NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

Guiding Science Expeditions: The Design of a Learning Environment for Project-Based Science

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS for the degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Field of Education and Social Policy - Learning Sciences

By Joseph Louis Polman

EVANSTON, ILLINOIS June 1997

 Copyright by Joseph Louis Polman 1997 All Rights Reserved

ii

Abstract

Guiding Science Expeditions: The Design of a Learning Environment for Project-Based Science

Joseph Louis Polman

Project-based pedagogy has been revived recently as a teaching strategy for promoting students active engagement in learning science by doing science. Numerous reform efforts have encouraged project-based teaching in high schools, along with a range of supports for its implementation, often including computers and the Internet. History has shown, however, that academic research and new technologies are not enough to effect real change in classrooms. Ultimately, teachers accomplish activity with their students daily in classrooms. Putting the idea of project-based teaching into practice depends on many particulars of teachers situated work with students. To better understand the complexity of project-based science teaching in schools, I conducted an interpretive case study of one exceptional teachers work. The teacher devotes all class time after the beginning of the year to open-ended, student-designed Earth Science research projects. Over four years of involvement with the Learning through Collaborative Visualization (CoVis) reform effort, this teacher has developed, implemented, and refined strategies for supporting and guiding students in conducting open-ended inquiry. Through a close examination of the teachers work supporting student projects, I explore the design issues involved in such an endeavor, including affordances, iii

constraints, and tradeoffs. In particular, I show how time constrains both student and teacher action, how the traditional school culture and grading create stumbling blocks for change, and how conflicting beliefs about teaching and learning undermine the accomplishment of guided inquiry. I also show how Internet tools including Usenet news, email, and the World Wide Web afford students an opportunity to gather and make use of distributed expertise and scientific data resources; how an activity structure, combined with a corresponding structure to the artifact of the final written product, supports student accomplishment of unfamiliar practices; and how the teacher guides students in real time through mutually transformative communication. I synthesize the important design elements into a framework for conducting project-based science, especially in settings where such pedagogy is relatively new. This study will inform teachers and reformers of the practical and complex work of implementing project-based teaching in schools.

iv

Acknowledgments

I didnt expect to be rendered mute after writing hundreds of pages, but Im not sure how to start this, or how to express my appreciation to all those who have helped me to get where I am and to get this wondrous monster done. First of all, I am grateful to the National Science Foundationunder grant numbers RED-9454729 and MDR88-55582and the Illinois State Board of Educationunder the Eisenhower programfor funding this work. Besides the teachers mentioned in Appendix A, Id like to thank Duncan Smith and Catherine Fraser for facilitating some of the best learning of my undergraduate years. This work is about the design of a learning environment, and the Brown-Rostock Exchange was a truly amazing learning experience. Thanks to all my friends in Rostock who were my informal teachers every day, especially Grit, Ingmar, Jana, Heiko, Volker, and Thom. The many CoVis teachers and students I have known over the years deserve praise for their courage in trying something new and difficult. Id like to thank especially the original six teachers for working and thinking so hard with us: of course Rory Wagner, and Patty Carlson, Larry Geni, Mary Beth Hoffman, Ken Lewandowski, and George Dervis. Obviously, I am forever indebted to Rory and his students for sharing their lives and opinions openly with me. I hope what I have written here makes it clear how greatly I admire Rorys perseverance and hard work, and how much I enjoyed spending time dayto-day with Rory and his students. The CoVis team at Northwestern is undoubtedly the most intelligent and talented group of people I have ever worked with. I want to thank the cohort of students I started with: Laura DAmico, Barry Fishman, Doug Gordin, and Kevin ONeill. We grew into v

our careers and developed many of our ideas together. Thanks also to the rest of the CoVis team past and present: Steve McGee, Eileen Lento, Joey Gray, Danny Edelson, Phoebe Peng, Susie Rand, Linda Ortega, Sam Kwon, Greg Shrader, Lars Rasmussen, Raul Zaritsky, and Dan Vermeer. I value all your companionship over the years, and thank you for working with me. Without Roy and Louis vision, CoVis could not have happened; their powerful ideas about teaching, learning, and communication have become so much a part of my existence that I can barely distinguish my own personal ideas from theirs and the rest of the groups. A special thanks to Laura for keeping me plugged in to CoVis goings on from afar. During the innumerable trips I made back to Evanston, I have been the beneficiary of more hospitality than I could have dreamed possible. Thank you Laura and Kevin, Eileen, Don and Jack, Barry and Teresa, Dee Dee, Taf, and Sofia, and Danny and Vivian for putting up with me and putting me up. I bestow the following awards on my gracious hosts: Donbest cook, Eileenmost outlandish taste in movies, Laura and Kevinbest burn stories, Barry and Teresabest knowledge of popular and soon-to-be-popular culture. Thank you all for making me feel welcome; I always enjoyed being able to catch up after being away, and winding down with you in the evening after busy work days. I want to thank some of the other people who made graduate school what it was for me. My fellow graduate studentsespecially Brian Smith, Nichole Pinkard, Sandor Szego, Eric Baumgartner, Bill Sandoval, and Ben Lohwere a pleasure to learn with and hang out with. Thank you as well to the graduate school faculty beyond my committee, especially Brian Reiser, Carol Lee, Richard Beckwith, Roger Schank, Larry Birnbaum, Joe Walthers, and Mike Ravitch.

vi

I did not know when I assembled my committee how well they would end up complementing one another, but I consider myself lucky to have received such a balance of inspiration, prodding, and challenge. Thanks to Allan Collins for his gift of theoretical and descriptive clarity, as well as his difficult questionsaddressing them was inevitably helpful. Thanks to Louis Gomez for tolerating a different and seemingly dubious path, and giving me positive feedback on what I did along that path; his daily warmth is part of what made working for CoVis a pleasure. Thanks to Bill Ayers, a consummate teacher, for the inspiration with his research and writing. I always depended on Bill to remind me that what I was trying to do could be done; his unwavering confidence in me and ability to help me see that I needed to and could take him there was crucial. Thanks to Roy Pea for encouraging me along this path in the first place, and for providing essential feedback and encouragement every step of the way from formulation to the drafting and rewrite of each chapter and section. Completing the final stages of this dissertation was spurred in part by some exciting prospects for future work which Jim Wertsch developed with me and helped get funded. His encouragement and good sense have been prized over the past few months, and I look forward to putting our plans into action in St. Louis. If it werent for music, I would have gone crazy working alone in my office during many days and every fourth night when Katie was on call. The credit for theme music for my writing goes to the Glory soundtrack, Natalie Merchant, Phillip Glass, Sheryl Crow, Toad the Wet Sprocket, Victoria Williams, and the Dave Matthews Band, among others. There are too many friends to thank everyone individually. It has been a great treat to spend time with Rich and Joanne over the last year again, and we will miss them, Matthew, and Nick so much. vii

Thank you to my family for making me who I am today: Mom and Dad, Sarah, Josh, Bill, Laura, Dee Dee, Taf, and Sofia. Also Grandma, Joe and Jo, Becky and Louie, Stan and Marge. I miss those who are gone and hope that my life will have as much meaning to others as all of yours have to me. To my brother, sisters and nephew: we have been through a lot, but doing it together with you has made it better. It is amazing to think how we all have grown. Thank you to the Plax clanJulie, Steve, Andy, Ted, Danny, Alison, Kate, James and Charliefor welcoming me, and for the gift of their interest in my work over the past couple of years. And finally, thank you Katie for being my partner and inspiration and beloved, as well as internal editor. Being with you these years has been the most wonderful thing to happen to me. Discovering and contemplating the world, each other, and our future is continually exciting. I look forward to planting a garden with you and seeing it grow for years to come.

viii

Table of Contents

Abstract............................................................................................. iii Acknowledgments................................................................................. v List of Tables ...................................................................................... xv List of Illustrations................................................................................ xvi Chapter............................................................................................ Page 1. Expeditions to Mt. Everest .......................................................... 1 A day in the life of a project-based science class........................................ 1 Project-based science reforms in general and in context............................... 13 The complexity of particular reform efforts ............................................. 14 The nature of learning environment design.............................................. 16 The benefits of qualitative study of an evolving design................................ 19 The plan for this document................................................................ 21 2. Historical background: Havent we tried this path before? ............. 23 Hasnt this been tried before?............................................................. 24 So it has been tried beforewhat happened?........................................... 26 Reason one: Misguided implementation of reform.............................. 26 Reason two: Interference of school and task structures with reform.......... 28 Reason three: The social control role of schooling.............................. 29 Reason four: The culture of teaching and beliefs about teaching/learning..................................................................... 29 Reason five: The social context of teaching and learning in classrooms...... 30 Reason six: Economic and political pressures................................... 32 A synthesissituationally constrained choice .......................................... 34 Can computers and networking provide supportive resources?....................... 35

ix

A particular historical moment ............................................................ 37 Emerging views of learning ........................................................ 38 Emerging importance of computing and networking technology .............. 39 Aspirations need to be met in real classrooms........................................... 42 The importance of examining change in detail in one setting.......................... 45 3. Getting from questions to methods............................................... 48 Setting the stage for interpretive research................................................ 48 Backdrop: Goals of the CoVis project............................................ 48 Realizations lead to questions ...................................................... 49 Early answers lead to more questions............................................. 51 Whats the treatment? ...................................................................... 52 Prying open the black box.......................................................... 52 Goals and limitations of process-product research............................... 54 Putting interpretive methods to work..................................................... 55 The central role of meaning......................................................... 57 Being there for extended periods of time....................................... 58 Triangulation of data sources....................................................... 61 Checking interpretations with informants......................................... 63 Typification and categorization of data and events............................... 64 Focusing on particularizability over generalizability............................. 66 Using the products of research..................................................... 68 4. A teachers journey: Finding shoes that fit................................... 69 Swimming upstream ....................................................................... 69 Fish out of water............................................................................ 72 Lessons from the practical tinkerer..................................................... 75 The hiking shoes fit ........................................................................ 76 5. The difficulty of bootstrapping students into new practices ......... 79 The need for bootstrapping................................................................ 80 Modeling a science research project...................................................... 82 x

Modeling a project, take two.............................................................. 86 The pitfalls of modeling.................................................................... 87 Alternative forms of modeling ............................................................ 88 6. Setting the stage in a new year .................................................... 90 The first day: Introduction to the setting and actors.................................... 90 Where the students are coming from..................................................... 93 Interest in science and this class.................................................... 93 Experiences in other science classes............................................... 97 The school and community context................................................ 100 Where theyre going: Overview of CoVis, the class, and projects................... 103 7. Laying the groundwork for projects ............................................. 109 Overview of the first quarter .............................................................. 109 Computer activities: Learning to use new tools ........................................ 110 Lectures and videos: Content, scientific practice, and seeds for projects ........... 117 Lectures and videos as means of covering standard content.................... 118 Interlude: Dialogue sequences punctuated by student questions, not teacher questions..................................................................... 121 Lectures and videos as means of conveying how science is practiced......... 124 Lectures and videos as seeds for later projects................................... 127 Limitations and pitfalls of the groundwork activities................................... 130 Conclusion: Groundwork activities as a transition..................................... 134 8. How structuring activity works ................................................... 136 An example of how to do a project....................................................... 136 Milestones as a guide to cooking up science from scratch .......................... 137 The hurricanes project: Cooking up science by following the path.................. 140 Who are the cooks................................................................... 140 Whats for dinner.................................................................... 140 Background preparation............................................................. 141 Interlude: The development of milestones and the paper format............... 142 xi

Constructing your own recipe...................................................... 144 Gathering and organizing the ingredients......................................... 148 Serving the meal in a spaghetti bowl............................................ 151 Adjusting the seasonings for a new course....................................... 154 Final presentation of the meal ...................................................... 157 The Moons project: Asking why? over and over again........................... 158 Summary: Lessons learned and prospects for future research and development................................................................................. 167 9. Time problems and falling through the cracks ............................... 172 Introduction ................................................................................. 172 The UFOs & Aliens project: Falling through the cracks .............................. 172 Rorys limited time and its allocation.............................................. 176 Rorys reactive stance and reasons for it.......................................... 182 Compounding problem: Avoidance............................................... 185 The Zodiac project: It seemed like plenty of time ...................................... 188 Conclusion .................................................................................. 196 1 0 . How the school culture affects guided participation ....................... 199 Introduction ................................................................................. 199 Earthquakes: Shocks and aftershocks of angling for the grade....................... 200 Increased ambiguity and risk in project-based class............................. 203 Ulterior motives for seeking guidance............................................. 206 Learning the science research article genre........................................ 207 The impossibility of providing crystal-clear instructions........................ 209 The Sun project: From cooperation to explosion....................................... 212 The seeds for anger.................................................................. 212 Efforts to fix problems.............................................................. 214 Debbie explodes, not the sun....................................................... 215 End result: A wholly adversarial relationship.................................... 217 The Dinosaur Extinction project: Just trying to get by................................. 219 Student responsibility for work.................................................... 220 Work grades: A tactic for decreasing teacher and student risk................. 224 xii

Problems with work grades: Time and affordances of assessment practices............................................................................... 225 Seeking teacher buy-in over scientific disagreements ........................... 228 Opposing epistemologies of teaching and learning .............................. 229 Summary .................................................................................... 233 1 1 . The balancing act: Coaching, not putting yourself in..................... 236 Introduction: A tree swaying between extremes........................................ 236 Plesiosaurs: Inspiration and combustion................................................ 237 Search follies......................................................................... 238 Negotiating a research proposal.................................................... 244 Interlude: Transformative communication........................................ 247 Digging up plesiosaurs successfully: Developing fluency with a variety of tools................................................................................ 254 Group difficulties and combustion................................................. 258 Using a sample write-up as a model............................................... 264 Postscript to Plesiosaurs: Scientific interest and professional collaboration for the teacher ........................................................ 265 UFO Sightings: Balancing student voice with teacher advice ........................ 266 Motivational benefits of openness to student ideas .............................. 267 Pitfalls of student ownership and control: Resource use, poor choices, and misunderstandings.............................................................. 269 Repeating the cycles........................................................................ 276 Conclusion .................................................................................. 279 1 2 . Retracing our steps and considering their implications ................... 281 Looking back................................................................................ 281 The call for models......................................................................... 282 The need to customize these ideas for other situations................................. 283 Adapt and improvise: Improvements through iterative design........................ 284 The challenge: Tutoring more than twenty students at once........................ 285 A design framework for project-based science learning ............................... 286 Tradeoffs of project-based science in schools........................................... 292 xiii

Continued change as inevitable and revitalizing......................................... 297 Resources for guiding expeditions into science......................................... 298 The promise of expeditions into science................................................. 299 1 3 . References ................................................................................ 302

Appendix ......................................................................................... Page A. B. C. D. A personal story: Walking around in other peoples shoes ............. 315 Original study conception, before entering the field (7/18/94)......... 331 Refined study conception, upon entering the field (10/17/94) ......... 335 Teacher and student interview guides ........................................... 339 February 1995 interview with Rory Wagner............................................ 339 May 1995 Interview with Rory Wagner................................................. 341 September 1995 interview with Rory Wagner.......................................... 344 February 1996 interview with Rory Wagner............................................ 346 December 1995 interview with students................................................. 347 February 1996 interview with students.................................................. 348 E. Class handouts .......................................................................... 350 HOW TO DO AN EARTH SCIENCE PROJECT...................................... 351 Project Milestones and Due Dates ........................................................ 354 BACKGROUND INFORMATION...................................................... 356 PROJECT REPORTS...................................................................... 357

xiv

List of Tables

Table ............................................................................................... Page 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Sources of field notes from first half of 1995-96....................................... 60 Steps to doing a project, from slide show............................................... 83 Mean student responses to survey items on science interest........................... 94 Rory Wagners breakdown of Earth Science......................................... 104 Number of periods spent on activities during the introductory quarter............... 110 Distance of planets from the sun (in Astronomical Units)............................. 125 Number of student questions in observed lectures ..................................... 131 Summary of planned milestones and due dates......................................... 138 Correspondence of milestones to report sections....................................... 152 Observed number and topics of groups discussions with Rory...................... 180 Variation in observed teacher-student interactions throughout project ............... 182 Observed student- vs. teacher-initiated interactions by group......................... 184 Topics of observed discussions with students initiated by Rory...................... 186 Design elements for Rorys project-based learning environment..................... 287 Tradeoffs in teaching practices............................................................ 293

xv

List of Illustrations

Figure ............................................................................................. Page 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Lakesides CoVis classroom layout...................................................... 92 Diagram of solar system................................................................... 120 Daves drawing of common hurricane paths............................................ 149 Pie chart of hurricane path shapes, from revised report................................ 157 Orbital period of three moons from Final Draft......................................... 162 Density of three moons from Final Draft ................................................ 162 Rorys sketched graph of two variables ................................................. 163 Observed number and topics of group discussions with Rory........................ 181 Variation in observed teacher-student interactions throughout project ............... 182

xvi

Chapter 1 Expeditions to Mt. Everest

A day in the life of a project-based science class Period 7 Earth Science class is about to begin at Lakeside High School1 on a spring day in 1995. Seventeen ninth through twelfth graders sit in clusters scattered about the large laboratory room equipped with sinks on either side. Some students are sitting at the movable work tables in the middle of the room, and a few are sitting at the six tables in the front and back of the room with computers hooked up to the Internet on them, monitors facing in. Their teacher, Rory Wagner, sits on the stool at his tall demonstration table in the front of the room, talking with Alex about possible project topics. Rorys students began working on their final quarter-long project of the year a week earlier. For their projects, the students design and conduct research within the broad domain of Earth Science. Andrew joins Rory and Alex, followed by his partner Rob. The volume level in the room is high, with multiple conversations going on. Alison and Sophia at the Macintosh computer just to Rorys right read electronic mail Sophia just received from Israel. Kevin browses the World Wide Web at the computer to Rorys left. Elisabeth, Jorge, and Mike are in their usual back corner of the room to Rorys left, in the vicinity of another computer. Nearby, Kim, Amanda, and Jeff sit at a table trying to figure out what kind of project they can do on comets. Sarah and Susan sit at another computer in the back of the room, while Sarah reads a message from the graduate student who mentored their last

1 The names of the high school and all students have been changed to protect their privacy. At his request,

Rory Wagners real name is used.

2 project, and Susan pulls some books on soil out of her backpack. Heather sprawls across a table in the central part of the room, talking with Christina, Julia, and Brad, who is as animated as usual. Christina works on something from another class. On the board behind Rory, the days announcements detail Things past due and Next due. The bell rings and no one calls to order, or reduces the volume of conversation. Some of the student groups ask Rory if they can go to the library, and then take their backpacks with them out of the room. Rory continues his conversations with students, and also notes in his book who is here today, asking for re-entrance forms from those who were absent yesterday. Rory has tried to make this class a little bit different from other classes since the first day, when they walked to a nearby beach on Lake Michigan to collect sand samples. There are many obvious ways in which this class is different from other classesnot many students use electronic mail or computers on the Internet at Lakeside or any other high school, and not many high school classes are as informal as Rorys. But technology use and informality are not the main issue for Rorythe motivating factor, for him, is the idea of doing research.... I wanted people to actually try to figure something outobserve some scientific phenomena, take measurements or collect information on it, and try to come to some conclusion about how it worked, or what was happening. Rorys been working with these kids since last fall on how to do research, when he took the role of project manager on the sand analysis project. Since then, students have worked in groups of their own choosing, on topics of their own choosing. Letting them pursue topics of their own choice is a second motivating influence for Rory, since if students are involved with doing things that they pick and design, theyre more apt to be ... energized by that, and take more interest in and ownership in it.

3 Today Rorys students are in the beginning stages of their fourth and final project of the 1994-95 schoolyear. Last Friday they were supposed to let him know their project teams and broad topics, as the notice on the blackboard reminds them. All but one group, Kevin and Alex, have done that. Theyre still trying to decide, and they soon get into a conversation with Rory about it. The two of them are part of the grunge crowd, who style their dress after the music scene that started in Seattle, with untucked, oversized flannel shirts and old jeans. Alex almost always wears a gray knit cap, and sometimes finishes off the outfit with reflective wraparound glasses. For their last project, they tried to prove the existence of UFOs, using examples such as the oft-cited government coverup in Roswell, New Mexico. They werent able to marshall much data to use as evidence, though, and Rory is trying to help them find a more promising topic. Kevin suggests hemp and its uses, but not surprisingly, that gets deflected. As Rory points out, hemp has more to do with botany than earth science. Kevin then suggests toilets, and why the water flushes down counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere. Rory tells him that has to do with the Coriolis effect, which also affects wind and storms; its a possible project. It doesnt catch their fancy, but they keep searching. Alex mentions volcanoes, and Rory suggests scientists have been having trouble describing hot and cold magma flow. Kevin moves on to whether suicides in Alaska are related to what he calls the Aurora Borus. Rory doesnt think thats the reason, but he knows there is a real effect of greater suicide rate. You could compare suicide rates in several places, and also include longitude, number of sunny and cloudy days, amount of rain, and so on. Kevin thinks that may be too much work. They try refining it into a workable project for a while, but then Kevin suggests geysers. Rory says they could try to figure out if there is a pattern to the geyser eruptions. Kevin finally seems interested in pursuing one of the ideas.

4 He goes to a computer and asks where you could find data on geysers. Rory suggests using Gopher to look for Yellowstone in Wyoming. In the meantime, Rory goes next door and looks up the name of a contact he has on the pattern of eruptions, from a project some students did on geysers the previous year. He gives it to them, and then turns his attention to other groups, while Alex and Kevin work on the computer. Theyve been using the World Wide Web for work and fun since the fall, when Rory had them learn how to use it by searching for earth science information, and e-mailing him the address of what they found. Kevin has a favorite Web site, Yahoo, which has links to a lot of different places, as well as search capabilities. Within ten minutes, theyve found the Yellowstone Home Page. This kind of interaction between Rory and his students is not uncommon in this phase of projects. It doesnt always turn out this wellsometimes none of the promising ideas take hold, sometimes the students get frustrated, and sometimes Rory gets frustrated. As Rory told me after class, hes been trying to be more open to students ideas, even when they seem at first like dead ends, because he believes they might be able to turn them into projects that work. Sometimes students interests lead them in directions in the broad field of earth sciences where he has little expertise. He has a graduate degree in geology, but earth science also includes atmospheric science, oceanography, and astronomy. Access to scientists over the Internet relieves him to some extent of being the expert on everything. This year he began posting messages to Usenet newsgroups on the Internet like sci.geology and sci.astronomy asking for volunteers to mentor students conducting projects in their areas of expertise. He connected several groups in each of his classes with graduate students and PhDs in various fields, and they communicated by

5 electronic mail. Kevin and Alex didnt end up contacting the potential mentor he told them about today, though, satisfied with the leads they had found themselves. The search for data relevant to a groups chosen topic does not always go as smoothly as Kevin and Alexs search does, either. As Rory says, finding stuff [on the Internet or in the library] isnt always as easy as it seems. Many students need to work on their research techniquethey often just look for the one book that has [their] topic title on it, ... or ... to do Internet searches, they type in their word and they dont find anything. Sophia and Alison, sitting to Rorys right at a computer, are having trouble with their own search for books on the Dead Sea. Alison, who tends to wear dark clothes that complement her black fingernail polish, told me yesterday Sophia wanted to do a project on the Dead Sea just because its in Israel. Sophia is really interested in her Jewish heritage, and has a correspondence going with an Israeli soldier over e-mail. After the success of their last project on the mineral contents of obsidian, they have high hopes. But they are having trouble finding anything. Alison says if only they could find one book with good data, theyd be set. Rory pipes in, wondering about the possibility that the one book could be inaccurate. Wouldnt it be better to have multiple sources? Alison responds, Why would they publish a book full of lies? Rory reminds them of all the books Kevin and Alex found on UFOs. Do they think all those are true? Sophia then suggests exploring What made the Dead Sea salty? Rory thinks its worth exploring, but Alison thinks it will be a black and white answer in a book. Alison and Sophias frustration with the search shows during this period, but within a couple of weeks, they have learned about a number of salt seas in the world, and they are investigating the differences between them. The demands on Rorys attention continue for the rest of the period. Brad, who has trouble working with other students and finishing what he starts, rushes in with a

6 status report. He wants Rory to know he hasnt just disappeared, which sometimes happens, but is watching a video for information on his make-up project on volcanoes. In the first project after the whole class sand analysis, Brad started out working with Jeff to figure out the dormancy patterns of a particular volcano type. One day in the middle of the project, Brad was gone, and the class learned hed been sent to a boarding school. He returned shortly after the beginning of the next project, amid rumors hed run away and hitchhiked to another state. School counselors have made special arrangements with his teachers for Brad to finish the work he missed while gone, so now hes working on two projects at once. As one of his current partners, Susan, told me, if only we could harness his energy. At times, Brad does make good use of his abundant energy. For his last project, he spent hours gathering information on water pollution and treatment, for what turned out to be an impressive project. That time around he worked by himself, but now hes working with partners again. I was surprised to see Brad working with a group again, so I asked Rory about it. He realizes Brad has difficulty working in a group, but is glad to see they are willing to try it, because improving how he works with a group would be good for him. Amanda and Jeff come into the room with a printout from the library on comets. Jeff says, Now we have to come up with a question. He is referring to one of the components they need for the next project milestone they will be turning in. When Rory first started doing project-based science in his class two years earlier, he didnt have deadlines every couple of weeks as he does now, built around a project paper format. Instead, the requirements for the project report, due at the end of the 9 week period, were largely left open. As he tells it: I thought that I was setting them on top of Mount Everest and saying look, the whole world is here for you to look at. Isnt that great? Look what you can

7 study. And they felt like I was sticking them on top of Mount Everest, and they felt like Oh my God, Im gonna fall, I could die up here, this is horrible, Im gonna freeze to death, Im gonna fall off the mountain. Again, two totally different perspectives. I thought I was setting them free and they felt like they were being abandoned. And when they felt abandoned they got angry and defensive and resistive. Arguments and long discussions ensued, which Rory credits with forcing him to articulate and refine many of his own ill-formed ideas about projects. He also had discussions about how to guide and structure projects with other teachers and researchers in the CoVis project, especially the other CoVis teachers at Lakeside. Together, they developed a paper format for projects that each of them modified for their specific purposes. The paper format became almost the blueprint for doing projects. Each section from the introduction to the method and on through the conclusion represents a milestone which the students turn in to Rory for feedback along the way, until they put together a final paper followed by a presentation to the rest of the class. In addition to the tensions about the amount of structure and guidance Rory provided students, he encountered related tension about grades, because all of a sudden they didnt know how to play the game, and yet they were being graded on how they were playing. Evaluation still causes frequent conflicts, despite Rorys efforts to head them off early. He now maintains a spreadsheet on the computer network with current marks and outstanding assignments according to his records, where all the students can look up their status by their school ID number. Some of the students check their grades every few days, but Jeff and Amandas partner Kim hadnt for some time. She had failed the course last semester, but was working much harder since Christmas. Last Friday Kim found out she was getting a C, and confronted Rory, shouting at the top of her lungs I got a C! ... I got the lowest grade in the class. I cant believe it ... How could I get the same grade as

8 people who just sat around and didnt work? She stormed out of the room, and hasnt reappeared yet. Period 7 continues apace. Sophia continues talking with Rory about the Dead Sea project. Christina, whos looking for information on rainforests, carries a bunch of Earth Science books to her desk. Sophia and Alison go to the library to look for books on the Dead Sea. Jeff looks up comets in Yahoo on the World Wide Web. Brad returns from watching the video, and recommends that Alex and Kevin also check out videos on their topic. Later on, Rory helps them find and view a videotape on geysers in Yellowstone Park on a VCR in the classroom. The bell ending the period rings, and some of the students head out to the hallway to take a break. Others continue working. On Mondays and Wednesdays, they have a double period, supposedly for labs. But every day is part lab and part office and part lunchroom in Rorys classits just that on Monday and Wednesday, they have more time. The plasticity of time constantly confronts Rory. For him, theres never enough time to support the eight to twelve different projects going on simultaneously in each of his three classes. He spends many periods going from one request (or frantic cry) for help to another. As he told me at the beginning of the year, Ive never had so many kids needing me so much. And its not like when someone has a question in a [traditional] lab and they ask, um, I dont get this - whats this about? Here theyre like Mr. Wagner, I need to talk to you now. It matters to them much more so theres more pressure on me. For some of the students, his deadlines leave too much time; for others, they dont allow enough. He tries to get around this by making them somewhat flexible, giving bonus points for assignments turned in early and accepting them late with moderate penalties. But giving different deadlines for different people is not viewed by students as

9 fair, unless they are taking the class for higher level credit, as two students in this class are doing. During the break, Christina asks Rory for a book on rainforests. He goes next door to the cubbyhole he shares with the other Earth Science teacher. While Rorys out of the room, Brad and Jeff, who havent gotten along since they were project partners, get in a minor skirmish. Rory comes back in while theyre still at it, and they desist. Rory hands the book, entitled The Rainforest from Time/Life books, to Christina. He has brought these books in from home to help students get basic information on the wide variety of topics in Earth Science which interest them. He asks them to read up on topics once they have decided what they want to study, and encourages them to formulate research questions based on what they study. Christina dutifully follows this model by reading through a number of books on rainforests, as do Sarah and Susan, who are going to analyze soil samples that Brad is collecting from sites theyve selected in the local community, such as yards, landfills, and swamps. For now, though, they are reading books on soil and taking copious notes, before deciding what kind of soil analysis they should do. Two years ago Rory hoped students would be able to formulate good, researchable questions directly out of their interests. But he has had to adjust that expectation along with many others. He found that the initial questions students came up with, before learning about their topic, were often dead ends. Rorys conversation with Jeff and Amanda during period eight provides a case in point. Jeff finds a FAQa list of Frequently Asked Questionsabout comets on the Internet during the break between periods, and begins looking for some images of comets at the NASA Web sites. He hopes to paste them into a Powerpoint slide show for their presentation in five weeks. But after a while, he becomes frustrated with being unable to

10 get in to the NASA servers because of heavy network traffic, and begins playing games on the computer. Amanda, in the meantime, has been trying to come up with a project question. Eventually, she says to Jeff, how about why does a comet revolve around the sun? Jeff replies, Im sure thats already answered. Amanda laments, I know, but thats all I can come up with. Jeff turns back to his game, but Amanda is determined, and calls Mr. Wagner over for help. Rory finishes up helping Kevin with something on the computer, and comes over a minute later. Amanda begins to suggest a question, but Rory first asks What do you know about comets so far? Amanda says not much. Jeff begins to read off something from one of their FAQ printouts: what comets are made of, how big they are, and some other information. Rory says, So size is important... Amanda pipes in, Heres a question, What relation do comets have to the sun? Rory relates that idea to what Jeff has read, about how the chunk of rock has a tail, called a coma, which is caused by the sun. Amanda complains, We need a question, but Rory says Thats like asking for your conclusion before you start. You need to learn something about comets first somehow before you can come up with a good question ... you could do a comparison of comets tails. Amanda suggests Why they have tails. Rory points out that Jeff already knows that. The struggle continues, but the idea for investigating the relationship of a comets core and tail size takes hold with Jeff, and he continues trying to help Amanda see why that kind of question might be more fruitful and less settled than What is Halleys comet? During period 8, a few more students, including Elisabeth and Jorge, ask to go to the library. They spend most of their time near the computer in the back of the room to Rorys left, and rarely seek out Rorys help. Since so many other students are constantly seeking him out, its not surprising that Rorys interactions with them are less frequent.

11 When they ask him about going to the library, he has to be reminded of their project topic. When they tell him it is waves, he suggests they use some of the oceanography books he already has. He gets the books, and they look through them for much of the period. At one point, I notice Elisabeth reading out topics from the table of contents to Jorge in Spanish, with some English mixed in. Rory says Elisabeths joining the class in the second semester has really helped Jorge, whose family recently moved from Mexico. After their conversation, Rory announces he is going to the library to check on whether the people who said they were going are actually there. Lakeside has an open campus policy, which means that students dont need permission or passes to be outside of classrooms during class periods. It also means that Rory can allow the students in his class to freely take advantage of the librarys resources. The problem for Rory is, if kids arent trustworthy, then what happens? In his experience, plenty of kids are not trustworthy, so he occasionally goes up to the library to check on them. Students who are not there when they say they are lose credit for working during that time, and frequent offenders risk losing the privilege, and thus access to library resources except outside of class. Shortly after Rory leaves the room, Jeff, Jorge and Alex leave. Jeff comes back quickly, and Jorge reappears after about five minutes. Amanda returns to the room with a friend, and they talk for quite a while. Heather asks wheres Wags? I answer Hes at the library. One way Rory has tried to encourage a level of openness in the classroom is by allowing the students to address him by his first name if theyd like, but not requiring it. Some students choose to call him Mr. Wagner, others Rory, and a few switch back and forth depending on the occasion or their mood. And some, like Heather, make up their own nicknames, like Wags.

12 Just as Jeff and Scott get ready to start a networked Air Hockey game, Rory returns, making a comment about all the games Jeff has in his folder on the network. This is a veiled threat that they will be removed as illicit on the basis of copyright laws, as part of the Spring cleaning noted on the blackboard last Friday. Despite the threat, they continue playing the game for a while, while Rorys attention turns to other students. Heather, Julia, and Christina, who are working together on the rainforest project, ask Rory if they can go to the library. Kevin asks Rory to explain how to use a piece of software, while Alex continues watching the videotape on geysers. Andy and Scott return from the library. Andy says, Mr. Wagner, you wont believe how much information we got. Rory asks, are you still working backwards from your presentation? Andy maintains theyre not working backwards, [they] just planned it all out and will fill it in along the way. Rory realizes that, and agrees. In fact, he seems glad these students are working this way. He told me later some people actually work backwards, and it works. Although he has set up a structure for students to follow, which he says is like the scientific method in some ways, he doesnt believe Moses [came] down from the mountain with the scientific method written in stone. He tells his students, science happens in a lot of different ways, so it makes sense to let them get their projects done in a lot of different ways. The milestones he has them turn in along the way provide a framework for them to work in, but hes trying to give enough flexibility within this thing, and yet have them accountable at short steps. This way, he hopes theyll keep moving on their projects, and wont put the whole thing off until the night before theyre due. As Rory continues joking with Andy, the bell ending 8th period rings. The students pack up their bags, having completed another day of project-based science in Rory Wagners class. But theyll pick up from here tomorrow.

13 Project-based science reforms in general and in context In recent years, the search for ways to create learning environments that promote active engagement with scientific phenomena and theories has led to a revival of interest in project-based and inquiry-based approaches. Most of these approaches are rooted in Deweys ideas (1902), and have been explored since then in the progressive movement (as chronicled by Cremin, 1961), reforms of the 1960s (e.g. Bruner, 1963), and in recent efforts such as LabNet (Ruopp, Gal, Drayton, & Pfister, 1993). The Learning Through Collaborative Visualization (CoVis) project follows in this tradition, seeking to aid in the reform of high school science classes toward project-based science (Pea, 1993). CoVis includes a set of ideas and networked computer tools assembled by a group of university-based researchers, with the aid of high school teachers and computer industry representatives, and the support and funding of the National Science Foundation. With these ideas and tools, we hope to create an extended learning community whose participants conduct authentic, collaborative scientific inquiry. As countless experiences in the past have shown, however, the creation of technologies or the ideas of academic researchers or policymakers do not determine how classrooms are run; ultimately, teachers accomplish classroom activity with their students in the schools (e.g. Ayers, 1993; Cohen, 1988; Cuban, 1986; Dwyer, Ringstaff, & Sandholtz, 1991; Fullan & Miles, 1992; Mehan, 1989; Schwab, Hart-Landsberg, Reder, & Abel, 1992; Sheingold & Hadley, 1990; Tyack, 1990). Some critics might say that teachers do not accept ideas from the outside simply because they are stubborn or closedminded, but much of this research has shown that teachers have good reasons for transforming outside ideas for their own classrooms. Above all, they are in a better position to understand the particular contexts in

14 which they and their students are trying to work, and the individual personalities and needs of the students themselves. I refer to the use of ideas and tools in particular contexts and for particular tasks as appropriation (Leontev, 1981; Newman, Griffin, & Cole, 1989; Pea, 1992a) rather than adoption to highlight the transformations that teachers and their students must make to such abstract notions. Saying that teachers (and their students with them) simply adopt projectbased science methods and networked computers to accomplish them would imply that they use them exactly as conceived in the abstract, and that all teachers can or should use them in the same way. Saying that teachers and their students appropriate project-based science methods and networked computers stresses that they must transform them for their specific situation, which includes numerous cultural, historical, and social factors. The complexity of particular reform efforts Thus, the vision of CoVis depends on the work of many teachers in particular contexts, and how they appropriate the ideas and tools in their classrooms every day. The April day in Rory Wagners classroom described above makes apparent the complexity of creating and maintaining an environment to support project-based science. First, teachers like Rory must decide what projects should mean in their classes, and then they must enact their vision with their students using the resources at their disposal. The way this works depends on many particulars of the situation. For instance, Rory holds particular beliefs about what is important in science and how it is practiced. These beliefs affect what kind of projects he would like to encourage, and where to challenge students the most. Since he believes science is more than knowing facts, he wants them to learn something about how to do science, which involves answering questions like how do you come up with a problem ... and then solve it. Whats your

15 evidence, [and] how do you prove that you solved it? There are no cookbook procedures or lists to memorize in his class. His particular view of how children learn affects how much he directs students as wellas he put it, its not enough for me to show them or tell them what is going on, what they should do, or what they should know. The students have to somehow make it their own. The particular values Rory holds toward student responsibility and student-teacher relationships affect his willingness to prod students who are goofing off, as well as the level of informality acceptable in his classroom. The particular culture and atmosphere of the school and community Rory works in has encouraged innovative techniques and technologies; it has also dictated an open campus policy that both benefits and frustrates Rory. The affluence of the community may at times highlight the importance of grades as levers for getting in to good colleges. The particular students Rory works with in every class change the strategies he takeshe spends more time trying to focus Brads energy, and more time trying to challenge Alisons ideas and open her to new ones, for instance. Finally, the particular tools and resources Rorys students have access to, from the library to data on the World Wide Web to scientists on the Internet, enable him to off load certain supporting functions. Paradoxically, though, he must often facilitate students use of these same resources before their effective use can relieve the pressure on him. All of these particulars, and many more, ultimately combine to create the meaning and significance of project work enacted in Rorys classroom, just as they would in any other particular classroom. In order to gain a better understanding of the challenges and complexities of such an endeavor, I have conducted in-depth research on Rorys continuing journey designing and implementing a project-based science class.

16 The nature of learning environment design In talking with Rory and observing his class in the three and a half years since he began doing projects in 1993, I have been struck by how he has, as he puts it, evolved. This evolution has included everything from how to get resources to how to convince kids this is a good idea. His initial desire for doing projects was influenced by reading the LabNet book (Ruopp, et al., 1993) chronicling high school physics teachers use of project-based methods. His desire was also influenced by discussions with other CoVis teachers and researchers, and the powerful learning hed experienced in his own masters thesis project. But as Pea (1993) and Suchman (1987) have pointed out is the case for educational and work activity, desires which lead to action are often diffuse and illspecified. They dont prescribe a clear set of steps to follow. Rory described it like this: it was like I was making things up as I went along, so I thought the only way to do it now is to jump in and actually do it, and see what happens, and troubleshoot, and fix things up as you go along. The characterization Rory makes of his work as evolving, in reaction to what he tries out and adjusts along the way, with important contributions by other educators and students, resonates with ideas in the design literature. Specifically, I believe viewing the structures and practices that constitute projects in Rorys classroom as the object of iterative, participatory, situated design may prove useful2 . Let me return to Rorys class to illustrate these design terms. The design of these projects is iterative in that Rory goes through cycles of upfront planning of the activity, followed by implementation of these plans with midstream adjustments to the situation as it develops, retrospective reflection on the projects, and redesign for the next round. Since starting projects three and a half years ago, Rory has completed eleven such cycles. The
2 I am contrasting iterative design with linear and single-pass design, participatory with solitary design,

and situated with abstract and general design. The use of these terms in this context is elaborated below and in subsequent chapters.

17 upfront planning consists partially in structuring project activity through the refinement of a paper format that serves as a blueprint for students project work. Rory has detailed the paper format in a handout which describes the major sections, and what each section includes (see Appendix E for the handouts). For example, the question that Jeff and Amanda were searching for is part of what Rory asks students to place in the Methods section. Rory has changed this document over time. The midstream adjustments Rory makes are countless, ranging from the negotiation of project topics such as those described with Kevin, Alex, Amanda, and Jeff, to looking for ways to deal with grading conflicts such as the one with Kim. Such adjustments midstream are like design in use of the upfront plans (a term borrowed from Allen (1993); this has affinity to Suchmans (1987) situated actions and Schns (1982) reflection in action.) Reflection on the projects in earlier cycles led Rory to see a need for a structure that students could follow, and to encourage students to find out more about their chosen topic before designating a final question to answer through their project (similar to Schns reflection on action). The design of individual student projects is also iterative, in that students hand in milestones and receive feedback from Rory before incorporating them into their final paper. The design of projects is participatory because it is socially constructed. This social construction of design takes place at several different levels. Rory and students like Jeff and Amanda interact to define and implement each and every project. Sometimes, these interactions involve what Pea (1994) has termed transformative communication. In such interactions, Rory helps the students transform the moves they make in the research process with limited understanding into more sophisticated moves that neither he nor the students would have originally predicted. When the students present their projects to one another and they are discussed and critiqued publicly, they are participating in the groups

18 sense of what valid projects are and how to conduct good projects. Thus, the Aliens project conducted by Alex and Kevin earlier in the year became emblematic of how important it is to use data effectively to construct an argument and to question the veracity of information sources. Finally, students ideas for projects often act as seeds or sources for later projects: Rorys introductory sand analysis project this year grew out of a project that two students devised but had trouble implementing the previous year. Rorys input to Kevin and Alex on their geyser project was based on another project from the previous year. Designers often talk about the set of given resources and/or constraints in the environment, each with certain affordances (a term introduced by Gibson 1986; elaborated by Norman, 1988). In Rorys particular situated work, students interests are a resource, affording a means of students making problems their own, about topics such as salt lakes. Rorys skills at collaboratively constructing ideas with students afford building on students interests in ways that his experience suggests will be productive and instructive. The paper format Rory and his fellow teachers constructed affords a way of structuring classroom activity around milestones corresponding to paper sections. Network tools such as the World Wide Web afford searching for information and data that can inform students inquiry. Usenet News and electronic mail afford contacting and communicating with scientist mentors. Constraints for Rory include the structure of the school day, limited amounts of time with many student groups working on different problems, and the culture and practices of schooling students encounter outside of Rorys class. Making a distinction between resources and constraints can be misleading, though, since constraints can be turned into resources, and resources can turn out to be severe constraints (p. 38, Brown & Duguid, 1990). Specifically, one aspect of the same environment or task can be seen as

19 a resource by one person and constraint by another, or a resource for one purpose and a constraint for another. The open campus policy, for instance, acts in some ways as a resource which affords freedom of movement for students to accomplish aspects of their projects, but acts in other ways as a constraint on Rorys ability to track student activity. Clearly, recognizing ways in which constraints can become resources and resources can constrain can lead to better design. Designers need to try to optimize for certain purposes, but will often be faced with trade-offs (Pea, 1992c). This points to a further reason I believe viewing the work of teachers as designing learning environments can be beneficial. It makes apparent the constructive, intentional nature of the work. As Shweder put it, intentional persons interact with and transform cultural meanings and social practices (1990), including the meaning and practice of conducting projects in a high school science class. Teachers such as Rory have the power to effect change at the classroom level, and are more likely to succeed if their teaching practice is reflective (Schn, 1982) and iterative, in a manner similar to the concept of spirals of reflection and action in the tradition of action research (Lewin, 1946) and also to the kinds of design experiments Collins and Hawkins (1993) recommend. The benefits of qualitative study of an evolving design What can educational researchers, practitioners, and designers learn from this study? Looking at learning environments as functional systems can reveal how they work and how they change through the reorganization of activity (Cole & Griffin, 1980; Pea, 1985; Sproull & Kiesler, 1991). Taking a systemic view implies considering how the components of a system work together, not how any one of the components acts alone. The components of a learning environment are not like mechanical cogs, however, in a very important waymany of them are persons making sense of their situation and acting

20 on the sense they construct of that situation as it develops. As Erickson (1986) puts it, the meaning-interpretations humans make are causal. Again, the context and possible meaning-interpretations differ in important ways from school to school, teacher to teacher, and even from a given teachers first period to sixth period class. But understanding one such learning environment in all its complexity better can provide important insights for educators. Alan Peshkin (1988) has pointed out that understanding complexity is a key benefit of qualitative inquiry. Understanding Rorys and his students intentions and actions situated in this particular environment will raise important issues we must face in other learning environments, with similar goals of introducing project-based science, but different particulars. A rich account can also provide readers of this study with stories and interpretive tools to think with about how their own settings work and can be changed over time. Qualitative research in schools, classrooms, and even homes have contributed in recent years to a growing appreciation of the complexity of schooling, and understanding of how it works. Sara Lawrence Lightfoot (1983) and Alan Peshkin (1986) have contributed to our understanding of schools as purposeful institutions; Harry Wolcott (1973) to the work of principals; Bill Ayers (1989) and Margaret Yonemura (1986) to the lives and learning of preschool teachers; Tracy Kidder (1989) to the challenges of elementary school teaching; Ray McDermott and colleagues (1984) to the organization of homework; Bertram Bruce and Andee Rubin (1993), and Janet Ward Schofield and colleagues (1994) to the use of computers for teaching writing and geometry in classrooms, respectively; and Mara Sapon-Shevin (1994) to the possibilities of classrooms as inclusive communities. With such works as models, I hope to shed light on another

21 area: the complexity of putting project-based science into practice in an internetworked high school classroom. The plan for this document In the following chapters, I will attempt to describe what Rory has learned in his project work, in his expeditions to Mount Everest with students. Specifically, in Chapter 2, I will review some historical background on child-centered educational practices and the appropriation of technology to support teaching, as well as describe emerging views of learning relevant to project-based teaching and learning. In Chapter 3, I will describe how I developed the questions which motivated this study as part of a larger educational reform effort, and the methods used to approach the research. In Chapter 4, I will describe Rorys personal background leading to his interest in projects. In Chapter 5, I will show why Rory needs to bootstrap students in his course into new practices, because an entirely new group arrives each year; I will also describe some early frustrating efforts by Rory to address the bootstrapping issue by a form of modeling. In Chapter 6, I will walk through Rorys first day of class, and simultaneously set the stage for the action from 1995-96 to be detailed in the following chapters. This will include a description of the classroom space, the background and attitudes of the students in Rorys class, and the school and wider community. In Chapter 7, I will detail Rorys activities introducing new tools and Earth Science content during the first quarter, and show how they serve as a foundation and a means to transition students into practices different from standard schooling. In Chapter 8, I will show how smoothly running student projects take advantage of the activity structure for projects that Rory has designed, enacted, and refined over the years. In Chapter 9, I will describe how lack of time and perception of time can both cause and enable students to fall through the cracks in Rorys class. In Chapter 10, I will detail how the traditional

22 culture of schooling changes students perceptions of Rorys teaching practices, and affects (in mostly negative ways) Rorys efforts to guide student participation in scientific inquiry. In Chapter 11, I will describe strategies Rory uses to try and maintain a balance between taking too much control from students and letting them be responsible for learning. In Chapter 12, I will summarize the lessons learned for others interested in project-based science. What can we learn from Rory? We can learn what paths he has taken. How he has helped his students to work together. How to judge the winds and unexpected storm clouds. How to survive the bitter cold of the night. How to find and work with a myriad of guides. What kind of grapples and knots he uses in different situations. Where the key footholds are in precarious situations. And above all, what these heights can look like and feel like to the guide and participants in these expeditions, and how they find ways to improvise their way toward the top.

Chapter 2 Historical background: Havent we tried this path before?

Rory Wagners struggle to enact project-based science teaching in his classroom may not seem terribly unique. The historian of education might well ask, hasnt this all been tried before? And with good reason. The idea of project-based science education is firmly rooted in the tradition of child-centered education spanning two centuries prior to the 1990s. In addition, agricultural educators after the turn of the present century introduced the idea of doing projects (Alberty, 1927), Dewey and later progressives refined the concept (Cremin, 1961), and reformers of the 1960s revived it (Ravitch, 1982). The very fact that project-based approaches have been tried before, showed success, and yet remain rare today, begs investigation. What happened to all these previous efforts? What can we learn from them? Do we have any reason to believe the outcome can be different now or in the future? In the following pages, I will begin to address these questions. First, I will explore related efforts that have been tried in the past, and what we have learned from them. I will then consider why, at this particular historical moment, educators, other researchers, and concerned citizens have come to reconsider and reconceptualize the potential importance of project-based approaches to science learning. Along with this, I will examine some of the ways in which the nature of todays attempts at project-based science are shaped by historical particulars. This leads to consideration of the real settings in which the necessary changes will take placeclassroomsand the kinds of research and practice which offer promise to understanding and fostering such changes. 23

24 Hasnt this been tried before? A fundamental insight which has driven child-centered educational approaches is that the mind is active and imposes meaning and structure on experience. In two treatises on education from the 1760sJulie and EmileJean-Jacques Rousseau stressed the importance of starting with the childs own experiences and dispositions and building on them, rather than imposing ideas that are relevant only from the perspective of the adult or society at large (Archer, 1964). Building on childrens natural dispositions implies that all students cannot be treated the same. Instead, teachers must work to diagnose and cultivate those dispositions. Learning must also build from the childs personal experience: instead of learning geography from maps of distant locations, Emile is better served by studying his own area and constructing his own map (cited in Farnham-Diggory, 1990). Deweys philosophy that learning is active ... it involves reaching out of the mind (Dewey, 1902, p. 42) has much affinity with Rousseau. The importance of childrens interests was stressed by both Rousseau and Dewey. Dewey noted that genuine interest linked to both the means and ends of the task at hand fosters true learning, whereas sugar-coating of tasks with extrinsic rewards fosters simply the appearance of attention (Dewey, 1895). The importance of interest implies that teachers need to diagnose interests as indicative of childrens development and readiness to learn (Dewey, 1897). The childs every whim should not direct the educators every action, however. As Rousseau put it, No doubt [Emile] ought only to do what he wants, but he ought to do nothing but what you want him to do (cited in Bantock, 1984). Numerous schools and movements have been influenced by these basic childcentered principles. Froebel and Pestallozzi founded schools in Europe, which Americans such as Francis Parker observed in their travels. Parker later led reforms in Quincy,

25 Massachusetts, and at the Cook County Normal School in Chicago based on the theories of Rousseau, Froebel, and Pestallozzi (Farnham-Diggory, 1990). In both cases, he replaced the traditional curriculum with projects more relevant to students lives. John and Evelyn Dewey founded their laboratory school at the University of Chicago, after visiting Cook County Normal School (Cremin, 1961). At the Dewey lab school, students participated in a series of cooperative project activities of increasing complexity. The youngest children worked on practical projects such as building a house or planting a garden, while older children studied formal subjects such as botany. The project activities had both instrumental and intrinsic purposes: they afforded a means to foster intellectual and social growth vital to participation and growth in a democracy, and also met the immediate satisfaction of students interests (Cremin, 1961). Deweys lab school, philosophy, and leadership at the University of Chicago were immensely influential on the progressive movement (Hofstadter, 1963), which carried on through the 1930s. The notion of hands-on projects picked up growing numbers of adherents as well. Alberty (1927) traces the first use of term project to 1908, when agricultural educators in Massachusetts used it to denote the growing of crops as opposed to studying how to grow crops. The activity of successfully growing plants has intrinsic interest to the students, and can even result in financial gain. As in Deweys projects, the knowledge gained in agricultural projects had more than practical purposesit was integrated with formal and abstract principles of the discipline. In the case of the agricultural projects, the formal principles and organization of the discipline were provided through textbooks and lectures (Alberty, 1927). The application and meaning of the term project to other subject areas was debated among progressive educators, but some themes were common. Many projects involved the use of concrete materials to solve some

26 problem in a natural setting (Horn, 1920). Projects also had to engage student interest the interest should be high (Kilpatrick, 1925), and the students goals should match the teachers (Alberty, 1927). So it has been tried beforewhat happened? So child-centered instruction, including project-based teaching, was tried on a large scale in the Progressive Movement. But by the late 1940s, it had died out. Why did schools and teachers fail to sustain these ideas? An obvious explanation would be that these methods didnt work. The Progressive Education Associations influential EightYear Study (Aikin, 1942) documented the contrary. In this study of 1,475 pairs of students, each consisting of one student from thirty participating progressive schools and one from another secondary school, the effectiveness of progressive education was supported. Students of progressive schools, who were otherwise like their peers from other schools in gender, age, race, scholastic aptitude, home and community background, and interests, were more successful as judged by eleven separate measures (Cremin, 1961). These measures ranged from academic honors and grades to curiosity, resourcefulness, and precision in thinking. Kyle (1984) reports similar positive findings for the hands-on, inquiry-oriented science reforms of the 1960s and 70s: Evidence shows that students in such courses had enhanced attitudes toward science and scientists; enhanced higher-level intellectual skills such as critical thinking, analytical thinking, problem solving, creativity, and process skills; as well as a better understanding of scientific concepts. (Kyle, 1984, p. 21) Reason one: Misguided implementation of reform The failure of the child-centered and project-oriented reforms, from the progressive era as well as the 1960s, to sustain their hold on educational practice requires some explanation, and many have been offered over the years. Hofstadter (1963) argues that the importance of interest in Deweys theory of education led to serious mistakes on the part of

27 later progressives. Deweys own work (e.g., Dewey, 1902) stressed that the developing interests of children should continuously interact with the direction they get from adults. But the stress placed on the importance of students interests led some progressives to become slavish to student whim: Having once put the child so firmly at the center, having defined education as growth without end, Dewey had so weighted the discussion of educational goals that a quarter of a century of clarificatory statements did not avail to hold in check the anti-intellectual perversions of his theory. (Hofstadter, 1963, p. 389) As Hofstadter mentioned, Dewey criticized later progressives for proceeding as if any form of direction and guidance by adults were an invasion of individual freedom (Dewey, 1938, cited in Ravitch, 1983, p. 59). This critique of progressivism amounts to placing the blame for its eventual failure on misguided and thus ineffectual implementation of the reform. Sarason (1971) identified the same important issue of teachers lack of understanding of a reform effort in the case of the New Math. Studies of the California Mathematics Curriculum Framework in two classrooms provide detailed evidence for the importance of teachers understanding of subject matter and the goals of reform efforts. Deborah Ball (1990) studied a teacher, Carol Turner3 , who appeared to run a classroom where children were actively engaged, consistent with the goals of the reform. On closer examination, it became clear that Carol understood mathematics not as a living and growing domain of inquiry, but as a set of static tools to be learned. This fundamental view led her to overlook the possibility of children formulating problems themselves or evaluating alternative mathematical claims. Instead, there was always a right answer out there (p. 256). Carol knew those right answers, and tightly structured activity so as to instill them in children. Classroom discourse was characterized by teacher instruction and questions followed by terse student answers. Because Carol
3 The names are pseudonyms.

28 was able to foster student participation in classroom discourse, and make creative use of multiple teaching modalities to reach students with different strengths, she saw no need to change. David Cohen (1990) studied another math teacher in California, Mrs. Oublier, who revolutionized her teaching by using a new curriculum and text, incorporating concrete materials and physical activities. Although she was open to and used all these new mathematical topics and devices, she used them as though they were a part of traditional school mathematics ... as though mathematics contained only right and wrong answers (p. 312). Reason two: Interference of school and task structures with reform Other factors have been shown to hinder reform as well. Just when the progressive movement was gaining momentum, education for all was gradually becoming a reality (Nasaw, 1979). The large numbers of students needed to be handled in some way, and factory models for moving children through the day with limited resources and optimal order proved useful. An example is William Wirts Gary Plan, which introduced the concept of platooning to secondary schools (Cremin, 1961). In Wirts original implementation, platooning referred to moving students back and forth between regular classrooms and the areas housing shop, laboratory, the playground, and the auditorium, in order to reduce the number of regular classrooms needed, and thus limit costs. Larry Cuban (1984) argues that platooning and other school and classroom structures hindered the spread of child-centered instruction as much as ineffectual implementation. Schools and teachers use the various batch processing methods that today constitute the standard grammar of schooling (Tyack & Tobin, 1994) to cope with the demand of teaching and keeping in order groups of thirty children at once. These methods include school structures, such as Carnegie units of academic credits, age-graded grouping, and isolated

29 classrooms; classroom level structures, such as desks in rows, whole group question-andanswer dialogues and lectures; and task structures (Doyle, 1979), such as worksheets, textbook assignments. Task structures such as projects, however, can be at odds with the teachers priority of maintaining order, as well as the students priority of getting an optimal grade, because they increase ambiguity on how to perform to achieve a good grade and therefore increase perceived risk for the students. It is interesting to note that Dewey himself warned that the mechanics of school organization and administration (Dewey, 1901, p. 337) often doomed reforms, but his warning did not prevent such factors from affecting his own efforts. Reason three: The social control role of schooling Theorists such as Nasaw (1979) argue that schools play a social controlling role in capitalist society. According to this view, students are sorted in order to channel them toward appropriate careers, ostensibly based on intellectual capacity, but in reality often based on social class, gender or race. A strong example is life adjustment education. Nasaw showed how life adjustment was targeted primarily toward poorer populations, and closed opportunities for financial advancement through traditionally elite professions at the same time that it enhanced opportunities in working class careers. Reason four: The culture of teaching and beliefs about teaching/learning Larry Cubans (1984) analysis suggests that the three explanations described aboveschooling as social control, school and task structures, and the implementation of reformpartially account for the remarkable constancy in teaching practice throughout this century, combined with pockets of change. The culture of teaching and beliefs about teaching and learning also provide partial accounts (Cohen, 1988; Cuban, 1984). Cuban and Cohen argue that the culture of teaching tends to be conservative due to recruitment of

30 people who affirm rather than challenge the role of schools. In addition, informal socialization to previously existing practices is accomplished through twelve years of personal experience, and interactions with other teachers once on the job. The complex demands placed on new teachers also tend to reinforce reliance on remembered strategies and folklore passed among practicing teachers. New teachers must establish routines so that students are not disorderly and/or confused, convey prescribed subject matter to large groups of children, and evaluate all those children. Reforms often explicitly threaten the culture of teaching, by demanding changes in practice, and implicitly threaten aspects of the ethos of teaching by encroaching on the vacation time viewed as an essential feature of a profession which lacks significant financial rewards. In addition, folklore and beliefs about traditional practices that constitute a real school (Tyack & Tobin, 1994) are strong among parents and the population at large. Finally, child-centered instruction rests on the premise that learning is an active process of construction. But this belief is still a relatively radical notion among teachers (Cohen, 1990; Cuban, 1984), who more commonly believe knowledge must be directly transmitted to young people and remembered as conveyed. In addition, everyday views and practices outside schoolsamong parents, business leaders, and students themselvestend to buttress the belief that knowledge is transmitted rather than constructed (Cohen, 1988b). Reason five: The social context of teaching and learning in classrooms The experience of school for teachers and students is not wholly determined by cultural beliefs about teaching and learning, however. Penelope Eckert (1990) has shown that schools are cultural institutions that serve many social purposes other than teaching and learning in classrooms. Primary among these purposes is student participation in social networks represented by social categories such as Jocks and Burnouts. The dynamics

31 created by these social networks affect what courses students take, and how they view participation in the courses they do take. According to Eckerts account, high schools offer Jocks an avenue for performing meaningful social roles outside the parents home. High schools also offer Jocks an opportunity to participate in activities inside and outside the classroom that will help them build their careers. For Jocks, participation in classroom activities is more driven by conservative career-building than by interest in what is going on. They thus tend to chafe at innovative and challenging classes, which reforms to project-based science represent, because they complicate climbing up the hierarchy, and challenge the value of received knowledge that can be displayed for status. In the Burnout network, on the other hand, cooperative learning where students share information and initiate much of the activity are more highly valued. Thus, Burnouts may be more receptive to project-based science courses where teachers act as facilitators to students active construction of knowledge, rather than passive reception of knowledge. Building on Eckerts research, Lave (1990) points out that according to the world view generally held by researchers on learning, students appear to occupy a peripheral role as objects or clients on whom services are to be performed ... students are not viewed as powerfully influential on teacher, subject, pedagogy, or the learning that transpires in the classroom (p. 253). Lave argues that this world view is fundamentally flawed. Learning and classroom activity are socially situated, as Eckerts research demonstrates. Thus, I claim that the meaning of classroom activity, including that based on reform, can only be understood relative to the broader social situation in which it is embedded. Research on science teachers, for example, has shown that students reactions can be an important constraint on their teachers actions. As Jay Lemke put it, While teachers officially have greater power and authority in the classroom, and do generally hold the initiative, students retain an absolute veto over activities the

32 teacher tries to impose. Even the threat of that veto, student noncompliance or uncooperative behavior, is enough to keep most teachers on the straight and narrow, that is, within the standard classroom routines and activity structures that students have learned to expect and have become comfortable with. One result of this is that teachers who try to innovate in the classroom can expect to meet with considerable student resistance, at least at first. (Lemke, 1990, p. 71) Brickhouse & Bodner (1992) demonstrated that a beginning middle school science teachers work with students was strongly influenced by the students concern with grades. Although the teacher believed scientists were motivated by the pursuit of knowledge, his students continually connected classroom activity to the pursuit of high grades. In turn, the teacher began searching for ways that students experiencing trouble with their grades could succeed, and began limiting his own conception of rewards for good work to grades. This finding is in line with the more general insight that classroom activity and success is an interactional achievement of the student, teacher, and context, not determined by any one actor alone or the environment (e.g., Doyle, 1979; Mehan, 1989). Reason six: Economic and political pressures Economic and political pressures have affected many reform efforts as well. Nasaw (1979) documented how businessmen4 in the National Association of Manufacturers became involved in educational policy during the early 1900s, by funding the National Society for the Promotion of Industrial Education, to ensure a steady supply of appropriately trained American workers. Today, business-driven organizations such as the National Skill Standards Board (Houghton, 1996) and others are again increasingly driving educational reforms and standard setting (Resnick, 1995). Similarly, promoters of progressive education and reforms of the 1960s garnered economic as well as political clout by aligning themselves with powerful foundations (Tyack & Tobin, 1994). Ravitch (1982) and Cuban (1990) have described the changing political climates affect on
4 The gendered term is used deliberately, because they were in fact men.

33 education. Ravitchs account locates the conflict between progressives and traditionalists since the 1940s. At that time, progressivism was dominated by life adjustment education, and critics began to complain of anti-intellectualism. With the Sputnik incident, the traditionalists calls were heeded, and excellence in subjects such as math and science were initiated. Following the cataclysmic events of the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War, the work of progressives (e.g. Kohl, 1967; Neill, 1960) became prominent again and ushered in the open education movement. Although Cuban (1990) criticizes the pendulum metaphor Ravitch and others use, he concurs that value differences ... become transformed by media and political coalitions into pressure on schools to change (p. 8). Dows (1991) account of the origins of Man: A Course of Study (MACOS) in the Sputnik era, and its eventual obliteration by conservatives on the local and national level, is a compelling example of politics effects on reform. The liberal and Anti-American implications that conservatives saw in the MACOS social science curriculum based on cross-cultural studies led to its demise, despite the fact that it was intended primarily to improve instruction in light of university scholarship within related fields. Because of such strong political and economic pressures, local practitioners often make symbolic and external changes in schools rather than making the substantive changes reforms often demand (Fullan & Miles, 1992). Examples of empty symbolic changes are the purchase of new books that are taught in the same way as older books, and task forces at schools that popularize the use of new labels such as cooperative learning for the same old practices. The knowledge that previous waves of trendy new ideas and buzzwords have been ineffectual naturally makes teachers and other educators skeptical of new ones, and to some extent encourages surface adoption of the latest trend (Sarason, 1971) rather than more fundamental appropriation.

34 A synthesissituationally constrained choice Cuban (1984) introduced the concept of situationally constrained choice to explain the relative stability in teaching over the past century, amid pockets of change. Cubans description synthesizes many of the insights provided by the partial explanations described above, and accommodates the additional factors discussed here which he didnt explicitly consider. He describes situationally constrained choice as follows: The school and classroom structures ... established the boundaries within which individual teacher beliefs and an occupational ethos worked their influences in shaping practical pedagogy (Cuban, 1984, p. 250). School and classroom structures serve as constraints on the environment. These structures are influenced by political and economic realities, such as the acceptability of certain curricular topics, the importance of order, and the number of students per teacher. The structures are also influenced by social realities, such as the meaning ascribed to them by students. The structures that dominate, such as chairs in rows, recitations, worksheets, and textbook assignments, successfully solve the daily problems presented by the task of teaching groups of children in limited time while maintaining discipline. But there is potential for change, particularly through changes in teacher beliefs. Effective reform efforts, and the gradual encroachment of the view of learning as active construction on popular consciousness (Cohen, 1988b) can and have influenced beliefs, which in turn influence practices. But putting beliefs about the nature of learning into practice is seriously hindered by the constraints of schooling, and teachers relative lack of autonomy. In addition, high schools are more highly constrained than elementary schools, because teachers in these settings have less autonomy in curricular decisions, less flexibility with

35 their use of time, and more external pressure due to college entrance exams and requirements as well as job market qualifications (Cuban, 1993). Ultimately, instruction occurs in individual classrooms, and some teachers make efforts based on their beliefs about how learning occurs. Due to the unavoidable constraints of school structures, however, such efforts meet with some degree of frustration. Dealing with this frustration relates to two primary reasons cited by researchers for teachers lack of change in classroom practice: the cost in time and energy to prepare and deal with the effort, and the lack of extra help or resources in putting complex ideas into practice (Cole, 1987; Cuban, 1984; Office of Technology Assessment [OTA], 1995). Sarasons (1971) account of the failure of the new math in a school system provides evidence for the importance of both time and resources. In order to implement the reform, elementary school teachers, many of whom had little math background, were asked to learn a great deal about mathematics itself and new ways of teaching it, within a short workshop and the few weeks following it before the upcoming school year. Once the school year began, there were scant resources for supervision and ongoing work with the classroom teachers. They were left on their own to flounder or flourish. Can computers and networking provide supportive resources? Recently, reformers have stressed that computers and networking can perhaps provide vital support for teachers attempting to put project-based science into practice (e.g., Blumenfeld, et al., 1991; Pea, 1993). But the history of reform related above, as well as Cubans (1986) study of how new technologies have failed to alter teaching practices should serve to temper optimism. Cuban (1986) documented how several waves of technology in this century failed to significantly alter the practices of teaching. The promoters of radio, film, and

36 instructional television predicted revolutionary changes in the efficiency and effectiveness of instruction through technology. But as with other changes, teachers ultimately had made choices based on their situation: Teachers have altered practice when a technological innovation helped them to do a better job of what they already decided had to be done and matched their view of daily classroom realities. (Cuban, 1986, p. 66) Thus, instructional television encountered problems because it lacked flexibility. Trying to schedule classroom activity around a haphazard schedule of broadcasts, as well as signing out and setting up the equipment proved to be obstacles, working against the very efficiency they were supposed to enhance. On the other hand, some elementary school teachers used films and television in the afternoon to some degree, as entertainment and motivation for their students rather than integral parts of instruction. The kinds of changes radio, film, and television were intended to provide were more a matter of degree than kind, however. They hoped to offer more efficient and entertaining transmission of information to students. Since these technologies failed for the most part to provide greater efficiency in doing the same thing most teachers were trying to do, it was not surprising to see them neglected. In contrast, computers and networking, the latest technologies to be heralded as revolutionizing instruction, have consistently been linked to reforms toward child-centered instruction. Seymour Papert, for instance, argued that the LOGO programming language could put children in an active position of constructing knowledge of how to use powerful ideas from science and mathematics (Papert, 1980). Paperts early work focused primarily on what the computer could do for children, and seldom described how it fit within classroom life. But as Mehans study of microcomputer use by teachers in language arts classes confirmed, when used in educational settings, the microcomputer is always a part of a

37 larger social system (Mehan, 1989). Thus, its not surprising that the spread of LOGO in the early 1980s resulted in uses that were in line with the kinds of teacher-centered priorities Cuban has documented. By 1990, Paperts group had been roundly criticized for the lack of consonance between the claims made in Mindstorms and the practices implemented in classrooms across the country.5 Once again, reformers were reminded that computers, like other technologies, are not themselves agents for change; rather, teachers and students are (Harel & Papert, 1993; Mehan, 1989). The question of whether and how computers and networking can serve as resources to educators who are agents in the change process remains. Recall Brown & Duguids (1990) insight that whether a given objective fact is viewed as a constraint or a resource depends on interpretation as well as creativity. Since the same objective fact can be interpreted as either a constraint or a resource, it might be fruitful to consider how teachers have situationally resourced choice along with situationally constrained choice in environments incorporating computers. I turn now to a discussion of how todays efforts to change instruction toward project-based science differ from previous reform efforts, due to cultural and historical particulars. A particular historical moment Understanding the context of efforts at change requires looking at this particular historical moment. There is a renewed interest in child-centered approaches to learning science, such as inquiry and projects (e.g. National Research Council, 1996). There is also widespread belief that technology can effectively support changes to such approaches (Dede, 1990; Means, 1993; OTA, 1995). The reasons for interest in child-centered approaches, inquiry-based approaches, technology use, and their interconnections are
5 This criticism was not the only kind leveled at Papert, of coursefor instance, the claims for transfer of

general cognitive skills were questioned by Pea & Kurland (1984).

38 embedded in theoretical, political and economic developments which deserve some explication. Emerging views of learning Theoretical advances in our understanding of learning have transformed the reasons for recommending open-ended projects in a rich social setting. Constructivism, shaped by the research of Piaget, provides an explanation for the importance of active engagement. In this view, all experiences are filtered through existing mental models, and either alter those constructions or are assimilated to them (for an historical overview of the theory, see von Glasersfeld, 1982). Vygotskys theory of learning provides an explanation for the importance of learning embedded in a social setting. According to Vygotsky (1978), language and social interaction mediate learning. In other words, operations which take place on the interpersonal level (i.e., activity-in-the-world involving multiple people) are transformed into intrapersonal operations in learning (i.e., representations in the mind). This leads to the concept of the Zone of Proximal Development, in which learners accomplish with the help and cooperation of others (e.g., teachers) what they could not do alone, and push their individual capabilities to new levels by internalizing the process. Building on Vygotskys work, later theorists have argued that all cognition and learning is situated in particular environments (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989), and thinking is distributed across physical as well as social aspects of the environment (Pea, 1992). Since knowledge is indexed and recalled according to aspects and interpretations of the environment in which it is embedded, authentic settings for learning become extremely important (Brown, et al., 1989). In order for the knowledge gained in a learning setting to be useful in the actual domain under study, the setting must be consonant with the

39 practices, tools, and culture of the domain. This perspective provides further justification for project-based learning, so that students can face the task of formulating their own problems, guided on the one hand by the general goals they set, and on the other hand by the interesting phenomena and difficulties they discover through their interaction with the environment ... in projects, students learn first to find a problem and then, ideally, to use the constraints of the embedding context to help solve it. (Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989, p. 488) Based on the situated nature of learning, Collins, et al. (1989) argue that a strategy of cognitive apprenticeship is promising for schools. Taking a cue from the practices of craft apprenticeship, cognitive apprenticeship offers some metaphors for teachers work. Teachers can model expert activity and make their tacit knowledge explicit. They can also coach students while they carry out tasks, offering hints, scaffolding, feedback, modeling, reminders, and new tasks (p. 481). Scaffolding provides support for accomplishing goals in students zone of proximal development, and is later faded so that students can exercise their new skills to perform the activity without teacher support. In addition, finding ways to encourage student articulation of their ideas can push learning. Emerging importance of computing and networking technology One means of promoting student articulation is through shared computer environments (Edelson & ONeill, 1994; ONeill & Gomez, 1994; Scardamalia et al., 1989). Computer technology also lends authenticity to the practices of science today (McGee, 1996), which make increasingly sophisticated use of high-performance computing, such as visualization and modeling (Fishman & DAmico, 1994; Gordin, Polman, & Pea, 1994), and communication such as electronic mail (Fishman, 1996; Sproull & Kiesler, 1991). Computer technology is important today for political and economic reasons as well. Collins (1990) argues that since computers are so vital to work in todays world, they are

40 bound to have an effect on education. Skills in working with computers are vital to participation in the emerging information economy, so schools will face increasing pressure to incorporate their use into instruction. Based on previous research, Collins argues that once computers are introduced into the classroom setting, regardless of the purposes, their continued and committed use will inevitably result in several changes. For example, computer use will foster student engagement, necessitate small group instruction instead of whole group instruction, and coaching instead of lecture and recitation. In effect, this argument maintains that computer use will introduce constraints that overpower the standard constraints of schooling described by Cuban. In order to provide students with more computer time, for instance, teachers who have a limited number of computers in their classrooms face constrained choices about how to reorganize instruction. Two common solutions which Mehan (1989) identified were incorporating computers into small group work for one group at a time, and sending pairs of students to work at the computer during time set aside for individual seat work. Both these options involved a grouping strategy much different from whole-class instructionpeer interaction. The teacher no longer controlled and directly supervised the students work. Instead, students used one another as resources, and talked through their work on the computer, thereby surfacing confusions and conflicts in interpretation. They also explained their understandings to one another, which caused them to articulate and re-evaluate those understandings in the process. Meanwhile, the teacher no longer initiated all interactionthe students called for the teachers help and coaching when they encountered trouble. Cuban (1993) agrees with Collins (1990) prediction that increased technology use will foster change in some settings, but does not concur that such changes will occur in all settings. Specifically, Cuban argues that Collins vision will be implemented in elementary

41 schools, but change at the high school level will not be forthcoming due to the greater constraints placed on high schools. These constraints are of three types: the economic pressures for training in complex subject matter, the structural constraints associated with limited teacher contact time with students, and political pressures from accrediting associations, college entrance requirements and exams, and job market requirements. In this view, pressures for computer competence would be forced into didactic, isolated parts of the curriculum to continue meeting the demands of other constraints. At the elementary school level, Cuban believes there is enough flexibility and less pressure, which is likely to allow for greater use of computers across the curriculum. But teacher beliefs in more active learning and models of teaching offer another window of opportunity for change, even within highly constrained school environments (Cuban, 1984). Cohen (1988) argues that the active view of learning is still relatively new, and is only slowly encroaching on the more common everyday conception of learning as transmission. There is some hope that, over time, more teachers, students, parents, and business people will subscribe to these views. In fact, businesses have already begun to call for more active problem-solvers, rather than passive direction-followers (Secretarys Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills [SCANS], 1991). The information-oriented and service-oriented sectors of the economy, it is argued, require such dispositions. Even the manufacturing sector, inspired by international competition and changing technologies, has begun to appreciate the active contribution all their employees can make (Houghton, 1996). Finally, interaction is possible between new constraints introduced by technology use in classroom, and teachers beliefs about learning and instruction. Although it is often true that practices follow beliefs, McLaughlin (1990) has suggested that beliefs can be

42 changed by participation in certain practices, even if they are mandated practices. The experience of the Rand Change Agent study bears this out (McLaughlin, 1990). Evaluators of the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow showed how regular access to computer technology was indeed instrumental in changing teachers beliefs as well as their practices (Dwyer, Ringstaff, & Sandholtz, 1991). Teachers in the study began by using computer technology for traditional practices, but when they mastered the technology themselves, and saw some of the work their students were able to accomplish, they began to take more risks. This risk-taking, combined with the uncertainties introduced by the new constraints which computer use put on teachers work, often led to a reappraisal of beliefs. But Dwyer, et al., along with others, (e.g., Brickhouse & Bodner, 1992; Cole & Griffin, 1987) maintain that teachers do not always have the opportunity to reflect on the relationship between their beliefs and their classroom practices, nor the latitude to make all the changes they would like. Thus, we would do well to remember Seymour Sarasons advise about single solutions: It is not that these single ... solutions are in themselves wrong or inadvisable but rather that they are viewed as ends, which if reached will in some mystical way change the quality of life in the classroom and school. (Sarason, 1971, p. 225) Computer technology, like the project method of teaching, does not mystically change the quality of life in schools, but rather interacts with the many cultural and material constraints and resources I have described. Aspirations need to be met in real classrooms I have described several reasons to recommend project-based science learning in computerized, networked classrooms, and the growing interest in such efforts. But ultimately, these aspirations must be met by individual teachers in classrooms within actual

43 schools. Based on the Rand Change Agent study, Milbrey McLaughlin argues that change is a problem of the smallest unit (McLaughlin, 1990, p. 12). In other words, local realities determine the outcomes of change more than global policies or visions. Bruce and Rubin (1993) highlight this truism by stressing the difference between an innovations idealization and its many local realizations. As the review above has demonstrated, the local realities that determine realizations include teacher and student beliefs and practices, the resources and expertise available, political and economic realities, and traditions and social circumstances in the school. Sarason (1991) has argued that it is important to recognize that schools are not just about kids, but also the adults that work in them. Since the only educational improvement of lasting significance is the result of good teaching, (Ravitch, 1982, p. 89) we do well to remember the obstacles and complex realities teachers face. They must find ways to work within the constraints of schooling, making the best of the resources at their disposal. The demands of project-based teaching placed on teachers are tremendous: they must be aware enough of the discipline under study to guide students in promising directions (Cremin, 1961; Schn, 1995), they must engage in continual diagnosis of student understanding and be comfortable with not knowing all the answers (Brown, 1992); and they must find ways to effectively use students previous experiences and ongoing classroom activities to foster understanding of formal disciplines ( Cremin, 1961; see also Shulmans, 1986, concept of pedagogical content knowledge). Gaining facility at introducing students to projects, and guiding them through the process of accomplishing projects, is hard won. Using technology in the process, while promising, involves some complexities of its own. Educational change takes time in general, and changes associated with technology have been shown to take years

44 (Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1992; Sheingold & Hadley, 1990). Sheingold and Hadleys nationwide survey of teachers who are experienced and accomplished at integrating computers into their teaching (p. 1) found that mastery of computers in teaching took generally five to six years. Along the way, the 608 teachers of grades 4 through 12 took considerable time and effort, which was seldom recognized or encouraged by their institutions. Although changes in technology and culture, along with specific social circumstances, mitigate the applicability of Sheingold & Hadleys findings to other teachers today, they serve as a sobering reminder of the difficulty of learning technologies and changing practice. How do such change processes work? How can such change processes work better to accomplish project-based science? I believe we may gain some insight by turning to research on the relationship between culture and practice, as well as sociological and educational research on reflective practice. Recent research which intersects the traditional disciplines of psychology and anthropology has proven useful in describing the relationship between persons and cultures. Richard Shweder (1990) describes this hybrid discipline as cultural psychology. As Shweder describes it, cultural psychology is the study of the ways subject and object, self and other, psyche and culture, person and context, figure and ground, practitioner and practice live together, require each other, and dynamically, dialectically, and jointly make each other up. (Shweder, 1990, p. 1) This cultural psychology is based on the premise that environments are created by the way human beings seize meaning (p. 2) from the world. As mentioned in Chapter One, other researchers have referred to this process of seizing meaning as appropriation (Leontev, 1981; Newman, et al., 1989; Pea, 1992). Individual persons do not seize meanings within a sociocultural vacuum, but neither does the sociocultural environment

45 completely dictate the meanings individuals seize. To use Shweders terms, intentional persons and intentional worlds (cultures) interact with and co-constitute one another. The work on cognitive apprenticeship and situated cognition (Brown, et al., 1989; Collins, et al., 1989) described earlier is consonant with Shweders description. So is the anthropological work of Pierre Bourdieu. Bourdieu (1990) stresses that general cultural practices are not rules that individuals strictly follow. Instead, in practical situations, individuals develop strategies informed by cultural norms. For example, he did not see absolute kinship rules, but rather matrimonial strategies that people bring to bear to serve various social purposes in idiosyncratic situations. Such strategies are not always conscious, and in fact often consist of a general feel for the game which people bring to bear on situations. A feel for the game is not unlike the kind of reflective conversation with the situation that Donald Schn (1982) describes in design professionals work. Reflective practitioners navigate among the many competing ways of viewing situations, trying frame experiments to see the possible webs of action they spin, taking actions and observing their effects, adjusting to unintended, fortuitous opportunities, and so on. The importance of examining change in detail in one setting Bruce, Peyton, & Batson (1993) have pointed out how idealizations of reform are realized in particular situations, and sketched some of the paths of change, in which values and technical capabilities interact to bring about new possibilities. It is important to remember that such paths are not deterministicthey involve a series of implicit and explicit choices made by individuals such as teachers. These choices are affected by factors at many levels, as this chapter has illustrated.

46 In Schns influential book (Schn, 1982), he called for research in professions such as teaching that could contribute to what he calls frame analysis by providing an inside view of practice. He said: this sort of frame analysis would help practitioners to experience the world they would create for themselves if they adopted a particular way of framing the practice role. It would convey the experience of problem-setting and solving, the selfdefinitions and the definitions of success and failure, that would be inherent in a particular choice of role frame ... it would help the practitioner to try on a way of framing the practice role, getting a feeling for it and for the consequences and implications of its adoption. (Schn, 1982, p. 315) Such research is clearly needed on the complex project of putting project-based science teaching into practice. By studying in depth a single teachers work at a single site, I will show how he frames and reframes his role and the problems he faces across multiple situations with a wide variety of students. I will examine the implications these choices have for his further work with students. As this review has illustrated, this will require examining how multiple levels of sociocultural context and situated actions affect his work and his students work. Making adventurous teaching (Cohen, 1988b) such as projectbased science work requires complex negotiation of constraints and resources. Just as practitioners face such complexity, research should. As Sarason (1971) pointed out years ago, researchers and practitioners should avoid the understandable but self-defeating tendency to flee from complexity at the expense of relevance (p. 32). Qualitative research is uniquely suited to examining this kind of complexity (Peshkin, 1988). In this endeavor, I follow the recommendation of Cuban: It is important to policymakers, practitioners, administrators, and researchers to understand why reforms return but seldom substantially alter the regularities of schooling. The risks involved with a lack of understanding include pursuing problems with mismatched solutions, spending energies needlessly, and accumulating despair. The existing tools of understanding are no more than inadequate metaphors that pinch-hit for hard thinking. We can do better by gathering data on particular reforms and tracing their life history in particular classrooms. (Cuban, 1990, p. 12)

47 In this way, I will describe a journey, not a blueprint (Fullan & Miles, 1992). Blueprints for school reform and other social change generally fail, since they assume an ability to rationally plan for all the possibilities of complex and varied situated environments. Suchmans (1987) work on the difficulty of creating expert help systems for copy machines convincingly shows that such prescriptions are doomed to inadequacy in the face of real situations in myriad settings. I will characterize the types of decisions a teacher has made and continues to face in his journey, the range of possible choices, the tradeoffs and implications involved in his choices, and the conflicts and interactions between the many available courses of action. The description and analysis of this one journey will thus serve as a guide for future travellers along the paths of reform.

Chapter 3 Getting from questions to methods

Setting the stage for interpretive research As described and motivated in the previous chapters, for this case study I have examined a single teachers work implementing project-based science in a particular, technology-rich environment. Beyond the reasons described in those chapters, I believe it is important to understand how this research came to be formulated as a kind of what Erickson (1986) calls interpretive research. Interpretive research refers to any form of participant observational research that is centrally concerned with the role of meaning in social life, enacted in local situations. Thus, I refer to the research I conducted and this report as an interpretive case study. Backdrop: Goals of the CoVis project In 1992, the Learning Through Collaborative Visualization (CoVis) Project was initiated. Under the leadership of Roy Pea at Northwestern University and Louis Gomez at Bellcore6 , CoVis was conceived as a means to create an extended learning community, using the latest in computing and communications technology to support project-based science in high schools. CoVis was funded by the National Science Foundation as an Educational Testbed. CoVis could be described as an educational intervention designed to explore what could be in science classrooms if things changed quite a bit from the status quo. As described in the previous chapter, students are not often expected to learn by conducting project inquiries into scientific phenomena. Yet theoretical arguments and some empirical
6 In 1993, Louis Gomez joined the faculty at Northwestern as well.

48

49 studies (e.g., Aikin, 1942; Kyle, 1984) support the worth of project-based approaches. In addition, teachers do not often have classrooms equipped with the latest in technology typically, schools lag years behind industry (Pea & Gomez, 1992). Yet new technologies are increasingly important in the practice of science, and they can be instrumental in creating authentic learning environments for project-based science. For instance, access to computers and the Internet can enable students to find and analyze real, large-scale datasets, to answer research questions they formulate themselves (Gordin, Polman, & Pea, 1994). Communication over the Internet can enable students to work with practicing scientists and other experts as mentors (ONeill, in progress); provide a larger knowledge-building community (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1991), and an audience for students ongoing work beyond the teacher (Riel & Levin, 1990); and serve as a means of breaking teacher isolation through exchange of ideas over networks (e.g., Bruce & Rubin, 1993; Schwab et al., 1992). Realizations lead to questions Pea and Gomez assembled a team of graduate student researchers (including myself) and others at Northwestern, six teachers at two schools, and a number of industry and research partners to construct a reality from the CoVis visionto move from Collaborative Visualization of an ideal to collaborative realizations in actual classrooms (using the phrase again from Bruce, et al., 1993). During the 1992-93 schoolyear, the researchers collected, and in some case created, a suite of computer tools for communication and collaboration on projects, and for scientific visualization of atmospheric science data. The researchers and teachers met frequently to discuss issues involved with teaching science through projects, such as what constitutes a project, how to support students in conducting projects, and how to change assessment in light of new practices.

50 In some cases, these meetings were held with teachers and researchers from TERCs LabNet project, who had been conducting project-enhanced science in high school physics courses for several years. After this year of development and planning7 , the researchers held a summer workshop to introduce the teachers to the computer tools and model the tools use in projects, as well as discuss how to introduce students to the tools and ideas. Then, the researchers and teachers held a workshop trying these ideas out with students who would be taking CoVis classes in Earth Science, Environmental Science, or Science, Technology, and Society during the 1993-94 year. During that 1993-94 schoolyear, the teachers and researchers became engrossed in trying to make things work in many senses. We were trying to make the computer network work a great deal during the first semester, but it often did not. We were trying to make students learning of the technology work, but that was also a struggle. Most importantly, we were trying to make projects work. Teachers implemented a wide range of strategies and activities. In order to understand some of what was going on, from a research perspective, we administered a set of surveys. Students individual responses to the surveys were used as measures of various aspects of their background, beliefs, and aptitudes, such as: Background with technology, including skill with word processors Academic self-concept Writing apprehension Typing skill These surveys, from both the 1993-94 and 1994-95 school years, were used to look at adoption of some of the electronic communication tools available in CoVis

7 Some teachers, such as Rory Wagner, also began experimenting with projects in classes during this time.

51 classrooms as measured by student estimates and automated logs (Polman, et al., 1994; Polman & Fishman, 1995). We analyzed whether the above measures, as well as gender, predicted how much students used electronic communication tools, such as electronic mail, in CoVis classrooms. Early answers lead to more questions These measures of individual variation among students did not prove to be the most salient predictors of action in the classroom, however. This is not really surprising, though, since action in a social setting such as a classroom is interpersonal, not just personal. As Sarason (1971), has put it, the language and vocabulary of individual psychology ... is in no way adequate to changing social settings (Sarason, 1971, p. 59). Hutchins (1993) research on the use of navigation tools in real-world contexts also points to the need to look at interpersonal action, not just individual cognition. Thus, we should not have been surprised to find that the factor most predictive of how much students used electronic communication tools was who their teacher was, not any of the above measures of individual skill or belief. But this result was both interesting and frustrating from the standpoint of research intended to inform educational change. Finding that teachers mattered a great deal was cause for hope. This indicated that the way teachers created unique learning environments for their students could make all the difference. But these results really raised more questions than they answered. A simple teacher factor in a correlation or analysis of variance could not tell us much at all about the reasons behind what was happening in teachers classes, or the meaning of what was happening. The teacher factor in fact stood as a proxy for many complex aspects of teachers classrooms, such as how they introduced and understood technology and how they guided and structured project activity. These complex interactions could all affect

52 usage of technology. And technology usage in itself was a proxy. We are not interested so much in how much electronic communication tools are used, as in how electronic communication tools aid in the accomplishment of projects. Accomplishing projects that help students learn something about the conduct of science is what CoVis is about. Electronic communication tools are only one aspect of whole learning environments. The survey results imply that local meanings in different learning environments lead to differences in project-based teaching, but survey research will not reveal those local meanings. Interpretive research, such as case studies, is the best means at our disposal of uncovering the local meanings and actions (Erickson, 1986) that determine what is really going on in an individual classroom. Whats the treatment? Asking what is really going on in a classroom is similar to Ericksons (1986) query What was the treatment? In any educational process, simply knowing the values of a few variables does not adequately describe the reason for outcomes. An educational treatment consists of many actions, each of which involves individual intentions as well as overt behavior, and many levels of interpretation by participants. A few examples beyond the CoVis setting should help clarify some of the gaps in other forms of research that interpretive methods can address. Prying open the black box In the 1960s, researchers and policymakers hoped the Equal Educational Opportunity Survey (EEOS) would help clarify how to help educate the children of the poor. James Coleman analyzed this data, hoping to demonstrate that low achievement among minorities correlated with low measures of school resources, such as per-pupil spending, facilities, and training of teachers (cited in McDonald, 1988). This would have

53 validated the idea that the Title I strategy of increasing the input of funding would directly influence the output of student achievement. But the variance in student achievement was completely unrelated to resourcesjust as many resource-rich schools had problems as did resource-poor schools. According to McDonald (1988), these results have inspired more and more efforts to get inside the black box that lie between Colemans inputs and outputs. Adequately understanding the black box leads inexorably to examining in detail the local, contextual experience of classrooms. Harels work with the Instructional Software Design Project (ISDP) provides another interesting case. She gives evidence in the form of changes in cognitive measures that computers can be used in a learning environment that succeeds in engaging students in open-ended problem-solving on fraction problems (Harel & Papert, 1993). She describes a fourth-grade classroom in which students designed LOGO software to teach younger children fractions, thereby learning a great deal about fractions themselves. Harels qualitative results reveal the kinds of changes students made in thinking and action over the course of the intervention, but they reveal a limited picture of the role the teacher, researcher, and their use of the tools played in accomplishing the software design projects. The activity was not completely open-ended. Students were given the general task of designing a piece of instructional software that explain[ed] something about fractions to some intended audience. (p. 3) In addition, a routine was established in which students wrote in Designers Notebooks at the beginning and end of daily sessions, and they were required to spend a specific amount of time at the computer each day. The software also structured activity to some extent through the LOGO programming language and its focus on representational issues. Finally, Harel and the teacher held several Focus Sessions on design, programming, and math topics. These discussions surely helped define the local

54 meanings and interpretations of both the activities and the topics, but Harel does not present them in detail. She also does not portray in detail the kinds of interactions she and the teacher had with students in defining and carrying out their design tasks. She states: The teacher and the researcher (Harel) collaborated and actively participated in all the childrens software design and programming sessions during the project: walked around among the students, sat next to them, looked at their programs, helped them when asked for, and discussed with them their designs, programming, and problems in a friendly and informal way. (p. 5) I argue that such interactions are essential to the total learning environment Harel and the teacher were able to create. Her research makes important contributions, including conjectures about a number of factors that may have affected students improved performance, and speculations about the interrelationships among the factors. It is also significant that there is enough description to be able to raise additional conjectures about the learning environment as a functional system. Goals and limitations of process-product research Harel is careful to call her ideas about how this complex system worked speculations and conjectures, because she is unable to reduce them to statistical studies. One might think that this problem might be overcome by gathering more numerical data on the process students went through. This is the direction that the so-called processproduct research has chosen to explore. In this approach, researchers attempt to show how certain values of objective variables correlate to certain outcomes. An example is waittime research (e.g., Rowe, 1986; Tobin, 1986), which has shown that in standard Teacher Question-Student Answer dialogues, students will learn more if teachers wait longer after asking their questions, before interjecting a comment or clue. This kind of research makes two problematic assumptions: that the same objective amount of time has the same meaning to all persons in all question-answer dialogues in all classroom situations, and that

55 if teachers are told they should wait by researchers, they will do so, even if they know Johnny in the corner is going to jump in and quash the response Alice is formulating. Similarly, if process-product research revealed that CoVis students who use electronic mail more to communicate with scientists learned how to conduct scientific inquiry better (by some measure), we wouldnt know what the e-mail exchange meant to the student, and this is what would cause learning of any sort. We also wouldnt know anything about how teachers could help construct meaningful interchanges between students and scientists. The distinction between an objective behavior, such as time waiting, or an electronic mail message sent, and action, is an important one. I am using Ericksons (1986) definition of a behavior as a physical act, and an action as the physical act plus the meaning interpretations held by the actor and those with whom the actor is engaged in interaction (pp. 126-7). In fact, statistical studies are inadequate to the task of describing learning environments as functional systems of actors and actions, with the kind of complexity and interrelatedness that exists in classrooms, from Harels ISDP classes to Rory Wagners Earth Science class in CoVis. Through study conducted in the interpretive tradition, however, it is possible to come to a better understanding of how a learning environment for conducting semi-structured projects is designed and enacted by the participants. Putting interpretive methods to work In my discussion of efforts to put child-centered practices, such as project-based teaching, into practice, the many levels that influence what goes on and what it means in the classroom became apparent. Understanding such a complex problem, as Peshkin (1988) asserts, is a unique strength of interpretive or qualitative inquiry. Reasons for this include being there personally and with all senses engaged; the relatively extended amount of

56 time devoted to the phenomenon under study; with a stance that does not require prespecifying everything that will be recorded, but instead encourages a view broad in scope. Thus, emergent themes which are manifestly important to action in situ can be captured rather than ignored. For example, in my research with Rory, his masters thesis and the lessons he learned from his grandfather and father unexpectedly emerged as themes which affect his classroom work and philosophy. I do not wish to make an argument for interpretive research as the sole vehicle for research. Like Eisner (1993) in his AERA presidential address, I argue that there are different ways to understand the world, and interpretive research holds an important place among the plurality of approaches available for educational research. As should be clear from the development of my own research, I believe statistical input-output and processproduct designs can and do complement interpretive designs. I started this journey with statistical analyses of predefined factors that seemed likely to be relevant to technology and project-based science, and soon found that one factor, the teacher factor mattered immensely. This led me to an interest in prying open the black box the teacher factor represented. In conducting interpretive research, statistical methods can be used to help characterize particular settings or cases so the applicability to other cases and settings can be consideredI will do this to contextualize Rory Wagners students and school in comparison to other CoVis teachers, for instance. Since one of my goals is to present a more complete model of how a learning environment for project-based science has been designed and implemented, my results could also be used to identify factors of particular interest for conducting larger scale process-product research on similar environments. I have to get there first, however, so I now turn to an examination of the interpretive tradition and approach as I have put it into practice.

57 The central role of meaning As should be apparent from the preceding section, a primary assumption of my approach, and the interpretive tradition, is that meaning is causal (Erickson, 1986). Arrays of objective factors with static interpretations are not adequate to describe complex, environments where human agents interact. Erickson traces the primary divide in social science research to that between the theoretical assumptions of positivist/behavioral and interpretive perspectives. Positivist/behavioral approaches to social science assume that the kind of mechanical causality assumed in the natural sciences, such as Newtonian physics, also applies to the social situations. Interpretive approaches to social science, are rooted in the German tradition of Geisteswissenschaft (human science or moral science) rather than Naturwissenschaft (natural science). The German historian and philosopher Dilthey argued for a distinction between the two approacheshuman science needed hermeneutic or interpretive methods, because meaning was causal for humans but not objects. Erickson nicely illustrates the cause attribution problem with an analogy between the role a billiard ball plays in physics research and the role a human plays in social research. When a billiard ball is struck by another billiard ball at a certain angle and with a certain speed on a certain surface, rules of mechanical causation describe its reaction. But when a person perceives some aspect of his or her environment, physical objective facts out there in the world are not what is directly acted upon, but rather the persons interpretation of the physical world. Once made, the interpretation of meaning is acted uponthe meaning interpretation causes subsequent action. Researchers in the interpretive tradition, from Dilthey in the late 19th century to Mead (1928) to Bateson (1972) and Geertz (1973) to McDermott (e.g., 1984) and Erickson himself (1986), have sought to develop the means to rigorously research social life.

58 Being there for extended periods of time Reviewing some of these methods researchers have developed to rigorously conduct interpretive research into complex social settings is worthwhile. According to Geertz (e.g., 1973; 1988), the primary means of achieving and demonstrating rigor in social and cultural research is by being there in the research setting for extended periods. Time in the setting is the best antidote to addressing the problem of bounded rationality (Simon, 1957)the limits of human information-processing capability. For this reason, I have conducted this research in the tradition of deliberative inquiry described by Erickson (1986). Another data collection alternative would have been the radically inductive approachin this view, the researcher attempts to completely hold prior conceptualizations at bay, and let the experience in the setting dictate as far as possible the emergent conceptions. Along with recent writers in anthropology (e.g., Clifford & Marcus, 1986; Pratt, 1986) and education (e.g., Ayers, 1989), I deemed complete neutrality to be a quixotic quest, and instead will endeavor to describe my changing position, and how it is affected by my personal and professional history as well as dialogue with research participants. In the deliberative inquiry approach, the researcher admits to questions coming in to the field, and conceptualizations which shape his or her understandings. Fieldwork is viewed as progressive problem-solving, where assertions and characterizations of patterns are repeatedly checked against ongoing observation of the setting and probing of informants, and refined based on further findings. Prior to the conception of this study, I was present in Rory Wagners classroom as a technical aide for one period every day during 1993-94. My relationship with Rory was solidified at that time, and maintained at CoVis meetings throughout that year. My initial conceptions of this studyin July, 1994, prior to fieldworkcan be found in Appendix

59 B. This conception was further developed by October of 1994, as shown in Appendix C. Following the formulation in Appendix C, I discussed my idea for the formal study with Rory, and he agreed to participate. I began participant observation in one of Rory Wagners classes to refine the focus of the study, and begin the process of progressive problem-solving. The primary questions for the study are based on the refinement of the initial questions through fieldwork and literature review (related to both education and methods). In summary, they are: What is Rory trying to teach through his course, and how do students understand his intentions? - What does science mean? - What do projects mean? How does Rory structure project activity for students, and how do students interpret and use that structure? - How and why has this structure developed and changed over time (i.e. the natural history of project structureincluding turning pointsover the past three years) How do Rory and his students interactively accomplish projects? - How do they negotiate the topic, questions, and approach? - How do they make use of personal, institutional, and technological resources in the process? - How are they constrained by personal beliefs, institutional rules and culture, and technological limitations? My fieldwork primarily took the form of participant observation in one of Rory Wagners three Earth Science classes during 1994-95 and 1995-96. Along the participant-

60 observation continuum discussed by Glesne & Peshkin (1992), my role can be characterized as observer as participant. Thus, I acted primarily as an observer but [had] some interaction with study participants (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992, p. 40). In 1994-95, I was present on average one to two days per week from October through May in Rorys Period 7/8 class. The most complete and intensive work, which makes up the bulk of this report, was from the first half of the 1995-96 school year. During that year, I was present for half of the meetings of Rorys Period 1/2 class from August 28 (the beginning of school) through February 9 (the end of student presentations). In addition, I conducted debriefing interviews by phone with Rory after class about the days events on as many of the days when I could not attend as possible. Details of the sources of my field notes from this period are shown in the table below. Classroom observation (# of days) Quarter 1 (lectures and technology introduction) Quarter 2 (student-directed projects) Totals 24 Interview by phone Missed days (# of days) (# of days) 6 17

Totals (# of days) 47

28 52

14 20

6 23

48 95

Table 1: Sources of field notes from first half of 1995-96 Following this period, I made spot checks that allowed me to gain a sense of development throughout the rest of year and the students remaining two projectsa total of 10 days classroom observation and 6 phone interviews with Rory.

61 This extended time in the research setting allowed me as a participant observer to apprehend more and more of the admittedly complex structure of events. By being there and developing rapport through personal interaction with participants in the setting, I have attempted to reach ever closer approximations of understanding Rory and his students perspectives. One example of this progression can be seen in the difference between the primary questions as laid out in early conceptions (see Appendices A and B) and those laid out above. Early on, I had a strong focus on the use of technological tools, but through interaction with Rory came to understand that his focus was on the accomplishment of science projectstechnological tools were primarily interesting to him insofar as they helped accomplish projects. Thus, he appropriated those technological tools he thought could provide significant gains in accomplishing projects, and rejected those he thought provided little gain relative to their costs. Like Lightfoot (1983), I believe the development of rapport through personal interactions allowed my subjective personality to be used as a tool to better the research, rather than something to be avoided. Interpretive researchers also attempt to critically assess throughout the research process how their own subjectivity may bias the work, and reveal that subjectivity to the reader (Ayers, 1989; Glesne & Peshkin, 1992). For this reason, and following Bill Ayers (1989) example, I have included in Appendix A a brief autobiography focusing on issues related to the conduct of this research. Triangulation of data sources A number of mindful means are also available for assessing the adequacy of specific assertions or hypotheses made by the researcher in the course of fieldwork and analysis. Deliberately sampling for a variety of kinds of evidence can increase the discipline of inquiry. Such triangulation of data sources can include observation of events,

62 interviews with participants, and documents produced by participants in the course of their work or life (Patton, 1990). The sources of data I have used to develop an understanding of the meaning perspectives of the various participants, and to triangulate the testing of assertions, are: Fieldnotes from participant observation of a single class, 1994-95 and 1995-96 school years. This usually consists in participation in the scheduled class meeting, followed by a debriefing discussion with Rory directly after that class. Video records of selected classes, 1994-95, and Semester I, 1995-96. Specifically, at least one day during each major stage of the activity cycles in the class a lecture period, the initial description and discussion of the project assignment, brainstorming topics and doing background research, brainstorming and negotiating research questions, data collection, data analysis, paper write-up and presentation preparation, and student presentationswas videotaped. This insured a more exhaustive record of each stage of activity. February 1995 interview with Rory on history of project work (see Appendix D for Interview Guide) May 1995 interview with Rory on issues in running a project classroom; personal, institutional, and technological resources and constraints; and some more history (see Appendix E for Interview Guide). August 1995 and February 96 interviews with Rory around planning and accomplishment of projects (see Appendix F and Appendix G for interview guides).

63 Interviews with four individual students and one pair of students during and after their first projects in 1995-96 (see Appendix F and Appendix G for interview guides). Handouts from 1993-94, 94-95, and Semester I 95-96. Student project artifacts from 1994-95 and Semester I 95-96 (the latter including milestones as well as final report, with written teacher feedback) Ongoing email discussions (begun in the Fall of 1994) between myself and Rory Wagner about projects and his class

Checking interpretations with informants The adequacy of interpretations can be checked with informants, to see whether the interpretations ring true to lived experience (e.g., Ayers, 1989; Brickhouse & Bodner, 1992) and the perspectives of researcher and participant are thus converging (Mehan, 1978). At various stages in the development and construction of this work, I have asked for Rory Wagners reactions and feedback, and incorporated them. For example, Rory attended a brown bag talk in February 1995 where I first presented my conceptualization of iterative, participatory learning environment design, and we discussed the aptness of this metaphor for his work.8 Since then, I have asked Rory to review and comment on the formal proposal submitted in July, 1995 (consisting of drafts of Chapters One-Three), and papers representing ongoing analysis, and sections of this report as they were completed.

8 Should Rory and I disagree about the accuracy of events or their meanings, that disagreement would be

noted. To date, no such disagreement has surfaced.

64 Typification and categorization of data and events Interpretive research is usually conducted through a process of codingtypifying or categorizing data and eventsso the researcher can formulate assertions about what is going on. This process can involve software specifically designed to aid typification (Miles & Huberman, 1994). In order to use the software package NUDIST for coding, I transcribed all interviews with Rory and his students, and classroom observation (from handwritten field notes and videotapes for the days available) from the 1995-96 school year. The process of typification produces important threats to the validity of research findings (Phillips, 1990). One of these is an undue influence by early experiences in the setting, and a second is an undue influence of positive instances (i.e., ones that confirm researchers assertions) over negative instances. I have followed Ericksons (1986) two recommendations for addressing these threats to validitymachine recording and forming tentative assertions while still conducting fieldwork. By using machine recording techniques, the researcher can return to the different observation periods for further analysis with an eye to questions unformulated at the time. In my case, I videotaped 11 classes at various stages of classroom activity in 1995-96, and audiotaped the four structured interviews with Rory Wagner and the ten structured interviews with his students. These were transcribed verbatim, thus avoiding any selection bias that may have affected written field notes. By forming assertions while still conducting fieldwork, the researcher can deliberately search for negative instances or disconfirming evidence in the research setting. If necessary, the participant observer can actively question participants in the course of events, or somehow alter the events by performing some active role. The beginnings of

65 my analysis from the 1994-95 school year were completed in the summer of 1995, and resulted in a first draft of Chapter One. Further analysis and testing of developing assertionsthrough seeking confirming and disconfirming evidencecontinued through the 1995-96 school year. For instance, I began to formulate ideas and questions about students experiences in other classes, and opinions of valid teaching after the 1994-95 school year, and decided I needed to conduct interviews with students outside of class to probe these issues. Originally, I had not planned to conduct such interviews, but I found it necessary to supplement classroom observation and spontaneous probing with extended reflection by students outside class. Combining the student interviews with classroom observations allowed me to better understanding the students perspectives on teaching, learning, and their particular experiences, and refine my initial assertions. Even after fieldwork is completed, researchers can still deliberately search through all data records for disconfirming evidence to new assertions. When discrepant or disconfirming cases are discovered, the researcher can use them to refine or reformulate assertions, or to describe more exactly the limits of those assertions. In other words, the researcher is obligated to either explain disconfirming evidence away, or change the explanation. For example, when one student said in an interview that doing project work in other classes was more like Rorys class than I had expected or than other students had described, I had to explain what what going on. In this case, I had to either conclude that some students did project work like Rorys in other classes, or she did not yet grasp some of the work involved in Rorys project; I found evidence in classroom observations that she did not grasp certain parts of project work in Rorys class that distinguished it from other classes.

66 Focusing on particularizability over generalizability Approximations of participants perspectives and the structure and meaning of events inevitably remain just thatthey never completely equate with the reality as experienced by participants. But they are better approximations than are otherwise obtainable. In this way, grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1979) is developed that accounts for a variety of local events and variations. For this reason, Erickson has pointed out that the focus of interpretive research is usually particularizability rather than generalizability (Erickson, 1986). Erickson describes particularizability as being achieved by examining concrete universals in particular, detailed cases, and comparing them with one another. By considering the different layers of context that are shared with other settings, the interpretive researcher can begin to indicate what aspects of the concrete case under study may apply to other cases, but the applicability of the case studied and described is left to the reader (Firestone, 1993) . For instance, Ayers (1989) shows how widespread social problems are manifested in particular preschool teachers work, and Kotlowitz (1991) shows how urban violence, the drug trade, and housing policy affect the particular lives of two youngsters in Chicago. In my study, I attempt to show how such issues as traditional schooling practice affect the implementation of project-based science teaching. It is worth pointing out that figuring out how to particularize strategies to situations is exactly what teachers like Rory do on a daily and yearly basis. Thus, my portrayal of Rorys iterative design situated in the classroom should give readers a model for how he has adjusted and refined his particular strategies over time. Readers of this and other such studies are not told exactly how the findings in these cases apply to other settings which share common issues, like urban violence and changing from traditional school practices. But by gaining a fuller understanding of how the larger issues

67 particularize to these cases, readers are in a better position to apply these findings to other situations. The one sense in which my research on Rory Wagners teaching could be characterized as targeting generalizability is by generalizing to what could be (Schofield, 1990). As Schofield points out, most research (especially in the positivist tradition) aims at studying what is in typical settings. In addition to the problems of local meanings in multiple settings mentioned previously, there is an additional problem with unusual approaches or environments. In some of these cases, we do not want to know what is typically the case, but rather what could be the case given certain circumstances. As Schofield uses the distinction, studying what could be involves locating situations that we know or expect to be ideal or exceptional on some a priori basis and then studying them to see what is actually going on there (1990, p. 217). As mentioned at the outset of this chapter, CoVis is explicitly an exploration of what education could be if teachers appropriated project-based approaches in technology-rich, networked classrooms. This case study aims to explore what could be if an experienced, reflective, and adventurous science teacher attempted to design an entirely project-based science class. In the previous chapter, I laid out some of the a priori justifications for an interest in project-based teaching as an authentic and promising form of science education. In addition, we know a priori that the technological infrastructure in CoVis classes is exceptional as an NSF Educational Testbed, and Rory Wagners willingness to commit all of his class time after the first quarter of the year to projects and critically explore multiple ways of organizing his teaching, and refine them over several years, is exceptional within CoVis. Studying his classroom allows me to build a more complete model (Erickson, 1986) of how projects can be organized in networked science classrooms.

68 Using the products of research A final word about the utility of an interpretive case studys products. The kind of thick description (Geertz, 1973) included in this report offers some distinct advantages over the standard forms of reporting positivist research (e.g., tables of variables and significance factors with analytic discussion). The form of the report itself, with detailed narrative cases or vignettes, is designed to aid the reader in particularizing the findings from the study to their own setting (Firestone, 1993). A range of cognitive theorists argue that narrative forms and cases are primary vehicles for learning and extending understanding (e.g., Bruner, 1990; Schank, 1982, 1990). Narrative reports may help to influence educational practice in other settings, because they provide richly indexed cases with which people can think and to which they can relate their own situations. The results of interpretive case study research, such as this report, should thus offer important contributions beyond those offered by statistical studies of the relation of input or process factors to outcome factors alone. With these words expressing my hopes about the usefulness of this case study, it is time to step back into the classroom.

Chapter 4 A teachers journey: Finding shoes that fit

Understanding what Rory does in his classroom requires some consideration of his life narrative (Ayers, 1989). In this chapter, I will examine some pertinent aspects of Rorys life narrative, which led him to venture into project-based science teaching, and continue struggling to improve his approach, despite early difficulties putting projects into practice. Swimming upstream Like many careers, Rorys career as a high school Earth Science teacher did not come about as a result of a clear, linear plan. It was a big, long, complex, twisty windy road. He once compared his life to comments from the comedienne Ellen DeGeneres, in her television show. ... Ellen goes, I dont have a plan. I dont have a life plan. I have no idea where Im going. Ive never had a life plan. She says, No, wait, there was a time when I ... nah, I never had a life plan. So she went off on a bus to get a plan, to have a vision. And I thought, Thats me. Ive never had a plan. I justyou know, and I thought about that. And I thought, how the hell did I get into teaching? I didnt plan to be here. I didnt plan to be here for 22 years. I had no idea where I was going. Rory had spent his first year in college as what he calls an Intro majorsomeone who takes introductory courses of all types. But then in his second year, geology captured his imagination and attention: I was wandering through the forest looking for something interesting, and I found geology. Before, rocks were things that you threw at your little brother, but now they revealed fascinating stories about the world. His interest grew, and he experienced early success. But during his junior year in college a course in geophysics, 69

70 where a new PhD ... was throwing formulas and stuff around the room like boomerangs, and [he] was getting hit in the head too much convinced Rory that graduate school in geology was not for him. He didnt have a strong college math background, and he believed at the time that would not bode well for graduate studies. So he considered his options, and decided he could still work in geology if he became a teacher. Becoming an earth science teacher would also mean being involved with astronomy, another class which had literally broadened [his] horizons. When he was taking astronomy in college, hed looked out at the sky and wondered at how far away the stars were and even further the other galaxies were. He took education courses, and found that he liked them, too. In his work as a teacher, Rory wanted to share all the cool stuff that [he] learned. As mentioned in Chapter Two, one of the most powerful sources for teachers ideas on teaching practice is previous experience in school (Cohen, 1988; Cuban, 1984). To figure out what to do, Rory turned to the model of some of the good teachers he had had, like the paleontology professor who gave great lectures, including one in which he impersonated an ancient coral. Most of what they had done, and what he began doing, was telling people about [phenomena] ... heres how things work. You know. Heres what happens in an earthquake, and heres what happens in a volcano, and heres plate tectonics. Heres how ocean currents move. He typically divided up the year into four topics, corresponding to the four subfields of Earth Science: geology, oceanography, meteorology, and astronomy. He still takes pride in some of the skills he developeddrawing illustrations on the board, such as diagrams of plate tectonics and ocean currents, and explaining how these phenomena work, and answering students questions. But there were down sides engaging students interests, finding ways to get students hands dirty in earth science, and maintaining his own interest all proved

71 difficult. Throughout, Rory felt like a fish swimming upstream. Even worsehe felt like a salmon swimming up Niagara Falls. Rory tried many different ways to get the students engaged and interested over the years, all within the basic framework of lecturelab-demo science teaching. After beginning to teach with projects, Rory summed up his previous practice like this: You go through the year, and you do your lectures. You cover your stuff. You have your labs. You grade your labs. You wade through all the paper work. You add up all the points. You give the grades. You give the tests. You know, very standard. Very boring ... At the same time, youre trying not to be boring. Youre trying to come up with activitiesyou know, like every teacher doesthat are exciting, that make kids think, and understand how things work, and hopefully some of it works. To make things work better, Rory tried varying the order he covered topics, depending on the way things worked the year before. He added in videos and laserdiscs that he found interesting and thought-provoking. But the students interests seldom seemed to match his own: And then that leads to all kinds of things like falling asleep, [and] doing other homework ... and then my feelings are hurt cause theyre doing their history while Im trying to do my worlds best lecture on plate tectonics, and they dont want it, cause they dont need it, cause they have a history test next period, and couldnt give a *#&% about plate tectonics. Rory also tried new labs almost every year, but he was frustrated by the nature of the laboratory activities in earth science. Northern Illinois is not a terribly exciting area for earth science studyexcept for glaciers, lakes, and weather, there was nothing much to get your hands into. And the laboratory exercises that tried to address other interesting issues, like earthquakes and volcanoes, were the basic cookbook kind. The problem was, you get down to the end, and youre supposed to get something out of it, and most of the time nobody does.

72 Finally, Rory himself got bored ... [with] talking about the same thing over and over again, especially with four classes on the same subject in the same day. At the time he became involved in CoVis, in September of 1992, Rory was not sure he would be teaching for much longer. After nineteen years, the process had become too frustrating. He had been trying to get them to think a little bit ... whether it [was] critically, about a particular problem, or whats out there, that they havent ever heard before. He had tried for a long time to get the students excited about a subject he enjoyed so muchgeologyand a process that he found so fascinatingscience. But he felt over and over again that the kids arent interestedI am. ... They dont care about it. Fish out of water In September of 1992, Rorys department head suggested he go to the CoVis meetings which had begun the previous summer, to see if he was interested. Given the background described above, it is not surprising that Rory was intrigued by the idea of getting students involved in doing science research. This approach was one that he had not tried, and he felt that if students are involved with doing things that they pick and design, they [will be] more apt to be more energized by that, and take more interest in and ownership in it. Instead of him saying do this, do this, do this, the students would get to make decisions. But he had a dilemma: how do I explain what I want them to do without telling them exactly how to do it? He and the other teachers in CoVis discussed this and other issues of introducing projects into their classrooms. Most of them decided to wait until the Fall of 1993 to begin projects, so they had longer to discuss and plan. But after reading LabNet (Ruopp, et al.,1993) and thinking hard about what he was trying to accomplish, Rory decided to step out of the familiar upstream struggle hed been waging. In the second quarter of 1992-93, he decided to throw out his textbook reading

73 assignments, lectures, and cookbook labs. He was uncertain how exactly he would go about helping his students do projects, because the LabNet teachers had all been working on physics projects, and he was unsure how to accomplish what they were doing in his Earth Science class. At the time, he said, I felt totally like a fish out of water. Because I had no idea what I was doing. So I was reallyyou talk about winging it. You know? This was really winging it. One reason he was winging it was that his personal experiences in secondary school and undergraduate studies did not provide him with models for this kind of teaching. So instead, he turned to the model of the graduate research project. As mentioned previously, Rory avoided graduate studies right after college; but years later he decided to pursue a masters in geology. He studied the mineral compositions and fracture patterns in rocks in Wisconsin, under the guidance of a graduate advisor. Now, he hoped he could get his students to play an active role in defining research problems, designing approaches to the problems, and performing the analyses, much as he had done for his masters. He would provide mostly feedback and advice, as his advisor had done. He assigned students a quarter-long, open-ended project with no formal requirements other than that it have something to do with mapping, and that they give an oral presentation at the end. He himself had what he later characterized as a vague sense of what he wanted his students to accomplish, but felt they would enjoy the freedom of studying almost anything about the Earth they wanted. As related earlier, however, he was reminded that things ... dont always work the way you expect them to workhis students felt like hed abandoned them on top of Mount Everest without a guide. Rory attributed some of the students frustration to the fact that he had started the year out traditionally, then changed the rules of the game to a non-traditional model. When he

74 told the students they would be doing real research, like graduate students, this only further daunted them. As re recalls it, their reaction was, Were only 14 and 15. How do you expect us to do projects that ... scientists are working on? He wanted the students to do all the work, and he was confident they could do it with him as a guide. But he had to become comfortable with that role, rather than the role of disseminator of packaged knowledge. To avoid being overly directive, Rory often left students completely to their own devises. Rorys initial swing away from teacher-directed pedagogy to a student-directed version is well-described in a study by Rogoff (1994). As Rogoff describes, lecturebased classrooms depend on transmission of knowledge from an active teacher to a passive learner. When trying to get away from this model, teachers often move to the contrasting model of unguided discovery, which depends on acquisition of knowledge by an active learner with the teacher remaining passive. Rogoff suggests instead the model of community of learners. It is based on the premise that learning occurs as people participate in shared endeavors with others, with all playing active but asymmetrical roles. (p. 209). But the class was not functioning well as a community of learners. The frustration level in the class during that first project was high. Not only were the students expected to play this new game, but they were also being graded on how they were playing. And they were very vocal about not wanting to do this. I vividly recall seeing a red-faced student in those early days shout at Rory, Just tell me what to do and Ill do it! In addition, the students parents were of the type who would call the school and complain that their students arent getting the traditional [instruction].

75 Lessons from the practical tinkerer Rory still says emphatically lecture-lab-demo was easier than [project-based teaching], but he persisted because he was committed to the idea of students doing science. Rather than abandoning project-based science, Rory modified what he was doing to make it work better. He attributes his grandfather with teaching him that things dont always work right the first time, but then you keep on trying, you modify. ... If youre patient enough, chances are you can get it done. And things that seem insurmountable arent if you take them in small little pieces. And theres always a way to do something. And if you want to do it, then find a way to do it. Rory spent a great deal of time as a child and adult with his grandfather, whom he calls a practical tinkerer. When his grandfather needed to have an air conditioner on the second floor, but didnt have a 220 volt line up there, he drill[ed] a hole in the wall and [ran] a conduit down the outside of the building down to the basement, despite the fact that he wasnt an electrician. He just learned how to do this stuff, either by watching other people or by doingjust by figuring it out himself. And when his grandfather ran into adversity, he was undaunted: I owned a house in the city for a couple of years, and we were doing some electrical work, and one image that always comes back to me is: it was a hot summer day, and we were in this crawl space, maybe we were between floors or something like thatthere was a false ceiling on the first floorand we were doing some wiring. OK, and [my grandfather] was screwing something in, and hes sweating like crazy, and hes got these glasses. I dont even know how he could see, cause he had sweat all over the glasses. It must have been like looking underwater. You know? And you get tired, and you take a break, and this is really hard to do, but he just never gave up. It was like he always seemed to go along at this very same pace, in whatever he was doing. Course he was, you know, 60, 70 years old you get to a certain pace at those times. And ... I dont think I ever saw him get mad. You know? And there were really frustrating things, and its like, OK, if that didnt work, then hed try something else. Like, OK, I cant get that screw in, maybe I better drill the hole a little bigger, or use a different size screw ...

76 To this day, Rory works on projects around the house the same way, remembering his grandfathers example. When he needed heat in the laundry room in his house, but there was no heating vent, he figured out a way to add one: So I went, OK, theres a crawl space, and heating ducts. OK, I know what heating ducts are, [but] Ive never done any heating [work] before ... OK, so I justlets see. I need this piece. I connect this piece to here, and this piece to here, and cut a hole in the floor, [and] put a vent in. When Rory needed a lock for the sliding glass doors in his house, he tried all kinds of store-bought gizmos that didnt work, but eventually made a custom lock out of eight dollars worth of pipe and corners from the hardware store. He says that project is still in evolution, as is everything that I do. His attitude both inside and outside the classroom is to figure out what the problem is, and invent something that [will] fix it. The hiking shoes fit Rorys continued interest in project-based science teaching despite adversity has partly to do with personal style: Its a real shift, and the good thing is that it feels much better to me to do things this way. Its like an intuitive, self-fitting kind of a thing. The way I described it to somebody ... was thatkind of like having shoes that fit, but they just, you know, they dont quite fit right, and your feet hurt after you wear em for a while. They start out OK, but then they get kind ofyou know, they hurt. Theyre still OK, but they hurt. So then you get a new pair of shoes that just fit, perfectly. You know, your feet love it, and you can walk forever, and they never your feet never get sore. You know, thats the way this feels as opposed to doing it the other way. It was okay, but it was always quirky, there were too many rough edges that I couldnt seem to get off. So this fits better, I like this fit. The reasons project-based science teaching shoes fit Rory relates to the reasons he found a summer Alpine Ecology course in Colorado to be one of the best times he ever had. It was a course offered to students at Lakeside, and Rory was asked to simply be a chaperonehe had no official teaching duties. After the students did some introductory lessons in the classroom, Rory went with them to the mountains of Colorado for a week of

77 field study. The program involved hiking, and looking at flowers, and the food web, and the food chains, and the ecology, and the geology, and whatever kind of came up ... [along with] free time to go horseback riding ... go climbing in the rocks, [or] whatever. He told me what was so special about it: We were walking around, you know, and I didnt want to ... force myself on kids as, you know, Joe Geologist. Because then Im like a teacher, and I didnt want to do that. So I was just kind of like, out there, and wed go on hikes, and Id stop and look at things that I found interesting. You know, like youd find a whole wall like this [gesturing expansively in front of him] that was all polished smooth and shiny from the glaciers. And you stop, and you just look at it, and you go Wow! I mean, this is really neat. And just by the fact that youre looking at something, you know, kids go, Hey, what are you looking at?" [Id answer], Glaciers. See, this cameice. And you look down the valley. See that U shape? Wow, thats really cool. [The] kids go, Oh, wow. So then we went hiking this one day to this old minesilver mineand were looking at rocks, and kids are saying Whats this? Whats this? Whats this? Cause they wanted to know what the stuff was ... and I remember one time there was this kid, and we were taking a hikeit was a long hikeand we were going up over this pass. And kids were asking what these rocks were. Eh? Feldspar. Its quartz. Its whatever. Pretty soon ... this one kid picked up this rock, and he went, Oh, just some more crappy feldspar, and he threw it. Feld-spaaaar, heeeey! You know? So kids were learning things. It was funny. And there was one kid on that trip who was gonna be a biology major in college, and he switched to geology because he had so much fun out there. Not that I, you know, had that much to do with it, but something changed, in him, because of what he saw. And so, that wasthat was a great experience because I wasnt telling them, you have to know this, and theyre going I dont wanna know this, or this is stupid. I dont have to know this. Its as if choosing to teach project-based Earth Science has allowed Rory to put the hiking shoes that he wore on that summer field study back on, and wear them into the classroom. In his class, students can follow up on their interests within Earth Science, and grow new interests. As Rogoff (1994) suggested, Rory does play an active and unique role, as a guide and spur to thought, rather than a disseminator of canned information. Learning to wear the shoes of the guide has required Rory to refine his unique role of

78 modeling and structuring activities in the classroom so that students can learn to conduct scientific inquiry. I turn to the refinement of this role in the next chapter.

Chapter 5 The difficulty of bootstrapping students into new practices

Three weeks into her first earth science project in Rory Wagners class, a bewildered Barb came up to Rory and said, Mr. Wagner, I need to talk to you about my project. Im at square zero. It was the fourth year in which Rory had his students designing and conducting their own research projects. In those years, and in the past few weeks, Rory has had countless discussions with students in large groups and small about how to begin projects, so he had a familiar litany of suggestions. He replied, OK. Basically, you need to pick a topicanything that youre interested in. Say, volcanoes. You then learn about that, and then focus down. Say, on volcano lava, or the pattern of volcano eruptions. Another student, Dave, asked, What if the question we come up with is already answered? Rory answered, Then you go do some more. I want you to explore some part of science, something that doesnt have a definite answer. Barb continued, Im having trouble understanding the point of this project. Rory reiterated his most familiar line, I want you to do science. Barb retorted, you can just read it in a book. Well, you can certainly read about science in a book, but that is a far cry from doing science, as Rory well knew. But Barb, and many of her fellow classmates, had never been challenged to take an active role in framing and solving scientific research questions. Rory settled in to a more extended conversation, hoping to make some progress with Barb today.

79

80 The need for bootstrapping Rorys first efforts at teaching science through projects were not easy, and students first efforts at understanding what projects are and how to conduct them have proven difficult each year. In Rorys view, the main feature of lecture-lab-demo teaching that made it easier than project-based teaching was control. With his switch to projectbased science in 1992-93, Rory initially relinquished almost all control over student learning in the classroom, but now he controls some aspects of what is learned by having all his students work through a common framework. In the encounter above, he referred Barb to the first step in this framework, selecting a topic. The specific topics and questions students like Barb learn about are still largely controlled by the students, though. This is a significant change from lecture-lab-demo, in which teachers dont have to respond to the students interests. Rory elaborated on the control issue in an interview: The control thing isyou know, its not that big of an issue [after a couple of years]. It is when you first start doing projects, because you realize youre not driving the direction of anything, other than youve laid the framework; other than, you are in control, and you have to maintain control in the classroom. So you still are in control, but youre just not in control of whats being learnedother than thinkingand youre controlling that, because you set up a framework of what they have to do, and then you just help them. And really it gets to a much better model of education. A model of education in which learning is achieved through participation in the activities of a community of practice has been extolled by researchers and theorists time and again. Although Papert did not use the term "community of practice" in his seminal work Mindstorms (Papert, 1980), he described intergenerational learning that takes place in the preparation at a samba school for a Brazilian festival. Experienced adults work with novice children on teams over an extended period of time, supporting learning and passing on expertise naturally through the construction of displays and the production of street theater. Similarly, Lave & Wenger (1991) describe how apprentice tailors gradually learn

81 their craft by aiding master tailors in ever expanding portions of work they are hired to do. Brown, et al. (1989) have described the general processes of modeling, coaching, and fading as important means by which more experienced members of a community help novices learn to contribute to activities. For educators like Rory interested in fostering meaningful learning in school classrooms, however, models such as the samba school and classical apprenticeships can seem frustratingly distant from any reality they face or can create with students like Barb and Dave. For Rorys and his students daily work in high schools, the most salient community is found in the individual classrooms that change on a period-by-period basis. One obvious difference between traditional apprenticeship models and classroom communities is that the group which the teacher leads is entirely reconstituted at the beginning of each year. At any one time in an apprenticeship, most of the members of the community have some experience and a few are novices. In a high school class at the beginning of the school year, only one person in the classroom has experience in the specific practices of that specific classthe teacher (Wasley, 1994). As Rory puts it, when you start out a new year you have a whole new group of kids, and they have no idea what happened the last year. Although the classroom group may be new at the beginning of the year, students are familiar with common school practices from previous years experience. Thus, teachers who conduct their classes in the most typical fashion can take advantage of the shared experiences students already have, even though they dont know the students personally. Such teachers using the most typical pedagogy will have an easier time at establishing shared understanding of what is expected in the class than those whose

82 pedagogy departs from the norm. Teachers like Rory who go outside the norm not only lack the shared understanding of how school works that more traditional teachers use they must at times actively resist students assumption that the class is or should fit their accustomed model. The lack of experts and the opposition to the standard culture of schooling create a unique problem for a teacher like Rory leading reform-oriented classrooms: he must create an environment in which students can take actions to begin to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Modeling a science research project After his first year with projects, Rory knew he faced a challenge in conveying what he meant by doing a project. His first step to accomplishing this was preparing and presenting a Powerpoint slide show at the beginning of September answering, among other things, the question how do you do a project? The steps he laid out are shown in Table 2.

83 Find a topic you are interested in Find one or more people interested in the same topic. Research (read) as much about the topic as you can find Use your text, the library, magazines, and journals. Brainstorm on the topic to find a unique research question Brainstorm about how to find the information you will need to answer your research question. Use whatever tools you need to find the information you need. - CoVis computer tools - Libraries - Personal communications - Original experimentation - Whatever it takes!!! Analyze your data to see what you have discovered Write up your results in a formal paper. Prepare an oral presentation for the class. Table 2: Steps to doing a project, from slide show After laying out this framework, and along with conducting the activities introducing the CoVis tools, Rory decided to orchestrate a model project, in which he acted as the project manager. In the literature on cognitive apprenticeship, modeling is discussed as an important aspect of how experienced practitioners can help novices learn new skills and ideas (Brown, et al., 1989; Collins, et al., 1989). Rory hoped that leading them through a whole-class project of his own design would provide them an opportunity to observe and build a conceptual model of the processes that are required to accomplish the task (Collins, et al., 1989, p. 481). During the first quarter, Rory directed the students in measuring and then mapping the size and extent of a local sand beach, collecting historical maps and data, and using this data to analyze how the beach had changed over time. Then, he directed them in measuring hills and elevations at a local park to create a

84 contour map of the land elevation. Each of these model projects included students working on vital parts of the process, such as systematically collecting and organizing data, and creating graphical representations of the data. After the model projects were completed, Rory gave another presentation and passed out handouts describing the steps they would follow for doing their own earth science projects. The broad steps, which had more detailed descriptions underneath them, were: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) Find a broad topic in Earth Science that you are interested in ... Find a research partner or partners. ... Narrow your broad topic into a research proposal. ... Brainstorm about your research proposal ... Collect Data. ... Analyze your data to see what you have discovered ... Write a paper explaining your project. ... Prepare a presentation to the class.

He also used the model beach project as an example to describe the steps. For the crucial step of narrowing a research proposal (#3), he described how he brainstormed about the broad topic of beaches, to come up with a focused research question and a research plan. He suggested a five step process of brainstorming for the research proposal: 4a) 4b) 4c) 4d) 4e) What do you already know? What other questions about the topic come up? Narrow the topic down to a single idea that you want to explore in depth What information do you need to find the answer to your question? What do you have to do to get the information that you need?

In an attempt to make his thought processes and decisions explicit, as recommended by Collins, et al. (1989), he described what he had done for these steps in the case of the model project on the beach: What do we already know about beaches? Made of sand. Can be on lakes, rivers, oceans. Change shape over time. Affected by erosion. Change seasonally. Waves affect them. People affect them. People try to protect them. People build things on them. Etc. Questions about the topics: Is all the sand the same on one beach? If its different,

85 where and why? Do all beaches have the same sand? What is the slope of the beach? Is the below-water slope the same? Does the slope change? When? Why? Are the sand grains the same below water? Do the groins affect the shape and slope of the beach? How? Does the angle of the shoreline affect the shape of the beach or the sand grains? Etc. Narrow the topic: How does the shape of the beach change over time? What do you need to know to answer your question? You need to know the current shape of the beach and the shape of the beach at different times in the past. What do you have to do to get the information that you need? You have to measure the beach and make a map of its present shape. You have to find historical records of the beach (which may include maps), to compare with its current shape. The beach and hill mapping projects certainly succeeded in sending the message that this class [is] a little bit different by holding class on a beach and in a park for the better part of two weeks. But it was not clear to Rory that the students were able to transfer the experience to their later projects, in which they were responsible for the research design. Instead, students started doing your basic library research paper, which he saw as fundamentally different from original sciencemostly due to the lack of analysis of empirical data. Looking back a year later on the mapping projects, Rory attributed at least part of the problem to the difficulty of mapping. As he said, maps are tough, because youre trying to look at the world from a whole different perspective than you normally do. And so youre asking them to shift from a horizontal view to a vertical view, and some kids dont have that vertical view. In addition, most of the empirical data students could use in their projects did not require shifts in perspective or heavy analysis of maps, but instead involved tables of numeric values and graphs of them. Since these issues may have prevented students from grasping and applying the lessons about doing projects, Rory decided the following year to do a sand analysis project that focused on two of the other questions he had brainstormed earlier: Is all the sand the same on one beach? If its different, where and why? The results of this effort would be graphs that were more like what students typically worked with in their own projects.

86 Modeling a project, take two During the first quarter of 1994-95, the model project that Rory directed was one of three strands of activities Rory conducted on alternate days (the others were lectures providing an overview of earth science, and introduction to the networked computer tools). Once again, the intention of the beach sand analysis project was to model a process of data collection, analysis, and coming to conclusions that the students could later utilize when they were conducting their own projects. Rory described the project as follows: Student groups analyzed sand samples collected from the nearby beach. They collected the sand [in shallow water, at the swash line and the middle of the beach], sieved it to find the amounts of different sized grains, and examined each different size sample with a hand lens to determine the roundness and smoothness of the grains. Each group made either line or bar graphs of their data; grain size vs. % of total sample, grain size vs. roundness, grain size vs. smoothness. They then put the data into a spreadsheet and each group made the same three graphs for the class data. Looking at a map that showed where the samples were taken from on the beach, they then had to see if there were any patterns in the sizes, smoothness, or roundness of the sand either up and down the beach or away from the shoreline. Students were able to complete the activities, and made brief presentations to the class. But Rory gradually became convinced that his goals for the activity had not been met. He felt at the end that students were not paying attention to thisthey were just doing it. When students completed their first round of projects, he had little evidence ... that the [sand analysis] exercise had any meaning for the students other than to get it finished. Although Rory had designed the sand analysis project to cover three parts of doing science research projectsdata collection, analysis, and conclusions the students were not yet in a position to think of the activities in the same way as Rory. Rory summarized the problem as follows: Most of [the students] were just missing completely, how this fit in, cause there was no context. They hadnt ever done a project, so it didnt make any difference to them what part of the project it was.

87 Thus, when the students were asked during the second quarter to do data collection, analysis, and coming to conclusions in their own projects, Rory intended students to think about the sand data collection, organization and graphing of sand data in a spreadsheet, and reaching conclusions about the beach sand. Ultimately, the sand analysis project fell into the same kind of trap traditional labs dostudents never took interest or ownership, and were able to follow step-by-step orders without considering how the steps fit into the bigger picture of how to design and carry out a science research project. For instance, Rory distributed instructions on exactly what graphs students should make, including how the graphs should be labeled and what data should be in them. Students did not need to consider why the graphs they made were apt. There was not enough parallel in the students experience during this first project that Rory managed and the later projects that the students managed for the students to build a conceptual model they could use; the model project never really accomplished [Rorys] goals. The pitfalls of modeling Due in part to lack of student engagement and transfer, Rory decided that he would drop the model project strand from the introductory activities in the 1995-96 school year. I would note, however, that Rorys experience with model projects does not necessarily imply that such projects could never prove useful to students. Rorys experience does, however, highlight some of the important pitfalls of this strategy. Most importantly, teachers must find ways to engage students in actively considering the rationale behind the model project while working through it, and students experience in the model project must parallel their experience in later projects for transfer to be successful. In Rorys 1993-94 and 94-95 efforts, there was a structural parallel that Rory saw between the model project

88 and the framework for student-designed projects, but students did not necessarily see the parallel because they played very different roles at the two times. Alternative forms of modeling Model projects could be designed and conducted to address the pitfalls Rory encountered. For instance, the teacher could supply students with a driving question for which he or she had considerable expertise and/or resources. The teacher would then challenge students to think about the question, and have them help decide how to answer the question, rather than supplying a canned procedure. The teacher would also challenge students to think about how their decisions along the way fit into a larger plan to answer a research question. Such a strategy could avoid the pitfalls of students never taking ownership of the problems, and never building a conceptual model of research project design. In fact, Rory and a colleague had conducted an activity like this in previous years, with somewhat better success. They had challenged students to map a complicated plot of land using only string, meter sticks, and their own wits and bodies. In these projects, Rory and his colleague consciously held back from offering their own solutions, and instead supported student decision-making by asking questions based on their own knowledge of map-making and the issues involved. Rory flirted with implementing a strategy like this in the 1995-96 school year on the beach sand theme: the focused question could be what is the sand size distribution on the beach? Focusing on just one variable, he believed, would allow him to concentrate on the process of research design and implementation. Instead of giving them the step by step of how to do it, he would ask students to figure out what do we need to answer this question and how are we gonna collect this data? After they had the data, he would work with them on how to organize the data, graph it, figure out what the graphs meant, and explain why the sand size might

89 be distributed the way it is. He would not provide the answers; he would ask important questions. In the end, though, Rory opted to jump directly from the earth science lectures and activities introducing the network tools to the students first project. In this way, the class would get to the real stuff instead of talking about what theyre going to do. And Rory could work with [the students] a lot, and maybe share with the class and brainstorm together about each of the parts as each group considered how to design and carry out the research projects they owned. In effect, he would model subskills and provide scaffolding embedded within the larger activity of conducting a student-designed project, so that students would not lose the context.

Chapter 6 Setting the stage in a new year

The first day: Introduction to the setting and actors Another school year begins on a hot, late August day. Before school, Rory meets me outside the cinderblock cubby hole office he shares with the other Earth Science teacher. He shuffles through his briefcase after we enter, and talks to me about the upcoming class with nervous excitement. Things are crazy, Rory says. Its been a while since he had a first period class, and it doesnt seem like theres enough time before the period to get ready. He is still finishing up his handout on expectations for the class. Plus his email account is not working, and the printer is not working. The technology problems are up to him to fix, since as of this year he is the Technology Coordinator for the CoVis classroom and network at the school. Another CoVis teacher calls and informs him their Internet connection from the classroom is not operational, even though it worked fine for Rory when he tested it the previous day. Rory tells her he will try and get it up and running before her class. We go into the classroom next door a few minutes before class. Rory plans on giving an electronic presentation about the course, and, remembering similar plans gone awry in the past, he is trying to make sure the program and file will work, as well as the display on the overhead, large-screen televisions. Sure enough, he has trouble opening the file at first, but he quickly finds a workaround. The bell rings at 8:40 to begin class. Twenty-eight students are scattered about the room, in clusters of three or four at the seven long, movable tables. The room is much wider than it is deep, with the front 90

91 defined by the blackboard and maps on the north wall facing the hallway (see Figure 1). On the blackboard the students see the class name: Earth Science 114 & 119. In front of the blackboard is a tall, permanently attached demonstration table with a sink and a stool behindclearly, the teachers base. Rory is wearing brown corduroys, a blue chambray shirt and a wolf tiecasual for a teacher, with a touch of the outdoors Rory loves. He is tall, with ruddy skin, and dark black hair. His looks and fitness make it difficult for students to discern his age. Although the students attire leans heavily toward the casual, students around the room are attired in a colorful array. They range from casual skateboarding shorts, torn jeans, baggy flannel layered over t-shirts, worn baseball caps with college logosto intermediatekhakis and button-down shirtto dressyflowing silk pants and blouses that look like they are out of J Crew.

92
tv Demo table tv

A1

A2

A3

B1

B2

B3

C2

ledge

Key:
computer small TV with videocamera tv large overhead TV

Figure 1: Lakesides CoVis classroom layout Right after the bell, easily projecting his voice so the whole class can hear, Rory says, OK, Ive got some additions to make, so if you just bear with me ... if anybodys got more schedule changes, bring them up. Three more students walk in late and find a place, getting no comment. Rory opens the three ring binder in which he keeps class lists, attendance and grade sheets, and a schematic of each class in a plastic sheet on which he indicates students daily absence or presence with erasable colored markers. Looking up from his writing, he says, OK, welcome back. Then he smiles wryly and adds Im sure were all glad to be here. Gesturing to the board, he continues this is Earth Science 114 and 119 ... We meet every day Period 1, and Monday and Wednesday we have a double

93 lab period. Ill be handing out a paper tomorrow explaining the expectations for the class. He continues: OK, lets do attendance. I need to begin learning your names. Ive got 100 some to learn, and its inevitably a difficult process ... Ill try to learn all your names by the end of the month. If I pass you in the hall and dont say hi its not because I dont like youits because I dont recognize you yet. As I go through your names, let me know if I pronounce them correctly, and if youd like to be called something different. Ill respect nicknames if you prefer them ... As far as my name goes, you can call me Rory if youre comfortable, or Mr. Wagner. Im trying to break down some of the barriers to open communication. Im still in authority, but I want you to think of us working together. The students wait quietly while Rory goes through the list of names. Most of the students raise their hands and say here when their names are called. Some ask him to call them by a nickname. Thomas prefers Tom, and Jesse prefers Jess. Timothy goes by TJ. As in the rest of this relatively wealthy, suburban school, most of the students are whitethe exceptions are Cheryl, who is African-American; Emily, whose parents are Asian; and Mark, whose parents are from the Middle East. Rorys classes routinely consist of 9th through 12th graders, but this one is mostly older students: one ninth grader, 4 tenth graders, 13 eleventh graders, and 10 twelfth graders are taking this class. Throughout all Rorys classes, he has slightly more older students than younger students, but individual classes are skewed one way or another by the fact that students in a given year tend to have similar schedules. The Period 7/8 class I observed in 1994-95 had a large number of freshmen and sophomores, in contrast to the Period 1/2 1995-96 class described here. Where the students are coming from Interest in science and this class At Lakeside High School, the Earth Science course, along with some other courses such as Anatomy and Environmental Science, are considered alternative science courses and are taken by fewer students than chemistry and physics. The core sequence of science

94 classes are biology (which most 9th graders take and all students must take at some point), chemistry, and physics. To see how the students in Rorys class compare to other students, it is informative to compare the results of their responses to a few survey questions we asked 1662 students at more than 30 urban and suburban schools participating in CoVis during the Fall of 1995 (see Table 3).

Rorys classes (n=70) Item Scale Meaning (all are 1-5 likert ratings) Circle one number for the scale. 1=I am NOT a science or math person 3=Neutral 5=I AM a science or math person 1=disagree strongly, 3=neutral, 5=agree strongly 1=definitely not, 3=maybe, 5=definitely yes 1=definitely not, 3=maybe, 5=definitely yes 1=definitely not, 3=maybe, 5=definitely yes Mean () % most negative response

All other CoVis classes (n=1592) Mean () % most negative response

2.8

26%

3.2

16%

I enjoy classes in science.

3.2

16%

3.5

10%

Can you see yourself becoming a scientist? Can you see yourself majoring in science in college? Can you see yourself using science in your career?

1.8

57%

2.0

49%

2.0

56%

2.4

36%

2.7

28%

3.0

19%

Table 3: Mean student responses to survey items on science interest.

95 In general, students in CoVis do not express much enthusiasm for science or science classes in the survey. Nevertheless, Rorys classes come out below the means on all these survey items that relate to students enjoyment of science, expectations about future use of science, and participation in scientific activities. In addition, larger percentages of Rorys students give the lowest possible ratings on these survey items: 26% are emphatically NOT science people, and more than half say they will definitely not become scientists or major in science in college. My interviews with focus students in Rorys class provide a closer look at the reasons students have arrived in this room on the first day of class. Although they are not required to take the class, most students tend to sign up for Earth Science less out of interest in science in general or earth science in particular than a variety of other reasons from getting credits out of the way to doing project work to working with computers. Steve, the freshman in Period 1/2, is one of the few, along with Adam, who come in with a strong interest in science. Since he is a freshman, Steve didnt know much about the course or the way it was taught before arriving today. He signed up because he wanted to do something different, and most freshmen take biology. Besides, he didnt expect to enjoy biology as much as earth sciencehe hoped they might go out in the field and use geologist hammers and so on in this course. Since Lakeside requires two science credits to graduate, and one of them must be in physical sciences (which include Earth Science, Chemistry, and Physics), some of the juniors and seniors in the class, like Patti and Beth, are taking the course to get their final science requirement and avoid the other choices they and most of the other students in the class perceive as more difficult. Patti does not like science, whereas Beth says she likes science, but doesnt consider herself good at it. Patti also took the class to be with some friends who were signing up. Cheryl, too, was

96 attracted to the earth science course in part because she expected less math than the AP science courses she saw as an alternative. Cheryl is also an example of a student who is definitely not a math or science personshe is a senior much more interested in English and theater, and is not really interested in [Earth Science] as a subjectbut who is taking the course with an eye toward college more than any other factor. Competitive colleges are said to prefer more science credits than the two that Lakeside requires. In addition to getting her fourth science credit so her college applications will be stronger, Cheryl thought the course sounded just like what [her] friends described college as. By this she means Rory doesnt dote on you all the time, pressuring you to get assignments in, which she sees as more like professors in college than typical high school teachers. Dave also liked the prospect of doing the project work for the class, but his reason was differenthe like[s] group projects. When I ask Dave why he likes group projects, he says, Its good to have a bunch of different opinions, you know ... a lot of times ... you think your natural opinion is good, and then ... youll get another idea from someone else thats just as good ... [And] its just nice to have a bunch of people in the same boat, working on the same thing. Cheryl, Beth and Dave had all been attracted to the computer component of the class. Beth says her father and brother are very much into computers, but she was never comfortable with computers and would like to learn more. Dave considers computer skills something he could really use ... thats gonna be more valuable to [him] in the future than anything [hes] done in any other science course. Even though Rorys students are less enthusiastic than many other students about science, their academic confidence and performance is almost the same as the larger group of CoVis students surveyed at other schools The average self-reported GPA of Rorys students is 2.9 out of 4, whereas it is 3.1 in all other CoVis classes. Also, both Rorys

97 students and other CoVis students average just slightly above neutral in their agreement with the statement I do very well in my science classes. Experiences in other science classes As he goes through the attendance list, Rory notes where students are sitting on his schematic drawing of the tables, and asks them to try and choose a place where they generally sit, so he can find them for attendance. He will not be assigning seats. He then announces: Theres a textbook somewhere for this class [looking around room] ... I cant find it right now, but Ill warn you right now, the textbook is not something youll read and do assignments out of every day. Its a reference book for this class. You may want to get a used Earth Science book from anytime in the last 10 years. It can be another edition besides the one we use now, since it will probably have the important information in it. The content of Earth Science is the content of this course ... Were going to have intensive lecture for the first month. You may want to refer to your book, but Im warning you now, so if you notice later you havent used it, dont be upset. Rory is trying to anticipate and head off problems he has had in the past. Last year, some students kept asking him during the year why dont we ever use our textbook? He tried to explain that he intended them to use it as a reference, with facts that you dont want to remember, or that you dont know, or that you dont need to remember; but if you need to look em up, theyre there. Nevertheless, the students last year felt they had wasted the money on a book they werent necessarily going to use. So this year, he decided to give students the option of acquiring any fairly recent earth science book to be used as a reference, should they need to look up some term or find a basic explanation for a phenomenon. Seeing a textbook as a repository where facts can be looked up when needed rather than a set of facts to be memorized is one of the changes in viewpoint Rory anticipates from the standard form of schooling to which the students are accustomed. From his

98 experience, it seems to Rory that students havent ever done a project like the ones in his class, where they have to build their own interests into a research study they design, and go beyond what they read to make their own scientific claims. Instead, he feels most students have done descriptive reports where you find out all you can about a subject and [then] report on it. He wants them to be able to go beyond just saying heres what I know to adding heres what I dont know and addressing how do I figure out what I dont know, and how do I make that into something I know? This is a general impression Rory has built up over time. Rory also has a general sense that research projects of various sorts and group work are going on at the school. To see how Rorys perspective matches with the students, I explored what previous science classes students have taken, what those science classes were like, and whether students had done projects in any other classes. According to survey9 responses, the overwhelming majority of the students (95%) have taken high school biology previously. The only exception is Steve, the freshman. More than half the students (53%) have taken chemistry in addition to biology. A small number (21%) have also taken physics. In interviews outside of class, the five students I asked describe their previous science classes as more lecture and textbook-oriented. A normal or usual science class at Lakeside is considered by these students to be one in which students work on one topic a week. During that week, students do highly structured lab experiments that are all laid out for you on the two lab days during the week, turn in a lab report, hear lectures on the topic where they are expected to take notes, read about the topic in the textbook, possibly complete worksheets, and then have a test or quiz on Friday. Friday is designated the science test day at Lakeside. About her biology class taught in this style, Patti says, It was all like very constructed, and like, you know, step
9 This survey data was kindly provided by Laura DAmico, from a survey on teachers goals she

administered to several classes, including Rory Wagners.

99 by step by step. It, like, hand-feeded you. In her opinion, she didnt learn anything from that class, basically, because they were just copying things down. All the students do not view their other science classes as negatively as Patti, but the differences Rory expects between his class and the other science classes students have taken were echoed by all the students I interviewed. As far as project-like work in non-science classes, students differ somewhat in their experiences and their perspective. Cheryl saw work in their English classes, especially the Junior Theme each student at Lakeside has to complete, as very similar to the projects in Rorys class, except for the fact that they are completed individually rather than in groups. Like Rorys project, the Junior Theme involves long-term research and results in a similar expository paper, in her opinion. Cheryls statement about the similar nature of Rorys final report with Junior Theme was made prior to the completion of her first earth science project, however, not long after she made the statement I dont see why we cant write a report on [UFOs] if people have written whole books on it.10 As I will discuss later, at this stage Cheryl has not yet grasped the importance of original data analysis to Rorys goals. All the other students I interviewed pointed out that projects for other classes, like English and an interdisciplinary English and History course, are less open-ended than the projects in Rorys class. For the projects in those other classes, students have to turn in note cards and/or outlines in specific formats, and in many cases are given topics and specific subquestions. An example is the project Patti did in an integrated history/English class a few of the other students had also taken. The students were given the topic cultural diversity in the U.S. during the 1800s, and asked to answer what culture clashes were
10 The statement was made in response to a question during Cheryls first interview with me outside class,

during December. She had not yet turned in a complete project report, at which point she would learn more about the differences between empirical science research reports and English reports. I did not repeat this question in her second interview.

100 there between groups like the Indians and English. As Beth put it, the teacher tells you [everything] to do to complete it. Beth echoed Rorys intuition that students had not been asked to play a role in figuring out how to answer a research question. In addition, Steve, Beth and Dave pointed out that the primary work in their projects in other classes was finding and organizing facts that others had established about a topicwhat Rory terms standard library research. Again, Beth echoed Rorys intuition about how his projects were different from those in other classes when she said she had never had a project where there hasnt been like really an answer, or someone whos already found the answer. The school and community context Lakeside High School is a public high school situated in an affluent, mostly white, community in the suburbs of Chicago. The campus, and the word aptly describes the grounds, is large and well-apportioned, although the buildings were built half a century ago. Students who arrive at school carrying Starbucks coffee cups do not look out of place. According to the 1990 census, the average per capita income in one town in the district is $62,000 (Krieg & Wheelan, 1995). The average spending per student for the just under 3,000 students at the school is $12,000 (Krieg & Wheelan, 1995). According to demographic information available on the Sunspace Internet site (http://www.sunspace.com), the students at Lakeside as of 1994-95 (the most recent year available) were 85% white, 2% black, 11% Asian or Pacific Islander, and 2% Hispanic, and less than 1% American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut. Although there is an average student/teacher ratio of 12/1, the size of Rorys classes over the past three years has ranged from 15 to 28 (28 is the enrollment of the class described here). The difference between Rorys course and the overall average is in part

101 because of a variety of specialized courses that have much smaller enrollments, such as those in the drama department. Drama is one of the areas of excellence for which the school is known. Roughly 80 percent of residents in the enrollment area are college graduates (Krieg & Wheelan, 1995), and there is an obvious expectation that all students should attend college. Most will attend college. On one day later in the year, the student newspaper will publish a list of all seniors destinations. The top ten in 1996 will consist mostly of Big Ten schools such as the University of Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, but also includes Northwestern. A number of students will go on to Ivy League universities or Stanford and Berkeley, as well as a variety of community colleges and small liberal arts colleges. Of the approximately 700 student destinations listed in the column, four are explicitly not attending college or university (one is working, one is taking a year off, one is taking a year off to work, and one is taking a year off in El Salvador), and 40 are undecided. On that spring day, students ranging from first to fourth year in high school will pore over the list and comment to one another about their peers futures. Like a number of public schools in Chicago and its suburbs, Lakeside and its community have a long tradition of involvement in education reform efforts, including the progressive movement (Progressive Education Association, 1943; Zilversmit, 1993). In addition, the Eight Years Study mentioned in Chapter 2, which documented the success of students educated in progressive elementary and secondary schools when they went on to college (Aikin, 1942), included students from this region. This history, combined with the high teacher salaries, may help contribute to an atmosphere among the faculty and administration of acceptance for a multiplicity of teaching practices . As Rory said, there are some places, some schools, where everybody who is teaching biology is essentially on the same page, doing the same lecture, doing the same lab. Its all

102 lock step, and they all give the same test at the end of the unit. And that way thats their way of quality control, to make sure that every kid has the same experience. Lakeside on the other hand, at least in our department, ... cause I cant speak for all the departments, were kind of like, yeah, you do whatever you want. Youre a highly educated and well-paid professional, and you know whats important in your discipline, and go for it. ... We deeply cherish this right to do whatever it is we wanna do. As mentioned in Chapter 3, I ultimately leave readers to make decisions about what, if anything, they can learn from this study and apply in their own setting. Nevertheless, I feel obliged to address one possible conclusion some readers might draw from this description of Lakesides district: that the affluence and overwhelmingly college-bound student body make the lessons from Lakeside completely inapplicable to other settings in urban or rural communities, where students have a lower socioeconomic status. I view this conclusion as erroneous, and side with teachers in the Coalition of Essential Schools who have pointed out that it is possible to learn important lessons when we put aside the notion that one can learn only from teachers who teach in the same kind of school, the same aged kids, the same discipline, and who work with kids from the same economic background. Techniques, strategies, structures, personal reflections, and big ideas can and do transcend all of these personal identifiers. (Wasley, 1994, pp. 9-10) My inclination is to encourage readers to think about how the structures for classroom work and organization, and the strategies of interaction and guidance described in this study can apply to other school settings. For example, there may be important differences in how grades act as a motivator for students in some other settings compared to the students at Lakeside (where a competitive, college-bound atmosphere reigns, albeit to a somewhat lesser degree in Earth Science class than AP Physics); but there will likely be important similarities in how interest and student voice work as motivators.

103 Where theyre going: Overview of CoVis, the class, and projects Once attendance and the other preliminary comments are completed, Rory turns to a presentation he prepared about the class last year. He says, I have a little presentation to give, and goes to his office next door to get something. He returns with a remote computer controller that works like a television remote. Rory turns on the large televisions which hang above the class. The television screens are set to display the image from the computer monitor. He opens up the Powerpoint slide show on the computer in the front right corner of the room, and an animation of an approaching globe plays, followed by the title Earth Science and CoVis Project. The use of multiple technologies is not an accident: on this and other occasions Rory wants to model for the kids using the technology as a tool within the everyday activity of the class. Rory then explains the term CoVis: The Co stands for collaborative and the Vis for visualization. You are automatically part of it by being a part of this class, or any other earth science class at Lakeside, for that matter ... CoVis is something from the Northwestern University School of Education, funded with National Science Foundation money. Its about trying to change teaching from lecture/lab/demothe way most classes are taughtto doing more long-term projects that interest you ... CoVis means well be using a lot of tools ... Youll have to sign a couple of forms, take a survey or two. Thats it. This sketchy summary glosses over a host of complex issues, but it begins to indicate some of the ways in which the abstract ideas of CoVis have been appropriated by Rory to fit his own particular circumstances and goals. As was mentioned in Chapters 1 and 2, Rorys particular appropriation and realization of CoVis will differ in important ways from other teachers or the abstract vision. Rorys particular appropriation, which focuses more strongly on the Co in CoVis than the Vis, will continue to be conveyed and realized in situ throughout this day and over the next few months.

104 Next, Rory moves into the next set of animated slides on Earth Science, which split activities up into Content and Process (see Table 4).

CONTENT - Maps/Mapping - Weather/Climate - Universe - Geology - Oceans

PROCESS - Measure - Observe/Collect Data - Classify - Describe - Create Theories - Make and Test Models

Table 4: Rory Wagners breakdown of Earth Science He says, There are two parts to what scientists do: the body of knowledge, and how they go about getting that knowledge. Most classes concentrate on just the body of knowledge. In this class Im more interested in the processhow you go about getting knowledge. Its kind of like sportsa lot of people arent satisfied just reading about sports and studying them. They want to do them. Scientists want to do science, not just learn facts ... thats one of the shifts I see in this class. Rory then goes on to explain that as part of CoVis, his Earth Science class involves three things: projects, technology, and collaborations. He only briefly mentions the technology, saying it is a tool to help you do projects. This is not a computer science course, but we use computers a lot. The definition of projects on the slide is collaborative investigations of earth science phenomena of your choice. He talks somewhat longer about projects: Projects are what you want to do, not what I want. I do recognize that you often dont want to do much at all ... Im constantly amazed that many students see high school as a holding pen before going to college. Teachers dont usually. Im trying to change that, and make high school more open and interesting to you. My job is to light a fire, but like the saying says, you can lead a horse to water, but

105 you cant make it drink. If you dont want to work, thats your choice. But your grade wont be so good. Rory then goes on to describe the different collaborators possible. Collaboration can be with other high school students ... you will be partners with other students on projects, even students in other places. For example, you could have a lab partner in Ohio. Thats the way scientists workthey work at different times and in different places on different parts of the problem. But they will not only have the opportunity to collaborate and communicate with their peers: You will also collaborate with scientists, including myself and the other teachers here at Lakeside, and scientists from other partners, such as Northwestern, the U of I [the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign], and the Exploratorium museum in San Francisco. You also have access to the rest of the world through the Internet. As it turns out, Northwestern, the U of I, and the Exploratorium are not any more partners for you than the rest of the world. In order to collaborate over the Internet, they have a suite of technology in the classroom. For communicating with others, Rory says, youll be using tools like electronic mail. Youll have personal accounts, and you can use these for project work as well as personal communication with parents or brothers and sisters at college. Youll also be able to use news and gopher. He doesnt mention the World Wide Web, which was a virtually unknown entity 12 months earlier when he made this slide show. Later this week, he will show them the Web and the Netscape Navigator browser they use. Other technological tools besides these tools for communication are mentioned on his slides, including tools for visualizing weather and climate data, and the Collaboratory Notebook, a tool for storing, organizing and structuring scientific inquiry developed by the CoVis staff. But as is the case during the rest of the year, Rory does not highlight the latter technologies in this initial presentation, instead focusing on communication tools.

106 Next comes the series of slides he had laid out the previous year answering the question how do you do a project? (see Table 2). He does not dwell on this section either, saying, this is jumping ahead a bit, but we have time. He simply reads aloud the steps detailed on the slides. Finally, he describes the way the years schedule will go: The first quarter will include an introduction to the tools, youll listen to my lectures, and youll do mini-projects11 . In quarters 2, 3, and 4, youll do projects of your own choosing. The projects will culminate in a formal paper and presentation, kind of like the presentation Im making now, but a little better. A lot of students use graphs and posters, and Ill try and nudge you to using technology like this to make a more compelling presentation. Then Rory opens up the floor for questions. One student asks if they have labs. Rory says no, and describes his position on labs: In my opinion lab shows you a few little things. Its materials to demo things in real life without taking you there ... I wanna replace traditional labs with doing projects. For example, a sand lab would be a small, self-contained, 40 minute long procedure, but a sand project might compare sand from many beaches and analyze it, to try and find an answer to questions you come up with about it. Another student asks about the difference between taking the class for 4-level vs. 3level credit. Rory says students at the more difficult level have higher expectations in the form of doing extra stuff, but what the work is is negotiable. There are no more questions, so Rory tells them deadpan about quizzes and tests: there is at least one. A number of students, disbelieving, say for the whole year? He reassures him that is what he meant, and when a student presses him for the maximum number of quizzes and tests they would have, it is two. Rory elaborates what their grades will be based on: Well have lecture at the beginning, and have a quiz on it. The rest of your grade is based on the work youre doing, sort of a mix of objective and subjective. Im not interested in you memorizing facts. You dont have to fill your brain with useless
11 Note that at this time, Rory is still considering one or more mini-projects, but he later decides against

these activities for the reasons detailed in the previous chapter. Lack of time undoubtedly made the decision to forgo mini-projects easier, as well.

107 stuff. You can look it up. Things that are valuable to you, you remember. Its sort of like driving. You remember how to turn the wheel and do the clutch and all that ... So, the information you need is readily available, or available someplace, you just need to find it ... Im trying to get you to solve problems, but you create the problem. Some of you will think this is easy, and some will think its too hard to do science. I had this model from a couple of years ago. Its kind of like Mt. Everest, and I wanted to set kids up there to see what they could do in science. Some of the kids liked it. Some of the kids felt like I was abandoning them in the cold and the wind without a guide. They could fall off the mountain. ... So students have different reactions. Its not fair for me to abandon you. It needs to be someplace between the extremes of me abandoning you and telling you exactly what to do so you dont have to think. Im here as your trusty Sherpa guide. You may not see the relevance of this to you now, but maybe you will later, and youll see that its worthwhile ... Science is about thinking logically, examining evidence, trying to figure out what is the best evidence and what it means. Kind of like the OJ trial. Although many of the students are surprised or shocked by the absence of quizzes and traditional labs, some knew about these aspects of the class beforehand. Katrina put it this way: My brother took this class, and he told me that Mr. Wagner seems cool, cause he lets you go off on your own, but then he comes down on you. The class seems easier than it is. You really have to be responsible for yourself. As mentioned before, Cheryl had friends who had described how independent Rory let the kids be, and many of them did not like that. She views it as good preparation for college, but knows if you didnt keep on top of things you can be surprised by your grade. Beth had friends who gave her similar warnings about the independent work and falling behind: They [her friends who had taken the course with Rory] say it seems like an easy course, but you have to work hard. You may think youre doing well, and then find out youre getting a D. Because its hard to tell how well youre doing. He may not think youre doing well. You have really long assignments due in a long time, and you have to keep working on them, or youll be in trouble. Itll catch up with you. The tension caused by the students greater independence and the associated greater risk of failure is one of the ways in which the traditional school culture undermines the culture of

108 guided participation which Rory is trying to foster, as will be discussed at greater length in Chapter 10. Just before the end of class, Rory introduces me, and explains that I am a graduate student from Northwestern doing research on the class, and I will be around a lot. I say a few words about my research and role, and let the students know that they will be kept anonymous. The 40-minute class is finished for the day.

Chapter 7 Laying the groundwork for projects

Overview of the first quarter Throughout the first quarter of the year, which ends the first week of November, Rory conducts a series of alternating discussions and activities intended to lay the groundwork for conducting projects during the following three quarters of the year. These include a few periods discussing classroom policies on attendance and assignments, grading, and appropriate use of the computer tools and network12 , as well as a discussion of how fundamental values can be played out in the classroom13 . The majority of the first quarter is spent on Rorys lecture tour and videos about the content of earth science described in Table 4, and on activities introducing students to the computer network and Internet tools for browsing the World Wide Web, and for reading and sending electronic mail message and Usenet news posts. Table 5 shows the breakdown of periods spent on these various activities for the class periods during the first quarter (each week has seven

12 Some classroom policies will be discussed in Chapters 9 and 10, but Network Use Policies will not be

examined in depth in this report. For a more complete discussion of Network Use Policies for the K12 classroom, see Fishman & Pea (1994). For the text of the Network Use Policy Rory Wagner adapted almost verbatim for his classroom, see the CoVis web site (http://www.covis.nwu.edu/AUP-archive/AUP1.3.html). 13 The discussions about values will not be examined at any length here either. Nevertheless, the idea for the discussions was notable for being yet another innovation. As Rory put it, we had a speaker on the second day [of inservices] ... He was talking about how people generally avoid discussion of values in schools in this country, because they assume it's associated with religion and controversy. But if you discuss it enough you can come up with a list of values that aren't controversial. This guy has done some research and found out that this is the kind of list you'd come up with [the list includes responsibility, fairness, trustworthiness, courage, respect, and citizenship] ... I thought I'd list them and talk about them, and wed talk about what behaviors in school and the classroom fit into those values. I thought that'd be better than telling them you can't do this, you can't do that ... I'm not sure how it'll work, and I haven't thought too much about it, but it seemed like a good idea. Kinda like all the other stuff I've been trying the past couple of years.

109

110 periods, including three single periods and two double lab periods, on Monday and Wednesday):

Category Content

Subcategory Lectures & Exam Videos Total Content Periods

# of Periods 28.0 9.5 37.5 2.5 19.0 21.5 9.0 68.0

Technology

Teacher Demos Student Activities & Exams Total Technology Periods

Discussions of Policies/Procedures (including assignments, grading & network use) and Values GRAND TOTAL

Table 5: # of periods spent on activities during the introductory quarter Computer activities: Learning to use new tools Starting two years ago, Rory led his students through a series of activities designed to give them a basic familiarity with the Internet applications on the computers in the classroom. Students come into his class with a wide range of computer background and skills, and the CoVis classroom is the only one at the school currently hooked up to the Internet. This year, during the second week of the quarter, Rory gives the class a demonstration of the Macintosh, again using the overhead televisions to show the whole class. He explains how to get around, open applications, switch between applications, open and save files, and work with windows. Then, he shows the students Netscape Navigator, a program used to browse the World Wide Web.

111 Afterward, he gives the students open time with Netscape on the six computers. He encourages them to browse for anything they are interested in on the Webnot just sciencesaying you can look at the science stuff [but] its sort of boring. You will have plenty of time to do that. For now, why dont you look at the New Stuff, Cool Stuff, and Yahoo. During the previous year, Rory introduced the Web only through an assignment in which students had to find scientific data, and one student later told him he wished he could spend more time [using Netscape] on the stuff they were really interested in, and didnt have to spend it all on science. On reflection, Rory felt the exclusive focus on science in the beginning prevented some of the students from getting excited about the technology, when they otherwise may have. His attitude is that they can best develop initial comfort with this tool through browsing Web sites they are intensely interested in, so that later they will know how to browse scientific sites. He told me in an interview: Rory: ... browsing on Netscape isnt always the easiest quickest way to find things, and [so you need to develop] student patience with browsing when youre looking for something. And reading whats there ... they have a tendency to not have the patience to look further than the next thing. So I thought if we could get them going on looking for fun things, they would spend more time doing it, they would get more into it, and they would learn how to use the program more because they would be using it more, simply. And so, that seemed to be a good way to use that time, and also I felt ... Joe: Thats back to this idea of having them play first instead of having them look for data first. Rory: Yeah. Exactly. You know, instead of getting right into lets do school stuff. Cause we arent ready to do that stuff anyway yet. And it doesnt make any sense to them. Why am I looking for data? What the hell is data? Why do I need data? [You] dont, so it was hard to do cause it didnt make any sense. So it just seemed easier to let them do this other stuff. But then what that says though is that you have to have the willingness to say, OK, its OK to play with this. To really play with this in a recreational, and still educational way, because youre still learning how to do something. You have to keep that part of it focused. But its still OK to just be looking for music lyrics, or bands, or you know, the dating home pageyou know, whatever it is. Because, how else do you find out whats out there? Its part of exploration.

112 He had intended to give a version of the data searching assignment later this year, but he ends up dropping the idea due to lack of time. His plan was to ask each student if you had to find data to answer this question [from the list of possible project questions he has compiled], what would you do? He figured that would kill 2 birds with one stone by giving students further experience searching the Web, and initial experience thinking about the relationship between data and research questions in science. During the third week, Rory demonstrates the electronic mail program they use, Eudora. He shows students how to read a message, reply to a message, edit text, and write a new message in Eudora, as well as some conventions like including text from a previous message in a reply, and using emoticons. This demonstration is followed by a student assignment: Im going to give you a little assignment to help you get started. I want you to tell me something, some little personal thing about what you did over the summer. Your vacation or almost vacation or whatever it is ... You wont all finish today, but thats OK. You can help one another. As the students gather at the computers and try to open their email, all run into a technical problem in the setup of their accounts on the network. In his first year of using the computers and the Internet, two years ago, Rory found such situations extremely difficult to handle. The pressure of 4 or 5 groups of students urgently calling for help with computer problems was difficult enough in itself, but it was exacerbated by Rorys own lack of comfort with and mastery of the tools which were new to him as well. As Rory described the first year afterward, I had to help kids search on the computers, I had to help kids use the computers, use the programs, ... and at the beginning of the year, I didnt know what I was doing, and that created a lot of frustration ... because I didnt know what I was doing, and I couldnt help them with their questions: Why is this program doing this? or How can I do this?

113 Throughout the past two years, Rory has maintained a strong personal interest in the computer tools, and makes frequent use of email, the Web, and Usenet news outside of class for school and personal activities. Consequently, his knowledge has grown immensely, and although he is not always able to immediately fix problems, he is much more confident in his ability to work through or around problems that arise. Due to his personal interest and growing command of the technologies, Rory has taken on the role of technology coordinator for the CoVis classroom at his school this year. In years past, Northwestern staff had filled this role, but with a growing effort in many schools, we could no longer provide full-time support. In this case, Rory fixes the problem with the students email accounts in less than five minutes, and they continue the activity with scarcely a hitch. By the beginning of the fourth week, Rory has sent a personal response to each of the students by email. When he did this the previous year, he did not expect or ask students to respond, but he ended up beginning ongoing dialogs with a few students in a forum which allowed him to learn about [the students] as people in a way not common during class. This result fit in well with his general goal of be[ing] a little more open in [his] own personal dealings with the students ... kind of retracting some of ... the defenses and walls that [hes] put up over the years to isolate [him]self from students. One reason he was doing this was that he felt different teachers get the kids in different ways. I always liked the teachers that seemed to think the same way I did. Relaxed people. Funny people. Genuine people. It really may come down to the personal relationship between the student and teacher, and the teachers genuine desire to share instead of dictating what they know. As a result of the experience last year, Rory asks all the students this year to respond back once to his messages, in which he asks elaborating questions on each

114 students anecdotes about their summer, saying this will also give them practice at responding to messages. Many of the exchanges do not go much beyond simple description of summer activities like mountain climbing or white water rafting, working in stores or mowing lawns, or going to summer camp, but a few are more extensive. For instance, Tom F mentions having fun working at his fathers produce factory in the summer, and he and Rory discuss how hard work can be fun, especially when you work with friends. Rory had spent a summer loading boxcars, much like Toms summer loading produce on trucks. Barb talks solely about punk shows she was able to see in the summer in her initial message, so Rory asks her about who her favorite music groups are overall and in the area. Although he knows almost nothing about the music she enjoys, during the course of exchanging multiple messages they discover that she saw a show at a bowling alley Rory knew, because he went there with his father to repair the bowling machines years earlier. TJ talks about his lacrosse playing at a national tournament during the summer, and since Rory used to coach the sport, the two continue to discuss it throughout the year. Sonia relates how she taught four-year-olds during the summer, just as Rorys sister does, and then the two get into an extended exchange about the rewards of teaching, her sense of guilt associated with growing up privileged, and making a difference through community service. When Rory learns that Beth spent the summer with her aunt in New Mexico who studies wolves, he shares his enthusiasm for wolves with herhe has poster-sized prints of wolves all around his home. She relates how she danced and howled with the wolves, and they bring in pictures to share and discuss the Alpha role in the pack and wolf psychology. After a week of concentrating mostly on lectures, Rory introduces Newswatcher, a program to read and send posts to Usenet newsgroups on the Internet. As he had done in

115 the previous year, he asks the students to open up one of the earth science oriented newsgroupssci.astro, sci.geo.geology, sci.geo.meteorology, and sci.geo.oceanographyand note the location from which five articles in three different threads have been made. In the process of completing this assignment, the students learn the basic terminologynews articles can be posted, and follow-ups to an article are arranged in threadsand how to get around within the interface of Newswatcher. In addition, Rory says by looking at the locations [the articles] came from, it might give [the students] some sense of the worldwide communication available. Since Rory will be encouraging students to post articles requesting information or leads later on in the course of doing projects, he wants them to know, and take seriously, the scope of the communication. Finally, in order to continue to foster use of [email] as a communication tool, Rory has the students turn in the assignment by email to him. Rory is somewhat dissatisfied with the artificiality of this Newswatcher assignment, and worried about students lack of intrinsic interest in it. He told me he tried just letting [the students] browse in Newswatcher like they did in Netscape, but that didnt work. I think it has something to do with the presentation. Netscape is so graphical, and Newswatcher is just text. Most of them stopped [with Newswatcher] after looking for 5 minutes, and some said they couldnt find anything they were interested in. Out of 750 groups! Until Rory finds a better way of introducing Newswatcher as a tool, he will stick with this basic assignment. The assignment provides a means for the students to relatively efficiently learn to use the program, become familiar with the scientific newsgroups they may be posting articles to later, and learn how to use two programsNewswatcher and Eudoraon the Macintosh at the same time. During all these activities, Rory encourages the students to help each other and work together at the computers. Finally, in weeks nine and ten, the students have to

116 complete individual competency exams on the computer. Rory lets the students know what they will need to do, and then puts a sign-up list on the board for them to indicate they are ready. On the first of six days he spends administering the exam for some period of time, Julie, who was out with mono for a while, asks to watch and take notes while others take it. Rory indicates that is fine. Cindy, who has no previous computer experience, asks to watch other students on the third day. She stands silently by as Rory sits down next to Debbie. Rory says OK, send me mailyou kinda have to log on to do it. Debbie logs on to the local Macintosh file server, and opens up her personal folder and then doubleclicks her custom settings file for electronic mail. She goes smoothly to the Message menu and chooses the New Message command. Since shes shown she knows what shes doing, Rory then interrupts, saying, You can stop here. OK, now lets do Netscape. Debbie quits Eudora, and opens up Netscape using the Launcher window set up on the machines. She gets lost for a moment because someone left the program running on the machine with all the windows closed. Rory helps her by suggesting she choose the New Browser command. He then prompts, Say you wanted to find something on volcanoes ... Debbie executes a Net Search and follows one of the resulting links. Rory asks her to save the information she has found to her folder on the file server, and she does that as well. Finally, she demonstrates that she knows how to read and make posts in Newswatcher. In the end, he asks her to close up and put away ... [and] dont forget to quit the programs. Afterward, Cindy remarks, Im starting to get this by watching. Rory replies, Do you have it written down? I dont know if you know this, but you can follow your notes. She begins to take notes, but watches eight more students do the exam over several days before taking the plunge herself. Rory asks once if she wants

117 to do it, but when she says shed rather wait, he assents, saying I dont want you to do it until youre ready. Gradually, she progresses from asking students taking the exam questions about what they are doing when Rory is distracted, to offering suggestions, and then sharing Rorys frustration knowing what people need to do but seeing them flounder. When some time passes between days of computer exams, Rory has to reassure her that she can use her notes if she gets stuck. When Cindy finally takes the exam after class one day, Rory says she passed with flying colorsshe didnt even use her notes. Lectures and videos: Content, scientific practice, and seeds for projects By the third week, some students are wondering why Rorys class is called Earth Science. They have spent most of their time discussing policies and values, and have just begun the email activities. On the way out of class, one student says, Is this class all about computers? I thought we were gonna do something about the earth. During the first week of class, Rory had begun his series of videos and lectures by showing an episode from James Burkes Connections series. But the program was not about earth science, and instead focused on how various technical inventions were historically connected and interdependent. Rory told the class the reason he was showing the Connections video was that it shows how things develop through time. The reason I think this is important is that its a metaphor for how science works. It builds up, and leaps in science are putting ideas and things together. But they dont just come out of nowhere. Rory had discussed his plans to show the Connections video with me in an interview the previous Spring. He said the video follows how this guy did this, and this guy took that idea, improved on this to make something else that he needed, then this guy over here took that idea and improved it to make this, which led to this, which led to this, which, you know [trails off]. So it starts out with water wheels lead to laptop computers, you know, and it shows how you can take an idea, and you can use something thats existing to make something that you need by just modifying it slightly, which leads to

118 something else that somebody else could use. And that ... the guy who invented the PC didnt sit down and go, Well, I think Im just gonna invent a laptop computer, OK, here we go, integrated chips over here, and let me get some of this other. You know, you dont just do that, because somebody invented all of those other things first. You know, what the last person did was just put them all together. Now, he didnt even invent the computer, because somebody else invented that. Its like, how do we make it smaller and better? So, but if it hadnt been for the space program, and miniaturizing things for that, then all of those pieces wouldnt have been available that small, which is why computers were as big as this room to start with ... So, I dont know, so that just seems to be, another one of those thinking kinds of things: see, heres how people think, and heres what happens when people think, so if you all think a little bit, maybe you can do this. Later in the third week, Rory begins somewhat more traditional material with lectures on astronomy. Although these do not yet deal with the earth (the full title of the course would more aptly be Earth and Space Science), the lectures are closer to what [students] expect from a class, as discussed in Chapter 6. Lectures and videos as means of covering standard content On a Tuesday in the fourth week of class, Rory is preparing to give his fifth lecture on astronomy, after having shown a video about solar systems the previous day. He tells me, I think Im gonna follow up on the solar systems stuff. Some things kind of flew by in the video. I think itd be a good idea to go over them and solidify them. They will probably generate questions, too. An example is an astronomical unit, equal to the distance between the earth and the sun. They explained [in the video] how if it took one second, to go one astronomical unit from the sun to the earth (which is faster than the speed of light) then it would take 40 seconds to get from the earth to Pluto. I want to make sure they get that. One of the reasons Rory tries to explain at least the big picture about how everything works through lectures and videos is that kids have misconceptions such as the one he is worried about herethat the massive scale of our solar system makes Pluto that much further from the sun than the Earth. Through the lectures, he hopes to make them at least think about [the materials] a little bit. The breadth of material in the fields of Earth Science

119 which he covers in lecture over a brief portion of the year necessitates a somewhat shallow presentation. This contrasts with the greater depth the students will learn about the specific topics they research during their three projects later. Clearly, Rorys lectures are partly done out of the traditional notion of coveragehe figures that his Earth Science class and the other teachers are so different that students experiences will be largely different, but they ought to at least learn some of the same stuff. As he said at one point, I just think someone who took Earth Science should have seen rocks and pictures of planets, and some of the students would miss certain topics altogether if they were doing projects all year. Like most experienced teachers, he does not do strict lesson plans for his lectures, but instead has a general plan that he fills in somewhat improvisationally, drawing from years worth of notes and experience. As Rory puts it, he tries to give them this big picture, a big picture of everything and how it works, starting at the origin of the universe, and going up through geologic processes and geologic time, and oceans, and weather, and everything, and how they all fit together, and how they generally work. Right now he is at the solar system, so he walks in to class and writes Today: Solar system notes on the board. He mutters his way through the attendance. Marie asks if they get to work on the computers today, and Rory says they can read his responses to their email during ten minutes at the end of class. He goes to the board and says, Were gonna go over some of the solar system stuff. Put some flesh on the bones you got from the movie yesterday. He draws Figure 2 as he explains some things about each of the planets. Where life evolved, where we are, is just a matter of accident. Were at the optimal point ... if the sun were hotter or cooler, conditions might have been better on Mars or Venus for life to evolve. When he gets to Uranus, he chuckles, saying, The name of Uranus was changed to be PC when Voyager was approaching it. They didnt want to have to have people saying Ur-ay-nus on the radio, so they call it Ur-uh-nus.

120

mercury sun venus

earth mars

jupiter uranus saturn jovian or gas planets Figure 2: Diagram of solar system neptune pluto charon rocky

terrestrial or rocky planets

Marie asks, Have we seen Pluto? Rory replies, Yes, with telescopes. Marie follows up, saying, What do we see? Light reflected off it. Still wondering, Marie says, What light? Rory clarifies, from the sun, and Marie nods. Rory goes on to explain what the plane of the ecliptic is, and how Earths orbital plane and all the other planets except Pluto are in this same planePlutos orbit is 17% off that of the others. In addition, he draws a view from above the planets, showing how Plutos orbit also crosses the orbit of Neptune. He then explains, both of these facts led to speculation that Pluto and Charon were moons of Neptunes that broke off here [where the orbits cross]. They created a computer model that calculated the orbits forward and backward in time. It doesnt appear they crossed in the past, so we still dont know what happened, and it doesnt look like theyll cross in the future. Danny asks, how long does it take Pluto to go around the sun? Marie ventures a guess of like 200 years. Rory says, lets see, and looks it up. What was the number you said, Marie? Marie replies, 200 years. Rory replies, its 240 years. You were close.

121 Interlude: Dialogue sequences punctuated by student questions, not teacher questions When Rory first described his lecture series to me at the beginning of 1994-95, I would not have predicted that Rorys lectures were as interactive as they in fact are. He told me they were boring, perhaps in part because he viewed them as much more traditional than his project work. Based on research conducted elsewhere, even this more traditional aspect of Rorys teaching differs from standard instruction. In Hugh Mehans (1978, 1979) groundbreaking work on standard interaction sequences in school lessons, he identified the dominant structure of discourse to be what he termed Initiation-ReplyEvaluation (I-R-E). In such a sequence, the teacher initiates an episode by asking a question about an established fact or idea he or she wants to convey; students reply with bids for correct responses; the teacher evaluates the responses, and may initiate another round. Jay Lemke (1990) conducted research following this same tradition on discourse patterns in science classrooms, and identified the same basic structure as dominant, although he preferred to call it Triadic Dialogue, or Question-Answer-Evaluation (Q-AE). In such a sequence, the teacher opens with a question, a student answers, and the teacher evaluates. In Rorys lectures, this sequence is rare: out of fifteen class days I observed in which Rory showed videos and gave lectures, he initiated only three Q-A-E sequences. The fact that a substitute teacher showed the last video in the tour, and immediately initiated a Q-A-E sequence after stopping the VCR, only highlighted the difference between Rorys style and standard instruction. The I-R-E/Q-A-E pattern is well-adapted for situations in which the teacher is trying to simultaneously maintain a high degree of control in the classroom and also probe students current understandings in order to bring them to grasp a set of clearly specified concepts. Consequently, Rory may not be

122 proactively detecting as many student misconceptions as he would if he used I-R-E or Q-AE. On the other hand, Rorys lectures are punctuated by a significant number of what Lemke terms Student Questioning Dialoguesa total of 99 over the same fifteen periods. A Student Questioning Dialogue is an activity structure in which students initiate questions on the subject-matter topic and the teacher answers them. [It] often includes a series of questions by different students (Lemke, 1990, p. 217). Examples are the episodes above beginning with questions from Marie, Danny, and Mark. When they are given the opportunity to ask questions like this, students have more responsibility for monitoring their own understanding, and control over their learning if they take advantage of the opportunity. According to Lemke, many teachers use a variety of strategies to discourage student questions, and privilege the I-R-E/Q-A-E format, precisely because it keeps more control in the hands of the teacher. Rory planted the seeds for this altered situation on the second day of class, when he told students they were going to have an exam on the lectures worth 25% of their first semester grade, but that it would be open notes. It became the students responsibility to make sure that their notes were complete and they understood them, so that they could use the notes during the exam. Rory came up with the idea for the quiz or exam with open notes the previous year (1994-95), as an inducement for them to listen and take notes. He told me the important thing [about the exam] was, that they listened to me while I tried to explain it to them .. you know, and if they needed further clarifications, they would ask questions, or I could point out the sections in the book to read. He is especially pleased with classes, like this one, and students, like Adam, who habitually ask good questions very relevant to the material, although he has noticed that some students and classes tend more towards borderline questions that may simply be

123 ruses whose purpose is to waste time. As Lemkes analysis implies, that is one cost of relinquishing some control over their learning to the students. Despite this difference between the dominant structure of dialogue in Rorys lectures and standard science lessons, there are some important senses in which Rorys lecture activity and standard science instruction are the same: specifically, whos doing the talking most of the time, and the underlying metaphor for learning. In Rorys lectures, he talks the overwhelming majority of the time, just as the teachers in Mehans and Lemkes research did. In addition, the purpose of the lectures is primarily to transmit information about science content. In the three years he has been conducting this video and lecture tour of Earth Science, he says he has been trying to come up with the quickest, easiest way to transmit the basic information (my emphasis), using various combinations of technology such as videotapes, laser discs, Powerpoint presentations he makes, and chalkboard lectures. As mentioned in Chapter Two, the view of learning as transmission from teacher to learner is the dominant traditional view, in contrast to constructivist and Vygotskian models of learning. Rory has no illusions that everything he says goes directly into heads of the students, but he is trying to at least get the information out there so that students can pick up some of it. The metaphor of learning as construction of knowledge, on the other hand, is better served by what Lemke (1990) terms true dialogue, where teacher and students ask questions that dont necessarily have already established answers, and/or cross discussion among students without the teacher. As will become apparent in subsequent chapters, project work in Rorys class is much more dominated by true dialogue and cross discussion. But the groundwork for the projects is laid in part through teacher lectures and videos punctuated by student questioning dialogue, and it is not yet complete.

124 Lectures and videos as means of conveying how science is practiced Back in todays lecture, Rory elaborates on the motions of the planets: All the planets move in the same direction around the sun ... the orbit is called the revolution, the spin is called rotation ... a revolution is bigger, its a big event like a revolution in history ... all the planets but two rotate in the same direction ... most rotate left to right with their north pole up, or, looking down on the north pole, counterclockwise. Venus rotates in the opposite direction, and we dont know why ... Uranus has the North pole facing toward the sun, so it rotates differently too. As he is speaking, Rory draws diagrams of what he is describing about the rotations. Mark then asks, So half the planet [Uranus] never gets sun? Rory hesitates, saying, let me check. After shuffling through his notes, he says, No, like the earth, the North pole faces the same direction the whole year, so at different points in the orbit, different parts of the planet are facing the sun. Things like thesethese exceptions of the orbital plane, the direction of rotation and all thatthese exceptionsscientists like to ask why these things are that way. In science we look over all, see the large patterns to see how things work, come up with the rules that are followed, and the anomalies tell us what other things happened. Sothese are the nuts and bolts. Rory then moves on to other things. He continues with the point he told me he wanted to make before class: The distance between the earth and the sun is called an astronomical unit, or A.U. Its equal to 93 million miles. If it took one second to get to earth, it would take 40 seconds to get to Pluto ... Im going to put some numbers on the board. Pictures are good, but we want numbers to get clearerits not always clear what is real and what is not real. He goes on to discuss a question Patti raised yesterday about a section of the video which showed sun flares. She was wondering whether it was a real video taken from a spacecraft or an artistic rendition. He tells them that one clue a segment is actual video footage is the appearance of a spacecraft in the picture, because a section of the spacecraft on which the video camera is mounted is visible. Then he goes on to the numbers, to try and get clearer on some aspects of the solar system. He says, Im going to create a big table of the planets ... [and] in this table Im putting the A.U. distance from the sun to the objects. He

125 briefly explains that A.U. refers to astronomical units, and it is a convenient unit of measurement based on the distance between our sun and the Earth (which is 1 A.U., equivalent to 93 million miles). Table 6 is constructed over the next few minutes, amidst explanation and questions about the asteroid belt:

PLANETS

A.U. distance

Mercury .4 Venus .7 Earth 1.0 Mars 1.5 Asteroids ~2.8 Jupiter 5.0 Saturn 9.5 Uranus 19.0 Neptune 30.0 Pluto 39.4 Table 6: Distance of planets from the sun (in Astronomical Units) Then Rory goes on to tell a story: Somebody [yesterday] asked can you see Pluto without a telescope? ... Before we had telescopes, you could see five other planetsMercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn. An early astronomer noticed the progression of distances from the sun. See how they sort of double? And then he predicted there should be another planet around 3 A.U. from the sun. They looked for it and they found [the asteroid belt]. Rory went on to explain how they looked for another planet beyond Saturn, about twice as far away from the Sun, and found Uranus. Using this technique, scientists eventually found all the planets we know of in our solar system, and are currently looking for Planet X, at around 80 A.U.so far theyve found no planet, but some comets. Rory told me in interviews, Im trying toat every chance I getto show examples of how scientists do science. At least my understanding of the way some of the

126 things work. Trying to keep them thinking about doing science, and that scientists are people, and that they think, and they create. Thats why the first video he showed was Burkes Connections. Thats also why he mentions the nuts and bolts like looking for anomaliesPluto and Charons revolution off the plane of the other planets, and the direction of Uranus rotationas well as large patterns that show rules that are followed the approximate doubling of the distance of each planet in our solar system from the sun. When I asked him whether his lectures had always been peppered with such examples of science in action, he said I might have told stories [in the past, before doing projects], but not with that express goal in mind. He told me the way he would have presented the same information about the distances of the planets from the sun: Rory: Well, the way that used to be presented, was ... Bodes Law. Bodes Law. Well, theres a guy named Bode, and he was the one that discovered that there was some sort of a progression ... So ... I would make this big table on the board, and explain how Bodes Law works, and show the planets, and their distances, and his predictions, and that there should be something here and here, blah blah blah blah ... But it was really, you know, straightforward, and boring. [laugh] Its like, who cares? Joe: Right ... You were telling them this so they would know that particular thing? Rory: Exactly. Its like, you should know Bodes Law. Heres Bodes Law. Heres how it works, and blah blah blah. You know, its like Bodes Law was the important thing ... Bodes Law is not the important thing. I mean, thats the shift. Whats important now is that theres a pattern, and somebody saw the pattern, and used the pattern to find out something else. Which is what science is, as opposed to what scientists did. Rory says this change in emphasis was almost an unconscious shift. He didnt start out with [focusing on how science is done] as a goal, but he understood that thats something that was probably gonna be valuable/useful down the road when the students are doing projects. It clearly does not dominate all he is saying throughout his lectures, but it colors the way he presents material such as Bodes law. Bodes predictions gave the scientists an idea of where to look, and then they had to figure out how to distinguish

127 planets. So Rory describes how scientists discovered other planets: In the sky stars twinkle. Planets dont because they just reflect light. ... The planets would be observed in one place relative to the stars, and then theyd move to being in another place [relative to position of others - all this is drawn on the board as well]. They were called wanderers because of this. During the next session on the planets, Rory will mention how one of Mercurys days is as long as 59 of ours, whereupon Tom M asks, Who, like, made that up? Rory replies, They didnt. This is how they did it: they would find a crater on Mercurys surface, and track it until it appeared again. A couple days later, Rory will show a video on Halleys comet, and after stopping it, emphasize the process of work done by a scientist in the video: Yeoman came up with a model. Thats what scientists do ... he used supporting data to prove that his model was correct. On other occasions, Rory relates how two scientists figured out that you can use the spectral type to tell the chemical makeup and temperature of stars, and how looping patterns like those of air in our atmosphere and water in our oceans recur often in science. He also mentions his own experience as a geologist, while discussing the difficulty of determining grades of metamorphism in rocks to reconstruct their history. Lectures and videos as seeds for later projects Rory closes the lecture period for the day, saying, OK, lets stop here. You can read you mail or whatever you want. From September until early November, he spends 26 periods on such lectures and almost 9 showing videos. The topics range from the origins of the universe; to stars, galaxies, the solar system, planets, and comets; to the origin of the earth; to igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rock; to plate tectonics and geologic history; to weathering and erosion; and finally oceanography and meteorology. In

128 his first year of doing projects, Rory did not give any lecture tour like this, and he felt that was one of the ways he cast students adrift without any framework. When he asked them to do Earth Science projects on anything in the field that interested them, he was presupposing that they knew enough of what Earth Science is all about to see what they might be interested in. In 1994-95, when he decided to give the lecture and video tour, he did so because if you want students to explore science they have to know something about it. [Before] I assumed they werent living in a vacuum, which was probably an incorrect assumption. Actually, when I think back to my own high school years, if someone had done this to me, I would have been as clueless as my students, even though I was interested in science at some general level. So, they need to have some background. The big picture [to] flesh out at a later date. Rorys hope was that once students had been exposed to this introductory material, it would give them some framework on which to say, Oh, that was kind of cool, maybe I could do a project on that. Indeed, some of the students specifically mention getting the idea for their projects from the lecture. Dave and TJ, for instance, were beginning to think about what they should do for their first project at the end of the lectures. As Dave put it, after having all those notes on all those different aspects of earth science, it was easy to pick a topic. And you could also see which sections you thought were interesting while you were taking the notes, and which you didnt. So that would help in picking your topic. I think that was helpful. When Rory described hurricanes, they latched onto that as a topic. During the lecture detailed above, Rory mentioned speculation that Pluto and Charon were once moons of Neptune, and that the plane of their orbits around the sun were odd; Adam, who was very interested in astronomy, chose to follow up on these comments by doing a project later in the year on Plutos status as a planet (or not) in our solar system. Steve and Rich, who did a project on moons, also found the seeds of their project in Rorys lectures. Rich said the lectures gave [them] kind of an overview ... of what we could do ... to basically

129 figure out our subject, and Steve added, we just saw what interested us. Patti concurred that the lectures and videos gave her an understanding of which areas [they] can go into, to look for a subject of research. Because students are using the lectures as springboards for projects, Rory has become careful about how much he emphasizes certain topics. An example is black holes, which are an interesting phenomenon in astronomy, but extremely complex. In years past quite a few students had become interested in the topic through Rorys comments in lecture, and had no luck completing successful empirical projects, so this year, Rory did not bring the topic up. When a student asked Whats a black hole? one day, Rory simply said, Its theoretical thing, based on Einsteins relativity. It explains some things, but its really hard to see, and then changed the subject. Nevertheless, Adam and Jane choose to do a project on black holes during this year, and the negotiation of this and other research topics will be discussed in Chapter 11. Besides giving students an overview of Earth Science from which to choose project topics, Rory wants to avoid students having to start from ground zero in their project inquiry. In years past, when he had given no lectures or just a brief few, he felt students didnt even know any of the names or the terminology about the stuff they were working on when they began projects. He hopes the more extended lecture tour will prepare them better. Among the six focus students I interview outside of class, Patti and Dave are the only ones who finds the lectures very helpful in this wayshe feels they provide her a basic level of knowledge about the topics, which helps in starting more in depth research for the projects. She says you also have like background information, so its like in the back of your head, just like, Oh yeah, I remember that. Dave felt a lot of the meteorology [they] did [in lecture] was helpful. But other students, such as Steve and Rich, find little information in lectures beyond what they know from elsewhere about their

130 topic, moons. The extent to which Rorys lectures help provide students basic knowledge about Earth Science content inevitably varies based on (1) the extent of each students incoming knowledge base, (2) the depth of Rorys coverage of each topic, which varies based on student questions and Rorys own interests (Rorys preference for astronomy and geology over meteorology and oceanography is mirrored in the amount of lecture time devoted to each subtopic)14 , and (3) the extent of the students engagement during the portions of lecture and video which end up being relevant to their later projects. Limitations and pitfalls of the groundwork activities The third point above brings us to the limitations and pitfalls associated with the activities Rory uses to introduce the computer tools and the content of Earth Science. The stability of the groundwork inevitably varies. For instance, just as students enter the class with varying degrees of computer expertise and experience, they complete the activities with varying degrees of competence. Throughout the course of project work, Rory will still have to remind some students, such as Pamela, Sylvia, and Marie, how to send him or others email; he will have to help numerous students conduct Web searches; and he will help students daily with small printing, saving, or document layout problems. A perhaps more severe problem is associated with lectures and videos: student boredom and lack of engagement. As mentioned before, Rory is fully aware that students arent paying attention at all times. In fact, there is a marked tendency for student questions to diminish as the lecture tour continues, as shown in Table 7. Although the decline in questions may be partly attributable to students interest in astronomy as a topic, Patti mentions in interviews that the lectures started to get boring, and Dave said he was glad to get the lecturing over with ... its nice to get that set aside.
14 In 1995-96, Rory spends 11 periods lecturing on astronomy, 13 on geology, 1 on oceanography, and 1

on meteorology.

131

Lecture Topic Stars Solar Systems Planets Rocks Rocks Rocks Metamorphic Rocks Metamorphic Rocks Plate Tectonics Geologic History Erosion & Weathering Oceanography/Meteorology Weather

Week Number 3 4 4 7 7 8 8 8 8 10 10 11 11

Number of student questions 15 9 17 2 3 4 6 6 2 4 3 3 7

Table 7: Number of student questions in observed lectures The problem of student engagement is to some degree inevitable given most students relatively passive role during lecture. As Patti says, I get annoyed [at lectures and tests], and then Im like, well, this is boring. She goes on, if you dont pay attention, you dont learn as much ... It goes back to the whole thing, like, if you write it down, or if you actually, like, act it out, youll like learn it better than if they just tell you. Cause itll go in one ear and out the other. And youre just like, Oh, whatever. Nice class. To reduce the amount of student disengagement, Rory tries a number of strategies. First, he tries not to spend too long without breaking up lecture with other activities such as the introduction of computer tools. On Mondays and Wednesdays, when the class has a double lab period, only one period is spent on lecture. Second, he tells them they will be given a written exam at the end of the lecture tour, during which they will be allowed to use their notes taken during class. As mentioned before, this places responsibility on the

132 students for taking effective notes that they can use later. A further aspect of student notetaking which Rory could more explicitly emphasize is students using them as seeds for later projects, perhaps by asking them to take note of those topics which most interest them on a daily and weekly basis, or by asking them to note down potentially interesting project research questions which arise. Third, Rory tries to mix up the media he uses: beyond standard chalk and talk at the blackboard, Rory tries to provide more pizzazz by showing some good videos, and from time to time using multimedia presentation tools. He has found that the latterwhether it be commercial CD-ROMs or custom presentations he prepares in HyperCard or Powerpointhave the pitfall of making his own presentation slower. And paradoxically, if its that slow, the kids start to just tune out. Although he thinks multimedia is particularly well-suited for showing certain things, like the process of plate movements in plate tectonics, he has concluded that their use needs to be limited, or the technology dictates the flow of presentation and discussion more than he and the students do. During his sessions on plate tectonics, for instance, Rory uses a CD-ROM and finds it difficult to not follow the programs slides sequentially, rather than jumping around and following up on student questions; consequently, the lecture extends over three days, with little student involvement. As Larry Cuban (1986) has pointed out, one of the reasons blackboards are used more often than computers in most schools is that they are easier to fit flexibly into the flow of activities such as lectures (at least for most people with the current state of the art). In addition, students have a great deal of experience taking notes off the blackboard, but dont necessarily have a sense of what to write down during multimedia presentations. After recognizing this difficulty during his presentation on rocks and minerals, Rory addresses the issue directly before starting his presentation on plate tectonics:

133 You should take notes, but not every wordand I know you do that when I write on the board. [During this CD-ROM presentation] you try and take notes on the important stuff, and Ill try and point them out. Nonetheless, the graphics may remain a problem: the images and animations are sometimes informative and compelling, but difficult for students to deal with in their notes, compared to the schematics Rory draws on the board. The difficulties Rory has encountered with multimedia presentations remind us that computer technology is not a panacea for content lectures any more than any other part of instruction, but instead introduces tradeoffs and unexpected complexities. Beyond students interest in the lectures, Rorys own interest plays an important role. On the negative side, he finds it frustrating to essentially repeat a lecture on a topic with multiple classes during the day. As he told me several times, the only way I could make [that] better would be if I could have that big lecture section where I took all my classes, and lectured them all just once, on one topic, and said, heres what you need to know. On the positive side, his enthusiasm for the Earth and Space Science material can carry him away at times. This is one explanation for the fact that although Rory figured he should need around 4 days of astronomy, 1 day for oceanography, 1 or 2 for meteorology, 5 days for geology ... maybe around 3 weeks altogether for lectures, he ends up spending 27 class days on lectures. By late October, when he has yet to talk about geologic history, erosion and weathering, oceanography, and meteorology, he tells me, Im thinking maybe I spent too much time on astronomy. He considers it a dilemma: ... How do you get all that information in? Maybe the problem is that I cant get it all in. Ive been trying to go over things in different ways so that more people will get them, but the bottom line is theyre not all going to get it anyway ... So maybe I should go back to broad brush strokes. Its frustrating because I want to show them all the cool stuff there is. But I can never do it all. Even if I was doing lecture-lab-demo, Id run out of time. I used to run out of time every year.

134 Conclusion: Groundwork activities as a transition I will close my discussion of Rorys introductory activities with an observation: the tools and content activities detailed in this chapter can be seen as an attempt at transitioning students from more traditional modes of instruction to the projects commenced afterward. These activities do not constitute the same level of guided participation in a community of learners that is represented by projects, but they are in some ways a gradual step in the direction away from traditional schoolwork. Although Rory leads the students through lecture activities rooted in a transmission model of communication, the lectures have served the dual purpose of covering content and simultaneously describing the practice of science students will attempt to participate in later. Thus, the content of these lectures is not only established, factual, scientific concepts, but also narratives and concepts of scientific practice. And although the lectures are dominated by teacher talk, they involve more student questioning and student control than is customary in traditional classrooms. Finally, Rory has told the students that he is less interested in their memorizing facts and telling facts than thinking scientifically with whatever tools and resources they can create or find; he has reinforced his comment by encouraging students to create notes to use on their computer competency and science content exams. Such practices are in line with Peas (1992) suggestion that a principal aim of education ought to be that of teaching for the design of distributed intelligence (p. 36, italics in original) that is not just in students heads but also in the tools and artifacts around them. Teachers in other reform efforts toward project-based instruction, such as LabNet, (Ruopp, et al., 1993) have conducted similar lecture tours intended to prime students for conducting projects. Given the prevalence of traditional teaching practices and the

135 difficulty of change for students, such transition activities take on a great deal of importance. Further research on the complexity and implications of designing and conducting such activities is needed. But just as it was eventually time for Rory to move on from somewhat lengthy introductory activities into the primary work of doing projects, it is time for us to move on to the project work. As Rory told his students, Now you guys get to do, [and] I get to help, as opposed to me telling you everything I know and you just listening. One way Rory helps the students to successfully do projects is by the design of the project activity structure, as we will consider in the next chapter.

Chapter 8 How structuring activity works

An example of how to do a project On Thursday, November 9, Rory officially begins the first round of research projects. He passes out two handouts, the first of which is How to do an earth science project (see Appendix E for the full text of the handouts). Instead of reading aloud what he has written about doing projects, Rory focuses the students attention on some of the main issues. He reminds them what were trying to do is really do science ... Instead of pretending that were doing science by doing little lab experiments that duplicate things that have already been done by a lot of people, were gonna try and do some things that are maybe new. Maybe things that people havent looked at. To give the students an idea of what he is talking about, he describes an example of a good project: For an example, last year I had some people doing some projects, and they wanted to do something on volcanoes. And I said, OK, thats nice. Volcanoes are good. Volcanoes are in a lot of places. And they did research on volcanoes, and they found out all about volcanoes, and they wanted to do something with like volcanic eruptions. OK, another good step. Volcanic eruptions are good, because ... people write down when they occur, and how long they last, and things like that. Then they realized that, you know, there are a lot of volcanoes all over the world. And maybe we should just look at a small subset of volcanoes. And they realized also from the background stuff that theyd come up with, that there are three different kinds of volcanoes, and they decided to only look at one kind of volcano. So, what you can see is, they started out with a very broad thingvolcanoesin the whole world, and eruptions, and then they started narrowing it down into smaller and smaller and smaller clumps. What they finally came up with was, Well, why dont we look at the pattern of eruptions for this one kind of volcano, and see if there is a pattern. And, they said, Do you know if anybody has ever done that? And I said, Well, have you come across that anyplace, in anything that youve read? And they said, No. And I said, Well then, I dont know, and if you dont know, then, since we dont know, lets find out! 136

137 And so what they did, was, they started to take when the volcanoes eruptedlots of different volcanoes, and when they eruptedto see if there were any patterns between these different kinds of volcanoes. And they actually did, you know, find that there were some long scale patterns, and there were some shorter scale patterns ... So what they did was, they looked at, you know, a big problem, and then kept narrowing it down until it was something that they actually could do. As he talks about narrowing the topic down, Rory stretches his hands out wide and then brings them together. He contrasts the narrowness and tractability of the volcano project to another project, where the students said were gonna try and predict the effect of global warming of the earths atmosphere on the population in the next century. Such projects are way too unmanageable says Rory, even though they can sound appealing. The key is focusing them down. The students arent on their own in figuring out whether their projects are focused enough to be doable; Rory is available at any time to help them. Rory then briefly describes another example project, on which group of dinosaurs lived longer, the carnivores or the herbivores? Milestones as a guide to cooking up science from scratch The second of the two handouts is on Project Milestones and Due Dates. Table 8 summarizes the milestones and due dates Rory distributes for this second quarter of 199596 (see Appendix E for full text):

138 Project Milestone Group and Topic Background Information Research Proposal Data Collection Data Analysis Paper Presentation Time needed 3 days 2 weeks 1 week 2 weeks 1 week 1 week 1 week Due Date Mon., 11/13 Wed., 11/22 Fri., 12/1 Fri., 12/15 Fri., 12/22 Fri., 1/12 Fri., 1/19

Table 8: Summary of planned milestones and due dates Rory tells the students the reason for the milestones is his experience from the past. He says: I realized a couple of years ago when I started doing this, that I couldnt just say, OK, lets go out and do research, and the week after Christmas your paper will be due, go for it. Because what will happen is, everybody will sit here and play video games, and talk, and chat, and then over Christmas break a couple of you will get together and start working on it, and then that week before its due everybody will say, Wait! we dont have enough time. We cant get it done. Whatever. Its procrastination to its nth degree. And we know that happens because thats human nature. So, in order to have that not happen, on the first project, Im very specific about what I want done, and when I want it done. Not only does Rory indicate that projects later in the year need not necessarily follow so strictly the sequence of steps he has laid out; he also expresses some of his misgivings about the sequence: What I dont like about this is, it suggests that there is a sequence of steps that you go through when you do science. The old scientific method. And, in all reality the scientific method doesnt exist. There are things that you have to do to do science, but there is no step by step by step fashion, that youre led to believe, in doing experiment after experiment from grammar school up to now, that if you just follow the right steps, youll get the right answer and boom, Ive done science. Oh, yeah, you have. But its the difference between a cook who cooks from scratch and a cook who only can cook from following directions, or a cook that can only heat up things in the microwave. There are different degrees of culinary expertise. Somebody will taste the sauce and go, No, it needs a smidge of that. And that makes a difference, at least to them. As opposed to the person who just follows the directions. Da da da da da: mix it up, put it in here. Boom. Heres how it came

139 out. I dont care what it tastes like ... thats what the directions said to do. So theres a difference there, theres an artistic difference there. And theres an artistic difference between scientists also, which is very hard to capture, um ... and tell you step by step how to do it. But we have to start someplace, and so, in order to start, Ive given you the steps that I want you to follow, at least for this first project. And then we can go on, and do other projects. The series of milestones Rory has laid out are different from the recipe-like labs students may have conducted in other science classes, though. Traditional lab steps give such detailed directions for every step that students can almost blindly follow them and get the right results. Rorys milestones, on the other hand, provide a framework that breaks the 11-week project activity down into more manageable steps. But the exact steps each student group will follow is not determined beforehand. There are no right answers in the sense that many traditional labs have right answers. Instead, there are multiple paths that students could follow to reach well-reasoned empirical conclusions about topics in earth science. Along the steps of these paths, they turn in intermediate artifacts that require them to use complex thought (Blumenfeld, Soloway, Marx, Krajcik, Guzdial, & Palincsar, 1991) rather than the more trivial fill-in-the-blanks and prompted questions found in traditional labs. Additionally, traditional labs involve the whole class in the same lockstep activity, whereas Rorys students work on different problems of their own design and choosing. In order to understand how the framework of milestones helps to structure student activity, I will describe two projects that make effective use of Rorys activity structure. Part of the effective use of this activity structure is the way it provides occasions for Rory to do the equivalent of tasting the sauce and discussing with the students what spices or adjustments might be advisable.

140 The hurricanes project: Cooking up science by following the path Who are the cooks: Choosing project partners TJ and Dave are two experienced seniors sitting in the back right corner of the room with Amy and Julie (at Table B-1 in Figure 1). TJ is a stocky lacrosse player with long brown hair, and Dave is a somewhat slighter hockey player with short hair. They are wearing one variation of their standard attire: TJ in jeans and a sweatshirt, and Dave in jeans and a casual crew shirt. As usual, their eyes are nearly obscured by worn baseball caps with college logos. Right after Rorys presentation and discussion about how to do a project, they decide to work together on their project. They had discussed working with Julie and Amy, as Rory had expected, but Rory wants students to work in groups of at least two and not more than three. Rory thinks three is ideal because they can break ties by voting, but there are not too many in the group so that students end up sitting around a great deal while someone else does something. He told the students in his introductory discussion that they can request an exception to the sizes he recommendsbut they have to convince him they have a compelling reason. Since the four students have no reason to give Rory for exceeding his recommended limit of three people per group, they form two groups of two. Whats for dinner: Choosing a topic After choosing partners, Dave and TJ have to choose their topic. On the first day of projects, Rory told the students You gotta figure something out that you want to study. It can be a lot of different things ... it should be something that youre interested in. Besides being something theyre interested in, their topic must be part of earth science. Jennifer had asked whether earth science included diseases, so Rory described some rules of thumb for what their research can include:

141 ... anything thats in an Earth Science textbook. So thats basically everything that weve talked about already, plus anything else that youd find in there, or in ... any of those sciences that interests you. We talked about astronomy, meteorology, oceanography, and geology. We talked about mountains, and volcanoes, and plate tectonics. We talked about stars, and planets, and galaxies. We talked about oceans, and currents. And we talked about storms and weather patterns and climate. And so, all of that stuff would be project topic material. A general guideline that I use, pretty cut and dried: if whatever you want to study is alive, its probably not an earth science topic. It its dead, or never been alive, it probably is an earth science topic. But you need to have it - you need to clear it with me in the first place. For their project topic, TJ and Dave choose hurricanes. As mentioned in the previous chapter, they began thinking about what they might want to do for a project when Rory was giving some of his final lecturesthey latched onto hurricanes during the weather lecture. When I ask them what interests them about hurricanes, TJ says, the destruction, to be honest. We also wanted to know how they fly into the storm. Thats how they track them, you know. Right away, they begin a pattern of turning in Rorys assignments in a timely fashion, by sending their topic to Rory by email a day early. They had noticed Rorys comment that they get bonus points for turning in milestones early. When I ask them on Friday, the second day, how its going, they tell me, were doing hurricanes. We emailed it to himwe got our 10 points. Although they find out later Rory only gives bonus points for turning in the last four milestones early (the first of which is the Research Proposalsee Table 8), their enthusiasm serves them well. Background preparation: Learning about the topic Dave and TJ spend the first two weeks of the project diligently reading books about weather and hurricanes, so they can learn more about their chosen topic of patterns and destruction of hurricains [sic]. On the first day of projects, Rory had told the students: After you get a partner, and after you get a general topic, then you have to do background research. Thats where you start finding out all you can about the

142 information, on your particular topic. OK? So lets say you pick volcanoes. What you do is read everything you can about volcanoes. I generally would like you to start in your textbook. Read everything you can in the textbook. Then, find other geology books. whether theyre on the shelf over here, or I have a whole stack of books next door. Find all the stuff on volcanoes. Read it, so that you know how volcanoes work: where they are, why they erupt, why they dont erupt. Everything that you can. You have to become a mini-expert on volcanoes. Thats your background research ... You need to turn that in, then, when youre done with that, in approximately two weeks. They borrow the books from Rorys collection in the classroom, and also begin to track down some hurricane resources on the Internet. They ask Rory to help them save an image showing hurricane paths they find on a Web site, and they include the image in their Background Information report they turn in a day early during the second week. Their report contains a descriptive overview of what hurricanes are, how they arise, and the destruction they cause, synthesized from the reading they have done. As an exemplary piece of what Rory terms traditional library research their background information report earns the pair an A+. Interlude: The development of milestones and the paper format Up until this point, TJ and Daves work, like that of the other students in the class, has been for the most part traditional, with the possible exception of adding Internet research to the traditional library research. As he mentioned on the first day, Rory has broken the long-term process of conducting science projects into a series of interim milestones that provide a framework for [students] to work in, after seeing his students flounder in 1993 when faced with ten-plus weeks and a paper to turn in at the end. Dave and TJ are the beneficiaries of a set of initial milestones Rory has refined over the past few years, and it is worth reviewing the development of the milestone assignments. The original milestones Rory laid out in the Spring of 1994 to getting the project done were: (1) choosing a research question; (2) doing background research on the

143 question; (3) finding or collecting data that would answer the question; (4) analyzing the data; and (5) writing up the final paper. He encountered one major problem with these steps immediately: he found that students with little previous background were simply unable to come up with much beyond what Scardamalia and Bereiter (1991) term basic information questions, such as Amandas query, in Chapter 1, why does a comet revolve around the sun? In order to come up with more ultimately productive wonderment questions such as Jeffs how does a comets core size affect its tail size? students need a little more background on the topic area than they typically have. This is particularly crucial since Rory also found that one of the critical parts of doing a science research project is that you have to come up with a question that you can work on, or else you will not get far. Therefore, Rory adjusted the milestones for the 1994-95 year such that Step 1 did not include deciding on a research question, but instead a general topic area which students then have time to read up on and, if necessary, learn more about. Then they could come up with a focused research question by brainstorming. But for the first project in 1994-95, students did not turn in Background Information reports such as the one Dave and TJ have done. Later in that year, Rory added the report as a formal milestone to focus the initial period of learning about the chosen topic area, rather than relying on informally giving the students time to learn about their topic. The Background Information milestone simultaneously serves three purposes: (1) it gives students an interim goal around which to focus their background reading and research on their topic; (2) it lets students apply the familiar model of library research or synthesis of established descriptions of a phenomena (which they may have learned in other classes, especially English and History); and (3) it makes explicit the fact that they must go on to do something different in subsequent milestones and the final report and presentation. Too

144 often in previous years, Rory saw students get bogged down gathering and synthesizing information about their topicwhether it was from books, journals, or the Internetand they ended up with final reports that synthesized that information. Synthesis of known information is what Dave and TJ have done to this point in their project, and theyve done it well. On the first day of the project, Rory told the students: You know, in a lot of papers, ... youd be done after [the background information milestone], basically ... But thats whats different about science. Because, you know, you dont just take all the information you can find from all the different sources, and like, cut and paste and put them all together, and say, Voila! Heres everything that I know. Thats part of it. Theres more, though. Now Rory wants them to move beyond that step to carry out original empirical research: they will examine data to answer a research question they formulate, with his help. Once you know a lot ... about a topic, you then need to focus it downjust like I gave you that example with those kids with volcanoesinto something that you actually can do some research on. Something where either you can do an experiment, or look for data that somebody else has collected, to try and answer a particular question that you have. So thats [the next] step: narrow your broad topic down into a research proposal. I think this is a very hard step. Up until this time, everything is pretty easy and straightforward. This can become kind of complicated. How to whittle that downyou know, its like taking a tree trunk and trying to whittle it down into a toothpick. It takes a while sometimes. OK? Constructing your own recipe: Brainstorming and refining research questions Since this whittling down to a research proposal is so difficult, Rory tried to come up with ways to give the students more support. At the beginning of this year, Rory decided he wanted to try brainstorming research questions and proposals with the class as a group. He was at first not sure when to hold the session, but decided to hold it when all the groups were about to put their research proposals together, after the Background Information was returned. He figured that would provide for optimal participation and

145 interest, since the discussion should help the students get in their next milestone (the Research Proposal). So on the Monday after the Background Information was due, Rory gathers the class together, saying Remember, our next deadline is Friday. You need to have a workable, doable, researchable, very specific question based on your topic. This is, thisI see three critical parts, basically, to doing projects, doing scienceone is that you have to come up with a question that you can work on. Then you have to find the data. And then you have to analyze that data to get an answer. So those are the three parts, and once you do those three parts, then everything else is kinda like, you know, the dressing. It just kind of all fills in around there. He then holds a whole class brainstorming session on research questions. He brings in a photograph of a wolf pack from next door, and asks the class what are some questions that come to mind based on the photo. After the class generates a number of questions, many of which are basic, like Where was this picture taken?, Rory asks them to choose a question to pursue further. Pete suggests How do they choose the new leader of a pack? Rory then asks the class to generate more questions that would help them answer this question, in an effort to focus down on a more answerable question. Finally, he asks them what would we need to know to answer one of those questions? They realize it could be hard to come by data that would help them answer the question about the leader, based on their limited knowledge of wolves. They try some alternatives, but all are too broad. Finally, Rory suggests, This is where the problem comes in cause were all staying too broad and what we need to try and do is focus down very specifically. For instance, one example would besomebody was talking about sizes of packsa project you could do would be what is the average size, or the size distribution of wolf packs in Minnesota? Or, North America? Some students wonder How do we write a six page paper on that? What is there to write? But they discuss what data they would need to answer this question, and how they could construct a research report on it. He describes a possible report as follows:

146 You have the introduction. You would talk about wolves in generalwhere they came from, how theyve evolved. Uh, then you state your problem ... What is the average number of wolf packs, wolves in a pack in Minnesota? And then you would go about telling how you did it. Well, we collected information from wolf experts, you know, we got information from databases, and then we averaged it out. We counted the number of wolves, we counted the number of packs. We divided the number of wolves per pack and added them up, and divided by the number of packs, and then that gave us the average. That was your answer. And then you make a little table that shows you the number of wolves in each pack. And you make a graph that shows the number of wolves in each pack, and the average number. And, so there you have your introduction, you have your data, you have your analysis, you have your graph and your chart and your table, and, and then you come up with your conclusion, which is your finish. Now, does that take six pages? Probably not. It probably wouldnt. But it might. It all depends on what you find. I dont know what youre gonna find. It could be a lot less than six pages, and thats OK. Nobody said six pages is what you have to have. Nobody said ten pages. I just said the average was ten, from last year. The students seem somewhat reassured, but one asks What if you get all the information you can, but you have like a lousy question? Rory tells them Im gonna try and not let you down the wrong path to start with. He also warns students they will run into trouble if they have a good question, but cant find the information [to answer] it. If they figure that out soon enough, they can try to adjust their question to a more manageable one. But in the very worst case scenario, you absolutely cant find anything, you cant turn anything in to something, you can still report on what you did. Thats still a scientific investigation, and thats still valid. Even if you dont find an answer. In the end, Rory asks the students I want you to continue to do this with your own projects. This is your job. This is your deadline for Friday. To ask questions about your own project, and then continue asking questions about all your own questions, and seeingtrying to write down. Try and keep it all on one sheet of paper, so it doesnt get lost. Questions about questions, or what information you would need to answer any one of those questions. And then, keep in mind that you want to come up with a very focused, a very focused kind of a question at the end of this process.

147 By the next day, TJ and Dave have generated a list of questions, which they show to Rory. A short discussion ensues: Rory: Youve got some good things here. What are the patterns? is a good one. Like, what are the patterns over time? Dave: Yeah, there are hurricanes every year, but this year it seems like theres more. Rory: And why is that? You could look at how many there were every year, and it might expand to how many at what time of year. What about the sizes of them over time, or in any particular season? ... For starters, Id say the patterns one is the best, and also this one [about size] is kind of related, but if one of the others is related, it could become relevant too. Dave: OK Rory: I hope I helped At about this same time, Rory assigns Dave and TJ a mentor, a university-based scientist who specializes in atmospheric science and climate. Rory asks the student groups to introduce themselves to the scientists by email. Dave and TJ get a response from their mentor within a day, and Dave asks Rory, Do we have the Web? Rory explains that the Web is what they are looking at when they are using Netscape, so they do have it. After Dave and TJ tell their mentor they have access to the Web, he sends them a number of library book references as well as Web site addresses about hurricanes. TJ and Dave explore the Web pages he tells them about15 , and they follow links from these pages to other hurricane sites. Eventually they find a historical dataset of yearly hurricane activity from 1880 through 1995, at http://thunder.atms.purdue.edu/hurricane.html. Dave and TJ are excited about all the maps and pictures they have found, which showing among other things the paths hurricanes have taken in the Northern Hemisphere. So, they decide to propose a research question on the paths. Specifically, they propose answering Is there a preferred pattern of hurricane movement in the Northern Hemisphere? They propose gathering data from the Web site over a period of years to establish the patterns. At the end
15 If you are interested in exploring yourself, the addresses are

http://banzai.neosoft.com/citylink/blake/tropical.html, http://www.station.net/~kenf/tcc.html, and http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/.

148 of week three, TJ and Daves proposal is approved by Rory, which is not surprising, since he collaborated in its construction. The students generated the initial idea of examining patterns of hurricanes after the brainstorming session and their Background Information report; Rory liked the idea and added the prospect at looking for patterns over some period of time; and the students refined their idea to focus on the patterns of hurricane movement, after finding images showing the paths of hurricanes with the help of their mentor. Gathering and organizing the ingredients: Data collection and analysis After agreeing on a research proposal, Rory had told the students they need to figure out where to get the information they need. Like some other students, Dave and TJ figured out where their data would come from while deciding on their proposal, so they move directly into the next phase of the project, which is gathering the information and data they need to answer their question. Over the next two weeks, TJ and Dave work diligently to gather hurricane data off the Web. Rory tells me early in week four I have a gut feeling they dont know what theyre looking for. They think its a 5 minute process or they already have it. But Rory holds back, and lets them see for themselves what it takes to work with the images that show hurricane paths. It takes them a while to download images for a set of years, and they learn how to manipulate the images in graphics programs so that they can change the background color from black to white. They turn in a set of data just before the end of week five, and as they begin their data analysis, they realize they need to find a way to compare the paths on more than one image. TJ comes up with the idea of tracing hurricane paths by hand off the computer screen onto transparencies, which can be laid on top of one another. Now that they have gathered a body of data, Rory challenges them to go on to the

149 next step of the project, figuring out what the data says. The image of talking with your data comes from Rorys masters advisor. About his masters project, Rory told me: [data analysis] is hard, though, for all of us. It reminds me of my masters advisor, who was a petrologist. We worked with igneous rocks, and the rocks became your data. He said, in his smiling brown face, You have to talk to the rocks and the rocks will talk back to you. You have to poke it, sift it, organize it, and itll talk back to you. Through the processes of poking, sifting, and organizing all these images, and tracing their paths, the students have gotten a definite impression of what the data says about how hurricane paths tend to be shaped. In an interview outside of class, Dave tells me: We really are finding mainly that most of them are starting in a ... [they] start southeast of Florida and east of the Caribbean, and then kind of like theyre really making a swoop up towards the United States, and then they die in the Atlantic. They make a little semicircle. When I ask him to show me on paper how the hurricanes tend to move, he draws the following:

Figure 3: Daves drawing of common hurricane paths As he is drawing, Dave explains:

150 ... They kind of like start here [southeast of Florida], and then they kinda swoop like that [along the East coast]. You know, and then some of them occasionally, you know [draws one going over Florida, and one into Texas/Louisiana]. Joe: Right, those are the ones that blast over there. Dave: Somethats like the general, you know Joe: Oh. And so there always doing that [I draw a C swooping from southeast to northwest to northeast] Dave: Pretty much, yeah. Joe: And theres more of them over here [in Atlantic off coast] Dave: Yeah, and generally someyou know, weve had a couple that have hit Texas, and some have gone up the coast of Mexico. However, figuring out how to turn this general impression into an analysis of data proves difficult for Dave and TJ, just as it does for most of the rest of the class. For their data analysis milestone due at the end of week 6, TJ and Dave turn in four separate maps of hurricane paths for 1899 and 1993-1995, in electronic form and traced on transparencies. They just barely get the assignment together by the end of class on the due data, and hurriedly compose an ad hoc conclusion in the email message to which they attach the map images. Rory is unsatisfied with their use of the data to support conclusions; he tells me afterward: I asked them why they picked those [years], and they said, we thought we would compare average years. So I said to them, how do you define average years? I was trying not to shoot them down, so I asked them How did you figure out they were average years? We looked at maps You have to prove it to me, or the reader, that these are average years. You cant just say it. You can say you have 4 apples, but if 3 are red and one is green, you have to convince me they are all apples ... How do you define the average year? Maybe with frequency? Someone in another class is looking at the number of hurricanes per year. Theres also the number of storms, tropical storms, and the number of each hurricane category ... There were 21 hurricanes last year. Other years had 5, 8, 10, and 11 ... But maybe the average is not in terms of numbers, maybe its in terms of paths. Maybe you can see which years are average, then use those ... Rory sees TJ and Daves picking so-called average years based on no explicit criterion as an example of generalizing a conclusion from inspection of data. In this conversation, he pushes the students to not make claims, such as TJ and Daves contention that the years

151 they chose were average, unless they can back them up with reference to the data. When he generates the two possibilities that average years could be determined by the number of hurricanes or by the paths, separated by the qualifier but maybe, Rory is also modeling the scientific practice of generating alternative hypotheses with means of disconfirming each. In this case the discussion does not lead to further analysis of what constitutes an average year, however, since that is not the main thrust of their project. Instead, the students concede the point that their sampling procedure of discontinuous years is questionable, so they need an alternative strategy that they can act on with only a week to put together their complete research report. So Rory makes a suggestion: Why not twist the project to the last 10 years, so you could use 3 youve done already? On this advice, TJ and Dave use the sample from 1985 through 1995. Serving the meal in a spaghetti bowl: Putting it all together in the research report As Rory mentioned on the first day of projects, the next step is putting together the research paper. He told the students: Once youve done data analysisyou should have a pretty good idea of what your question is, and what the answer isthen you can write your paper. Actually, what youre going to be doing, is, youre going to be assembling parts of your paper as you go along. So its not like, OK, Im gonna do all this work, then I have to start writing the paper. This is actually designed for you to do parts of your paper as we go along, and by the time you get to [writing the paper], its basically just finishing things up. Its analyzing, its putting things into final form. Rory has designed the milestone assignments for the project so that they correspond to sections of the written research report. Students written milestones thus serve as first drafts they can revise and combine to create a draft of their final report. Table 9 shows what milestone assignments correspond to sections of the paper (see Appendix E for Rorys handout on the paper format).

152

Milestone Broad topics and partners Background Information Research Proposal/Question Data Collection Data Analysis Paper

Research Report Sections

Introduction Method (expanded) Results, part A Results, part B, and Conclusion (Combine above, expand where necessary, and precede by Abstract)

Table 9: Correspondence of milestones to report sections The design of project activities that Rory has developed for his class is powerful in part because of the synergy between the activity structure (Doyle, 1979; Lemke, 1990; Mehan, 1978) embodied in the milestone assignments and the artifact structure embodied in the format for the written report. Jay Lemke points out that activities in the classroom are structured in the sense that they can be broken down into functional elements [that] have specific relationships to one another, including restrictions on the order in which they can meaningfully occur (1990, p. 199). In his observational studies of standard classroom lessons, Hugh Mehan (1978) described how lesson activities are organized as sequences of events at various levels. The I-R-E sequences described in Chapter 7 are an activity structure at the most basic level, but multiple I-R-E sequences are often put together to form a classroom lessonopening sequences to begin the class period, followed by topically related sets of sequences to cover instructional material, and closing sequences that end the class period. Extending this model, multiple class meetings can also have a structure or sequence: the typical five-day sequence at Lakeside, as described by students, is Lecture-Lab-Lecture-Lab-exam. Rory has designed and led the students

153 through an alternative activity structure with rich dependencies between the parts of the sequence. Some of the interdependence between parts of the activity, as well as the support Rory provides throughout the activity, is mediated by interim artifacts. The milestone artifacts are shared, critiquable externalizations of student knowledge (Blumenfeld, et al., 1991; Guzdial, 1995, April) that Rory uses as occasions for feedback. The activity structure works in an abstract sense, but is nonetheless new and at times difficult for the students to carry out, as becomes apparent at this juncture in the hurricanes project. After TJ and Dave download the remaining images for each year from the Web, they trace them onto transparencies. In an effort to get an overview of all the data, they create a composite image showing all the hurricane paths from 1985-1995. The students and Rory come to refer to this representation of all the paths together as a spaghetti bowlthere is so much data covering other data in the image that it is difficult to make sense of the whole thing. At this point in the project, TJ and Dave have to figure out how to put their burgeoning knowledge of hurricanes, and their impressions of hurricane paths into a coherent, written report, with conclusions supported by data analysis. The process proves difficult for TJ and Dave, just as it does for most of Rorys students. On Thursday during Week 7, with a day to go before the research report is due, Dave and TJ have a long conversation trying to solidify data analysis techniques. Rory asks them what the general pattern of hurricanes is, and TJ shows him the C shape Dave had described to me previously (see Figure 3 above). Rory suggests they think about where the hurricanes occurredthey could define the rectangular area that defined the boundaries of the hurricane paths. Borrowing inspiration from the constituent mineral analysis Rory had done as part of his masters in Geology, he also suggests the possibility

154 of dividing the map up into cells of equal space on a grid. Then, they could count up frequencies of the hurricane paths through each cell of the grid, to see where the highest hazard potentials were for the 10-year period. As they continue to look over the spaghetti bowl of data, Rory notices that not all the hurricanes follow the C-shaped path Dave and TJ had described. Some are straighter than the standard C, and others appear erratic. He then suggests they could devise a categorization scheme for the shapes of paths. They could go back to each year, and put a morphological name on each hurricane, count up the frequencies of each shape, and calculate the percentages. He tells them he believes that analysis would be valuable. The conversation about data analysis was extremely productive, and Rory is excited about it. He tells me after class, there are a lot of things you could squeeze out of what they did instead of just the paths. The only problem is, the conversation [he] had with them ... should have taken place last week. It generated more ideas, but there [is] no more time. Not surprisingly, Dave and TJs incorporation of these ideas is only cursory in the report they turn in on time the next day. Like most of the other reports, Rory finds Dave and TJs report riddled with problems. Adjusting the seasonings for a new course: Revising the paper Rory returns bleary-eyed the following Tuesday, after a long weekend, and announces to me, I was up til 2 am last night working on this. Its really hard to figure out what they meant. They get into this verbiage where theyre trying to sound like they know what theyre doing, but it doesnt make sense. Maybe they knew what they meant, but its not clear. Today is damage control day. Theyre gonna get these back, and say, geez, I cant believe this. I worked hard on this and thought I did a good job, and look at my grade. For example, the hurricane group got a 51%, and its a great project ... The whole schedule is revised now. I cant make them do [presentations] on Friday. They need to revise this work ... Presentations will then have to be in the 2nd semester ...

155 Almost across the board there was no Method or incorrect method. They have to fix it up. Theyll have until finals to turn in a revised draft ... then a week of creating presentations, and then the following week to give them ... In his extensive commentaries written on the paper, Rory tries to be encouraging. On the front page, he begins with Outstanding Effort! Dont quit now! He tells them the good things are that they have excellent data collection and manipulation, but the bad things are (1) No Method, (2) Data Analysis extremely weakbut fixable!, and (3) cant support Conclusion from the Data Analysis. These major problems, compounded by a few minor formatting issues, have resulted in the low grade of 51% (the highest grade in the class was 64% on this draft). The neglected Methods section was not merely an oversight; TJ and Dave are clearly unfamiliar with certain aspects of the scientific research report writing genre, as exemplified in the conversation which ensues during class. For instance, they dont know what the Abstract and Method sections are, and how they differ: TJ: So is the method, you just recount everything, how youve done things? Rory: How you did what you did. How you did what you did, and what you did. TJ: I thought that was the abstract. Rory: No, the abstractJulie: Its a summary of that Rory: What she said. The groups statements in their Data Analysis are still not supported well by the data. Rorys comments on this section of their paper begin: You have lots of good data to analyze. But, you just packaged all the data into a pile, saying here it is, and you made statements in this analysis section without referring to the data once. You cant do that. He points out specific examples. TJ and Dave had written, We found that most of the recorded storms began in the Atlantic Ocean, east of the Caribbean and made a C-like shape

156 towards the United States and finished back east of the northern United States. Rory comments: In this statement, you need to show/prove this is true. Which diagrams show this? Of the total # of storms over this 11 year period, exactly how many (and then, what %) of the storms had this C-shape path. You need to show, in step-by-step fashion, how you came up with your Conclusions/Results. Back up what you say with your graphs. After these comments, Rory proceeds to expand in writing on the various analysis strategies they had begun to flesh out together during class the previous week. First of all, how they could classify each storm in the time period as having one of a set of path shapes, such as the C-shape they mentioned. He points out that a complete analysis of hurricane paths also include issues of location and not just shape: where the storms begin and end, perhaps where they turn if they turn, what the boundaries of the spaghetti bowl of storms are, and how often each cell in a grid dividing the total area was hit by a storm. Rory ends by writing, Bottom Line: Lots of ideas, late in the game. Which ones are doable in the available time? You decide. For their revised report, the boys carry out many of Rorys suggestions. They categorize each storm as having one of three path shapes, and give the number of storms within each category among the 83 storms over the period. They also produce a pie chart showing the percentages of each shape (see Figure 4).

157

Hurricane Paths

27% C-shape 51% Straight-C Irregular 22%

Figure 4: Pie chart of hurricane path shapes, from revised report The hurricane groups revised report is a significant improvement over their first draft, with a Methods section and conclusions supported specifically by data analysis; the improvement is reflected in a revised grade of 91%. Final presentation of the meal The final phase of the project is the presentation. As Rory told the class the first day of projects, each group has to do an oral presentation to the class, telling the class what they did, and what they found. During the following week, Rory gives a sample project presentation using Microsoft Powerpoint viewed on the overhead televisions. Dave and TJ become excited about the program, and ask Rory if they can borrow the program over the weekend to work on it. They complete an impressive series of slides explaining their research over the weekend, and finish their first project pleased with all they have learned. Dave says they learned a lot about hurricanes ... I mean, just, all this time that youve been working ... you get that much time to do your topic ... and when you come to your presentation, its just second nature. I mean, you just really know what you are

158 talking about. I mean, I felt real confident. He thinks he learned more than he would in a traditional class because youre doing stuff that you really wanna do, and that you really wanna learn about. They also learned along the way about computer tools like Powerpoint, and the Internet. He says coming in here I had no experience [on email and the Net]. I mean, I feel like an expert now. He feel this has happened because we do it so much and you just learn stuff, doinglike, when youre actually doing stuff so much better than really trying to memorize how to do stuff. By guiding Dave and TJ through the activity structure hes designed for conducting projects in the classroom, Rory creates occasions for the students to learn by doing. As Dave said, he leads us into whatever we have to do very nicely. And along the way, Rory acts as a resource and facilitator as needed: Whenever we, you know, got into a jam, and it seems like ... he always has a solution, or an example, or something new to do. Like, in our papers ... he knew we could make em better, and so he, you know, let us all redo em. And each page, you know, was just filled with more ideas. I mean, which kids would think are probablyyou know, thats annoying, bad. But, I mean, wefrom our first draft to our second, it waswe made such an improvement. Just from all of his comments, and explaining everything. It really helped, I think. I mean, I think its definitely one of his strengths, it seems like he can solve anyanswer anything that comes up. I guess thats one of his strengths. Now that we have seen a pair of savvy seniors cook up science by following the path laid out by Rory in the activity structure, lets turn to another case. The activity structure facilitates these students work as well, but not quite so smoothly. The Moons project: Asking why? over and over again Steve, a quiet freshman into skateboarding, and Rich, a straitlaced, quiet sophomore, are the youngsters of the Period 1/2 class. All the other members of this class are juniors and seniors.

159 Steve and Rich spend the first couple of weeks gradually focusing in on their topic. As Steve put it, we first picked space, but that was kinda too broad, so we narrowed it down, to the solar system, and then the moons, and then we picked some moons so we could get some information. The last step is a crucial one: once they decide to focus on moons, Rory suggests they do research on moons to find some specific ones for which they can gather ample information and data. In previous years, Rory had seen groups focus in too far before making sure they could gather data on a topic, and end up without anything to analyze. For example, Matt and Courtney in 1994-95 went through three different proposals focusing in on astronomy topics for which they were never able to find relevant data, such as Do red dwarfs account for dark matter in the universe? They never tracked down data on red dwarfs or dark matter, just general, descriptive information. On Rorys recommendation, Steve and Rich look both in library books and the Internet, and then decide they can gather enough information to do something interesting with the Earths moon, Saturns moon Titan, and Uranus moon Miranda. The library books prove useful for general information, while the Internet is a good source for specific data, such as temperatures, sizes, surface appearance, and gases. They collect some of the facts and figures into an outline for their background information report, with a section for each moon. Rory tells them they have a good start. The next stage is the research proposal. Although most of the projects in Rorys class are based on questionslike Dave and TJs Is there a preferred pattern of hurricane movement in the Northern Hemisphere?some successful projects are not really based on questions. So, instead of calling the milestone Research Question, Rory has begun calling it a Research Proposal. One type of project students in the past have had success with that isnt really a questions is compare and contrast. Along these lines,

160 Rory recommends Steve and Rich consider comparing and contrasting moons, and the students follow his advice. Their research proposal is comparing and contrasting moons in our solar system. In Steve and Richs case, however, the students have trouble getting beyond stating simple comparisons and contrasts to figuring out what they can learn from the differenceshow the moons are different and why. In the data collection phase, Steve asks Rory to help them construct a list of variables to contrast, and they generate one together. It includes size, mass, volume, distance from planet, orbit time period, and materials/composition. The two boys begin laboriously organizing their data into tables, first in Microsoft Word, which proves too awkward. Rory introduces them to Microsoft Excel, so they learn to use a spreadsheet for the first time. Rich has almost no previous experience with computers, while Steve has a PC at home. Organizing and filling in the gaps in the data takes them a few weeks. In an effort to fill one gap, they post a message to the sci.astro newsgroup trying to find out the core materials in the cores of Titan and Miranda, but end up doing without these pieces of data. Eventually, theyve constructed a good table of variables, and then Rory helps them learn how to make graphs. The pair of students end up with a graph for each variable showing the value for each moon; for instance, the size of Earths moon, Miranda, and Titan is shown on one graph. Taking advantage of the flexibility of the graphics in Microsoft Excel, Steve and Rich make their graphs in many different styles, including horizontal and vertical bar graphs, line graphs, and 3-D graphs (two examples appear in Figures 5 and 6 below). At this point, in the sixth week of the project, Rory begins to try pushing the boys into considering what they can learn from the data. While they are working on their data analysis in class, Rory talks with them about the variables. Why are the moons the way

161 they are? he says. Why are they different from each other? Thats what we really want to know. Because we can ... look at pictures of them and say, Theyre different, OK. So what? Why are they different from each other? After Steve and Rich turn in their data analysis milestone the following week, with many separate graphs of each variable assembled, but their implications not described, Rory writes in his comments: Nice graphs. But what do they prove? Later, they show Rory a draft of the conclusion they are writing for their complete report, and they still havent gotten far. As Rory comments to me, their conclusion basically [says] some characteristics are the same and some are different. Rorys reaction is to reiterate, tell me how ... look at why the moons are the way they are. They are really trying hard at this point, digging through their data, making more and more graphs, but having trouble making sense of it all. In the course of discussing the final revision of their written report, Rory covers the same territory, saying Always think of why. Not just report whats there. What are the connections? ... Ask the why question instead of just listing things. Recalling the first day of projects, Rory had stressed that science does not happen in a uniform, step-by-step fashion as they may have learned previously, but there are things that you have to do to do science. This is one example of such a meta-scientific issue: it is not enough to just list facts; instead, you have to do something like make connections, build models, or determine causal relationships. This is new territory for Steve and Rich, though. They tell me later they are desperately looking for relationships in the data by this time, but they arent sure how to find them. Steve says, What was frustrating about it ... after we made all the graphswe couldn't really analyze them, you know ... it was really hard to analyze them, cause there was really no pattern that they could see. But then Rory kind of helped [them] out a little bit, as Steve put it, by helping them transform some of the work they turn in.

162 In the final draft of the paper, the students once again include only graphs of single variables, and then list each graphs interpretation separately. For instance, they include the following line graph of each moons orbital time period:

Orbital Period
period (days)
30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Titan Miranda moons The Moon

Figure 5: Orbital period of three moons from Final Draft In the text, they write, the graph [of orbital period] shows that Earths moon has the longest orbital period, 27.32 days, while Miranda has the shortest orbital period, 1.4 days. Another one of the eight graphs shows the density of the moons:

Density

Moon Miranda Titan 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Figure 6: Density of three moons from Final Draft

163 Similar graphs in different styles are included for mass, surface temperature, and distance from planet. In the Data Analysis section of the paper, Steve and Rich do not mention relationships between variables, except in the statement that Titan has a short orbital period in relation to its massupon which they do not elaborate. But at the very end of the paper, buried in the conclusion, something more like a testable claim appears. They have written, We have come [to] the conclusion that both Titan and Earths moon [have] a much greater mass and density than Miranda, and that this could be why both Titan and Earths moon have longer orbiting time periods. Rory latches onto this claim about how mass and density could be related to the orbital period of the moons, and shows Rich and Steve how they can directly test it using their data, with graphs combining variables. He sketches a number of graphs like Figure 7:

3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 10

Period

Luna

Titan Miranda
20 30

Figure 7: Rorys sketched graph of two variables (Luna is Earths moon) As in several other successful projects, Rory sees how something the students have done can be transformed to a more successful move in the language game of science (Wittgenstein, 1967) ; put another way, this allows the students to participate in a new way

164 in talking science (Lemke, 1990; Pea, 1992a).16 In the course of working with the data, and looking at the graphs over a period of time, Rich and Steve have developed a sense that this relationship exists; that is why they put the comment in their conclusion. Recalling the image from Rorys masters advisor, Steve and Rich have talked with the data, and it has talked back to them. As we saw in the Hurricanes case, however, a clear analysis technique may be difficult to find even after the data talks back to you. In this case Steve and Rich do not know how to construct a graph to directly test their claim. In fact, the graphs they have in their data analysis are not conducive to checking the relationships the students themselves mention in their conclusionas shown in Figures 8-3 and 8-4, one graph is horizontal while the other vertical, and one is a bar graph while the other a line graph. Rory sketches graphs of one variable against the other to directly check the claim: it appears that in the students data, a relationship between density and orbital period is supported, but not between mass and time period. Using similar methods, Rory suggests the students can create combination graphs for all the possible pairs of variables from their separate graphs. In this way, another apparent linear relationship is revealed, between the mass of a moon and its distance from the planet. When Steve and Rich get the final version of the paper back, they are excited. As Steve put it, We finally saw, you know, what we were trying to find, with the patterns, by looking at those graphs. You know, we got all this information, now, and we finally saw what we wanted to see. With a little help from Mr. Wagner, giving some direction there. And that was ... a good thing. Seeing relationships. Although there is no provision for revising their paper again, the students get a chance to use this insight in their presentation. Instead of using Excel to make the graphs, they end up drawing graphs by hand on a poster. Interestingly, Excels interface may have
16 A more complete discussion of such transformative communication will be included in Chapter 11.

165 discouraged them from the kind of graphing they needed in the first place. In preparing electronic versions of the graphs for this write-up, I encountered difficulty in constructing a graph of the form shown in Figure 8-5. Microsofts Wizards, which automate graphmaking from tables, did not want to show me the data in this kind of graph, suggesting instead putting density and orbital time period both on the same axis, in a grouped bar graph. This is a case of a general tool having embedded affordances (Norman, 1988; (Pea, 1992c) that do not easily match the task for which they are being appliedin this case, trying to show the relationship between two variables. In addition, the tool made it very easy to create many different and interesting looking styles. But the variety made it even harder to find relationships. Rorys written comments on the groups paper speak to these pitfalls: Part of your graphing problem seems to be different graphs. I know you were trying to graph everything you could to find things that were connected. But, sometimes, the graph you choose is the most important feature for success. You sometimes (always?) need to think about what you are graphing and how you want the graph to look. Then, does the graph show a meaningful relationship between 2 variables? If you start trying to compare line graphs with scatter plots with bar graphs (in more than one direction!) you are increasing the confusion about what the relationships are between the things you are graphing. Valiant effort to analyze the data! I think your inexperience in graphing and analyzing was the biggest negative factor here, but its really not your fault. Seeing these relationships is important to the students because it allows them to come up with an explanation of why there [is] a pattern. They talk about this in their presentation to the class: Rich: ... As I said, we were trying to find some patterns between certain things, and we did. We found [a relationship] between mass and distance. You can see here [he points to a graph like Figure 8-5, but showing mass on the y-axis and distance from planet on the x-axis, increasing on a nearly linear basis]. Um, we that means that maybewe think that if a moon has a greater mass that might affect its distance from the planet that it, you know, comes from. Also, webetween distance, uh, no, density and orbit time [he points to their drawn version of Figure 8-5]. Which also means it has a greater density, that that might affect its orbit time, meaning that it has a greater orbit time.

166 Steve: You know, a larger density would contribute to a longer orbit time, and a smaller density would contribute to a faster orbit time. Rich: And those were the only categories that had patterns, or data that were, you know, similar. With these statements about one factor contributing to or being affected by another, Rich and Steve have finally moved into the realm of making empirically warranted causal arguments, albeit tentative and somewhat awkwardly stated ones. As in the scientific community, they are making their claims with the aid of particular types of inscriptionsin this case, somewhat crude graphs. The graphs make their claim more compelling and understandable (Latour, 1988). In addition, they are able to see possible extensions of the work theyve done: unprompted, Rich mentions a follow up project could compare even more data, put them together, [and] see if theres a pattern. Steve adds that he would go into more depth on the ... graphs that we made, and see if [the relationship they saw] relates to the other moons in the solar system. Steve and Rich are much less outgoing and experienced than TJ and Dave, but the youngsters are consistently diligent throughout the project, and look for advice from Rory at critical times. Rory had told the class I see three critical parts, basically, to doing projects, to doing science ... you have to come up with a question that you can work on. Then you have to find the data. And then you have to analyze the data to get an answer. Steve and Rich used the general strategy of comparing and contrasting objects or events, and ensured that they could find data on their choicemoons in our solar systembefore finalizing their selection. They had a great deal to learn about gathering, organizing, and analyzing data, but their project worked because they turned milestone assignments in and took Rorys feedback to the best of their ability and growing knowledge. They used the activity structure Rory had set up for projects well.

167 Summary: Lessons learned and prospects for future research and development The Moons project and the Hurricanes project show various aspects of how Rory scaffolds students doing projects and doing science. First of all, he scaffolds students with an activity structure that flows logically from one phase to the next, and is punctuated by interim deliverables that map into the artifact structure of the final written report. The Background Information phase of the project results in a written report on the students selected topic, and serves as the basis for the Introduction section of the final research report. It also provides sufficient knowledge of the topic to formulate investigable wonderment questions for the next phase. The research proposal serves as the beginning of the Methods section of the final research report, and points to the data needed in the next phase. The Data Collection results in data tables and/or maps that will be included in the Results section of the final research report, and requires students to work with the data, during which time they may develop a sense of relationships or patterns in the data. This sense of patterns in the data should be further pursued in the Data Analysis phase of the project, which results in graphs or other representations that support claims about the data. The graphs or other representations follow the tables and/or maps in the Results section of the final research report, and the claims about the phenomena constitute the beginnings of the Conclusion section of the paper. In the final phases, the paper is assembled, turned in, and returned with feedback for revision; then, students prepare an oral presentation for the class based on their revised paper and any additional feedback they receive from Rory. Within the overall project activity, Rory has identified three critical steps that students often have trouble with, and need further scaffolding: Students have to (1) come

168 up with a question that [they] can work on, (2) find the data, and (3) analyze that data to get an answer. Rory has developed a number of question discovery scaffolds, and this is a fertile area for future research that would contribute to inquiry-based and project-based teaching. During 1995-96, Rory had some success with whole-class brainstorming sessions such as the one described briefly here on wolves (in a class later that day, he picked up a thread from the Period 1/2 class and discussed wooly mammoth questions). He has the students then generate lists of questions, and questions about those questions where possible, to use as props for conversations with him about potential research proposals. In the course of these conversations, he asks students from time to time what they know about their topic, and what they find interesting about it (we will see this strategy at work in Chapter 11 in the Plesiosaur project). In addition, Rory generated a list of prompts or heuristics students can use to begin research proposals, as an alternative to questions they generate solely from their background knowledge. In his note on the board, he suggested students Think about A) How does it work? B) Why doesnt something work? C) Compare A to B (alike/not alike) D) How is A related to B E) Look for patterns F) Look for anomalies Developing further heuristics and prompts that point to some of the exemplary ways science is practiced could prove helpful for scaffolding project inquiry; other ways of encouraging students to make connections, specify and test out possible causal relationships, or build models are possibilities. In regards to the list Rory put on the board, Rich and Steves case illustrates one pitfall of heuristic C. Although Rory tells students that research proposals dont necessarily have to be formulated as questions, Rich and

169 Steves simple comparison of three moons was not adequate. When all the students did was list how the moons were alike and not alike, Rory had to repeatedly push them to answer some questions, such as why the moons are alike and not alike. Ultimately, research that offers scientific explanations answers questions of how, when, or why even if those questions arent explicitly asked in the original formulation of the research proposal. Rory also scaffolds question refinement and focusing. If we imagine a sliding scale from very broad to minutely focused, Rory has to help students find a productive place for scientific inquiry on the scale, since they lack experience at such inquiry. Students in Rorys class have a tendency to believe a place on the scale nearest the broad end is most appropriate. In 1994-95, this resulted in proposed research questions like is the greenhouse effect true? In another case, Mike and Jorge said they were doing a project on hurricanes, and when I asked them What about hurricanes? they said everything. As indicated by the students concern about how they could write six pages on Rorys question on wolves during the brainstorming session, students may lean toward the broad end of the scale out of a desire to sweep everything they find into the reports and projects they have typically done in other classes. Rorys tendency is to channel students more toward the highly focused end of the scale. In 1994-95, Jeff was worried at the beginning the volcano project Rory ultimately used the example of a well-focused project on the first day of projects in 1995-96. Jeff asked Rory, is the dormancy and eruption pattern of volcanoes too specific? Rory had to reassure him, that no, specific is good. It is possible to be too focused too early, however, as the students who scoped in on the relationship of red dwarfs and dark matterbut could find no data on eitherillustrate.

170 The pitfall of being too focused too early points to an important dependency between Rorys step (1), coming up with a question to work on, and step (2), finding the datastudents need to formulate questions that are answerable with accessible data. The Hurricanes project described in this chapter illustrates particularly well how the research proposal and planning can be situated in the search and consideration of available data. The students and Rory had settled on the idea of looking for patterns related to hurricanes over time, and when they found data showing hurricane paths, they decided that focusing on patterns in the movement of hurricanes would be interesting to them and empirically investigable. Rory has been informally encouraging groups like the Hurricanes and Moons groups to focus their questions based on data they think or know they can get. A perhaps beneficial refinement in the design of Rorys current activity structure for projects would be to formally incorporate in the Research Proposal milestone a delineation of data needed to answer the question and the planned source of that data17 . Such a design change would be akin to Rorys changing various other aspects of projects from being informally encouraged to formally required. Specifically, Rory used to encourage students to gather background information before trying to formulate a research question, and now he requires a formal written Background Information milestone; he also used to encourage students to assemble tables of data as part of their Data Collection, and graphs as part of their Data Analysis; now he requires students to include these features in these milestones
17 Coincidentally, this change would make the Research Proposal milestone a more complete first draft of

the Methods section of the final research report than it currently is (see Table 9). It could also help clarify the Methods section of the scientific research report genre for students. As Kevin ONeill (1996) has pointed out, students have a tendency to include a rhetorical function in the Methods section that the science research article genre does not normally include: an implicit argument for a high grade on the paper based on the hard work they have done. Rory has to repeatedly discourage such tales of woe, as he calls them, and asks the students to instead explain in their Method what data they needed to answer their research question and why they needed that data. In the Spring of 1997, when I asked Rory to review this chapter, he told me by email the next week, I liked this [proposed change to the Research Proposal] so much that I'm already using it on this project ... We'll see if it makes a difference.

171 unless the specifics of their project preclude such representations (in such cases, the representations are replaced by whatever else is appropriate, such as TJ and Daves maps instead of tables). Finally, the projects described in this chapter point to the need for scaffolds for Rorys third crucial step to doing projects, analyzing the data to get an answer. Students in both these projects (and others not yet described) have considerable difficulty gathering their knowledge about their research topic into coherent reports with conclusions supported by data analysis. Scaffolds could be provided in the form of cognitive tools ranging from the kind of heuristics described above to computer technologies. In particular, computer tools which better help students like Steve and Rich check for particular sorts of semantic relationships among variables, when they dont know where to begin, could be effective scaffolds. One means for such tools to work would be by suggesting particular representations for particular kinds of relationships, such as Rorys graph in Figure 8-5 to check for covariation of two numeric variables. An example of a cognitive computer technology designed specifically to scaffold exploring the relationships between numeric variables in dynamic systems is Model-It, developed at the University of Michigan (Jackson, Stratford, Krajcik, & Soloway, in press). Such a tool could prove useful in a classroom like Rorys. Overall, the Hurricanes group and the Moons group succeeded in part because they made effective use of the scaffolds and support available to them.

Chapter 9 Time problems and falling through the cracks

Introduction Rory is not only acting as the facilitator and guide for the hurricanes project and the moons project during the second quarter, though. Ten other student groups are conducting projects, to varying degrees of success. Barbs project on UFOs and Aliens, and Pete, Pamela, and Marks project on the Zodiac are two projects that run into trouble. Their problems are in part attributable to issues with time. Time is a fundamental aspect of schooling tasks (Ball, Hull, Skelton, & Tudor, 1984; Schwab, Hart-Landsberg, Reder, & Abel, 1992), just as it is most cultural activity (e.g., Hall, 1976). Stephen Ball and his colleagues have pointed out that in schools it is time that is the determining factor in the organization and structuring of tasks (1984, p. 41). Jerry Schwab and his colleagues (1992) have pointed out how teachers limited amount of time is an important constraint on teachers work during and between classes. In the previous chapter, I examined how Rory has broadly structured time in the project activity by segmenting the 11-week period of projects into phases, many of which correspond to interim milestones the students turn in. In this chapter, I will examine how problems with time arise in the individual class periods between the bells, and how students perceptions of time passed and time remaining (Ball, et al., 1984) in the project also lead to difficulty. The UFOs & Aliens project: Falling through the cracks Barb is a quiet junior, who enjoys underground, punk-like rock in Chicago, as Rory found out through his email exchange with her. She is Asian-American, with short 172

173 hair. She comes in to class wearing black-rimmed glasses, four choker necklaces, and a black crewneck topped off by a baby-blue cardiganlooking somewhat like members of the band Weezer. During the first week of the project, Barb spends most of her time reading and writing personal email during class. When I ask her, she says she is usually writing to a friend at college in Boston. For the first project, Rory requires students to work with at least one other student, but Barb gets approval from Rory to work with a friend at another nearby high school who is not even taking earth science. After some hesitation, Rory agrees to the arrangement, largely because a similar group the previous year ended up quite successful: the partner was not the taking class, but became progressively more involved, until Rory convinced him to sign up and get some credit for the work. That student was at Lakeside, howeverRory never meets Barbs partner at the other school. Midway through the second week of the project, I ask Rory whats up with Barb. He says, Barbs been there, but she hasnt been very conversive ... let me write a note to myself here to check on her. He is unable to that day, but then at parent-teacher conferences the next day Barbs mother approaches Rory and says her daughter loves the course and the computers. Rory finds the comment ironic, because Barb is already one week late on the first and simplest assignment, picking a broad topic. So the next day Rory asks her to email her topic to him. She spends the whole 40 minutes in Eudora reading and writing email, so Rory assumes she has sent the assignment in. At the end of the period Rory asks her about it, though, and she says, I forgot. Rory resolves to be more observant. The next week, Barb approaches Rory and says Mr. Wagner, I need to talk to you about my project. Im at square zero.

174 Rory reiterates some of what he has explained in the past, saying, OK. Basically, you need to pick a topicanything that youre interested in. Say, volcanoes. You then learn about that, and then focus down. Say, on volcano lava, or the pattern of volcano eruptions. Dave, who is well on his way doing hurricane research, interjects, What if the question we come up with is already answered? Rory answers, Then you go do some more. I want you to explore some part of science, something that doesnt have a definite answer. Barb continues, Im having trouble understanding the point of this project. Rory reiterates his most familiar line, I want you to do science. Barb retorts, you can just read it in a book. Rory tries to clarify by explaining, I want you to take it one step further, and do something new. Barb astutely points out, I think right now were putting information together, not doing research. Pleased, Rory agrees. Right. You havent gotten there yet. First you do the background, and then you do more. Lets go back to lava. You might be wondering about how fast lava flows. You might see in a book that theres a range of speeds. Those are some facts. But what are the factors that affect the speed? Maybe the slope. Maybe the chemistry. What exactly is the relationship between chemistry, temperature, slope, and speed? Maybe you could do an experiment on syrup. Is that a good model for lava? OK, Barb says, yeah. Now I understand. Right now were just doing our topic. I cant think of anything. Do you have any suggestions?

175 Rory tries to help Barb find anything in Earth Science that shes interested in from what theyve talked about in the class, but they are unable to generate an idea together. So Rory goes to get the three large binders he keeps with all the previous projects students have done. He asks Barb to look through the archives for ideas. She spends close to an hour in the double period combing the reports intently, while Rory works with other students. Then Barb brings the binders back, announcing, Mr. Wagner, Im gonna do research on aliens. Rorys crestfallen face speaks volumes. Barb continues ... if they exist. Rory tells her, Thats just a real tough one. Some people say they do exist and others say they dont. Some people say that theres a cover-up, and others say that theres no cover-up. There are just all these accusations. Barb is undaunted, and Rory is not sure what else to suggest to her, so he decides to give her a chance to try and make it work: Why dont you look and see if you can find anything. But be aware that you need data. Unfortunately, Barb doesnt necessarily know what having data entails at this point, and regardless, she ends up spending most of the rest of the week working on personal email and a journal. During the next few weeks, Rory begins to lose track of Barb again. She does not turn in her first milestone assignment, the background information on her topic. A couple of days before the second milestonethe research proposal with a specific questionis due, Rory tells me he really needs to find out what shes doing, but then he doesnt get to it. The next day he says, I always plan on talking with her, but forget. There are people calling me back and forth, and then I realize at the end of class that I havent talked with her again ... I have no idea what shes doing.

176 Rorys limited time and its allocation As I attempted to show in Chapter 1, Rorys work supporting projects in the classroom is often characterized by a high number of interactions with different students in different groups. Other teachers who have implemented project-based science instruction, such as middle school teacher Carolyn Scott (1994), have encountered and described the trials and tribulations of time (p. 82). As Scott put it, there is not enough of it even when teaching using standard methods, and the problem is compounded with project-based teaching. Scott pointed out that part of the time problem is outside of class. For example, assessing open-ended writing assignments is extremely time consuming, and when Rory receives them from students, he feels compelled to get them back as close to the next school day as possible, since the following stages of the project are generally dependent on the previous stages. Thus, Rory tries to make milestones and papers due before a weekend at minimum, and if at all possible before a long weekend or break such as Winter break. However, Scott (1994) also pointed out that part of the time problem for projectbased teaching is during class. In 40-minute periods, it can be difficult for Rory to spend much time with many groups discussing substantive issues around the science in their projects, especially when there are a number of other topics which frequently arise. Besides non-project related topics such as other activities in the school, there are other topics related to projects, but somewhat peripheral to the science in projects. Some of these topics are procedural, such as the use of computer tools, the completion of assignments, and doling out resources, (to borrow Jacksons, 1968, phrase), such as the collection of books Rory has gathered to support students research. These procedural issues are often essential to the completion of the projects, and the computer-oriented ones can result in valuable incidental learning. Finally, some project-related topics are focused on assessment

177 issues such as due dates and grades received for assignments; although these are not essential in any sense, they are an aspect of most classroom tasks (Doyle, 1979). In Philip Jacksons classic Life in Classrooms (1968) , he pointed out that the daily grind in most classrooms is in part characterized by teachers doling out resources. For this reason, students experience delays and must take turns. Rorys class bears important similarities to some of the classes Jackson describedspecifically, those where students have considerable freedom to move about on their own (p. 14). In such classes, Jackson said, the teacher himself often becomes the center of little groups of waiting students. One of the most typical social arrangements in such settings is that in which the teacher is chatting with one student or examining his work while two or three other stand by, books and papers in hand, waiting to have the teacher evaluate their work, give them further direction, answer their questions, or in some other fashion enable them to move along. (Jackson, 1968, p. 14) Rorys class is frequently akin to Jacksons characterization: Rory is at his demonstration table at the front of the room, talking to one or two students who have approached him about their project. Meanwhile, six groups are scattered around the room working at the computers on the perimeter, a few are at their tables, and a few are waiting to talk to Rory. From time to time a student across the room calls out, Mr. Wagner, can you help me with this? Rory tells them, in a minute. Once Rory is finished with the students already waiting at his table, he goes across the room to talk to the students at a computer who asked for his help. He might sit down with them and begin a more extended conversation or walk them through some procedure. If the conversation continues, Rory almost inevitably pauses to address some other students quick questions, or, if the questions are more involved, the students wait their turn. Rory feels the stress is higher in project-based classes than in lecture-lab-demo classes, because the teacher controls the

178 pace more in the traditional mode, and doesnt have to respond to so many varying demands. As he put it in 1994, Ive never had so many kids needing me so much. And its not like when someone has a question in a lab and they ask, Um, I dont get this. Whats this about? [in a sort of ho-hum voice] Here, theyre like, Mr. Wagner, I need to talk to you now! It matters to them much more, so more pressure is on me. In one of our interviews, Rory reflected on this issue after an incident with a student having trouble on a computer: When a kid doesnt know how to restart a machine, or is worried that aI dont know, he doesnt know where hes saved stuff, and hes gonna lose all this stuff that he just found [e.g., searching on the Web]he doesnt know what to do. And to him thats a very important personal crisis. But, but nothing [bad] is happening right then and therebut, so hes not actively losing anythingbut hes just sitting there looking and he doesnt know what to do. But hes panicked, and he wants you to come over right now because his crisis is huge and immediate. And if youre doing something else, he may get very angry. And this is what happened yesterday, this kid got very angry at me because I wouldnt come over right away and show him what to do. In order to better understand the dynamics and constraints related to Rorys interactions with groups, I performed a number of analyses on the 474 interactions I recorded over the 10 weeks of the project. The majority of these interactions were observed directly by me (237 recorded with written field notes, 172 from transcribed video), and a few were reported to me by Rory in debriefing conversations by phone after class (65)18 . Table 10 shows the number of interactions each project group in the class had with Rory coded by topic type; Figure 8 shows the same data in a bar graph. For Barb, the science-oriented discussions include the ones related above about what projects are and what she could do for her project; the procedural discussions include ones about having a partner at another school and Rorys request for her to send in her topic, as well as ones
18 To interpret these numbers of interactions and their types, it is crucial to remember that they do not

reflect an exhaustive account of all interactions, in the manner of some time and motion oriented research, but instead represent a sampling of days distributed over each phase of the project. The actual numbers are not as informative as the relative numbers within the sample.

179 about problems with the printer in the classroom. Examples of assessment-oriented discussions from Dave and TJs Hurricanes project include questions about the grade they received on the methods section of their paper and how much their grade will improve based on possible changes they could make; an example of a non-project discussion was when TJ and Rory discussed lacrosse coaches and tournaments. Looking at Table 10 and Figure 8, two facts become clear: Rory has an appreciably different number of interactions with different groups in the class, and discussions focus on procedural issues more frequently than science issues. With regard to overall number of interactions, the hurricanes group interacted much more with Rory than the Moons group or Barb (the UFOs & Aliens project in Table 10). If overall number of interactions were all that affected differential success, one would expect the Moons project and Barbs UFOs & Aliens project to encounter similar levels of trouble, but this is not the case. Although the taciturn Moons group do not interact often with Rory, half of their interactions focus on science issues, and their project turns out quite well. The Zodiac group, on the other hand, interacts slightly more often with Rory than the Moons group, but almost always around procedural issues (most often computers and Netscape). As I describe later in the chapter, the Zodiac group also experiences difficulty in their project. For the admittedly small sample of twelve projects in the class, in fact, a regression model based on the number of discussions between Rory and a project group about science issues predicts 58% of the variance in the final grade on the project (p<.01, coefficient=2.3)

180 Project-related Group Hurricanes Moons UFOs & Aliens Zodiac Earthquakes Sun Dinosaur Extinction Plesiosaurs UFO Sightings Wooly Mammoth Black Holes Eclipses Science Procedural Assessment 15 12 3 2 31 7 10 16 21 14 13 13 34 12 7 19 35 9 18 31 40 22 22 32 3 1 0 5 15 4 7 7 16 6 7 9 Unrelated to project 3 0 0 9 8 8 3 15 11 7 5 12 TOTAL
19

51 24 10 28 66 24 32 60 75 45 38 57

Table 10: Observed number and topics of groups discussions with Rory

19 This number is not equal to the sum of the previous columns, because some discussions cover topics in

more than one category

181

Eclipses

Black Holes

Wooly Mammoth

UFO Sightings

Plesiosaurs

Project Group

Non-project
Dinosaur Extinction Sun

Assessment Procedural Science

Earthquakes

Zodiac

UFOs & Aliens

Moons

Hurricanes

10

20

30

40

Number of Interactions

Figure 8: Observed # and topics of group discussions with Rory The degree to which Rory is in demand, however, varies over time. There is an ebb and flow to the overall project activity, such that Rory is stretched the thinnest in the beginning of the project and the end of the project. At the beginning students are trying to

182 get their research started, use the tools most intensely for the first time, and get their research proposal formulated; at the end, students are trying to bring everything together. During the middle phases of data collection and analysis, Rory is not as busy. Table 11 and Figure 9 show the differences, by showing the mean number of separate interactions Rory had with students during each of the major phases of the project:

# days observed Project Phase Background Information Research Proposal Data Collection Data Analysis Paper Paper revision Written 3 2 2 2 2 2 Videotaped 1 1 1 1 0 3 Mean # interactions/day 21 25 16 13 19 27

Table 11: Variation in observed teacher-student interactions throughout project

30 25 20 15 10 5 0
Background Research Information Proposal Data Collection Data Analysis Paper Revision

Project Phase

Figure 9: Variation in observed teacher-student interactions throughout project

183 Rorys reactive stance and reasons for it Clearly, there are limits to the number of quality, extended discussions touching on science, procedural, and assessment issues Rory can have with students in a given class period. If he were to spend a maximum amount of time with each group on a daily basis, he would be limited to twelve discussions (the number of groups) lasting three and a half minutes on days with single periods (40 minutes), and twelve discussions lasting 7 minutes on Mondays and Wednesdays. In order to achieve this logical limit, however, Rory would have to ignore all the incidental issues and personal crises which arise naturally in the course of students diverse work with diverse tools. As Schwab, et al.(1992) have said, the perceived immediate urgency of tasks tends to determine which tasks will be fit into time constraints. In Rorys case, ignoring the incidental procedural issues would clearly deter much of students work, especially with computer tools they are mastering in the course of their project work, and it could also damage students attitudes toward these tools Rory believes can support students work. Rory does, however, discourage students from discussions purely about grades during class, because they are deemed peripheral to the core concerns of the class, and he does not want grade discussions and disputes to deter him from supporting the conduct of projects. In practice discussions of grades do occur during class, but Rory sometimes cuts them short to move on to other issues. In order to maximize their ability to discuss fundamental science issues with all student groups in a class, some teachers involved in CoVis choose to organize much of their time around regular meetings with students, for instance making the rounds to all the project groups every other day. Rory, however, chooses to support students in a mostly reactive fashion during projects.

184 To see the degree to which Rorys support of students is reactive rather than proactive, I coded the same 474 interactions between Rory and the students by who initiated the interaction. A total of 348 of the interactions (73%) were initiated by students, and 68 (14%) were initiated by Rory (58 interactions, or 12%, were unknown because not noted in written field notes or indeterminate because reported second-hand to me by Rory). Of the 68 interactions initiated by Rory, 15 of them (3% of the total) followed up on discussions begun previously in the class (i.e., previously initiated by the students, but delayed by Rory until after he finished something else), and 53 (11% of the total) were initiated by Rory with no direct prompting from students. Table 12 shows who initiated the interactions described, broken down by group20 : Studentinitiated Group Hurricanes Moons UFOs & Aliens Zodiac Earthquakes Sun Dinosaur Extinction Plesiosaurs UFO Sightings Wooly Mammoth Black Holes Eclipses 36 12 6 21 51 14 26 43 54 34 34 47 Teacher-initiated Unknown initiator 6 7 1 5 4 4 3 7 11 7 2 4 TOTAL 51 24 10 28 66 24 32 60 75 45 38 57 3 3 1 0 6 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 6 2 2 2 5 5 3 9 9 4 1 5

interactions Followup Non-follow

Table 12: Observed student- vs. teacher-initiated interactions by group

20 The columns in Table 9-3 do not add up to the numbers in the paragraph above because of multiple

groups involvement in some conversations.

185 As his experience with Barb illustrates, most of the time there is so much demand on Rorys time to reactively support students who have solicited his help, that he never gets to students whom he would like to proactively help. The squeaky wheel does indeed appear to get the oil; in addition, the wheel that squeaks about science issues tends to get the good grades. Compounding problem: Avoidance Since he has had such trouble to this point getting to Barb during class, Rory decides to send her email saying they need to talkhe knows she looks at her email, after all. She sends email back saying she will turn in the assignment the following week. Over the next few weeks, over half my observations note Barb doing personal email and other non-science work, but she also begins to spend substantial time doing research on the World Wide Web related to aliens, UFOs, and the supposed government cover-up of alien research in Roswell, New Mexico. Her assignments are still coming in late, though. The day before Winter Break, Rory sends a low scholarship notice home to her parents. After Christmas break, Rory realizes that avoidance of discussing her project goes both ways with him and Barb. He tells me: There are people I dont know what to do with. Am I feeling uncomfortable with them? And them with me? The people who are really floundering are not asking for help. And Im not offering to help. I think theres something weird in my behavior. If theres a problem I dont go over. Its often a case where I dont know how to help. So I avoid it. In order to determine how and when exceptions to Rory avoiding initiating interactions with students might occur, I looked more closely at the incidence of the interactions initiated by Rory (see Table 13 for a summary of the topics of the observed interactions that fit this category). The followups have a standard pattern: students attempt to initiate a discussion at some point in the period, but Rory is occupied with other students

186 and tells them he will get back to them later; the students go work on something else rather than waiting in line for Rory, and Rory gets to them later in the day. These incidents, not surprisingly, tend to happen at the busier phases of the projectsat the beginning and especially the end. Such incidents obviously rely on attempts at initiating discussion by the students, which Barb is not inclined to do. Instead, these followups are predominantly with the same groups who most often initiate interactions, most notably the Earthquakes groupJulie and Amywho accounted for 6 of the 11 science-related and 4 of the 5 assessment-related followup discussions. As Table 13 shows, when Rory does initiate discussions with students, they are also mostly procedural. This could in part be due to what is immediately visible to him. When students havent approached Rory to initiate discussions, he tends to stand at his demonstration table in the front of the room or wander around the room. From either vantage point, he can easily notice when a computer is frozen, or students appear lost in a computer program. He also initiates a high number of interactions with students about non-project-related issues21 these are usually short interchanges about issues such as re-entrance forms the students are required to submit (and Rory is required to inspect and sign) after an absence, generic greetings, concerns about the students health, and comments about students using the computers for illicit game playing.

21 The number for the Non-project-related row in Table 9-4 is most likely skewed to appear lower than

its actual proportion, compared to the project-related categories, because I did not record many of the requests for re-entrances in written field notes. These particular interactions tended to be very short and nonintrusive of time constraints, and I did not deem them necessary to record exhaustively, given the similarly daunting time constraints of participant observation. Thus, the requests for re-entrances noted here are mostly from days with videotaped recording, with the remaining interactions in this category being of the nature described above.

187 Discussion topic Project-related Science Procedural Assessment Non-project-related 11 7 6 0 7 23 3 18 18 30 9 18 Followups Non-followups TOTAL

Table 13: Topics of observed discussions with students initiated by Rory The few instances of discussions initiated solely by Rory that dealt with science topics are worth examining in more detail. Three of the seven were outgrowths of discussions that began with procedural issues during the background research phase of the projectspecifically, Rory offered to help the Zodiac group, the Wooly Mammoth group, and the Plesiosaur group each on one occasion with a Web search, and it led to issues about searching for information and the groups understanding of their topic. One discussion with Debbie, who did the Sun project, was an outgrowth of a non-projectrelated discussion, initiated by Rory in response to Debbies despondence following her friend and partners suspension from school. One discussion with the UFO Sightings group was initiated by Rory after they turned in their research proposal milestone and he had feedback for them. Similarly, the final two discussions were initiated by Rory with the Moons group and the Earthquakes group in the latter stages of the project, after he went home and ruminated about a discussion he had had with the group the previous day. As mentioned in footnote 1 of this chapter, these 7 instances should not be taken as an exhaustive compendium of science-related discussions initiated by Rory during this project, but they can be seen as indicative of the ways in which such instances occurred. Rorys tendency to avoid Barb could perhaps have been overcome had their been other doors open to begin more extended discussions, or had he been able to glean more promising seeds for

188 ideas from her in milestones or ideas she brought to him, as many of these other groups did. Rory makes a renewed commitment to intervene with students like Barb, because, as he says, Why wait? Itll just get worse. Over the final few weeks of the project, Rory and Barb do talk slightly more often. She begins putting together her project report, and has a version ready on the due date. There is only one problemas she tells Rory, I have my paper, but no data yet. Rory suggests she turn it in a couple of days late with a minor debit in points, rather than turning it in without data. She meticulously glues pictures of aliens and spacecraft on sheets of paper to include with her report, but when he gets it, Rory finds that she still has no data to support a claim. Afterwards, they have a good discussion about what it takes to make empirical claims. Rory says, your question is, do aliens exist? ... You have to say they do or dont based on some data. Barb replies, you mean take sides? Yeah, Rory says. You could take a look at the Condon Report, like Cheryl, Bruce, and Sylvia have done ... If you have the Condon Report, could you look at how many were identified and how many were not identified? You could show that a certain number hadnt been disproven. Barb laments, I picked a hard topic. Rory says, Yeah. There is not enough time to salvage Barbs project, and in the final draft of her paper, she writes: Our conclusion is that there is not enough real information to prove that UFOs really are flying saucers. That, of course, was Rorys fear from the beginning. But the combination of a difficult topic and avoidance of discussions with the teacher about the project spelled trouble for the project. Not only did

189 Barb avoid Rorys attention for much of the project; Rory also avoided her for much of the time, because of all the pulls on his attention and the fact that he wasnt sure how to help. The Zodiac project: It seemed like plenty of time In addition to the problems of Rory being stretched thin on a daily basis, there are problems that arise with students perception and resulting use of time. Rory has set up the interim milestones in the project to help push students along, but he is still not completely comfortable with the artificiality of deadlines. His discomfort with deadlines has to do with the fact that his students are so different from one another, and the topics they choose and research projects they develop vary as well. Given these realities, he knows it is natural for different groups to take different amounts of time for their work. As a result, he has tried to build in some flexibility for the milestones. Students arent absolutely required to turn in their milestones on the due date. By offering bonus points, Rory tries to encourage those who can work faster, or have a slightly easier research design, or simply have more serendipity, to turn milestones in early. This works for some groups such as Dave and TJ, but at least one group last year admitted they would just as soon like to fill up the time and goof around as get the bonus points. In addition, the students can turn in milestones late with deductions for each schoolday after the deadline. These concessions, combined with students beliefs about how long project work will take, can cause problems, however, as the Zodiac case illustrates. Pete is a tall, confident senior who tends to wear button-down shirt and khakis or jeans. Pamela is a razor-thin senior who likes dance but is constantly in trouble for not completing her other school work. Mark is an earnest but less academically able junior (he gets Bs and Cs, as compared to Pete and Pamelas mostly Bs). He is somewhat rough looking, and wears heavy flannel shirts and a down vest in the winter time. The three of

190 them sit near the back center of the room (at Table C2 in Figure 1), where they can often be seen talking. They decide to team up for their project. On the day when Rory introduces the projects, and discusses with the class how to do projects, some of the students are concerned about the size of the assignment, and the fact that it involves a big paper and presentation. Pete, in contrast, is unperturbed: he says to Marie, Youve got like 3 months to do this. The group decides they want to do a project on the Zodiac, which Rory agrees to as long as they relate it to the constellations. Since the Zodiac was based on the constellations, Rory figures it should be doable. In addition, in 1994-95 a student named Alison had done a moderately successful project on the scientific accuracy of astrological predictions, based on agreement of surveys of class members with predictions. The main problem Rory had with Alisons project was that it did not concern earth and space science, but at least it was empirical social science. In the case of Mark, Pete, and Pamela, Rory hopes to harness their enthusiasm for the topic, but he is a little worried about it and warns them they will need to make sure they use astronomical data. He is disturbed to find he has few books in his personal library on the constellations. So he sends them to the library. He also helps them to try using Newswatcher, and makes a suggestion to them that they search for constellations in Newswatcher rather than just zodiac. In the early weeks of the project, the group interacts very little with Rory. They spend some time playing games like Wolfenstein and searching the Net for musicians like Louis Armstrong, but they also gather some information from the Web on the Zodiacs. For their Background Information assignment, which the group turns in late, they turn in printouts from five Web sites on astrology. A couple of these document some of the Zodiacs development, another describes the twelve signs, yet another describes the

191 Chinese Zodiac, and the last answers some questions about the Zodiacs relationship to the actual astronomical position of the sun in relation to the stars. Rory had told students they could turn in unsynthesized notes for the milestone, although it would affect their grade. He had distributed his first attempt at a rubric for the assignment, in hopes of clarifying his expectations and the consequences of various possibilities (see Appendix E for full text of the rubric handout). Nonetheless, a long conversation ensues with Pamela, Pete, and Mark about their grade. After Rory turned back their Background Information, Pamela approached his front table, saying, We had a B. She had noticed Rory marked out what was a B at the top of their paper, and changed it to a C+. In response to Pamela, Rory tells the group, Yeah, I know. But I changed my mind. Let me get the [rubric] sheet, and maybe we can figure it out. He tries to show them why what they turned in fit in the C+ category. Part of the groups confusion stems from the way he had described their assignment. Although it would require a very detailed and complete outline to get an A, Pamela reminds Rory he said they didnt have to have that. Pete reminds Rory, I thought you just said notes were fine. Although they could turn notes in, they would ideally have synthesized them. Rory concedes he said they didnt have to have a detailed outline. But, he says, what you got on your grade was based on what you turned in. The students were probably not used to a teacher who bothered to describe an alternative less than the ideal, because he would accept it. They assumed if they were allowed to turn in notes, they could get a decent grade for them. Pete is adamant that they deserve a B, because they have some good notes from a number of sources. Pete insists it is not for his own sake, since he has already applied to

192 college, but instead for Marks sake. In the end, Pete convinces Rory to bump their grade back up to a B, partly because, as Rory puts it, this is only a small part of the project, and partly because, as Pete puts it, its kind of organized. This turns out to be the most in-depth conversation the group members hold with Rory during the entire project, but it is almost completely unrelated to improving their project. Instead, it is a negotiation for a grade. At the end of the conversation, Rory reminds them, you need lots more [data]. In the next couple of weeks, the group continues to get little done, according to Rory and my observations. They do some library research and gather some useful materials, in between discussion sessions in the back of class and playing games. For their research proposal, the group suggests How do the fortune tellers (people that write astrological fortunes) relate the stars into the zodiac and tell people what their future holds?? Rory pushes them to focus more explicitly on astronomy related to the Zodiac, so they change their proposal to an analysis of the relationship between astronomy and astrology, specifically by comparing astrological claims about star position relative to astronomical findings. The students immediately turn in their Data collection milestone (already one day late). Naturally, they have no astronomical data, and Rory reminds them they will need it if they intend to compare the astrological zodiac to the astronomical position of the stars. Nevertheless, they continue to focus their information gathering on the Zodiacs and largely ignore astronomical sources on constellations. In week four, Pete expresses interest in getting a mentor for their project, but Rory is short on astronomy mentors due to an error in his Usenet news posting requesting mentorshis post did not get distributed to the astronomy newsgroups, and he is unable to match the group with a mentor.

193 Pete is clearly the group leader, and Rory has said he is the strongest student. Early on, Rory referred to him as the 4-level genius. Lakeside has a modified kind of tracking for the Earth Science classes: the class is called a 9-level and is open for students to take it at 2 different levels of credit, and teachers are expected to vary the work. 4-level courses are the most academically challenging, and 3-level courses are the standard track. In a 9-level course, students can take the class for 3-level or 4-level credit, and most elect for 3-level. Although the system sounds confusing at first to an outsider like myself, the students and teachers appear to be thoroughly versed in their nuances and implications. The group continues to search for relevant resources in the library, where Rory helps Pete with a journal database, and on the Web. For their Data milestone at the end of week 5, they turn in some more summarized information on zodiacs, and Rory asks them Wheres the astronomy? They say theyll find some more. Their search for astronomy data takes them to the library, and one day in Week 6 Rory goes up to check on them. He cant find them in the library, so marks them off for not working on Earth Science (see the section Work grades: A tactic for decreasing teacher and student risk in Chapter 10). The following day, Mark asks about the absence, and Rory relates how he couldnt find them. Mark admits, we went to the library, and then we went to get prom tickets. Rorys response: Oh yeah. Excellent. Way to go. Pete retorts, Well, its not like we werent there. But Rory is not going to be convinced this time, saying, Well, how do I know? I went to check on you , and you werent there. Mark seems chastened and agrees. Rory continues, So thats like not being there to me. I dont know if you were there any part of

194 the period, part of the period, none of the period, all of the periodwhatever. So dont do stuff like that. OK? How can I trust you? Mark says contritely, Maybe we should have told you. The rest of the quarter, Mark works more diligently, but by Week 7 Rory is afraid they are crashing and burning unless they pull something out of a hat. During that week, they finally look up the constellations, and that is supposed to be half of their data. They do not get their full paper in on time for the January 12 deadline, and Mark and Pamela put together their first draft the following week. Rory spends part of a period sitting with Mark and Pamela putting together their still meager materials, and they turn their first draft in on the final deadline for revisions, January 24. Their paper is a near disaster, and they get the lowest grade in the class, a 38%. Overall, Rory let this group slide in part because they did not bring issues to him, while Pete expressed quiet confidence they would work it out every time Rory tried to push them. Pamela and Mark had to pick up the pieces, but made very little progress for lack of data to work with and time to locate what they needed. When Rory asked the students for feedback at the beginning of the next project, Pamela says, you should be more specific what you want. As Rory told me in retrospect, they didnt know what they should be doing. They had particular trouble understanding what he wanted in the Method and Data Analysis sections of their paper, but they would have had a better chance had they turned interim artifacts in. Since the Zodiac group never turned in a Data Analysis milestone, and didnt turn in their final paper until the due date for the revision, they only got one try at putting together a research report of the sort that Rory is trying to foster; Rory had tried to give them threethe Data Analysis milestone, the first draft of the complete research report, and the revision of the research report. By missing most of the milestones,

195 they also avoided the natural opportunities Rory set up for students to learn about conducting empirical science inquirythe feature that made all the difference for the Moons project. But Pete, Pamela, and Mark played it as loose and cool as they possibly could, figuring they had done reports before so knew what he wanted, and didnt need that much time to complete it. In the final week of paper revision, the group finally began to see that they were going to be in trouble, partly through discussions with Rory about putting the paper together. Thus, the group only found out they had not done the kind of inquiry Rory was requiring when it was too late for them to salvage the project. They were unable to gather data to support any claim about the correspondence of astrological claims and astronomical reality on the position of the stars. In the end, their final report is a classic example of what Rory terms going informationaljust synthesizing reported findings of others, with no new analysis. As mentioned in the previous chapter, Rory told the students on the first day of the projects that he was not just telling them to go out and do research because he knows they will procrastinate to the nth degree. So he tries to tell them as specifically as he knows how what [he] wants done, and when [he] want[s] it done. But the flexibility Rory has retained in the deadlines works against his best intentions in a case like the Zodiac project. Pete, Pamela, and Mark knew they would lose points for late or completely missed milestones, but they also knew the overall worth of the milestones paled in comparison to the worth of the final paper (one quarter vs. one half of the quarter grade). As long as they did fine on the final paper and the one milestone they turned in, they could get by. But they still had to learn what it took to complete an earth science project. Rory knows that the necessary work to do a good, original project often takes a great deal of time and effortdoing [projects], the stuff doesnt come just like boom

196 boom boom boom boom. At the end of 1994-95, Rory almost decided to make projects even longer than the approximately 10 weeks they had been, because students were routinely running out of time just as they got to the interesting issues. But the bigger problem turns out to be students perception that theres all the time in the world. Many students dont really get down to work until a deadline is looming. As Julie put it, all I do is sit around except for a couple days which is what I use to write my paper. For this reason, the time factor is a key aspect of how Rory structures projects to support students. But when students like Pete, Pamela, and Mark dont take Rorys milestones seriously enough, they confound the primary means Rory has designed to cope with his own time constraints in supporting multiple groups working on a variety of topics. Conclusion Barbs UFOs & Aliens project, and Pete, Pamela, and Marks Zodiac project received the lowest grades in the class40% and 38%, respectively. In part, their difficulties were due to a lack of the kind of interactions with Rory along the way that kept projects like the Hurricanes and Moons on track and making progress. The fact that students are susceptible to falling through the cracks like this is understandable, given the extreme demands and constraints on Rorys time. In order to help prevent this from happening, Rory has set up the milestones to structure time and give the students deadlines along the way. But some of the students, like Peter, also fall into the trap of believing they have plenty of time and can get by while missing a few assignments, which results in turning in milestones late or not at all. Thus, even to the extent they ultimately realize what they could do to improve their project, they do so too late. The pitfalls described in this chapter could perhaps be mitigated by a number of design changes. Rorys practice of discussing the key issues in students projects when

197 they indicate they are ready (by approaching him) is successful in many cases; it also provides a certain degree of efficiency in Rorys use of limited time, since students who approach him are primed to take advantage of his support. But perhaps Rory should force some minimal number of discussions with groups like the Zodiac and UFOs & Aliens, who show signs of falling through the cracks. If students dont get a milestone in by the deadline, for instance, he could require them to meet with him to discuss where they are and how they plan on finishing. Such discussions could serve the dual purpose of encouraging the students to reflect and articulatewhich would help their own monitoring of where they areand providing Rory with seeds to think about and offer advice. We saw in this chapter how Rory avoided Barb and other floundering students because he did not know how to help, but talking more with students about their projects tends to give him ideas about how he could help. Such was the case with the Moons project, when he had a conversation with Steve and Rich during class one day, and at first didnt know what to suggest; Rory thought about it some more overnight, and gave the students some new ideas the next day. There is no guarantee that students will be receptive to Rorys proactive moves, however. An incident in the Dinosaur Extinction project is illustrative in this matter: before class one day during the Research Proposal phase of the project, Rory told me he thought Patti and Carla needed more help in coming up with promising research questions relating to dinosaur extinction. Near the end of that days intense class, in which he had 47 separatemostly reactiveinteractions with students, Rory finally had a free moment. He went over and sat down with Carla and Patti, who had begun playing cards with Marie and Kat. Rory then said, OK, lets talk about your project. After a pause and no response from the students, he continued, Do you wanna talk or play cards? Kat replied, Were talking about how cards relate to projects.

198 With that, Rory said OK, if you dont want to, and got up to head back to his table at the front of the room. Before he got there, he was approached by a student who wanted his input. In addition to such outright rebuffs, Rory pointed out to me when he read of this idea that once in the spotlight they might have the tendency to say whatever they have to in order to get you to leave them alone again, but wont be able to, or choose not to, follow up. 22 Besides such meetings with groups who have not turned in milestones, Rory could also stress to the whole class on a more regular basis the importance of getting milestones in on time, and perhaps back up their importance by assigning them more weight in the final grade. The subject of grades brings us to the topic of the next chapter, in which I will discuss how grades and other aspects of school culture constrain and to some degree undermine project-based teaching.

22 This comment was made by email in the Spring of 1997, after I asked Rory to review this chapter. He

also said he was less sure of the promise of this idea compared to the suggested change to the Research Proposal milestone related at the end of Chapter 8 (which he immediately incorporated).

Chapter 10 How the school culture affects guided participation

Introduction As described in the previous chapter, students ineffective use or perception of time in their project can result in difficulty learning how to do science in Rorys class. But time is not the only cultural factor which constrains and molds project activity in Rorys classroom; other aspects of school culture play a significant role in the meaning of project activity. As Brickhouse & Bodner (1992) found with beginning science teachers, institutional expectations and students reactions to classes impose constraints on teachers actions. In Chapter 5 I described the difficulty of bootstrapping students into new practices, and in Chapter 6 I described some of the ways Rorys class differed from standard practices in science classes and other classes that conduct project-like activity. In Chapters 7 and 8 I described some ways Rory attempts to aid the transitions to new practices. Despite the efforts at transition, the norms of school culture color students interpretations of Rorys class, whether he wants them to or not. For students, it can be difficult at times to even hear Rorys descriptions of what will happen in his class until those descriptions have consequences for their own action. For instance, Rory mentions repeatedly that there will only be two exams in his classone on the lectures and one on computer skillsbut a week and a half before finals period, Marie and Katrina will be shocked to find out they have no final exam. Katrina says, No way! We don't have a final in here?

199

200 In this chapter, I will describe how elements of schools culture affect students projects, by examining some of the action in the Earthquakes project, the Sun project, and the Dinosaur Extinction project. Earthquakes: shocks and aftershocks of angling for the grade Amy is a tall, soft-spoken senior tennis player with long brown hair. Julie is a senior friend of Amys who joined the class a couple of weeks late, because she was out with mono. Julie has straight platinum hair, and both of the group members tend to wear dressy casual sweaters or Polartec fleece. They sit in the back right corner of the room with TJ and Dave (at Table B-1 in Figure 1), and pair up as a group right away. They consider hurricanes as a topic, but Dave and TJ have already selected that; Amy comes up with earthquakes as an alternative. They are attracted to the idea of earthquake prediction, and Julie asks Rory are earthquakes reliably predicted? He tells Julie they are not. When she asks him whether earthquakes is too broad a topic, he tells her they will have to focus in on specific kinds or locations or sizes. This conversation is in the midst of their Background Information, which goes well, but they are eager to focus in on a question early. Throughout Rorys class, Julie is not shy about raising questions and concerns. Part of her misgiving about working on earthquake prediction is that she is not sure they can discover something new. Each year, Rory has encountered this lack of confidence that mere teenagers can conduct original science research, as have other teachers who conduct inquiry-oriented classes. For example, Wasley reports that teachers in the Coalition of Essential Schools discovered that [their] first task was to teach the students that they could use their minds well. They literally panicked when worksheets were

201 replaced with less familiar ways of learning (Wasley, 1994, p. 166) . For this reason, on the first day of projects, Rory reassures students: ... I dont expect you to ... unravel the ultimate mysteries of the universe. You know, Im not asking you to do that. Because one of the big complaints, or comments, that I get from people is, wait a minute, were high school students, how can we do stuff that professional scientists cant do? Well, yeah, Im not asking you to split atoms, or find out what happened four seconds after the creation of the universe, or do black holes really exist in space, or what was the evidence for, you know, plate tectonics occurring, or when do tornadoes occur. You know, were not talking about things on that level. Were talking about exploring little phenomena, handleable phenomena. Things that are small enough for people to research, and get an answer to questions. In this spirit, Rory encourages Julie to not be concerned about coming up with a completely generalizable, reliable earthquake prediction model, especially since geoscientists have been working on earthquake prediction for years and havent done that well up to this point. Julie tries to tell him anything I discover is new to me, and although Rory agrees, that does not imply that they should just learn what facts they can and regurgitate them to him. The key issue is putting together an original set and analysis of data that has never been done exactly the same way before, and not simply reporting others analyses. They do not always [have] to answer a different question thats never been answered, but ... do something new. In order to operationalize a researchable question, Rory suggests Julie think about some kind of comparison, as in the Moons project. He tells her they could look at earthquakes someplace and compare [them] to earthquakes someplace else. After her discussion with Rory, Julie combines his idea with her idea of looking for patterns that might help with prediction to come up with the question: Is there a pattern of earthquakes as far as when they occur and where they occur? She relates this question idea to Amy, who types the phrase pattern of earthquakes into a Net search within Netscape, and does not come up with an answer. Their anxiety about coming up with a

202 doable question that is also A+ material, as Julie puts it, manifests itself in repeated requests for reassurance. On one day during the Research Proposal phase of the project, Julie approaches Rory to ask, Mr. Wagner, is this a good question? On her piece of paper is written Are there any similarities between earthquake patterns in time and patterns in magnitude on different continents? Rory reads it, and says, Yeah. Julie then asks, Is it A+ material? Rory wonders, Why are you worried about the grade? Julie explains, Were competitive in this class. The guys [Dave & TJ] got an A+ and we got an A minus on the Background Information. Rory tells her, Maybe there are too many things youd need to do to answer this. It might be too broad. Worried, Julie mumbles Really? After getting interrupted by someone else, Rory explains, Yeah. Both the patterns in time and the magnitudes is a lot. Julie, perhaps still wondering how you could write more than six pages on earthquake patterns in time, let alone time and magnitude, says the answer is no according to our research so far. Rory thinks about it a little, and says, I think its a good research question. You could start with looking at the bigger earthquakes. Julie goes back to her desk. A few minutes later, Julie returns with a possible revision. She says, Is this good?

203 Rory tells her again, theres no need to change your question. You can leave it as it was. After Amy and Julie begin their data collection, Julie is preoccupied by how long the paper should be: she did not believe at first they could write 5 pages on the topic, and now wants to know what length of paper is optimal. Rorys answer of whatever it takes is discomfiting to her, so he agrees to calculate the average length of papers hes received in the past for her (it turns out to be 10 pages). Increased ambiguity and risk in project-based class Although Julies pushing Rory for clarifications and reassurances may seem over dramatic or unnecessary, she has good reason for her actions. As Doyle (1979) has pointed out, to the degree that classroom tasks can be seen as an exchange of performance for grades (p. 192), classrooms, which are invariably socially complex, are fraught with ambiguity and risk (p. 194). Ambiguity and risk vary according to the classroom activity structureif the activity is both familiar and rote, ambiguity and risk are low. But Rorys classroom activity structure is neither familiar to the students nor rote. As Doyle says, Classroom tasks that require the generation of original solutions to previously unencountered problems would tend to be high in terms of both ambiguity and risk, assuming the teacher holds the students accountable for the quality of their solutions. (Doyle, 1979, p. 194) Doyle goes on to point out that many student strategies in classrooms may be directed toward reducing ambiguity and risk, just as Julies actions do. But the teacher may try to help out as well, as Rory does in this and other cases. Like the Moons and Hurricanes groups, the Earthquakes group has difficulty with Data Analysis: Julie and Amy fall into the pitfall Rory has identified of data analysis by inspection. Julie says to Rory when they are starting the Analysis phase, cant we just look at the data and tell you what it says? The fact that they manage to get the milestones in on time, though, allows them to

204 get feedback from Rory on what kinds of graphs could help their analysis. Initially, they make scatter plots of earthquake size vs. years for each continent, and Rory suggests combining all the continents on one graph to directly compare them. All along the way, Julie and Amy seek frequent feedback and reassurance from Rory that they are on the right track, and as mentioned in the previous chapter, they interact more with him than any other group in the class. All goes smoothly, until they turn in their completed research report, and get it back with a 60% mark the following Monday. Rory does not look forward to class that day, and begins it by saying: So, Im giving this stuff back to you. Please read the comments. Please. If you dont do anything at all, at least read the comments. Whether you like them or not is irrelevant, but I tried to make suggestions. I didntI didnt do this just to like blast everybody, and say, This sucks! This is terrible! This is horrible! Blah blah blah. Throw this out. Da da da da Laura replies, Youre trying to teach us. Rory says, Yeah, I am. Im trying to show you how to make it better. Laura tells him, We know that. Rory replies, OK, I know you get it, but he is unconvinced. Some of you get it, some of you dont get it. But I just, I just fear this day, because I give these things back and everybody goes, Oh, I cant believe this. I got an F, and this is horrible, and blah blah blah, and my projects terrible, and theyre not [terrible]. The students say, We get it, but the complaints begin as soon as Rory passes out the papers. Even though Rory is giving everyone in the class a chance to rewrite the report for full credit, Julie and Amy question his grading along with may of the other students. They have to wait a while to talk to Rory, but eventually do so for an extended period. First Amy points out that Rory did not include the Methods section in his first reminder on the board about the parts of a paper. Rory tells them he knows he forgot on Monday of the

205 previous week, but corrected it the day after that. They think otherwise, but he tells them it was on the handout he gave them a while back anyway, and copies are always available if they lose them. Julie is outraged that they only got 3 out of 5 [on the title page] for not having a date. Rory tries to explain that the title page only has three parts, so thats how it works out. It does not matter at that moment that they know how to get the other two pointssimply add the date to the title pageand will get full credit for them when they revise the paper. Next, Julie moves on to more substantive parts of the paper, but still focuses on the points, saying listen, the Conclusion ... I mean, we wrote something down. How can you give us a Zero, if we were writing something down? Rory replies, Well, because you didnt analyze the data, and so those two are connected. Amy retorts, Its not all [missing]. The analysis. We have a lot. Its right there. Rory tries to clarify, saying Yeah, but you didnt do it. I know what it says, but you didnt do it. Ironically, Rorys reason for giving the students zero out of 20 for the Conclusion, and for the Method when it is not adequate, is directly related to students tendencyexhibited here by Julie and Amyto nit-pick about points. Julie tells Rory that she thinks you should get extra credit for doing it at all, but Rorys experience has taught him that could backfire. Too often, calculating students given a chance to revise settle for leaving problems they acknowledge, if they can get a decent grade without doing the work to fix themand Rory knows the changes Julie and Amy need in their Analysis and Conclusion will take some thought and time. Rory explains to them later, as well as the Black Holes and Sun groups, that he is just trying to let them know that the changes they need to make are important, and make it difficult for them to ignore his comments. Outside

206 of class, Rory explained to me that one reason he was trying this strategy was that a similar strategy worked in pushing students to assemble data the previous year. He said he decided to do what Laura [DAmico, another CoVis researcher] suggested last year, which is to not accept anything less than that in their papers, and really go to an all-ornothing kind of a thinggrading systemlike I did with data, because that sure did get em going on getting data. It seems so harsh, but it worked, so, you know, why not try it again? When he started giving students a zero on their Data section if they didnt have adequate data, he found that students took his comments seriously and turned in revisions of much higher quality. So in this and some other cases, he is not trying to say that what the students have done is worth nothing, or that he thinks it represents no effort; instead, he is trying to give the message that if they take his comments and suggestions seriously, they can greatly improve their paper and their grade. Ulterior motives for seeking guidance After looking at Rorys written comments some more, Julie says, Change our graphs? After you sat with us on the computer while we did our graphs, and now you want us to change them all! She is referring to the fact that Rory spent the better part of class and the period afterward the previous week helping them put together graphs for their report. She figures since he was there, he already had a chance to tell them what should be changed, and had implicitly indicated they were good enough. Rory replies, Well, I got smarter, what do you want me to do? This turn in the interaction brings up another complication. Barbara Rogoff (1990) has pointed out that in situations of guided participation with a more experienced adult and a child learner, children guide adults guidance. What this means is that assistance is likely to be requested for just those aspects of the task that [children] are not quite able to

207 complete independently (p. 109). Julies effort to appeal to Rorys work with them on their graph points out how grading in classroom situations complicates the normal dynamic of guided participation. Students will not only recruit teachers help to aid in completing a task they could not complete alone; like Julie and Amy, they might recruit the teachers help to increase the likelihood that the teacher will buy-in to the students tactics and approve their actions (in this case in retrospect) with a high grade, simply because the teacher did not correct students earlier. In other cases, students who are unsure of what to do may avoid teachers to keep the teachers unaware of the students deficiencies.23 Learning the science research article genre Amy then asks what is wrong with the picture they have included on the final page of their report, of a car crushed under a building in the San Francisco earthquake of 1989. Rory tells them they didnt need it. The inclusion of pictures to which they never refer in their text is a common mistake by students, and Rory explains that such pictures are not included in scientific research articles. Pictures that are interesting but not substantive may be included in a popular science article, but not in a formal article such as they are writing in his class, he says. In this case, he tells Amy Its like a tattoo on your forehead to make yourself look betterif you dont need it, dont put it there. Over the next couple of days, they will hash out quite a few ways in which the scientific research article genre24 differs from standard essay writing: the actual numbers behind the graphs may seem boring, but they should be included; the abstract may seem to cause repetition with later sections, but it is useful nonetheless; a Methods section is needed so that others can attempt to confirm or falsify your work; and above all, the writing and line of reasoning must be
23 An example comes from the Plesiosaurs project to be described in the next chapter. Beth told me in

interviews she did not want Cindy to ask Rory for help because Cindy didnt know what was going on, and Beth did not want Rory to think Cindys confusion reflected a general problem in the whole group. 24 For a more complete discussion of students learning and appropriation of the scientific research report genre, see (ONeill, 1997, March; ONeill, in progress).

208 explicit and logical. This last point is summarized by Julie when she explains to the even more exasperated Debbie, You know what? You have to write the paper out like youre writing it to a kindergarten. Thats, like, how he wants it done. After Julie makes this comment, Rory discusses it further with Cheryl and Julie. Cheryl points out that Ive been writing papers where its assumed that your audience is alreadyalready had some prior knowledge of the subject. Otherwise it would be ridiculous, you know what I mean? ... In English class, ... like, writing papers where your audience already has the prior knowledge of stuff, like. Therefore, like, if youre writing the paper on, on something about Hamlet, you dont have to re-tell the story of Hamlet, because youre assuming they already know the story of Hamlet. Rory responds, I think that the reality is someplace in between writing for a kindergarten, and writing for a very enlightened audience, becauseand the difference is, what youre trying to do is convince the reader that [pause] how can I say this? ... That theres a logical, step-by-step process from, from the data that you have to the conclusion. OK? The example I used yesterday would be ... lets say youre, uh, OJ Simpsons lawyers, and you walk in with your stacks and stacks of briefs. And, you know, your books and stuff, and you throw them all up on Itos desk. Or you say, you give them to the jury, and say, theres all our stuff. Acquit us! You dont do that. Even though everything is in there, they have to laboriously go step by step and prove this, and disprove this, and you have to dissect like that. Julie points out that This is only for writing. Rory cannot change the fact that the stakes are not analogous to a murder trial. Not only that, but the research report is only going to be turned in to him and not read by a wider audience25 . Other research on writing instruction has indicated that writing which has a communicative function beyond demonstrating competence to the teacher is more motivating to students. For example, Bruce & Rubin (1993) have shown how correspondence by electronic mail among students in different geographic locations results
25 Part of Rory and Kevin ONeills reason for interest in mentors is that they provide another audience

besides the teacher for students work, but at this point in Rorys use of mentoring, he has not really been able to foster much sharing. In later quarters, he begins to ask students with mentors to send updates and papers to their mentors, because he has found that they otherwise do not do so. For a discussion of this aspect of mentoring, see (ONeill, et al., 1996; ONeill, in progress)

209 in the students having authentic reasons for trying to make themselves clear. In addition, scientists who use the scientific research report genre have much different motivations for working within the cultural norms of science: they want to get published and advance their careers in their chosen field. The situation of the students is much different, but Rory cannot make it the same. So he says simply, But this is the way science is done! Its the same idea. Julie concedes the point, but Rory continues, It doesnt, you know, you dont have to have four thousand volumes or four thousand pages, but just show me, logically, how you get from step 1 to step 2 to step 3. Otherwise you havent done your job. Julie assents. The impossibility of providing crystal-clear instructions Since producing documents written in a totally unfamiliar genre falls into Doyles (1979) characterization of generation of original solutions to previously unencountered problems (p. 194), the activity tends to be high in terms of both ambiguity and risk for students. Doyle described how research shows students in such situations argue that they had a right to be told explicitly what they were expected to do, out of a sense of fairness. From my first year of presence in Rorys classroom, I can recall students entreating him, just tell me what to do and Ill do it! Like the teachers mentioned in Doyle, Rorys curriculum changes increase students levels of ambiguity and risk, and also generate efforts on [students] parts to reduce these factors (p. 195). One form such efforts take is students simply trying to convince Rory what they already did was good enough, when seen in a certain light. Julie may be following this strategy during one of the long conversations after getting their paper back, but she explicitly denies it, saying, Im not trying to say that we dont want to do anything else, you know? ... Its just like I want to know what I can do to make it better, and make you happy with, like, with our report. A

210 few minutes later, though, Julie belies her statement to Rory in a conversation with Dave and TJ out of Rorys earshot. TJ says to Julie, I think you guys complain too much. Dave agrees, saying, I think everyone complains too much. TJ follows this up with the comment, if you just rolled with the punches, it would be OK. Julie indignantly replies, we might not have to do our report again. Our paper over again. TJ asks Julie, why not have to do it? Julie answers, because he didnt understand our report. Another form such efforts take at reducing ambiguity and risk about grades in Rorys class is treating Rorys commentary on returned papers as explicit instructions and a kind of contract for what to do to get a good grade. Amy and Julie, as well as Patti and Carla who did the Dinosaur Extinction project, follow this strategy. After receiving their first draft back from Rory with extensive commentary, and discussing their changes and revisions with him in extensive discussions over the next week, they turn in a revised paper. They ask Rory if he wants their old version with the new one, and he says no. When they get the paper back, they are outraged that their changes were not sufficient. They say, we made all these changes that you told us to, and now youre telling us other things. Julie doesnt think it is fair, and also thinks it shows he is inconsistent. Julie says, I hate to yell, but this paper is worth a lot. Rory tells me after class, I told them I dont want to compare the papers line for line ... plus, I see new things when I get a new one ... But I hate to tell them something and not follow that. So he looks at what he said previously, and gives them more credit for addressing it, just as he does with Carla and Patti.

211 Afterward, Rory tells me Theres no fix [for this problem] except to give it to them and let them argue ... today was for arguing, 2 periods worth. He sits down and tries to fix his inconsistencies when the students challenge him. In this way, Rory gives the students a voice and encourages them to break out of their passive roles, and take some control. As Wasley (1994) has pointed out, giving the students such voice can be powerful. Rory also indicates that he respects their well-reasoned arguments. But in the case of producing such ill-specified and organic documents as scientific research reports, the idea that Rorys commentary on a draft can serve as a contract specifying in detail the necessary and sufficient conditions for a quality revision is absurd. Within the new whole created by a revision, new issues that are virtually impossible to predict and plan exhaustively for will arise; as Lucy Suchman (1987) has argued, all attempts at exhaustive instructions for situated actions will fail to account for all contingencies, because coherence [is] based on local interactions (p. 28). For Julie, however, the strategy of holding Rory to the terms laid out in his original markup proves a fruitful strategy as far as raising her groups gradewith a curve, they receive the highest grade in the class, a 102%. Julies expectations for clarity from Rory are expressed at the end of the year in a survey response26 to the question, If you could change the way grading is done in this class, is there anything you would change about it? If so, what would you change? Julie writes: My teacher is unclear on what he wants from these projects. He gives us a low grade for things that we did, that he asked for and then gives a low grade saying it was wrong. After we explain that we did what he told us, he gives us an absurd grade like 107% on a project.

26 The survey and response were kindly supplied by Laura DAmico. They are part of her comparative study

of assessment infrastructures and the role they play in four project-oriented science classrooms (DAmico, in progress). For readers interested in the project-oriented assessment issues raised in this chapter, DAmicos research should prove informative.

212 Despite the important issues their case highlights, Julie and Amy make progress throughout their project, perhaps in part because their extended conversations with Rory shuffle consistently between arguments for assessment points and sense-making conversations about scientific points. Through such conversations, they find that determining what constitutes a pattern is not as straightforward as they had once thought. They begin to learn to write in the new (to them) genre of scientific research reports. And they learn some analysis strategies they adjust and apply in a later project on lightning strikes. But as the analysis presented in the Chapter 9 showed, the proportion of Rorys time this demands is considerable, and it may contribute to problems encountered by less proactive groups, such as the Zodiac group and the Sun group considered next. The Sun project: From cooperation to explosion In Rorys most extreme period of discussions with and challenges from Julie during paper revisions, he says to me, this is difficult ... what makes it bearable is this is not like Debbie. Its sort of playful. Maybe cause they have another chance ... Even Julie, who has the angriest edge, is OK ... Its a discussion, not an argument. With Debbie, in contrast, conversations frequently degenerate into arguments. The seeds for anger Debbie is an opinionated junior who has a tendency to wear rumpled layers of clothes. She chooses her boyfriend Jasona student from another period of Rorys classas her project partner. Debbie expresses interest in doing a project on the Bermuda Triangle at first, and she discusses some promising ideas related to the areas geomorphology. But eventually she and Jason settle on investigating a topic Jason is interested in: what will happen to the earth when our sun explodes and our solar system ends. After researching background information and learning more about the topic,

213 Debbie becomes disheartened. She approaches Rory one day and says, We have to talk. Our project sucks. Its about what happens when the sun explodes. And we found out it wont. Rory reminds her the sun will expand into a Red Giant, as they have reported. He suggests they could look at how far it will go, how hot it will be, and where the earth will be. She has been trying to begin her Data Collection, so says, I havent been able to find any information, just books with equations. They sit down and work on what they need to know: the temperature of the earth, the range of what would happen, the temperatures and sizes of the sun at various stages, the size of the earths orbit, and probably records of what happens to others stars. At the end, Debbie simply says, OK and then just leaves. Like Barb and the Zodiac group, Debbie and Jason are not getting their work done in a very timely fashion, and then their problems escalate when Jason gets suspended from school. Unfortunately, Jason also happens to be a hacker of sorts, who had been banned from taking computer courses at the school because of incidents in previous years. No one noticed when he signed up for Rorys class, with the most powerful computers and only Internet connection in the school, but eventually he gets into trouble. In the beginning of the groups Data Analysis, another student reports some questionable activities, and Rory discovers that Jason has found and mailed himself the file with all the students fileserver and electronic mail passwords27 . Although Jason and Debbie maintain his innocence, and that it was all an accident, he is suspended for a period and can not complete the project

27 I should note that every year since the Internet connection was installed at Lakeside, at least one major

Netiquette transgression has occured. Other transgressions have been less serious than Jasons, usually involving students posting offensive messages. The annual recurrence of such issues is one reason Rory has the students and their parents agree to a Network Use Policy based on Fishman & Pea (1994). When such transgressions are dealt with openly and firmly, and discussed with the rest of the community, they have rarely recurred in Rorys class until the following school year. For a discussion of the dynamics of some flareups in CoVis networked school community, see DAmico & Polman (1994).

214 for credit. After the incident, Debbie becomes more hostile toward Rory, whom she blames for Jasons problems, and more despondent about their project. Rory approaches Debbie about these issues, and they begin by talking about Jason. Debbie says, you screwed up my project, and you suspended my boyfriend, possibly expelled him. Now hes not gonna pass high school this year. And, and, so, now he has to go get a full-time job, and he has, he took drivers ed for the third time, and this is the first year he passed in, since 8th grade. Rory tries to discuss this with her, and stresses that people have to take responsibility for their own actions. Eventually, Debbie agrees that it is not really Rorys fault, but she says, I dont care; Im angry. Efforts to fix problems The conversations turns to what to do about the screwed-up project. Debbie tells Rory, I found the answer in a book, so its pointless to even do the project. Rory asks, Whats the answer in the book? Debbie replies, the answer in the book said exactly whats going to happen. The suns going to expand. Its going to swallow up all the planets to earth. All the other planets are going to get very hot. Everythings gonna suck. Everybody on earth is going to die. All the waters going to dry up. Earth is going to melt. The syndrome of finding the answer in a book is a recurring problem in Rorys class. He describes it like this: So, what happens is, theyll get research, or whatll happen is somebody will tell them, that you cant do this, it cant be done, nobody has figured it out. Or well here, somebodys already figured it out, heres what the answer is. And they go, OK, were done. We cant do this or Its already been figured out or now what do we do? Instead of abandoning the project altogether, as Debbie suggests, Rory takes his usual tack of looking for ways to salvage it. He tries to suggest again data she could locate

215 to make an empirical case for how far the sun will expand, how hot the temperature will get, and how the components of different planets will react to that heat. As an example, Rory says she could look at What happens to the atmosphere in Jupiter when you heat it up to, you know, certain temperatures? Exasperated, Debbie says that is impossible to find. Debbies response exhibits her lack of understanding of the process Rory is trying to get her to participate in. He doesnt want her to find the answer; he wants her to make a claim based on an empirical argument. She is only familiar with finding the answer, as synthetic library research projects require. So Rory says, Well, yeah, its impossible to find, cause if you could find it, then you would have the answer again, and you would be right back where you are now. Debbie replies, but I dont have anything even remotely like that. Rory tries to encourage her, saying, Then, well, you have to think about it. Think about it. You have to analyze the situation. How hot is the sun gonna get? How far away is it gonna be away from Jupiter? What happens? You know what the clouds are, you know what Jupiters made out of. What happens when you heat those materials to such and such a temperature? Well, its whats gonna happen to that planet then ... Still discouraged, Debbie says, well, thats impossible. Rory counters, I didnt say it was gonna be easy. Debbie explodes, not the sun Debbie goes off, Rory presumes to work on some of these ideas, but she turns in her first draft of the complete research report with no data analysis. Her grade is an abysmal 45%. Once again despondent and angry, Debbie comes up to Rory, saying You made me do this topic. He points out that he offered suggestions, but explicitly left the choice up to her. Referring to the lack of data analysis, Debbie says,

216 Mr. Wagner, I found the answer in a book, so there was no data analysis to do ... What is there to analyze, if I find the answer? It says right there [in her report] what the sun is going to do. Get very big, and then itll fade to red then white then blue, and then itll get a little bit smaller and turn into a white dwarf, and then itll get smaller and smaller until it fades out. It was written right there. Rory tries to clarify, saying Somebody says this is whats gonna happen. What your job to do is ... is to go in and look at the data, and re-construct it, and see if you agree with what they said. Debbie claims, But I do, because, and gestures mutely at her paper. Rory elaborates further, saying, No, you don't. You just say heres what happens. And thats it. And you dont, you dont show me anything about how big does the sun get. How hot will it be? Rory persists in elaborating these possibilities, but Debbies anger is insurmountable at this point. Eventually, she shouts, Have you ever tried looking up this topic? When Rory says no, Debbie yells, Fine! You try! You find it! She slams her paper down loudly, and storms out of the room. This incident, as well as some with Julie, recalls Jay Lemkes (1990) assertion, mentioned in Chapter 2, that students have an absolute veto power with which to threaten teachers. Lemke says such noncompliance and uncooperative behavior keeps many teachers from attempting innovations. But when teachers like Rory do conduct their class differently, they inevitably meet with some amount of such resistance. Based on his experiences in the past, Rory is aware of this danger. However, he is also aware from his experience that the anger generated when the students [feel] cast adrift from the traditional style of education they worked hard to master for success can be difficult to shake. Some of the students in his first year felt betrayed and were appropriately angry, even if they proved successful in the new systemthe anger hung on with them.

217 Henceforth, he could not gain any level of cooperation with the angry students. Consequently, Rory is wary of student anger, and he treats students complaints with respect. He sees himself as having to promote his teaching practices: This has been my experiencenow it may not be everybodys experiencebut you kind of have to convince them to play the game. That this is new, and this is better, and this is good. Because youre not just learning facts; its a switch from learning facts to learning how to think creatively. And they thinka lot of them, some of themwill think that youre just wasting their time, and its frustrating when you get the youre not doing anything comment. You know, youre not teaching us anything. Um, and so thats kind of hard to live with sometimesyou know, the criticism. And you get it. And it seems to me that the kids you get those criticisms from the most are the kids who are having the most trouble doing it, and so theyre angry, and so its your fault that they dont get it. And as I think back, thats consistently who its from. And its kids who arent unintelligent, but theyre being asked, I think, to work on their own, and they dont wanna really work on their own, they really wanna be directed. They wanna be told what to do. Theyre more passive learners, for whatever the reason. You know, its like fill me up, tell me what to do, and I can do it, but dont let me think about what I have to do, because thats too hard for me. End result: a wholly adversarial relationship As Debbies project continues, the arguments and anger escalate. The next day, Debbie returns with her paper, and approaches Rory. He asks what her question is, and she says: Nothing. My question is that I think this grade blows, because I did exactly what you told me to do, in the Method. Everything here [in the report] is exactly what you said to do here [in the handout]. I gave you the process I did to do my research. I gave you why I was looking for it. Why I needed it. How I went about trying to find it. I was very specific, and I dont think it was fair for you to give me [less than the full] 20 points, not to mention zero out of 20 points. She showed the paper to her advisor as well, and tells Rory the advisor agreed that that grade really sucked. Rory goes on to explain about the grade, and how it can be improved. At one point, Julie enters the conversation, sympathizing with Debbie about including pictures not cited in the text. Julie says, You have to redo it. I mean, why argue over the points?

218 Debbie points out, But I dont want to redo it. Julie just says, Oh. Debbie continues, The point is that I worked so hard on this, and I think its absolutely ridiculous that I had an A in the class [in the first quarter, as did most of the students] and then he gives me a 39% on the paper. I mean, most people didnt even hand it in! I should get more credit than that just for handing it in. The fact that the difficulty of achieving a high grade in Rorys class increases significantly from the first quarter of the year (when introductory activities are done) and subsequent quarters (when projects are done) is another recurring complaint of students. For instance, Sylviawho got the highest grade in the class first quarter but whose group struggled at the beginning of the second quarterasked Rory how can I get the same grade I did last quarter this time around? Rory has to tell Debbie, Sylvia, and other students that the nature of the work is completely different in these quarters, so the means of achieving high marks must change as well. Continuing her rant, Debbie goes on to surmise that a student she knows who turned a one-page paper in probably got a better grade (just as Kim had done the previous year, as mentioned in Chapter 1). Rory wants to focus on how to fix things, and she just wants to get a better grade. Returning to Rogoffs (1990) characterization of guided participation, the kind of adversarial relationship Rory and Debbie have developed appears problematic. Rogoff points out that guided participation relies on a certain degree of intersubjectivity between the teacher and the learner. She says: Although a degree of sensitivity and ease in establishing intersubjectivity are important, they must be balanced by sufficient challenge to allow and encourage change. Both common ground and differences in perspectives and ideas are needed for communication. Otherwise, communication would not be necessary or interesting, and there would be little impetus for partners to develop greater

219 understanding or to stretch to develop a bridge between alternative views. Somewhat unfamiliar patterns may play an important role in forcing children to stretch their understanding. (Rogoff, 1990, p. 202) A primary difference between Julies and Debbies situation is that Rory was able to maintain a cooperative relationship with Julie that allowed for some intersubjectivity along with challenging differences in perspective, while by the end he and Debbie had trouble reaching any common ground. Even though he is suspended, Jason ends up salvaging the project to a C- level by performing some of Rorys suggested analyses. Near the very end, Rory tries to discuss an interesting scientific issue that led to a faulty assumption in one of their analyses: even though the total amount of energy given off by the sun increases, its surface may end up cooler than before if it has expanded far enough. But Debbie rebuffs him, saying never mind. The Dinosaur Extinction project: Just trying to get by I have tried to show in this chapter how some contentiousness in instituting scientific inquiry activities is inevitable. If the contentiousness spins out of control or time creates problems as described in the previous chapter, projects can encounter difficulties and may fail. Even when those pitfalls are avoided, however, some students work may prove disappointing because they choose to do as little as possible to get by. The Dinosaur Extinction project provides an example. Patti and Carla are two juniors who sit in the far corner of the room (at the table labeled B3 in Figure 1), which for some reason attracts the students with the most alternative bent every year, according to Rory. Patti wears a grunge outfit of dark, beat-up clothes, and often provides the class with witty, ironic commentary. Carla has frizzy, shoulder length brown hair and wears earth-toned, worn clothes that announce her affinity for the Grateful Dead (she tells Rory in her email exchange with him that the

220 highlight of her summer was seeing the Deads last concert before the death of Jerry Garcia). Although Patti has little interest in dead animals, as she puts it, Carlas interest in dinosaurs leads the pair to choose dinosaur extinction as a topic. They are both more interested in English than science and math, and thus it is not surprising that their Background Information milestone is very well-written. In addition, they put more effort into it than they would have had they not misunderstood what [Rory] wanted for the [Background Information]they thought they had to give him the final form of the Introduction to their paper. After this first milestone, however, things dont go as well. On the advice of the mentor Rory assigns them (an expert on dinosaurs and ice ages working at a university), their Research Proposal is to choose two of the theories for the dinosaurs extinction, and show how one theory is superior. They have trouble finding any more information beyond the basic overview of the theories, but they are not overly concerned. During the data collection phase of their project, they send email to their mentor looking for library or Internet references, but keep forgetting to look for responses. Rorys suspicion that maybe our introverted girls arent taking advantage of the resources they have turns out to be correct when it comes to their mentor, who is willing to help, but theyd just as soon try to quietly get by doing as little work as possible. Student responsibility for work During the four weeks between their Background Information report and beginning to put their final report together, Patti and Carla spend the better part of their time in the back corner of the room, socializing. Rory sees their project going in the wrong directionspecifically by going informational and just relying on reporting what others

221 have saidand also sees them getting little done, so he tries to push them. As related at the end of Chapter 9, however, his efforts to interrupt one of their card games are rebuffed. Exploring Pattis perspective as related to me in interviews outside of class is enlightening. She tells me she prefers a project-based class like Rorys to traditional classes with lectures, labs and tests (like her Biology class was), because if someones like lecturing me, and making me do experiments, and testing me, I dont do well. Cause like, I get annoyed, and then Im like, well, this is boring. I mean, like, I dont need this. ... But if its like, if there arent like, tests and stuff, and like basically your grades on like how you work, and ... in class work and stuff ... I have no problem with it. Cause like, Ill actually do it. Like, Ill own up to what I have to do. ... But, like, if theyre constantly testing me and stuff, its just like, Oh, I dont care. Patti also likes the fact that its a very, like, lenient class. She goes on to elaborate that the relative lenience is good for some people and bad for others. Like, you get held accountable for like what you do and dont do. But like, we completely just get away, like sitting around class talking about whatever ... And like, itll detract from our grade, but not that much. ... I mean, I like it that way, but I guess like teachers and stuff might not see it as very good. I mean, but I also like think thats good, because like it makes us responsible for like what we do and dont do. Its mixed. I then ask her, So youreyoure willing to take the responsibility that [you were] blowing off part of the time? Patti says, Yes. Patti says she like[s] the freedom and is willing to take the responsibility partly because she prefers a class that is more laid backyoure not always like, stressing, cause you dont have someone like breathing down your neck constantly, like, you gotta make this deadline, what are you doing? Blah blah blah. Like, freaking out at you. Despite the fact that Rory is not freaking out at students like Patti and Carla who are not working hard during his class, he is not indifferent. He just feels firmly that students must take the initiative themselves, and take responsibility for their own actions.

222 As Patti points out, she is willing to take the responsibility, but she is only willing to take as much initiative as is necessary to get what she considers a good enough grade. She tells me that as a student you see how far you can get. I mean, some people, people like me. I dont know, Im not the person striving for straight As. Cause its not gonna happen. So, you see like, how much, like, how little you have to do to get like a relatively good grade ... Like, Im getting a C plus at this moment. If I like made up some of my like missing days, I probably would have gotten like a B minus. And like, yeah, Ill admit I dont work very much. But if I can still get the B minus and not work that much, like, its not likeIm not like, Oh no, Im not working. You know, like, I figure if you can make the grade, and still like, do what you, like, screw off as much, then it doesnt matter really. But like if youre getting like a D or an F, then yeah, it does matter, cause like obviously you cant pull it off. Pattis comments make clear why David Cohen (1988b) has described teaching as one of the impossible professionsbecause the success of teachers work depends ultimately on students actions, which only the students themselves can control. The prototypical example Cohen discusses is psychotherapists, whose complete success is impossible because their clients must ultimately take the actions which define their therapists successpsychological health for the client. Cohen further described the allocation of responsibility for success as a possible resource for the practices of professionals. In the teaching profession, what that means is that expecting hard work and quality work from the students is a rich resource. But to the extent that teaching practitioners bear responsibility for the positive results of practice, high expectations become a poor resource. In other words, if the outcome that mattershere, student learningis judged unacceptable, most often by some measure such as test scores or grades, the teacher will be given the blame. In such cases, practitioners such as teachers may try to redefine success in terms acceptable to the clients on whom they depend for success. In a teachers case, this means they try to adjust the grading system so that

223 students can pass. Rory was faced with this dilemma when he first instituted projects, and many students were not producing quality work. He did not want to compromise the terms of quality and success hed established for projects as scientific inquiryhe wanted to demand that students have data, analysis of that data, and conclusions supported by that analysis in order to have reports judged to be good. But in the first year most of the class was not getting to that point. He told me when he realized a large portion of that class was failing according to his standards, I sat there and I went I cant, I cant give them all Fs. I mean, maybe I can give them like half points for data ... but they dont have any data. They really dont have data. So, if they dont have data, how can I give them half credit just for something they dont have? Just because they looked? Maybe they didnt even look. But they didnt have it, so how could I give them credit for something that wasnt there? So I thought, either I have to ... but I didnt want to kill them, because I knew as soon as I do that, that Im gonna get killed, because theyre gonna explode, and theyre gonna come back, and theyre gonna all run home, and complain to their parents, complain to the advisor-chairman, complain to my boss, and then Im in trouble. Like, What the hell are you doing here? Youre failing everybody. But I thought, well, but I have to do that, at some point the poop has to hit the fan, and Im gonna have to start guiding this in the direction that I want it to go, and so thats what I did. And they all exploded, and they did all the things that I thought they were gonna do. That was the year when he developed an adversarial relationship like the one with Debbie with a significant portion of the class, and Rory was not pleased with the results. Besides creating risks for him as a teacher, Rory was well aware that projects are an intersubjective achievement of the student groups combined with his own guidance. Ever since, he has been improving his support and guidance, for instance by introducing and refining the milestones. Still, it is possible for projects to end up with poor quality products despite good efforts. Since Rory does not want to compromise the terms of quality and success hes established for projects as scientific inquiry, he must take some other tactic besides making paper grading more lenient.

224 Work grades: A tactic for decreasing teacher and student risk As Arthur Powell (Powell, Farrar, & Cohen, 1985) has pointed out, teachers and students are used to treaties which allow them to be more passive, like Dont ask me to work too hard and I wont cut up in your class. To address the problem I have been discussing, Rory has instituted a treaty with the students something like, come to class and work while you are here to a decent degree, and you are unlikely to fail. He puts this treaty into practice with what he calls work grades. These are what Patti was referring to when she said she could raise her grade if she made up missing days, and that sitting around and talking will detract from [their] grade. Twenty-five percent of students grades for each quarter while conducting projects are made up of the work grade (and the percentage was higher in 1994-95). Students will get all the points at stake for the work grade if they come to class every day and work on their project. If students are absent, they can make up the work day outside of class. Rory adopted this idea from another teacher, after the anger and adversarial relationships of his first project, and before he began having the students turn in milestones. He told me: I started honing in on the work ethic kind of idea ... knowing that I wasnt asking them to do anything outside of class. It was all being done in class, so whats important is the work that you do, and as long as you work, then youre OK. And the concept I was going with was, you know, kids often say, Geez, you know, I worked my butt off in this class and I got a crummy grade. You know. And so I was trying to address that issue and I was trying to use that as kind of a hook. Its like, Well, OK, look, in this class as long as you work as hard as you can in the class, thats a big chunk of your grade, and everything else probably will take care of itself. Thats where kind of the evolution of the big chunk of the grade coming from the daily work came from ... I was trying to play on the work issue. That kids often think they work really hard but get a C. What good is that? So if you work as hard as you can, and you only get a C, is that fair? Its back to that. You know, I couldnt have worked any harder, so how could I ever get a B or an A? So you feel crappy about yourself, because youve done everything you possibly could ... So youre kind of locked in this continual failure mode, or maybe not even a failure mode, but a lack of total success mode, even though youre doing all you possibly can. What else can you

225 ask somebody to do? Walk on water? You know, treading water would probably be good enough. You dont have to walk on it. Problems with work grades: time and affordances of assessment practices So, the work grades are meant to help students to succeed and get decent grades in what Rory recognizes is a difficult class. But work grades have been difficult to implement, and have brought along some unintended consequences. Along with the positive implications for students grades come some negative ones as well, and Rory has changed the way he does work grades in some way almost every project cycle over the past four years to try to make it work better. One issue is that students who like to socialize at school, like Patti and Carla, may be unwilling to take advantage of the opportunity to raise their grade by working on their project. In addition, as students like Julie have argued, students who work well at home but not during class will be punished. Also, students need to monitor themselves although they are not accustomed to doing so. As Patti points out, high school students have learned to depend on teachers to hassle them when they are not working: youre given like all of this free time, with no teacher being, like, Work! And all of a sudden [when your grade suffers] youre like, Great! Crap! You forget about it. She added, I mean, were high school students, were naturally going to screw up; you know, like, if you give us that much freedom, were gonna like take advantage of it. We just have to learn not to. The final negative consequence is that Rory has to have evidence to back up claims that students do not deserve credit for working on a given day. As Rory said, I couldnt [just] say well, so-and-so worked, I think, [and] got an A for work, and so-and-so got a B for work. In order to maintain evidence of students work, Rory has instituted the practice of keeping a notebook with a work log for each group. On each day, Rory makes notes of what he observes the students doing, and gives them an overall plus, half, or no credit for a

226 work day. That way the whole thing can be added up and more objectively judged. Rory told me ... this kind of goes back to my, my quantitative beginnings, whenand I think everybody goes through thoseyou know, when you have to have a grade for students, and if youre really worried about it ... You know, some people can just sit down and say A, B, A ... just give em a grade ... And then when youre questioned, you know, why is my grade that? you have to have a reason for that ... you have to have a grading system, and so, the more precise and numerical you can make it, [the more] you can say, well you had a 97.259, so you get this ... you know, ad absurdum. But you know, you can say to that kid whos got that 45 per cent, you know, geez, if you only had 5 more points ... I went through that part of my career where everything was based on numbers so I could justify it, and I would justify what I was doing. Accountability, nothing wrong with that. So, then, if youre gonna grade on, if youre gonna grade work, then you have to have some way to show people what yourewhen you work. Cause theyre not gonna believe you, if you just say, you get a C, because I think so. Umm, so thats where that whole thing evolved, you know, work [or] no work, just simply on that criteria for a day, you know. And what I started do was tracking the groups by writing down in a notebook, and saying what each group did on a daily basis. Because it wouldnt be just the whole group work, you could have, you know, Bobby over here reading English, while Susie and Sally are working on the projectand they would all say theyre working. Yeah, but thats not on science, and so thats not good. The practice of keeping such exhaustive records is unfortunately time consuming, and Rory still admits it is imperfect. It is often difficult to tell whether students working on a computer are doing their projects or something for fun. Even more importantly, we know from the previous chapter that Rorys time is already at a premium. Given the fact that grades are a reality that is not going away in Rorys school and therefore his classroom, I want to consider them as a design constraint with certain affordances. In particular, I think it is important to realize that assessment can afford both judgment and guidance. The time Rory spends discussing students ongoing work with them, or marking up milestones or papers they have turned in serves both a guiding function and a judgment function. The work grades Rory marks in his book, on the other hand, serve only a judgment function. There are times during class when Rory wanders around the

227 room, looking over students shoulders to see what theyre up to, and the only result is a mark in his work grade book. Such assessment for judgment does not help students accomplish scientific activity in any direct way, and in fact contributes to Rorys lack of time to do assessment for guidance. In addition, the judgment aspect of the work grades may overemphasize the performance-grade exchange nature of classroom tasks (Doyle, 1979) in students minds, again to the detriment of the scientific nature of classroom tasks. In the Zodiac project, for instance, Mark, Peter, and Pamela made sure to come in and make up days they had missed getting work credit for, but blatantly ignored turning in some of the milestones. In the Earthquakes and Hurricanes projects, on the other hand, Julie, Amy, TJ, and Dave were luckily more concerned about turning milestones in than monitoring their work grade; in fact, Julie actively resisted working every day, and took as much opportunity as she could to socialize with Amy and her other friends in the class while still getting the milestones done. Even though Julie and Amy were somewhat preoccupied with the performance-grade exchange, their focus on the milestones helped them. Given this distinction between assessment for judgment and assessment for guidance, it becomes clear teachers should try to maximize opportunities for assessment for guidance. Part of the problem for Rory is that students entire grade cant be based on one assignment turned in at the end of the grading period, or else the situation is just too risky for both the students and Rory, and then the opportunity to assess for guidance is only retrospective. Rory recognized this when he told me putting all the emphasis on the final report would imply that youre accentuating the product as opposed to the process. Rory wants to accentuate the process, and the product, but the product [isnt] everything. In order to emphasize the process, Rory has reasoned

228 you gotta show me what you can do while youre there [in class]. Because, how else am I gonna grade you? You know, I dont have any homework, I dont have any quizzes, I dont have any tests, so you have to work. But, Rory does have milestones, and milestone assignments afford assessment for guidance of student participation in scientific activity, as we saw in the Earthquakes and Hurricanes projects. Rory has considered replacing the current work grades, which I have argued afford only assessment for judgment, with increased grading emphasis on the milestone assignments. My analysis suggests the design change of replacing the work grade with increasing importance of milestones seems promising. Seeking teacher buy-in over scientific disagreements Patti and Carla turn in the first draft of their complete research paper in time to get some guidance from Rory, however. After they get their paper back with extensive commentary from Rory, they have several discussions of some length about it. One portion of the discussion is particularly interesting: Patti: I think we had miscommunication here [gesturing to paper] ... the seas were flooded. Rory: Where? Patti: Everywhere. Rory: Im digging deeper because maybe where it was mattered. Patti: Its not clear in the book. Rory: Since its your paper and you know more about it than I do, you can make some decisions. Once I make these comments, just ignore them if they dont matter. Researchers can have different opinions, and its OK. Patti: But youre grading it. Rory: We have different opinions. Its my job to get at those ... Im just trying to bring more stuff out that maybe we should know. But if you cant, thats OK. The first important aspect of this discussion is Pattis statement that youre grading it. This recalls Julie and Amys earlier attempts to get buy-in from Rory on the graphs they made. Even though Rory says students should ignore comments he makes on drafts if they know they dont matter, such actions will likely affect their grade if they dont discuss the issues with him. This is not necessarily a problem, because such discussions afford

229 opportunities for important scientific sense-making, as I have previously mentioned. But the importance of students bringing such issues to Rory is not explicitly mentioned by Rory, so students who have less interactional competence (Mehan, 1980) with Rory than Patti or Julie may miss such opportunities. Opposing epistemologies of teaching and learning Rorys statement that its your paper and you know more about it than I do relates to an epistemological conflict which sometimes causes problems in Rorys classroom. David Cohen (1988a) characterizes the dominant epistemology with the phrases teaching as telling and learning as accumulation [or absorption] of facts (p. 257). Many of Rorys students espouse the notion of teaching as telling to some degree, and it can be used to accuse Rory, most often with the claim, you havent taught us anything. Rorys epistemology of teaching and learning, on the other hand, is in line with Cohens characterization of the roots of inquiry-oriented instruction: teaching is facilitating or guiding, and learning is constructing knowledge and solving problems. Rory recognizes that the disparity between his beliefs about teaching and those of more traditionally-minded students, parents, and other adults can lead to problems. He told me that such traditionalists are likely to say to him, Well, if youre not teaching them anything, then how are they supposed to learn anything? Well, Im not teaching them to memorize facts, [but] I am teaching them how to do other things. Facts you can always find. The traditionalists epistemology of teaching as telling and learning as accumulation of facts, which I will refer to as the transmission epistemology because it implies that knowledge is transmitted directly from the teachers mind to the students minds (Pea, 1994), has several corollaries. One corollary, which Patti seems to espouse, is that teachers should have all the knowledge of their field stored in their heads, in order to

230 be deemed knowledgeable and competent. During an interview with her outside of class, Patti mentions to me in hushed tones one shortcoming she feels Rory has: Patti: I think occasionally he needs to know his information better, cause there are times when hell be like, Oh, this. And then a couple days later, hell be like, nope, I was wrong. I was off by like 5. Or something like that. Joe: Talking about what? Patti: Talking about the stars, or something like that. Anything like that, hell just be like, whoops, I was wrong, looked it up again. This is the right thing. ... And youre just like, OK, whatever. In the knowledge as problem-solving view espoused by Rory, it is only natural that he look up such random facts rather than memorize them all, and that he cannot know everything about all the students projects. As the teacher, the key is that he has considerably more expertise in sound scientific practices than the students, and a clear understanding of the major conceptual knowledge within Earth and Space Sciencesnot necessarily every minor detail. Not coincidentally, the transmission epistemology meshes more smoothly with traditional teaching practices such as lectures and exams, which Patti emphatically rejects as ineffective, but she does not recognize the conflict. Patti also finds it questionable that Rory is a learner as a teacher; specifically, that he is constantly trying to learn how to teach his class better. She says to me, it seems like hes learning at all times, like, how to do his class better ... you know, I just think its frustrating, cause ... hes learning ... Like, he doesnt even really know, completely, like, how to do this class. The belief in the transmission epistemology of teaching and learning that Patti and some of the other students voice, has led to problems in Rorys experience. Rory related to me in interviews that some students lost some of that faith in that the teachers know everything, and then that became, well, youre not doing anything, so you must be really stupid. Did you just start doing this? For instance, Debbie is a student whose anger, and perhaps discomfort with being asked to move away from a more passive role, push her to

231 confront and at times accuse Rory. Similarly, Julie states within Rorys earshot that he may not have understood their report and she had to clarify it for him during a classroom conversation; the implication is that Rorys knowledge is lacking. On another occasion, when Rory does not immediately know the answer to one of her questions about how to make a particular change to a graph in a software program, Julie says, If you dont know how to do it, how can we do it? A second corollary of the transmission epistemology is the belief that doing science inquiry is much less valuable than telling and memorizing science facts. Thus, in 1994-95, Rory mentioned at the end of the first project that some students who were disappointed with the results of their project could do something better the next semester. Sophia then asked, Are we doing this again next semester? Rory replied, Hopefully youll do a different project. Sophia clarified, No, I mean when are we going to learn something about earth science? Despite the fact that they had begun to learn how to research and perform empirical analysis, Sophia did not recognize this form of learning as valuable. Later in the year, Sophia confessed she thought We dont learn anything in this class. When I pressed her, she conceded Well, we learn something of course. Similarly, later in 199596, I will ask Cindy what she thinks of projects. Her response is: I dont like it. I wish we just had a normal class like with taking notes from the board, and using the textbook, and taking tests. I would have liked that better ... Like I was in here one day during second period, making up a period, and I wish I was in the other class ... Cause they do more things, like they really learn in class. They do labs and take notes and take tests and everything. Another corollary of the transmission epistemology is the idea that Rory must not have told the students what he wanted in his assignments if they didnt understand what he wanted. Patti said to me, sometimes you just want like, proper explanation. I mean,

232 thats what were here for, to like, learn exactly how to do things. And she felt he wasnt telling them exactly how. Like Julie, she did not recognize that instructions on how to do open-ended projects cannot be exhaustively complete, because there are too many contingencies. But Patti did recognize that she knew what she was doing the second time they did projects, although she did not attribute the change to her own learning. She believed Rory gave them a new form, with exactly ... what he expects. But the form was the same. The difference was that her understanding of his instructions was more complete, because she had participated in one round of projects. To reiterate the point I made in Chapter 5, the activity of guided participation in projects provided the opportunity to bootstrap her understanding of scientific research. They had learned something to build on, despite the fact that Patti and Carlas final report was informational library research as Patti put it, it was just basically just taking information out of a book, like, and tossing it around. Because of her epistemology of learning, Patti told me, I didnt learn anything in the Dinosaur Extinction project. She continued, saying all she learned was basic comments on itthe asteroid theory is the theory that is most, like, acceptable. Like, yeah, I learned a few details about it. Like, where the craters are and like, possibly how big they are, if I can like remember that. But, like, Ive got it on paper somewhere. But like I didnt really learn that much. Looking at learning from an epistemology which values problem-solving and participation in scientific practices, I see Patti learning more in Rorys class than she herself does. For her second project, she works with Diane and Tom F (two other students who have difficulty during round one) on a project about tornadoes. They gather data on tornadoes and deaths caused by tornadoes, and construct graphs which provide evidence that although the number of tornadoes appears to have increased over the past fifty years,

233 the number of deaths caused by tornadoes has decreased. In an interview, she tells me they have developed a theory on it. The following exchange ensues: Joe: OK. So can you explain it to me? Patti: OK. Since, like, 1950, or 1940-something, theres been an increase in tornadoes. Like, there are more tornadoes now than there were in the 50s or like the 40s. Joe: OK Patti: But there are less deaths now than there were back then. So there are more tornadoes now. Does that make any sense? Joe: OK. Yeah, I get it Patti: So then, like, our, as opposed to then ... like, our idea for that is the fact that we have like ... were technologically more advanced, so like, we have like all these tracking devices, to like track tornadoes, and like give warnings and stuff. When like back then, they didnt, so if a tornado hit, it was completely out of surprise, and so they just like died. Whereas now, we like [pause] prepare for it. Have special like drills and stuff in case a tornado comes. So, not as many people die. In conversations in class, Rory discusses with Pattis group how they could try to support their theory with the data they have or other data, but the students do not get to the point of establishing causal evidence in the time they have. Instead, their analysis only goes so far as to demonstrate the trends in tornadoes and deaths. Nonetheless, Pattis ability to contribute to a scientific inquiry shows signs of increasing over time. Summary In this chapter, I have described and illustrated a number of implications that the culture of schooling has for project-based science. Both students and teachers experience increased ambiguity and risk in such settings in terms of grading. The ambiguity manifests itself in the impossibility of teachers giving clear and exhaustive instructions to students for inherently complex and open-ended tasks, including writing research reports in the scientific genre, which differs from the English essays to which students are accustomed. When grading is a part of schooling (as it is in most schools in this country), classroom tasks involve to some degree an exchange of performance for grades. The inherent

234 ambiguity of project-based instruction means that students risk of getting poor grades is increased. At the same time, teachers risk of giving large numbers of poor grades due to poor quality productswhich reflects negatively on their teaching practice and effectivenessincreases. The increases in risk for both teacher and student have a number of implications, some of which are positive, and more negative. Students angling for grades can push them to seek Rory out for guidance on how to conduct scientific inquiry effectively. The ensuing discussions can involve valuable scientific sense-making when they involve students and teacher coming to new understandings from different perspectives. But they can also be tilted so far towards students sycophantically seeking buy-in from the teacher, that opportunities for learning are compromised. In addition, students may become so angry and frustrated at the ambiguity and the difficulty of accomplishing a project, as happened with Debbie, that they are no longer able to reach any common ground with Rory. Although learning will not take place if student and teacher already have complete agreement, some common ground is necessary for interaction to succeed. Typical school culture is not characterized by students having as much responsibility for their actions and consequences as they are given in Rorys class, and they may try to return the responsibility to him to reduce their risk of failure. Thus, students like Debbie may accuse him of making them do a topic. They may also accept only as much responsibility as is absolutely necessary. Thus, students like Patti may choose to do only as much as they have to do to get by in his system. To encourage student responsibility and decrease the risk that students will fail, Rory has tried instituting a system of work grades. Giving students daily grades for working or not has proved difficult due to the ubiquitous time constraints on Rory; the work grade system also affords

235 only a judgment function, without providing any guidance for the students. Since the milestone assignments afford both a judgment and a guidance function, I suggest they could prove ultimately more productive without the system of work grades. Finally, students espousing the transmission epistemology of teaching and learning may have difficulty accepting the pedagogy of project-based science. Students who believe that teaching is telling and learning is accumulation of facts may find fault with Rory because he is open about not having all Earth Science facts stored in his head, but instead knowing how to find needed information and use it in inquiry. Notably, Rorys position is supported by such luminaries as Herbert Simon, the only American to receive the Nobel Prize in Psycholody. In The Sciences of the Artificial, Simon (1981) proclaimed that knowing in the information age has been redefined as knowing how to find rather than just remembering. The same students who find fault with Rorys knowledge of science may judge scientific inquiry as less valuable than being told science facts; in this way, they may not see the value in the inquiry skills they themselves may be gaining, because they perceive that they dont recall the kinds of broad but shallow facts that they value more highly in school.

Chapter 11 The balancing act: Coaching, not putting yourself in

Introduction: A tree swaying between extremes Educational reform efforts directed at fostering project-based learning have a tendency to substitute entirely teacher-directed pedagogy for entirely student-directed pedagogy (Rogoff, 1994). As Rogoff describes, lecture-based classrooms depend on transmission of knowledge from an active teacher to a passive learner. In contrast, unguided discovery depends on acquisition of knowledge by an active learner with the teacher remaining passive. However, the model of community of learners is based on the premise that learning occurs as people participate in shared endeavors with others, with all playing active but asymmetrical roles. (p. 209). Teachers like Rory interested in fostering inquiry learning in their classes need to try to create a community of learners atmosphere. This implies that they must play a unique role of structuring and guiding student activities in the classroom without taking away the students active role. Some researchers refer to this middle ground as guided discovery or guided learning. For example, Ann Brown says Guided learning is easier to talk about than do. It takes clinical judgment to know when to intervene. Successful teachers must engage continually in on-line diagnosis of student understanding. They must be sensitive to overlapping zones of proximal development, where students are ripe for new learning. Guided discovery places a great deal of responsibility in the hands of teachers, who must model, foster, and guide the discovery process into forms of disciplined inquiry that would not be reached without expert guidance. (Brown, 1992, p. 169) By considering the projects described in the previous chapters, the complexity of structuring and guiding students in their project work should become apparent. Some of 236

237 the students, such as Dave, TJ, Steve, and Rich, respond very easily and agreeably to the structures and supports Rory has devised. Some, such as Julie, Amy, and Patti, seem to be reluctantly aided by Rorys structures and supports. And a few, such as Barb, Pete, and Debbie, do not seem to have received the kind of support they needed (either because of time constraints or because they rejected it). Different students in the class need different levels and kinds of support, and they also end up getting different levels and kinds of support. Matching the kind and level of support students need with what Rory gives them is a difficult balance to maintain, though. Consequently, as Rory put it, he can feel sort of like a tree swaying between two extremes of providing students with structure and allowing them to do it all themselves. One way to conceptualize teachers new role in such classrooms, mentioned in Chapter 2, is by scaffolding student work (Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989). Scaffolding can occur either by modeling as I described in Chapter 5, by structuring activity as I described in Chapter 8, or by coachingsupporting and guiding students work along the way. In this chapter, I will consider some of the coaching strategies Rory uses, and how he strives to balance between the extremes of providing too much scaffolding of this sort and providing too little. Plesiosaurs: Inspiration and combustion Three juniors who sit at the middle table (labeled B2 in Figure 1) during the first quarter of the year team up for their first project. Beth and Laura are both gregarious, and have participated frequently in class discussions during Rorys lectures. Cindy, on the other hand, is usually quiet and somewhat mousy. When Rory was going through computer competency tests, Cindy was the one student most concerned that she could not pass, so Rory had her watch others as he gave them the test. After watching more than six

238 other students do the exam, Cindy knew it cold, but was still nervous until she finally did it herself. Afterward, Rory said she whizzed through it with no mistakes. After toying with a couple of different topics for their project, like volcanic islands, Cindy and Laura settle on dinosaurs, and then focus in specifically on the Plesiosaur. Beth is absent the day they make the choice, but is quickly just as enamored of the creature as the others, saying isnt he cute? when she sees a picture. I hear them repeating the name pleee-zee-oh-saur slowly, relishing the way it sounds, and they show anyone who is willing to look pictures of the dinosaur which lives in the sea, and has a long neck somewhat like a brontosaurus. In fact, it looks like the fabled Loch Ness monster, which some legends say is descended from the plesiosaur. Search follies During the first week of the project, their search for background information on the plesiosaur is not very fruitful. They find a couple of books with nice pictures but only sketchy material on the plesiosaur. After one week of difficulty, Rory sits down with them for most of a double period to help them search the World Wide Web for information on plesiosaurs, which he feels must be out there, since the plesiosaur is a major type. They try searching for the word plesiosaur and dont turn up much that looks promising. But Rory points out that sometimes you just have to go to those [unlikely looking] things, and see whats there, and see what you can get. Then they look through a number of linked pages related to dinosaurs, with Rory discussing with them the type of dinosaur and the time period to make decisions about where information on their dinosaur might be. Along the way, they end up discussing how the Mesozoic period is subdivided into the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous periods.

239 This discussion is interesting in that it provides a significant degree of opportunities for incidental learning both about science topics and the World Wide Web, but it is also important as an illustration of students difficulties searching for information. As Rory found out when he first started doing projects, assuming that students search methods will be sophisticatedeither using traditional means such as the library or new means such as the Webis a mistake. In fact, the introduction of the often over-hyped Web can bring problems as well as provide solutions. As Rory puts it, Once [students] learned how to use the network, many students figured that research would be very easy. Just plug in a keyword and a world-wide search would bring all the information you need right to your computer within seconds. Too bad it doesnt work that way. This can manifest itself in students like Cynthia in 1994-95 typing hurricane into a Web search and being overwhelmed by the thousands of hits returned and not knowing how to begin to refine her search. It can also manifest itself in students typing all or part of their research questions directly into a Web search. Amy provided an example of this inevitably ineffective strategy in the Earthquakes project, when Julie brought a potential research question to her. Julie suggested Is there a pattern of earthquakes as far as when they occur and where they occur? So Amy typed pattern of earthquakes directly into a Web search, but did not find answers or useful data sources. When students first begin searching on the Web, Rory says what they want to dothere are two things they want to do. They want to either go to a search page, and type in their question, and have downloaded every piece of information that can be useful for their project, including all the data; or they want to click on a button, and so therell be one hyperlink that will take them to someplace that has all that stuff, so they can just use it. People often also view the Web as a superlibrary of sorts, but the kind of basic information on the topics students choosewhat they need for their Background Information researchis often much more difficult to locate on the Web (at least with

240 todays state of the art) than in Earth Science books, books in the school library or Rorys personal Earth Science library . For this reason, Rory asks the students to exhaust printed sources before moving to the Web. Once they do move to the Web, as the Plesiosaur group has done at his urging, they may not be willing to take the time to look and collect bits and pieces of useful information unless Rory encourages them. It is often helpful for him to sit down with them, and say well, lets try this, and lets try this, as he does with Beth, Cindy, and Laura. Part of the problem may again be their experience from other classes, as Rory says: They want you to find [the information they need], show it to them, make it easier, give em all the pieces they need. You know? What that reminds me of is like doing labs in other science courses. You know, where its like, heres all the stuff you need in this little box, heres the recipe, just follow this list, write stuff down, and when you get to the end, youre done. Boom. Clean up, and you go home. In the course of searching the Web, Rory has a brief discussion with the students about the credibility of the information they find there. Their search turns up some pages of abstract art with plesiosaur in the title, and Cindy asks Rory, Is this just information that people put on? Rory tells her it is, to which she replies, Really? So none of this could be likeso if we get it from here it might not be true? Rory replies, Thats always a possibility. Cindy is flabbergasted: It could be, like, made up stuff ... I mean, if that was like, legal, that they put abstract art of a plesiosaurus on ... Laura joins in: Yeah, but if you like print something fake in here, it doesnt matter. They cant like, do anything to you. Cindy is worried about the implications, saying, I know. We could like, print it up, and we could be like, hey, we found our information. And it could be wrong.

241 Rory agrees, saying And thats something you always have to worry about. They continue their search and scanning of Web pages, but come back to the issue a couple of minutes later. Rory talks about the fact that somebody put all the pages together, and they can usually find out who it is and where they are. In the case of the abstract art it was from Berkeley. The students become frustrated, and Beth laments, I want a book on the plesiosaur. Just on the plesiosaur. She and Rory laugh at her melodrama. But Cindy follows up, saying, Yeah. I want a book just on that information. Get all of the information from like one book. On this occasion, Rory misses the opportunity to point out that appearance in a book does not guarantee the accuracy of the information either, because it is hard to tell the editorial priorities of the publisher. Rory finds it necessary to point this out to students from time to time, since they often want to find that one book that has everything they needthe perfect resource. As related in Chapter 1, Rory had stressed the idea that multiple sources would be better with Alison in Sophia the previous year, when they were looking for the perfect resource that would provide them with all the data and information they needed on obsidian and later on salt lakes. He mentioned questionable books about UFOs as an example of books that may be published with motives other than providing accurate information. In this incident with Cindy, however, Rory does mention the strategy of bolstering the credibility of information found on the Internet with corroboration from multiple sources. Cindy continues venting frustration: Dont you hate the fact that it might be someplace here, but you cant like find it, cause its so complicated? The groups search with Rory for information on the World Wide Web that day does not turn up much directly

242 useful, but they do manage to find a couple of promising library references. Over the next week, they are able to use the information from library books to inform their Background Information report, which describes the age of dinosaurs, unique features of the plesiosaurs including its long neck and arms used for swimming, and theories of dinosaur extinction. They seem genuinely excited when Rory tells them their report is great and gives them an A+ grade. In order to find more information on plesiosaurs, Rory has suggested they post to Usenet newsgroups concerned with paleontology. As with Netscape, though, they have to learn how to use the tool, and what newsgroups discuss dinosaurs. As Cindy put it, To find stuff you have to know all this stuff we dont know. Rory responds, Rightwhich is why we have to talk. When they talk to him, it creates the kinds of opportunity for learning on demand that he is trying to foster. After the group has completed their background information report, Rory helps Laura and Cindy compose and post a message entitled research project on plesiosaurs to sci.geo.geology. He coaches them by giving them some suggestions on the general gist, urges them to make it clear what they have already done, and then leaves them to work on it themselves. Later, he approves their final message before they send it out to the world: We are students at [Lakeside] High School doing an Earth Science project. We have been searching for information on the Plesiosaur throughout the Internet and librarys [sic]. So far we have found general information on the appearance and habits of the Plesiosaur but we need additional general information so that we can come up with a specific research question. We would appreciate any information you could send us, or places we could search on the Internet about our topic. Thank you very much, we will appreciate greatly any help you give us. Rory has a general policy of asking students to show him questions they are going to post to Usenet because he has found that they may use [newsgroups] ... way inappropriately. In this way, he retains the metacognitive role of monitoring, which students can later take

243 on for themselves after gaining experience. In the Plesiosaur groups Usenet News post, we thus see examples of several strategies recommended by the cognitive apprenticeship literature (e.g., Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989): learning on demand, coaching, and monitoring. Rorys monitoring of student posts to news is in part spurred by experiences in earlier years, when some students tried to use the newsgroups as a means to avoid doing work they should be doing themselves. For instance, a student in 1994-95 sent a post saying I have a science project I have to do. I need to know everything on volcanoes in one week, and asked people to send the information to his email address. Not only do students rarely get good information from such poorly formulated requests, but they might get flames28 telling them to shape up and go to the library. In an interview, Rory recalled another post: ... theyll post something on a newsgroup when they only have a general question, and theyre looking for lots of general data, like one kid posted something about, ahh, it might have been coral. You know, Im doing a project on coral, coral reefs, can anybody tell me where I can find data? Well, what are you trying to explore? Because theres too much stuff out there on coral reefs. And the kids dont know what they want to explore, so they havent developed their question yet, and so they dont really know what theyre looking for. And so then the people out there either ignore them, or get pissed off at them, or both of those, or get pissed off at them and then write to them, and tell them off, but also give them suggestions ... In addition, browsing Usenet newsgroups proved in one case to be a resource for generating a project idea. Sophia and Alison in 1994-95 saw a posting about pink obsidian on sci.geo.geology, and became interested in how obsidian could be different colors, which led them to an analysis of varying mineral compositions in differing obsidian deposits, and how that affected the color.

28 Flaming refers to the name-calling and hostility which may erupt in computer-mediated communication

such as electronic mail and Usenet news (Sproull & Kiesler, 1991).

244 Despite the fact that Laura and Cindys posting is less directed than is ideal, they receive several responses by email, including one from a graduate student in paleontology who agrees to be their mentor. He gives them some references, and they write him email asking for more. After they begin to focus in on a research question, however, Beth tells me they do not find their mentors suggestions as helpful as Rorys, and stop corresponding with the mentor. As Rory told me in an interview that fall, he has higher hopes for a richer relationship with the mentors, but is frustrated with what happens in many cases: ... the way kids use their mentors ... is pretty much like reference books, or search engines, and it doesnt ever develop into a relationship where people are kind of like working together to find an answer, cause kids just dont quite get it, cause their minds arent shifted to a new paradigm yet. In the first project cycle of 1995-96 I am describing in this report, student interaction with mentors is focused on the kind of searching for references Rory finds problematic, although one student the previous year, Susan, continued to exchange email with her mentor about science-related issues even after the project was over. Rory continues to work on ways of fostering such richer relationships with mentors throughout the 1995-96 school year29 . Negotiating a research proposal During the following week, the group has to come up with a focused research proposal. As discussed in Chapter 8, Rory conducts a whole class brainstorming session on research questions around the topic of wolves, a personal interest he found out he shared with Beth through their email exchangeshe had spent the previous summer at a
29 For a discussion of lessons from these experiences of mentoring efforts over telecommunications

networks in Rory Wagners classroom, see (ONeill & Wagner, 1996, November). Kevin ONeills dissertation (ONeill, in progress) provides a more comprehensive discussion of telementoring as a means of supporting project-based science, as well as empirical research on Rory Wagners and another teachers efforts at implementation.

245 relatives out west, who worked with wolves. Not surprisingly, Beth generates a number of ideas in the course of the discussion. After the class discussion, students begin working in their own groups generating questions about their topics. The next day, Beth and Cindy approach Rory, announcing they have a question. It is Are accumulations of Plesiosaurs associated with areas of high marine productivity? Rory sees a number of problems with the question. Although it suggests a doable empirical analysiscomparing the number of plesiosaur skeleton findings in locations to fossil records which indicate high marine productivitythe results would most likely be dubious because the fossil record is spotty. The problem is, the number and location of plesiosaur fossils found is so spotty that those records may not reliably indicate the relative numbers of plesiosaurs living at those locations in prehistoric ages. Fossils do not form as easily in some locations as others, regardless of how many animals lived in the locations, and fossils are not as easily found in all locations. To avoid these pitfalls, Rory asks them to step back, saying What drew you to plesiosaurs in the first place? Cindy talks about their long necks, and Beth about how they swim. That reminds Rory of a comment Beth had made while looking at library books two weeks earlier. She had announced, This [book] says they flew through the water like sea turtles, and sea turtles swim very quickly ... This [book] says they didnt swim very quickly. Rory had only said hmm at the time and was interrupted by a question from another student. The group had not mentioned swimming speed in their background information report, but Rory had apparently filed it away in his mind. Rory asks Beth Didnt you read a debate about whether they were fast or slow swimmers? Beth says, Yeah. Some of them said they were fast and some said slow.

246 Rory suggests, Maybe you could do an analysis of swimming motion. Like how fast they go. You would need to know how animals move and how they swim. Rory stresses that they need not follow his suggestion, but Beth and the other members of the group like the idea. As Beth says, it reminds me of the reanalysis of dinosaurs that they did, and whether they were slow or fastJurassic Park was more accurate than the old picture of lumbering dinosaurs. Rorys effort at making sure to leave the students room to make their own decisions here is notable. He does not want to wrest control away from students, because even though that might sometimes result in a more impressive looking end product, the process will not be as good a learning experience if they are not challenged to think for themselves. As Rory says to Julie when she complains about one of Rorys criticisms of her paper, Its not like youre a puppet and Im trying to pull the strings. Besides opportunity for learning through a greater level of student participation, Rorys policy of not forcing students to follow his recommendations is part of his general policy of leaving a large amount of responsibility with the students. If he makes students follow his recommendations, students are likely to claim he alone is responsible if their efforts do not turn out well, as a way of weaseling out of making improvements. But if students work together with him in earlier stages and have a strong voice in decision-making, they can establish co-ownership (Pea, 1997) . With co-ownership of the project, students are more likely to be willing to work together with Rory to figure out productive alternatives if they encounter difficulties. Since Rory is not driving the direction of anything, other than [laying] the framework, dialogue with the students becomes much more important, as when they seek guidance. Rorys policy of leaving final decisions up to students does have its pitfalls, howevermost notably, students sometimes choose against a course

247 which Rory sees as particularly promising. One example is the promising research question what color was dinosaur skin? generated by some students in 1994-95, which they did not pursue because one of the group members was not interested in dinosaurs. A second example is the idea of comparing the similar ecological niches of elephants and woolly mammoths (despite unrelated evolutionary lines) that Tom F, Diane, and Tom M generate during this same period in 1995-96, and choose not to pursue. Following the discussion where they decide to focus on the swimming motion of plesiosaurs, the group members go off to review the relevant sections in the library books they have gathered, and Beth returns a few days later saying incredulously, Mr. Wagner! Do you know whether the plesiosaur moved by rowing its flippers or flapping them like wings? One of her library books states that Plesiosaurs swam with a rowing motion, and another book states that they swam by underwater flight, flapping their flippers like wings straight up and down in the water. Neither book mentions a controversy. As Beth tells me later, I thought he was like all-knowing. That he like knew there was this controversy. But he didnt. Beth is looking for the answer, the kind needed for a library research project. She tells me she had never done a project where there hasnt been really an answer, or someone whos already found the answer. Rory shows Beth that her question about the swimming method can be the question in their research projectthey can assemble evidence and figure out which swimming motion they think it is. Interlude: Transformative communication This exchange between Rory and Beth provides an example of a key strategy, which Pea (1994) terms transformative communication, for supporting students in accomplishing unfamiliar activities. Peas notion of transformative communication helps explain how learning and activity in Vygotskys (1978) zone of proximal development

248 (ZPD) can be accomplished. Vygotskys model of learning holds that learners accomplish activities with the help of more expert others in a social setting (on what Wertsch, 1991, terms the intermental plane) that the learners could not achieve on their own. This social activity helps learners advance their own understanding, on what Wertsch terms the intramental plane. Applying the model of the ZPD to teaching can prove elusive, however. How do teachers know where students are? And what do students contributions look like? For instance, when Rory is trying to help students formulate research questions for scientific inquiry, he has a dilemma: Finding the question, for me, is one of the hardest parts. I need to negotiate with them without taking over. I dont want to give them the question. I want them to generate a question. But how do I help them to do that? Theres no clear path. What is needed is some kind of interactive process which allows the student to be an active inquirer and the teacher to be an active guide. Transformative communication is one such process, and it provide some explanation of why some paths prove productive. Pea contrasts his view of communication as transformative with views of communication as transmission and as ritual. The dominant view of communication as transmission was discussed in the previous chapter, and it tends to encourage either an active role for the teacher and a passive role for the learner, or a passive role for the teacher and an active role for the learner. The view of communication as ritual tends to encourage active participation by all parties, but in activities with already shared meaningsthe generativity needed for education is lacking. So he suggests the transformative view of communication. According to this view, the initiate in new ways of thinking and knowing in education and learning practices is transformed by the process of communication with the cultural messages of others, but so, too, is the other (whether teacher or peer) in what is learned about the unique voice and understanding of the initiate. Each participant potentially provides creative resources for transforming existing practice ... (Pea, 1994, p. 288)

249 Transformative communication is achieved through mutual appropriation (Newman, 1984; Pea, 1992) by participants in social interaction to create meanings that neither participant alone brought to the interaction. In a project-based science classroom like Rorys, designed to support students in carrying out their own original research, a general framework for transformative communication is: (1) Students make a move in the research process with certain intentions, limited by their current knowledge. (2) The teacher does not expect the students move, but understands how the move can have additional implications in the research process that the students may not have intended. (3) The teacher reinterprets the student move, and together students and teacher reach mutual insights about the students research project through questions, suggestions, and/or reference to artifacts. (4) The meaning of the original action is transformed, and learning takes place in the students zone of proximal development, as the teachers moves and a reappraisal of the students move is taken up by the students. The above interaction between Beth and Rory fits well into this framework. (1) Beth approaches Rory looking for the answer to a fact-based question which she expected her all-knowing teacher to provide: did plesiosaurs swim by the underwater flight or rowing motion? If she can get the answer, she intends to include it in her report on plesiosaurs, which she may have been seeing still as a library research project like she had done in other classes, with established facts about a topic synthesized and described. (2)

250 Rory does not know the fact Beth is looking for, nor does he even know there is a debate about plesiosaur swimming motion; but he does know that part of the game of science involves marshaling evidence to support one of several competing claims such as the ones in the books Beth had found. (3) Rory reinterprets Beths move, saying I dont know. Why dont you have that be your research question? They talk about how she and the other group members could contribute new evidence to a scientific debate rather than just report others findings. (4) Beths fact question has been transformed into a research question, as evidenced in her subsequent practice. As mentioned in Chapter 8, there are three key phases of projectsformulating the research question/proposal, finding the data, and using data analysis to reach an empirically supported conclusionand of these, the beginning of the project and the end of the project parts are the hardest for students. The middle phase, finding data, is important, but its success seems to depend less on episodes of transformative communication than the others. I have identified key episodes of transformative communication taking place at the first and third of these phases. The Plesiosaur project and the UFO Sightings project to be described later in this chapter provide examples of transformative communication during research question formulation. The Moons and the Hurricanes projects provide examples of transformative communication at the data analysis phase. In the Moons project, recall how Rory found a claim dangling at the end of Rich and Steves conclusion, unsupported by data analysis: We have come [to] the conclusion that both Titan and Earths moon [have] a much greater mass and density than Miranda, and that this could be why both Titan and Earths moon have longer orbiting time periods. This was the first time the students had attempted to answer why the moons behaved the way they did, but the students claim was not clearly supported. In this case, Rory

251 appropriated what the students had doneput together separate graphs of orbital period, density, and mass, and make a claim based on the same data elsewhereand showed them how it could be transformed into graphs more conducive to checking the relationships the students mentioned. Steve and Rich had constructed a line graph of the orbital period for the three moons, a horizontal bar graph of the moons density, and a vertical 3-D graph of the moons mass. The students knew they could make graphs to represent single data variables, and after working with the data for several weeks, had been able to come up with an intuition about relationships between variables, but Rory helped them to see how they could directly check the relationships with graphical representation of two variables at a time, using the data they already had. Rory sketched example graphs, and the students used their own versions to support claims they made in their presentation. In the Hurricanes project, recall how Rory asked Dave what patterns the hurricane paths in the dataset they had constructed generally followed. Dave was able to articulate the idea that most of the hurricanes followed a C-shaped path, but did not know what to do with this idea in the data they had. By looking at the spaghetti bowl map, Rory saw that all the hurricane paths were not shaped that way, and suggested Dave and TJ categorize the different shapes and code all the hurricanes to determine the percentage that fit the C-shape. The boys did not take advantage of the suggestion after that discussion, and turned in their report with no numerical counts of the shapes to support their claim that most of the recorded storms ... made a C-like shape. So Rory suggested to them again, in his written comments, that they needed to show/prove the statement true, by determining what percentage of the total number fit the shape. Dave and TJ understand the suggestion this time, and perform the coding, create a table, and an associated pie chart to support their claim.

252 In these interactions, Rory helps the students transform the moves they make in the research process with limited understanding into more sophisticated moves that neither he nor the students would have originally predicted, thus leading to mutual insights. The interactions can take place over an extended period of time, in real-time or written discussions, but the important things is that both teacher and student participation contributes. To borrow a phrase from Donald Schn (1982), the process of transformative communication enables both Rory and his students to engage in a conversation with the situation which they are shaping (Schn, 1982, p. 103), but in this case it also allows them to engage in a conversation with each other. Whereas Schn was talking about reflective practitioners of design, such as architects, working alone, the process is remarkably analogous in these social interaction between teacher and student. Architects are likely to find new and unexpected meanings in the changes they produce [in their drawings] and to redirect their moves in response to such discoveries (p. 103), but Rory and his students are likely to find new and unexpected meanings in the changes they produce in one anothers interpretations and the situation. As Rory tries to tell the students, they do know important and useful things about their topic and data as they get further into their topic, but he often needs to help them see how what they know can be used to accomplish scientific inquiry. Rory and the students come to appreciate and then to develop the implications of a whole new idea (Schn, p. 95). In these cases, we can see how the activity structure for conducting projects helps Rory to support students through transformative communication. The activity structure sets up the students desire to formulate a researchable question, or an analysis strategy that will help them to answer their question, and Rory makes suggestions which help students see how the work they have done and knowledge they have gained can help them get to the

253 next stage in the activity structure or complete the stage they are working on more adequately30 . As Rory found out in his frustrated attempts at model projects, students learn on a need to know basisthey wont care [about data analysis strategies] until they have to do it. But when they do have to do it, they can more readily recognize how the strategies Rory is trying to teach them can be helpful. Although the focus of my research is not on individual learning, I would like to point out some evidence of how transformative communication such as that demonstrated in the interaction between Rory and Beth can result in individual learning. Again, the Vygotskian notion of the ZPD suggests that the activity which Beth and Rory accomplished on the intermental or social plane could result in learning on the intramental or individual cognitive plane. In the plesiosaur project, Rory helped Beth see that claims about the phenomenon of plesiosaur swimming motion need not be accepted as simple fact or fiction, and together they figured out some strategies to attempt to independently confirm or falsify claims about the claims by assembling independent data. In her next project, Beth chooses underground nuclear testing as her topic, and soon encounters claims from environmental organizations and the French government that such testing causes geologic damage. After doing further investigations, she suggests, with no prompting from Rory, that these organizations are making catastrophic claims without data to support their conclusions. She even goes so far as exploring the idea of making a Web page to publicize her position. With this peek into the future, I will conclude this interlude on transformative communication, and return to the action of the plesiosaur project after the formulation of their research question.

30 The interdependence involved in transformative communication described here recalls Peas (1992) point

that intelligence is distributed. In this case, to achieve a higher degree of intellectual activity, Rory, his students, and the activity structure work together as a system.

254 Digging up plesiosaurs successfully: Developing fluency with a variety of tools With a strong research question grounded in what turns out to be a heated debate among paleontologists about how plesiosaurs swim, the Plesiosaur project is headed in the right direction. But in the second week of data collection, they are still having trouble finding information on the swimming motion. Finally, they begin having more success in tracking down useful references and experts, largely driven by Beth. For weeks, Laura has talked about visiting the Field Museum downtown in Chicago, but they are unable to get there by closing time on weekdays. One day after school Beth calls the museum on the telephone, and is told their plesiosaur expert is on sabbatical in Cairo. But they know of another expert on the East Coast, whom Beth calls. As Rory tells it, Beth tried [that expert], and shed gone to Montana [on a dig]! So then she calls this woman in Montana, and shes an expert on ichthyosaurs. This person was delighted [Beth] called, and excited to talk with her ... She gave some references to her, in magazines like Nature. From this woman, Beth finds out that there is indeed a big controversy around their research question. The articles eventually lead to more useful references, including a book entitled Dynamics of Dinosaurs and Other Extinct Giants, by R. McNeil Alexander (1989). After her success with the paleontologist in Montana, Beth decides to try and contact other experts including Alexander. She finds his university affiliation in the About the Author section of his book. She then searches the Web for the University of Leeds, and finds their Web site with Alexanders email address. She writes him email, and then hears from him several weeks later. This series of events is remarkable considering the fact that Beth told me in her first interview she was not a computer person and she learned how to use the computer for the first time in Rorys class. She found what she was able to do after a few weeks in her

255 project particularly pleasing since, as she said, I never was on the Internet before, ever. She has her first email account in Rorys class. Clearly, the introductory activities in Rorys class, along with those frustrating sessions searching for plesiosaur information, paid dividends in terms of developing familiarity, as Rory had hoped. Reformers such as Resnick & Rusk (1996) have pointed out the importance of helping children develop fluency in new technological media; through her successful search efforts, Beth demonstrates fluency with not only new media, but new media in combination with old media such as books and the telephone. In a draft of an article about his teaching (Wagner, 1996), Rory wrote: The Internet is a lot like one of the final scenes in the first Indiana Jones movie, where the Ark is moved into a huge government warehouse for storage. The room is vast, and while everything looks stored in neat stacks and neat rows, finding what you want, as quickly and easily as you want it, may not be an easy proposition. Search skills on the Internet, just like library search skills, are acquired skills. While I could do all the searches to find data for my students, or perhaps try to find all the data sites for them and put them in one convenient place, neither of these ideas addresses the real objective of this class, which is to get students to think for themselves and give them the basic instruction in how to find the answer to any question they might have sometime in the future. Rorys goal has clearly been met to a significant degree with Beth, who says in her final interview, Beth: ... my research for the [project] helped me in my other classes, you know, cause if you [go] beyond your library [trails off] You know, I think I really learned that ... just, like, figuring it out. And like thinking and going beyond the library. Joe: Uh huh. Going beyond the library in what way? Beth: Well, just goinglike, not like stopping your research at the library. You know, and like talking to people, you know, who know what theyre talking [about]you know, who are experts. Whove written the books that are in the library ... Finding information on the Internet and the Web can be difficult, however, and it is worth pointing out that heuristic strategies such as Beths location of the author in a print literature review have proven useful to Rory and his students over time. Another strategy

256 which one of Rorys students (Andy) suggested to Rory in 1994-95 is finding promising contacts email addresses on the bottom of useful Web pages you encounter. By following such a lead, Andy got some valuable help from a plate tectonics expert at the Ocean Research Institute in Tokyo Japan; he started by performing a general Web search on volcanoes, and then browsing through a number of the links. Eventually he found a page referring to some promising sounding data, but was unable to access the data. Andy noted the email address at the bottom of the Web page, though, and wrote the scientist directly. Rory explained to me, by the end they were practically on a first-name basis with [the Japanese researcher] ... it was amazing the chasm crosseddistance, language, culture, and expertise in science. Rory suggests this strategy to Dave and TJ in their second project of the year in 1995-96, when they are searching for avalanche data; they send email to contacts found on ski resort web pages, and eventually track down someone who has archived avalanche data. In addition, just knowing what universities, research centers, and museums have expertise in a given area of science can be helpful, because you can search for their Web sites and then use them as a base for beginning to browse. For example, knowing that the University of Arizona has expertise in astronomical imaging can be helpful to students. Beth also adopts this strategy in one of her searches, when she seeks out the British Museum of Paleontologys Web site, because she finds out theyre supposed to have a great plesiosaur skeleton. Beths episodes of search success also illustrate how Rory encourages the use of diverse resources to aid in project work and problem-solving. His principle of accomplishing the project by whatever means necessary frees the students to work with any resources of distributed intelligence (Pea, 1992b) that he or they can locate or create.

257 The resources Rory encourages students to tap range from artifacts such as traditional print media, videotapes, and networked hypermedia to tools such as search engines, graphing programs and presentation programs to people such as scientists who read Usenet news or work on projects related to students chosen topics of study. As mentioned in Chapter 7, this change in orientation from isolated cognition to using any resources that will aid thinking was begun with Rorys open-notes exam on the lectures and computer competency. This is in stark contrast to science teaching environments where students must work primarily on their own, with only their teacher, their assigned textbook, and whatever lab handouts and equipment they receive as resources. As with other aspects of Rorys teaching, openness to such distributed resources, especially other people who provide valuable expertise, can be a difficult change for teachers who are used to greater control and thus a greater degree of the credit for success: there are personality conflicts, and there are communications roadblocks, in that teachers in general, are to a very large degree autonomous, andwhat do I want to sayvery self, very self-reliant. Um ... because, when youre in a room with, twenty, thirty, forty, whatever, kids, youre like Mom. Youre in charge, youre God. And youre either running the activities, or telling them what to do, or monitoring, or coming up with things. And, you know, thats what we do. And theres nobody that comes in and helps you, and you know, you dont dial up a curriculum service, and say, OK, I need a project, I need an experiment for Thursday, what do I do? Importantly, Rorys allowing students to access a wide variety of resources and people does not guarantee success or delivery of the needed support; but helping students learn how to access these resources and other sources of expertise allows a teacher like Rory who is spread thin to make a project-based class work better. Paradoxically, Rory himself has to find ways to facilitate students learning how to use and access such external resources, so that he can become less essential to their later success. But Rorys time spent

258 early on helping Beth and her group paid off when Beth was able to take some of the lessons and accomplish impressive research digging without Rorys direct support. Group difficulties and combustion At the same time as Beths successes in finding information, Rory begins to worry about Cindy contributing to the group. Beth has clearly been driving the process, and Laura is making efforts to contribute as well. But Cindy frequently hangs back in class when the others go to the library searching for information. Shortly after Rory becomes concerned, Beth and Laura decide to make Cindy do something. Her task is to find data on sea turtles to compare to the plesiosaur, and write up the groups data analysis section. The data analysis plan that Beth and Rory have worked out goes like this: they will compare plesiosaur fin anatomy to sea turtles, which have similar flippers to the plesiosaurs. Some sea turtles use a rowing motion, and some use underwater flight. If the group can show that plesiosaur fin anatomy is more like one type of sea turtle, they can use it as evidence for which motion the plesiosaur used. Rory expresses his concern about depending on Cindy for crucial data they need for their analysis to Beth and Laura, saying you dont want to cut off your nose to spite your face. But they insist on trying it. Cindy, left on her own, does not understand how to talk about the plesiosaur debate. She says to me, the scientists came to two different conclusions, and Im not sure how to put it in, this controversy. Then she approaches Rory, saying, Should we turn in both those conclusions? Should we compare rowing to underwater flight? Rory replies, What you should be saying is, the plesiosaur swim like this ... turtles swim like this ... based on our analysis they swim the same way. Cindy focuses on what to put in the write-up: What about underwater flight? We have all this stuff on it.

259 Rory continues, If theyre not the same, say why theyre not that way. And why you believe its more like the turtles rowing. Cindy writes up an attempt at data analysis, but it turns out to be more of a description of the swimming motions of rowing and underwater flight, with no data on sea turtle anatomy to compare to the plesiosaur anatomy. With the complete research report looming, Beth reaches a low point. Seeing her frustration, Rory calls her out of the room, and asks her what is wrong. It is the group, who she sees as not helping but instead hindering their progress. Cindy is looking for stuff on plesiosaurs when they need stuff on turtles. Rory, in an effort to cheer Beth up, lets her know he has been very impressed with her research and communication skills, but it appears to have little effect. That night, though, Beth coincidentally receives an email message from R. McNeil Alexander in Leeds, and with the help of her father, who is a geneticist familiar with the Internet, Beth conducts a real-time chat with Alexander. The expert tells her she sounds very knowledgeable and provides a needed boost. When he asks Beth if she has taken a side, she says she had taken his, of course. Rory is impressed by the transformation the next day: ... to see her come in and say, I talked to R. McNeil Alexander in a chat. And to see the look on her face. That was amazing. To see her depressed and then go home and work on her own. Beth finishes a draft of the paper late that night, and turns it in to Rory the next day. Instead of waiting for feedback, she goes home and works late on another draft. The next morning she comes in before class, and announces: I did a new [paper]. I had a dream last night I was swimming with a plesiosaur. It was this really warm and peaceful blue water, and we were just swimming along together. Rory asks, And how was it swimming?

260 Beth grins, saying It was flapping its flippers like wings! Rory says, Is that how you think they did it? Beth replies, Yeah, but then I knew. It was a message. Their paper is impressive in its explication of the debate and the types of motions, but it has some minor flaws and one major flaw: the claim about plesiosaurs swimming with underwater flight is simply a recapitulation of R. McNeil Alexanders line of reasoning. They have not added anything. As Rory writes in his comments: You need to have turtle data to compare plesiosaurs with turtles. Otherwise, you are just agreeing with an expert, and not doing science. As a result of lacking an original contribution based on data analysis, the groups preliminary grade is very low (again, so is the grade of most groups). Different group members react differently to Rorys reassurance that they have a chance to rewrite the report and improve their final grade. Beth is not worried, but Cindy is more taken aback, nearly hyperventilating in the back of the room. She repeats, Oh my God. Oh my God. I cant fail this class. I cant fail this class. Given their recent clashes, it is an interesting turnabout that Beth comforts Cindy, saying itll be OK. Beth begins by making the minor changes needed on the paper. The next day, Cindy continues her errant ways, as Laura describes them. She arrives at class when first period is almost over, and misses the others at the library. Several days later, she is supposed to bring in a book with sea turtle information. Beth asks her, Do you have that turtle book? Cindy says, Shoot! I forgot. She continues, somewhat tentatively, Ill get them to you tomorrow.

261 Beth replies, OK. But if you dont think you can do it, you should let me know, cause I would be madder if you said you would and didnt than if you just said you couldnt. Cindy assures her, I can get it. Our cars still in the shop, but were getting it back today. Cindy never brings the book in, and Beth turns in the paper without the comparison. Beth tells me: I was just ... at the end. I mean, it was like, finals, and it was everything. You know? And he said that he really liked it, but I needed stuff on turtles. And I was then, like, I was so frustrated with my group at that time. Like, they didnt do anything. And I said, Well, Im doing the entire report. Someone can compare it to a turtle. You know, like, Im not going to the library again ... You know, if no one gives me the information, Im just gonna turn it in how it is ... You know, Mr. Wagner can deal with it how he wants to deal with it. Cause I was just on overload. You know, I couldnt like do turtles, and I was justit was in my head that they had to do turtles. And Id been telling themand like the excuse was that there wasnt anything on turtles. You know, I mean. What!? You know, I mean, it just wasnt right in front of them. Rory is faced with a dilemma when he grades the paper and finds that the groups grade comes out just below a B; he feels the excellent work of Beth especially warrants a better grade. The way Rory deals with it was by slightly boosting their grade to a B on the report. As with other groups, all the group members benefit from the grade on the report, even though Beth did the majority of the work. In the groups self-evaluations, however, Beth and Laura both assess Cindys contribution as minimal, and thus her individual grade suffers. Research on cooperative learning and group work in other classrooms sheds some light on the problems encountered by Beth, Cindy, and Laura. Rorys strategy of rewarding the group as a whole for good work, combined with an effort to make each individual member accountable for his or her contribution, is supported by other researchers (e.g., Cohen, 1994). Other means besides Rorys chosen strategy of group

262 self-evaluations have been used to try to foster individual accountability. Examples include individual performance on a learning assessment, which would match to Rorys as-yetuntried idea of asking each student in the group to extemporaneously summarize what they have learned at the end of their project. Another strategy used by another teacher in CoVis is to ask each student in the group to be prepared to give the oral presentation to the class at the end, and then choose one student at random just before the presentation. The problem with the latter strategy is that it prevents the students from dividing up the work and making presentations in tandem with others, which is a complex and useful skill. Elizabeth Cohen (1994) also points out that status factors can affect interaction and performance in small groups. Beth and Cindys differential contributions make sense in light of the distinctions in status Cohen describes, where low status students interact less frequently and have less influence than high status students, and status is defined as an agreed-on rank order where it is generally felt to be better to be high than low rank (p. 23). In the plesiosaur group, Cindy is clearly a student of lower status in terms of both academic confidence and performance, while Beth has higher status. The differences cause considerable problems. One means of addressing the problem of differential participation, and thus differential opportunities for learning in a group work setting, is by assigning students roles within the group. For example, in Complex Instruction (Cohen, 1994) and reciprocal teaching (e.g., Palincsar & Brown, 1984), students are given roles such as facilitator and reporter, and trained in how to perform the roles. Such efforts have been shown to increase low status students contributions to group efforts, and increase their opportunities for learning, thus mediating against situations such as this where the rich get richer (i.e., Beth has more opportunities for learning) and the poor get poorer (i.e., Cindy falls further behind Beth). As a practical matter of implementation in the

263 classroom, the problem with the role assignation strategy is that it, too, must be designed and facilitated by the teacher. Despite the difficulties often encountered fostering group work, Rory still thinks it is worth it. One of the reasons he was attracted to group work in the first place was that students can help one another. In many cases, students do complement and support one another wellTJ and Dave are a prime example of a pair who divided up work well and collaboratively discussed many of the issues they encountered along the way; research in other settings (e.g., Mehan, 1989; Roschelle, 1992) has shown that such dyadic conversation among peers fosters learning. As Dave put it, he really like[s] working in groups because: its good to have a bunch of different opinions. I mean, a lot of times ... you think your natural opinion is good, and then ... youll get another idea from someone else thats just as good. When everyones giving their ideas and stuff ... things turn out better ... [plus] its just nice to have a bunch of people in the same boat, working on the same thing. Even when students skills working in a group are not as well-developed as Dave and TJs, Rory feels some struggle to improve is warranted. When I asked him why, he said, Because we live in a collaborative society, generally speaking. And you know, you dont always get your own way, you cant always do it by yourself ... unless youre independently wealthy, or you work at a job where ... youre your own boss, and where you have complete freedom within that. You know, somebody gives you an assignment, and you have complete freedom within that assignment you can accomplish it any way you want. Mafia hit man would be one of those ... I mean, we all have to interact with people, and work with people at some point, and that gets into the whole area of interpersonal skills, and, you know, [some] people are better at it than others. Um ... itd be better if everybody were better at it, so I [try] to just show people, I guess, that you can ... there are ways to work around some problems. Rory thinks Cindy and Beth both need to work on their collaborative skills, and in fact Beth agrees. I asked her afterward what the most frustrating part of doing projects was,

264 and unhesitatingly she said my group. She continued, though, saying but I also have to say, like, Im a very ... I want things done my way too. She finds it hard, but she would like to get better at working in a group. Using a sample write-up as a model Beth is able to improve the Plesiosaur research report to some degree, and Beth tells me that Rorys distribution of the beginning of a sample research report from a project is extremely helpful to her: the rough draft ... wasnt what he wanted, and then, like I figured out, cause I looked at the sample ... You know how abstract an abstract was supposed to be, cause Ive never done a project like this. I dont know how to do a science project. And I had all the information I needed. I had all this information. But what really helped me was, you know, that the abstract in it was on like, it was on like hurricanes or something, or volcanoes. Or one of those things ... I found that it really helped me see what he wanted. Cause I had all the information. I just didnt know ... when he said abstract [in the handout describing the report format], and then there was like two sentences on what he wanted from the abstract, but then I didnt understand. You know. Or, for my data analysis. I had all my data analysis. I just didnt know how to put it in the right form. And Im the kind of person that really likes that I can compare things and go do it right. But the sample paper that Rory had distributed is not a complete report, but instead only the beginning sections. Thus, Beth does not have any model for the problematic data analysis section. When Rory asks the students for feedback about how he can help them accomplish projects more successfully at the beginning of the following cycle, Beth suggests it would be a good idea to give an example paper. Rory tells her he was worried about wasting paper, and wasnt sure people would use it. Someone like Beth clearly would, however. Beths suggestion reminded Rory of his own masters thesis: I was thinking about my thesis and how my advisor gave me a copy of a similar thesis. The whole time I used it as a blueprint for what I was doing, just changing words and terms where it made sense. Beyond just giving an example, Rory considers annotating it with the text on 2/3 of the page and comments on 1/3. By providing more context and making explicit the goals that

265 are being met with the text in each section, an annotated example could perhaps make it easier for students to use the example as a tool for case-based reasoning (Schank, 1990). The annotated example report is a promising adddition for the future. After the rewrite of the report is done, the group still has to prepare a presentation to the class. The strained relationship between Beth and Cindy comes to a head in a shouting match one day after Beth and Laura return from the library again and find Cindy in the classroom by herself, doing nothing. Beth complains that Cindy hasnt done anything, while Cindy complains the group doesnt talk. Laura tries to moderate. They are able to divide up the work for the presentation and get through it, however. Postscript to Plesiosaurs: Scientific interest and professional collaboration for the teacher Beth told me after her project that one of the things she really liked about Rory as a teacher was that he got as excited as I got about the plesiosaur project, and its really nice when youre teacher, like, is excited with what youre doing. Rorys excitement about and interest in the plesiosaur project is relevant in light of the fact that teaching may become routinized and teachers lose interest in the material intellectually. Sarason (1971) refers to a survey of experienced teachers, in which without exception those who have been teaching for five or more years admitted that they no longer experienced their work with the enthusiasm, excitement, sense of mission, and challenge that they once did (p. 163). He goes on to point out that teaching is giving, and constant giving in the context of constant vigilance required by the presence of many children is a demanding, draining, taxing affair that cannot easily be sustained ... to sustain the giving at a high level requires that the teacher experience getting. (Sarason, 1971, p. 163) One reward teachers can get is involvement in intellectually stimulating problems. Thus Sarason calls for efforts to make schools a more interesting place for teachers as well

266 as students, to help sustain teachers work. Rory experiences the rewards of thinking about intellectually stimulating problems in the Plesiosaurs project. In fact, during the following quarter, Rory convinces another group to work more on the plesiosaur, and begins to become involved with the wider intellectual community studying this aspect of paleontology. Thus, Rorys access to the Internet, combined with working on diverse and unexpectedly interesting questions like plesiosaur locomotion, helps overcome another common problem with schools pointed out by Sarason (and others, e.g., Schwab, et al., 1992): teachers are generally isolated from interaction with other adults. Rory tells me during the third quarter: Rory: I received email from this guy Kenneth Anderson, [in response to a Usenet news posting he made about Plesiosaurs] ... He asked why they were interested in the sea turtle comparison, and suggested checking some Robinson stuff ... I responded to ask him what the references were. Then I got the journal with the articles he was talking about, and I realized that Mike Everhart, a paleontologist/biologist I had spoken to, had already referred me to Anderson ... I just realized he was the same person ... I guess hes the number one authority in North America on this ... plus Everharts wife already has a Plesiosaur discovery, and hes helped dig up 3 of them, including hers. Joe: You have an inside track on the plesiosaur community ... Rory: Yeah. Its wild. UFO Sightings: Balancing student voice with teacher advice The table to Rorys right (labeled A1 in Figure 1) and the adjoining computer are where Bruce, Cheryl, and Sylvia spend most of their time. Bruce is a tall, quiet and somewhat rumpled junior, with short brown hair. Cheryl is an outgoing senior who is dramatic in her manner, which is not surprising as she is involved in theater. Sylvia is a tall, skinny, blonde-haired senior who is graduating early in December. Like many students over the three years Rory has been allowing students to choose their own research topics, Bruce, Cheryl, and Sylvia express an interest in UFOs and aliens. Rory had been frustrated at all of the previous efforts, because the students had been unable to design a

267 research project on UFOs that relied on empirical data and argumentation. Despite his misgivings, he decides to let the students run with their topic, since he maintains that he cannot predict all the promising avenues students might uncover or generate. In the class discussion about How to do a project, Rory addressed the issue of students work generating unpredictably promising paths in an exchange with Adam and Patti: Adam: Can we do like the possibility of life on other planets? Rory: The possibility of life on other planets. Um ... thats a possibility, cause its astronomy, essentially. Now, the question is, it gets very iffy as to which direction you go with that. But its OK. [hesitantly] Its OK to start, cause I dont want to discourage [trails off] The thing I do, and this is frustrating to people, isif theres any way that you can do it, if its part of earth science, Ill generally let you go with it, even though I might know that maybe there isnt a good way to actually come up with a project, cause I dont know that you cant do that. And so I have to let you explore, even if I think that maybe its not gonna be successful. Because Im not 100% sure its not going to be successful, so I have to let you explore it, to see if it is. Because people can do things that I dont know they can do. And thats the beauty of this. Patti: But if its done in the past, like last year, and it didnt work? Rory: You know, but that doesnt mean it couldnt work if you did it. Lets say somebody did a project in the past, and it didnt work. Now, maybe by looking at that project, we can say, well wait, it didnt because they didnt do this, or they did do this when they should have done this. And so you say, well, maybe I can do it better. That would be OK. I have no problem with that. Motivational benefits of openness to student ideas The reason Rory makes a conscious effort to remain open to what may seem at first outlandish ideas from students is that it provides motivational benefits to the students when they get to work on something they are interested in as well as when they have more ownership of their projects. Kids can come up with some interesting projects ... that you wouldnt think of. One example of how a project that appeared problematic at first worked out is Andy and Robs project from 1994-95 on controlling the movement of the earths continental plates at a location on the San Andreas fault. Trying to stop plate movement seemed silly to Rory, and he said he would have rejected the idea in his first

268 year, but he decided to let the enthusiastic group try and develop their idea. They ended up doing an interesting inquiry in which they determined the size of historical earthquakes at that location, and learned about how structures can withstand shearing stresses based on structure and the material from which they are made. Other proponents of project-oriented instruction (e.g., Blumenfeld, et al., 1991, Dewey, 1895) have pointed out the motivational benefits of project work. Having the students work on problems directly related to their interests is one motivating strategy, but it is supplemented by other aspects of project work. For instance, giving students a greater sense of personal control or voice in decisions is recommended by some researchers concerned with motivation (Blumenfeld, et al., 1991; Lepper, Woolverton, Mumme, & Gurtner, 1993) Blumenfeld, et al. and Lepper, et al. also point out the need to balance a sense of challenge for the students with enough self-confidence that they can meet the challenge to remain motivated. Rory tries to address all these aspects of motivation with his project design. In contrast to some other classes Rory sees at the school, and even his own class when lectures or videos are not well-received, he wants to get the students engaged, and hear their real voices: You know, its funny, I sit and I listen, sometimes I sit ... and I listen to the classes going on across the hallthe English classesand its just like, I just wonder sometimes, sometimes I hear, you know, theyre doing Romeo and Juliet, and theyre watching a video, you know, how many of those kids are really watching this video? Or, you know, theyre talking about verb tenses, or words, like theyre and theirwhere do you use this one, or when do you use that one? Or theyre having discussions about, a class discussion about a novel, and the teachers up there, and everybodys in a big circle, and theyre talking about the parts they read last night, and what do you think about this? And what do you think was the main part about that? And Im thinking that, these kids are sitting therefirst of all, they hadnt read it last night, and they ask their friends before class what it was about, and its like you know, how do you engage them in that conversation? Cause theyre not. And its funny, because all you hear is the teachers voice, as shes trying, or hes trying, to pull things out of kids, and theyre like reconstructing, theyre like guiding it. Its like a discussion, its like a whole discussion table, but only one

269 person is discussing, but thinks that everybodys discussing. You know, its a very weird thing. Maintaining student motivation is not the only relevant concern; the teachers motivation matters as well. As a teacher, Rory himself finds the fact that his students are working on so many different topics at once motivating. His interest level is higher with such variety, as he told me: ... I find it interesting to ... to have to jump from all those different categories, and [help] people, because then Im not just talking about volcanoes for 10 weeks. You know? Im talking about 10 [different topics in a class]. And then if I have three different classes, theres going to be some overlap in topics, but theres a whole lot of different things that Im trying to help people find. Which is good and which is also frustrating, because sometimes you cant find resources to help people out. But, as usual, there is a tradeoff involved in the design decision to give students a high level of control over the decisions in their projects. Pitfalls of student ownership and control: Resource use, poor choices and misunderstandings If Rory werent so open to students working on different topics, it would be easier for him to manage resources. As he said in an interview, teachers have to ask themselves: how do you structure doing a project, or project topics? You know, do you wanna give project topics out? And say, OK this time were doing this. You know, maps. Or this time were doing volcanoes. Everybody in the class is gonna every group is gonna do a project on that. Now, thats helpful in your resources, in that you can bring in all geology books, or all oceanography books, or something, and have them in the classroom, if you can borrow them from the library, which we can do here. But then everybodys trying to glom the same books, and so there might not be enough resources. It helps everybody, because youre kind of focused on the same topic, so that the teacher then can narrow the search for resources to a certain topic, and maybe bring, have more to bring in, I guess is the idea. Or, since everybodys looking for the same thing, basically, if youre on the Internet, you know, people can share resources that way. Um, you know, the opposite extreme would be to havewhich is what I dois to have everybody do whatever they want to do. So you could be doing plate tectonics, and Im doing dinosaurs, and somebody else is doing nebulas ... What it does is, it creates a lot ofI dont know, stress was the word that popped into my head, but I dont know that it isfor the teacher, because, unless youre comfortable with all of those topics, youre gonna find yourself not able to support

270 some groups, perhaps, or give them suggestions, or know when theyre on the right track or not. So hopefully, you know, teachers, you know, have a diverse enough background to do that. If not, then, you steer away from that. Thats not a problem. So, limiting the topics that students could work on would increase the number of resources the teacher could bring in or find on the Internet ahead of time. But if Rory did that, he would remove the opportunity for students to learn those skills, as previously mentioned, so it is a less ideal option. He could still have them work on the same topic, so they could help one another better. Opening up to so many topics, as Rory has done, provides even more opportunity for the majority of students to hone their search skills, but it means that he is less able to support some groups topics well, and there is less natural opportunity for cross-group collaboration and pollination of ideas. In addition, giving the students real choice on matters that are fundamental to their work, as Lepper et al. (1993) mention, means that they are free to make decisions the teacher does not think will be best in the long run. To address this problem, Lepper, et al. say expert tutors limit student choices to instructionally irrelevant choices and situations in which the tutor is not certain what would be best for the student. In Rorys class, decisions about topics and research questions fall into this category. In some cases, such as the Woolly Mammoth and Barbs UFOs & Aliens project, Rorys suspicion that the project will go badly is borne out. At the end of the Woolly Mammoth project, Rory can see in retrospect that they got derailed in the beginning from an idea that probably would have come out better than the one they chose. Diane, Tom F, and Tom M were considering doing something on woolly mammoth extinction or how the woolly mammoth and the modern-day elephant occupied similar ecological niches; Rory thought the latter idea was much better, but Diane and Tom Fs preference for the former led them to pursue it. On the other hand, in the case of the UFO Sightings project and the Black Holes

271 projects, ideas that Rory suspects will be problematic, because they had been tried unsuccessfully by numerous students in previous years, result in successful projects. Another problem is related to the discussion in Chapter 10: students who are unaccustomed to being given key choices may not realize that their teacher would actually let them pursue a course that might not work out well. In a closed-ended curriculum or lab, it is clear beforehand what will fit the recipe, but in open-ended projects, it is impossible to tell. Thus, students may once again fail to hear Rorys recommendations about topics to the degree he intends. For instance, Rory discourages Barb, Cheryls group, and Maries group all from doing UFO-related projects, and he discourages Adam and Jane from doing a project on black holes. Of these groups, the only one of the students to heed his warning and switch topics is Marie. Near the end of the project, the following exchange takes place: Barb: I picked a hard topic. Rory: Yeah, thats why I try to discourage people from doing UFOs and Black Holes Adam: But theres more on black holes. Rory: Yeah Jane: Why didnt you tell us? [i.e., why didnt you tell us not to do black holes?] Rory: I try to subtly steer you, but if I had told you not to, I would have been wrong. You made something out of it, and I wouldnt have thought you would. Similarly, Sylvia is horrified to find later in the UFO Sightings project that Rory discouraged the group from choosing the topic they did. These are examples of selective hearing: Rory tried to discourage them early in the project, but that doesnt have the same weight as it would later. This is because the students dont really know what they are getting into at the beginning, and cant until they understand the context better. As the mixed success of the projects indicates, the problem, as Rory points out, with starting from students interests is that it is awful hard in many cases to transform something you are really interested in to something you can do as scientific research. Rory and I have discussed this in interviews:

272 ... that brings [me to] a skill that Im working on, and will be for a long time, which is negotiating, and helping kids either turn their idea into a legitimate project, or how to focus what they have into, you know, that same project. Weve talked about this, kids wanna [study] the effect of the greenhouse effect on the safety and the well-being of the civilization of the earth for the next thousand years, or forever. You know, its like, I dont think we can do that. So you have to focus that somehow. And thats hard, because ityou know? Its brainstorming, and ... thats where I get into my dilemma of [taking over and saying] Well, do this as a project. Heres what you should do. You know, you wanna kind of lead them into that, and thats where I have trouble still. Again, keep projects focused, I think is probably the bottom line on that bit of advice. ... Instead of proving the greenhouse effect, show how the greenhouse effect has affected Chicago, or, you know, something similar to that, or the five major industrial cities of North America, or something like that ... perhaps comparing a large city with several smaller cities in the same climate area or nearby. You know, pick Peoria, Galesburg, Rock Island, and Chicago, and compare temperatures or whatever over a period of time, to see if all the effects of the weather are the same on everybody, but youre talking in a local area, and youve got different size cities, and kinda different places, but not that far apart. Obviously, the same latitude north. I mean, you know, things like that, as opposed to solving the greenhouse problem. For effective teaching and learning, however, it is not a matter of the teacher simply telling the students what to do; as I have been stressing, Rory wants to ensure that students participate in such research design decisions so that they can learn about research design. The difficulty and pitfalls of student participation in the whole process of research has been recognized by a number of student-scientist collaborative efforts, but even though it is often messy from scientists perspective to have students involved in the whole process, it is educationally significant (Pea, Gomez, Edelson, Fishman, Gordin & ONeill, in press). Transformative communication can prove useful in maintaining this balance between student ownership and the teacher finding ways to guide students in potentially promising directions, since both parties make crucial contributions. As Rory described it, sometimes [students] come up with things that are really creative that I would have never thought about, which then lead me to think of other things that might be doable. And sometimes[and] this gets in to the negotiating thingsometimes they get real close to something, or have a neat idea, but its not doable, so then, how do you turn that into something that is doable? Sometimes they do it, sometimes I can do it.

273 An example is provided by the way Bruce, Sylvia and Cheryls project moves from being a project about whether UFOs are alien space ships (just as Barbs started out and ended up) to a project about confirming or supporting natural explanations of UFO sightings. Along with the other groups, the UFO Sightings group begin the project by collecting and synthesizing background research on the topic, before deciding on a specific research question. In their interim report of background research , they mention the socalled Condon report (Condon & Gillmor, 1968), the only official study of UFO sightings put out by the US government. Condon and his colleagues claimed UFO sightings could be explained by meteor showers, rocket launches, and other known phenomena. Two days after he gets the Background Information reports, Rory says to me before class, I should watch out for groups that need support instead of just waiting for it to become a problem. I think Im trying to back off because I dont want to give them a topic and make it my project. Given the problematic nature of UFO projects in the past, Cheryl, Bruce and Sylvia are obvious candidates for providing with extra support, and Rory and I are both intrigued with the groups description of the Condon report. In our meeting before class, he and I discuss the fact that Condons analysis took an empirical approach based on supportable or refutable claims about alternate explanations for UFO sightings. We are both intrigued by how Condon was able to take a scientific approach to a problem surrounded by so much hearsay. So during class that day, Rory initiates a discussion with the UFO Sightings group about potential research questions. As mentioned in Chapter 9, such interactions initiated by Rory are relatively rare. On the same day, Rory attempts to initiate a similar discussion with the Dinosaur Extinction group, but his efforts are thwarted by lack of student receptivity. In contrast, the interaction with the

274 UFO Sightings group proves pivotal in formulating a specific research question, and serves as another example of transformative communication. Shortly after completing attendance and answering some procedural questions about the research proposal assignment, Rory says, OK, you guys, to Cheryl, Bruce, and Sylvia, and sits down with them. He continues, OK, what do you want to do? Bruce replies, We want to show UFOs are alien space ships. Doubtful, Rory responds, Any ideas on how? Bruce says, I dont think theres any way to prove it unless they saw the alien in there and they waved at them. Thats the only evidence there is. Rory agrees, saying, Right. Thats the problem. Cheryl pipes up, saying, I dont see why we cant write a report on it if people have written whole books on it. As mentioned in Chapter 6, Cheryl sees Rorys project at this point as essentially the same as an extensive report for an English class, such as the Junior Theme she had done the previous year. As time goes on, she begins to grasp the importance of using empirical data to support a claim. Rory does not directly address Cheryls confusion at this time, instead bringing up the description of Condons analysis in the groups Background Information report. Rory suggests, You could verify what somebody else has done. Thats another thing people do in science ... He gives them the example of the cold fusion debate a few years ago, and then points to how this could be applied in their project: ... these guys said they had created cold fusion in the lab. But when other people tried it, they couldnt duplicate what they said ... In science, once someone says theyve proved something, others check it ...The idea is to verify the governments explanations. Say they said it was a meteor shower. You could look at the date, where the meteor shower was, and when and where people saw the UFO. Does it match the same spot? If the sighting was here [points one direction] and the meteor shower there [points another direction] the governments explanation could be wrong.

275 The students decide to run with the idea. In this example, the students originally present the Condon Report as relevant to the history of the UFO debate, and thus something to be cited. Through their interaction, Rory and the students create a new meaning for the citation: the seeds of a study intended to provide independent confirmation or falsification. Thus, this sequence of interactions, starting with the submission of the report by the students and continuing with the discussion in class, can be seen as another instance of transformative communication. The students refer to some research in their Background Information report, intending it as an example of what is known and has been reported about their subject. Rory shows them they can treat the study as the seeds for the next phase of the activity structure: a research proposal to independently confirm or falsify the previous research. I will not describe the rest of the UFO Sightings project in much detail. I will note, however, that this research formulation succeeds despite the fact that the group is dysfunctional in terms of attendance (at one point, on only one half of the project days were all three group members present in class, and on one sixth of the days only one student was present). In addition, Bruce, Cheryl, and Sylvia do not pick up on the technology as quickly as Beth. In frustration near the end of the project when they are trying to assemble their paper in a word processor, Cheryl comments I think Im gonna turn Amish. I hate computers. Instead of high-tech resources, the group almost exclusively uses the library, finding the Condon Report eventually in the Northwestern University library, after striking out at the school library, 4 community libraries, and the Internet. For their final research report, they choose four UFO sightings from the 1960s described in the Condon report, and try to independently confirm or falsify the Condon reports explanation. The independent confirmation is based on printed data sources found

276 in library searches: a nautical almanac (Casey, et al., 1989) confirmed the position of a planet in the exact location where a UFO sighting was reported; NASA launch records (Stanford, 1990) confirmed that a scheduled re-entry of satellite Agena into the Earths atmosphere occurred at the time an airplane crew reported a UFO over Mexico, and could have been seen in that location; a daily weather book (Thomas, et al., 1979) confirmed that the local conditions matched those associated with mirages caused by refraction through warm, dry air, just as the Condon report claimed. They could not confirm or deny the Condon reports assertion that a rocket launch explained a fourth sighting. Repeating the cycles Despite Rorys best efforts to support projects through the activity structure punctuated by milestones, and guide students work through transformative communication, some projects dont turn out well. Although I did not carry out detailed observations on the following two project cycles of the 1995-96, the data I have suggests that the repetition of the project cycles allows some students to improve who have trouble the first time around. For example, Heather in 1994-95 told me that the second project is going better because we understand Rorys expectations better. During the same year, Kevin and Alex did an abysmal project on UFOs during the fall, but made significant improvements in research formulation and data analysis during the second round when they did a project on geyser eruption patterns in Yellowstone National Park. Later in 1995-96, Mark, who worked on the Zodiac project, and Tom F and Tom M, who worked on the Woolly Mammoth project, teamed up. The group members chose geysers as their topic and built on some of the ideas the group the previous year did not finish. Surprising both Rory and myself, the strongest guy in the group was Mark. He worked very consistently, and they gathered data and did an analysis of dormancy patterns in geyser

277 basins that lay adjacent to one another. For the final project, Beth, who had such trouble finding a partner who she felt was contributing well, and had told me she would probably work alone, asked Mark to work with her since he had done such an impressive job. The two of them did a project on why Saturn has more prominent rings than the other big planets. Also later in the year, Patti, Diane, and Marie, who worked on three different projects that ran into trouble the first time around, did the interesting project about the relationship between the number of tornadoes and the number of deaths caused by tornadoes per year (mentioned at the end of Chapter 10). Patti saw the second project as much more manageable than the first one. We talked about it in an interview: Joe: So, are there any other things that you think he could do that would be helpful to help people to do their projects? Patti: No, cause now we like know what were doing, and we pretty much know what he expects. ... And so, basically, at this point, theres not much hes doing wrong at all. Like, its a pretty good class. Like, you know. But like at the very beginning, when we did our first project, it was like a little obnoxious. We didnt know anything. And like, when you have a basic background of like, anything Earth Science is related tostars, and stuff like that ... But then we were like, OK, project. Here you go, pick a topic. Excellent. This is due then. This is due then. And like, you didnt exactly know what was, like, entailed in like each subject. Like, background information is basic, easy. Joe: Yeah, thats similar to what you do in other classes. Patti: Right. Joe: Thats the most similar. Patti: So, like, you get the best grade on that. And then, like, data and analysis is probably one of the hardest things, cause everything. But like now we have a better idea, so, its not bad. At the beginning of the project in the third quarter, Rory asks the students for feedback on how they think projects could be improved, and Pamela asks him to be more specific what [he] want[s]. Rory tries to, but for many students, the simple repetition may help more than the way he explains what he wants. Nonetheless, as it stands, some kids just dont have much chance to succeed in Rorys class. Two prime examples from this class are Cindy and Barb. Both of them

278 could use more structure and guidance than they receive in Rorys class. I have a conversation with Cindy in the middle of her volcanoes project, that shows she still doesnt understand projects as involving making original contributions, and not just synthesizing known facts: Joe: What are you up to? Cindy: Im doing volcanoes. Joe: What about volcanoes? Cindy: Volcanoes in the Pacific Rim, all around the Pacific ocean basically. Joe: And where have you gotten to with it? Cindy: Ive collected all kind of information [shows me a pocket folder], and now I have to sort it. Joe: Do you have any data on it? Cindy: What do you mean? Joe: Like numbers of eruptions and stuff? Cindy: No ... well, sort of. Mostly Ive got this information that I have to put together. She continues to have procrastination problems, and does not seem to be understanding project work any better. We then have the conversation referred to in the previous chapter about wishing Rorys class were more like the other teachers, where they do labs and take notes and take tests and everything. She also says, I feel like this class is a waste of time. Like I come in here and were just supposed to work on our projects. I cant focus on that during class. I feel like I dont learn anything. I dont know how to do things this way ... Some people like it better [this way], but I wish it was more like a normal class. I wish we kept doing things like we started. The question this begs is: what can be done to address the needs of kids like Cindy? One possible design change is to adjust the level of structure available for students on their second or third time around. This could involve offering such students project ideas, for instance from the list of promising questions Rory has been accumulating for several years. Even more support could be provided if Rory were to recommend such students work on questions for which he knows data resources are available, as another

279 CoVis teacher does. Such a strategy could undoubtedly introduce or exacerbate other problems in the system, such as questions of fairness given the deliberate differences in difficulty of such projects. But to the extent that this strategy could be made workable, it would provide a leg up for a student like Cindy, who is uncomfortable with new practices. When she was confronted with the computer skills exam, she had an opportunity to get more comfortable by watching others perform successfully; she had much less opportunity to become accustomed to new practices without failure in project work. Conclusion Project-based science teaching and learning involve complex role changes for teachers and students. In this chapter, I have described some of the complex work performed by Rory to try and maintain a balance between the extremes of highly structuring student activity and leaving it too open. Since each student and group requires a different level of structure and guidance to maintain equilibrium, the impossible task of teaching becomes more difficult. Moving too far in one direction or the other compromises both motivation and learning. If we imagine a tree swaying between these two extremes, the goal is to maintain equilibrium, so that the tree does not fall over. In other words, maintain equilibrium so that students remain challenged and have maximal opportunities to learn. The examples detailed in this chapter are intended to show how it is possible to guide student work just enough to maintain that equilibrium. Too often, the complex work teachers perform as facilitators and guides attempting to maintain this equilibrium for project-based student work is left mysterious. The framework of transformative communication provides one productive strategy teachers can use in the role of facilitator. The Plesiosaur case and the UFO Sightings case, among

280 others, show how Rory uses transformative communication successfully to help students accomplish projects more sophisticated than they could originally conceive. Several particular directions toward which teachers can steer transformative communication became apparent through the examples detailed in this chapter. In particular, teachers can steer the difficult task of research question formulation toward independent confirmation or falsification. This is a potentially important leg up for students having trouble formulating research either because their topic is difficult or because they lack confidence. To aid in this process, Rory could ask students to look for scientific claims during their Background Information research that they might like to question or see if they can independently support during the later phases. In addition, students could look for scientific debates like the Plesiosaur locomotion controversy or the explanations of UFO sightings (and also the question of whether a new object identified in space is a black hole, and the debate about whether Pluto is a proper planet, both of which Adam pursued for his projects). Such debates may spark student interest and sense of ownership, and demonstrate to students that science involves research and argumentation that they as thinking persons can participate in. As Beth put it when I asked her what the most interesting part of her project was, I really liked justit was sort of just like a mystery ... and that I had to like figure it out. Obviously, latching onto scientific debates is not a foolproof recipe for success, as the Dinosaur Extinction and UFOs & Aliens cases exemplify. Students need to find debates for which they can get and use empirical evidence, and even so, they may still encounter other pitfalls along the way. As we have seen in this chapter, however, the results can be unexpectedly impressive when Rory and the students are able to maintain a balance between openness and guidance.

Chapter 12 Retracing our steps and considering their implications

Looking back As is only fitting, I will start this concluding chapter with a story from Rory. One day near the end of my time in his class, we were reminiscing about the territory hed covered, when he told me: I make this analogy to mowing my lawn. When we first moved into our new house, I got a riding mower. I was really nervous and a little embarrassed about mowing the lawn, because Id never done it before, and everybody could see me doing it, and theyd see if I did a crappy job. Then I imagined all the people in the neighborhood thinking what an idiot I was. So anyway, I got out there and just started mowing it. I sort of went around in these different patterns, and tried to figure out the best way to do it. I would sort of do these big loops, so I wouldnt have to turn too sharply. Thats the thing, you cant just turn on a dime like with a push mower. So anyway, Ive gotten a lot better, and I do different patterns, going diagonally and in these loops. I try and make it as efficient as I can. And I try to do it differently every time, because I read somewhere its better for the grass. If you do it the same way it starts to wear grooves ... Recently, when we were going to be gone out of town, I asked one of the neighbor kids to mow the lawn. Before he would agree, he said to me, Mr. Wagner, I can do it. But I cant do all those fancy patterns you do. So now I find out I was afraid theyd think I was an idiot who didnt know what I was doing, and the whole time these people thought I was an expert! Doing projects has been sort of like doing that for me. Its hard and risky when you first start, and youre a little embarrassed. But if you keep working on it, it gets better. Like any change from familiar practices, teaching or otherwise, trying project-based instruction can seem a risky and discomforting proposition. I have conducted this study and assembled these tales in hopes of giving other teachers and others interested in reform places to start.

281

282 The call for models One of the reasons I hope this case study can prove useful to other teachers interested in trying project-oriented teaching is that some have requested models. In interviews conducted by Greg Shrader as part of an evaluation of the CoVis projects expansion, one experienced teacher talked about the problem of implementing open-ended curriculum such as a project on Global Warming: ... The kids were supposed to take a position, and, do research basically and then come up with their finding, conclusions, and so forth. To me that is so open-ended that I dont know that I even knew how to get them started, to be honest. There was no real direction as to... Its an unknown entity and youve got to keep in mind that youre asking the teacher to go from something that they really know very wellI can lecture on any topic you want in Earth Science any day. I can walk in there with no lesson plan and I can take control of that class with no problem. When you step back, and the kids now are ... more student-directed, if you willIm more of a facilitator or the coach or whatever terminology you want. You have ... Theres a certain comfort level that you kind of have to ... You still have to sort of feel that you have control in your classroom. You cant have kids bouncing off the wall. Theres a delicate balance there. Somewhere we as teachers, that have been trained to be traditionalists, have to sort of be reguided and retrained on how to handle that type of a situation. This teachers point that in our society, teachers have been trained to be traditionalists, just as students have, is an important one. When Greg asked this teacher for ideas on how to help people get started with project-oriented pedagogy, she said I think I needed to run through a good model ... I would have needed to go through step by step I think how these kids did these specific projects and examples ... I didnt see much on [the activity description] as far as how teachers are directing the kids and how are they keeping them on task in the classroom. I cant just set my kids on the computer and say go find something that supports you or doesnt support you. You have to give them some kind of direction. Otherwise theyll sit there and as soon as they hit their first road block, thats it. ... walking me through a project I think would help me. Most of us teachers, once weve done it once or twice I think from there we can pick it up. This work is intended to provide a model to help other teachers see what a teacher does to support and guide project-based activity.

283 The need to customize these ideas for other situations Rory, too, believes that other teachers will be able to implement some form of project-oriented instruction, based on particular aspects of their situation. But other teachers would do well to remember that they will have more success if they explicitly situate their designs for their classroom learning environments based on particularities of their class, teaching style, available resources, goals, and administrative situation. Thinking about what other teachers can gain by looking at what hes done, Rory suggests they think about two things: the time dilemmahow much can you and are you willing to devote to projects?and what will your administrators, including your department chair and principals and whatever, and parents in the community think about doing science a different way? To address the latter issue, Rory makes an effort to convert parents and administrators at open houses and inservices. He suggests you have to be able to sell [doing science a different way] in a positive light. You know, every time weve had an open house and talked to parents, or had parent conferences, parents are always much more supportive and interested and excited about this than their kids are. They think, Wow, this is really cool, I wish I had done this when I was in high school, and I wish I could come back and take this class so I could do all this neat stuff. And, you know, the kids are going, another class, who cares. Even taking such things into account, Rory warns other teachers This is no guarantee that its going to work for you. You know, I can just tell you what Ive done. [You] take it from there. Again ... this whole process is like just one step in the same direction as, instead of [telling the students] heres the recipe, here it is. You know, theres no recipe for this either! You know, theres no right way or wrong way to do this, theres just, heres how Ive done it. And if you dont like what Ive done, make up your own, by all means. But I cant tell you, if you do [this] step after this [step], this is gonna guarantee the success of everybody thats trying this. Rather than a step-by-step recipe for how to implement projects, I have tried to present Rorys work as a set of strategies which he has been able to implement and use successfully in certain cases, offset by a set of constraints which he has to face based on

284 certain universals such as time and common cultural norms like students who have been enculturated into traditional schooling. Donald Schn (1982) makes the point that outsiders cannot solve the situation in which practitioners find themselves. Instead, they can enable local practitioners to design their own interventions. In this case, my explication of Rorys work cannot solve other teachers challenges in implementing project-based pedagogy, but I hope that the strategies and experiences described here can enable others to design their own local solutions. Rory believes many teachers potentially interested in trying these strategies will already have the most important qualities for what it takes to put project-based science teaching into practice in technology-rich classrooms. He refers to those qualities as PFC for short. To do project-based science, he told me, I think there are three main things: you have to be patient, flexible, and creative. PFC. You have to be patient with yourself and the kids, because this takes time and is not easy. You have to be flexible because things go wrong with the technology and so on, and you have to be willing to adjust. And you have to be creative, because you have to be able to come up with new ideas, and adjust to the situation, and work with what you have in interesting ways. After I thought of this, I realized thats what teachers do. [Good] teachers are already patient, flexible, and creative. ... teachers [interested in project-based science] already have lots of experience and skill to work withthey just have to learn how to use it in a new realm, in a new way. Adapt and improvise: Improvements through iterative design Throughout the years he has been practicing project-based teaching, Rory has made an effort to follow the example his grandfather and father set him as practical tinkerers. As in the Clint Eastwood line he likes from the movie Heartbreak Ridge, Rory has continually made an effort to adapt and improvise his guidance to better support students. He told me, You know, in the beginning when we started doing this, it was basically ... just trying to get them to do work. And then ... it was too open. And then it was giving them more structure, and then its like, fiddling around with it, its fine

285 tuning. So it still is fine tuning, and again, with experience, then you start recognizing the patterns like Ive started to do. So thats helpful. You just get better at what youre doing all the time, I guess. You should. In Rorys case, he at first had trouble helping kids get far at all on their projects. To solve this problem, he instituted a system of milestones to help structure students work. Then in 1994-95, he made significant improvements in terms of helping them refine research questions, by making sure that they focused in on doable questions after learning about their chosen topic and using examples of successes students had had the previous year as models. He also made improvements in helping students find relevant empirical data, by learning how to use Internet resources such as Usenet news and the World Wide Web; and helping students to understand what empirical data is by requiring them to turn in tables or images that show the data. And finally, in 1995-96, he made further progress in helping kids learn to perform data analysis, be requiring that they turn in graphs. Throughout his efforts, Rory has tried to live by the maxim from Teddy Roosevelt, do the best you can, with what you have, where youre at. The challenge: Tutoring more than twenty students at once Wood, Bruner, & Ross (1976; cited in Rogoff, 1990) identified six functions a tutor fulfills in scaffolding a childs performance. They are: 1. Recruiting the childs interest in the task as it is defined by the tutor. 2. Reducing the number of steps required to solve a problem by simplifying the task, so that the learner can manage components of the process and recognize when a fit with task requirements is achieved. 3. Maintaining the pursuit of the goal, through motivation of the child and direction of the activity. 4. Marking critical features of discrepancies between what a child has produced and the ideal situation. 5. Controlling frustration and risk in problem solving. 6. Demonstrating an idealized version of the act to be performed. (pp. 93-94) The role that Rory plays as a project-based teacher is remarkably similar to this description of tutoring, but he is performing it in a setting for more than twenty children.

286 Rory tries to recruit students interest (function 1) by allowing them to work on any topic in Earth and Space Science they choose. He has reduced the number of steps (function 2) by putting a system of interim milestones into place, and refining the milestones when they dont function well. He maintains pursuit of the goal (function 3) by providing coaching feedback in the form of transformative communication, which helps motivate the students by giving them a voice and helping them see how their ideas can be built upon and improved. He marks critical features of what students produce (function 4) through having the milestone assignments which feed into the research report, and marks discrepancies between the reports that students produce and more ideal science research reports by marking those reports and discussing them with students in class. He tries to control frustration and risk (function 5) in students project work by giving students an opportunity to revise their work and by respecting both their complaints and suggestions about how he could better help them. And finally, he demonstrates an idealized version of projects (function 6) by verbally describing examples of successful project ideas and giving an example presentation to the class; he plans on providing an ideal project report for students to use in the future. A design framework for project-based science learning In order to better enable others to use this case study as a model for thinking about project-based science teaching and learning in other settings, I will provide an overview of Rorys design. In doing so, I will first focus on elements of Rorys environment which primarily serve as constraints on successful accomplishment of projects, elements which are mixed, and elements which tend to be resources which afford accomplishment of projects. As stressed in Chapter 1, however, each of these elements can manifest itself as a constraint which disables certain functions and a resource which enables other functions.

287 The elements range from personal motivational factors, to cultural beliefs, to practices. Table 14 gives an overview of these elements, which are described below in more detail.

Constraints Time Risk and grades Epistemology: Conflicting beliefs about teaching/learning

Mixed

Resources

Transitional activities Student ownership/interest Teachers personal beliefs/proclivities Models Tools Activity structure with accompanying artifacts Transformative communication

Table 14: Design elements for Rorys project-based learning environment The constraints continually influence activity in Rorys class, and occasionally spur crises. Time can cause problems in two ways. Some students, like the Zodiac group (Chapter 9), can become complacent because they perceive an abundance of time. They mistakenly believe in the early stages that doing a project is not much different from other reports they have done in school, and they inevitably figure out at the end of their project that they should have put in more work earlier. At that late date the time is too short to salvage much, though. Conversely, Rorys time is clearly limited, especially in terms of the number and length of interactions he can have with students during class. Thus, its not surprising that some students, like Barb (Chapter 9), can get shortchanged when other students like Julie and Amy (Chapter 10) manage to command a great deal of Rorys time. Since open-ended projects increase the ambiguity and risk of classroom practice, especially for students like Rorys who have little experience with comparable learning activities, grades become a salient concern for both the teacher and student. Students can try to reduce their risk and optimize their grades by trying to turn Rorys written and oral comments into contracts which, if fulfilled according to the letter, should guarantee a high

288 grade (Chapter 10). Treating Rorys feedback as such a contract, however, subverts the organic nature of research and reporting. In order to reduce student risk of failure, Rory has instituted a system of work grades, which guarantees students points for time on task and punishes them for time off task. This system inevitably causes conflicts and arguments with students that hinge on nit-picking for points; the system also exacerbates Rorys lack of time, because keeping the necessary records consumes considerable time (Chapter 10). For these reasons, it appears that placing more value and attention on Rorys system of milestones (part of the structure under Resources in Table 14, summarized below) might be preferable to focusing on work grades. Finally, the ambiguity and risk associated with learning how to do projects, while being graded on them, can lead students like Debbie to explode after encountering difficulties (Chapter 10). Such explosions can result in the development of an adversarial relationship between teacher and student, and the degree of common ground necessary to accomplish guided participation is lost. The transmission epistemology which many students espouse constrains Rorys ability to successfully institute project teaching, which is rooted in the social constructivist tradition. Seeing teaching as telling and learning as accumulation can lead students like Patti (Chapter 10) to conclude that Rory lacks the knowledge he should havememorized facts about minor details in Earth Scienceand also to devalue their own learning because they have not accumulated those same kind of facts. The practices which Patti learned of figuring out ways to empirically examine questions about the phenomenon of deaths associated with tornadoes, as well as theorize about their causality, are valued more highly in the opposing epistemology. The transmission view is also associated with students not recognizing certain limits on communication involved in Rorys teaching of new practices; specifically, they do not make any distinction between Rorys telling them about

289 assignments and their understanding, even though the interpretation of meaning by student and teacher can and frequently does widely differ. When students dont recognize the possibility of a gap between what they are told and what they understand, students are likely to accuse Rory of being unfair. In addition, students who espouse the transmission view cannot recognize or accept the need for projects to be somewhat unpredictable and improvisational, even for an accomplished teacher like Roryhe should know where every project should be going, or he is deemed lacking in expertise. Rather than starting the year with activities wholly unfamiliar to his students, Rory starts with familiar activities, such as a lecture tour and teacher-directed assignments to introduce technology. He encourages transitional practices such as student questioning dialogues (Chapter 7) during the lecture tour. He has students conduct standard library research and then build off that foundation into new areas (Chapter 8). The negative aspect of these transitional activities and the positive aspect are two sides of the same coin: their affinity to traditional modes of teaching and learning can mute or hinder Rorys attempts to move students toward new practices, but they can provide a helpful way station on the path. Rorys personal beliefs and proclivities can also both constrain and afford opportunities for supporting student project work. His preference for a reactive stance during class makes it more likely that some students he knows need support will fall through the cracks, but it also makes him eminently receptive to students unexpected problems and nurturing of their excitement. His openness to student feedback about how to conduct the class and support them, as well as his willingness to hear students complaints and arguments about aspects of their projects helps to maintain an atmosphere

290 where students feel valued and respected; but it also creates time drains and potential distractions from substantive issues. Model projects have been used successfully and unsuccessfully in their many incarnations within Rorys class. The complete model projects managed by Rory (Chapter 5) were subject to the pitfall of allowing students to disengage from critical thought, but summarized example projects (Chapter 8) do allow Rory to make the crucial decision processes of research design, data collection, and analysis explicit. These examples can help students gain a conceptual understanding of what they are trying to accomplish. In situ modeling of alternate ways of thinking about problemsgenuine thinking aloud and discussion of research decision-makingis part of what Rory does in transformative communication. Finally, written models in the form of archives have helped students to generate ideas, both of the variety Rory would like to encouragelike the Earthquakes project (Chapter 10)and the sort that he would like to discouragelike the UFOs & Aliens project (Chapter 9). A partial sample of an exemplary research report helped some students like Beth (Chapter 11) as a model for their own research report writing. Annotation could help both of these kinds of written models be more useful to students. Rorys policy of giving students ownership of their projects and the final say in strategic decisions affords giving the students a real voice in the classroom and its practices and in maintaining a high level of interest and motivation in students such as the Hurricanes group (Chapter 8) and the Plesiosaurs group (Chapter 11). Overall, student ownership tends to have positive results, but it does constrain Rorys ability to control action in the classroom; thus, some studentslike Barb in the UFOs & Aliens project (Chapter 9) make choices against Rorys recommendation and his fears are realized. On the other hand, Rory knows there are some students who make choices against his

291 recommendationlike the UFO Sightings group and the Black Holes group (Chapter 11)which open up unexpectedly successful avenues. Technological tools also play a generally supportive role in Rorys design. Electronic mail and Usenet news enable access to experts working in various capacities in earth science fields. Some experts provide feedback and information for students, most commonly queries for data relevant to an inquiry. Experts who agree to act as mentors can provide more in-depth and ongoing support. The World Wide Web has proven useful for data search and gathering by groups such as the Hurricanes group (Chapter 8). Computer applications such as spreadsheets enable students to do graphing as part of their analysis. Although the technologies have these many affordances, they do not necessarily reduce pressure on Rory as teacher because they engender a significant need to support and train students in their use. Thus, some of Rorys class time is taken up with procedural issues related to the technology. Although such sessions can result in valuable incidental learning, the problems and stumbling blocks with the technology can at times distract from the core mission of accomplishing science inquiry. As Rorys expertise with technology has grown, this has become less of a problem. But for teachers working at the edge of technology development, adapting to change will always remain an issue. The activity structure Rory has developed and refined for projects, with a system of milestones associated with artifacts (Chapter 8), affords students a crucial scaffold for accomplishing inquiry. The activity structure breaks down the long and complex project into subgoals, and the association of artifacts with the subgoals engenders an intermediate need to know among students about how to do such crucial issues as how to formulate a research question on UFO sightings (Chapter 11) or how to carry out an analysis of hurricane path shapes (Chapter 8). The need to know and the need to turn something in

292 encourages students to approach Rory with any confusions they have. The ensuing conversations afford Rory an opportunity to provide guidance that is likely to be taken seriously and appropriated. The interim artifacts that students produce serve as externalizations of students knowledge and current thinking, which Rory can provide written feedback on. Since the activity structure is designed to correspond to portions of the science research article genre, the feedback that Rory provides on interim artifacts is not just retrospective. Unlike a set of isolated assignments, students milestones build upon one another and some form of each early milestone is plugged in to the final research report. Thus, students can iterate their ideas and writing in the Background Information assignment when they are preparing the Introduction of their final paper, and they can do the same for the Data Analysis milestone for that section of the paper. On those occasions when students are putting their milestones together, transformative communication among Rory and the students may take place. The presence of the activity structure, as well as student ownership and interest in their projects, help engender occasions for transformative communication (Chapter 11). In such conversations, Rory can get insights about the students current thinking as well as about the possibilities for the students projects, and he can provide students with insights about how students could expand on and use what they have begun to know in the next stages of their inquiry. These conversations with one another and the situation are a powerful way for teachers with expertise in inquiry to guide students. Tradeoffs of project-based science in schools Some historians of education have remarked that the 20th century has seen the pendulum of reform efforts swing back and forth between traditional goals of education and progressive goals (e.g., Cuban, 1990; Ravitch, 1982; Tyack, 1990). In

293 Table 15, I show some of the goals of such reforms which are often seen in opposition to one another.

Traditional Goal 1. 2. 3. Familiarity Structure Predictability and Time on task Consistency to reduce risk of failure Isolated and abstract cognition

Progressive Goal Growth Exploration Student interest and Commitment to task Customize interactions to maximize teachable moments Distributed and situated cognition

4.

5.

Table 15: Tradeoffs in traditional and progressive teaching practices Maximizing a goal on one side of Table 15 often severely compromises the corresponding goal. Teaching strategies associated with progressive education have a tendency to overemphasize the goals on the right side, at the expense of the goals on the left side. Conversely, teaching strategies associated with calls for back to basics and traditional didactic instruction have a tendency to overemphasize goals on the left side at the expense of goals on the right side. The rub, of course, is that goals on both sides are laudable. Rorys design of a learning environment for project-based science can be seen as an attempt to find a workable equilibrium between these tradeoffs. For the design elements shown in Table 14 and described above to help rather than hinder Rorys efforts, he must maintain a balance along each of these dimensions. As mentioned in Chapter 11, reaching and maintaining the equilibrium point for different students and groups can be difficult.

294 To optimize the first dimension, Rory has to find a way to change the game from traditional schooling and also change the rules without casting students adrift. Students (and others for that matter) may naturally resist such changes, because they increase the risk they face. As a teacher changing the game he is prepared to explain, defend, and even sell his reasons for the changes he would like students to make, and also acknowledge students increased risk. In addition, the changes in practices may result in students misconstruing their teachers intentions. Rory thus needs to be concerned with recognizing when students are getting off track; the milestones in the activity structure serve this purpose. In addition to the milestone artifacts which to some degree externalize student thinking, the mere presence of looming milestones results in many students making their confusions and needs known to Rory. For the students who dont do as well at getting milestones in, perhaps Rory could more directly encourage students to make their needs known by proactively approaching the teacher for support. Finally, the changes in the game may result in students beginning to flounder. In order to help, Rory tries to connect to practices students already understand; Rory does this through transitional activities in the first quarter and at the beginning of projects, and by building later phases of projects on the foundation laid in the previous phase. To solidify student learning of research design, data search and organization, and analysis, Rory also repeats the project cycle three times during the year. Along the way, Rory also needs to support students bridging from their current knowledge and practices to new practices. Thus, Rory frequently asks students what they know or have done so far, and may build on that knowledge through transformative communication. To optimize the second dimension, Rory provides students with a basic framework for their activity, but the interim deliverables require students to actively think and

295 participate in the research design and analysis decisions. As we saw in the UFOs & Aliens as well as the Zodiacs project (Chapter 9), some students still need more structure than they are getting. I have made some suggestions on how to address the needs of students who need more structure; for instance, Rory could provide students who experience trouble the first time around more scaffolding by giving them a list of promising topics for which he has a number of well-developed ideas. For each topic, he can think ahead of time about ways to address the three key phases of projects: research question formulation, data collection, and analysis. In this way, he could provide extra scaffolding as needed while still maintaining as much challenge for the students as possible while the project develops. One key pitfall to watch out for with this strategy would be becoming too rigid in a possible path students could take, and missing opportunities for challenging them to think instead of providing them canned solutions. To optimize the third dimension, Rory makes recommendations and gives the students nudges, but leaves the final say resting in students hands. When the pendulum swings too far to the left, the teacher controls the process, whereas the student controls the process when the pendulum is too far to the right. In episodes of transformative communication, Rory is able to establish co-ownership with the students and optimize this dimension by coaching without taking over, as we saw in the research proposal phase for the Plesiosaur project (Chapter 11) and the analysis phase for the Hurricanes project (Chapter 8). Rory has become more effective at this kind of support with increasing experience in project-based teaching. His effectiveness is partly due to exposure to a range of project cases, which provides him a sense of the pitfalls and promise different paths may hold; this is one purpose for sharing Rorys experiences with others in a case study like this one.

296 To optimize the fourth dimension, Rory tries to customize the amount and kind of support provided in the form of verbal and written feedback, but still guarantee a minimum level to prevent students from falling through the cracks. During class, he lets students make their needs known, and responds to those needs. Since all students are not likely to approach Rory without some prodding, it is helpful that interim milestones provide more occasions for feedback and support. Since occasions for feedback and discussion around substantive science topics appear to be so important, instituting some means of ensuring a level of minimum interaction with students could increase some students chances for successfor instance, increasing the worth of milestones in Rorys assessment scheme could help. To optimize the fifth dimension, Rory requires students to work together, and tries to encourage students to use any and all tools at their disposal, and talk to or correspond with people who can offer directed expertise. When students work in groups, however, problems can develop like the one we saw with Cindy and Beth: the more confident and able student learned more and the less confident and able student fell further behind (Chapter 11). Rory tries to help students manage troubles with work division that can feed into problems such as the Plesiosaur groups, and also makes the students to some degree individually accountable; but more concerted measures would undoubtedly make a difference. The problem with instituting such measures is balancing them with all the other kinds of support and guidance Rory is trying to carry out. Finally, there are important interrelations between the dimensions. For instance, when more student interest and commitment is fostered, students are more likely to initiate interactions at the most teachable moments. The students in the Plesiosaurs project (Chapter 11) shared their enthusiasm for the dinosaur with Rory from the beginning of the

297 project, resulting in discussions where students received guidance and help from Rory, and also gained vital practice with search tools they used themselves later. As the project continued, Beths growing commitment and interest in plesiosaurs made her eager share triumphs and difficulties with her teacher. Also, Rorys design of an activity structure that requires a high degree of exploration and thought within it makes it more likely that students will seek him out for needed guidance at teachable moments. For students who are slower starters, maintaining sufficient levels of consistency helps maintain their commitment. Continued change as inevitable and revitalizing Even with all the effort and refinement Rory has put into his project-based teaching, he has still not been able to make everything work to his satisfaction. In an email message, he once said to me, you know what, Im starting to become convinced that the [reworking] is an endless process. Seemed a little depressing at first, but on the other hand its not all that surprising considering the kids are always changing. And since teaching is an impossible profession (Cohen, 1988b) it can never be done perfectly. Over the years, continually recognizing needs for improvement can become frustrating and tiring for educators. But in some ways the educators who believe they have reached a stable solution may be the ones who are worse off, because they are fooling themselves. As Zilversmit said, Essential for the health of education is the process of change. Questioning accepted ways is essential to the health of change. Questioning accepted ways is essential to the health of schools, and therefore, the reiterated demands for change are not signs of failure; they are part of a process that is essential to keeping education vital. (Zilversmit, 1993, p. 182) Zilversmit goes on to point out that change can be revitalizing. Rather than seeing the need for continued improvement as a failure, we should see it as an opportunity for

298 renewal. It has certainly provided a great deal of excitement and interest for Rory in his teaching, along with the frustration of difficulties. Resources for guiding expeditions into science In closing, I would like to return to our expeditions in the mountains. I would like to stress some of the lessons for teachers and others interested in supporting learning environments for expeditions, like Rorys and his students, into the world of science. For teachers, making the expeditions more successful involves creating, fostering, and recognizing footholds for transformative communication. Some of the footholds can be built into the activity structure with milestones beforehand. Once students step into these footholds and take some more steps, more footholds may become available. In assignments students turn in and comments students make during class, more crevices that can be used as footholds may become apparent, as long as the teacher recognizes them as something that can be transformed into a productive move in scientific inquiry. This is knowledge-intensive and thought-intensive work for teachers. It may involve making mundane connections between experiences in one volcano project and another volcano project, but it may also benefit from creative and surprising connections, such as Rorys idea of making a grid and performing counts to analyze hurricane paths, based on his own experience of performing mineral content analysis in geological research. At the very least, it involves rumination on students projects outside of class, such as Rory did in the UFO Sightings project (Chapter 11); or poring over students writing, as Rory did with the Moons project (Chapter 8). For teachers and others interested in designing and creating supportive resources for learning environments, making science expeditions more successful involves organizing and if necessary creating elements of the landscape that can be pointed out. Like

299 the feldspar on Rorys original expedition years ago, materials that can be pointed out, and perhaps picked up, can be helpful to supporting projects. Such distributed intelligence in the environment can allow the teacher to off-load some of the supporting. In this way, items such as a set of Time/Life books Rory thought he would never have use for have become a resource for students beginning their background research on their topics. Additionally, collections of data resources like the hurricane Web site Dave and TJ used, and a book of volcano eruption data Rory has acquired, serve as valuable sources of empirical data. There are many opportunities for creating and finding useful and usable collections of data resources to support project-based science teaching and learning. Especially useful are materials that relate to the topics that appeal to students. One way to summarize topics that interest many students is by analogy to big budget Hollywood films with strong doses of special-effects. Twister and Volcano signify disaster and destruction, and kids like these topics along with lightning, hurricanes, and earthquakes. Independence Day signifies aliens, another favorite of students. And Waterworld signifies the environment, which appeals to students in the form of global warming, water quality, and energy. As more resources about these topics become available, kids can seize them and build off their interests. In addition, the work of students from year to year can become a growing activity base (similar to a knowledge base) for future projects, in that they both supply ideas and potentially supply data collections that can be reanalyzed and refuted or refined, or combined with other data collections for completely new inquiries. The promise of expeditions into science To the degree Rory and the students are able to maintain the delicate balance of motivation and support, students can be inspired in unexpected ways, just as they were on his summer trip to the Rockies. Beth and Cheryl, who worked on the Plesiosaur and UFO

300 Sightings projects (Chapter 11), respectively, provide two examples of such unexpected inspiration. Neither Beth nor Cheryl considered themselves science people coming in to Rorys class. Beth started the class saying, I like science ... but Im not good at it. Cheryl signed up for Earth Science because it looked like the easiest science credit available to her. Through their participation in Rorys class, however, their perspectives have changed. Through her work on the UFO Sightings project, Cheryl says she learned the way scientists speakId never really written a scientific paper before. She also learned, as she told me, that science is a lot more open to options than a lot of people think it is ... its not like math where theres one answer ... I used to think [science] was this is how this is and this is how this is. Although math educators would surely be displeased with her opinion of their subject, Cheryls perspective on science as inquiry rather than memorization is heartening. Through her work on the Plesiosaurs project and afterward, Beth becomes interested in and capable of engaging in scientific debates such as the geologic implications of underwater nuclear testing; she also becomes virtually obsessed with a dinosaur she had never heard of before she arrived in class. She gets excited to find the image of a plesiosaur image on a juice box one day, and tells me, I have all this plesiosaur paraphernalia. Im gonna order ... at the British Museum ... they have a skeleton of a plesiosaur. Like sort of a puzzle, you know? I wanna order it. She is really excited about what she has learned: I grew, like, academically ... like I figured out that I could really ... I could really learn things with my mind. You know, I could learn things that people, like no one reallyexcept for like [R. McNeil] Alexander and a couple of other peopleno one really knows as much as I do. Like, I would say that Im one of the leading experts on the plesiosaur ... Like how many people in this world know about the plesiosaur?

301 This young woman has clearly come a long way from thinking she is not good at science, even though her beliefs may be a bit grandiose. In her expeditions into science, she will surely find that unseen peaks become visible around the next bend in the trail. But the view is glorious from her current vantage point. And that cant hurt as Rory guides her on new expeditions into science. And as the year goes on, Rory will continue to explore the paths students projects can take in their ascents to such heights. And like the trusty Sherpa guide he tries to be for his students, he will return to the foothills at the beginning of each new year, and invite more students on new adventures to the peaks.

Chapter 13 References

Aikin, W. M. (1942). The story of the eight-year study. New York: Harper & Brothers. Alberty, H. B. (1927). A study of the project method in education. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press. Alexander, R. M. (1989). Dynamics of dinosaurs and other extinct giants. New York: Columbia University Press. Allen, C. (1993). Reciprocal evolution as a strategy for integrating basic research, design, and studies of work practice. In Participatory design: Principles and practices (pp. 239-253). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Archer, R. L. (. ). (1964). Jean Jacques Rousseau: His educational theories selected from Emile, Julie, and other writings. Ayers, W. (1989). The good preschool teacher: Six teachers reflect on their lives. New York: Teachers College Press. Ayers, W. (1993). To teach: The journey of a teacher. New York: Teachers College Press. Ball, D. L. (1990). Reflections and deflections of policy: The case of Carol Turner. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 247-259. Ball, S., Hull, Robert, Skelton, Martin, and Tudor, Richard (1984). The tyranny of the devils mill: time and task at school. In S. Delamont (Ed.), Readings on interaction in the classroom (pp. 41-57). London: Methuen. Bantock, G. H. (1984). Studies in the history of educational theory. London: George Allen & Unwin. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. San Francisco: Chandler. Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, Elliot, Marx, Ronald W., Krajcik, Joseph S., Guzdial, Mark, and Palincsar, Annemarie (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3), 369-398. Bourdieu, P. (1990). In other words: Essays toward a reflexive sociology (Adamson, M., Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 302

303 Brickhouse, N., & Bodner, G. M. (1992). The beginning science teacher: Classroom narratives of convictions and constraints. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(5), 471-485. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher(January-February), 32-42. Brown, J. S., and Duguid, P. (1990). Enacting design for the workplace. Paper presented at Technology and the Future Conference, Stanford, CA, March 28-30, 1990. Bruce, B. C., and Rubin, A. (1993). Electronic quills: A situated evaluation of using computers for writing in classrooms. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bruce, B. C., Peyton, J. K., and Batson, T. (Ed.). (1993). Network-based classrooms: Promises and realities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bruner, J. (1963). The process of education. New York: Vintage. Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Casey, S., et al. (1989). Seamans nautical almanac. New York: Prentice Hall. Clifford, J., and Marcus, G. E. (Ed.). (1986). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press. Cohen, D. K. (1988a). Educational technology and school organization. In R. S. Nickerson & Zodhiates, P. (Eds.), Technology in education: Looking toward 2020 (pp. 231-264). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cohen, D. K. (1988b). Teaching practice: Plus a change . In P. Jackson (Ed.), Contributing to educational change: Perspectives on research and practice Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 311-329. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1-35. Cole, M., and Griffin, P. (1980). Cultural amplifiers reconsidered. In D. R. Olson (Ed.), The social foundations of language and thought (pp. 343-364). New York: W. W. Norton.

304 Cole, M., & Griffin, P. (1987). Contextual factors in education: Improving science and mathematics education for minorities and women. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Collins, A. (1990). The role of computer technology in restructuring schools. In K. Sheingold and Tucker, M. S. (Eds.), Restructuring for learning with technology (pp. 29-46). New York: Center for Technology in Education. Collins, A., and Hawkins, J. (1993). Sections and questions to address in design experiments. In Condon, E. U., and Gillmor, D. S. (1968). Final report of the scientific study of unidentified flying objects. New York: Bantam Books. Cremin, L. (1961). The transformation of the school. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Cuban, L. (1984). How teachers taught. New York, NY: Longman. Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College. Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19(1), 313. Cuban, L. (1993). Computers meet classroom: Classroom wins. Teachers College Record, 95(2), 185-210. DAmico, L., & Polman, J. (1994). So many wack people: Multiple voices and dialogues interanimating within electronic mail alias exchanges. Unpublished manuscript. DAmico, L. (in progress). The role of assessment infratructures in crafting project-based science classrooms. Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. Dede, C. J. (1990). Imaging technologys role in restructuring for learning. In K. Sheingold and Tucker, M. S. (Eds.), Restructuring for learning with technology (pp. 49-52). New York: Center for Technology in Education, Bank Street College of Education. Dewey, J. (1895). Interest in relation to the training of the will. In J. J. McDermott (Ed.), The philosopy of John Dewey, Vol. II: The lived experience (pp. 421-442). New York: G. P. Putnams Sons.

305 Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. In J. J. McDermott (Ed.), The philosopy of John Dewey, Vol. II: The lived experience (pp. 442-454). New York: G. P. Putnams Sons. Dewey, J. (1901). The situation as regards the course of study. Journal of the Proceedings and Addresses of the Fortieth Annual Meeting of the National Education Association, 332-348. Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. In J. J. McDermott (Ed.), The philosopy of John Dewey, Vol. II: The lived experience (pp. 467-483). New York: G. P. Putnams Sons. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Dow, P. (1991). Schoolhouse politics: Lessons from the Sputnik era. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Doyle, W. (1979). Classroom tasks and students abilities. In P. L. Peterson & Walberg, H. L. (Eds.), Research on teaching: Concepts, findings, and implications Berkeley, CA: McCutcheon. Dwyer, D. C., Ringstaff, C., & Sandholtz, J. H. (1991). Changes in teachers beliefs and practices in technology-rich classrooms. Educational Leadership(May), 45-52. Eckert, P. (1990). Adolescent social categoriesInformation and science learning. In M. Gardner Greeno, J. G., Reif, F., Schoenfeld, A. H., diSessa, A., & Stage, E. (Eds.), Toward a scientific practice of science education (pp. 203-217). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Edelson, D. C., & ONeill, D. K. (1994). The CoVis Collaboratory Notebook: Supporting collaborative science inquiry. In A. Best (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1994 National Educational Computing Conference (pp. 146-152). Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education with the National Education Computing Association. Eisner, E. W. (1993). Forms of understanding and the future of educational research. Educational Researcher, 22(7), 5-11. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching New York: Macmillan. Farnham-Diggory, S. (1990). Schooling. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Firestone, W. A. (1993). Alternative arguments for generalizing from data as applied to qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 22(4), 16-23.

306 Fishman, B., and Pea, R. D. (1994). Proactive policy for the internetworked school: A proposal emerging from the CoVis Project. Technos: Quarterly of Education and Technology, 3(1), 22-26. Fishman, B., & DAmico, L. (1994). Which way will the wind blow? Networked computer tools for studying the weather. In T. Ottman & Tomek, I. (Eds.), Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 1994: Proceedings of Ed-Media 94 (pp. 209-216). Charlottesville, VA: AACE. Fishman, B. (1996). High-end high school communication: Tool use practices of students in a networked environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. Fullan, M. G., and Miles, M. B. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what doesnt. Phi Delta Kappan(June), 745-752. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books. Geertz, C. (1988). Works and lives: The anthropologist as author. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Glaser, B., and Strauss, A. (1979). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine. Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman. Gordin, D., Polman, J. L., & Pea, R. D. (1994). The Climate Visualizer: Sense-making through scientific visualization. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 3(4), 203-226. Guzdial, M. (1995, April). Artifacts of learning: A perspective on students learning processes and strategies through their learning products. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday. Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1993). Software design as a learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 1, 1-32. Heshusius, L. (1994). Freeing ourselves from objectivity: Managing subjectivity or turning toward a participatory mode of consciousness? Educational Researcher, 23(3), 15-22.

307 Hofstadter, R. (1963). Anti-intellectualism in American life. New York: Vintage. Horn, E. (1920). What is a project? Elementary School Journal, 21, 112-116. Houghton, J. R. (1996, July, 1996). Why do we need national skill standards? NSSB Workwise, p. 1-2. Hutchins, E. (1993). Learning to navigate. In S. Chaiklin & Lave, J. (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 35-63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jackson, P. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Jackson, S. L., Stratford, S. J., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (in press). Making system dynamics modeling accessible to pre-college science students. Interactive Learning Environments. Kennedy, R. F. (1969). Thirteen days: A memoir of the Cuban missile crisis. New York: W. W. Norton. Kidder, T. (1989). Among schoolchildren. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Kidder, T. (1993). Old friends. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Kidder, T. (1995). Invited lecture, Northwestern University. Kilpatrick, W. H. (1925). Foundations of method. New York: Macmillan. Kohl, H. (1967). 36 children. New York: Plume. Kotlowitz, A. (1991). There are no children here. New York: Anchor Books. Krieg, R., and Wheelan, C. (1995, February 12, 1995). Separatebut equal? The Chicago Tribune Magazine, p. 14-25. Kushner, H. S. (1981). When bad things happen to good people. New York: Avon. Kyle, W. C., Jr. (1984). What became of the curriculum development projects of the 1960s? How effective were they? What did we learn from them that will help teachers in todays classrooms? In D. Holdzkum & Lutz, P. B. (Eds.), Research within reach: Science education Charleston, WV: Appalachia Educational Laboratory. Latour, B. (1988). Drawing things together. In M. Lynch & Woolgar, S. (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lave, J. (1990). Views of the classroom: Implications for math and science learning research. In M. Gardner, Greeno, J. G., Reif, F., Schoenfeld, A. H., diSessa, A.,

308 & Stage, E. (Eds.), Toward a scientific practice of science education (pp. 251263). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lee, H. (1960). To Kill a Mockingbird. New York: Warner Books. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Leontev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of mind. Moscow: Progress. Lepper, M. R., Woolverton, M., Mumme, D. L., & Gurtner, J-L. (1993). Motivational techniques of expert human tutors: Lessons for the design of computer-based tutors. In S. P. Lajoie & Derry, S. J. (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 75105). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Lewin, K. (1946). Action-research into minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2, 34-36. Lightfoot, S. L. (1983). The good high school: Portraits of character and culture. New York: Basic Books. McDermott, R., Goldman, S., & Varenne, H. (1984). When school goes home: Some problems in the organization of homework. Teachers College Record, 85(3), 391409. McDonald, J. P. (1988). The emergence of the teachers voice: Implications for the new reform. Teachers College Record, 89(4), 471-486. McGee, S. (1996). Designing curriculum based on science communities of practice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. McLaughlin, M. W. (1990). The Rand change agent study revisited: Macro perspectives and micro realities. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11-16. Mead, M. (1928). Coming of age in Samoa: A psychological study of primitive youth for western civilization. New York, New York: Dell Publishing Company. Means, B., Blando, J., Olson, K., Middleton, T., Morocco, C. C., Remz, A. R., Zorfass, J. (1993). Using technology to support education reform (Report No. ISBN 0-16-042048-2). U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, and Office of Research. Mehan, H. (1978). Structuring school structure. Harvard Educational Review, 48(1), 3264.

309 Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Mehan, H. (1980). The competent student. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 11(3), 131-152. Mehan, H. (1989). Microcomputers in classroom: Educational technology or social practice? Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 20, 4-22. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualititative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Nasaw, D. (1979). Schooled to order: A social history of public schooling in the United States. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Neill, A. S. (1960). Summerhill: A radical approach to child-rearing. New York: Hart Publishing Co. Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1984). Social constraints in laboratory and classroom tasks. In B. Rogoff and Lave, J. (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school. New York: Cambridge University Press. Norman, D. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books. ONeill, D. K., & Gomez, L. (1994). The Collaboratory Notebook: A distributed knowledge-building environment for project-enhanced learning. In T. Ottman & Tomek, I. (Eds.), Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 1994: Proceedings of Ed-Media 94 (pp. 416-423). Charlottesville, VA: AACE. ONeill, D. K. (1996). Bluffing their way into science? High school scientists research articles under mentored and nonmentored conditions. Unpublished manuscript. ONeill, D. K., Wagner, R., & Gomez, L. M. (1996, November). On-line mentors: Experimenting in science class. Educational Leadership, 54(3). ONeill, D. K. (1997, March). Analyzing students appropriation of the research article genre in science. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. ONeill, D. K. (in progress). A telementoring initiative to strengthen project-based science learning. Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.

310 Office of Technology Assessment (1995). Teachers and technology: Making the connection Office of Technology Assessment. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (Second ed.). Newbury Park: Sage. Pea, R. D. (1985). Beyond amplification: Using the computer to reorganize mental functioning. Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 167-182. Pea, R. D. (1992a). Augmenting the discourse of learning with computer-based learning environments. In E. de Corte, Linn, M., Mandl, H., & Verschaffel, L. (Eds.), Computer-based learning environments and problem-solving (pp. 313-344). New York: Springer Verlag GmbH. Pea, R. D. (1992b). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions (pp. 89-132). New York: Cambridge University Press. Pea, R. D. (1993). The collaborative visualization project. Communications of the ACM, 36(5), 60-63. Pea, R. D. (1994). Seeing what we build together: Distributed multimedia learning environments for transformative communications. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 285-299. Pea, R. D. (1997). Personal communication. Pea, R. D., & Gomez, L. M. (1992). Distributed multimedia learning environments: Why and how? Interactive Learning Environments, 2(2), 73-109. Pea, R. D., Gomez, L. M., Edelson, D.C., Fishman, B. J., Gordin, D. N., &, & ONeill, D. K. (in press). Science education as a driver of cyberspace technology development. In K. Cohen (Ed.), The impact of the Internet and technology on student-scientist partnerships: A new force in science and science education. New York: Plenum Press. Peshkin, A. (1986). Gods choice: The total world of a fundamentalist Christian school. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Peshkin, A. (1988). Understanding complexity: A gift of qualitative inquiry. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 19, 416-424.

311 Phillips, D. C. (1990). Subjectivity and objectivity: An objective inquiry. In E. Eisner and Peshkin, A. (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in education: The conrinuing debate (pp. 19-37). New York: Teachers College. Polman, J., & Fishman, B. (1995). Electronic communication tools in the classroom: Student and environmental characteristics as predictors of adoption. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Polman, J. L., Fishman, B. J., DAmico, L., Gomez, L. M., & Pea, R. D. (1994). Asynchronous collaborative communication in educational communities: New settings for CMC research. Unpublished manuscript. Powell, A. G., Farrar, E., & Cohen, D. K. (1985). The shopping mall high school: Winners and losers in the educational marketplace. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Pratt, M. L. (1986). Fieldwork in common places. In J. Clifford and Marcus, G. E. (Eds.), Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography (pp. 27-50). Berkeley: University of California Press. Progressive Education Association (1943). Thirty schools tell their story. New York: Harper. Ravitch, D. (1982). American education: Has the pendulum swung once too often? In D. Ravitch (Ed.), The schools we deserve: Reflections on the educational crises of our times (pp. 80-89). New York: Basic Books. Ravitch, D. (1983). The troubled crusade: American education, 1945-1980. New York: Basic Books. Resnick, L. (1995, April). Work, schooling and learning: A new future? What role for research? Lecture presented as part of the SESP Deans Distinguished Colloquium Series at Northwestern University. Resnick, M., & Rusk, N. (1996). The Computer Clubhouse: Helping youth develop fluency with new media. In D. C. Edelson and Domeshek, E. A. (Ed.), International Conference on the Learning Science, (pp. 285-291). Evanston, IL: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Riel, M. M., & Levin, J. A. (1990). Building eletronic communities: Success and failure in computer networking. Instructional science, 19, 145-169. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press. Rogoff, B. (1994). Developing understanding of the idea of communities of learners. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 1(4), 209-229.

312 Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 235-276. Rowe, M. B. (1986). Wait time: Slowing down may be a way of speeding up! Journal of Teacher Education, 37, 43-50. Ruopp, R., Gal, S., Drayton, B., & Pfister, M. (Ed.). (1993). LabNet: Toward a community of practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., and Dwyer, D. D. (1992). Teaching in high-tech environments: Classroom management revisited. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8(4), 479-505. Sapon-Shevin, M. (1994). Playing favorites: Gifted education and the disruption of community. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Sarason, S. (1991). The predictable failure of educational reform: Can we change course before its too late? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sarason, S. B. (1971). The culture of the school and the problem of change. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLean, R. S., Swallow, J., & Woodruff, E. (1989). Computer-supported intentional learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5(1), 51-68. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the Design of new knowledge media. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37-68. Schank, R. C. (1982). Dynamic memory: A theory of reminding and learning in computers and people. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Schank, R. C. (1990). Tell me a story: A new look at real and artificial memory. New York: Charles Scribners Sons. Schofield, J. W. (1990). Increasing the generalizability of qualitative research. In E. W. Eisner & Peshkin, A. (Eds.), Qualititative inquiry in education: The continuing debate (pp. 201-232). New York: Teachers College. Schofield, J. W., Eurich-Fulcer, R., and Britt, C. L. (1994). Teachers, computer tutors, and teaching: The artificially intelligent tutor as an agent for classroom change. American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 579-607. Schn, D. A. (1982). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

313 Schn, D. A. (1995, March). School reform and the dialogue of I, thou, and it. Lecture presented as part of the SESP Deans Distinguished Colloquium Series at Northwestern University Schwab, R. G., Hart-Landsberg, S., Reder, S. & Abel, M. (1992). Collaboration and constraint: Middle school teaching teams. In J. Turner & Kraut, R. (Ed.), ACM 1992 Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW 92), (pp. 241-248). Toronto, Canada: ACM Press. Scott, C. A. (1994). Project-based science: Reflections of a middle school teacher. The Elementary School Journal, 95(1), 75-94. Secretarys Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (1991). What work requires of schools: A SCANS report for America 2000. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Labor. Sheingold, K., & Hadley, M. (1990). Accomplished teachers: Integrating computers into classroom practice. Technical Report. Center for technology in education. Shulman, L. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 3-36). New York: McMillan. Shweder, R. A. (1990). Cultural psychology: What is it? In J. Stigler, Shweder, R., & Herdt, G. (Eds.), Cultural psychology: Essays on comparative human development (pp. 1-43). New York: Cambridge University Press. Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man. New York: John Wiley. Simon, H. (1981). The sciences of the artificial (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S (1991). Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Stanford, R. (1990). NASA launch bulletin. New York: Norton. Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thomas, K. (1979). Daily weather, 1960-1970. New York: University Press. Tobin, K. (1986). Effects of teacher wait time on discourse characteristics in mathmatics and language arts. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 191-200. Tyack, D. (1990). Restructuring in historical perspective: Tinkering toward utopia. Teachers College Record, 92(2), 170-191.

314 Tyack, D., and Tobin, W. (1994). The grammar of schooling: Why has it been so hard to change? American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 453-479. von Glasersfeld, E. (1982). An interpretation of Piagets constructivism. In Revue internationale de philosophie (pp. 142-143). France: Ministere de LEducation Nationale. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Wagner, R. (1996). Expeditions to Mount Everest. In M. Shinohara, Wenn, R., & Sussman, A. (Eds.), Tales from the electronic frontier: First-hand experiences of teachers and students using the Internet in K-12 math and science (pp. 64-70). San Francisco: WestEd. Wasley, P. A. (1994). Stirring the chalkdust: Tales of teachers changing classroom practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wittgenstein, L. (1967). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell. Wolcott, H. (1973). The man in the principals office: An ethnography. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100. Yonemura, M. (1986). A teacher at work: Professional development and the early childhood educator. New York: Teachers College Press. Zilversmit, A. (1993). Changing schools: Progressive education theory and practice, 1930-1960. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Appendix A

A personal story: Walking around in other peoples shoes

Tracy Kidder made a comment at a talk (1995) I attended which I will always remember. Kidder was asked by an audience member what difference he thought his presence made when he researched Among Schoolchildren (1989) and Old Friends (1993). The audience member wondered whether and how the situation changed when the author wasnt there. Clearly exasperated by a question he often hears, Kidder replied I dont know what happened when I wasnt there! I wasnt there when I wasnt there! The lesson I took from his comment is: dont try to get rid of yourself, admit your presence and try to make good use of it. A question that qualitative researchers are commonly asked is how do you plan to manage the problem of subjectivity? This question implies that objectivity is ideal and subjectivity represents only negative bias. As mentioned in Chapter 3, I disagree with the idea that subjectivity should be minimized, and instead agree with those researchers who believe that subjectivity should be taken advantage of because of the interpersonal richness and entry into meaning it offers (Ayers, 1989; Heshusius, 1994; Lightfoot, 1983). Bill Ayers put it eloquently: subjectivity is not a dirty word when subjects are the objects of study (1989, p. 16, my emphasis). Since I admit that my personal perspective has played an important role in the conduct of this research, I feel it is only fitting that I attempt to present my perspective to readers. Bill Ayers (1989) provided a great example of this in The Good Preschool Teacher, and I am modeling my own effort after his. I also admired 315

316 the way that Pierre Bourdieu (1990) straighforwardly admitted and tried to take advantage of the dispositions that grew naturally out of his own background among the French peasantry. Following his example, I will try to reveal some dispositions that my background and experiences have helped foster. I was born in South Bend, Indiana in 1965 and spent what I have often considered a sheltered childhood there. I was the third of five children, all of whom my parents had after getting married in their thirties. Our family was close and lived a relatively selfcontained lifehaving waited so long, my parents told me, they were content to focus on raising their children, and we kids were often content to play with our brothers and sisters. Sarah was born first and played the big sister role of leader and advisor most of the time, with a few teenage years as dictator. Bill was the second and was the most frequently in trouble as well as my constant companion. Laura followed me and played the role of quietly supportive sister and daughter. Dee Dee was the youngest and was the chatterbox and social center. From a very early age, I took on the role of mediator in the family. Fights took place between every conceivable pair of siblings, except no one fought with me. I often joke that I was born a pacifistI just refused to fight, and so no one was interested in fighting with me. When someone got in trouble or angry, my reaction was invariably to try to find some common ground or appeasement. From my current vantage point, I see the mediation skills I developed as quite useful, but know that I at times feared justifiable anger. I recall my childhood as a time of warmth and security, highlighted by holiday celebrations with my immediate family and grandmother, such as Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years, and Easter. Along with many others in our community in the shadow of the University of Notre Dame, we were raised Roman Catholic. I attended a

317 Catholic grade school and high school which did not fit the stereotype of Catholic schools so often characterized in popular culture: there were few nuns, and none of the teachers (including the nuns) practiced corporal punishment of any kind. I would say that the schools and parish we attended were distinctly post-Vatican II institutions affected by progressive elements of American Catholic intellectualism. By this I mean that most teachers and priests stressed conscience and the messages of forgiveness and social justice instead of rules and regulations or fire-and-brimstone. This is not to say that compared to the rest of American culture the community I grew up in was progressive; on the contrary, it was conservative on the whole and not very culturally or racially diverse. My Mom and Dad were an interesting pairshe a registered nurse with a masters degree and he a plumber and pipe fitter with an apprentices training. He dropped out of college after his football career was ended by a knee injury. I knew that we were not well off financially, and that Dad had to work a great deal of overtime to help make ends meet. Nonetheless, he would come home from work in his stained blue shirt and play and laugh with us. Mom took several years off work to stay at home raising us, and became active in school and later church activities. I think now that the years and years of financial concern must have been incredibly stressful to them. Mom told me years later that she didnt think it was worth pinching every penny, as she had done for years, because you dont ever get to stop worrying about it. On the other hand, its not clear that they had many other options. Regardless, they always found a way to get by, and I never thought we lacked anything. Both of my parents always seemed to have complete confidence in me. In my mind, the greatest gift they gave me was the belief that I could accomplish just about

318 anything if I put my mind to it and worked at it. Luckily, my experiences in school and in sports seemed to back up their confidence in me. I was lucky enough to have a disposition well-suited to traditional, highly structured teaching. Much like Cindy described in this study, I would not necessarily have been comfortable with open-ended projects in those days. I remember an independent project of sorts I had to do in physics class my senior year in high schoolwe had weeks to do it (along with our more traditional labs and tests), but I put it off until two days before it was due and had a very difficult time putting it together. Unlike Cindy, though, I managed to pull it off, as I did most of my school work. I have always found it ironic that many of us who talk about changing traditional schooling so much were very successful in that same system. But in my case I feel that more challenges to think for myself and participate in the framing of problems would have benefited me at an earlier age. I had to learn these things eventuallyas an undergraduate to some degree, but even more so at work and graduate school. I have found that the adult work world (or at least the kind of professional work I have been involved with) rarely provides answers to the request just tell me what I should do. Like Rorys students, I have had to build those answers for myself, albeit with the support and guidance of others. I always enjoyed school immensely and was in many ways a prototypical obedient, model student. The few times I had trouble, I did not attribute it to any fundamental inability, but instead circumstances. The best example is the dreaded C I received in fourth grade math, which my mother convinced me was due to the fact that the teacher was outrageously unjust and rigid. My difficulty performing math problems quickly at the blackboard led to what I considered a terrible grade, but Mom told me that Einsteins teachers thought he was stupid because he was a deliberate thinker just like me. Einstein

319 turned out to be a genius, and she was pretty much convinced I would turn out that way too. For the most part, I earned high grades. I was always analytic, and was repeatedly told that my greatest aptitude was in math and science. English and literature were the most difficult subjects for me, but I always found them interesting, and I followed my older brother in being an avid reader of science fiction and fantasy novels in my free time as an adolescent. I spent most of my time after school, however, playing organized sports such as football and basketball, and then doing hours of homework until bedtime. The teachers I remember most vividly were the ones who challenged me or opened my mind to new worlds. My seventh grade English teacher made it difficult but worthwhile to get an A. My seventh and eighth grade math teacher let some of us finish the book in the first month of school and spend the rest of the year working on challenging problems in the back of the room and going to math contests. My seventh grade history teacher started a reading club and helped me see the tension of the Cuban missile crisis by reading and discussing Thirteen Days (Kennedy, 1969). My high school German teacher opened up a whole new culture for me. My high school math teachers repeatedly challenged me beyond the standard curriculum. Most of all, though, I recall my high school English teachers, who introduced me to books that began to expand my world. In ninth grade, we read To Kill a Mockingbird (Lee, 1960), and it had a profound effect on me. In the end of the book, Lee described how Scout began to see what the world must have looked like to Boo Radley. Standing up on his porch, she imagined what the events of the summer recounted in the book must have looked like from Radleys perspective. She said, Atticus was right. One time he said you never really know a man until you stand in his shoes and walk around in them. Just standing on the Radley porch was enough. (pp. 278-279) The sentiment of standing in someone elses shoes has been

320 expressed by many, but that novel made it real to me. The novel took me to that place, and showed me in some small way what it must have been like to walk around in some other peoples shoes. To this day, I use the greeting hey which I learned not from my friends and acquaintances in the northern Midwest but from my acquaintances in the South I visited only in the pages of this book. Given my already mentioned propensity for being a mediator, I began to see how many conflicts and misunderstandings are caused by people being unable or unwilling to see anothers perspective, and tried to figure out what might explain what they are doing, no matter how odd it seemed to me at first. At the end of high school, I decided to attend Brown University on the East Coast even though I had never left the Midwest, let alone visited the school. Ive always joked that their brochures must have been amazing, but in part I wanted to see a wider world and other perspectives firsthand. Going to a prestigious college far away was also perhaps the best way for a child like me to be good and still find room for rebellion and forging my own life outside my familys sphere. College did indeed open up new perspectives for me, and I ultimately dropped the idea of completing premedical requirements and instead focused on my stronger interest in language and literature. In regards to science education reforms, I would note that although I always had an interest in biological and physical sciences, one reason I decided against a career in them was that I never became as engaged in them as students like Cheryl and Beth did in Rorys class; literature and culture was what came to life for me. I completed a concentration in Comparative Literature, with a focus on 20th Century novels from US and German cultures. Brown had an exchange program with a university in the German Democratic Republic, a nation known only as East Germany to most people in this country. I remember in high school German class having a great deal of trouble remembering which name, the Deutsche Demokratische Republik

321 or the Bundesrepublik Deutschland, stood for East Germany and which for West Germany31 We used to ask: How could East Germany call itself democratic when they were really communist? In the spring of 1987 I found myself flying across the Atlantic toward this same distant land, however, and taking a train to Berlin, across the border at Friedrichstrae, and north to Rostock on the Baltic coast. Studying abroad in the GDR was undoubtedly the most profound learning experience in my life. Part of the learning was about the language, through participation in the daily life of a city where speaking English was not enough; when I went to grocers, restaurants, train stations, and many other places, I had to figure out how to get my point across in German. Most times there was simply no other choice, and besides, I wanted to learn it so I could follow everything and participate more fully in whatever was going on around me. When I first arrived, more than five years of German classes did not help that much. I remember the first day, arriving at the student dorm, and talking with my German roommate and some of his friends as we looked down at the city of Rostock. They kept saying this phrase, Guck mal, which sounds like kook moll, as they talked about their city and pointed out things in the distance. They said things like, guck mal, theres the train station, and guck mal, the Russian military base is over there and guck mal, well be going to classes over there in the pedestrian mall and guck mal, its a pretty interesting town. I had never heard the phrase, because it was a colloquialism irrelevant to formal classes. When I got upstairs to my room, I pulled out my big dictionary and couldnt find the word because I didnt know how to spell it. Finally, I had to ask someone, and they told me it meant to look or see. As in English, the phrase could either mean to literally
31 Deutsche Demokratische Republik means German Democratic Republic and was the official name of

the East German state. Bundesrepublik Deutschland means Federal Republic of Germany and was the official name of the West German state.

322 cast your eye in a direction, or to consider what someone is saying. I had a great deal to learn about how to see life in the GDR as my new friends were asking me to consider it. It did not take long to figure out that the simple view of a people oppressed by an evil state did not begin to capture the complexity of the culture I was walking around in. It did, however, take me a while to figure out how to accept or get my mind around all that complexity; so much so, that the four month trip in my junior year was not enough. I returned for a year to the GDR to teach English and study the educational system after I graduated from Brown. Eventually, I had to admit there were innumerable contradictions about the place and the people. I found that this nation reviled where I grew up did a much better job recycling than communities back home, although they allowed dangerous levels of industrial pollution. I found that GDR citizens had universal child care where no such thing was available in the US, but that many citizens had to at least feign loyalty to socialism and the Party to get a promotion. I found that people in the GDR had time to spend with each other and that they took the time and effort to truly talk with one another; perhaps more so than many in the US trying to get ahead or even just get by. I felt that I began to understand some of my friends in addition to growing fond of them. Nonetheless, I was still walking around in a Westerners shoes, both literally and figuratively. In fact, some of my friends in the GDR told me that I could pass for a German from a distant regionthank God I eventually shed the notorious American accentexcept for my shoes. You see, shoes made in the West just looked different from shoes made in the East. Similarly, I knew my experience, no matter how empathetic, did not allow me to fully see the world as GDR citizens did. For one thing, I had special privileges like being able to buy Yoplait yogurt in the Western store in downtown Rostock in exchange for hard cash, even though I refused to (that wasnt hard since the local dairy

323 products available at the grocer were much better anyway). Far more importantly, I could always cross the border to West Berlin, Lbeck, or Denmark with my US passport. The soldiers with automatic rifles and large dogs might look menacing to me, but they would not jail me as they did my friend Ingmar when he tried to cross. After returning from the GDR, I eventually began working for a software development firm on telephone support, and later testing, and finally project management. I learned a great deal about computer software and business, but was ultimately dissatisfied with the bottom line being quarterly profits. In college my interest in computing had grown out of an educational project with a German professor, and I decided to go back to school to learn more about education and work on finding ways for using computing and software well in education. My search brought me to Northwestern and the just-beginning CoVis project headed by Roy Pea and Louis Gomez. Another reason I wanted to move from Boston to Chicago in 1982 was that my mothers breast cancer had metastasized to her lungs. My father had died while I was in college due to complications of colon cancer, after years of pain and nausea-inducing chemotherapy. Shortly after Dads death, Mom was diagnosed with breast cancer, but surgery and radiation resulted in a remission for nearly five years. Before the designated cure time of five years, though, cancer was discovered in her lungs, and I wanted to be nearby. During my first two years of graduate school, I spent many weekends visiting Mom and Laura in South Bend, while Moms health steadily deteriorated. It was a time when I was constantly reminded of the important priorities in life: my career was important and I was glad to find the move to education fulfilling and challenging, but its importance paled in comparison to family mattersMoms health, Dee Dees pregnancy, and my own upcoming wedding.

324 Shortly after beginning graduate school, Katie Plax and I decided to marry after years of sharing as much of our lives as we could. Katie was the only one of my friends not interested in German studies who had shown a strong desire to understand my stories of the GDR, and she visited me there for a month in 1989. Having resolved our career path decisionsshe started medical school when I started graduate schooland shown ourselves that we could make it on our own, we were finally able to decide to share our love for good. Since she was at the University of Rochester, this presented some difficulty, but my advisors at Northwestern were willing to give me a chance to contribute to the CoVis project and complete my dissertation while living most of the time in New York. It was a difficult prospect, but worth it to us given what our experiences with Mom had taught us about the importance of priorities. On June 18, 1996, Katie and I were married at her wonderful familys home in St. Louis. Mom had been determined to live until the wedding even if she could not attend. We spoke to her on the phone before and after the ceremony. Later that evening, Mom died. She had accomplished her goal and given our entire family a much-needed and much-relished celebration. My uncle who stayed with her in those hours mercifully and wisely decided to inform us the next morning. It is not appropriate or possible in this context to pursue the complexity of this story, beyond the woefully inadequate statement that it was probably both the happiest and saddest time of my life. But I will reflect here on an aspect of this and many of my experiences that relates to my choice of research methods. I believe my experiences have caused me to decide that embracing complexity is the only way to face life. The loss of Mom and Dad did not submit to easy explanations for me. For instance, I was unsatisfied with the kind of empty platitudes I thought many religious people offered, and decided that

325 Harold Kushners philosophy described in When Bad Things Happen to Good People (1981) was more adequate somehow. Part of what I took from Kushner was a belief that some events lack an explanation or root cause; in addition, I would add that many events in human life are difficult to explain with reference to one or just a few factors. This is in some ways related to my own reluctance to rely on statistical research techniques alone to examine a classroom like Rorys: I was afraid I would oversimplify the social world of the class if I did not use qualitative methods. One danger in my belief system is that I might be reluctant to reach conclusions even if they are valid or useful, for fear of oversimplifying. But my experiences have also helped me to see how to reach more complicated conclusions. Seeing life in the GDR obviously contributed to my belief that social life is inherently complex, for instance, but I began to develop ideas about how peoples actions can relate to multiple levels of meaning and culture. Looking at different levels of meaning and intersecting cultures and subcultures can often help to explain seeming contradictions between actions or events on personal and societal levels. For instance, people act in some ways to fulfill roles assigned to them by the wider society, but find their own means of expressing personal and interpersonal idiosyncrasy within those bounds. Some of my friends in the GDR were publicly allegiant to the socialist party but privately critical of its actions, and also privately expressed a great deal of illicitfrom their partys perspectiveinterest in Western culture and society. Just before getting married, I passed my qualifying exam at Northwestern and began developing the ideas for my dissertation research related here. The intellectual side of this development is related in Chapter 3, so I will briefly explain some of the personal side here. As I said, I had just moved away from Evanston where the CoVis project was based, but I became increasingly interested in a classroom observational study. It would

326 have been easier to do survey research, but it would not have been as interesting or rewarding for me, and I did not believe it would have provided as many answers. I cannot thank Roy Pea enough for encouraging me along this path, and referring me to Bill Ayers for direction on how to make it work. I had always admired Rory Wagners courage and work in the classroom, and had spent some time in his class along with a few other teachers in my first two years. That fall of my third year, I began to correspond by email with Rory about his project-based science teaching from our attic in Rochester. Eventually I proposed this study to him on a visit to his class later that fall, and we were on our way. In my time with Rory and his classes, I tried to maintain several principles, including reciprocity, respect, and privacy. Rory and I received different rewards from my work and presence in his classroom, but I hope some degree of reciprocity was retained. Clearly, he does not share in some rewards, such as the degree. Rory and I shared two important goals, however: improving project-based teaching and learning in classrooms. One way I try to contribute to these goals is through the research that I produce, which I share with him and others. But that was not the only way. I also became a resource for supporting him and his students more directly at times. Thus, my role in the school was not strictly limited to observation. During class, I helped the students with technology and project-related problems, but Rory and I both recognized I had additional responsibilities such as notetaking which I could not neglect. I sometimes had to remind the students that I needed to do other work even if their technical problems were not solved. When substantive issues about projects arose, I often repeated that I had no authority on procedures or grades, and my knowledge of earth science was abysmal compared to Rorys. After class, I provided a

327 sounding board for Rory to reflect and share ideas with. I did not just absorb such comments, but at times also shared a different perspective or just the fruits of an extra set of eyes on classroom activities. Over time, Rory began to combine his primary work of teaching and planning the class with my primary work of research more and more. For example, he updated his own work grade sheet while updating me on groups activities over the phone, and also planned future activities and made notes for himself on new ideas that grew out of our conversations. Regarding respect, I viewed my primary job as understanding what Rory and his students were doing in relation to projects, why they were doing so, and what consequences their actions had. I admitted to having opinions about classroom activity, but did not presume to have all the answers. Therefore, when something negative or problematic occurred, I tried to figure out why it happened before judging the incident negatively. This usually led to uncovering either (1) some constraints or tradeoffs I had not recognized, (2) alternative motivations and goals for the actions, or (3) previous events that informed the actions of which I was unaware. This often led me to change an initial opinion about what appeared at first to be a mistake, although alternative choices sometimes still appeared attractive. This is similar to the idea Donald Schn (1982) relates about teachers giving students reason rather than assuming they simply make uninformed mistakes. When you walk in someone elses shoes, you can usually find a reasonable reason from their perspective. Considering alternative choices and their implications was part of what Rory and I were both trying to do, to inform practice and research. So this kind of discussion also served to uncover and flesh out strategies to take that one or both of us had not previously considered.

328 Since Rory was not accountable to me, and I felt the strategy usually fruitless, I did not generally tell Rory what I thought he should do. This relates to a vivid memory I have of my Dad talking about the educated engineers coming in to the Bendix plant, where he worked as a pipe fitter, and making pronouncements about the way things should be done. Dad talked about how they knew nothing about the way things really worked, yet they came in and thought they could tell everybody how they could fix things and make them better. Inevitably, the educated engineers suggestions caused all kinds of other problems that the people there every day could have told them about, if only they had listened. Now I was in the position of possibly becoming the know-it-all with all the formal training and no respect for the people really doing the hard work. I didnt want to make the mistake those engineers didI wanted to listen and try to make sense of the way things worked in this setting. So instead of giving pat solutions that probably wouldnt work, I tried to ask probing questions about why Rory did what he did. Sometimes I reminded Rory of an alternative that he had mentioned to me before, and asked whether he thought about doing that in another situation. I also mentioned some ideas I knew other teachers had tried or researchers had suggested, but I tried hard to present these as possible alternatives, not the only alternative. I also reminded Rory frequently that I think project-based science teaching in a classroom is both complex and difficult. One value behind this kind of attitude was simply respect for Rorys professional work and choices. This attitude was concordant with my belief that there is not any one, fully specifiable way to do projects well. In other words, I dont believe there is such a thing as the ideal realization of project teaching, but rather many possible valuable realizations that are different in many ways. This has to do with teachers working in many

329 different contexts, but also with the reality that each teacher (such as Rory) and class of students can take actions to change the context in which they are working, and thus change what future courses of action might work well. Of course there were logical limits to my not expressing outright disapproval. If Rory had acted abusive toward students in my judgment, I would have been forced to confront him, but he of course did not do so. On those occasions when Rory left the classroom and I was the only remaining adult, I did not pretend I would let the students do whatever they would like, and I never had any problems. Regarding privacy, students real names were never used in materials read by outsiders. Rory was given the option of being anonymous in written work, but chose not to take it. I have tried to keep the high school anonymous, though this is difficult. Rory and his students could request that any comment or action be off the record and not reported in the research. I assumed that any negative comments students made about Rory were not intended for his ears; if such comments led me to discuss an issue with Rory outside class, I did not identify the student to Rory32 . All conversations between myself and Rory contributed to my understanding of what he was doing, and thus became potential research data even when our meetings were mostly social. This fact eventually became a burden I had to shake: after the summer of 1996, I spoke little to Rory about his next year as its first four months unfolded, because the mound of data I had to conquer was just too daunting. Finally I was able to resume our social visits and conversations when I realized I didnt need more data.

32 I took this step because Rory was not only in a position of authority over the students, but also grading

the students in ways that could be subjectively affected. I did not want to put him in an uncomfortable position. I never asssociated such comments with an individual until I wrote this report, and that was after the end of the school year.

330 Recently, the courage that it took for Rory to open up his classroom and his work was literally brought home to me. Katie had had a session where she was videotaped doing a history with a pediatric patients mother, for teaching purposes. I was reminded of how nerve-wracking it is to be videotaped with the knowledge that no matter how laudable the intentions of the taping, it can and will be used in some sense to judge what youve done professionally. Like her, Rory put a great deal of effort and time into his professional identity, and it is admirable that he was willing to repeatedly endure that kind of scrutiny. I only hope I retain reason to have gained that trust.

Appendix B Original study conception, before entering the field (7/18/94) Topic Appropriation of communications tools in classrooms oriented toward reform to projectoriented pedagogy.33 Specific tools e-mail Cruiser News Collaboratory Notebook Mosaic, Gopher & Fetch Purpose The schools participating in CoVis have established cultures. The classrooms into which these tools are introduced develop their own specific cultures. The tools themselves are cultural artifacts. This implies that the members of each class and to some extent the CoVis community negotiate and establish certain shared and unique meanings for these artifacts, and practices making use of them. There is a complex and ongoing interplay between the (changing) culture of a class, the (changing) meaning of these technological artifacts, and the affordances of the tools. I am interested in exploring the adoption and adaptation (i.e. appropriation) of these communications tools in CoVis classes, especially

33 Note that the focus on tools rather than project pedagogy was a serious flaw in this conception, and the

most significant revision (JP - 7/18/95)

331

332 as it relates to efforts to implement reform toward a more project-based approach to teaching. This will include examination of specific reform-intensive periods during the year, when teachers are planning, implementing, and reflecting on new or developing projectbased activities in the CoVis environment. Methods I think it would be beneficial to focus on one or two CoVis classes for the qualitative research at least. At least three structured interviews with teachers during each selected reformintensive period across the year, once in the planning stage, once during the situated activity, and once afterward pertaining to outcomes. These interviews would be developed through more open-ended interviews and observations early on in the year. Important issues would be the meaning of the reform activities to them, and the meaning of the tools as they relate to these activities. Classroom observations and opportunistic interviews of students in selected classes during the same reform-intensive periods. Perhaps a followup interview at the conclusion of the period with students, pertaining to the perception of outcomes. Next-generation surveys on communication tools Tracking and logging of electronic activity (usage numbers for e-mail, news, Cruiser, Collab. NB, Mosaic, Fetch, Gopher; texts for public e-mail and news discussions; complete texts/video for selected private e-mail, Cruiser, and Collab. NB exchanges)

333 Research Questions What environmental constraints affect efforts at reform appropriating the tools? e.g. social environment, curriculum, pedagogical techniques, management and control issues (allowing free movement in class, putting up with "disruption" from Cruiser), lack of time/short periods (related to use of synchronous vs. asynchronous comm), departmental/school pressures, assessment, parents, culture of schooling, other tools and affordance available ... How does the meaning/understanding of a tool affect the uses of that tool? What unique capabilities of these tools are crucial enablers of project work? How do opinions and uses change and develop over time? How do the teachers efforts affect the culture of their classes? e.g. views of science, engendering a sense of wider community What are students and teachers perceptions of and frustrations with the activities themselves and the use of the tools in the activities? What events or ideas are crucial to changes in opinion or actions? What are the relationships between teachers plans, situated actions, and reflection on outcomes? How do the teachers own perception of these relationships affect subsequent efforts? Background Reform literature (Particularly empirical studies that deal with technology introduction, the influences of curriculum, support, infrastructure, etc. on efforts at reform. Examples are the design experiments literature.) Teacher planning literature (which Im unfamiliar with) Performance assessments of teachers with respect to reform efforts

334 Results Set of guidelines for educators trying to implement reforms leveraged with technology, incorporating: - better understanding of constraints and their effects on reform using technology - range of meanings and understanding of these tools, and their effects - range of uses of the tools, and the effects of these uses

Appendix C

Refined study conception, upon entering the field (10/17/94)

Purpose of research Question: How do these teachers appropriate CoVis computing and communications technologies while planning, implementing, and assessing project-oriented curricula? What is the context and meaning of the teachers actions relating to project activities and technology in these classrooms (teachers and students perspectives)? What are implications of teacher and student choices relating to projects and technology in these classrooms? What are the social, cultural, and historical backgrounds of these classrooms? How do the teachers previous experiences feed into current plans and actions? Goal: Inform efforts at changing teaching practices leveraged with technology (1) In these specific classrooms, (2) in other similar classrooms, (3) in future efforts Audience (1) Practitioners, (2) Researchers, (3) Designers, (4) Policymakers Methods Classroom ethnography in-depth interpretive fieldwork comparative: two classes at two schools34
34 Note that the plan to conduct field studies with two teachers, in two different schools, was subsequently

revised following discussion with advisors. The decision was based primarily on the realization that two settings would not add greatly to an understanding of how a project-based learning environment functioned as a system, but instead would detract from the extent of detailed study possible within one environment.

335

336 Sources audiotaped teacher interviews in planning, implementation, and reflection phases participant observation in classroom during project implementation phase teacher "curriculum summaries" and bullet points electronic logs of communication activities electronic records of complete communications (in selected feasible cases - e.g. a few individuals email) written documents produced (e.g. teacher handouts, student interim reports and final reports) selected videotapes (project introduction & startup phase, project work phase, project report & closing phase) Hypotheses Communications tools can be used in the process of changing from heavily teacher-directed, lecture & seatwork activities to student-directed activities with teacher as guide Analogy to managers changing from a top-down, hierarchical style to a more horizontal, participatory style with the aid of communications technology (Sproull & Kiesler, 1991). The technologies can have both first-level and second-level effects. Firstlevel effects include changes in information flow and exchange. Second level effects include changes in the social atmosphere or arrangements of work. For example, there can be greater participation from all members in the group, and a greater feeling of belonging and commitment from traditionally more peripheral members. Part of the goal of this study will be to document how such changes occur in these classrooms. An early example is the introduction of email by Rory Wagner in his classes
Multiple project cases would be more appropriately used within one setting instead of using two instances of settings, which couldn't reveal as much about the system.

337 this year. He began to establish an environment where students individual interests were validated by asking them to write to him about their summer vacations. He replied to each of their email messages individually, and some continued ongoing conversations with him over several messages. Individual teachers beliefs about "adventurous" project methods, and what kind of social roles are permissable or advisable will obviously play a large role here, so that perceived second-level effects feed back into first-level strategies. Computing and communications technology adoption is viewed (in part, at least) as an end in itself This contrasts to the adoption of previous technologies such as radio and television as teaching tools, which encountered numerous problems. As numerous writers have pointed out (e.g. Tyack, 1990, Fullan & Miles, 1992), such technologies often experienced symbolic adoption by school systems simply to appear trendy. The structural constraints of these schools and classrooms often worked against easy adoption, and the adoption was not accompanied by any questioning of a transmissional pedagogy with a focus on efficiency. In such cases, the inevitable difficulties encountered in practical use within classrooms proved fatal. If the technologies did not seem to be providing more effective (read efficient) transmission of the same materials, they were, not surprisingly, rejected. Today, literacy with computing and communications technology is an educational goal held by many, to a much larger extent than "radio literacy" or "television literacy" ever was. Thus, adoption of these technologies is likely to be driven in part by a desire for students to learn how to use them.

338 Computing and communications appropriation depends on multiple and complex factors One formative idea here is from Cuban (1986): "the new technology, like its predecessors, will be tailored to fit the teachers perspective and the tight contours of school and classroom settings." The teachers perspective and the contours of school and classroom settings are all socially constructed, not immutable factors, however, especially in an environment rife with change. These can be affected by, for instance, the following factors. structure of time in school number and placement of computers combined with number of students teachers personal experience with technology teachers relationships and exchanges with other teachers administrative and departmental pressures relating to technology, subject matter (i.e. "content"), assessment, and control classroom management and control issues students background, abilities (esp as perceived by teacher) teachers views of science teachers curricular goals design, capabilities, and dependability of technologies development of shared experiences and meanings over the school year It will be the goal of this research to examine how these and other emergent factors play roles in the learning environments these teachers design and implement.

Appendix D Teacher and student interview guides

February 1995 interview with Rory Wagner First question to ask to try and have him relate as much as possible, without imposing my organization on it: Can you describe for me how you arrived at the way you are running your classes today? Said differently: give me your account of the past couple years of doing projects. What were the important events and ideas? Punch list (Questions to cover if not mentioned, or elaborate on if briefly mentioned) What got you turned on to the idea of doing projects? What were you doing before? Can you describe the way you ran your classes? Could you describe your satisfaction with what you did before? (process? results?) Was there anything you liked about the previous way that you gave up? Why was it worth it to do so? What is the most important aspect of doing projects, in your opinion? What is the most important benefit of doing projects, in your opinion? What are the most difficult obstacles to doing projects, in your opinion? What were difficult obstacles to doing projects which youve now overcome? Once you became interested in doing projects, how did you start doing them? How explain to students? What structure did you provide? Form of guidance? What concerns did the students have? 339

340 Can you describe each of the project cycles and activities that you have had since the first? Any lessons learned along the way? Particularly memorable successes Particularly memorable problems (plus how handle) Can you describe your current standards for projects, and how you came to them? What goals do you have for your students - what accomplishments, what skills How has your model of an ideal project changed over time? How are you thinking about doing the next project cycle, and why? How are you thinking about doing the next academic year from the beginning, and why? 2nd level punch list (Further questions to be asked if he doesnt cover along the way, time allowing) In your view, what skills as a teacher does it take to run a project classroom? What are your particular strengths? What are your particular weaknesses, and how do you see yourself working on them? What role have discussions with other teachers played in how you think about, set up, and run your classroom these days? What role have school-wide and departmental efforts played, if any? (e.g. "Project of Excellence") What role do you see technology playing in your classroom? instrumental, goal in itself, or both how help in accomplishing projects

341 May 1995 Interview with Rory Wagner 1) What do you think are the most important issues to think about in running a projectbased science classroom? One way to think about it is: What advice would you give to a new teacher who had never done project-based science before? What are the issues in doing projects you are thinking the most about currently? e.g. statement of problem, swaying tree 2) What do you see as the important resources at your disposal for accomplishing projects? What role does x play? What difficulties do you encounter in trying to take advantage of x?

Resource

Role

Difficulties

Specific computer tools if not mentioned yet: WWW, news, email, CNB, Cruiser, Climate Visualizer, Weather Visualizer What would your class be like tomorrow if CoVis was gone? What would your class be like next year if CoVis was gone? 3) What advice would you have for a new teacher about the students at Lakeside? What are they like, what do you need to be concerned about, how best to reach them and handle them. Is there anything special you would tell someone coming to teach the same kinds of students in your earth science classes? What did you tell [the other Earth Science teacher] when she started? What would you tell her if she were starting now? 4) What advice would you have for a new teacher about the administration at Lakeside?

342 What are they like, what do you need to be concerned about, how best to reach them and handle them. What did you tell [the other Earth Science teacher] when she started? What would you tell her if she were starting now? 5) What advice would you have for a new teacher about your department head at Lakeside? What is the department head like, what do you need to be concerned about, how best to reach them and handle them. What did you tell [the other Earth Science teacher] when she started? What would you tell her if she were starting now? 6) What advice would you have for a new teacher about the parents of Lakeside students? What are they like, what do you need to be concerned about, how best to reach them and handle them. What are typical interactions with parents? Is the shouting match or confrontation typical? Offers of help? Information about child you should know? How involved are most parents? What did you tell [the other Earth Science teacher] when she started? What would you tell her if she were starting now? What do you think about at parent-teacher conferences? What are your concerns/worries? Have they changed over the years? How? What are the concerns of your department? The administration? 7) Is there anything about the institution of schooling as you have it here at Lakeside that you think could be changed to better accomplish project-based science teaching?

343 Specific aspects if not mentioned: scheduling grading space policies (e.g. open campus) any other resources that are controlled by the institution or shared 8) You told me a little bit about your father and grandfather, and what you learned from them. Would you mind retelling that for the tape recorder so to speak? How do they fit in to your idea of work ethic? Are there any other people you feel like you learned a lot from? Any who particularly affected your ideas on learning and teaching? Why? e.g. teachers, professors, graduate adviser, wife 9) Youve mentioned a couple of proverbs or aphorisms you find applicable to your work as a teacher, like "you cant paint with a dry brush" and "give someone a fish and they eat for a day, teach them to fish and they eat for the rest of their lives." Are there any others which are particularly meaningful to you? Why? 10) Switch gears again if time. What are the most memorable projects to you, for good or bad or indifferent reasons? This year, last year, whatever. Why is each memorable? Are there any projects or trends in projects that caused you to change the way you structure or describe projects to the class as a whole or the next time around? I know this could be hard to remember, but any particularly salient ones would be interesting to know about (note rel to this - different versions of handouts - do you still have them?)

344 September 1995 interview with Rory Wagner What advice would you have for a new teacher trying to do what youre doing about the administration at Lakeside? What are they like, what do you need to be concerned about, what affects you Parallel question on advice about department heads Compare and contrast startup this year with last - what changes motivated, what changes coincidental - what think consequences are, evidence of so far, tradeoffs involved - last year, email first - this year Netscape first - last year, Netscape collecting data assignment - this year, Netscape play and later data - videos - lecture changes - what purpose do lectures and movies serve? - relative emphasis and time on tech, lectures, mini-project Id like to go over your thoughts on the first quarter project - first of all, how do you usually refer to this project? Mini-project, Model Project, Example Project, or what? - what are you doing differently and why - role of conversation with Mayumi, editor of the Far West story - goals, and ways you see students using what they learn in 2nd quarter - things the experience wont help them with (i.e. what missing) - specific ideas mentioned to me already, what are current thoughts on them: scoping in on size, students help formulate the questions about sand size in group brainstorming and focusing session, followup discussion on further project possibilities Youve mentioned a couple of proverbs or aphorisms you find applicable to your work as a teacher, like "you cant paint with a dry brush" and "give someone a fish and they eat for

345 a day, teach them to fish and they eat for the rest of their lives." You also mentioned "you can lead a horse to water, but you cant make him drink" in class this year. Are there any others which are particularly meaningful to you? Would you mind mentioning them to me if they occur to you in the course of your work, or emailing them off if you think of them. Using handouts from class that have changed over time, see why he made specific changes from one version to another (e.g. class description, project description, deliverables, assessment sheets). Were there any particular incidents or projects or trends in projects that precipitated the change (this is partially just a different kind of memory prod for events or ideas salient in a different way, but it also informs interpretation of intended) Follow up on important people in his experience. You made a comment to me at the workshop about people who have influenced you, which youd been thinking about while weeding - you mentioned a common quality they all had. What was it? [inquisitiveness?] - after hesitating, you mentioned that there were 2 or 3 teachers who influenced you. Who were you thinking of, and how did they influence you? - how would you say your graduate advisor influenced you (if not mentioned yet)? How did the Lakeside Internet connection come about? whose initiative, who pushed, who was interested (departments and people) who was reluctant, where money coming from, etc. - relate to sustainability what stumbling blocks have you encountered, do you expect to encounter? His opinion on grades: what role do they play in his classroom? - benefits and drawbacks of having them? of using them in different ways? - what sort of role do you see them playing in motivation?

346 My Chapter 1 - get specific comments from him on tape by leafing through or in writing (may be best in writing) February 1996 interview with Rory Wagner Looking back, what do you think of the way you introduced and started projects this year? Would you do it that way again (i.e. no model project, just getting into the "real" project)? Why? What do you think are the tradeoffs involved comparing "model projects" with jumping right in? Do you plan on any transition discussions or activities going from these current projects to the next? Is there anything you plan on stressing to them when they begin the next projects? What do you see as the primary issues to work with your students on in this coming project cycle? How do you see yourself working on them? (weve talked about - discussion of possible analyses and coming to conclusions) Youve talked about changing the paper format lately. Can you describe for me "on tape" the reasons for your re-evaluation, and possible changes youve considered? Can you describe for me how you currently envision the paper format for the next time around? Can you describe for me the milestones as you currently envision them for the next time around?

347 We were talking yesterday about some of the seemingly inevitable difficulties of having students work in groups. What do you think are the hardest things about having students work in groups? Why do you think its worth it to have students work in groups? (what benefits to them?) (what benefits to the running of the class?) Can you update me on school-wide or district wide recognition and awareness of what you guys are doing? You mentioned an Institute day in late Sept/early Nov - what happened there, and have there been many other things - anything else related to the Web site or Internet connection - anything else related to project science Thank you December 1995 interview with students (confidentiality and reason for interview) Why did you sign up for this course? Is it what you expected? (What did you know about it/what kind of reputation does it have?) How would you describe this class to another student? - including the lecture part and the project part - what is doing projects like? - what should they know if considering taking it? How do you think the lectures relate to the projects in Rorys class? How is this class like or different from other classes youu have taken? - specifically science classes

348 - what science classes have you had? Have you done "projects" in other classes? How are the projects in this class the similar and different? Do you think doing projects are a good way to learn science? Why or why not? How do you think what Rorys doing in his class could be improved? Do you prefer a science class with projects or a more traditional class with lectures, labs, and quizzes throughout the year (or a mixture)? - What do you think are the strengths and weaknesses of each method? What do you think Rory wants you to learn in this class? Do you think it happens? What do you think you are learning in Rorys class? What do you think youll take away from the experience of Rorys class that will be helpful or valuable to you later? Some specific questions about your project now: - Can you summarize what youve done in your project so far? - How often do people go to the library when they say they do? You and your group? - What do you think of the work grade? February 1996 interview with students Last time we talked was just before Christmas, and you had just begun your data analysis. Could you summarize what you did for the rest of the project since then? - information and data - turning in paper and doing rewrite - presentation What do you think was the best project (besides your own) youve seen in the class this past quarter?

349 Why? What do you think was the most interesting part of your project? What do you think was the most frustrating part of your project? What do you think you learned by doing this project? For the presentations, Rory asked you to rate how good the various projects were scientifically. What do you think makes a project good scientifically? Do you think your opinion would agree with Rorys? What differences are there? (data, use data to come to conclusions) Has your opinion about what makes for good science changed this year? How? What do you think was good or interesting about your project scientifically? What could you have changed about your own project to make it better? Added to it? Have you considered continuing your project? If you were going to continue this project, what would you do next? What (else) can you imagine doing for your next project? Why? (i.e. what would be good about it?) I was wondering what you think of Rory as a teacher. Of course I wont tell him. First, what do you think are Rorys strengths as a teacher? What makes Rory a good teacher? What do you think are Rorys weaknesses as a teacher? What could make Rory a better teacher? Are there any other aspects of "ideal teaching" that you dont see in Rory? Thank you

Appendix E

Class handouts 35

Rory distributed the following handouts36 to students in the second quarter of 1995-96, to help them in completing their projects.

35 Please note that these are living documents which Rory Wagner revises each year (and sometimes

project cycle). The versions included here are the ones students received during the period described in Chapters 8-12). The handouts have subsequently been revised. 36 The formatting on these handouts has been retained, with the exception of the margins, which have been widened; and the font, which has been changed from Helvetica 10pt to Times 12pt.

350

351

HOW TO DO AN EARTH SCIENCE PROJECT Scientists try to understand the world around them. They do this by trying to figure out how things work. To do this they usually have to make measurements and observations. The more careful they are, the better their data is. Then they try to figure out what the measurements and observations mean, keeping in mind the laws of nature that control everything around us. You are going to act as scientists, and explore the workings of Earth Science phenomena. You are not being asked to solve all the worlds problems, or unravel the Ultimate Mysteries of the Universe. But your research will be original to some extent, because if somebody already knows the answer to your question, you don t really have a question. Basically, youre going to be looking at how do things work? What proof (data) can you find? Can you convince your classmates that you have really figured it out? How do we go about this process? Scientists start in many different ways. Some of them have questions that pop up in their heads so to speak. Things they have always seemed to want to know about. They want to know why things happen. Sometimes, however, the opposite happens. Some scientists see what is usually happening, and notice that it doesnt always happen. They try to figure out why doesnt it always happen? Sometimes scientists stumble upon new things while looking for something entirely different. Or, they might be given an area of research by their boss, to see what they can find out. All of these are ways to do science. The important parts of doing a project are: ** THE QUESTION, which is what you are trying to find out about some phenomena; ** THE METHOD, which is what you actually do; this could be an experiment, or it could just be a description of how you collected and analyzed your data to answer your question; ** THE DATA, which is the information you collect, usually information in numerical or visual form, from which a conclusion can be drawn. This can either be data which you would collect by observation or experimentation, or by collecting and using someone elses data; ** THE CONCLUSION you come to, based on the data you collect. Here are the steps we will use to do our projects, with time guidelines for each step of the process. These time guidelines are not entirely set in stone. 1) Find a BROAD TOPIC in Earth Science that you are interested in. (1-2 Days) a) Is there an Earth Science topic that interests you? (Volcanoes? Floods?) b) Can you use any available information sources to discover anomalies? ----things that are different from the usual. c) What are your own interests in life? (sports, photography, music?) -can you find a way to combine your interests with Earth Science?

352 2) Find a research partner or partners. GROUP MAXIMUM SIZE=3 (1-2 Days) a) It could be someone in your class, any of the other Earth Science classes here at [Lakeside], or any of the CoVis classes at schools across the US. b) Your partner(s) should really want to explore the same topic that you do. -remember, you dont need an anchor you need a partner. -use e-mail, personal conversations, CoVis newsgroups to find them. 3) Do background material research. (2 weeks) a) You need to find out the way things work. For example, if you were interested in caves, you need to find out how they are formed, where they form, what rocks do they form in, how long oes it take for them to form? b) You need to know enough about the topic to be able to explain it to someone else, so that they understand the basics too. c) You have to do some reading in Earth Science or other specialized science books, encyclopedias, etc., to get this background information. Some may be available on the Internet. 4) Narrow your broad topic into a research proposal. (1 week) a) You dont have to actually find data in this part, just come up with an idea for something to explore. b) What is it about your broad topic that is most interesting to you? Maybe your fascinated by the fact that caves only form in certain states, or maybe there is one near your vacation home in Wisconsin. b) Be sure that your research idea is do-able. No trips to the end of the galaxy to collect data! c) You need to find an idea that you can test, measure. experiment on (this is called collecting data), or be able to find existing data to support or prove your research idea. It basically has to be small enough to do. Finding the cure for acid rain or how to stop planetary greenhouse warming might be topics that are a little too large to handle. You dont have to collect all the data yourself!! There are hundreds of scientists in the world working on lots of different research projects. Somewhere there might be someone collecting (or has already collected) the data that you need. This is where the library, telephone, and CoVis communication tools come into play. 5) Figure out how you are going to try to answer your question. a) What do you already know about the topic? b) What other questions about the topic come up? c) What information do you need to find the answer to the question you have asked? d) Where do you find the information you need? 6) Collect Data. (2 weeks) a) Use all the resources available to you. - Library books, periodicals, journals, personal conversations, data bases, images, Images, whatever it takes, whatever you can find. b) This might also be experimental data your group collects.

353 7) Analyze your data to see what you have discovered. (1 week) a) Graph your data to maky any patterns/connections more visible. b) What does your data tell you? c) Does your data support what you started out to prove? d) Does the data explain the phenomena you were exploring? e) If the data shows something different that what you expected, why? - this might be the real project!!! 8) Write a paper explaining your project. (2 weeks) - See the separate handout. 8) Prepare a presentation to the class. (1 week) - there will be more information about this later.

354

Project Milestones and Due Dates In order to keep the work going at a steady pace, you will be required to turn in documents, on or by the following dates, as proof that you have completed each of the different steps. Points will be given at each Milestone for the work satisfactorily completed. The Milestones grade will be part of your semester grade. The "point values" below are the number of points that you get when you meet the deadline, you lose a point a day (5-4-3-21-0, or 10-9-...-2-1-0) until you are out of points for that "section". Five (5) "Bonus Points" will be given for Research Proposals, Data Collection, Data Analysis and Papers that are completed and accepted BEFORE the due date.

The first deadline is Friday! Due: FRIDAY November 10th THE BROAD TOPIC (5 points) and A LIST OF GROUP MEMBERS (5 points) REMEMBER, ONLY 2-3 PEOPLE IN A GROUP You can "package" these first two things together, and send them to me by email. Wednesday November22nd BACKROUND INFORMATION on your topic. (10 points) ** Start with your text book or any of the Esci texts in the lab. ** Read the chapter/section that relates to your topic. ** Take notes or make an outline. Show me the notes/outline. ** Everyone in the group should be doing this in order to become familiar with the topic. ** If you need more information than your text can provide (which SHOULD be the case) see me for additional resource books located in the "office" next door. AFTER these resources have been exhausted, the Library may be used, but you need my permission to go. DON'T just walk out!!! The Internet is not usually a good place to look for this information. FRIDAY December 1st The RESEARCH PROPOSAL (10 Points) This MUST BE APPROVED by me before you can go any further. Send me a copy by email. FRIDAY December 15th DATA COLLECTION is due to be finished. (10 Points) Send/give me a COPY. This does not have to be electronic, but it could be. FRIDAY December 22nd DATA ANALYSIS should be done. (10 Points) Send me a copy by email.

355

FRIDAY January 12th The PAPER is due. (10 Points) I need both a good paper copy, and an electronic copy. FRIDAY January 19th37 CLASS PRESENTATIONS should be finished. Presentations will be January 22nd and 23rd (before finals) and January 29th after finals. More about this later. Questions??????? See me.

37 This deadline was moved back to accomodate the addition of a week and an half for students to complete a

paper revision, which was due on Wednesday, January 24th during finals. From January 29th through February 2nd, students prepared their presentations. From February 5th through February 9th, students gave their presentations.

356

BACKGROUND INFORMATION In order to help you prepare your background information, I deveised this scale to help you. These are the types of products I am expecting for each of the corresponding grades. In other words, if you want to get a certain grade, you need to turn in the appropriate type of background material. GRADE A+ A AB+ B BC+ C BACKGROUND INFORMATION Typed and printed, paragraph form. Ready to put in your paper. Handwritten, paragraph form. Ready to put in your paper after you type it. Very detailed and complete outline. Shows great depth of research. Lots of notes, or underlined or highlighted copies. Well organized. Lots of notes, or underlined or highlighted copies. Not well organized. Books printouts, copies, but no evidence of reading or organizing. Highlighted notes, but overall content not complete, detailed or organized. Fragmented notes. Some evidence of research, but not detailed, complete or organized. CHave notes/copies, but they are greatly disorganized, and dreadfully incomplete. D F Scarce note/copies. Little evidence of much research effort. Absolutely no notes/copies/printouts turned in.

357

PROJECT REPORTS The following reports are required from each GROUP: 1. Written report. Length: as long as you need it to be to inform the class about your project. Typed, double spaced. 10 point type. (this text is 10 point type) Graphs, diagrams and charts: each report must have one or more Data Tables to logically/neatly present your data. Each report must have one or more Graphs/Charts to help you visually present the findings of your data analysis. The spreadsheet program, Excel will aid you with table and graphs/charts. Diagrams may be included in the paper if they help to illustrate a point or explain a process. If possible, all of these items should be placed in the body of the report along with the text (like a book or a newpaper), instead of on a separate sheet of paper. If it isnt possible to include the tables, charts or diagrams directly in the paper, they should be as close to the text that refers to them as possible, and not at the end of the paper. Be sure to 1) label them (Table 1, or Graph 1, or Diagram 1, etc.), and 2) include a descriptive caption (Graph showing the relationship between ...). All diagrams/tables/charts should be typed, computer generated, or copies from reference materials. If copied from another source be sure to quote the source in, or immediately after, the caption (Graph from Press, 1987). If you have to attach an illustration to a page, it should be glued neatly (rubber cement preferred), not taped or stapled. Format: This report should follow the format below. Class presentation. This presentation allows you to share your research with the class. Basically, it should include: 1) your original proposal/question, 2) the information from your Introduction, 3) your Method, 4) your Results, and 5) your Conclusion. You need to describe your project goals, tell how you did your research or collected your data, and an analysis of your data (your results). Visuals are encouraged. Computer images, or overhead transparencies would be best. Posterboards will be allowed, but every item on them must be clearly visible to everyone in the audience. No drawings on the chalkboard, except during the questions and answers. Time. Each presentation will be limited to 15 min, followed by a question/answer period.

2.

RESEARCH PAPER FORMAT Each paper must have each of the parts listed below. Each section, excluding the Title page, must be clearly labeled in your paper. There may be more than one section on each page. 1 . TITLE PAGE This page should include the title of your project, names of the authors, and date submitted.

358

2 . ABSTRACT This section is a brief summary of your work. Be brief. It includes: 1) your Proposal (project idea/question), 2) a description of your Method (what you did), and 3) your Conclusion. This should not be more than 200 words long. The abstract gives the reader a quick overview of your project, so that he/she can decide from the abstract if he/she needs to read the rest of the paper. 3 . INTRODUCTION (Background material/information) This section is for the background information that you collected. You should include enough information here to provide the reader with enough general background information to 1) understand your research, 2) show them that you really know what you are talking about. This section should summarize the important findings that have preceeded your work, the work of researchers or scientists that studied this area before you did. Be sure to use scientific citations when necessary. See Page 19 in the Style Manual for Research Papers, but change the page # to the year of publication. 4 . METHOD (Process, Experiment, Research) In this section you describe what you did to find the answer to your question. Be very specific. Anyone who reads your report should be able to duplicate your research using this description of your research. How did you go about finding the answer to your question?Tell what information you were looking for, why you needed it, and how you went about trying to find it. This section may vary greatly depending on the type of project you do. It might describe how you constructed a model and tested it, or it might tell how you collected your own samples or data and how you analyzed what you found. Or, tt might be how you collected data electronically, or from library resources. 5 . RESULTS (Data and Data Analysis) The Method section describes HOW you collected the data, and this section SHOWS the data you collected, and WHAT YOU DID WITH IT. This would include any tables, graphs, charts, maps, images, etc., that you found or made. It also includes any calculations, drawings, graphs, charts, images, etc., that you made in your attempt to find out just what the data means. 6 . CONCLUSIONS (Results) What conclusions can you draw from the data you collected and analyzed? What did you find out about your original Research Proposal question? If you started your project with a specific point to prove or disprove, does the data you collected and analyzed support your original proposal/question? Or, did your analysis appear to be contradictory to what you thought it would be? If you were just trying to find out how something worked, or how things were related, what did you find out? Specifically state how your data supports/proves/disproves your original question/proposal. 7 . LITERATURE CITED This is where you document all sources. Anything you use that was created by someone else must be listed here. To create a Literature Cited, follow the format in the [Lakeside] Style Manual for Science Citations (or, maybe even talk to an English

359 teacher[!], librarian, or science teacher.) Be sure to include all the information you got electronically. The format we will use will be: Author (last name first). Copyright date. Title of Web Page. Application used. URL address Schimmrich, Steven H. 1995. The Structural Geology Home Page. Netscape. http://hercules.geology.uiuc.edu/~shimmri/geology/structure.html#data Be sure to include your mentor if you have one, and personal conversations where you got information that you use in the research. Basically, if there is something in your paper that you got from someplace other than being made up in your own brain, there should be a reference to it here! How your paper is graded. TITLE PAGE ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION METHOD DATA & ANALYSIS CONCLUSION LIT.CITED STRUCTURE (spelling sent. struct internal cit.) TOTAL POINTS= (5 Pts) (10 Pts) (20 Pts) (20 Pts) (10 Pts & 10 Pts) (20 Pts) (10 Pts) (10 Pts)

(115 Pts)