The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School Department of Learning and Performance Systems A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF VIRTUAL SCIENCE LABS IN CYBER CHARTER SCHOOLS A Dissertation in Learning, Design, and Technology by Victoria Raish 2016 Victoria Raish Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy August 2016 ii The dissertation of Victoria Raish was reviewed and approved* by the following: Ali Carr-Chellman Department Head, Learning and Performance Systems Professor of Education Dissertation Advisor Chair of Committee Kyle L. Peck Professor of Education COIL Co-Director Priya Sharma Associate Professor of Education Learning, Design, and Technology Julia Plummer Associate Professor of Education Science Education Roy B. Clariana Professor of Education Learning, Design, and Technology Director of Graduate Studies for Learning and Performance Systems *Signatures on file at the graduate school iii ABSTRACT This research studied the labs being used in cyber charter schools. Using a purposive sampling technique this study looked for identifiable markers that have the potential to engage learners in scientific practices and crosscutting concepts in middle school cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania. Markers for support from constructivist instructional design are identified and described. The framework for observing the virtual labs was formed from science practices and crosscutting concepts outlined in The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and design principles from constructivism. Crosscutting concepts are the foundational concepts that cut across science disciplines. The NGSS are based on the National Research Council’s 2012 A Framework for K-12 Science Education. Core ideas are the third foundation of science and are not included in this dissertation as they have been studied in several other science labs (see Pyatt & Sims, 2011; Van Joolingen, De Jong, & Dimitrakopouluo, 2007). Scientific practices are espoused in the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) as competencies that all students should experience to understand how science works. Constructivist support features will guide the identification of design features that could be present in the labs. Specifically an ethnographic, directed content analysis was used to frame findings. The goal of content analysis “always involves relating or comparing findings to some standard, norm, or theory” (Carney, 1972, p. 5). This research used the NGSS as standards and the constructivist design supports as the practical application of constructivist learning theory. The directed nature of this content analysis allowed for emergent categories. Ethnographic content analysis (ECA) can be considered ‘etic’ iv because it is not aimed at “understanding informants from their own perspective” (Smith, Sells, & Clevenger, 1994, p. 2). An ECA forges a bridge between traditional content analysis and more ethnographic techniques. Berelson (1952) and Carney (1972) characterized traditional content analysis as quantitative and objective. An ECA approach focuses on the reflexivity of the research design while allowing for emergent data categories and narrative descriptions (Altheide, 1987). ECA differs from traditional content analysis because of the reflexive and highly interactive nature of the investigator, concepts, data collection, and analysis (Altheide, 1987, p. 68). Directed content analysis was selected because there is previous research and design principles for science labs, both virtual and traditional, but none of the extant literature found specifically looked at the labs being used in cyber charter schools or worked with K-12 students who were receiving their education primarily in an online environment. Interviews conducted with eight teachers from five cyber charter schools revealed that there is not a uniform laboratory experience for students and it does not always match the existing definitions for what a science lab is. Interviews with teachers revealed that there are a variety of innovative ways that teachers and schools have used to engage students with labs. The sample size of 20 virtual labs (4 from each of 5 cyber charter schools) was intended to provide an in-depth and targeted picture of the phenomena under study. Labs were selected based on a variety of factors. Preference was given to labs that the teacher used, that led to a wide range of core ideas selected, and that were from multiple software systems. A framework was created to serve as the preliminary guide of the relationships between and amongst the categories. This framework was built from the two foundations v of the NGSS and design principles from constructivism. The framework is used as a starting point for the analysis of the content of the labs. In being consistent with directed content analysis, the constructs gained from previous research are used both to orient the current study and to extend the knowledge around an existing theory (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). The results of this study identified a significant amount of variation in the science labs that students complete in cyber charter schools. Eight themes emerged from the teacher interviews that spoke to the range of expectations, support, and curricula in cyber charter schools. The themes are (1) the design of the labs; (2) teacher dedication and improvisation; (3) teacher availability to students; (4) communication practices; (5) parental expectations from the school; (6) challenges with the virtual labs; (7) willingness to allow revisions and give detailed feedback to students; and (8) teacher definitions of labs in the virtual setting. The science practices identified by the NGSS as central to the practice of science are all identified in at least one of the labs analyzed. However, as a whole the labs met some of the science practices more than others. 40% of the labs allowed students to ask research questions, 30% of the labs had prompts that allow engaging in argument from evidence, and 10% of the labs encouraged students to communicate and discuss the results of their labs. Many of the crosscutting concepts identified in the labs were implicit (34%) rather than explicit (19%). Therefore, the concept was not made clear during analysis of the labs. Quinn et al. (2012) stress the importance of making these concepts explicit to students. All of the labs had some constructivist design features/markers of constructivist learning environments. Markers that were particularly present in the labs were having some level of descriptive sequence vi for the students to follow in the lab (95%), controlling confounding variables for the students (80%) and giving the students some level of control/independence over the lab (75%). The constructivist design components lacking were communication features to promote communication between instructors and peers (10%), reflective and metacognitive scaffolds (25%), and having authentic activities (45%). The labs were particularly lacking in asking students for their prior knowledge (25%), acknowledging the complexity of empirical work for students (5%), or having students reflect on the empirical design (5%). Many of the labs had both ill (50%) and well-structured (70%) problems, experiments (40%) and observations (70%) all in the same lab. As a result of this research emergent categories related to the context of cyber charter schools such as engaging with parents, reducing navigation windows, and being ‘text-lite’ for students came from studying the labs. The knowledge gained from this study is that (a) more is known about the context in which students complete their virtual labs; (b) the structure and details of the virtual labs have been deeply described; and (c) emerging relationships between important features of a virtual lab from the student perspective are postulated. For cyber charter school students who do not have the option of face-to-face physical labs, the virtual labs should provide an equivalent educational experience. This research extends the conversation on whether virtual lab activities have the potential to provide this equivalent educational experience. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………………..xii LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………………xvii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………….xviii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION………………………………………...………………….1 PROBLEM STATEMENT………………………………………...…………………5 PURPOSE STATEMENT…………………………………………...……………….7 RESEARCH QUESTIONS…………………………………………...……………...8 DEFINITION OF TERMS…………………………………………...………………8 IMPORTANCE OF STUDY………………………………………...………………10 LIMITATIONS OF STUDY………………………………………...………………11 SUMMARY…………………………………………………………..……………..12 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………..……………13 REVIEW OF DISTANCE EDUCATION, CONSTRUCTIVISM, AND SCIENCE LEARNING……………..………………………………………………………..…………13 DISTANCE EDUCATION………………………………………………...………..14 CYBER CHARTER SCHOOLS…………………………………………...………..15 ONLINE LEARNING……………………………………………………...………..18 LEARNING THROUGH MEDIA…………………………………………...……...20 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK…………………………………………………...…….21 CONSTRUCTIVISM AS THEORY…………………………………………...……21 DESIGN OF CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS………...……26 ACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS………………………...………30 SCAFFOLDS AND SCRIPTS……………………………………………...31 METACOGNITION………………………………………………………..33 REFLECTION……………………………………………………………...36 SENSE-MAKING………………………………………………………….37 PROBLEM-SOLVING…………………………………………………….38 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK…………………………………………………………39 SCIENCE CONCEPTS AND PRACTICES……………………………………….39 SCIENTIFIC PRACTICES………………………………………………..39