DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A TECHNOLOGY-SUPPORTED .
2016 Volume 7, Issue 2 Pages 1-10DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A TECHNOLOGY-SUPPORTEDSOCIOSCIENTFIC INQUIRY UNIT IN HIGH SCHOOL BIOLOGYThomas Brush1, Suhkyung Shin1, Sungwon Shin2, Jiyoon Jung1, John Gensic3, & Krista Glazewski11Indiana University, Bloomington; 2Texas Tech University; 3Penn High SchoolSocioscientific Inquiry (SSI) represents an instructionalapproach designed to target interest and knowledge in science. In this context, students consider scientific issues thathave social implications and comprise a range of trade-offs,concepts, and considerations in order to arrive at informedconclusions (Sadler, 2004, 2011). Given the potential benefitsto students on utilizing SSI within K-12 instruction, it isimportant to explore the challenges to implementing SSIin authentic classrooms settings. Doing so may provideadditional insight into how to better partner with teachersto successfully implement SSI instruction. This design casedescribes an iterative inquiry curricular design process withinthe context of a 9th grade science classroom. Specifically,our case attempts to increase our understanding of the SSIdesign and implementation process as it applies to a highschool classroom context, and enables us to understandwhat kind of instructional supports most benefit students.Thomas Brush is the Barbara B. Jacobs Chair in Educationand Technology and Department Chair, Instructional SystemsTechnology, Indiana University, Bloomington.Suhkyung Shin is a doctoral candidate in Instructional SystemsTechnology, Indiana University, Bloomington.Sungwon Shin is a post-doctoral research associate in InstructionalTechnology for the College of Education at Texas Tech University.Jiyoon Jung is a doctoral candidate in Instructional SystemsTechnology, Indiana University, Bloomington.John Gensic is a secondary science educator at Penn High Schoolin Mishawaka, IN.Krista Glazewski is an Associate Professor for the Department ofInstructional Systems Technology, Indiana University, Bloomington.PROJECT OVERVIEWThe purpose of this design case is to share an iterative inquiry curriculum design project focusing on the collaborativedesign, development, and implementation of one specificsocio-scientific inquiry (SSI) unit within a high school biologyclassroom. We will discuss the initial design and implementation of the unit, detail the lessons learned from our initialimplementation of the unit, and outline the revisions madeto overall design during the second implementation of theunit.DESIGN CONTEXTStudents’ lack of interest in science has become a majorconcern among science educators, researchers, and policymakers (Loukomies et al., 2013; National Research Council,2012; Xu, Coats, & Davidson, 2012). A group of instructionaldesigners in the Instructional Systems Technology (IST)department at Indiana University attempted to address thisconcern by employing the SSI framework into a high schoolbiology classroom. As questions in SSI deal with scientificknowledge and issues relevant to students’ lived experience,it is more likely to promote student interests in sciencestudies (Sadler, 2011).The design team collaborated with a secondary scienceteacher who had received an award for using technology-enhanced inquiry-based instruction in his classroom. Theteacher had nine years of experience teaching science andmath. The teacher normally used mini-lectures and individual work as his primary instructional strategies for deliveringcontent. He had knowledge of various inquiry teaching strategies, but had not specifically taught using the SSI modelCopyright 2016 by the International Journal of Designs for Learning,a publication of the Association of Educational Communications andTechnology. (AECT). Permission to make digital or hard copies of portions ofthis work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided thatthe copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantageand that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page in printor the first screen in digital media. Copyrights for components of this workowned by others than IJDL or AECT must be honored. Abstracting withcredit is permitted.1
previously. After being introduced to the SSI framework bymembers of the design team, the teacher believed that theSSI model could better support his instructional goals whileengaging his students in more authentic inquiry practices.The design team consisted of two professors and three oftheir doctoral students in the IST program. The design teamhad been focused on exploring how technology couldsupport the implementation of inquiry-based learning forboth teachers and students. The tools within Socio-ScientificInquiry Network (SSINet) reflected the design team’s effortsto assist teachers in designing disciplinary inquiry unitsand to facilitate the critical processes of SSI. Consideringthat technology tools could be utilized in a different waysdepending on the particular subject area, the goal of thedesign team was to have a better understanding of how theteacher and students use SSINet in a natural and authenticway while working collaboratively with the teacher.SSI Curriculum ModelThe principles for planning and implementing SSI instructionfocus on engaging learners with rich science content asthey explore essential societal issues (Brush & Saye, 2014;Glazewski, Shuster, Brush, & Ellis, 2014; Saunders & Rennie,2013; Saye & Brush, 2004). To establish relevance, instructionis built around a specific “driving” question that requires bothscience content knowledge as well as ethical decision-making in order to fully address the question itself. For example, adriving question may be something as simple as “Is our foodsafe?” In exploring this question within a specific sciencecurricular area (microbiology for instance), the questionhelps make the content more relevant and engaging tolearners. Once a framing question is established, teacherssupport inquiry by providing multiple ways of encounteringcontent and supporting student thinking through hard andsoft scaffolding (Saye & Brush, 2002). A critical component ofthis model is a well-designed culminating activity, throughwhich students present and defend their position publicly(see Figure 1).SSINet: A Web-Based Learning EnvironmentThe unit discussed in this design case was developed withina web-based learning environment known as SSINet (http://education.indiana.edu/ssinet). The SSINet environment wasdeveloped with the goal of supporting teachers in theirdesign and implementation of SSI curricula. Tools availablein the SSINet environment enable teachers to create andmanage activities and resources to support science inquirylearning (see Figure 2). The tools also assist teachers in thedesign of hard scaffolds that can be embedded into activitiesto support learners’ performance, constrain the task, andhelp the teacher perform additional soft scaffolding (Brush &Saye, 2002).IJDL 2016 Volume 7, Issue 2 Pages 1-10Driving QuestionIntroducing DrivingQuestionInformationGatheringAnalysis andEthical DeliberationStudent Engagement,Questioning and HypothesizingProviding Resources withHard ScaffoldingGroup Deliberation withSoft Scaffolding SupportCulminating ActivityPresentation and Defense of Solution/ PerspectiveFIGURE 1. SSI curriculum structure (adapted from Saunders &Rennie, 2013).FIGURE 2. Socio-Scientific Inquiry Network (SSINet).DESIGN PROCESSThe design process was a collaborative effort between theteacher and the design team. Below is a timeline of theoverall design process (see Figure 3).Initial AnalysisThe first iteration of the unit design, development, andimplementation took place between November 2012 andMarch 2013.To begin the process, the teacher and the designteam had an initial meeting to conduct an analysis of thelearners, context, and curriculum. The outcomes of the meeting were as follows:Potential topic and teaching approachSince the instructional time was limited and the topicneeded to align with national and state science standards,2
the potential topics of a SSI unit had to be chosen from theteacher’s normal curriculum. At this point, the teacher suggested that “Genetics and the Molecular Basis of Heredity”would be an appropriate topic for the unit. We discussed anumber of different instructional strategies and activities thatcould be applied to SSI design. The design team also provided the teacher with video examples of inquiry-based unitsthat had been implemented by other teachers, to help himhave a better idea about how he could apply this model tohis class and existing curricular content. The initial plan wasthat the teacher would draft a driving question, culminatingactivity, and an outline of SSI activities within two weeks ofour initial meeting.mutual understanding of the teaching situation, activityideas for the “Genetic Information” unit were proposed anddiscussed over a period of four months in preparation for thefirst implementation. These informal interactions took placethrough Skype, emails and online chats.Science content within an ethical contextCREATING A DRAFT OF THE UNIT USING SSINET:Although the design team collaborated with the teacher todevelop the SSI unit, activities and resources, the teachermade all final decisions regarding the content, length ofthe unit, sequence of activities, and the various assessmentsthat students would complete throughout the unit. Afterour initial face-to-face meeting, the teacher began to draftSSI activities. In subsequent brainstorming sessions with thedesign team, the teacher shared his ideas and the designteam provided feedback and suggestions for better integrating components of the SSI curricular model into his design.In the SSI framework, selected science content is embeddedwithin a unit (or driving) question that requires students toengage in discussion and debate within a social and ethicalcontext. One of the critical aspects the design team had todecide upon was the social/ethical context that would bethe focus of the unit and would also motivate students toengage in the unit question. The teacher shared his concernthat students might have a difficult time connecting specificSSI activities designed to address an ethical dilemma withthe science content knowledge integrated into the unit.In other words, he was concerned that students would beunable to gain enough science content knowledge to fullyexplore the ethical aspects of the question that was thefocus of the unit.Introduction to the SSINet toolsDuring the initial meeting, the design team provided a briefexplanation on how to use SSINet tools and delivered anSSINet manual to the teacher. It was essential to learn thisfeature because the teacher and the design team worked indifferent geographical locations and the SSINet tools allowedus to work collaboratively on the unit design.Initial SSI Unit DesignInformation about the class related to the learners and theenvironment was shared via email. The first implementationtook place in mixed ability, 9th grade biology classes at arural, though highly varied SES high school. Based on theBrainstorming the topic and unit designCLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT AND AVAILABLERESOURCES: The teacher decided he would like to developthe unit using the SSINet tools and deliver it to the studentsvia the Internet. The teacher’s classroom had access to 15MacBooks and 15 iPads, which could be used by his studentsto access the unit via the SSINet “activity viewer” tool.ESTABLISHING A DRIVING QUESTION ANDSEQUENCE OF SSI ACTIVITIES: The design teamsuggested to the teacher that he begin by determining thedriving question for the unit. We discussed the key featuresof a good driving question; the question needed to addressan important societal issue with ethical implications andneeded to require knowledge of specific science contentin order to fully address the question. To better assist theteacher’s development of a driving question, the designteam provided additional examples of driving questionsfrom SSI units that had been previously developed by otherteachers.Using this information as a starting point, the teacher generated several potential driving questions that he thoughtwould be engaging to students and allow for integrationof key science content. The teacher was concerned thatthe question needed to allow him to integrate content thatwould be included on the end of course assessments thatFIGURE 3. Timeline of design process.IJDL 2016 Volume 7, Issue 2 Pages 1-103
students would complete at the end of theschool year. The teacher worked with the designteam on several drafts of the driving question,focusing on the requirements that the questionshould be engaging to students, incorporateethical implications, and encompass the sciencecontent standards he wanted to cover in theunit.After generating the driving question for theunit, the teacher then produced a series ofactivities that incorporated a variety of primary- and secondary-source articles and readingsaccompanied by detailed guidance for students.As the design team reviewed the materials, weidentified additional scaffolding that could beembedded within various activities and resources to assist students’ comprehension of the content. The design team suggested to the teacherthat he could embed color-coded annotationsinto the reading materials to assist students withbetter understanding difficult content. We alsodiscussed a class assessment plan and suggestedto the teacher that he embed the evaluationrubric into the unit.Pilot testing the SSINet student “viewer”SSI ModelIntroducing DrivingQuestionStudent Engagement,Questioning and HypothesizingInformation GatheringProviding Resources withHard ScaffoldingAnalysis and EthicalDeliberationGroup Deliberation withSoft Scaffolding SupportCulminating PresentationPresentation and Defense ofSolution/PerspectiveGenetics UnitGrabber:Knowing Your GenesIntroduce question for unit andwhole-class discussion based onpreliminary informationJigsaw ActivityGenetic traitsWhiteboard ActivityComponents of genesCulminating ActivityExamine assigned role anddeliberate perspectiveCulminating PresentationPresent perspective;support and defend perspectiveto other members of classThe design team conducted a pilot test of theunit activities within the SSINet student “viewer”FIGURE 4. Overview of the genetic information unit.(the web-based tool that students would use toHe generated the driving question for the unit, which wasview the actual activities the teacher developed)“What laws should we have to govern the use of genetic inforin which we asked a number of current doctoral studentsmation in health insurance, employment, life insurance, andwith K-12 teaching experience to test the unit with iPads andlong term care insurance?” He then developed a sequenceMacs. During the pilot test, the design team identified someof activities to facilitate students’ exploration of the ethicaltechnology issues that needed to be resolved. One issue wasissues associated with the driving question while being inthat the SSINet “viewer” worked well with laptop computers,troduced to the content for the unit. This sequence includedbut some web 2.0 resources incorporated into the unitfour major activities: Entry event, Jigsaw, Whiteboarding, andactivities did not perform well on iPads. While the teacherCulminating activity. Figure 4 provides an overview of thecontinued the final development of the unit activities, theunit design. The initial unit design can also be accessed viadesign team worked with the lead programmer to addressthe SSINet viewer (http://156.56.1.74/pbltec/construction/a majority of the technical problems. However, we were notactivity/2601?pop).able to successfully resolve some issues involved with usingWeb 2.0 tools and Google Docs on iPads. In these cases,Entry Eventwe made the decision to use alternative delivery strategiesfor some student activities (e.g., providing the activitiesAn entry event (or “grabber”) was designed to introduceto students via paper-based resources). This allowed forthe driving question for the unit by engaging students in athe design focus to remain on the SSI unit itself instead ofdiscussion regarding a recent event in which the questiontroubleshooting Web 2.0 tools.was addressed in an authentic context. In this case, studentsInitial Unit OutlineBased on feedback from the design team, the teacherdetermined that the goal of the unit should focus on laws todetermine appropriate use of genetic information.IJDL 2016 Volume 7, Issue 2 Pages 1-10were presented with an NPR radio segment which discussedthe advantages and disadvantages of having access to yourpersonal genome sequence, and a second primary resourcefrom The New York Times in which an individual describedher struggles with the knowledge that she has a very highpredisposition to contracting cancer based on possessing aspecific gene mutation (see Figure 5).4
The teacher then engaged students in a wholeclass discussion in which they debated the prosand cons of having knowledge of personalgenetic information, and then discussed howknowledge of genetic predispositions mightimpact other health-related issues.JigsawFIGURE 5. Entry event activity.To assist them with developing foundationalgenetics content knowledge, students thencompleted a jigsaw activity in which studentgroups were assigned one of seven trait types(polygenic, dominant, recessive, incompletelydominant, codominance, sex-linked, or multiplyallelic), and asked to research the specific traitand share an overview of the trait to their classmates. While exploring the content, studentswere using a Google Doc activity sheet that wasembedded into the SSINet student viewer (SeeFigure 6).Whiteboarding ActivityStudents then completed a whiteboard activityto assist them with understanding additionalgenetics content (namely, that most traits of anorganism are the result of proteins or a combination of proteins produced by transcription andtranslation).FIGURE 6. Jigsaw activity.After exploring the content with their peers, eachgroup presented how their gene works whenit is activated and deactivated at the molecularlevel. While reading the articles, students wereprovided with scaffolding such as thinkingquestions and background information that wereembedded in the reading materials (see Figure7).Culminating ActivityFinally, student groups engaged in a culminatingactivity in which they were to draft laws to guidehow personal genetic information could be usedby employers. Student groups were “countries”that settled upon their genetic information lawsand then presented their laws and rationaleto the rest of the class. Each group then gavefinal presentations in which they defended thescientific, ethical, and moral implications of thelaws they developed (see Figure 8).FIGURE 7. Whiteboard activity.IJDL 2016 Volume 7, Issue 2 Pages 1-105
and used these data to redesign the unit basedon issues identified during the first implementation. We redesigned the genetics unit betweenNovember 2014 and March 2015.The major design change we initiated betweenthe first and second implementation focused onthe culminating activity. The decision to redesign the culminating activity was based on ourobservations that, despite the importance of theculminating activity with regard to the SSI curricular model (see Figure 1), the way in which theculminating activity was implemented in the unitdid not generate the desired learning outcomesfrom students. In fact, students were unclearregarding the importance of the culminatingactivity and the actual processes they needed toperform in order to complete the activity.FIGURE 8. Culminating activity.As a result, the design of the culminatingactivity for the second implementation includedadditional hard scaffolding to assist studentswith understanding the specific steps involvedin developing their final presentations, and withunderstating their roles and responsibilitieswi
PROJECT OVERVIEW The purpose of this design case is to share an iterative inqui-ry curriculum design project focusing on the collaborative design, development, and implementation of one specific socio-scientific inquiry (SSI) unit within a high school biology classroom. We will discuss the initial design and implemen-
Collectively make tawbah to Allāh S so that you may acquire falāḥ [of this world and the Hereafter]. (24:31) The one who repents also becomes the beloved of Allāh S, Âَْ Èِﺑاﻮَّﺘﻟاَّﺐُّ ßُِ çﻪَّٰﻠﻟانَّاِ Verily, Allāh S loves those who are most repenting. (2:22
akuntansi musyarakah (sak no 106) Ayat tentang Musyarakah (Q.S. 39; 29) لًََّز ãَ åِاَ óِ îَخظَْ ó Þَْ ë Þٍجُزَِ ß ا äًَّ àَط لًَّجُرَ íَ åَ îظُِ Ûاَش
during the implementation of CBEST. The data were collected through observation during the implementation of CBEST and interview with teacher and headmaster. The result of this study reveals that the implementation of CBEST has its own benefits and limitations in relation to aspect of economy, implementation and test administration and test design.
Corrective action design and implementation . Petroleum Remediation Program . 1.0 Corrective action design approval process . The CAD approval process is completed in two phases: the design phase and the implementation phase. Figure 1 outlines the general CAD approval process. The design
design, implementation of the database design, implementation of the user interface for the database, and some issues for the migration of data from an existing legacy database to a new design. I will provide examples from the context of natural history collections information. Plan ahead. Good design involves not just solving the task at
Keywords: Design-Based Implementation Research, Design-Implementation Research, Instructional Systems Design, Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Participatory Design, Research Partnerships, Writing Pal INTRODUCTION With each new school year, the list of available educational technologies expands dramatically, along with
Legal Design Service offerings Legal Design - confidential 2 Contract design Litigation design Information design Strategy design Boardroom design Mastering the art of the visual Dashboard design Data visualization Legal Design What is especially interesting in the use of visual design in a p
implementation and sustainability framework to assist and support implementing agencies and communities. The TPI Implementation Framework (the TPI Framework) is adapted from current evidence-based implementation models including RE-AIM (Glasgow, Vogt & Boles, 1999) and the National Implementation Research Network (NIRN) (Fixsen, Blasé et al.,
