Volume 4 Issue 1 August 2015

Learning to Teach

Language Arts, Mathematics,

Science, and Social Studies
Through Research and Practice

Editors in Chief
Jenny Denyer, Ph.D.
Rebecca M. Schneider, Ph.D.

A publication of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction

Leigh Chiarelott, Ph.D., Interim Chair | University of Toledo
 Learning to Teach
Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies
Through Research and Practice

Editors in Chief Jenny Denyer, Ph.D.

Rebecca M. Schneider, Ph.D.
Copy Editor Kelsy Krise
Cover & Layout Designer Margaret Schneider

Learning to Teach Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies Through Research
and Practice publishes manuscripts that address curricular innovations, thoughtful
discussion of current issues for practice, or essays that inform, advocate for a
position or persuade. Manuscripts must address content education.

Reviewers for 2015

Leigh Chiarelott Professor and Interim Chair, Curriculum and Instruction
Debra Johanning Associate Professor, Curriculum and Instruction
Andrew Jorgensen Associate Professor, Chemistry and Biochemistry
Richard Komuniecki Distinguished University Professor, Biological Sciences
John Plenefisch Associate Professor, Biological Sciences
Dale Snauwaert Professor, Educational Foundations and Leadership
Victoria C. Stewart Assistant Professor, Curriculum and Instruction
Mark Templin Professor, Curriculum and Instruction
Richard Welsch Associate Professor and Chair, Early Childhood and Special Education

A publication of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction

Leigh Chiarelott, Ph.D., Interim Chair

University of Toledo
 Learning to Teach
Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies
Through Research and Practice

Volume 4 Issue 1 August 2015

Section on Language Arts

English Class 2.0: Social Media in the 21st Century Classroom ................................. 8
Jessica OConnor
James Paul Gee, Video Games, and the Language Arts Classroom ........................14
Benjamin E. Simmons
Section on Science
Scaffolding Reading and Comprehension of Scientific Texts ........................... 20
Alyssa Hoop
The Chemistry Topics that are Effectively Taught Using Virtual Chemistry
Laboratories ........................................................................................... 26
Brittney Kuhlman
The Problematic Nature of Teaching Inquiry: What Can We Do To Help
Preservice Teachers Meet the Challenges of Implementing Inquiry In The
Classroom? ............................................................................................ 32
Doug Rogaliner
Inquiry: A Setting for Reasoning ................................................................... 39
Lori L. Schwab
Why Teach Evolution? Going Beyond the Laws and Standards ........................ 44
Lindsay Traver
The Effects of Student Collaboration when Constructing Scientific Arguments 50
Scott Weis

Section on Social Studies

Why Social Studies Instructors Need to Teach Digital Citizenship ....................... 58
Jason Walton
Review of Web 2.0 Resources in the Social Studies Classroom ............................. 65
Samantha Mitchell
Language Arts
 English Class 2.0: Social Media in the 21st
Century Classroom
Jessica OConnor

Abstract: In the world today social media use is an exceedingly common form of
communication. Many people receive the majority of their information from digital
sources. More reading takes place online than with actual books. Teachers of the
English language arts (ELA) need to recognize these changes and appreciate social
media as a 21st century literacy. ELA teachers must take steps to incorporate social
media into their lessons to help their students succeed in a digital world. It is the
responsibility of ELA instructors to teach literacy and communication and there is
no better way to do that today than to use social media.

Introduction
What memories from high school stand out the most? If youre like most people
you probably dont remember the tests you took, your homework assignments, or
your grades. You probably remember friendships, great learning experiences, and
the life lessons you learned. Part of what should be taught at the high school level
is life skills. Students need to be prepared for life beyond high school just as much
as they need to understand the content, perhaps even more. Students should be
learning valuable skills that enable them to be successful; and regardless of the path
they choose after high school, students will always be required to communicate with
other people. Communication is a very important part of English language arts
(ELA). Teachers must be ready to teach students the communication skills needed
for the world they live in.
The English language arts standards are listed under several umbrellas, such as:
literature, writing, speaking and listening. ELA has branched out in recent years to
include different forms of media; students may now study a painting, a song, or a
movie in English class the same way they study a story. New media have become a
very important part of the interpreting and analyzing that happens in English class.
Social media has had a profound effect on how humans communicate with each
other; because of this effect, it seems like a logical stretch to add social media to the
ELA classroom. The question then becomes: how can we bring social media into
the classroom and use it to meet the standards of learning?

Using Social Media to Meet the Standards

The National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) (1996) published a booklet
listing the standards that students should be meeting in their classrooms. These
standards supplement and agree with the Common Core Standards that most
students in the United States are required to meet. The NCTE standards point out
that students should be able to read, understand, and interpret all forms of text,
including formal and informal. Social media is a form of text, because it is a type
 English Class 2.0 9

of written communication; it may be informal, but students are still required to

understand it. The NCTE standards mention that students should be able to adjust
their communication skills for different purposes; this means that students should
know how to speak during a job interview as well as how to speak to their friends
when making plans through a text message. The standards continue by saying that
students should be comfortable using different forms of media, understand different
types of language and dialects, and use different forms of written, spoken, and
visual language for many different reasons. After examining these standards, it does
not make sense to keep social media out of the English language arts classroom.
In his thesis, Smith (2014) discusses how social media use in the classroom can
be used to meet standards. Smith points out that students today do most of their
reading online, rather than through traditional print. Students also get most of their
information online. He notes that the standards involving reading and writing can
and should be expanded to incorporate all digital media, including social media
because of how common its usage has become. Smith believes that digital forms of
media can easily be used to teach required skills such as critical thinking and analysis,
communication, and literacy. Smith discusses forms of traditional literacy, like
novels, and how they may make students feel trapped and confined in the academic
type of thought. Students feel this way when they read a traditional text because
their world commonly revolves around digital texts; traditional texts are not always
relatable for students today. When students are able to use digital literacies, such as
social media, in the classroom they feel more comfortable with their learning. Most
students already feel that they have mastered the skills needed to navigate the digital
world. This feeling of mastery leads students to be more comfortable with digital
sources, and therefore helps teachers to bridge the gap between school, home, and
personal lives. This makes learning more relevant to students, while they are still able
to meet the same standards (Smith, 2014).
While Smith (2014) points out that students are more interested and engaged
while using digital literacies in the classroom, he does not argue that these should
take the place of traditional literacies. Smith believes that students who use social
media and other digital literacies in the classroom to meet the standards of learning
for ELA are able to take the skills they learn and apply those same skills to more
traditional texts. Smith believes that educators should be able to create classrooms
where new and traditional literacies coexist, so students are more prepared for
the digital world in which they live. Now that it is clear that social media can help
students meet the standards, we must explore why it is important.

What Makes Social Media So Important?

Social media is important because it is a 21st century literacy (Youngblood, 2014).
This statement leads to two more questions; what is a literacy, and what makes a
literacy a 21st century literacy? The term 21st century is only used to clarify that
social media is a literacy that is specific to the 21st century; it is a new literacy. Perry
clears up the question of what a literacy is by quoting an article from by Barton and
Hamilton which lists the six propositions of the nature of literacy:
1. Literacy is best understood as a set of social practices; these can be inferred
from events that are mediated by written texts.
10 OConnor

2. There are different literacies associated with different domains of life.

3. Literacy practices are patterned by social institutions and power relationships,
and some literacies become more dominant, visible and influential than others.
4. Literacy practices are purposeful and embedded in broader social goals and
cultural practices.
5. Literacy is historically situated.
6. Literacy practices change, and new ones are frequently acquired through
processes of informal learning and sense making. (as cited in Perry, 2012 p.54)
Based on these propositions, literacy is so much more than being able to read and
write. It is based on our culture, our methods of communication, and the time in
history. Literacy is constantly changing because of what is happening in the world
at any given time. Social media is an important part of how humans communicate
and it is woven deeply into current cultures. The prevalence of social media when it
comes to communication and culture makes it into a literacy.
Social media has been around for a few years. Facebook, one of the most
popular forms of social media today is a website used for sharing pictures, stories
about life, and networking with friends, family, and colleagues. When Facebook was
launched I was in college and it was the early 2000s. You were unable to sign up
unless you had an official university email address. Although social media began
growing in popularity as early as 10-15 years ago, its popularity has risen over the
past few years. Facebook has evolved from a networking site made only for college
students to a networking site where you can connect with your grandmother, your
boss, or your best friend. Social media doesnt seem to be going away anytime soon.
A 2014 article by Youngblood is where I first noted the term 21st century literacy
to describe social media. Because of the newness of social media as a literacy many
teachers are hesitant to add it in any way to their classroom curriculum. However,
Youngblood (2014) discusses how important it is for teachers to update their
strategies and methods for students who are used to doing everything digitally.
Using social media in the classroom offers an opportunity to engage these students.
It also gives students a chance to work collaboratively, which often benefits their
personal learning. Students become more motivated when using social media, and
because of this motivation and engagement are able to use social media to build
deeper understandings of texts (Youngblood, 2014). Now you may be thinking, we
know social media is a big deal, and a huge part of life these days, but how in the
world do we implement it in the classroom?

How Do You Use Social Media in the Classroom?

Facebook in the Classroom
Facebook is one of the most popular forms of social media today. Therefore, it is
of particular importance and interest to discuss how it can be used in the classroom.
Watson (2012) conducted a study using Facebook in a 12th grade classroom. Students
were asked to analyze Facebook conversations in which they had participated.
Students were convinced the assignment would be simple, because of the simplistic
nature of Facebook status updates. They were quite surprised when that was not
the case. Students had trouble interpreting the meaning and mood behind the words
 English Class 2.0 11

on Facebook. They had to very carefully read them and think about them. This led
them to use a close reading method, which generally leads to deep understanding
and discussion in an English classroom. Students took time thinking about and
discussing the status updates, and were eventually able to reach several conclusions.
Students were able to point out that the text was informal and successful in its
purpose. They also noted that in order to understand the text the reader must have
the same language, cultural, and social understandings, and background as the
writer. The students recognized that social media creates a space for young people
to develop new informal language in a way young people did in years past just by
speaking to each other. Students began to understand that there are many layers
to a text, whether it was formal or informal, and learned some text analysis skills.
Students were able to look at a Facebook status update and think about it critically,
analyze it, interpret it, and discover meaning.
When Facebook is integrated into a classroom in this manner, students are
learning skills that help them to meet ELA standards. As previously mentioned, the
standards for ELA include the ability to critically look at all different types of text;
this is exactly what the students in Watsons study did. The students were able to
take the same skills they learned by analyzing social media and use them to analyze
more traditional and formal pieces of literature (Watson, 2012).

Twitter and Fan Fiction in the Classroom

In an article by McWilliams, Hickey, Hines, Conner, and Bishop (2011), Twitter,
another popular social media site is discussed. Twitter is referred to as a micro-
blogging tool; users can tweet thoughts that are no longer than 140 characters.
In this article, the authors talk about an assignment where students were asked to
tweet as a character from The Crucible. A traditional piece of literature was used
along with Twitter in order to prove that educators can create assignments that
are engaging and socially meaningful while still meeting standards and teaching
traditional literacy skills. Twitter was chosen for its simplistic nature; students began
the assignment using an informal mode of communication and gradually moved on
to more formal modes. This gave students a chance to see that a variety of texts can
be used for communication and to see how each of these can be important. Once
students completed tweeting as their character and developed a deep understanding
of who their character was as a person, they were asked to create a fan fiction
story based on their character. Fan fiction is also a popular form of social media,
in which fans of a certain story or character write stories based on the original.
Fan fiction actually involves students in deep close reading of texts and requires a
great understanding and thorough analysis of the original text. This is because fan
fiction stories must stay true to the original character and text. Students were then
asked to beta read each others stories; in the fan fiction world, a beta reader is
a proofreader. If an author of fan fiction writes a story that does not accurately
reflect the character or story they are writing about, the beta reader will not approve.
Finally, students were asked to create a critical analysis essay based on the original
text. This unit plan managed to combine several types of social media and traditional
literature in the classroom. Students were able to meet the standards while using
several different assignments as stepping-stones leading up to the most difficult
12 OConnor

task. By the time the students reached the critical analysis essay they had already
developed a thorough understanding of The Crucible and its characters. This unit also
had the added bonus of making learning into a social activity that increased student
motivation and engagement (McWilliams et al., 2011).

Conclusion
As a teacher of ELA I have actually had experience teaching using social media.
During my year of student teaching I managed to create several assignments
using both Facebook and Twitter. These assignments were created to aid students
in understanding themes and character development in both To Kill a Mockingbird
and Romeo and Juliet. My findings with these assignments were consistent with the
research. While engaged in assignments that utilized social media as a learning tool,
students were interested and motivated. Students who did not tend to work very
hard in class were putting more effort into completing their assignments. I plan on
integrating the use of social media into my future classroom on a regular basis. In
fact, I have trouble understanding how a language arts teacher could successfully
teach a class without it.
There is no way an educator today can overlook the evidence for using social
media in the classroom. Social media is a 21st century literacy; and English teachers
have always had a responsibility to teach our students to be literate when interpreting
both formal and informal text. If social media is todays informal communication
it must become part of the classroom. Using social media as a learning tool in the
ELA classroom is the best way to teach students to become effective communicators
in todays world and to engage students who are immersed in todays digital culture.

References
McWilliams, J., Hickey, D., Hines, M., Conner, J., & Bishop, S. (2011). Using collaborative writing tools for literary
analysis: Twitter, fan fiction and the crucible in the secondary English classroom. Journal of Media Literacy
Education, 2(3), 238-245.

Perry, K. (2012). What is Literacy? A critical overview of sociocultural perspectives. Journal of Language and Literacy
Education, 8(1), 50-71.

Smith, A. M., (2014). Multimodal literacy in the english/language arts classroom: Meeting standards and remaining
relevant in the 21st century (Masters Thesis). College at Brockport, Brockport: NY.

National Council of Teachers of English. (1996). Standards for the English language arts. Newark, DE.: International
ReadingAssociation.

Watson, P. (2012). Exploring social networking: developing critical literacies. ERIC. Retrieved from http://files.eric.
ed.gov/fulltext/ED536042.pdf

Youngblood, K. (2014). Breaking tradition: Bringing the literature circle into the 21st century. Studies in Teaching 2014
Research Digest, 97-102.
 English Class 2.0 13

Biography
Jessica OConnor received a Bachelor of Arts in English from
the University of Toledo in 2006. After spending several years
at home with her daughters, Jessica returned to the University
of Toledo for a Master of Education degree. This fall Jessica
will be teaching 11th and 12th grade English and publications at
Delta High School.
 James Paul Gee, Video Games, and the
Language Arts Classroom
Benjamin E. Simmons
Abstract: The 21st century has dramatically changed the way scholars view
education. James Paul Gee has written extensively on the contemporary cultural
phenomenon of video games in recent years in an attempt to provide a new vision
for what it means to teach and learn effectively. This article will think along Gees
theories in order to let his ideas form and shape how educators conceptualize the
three essential ingredients of a language arts classroom: the teacher, the student, and
the text. It concludes that (according to Gee) good learning happens when teachers
lead students into having embodied experiences with texts which enable them to
create and adopt new identities as readers, writers, thinkers, and ultimately as more
humane beings.

Introduction: Gee and Video Games

The exciting progress and amazing achievements of the 21st century have created
entirely new challenges and obstacles for teachers of the English language arts. In
fact, an entire field of scholarship has developed that examines the way learning has
evolved since the emergence of the Internet. Scholars who examine this ongoing
development are collectively known as the New Literacies Studies movement,
and have examined contemporary learning in light of new technologies and other
facets of contemporary life (Coiro, Knobel, Lankshear, & Leu, 2008). One notable
member of this movement is James Paul Gee, who has recently written extensively
on the cultural phenomenon of video games, and which he thinks have a great deal
of light to shed on how language arts teachers should educate 21st century students.
In the introduction to What Video Games Have to Teach us About Learning and
Literacy, Gees (2007) first and most comprehensive analysis of this topic, he recalls
how he first started playing video games with his son, Sam. He was amazed, upon
observing his son playing a childrens video game, at the cognitive demands that
even a simple game designed for children made on his 6-year-old son. Moreover,
when he himself tried to play the game, he (a tenured professor) struggled to do so
successfully. Exploring this phenomenon further he found that the more he played,
the more his performance improved, and also the more difficult the game became.
Moreover, he found his newly developed skills to be improving parallel to the games
rising difficulty. It became obvious to him that the video games were actually teaching
him how to play well.
Upon further investigation (and many games later), Gee came to the conclusion
that video games are actually educational machines, and that the quality of learning
principles and game sales are directly proportional. Put another way: for a game to
be successful, it must successfully educate players. This proves to be a salient line
of inquiry because people (young and old) can spend hundreds of hours on video
games, becoming quite informed and very skilled in different ways in the process.
Here the heart of Gees inquiry becomes clear: if games clearly promote deep and
 Gee, Video Games, and Language Arts 15

meaningful learning, then why cant schools do it as effectively (or as engagingly)?

Digital Class vs. Physical Class: Teacher, Student, and Text

Gees case for the reality of learning in video games, supported by contemporary
research, amounts to an articulation of a comprehensive vision of education and
what it means to learn. The resulting synthesis is incredibly stimulating, but lacks
practical illustrations or case studies that usually are included in educational research.
If Gees ideas are truly useful, however, then his work should be able to inform any
discussion of educational practice. With that in mind, this article will attempt to
think along the work James Paul Gee has done on video games in order to inform
a description of the three essential ingredients of any language arts classroom: the
teacher, the student, and the text. It will become obvious that Gees work is not
only fascinating in its own right, but a helpful corrective for many faults within
traditional perspectives on education. All references, unless otherwise noted, are to
Gees (2007) previously mentioned study.

The Teacher
Gees work on video games is rooted in his early work on discourse, and it is within that
framework any description of what he thinks teachers are and do must originate. In
an unpublished conference paper from 1989 (titled What is literacy?), Gee lays out
foundational concepts and ideas that will guide his subsequent research and writing.
He identifies two discourses, or ways of interpreting and expressing information,
that are common to all people. Primary discourses are our socio-culturally
determined way of using our native language in face-to-face communication with
intimates (Gee, 2007, p. 5), and are developed naturally through enculturation and
socialization. They are also inescapable, in the sense that everyone has a default
location from which they interpret the world around them. Secondary discourses
are any other mode of interpretation and expression that one learns throughout
life in order to interact with groups. A standard concern for language arts teachers
such as literacy, then, is most importantly fluency in a secondary discourse - in that
case expressing oneself in and interpreting the English language correctly. In Gees
analysis of video games, the secondary discourse that students learn is the video
game itself, with all its attendant skills and knowledge. There is a way of acting and
thinking present in games that students learn as they play.
What this means for our concept of the language arts teacher is clear: teaching
is, because of the nature of discourses, always initiation into a social group who
uses that particular secondary discourse. To put it another way: teaching is a process
of induction, not indoctrination. This breaks the traditional (and often maligned)
picture of master and apprentice that has inflated many egos and crippled many
students independence. To Gee, teachers invite students into a new and larger
world where they think, act, and even value differently. Hierarchy is thus removed in
favor of partnership. In one sense this makes teaching more difficult because there
is no simple way to teach students something so extensive. It is also, coincidentally,
difficult to standardize. And yet, does not this model explain a great deal about the
way language functions and why culturally marginal students tend to have more
16 Simmons

difficulty succeeding in scholastic (specifically language arts) contexts? It is not a

function of ability or effort or value; it is a function of which groups control and
shape the dominant discourses (linguistic and otherwise) in our educational systems,
and thus is a social justice issue.

The Student
What students are, as learners, is best articulated in the second chapter of Gees
(2007) book on video games. There, Gee considers the world-creation within
video games, and how players identities in the virtual reality intersect and interact
with their identities in the real world. Through the players ability to construct
their characters, and to then make decisions and progress as those characters, Gee
develops a tripartite theory of identity. In any game, three forms of identity are
active and present. First, there is the virtual identity that a player assumes in the
virtual world of the game, and is distinct from his or her real world identity (the
second part of Gees equation). Third, and perhaps most important, is what Gee
terms the projective identity which is constituted by the choices and actions taken by
the player in the virtual reality. In this identity a new space is created, in which there
is an interaction between and a transcending of both the virtual and real identities
as taken separately. Since these aspirations are my desire for [the character], the
projective identity is both mine and hers, and it is a space in which I can transcend
both her limitations and my own (Gee, 2007, p. 51). This aspect of gaming, which
is true of all video games, is a dialectical reality that is both powerful (in the sense
of emotional involvement and requiring time and energy) as well as necessary for
good learning.
In a classroom, the parallel to the virtual identities in games is constituted by
the ideal towards which we are calling our students (the secondary discourse of
student scientist/reader/historian/mathematician) and into which we are trying to
initiate them through our instruction. The real identities of students do not change;
the same limitations, prejudices, damage, and complexities of each individual are
present and active in both. Projective identities in the classroom are the students
interaction with and ownership of the discourse of the content in which the student
articulates a new voice and enters it successfully, even if imperfectly. This is an event
of deep, active learning that Gee describes as an almost miraculous moment, and
is indeed an astounding articulation of what it means to learn (that is, to become).
Notice how this schema develops naturally out of Gees discourse-rooted theory of
learning mentioned above.
In the case of teaching language arts, teachers try to create an environment in
which students can develop projective identities of readers or writers, or even
just as thinkers. Thus the teacher, as initiator, is not simply bringing students
into a group, but creating the space in which students actually become different
people. In the case of the humanities, this becoming is oriented to a deeper or
broader concept of what it means to be human. What this means practically is that
language arts teachers need to create opportunities for students to try on these
new identities and practice them, to take baby steps, as it were, in their pursuit of
reading, writing, and thinking as co-members of humanity as a whole. Thus, the
skill sets that students are learning, the posture they adopt in relation to solving new
 Gee, Video Games, and Language Arts 17

problems, is what we are actually teaching them when we read Hamlet or any other
work. This flies in the face of the obsessive focus of many schools on declarative
knowledge and the standards of content for the test. For Gee, until the focus of
learning changes from imparting facts to creating spaces of becoming, then active
and transformative learning will always a by-product of education instead of its
goal.

The Text
The function of the text in the language arts classroom is best approached through
the lens of student experience, which Gee (2007) discusses in chapter 3 of his book
on video games. To some cognitive scientists, the brain is like a computer that holds
symbols inside that corresponds to the outside world, and through education learns
to manipulate them in different ways. Others (including Gee) view the brain as an
integrated collection of experiences that are tied unavoidably to the real world. For
these thinkers, education involves not only learning to make connections among but
also actually having these experiences. Observable patterns are the foundation of all
learning in this view, and any meaning or learning that is achieved in this manner is
referred to as being situated, or embodied in real-life experience.
In the virtual world of many video games, an immersive story provides the
context in which new information is discovered, evaluated, implemented, and given
its meaning (which can often change as the story progresses). This is essentially how
learning needs to happen in classrooms if students are to ascend beyond purely
definition-based, shallow understanding of new concepts or words. If there is no
connection to a broader narrative context or tangible world experience, students
will not truly understand the information. Magical Realism in literature (i.e. the work
of Salman Rushdie) can provide a useful illustration of this point. If students can
define that specific movement in history but cannot give tangible examples of how
an obviously fantastical story can still communicate profound truth, or cannot see
and feel the emotional impact of choosing to write that story in that way, then
do they really know what Magical Realism is? Their knowledge would be shallow,
and therefore useless to them beyond one moment in one particular classroom.
For Gee, this is what happens in so many schools when learning is taken out of
the realm of genuine educational experiences. We rob students of the one sure
way to truly understand something by a neat, skill-and-drill-ready reductionism
that divorces ideas from their real world context. This is what John Dewey (2004)
called an unhealthy adoption of a mind-body dualism. If Gee and others are correct
about the way our brains process and construct information, then teachers need
to seriously evaluate how and if they adequately situate and embody information
for their students. Gees point is that video games are a model of how that can be
accomplished successfully.
How this relates to teaching the language arts is perhaps the most challenging
area of Gees vision. How can students have genuine embodied experiences with
something that, by definition, does not actually exist (viz. fiction)? The answer lies
in how teachers get students to interact with texts. Students can have meaningful
experiences with texts in a number of ways. One way is that they can do something
with it, whether by writing in order to extend a text or by way of a project of some
18 Simmons

sort. They could also (and this is more desirable) have the experience of identifying
emotionally, of empathizing, with characters or circumstances. It has been said that
humans read to know they are not alone, and that experience itself is embodied
in Gees sense of the word. This perspective also calls into question the value of
teaching exclusively the classics, with which students may have a more difficult
time having educative, empathetic experiences. If deeper learning in the language
arts presupposes experiential interaction with texts, then why would we not teach
texts with which student would have an easier time connecting? This concept, we
must admit, is difficult to implement. And yet, if Gee (2007) is right in saying
There really is no other way to make sense (p. 87), then can teachers do anything other
than continually apply themselves to the task of creating meaningful connections
between texts and students lives?

Conclusion
The work of James Paul Gee on video games evidences a conception of teaching
and learning that can greatly inform the teaching of the English language arts.
Good language arts teaching (according to Gees work) happens when students
have embodied experiences with texts which enable them to create and adopt new
identities as readers, writers, and thinkers within a broader discourse of English
language proficiency. As they are initiated into this broader world through texts,
the status of the English language arts as a humanities discipline becomes even
more operative. For the most important secondary discourse students learn in their
educational career is the discourse of being human, and the language arts (viewed
from Gees perspective) play an essential part in students coming to understand
their place in the world and take responsibility for their own lives. Thus, the English
language arts are spaces in which students become more fully human. This is a goal
towards which every educator would do well to strive, and to which all teachers
(including Gee) can happily subscribe.

References
Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D. (2008). Central issues in new literacies and new literacies research. In
J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. Leu (Eds.). Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 1-21). New York:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates/Taylor & Francis Group.

Dewey, J. (2004). Democracy and education. Delhi: Aakar books.

Gee, J. P. (1989). What is literacy? Unpublished conference paper from The Literacies Institute. Newton, MA.

Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy (Revised and updateded.). New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.

Biography
Ben Simmons teaches high school Language Arts and Religion
at Dakar Academy, an international school in Dakar, Senegal,
West Africa. Ben recently completed his masters degree at the
University of Toledo, and has a Bachelor of Arts degree in
English from Toccoa Falls College.
Science
 Scaffolding Reading and Comprehension of
Scientific Texts
Alyssa Hoop
Abstract: Although science learning standards emphasize creating scientifically
literate citizens, use of texts in science lessons has decreased over the past two
decades. Since 1996, the percentage of students who are capable of reading has
increased, but the percentage of students who comprehend their reading has remained
unchanged. In order to improve reading comprehension, use of current event
articles provides a scaffold that promotes engagement in reading. Recent headlines
addressing teachable science concepts included: Several Americans Possibly
Exposed to Ebola Virus, Sounds Detected from Comet in Space, and 19 Year
Old Develops Device to Remove Plastic from Oceans. As an alternative to teacher-
directed lectures, current event articles engage students in active learning about
scientific phenomena, while also improving their reading comprehension skills.

Reading Comprehension
Reading comprehension is a complex cognitive process that involves both lower and
higher level processing of information to extract meaning from text (McNamara &
Magliano, 2009). The education reform emphasizes the importance of scientific
literacy (National Research Council, 1996), as there has been a long-standing and
well-established link between learning in all domains and text comprehension
(Sinatra, Broughton, Diakidoy, Kendeou, & den Broek, 2011). Since 1996, the
percentage of students who are capable of reading has increased, but the percentage
of students who comprehend what they are reading has remained relatively unchanged
(Sinatra et al., 2011). This is obviously a problem because educators are using texts
to convey concepts, but are not helping students develop the skill set required for
comprehending and interpreting the information provided.
Surprisingly, in science classrooms the use of texts has decreased significantly
over the past two decades, as greater emphasis is being given to hands-on, inquiry-
based learning (Sinatra et al., 2011). When constructing lessons that engage students
in inquiry-based learning, secondary science teachers experience emotions including
fear of change, a desire to embrace change, and for some, confusion about how to
scaffold the learning of more complex skills for students (Lapp, Grant, Moss, &
Johnson, 2013). Frequently, educators overlook the importance of utilizing texts
to engage students in discussing and understanding key scientific phenomena. One
possible reason for this avoidance is the complex nature of most science textbooks
or publications. These types of articles are beneficial in developing an inquiry-based
curriculum because they are written by actual scientists to describe their experiments
and outline their findings. Reading these expository texts can help students develop
a deeper understanding of the content presented if more attention is focused on
how to read and comprehend these scientific discussions. It is not enough for
educators to get students to read texts. The students must also be explicitly taught
how to comprehend science texts.
 Reading Comprehension 21

The Challenge of Science Texts

Text processing requires inferences be made by the reader to establish coherence
between successive sentences. Scientific reading is difficult for students because
of frequent coherence breaks, unrealistic assumptions about readers background
knowledge, unfamiliar or highly technical vocabulary, and a high density of
new concepts (Sinatra et al., 2011). Traditional science texts are typically low-
cohesion texts (limited connection from one sentence to the next), which means
they require readers to generate even more inferences to fill in conceptual gaps.
Current event articles are an advantage in this case because they are often written
for the general population. The authors of these texts make few assumptions about
readers background knowledge and use more familiar vocabulary. If new or unique
vocabulary is introduced, it is often accompanied by a brief definition or a source.
For example, in science, a solution is a term used to describe a mixture of two or
more substances; whereas a solution in mathematics is the answer to a problem.
Having this distinction made evident within a text can improve student motivation
to continue reading a text and subsequently promote comprehension.
As students progress through secondary school, academic demands increase,
and many of these increases come in the form of reading (Ness, 2009). Students
struggle with the transition from learning to read narrative text in the early grades
to reading expository text in the science classroom in the upper grades as they begin
reading and writing to gain information (Montelongo & Herter, 2010). The ability
to comprehend expository texts in content-area textbooks and scientific articles
is critical to academic success (Ness, 2009). However, as academic demands on
secondary students become more cognitively complex, explicit reading instruction
diminishes. On average, less than 3% of instructional time in secondary science
classrooms is spent on explaining, modeling, scaffolding, and assisting students in
using effective reading comprehension strategies (Ness, 2009).
Students tend to struggle comprehending scientific texts because they lack the
necessary prior knowledge and reading strategies to generate inferences from the
reading (Hall et al., 2015). In addition to complex language, science texts often
include data tables and graphs, which students must analyze and interpret. Students
have a tendency to look at these sections superficially and anticipate supplemental
instruction from the teacher instead of constructing their own conclusions.
Educators often do not spend time clearly explaining to students how to examine
and analyze data sets which only complicates the reading process.
Teachers of content areas outside of English, including science, often believe
they lack the time and knowledge to help students develop the necessary skills for
reading comprehension (Ness, 2009). In the secondary science classroom, educators
are often faced with groups of students at drastically different reading levels. It
is challenging for teachers to find texts that are versatile enough to address the
needs of all learners. Finding texts and differentiating text instruction to address all
learners is an extremely time consuming component of lesson planning. Teachers
could assume it is easier to avoid using texts and approach the content using other
instructional strategies, such as lecture. Another difficulty that science educators
face is finding engaging and relevant texts which are appropriate for the skill level
22 Hoop

of their students. Many scientific texts can be very dense, as they have traditionally
been meant to be strictly informative. It is challenging to get students engaged in
reading when they do not perceive the text to be interesting. Science textbooks,
which are most commonly used in classrooms, are often dated and do not contain
accurate and relevant content (Ness, 2009).
However, there is renewed interest in the use of refutation texts as a tool for
promoting conceptual change and science learning based on the ideas that learning
in science can occur when students contemplate or change their preconceived
notions about the natural world (Sinatra et al., 2011). A refutation text includes
elements of argumentation that specifically targets the readers misconceptions
about a topic (Tippett, 2010). For example, the article titled, Several Americans
Possibly Exposed to Ebola Virus, can be used as a refutation text to discuss modes
of disease transmission, treatments, and affected population. Doucleff (2015) states,
All of the individuals who are being flown back to the United States are free
of symptoms, the CDC said. A U.S. healthcare worker who tested positive for
Ebola while in Sierra Leone arrived at the NIH on Friday and was in serious
condition. It is not clear how the person became infected with Ebola. While the
virus has killed about 10,000 people in Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea, only
a handful of cases have been seen in the United States, Spain and Britain. The
world has recorded more than 24,000 Ebola cases so far, with nearly 10,000
reported deaths. (Doucleff, 2015, para. 3)
These characteristics of viral infections often lead to misconceptions because they
are commonly confused with characteristics of bacterial infections. Utilizing this
type of text engages the reader because it is a relevant scientific phenomena and it
addresses key concepts that students should learn in a life science course, such as
biology.

Useful Strategies for Improving Reading Comprehension Skills

Instructional scaffolds. When reading comprehension skills are addressed,
teachers help students make meaning of text by asking and answering questions,
summarizing, examining text structures, using graphic organizers, predicting, and
clarifying. For example, simply analyzing the title of a current event article and
asking students to predict what they expect will be discussed can help students
become more actively involved in reading the text. Engaging students in discussions
about the topic before reading a text can elicit misconceptions amongst students.
Some effective ways of improving student reading comprehension include
matching texts to students knowledge level and providing explicit instruction aimed
at teaching students to use reading comprehension strategies for comprehension
monitoring, paraphrasing, and elaborations. In my experience, many students are
accustomed to reading an entire text from start to finish and then going back
through the text to attempt to clarify their thoughts and make meaning of the
text. By providing explicit instruction that required students to separate a text into
smaller sections and paraphrase each section, students felt as though the reading
was less daunting. Consistent with the ideas of Montelongo & Herter (2010) and
Ness (2009), when students finished paraphrasing each section, they often were
knowledgeable enough about the text to engage in discussions and ask relevant
 Reading Comprehension 23

questions. The students then had a much more concise amount of information
available if they needed to refresh their memory about a section of the text. One of
the biggest problems science educators face in promoting reading comprehension
is simply the lack of time spent using these strategies or even engaging students in
reading expository texts.
Technology. Additionally, technology can play an integral role in promoting
student motivation and further skill building. Current students are less likely to pick
up and read a newspaper when they have such easy access to web-based articles
through their smart phones, laptops, or other devices. Making technology available
for students in the classroom so they can quickly look up unfamiliar vocabulary
definitions and pronunciations can help encourage students to be more active
in the reading process. Online texts are becoming more prevalent and easier to
access so these are great tools to utilize with a generation of students that are so
technologically dependent. For example, websites, such as Science Daily, are devoted
to publishing scientific news articles and are a useful approach to engaging students
in learning how the field of science is always changing, with new discoveries
reported on a daily basis.
Close reading. As addressed previously, it is not sufficient to simply get
students reading texts; a big issue in science classrooms is reading comprehension.
Content area teachers often lack the skill set to help engage students in improving
their reading comprehension abilities (Ness, 2009). Encouraging collaboration
amongst teachers, especially involving literacy specialists, can help content teachers
determine the most effective strategies for skill building in the classroom (Wigfield,
2004). For example, a relatively new, but effective literacy strategy used by literacy
specialists is close reading (Shanahan, 2012). This strategy encourages a transition
from passive to active reading in which the reader thinks about the meaning of the
text as they read. Close reading is an intensive analysis of a text to come to terms
with what it says, how it says it, and what it means (Shanahan, 2012).
Close reading requires that students read and then re-read texts, with the focus
of each reading differing in complexity and order of thinking. The first read is
simply to familiarize the student with the text and get a general idea what thoughts
and concepts are being addressed. Subsequent reading(s) are focused on what the
text means, what the authors point is, and why the text is meaningful. As mentioned
previously, during these readings it is important to teach students how to divide
texts into smaller sections so that the task of reading the article seems less daunting.
When engaging students in reading more complex science articles, such as
those published in peer-reviewed journals, this division is already done. Typically
these texts are set up with headings that separate the text into sections for the reader.
By asking students to focus on a single section of an article, they may be able to
comprehend that section better than if they read the whole article. By separating
the text into smaller sections, the student can gauge their comprehension of what is
being read as they go. Students ultimately rely less on the search and find method
of comprehension in which they simply pick out key phrases or vocabulary. When
utilized in the classroom, it may be beneficial to have students work in pairs or small
groups so that during one of the readings, one student can read aloud while the
other listens and writes notes or questions about the article. Close reading is gaining
popularity in secondary schools but typically still only in English classrooms. This is
24 Hoop

a simple, yet effective strategy that can be used to promote reading comprehension
in the science classroom.

Conclusion
Pre-service and novice educators should recognize that utilizing scientific current
event articles and published studies can help promote student engagement in
reading. Utilizing these texts and providing proper instruction and scaffolding can
improve reading comprehension of secondary science students. Engaging students
in discussions about texts is a key component of transitioning to deeper, conceptual
understanding and can supplement hands-on activities that promote inquiry-based
learning. Ultimately, improving reading comprehension skills will help create more
scientifically literate citizens.

References
Doucleff, M. (2015). Several Americans possibly exposed to Ebola, as epidemic smolders. NPR, (3). Accessed June
24, 2015.

Hall, S., Kowalski, R., Paterson, K., Basran, J., Filin, R., & Matby, J. (2015). Local text cohesion, reading ability and
individual science aspirations: Key factors influencing comprehension in science classes. British Educational
Research Journal, 41(1), 122142.

Lapp, D., Grant, M., Moss, B., & Johnson, K. (2013). Students close reading of science texts. Reading Teacher, 67(2),
109-119.

McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. Psychology of Learning and
Motivation, 51, 297-384.

Montelongo, J. A., & Herter, R. J. (2010). Using technology to support expository reading and writing in science classes.
Science Activities, 47(3), 89-102.

National Research Council. (1996). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Ness, M. K. (2009). Reading comprehension strategies in secondary content area classrooms: Teacher use of and
attitudes towards reading comprehension instruction. Reading Horizons, 49(2), 143-166.

Shanahan, T. (2012, June 18). What is close reading? [Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://www.shanahanonliteracy.
com/2012/06/what-is-close-reading.html

Sinatra, G. M., Broughton, S. H., Diakidoy, I. N., Kendeou, P., & den Broek, P. V. (2011). Bridging reading comprehension
and conceptual change in science education: The promise of refutation text. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(4), 374-
393.

Tippett, C. (2010). Refutation Text in science education: A review of two decades of research. International Journal of
Science and Mathematics Education, (9)6, 951-970.

Wigfield, A. (2004). Motivating reading comprehension: Concept-oriented reading instruction. New York, NY: Routledge.
 Reading Comprehension 25

Biography
Alyssa Hoop obtained her masters degree in secondary
education from the University of Toledo as a Woodrow Wilson
Teaching Fellow. She previously completed a masters degree in
molecular and cellular biology while conducting neuroscience
research. In fall 2015, Alyssa will be an integrated science
teacher at Rogers High School in Toledo Public Schools.
The Chemistry Topics that are Effectively Taught
Using Virtual Chemistry Laboratories
Brittney Kuhlman
Abstract: With advances in technology, teachers struggle when determining whether
to replace a Virtual Chemistry Laboratory (VCL) with a traditional chemistry
laboratory in secondary chemistry classrooms. A VCL is a virtual simulator that
accurately portrays a traditional chemistry laboratory. Knowing the chemistry topics
that can be taught through a good VCL will make a beneficial impact on students
abilities to think about and learn chemistry. This manuscript discusses the topics
that can be successfully taught using VCLs, along with the features of an effective
computer simulator. VCLs are useful in understanding mathematics in chemistry,
investigating phenomenon at the microscopic level, in learning spatial abilities, when
students struggle using laboratory equipment, and when they accurately depict a
physical laboratory.

Introduction
As a chemistry teacher, I commonly hear students say This is hard and How in
the world could you memorize all of this? Sure there is some memorization in
chemistry but most understanding of chemistry involves thinking. How can teachers
engage students in thinking about abstract concepts that you cannot see and apply
mathematical reasoning to explain those concepts? With advances in technology,
teachers have new and innovative ways to help students learn. Science technologies
like a Virtual Chemistry Laboratory (VCL) can promote students conceptual
understanding in chemistry and has shown to be just as or more effective as learning
through traditional laboratories (Hawkins & Phelps, 2013; Pyatt & Sims, 2012).
With that being said, how do chemistry teachers decide on whether to implement
VCLs or traditional chemistry laboratories in the classroom? The answer lies in the
chemistry topics that are most effectively taught through a VCL and the kind of
simulation technology being used.
Not everyone agrees on using VCLs solely in teaching a specific concept.
According to the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) (1999), Computers
should enhance, but not replace essential hands on laboratory activities (p. 1).
In their public policy statement, the American Chemical Society (2014) stated,
The Society believes that there is no equivalent substitute for hands-on activities
where materials and equipment are used safely and student experiences are guided
(p. 1). However, research has shown that VCLs can be valuable alternatives to
physical laboratories (Hawkins & Phelps, 2013; Pyatt & Sims, 2012). Because of
the disagreements on how to implement chemistry laboratory instruction, teachers
struggle with deciding when to use VCLs. This manuscript discusses the topics
that can be successfully taught using VCLs, along with the features of an effective
computer simulator. Knowing the chemistry topics that can be taught through a
good VCL will make a beneficial impact on students abilities to think about and
learn chemistry.
 Virtual Chemistry Laboratories 27

What are Virtual Chemistry Laboratories?

Before I can start discussing the chemistry topics that are successfully taught
using VCLs, it is important that I define a VCL and how it compares to traditional
laboratories. Simulators initially made a powerful impact on society in 1928 when
Edwin Link developed the flight simulator used to train thousands of military
aviators before and during World War II (Feisel & Rosa, 2005). Today, simulators
are not only for piloting sophisticated aircraft or ships but also in operating nuclear
power plants or complex chemical processing facilities (Feisel & Rosa, 2005). A VCL
is a virtual simulator that accurately represents a traditional chemistry laboratory.
Physical chemistry laboratories, also known as traditional or real laboratories,
involve students interacting with concrete materials without any computer-based
support (Chen, Chang, Lai, & Tsai, 2014).
Many resources have used the term hands on to describe traditional laboratories.
However, there are also sources that use the term hands on to describe physical
or virtual laboratories. When the NSTA (1999) says hands on in their position
statement, they mean physically being able to use real materials, like chemicals and
laboratory equipment. However, whether or not a laboratory is hands on should not
matter on the physicality of the experiment but rather if the materials, physical or
virtual, are being manipulated (Klahr, Triona, & Williams, 2007; Pyatt & Sims, 2012).
In both physical and virtual situations, childrens hands remain active and in control
of the materials under investigation (Klahr et al., 2007, p. 185).

Understanding Mathematics in Chemistry

According to Bruce, Bliem, and Papanikolas (2007), chemistry is the first time
students apply advanced mathematical concepts to solve real problems. Mathematics
can be used in a variety of ways in VCLs. When using quantum mechanical software
programs, students can build molecules, calculate their vibrational frequencies, and
observe the vibrational modes as the molecules bend or stretch (Bruce et al., 2007).
Other mathematical programs enable students to integrate complex equations, as
well as allowing them to see the myriad calculations that comprise molecular orbital
theory or determine values of the virial coefficients (Bruce et al., 2007). Simulations
like the program, Virtual Substance, transforms physical chemistry concepts such as
radial distribution functions, phase transitions, and real gas (versus ideal) behavior
from abstract mathematics to real-world understanding (Bruce et al., 2007). From
this study, it is evident that computer simulations can be beneficial in learning
chemistry concepts that involve mathematics, especially thermodynamics. However,
more research needs to be done to show the effectiveness of learning abstract
mathematical concepts in chemistry through VCLs.

Microscopic Phenomena
In education, a VCL can involve investigating phenomena that are not easily
visualized (Chiu, DeJaegher, & Chao, 2015; Feisel & Rosa, 2005; Plass et al., 2011;
Trindade, Fiolhais, & Almeida, 2002). The Next Generation Science Standards
(NGSS) indicate teachers should implement scientific practices constructing
28 Kuhlman

explanations of phenomena in the classroom (NGSS Lead States, 2013). However,

it is difficult to develop molecular level explanations of observable phenomena,
which are critical to complex science understanding (Chiu et al., 2015). Investigating
phenomenon at the microscopic level in chemistry can be effectively taught using a
VCL. Traditionally, teaching a phenomenon at the microscopic level involves using
models that are presented in the textbook (Frailich, Kesner, & Hofstein, 2009).
However, this limits the understanding of structure and matter. For example, the
static models of metals, in which all particles are firmly fixed, are limited in their
potential to scaffold students understanding regarding motion of electrons and
its resulting electrical conductivity (Frailich et al., 2009). By interacting with the
observed phenomena, in the virtual environment, students are able to make more
meaningful experiences and learn by thinking and interacting with the phenomena
(Trindade et al., 2002).
By changing the traditional ways of viewing microscopic concepts (models
and images), there can be a more defined explanation of the phenomenon. Virtual
simulations can enhance students understanding of diffusion, gas laws, and phase
changes (Plass et al., 2012). Molecules can be visualized using a virtual environment
and their observed behavior can be visualized when undergoing phase changes.
A good simulation is a valuable replacement of the real experience if it teaches
abstract concepts better than direct experience (Winn et al., 2006). This is especially
true when the simulation successfully uses metaphors to show phenomena that have
no perceptible presence in the real world (Winn et al., 2006).

Spatial Abilities
Simulations provide students with the capability to gain the spatial abilities to
understand microscopic phenomenon (Trindade et al., 2002). Because students
lack the visualization and spatial abilities to understand molecules, desktop three-
dimensional (3D) virtual reality environments can be beneficial in enhancing
students understanding of molecular shapes (Keeney-Kennicutt & Merchant,
2013). Second Life simulations, where students create an avatar, allow students to
engage in a 3D reality where they can manipulate molecules. With 3D images that
improve the visual and spatial abilities, students will be able to discern isomers or
observe more detailed structures of matter.
Physical laboratories use a combination of images and models of molecular
shapes to describe what is being observed. My students struggled with molecular
models and atomic orbitals. While learning atomic orbitals, students were confused
or had mixed ideas about the shape of the orbitals and how electrons behave in an
atom. Describing that phenomenon to those students, by drawing cross-sections of
the atom on the board, makes it quite difficult for students to understand that the
atom is 3D, along with the orbitals. Changing the way students observe atoms, can
enlighten students on what is really happening at the microscopic level.
With VCLs, students can investigate why molecules are shaped a certain way
and observe the angles between atoms and lone pair electrons of a molecule in 3D.
They can also manipulate molecules and see how the symmetry of the molecules
affects the polarity. They can change the electronegativity of the atoms and see how
that affects the polarity and consequently the bond type. VCLs provide students
 Virtual Chemistry Laboratories 29

with more ways they can interact with science that can be more difficult to do in
physical laboratory. This is because, VCLs allow students to visualize the particulate
nature of chemistry (Hawkins & Phelps, 2013).

Laboratory Equipment
According to Hawkins and Phelps (2013), using a VCL will only be at the cost
of the instruction of laboratory techniques used in a traditional laboratory. There
is a correlation between laboratory technique and conceptual understanding.
Conceptual understanding is related to the students ability to effectively gather
relevant information about a given phenomenon, and effectively interpret these
data to form a conceptual model (Pyatt & Sims, 2012, p.143). Students level
of understanding of how to properly collect and interpret data will not matter if
the data they gather are inaccurate. As a result, the accuracy of the data limits the
students overall conceptual understanding and potentially causes misconceptions
to arise. Therefore, in studies where students used the equipment improperly in
the physical laboratories, VCLs resulted in greater learning gains above and beyond
those achieved in physical laboratory experiences (Pyatt & Sims, 2012). However,
physical laboratories can provide students with the opportunity of learning the
observed phenomenon, if carried out with proper instruction and guidance.
When learning how to identify laboratory equipment, virtual laboratories have
shown to be a beneficial alternative to physical laboratories (Dalgarno, Bishop,
Adlong, & Bedgood, 2009; Tatli & Ayas, 2013). Students who struggle using
laboratory equipment could benefit greatly using a VCL. VCLs can help students
learn laboratory equipment for those who are physically unable to be in a laboratory.
It is crucial that students learn how to do many laboratory techniques in the
laboratory, however, if the equipment usability is affecting students understanding
of the underlying concepts, then it may be more beneficial to use the VCL.

Type of Simulation
What is a good VCL? There are many simulations available free online for teachers to
use. Instead of going through and naming all the simulation software that I find acceptable
in a chemistry classroom, I am going to explain what to look for in a good VCL. A
good VCL accurately depicts the real experience. Doing an empirical formula of a
hydrate investigation through a VCL has shown to be an effective replacement of
the physical laboratory due the experience being accurately portrayed in the VCL
(Pyatt & Sims, 2012). In The Child and the Curriculum, Dewey (1902) wrote, The map,
a summary, an arranged and orderly view of previous experiences, serves as a guide
to future experience (p.20). VCLs can be considered as maps (abstractions) of
the real world to guide students in learning chemistry concepts (Winn et al., 2006).
Because of this, the closer the simulated experience is to the real-world experience,
the more students will learn from the experience (Winn et al., 2006).
Early criticisms of simulations were that they were too rigid, the models
were too unrealistic, or simulated results really did not adequately represent real-
world systems and behavior (Feisel & Rosa, 2005, p. 125). Simulations that allow
students to make whatever molecules they desire, even molecules that do not exist
30 Kuhlman

in nature can lead to misconceptions. With many simulations it is important to have

students keep in mind the science concepts and principles that justifies what they
are discovering in the laboratory, just like if they were performing the laboratory
physically. With advances in technology, simulations could eventually completely
replace physical experiments no matter what the concepts being taught are due to
the simulations becoming more real (Feisel & Rosa, 2005).

Conclusion
A unifying theme in this manuscript is a VCL tends to be at least as effective as a
traditional laboratory, if not more, depending on what the students are doing in the
laboratory. This paper assumes teachers have the resources and time to implement
a VCL or a physical laboratory. However, VCLs offer a unique opportunity for
hands-on activities with virtual materials that avoid many of the disadvantages
of physical hands-on materials, including safety concerns, limited materials, cost,
and time shortage (Donnelly, OReilly, & McGarr, 2013; Klahr et al., 2007; Tatli &
Ayas, 2013).
The difficulty of a VCL is deciding on the appropriate situation to use it in
the classroom (Hawkins & Phelps, 2013). VCLs provide the opportunity to allow
more students to do science in a way where teachers do not have to worry about
improper use of equipment getting in the way of learning and in a way that
was impossible before due to the topic being too abstract or too astronomically
small to investigate. VCLs are useful in understanding mathematics in chemistry,
investigating phenomenon at the microscopic level, in learning spatial abilities, when
students struggle using laboratory equipment, and when they accurately depict a
physical laboratory.

References
American Chemical Society. (2014). Importance of hands-on laboratory activities. Washington DC: American Chemical Society.

Chen, S., Chang, W., Lai, C., & Tsai, C. (2014). A comparison of students approaches to inquiry, conceptual learning,
and attitudes in simulation-based and microcomputer-based laboratories. Science Education, 98(5), 905-935.

Chiu, J. L., DeJaegher, C. J., & Chao, J. (2015). The effects of augmented virtual science laboratories on middle school
students understanding of gas properties. Computers & Education, 85, 59-73.

Bruce, C. D., Bliem, C. L., & Papanikolas, J. M. (2007). Partial derivatives: Are you kidding?: Teaching thermodynamics
using virtual substance. Advances in Teaching Physical Chemistry, 973, 194-206.

Dalgarno, B., Bishop, A. G., Adlong, W., & Bedgood, D. R. (2009). Effectiveness of a virtual laboratory as a preparatory
resource for distance education chemistry students. Computers & Education, 53(3), 853-865.

Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Donnelly, D., OReilly, J., & McGarr, O. (2013). Enhancing the student experiment experience: Visible scientific inquiry
through a virtual chemistry laboratory. Research in Science Education, 43(4), 1571-1592.

Feisel, L. D., & Rosa, A. J. (2005). The role of the laboratory in undergraduate engineering education. Journal of
Engineering Education, 94(1), 121-130.

Frailich, M., Kesner, M., & Hofstein, A. (2009). Enhancing students understanding of the concept of chemical bonding
by using activities provided on an interactive website. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(3), 289-310.

Hawkins, I., & Phelps, A. J. (2013). Virtual laboratory vs. traditional laboratory: Which is more effective for teaching
electrochemistry? Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14, 516-523.
 Virtual Chemistry Laboratories 31

Keeney-Kennicutt, W. L., & Merchant, Z. H. (2013). Using virtual worlds in the general chemistry classroom. In J.P
Suits & M.J. Sanger (Eds.), Pedagogic roles of animations and simulations in chemistry courses (Vol. 1142, pp. 181-204).
Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.

Klahr, D., Triona, L. M., & Williams, C. (2007). Hands on what? The relative effectiveness of physical versus virtual
materials in an engineering design project by middle school children. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1),
183203.

Next Generation Science Standards Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press.

National Science Teachers Associate. (1999). NSTA position statement: The use of computers in science education. Arlington, VA:
National Science Teachers Association

Plass, J. L., Milne, C., Homer, B. D., Schwartz, R. N., Hayward, E. O., Jordan, T., ... Barrientos, J. (2012). Investigating the
effectiveness of computer simulations for chemistry learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(3), 394-419.

Pyatt, K., & Sims, R. (2012). Virtual and physical experimentation in inquiry-based science labs: Attitudes, performance
and access. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 21(1), 133-147.

Tatli, Z., & Ayas, A. (2013). Effect of a virtual chemistry laboratory on students achievement. Journal of Educational
Technology & Society, 16(1), 159-170.

Trindade, J., Fiolhais, C., & Almeida, L. (2002). Science learning in virtual environments: a descriptive study. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 33(4), 471-488.

Winn, W., Stahr, F., Sarason, C., Fruland, R., Oppenheimer, P., & Yen-Ling, L. (2006). Learning oceanography from a
computer simulation compared with direct experience at sea. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1), 25-42.

Biography
Brittney Kuhlman received a Master of Education through the
Licensure Alternative Masters Program at the University of
Toledo and a Bachelor of Science in Pharmaceutical Sciences
at the University of Toledo. In fall 2015, Brittney will be
teaching secondary science at Paul T. Albert Memorial School
in Tununak, Alaska.
 The Problematic Nature of Teaching Inquiry:
What Can We Do To Help Preservice Teachers
Meet the Challenges of Implementing Inquiry In
The Classroom?
Doug Rogaliner
Abstract: The national standards encourage the use of inquiry-based instruction
to teach difficult scientific concepts. However, inquiry is very difficult to implement
and very few teachers are using inquiry-based instruction in the classroom. Inquiry
is a problematic term that this article will define. If science reform is going to
be successful, then reform of science teacher preparation at the preservice level
must occur. This article will argue that teacher preparation programs need to do a
better job of understanding teacher apprehensions and better equipping teachers
with authentic field experiences, support frameworks and materials, and practicum
placements in open inquiry classrooms that will ultimately mobilize the vision of
the standards.

Introduction
The National Science Teachers Associations (NSTA) (2015) position statement on
scientific inquiry proclaims, understanding science content is significantly enhanced
when ideas are anchored to inquiry experiences (p. 1). The NSTA recommends
that all K-12 teachers make inquiry the centerpiece of the science classroom,
which will help ensure that students develop a deep understanding of science and
scientific inquiry. Although there is a general consensus among science educators
that inquiry-based learning is ideal, in practice, few have successfully implemented
inquiry in their classroom (Ireland, Waters, Brownlee, & Lupton, 2012). What are
the reasons for the success and difficulties associated with implementing inquiry
in the classroom? One question that comes to mind is whether or not preservice
teachers are being adequately prepared to implement inquiry in the classroom. Most
teachers have no educational background in the history of science or any first-hand
experience in practicing science. Thus, they tend to portray science as a collection
of facts, principles, and concepts with little or no instructional attention given to
the processes by which scientific knowledge is made public and validated (Wallace &
Kang, 2004). The purpose of this article will be to advocate for changes to be made
in preservice teacher preparation programs to better support teachers in acquiring
the skills, knowledge, and dispositions necessary to foster teaching science through
inquiry.

What Is Inquiry?
A problem with teaching science through inquiry has been with the lack of
a commonly accepted understanding of what it means to teach science through
inquiry (Osborne, 2014, p. 178). The National Science Education Standards (NSES)
 The Problematic Nature of Teaching Inquiry 33

defines scientific inquiry as the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural
world and propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their work
(National Research Council [NRC], 1996, p. 23). According to the NSES, scientific
inquiry also refers to the activities through which students develop knowledge and
understanding of scientific ideas, as well as an understanding of how scientists study
the natural world (NRC, 1996). Thus, inquiry is described in the standards in a
variety of ways, leaving one to create his or her own images of what constitutes
inquiry teaching.
In pondering what it means to teach science as or through inquiry, Anderson
(2002) poses the question: Is the emphasis on science as inquiry, learning as inquiry,
teaching as inquiry or all of the above? (p. 1). What is the distinction between these
three ideas of inquiry?
Scientific inquiry, as it relates to how science takes place, refers to the diverse
ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based
on the evidence derived from their work (NRC, 1996, p. 23). Scientific inquiry
refers to the particular ways of observing, thinking, investigating, and validating
that scientists use (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS],
1993). According to the NSES, learning as inquiry refers to the activities of students
in which they develop knowledge and understandings of scientific ideas, as well as
an understanding of how scientists study the natural world (NRC, 1996, p. 23).
This describes students using, in the classroom, the same processes that scientists
employ to study the natural world. These processes include: asking questions,
planning and conducting investigations, using appropriate tools and techniques to
gather data, thinking critically and logically about relationships between evidence
and explanations, constructing and analyzing alternative explanations, and
communicating scientific arguments (NRC, 1996, p. 105). The last idea of inquiry,
as outlined in the NSES, is inquiry teaching (Anderson, 2002). Inquiry into authentic
questions generated from student experiences is the central strategy for teaching
science (NRC, 1996. p. 3). This statement is the focusing theme for the reform
movement of teaching science through inquiry instruction.

Levels of Inquiry
Research shows there are many misconceptions and limited views among teachers
as to what inquiry is and looks like in the classroom (Capps and Crawford,
2013; Crawford, 2007; Osborne, 2014; Withee and Lindell, 2006). Inquiry-based
science is often confused or associated with hands-on science. For some teachers,
inquiry relates to any time students work in a laboratory setting or on open-ended
worksheet questions. For others, inquiry means any activity that is project-based
or collaborative. In order to make sense of what inquiry teaching is, the concept
of different levels of inquiry was first described by Schwab (1962). Wee, Fast,
Shepardson, and Harbor (2004) later described four types or levels of inquiry
activities: confirmation, structured, guided, and open. Different levels of inquiry
help scaffold the process to support students success. All levels or forms of inquiry
should play a role in science education (National Research Council [NRC], 2000),
yet most teachers are familiar with only the first two types (Lustick, 2009).
Inquiry lessons can be designed at any of the four levels depending on the
34 Rogaliner

capabilities of the students. The common denominator among the four levels of
inquiry is that students answer a research question about a scientific phenomenon
by analyzing data. It is important to note that the data does not necessarily have
to be collected by the students. Data can be provided as long as the students
are conducting the analysis and drawing their own conclusions (Bell, Smetana,
and Binns, 2005). Many worthwhile hands-on activities often seen performed in
science classrooms do not involve a research question or data analysis. For example,
constructing a model of DNA or a cell can be worthwhile activities, but without the
process of analyzing data to answer an investigative question, these activities are just
confirmatory exercises that do not lead to deeper levels of thinking.
The inquiry continuum progresses in complexity depending on how much
information or scaffolding is provided to the student (Wheeler and Bell, 2012;
Arslan, 2014). The four-level model illustrates how inquiry-based activities can
range from highly teacher directed to highly student centered (Bell et al., 2005). In
confirmatory inquiry, the most basic level, students are asked to confirm an answer
to a teacher-provided question or a previously taught concept through a hands-on
type of activity involving data analysis. Advancing to structured inquiry, the research
question and procedure are still provided by the teacher, but now the students do not
know the expected outcome of the investigation. These first two levels of inquiry
are most often conceptualized in the literature by developing teachers (Ireland,
Watters, Brownlee, and Lupton, 2012; Winschitl, 2004) and found in textbooks or
cookbook laboratory manuals (Wheeler & Bell, 2012). At the third level of inquiry,
guided, students are still provided a question, but now they have to develop and carry
out the procedures to answer the question. Finally, in the most complex form of
inquiry, open, students investigate questions about scientific phenomenon that are
student-formulated and then design and carry out the procedures to answer the
questions.

Challenges to Implementation
While researchers and the educational community do not widely agree upon a
precise definition of inquiry, The National Research Council states, For students
to understand inquiry and learn to use it in science, their teachers need to be
well versed in inquiry and inquiry-based methods (NRC, 2000, p. 87). However,
few teachers have experience with scientific inquiry and thus have very informal
conceptions of inquiry and how to enact inquiry in the classroom. Perceived
barriers to implementation of inquiry-based instruction, both internal and external
compound the problem raising the concern about how difficult it is to implement
open inquiry instruction in the classroom, even for the most experienced teachers
(Capps & Crawford, 2013; Crawford, 2007). Thus, is it realistic to expect beginning
teachers to enact advanced levels of inquiry while they are still looking to master
content understanding, planning skills, assessment strategies, and classroom
management? The complexity of teaching science through inquiry and the demands
on a teacher to take on a myriad of roles may be important reasons why this kind of
instruction is so difficult (Crawford, 2007). Inquiry is a complex and difficult task
and preservice teachers often report that they feel ill-prepared to support students
in open inquiry when coming out of their methods courses (Anderson, 2002).
 The Problematic Nature of Teaching Inquiry 35

Traditionally, secondary science methodology courses rely upon teacher-centered

direct instructional strategies to teach teacher candidates about student-centered,
inquiry-based pedagogy (Lustick, 2009, p. 584). To better prepare inservice teachers
in the use of inquiry in the classroom there are a few changes we need to make to
traditional methodology courses that this article will recommend.

Recommendations for Preservice Teacher Preparation Programs

Traditional methods curriculum that includes instruction for lesson planning,
assessment, reflective analysis of teaching, classroom management, and the nature
of science are still necessary (Lustick, 2009). However, to expect preservice teachers
to teach with inquiry, it can be argued that they need to be taught and learn through
inquiry. Therefore, the first thing that we need to do to better prepare preservice
teachers to implement inquiry is to allow for the use of authentic inquiry-based field
experiences to teach inquiry pedagogical strategies. The recommendation would be
to add to science methodology courses or required undergraduate course work,
including a specific course allowing for an authentic scientific inquiry experience.
Authentic scientific inquiry experiences are forms of engagement that resemble
what scientists or researchers do in their daily work (Hsu, Roth, and Mazumder,
2009). Authentic experiences put teachers side-by-side with scientists or researchers
allowing them to develop an understanding of the processes involved in the
development of scientific knowledge. A case study by McLaughlin and MacFadden
(2014) involved teachers participating in an authentic inquiry experience where they
worked alongside scientists in the Panama Canal to document ancient biodiversity.
By participating in the authentic inquiry experience the teachers learned the
requirements of the scientific community in which they participated and began
to assimilate its values and practices (McLaughlin & MacFadden, 2014, p. 943).
This study indicated that participation in authentic field experiences in scientific
inquiry is essential in changing teachers conceptions and practice of inquiry-based
instruction (McLaughlin & MacFadden, 2014).
The literature shows that teachers use of inquiry in the classroom is influenced
by previous research experiences (Windschitl, 2004). In a study by Windschitl
(2004), those teachers with research experience enacted higher-levels of inquiry in
the classroom, where those with little or no research experience tended to use only
confirmation type activities and no forms of higher-level inquiry. Another type of
authentic field experience called Research Experiences for Teachers (RET) provides
teachers with authentic research experiences with the goal of giving teachers a vision
of inquiry that will then help them implement inquiry-based teaching (Blanchard,
Southerland, & Granger, 2009). Blanchard et al. found this type of program could
be transformative for teachers leading to a better understanding of the nature and
processes of science. Thus, to improve teacher preparation programs with the goal
of more inquiry in science classrooms we will need to develop courses of study that
utilize the surrounding resources and environment to provide student teachers the
opportunity to experience scientific inquiry first-hand.
A second recommendation to improve preservice teacher preparation
programs is to create frameworks and materials that support preservice teachers
efforts in implementing higher-levels of inquiry in the classroom (Rees, Pardo, &
36 Rogaliner

Parker 2013). There are a lot of resources available in print and on the Internet for
teacher-centered lesson plans and activities, but very little in the way of open inquiry
that novice teachers can use as models of instruction. Well-designed science
curriculum materials can serve as a critical tool for teachers to use to engage their
students in science as inquiry (Forbes, 2013, p. 180). Because teachers have little
time to design instructional materials it is important that they be able to effectively
determine the educational value of existing materials and be able to adapt them to
inquiry practices to best promote students science learning (Duncan, Pilitsis, and
Piegaro, 2010; Forbes, 2013). However, with often-limited conceptions of inquiry,
adapting traditional science curriculum materials to foster inquiry-based learning
is challenging for developing teachers and, thus, needs to be a focus of methods
programs.
A final recommendation for the improvement of teacher preparation programs
is to focus on providing opportunities to view inquiry in action during teacher
practicum experiences. Findings from a three-year study by Fazio, Melville, and
Bartley (2010) involving thirty-four preservice teachers indicated that a major
challenge of implementing inquiry-based teaching is that preservice teachers are
not getting the opportunity to view science teachers performing inquiry-based
science with students during their practicum. The study indicated that only 29.4%
of the preservice teachers got to view inquiry during their practicum experience.
Harlen and Allende (2009) suggest preservice teachers be provided with practicum
placements in open inquiry classrooms led by experienced mentor teachers utilizing
effective strategies and frameworks. In support, Crawford (2007) identified the level
of mentor teachers support and openness towards inquiry as a key influencing
factor among preservice teachers adoption of an open inquiry approach in the
classroom. Thus, it is critical that teacher education programs work to recruit and
develop a pool of mentor teachers that can model inquiry and support student
teachers in their instructional development.

Conclusion
It has been a few decades since the educational reform documents (AAAS, 1993;
NRC, 1996) first called for the adoption of inquiry-based instruction for science
education and yet there is limited implementation and acceptance in the classroom.
This article suggests that if science reform is going to be successful, then reform of
science teacher preparation at the preservice level must also occur. To enact teaching
science as inquiry requires that teachers develop approaches that situate learning in
authentic problems and mimic the way in which scientists do science. To do this,
a better job is needed in teacher preparation programs of understanding teacher
apprehensions and better equipping teachers with the following: authentic field
experiences, support frameworks and materials, and practicum placements in open
inquiry classrooms that will provide the self-efficacy for teaching science through
inquiry. However, improving science teacher preparation at the preservice level is
not enough. If the goal is to mobilize the vision of the standards to teach science
through inquiry, then continuous teacher professional development that is authentic
and situated in practice will also be necessary.
 The Problematic Nature of Teaching Inquiry 37

References
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry? Journal of Science Teacher Education,
13(1), 1-12.

Arslan, A. (2014). Transition between open and guided inquiry instruction. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141,
407-412.

Bell, R., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 3033.

Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., & Granger, E. M. (2009). No silver bullet for inquiry: Making sense of teacher
change following an inquiry-based research experience for teachers. Science Education, 93(2), 322-360.

Capps, D. K., & Crawford, B. A. (2013). Inquiry-based instruction and teaching about nature of science: Are they
happening? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(3), 497-526.

Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 44(4), 613-642.

Duncan, R. G., Pilitsis, V., & Piegaro, M. (2010). Development of preservice teachers ability to critique and adapt
inquiry-based instructional materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(1), 81-102.

Fazio, X., Melville, W., & Bartley, A. (2010). The problematic nature of the practicum: A key determinant of pre-
service teachers emerging inquiry-based science practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(6), 665-
681.

Forbes, C. T. (2013). Curriculum-dependent and curriculum-independent factors in preservice elementary teachers

adaptation of science curriculum materials for inquiry-based science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(1),
179-197.

Harlen, W., & Allende, J. E. (Eds.). (2009). Teacher professional development in pre-secondary school inquiry- based science education
(IBSE). InterAcademyPanel Report. Retrieved from www.iap.org

Hsu, P.-L., Roth, W.-M., & Mazumder, A. (2009). Natural pedagogical conversations in high school students internship.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(5), 481-505.

Ireland, J. E., Watters, J. J., Brownlee, J., & Lupton, M. (2012). Elementary teachers conceptions of inquiry teaching:
messages for teacher development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(2), 159-175.

Lustick, D. (2009). The failure of inquiry: Preparing science teachers with an authentic investigation. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 20(6), 583-604.

McLaughlin, C. A., & MacFadden, B. J. (2014). At the elbows of scientists: Shaping science teachers conceptions and
enactment of inquiry-based instruction. Research in Science Education, 44(6), 927-947.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning.
Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.

National Science Teachers Association (2015). NSTA position statement: Scientific inquiry. Retrieved from http://www.nsta.
org/about/positions/inquiry.aspx

Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education,
25(2), 177-196.

Rees, C., Pardo, R., & Parker, J. (2013). Steps to opening scientific inquiry: Pre-service teachers practicum experiences
with a new support framework. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(3), 475-496.

Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as inquiry. In J. J. Schwab & P. F. Brandwein (Eds.), Teaching of science (pp.
3-103). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38 Rogaliner

Wallace, C. S., & Kang, N.-H. (2004). An investigation of experienced secondary science teachers beliefs about inquiry:
An examination of competing belief sets. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(9), 936-960.

Wee, B., Fast, J., Shepardson, D., & Harbor, J. (2004). Students perceptions of environmental-based inquiry experiences.
School Science and Mathematics, 104(3), 112-119.

Wheeler, L., & Bell, R. (2012). Open-ended inquiry: Practical ways of implementing inquiry in the chemistry classroom.
The Science Teacher, 79(6), 32-39.

Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of inquiry: How preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of an
atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 481-512.

Withee, T., & Lindell, R. (2006). Different views on inquiry: A survey of science and mathematics methods instructors.
AIP Conference Proceedings, 818(1), 125-128.

Biography
Doug Rogaliner holds a Bachelor of Business Administration
degree from Bowling Green State University and a Master of
Education degree from the University of Toledo. After working
in sales and marketing for twenty-two years, he changed careers
to make a difference through science education in a high needs
school.
 Inquiry: A Setting for Reasoning
Lori L. Schwab
Abstract: Inquiry is a complex instructional approach that requires students to
ask questions, collect and analyze data, form and justify explanations, and connect
the explanation to scientific concepts. However, because it is so complex it often
falls short of its potential in everyday practice. This difficulty results from teachers
attempting to focus on inquiry as a whole or emphasizing the importance of asking
questions and collecting data. This manuscript brings attention to reasoning, where
students make the connections between new and old information. It is reasoning
that allows students to explain the data they have collected and connect it to scientific
concepts. When students are able to explain and make connections they are better
able to comprehend the content.

Introduction
Inquiry was a word I learned on the very first day of my science methods course.
It was introduced as an instructional approach that moves away from the scientific
method and puts the students in the drivers seat as real scientists. Every member
of my cohort was in agreement that this was the way science should be taught, so
when the time came to plan our first lesson using elements of inquiry we were all
excited and extremely intimidated. Our focus was on how to get students to ask
good questions and properly collect data. We spent hours discussing how important
it was to the lesson and racking our brains trying to think of how we could pull it
off. Filled with ideas of how we could help students ask questions and collect data,
we thought we were ready to take on inquiry in the classroom, but boy were we
wrong. We had fallen into the trap of the scientific method that we all loathed and its
ineffectiveness was apparent in our student assessments; all of our students were
struggling to understand the content we thought we had taught so well. It is easy to
see how misguided we were now as I prepare to enter the professional field, but at
the time it seemed so crucial in making inquiry effective. My cohort members and
I were mistaken, but in a way that happens to most novice science teachers. Upon
realizing that our great plans had not worked out the way we thought they would, I
set out to find the reason why and to help others new to inquiry like myself avoid
the trap.

The Problem
It is easy to get caught up in an overwhelming amount of detail when using inquiry
in the classroom, especially when it is a new and unfamiliar approach. What many
teachers do not realize is that the questions and data, while essential pieces of the
puzzle, are not where student learning takes place. When teachers focus too much
time on these areas the inquiry lesson flounders and student comprehension suffers.
Hume (2009) concluded this as well after polling sixteen current science teachers
about inquiry. This study found that although science teachers agree with the use of
inquiry in the classroom, they lack in-depth knowledge regarding how to implement
40 Schwab

inquiry effectively. This paper is intended to help inform teachers who are new to
inquiry in science about where their attention should really be when implementing
an inquiry lesson: helping students use reasoning.

Defining Inquiry and Reasoning

It is important to clarify what is meant by the terms inquiry and reasoning in order
to understand the role reasoning plays in inquiry instruction. These terms will be
used often throughout this paper, but they can mean different things in different
fields. For the purposes of this paper, the terms will be used as defined in this
section.
Inquiry is a complex instructional method that engages students in a
scientifically oriented question, collecting data, evaluating and analyzing data,
forming an explanation that answers the question, connecting their answer to
scientific concepts, and justifying and conveying the explanation to others (National
Research Council, 1996). This method is flexible; there is no order in which all of
these features should be followed. The importance of this instructional approach
is that it focuses completely on the student and is shown to be one of the most
effective approaches for teaching science (Magnusson & Palinscar, 1995).
Reasoning is a relational process, by which an individual integrates information
and connects it to previous knowledge (Dauvier, Bailleux & Perret, 2014). This
ability to analyze information, find patterns, link information, and apply it is the
basis of what psychologists call intelligence (Dauvier et al., 2014). When reasoning
is included in the classroom, students spend time actively focused on the content
and are more successful integrating it into what they already know. Therefore, it
is reasoning that builds new knowledge for students, as they are able to link new
information to old information and restructure old information in new ways,
which results in a better understanding of a concept and ensures that the students
remember the concepts. This is even more beneficial when added into the inquiry
process. Reasoning can play a crucial role in inquiry because it is how students
analyze their data, form an explanation that they can justify with evidence, connect
the explanation to scientific concepts, and apply concepts to new situations.

What Role Does Reasoning Play in Inquiry?

Current research regarding inquiry has uncovered a glaring issue with this
instructional approach: a lack of emphasis on student reasoning. However, many do
not realize this because inquiry is not often broken down into pieces and studied.
Generally, research focuses on the approach as a whole, but it seems that by not
analyzing all of the pieces individually we have missed identifying the crucial element
of inquiry. Reasoning is the step between experiencing a natural phenomenon and
understanding scientific concepts. It is the process by which students take what they
experience, piece it together into an explanation of their own, and connect it with
what they already know.
 Inquiry 41

Analyzing and Reorganizing Data to Form Explanations

Without reasoning, students would never be able to make sense of natural
phenomena because they are not focused on analyzing and reordering their data.
This was shown to be the case in a study conducted by Chen and Hsiao-Ching
(2015). These researchers implemented the same inquiry lesson with and without
an emphasis on reasoning, to determine how critical reasoning was to inquiry. The
data collected by these researchers showed improvement in student comprehension
for both groups, but improvement was significantly higher in the group that
emphasized reasoning. This improvement was attributed to the time the students
spent on working with their data (Chen & Hsiao-Ching, 2015).
There are many other studies all with similar findings. They also indicate that
student comprehension relies heavily on how well the students are able to form their
own explanation of what they experience and the data they collected, which is done
through reasoning. For instance, Hogstrom, Ottander, and Benckert (2010) analyzed
student interactions in an inquiry classroom and found that unless prompted
otherwise by the teacher, student interactions were only focused on procedure.
Students were reluctant to attempt to explain their results and conversations did
not reflect the use of reasoning strategies. The student assessments reflected a lack
of student comprehension resulting from the absence of reasoning (Hogstrom et
al., 2010). Peker & Dolan (2012) supported this idea while studying interactions
between experts in the science field and students. They found that scientists focused
on interpreting and explaining data (which are both facets of reasoning) when
interacting with students, which resulted in higher student comprehension at the
end of the lesson (Peker & Dolan, 2012).
These findings all suggest that reasoning is critical in ordering information in
new ways that allow students to explain an idea. This explanation is a key feature
of inquiry and it is where the students use reasoning to give meaning to their data.
In order to do this, reasoning also requires students to integrate their data or new
information into the knowledge that they already have, which is referred to as
making connections or linking ideas.

Making Connections and Linking Ideas

Making connections between ideas, information, or data is a part of how students
integrate information into personal explanations. Therefore, making connections
is a large part of reasoning. Krajcik, McNeill, and Reiser (2008) concluded this
in their research on the Learning-Goals Driven Design Model, where the initial
inquiry lesson did not result in a higher understanding of the content. Their findings
indicated that in the initial lesson students had few opportunities to link information
or use what they learned in a new setting, which resulted in no change in student
comprehension. Another study done by Kock, Taconis, Bolhuis and Gravemeijer
(2013) also highlighted the importance of linking new and old information. These
researchers analyzed problems with inquiry in the classroom by observing lessons
and analyzing student assessments. One major problem they found was that students
failed to connect their data with their previous knowledge, which resulted in little
change to student comprehension.
42 Schwab

Making connections and reorganizing information into new explanations are

how reasoning helps students develop a deeper comprehension of the content. By
doing the reasoning themselves or with their peers they are essentially required to
integrate the information into their science knowledge. If students are reasoning
during the inquiry process their overall science achievement will improve.
It is clear that inquiry is not as effective without the inclusion of reasoning.
Student achievement relies on their ability to comprehend the concepts covered in
class, but without reasoning even inquiry fails to increase student comprehension
and achievement. Therefore, reasoning is the key element of inquiry and should be
treated as such by teachers in the science classroom.

Inquiry as a Tool for Reasoning

However, the research findings in the previous sections do not mean that reasoning
and forming explanations are the only parts of inquiry that matter. As stated
by Kock et al. (2013), if there are issues in the other areas of inquiry (such as
forming questions and collecting data), then the students will struggle to reorganize
information and make the necessary connections needed in developing their
explanations. Thus, it appears that inquiry provides the setting in which students
experience science first hand and use reasoning to draw their own conclusions.
For example, students need to work with the equipment and collect data
regarding their question; otherwise they will not have any new information to
integrate into what they already know. Also, explanations can only come by
analyzing data and looking for patterns, and both data collection and analysis require
a question as a guide. So, inquiry as a whole is the foundation in which reasoning
with the intent to form an explanation can occur and if students are able to draw
their own conclusions and apply them to new situations then they have a higher
mastery of the content.

What Does This Mean for Teachers?

Looking at inquiry as a whole for the first time can be daunting. It is easy to become
overwhelmed, but the information from this paper should help provide a starting
point for understanding the importance of reasoning and determining how to
implement reasoning more effectively in the inquiry process.
If teachers are focused on helping students use reasoning within an inquiry
lesson, then the students will likely gain a deeper understanding of the content
and improve their achievement in the classroom. In the classroom, reasoning
can take many forms, but there are ways for teachers to know that productive
reasoning is occurring. Often, reasoning will include collaboration or some form
of communication. It is much easier to reorganize and connect information if the
students are able to verbalize or write down their ideas. Also, students can share their
ideas with peers to get feedback from others on whether or not their explanations
sound plausible.
Communication surrounding reasoning will also involve more conversations
focused on the data and content instead of only discussing lab procedures. If
the students are using reasoning, their explanations should be more in depth and
 Inquiry 43

represent their individual data as justification. The students should also be able
to use their explanation to make predictions if they have been using reasoning,
because they will be able to make connections between their explanations and new
information.
If reasoning is emphasized during the inquiry process, research suggests there
should be a significant increase in student achievement and comprehension that will
reflect on any assessments. They will also become noticeably better at reasoning as
they continue to practice using it throughout the year. This means that as the year
progresses their ability to reason and form logical explanations will increase and it
will take less time for them to reorganize and connect information.
Inquiry is such a complex instructional approach but it can be extremely
effective, so teachers and students will benefit from devoting time to make it
successful. With this research, teachers should be better prepared to face the biggest
task in making inquiry effective, planning and supporting the use of reasoning to
develop explanations. By acknowledging how crucial this is in building student
comprehension, teachers can find ways to encourage and support their students. A
big part of this is in the planning, if teachers remember inquiry is really all about
getting students to reason through a problem and explain it on their own, then they
can plan supports appropriately and prepare themselves to help students achieve.

References
Chen, C.-T., & Hsiao-Ching, H-C. (2015). The effectiveness of scientific inquiry with/without integration of scientific
reasoning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20, 1-20.

Dauvier, B., Bailleux, C., & Perret, P. (2014). The development of relational integration during childhood. Developmental
Psychology, 50(6), 1687-1697.

Hogstrom, P., Ottander, C., & Benckert, S. (2010). Lab work and learning in secondary school chemistry: the importance
of teacher and student interaction. Research in Science Education, 40, 505-523.

Hume, A. (2009). Authentic scientific inquiry and school science. Teaching Science, 55(2), 35-41.

Kock, Z.-J., Taconis, R., Bolhuis, S., & Gravemeijer, K. (2013). Some key issues in creating inquiry-based instructional
practices that aim at the understanding of simple electric circuits. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 579-597.

Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: developing curriculum materials
that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1-32.

Magnusson, S. J., & Palinscar, A. S. (1995). The learning environment as a site of science education reform. Theory into
Practice, 34(1), 43-50.

National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Peker, D., & Dolan, E. (2012). Helping students make meaning of authentic investigations: findings from a student-
teacher-scientist partnership. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 7, 223-244.

Biography
Lori Schwab graduated from Heidelberg University with a
Bachelor of Science in Biology (forensic science concentration)
and Psychology. Recently, she completed the LAMP at the
University of Toledo, obtaining a Master of Education in
Secondary Science. In the fall of 2015, she will be teaching
biology and forensic science at Hamilton High School.
 Why Teach Evolution? Going Beyond the Laws
and Standards
Lindsay Traver

Abstract: Although evolutionary theory is often viewed as a controversial issue

among society, within the discipline of science it is not. As evolution education
is taught within secondary public schools, science educators are often faced with
the question why are we learning this? Educators often resort to justifying its teaching
in terms of the laws and standards surrounding evolution. However, evolutionary
theory has value beyond the laws and standards within the scientific discipline;
values that stem from the purpose of science education. Within the Nature of
Science, evolution is a unifying theory substantiated by evidence across the sciences,
explaining the diversity and unity of life. This article provides reason for the
exclusive teaching of evolutionary theory beyond laws and standards.

Introduction
Its nearing the end of the year and Mrs. Smith knows what that means; its time to teach
about evolution. As she sits down to begin planning she begins to think about her past
experiences during evolution instruction. Immediately she dreads the idea of students
asking her questions and putting her on the spot because of their own preconceptions
surrounding evolution and its controversial nature. In her experience, students seem
more prepared with questions for her during evolution instruction than any other time of
the year, including why are we learning this? When answering this question she would
respond with because its in the standards and the law says so, projecting the idea that
evolution was a necessary evil within science. While this response has provided her with
a quick resolution to the resistance posed by students, it has rarely had a lasting impact,
as students began asking the same question just two days later.
As this question replays over and over in her mind she thinks about the laws and
standards answer that she usually provides students. She knows its not enough because
even after being given her answer students still ask and want to know why they have to
learn about evolution. Therefore, before writing out any sort of plan, she asks herself
an almost identical question: Why do I have to teach this?

Mrs. Smith is not the only teacher that dreads teaching evolutionary theory due to
its association with controversy. In a study conducted by Hermann (2013), 100% of
the teachers surveyed indicated that they believed evolution to be controversial with
religion being the primary barrier to evolution instruction. Berkman and Plutzer
(2011) found that due to the controversial nature of evolution, 60% of educators
surveyed were not strong advocates for either evolutionary biology or nonscientific
alternatives. This often lead to educators only teaching parts of evolution in which
they could avoid controversy, justifying it as a necessary evil, similar to Mrs. Smith.
In addition, they provided multiple positions to their students about the unity and
diversity of life, regardless of their relevance to science. Although evolutionary
 Justifying Evolution Education 45

theory is viewed as controversial, receiving reluctance in its teaching and learning,

it is a necessary concept for students to understand as set forth by the laws and
standards. However, as seen in Mrs. Smiths classroom, going beyond the laws and
standards is necessary in justifying instruction surrounding evolutionary theory.
Expanding upon the laws and standards provides students with the justification
necessary to engage them in the concepts of evolutionary theory (Cooper, 2014).
Therefore it is important to understand why we teach evolution and evolution only,
within secondary public schools.

What is the Purpose of Science Education?

When considering why we teach evolutionary theory it is important to first understand
why we teach science. According to Rutherford and Ahlgren (1990), there are many
problems that will appear in the future that must be faced by individuals, the United
States, and the world that will be dependent upon humans wise use of science,
technology, and mathematics; the three overlapping disciplines of scientific literacy.
In order to use science wisely one must know science well, or be literate in the field
of science. This demonstrates that the purpose of science education is to provide
students with knowledge to become scientifically literate.
Throughout the introduction to Science for all Americans, Rutherford and Ahlgren
(1990) provide multiple ideas and definitions composing scientific literacy. They
describe the many facets that compose scientific literacy as,
being familiar with the natural world and respecting its unity; being aware
of some of the important ways in which mathematics, technology, and the
sciences depend upon one another; understanding some of the key concepts
and principles of science; having a capacity for scientific ways of thinking;
knowing that science, mathematics, and technology are human enterprises,
and knowing what that implies about their strengths and limitations; and being
able to use scientific knowledge and ways of thinking for personal and social
purposes. (pp. xvii-xviii)
From this definition of scientific literacy they then produced a definition for a
person who is considered to be scientifically literate:
One who is aware that science, mathematics, and technology are interdependent
human enterprises with strengths and limitations; understands key concepts
and principles of science; is familiar with the natural world and recognizes
both its diversity and unity; and uses scientific knowledge and scientific ways
of thinking for individual and social purposes (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1990,
p. xvii).
Through both of these definitions there are common overlapping themes,
which makes sense due to the fact that in order to be a scientifically literate person,
one must display scientific literacy. If the purpose of science education is to produce
scientifically literate students and scientific literacy includes the elements provided
above by Rutherford and Ahlgren, how does evolutionary theory fit within the
purpose of science education? In other words, why should we teach evolutionary
theory and it alone, within our science classroom?
46 Traver

The Nature of Science

Rutherford and Ahlgren (1990) describe the nature of science as being a component
of scientific literacy when they define scientific literacy as including an understanding
of scientific ways of knowing and an understanding of science as a human enterprise.
This directly relates to the teaching and learning of evolutionary theory, in which an
understanding of the nature of science provides reasons for why we teach evolution
as the only scientific explanation for the unity and diversity of life on Earth.
An understanding of the nature of science begins with an understanding that
there are many ways of knowing in the world and that science is a way of knowing
about the natural world. As a scientific concept, evolutionary theory can be described
as not being in controversy with students religious beliefs due to the fact that both
ideas are a different way of knowing about the world (Dobzhansky, 1973). This idea
demonstrates the exclusiveness of evolution to science education, as evolution is
described as the scientific way of knowing about the unity and diversity of life on
Earth. Therefore it is important to understand what it means to know scientifically
and the relevance that knowing scientifically has to evolutionary theory.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (1998), within the nature of
science, scientists seek to explain the natural world through the use of confirmable
data. Confirmable data is defined as the results obtained through observations
and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists (p. 27). From this
definition it can be seen that any explanation not based on confirmable data is
not science, including myths, personal beliefs, religious views, philosophical axioms,
and superstitions (National Academy of Sciences, 1998; National Science Teachers
Association, 1997). So what, what does that have to do with evolutionary theory?
Evolutionary theory is just that, a theory. In science, theories are defined as
an overarching explanation that has been well substantiated (National Academy
of Sciences, 1998, p. 4). When people argue against evolutionary theory it is often
because they view it as just a theory, discrediting what the word theory means within
science (National Academy of Sciences, 1998). However, when one understands
how the word theory is defined in science they can begin seeing the significance of
the words evolutionary theory to the sciences. Evolutionary theory, according to
the National Academy of Sciences (1998), explains the similarities among living
things, the diversity of life, and many features of the physical world we inhabit
(p. 3), which is supported from results from various disciplines within science.
Therefore evolutionary theory is science, in that it is an explanation of the natural
world that has been supported by confirmable data collected through observations
and experiments substantiated by other scientist. As it is a scientific theory with
only non-scientific alternatives, due to the lack of supporting confirmable data,
evolutionary theory is the only appropriate concept to be taught within a secondary
public science classroom (National Academy of Sciences, 1998).
Referring back to the purpose of science education it can be seen that science
as a way of thinking and knowing, and recognition of the diversity and unity of
the natural world are essential elements of scientific literacy. Because evolutionary
theory is related to science as a way of knowing and an explanation for the unity and
diversity of life, evolutionary theory alone is a necessary theory to be taught within
secondary science classrooms. And as it is our job as science educators to stride
 Justifying Evolution Education 47

towards the purpose of science education, it is essential that we include evolutionary

theory within our instruction.

Evolution as a Unifying Scientific Theory

Another important aspect of evolutionary theory that makes it fit within the purpose
of science education is that it is a unifying concept among the sciences, especially
the life sciences. The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) (1997) defines
the theory of evolution as a unifying science concept because it is the theory that
living things share ancestors from which they have diverged with abundant and
consistent evidence from astronomy, physics, biochemistry, geochronology, geology,
biology, anthropology, and other sciences in support of the theory (p. 3). This
same idea is also presented by the National Academy of Sciences (1998) when they
are describing evolutionary theory as a scientific theory. To demonstrate that the
theory is a unifying theory among the sciences they explain that confirmable data,
in support of evolutionary theory, has been drawn from fields including many areas
of biology, chemistry, physics, geology, and other sciences.
Evolutionary theory is also a unifying idea within the life sciences as well as
among the scientific disciplines. As a core idea in the life sciences, evolutionary
theory encompasses the three core ideas in the life sciences, cells as the basic unit
of life, interactions, energy and dynamics within an ecosystem, and heredity (the
inheritance and variation of traits) (National Research Council, 2012). Farber
(2003) explicitly calls evolutionary theory the central organizing theory of the life
sciences (p. 347), demonstrating the unifying nature of evolutionary theory within
the biological sciences. Supporting this statement Farber refers to evolutionary
theory being a scientific theory well substantiated by confirmable data, as addressed
in the previous section.
The unifying abilities of evolutionary theory have been displayed as scientists
have studied and explained the unity of life. In the article Nothing in Biology
Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution Dobzhansky (1973) describes the
unity of life as being explained by evolutionary theory, due to the fact that heredity
is only encoded in two ways, DNA and RNA. He also addresses the method of
translation as a universal code among living things; translation is the same process
used in all living organisms to produce proteins. Because life contains these universal
codes, especially for heredity, it is suggested that life arose from inanimate matter
only once and that all organisms, no matter how diverse in other respects, conserve
the basic features of primordial life (Dobzhansky, 1973, p. 127). DNA, RNA,
the method of translation, and especially inheritance, as described by the National
Research Council (2012), are key concepts within the life sciences, consolidated
within the theory of evolution. When we, as science educators, teach our students
about DNA, RNA, the method of translation, and the inheritance of traits we have
the opportunity to relate the concepts to evolutionary theory, demonstrating its
unifying abilities.
Evolutionary theory as a unifying theory within the sciences coincides with
the definition of scientific literacy. One purpose of science education is that a
scientifically literate person is one that understands key concepts and principles
of science, making evolutionary theory, as a unifying and key scientific concept,
48 Traver

essential to be taught within secondary science classrooms (Rutherford & Ahlgren,

1990, p. xvii).

Conclusion
Mrs. Smith asks herself again, why do I, as a science educator, exclusively teach
evolutionary theory within my science classroom? With confidence she knows the
answer she is going to provide to her students this year. Because evolutionary theory
is a scientific theory supported by confirmable data, a unifying theory among the
sciences, and a core idea within the biological sciences. By providing her students
with this answer, while keeping it in mind during her planning, Mrs. Smith knows
that providing students with instruction on evolutionary theory is required to
produce scientifically literate students meeting the purpose of science education. As
science educators it is our job to promote scientific literacy within our classrooms,
requiring the teaching of evolutionary theory and evolutionary theory only, due to
the fact that it is the only explanation in science for how life on Earth has come to
be today.
Now that we, as science educators, can see why we teach evolutionary theory
exclusively within our secondary science classrooms, we can provide students
with answers beyond because the law says so or because its in the standards. So when
students begin to ask the same question that Mrs. Smith previously received about
evolutionary theory, why do we have to learn about evolution?, we should be prepared with
a confident answer. As your science teacher it is important that I provide you with
the tools and content necessary to understand and learn science. Therefore, we are
going to learn about evolutionary theory because it is the only scientific explanation
for the unity and diversity of life on Earth. As a scientific theory evolution is
supported by vast amounts of data collected from many scientists. Evolutionary
theory can also help us better understand any concept we have learned this year, and
many that you will learn in future science classes, because it is a unifying scientific
concept. By providing students with this concrete answer, educators have potential
to increase their students motivation and engagement, increase their understanding
of evolutionary concepts, promote scientific literacy among students, and move
towards the purpose of science education (Cooper, 2014; Gerber, Mans-Kemp, &
Schlechter, 2013).

References
Berkman, M. B., & Plutzer, E. (2011). Defeating creationism in the courtroom, but not in the classroom. Science,
331(6016), 404-405. doi: 10.1126/science.1198902

Cooper, K. (2014). 6 common mistakes that undermine motivation. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(8), 11.

Dobzhansky, T. (1973). Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. American Biology Teacher, 35,
125-129.

Farber, P. (2003). Teaching evolution & the nature of science. American Biology Teacher (National Association of Biology
Teachers), 65(5), 347.

Gerber, C., Mans-Kemp, N., & Schlechter, A. (2013). Investigating the moderating effect of student engagement on
academic performance. Acta Academica, 45(4), 256-274.

Hermann, R. S. (2013). High school biology teachers views on teaching evolution: Implications for science teacher
 Justifying Evolution Education 49

educators. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(4), 597-616.

National Academy of Sciences. (1998). Teaching about evolution and the nature of science. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Science Teachers Association. (1997). The teaching of evolution - A position statement of NSTA. Washington, DC.

Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.

Biography
Lindsay Traver obtained her Bachelor of Science in Zoology
from the Ohio State University and her Master of Education
through LAMP at the University of Toledo as a Woodrow
Wilson Fellow. In the fall of 2015, she will be teaching biology,
physical science, and biomedical engineering at Carrollton High
School in Carrollton, Ohio.
 The Effects of Student Collaboration when
Constructing Scientific Arguments

Scott Weis

Abstract: Scientific argumentation is currently a popular topic in secondary science

education. Scientific argumentation is defined as the connection between claims and
data through justifications or the evaluation of knowledge claims in light of evidence,
either empirical or theoretical. National science standards place a strong emphasis
on teachers implementing argumentation in their classrooms. Research suggests
that students who participate in scientific argumentation exhibit better conceptual
understanding of scientific principles than those who do not. Furthermore, students
who work in collaborative groups are able to construct stronger arguments than
students who work independently. This manuscript will inform the reader of what
scientific argumentation is, its importance in science classrooms, and why students
should work in collaborative groups to construct their arguments.

Introduction
Argumentation has been a part of human culture for thousands of years. In the
4th Century B.C., Aristotle wrote The Art of Rhetoric, which outlined the rules
of argument and persuasion. However, the current trend of implementing
argumentation in science classrooms is a relatively new idea and should not be
overlooked. Argumentation is an important practice that should be implemented
in all high school science classrooms. Student collaboration should be an essential
focus for teachers when employing scientific argumentation into their classrooms.
When implementing argumentation into their classrooms, science teachers should
encourage students to collaborate with each other and build off each others prior
experience and knowledge to construct their arguments. Collaboration also allows
students to discuss their thoughts and ideas and promotes the social aspect of
argumentation. The National Research Council (NRC) (2012) describes constructing
explanations and engaging in argumentation as two of the eight essential science practices
in its Framework for K-12 Science Education..Additionally, the Next Generation Science
Standards place a significant focus on constructing arguments supported by
evidence by including the word argument 132 times throughout the standards (Next
Generation Science Standards Lead States, 2013).
The traditional view of science education is perceived as a basic transfer of
information and concepts from expert to novice, or teacher to student (Osborne,
2010), but this approach is not universally accepted. Hake (1998) and Sampson and
Clark (2009) provide data to support that students working in collaborative groups
while participating in scientific argumentation is more beneficial for conceptual
understanding than independent work. It is important for students to participate in
argumentation in science classes because science itself is based on arguments. If we,
 Scientific Argumentation 51

as educators, can encourage students to think and act more like scientists, this can
lead to students being more interested and engaged in science, as well as improve
their conceptual understanding of the content (Osborne, 2010). Whether you are
a beginning teacher or have been teaching for many years, this manuscript can help
you understand the importance of implementing scientific argumentation into your
classroom and why you should encourage students to work in collaborative groups
to form their arguments.
Scientific argumentation encourages students to apply concepts in abstract
ways to help them master the content. Because students are exposed to new
ideas, ways of thinking, or ways of talking or writing about the topic that they
can integrate with their developing understanding of the content and the practice
of scientific argumentation (Sampson & Clark, 2009, p. 453). It is noteworthy to
mention that in scientific argumentation, students are not necessarily partaking in
a debate but they are constructing an argument in support of a particular claim
(Nussbaum, 2008). Students are not choosing sides of a topic to be debated; they
are simply constructing explanations with evidence and reasoning to describe
a scientific phenomenon. This manuscript will stress the importance of using
scientific argumentation in high school science classrooms, as well as explaining
the benefits of student collaboration when participating in scientific argumentation.
The goal of this manuscript is to inform the reader of what scientific argumentation
is, why it is important to use it in science classrooms, why students should work in
collaborative groups to construct their arguments, and how to group students to
promote successful argumentation.

Scientific Argumentation
Why is scientific argumentation essential in science classrooms? To begin,
there is a growing emphasis on argumentative discourse in science classrooms
(Zohar & Nemet, 2002). The understanding of why ideas are wrong can matter
just as much as understanding why other ideas may be right (Osborne, 2010).
Argumentation plays a central role in the building of explanations, models, and
theories as scientists use arguments to relate the evidence they select to the claims
they reach through use of warrants and backings (Toulmin, 1958). Tiberghien
(2008) summarizes, in Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from classroom-
based research, the place of argumentation in science education in terms of three
goals: knowledge about nature of science, developing citizenship, and developing
higher order thinking skills. Scientific argumentation promotes critical thinking by
students because they are asked to construct detailed explanations of a claim using
evidence and reasoning. Also, students are asked to consider rebuttals and counter-
arguments that oppose their claim. When participating in scientific argumentation,
a claim is an answer to a central question in which they are researching.
Next, it is vital to clarify what is meant by the word argument. Argument
has both an individual and social meaning. The social meaning is that of a dispute
or debate between people opposing each other with contrasting sides to an issue
(Jimenez-Aleixandre & Eurduran, 2008). In other words, an argument can be
either an inner chain of reasoning or a difference of positions between people,
and there is a link between the two. Social argumentation can be used effectively to
52 Weis

increase higher levels of thinking (Jimenez-Aleixandre & Eurduran, 2008). Thus,

argumentation in scientific topics can be defined as the connection between claims
and data through justifications or the evaluation of knowledge claims in light of
evidence, either empirical or theoretical (Jimenez-Aleixandre & Eurduran, 2008).
This is important to note because without evidence and reasoning, a claim has no
validity and argumentation cannot take place. For example, Zohar & Nemet (2002)
state that an argument consists of either assertions or conclusions and of their
justifications, or of reasons or supports, whereas argumentation refers to the process
of assembling the components of claims, data, warrants, and backings. A warrant
is often referred to as reasoning, particularly why a student used a certain piece
of evidence to justify their claim (Sampson & Clark, 2009). Backings are support
and explanations for warrants (Sampson & Clark, 2009). When students participate
in scientific argumentation, they are attempting to either confirm or disprove a
scientific claim that is backed up with evidence and reasoning. The evidence can be
collected through experimentation or from prior theory and research on the topic.
Argumentation is central to scientific practice because scientists frame arguments,
weigh evidence, construct warrants in support of hypotheses, and discuss alternative
explanations (Toulmin, 1958). Scientists engage in argumentation to develop and
improve scientific knowledge (von Aufschnaiter, Erduran, Osborne & Simon,
2008). Students need argumentation to learn science by articulating reasons behind
their views and presenting alternative ideas or claims about others views (von
Aufschnaiter et al., 2008). Without argument and evaluation, the construction of
reliable knowledge would be impossible (Osborne, 2010, p. 464).
When students begin to participate in scientific argumentation, it starts with
a central question that they will attempt to answer. The answer to this question is
essentially the students claim. Next, it is necessary for students to collect data to use
as evidence to either support or refute their claim. Data can be collected through
conducting an experiment or from performing research of other studies. Students
must understand that data is not evidence. Data must be analyzed and interpreted to
show how it either supports or disproves a claim. Students participating in scientific
argumentation must provide reasoning, which is to specify a clear connection
explaining how the evidence gathered supports their claim. Lastly, students may
consider alternative claims to the question and prepare a rebuttal or counter-
argument that refutes other possible claims. When students work in collaborative
groups, they may be exposed to alternate claims that could be addressed. When
implemented correctly in science classrooms, argumentation can help students be
more successful in understanding science concepts.

Why is Collaboration the Key to Success?

Learning is typically a social process that involves the communication between
student and teacher or between students (Nussbaum, 2008). Argumentation is a
social activity and students should be given the opportunity to collaborate with
each other when they are constructing their scientific arguments. When students
collaborate with each other during scientific argumentation, they are provided an
opportunity to construct arguments together, as well as to evaluate their current
scientific explanations (Sampson & Clark, 2009). A collaborative effort might also
 Scientific Argumentation 53

enhance students learning from and about scientific argumentation (Sampson &
Clark, 2009, p. 453).
Scientific argumentation promotes discourse and student literacy because it
allows students to compose oral or written arguments. It is possible for students
to construct scientific arguments on their own, but research has shown that
collaboration in constructing scientific arguments benefits students conceptual
understandings of the content. When working in collaborative groups, students
have the chance to build off each others ideas and to discuss complex problems.
A study conducted by Sampson & Clark (2009) set out to determine if working
in collaborative groups helped students to develop better scientific arguments
than if they worked individually. They asked the following question: Do students
who engage in argumentation with others demonstrate superior performance on
the mastery and transfer task than students who engage in argumentation alone?
The results show that students from the collaborative group produced significantly
stronger arguments than those from the individual group. This suggests that
collaboration can help students to learn from and about scientific argumentation
(Sampson & Clark, 2009). Working in collaborative groups initially can allow students
who are struggling to receive clarifying help from their classmates to improve their
understanding. In a way, working in a collaborative group is like a scaffold to help
prepare students to be able to construct their own scientific arguments in the future.
Student involvement and collaboration in science learning has shown to be
effective in other research as well. For example, Hake (1998) performed an analysis
of 14 physics classes where students were either taught using traditional lecture or
a collaborative approach. The students in the former group showed a 25% growth
from pretest to posttest. In classes where lecture was stopped for student discussion
in small groups, students showed an average growth of 48% from pretest to
posttest. The results of this study indicate that student performance and conceptual
knowledge increases with increased collaboration and discussion. This principle
of collaboration can be applied to scientific argumentation to assist in students
understanding of the content.

Group Composition
The simple act of grouping students together, even with minimal instruction or
past experience with scientific argumentation, can result in greater learning in the
same amount of time (Sampson & Clark, 2009). However, in order to be most
effective, students should be explicitly taught the details of constructing scientific
arguments and necessary scaffolds should be in place when first introducing this
activity. Groups should be composed of roughly three to four students (Wilkinson,
2002). Levine and Moreland (1990) stated, People who belong to larger groups
are less satisfied, participate less often, and are less likely to cooperate with one
another (p. 593). Interestingly, there is evidence that indicates an advantage in
learning when students are grouped based on similar ability level (Wilkinson, 2002).
When grouping students for construction of scientific arguments, students
should be grouped with individuals with varying claims and viewpoints (Levine &
Moreland, 1990). The reason for this grouping technique is to encourage students
to consider alternate claims and a variety of viewpoints. By grouping those with
54 Weis

differing viewpoints together, the students will be able to discuss their opinions
and determine which arguments are scientifically accurate or inaccurate, and what
evidence can be used in their arguments. This will further help students in their
constructing of counterclaims and rebuttals. Lastly, being exposed to a variety
of claims may cause students to reconsider their own claims or provide further
confirmation that their claim is correct (Osborne, 2010).

Conclusion
It is critical to place a high value on scientific argumentation in your classroom
to promote student engagement. Typically, students feel that argumentation is not
highly valued in their class culture, and therefore, they do not develop those skills
(Zohar & Nemet, 2002). By placing a great importance on students developing
argumentation skills in science, students should be able to construct stronger
arguments in class.
It is necessary for students to be able to construct strong arguments because
the skills that they gain in participating in scientific argumentation go beyond that of
the classroom and can be used in their real lives. Argumentation is an extremely hot
topic in science education right now because of its inclusions in state and national
standards. Scientific argumentation teaches students that in order to be valid, their
claims must be supported by evidence and reasoning. Data show that students who
participate in scientific argumentation in class are able to be more successful in
their conceptual learning of science content than students who do not. Scientific
argumentation is a social process that helps students to develop arguments based on
claims, evidence, and reasoning, and to also question the claims that others make. All
in all, scientific argumentation helps students in science, as well as in other content
areas and outside of the educational realm.
When first developing scientific arguments, students should work in
collaborative groups with their classmates. Data show that students who work
in collaborative groups are able to construct stronger arguments than those who
work independently. Additionally, students who have previously worked in groups
were able to construct stronger scientific arguments independently than those who
were always working on their own. At minimum, students should work in small
collaborative groups when first learning how to construct scientific arguments. It
is important that teachers understand how scientific argumentation benefits their
students and how to correctly implement it into their classrooms.
One of the major barriers that must be addressed for argumentation to be
successfully implemented in science classrooms is a strong understanding of the
practice by teachers. McDonald and Heck (2012) conducted a study focusing on
teachers implementation of scientific argumentation in their classrooms. In the
study, all five of the participants indicated that they felt argumentation was taking
place in their classroom, while in fact, it was not happening in any. If teachers are
unfamiliar or self-doubting of their understanding of scientific argumentation, it will
be extremely difficult to implement it in their classroom. The principles of scientific
argumentation should be explicitly taught and practiced in teacher preparation
programs, as well as through professional development sessions.
 Scientific Argumentation 55

References
Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data
for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64.

Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Eurduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Eurduran,
& M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (p. 3-27).
Amsterdam: Springer.

Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1990). Progress in small group research. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 585634.

McDonald, C. V., & Heck, D. (2012). How do we teach argumentation in the new Australian Curriculum? Teaching Science:
The Journal Of The Australian Science Teachers Association, 58(3), 22-28.

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Next Generation Science Standards Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press.

Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 345359.

Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463466.

Sampson, V., & Clark, D.B. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of argumentation. Science Education,
93(3), 448484.

Tiberghien, A. (2008). Foreward. In S. Eurduran, & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education:
Perspectives from classroom-based research (p. ix-xv). Amsterdam: Springer.

Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: case studies
of how students argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1),
101131.

Wilkinson, I., & Fung, I. (2002). Small-group composition and peer effects. International Journal of Educational Research.
37, 425-447.

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.

Biography
Scott Weis recently received his masters degree in secondary
education and licensure in AYA Life Science through the
Licensure and Masters Program at the University of Toledo.
He was a 2014 recipient of the Woodrow Wilson Teaching
Fellowship. In fall 2015, Scott will be teaching biology and
zoology at Miller High School in Corning, Ohio.
Social Studies
 Why Social Studies Instructors Need to Teach
Digital Citizenship
Jason Walton

Abstract: As students increase their engagement with technology, how do we as

social studies educators guide them in making good choices? Dewey wrote that
true participation in society could only come from an informed and empowered
citizen. He also felt that the responsibility to model and shape a good citizen fell to
the area of social studies. Digital citizenship has become an important citizenship
issue because students often associate themselves more with a digital community
than a physical one. We, in social studies, need to address digital citizenship and how
students conduct themselves in this growing digital community. Digital citizenship
should be taught to our students so that issues of digital safety and participation aid
them in the modern world.

Introduction
If we teach todays students as we taught yesterdays, we rob them of tomorrow.
-John Dewey, Democracy and Education, 1916

Sorry for the clich. The above Dewey quote is probably one of the most over-
used in education, but I have an excuse. Dewey did not write it. In looking up
the references to this quote, they all point to page 164 of Democracy and Education,
and it is not there. The next step was to purchase a digital copy of the original
text and search the entire document word by word. If we teach, yesterdays, and rob
are words that do not even appear in the text. I can do this because I am digitally
literate. In fact-checking my own paper, I followed a pseudo-reliable source in a blog
that discussed this misquote (Thayer, 2014), then hunted down primary sources on
Googles project Gutenberg, and finally purchased a digital text to do a word-by-
word search. We ask our students to use primary sources in the discipline of social
studies, and in the heuristic fashion of modern technology I ended up doing just
that to start this paper. This demonstrates a core value of digital citizenship.
What is the value in using a misrepresented quote from a 1916 text to talk
about 21st century citizenship? My plan was to discuss Dewey and his thoughts on
citizenship, not debunk one of his beloved epigrams. One of his fundamental ideas
is that a good citizen is an informed citizen and that the responsibility of school is
to model and shape a good citizen. Dewey (1909) states:
We must take the child as a member of a society in the broadest sense, and
demand for and from the school whatsoever is necessary to enable the child
intelligently to recognize all his social relations and take part in sustaining them.
(pp. 8-9)
We want a Digital Citizen to model all the same social ideals online as they do in life.
When we, as social studies teachers, address citizenship as Dewey outlined above, we
now have to account for digital society as well. Digital citizenship can be described
 Digital Citizenship 59

as the norms of appropriate, responsible behavior with regard to technology use

(Ribble, 2011, p. 10).

Social Studies and Citizenship

The National Education Association (NEA) in 1913 believed that the high school
teachers of social studies have the best opportunity ever offered to any social group
to improve the citizenship of the land (as cited in Smith, Palmer, & Correia, 1995,
p. 6). The large scope of the social studies curriculum has to ride a fine line between
an increasing amount of factual information and minutiae (Dewey, 1937, p. 185)
and the political bias regarding the interpretation of that information. Swaying
toward over burdening facts or toward factual bias could make the students easy
prey of skillful politicians and political machines (Dewey, 1937, p. 185). It was
important to Dewey to balance the amount of information covered in social studies
with meaning. A series of facts without meaning does not inform, but deep meaning
without a proper amount of scale creates bias (Carpenter, 2006). Deprived of proper
breadth and scope, it is hard to look at society with any real understanding. When
we examine todays offerings of information and how we parse the Internet, media,
and social networks, it is imperative that a true citizen understands how information
can be skewed, manipulated and sensationalized so that we do not become victims
of political misrepresentations (Dewey 1937, p. 185). We must teach students the
societal norms that accompany digital interactions and give them the tools to make
good decisions.
In order for a student to show good citizenship, He is to be a member of
some particular neighborhood and community, and must contribute to the values
of life, add to the decencies and graces of civilization wherever he is (Dewey, 1887,
p. 113). What Dewey envisioned in 1887 about citizenship is true today, though the
neighborhoods and communities may be virtual ones. Dewey believed it is the
responsibility of schools to create good citizens. As of the 1900s, the area of social
studies has historically been associated with teaching citizenship.

The Evolving Nature of Citizenship

Students today are maturing in a world where mobile connectivity is interactive,
instantaneous, and ubiquitous, which offers educators the challenge and
opportunity of preparing digital citizens within a global setting. (National
Council for the Social Studies, 2013)

The National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) has been in existence since
1921, and is representative of the Progressive movement in America and education
at the time. A 1913 National Educational Association (NEA) report stated, the high
school teachers of social studies have the best opportunity ever offered to any social
group to improve the citizenship of the land (Smith, Palmer, & Correia, 1995, p.
6). The NEA study and its author were influenced by the democratic teachings of
Dewey, whose philosophy states that one must be informed and literate to fully
participate in a society (Dewey, 1909). In the 1900s this meant access to information
and it means the same today. Martorellas (1997) work Technology and the Social Studies
60 Walton

or: Which Way to the Sleeping Giant? is often cited in works regarding technology in
social studies. He was fairly accurate in predicting that the Internet would have a huge
impact on the teaching of social studies, hence his metaphor of a sleeping giant is
appropriate. The Internet has had a gigantic impact in regards to information access.
When we compare 1997s technology use with today, it seems the giant has woken
up. Martorella saw that adjusting the curriculum for the purpose of the computer
as a citizenship educator as a necessary to adaptation for the field as technology
adoption increased (Martorella, 1997, p. 513). In 1997 when this article was written,
AOL was the default search engine and those few Americans who had Internet
spent less than 30 minutes a day using it (Manjoo, 2009). Cell phones were the size
of a brick and coverage was limited to major highways and city centers. Laptops
were expensive, slow and heavy. The communication technology of today dwarfs
what Martorella or any of us could have imagined in 1997.
Today the Internet is a big place. In numbers there are 3.1 billion Internet users
and almost one billion websites as of June 14th, 2015 (Internet Live Stats, 2015). In
one single second, there are 2.5 million emails sent, one hundred thousand YouTube
videos watched, fifty thousand Google searches and ten thousand Tweets (Internet
Live Stats, 2015). The average American spends eleven hours a day with some sort
of digital media (Petronzio, 2015). Within this large framework we call the Internet,
texting, and media, our students are learning new social behaviors. In a forum of
general anonymity, good and bad things can happen. A meek student can have a
voice in political discourse. But along with anonymity comes lack of accountability
and this is a free speech concern. One could incite a person to political action or
shame them to suicide. When does this discourse cross from heated debate to hate
speech? Some legislation has been created and exercised to regulate Internet speech,
but it is rarely used until harm is already done (Anti-Defamation League, 2012).
Another topic to consider is getting low income or rural students into the
digital conversation. Students with access to technology are already learning digital
skills. As technology jumps forward, it leaves many behind. This is an issue of
access and we will have to accommodate and differentiate for learners whether they
are connected or not. In the U.S. in 1915, only 20% of homes had electricity and
30% of homes had a telephone. By 1930, over 60% had phones and electricity
(Thompson, 2012). The Internet is on the same adoption trajectory (Thompson,
2012). We need to prepare all our students for the awakening of this sleeping giant
known as technology (Martorella, 1997).

Digital Citizen vs. Digital Native

A digital citizen is not necessarily a digital native. There is an assumption that every
student of a certain age can use a computer, cell phone and/or tablet. The digital
divide is a term used to discuss the disparity between the people that have and are
able to use technology, and those who cannot. Digital natives have been born into,
or grown up in a discourse of technology use. Digital citizenship is how students
conduct themselves in a digital world. If the student has no digital literacy, then
they cannot develop as a digital citizen. This is not to say that as a student becomes
digitally literate, they cannot learn to be a good citizen. Conversely, someone that
is a digital native is not inherently a good digital citizen. Therefore, teaching digital
 Digital Citizenship 61

citizenship is important for both sides of the digital divide.

Less than 40% of American public schools have wireless access and less
than 20% of educators say their schools Internet technology meets their needs
(Cohen & Livingston, 2013). The government has launched a program within its
ConnectedED initiative to bring high-speed Internet connection to every school by
2018. This initiative will also train teachers in technology and assist with the purchase
of appropriate equipment (Munoz & Sperling, 2013). The disparity between the
haves and have-nots is an access issue straight out of the Progressive Era, when Dewey
formulated his philosophy of education. Just like the progressive programs that
reclassified electricity and water as a public utility, the Federal Communications
Commission has ruled positively on net neutrality and classified the Internet as a
public utility with the aim to make it more accessible to all. The commissioner of the
FCC stated that they would use all the tools in (their) toolbox to protect innovators
and consumers and preserve the Internets role as a core of free expression and
democratic principles (Ruiz & Lohr, 2016, p. 1).

Teaching Digital Citizenship

The currently recognized standards for teaching digital citizenship revolve around
The Nine Themes of Digital Citizenship (Ribble, 2011). This approach to teaching
digital citizenship is formally used by the International Society for Technology in
Education, the NEA, and Common Sense Education. These nine tenants of teaching
Digital Citizenship to K-12 learners are represented in the concept of REPs. REPs
stand for Respect your self, Educate your self, and Protect your self (Ribble, 2011). This
system, outlined below, is used by school districts to divide these concepts into
three digestible blocks and as a mnemonic device to help remember the title of each
section.
Respect yourself/Respect others
1. Etiquette
2. Access
3. Law
Educate yourself/Connect with others
4. Communication
5. Literacy
6. Commerce
Protect Yourself / Protect Others
7. Rights and Responsibility
8. Safety (Security)
9. Health and Welfare. (Ribble, 2011, pp. 15-44)
A brief overview of how a REPs curriculum illustrates the scope of the
initiative to teach digital citizenship. This curriculum is structured to start in
elementary school with basic concepts like keeping your password secret and
knowing when digital interactions are becoming inappropriate. As social studies
progress more complicated concepts are introduced. Done correctly these would
mirror and compliment the current real world lessons on citizenship. For more in
depth information on lessons, case studies, and classroom integration, look to the
books of Ribble, www.digitalcitizenship.net, and www.commonsensemedia.org. A
62 Walton

Google search of REPs and digital citizenship will point a reader toward a myriad of
schools already posting lesson plans on these subjects.

Respect Yourself/Respect Others

The first section of the REPs curriculum deals with how a student communicates,
what information they share, and is that information appropriate or legal for
Internet distribution. This section asks the student to define the best way to act in
digital mediums. What are the right things to say and when? What are the wrong
things to say and when? When is the right time for email, text or voice chat? Asking
these types of questions helps to identify what kind of discourse we want to have
with others. When addressing digital access we ask the student to look at how much
time they spend online, watching videos, texting, and playing video games. Does
the student have access to devices that allow them to do these activities? Can a
student focus on one activity or must they multitask all the time? Digital access
is multi-faceted. It can address how some students binge on media and some are
bereft of it. It can be used to discuss the digital divide or digital gluttony. Digital law
addresses fair use and copyright protection. It also instructs the student regarding
the legal ramifications of bad behavior on the Internet, and can incorporate how the
government is engaging with Internet providers to bridge the digital divide. Respect
your self/Respect others addresses the golden rules of the Internet. Do unto others as you
would have done to you; play nice and do not steal.

Educate yourself/Connect with others

This part of the curriculum discusses how a student engages with technology and
the others who use it. Digital literacy addresses the use of the mechanical, software
and online tools of digital citizenship. Far beyond the technology classes that teach
Microsoft Office, we must teach how to set up proper Boolean searches in Google
so that we get the desired results, how to create a blog, a wiki and to navigate a
forum. When looking online, what are reputable sources? Which are not, and how
can one tell the difference between the two?
The discussion of digital communication could incorporate how a student wants
to present him or herself online. Which forums do they want to use and which
to avoid? What information is safe to share and which is inappropriate? Digital
communication and digital commerce are similar, in that both have an element of risk
assessment. Just like digital communication, how can a student tell if a commercial
site is reputable or not? When purchasing online, how do we gauge risk in digital
commerce? Educate your self/Connect with others is an area of instruction that deals
with how things work, how to find ones digital voice/persona and how to engage
in commerce in a digital domain.

Protect Yourself/Protect Others

Protecting ones online identity and avoiding predatory situations are issues of safety.
Cyber-bullying, trolling, flaming and sexting are digital safety issues as well as digital
communication issues. Digital rights and digital responsibilities address the actions you take
 Digital Citizenship 63

when faced with ethical issues. Do you cite your sources when you use them? Do
you use the Internet or your mobile phone to cheat on tests? What do you do and/
or whom do you talk to if you are being cyber-bullied? Last, digital health and digital
welfare speak to your actual physical and mental health. Using computers can lead to
eyestrain, repetitive stress injuries, and carpal tunnel syndrome. Using media late at
night can disrupt your circadian rhythms and cause loss of sleep. Are you spending
copious amounts of time/money on games or websites? Protect your self/Protect others
addresses safeguarding your digital, physical, and mental wellbeing.

Conclusion
The three content areas previously discussed harken to Deweys concept of a school
as a model of community life (Dewey, 1909). What is the point of technology
in school if it is not used to model how we use that technology in real life? A
considerable amount of digital assets we use are communal. Social media, email,
commerce, and even web searches draw from a community of information creators.
Every website, wiki, and blog has been generated and/or curated for our students,
and we as social studies educators must teach them to navigate this information.
As our use and reliance on this technology grows, so must our engagement in
how it shapes our student citizens. The digital citizen is the epitome of Deweys
model of learning by doing philosophy. From book to radio to television, social
studies educators have been the front-runners in helping students incorporate these
technologies into our understanding of the world. In the rise of the information
age, adding digital citizenship to our curriculum seems like the logical next step.

References
Anti-Defamation League. (2012). Responding to extremist speech online: 10 frequently asked questions. New York, NY: Anti-
Defamation League.. Retrieved from http://www.adl.org/assets/pdf/combating-hate/ADL-Responding-to-
Extremist-Speech-Online-10-FAQ.pdf

Carpenter, J. J. (2006). The development of a more intelligent citizenship: John Dewey and the social studies. Education
and Culture , 22(2), 31-42.

Cohen, P., & Livingston, J. (2013, November 3). More than half of U.S. public schools dont have adequate wireless
access. The Atlantic.

Dewey, J. (1887). Ethical Principals underlying education. In R. D. Archambault (Ed.), John Dewey on education (pp. 108-
138). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Dewey, J. (1909). Moral principals in education. New York, NY: ArcTurus Books.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Dewey, J. (1937). The challenge of education to democracy. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The later works of John Dewey, (pp.
181-190). Carbondale, IL: University Press.

Internet Live Stats. (2015, June 14). 1 Second. Retrieved from http://www.internetlivestats.com/one-second/#google-
band

Manjoo, F. (2009, February 24). Jurassic web. Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/

technology/2009/02/jurassic_web.html

Martorella, P. (1997). Technology and the social studies--or: Which way to the sleeping giant? Theory & Research In Social
Education, 24(4), 511-514.
64 Walton

Munoz, C., & Sperling, G. (2013, June 6). Bringing Americas students into the digital age. The White House Blog. [Blog
Post] Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/06/06/bringing-america-s-students-digital-age

National Council for the Social Studies (2013). Technology position statement and guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.
socialstudies.org/positions/technology

Petronzio, M. (2015, March 5). U.S. adults spend 11 hours per day with digital media. Retrieved from http://mashable.
com/2014/03/05/american-digital-media-hours/

Ribble, M. (2011). Digital citizenship in schools. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

Ruiz, R., & Lohr, S. (2016, February 26). F.C.C. approves net neutrality rules, classifying broadband internet service as
a utility. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/technology/net-neutrality-
fcc-vote-internet-utility.html?_r=0

Smith, B. A., Plamer, J.J., & Correia, S.T. (1995). Social studies and the birth of NCSS. Social Education, 59(7), 393-398.

Thayer, T. (2014, August 28). Who said, If we teach todays students as we taught yesterdays, we rob them of
tomorrow.? Education4site. [Blog Post] Retrieved from http://www.education4site.org/blog/2014/who-said-if-
we-teach-todays-students-as-we-taught-yesterdays-we-rob-them-of-tomorrow/

Thompson, D. (2012, April 7). The 100-year march oftTechnology in 1 graph. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/
technology/archive/2012/04/the-100-year-march-of-technology-in-1-graph/255573/

Biography
Jason Walton holds a Bachelor of Arts in Theatre from Siena
Heights University and a Master of Education from the
University of Toledo. He is married with two sons and works as
the Digital Technology Coordinator for Bowling Green State
Universitys School of Art and Department of Theatre & Film.
 Review of Web 2.0 Resources in the Social
Studies Classroom
Samantha Mitchell
Abstract: Technology is intertwined in all aspects of life, including education.
Though technology is a broad term that includes a variety of resources, among those
are what are known as Web 2.0 tools. These are tools that allow users to interact
and collaborate online, as well as generate, manipulate, and share content easily with
others. Some of these tools target social studies specifically and are changing the
way students learn. Outlined in this article are a few resources available to teachers
of social studies, along with explanations on how they can be used in the classroom.
The impact of these tools on student performance will also be discussed, as well as
ways to improve teachers confidence in their use.

Introduction
Have you previously used technology while teaching? What forms of technology are you
familiar with? Tell me about a lesson plan in which technology played a prominent role
in student learning. Do you see yourself using technology in your classroom? Are you
comfortable with technology?

Each of the above questions is common when interviewing for teaching positions
today, and prospective teachers answers could have a significant impact on
advancement in the hiring process. In fact, some districts openly state that being
technologically competent is a necessary skill for employment. Yet, not all teachers
are aware of what resources are available to them for use in their classrooms, let
alone feel comfortable in their abilities to do so. In todays world, lack of awareness
or negative attitudes or beliefs could hinder chances for employment, or staying
employed. This is because the current generation of students, known as digital
natives, craves technology and prefer learning in this manner (Prensky, 2001). In
addition, students will need to be technologically competent for when they enter the
workforce, as technology has become prevalent in most workplace environments.
This has important implications for all educators, but particularly those of social
studies content, as students often find social studies to be uninteresting or boring.
As stated by Schug, Todd, and Beery (1984), Students frequently are not positive
about their social studies experiences. Even more alarming are studies showing that
young people do not feel social studies is a particularly valuable or interesting part of
the school curriculum (p. 47). One way to combat these negative attitudes towards
the subject is by incorporating technology in to lessons to make the content more
appealing to the current generation of students. But technology is such a broad
term with many resources that fall under it; which resources should be used? The
resources that many social studies teachers are beginning to turn to as an innovative
way to teach content are Web 2.0 tools.
66 Mitchell

Web 2.0 Tools: What are They?

The term technology encompasses a wide range of tools and resources, including
computer-based hardware and software applications (Wynn, 2013). Hardware refers
to the computers, laptops, tablets, and smart boards with projectors. In contrast,
the Internet and computer programs are among the software applications. These
computer programs often fall under the category of Web 2.0 Tools, an umbrella
term used to describe a variety of online collaborative and interactive tools designed
for the user to generate, manipulate, and share content easily with others in real
time (Wilson, Wright, Inman, & Matherson, 2011). Some of the more common
Web 2.0 tools include blogs, Google Docs, Primary Access, and podcasts, which will
all be discussed in the following sections. What makes Web 2.0 tools so appealing
to educators is the wide availability of them, due to the ease with which they are
created. With few barriers to development and distribution of these applications,
web developers have witnessed an explosion in their creation (Bull, Hammond,
& Ferster, 2008). This explosion includes not only an increase in the number of
applications available, but in the diversity of the applications. Known as user-
generated content, these applications take the form of text, photo sharing, audio
sharing, and video sharing. Though Web 2.0 tools are available to teachers of every
content area, there are a few of particular interest to teachers of social studies.

Web 2.0 Tools for the Social Studies Classroom

Blogs
Blogs, applications that allow users to write and generate content within a website, are
becoming increasingly popular in the classroom because they give students a sense
of ownership of the class and their work within it (Boyd, 2013, p. 87). Blogs are
essentially a form of personal publishing that allow students to share their thoughts
and opinions on issues, or summarize an event. Overall, they encourage student
ownership of texts and promote critical thinking, including analysis, evaluation, and
synthesis. In addition, blogs typically include comment boxes that allow other users
to respond to posts written by the author, providing a way for users to communicate
with one another online. In the classroom setting, this function is beneficial because
it promotes a collaborative learning environment in which students participate in a
network of interactions rather than just listing their own thoughts on a given topic
or just writing to the instructor (Boyd, 2013, p. 87).
In the social studies classroom, blogs allow students to write about topics
discussed in class and get feedback on their opinions from their peers. For example,
if learning about the American Revolution, students could place themselves in the
role of a colonist and blog about whether they would remain loyal to Britain or fight
for independence. Once the blog has been published, classmates can view and reply
to it, writing whether they agree or disagree, and why. Blogs support students in truly
understanding the content so that they can make sound arguments. Furthermore,
Lenhart and Fox (2006) report that nineteen percent of Internet users ages twelve
to seventeen keep a blog and thirty-eight percent read blogs. These numbers would
suggest that students likely have experience with blogs, which educators should
 Web 2.0 Resources in the Social Studies Classroom 67

capitalize on in their classrooms.

Google Docs
Similar to blogs, Google Docs has emerged as a powerful learning tool for teachers
to use to encourage online collaboration. Google Docs is a free online word
processor, spread sheet, and presentation editor that allows users to create, store,
share, and collaborate on documents with others, allowing individuals to work on a
single version of a document at the same time rather than emailing back and forth
(Roberts, 2013). This feature of Google Docs allows students to collaborate online
and have discussions about any topic of their choosing. Discussions are particularly
critical in social studies as discussion promotes many of the objectives of social
studies education, especially in terms of studying controversial issues, promoting
critical thinking, learning democratic values, and gaining content mastery; discussion
also builds tolerance among individuals and makes social studies more engaging
(Roberts, 2013, p. 130).
In contrast to traditional classroom discussion, discussion using Google
Docs appears to have more advantages overall, as outlined by Roberts (2013). For
instance, in terms of engagement and participation, Google Docs gives students the
ability to work on one document at the same time and everyone has equal access,
so no one is competing to have their opinion heard as they might in a classroom
setting. In terms of time, discussions on Google Docs can span any length of time,
not just one class period, and the discussion can take place outside of school. Other
advantages of Google Docs are that teachers have the ability to save the discussion
records for future use or reflection, and Google Docs provides real-time monitoring
that allows students to receive feedback instantaneously.

Primary Access
Another Web 2.0 tool becoming popular in the social studies classroom is Primary
Access (http://www.primaryaccess.org), a web-based tool designed specifically for
social studies instruction. Using websites that provide primary sources in digital
form, such as the Library of Congress or the Smithsonian Museum, students can
utilize Primary Access to combine these digital sources and produce online movies
and comic strips, or create a rebus.
The first tool available with Primary Access is MovieMaker, which allows
students to assemble a montage of archival images, compose a script, and record
a voice-over narration (Bull et al., 2008, p. 276). Essentially, students are able to
produce a movie about a topic of their choosing by using images they compile and
set to a voice recording. Another tool available with Primary Access is StoryBoard,
which allows students to create comic strips using primary sources and combining
graphics and thought bubbles to the images to tell a story. Upon completion of the
comic strip, students can publish and share with others. The final tool available on
the website is Rebus, in which students use pictures as part of the text to tell a story.
For example, students can omit words in a text and replace them with images, or add
images to provide a visual representation of the text. Overall, each of these tools
allows students the freedom to get creative and illustrate historical events outside of
68 Mitchell

the traditional, written summary.

Podcasts
Podcasts are a form of audio sharing that allows users to present narratives, lectures,
and individual or group presentations via the World Wide Web (Kemp, Mellor,
Kotter, & Oosthoek, 2012). Given the characteristics of podcasts, they are emerging
as a valuable instructional tool. Kemp et al. (2012) point out that the immediate
educational benefit of podcasting technology is the ease with which digital content
can be immediately and inexpensively disseminated to large audiences on a variety
of platforms. The benefits of podcasts for teachers is obvious, as they can use
podcasts to record lectures or entire lessons, which students can then download and
listen to on their own time. However, some teachers are allowing students to use
podcasts as a new way to complete school assignments.
In one study, a class of students used podcasts as an end-of-year assessment
in which they summarized a topic they had researched over the course of the year
(Kemp et al., 2012). Results from the study showed that this form of assessment
kept the students actively engaged, promoted group work, language and oral
communication skills, and a better understanding of the material. Though this
specific study was done with students in a geography course, its implications span
across all content areas, including social studies. Instead of requiring students to
write essays summarizing a historical event, teachers can give students the option to
summarize the event through a podcast. Though both accomplish the same goal,
with the podcasts, students can express what they have learned in a manner that is
unique to them; they can incorporate their personality into the presentation, which
is something that may not translate on paper.

Advantages of Web 2.0 Tools

Web 2.0 tools have many advantages for use within the classroom. Among the most
important advantages is that they offer an alternative to the way students think
and learn in school as well as how they communicate what they learned. Students
can view content from a source other than the traditional textbook, which some
researchers believe to be more beneficial for students. Jones and Madden (2002)
point out that, when researching information for a school assignment, students
prefer looking up information on the Internet rather than having to physically search
through book collections. This is particularly true in social studies, which involves a
lot of memorization of facts because students are often required to read a text and
then recall information from the text, including information about people, places,
and events. To some students, doing this reading online is preferable to reading a
textbook.
Furthermore, using Web 2.0 tools in the classroom appears to have a positive
impact on student performance. In a study by Hsin, Li, and Tsai (2014), researchers
found that students who used technology and Web 2.0 tools in their classrooms
tended to outperform students who did not. However, this result was contingent
upon the amount of experience students had with technology. Specifically, students
with more experience, as measured by their prior knowledge of computers and
 Web 2.0 Resources in the Social Studies Classroom 69

their access to a computer at home, outperformed students with less experience.

These results would suggest that students can excel academically through the
use of technology, but only if they are taught how to correctly use it and have
consistent access. Therefore, teachers and schools need to support students to be
technologically competent so that they can take full advantage of all of the features
technology has to offer. This requires that teachers are willing and able to support
their students use of technology. But how do teachers feel about technology?

Teachers and Web 2.0 Tools

Martorella (1997) described technology as the sleeping giant in the social studies
curriculum that few teachers have utilized (p. 511). Dawson, Bull, and Swain (2000)
elaborated on this idea stating that, compared to other content-area teachers, social
studies teachers display a greater deficiency in their use of innovative teaching
methods made possible through the various technologies available to them. Prensky
(2001) believes this has a lot to do with the world in which current experienced
teachers grew up, which is very different from the world current students have
grown up in. As mentioned previously, students who have grown up surrounded
by technology are referred to as digital natives. In contrast, Pensky refers to
experienced teachers who began their careers before technology became common
in classrooms as digital immigrants, as they are similar to one assimilating to a
foreign culture. These digital immigrants who are not as familiar with technology
do not feel comfortable using it. Creating teachers who are comfortable in their
technologies skills and secure in their choice to use available technologies for
instructional purposes poses a serious challenge (Shriner, Clark, Nail, Schlee, &
Libler, 2010, p. 37).
Lee, Doolittle, and Hicks (2006) point out that part of the problem among social
studies teachers is that they often lack the resources to even try using technology in
their classroom. Particularly, they lack sufficient numbers of computers for student
use, lack time to learn how to use computers or teach students how to use them, or
even lack access to the Internet. But teachers that do have access to these resources
should be making every attempt to learn how to use them. Sahin (2008) argues
that faculty adoption of educational technology is critical and teachers need to be
given the training, education, and encouragement to have the necessary skills and
confidence to use such technologies in their classrooms. Sahin (2008) further adds,
when levels of faculty confidence in and awareness of educational technology
increases, faculty interest in technology will grow and eventually result in a higher
level of faculty willingness to use educational technology (p. 51). However, with no
background knowledge, these teachers need instruction.
This idea was echoed in the study by Shriner et al. (2010) in which current
experienced K-12 teachers participated in three different teacher development
workshops that trained teachers on how to use different forms of technology
related to the following three topics specific to social studies: how to use virtual
fieldtrips to enhance service learning, how to use various resources and approaches
to social studies instruction, and how to use various resources and approaches
to teach geography and history of the world. Participants completed a survey
before and after completing the workshops and results of the surveys showed that
70 Mitchell

participants gained statistically significant changes in their levels of confidence

and competence in using the different technology resources in each of the three
workshops. According to this study, even digital immigrants can learn to embrace
technology in their classrooms, if given the tools and training to do so.

Conclusion
As technology becomes more prevalent in our lives it is altering the way students
learn, and specific aspects of technology, Web 2.0 tools, are emerging as effective
instructional tools. These online tools allow students to generate, manipulate, and
share content easily with others in real time, providing a unique interaction and
collaborative experience different from what is offered in a traditional classroom
learning environment. These tools have important implications for social studies
teachers and students as Web 2.0 tools have the capacity to transform how students
think and learn in the classroom.
Web 2.0 tools such as blogs and Google Docs are powerful learning tools that
allow students to discuss content online with peers and receive immediate feedback.
This form of interaction allows students to think critically and analyze what others
have written, and also allows them to reflect on their own ideas. Another Web 2.0
tool, Primary Access, turns students into historical researchers and allows them to
present their findings in movie, comic strip, or rebus form, which they find enjoyable.
Lastly, podcasts are also rising in popularity in classroom instruction, making
information widely available and with relative ease. Teachers can utilize podcasts
to make lesson plans available to students for download, or students can use them
as an alternative to traditional presentations or written assignments. Overall, each
of these tools is changing the way students learn, but doing so in a manner that
students prefer. In addition, most students not only prefer learning with these tools,
but are also performing better as a result (Hsin et al., 2014). While not all teachers
feel comfortable using technology, with additional education and training through
professional development workshops, teachers can gain the skills and confidence to
effectively use these resources in their classrooms.

References
Boyd, P. (2013). Blogging in the classroom: Using technologies to promote learner-centered pedagogies. The Researcher:
An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26(3), 85-113.

Bull, G., Hammond, T., & Ferster, B. (2008). Developing web 2.0 tools for support of historical inquiry in social
studies. Computers In The Schools, 25(3/4), 275-287.

Dawson, K., Bull, G., & Swain, C. (2000). Considerations for the diffusion of technological innovations in social
studies teaching and learning. Theory and Research in Social Education, 28, 587595.

Hsin, C.-T., Li, M.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2014). The influence of young childrens use of technology on their learning: A
review. Journal Of Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 85-99.

Jones, S., & Madden, M. (2002). The Internet goes to college: How students are living in the future with todays technology. Retrieved
from http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/71/report display.asp

Kemp, J., Mellor, A., Kotter, R., & Oosthoek, J. W. (2012). Student-produced podcasts as an assessment tool: An
example from geomorphology. Journal Of Geography In Higher Education, 36(1), 117-130.
 Web 2.0 Resources in the Social Studies Classroom 71

Lee, J., Doolittle, P., & Hicks, D. (2006). Social studies and history teachers uses of non-digital and digital historical
resources. Social Studies Research and Practice, 1, 291311.

Lenhart, A., & Fox, S. (2006). Bloggers: A Portrait of the Internets New Storytellers. Pew Internet & American Life Project.
Retrieved from http ://www.pewintemet.org/ ~/media/Files/Reports/2006/PIP%20Bloggers%20Report%
20Julv%2019%202006.pdf pdf.

Martorella, P. (1997). Technology and social studies: Which way to the sleeping giant?. Theory and Research in Social
Education, 25, 511514.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, MCB University Press, 9(5).

Roberts, S. L. (2013). The chalk talk 2.0: Using Google Docs to improve the silent discussion in social studies. The
Social Studies, 104, 130-136.

Sahin, I. (2008). From the social-cognitive career theory perspective: A college of education faculty model for
explaining their intention to use educational technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38, 5166.

Schug, M. C., Todd, R. J., & Beery, R. (1984). Why kids dont like social studies. Research in Social Studies Education, 48,
47-53.

Shriner, M., Clark, D. A., Nail, M., Schlee, B. M., & Libler, R. (2010). Social studies instruction: Changing teacher
confidence in classrooms enhanced by technology. Social Studies, 101(2), 37-45.

Wilson, E. K., Wright, V. H., Inman, C. T., & Matherson, L. H. (2011). Retooling the social studies classroom for the
current generation. Social Studies, 102(2), 65-72.

Wynn, M. F. (2013). Student perceptions of technology in the classroom: A faculty and student collaboration. The
Researcher: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26, 21-33.

Biography
Samantha Mitchell received her masters degree in Secondary
Education from the University of Toledo. She also holds
a Bachelor of Science in Psychology from Wright State
University. Samantha will be teaching 8th grade social studies
at Mount Healthy Junior High School in Cincinnati beginning
fall 2015.
 Learning to Teach
Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies
Through Research and Practice

Editors in Chief Jenny Denyer, Ph.D.

Rebecca M. Schneider, Ph.D.

Copy Editor Kelsy Krise

Cover & Layout Designer Margaret Schneider

Learning to Teach Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies Through Research
and Practice publishes manuscripts that address curricular innovations, thoughtful
discussion of current issues for practice, or essays that inform, advocate for a
position or persuade. Manuscripts must address content education.

Guidelines for Authors

Aims The aims of this journal are to provide an outlet for the initial publication by preservice
and beginning teachers and to disseminate these works to current and future colleagues.

Audience The primary audience is current and future licensure candidates in all subject
areas, grades 4 to 12. This journal is also of interest to local teachers and school adminis-
trators, program and university faculty, and college administration.

Frequency Published yearly each August; distributed electronically with limited print copies.

Submission Guidelines Manuscript style is APA. Abstracts are 120 words. Manuscript
length is 2000 to 2500 words, excluding abstract, tables, figures, and references. Figures
must be in jpg format; photos must have release forms as appropriate.

Acceptance rate: 60-65%

Sponsored and published by The Department of Curriculum

of Instruction at the University of Toledo

For questions contact: [email protected] or [email protected]

A publication of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction

Leigh Chiarelott, Ph.D., Interim Chair

University of Toledo
Cover Designer
Margaret Schneider