wise inquiry in fifth grade biology

Research in Science Education 32: 415–436, 2002.© 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

WISE Inquiry in Fifth Grade Biology

Michelle Williams and Marcia C. LinnUniversity of California, Berkeley

Abstract

This paper reports on a two year study designed to investigate how a Web-Based Integrated ScienceEnvironment (WISE) project called Plants in Space featuring classroom investigations can enablefifth grade students to increase their understanding of plant growth and development. A multidisci-plinary partnership consisting of teachers, scientists, science education researchers, and technologyspecialists developed this project, tested it in fifth grade, modified it based on the data collected inyear one and tested it again. We investigate these two versions of the curriculum and consider howunderstanding of the material improved with the revised curriculum.

Participants were fifth grade students and a fifth grade teacher who was a co-developer of thecurriculum and participated in the re-design process at an urban elementary school. An identicalpre- and a post-subject matter assessment was administered to all students each year. Interviewsand students’ in-class work helped clarify the results. Overall, students made significant gains inunderstanding standards-based science concepts including photosynthesis.

Key Words: elementary science, student learning, technology education

We studied how a Web-based Integrated Science Environment (WISE) that scaf-folds classroom experimentation can enable fifth grade students to increase theirunderstanding of plant growth and development. We investigated curriculum featuresthat contribute to cohesive and connected understanding of plant growth. We refinedthe Plants in Space Curriculum based on study in the classroom and tested it again.

Traditionally, elementary science instruction has relied on the presentation of con-tent (Roth, 1989) and science learning has been assessed in terms of acquisition ofisolated ideas. When students learn isolated ideas they quickly forget rather thanlinking and connecting their ideas (Ammon & Black, 1998; Linn & Hsi, 2000; Linn,diSessa, Pea, & Songer, 1994). To promote deep understanding, courses need toencourage cohesive, integrated science learning.

Curriculum Planning and Design

To design instruction that coordinates technology-based learning and hands-onscience experiments we used the WISE software and followed design principlesinformed by Linn’s (1995) instructional framework called Scaffolded KnowledgeIntegration (SKI). A partnership between scientists, teachers, science education re-searchers, and technology specialists guided the development of the project.

416 M. WILLIAMS AND M. C. LINN

Strengths of Learning Environments

Learning environments, like WISE, make it easy to provide explanations with var-ied representations, support student-scientist interactions, model inquiry with nav-igation systems, prompt for predictions and explanations, and enable students tointerface with and solve real world problems (diSessa, 2000; Edelson, Gordin, & Pea,1999; Krajcik, Blumenfeld, Marx, & Soloway, 2000; Linn & Hsi, 2000; Rochelle,Pea, Hoadley, Gordin, & Means, 2000; Spitulnik, Stratford, Krajcik, & Soloway,1998; Vye, Schwartz, Bransford, Barron, Zech, & the Cognition and TechnologyGroup at Vanderbilt, 1998; White & Frederiksen, 1995). Learning environments takeadvantage of technology and the classroom instructor to enable students to conductsustained investigations of complex questions. Research has demonstrated the effec-tiveness of learning environments when students can test their theories by working ingroups to design and carry out experiments using computer models and real-worldmaterials (White & Frederiksen, 1995). Technology based learning environmentsalso provide students in different locations the capacity to participate in online dis-cussions, share data, and conduct investigations (Songer, 1998). Taken together thesefeatures of learning environments enabled us to build a powerful curriculum and toincorporate recent cognitive research.

Applying the Scaffolded Knowledge Integration Framework to Plants in Space

In the SKI framework, learners are viewed as adding to their repertoire of ideasand reorganising their knowledge web about science. Students sort out their ideas as aresult of instruction, experience, observation, and reflection (Linn & Hsi, 2000). Theframework is organised around four principles to promote knowledge integration: (a)making science accessible for students, (b) making thinking visible for students, (c)providing social supports for students, and (d) promoting lifelong science learning.

The first tenet of the Scaffolded Knowledge Integration Environment frameworkindicates that science becomes accessible to all students when instruction affordsthem the opportunity to connect science class information to personally relevantproblems and prior knowledge. When students regularly revisit their ideas they canbuild on what they all ready know. Projects that emphasise scientific inquiry and drawon personally-relevant examples connect what Vygotsky (Vygotsky, 1972) calledspontaneous and instructed concepts. The goal of the Plants in Space Curriculumis for students to connect their ideas about factors and processes of plant growthwith science class ideas. This involves coming to an understanding about how plantsboth depend on their environment and adapt to environmental forces. Spontaneousconcepts are acquired through children’s everyday experiences with the world whileinstructed concepts emerge from class experiences. In Plants in Space, studentsgrow plants, study local gardens, and connect these experiences to concepts likephotosynthesis.

The second tenet of the Scaffolded Knowledge Integration framework encouragesstudents and teachers to make their thinking visible, describing how they recognise

WISE BIOLOGY 417

new ideas, and reorganise and connect new and prior ideas. Students explore eventsand phenomena first hand and develop from those observations important conceptsand ideas. Technological supports such as visualisations, films, models, and simula-tions can also make thinking visible. We ask students to make predictions, draw infer-ences, and construct generalisations (Champagne, Klopfer, & Gunstone, 1982; Roth,1989). Often, instruction using hands-on exploration neglects mindful engagement.In Plants in Space, the WISE software scaffolds students to compare plant growth,collect data, graph their results, and analyse their qualitative and quantitative data.

The third element of the Scaffolded Knowledge Integration framework emphasisesthat providing students with social supports in a science classroom can promoteknowledge integration. Vygotsky (1978) introduces the notion of Zone of ProximalDevelopment which is defined as “the distance between the actual development levelas determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential develop-ment as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaborationwith more capable peers” (p. 86). Collaborative learning situations such as discus-sions and debates can be designed so students offer explanations, interpretations,and resolutions supported by a peer or a scientist (Brown & Palincsar, 1989; Tharp& Gallimore, 1988). In Plants in Space, students discuss and provide elaboration andfeedback to each other.

The fourth principle of the SKI framework is to promote autonomy for lifelongscience learning. To prepare students to integrate the ideas they learn in science andrevisit them once they have completed a science course, WISE software supportsquestioning, analysing, and reflecting. In the Plants in Space Project, students utiliseInternet resources and critique evidence about how factors such as water, soil, air, nu-trients, and light sustain plant life on earth. This involves understanding that sunlightis a major source of energy for ecosystems (i.e., plants as producers). Students areasked to identify weaknesses in arguments and question the validity of the scientificinformation presented. These activities allow students to link their real world experi-ences with scientific concepts taught in school and prompt students to make the linksbetween spontaneous and instructed ideas. For instance, scientific concepts such asday and night cycle or duration of light can become accessible when instructors orprompts ask students to connect everyday experiences such as sleeping and eatingtimes (during a 24-hour time period) to the seasons. In addition, the WISE softwarefeatures “Amanda the Panda,” an electronic guidance tool that supplies students withhints regarding salient aspects of Internet evidence and also reminds students of thepurpose of a project activity. These forms of guidance make the computer a learningpartner in the classroom, encouraging students to link their real world experienceswith scientific concepts.

Partnership Design Process

The Plants in Space Project was developed by a partnership of individuals thatjointly created and tested the curriculum materials (Linn, Shear, Bell, & Slotta,


1999). This partnership included a scientist at NASA Kennedy Space Center, sci-entists at the University of Texas at Austin, classroom teachers, science educationresearchers, and technology specialists. We utilised a Web-based discussion forumto develop and design the Plants in Space curriculum, in addition to face-to-facemeetings.

Creating an environment of mutual respect is essential to the success of a partner-ship. We designed activities to ensure that the partners support each others’ profes-sional development and build on each others’ ideas.

Each member whether an educational researcher, a teacher or a scientist came tothe community with a unique set of pedagogical commitments and collaborated todesign the goals for Plants in Space. For example, several researchers had suggestedincluding nutrition, specifically fertiliser, as a factor in plant growth. The scientistwas concerned that hydroponic gardening could confuse students and advocated anecological perspective, commenting:

Scientifically, we are rather ignorant about the symbiotic aspects of soil, organisms, and plants, and even-tually the health of animals. But, as ecologists we know that there is a lot of important work needed to belearned about these underground aspects of a living community.

Eventually, the group decided to limit attention to plant nutrition in favor of pho-tosynthesis.

In another example, the community members contemplated whether to developa debate or critique unit as a prelude to a design unit on light conditions and plantgrowth. Two partners (Scientist K. and Teacher W.), considered this choice:

Teacher W.: Based on my experience, I think the unit should allow students to debate their ideas. Atthis age students have a natural tendency to argue. I have found that mediated debate gives them theopportunity to air their views in a socially accepted manner and to take risks.

Scientist K.: . . . Do you think students would be interested in debating what light conditions wouldpromote faster growth in plants? For example, present them two different lighting conditions and havethem make a prediction as to which one would grow faster. Then present them with evidence pages and ahands on activity.

Theacher W.: I’m not sure that a debate would serve the purpose of preparing students for the design unit.The more I think about it, perhaps more of an inquiry based lesson would be more appropriate. Studentprior knowledge needs to be established. What do students know about plants? What do students knowabout space? /gravity? /the importance of oxygen? What do students know about phototropism? What aretheir thoughts on the importance of having plants in space? What do they want to learn about these things?

Scientist K.: After investigating further, I keep coming up with the following dilemma; a debate can onlyfocus on one factor of the effects of light on plant growth, whereas a critique could cover multiple factors.Because we will want to incorporate multiple factors of light and plant growth in the design unit, a critiqueformat may be better suited to our needs. Specific factors to be investigated could include; wavelength,intensity, direction of light and time exposure . . . For a critique project, the cognitive goal would be toinvestigate light, plant growth and the relationship between the two.

Teacher W.: I think I now have a better idea of how a critique format would look . . . I think what you havedescribed is going in the right direction.

WISE BIOLOGY 419

Through many meetings and electronic discussions, the group reached a consen-sus. We decided to develop a curriculum that consisted of two WISE projects. Thegoal of both projects is to determine which crop (regular earth plants or Astroplants –a type of Wisconsin Fast Plant ™) is best suited for accompanying a NASA scientiston a space flight mission. This question is answered through scientific investigationsconducted over time. Students can then design a plant growth chamber for space.The curriculum provides a suggested extension design activity for teachers.

The team was challenged to make science relevant to the different cultural contextsat the school. Many children do not have a garden at home. To make the unit relevant,students visited local gardens and also analysed the plants growing at the school.

Although the basic curriculum remained the same from year one to year two, theactivities were modified based on the feedback and data from the earlier study. Thepartnership made the following modifications to the plant curriculum: (a) providedmore entry points that would allow students to find personal connections to thetopic “photosynthesis” and elaborated on the topic with more details, (b) revisedthe pre/post assessment (i.e., a question around photosynthesis), and (c) developedand online graphing tool. Additionally, the curriculum length was increased from 10days spent over five weeks in year one to 12 days spent over five weeks in year two.The instructor also increased links between science and language arts in year two.

Methods

Setting and Subjects

This research study was conducted at an urban elementary school, which servesa population of approximately 270 students. Participants include 23 fifth grade stu-dents in year one, 23 fifth grade students in year two (two additional students weredropped due to absenteeism), and a fifth grade teacher who was a member of thepartnership and participated in the re-design process. The instructor taught the plantcurriculum during both years and teaches multiple subjects (i.e., social science, read-ing, mathematics, and language arts), thus allocating a substantial amount of timedaily to the teaching and learning of science. In this paper, the name of the school,teacher, and students have been changed to preserve anonymity.

Curriculum Materials

The Plants in Space curriculum consists of two WISE software modules:(a) Sprouting Space Plants – a critique project, and (b) Comparing Space Plants– a comparison project. Students utilise the Internet to investigate factors needed tosustain plant life on earth and explore different conditions for growing plants in spaceand growing plants on the earth. They perform hands-on exploration that involves


creating a hydroponic garden (plant growth chamber) that consists of Fast Plants andearth plants.

The Sprouting Space Plants module enables students to critique Web evidenceregarding the role of soil, water, nutrients, air and light, which are factors requiredfor optimal plant growth (see Figure 1 for an example of an evidence page). At thesame time, students are encouraged to think about what their bodies require in orderto grow. Simultaneously, students can participate in online discussions with peers andscientists. In the Comparing Space Plants module, students investigate different con-ditions for growing plants in space and growing plants on the earth (i.e., the amountof space on a shuttle, the energy source, type of lighting source, and so on). Studentscan then predict which plants are earth plants and which plants are Fast Plants giventhe plants appearances. This involves students designing and executing investiga-tions, interpreting data, and using their evidence to generate explanations. Studentscan conduct systematic observations on plant growth and development daily.

Students began the unit with using the WISE Software, Sprouting Space Plantsmodule (see Figure 2), to predict what plants might need in order to live and why.Students then critiqued web evidence on factors such as water, soil, air, nutrients,and light that are needed to sustain plant life on earth. This included taking noteson the evidence, participating in small and whole group discussions. Students alsoparticipated in an online discussion with scientists at NASA and at the University ofTexas at Austin and with peers in their own classroom. Additionally, students in yeartwo explored the complex topic “photosynthesis” in a more depth of coverage thanstudents in year one. For example, students in year one focused primarily on whatthree things does a plant use for photosynthesis and what two things does a plantmake during photosynthesis, whereas year two students were asked to investigatehow does a plant use the sunlight, water and carbon dioxide to make food and whatwould happen if it didn’t have these things. Students in year two also investigatedthe role of chlorophyll in plants; thus how it allows photosynthesis to happen andgive the leaves their green color. In addition, year two students were presented withevidence of how plants live off of the food (glucose) stored from the summer duringthe winter months as result of not having enough light. They further connected thechanging in season’s concept in relation to the occurrence of photosynthesis withtheir plants growing under the different lighting conditions.

Students (in year one and year two) then performed hands-on exploration thatinvolved setting up a hydroponic garden under three different lighting conditions.For example, each pair of students planted earth plants (i.e., radishes) and Fast Plants(i.e., Astroplants) in a 12-hour lighting environment (see Figure 3). One-half of thepairs of students planted the two types of plants under 24-hours of light and the otherhalf of the class planted the two types of plants in a no light environment. All studentswere informed that they would be growing both Fast Plants and earth plants. Studentswere assigned variables for the two types of plants. For example, the Fast Plant seedswere labeled as the “A” plants and the radish seeds were labeled as the “B” plants.Their task was to figure out which of their plants were Fast Plants. Students were pre-sented with background information on the life cycle of earth plants and Astroplants.

WISE BIOLOGY 421

Figure 1: Internet Evidence Page from the “Sprouting Space Plants” Project.

Figure 2: The WISE Project web-page called “Sprouting Space Plants.”

For example, students were provided with information concerning how Astroplantsare members of the Chinese cabbage, mustard, and broccoli family. In addition, theywere informed that the Astroplants have the shortest life cycle within its family ofplants. Students discussed how different plants on earth have different life cycles. Thefifth-graders were presented with an example of how radish plants tend to germinate(meaning to sprout or to begin to grow) faster than tomatoes, beans, carrots or even


Figure 3: A hydroponic garden that students built.

potato plants. Students observed plant growth and development daily and collectedquantitative data on various variables such as height, number of flowers/leaves, andso on.

In the Comparing Space Plants module, students critiqued additional evidencepertaining to the conditions of space (i.e., the amount of space in a shuttle, type oflighting source used on NASA shuttles, and so on) and discussed how these condi-tions restrict which plants are more feasible to grow in a space shuttle environmentbased on the plants life cycle. By way of illustration, students were presented withan evidence page that depicted NASA scientists aboard a space shuttle. They wereasked to speculate about where the NASA scientists could grow plants on the shuttle.Students were asked to consider questions such as: (a) Which of your plants do youthink would be bigger, the space plants or the earth plants? and (b) If one plant isbigger than the other, does that mean it is growing faster? Each question requiredthe students to justify the reason for their answer. The students were introduced tothe concepts of respiration and photosynthesis. The students responded to questionssuch as: (a) We now know that plants have to respire (burn energy) a little bit, butwhat do you think would happen if plants could photosynthesize (store energy) allthe time? (b) Would they grow faster, and (c) Can you tell which of your plants maybe able to do this?

Each pair of students was asked to look at their data, take evidence notes, andextrapolate from it (see Figure 2 for an example of an electronic evidence note).Questions were presented to the students in the following ways: (a) Which plantcompletes the life cycle faster? (b) Why would you want the plant to have a fastlife cycle? (c) Which plant, an AstroPlant or an earth plant, can grow better in 24hours of light per day? And (d) Why might being able to grow in 24 hours of lightbe important to scientists on a space shuttle?

Students came to understand that there are benefits associated with both earthplants and AstroPlants. If the goal is to conduct research at various stages of a plant

WISE BIOLOGY 423

life cycle during a short space flight mission, then the AstroPlants (an Astroplantcan go from seed to seed in 30 days) would be the better option in comparison to theradish plants (referred to as earth plants). If the goal is to have fresh vegetables on thespace shuttle, then radishes would be the better option. However, AstroPlants couldbe used for this purpose also, scientists would have to grow more of them since theyare extremely small plants.

Data Sources and Analysis of Data

Pre- and post-subject matter assessments were administered to students in yearone and students in year two (see Appendix 1 for example of assessment questions).The pre- and post-assessments were identical, consisting of six questions. Betweenyear one and two we modified questions to make the test more sensitive based oninsights from year one. In order to interpret the pre- and post-assessments, we usedinformation from other data sources such as students’ online notes, and classroomobservations.

Pre- and post-subject matter assessments were scored on a scale from 0–100 points(referring to essay responses). The accuracy criteria were partially based on modelresponses of the two collaborating scientists. In order to illustrate further progressin students understanding of plant development, we present a case study of six stu-dents who were selected in conjunction with the instructor to reflect the full range ofperformance. The case studies focus on the trajectory of student ideas about whetherplants can grow without soil. We used pre-test responses, online notes at time one,online notes at time two, and by posttest responses.

We used a knowledge integration scale ranging from 0–6 to code students’ expla-nations (see details in Figure 4). This enabled us to assess how students link andsort existing ideas in their repertoire, as well as make connections between newideas and prior ideas. Responses coded as Level 0 indicate that no answers weregiven or the question was repeated. Responses that provided normative answerswith sophisticated explanations (expert like) were coded as Level 5 and Level 6.For example, a Level 6 answer to an online note asking: “Can plants grow in wateralone?” is:

Yes. We would want to use hydroponics for first reason is saving enough room. It also helps the plant [to]have freshness, nutrients . . . We could have control over the nutrients. It could help the roots not to fightfor its nutrients so it won’t accidentally die. Last if you use soil, it would be too heavy on the spaceship.

The results section concludes with a comparative analysis of students’ understand-ing in year one versus year two regarding the complex topic of photosynthesis. Asmentioned earlier, a curriculum modification was made in year two to elaborate onthis topic by including additional photosynthesis evidence so students could explorethe topic in more depth. For example, after a scientist partner provided the additionalevidence page in WISE called More Photosynthesis, the fifth grade teacher added


“Plants in Space”Coding scheme administered in Year 1

(Content Pre/Post Tests)

0 – No answer or Do not know or Repeated Question1 – Reasons are confusing2 – Idiosyncratic: provide explanations, but no basis3 – Mixed Transfer: normative in a sense, but explanations are beyond what

question is asking for or explanations are to general4 – Normative answer – but no explanations and details are provided5 – Normative answer with explanation(s), but leaves out a few minor details (not

quite expert like)6 – Normative answer with sophisticated explanations (expert answer)

Figure 4: Explanation of codes.

online questions to make the science more accessible and personally relevant tostudents such as: “Suppose you are passing by a tree and happen to look up andnotice that most or all of the leaves have turned orange/brown and are falling tothe ground. Why does this happen?” and “Write a statement explaining what wouldhappen to plants if they didn’t have any light?”

The scored responses from the subject matter assessments (i.e., the online notesand pre/post assessment questions in the case study) were analysed by the author andverified by another researcher. The raters agreed on the scores for over 95% of thestudents. Disagreements were resolved by discussion.

Results

This section presents research findings from year one and year two classes indi-vidually. The section concludes with a discussion of systematic differences betweenthe two groups of students.

Class Performance of Year 1 Students

The fifth grade students in year one scored more than twice as high on the post-assessment than on the pre-assessment. The standard deviation for the post-assess-ment is larger than for the pre-assessment, reflecting performance of two studentswho made little progress. Test scores improved dramatically for year one students(t = −8.822, df = 22, p < .0001) as shown in Table 1. The effect size for yearone is 2.67 which is calculated as a percent of the pre-test standard deviation for allquestions.

For example, the fifth graders in year one were asked on the pre- and post-assess-ment, “If astronauts want fresh vegetables in space, could they grow plants inside

WISE BIOLOGY 425

Table 1Descriptive Statistics for Pre- and Post-subject Matter Assessments for Year 1 andYear 2 Students

Common All questions Common All questions

questions questions

Means Std. Means Std. Means Std. Means Std.

Pre-test Post-test

Year 1 26% 19% 30% 15% Year 1 75% 21% 70% 18%

Year 2 19% 14% 28% 10% Year 2 82% 15% 79% 13%

a space shuttle?” Students could draw upon their prior knowledge as well as theircurrent knowledge to answer the question. This question enabled us to gauge whetherthe students realised as long as the necessities are provided for plants, that plants cangrow in different environments. When asked of the entire class, 47.8% of the studentsresponded “yes” on the pre-assessment and remained “yes” on the post-assessmentcompared to 47.8% of the fifth-graders who answered “no” on the pre-assessmentand changed their response to “yes” on the post-assessment. Also, 4.3% of the stu-dents stated “I don’t know” on the pre-assessment when asked if astronauts couldgrow plants inside a space shuttle; however, this same group of students respondedwith “yes” on the post-test. The difference in students’ pre- and post-assessmentresponses to the above question were statistically significant (t = −3.307, df =22, p = .0001).

Case Studies of Year 1 Students

Hydroponic experiments can challenge student’s views of plant growth and devel-opment around the role of soil. In particular, hydroponics offers a natural experimentor pivotal case comparing plant growth with and without soil (Linn, in press).

• Pretest Question: Do plants need soil to grow? What is the main reason for youranswer?

• Notes 1 Question: Do plants need dirt?• Notes 2 Question: Can plants grow in water alone?• Posttest Question: Do plants need soil to grow? What is the main reason for your

answer?

To illustrate progress, six students were selected in conjunction with the instructorto reflect the full range of performance. We examine student understandings of ahydroponic experiment across time (i.e., prior to the curriculum, during the imple-mentation of the curriculum, and after the curriculum ended). On the pre-test, three


Figure 5: Student ideas on whether plants can grow without soil over time.

out of the six students provided normative answers with explanations only leavingout a few of the minor details (reference Figure 4 for explanation of codes). Angela,Mia and Ricky initially stated on the pre-test that plants could grow without soil.The other three students understanding of hydroponics as an alternative method ofgrowing plants increased to a more sophisticated level on the post-test (see Figure 5).Jonathan stated initially that he knew plants needed soil to grow, but he did not knowwhy. Moreover, both Erika and Jason responded on the pre-test with “Yes” whenasked, “Do plants need soil to grow?” Their responses were normative, but wentbeyond what the question was asking. At Note 1 students were asked, “Do plantsneed dirt?” They all said yes, possibly because up until this point they have beeninvestigating Internet evidence that focused primarily on how plants grow with soilreinforcing their normal expectations/experiences. At Note 2, however, students areproviding normative answers with explanations. Also, on the post-test, all six of thestudents are providing normative answers with sophisticated explanations. Growingplants in another medium other than soil (i.e., hydroponic experiment) enabled stu-dents to add new ideas to their repertoire and make connections across examples. Forexample, at the beginning of the project students were asked, “Do plants need soil togrow?” Erika stated, “I think plants need soil to grow because without soil, plants donot have the right nutrients to grow.” At the end of the project, Erika responded with,“No. The reason I chose ‘no’ is because everyone had to grow the plant hydroponiclywhich means growing [plants] without soil.” She expounds upon this by saying, “Wewould want to use hydroponics because hydroponics lets you plant more plants inless space. The other reason we would use hydroponics is because the roots don’thave to reach so deep into the ground.”

WISE BIOLOGY 427

Figure 6: Interaction (line plot) between pre- and post-assessment for year 1 andyear 2 students on common measures.1

Class and Individual Performance of Year 2 Students

Results for year two students replicated year one findings (see Table 1), showinga statistically significant difference in the mean score for the pre- and post-subjectmatter assessment (t = −17.795, df = 22, p < .0001) with an effect size of 5.1.The effect size is computed as a percent of the pre-test standard deviation for allquestions.

In addition, for the three common items, a Repeated ANOVA test revealed nostatistically significant difference on the pre-test and post-test performance betweenyear one and year two (interaction effect, F = 3.828, p = .0568, see Figure 6).However, for several individual items and on elaborative responses, year two studentsappeared to have integrated their ideas more than year one students.

On the question, “If you put a plant in a big box so no light can enter, how will theplant change?” year two students outperformed year one students (interaction effect,F = 5.598, p = .0224). Figure 7 illustrates the differences in elaborative responsesfor questions about photosynthesis. For example, when comparing pre/post test re-sponses for Mary (student in year one) and Warren (student in year two), we see thatboth students added new scientific ideas to their repertoire. Warren provided a morecohesive and connected analysis of plant development – less descriptive. Warrenlinks the color change of the leaves to the reduction in the amount of chlorophyll andthe plant’s inability to perform photosynthesis.

New items introduced in year two asked students to consider more complex topicsthan was possible in year one. For example, students demonstrated a better un-derstanding of how energy enters the ecosystem as sunlight and is transferred byproducers into chemical energy through photosynthesis.


Question: If you put a plant in a big box so no light can enter, how will theplant change? Explain your answer.

Year 1 Students’ Responses

Mary (pretest): It will not get the energy from the sun it needs to grow.

Mary (posttest): If a plant gets no light it won’t grow. It would be over wateredand nothing would be able to dry it out. It would not be able toperform photosynthesis. That is a way of making its own food.A plant takes in water from the soil, carbon dioxide from theair, and energy from the sun. Also the plant still have theirbaby leaves they are yellow the stems are clear.

Carolyn (pretest): The plant will start die, because there is no sunlight to go tothe plant.

Carolyn (posttest): It will turn yellow because in my classroom, we have a plantwithout light in a box and it turned yellow. The leaves weresmall. They didn’t grow because they don’t get energy fromthe sun.

Year 2 Students’ Responses

Warren (pretest): The plant will get dry, and will eventually die because if no lighcan get in then water can’t either. Soil needs water, and the rotneeds soil.

Warren (posttest): The plant will grow without a color. It will start to decom-pose and stink. The plant will turn white and yellow becausethe plant doesn’t have enough chlorophyll, because it can’tphotosynthesise because there’s not enough light.

Brenda (pretest): Plants need sunlight because if plants had no sunlight theywould die. I think the plant will start to droop and slightly turnbrown. The roots in the plant will die because it’s not gettingenergy from the sun. After about a week the plant would fullydie.

Brenda (posttest): If you put a plant in a box so no light can enter, the plant wouldslowly start to die. Light [is] one of the most important things aplant needs. Light is what gives plants most of their energy. Theplant will first start slanting to the side, and the roots will startgetting weak. However many plants are in the box, the plants[will] decompose and the box will stink. After a while the colorwill start to fade and won’t be green.

Figure 7: Photosynthesis ideas in year 1 and year 2.

WISE BIOLOGY 429

Improved understanding in year two is also reflected in the notes students wrotewhen asked to describe which plant, an AstroPlant or an earth plant, can grow betterin 24 hours of light per day in their online notes. Ryan/partner (year two students)replied: “Space plants (a-12), because with our observations ‘a’ has gone through thelife cycle faster.” The students were then asked why might being able to grow in 24hours be important to scientists on a space shuttle? Ryan/partner stated: “The plantscan photosynthesise all the time making food. So it can provide oxygen and moreplants by getting 24 hrs of light.” The above responses show how Ryan connectednewly learned scientific concepts to provide an elaborate explanation of how plantsmake their food.

Conclusions

The curriculum was successful in promoting knowledge integration in year one. Inyear two these results were replicated and, in addition, students displayed a deeperunderstanding of complex science topics. The fifth-graders gave more integratedaccounts of plant growth after studying Plants in Space.

This research demonstrated the strength of the partnership model of curriculumdesign. The partnership was able to diagnose challenges for the curriculum, espe-cially in the area of how plants get energy to grow, and to revise the curriculum eachyear to customize instruction. The partnership diagnosed problems with the year onecurriculum, recognising that students were not making progress in understandingphotosynthesis. The revised curriculum material responded to problems with theinitial design, which did not explicitly address how energy enters the ecosystemas sunlight and is transferred by producers into chemical energy through photosyn-thesis. The partnership modified the instruction to provide additional, more visual,representations and to elicit from students more detailed reasoning about the topic inyear two. The analysis of year two results revealed additional areas for improvement.We found that students did not fully connect the function of plant roots with theprocess of photosynthesis – as a mechanism for absorbing nutrients.

Future research will look at how new teachers customise the unit. We will continueto follow the initial classroom teacher, as well as to expand to include additionalteachers and classrooms, specifically focusing on the teachers’ interactions with thestudents and the technology-based learning environment. We will investigate howthe teachers in various urban settings teach for understanding while they gain moreintegrated understanding of their teaching of science across time as they implement atechnology-based learning environment. Specifically, we will study: (a) how teachersmodify their ideas about science content and how they make science content accessi-ble to students over time through reflection, personal relevant examples, and (b) howteachers modify their views of students’ learning across time and their instructionalpractices. Understanding particular factors that lead to new practices or enhancedpractices’ such as teacher interactions with other teachers and/or the researcher, andcustomization of the instruction by teachers for their classroom setting can inform thescience professional development community in creating more systemic initiativesfor supporting teachers’ professional growth.


Acknowledgments

This material is based upon research supported by the National Science Foun-dation (NSF) under grant No. REC 98-05420. Any opinions, findings, conclusionsor recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do notnecessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

The authors appreciate the help and encouragement of the Web-based IntegratedScience Environment (WISE) research group, Earl Walls, James D. Slotta, Paul Am-mon, Richard H. Richardson, Patricia Q. Richardson, and Thomas W. Dreschel fortheir collaboration in the development of this project. Thanks also to David Crowell,Lisa Safley, and Scott Hsu for help in preparation of this manuscript.

Notes

1. Presim represents similar pretest questions and postsim represents similar post-test questions.

Correspondence: Michelle Williams and Marcia C. Linn, 4523 Tolman Hall, #1670,Graduate School of Education, Berkeley, University of California, Berkeley, CA94720-1670, USAE-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]

References

Ammon, P., & Black, A. (1998). Development psychology as a guide for teach-ing and teacher preparation. In N. M. Lambert & B. L. McCombs (Eds.),How students learn: Reforming schools through learner-centered education(pp. 409–448). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and indi-vidual knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, andinstruction (pp. 393–451). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Champagne, A. B., Klopfer, L. E., & Gunstone, R. F. (1982). Cognitive research andthe design of science instruction. Educational Psychologist, 17(1), 31–53.

diSessa, A. A. (2000). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. Cam-bridge, MA: MIT Press.

Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges ofinquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of theLearning Sciences, 8(3/4), 391–450.

Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, B., Marx, R., & Soloway (2000). Instructional, curricular,and technological supports for inquiry in science classrooms. In J. Minstell,& E. H. V. Zee (Eds.), Inquiry into inquiry learning and teaching in science(pp. 283–315). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement ofScience.

WISE BIOLOGY 431

Linn, M. C., diSessa, A., Pea, R. D., & Songer, N. B. (1994). Can research on sci-ence learning and instruction inform standards for science education? Journal ofScience Education and Technology, 3(1), 7–15.

Linn, M. C. (1995). Designing computer learning environments for engineering andcomputer science: The scaffolded knowledge integration framework. Journal ofScience Education and Technology, 4(2), 103–126.

Linn, M. C. (in press). WISE design for lifelong learning–Pivotal Cases. In P.Gardenfors & P. Johansson (Eds.), Cognition, education and communicationtechnology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learningpartners. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Linn, M. C., Shear, L., Bell, P., & Slotta, J. D. (1999). Organizing principles forscience education partnerships: Case studies of students’ learning about ‘Rats inSpace’ and ‘Deformed Frogs.’ Education Technology Research & Development,47(2), 61–84.

Rochelle, J., Pea, R., Hoadley, C., Gordin, D., & Means, B. (2000). Changing howand what children learn in school with collaborative technologies. The Future ofChildren, 10(2), 76–101.

Roth, J. J. (1989). Conceptual understanding and higher level thinking in the el-ementary science curriculum: Three perspectives. (Report No. SE-051-184).Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED). (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. ED 315303).

Songer, N. B. (1998). Can technology bring students closer to science? In K. Tobin,& B. Fraser (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 333–348).Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Spitulnik, M. W., Stratford, S., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Using technologyto support students’ artifact construction in science. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin(Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 363–381). Dordrecht,The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning andschooling in social context. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Vye, N. J., Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., Barron, B. J., Zech, L., & theCognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1998). SMART environmentsthat support monitoring, reflection, and revision. In D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky,& A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice(pp. 305–346). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Vygotsky, L. (1972). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological

processes. Cambridge, NA: Harvard University Press.White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (1995). An overview of the ThinkerTools Inquiry

Project. (Causal Models Research Group No. CM-95-04). Berkeley, CA: Schoolof Education, University of California at Berkeley.

Williams, M. (2001). How students integrate their understanding of plant growththrough hands-on science and a Web-based Science Environment (WISE). Un-published master’s thesis, University of California, Berkeley.


Appendix 1

Plants in Space: Pre- and Post-subject Matter Test for Year 1 Students

1. What do you think plants need in order to live? Please give your reason foreach answer.

Plants need . . . Because . . .

2. If you put a plant in a big box so no light can enter, how will the plant change?Explain your answer.

Begin writing your answer here:

3. (a) If plants living outdoors do not get water for 1 month, what could hap-pen? Explain your answer.

(b) What could happen to plants living outdoors if they do not get water for6 months? Explain your answer.

WISE BIOLOGY 433

4. (a) What do roots do for plants and trees?(Please check one box below.)

� Plants take in water from the soil through their roots.

� Plants take in nutrients from the soil through their roots.

� The roots help hold plants and trees in the ground.

� All the above.

(b) What is the main reason for your answer?

5. (a) Do plants need soil to grow?

(Check one)

Yes

No


6. (a) If astronauts want fresh vegetables in space, could they grow plantsinside a space shuttle?

(Check one)

Yes

No



Plants in Space: Pre- and Post-subject Matter Test for Year 2 Students

1. What do you think plants need in order to grow? Please give your reasonfor each answer.

Plants need . . . Because . . .

2. If you put a plant in a big box so no light can enter, how will the plant change?Explain your answer below.

WISE BIOLOGY 435

3. Use what you know about photosynthesis to tell a friend how to take care of aplant properly.

Friend should . . . Because . . .

4. (a) Astronauts want fresh vegetables in space, but did not bring soil withthem, can they grow vegetables inside a space shuttle?

(Check one)

Yes

No

(b) Please explain your answer.


5. (a) Plants use roots to:

(Circle Yes or No for each statement)

Take in sunlight Yes No

Take in nutrients from the soil Yes No

Take in water from the soil Yes No

Absorb sugar from the soil Yes No

Hold up their stems Yes No

(b) Explain your answer. (If you need more space continue on the nextpage.)

6. (a) Your neighbors want to create a flower garden, what steps are neces-sary?

Step . . . Why needed . . .

wise inquiry in fifth grade biology

Documents