BLENDED LEARNING ENVIRONMENT: AN APPROACH TO ENHANCE STUDENTS’S LEARNING EXPERIENCES OUTSIDE SCHOOL (LEOS)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52634/mier/2017/v7/i2/1411Keywords:
Social Constructivism, Co-construction, Integrated Online Learning Model, New Media Literacies (NML).Abstract
This paper reports on blended learning environment approach to help enhance students’ learning out comes in science during Learning Experiences Outside School (LEOS). This inquiry took the nature of an ethnographic case study (Lincoln & Guba 1985; Merriam, 1988), and sought to establish ways of enhancing students’ LEOS. The context of the inquiry was a private rural religious secondary school in New Zealand. The New Zealand Science Curriculum is based on a constructivist-based view of learning which provides opportunities for a number of possible learning experiences for science, including LEOS, to enrich student experiences, motivate them to learn science, encourage life-long learning, and provide exposure to future careers (Hofstein & Rosenfeld,1996; Tal, 2012). However, to make the most of these learning experiences outside the school, it is important that adequate preparation is done, before, during and after these visits. Sadly, the last two decades of research suggest that activities outside school such as field trips have not necessarily been used as a means to improveschool-basedlearning (Rennie & McClafferty, 1996). This inquiry utilised an integrated online learning model, using Moodle, as a means to increase student collaboration and communication where students become self-directed, negotiate their own goals, express meaningful ideas and display a strong sense of collective ownership (Scanlon, Jones & Waycott, 2005; Willett, 2007). The digital space provided by Moodle allows students significant autonomy which encourages social interactions and this promotes learning and social construction of knowledge (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Lewin, 2004).
Downloads
Metrics
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Sandhya Devi Coll, David Treagust
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The articles published in the MIER Journal of Educational Studies, Trends and Practics (MJESTP) are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
- Copyright on any open access article in the MIER Journal of Educational Studies, Trends and Practics (MJESTP) published by Model Institute of Education and Research (MIER) is retained by the author(s).
- Author(s) grant MIER a license to publish the article and identify himself/herself/themselves as the original publisher.
- Authors also grant any third party the right to use the article freely as long as its integrity is maintained and its original authors, citation details and publisher are identified.
- The Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 formalizes these and other terms and conditions of publishing articles.
References
Anderson, D., Lucas, K. B., Ginns, I. S., & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Development of knowledge about electricity and magnetism during a visit to a science museum and related post-visit activities. Science Education, 84, 658-679.
Anderson, D., & Zhang, Z. (2003). Teacher perceptions of field trip planning and implementation. Visitor Studies Today, 6(3), 6-12.
Annetta, L., Murray, M., Laird, S., Bohr, S., & Park, J. (2008). Investigating students' attitudes towards asynchronous, online graduate course in a multi-user virtual learning environment. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(1), 5-34.
Ash, D. (2002). Negotiations of thematic conversations about biology. In G.Leinhardt , K. Crowley & K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. 357-400). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ash, D., & Wells, G. (2006). Dialogic inquiry in classrooms and museums. In Z.Bekerman, N. C. Burbles & D. Silberman-Keller (Eds.), Learning in places: The informal education reader (pp. 35-54). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Bamberger, Y., & Tal, T. (2007). Learning in a personal-context: Levels of choice in a free-choice learning environment in science and natural history museums. Science Education, 91, 75-95.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
Bolstad, R. (2001, July). The actual and potential role of science and technology centres in New Zealand primary science and technology education. Paper presented at the 32nd annual conference of the Australasian Science Education Research Association. Sydney, Australia.
Coates, H., James, R., & Baldwin, G. (2005). A critical examination of the effects of learning management systems on university teaching and learning.Tertiary Education and Management, 11, 19-36.
DeNeui, D. L., & Dodge, T. L. (2006). Asynchronous learning networks and student outcomes: The utility of online learning components in hybrid courses. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 33(4), 257-259.
Doneman, M. (1997). Multimediating. In C. Lankshear, C. Bigum, C. Durrant, B. Green, E. Honan & W. Morgan (Eds.), Digital rhetorics: Literacies and technologies in education, current practices and future directions (pp. 131148). Canberra, Australia: Department of Employment, Education, Training & Youth Affairs.
Downes, S. (2005). E-learning 2.0. Retrieved from http://www.elearning.org/subpage.cfm? section=articles&article=29-1.
Driscoll, M. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Falk, J., & Dierking, L. (2000). Learning from museum: Visitors experience and the making of meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira.
Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2012). Lifelong science learning for adults: The role of free-choice experiences. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin & C. J.McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (vol. 2, pp. 1063-1079). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Fjermested, J., Hiltz, S. R., & Zhang, Y. (2005). Effectiveness for students: Comparisons of 'in seat' and ALN courses. In S. R. Hiltz & R. Goldman (Eds.), Learning together online: Research on asynchronous learning networks (pp. 39-80). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language and comprehension as structure building.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hartman, D. (1995). Eight readers reading: The intertextual links of proficient readers reading multiple passages. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(2), 281-282.
Hawley, D. (2002). Building conceptual understanding in young scientists.Journal of Geoscience Education, 50, 363-371.
Hayes-Roth, B., & Thorndyke, P. W. (1979). Integration of knowledge from text.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 18(1), 91-108.
Hofstein, A., & Rosenfeld, S. (1996). Bridging the gap between formal and informal science learning. Studies in Science Education, 28, 87-112.
Hull, G., & Schultz, K. (2002). School's out!: Bridging out-of-school literacies with classroom practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Hurd, P. (1994). New minds for a new change: Prologue for modernizing the science curriculum. Science Education, 78, 103-116.
Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (1992). The couch, the cathedral, and the laboratory: On the relationship between experiment and laboratory in science. In A.Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture (pp. 132-138). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2008). New Literacies: Everyday practice and classroom learning (2nd ed.). Berkshire, UK: McGraw Hill.
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003). New literacies: Changing knowledge and classroom learning. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Leander, K. M. (2007). You won't be needing your laptops today: Wired bodies in the wireless classroom. In M. Knobel & C. Lankshear (Eds.), A new literacies sampler (pp. 25-48). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Lewin, C. (2004). Access and use of technologies in the home in the UK: Implications for the curriculum. The Curriculum Journal, 15(2), 139-154.
Leuhmann, A. L., & Frink, J. (2012). Web 2.0 Technologies, new media literacies, and science education: Exploring the potential to transform. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (vol. 2, pp. 823-838). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Ministry of Education. (1993). Science in the national curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum framework. Wellington, New Zealand: Government Printer.
Morag, O., & Tal, T. (2009, April). Multiple perspectives of out-of-school learning in various institutions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Garden Grove, CA.
National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
O'Neill, D. K., Wagner, R., & Gomez, L. M. (1996). Online Mentors: Experimenting in science class. Educational Leadership, 54(3), 39-42.
Orion, N., & Hofstein, A. (1994). Factors that influence learning during a scientific field trip in a natural environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1097-1119.
Rennie, L. J., & Johnston, D. J. (2007). Research on learning from museum. In J.H. Falk, L. D. Dierking & S. Foutz (Eds.), In principle, in practice: Museums as learning institutions (pp. 57-73). Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.
Rennie, L. J. (2007). Learning science outside of school. In S. K. Abell & N. G.Lederman, (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 125-167).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rennie, L. J., & McClafferty, T. P. (1995). Using visits to interactive science and technology centres, museums, aquaria and zoos to promote learning in science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 6, 175-185.
Rennie, L. J., & McClafferty, T. P. (1996). Science centres and science learning.Studies in Science Education, 27, 53-98.
Roth, W. M. (1995). Knowing and interacting: A study of culture, practices and resources in a grade 8 open-inquiry science classroom guided by a cognitive apprenticeship metaphor. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 73-128.
Scanlon, E., Jones, A., & Waycott, J. (2005). Mobile technologies: Prospects for their use in learning in informal science settings. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 25, 1-17.
Spier-Dance, L., Mayer-Smith, J., Dance, N., & Khan, S. (2005). The role of student generated analogies in promoting conceptual understanding for undergraduate chemistry students. Research in Science and Technological Education, 23, 163-178.
Tal, R. T. (2012). Out-of-school: Learning experiences, teaching and students'learning. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (vol. 2, pp. 1109-1122).Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Tabachneck-Schijf, H. J. M., & Simon, H. A. (1998). One person, multiple representations: An analysis of a simple realistic multiple representation learning task. In M. W. V. Someren, P. Reimann, H. P. A.Boshuizen & T. deJong (Eds.), Learning with multiple representations (pp.197-236). New York, NY: Pergamon.
Tal, R. T., & Steiner, L. (2006). Patterns of teacher-museum staff relationships: School visits to the educational center of a science museum. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 6, 25-46.
Thesen, L. (2001). Modes, literacies and power: A university case study.Language and Education, 15(1/2), 132-145.
Tofield, S., Coll, R. K., Vyle, B., & Bolstad, R. (2003). Zoos as a source of free choice learning. Research in Science and Technological Education, 21(1), 67-99
Van Meter, P. (2001). Drawing construction as a strategy for learning from text.Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 129-140.
Van Meter, P., & Garner, J. (2005). The promise and practice of learnergenerated drawing: Literature review and synthesis. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 285-325.
Varelas, M., & Pappas, C. C. (2006). Intertextuality in read-aloud of integrated science-literacy units in urban primary classrooms: Opportunities for the development of thought and language. Cognition and Instruction, 24, 211-259.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Willett, R. (2007). Technology, pedagogy and digital production: A case study of children learning new media skills. Learning, Media and Technology, 32, 167-181.
