Abstract
Sociocultural approaches emphasize the systemic, context-bound nature of learning, which is mediated by other people, physical and conceptual artifacts, and tools. However, current educational systems tend not to approach learning from the systemic perspective, and mostly situate learning within classroom environments. This design-based research aims to seek answers to these challenges by enhancing the use of museum objects and inquiry tools in learning through developing a new kind of virtual environment. By using learning objects that represent physical objects, the students can develop their own research questions, and choose related museum artifacts and inquiry tools with which to find answers to their questions during forthcoming museum visits. This study aims to examine what kinds of learning systems emerged when three different student groups collaboratively designed their visits to the Finnish Forest Museum based on their own interests and afforded resources in the learning environment. Data analysis indicates that a tool-driven system typically seems to represent the approach of primary school students, with an object-driven system for technical college students, and a strategic, research-question-driven system for teacher-education students. When considering the desired effects of technology and open environments on emerging learning systems and processes, the results of the study suggest that self-organization and free choice do not necessarily lead to research-question-driven learning processes, unless the variation in student approaches, design-process scaffolding, and paying attention to the social arrangements, and to the use of tools during the implementation of inquiry activities are all taken into account.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A., & Feder, M. (2009). Learning science in informal environments. People, places, and pursuits. Washington: National Academies Press.
Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (1999). Learning communities in classrooms: A reconceptualization of educational practice. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 269–292). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Churchill, D. (2005). Learning object: An interactive representation and a mediating tool in a learning activity. Educational Media International, 42(4), 333–349.
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.
Cochrane, T. (2005). Interactive quicktime. Developing and evaluating multimedia learning objects to enhance both face-to-face and distance e-learning environments. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1(1), 33–54.
Cox-Petersen, A., Marsh, D., Kisiel, J., & Melber, L. (2003). Investigation of guided school tours, student learning, and science reform recommendations at a museum of natural history. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(2), 200–218.
De Bono, E. (1985). Six thinking hats. Boston: Little Brown and Company.
Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.
Enkenberg, J. (2001). Instructional design and emerging teaching models in higher education. Computers in Human Behavior, 17(5–6), 495–506.
Falk, J. (2004). The director’s cut: Toward an improved understanding of learning from museums. Science Education, 88(1), 83–96.
Fischer, G., & Redmiles, D. (2008). Transdisciplinary education and collaboration: Contribution to the Human Computer Interaction Consortium (HCIC) Workshop 2008. Retrieved Aug 07, 2013, from http://l3d.cs.colorado.edu/~gerhard/papers/hcic2008.pdf.
Francis, R. (2007). The predicament of the learner in the new media age: An investigation into the implications of media change for learning. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Oxford University, Oxford.
Frost, C. (2002). When the object is digital: Properties of digital surrogate objects and implications for learning. In S. Paris (Ed.), Perspectives on object-centred learning in museums (pp. 37–54). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Giaccardi, E., & Fitzcarrald, F. (2004). Memory and territory: New forms of virtuality for the museum. Museums and the Web 2004. Retrieved Aug 07, 2013 from, http://www.museumsandtheweb.com/mw2004/papers/giaccardi/giaccardi.html.
Griffin, J. (2004). Research on students and museums: Looking more closely at the students in school groups. Science Education, 88(11), 59–70.
Griffin, J., & Symington, D. (1997). Moving from task-oriented to learning-oriented strategies on school excursions to museums. Science Education, 81(6), 763–779.
Gutwill, J., & Allen, S. (2012). Deepening students’ scientific inquiry skills during a science museum field trip. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(1), 130–181.
Hakkarainen, K. (1998). Epistemology of inquiry and computer-supported collaborative learning. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. University of Toronto.
Harden, R., Gessner, I., Gunn, M., Issenberg, S., Pringle, S., & Stewart, A. (2011). Creating an e-learning module from learning objects using a commentary or ‘personal learning assistant’. Medical Teacher, 33(4), 286–290.
Hawkey, R. (2004). Learning with digital technologies in museums, science centres and galleries. Futurelab SERIES. Future Lab. Retrieved Aug 05, 2013, from http://archive.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/lit_reviews/Museums_Galleries_Review.pdf.
Hennessy, S., & Murphy, P. (1999). The potential for collaborative problem solving in design and technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 9(1), 1–36.
Jacobsson, A., & Davidsson, E. (2012). Using sociocultural frameworks to understand the significance of interactions at science and technology centers and museums. In E. Davidsson & A. Jakobsson (Eds.), Understanding interactions at science centers and museums—Approaching sociocultural perspectives (pp. 3–22). The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Jonassen, D., & Churchill, D. (2004). Is there learning orientation in learning objects. International Journal of E-Learning, 3(2), 32–42.
Kim, B., & Reeves, T. C. (2006). Reframing research on learning with technology: In search of the meaning of cognitive tools. Instructional Science, 35(3), 207–256.
Kisiel, J. (2005). An examination of fieldtrip strategies and their implementation within a natural history museum. Science Education, 90(3), 434–452.
Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2006). Project-based learning. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 317–333). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lahti, H., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Collaboration patterns in computer supported collaborative designing. Design Studies, 25(4), 351–371.
Lehtinen, E. (2003). Computer supported collaborative learning: An approach to powerful learning environments. In E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, & J. Van Merriënboer (Eds.), Unraveling basic components and dimensions of powerful learning environments (pp. 35–53). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Lesh, R., Kelly, A., & Yoon, C. (2008). Multitiered design experiments in mathematics, science and technology education. In A. Kelly, R. Lesh, & J. Baek (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in education: Innovations in science, technology, engineering and mathematics learning and teaching (pp. 131–148). New York: Routledge.
National Education Technology Plan. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology.Retrieved Aug 05, 2013, from www.ed.cov/technology/netp-2010.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.
Paris, S., & Hapgood, S. (2002). Children learning with objects in informal learning environments. In S. Paris (Ed.), Perspectives on object-centered learning in museums (pp. 37–54). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Plomp, T. (2009). Educational design research: An introduction. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.), An introduction to educational design research (pp. 9–36). Enschede: SLO.
Prosser, D., & Eddisford, S. (2004). Virtual museum learning. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 1, 281–297.
Rennie, L., & Johnston, D. (2004). The nature of learning and its implications for research on learning from museums. Science Education, 88(1), 4–16.
Roth, W.-M. (1998). Designing communities. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Salomon, G. (1994). Differences in patterns: Studying computer enhanced learning environments. In S. Vosniadou, E. De Corte, & H. Mandl (Eds.), Technology- based learning environments: Psychological and educational foundations (Vol. 137, pp. 79–85)., NATO ASI Series F: Computer and System Science Berlin: Springer.
Säljö, R. (2010). Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: Technologies, social memory and the performative nature of learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 53–64.
Schauble, L., Leinhardt, G., & Martin, L. (1997). A framework for organizing a cumulative research agenda in informal learning contexts. Journal of Museum Education, 22(2), 3–8.
Schoultz, J., Saljö, R., & Wyndhamn, J. (2001). Heavenly talk: Discourse, artifacts, and children’s understanding of elementary astronomy. Human Development, 44(2–3), 103–118.
Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., Viilo, M., & Hakkarainen, K. (2010). Learning by collaborative design: Technology-enhanced knowledge practices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(2), 109–136.
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the danger of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27, 4–13.
Tal, T., & Morag, O. (2007). School visits to natural history museums: Teaching or enriching? Journal of Research in Science Education, 44(5), 747–769.
Vartiainen, H., Liljeström, A., & Enkenberg, J. (2012). Design-oriented pedagogy for technology-enhanced learning to cross over the borders between formal and informal environments. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 18(15), 2097–2119.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. (2005). Design-based research and technology: Enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wells, G. (2002). Learning and teaching for understanding: The key role of collaborative knowledge building. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Social constructivist teaching: Affordances and constraints (pp. 1–41). Oxford: Elsevier/JAL.
Wells, G. (2011). Motive and motivation in learning to teach. In D. McInerney, R. Walker, & G. Liem (Eds.), Sociocultural theories of learning and motivation: Looking back, looking forward (pp. 87–107). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wiley, D. (2000). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. In D. Wiley, (Ed.), The instructional use of learning objects: Online version. Retrieved Aug 07, 2013, from http://www.reusability.org/read/.
Wiley, D. (2007). The learning objects literature. In M. Spector, D. Merril, J. Van Merriënboer, & M. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 345–354). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wiley, D., & Edwards, E. (2002). Online self-organizing social systems: The decentralized future of online learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(1), 33–46.
Acknowledgments
This study has been supported by the doctoral program for Multidisciplinary Research on Learning Environments (OPMON), Academy of Finland (Project No. 1217068) and partly by Blended learning-Technology-Enhanced Teaching and Learning Environments-Project (UEF, Project No. S11822).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Vartiainen, H., Enkenberg, J. Learning from and with museum objects: design perspectives, environment, and emerging learning systems. Education Tech Research Dev 61, 841–862 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9311-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9311-8