts. Teachers could potentially have used discourse structures that allowed for more student-led dialogue and conversation with regard to learning from these texts as part of a collective process
TE D
of scientific inquiry. However, it is also feasible that this approach would not have been productive, as students may need more teacher-directed support at this point to have these conversations. Unfortunately, no further comment can be made on this based on the results of
discourse structure.
EP
this study, as the teachers predominantly used an authoritative initiate, response, evaluate (IRE)
AC C
A potentially critical difference between the teachers was in the interactions that involved
explaining and modeling for students the ways in which the multiple online texts could be used to research information that connected to students prior experiences and learning goals. This may have reinforced the use of the online texts as part of inquiry to support the scientific process, rather than as a means to understanding conceptual relationships in and of themselves. Whatever the case, our study suggests that the ways in which teachers set up the goals of reading from
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 26 multiple online texts impact the ways in which students will learn from these resources and what they will learn in the process (Molyneux & Godinho, 2012). The results of this study of two teachers confirms this assertion, and also fills a needed gap in the literature investigating how
inquiry in the domain of science (Goldman et al., 2012).
RI PT
content area teachers interact with students to prepare them to use multiple online texts as part of
The results of our quantitative analysis of learning outcomes showed that the students of
SC
both teachers made significant gains from the pretest to the posttest in their knowledge of the physics concepts presented in the online texts. However, it is interesting to note the difference in
M AN U
effect size between the two student groups, with Lauren’s students exhibiting a large effect size and George’s students a medium effect size. Further, controlling for prior knowledge, which Lauren’s students started with significantly less of, Lauren’s students significantly outperformed George’s students on the posttest. These findings support previous work that found an impact of
TE D
the way in which the teacher framed the reading task on interactions with the texts and learning outcomes (e.g., Coiro, 2010; Smith, Sullivan & Puntambekar, 2009; Urhahne, Schanze, Bell, Mansfield, & Holmes, 2010).
EP
Both of the teachers devoted a substantial portion of a class period to introducing the CoMPASS eTextbook to students. However, in George’s case, he primarily maintained control
AC C
of this introduction to CoMPASS and overall created an environment in which he informed students about the features of the online text space rather than asking students for their input on what they noticed about how the texts were structured in the eTextbook. Further, George makes a point to explain to students that the concept maps represent many connections that will be helpful for their learning, but he doesn't discuss why students might want to use the connections in the navigable concept map to help them in their research for their design activities. In contrast,
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 27 in Lauren’s classroom students played a central role in offering their input on things that they ?
noticed about the CoMPASS eTextbook, such as how to use navigation features and what their purpose might be. Lauren also put emphasis on modeling for students that understanding the
RI PT
connections among concepts is important and that there are relationship that students might choose to investigate by utilizing the features of the eTextbook system as they make navigation decisions to read information that they will need for their design challenges. Although both
SC
teachers supported their students in understanding the features of the CoMPASS eTextbook, Lauren put more emphasis on allowing students to share their ideas about reading the online
M AN U
texts and also made a stronger connection to the purpose of the multiple online texts in their inquiry-based design process. Setting the stage in this way for engaging with a system of multiple texts and supporting students in working toward their goals for the learning activity via classroom discussion has been found in previous studies to support students’ learning (Webb et
TE D
al., 2017; Gillies & Baffour, 2017).
The two teachers also took quite different approaches to talking with students about the second reading excursion. George emphasized to his students that they should develop an
EP
understanding of efficiency in relation to the other concepts that they were learning about. As such, he did a nice job of emphasizing for students that they should focus on understanding
AC C
conceptual relationships as they read and should think about how concepts would fit together in a concept map. However, he could have taken this a step further and emphasized for his students why they should learn about efficiency in relation to other conceptual relationships and how specifically understanding these relationships would help them to think about their data. Lauren takes a different approach that works to make the need to understand efficiency meaningful for her students as she engages with their ideas about machines that they are familiar with and why it
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 28 is important for these machines to be efficient. She also tries to connect the learning of efficiency to prior conceptual knowledge by questioning students on their understanding of concepts that they’ve learned about so far that would affect efficiency, such as friction. Similar to the
RI PT
CoMPASS introduction, the teachers took different approaches to Reading Excursion #2.
Although both of them engaged in interactions that would support students in their reading of the online texts, Lauren went further in terms of making students’ research on efficiency more
SC
personally relevant and more conceptually relevant to their design challenge. Making these
connections to prior knowledge and other activities is essential for forming an understanding of
M AN U
the texts (Li et al, 2014; Alvermann, 2004; Varelas & Pappas, 2006). Interactions captured by the codes that the two teachers differed most on, emphasizing reading and integrating information across texts and making connections between the information and prior knowledge, have been found to influence learning from multiple texts (Nicholson, 2010). Indeed, although both
TE D
teachers engaged their students in interactions meant to help them conduct research with multiple online texts as part of the inquiry process. Nonetheless, overall, Lauren engaged in these interactions more often than George, at a deeper level, and more frequently tried to convey the
EP
importance of texts in the research and design process. Scholars of reading are increasingly recognizing that learning with multiple online texts
AC C
is an important skill that needs to be understood in terms of both similarities and differences as compared to reading printed texts (e.g. Castek et al., 2011; Leu et al. 2009; 2011; 2013). The need to understand how teachers are supporting learning from online texts will continue to grow as access to a multitude of online resources by learners continues to increase. This study takes a step towards increasing our understanding of interactions around multiple online texts that are fruitful for supporting learners engaged in scientific inquiry in the classroom. For example,
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 29 modeling the use of navigation features, making connections among multiple texts, and other behaviors exhibited by Lauren, seemed to facilitate students’ learning from the online texts. Additionally, this study also supports the idea that similar discourse structures can be used for
RI PT
multiple purposes. For the middle school students in this context, what was being communicated and the depth at which it was being done seemed to matter more. Future work can investigate the
comprehension when learning in online environments.
SC
impact of systematically implementing these strategies in the classroom to support multiple text
There are some limitations to this study. First, only one class for each teacher was video
M AN U
recorded, and it was assumed that teachers had similar interactions with students in their other classes. It could have been the case that interactions regarding multiple online texts were more variable across the classes of each teacher than anticipated. However, given that the classes for each teacher had similar levels of prior knowledge and learning gains, this does not appear to be
TE D
the case. Second, even though scores on multiple choice questions relevant to the reading activities were examined, other parts of the curriculum could have influenced scores on the tests. Arguably, this finding would still be related to teacher facilitation of other portions of the
EP
curriculum, although it is unknown which other aspects of the unit were most influential and how they were facilitated. In addition, the same test was used as both a pre and post measure.
AC C
However, since the pre-and post-test were given approximately 12 weeks apart, it is unlikely that question retention played a role in the results. Finally, our video data contained other aspects of the whole class discussion that we chose not to include in this analysis, including gestures made by teachers and students, and the responses and interactions between students. We chose not to focus on these aspects of the data as there was little variability in gestures across teachers and classrooms and students rarely interacted with each other, but mostly with the teacher, which was
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 30 captured by the predominance of the authoritative initiate, response, evaluate (IRE) discourse structure. There is the potential that some strategies used by teachers were not captured by the coding rubric, but given that the coding rubric was developed both from prior research and
RI PT
inductively based on transcripts of classroom dialogue, it is likely that critical differences between teachers were captured.
Based on the results of this exploratory study, suggestions can be made for future
SC
research to expand upon these findings. First, as there was not a planned intervention, but rather the goal of this study was to explore teachers’ current practices, follow up work could implement
M AN U
a systematic professional development program targeted at teaching facilitation strategies but also enacting them at a deep level to connect conceptual knowledge from the readings to the processes of design and testing in science. Further work could also spend time eliciting teachers’ perspectives on learning with texts as part of scientific inquiry. For example, discussions with the
TE D
teachers revealed that George did not think that his students improved in their abilities to use the digital texts throughout the unit whereas Lauren felt that her students did improve somewhat. George acknowledged that perhaps he should be discussing or modeling interactions with the
EP
texts differently in order to help his students improve at accessing all the available multiple texts to find information about concepts that they can integrate. Lauren made a comment about her
AC C
students not using CoMPASS or the Reading Excursion sites during the simulation activities even though she felt they were able to use these resources effectively in the context of specified text research times. This response may indicate that Lauren was thinking about the use of the digital texts within the bigger context of supporting the inquiry process more so than George, which could have influenced the kinds of interactions they had with their students related to the
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 31 texts. Better understanding teachers’ pre-conceived ideas about texts as part of science will allow for a stronger foundation on which to develop facilitation skills. 4.1 Conclusions
RI PT
In conclusion, an important part of reading activities in science classrooms is the way in which the teacher sets up the task of reading. This study found that this includes how the teacher discusses and facilitates the purpose of the reading experience as part of science, how to use the
SC
eTextbook system, and the connection to prior knowledge and unit activities. The support of the teacher is particularly critical when trying to help students engage in the reading process as part
M AN U
of inquiry-based science. Accessing multiple texts online adds another layer of complication in that learners must also be supported in navigating and integrating the online texts. The results of our study suggest that teachers’ facilitation strategies influence how students interact with these texts as part of the process of doing science and that the depth at which teachers engage students
TE D
regarding multiple text navigation and comprehension skills influences learning. While both teachers worked to support their students in learning with digital texts, they had distinct styles of doing so, as evidenced by their interactions with students. This rich
EP
description of digital text use as part of inquiry in two middle school science classrooms allow for a more nuanced understanding of how to support teachers in their facilitation strategies.
AC C
Future work can be done to support teachers in ways that they may be conscientious of their interactions with their students to better support learning with digital texts, such as developing programs that teach the instructors these strategies and allow venues for practice and feedback on their implementation. We can also systematically examine the impact of these interventions on students’ interactions with texts and their learning outcomes by testing the impact of targeted teacher professional development programs at a school and system-wide level.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
32
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 33 5. Appendices Appendix A Physics Fiesta Question Subset
RI PT
Name:______________________________School:______________________________ Teacher:______________________________Class:______________________________
SC
Group:_______________________________Date: ______________________________
Instructions: Read each question carefully and choose the best option. Choose only one option to indicate your answer to the question.
The sum of the forces acting on an object. The force of a surface supporting an object. An outside force applied to an object. The force pulling an object toward the center of the earth.
TE D
1. Net force is: a. b. c. d.
M AN U
Important: All of the situations are in an environment with no friction, unless otherwise stated in the question.
EP
2. Force vectors represent the ____________of forces acting on an object. a. Time and direction b. Size and time c. Size and direction d. Direction only
AC C
3. The Law of Conservation of Energy states that: a. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. b. Total energy within a system will remain constant. c. Energy decreases when forces are added. d. Both A and B
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 34
RI PT
4. If you increase the friction between the surface of a ramp and the object you are lifting, you will not change the: a. Efficiency of the ramp. b. Applied force needed to lift the object. c. Work done in lifting the object. d. Potential energy of the object at the top of the ramp.
SC
5. The amount of potential energy that a roller coaster car has at the top of the initial drop must be _________ the potential energy at the top of the hill. a. More than b. Less than c. The same amount as
M AN U
6. If there is a great deal of friction between a roller coaster car and track, the amount of potential energy at the top of the hill will be greater than the amount of kinetic energy at the bottom of the hill. a. True b. False c. Not enough information to decide
TE D
7. If there is no friction, the amount of potential energy that a roller coaster car has at the top of a hill is _________ the kinetic energy at the bottom of the hill. a. More than b. Less than c. The same amount as
EP
8. A book is sitting on a dashboard of a car that is stopped at a traffic light. As the car starts to move forward, the book slides off the dashboard. The most correct explanation is: a. Newton’s First Law. b. Newton’s Second Law. c. Both A and B. d. Not enough information to decide.
AC C
9. The best example of Newton’s Second Law is a bowling ball: a. At rest on a rack. b. Accelerating due to the force exerted by a person. c. Both A and B. d. Moving at a constant speed. 10. According to Newton’s Second Law, if two balls have the same mass, a larger force will produce _________ acceleration. a. A larger b. A smaller c. The same
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 35 11. If the net force acting on a cart doubles, the cart’s acceleration: a. Increases. b. Decreases. c. Stays the same. d. Not enough information to decide
SC
RI PT
12. You are designing a roller coaster ride. Your roller coaster car has a mass of 500 kg and you need it to accelerate at 10 m/s2 so that your ride will be fun. Use the equation from Newton’s Second Law to calculate how much force you would need to move the car at this rate. a. 1500 N b. 5000 N c. 15000 N d. Not enough information to decide
M AN U
13. A hockey puck sliding across a frictionless ice rink is moving at a constant velocity. According to Newton’s First Law, which of the following is true: a. The net force acting on it must be greater than 0. b. The net force acting on it must be 0. c. The puck is accelerating. d. Not enough information to decide
TE D
14. If an object’s acceleration is zero, its motion could be described as: a. Increasing or decreasing in velocity. b. Not moving. c. Moving at a constant velocity. d. Both B and C
AC C
EP
15. Which force is most often responsible for the slowing of moving objects? a. Normal Force b. Gravitational Force c. Friction Force
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 36 Appendix B
Codes for Classroom Video of Reading Activities Examples of a 1 and 2 T: So don't write something down if it's not helping you or if you don't understand what it is. That's not beneficial to you, you're writing down a bunch of stuff that you don't need or don't know and you're not learning.
RI PT
Code Goal Setting and Monitoring (GSM) – Setting meaningful goals for reading and navigating the texts • i.e. reading for and checking understanding versus copying information
Critically Evaluating and Integrating Multiple Information Sources (CEI) • i.e. using reliable resources
M AN U
SC
T: You guys don't do a lot of just copying word for word. Don't just, don't do that off the website. If you don't understand what it means, it's not helpful to you. So write it down, and if you're not sure what it's saying, talk about it in your group or ask me and I'll come over and kinda help guide you though it. T: So take note of the reading excursion, um sites that you can go to along with your compassproject.net site.
AC C
EP
TE D
T: Anyone can put anything on the internet that they want to. So we need to make sure that we're looking at websites that are actually true and giving us good information.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 37 T: Just a little hint, what seemed to work well for my last class is they had one window opened up the CoMPASS website and then another window opened up the main menu so that they could click to the different links, they didn't have to keep like logging out and logging in and logging out and logging in as they switched back and forth from the CoMPASS website to the different links.
RI PT
Emphasizing the Use of Multiple Texts for Learning (UMT) – Emphasizing how to use the multiple texts in order to gain knowledge or answer questions. • i.e. explaining how to navigate among multiple sources
M AN U
SC
T: So the concept maps are also going to give you help on what you should maybe be looking at and what you should be clicking on. So if you were, if you were looking for energy and you were thinking, oh I wonder what might, I wonder what, I wonder what some things that might be related to energy are? Well, here it shows you some things that are very closely related and some things that are not as closely related, but still would maybe be some good things to check out.
T: So again, I'm just gonna encourage you when you're in your groups, be very wise about how you're clicking through things, for a couple of reasons. Because it's gonna make your work more efficient. You'll be able to learn more in a shorter period of time than if you click around and not really concentrate on where you're clicking.
AC C
EP
TE D
Discussing Collaborative Reading (DCR)
T: …write the order of which kids will take turns navigating. Now this doesn't mean that nobody else in the group can't touch the computer - can't navigate at all. It just means that initially, logging in and getting stuff up- if you guys are reading, k? If you're doing a set read, this person is doing the actual navigating, k? You guys will be seated around, k? You guys can offer where you should go in that navigation, and so forth, but primarily, that person is in control of the computer.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 38 T: So, some writing, and the nice thing about CoMPASS that I think is very kid friendly is that the writing, the written information kind of comes in short paragraphs, so it's not like you're given three pages to read about something at once. And it's also nice 'cause it sometimes will have diagrams, or little, like little clips of things that you can watch. Like an animation, that you can watch to help you understand.
RI PT
Explaining the Features of Different Kinds of Texts and How to Navigate (ETF) • i.e. how texts are structured
M AN U
SC
T: So just keep that in mind, that if you're just typing in things in the search button, your concept map is not going to change. You're just going to be getting information, which is okay. You can still find some things out, but if you wanna see how other things are related, then you're gonna have to start clicking on the map to get that to work. Does that make sense to everybody? Does it, does it not make sense to anybody?
T: …most parents are expecting it time to time that you'll be coming home with a textbook. This is your textbook. Okay?
AC C
EP
TE D
Making Connections to Prior Knowledge, Experience, Content, or Activities (MC) • Can distinguish between making connections to content and reading sources or tools • e.g. connection to challenge or “real world” content • e.g. reading CoMPASS like using like a textbook
T: Has anyone heard the word vector before? Okay, where have you heard it used?
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 39 Discussing using Texts as Part of the Scientific Practice (DT) • i.e. how texts are part of the scientific process
T: Think like an en- think like scientists.
RI PT
S: (Reading from the notebook with no follow up from the teacher.) Think like scientists and en- engineers. Scientists and engineers often use different sources of information to learn about concepts that are important to their research…
M AN U
SC
T: Scientists and engineers often read what others have written about a topic to help guide them in their explorations. So that's what you're doing, you're reading about information that is already, has already been found for you, and you are picking out the important stuff that you want to know about to make your roller coaster fun, efficient and safe.
T: What I want you to do when you get to your groups is to read off your questions. If you hear something as a group that you're like, yes let's do that one or something like that, do that… Okay. So. Anything that you find feasible that support um your, your goals here and your overall design challenge, uh, please use.
EP
TE D
Facilitating the Development of Focus Questions (FDQ) • i.e. promoting authentic questions • e.g. questions that build upon previous questions
T: What do you think of, of his question? Does it, as far as the rules that we've talked about when it comes to writing questions, what do you think?
AC C
Three levels of quality of the interactions: • 0 – code did not appear in the video (No code) • 1 – acknowledging: talking about one of the codes above at a surface or descriptive level • 2 – elaborating: talking about one of the codes above and elaborating on these ideas by providing an extended explanation or discussion with the students and/or talking through the process of applying the strategies represented by the codes above
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 40 References
RI PT
Alvermann, D. E., (2004). Multiliteracies and self-questioning in the service of science learning. In E.W. Saul (Ed.) Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 226-238). Newark, DE: International Reading Association, & Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association. Anmarkrud, Ø., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2014). Multiple-documents literacy: Strategic processing, source awareness, and argumentation when reading multiple conflicting documents. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 64-76.
SC
Bedersen, B. B., & Hollan, J. (1995). Pad++: A zooming graphical interface for exploring alternate interface physics. In P. Szekely (Ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (17–26). New York: ACM Press.
M AN U
Bopardikar, A., Sullivan, S. A., & Puntambekar, S. (2010, May). Analyzing group dialogue to explore collaborative use of hypertext systems. Poster presented in S. A. Sullivan & S. Puntambekar (Chairs), Finding Common Ground: Documenting and Analyzing Student Learning with Hypertext, Multimedia and Hypermedia. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO. Bopardikar, A., Sullivan, S. A., & Puntambekar, S. (2009, April). Small group science talk in a design-based classroom: An exploratory study. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Garden Grove, CA.
TE D
Bråten, I., Johansen, R. P., & Strømsø, H. I. (2017). Effects of different ways of introducing a reading task on intrinsic motivation and comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 40(1), 17-36.
EP
Bråten, I., Ferguson, L. E., Strømsø, H. I., & Anmarkrud, Ø. (2013). Justification beliefs and multiple-documents comprehension. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(3), 879-902.
AC C
Bråten, I., Ferguson, L. E., Anmarkrud, Ø., Strømsø, H. I., & Brandmo, C. (2014). Modeling relations between students’ justification for knowing beliefs in science, motivation for understanding what they read in science, and science achievement. International Journal of Educational Research, 66, 1-12. Castek, J., Zawilinski, L., McVerry, G., O’Byrne, I., & Leu, D. J. (2011). The new literacies of online reading comprehension: New opportunities and challenges for students with learning difficulties. In C. Wyatt-Smith, J. Elkins, & S. Gunn (Eds.) Multiple perspectives on difficulties in learning literacy and numeracy (pp. 91-110). New York, NY: Springer. Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K-12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336-371.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 41 Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
RI PT
Cervetti, G. N., Barber, J., Dorph, R., Pearson, P. D., & Goldschmidt, P. G. (2012). The impact of an integrated approach to science and literacy in elementary school classrooms. Journal of research in science teaching, 49(5), 631-658. Cervetti, G., Pearson, P. D., Barber, J., Hiebert, E., & Bravo, M. (2007). Integrating literacy and science. In Pressley, Billman, Perry, Refitt, Reynolds (Eds.) Shaping literacy achievement: The research we have, the research we need (157-74). New York: Guilford.
SC
Coiro, J. (2010). Talking about reading as thinking: Modeling the hidden complexities of online reading comprehension. In Hansfield, L. J. & Jaminez, R. T. (Chairs) New Perspective in Comprehension Strategy Instruction. Alternative session presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver. CO.
M AN U
Cromley, J. G., Snyder-Hogan, L. E., & Luciw-Dubas, U. A. (2010). Reading comprehension of scientific text: A domain-specific test of the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 687-700. Dymock, S., & Nicholson, T. (2010). “High 5!” Strategies to Enhance Comprehension of Expository Text. The Reading Teacher, 64(3), 166-178.
TE D
Furnas, G. W. (1986). Generalized fisheye views. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 16–23). New York: ACM Press. Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated Language and Learning: A Critique of Traditional Schooling. London: Routledge.
EP
Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., Opfermann, M., Hesse, F. W., & Eysink, T. H. S. (2009). Learning with hypermedia: The influence of representational formats and different levels of learner control on performance and learning behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 360370.
AC C
Gillies, R. M., & Baffour, B. (2017). The effects of teacher-introduced multimodal representations and discourse on students’ task engagement and scientific language during cooperative, inquiry-based science. Instructional Science, 1-21. Goldman, S. R., Braasch, J. L., Wiley, J., Graesser, A. C., & Brodowinska, K. (2012). Comprehending and learning from Internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(4), 356-381. Greenleaf, C., Hanson, T., Herman, J., Litman, C., Madden, S., Rosen, R., Boscardin, C., Schneider, S., & Silver, D. (2009). Integrating literacy and science instruction in high school biology: Impact on teacher practice, student engagement, and student
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 42 achievement. Final report to the National Science Foundation (NSF), Grant #0440379, available at www.wested.org/sli/downloads/nsf-final-report.pdf.
RI PT
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., Scafiddi, N. T., & Tonks, S. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 403-423. Hagen, Å. M., Braasch, J. L., & Bråten, I. (2014). Relationships between spontaneous note taking, self reported strategies and comprehension when reading multiple texts in different task conditions. Journal of Research in Reading, 37(S1).
SC
Herman, P., Perkins, K., Hansen, M., Gomez, L. M., & Gomez, K. (2010). The effectiveness of reading comprehension strategies in high school science classrooms. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 857-864).
M AN U
Keller, T., & Tergan, S. O. (2005). Visualizing knowledge and information: An introduction. In S. O. Tergan & T. Keller (Eds.), Knowledge and information visualization (pp. 1-23). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Leu, D. J., Forzani, E., Burlingame, C., Kulikowich, J., Sedransk, N., Corio, J., & Kennedy, C. (2013). The new literacies of online research and comprehension: Assessing and preparing students for the 21st century with Common Core State Standards. Quality reading instruction in the age of common core standards, 219-236.
TE D
Leu, D. J., McVerry, J. G., O'Byrne, W. I. , Kiili, C., Zawilinski, L., Everett Cacopardo, H., Kennedy, C., & Forzani, E. (2011). The new literacies of online reading comprehension: Expanding the literacy and learning curriculum. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(1), 5-14.
EP
Leu, D. J., O’Byrne, W. I., Zawilinski, L., McVerry, J. G., & Everett-Cacopardo, H. (2009). Expanding the new literacies conversation. Educational Researcher, 38(4), 264-269.
AC C
Li, M., Murphy, P. K., Wang, J., Mason, L. H., Firetto, C. M., Wei, L., & Chung, K. S. (2016). Promoting reading comprehension and critical–analytic thinking: A comparison of three approaches with fourth and fifth graders. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 46, 101-115. Li, M., Murphy, P. K., & Firetto, C. M. (2014). Examining the Effects of Text Genre and Structure on Fourth-and Fifth-Grade Students’ High-Level Comprehension as Evidenced in Small-Group Discussions. International Journal of Educational Psychology, 3(3), 205234. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 43 Molyneux, P., & Godinho, S. (2012). 'This is my thing!': Middle years students' engagement and learning using digital resources. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(8), 1466-1486.
RI PT
Mortimer, E.F. & Scott, P.H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Buckingham: Open University Press. Murphy, P. K., Firetto, C. M., Wei, L., Li, M., & Croninger, R. M. (2016). What REALLY Works: Optimizing Classroom Discussions to Promote Comprehension and CriticalAnalytic Thinking. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(1), 27-35.
SC
Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A., & Soter, A. O. (2011). Instruction based on discussion. Handbook of research on learning and instruction, 382-407.
M AN U
Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A., Soter, A. O., Hennessey, M. N., & Alexander, J. F. (2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 740-764. Nystrand, M. (2006). Research on the role of classroom discourse as it affects reading comprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 392-412. Olry-Louis, I. (2009). Effects of different forms of tutor action in a conditional reasoning task: An experimental approach to the tutorial dialogue. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24(2), 169-180.
TE D
Palincsar, A., & Magnusson, S. J. (2001). The interplay of first-hand and second-hand investigations to model and support the development of scientific knowledge and reasoning. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and Instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 151-193). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
EP
Puntambekar, S. (2006). Learning from digital text in inquiry-based science classes: lessons learned in one program. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 564-570).
AC C
Puntambekar, S., Stylianou, A., & Goldstein, J. (2007). Comparing classroom enactments of an inquiry curriculum: Lessons learned from two teachers. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(1), 81-130. Romance, N.R., & Vitale, M.R. (1992). A curriculum strategy that expands time for in-depth elementary science instruction by using science-based reading strategies: Effects of a year-long study in grade four. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 545-554. Rouet, J-F., Potelle, H., & Goumi, A. (2005). The role of content representations in hypermedia learning: Effects of task and learner variables. In S.-O. Tergan & T. Keller (Eds.), Knowledge and Information Visualization (pp. 343-354). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 44 Rowell, P. M., & Ebbers, M. (2004). School science constrained: Print experiences in two elementary classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(3), 217-230.
RI PT
Smith, G. W., & Sullivan, S. A., & Puntambekar, S. (2009, June). When to collaborate: Individual and group exploration of a hypertext environment within an inquiry science classroom. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning. Rhodes, Greece: International Society of the Learning Sciences. So, W. M. W., & Kong, S. C. (2007). Approaches of inquiry learning with multimedia resources in primary classrooms. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26(4), 329.
SC
Spiro, R. J., Collins, B. P., & Ramchandran, A. R. (2007). Modes of openness and flexibility in “Cognitive Flexibility Hypertext” learning environments. In B. Khan (Ed.), Flexible learning. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publications.
M AN U
Spiro, R. J., Collins, B. P. Thota, J. J., & Feltovich, P. J. (2003). Cognitive flexibility theory: Hypermedia for complex learning, adaptive knowledge application, and experience acceleration. Educational Technology, 44(5), 5-10. Spiro, R. J., Vispoel, W. L., Schmitz, J., Samarapungavan, A., & Boerger, A. (1987). Knowledge acquisition for application: Cognitive flexibility and transfer in complex content domains. In B. C. Britton & S. Glynn (Eds.), Executive control processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
TE D
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
EP
Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., Bell, T., Mansfield, A., & Holmes, J. (2010). Role of the Teacher in Computer supported Collaborative Inquiry Learning. International Journal of Science Education, 32(2), 221-243.
AC C
Varelas, M., & Pappas, C.C. (2006). Intertextuality in read-alouds of integrated science-literacy units in urban primary classrooms: Opportunities for the development of thought and language. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 211-259. Vitale, M. R., & Romance, N. R. (2007). A knowledge-based framework for unifying contentarea reading comprehension and reading comprehension strategies. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.) Reading Comprehension Strategies: Theories, Interventions and Technologies (pp. 73-104). New York, NY: Erlbaum. Vörös, Z., Rouet, J. F., & Pléh, C. (2011). Effect of high-level content organizers on hypertext learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 2047-2055. Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., Ing, M., Turrou, A. C., Johnson, N. C., & Zimmerman, J. (2017).
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 45 Teacher practices that promote productive dialogue and learning in mathematics classrooms. International Journal of Educational Research. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.07.009
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
Wilkinson, I. A., Murphy, P. K., & Binici, S. (2015). Dialogue-intensive pedagogies for promoting reading comprehension: What we know, what we need to know. Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue, 35-48. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Highlights
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
Teachers differed in their facilitation strategies but not in discourse structure Deep level facilitation strategies were associated with better learning outcomes Setting learning goals for text interactions seemed to impact knowledge development Stressing personal and conceptual relevance helped students to connect with texts Discussing use of multiple texts as part of science was a key facilitation strategy
AC C
• • • • •