Seeing Science: Inquiry-Based Learning at Home Through Mobile Messaging System
Authors: 
Tamar Fuhrmann, Marina A Lemee, Jonathan Pang, Je Seung You, Lydia B Chilton, Carl Vondrick, 
Paulo BliksteinAuthors Info & Claims
Pages 794 - 799
Abstract
This work-in-progress proposes an approach that uses a low-cost, smartphone-based system for at-home, inquiry-driven science learning called STEM-Messaging System (SMS). SMS supports real-time, interactive, message-based science activities and is part of a broader project aimed at integrating science into children's daily lives by uncovering the science behind everyday objects via computer vision overlays. We discuss how three pedagogical principles–inquiry-based learning, culturally relevant pedagogies, and modeling-based learning–inform key design features of the system and its curricular activities. We identify tensions that surfaced from pilot studies involving students, parents, and teachers, providing examples of how pedagogical principles and practical applications influence design decisions.
References
[1]
Megan Bang. 2020. Learning on the move toward just, sustainable, and culturally thriving futures. Cognition and Instruction, 38:1–11, 06.
[2]
Paulo Blikstein, Tamar Fuhrmann, and Shima Salehi. 2016. The bifocal modeling framework: Combined physical experimentation and virtual modeling to learn about bacterial growth in biology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(4):513–526.
[3]
Paulo Blikstein, Tamar Fuhrmann, and Shima Salehi. 2016. Using the bifocal modeling framework to resolve “discrepant events” between physical experiments and virtual models in biology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(4):513–526.
[4]
Bryan A. Brown and Christopher Emdin. 2019. Science in the City: Culturally Relevant STEM Education. Race and education series. Harvard Education Press.
[5]
Bryan A. Brown, Phillip Boda, Catherine Lemmi, and Xavier Monroe. 2019. Moving culturally relevant pedagogy from theory to practice: Exploring teachers’ application of culturally relevant education in science and mathematics. Urban Education, 54(6):775–803
[6]
John Seely Brown, Allan M. Collins, and Paul Duguid. 1989. Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1):32–42.
[7]
Sara E. Brownell, Matthew Kloser, Tadishi Fukami, and Richard J. Shavelson. 2012. Undergraduate biology lab courses: Comparing the impact of traditionally based ”cookbook” and authentic research-based courses on student lab experiences. The journal of college science teaching, 41:36.
[8]
Caleb Bryce, Vikram Baliga, Kristin DeNesnera, Duran Fiack, Kimberly Goetz, Lily Tarjan, Catherine Wade, V. Yovovich, Sarah Baumgart, Donald Bard, Doris Ash, Ingrid Parker, and Gregory Gilbert. 2015. Exploring models in the biology classroom. The American Biology Teacher, 78:35–42, 12.
[9]
Meng-Fei Cheng, Tsung Yu Wu, and Shu-Fen Lin. 2019. Investigating the relationship between views of scientific models and modeling practice. Research in Science Education, 51:307–323.
[10]
Clark Chinn and Betina Malhotra. 2002. Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86:175 – 218, 03.
[11]
Thomas Cochrane & Roger Bateman. 2009. Smartphones give you wings: Pedagogical affordances of mobile Web 2.0. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1).
[12]
Nils Dahlbäck, Arne Jönsson, and Lars Ahrenberg. 1993. Wizard of Oz studies: why and how. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Intelligent user interfaces (IUI '93). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 193–200. https://doi.org/10.1145/169891.169968
[13]
Ton De Jong and Wouter R Van Joolingen. 1998. Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of educational research, 68(2):179–201.
[14]
Ton de Jong, Marcia C Linn, and Zacharias C Zacharia. 2013. Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 340(6130):305–308.
[15]
Daniel C. Edelson, Douglas N. Gordin, and Roy D. Pea. 1999. Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3-4):391– 450.
[16]
Christopher Emdin, Edmund Adjapong, and Ian Levy. 2016. Hip-hop based interventions as pedagogy/therapy in stem: A model from urban science education. Journal for Multicultural Education, 10:307–321, 08.
[17]
Christopher Emdin, Edmund Adjapong, and Ian P. Levy. 2021. On science genius and cultural agnosia: Reality pedagogy and/as hip-hop rooted cultural teaching in stem education. The Educational Forum, 85(4):391–405.
[18]
Garry Falloon. 2017. Mobile devices and apps as scaffolds to science learning in the primary classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(6), 613-628.
[19]
Tamar Fuhrmann, Bertrand Schneider, and Paulo Blikstein. 2018. Should students design or interact with models? using the bifocal modelling framework to investigate model construction in high school science. International Journal of Science Education, 40:1–27, 04.
[20]
Geneva Gay. 2002. Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2):106– 116.
[21]
Geneva Gay. 2018. Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research, and Practice. (3rd. ed.). Multicultural Education Series. Teachers College Press.
[22]
Kakonge John Gilbert and Rosaria Justi. 2016. Approaches to Modelling-Based Teaching. In Modelling-based Teaching in Science Education. 57-80.
[23]
Richard Gott and Sandra Duggan. 2002. Problems with the assessment of performance in practical science: Which way now? Cambridge Journal of Education, 32:183 – 201.
[24]
Tina Grotzer and David Perkins. 2000. A taxonomy of causal models: The conceptual leaps between models and students’ reflections on them. Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
[25]
Christopher Hoadley and Fabio Campos. 2022. Design-based research: What it is and why it matters to studying online learning. Educational Psychologist. 57. 1-14.
[26]
Avi Hofstein and Vincent N. Lunetta. 2004. The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88:28–54.
[27]
Avi Hofstein and Rachel Mamlok-Naaman. 2011. High-school students’ attitudes toward and interest in learning chemistry. Educacion Qu ´ ´ımica, 22(2):90–102
[28]
Hayat Hokayem and Christine Schwarz. 2013. Engaging fifth graders in scientific modeling to learn about evaporation and condensation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12, 02.
[29]
Sharroky Hollie. 2019. Branding culturally relevant teaching. Teacher Education Quarterly, 46(4):31–52.
[30]
Aslı Bahar İvgin, Hakan Akcay, Hasan Ozgur Kapici. 2021. Middle School Students' Perceptions of Scientists and Views about to Become a Scientist. International Journal on Social and Education Sciences, 3(3), 410-428.
[31]
Tomi Jaakkola, Sami Nurmi, and Koen Veermans. 2011. A comparison of students’ conceptual understanding of electric circuits in simulation only and simulation-laboratory contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48:71 – 93, 01.
[32]
Tambra O. Jackson and Tyrone C. Howard. 2014. The continuing legacy of freedom schools as sites of possibility for equity and social justice for black students. Western journal of black studies, 38:155.
[33]
G. Ladson-Billings. 1995. Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Education Research Journal, 35:465 – 491.
[34]
Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
[35]
Norman G. Lederman, A. F. Hoog Antink, and Stephen Bartos. 2014. Nature of science, scientific inquiry, and socio-scientific issues arising from genetics: A pathway to developing a scientifically literate citizenry. Science & Education, 23:285–302,.
[36]
Richard Lehrer and Leona Schauble. 2002. Investigating Real Data in the Classroom: Expanding Children's Understanding of Math and Science. Ways of Knowing in Science and Mathematics Series. Teachers College Press.
[37]
Richard Lehrer and Leona Schauble. 2006. Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, pages 371–388.
[38]
Marcia C Linn, NB Songer, and BS Eylon. 1996. Shifts and convergences in science learning and instruction. Handbook of educational psychology, pages 438–490.
[39]
Chee Kit Looi, Khin Fung Lim, Jennifer Pang, Angela L.H. Koh, Peter Seow, Daner Sun, Ivica Boticki, Cathie Norris, Elliot Soloway. 2016. Bridging formal and informal learning with the use of mobile technology. In Future learning in primary schools (pp. 79-96). Springer, Singapore.
[40]
Chee-Kit Looi, Daner Sun, Wenting Xie. 2015. Exploring students’ progression in an inquiry science curriculum enabled by mobile learning. IEEE Transactions on Learning technologies, 8(1), 43-54.
[41]
Adam V. Maltese and Robert H. Tai. 2011. Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of educational experiences with earned degrees in stem among us students. Science Education, 95(5):877–907.
[42]
Lucy R. McClain and Heather Toomey Zimmerman. 2016. Technology-mediated engagement with nature: sensory and social engagement with the outdoors supported through an e-Trailguide. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 6(4), 385-399.
[43]
Daphne Minner, Abigail Levy, and Jeanne Century. 2010. Inquiry-based science instruction—what is it and does it matter? results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47:474 – 496, 04
[44]
Pio Mupira and Umesh Dewnarain Ramnarain. 2018. The effect of inquiry-based learning on the achievement goal-orientation of grade 10 physical sciences learners at township schools in south africa. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55:810–825.
[45]
National Research Council. 2006. America's lab report: Investigations in high school science. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
[46]
National Research Council. 1996. National science education standards. Report, (National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment).
[47]
National Research Council. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi.org/10.17226/18290.
[48]
D. Paris and H.S. Alim. 2017. Culturally Sustaining Pedagogies: Teaching and Learning for Justice in a Changing World. Language and Literacy Series. Teachers College Press.
[49]
Cynthia Passmore, Julia Gouvea, and Ronald Giere. 2014. Models in science and in learning science: Focusing scientific practice on sense-making. International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching. 1171-1202.
[50]
Pew Research Center. 2024. Americans’ Use of Mobile Technology and Home Broadband. (January 2024). Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2024/01/31/americans-use-of-mobile-technology-and-home-broadband/
[51]
Rebecca Eller Powell, Susan Cantrell, Victor Malo-Juvera, and Pamela Correll. 2016. Operationalizing culturally responsive instruction: Preliminary findings of criop research. Teachers College Record, 118,.
[52]
Christina V. Schwarz and Barbara Y. White. 2005. Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2):165–205.
[53]
Christine Schwarz. 2009. Developing preservice elementary teachers’ knowledge and practices through modeling-centered scientific inquiry. Science Education, 93:720 – 744, 07.
[54]
Norbert M. Seel. 2017. Model-based learning: a synthesis of theory and research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65:931–966.
[55]
Mike Sharples, Eileen Scanlon, Shaaron Ainsworth, Stamatina Anastopoulou, Trevor Collins, Charles Crook, Ann Jones, Lucinda Kerawalla, Karen Littleton, Paul Mulholland & Claire O'Malley. 2015. Personal Inquiry: Orchestrating Science Investigations Within and Beyond the Classroom, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24:2, 308-341.
[56]
Yanjie Song, Lung-Hsiang Wong and Chee-Kit Looi. 2012. Fostering personalized learning in science inquiry supported by mobile technologies. Educational Technology Research and Development. 60.
[57]
Markus Specht, Michael A. Bedek, Erik Duval, Alexandra Okada, Stefanov Krassen, Elisabetta Parodi, Kathy Kikis-Papadakis, and Vojko Strahovnik. 2012. Wespot: Inquiry based learning meets learning analytics.
[58]
James Stewart, Jennifer L Cartier, and Cynthia M Passmore. 2005. Developing understanding through model-based inquiry, pages 515–565. National Academy Press.
[59]
Michelle Wilkerson and Joseph Polman. 2019. Situating data science: Exploring how relationships to data shape learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 29, 12.
[60]
Mark Windschitl, Karen Dvornich, Amy Ryken, Margaret Tudor, and Gary Koehler. 2007. A comparative model of field investigations: Aligning school science inquiry with the practices of contemporary science. School Science and Mathematics, 107:382 – 390, 01.
[61]
Zacharias C Zacharia and O Roger Anderson. 2003. The effects of an interactive computer-based simulation prior to performing a laboratory inquiry-based experiment on students’ conceptual understanding of physics. American Journal of Physics, 71:618.
[62]
Zacharias Zacharia and Costas Constantinou. 2008. Comparing the influence of physical and virtual manipulatives in the context of the physics by inquiry curriculum: The case of undergraduate students’ conceptual understanding of heat and temperature. American Journal of Physics, 76:425–430, 02.
[63]
Junqing Zhai, Jennifer Jocz, and Aik-Ling Tan. 2014. ‘Am I Like a Scientist?’: Primary children's images of doing science in school. International Journal of Science Education, 36(4), 553-576.
[64]
Heather Toomey Zimmerman, Susan M. Land, Chrystal Maggiore & Chris Millet. 2019. Supporting children's outdoor science learning with mobile computers: integrating learning on-the-move strategies with context-sensitive computing, Learning, Media and Technology, 44:4, 457-472.
[65]
Janet M. Zydney and Zachary Warner. 2016. Mobile apps for science learning: Review of research. Computers & Education, 94, 1-17.
Index Terms
- Seeing Science: Inquiry-Based Learning at Home Through Mobile Messaging System
Recommendations
Abductive science inquiry using mobile devices in the classroom
Recent advancements in digital technology have attracted the interest of educators and researchers to develop technology-assisted inquiry-based learning environments in the domain of school science education. Traditionally, school science education has ...
Improving Inquiry-Driven Modeling in Science Education through Interaction with Intelligent Tutoring Agents
IUI '15: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Intelligent User InterfacesThis paper presents the design and evaluation of a set of intelligent tutoring agents constructed to teach teams of students an authentic process of inquiry-driven modeling. The paper first presents the theoretical grounding for inquiry-driven modeling ...
Mobile Inquiry-Based Learning with Sensor-Data in the School: Effects on Student Motivation
EC-TEL 2014: Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Open Learning and Teaching in Educational Communities - Volume 8719The paper discusses the design, implementation and evaluation of a pilot project that integrated inquiry-based learning with mobile game design and introduced mobile devices and sensors into classroom learning. A 5-week classroom inquiry learning ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
June 2024
1049 pages
ISBN:9798400704420
DOI:10.1145/3628516
Copyright © 2024 Owner/Author.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 17 June 2024
Check for updates
Badges
Honorable Mention
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Extended-abstract
- Research
- Refereed limited
Funding Sources
Conference
IDC '24
Sponsor:
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 172 of 578 submissions, 30%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 86Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)86
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)13
Reflects downloads up to 25 Nov 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign inFull Access
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML Format