Main Article Content
Science inquiry challenges students to synthesize various ideas about complex phenomena into coherent explanations. It also challenges teachers, who must guide their diverse students’ developing understanding during student-paced investigations. We describe the Idea Manager, a suite of web-based, curriculum-integrated tools that (a) guides students’ knowledge integration as they generate, distinguish, and reconcile their ideas; and (b) provides means for teachers to monitor learning over the course of technology-enhanced science inquiry units. With the Idea Manager tool, students document short, text-based ideas, tag and sort them along various attributes, and exchange them with classmates. At culminating points of their investigations, students graphically organize their ideas to prepare written scientific explanations. Meanwhile, logs of idea entries, revisions, and meta-data inform teachers’ and researchers’ decisions about instruction and design.
This paper offers an account of the design moves made in refining the Idea Manager, and highlights the importance of teacher-researcher partnerships and classroom implementations. Through designers’ artifacts, classroom research findings, and teachers’ and researchers’ reflections, we illustrate the tool’s origins; our strategies for testing new features and eliciting stakeholders’ feedback, and how middle and high school classroom implementations inform the tool’s continued iterations. Based on learning theory and on our own 40+ collective years of classroom teaching experience, we explain our design decisions and describe how new features and patterns for the tool’s use emerged from a community of researchers. Finally, we reflect on the process of iteration that advances both theory and design, and on the value of pedagogically-driven technology design.
Copyright © 2012 by the International Journal of Designs for Learning, a publication of the Association of Educational Communications and Technology. (AECT). Permission to make digital or hard copies of portions of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that the 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 in print or the first screen in digital media. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than IJDL or AECT must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. The IJDL site and its metadata are licensed under CC BY-NC-ND. A simpler version of this statement is available here.
Andriessen, J. E. B., Coirier, P., Roos, L., Passerault, J. M., & BertErboul (1996). Thematic and structural planning in constrained argumentative text production. In H. Van den Bergh, G. Rijlaarsdam, & M. Couzijn (Eds.), Theories, models and methodology in writing research (pp. 237-251). Amsterdam: University Press.
Bell, P. (1997, December). Using argument representations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (pp. 10-19). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Bell, P. (2004). Promoting students’ argument construction and collaborative debate in the science classroom. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet Environments for Science Education, (pp. 115-143). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Bell, P., & Linn, M. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797-817.
Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 623-654.
da Silva, T. S., Martin, A., Maurer, F., & Silveira, M. (2011). Usercentered design and agile methods: A systematic review. AGILE 2011 Conference. IEEE. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=6005488
Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.
Gerard, L. F., Ryoo, K., McElhaney, K. W., Liu, O. L., Rafferty, A. N., & Linn, M. C. (2016). Automated guidance for student inquiry. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(1), 60-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000052
Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological review, 96(4), 674.
Kuhn, D., Garcia-Mila, M., Zohar, A., Andersen, C., White, S. H., Klahr, D., & Carver, S. M. (1995). Strategies of knowledge acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, i-157.
Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science education, 87(4), 517-538.
Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B. S. (2011). Science Learning and Instruction: Taking Advantage of Technology to Promote Knowledge Integration. New York: Routledge.
Matuk, C., Gerard, L., Lim-Breitbart, J. & Linn, M. C. (2015, April 16-20). Gathering design requirements during participatory design: Strategies for teachers designing teacher tools. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Meeting, Chicago, IL, USA.
Matuk, C. F., & King Chen, J. (2011). The WISE Idea Manager: A tool to scaffold the collaborative construction of evidence-based explanations from dynamic scientific visualizations. In J. J. Shen & H.-Y. Chang (Eds.), Symposium 3, learning interactions—Collaboration as scaffolding: Learning together with dynamic, interactive scientific visualizations and computer models, Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning CSCL2011: Connecting Computer Supported Collaborative Learning to Policy and Practice, (Vol. 3, pp. 1029-1036). Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong.
Matuk, C. F & Linn, M. C. (2013, April 27 - May 1). Technology integration to scaffold and assess students’ use of visual evidence in science inquiry. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Meeting (AERA 2013): Education and Poverty: Theory, Research, Policy and Praxis, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Matuk, C. & Linn, M. C. (2014). Exploring a digital tool for exchanging ideas during science inquiry. In ICLS’14: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference for the Learning Sciences, (Vol. 2, pp. 895902). Boulder: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Matuk, C. & Linn, M. C. (2015). Examining the real and perceived impacts of a public idea repository on literacy and science inquiry. In CSCL’15: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference for Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, (Vol. 1, pp. 150-157). Gothenburg, Sweden: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Matuk, C. F., McElhaney, K., King Chen, J., Miller, D., Lim-Breitbart, J., & Linn, M. C. (2012). The Idea Manager: A tool to scaffold students documenting, sorting, and distinguishing ideas in science inquiry. In ICLS’12: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference for the Learning Sciences, (Vol. 2, pp. 469-470). Sydney: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Matuk, C., McElhaney, K., Miller, D., King Chen, J., Lim-Breitbart, J., Terashima, H., Kwan, G., & Linn, M.C. (2013). Reflectively prototyping a tool for exchanging ideas. In CSCL’13: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, (Vol 2., pp. 101-104). Madison, WI, 2013. International Society of the Learning Sciences.
McElhaney, K., Miller, D., Matuk, C., & Linn, M. C. (2012). Using the Idea Manager to promote coherent understanding of inquiry investigations. In ICLS’12: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference for the Learning Sciences, (Vol. 1, pp. 323-330). Sydney: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Inquiry and scientific explanations: Helping students use evidence and reasoning. In J. Luft, R. Bell, & J. Gess-Newsome (Eds.), Science as inquiry in the secondary setting, (pp. 121-134). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
Oliver, K., & Hannafin, M. J. (2000). Student management of webbased hypermedia resources during open-ended problem solving. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(2), 75-92.
Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., ... & Soloway, E. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337-386.
Sandoval, W. A. (2004). Developing learning theory by refining conjectures embodied in educational designs. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 213-223.
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55.
Schauble, L. (1996). The development of scientific reasoning in knowledge-rich contexts. Developmental Psychology, 32(1), 102.
Slotta, J. D., & Linn, M. C. (2009). WISE science: Web-based inquiry in the classroom. Teachers College Press.
Tate, E.D., Feng, M., McElhaney, K.W. (2016). Designing the Idea Manager to integrate STEM content and practices during a technology-based inquiry investigation. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference for the Learning Sciences, Singapore: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Wichmann, A., Matuk, C., Sato, E., Gerard, L., Madhok, J., & Linn, M. C. (2014, August 18-20). Critiquing peer-generated ideas during inquiry learning. Poster session presented at The Biennial Meeting of the EARLI SIG20 Computer Supported Inquiry Learning, Malmö, Sweden.
Wichmann, A., Matuk, C., Sato, E., Gerard, L., Madhok, J., & Linn, M. C. (2015, August 25-29). Critiquing peer ideas during technologyenhanced science inquiry learning. Poster session presented at the 16th Biennial Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Limassol, Cyprus.
Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81, 483– 496.