We implemented a remote collaborative inquiry project with elementary preservice teachers who were enrolled in their science methods course during the 2020–2021 academic year. The courses were taught in one of three modalities: (1) fully online and asynchronous (graduate students seeking initial licensure), (2) fully online with synchronous and asynchronous components (undergraduate students), and (3) blended with face-to-face and asynchronous online components (undergraduate students). During the project, groups of two to four preservice teachers engaged remotely in collaborative, hands-on inquiry projects and documented their communication throughout the process. The remote collaborative inquiry projects were adapted from existing course assignments that had previously been used in face-to-face settings. We found that despite encountering some unexpected challenges with implementation, most participants recognized the value of group work for learning science. However, many preservice teachers, especially undergraduate students, focused on completing a quality end product rather than the learning that occurred throughout the process of collaboration and inquiry. It was also clear that many did not differentiate between collaborative and cooperative learning and often utilized a divide-and-conquer cooperative strategy. Future implementations of the project should intentionally provide opportunities for preservice teachers to discuss the differences between collaboration and cooperation and how these strategies impact learning in addition to the completion of a final product.
Innovations Journal articles, beyond each issue's featured article, are included with ASTE membership. If your membership is current please login at the upper right.
Banchi, H., & Bell, R. (2008). The many levels of inquiry. Science & Children, 46(2), 26–29.
Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1203_1
Cohen, E. G. (1990). Continuing to cooperate: Prerequisites for persistence. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(2), 134–138.
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543064001001
Dr. Seuss. (1949). Bartholomew and the Oobleck. Random House Books for Young Readers.
Gillies, R. M., & Boyle, M. (2010). Teachers’ reflections on cooperative learning: Issues of implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 933–940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.034
Gonzales, A. C., Purington, S., Robinson, J., & Nieswandt, M. (2019). Teacher interactions and effects on groups’ triple problem solving space. International Journal of Science Education, 41(13), 1744–1763. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1638982
Harnisch, D. L., Comstock, S. L., & Bruce, B. C. (2014). Collaborative inquiry with technology in secondary science classrooms: Professional learning community development at work. E-Learning and Digital Media, 11(5), 495–505. https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2014.11.5.495
Hofmann, R., & Mercer, N. (2016). Teacher interventions in small group work in secondary mathematics and science lessons. Language and Education, 30(5), 400–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2015.1125363
Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2016). Seven affordances of computer-supported collaborative learning: How to support collaborative learning? How can technologies help? Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 247–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1158654
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory Into Practice, 38(2), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849909543834
Kim, M. C., Hannafin, M. J., & Bryan, L. A. (2007). Technology-enhanced inquiry tools in science education: An emerging pedagogical framework for classroom practice. Science Education, 91(6), 1010–1030. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20219
Luft, J. A., Diamond, J. M., Zhan, C., & White, D. Y. (2020). Research on K-12 STEM professional development programs: An examination of program design and teacher knowledge and practice. In C. C. Johnson, M. J. Mohr-Schroeder, T. J. Moore, & L. D. English (Eds.), Handbook of research on STEM education (pp. 361–374). Rutledge.
Michaels, S., & O’Connor, C. (2012). Talk Science primer. TERC. https://inquiryproject.terc.edu/shared/pd/TalkScience_Primer.pdf
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290
Pietarinen, T., Palonen, T., & Vauras, M. (2021). Guidance in computer supported collaborative inquiry learning: Capturing aspects of affect and teacher support in science classrooms. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 16(2), 261–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-021-09347-5
Plumley, C. L. (2019). 2018 NSSME+: Status of elementary school science. Horizon Research. http://horizon-research.com/NSSME/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/2018-NSSME-Status-of-Elementary-Science.pdf
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press.