Abstract
This paper focuses on the use of multimedia-based predict–observe–explain (POE) tasks to facilitate small group learning conversations. Although the tasks were given to pairs of students as a diagnostic tool to elicit their pre-instructional physics conceptions, they also provided a peer learning opportunity for students. The study adopted a social constructivist perspective to analyse and interpret the student’s conversations, focussing on students’ articulation and justification of their own science conceptions, clarification of and critical reflection on their partners’ views, and negotiation of new, shared meanings. Two senior science classes participated in this interpretive study. Data sources were mainly qualitative and included audio and video recordings of students’ small group discussions at the computer, interviews with selected students and their teachers, classroom observations, and student surveys. Findings indicate that the computer-based POE tasks supported students’ peer learning conversations, particularly during the prediction, reasoning and observation stages of the POE strategy. The increased level of student control of the POE tasks, combined with the multimedia nature of the program, initiated quality peer discussions. The findings have implications for authentic, technology-mediated learning in science.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R., Soloway, E., & Krajcik, J. (1996). Learning with peers. From small group cooperation to collaborative communities. Educational Researcher, 25(8), 37–40.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1998). Qualitative research for education. An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Carr, M. (1991). Methods for studying personal construction. In B. Fraser (Ed.), Key centre monograph No. 3 (pp. 16–22). Perth, Western Australia: Key Centre for School Science and Mathematics.
Champagne, A., Klopfer, L., & Anderson, J. (1980). Factors influencing the learning of classical mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 48(12), 1074–1079.
Crooks, C. (1999). Computers in the community of classrooms. In K. Littleton & P. Light (Eds.), Learning with computers. Analysing productive interaction (pp. 102–117). London and New York: Routledge.
Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61–84.
Driver, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Curriculum development as research: A constructivism approach to science curriculum development and teaching. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 94–108). New York and London: Teachers College Press.
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.
Duit, R., & Confrey, J. (1996). Reorganising the curriculum and teaching to improve learning in science and mathematics. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 79–93). New York and London: Teachers College Press.
Duit, R., Treagust, D., & Mansfield H. (1996). Investigating student understanding as a prerequisite to improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 17–31). New York and London: Teachers College Press.
Escalada, L., & Zollman, D. (1997). An investigation on the effects of using interactive digital video in a physics classroom on student learning and attitudes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(5), 467–489.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1981). Effective evaluation. London: Jossey-Bass.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. London: Sage Publications.
Harper, B., & Hedberg, J. (1997, December). Creating motivating interactive learning environments: A constructivist view. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, Perth, Australia.
Jonassen, D., & Reeves, T. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 693–719). New York: Macmillan.
Kearney, M. (2002). Classroom use of multimedia-supported predict–observe–explain tasks to elicit and promote discussion about students’ physics conceptions. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia.
Kearney, M., & Treagust, D. F. (2001). Constructivism as a referent in the design and development of a computer program which uses interactive digital video to enhance learning in physics. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 17(1), 64–79.
Kearney, M., & Wright, R. (2002). Predict–Observe–Explain eShell. Retrieved September 17, 2003, from http://www.learningdesigns.uow.edu.au/
Kearney, M., Treagust, D. F., Yeo, S., & Zadnik, M. (2001). Student and teacher perceptions of the use of multimedia supported predict–observe–explain tasks to probe understanding. Research in Science Education, 31(4), 589–615.
Koschmann, T. (1994). Toward a theory of computer support for collaborative learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 30(3–4), 219–221.
Kozma, R. (2000). The use of multiple representations and the social construction of understanding in chemistry. In M. Jacobson & R. Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education. Advanced designs for technologies of learning. A constructivism perspective (pp. 11–46). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Linn, M. (1998). The impact of technology on science instruction: Historical trends and current opportunities. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 265–294). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Lin, X., Hmelo, C., Kinzer, C., & Secules, T. (1999). Designing technology to support reflection. Educational Technology Research & Development, 47(3), 43–62.
Linn, M., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers. Science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McRobbie, C., & Tobin, K. (1997). A social constructivism perspective on learning environments. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 193–208.
Merriam, S. (1988). Case study research in education. A qualitative approach. London: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Pea, R. (1993). Learning scientific concepts through material and social activities: Conversational analysis meets conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 28(3), 265–277.
Prawat, R. (1993). The value of ideas: Problems versus possibilities in learning. Educational Researcher, 22(6), 5–12.
Roth, W., Woszczyna, C., & Smith, G. (1996). Affordances and constraints of computers in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(9), 995–1017.
Russell, D., Lucas, K., & McRobbie, C. (1999, November). Microprocessor based laboratory activities as catalysts for student construction of understanding in physics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Melbourne, Australia.
Salomon, G., & Almog, T. (1998). Educational psychology and technology: A matter of reciprocal relations. Teachers College Record, 100(1), 222–241.
Salomon, G., Perkins, D., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2–9.
Solomon, J. (1987). Social influences on the construction of pupils’ understanding of science. Studies in Science Education, 14, 63–82.
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. London: Sage Publications.
Taber, K. (1999). Ideas about ionisation energy: A diagnostic instrument. School Science Review, 81(295), 97–104.
Tao, P. K. (2000, April). Computer supported collaborative learning: Developing understanding of image formation by lenses. Paper presented at the annual general meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
Tao, P. K., & Gunstone, R. (1999a). Conceptual change in science through collaborative learning at the computer. International Journal of Science Education, 21(1), 39–57.
Tao, P. K., & Gunstone, R. (1999b). The process of conceptual change in force and motion during computer-supported physics instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 859–882.
Taylor, P., Fraser, B., & White, L. (1994, April). A classroom questionnaire for science educators interested in the constructivism reform of school science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Anaheim, USA.
Weller, H. (1996). Assessing the impact of computer-based learning in science. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(4), 461–485.
White, R. (1988). Learning science. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. London and New York: The Falmer Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kearney, M. Classroom Use of Multimedia-Supported Predict–Observe–Explain Tasks in a Social Constructivist Learning Environment. Res Sci Educ 34, 427–453 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-004-8795-y
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-004-8795-y