The Nature of Science Learning in On-line and Face-to-Face Interactions Inquiry Project 2 MSU-CEP 806 2006 Brandon Morrow 9/26/06 Description of Meetings Upon initially reading the requirements for this third and final inquiry project, I was thrilled to see I had been paired with Katie Demorest to conduct the three science challenges. Having worked with Katie during this past summer in East Lansing, I knew we had a firm working relationship from which to build upon and succeed in making this final project a valuable learning experience. As Suler points out in his article Presence in Cyberspace, “…we tend to feel more at ease interacting with people we know. Upon meeting them again, we quickly slip into the sense of their presence because they are familiar to us. Just a few simple cues - verbal, auditory, visual - can trigger the memory of who they are.” (Suler 2000) Slipping back into familiar work routines proved to be very beneficial to our working relationship and would also make this final project that much more enjoyable. Katie contacted me by e-mail on Monday, October 23rd to let me know we had been paired together, and also to schedule when we would conduct the three challenge activities. We decided to first tackle the face-to-face egg drop challenge. Both of us agreed this would be the perfect opportunity to reacquaint ourselves with one another’s work styles resulting in making the two remaining challenges, the synchronous chat and asynchronous blog, run much more smoothly compared to a team that may have never met in person before. We met at Katie’s home in Battle Creek on Saturday, November 4th to perform the egg drop challenge. The duration of this challenge, from start to finish, was approximately one hour and twenty minutes. The total amount of time spent in the design of the egg drop device was approximately twenty minutes, with the remainder of the time spent conducting drop tests, taking video and photographs of the design process, and attempting to figure out how to transfer video from my new digital Sony movie camera. We were fortunate in that we did not experience any specific challenges or circumstances with this challenge. Of all the group pairings for this project, I believe Katie and I lucked out living in such close proximity to one another. This made the faceto-face meeting very possible and free from the possible stress of having to drive for hours to meet one another. At the conclusion of the face-to-face challenge we scheduled to meet on-line the following morning to conduct the tower of pencils activity through a synchronous chat via the Angel website. The second challenge activity, tower of pencils, was conducted on Sunday, November 5th. Katie and I had agreed the previous day at the conclusion of the egg drop challenge, that it would be in the best interest of our overall project plan if we quickly met in the Angel website chat room the next morning to conduct our synchronous chat. The reasoning behind meeting again so quickly was to keep alive and fresh, the momentum and working dialogue we had quickly established during the egg drop

challenge the day before. We felt by performing the next activity so quickly after the first challenge, we would still have fresh in our minds one another’s mannerisms, facial expressions, body language cues, and verbal cues to really know what the other was truly meaning during our chat session. The total time needed to complete this activity was approximately an hour and fifteen minutes. One challenge that was persistent throughout this particular activity was the chat room in the Angel website. Both Katie and I experienced the chat room momentarily shutting off on three different occasions reverting to a previously viewed page. We quickly returned to the chat room page but all previous communications were lost resulting in both of us having to restate again what we had previously written to keep the flow of the activity moving forward. Though this was not a major roadblock to completing the overall activity, it did become frustrating causing minor distress and also slowed our progress. The third and final challenge activity, the catapult, began on Monday, November th 6 and ended on Saturday, November 11th. Total time spent either communicating via our blog page or designing, constructing, testing, and modifying our catapults was in the ballpark of two and one-half hours. Not having Katie on-line at the same time as myself brought up an interesting challenge for me not experienced in the previous two challenges. When faced with a design question, challenge, or basic question that could have been quickly discussed and remedied in a face-to-face setting or chat room, I found myself spending a great deal more time attempting to trouble shoot the problem myself requiring more time spent on the problem than if I had simply waited for Katie’s reply. Posing my idea or concern on the blog page I often found it hard to resist tinkering with my catapult in an attempt to fix my problem while waiting for feedback from Katie. When I did get feedback (which was always timely) I was able to quickly solve the problem and move on. Had I only waited patiently, I could have saved myself a good deal of time and undue frustration. I guess this is all part of the learning process of this final inquiry project.

Compare/Contrast Analysis of the Experience Across the 3 Settings Though this final project was filled with numerous experiences worthy of lengthy elaboration, I’ve chosen to focus on those few that stood out the most to me. These experiences and the ideas created, truly require careful reflection in the case of this third inquiry project. Furthermore, the implications of these experiences over the past three weeks and how they will play out in science education in years to come is what intrigues me even more. Will the experiences I’ve had in comparing these three modes of communication be as rewarding, or in some cases, just as frustrating to students if I were to implement collaborative projects like this in my own classroom? Will the two on-line modes of communication used in this final inquiry project even be in existence a few years from now, or replaced by more readily available internet video conferences as more and more schools and households are wired with cable internet allowing for faster more efficient modes of communication, such as video? Oh, how I wish my crystal ball did indeed tell the future of technology as it relates to education. For now, I must be satisfied with current research and personal experience, like that gained during this inquiry project

to truly know how effective or ineffective learning scientific concepts can be using online communication tools. Reflecting on the three communication tools utilized in the past two weeks I would order their ease of use and level of clarity or unambiguousness, as they relate to scientific inquiry, from best to worst. I have also focused on the similarities and differences experienced in each of these different communication contexts. First, I must choose face-to-face interaction as the communication tool of choice. The face-to-face interaction leaves very little room for interpretation or misrepresentation of the other person’s true attitudes and point of view. Also, the face-to-face modality offers its participants a fast paced, quick response environment within to share ideas and receive immediate feedback resulting in a more enjoyable experience. These attributes in support of face-to-face communication as the “tool of choice” are witnessed in many studies comparing face-to-face versus threaded discussions, blogs, synchronous chats, etc. One such study released by Katrina Meyer of the University of North Dakota found that, “…students said they enjoyed its (face-to-face communication) “speed,” “spark,” or “energy,” the way they could build upon each others’ comments, collaborate on the spot, and benefit from the enthusiasm of others.” (Meyer 2003) During the egg drop experience I felt this “speed”, “spark”, and “energy” as mentioned by Meyer making for a much more enjoyable learning experience. Ideas on how to completely change or modify our egg protector were quickly and easily discussed. Sitting directly across from one another, not only were we able to quickly and efficiently discuss ideas but could both see first hand the actual modifications being made to our device as they happened. There was no wait time while ideas were sent back and forth or re-sent for clarification to the initial ideas. We were not separately constructing our own devices, sending one another photos, and finally agreeing or disagreeing on the changes discussed only to have to start the whole process over again if we were not satisfied or had misinterpreted one another’s ideas. The second communication tool I’ve chosen is the synchronous chat tool. Though incredibly different from the face-to-face method of communicating for obvious reasons, most obvious being that you’re not face-to-face, the synchronous chat has one incredibly similar attribute ranking it a close second to the face-to-face method, which is the speed in which you are able to communicate your ideas. Granted, it is not as instantaneous as sitting directly across from the individual you are working with, but as long as both parties are efficient typists and are as clear in their communications as possible, I don’t find a great deal of difference between the face-to-face interaction and the chat. The one specific difference I would note is the ability to write, read, and reflect on what you have written, before hitting the “send” button. Unlike face-to-face communication, the chat affords the user the opportunity to reflect on and double check their query or response before submitting it. A small luxury you do not have when speaking with someone directly. This idea of reflection time and being able to critically review your thoughts and ideas is supported by Donald in his article entitled, Is "As Good as Face-to-Face" As Good As It Gets. In the article he states, “…many studies have found more students respond, responses are longer and more complex, and interactions are increased in online education when compared to face-to-face (interaction)”. (Donald 2002)

The last, and definitely least, of the three communication tools used in this inquiry project is the asynchronous blog. Though blogs, message boards, e-mail, etc. can be useful communication tools, they lend themselves well to more relaxed informal topics, or instances where timely responses are not imperative or important to the individuals taking part in the blog. I think of these communication tools as “last resort” tools. I call these “last resort” tools because I don’t have the patience to wait unexpectedly for others to reply. As I mentioned, asynchronous communication lends itself well to certain activities. In the specific case of this inquiry project though I became a bit frustrated in having to wait for responses, not knowing when I could get back to my catapult to improve my design after consulting with Katie concerning a question I posed. My feelings towards the asynchronous means of communicating are reinforced by Tiene in his article entitled Online Discussions: A Survey of Advantages and Disadvantages Compared to Face-to-Face Discussions. Tiene states, “Participation can occur at any time, over a lengthier time frame, with sequence possibly a less significant issue. This may be convenient, but the delays between responses may weaken the discussion.” (Tiene 2000) Perhaps this is why Katie and I did not make as many posts as we initially anticipated we would. Though we did not meet the required number of postings, we were very detailed and elaborate in our postings therefore not requiring as many smaller posts. In the case of our weekly class discussions asynchronous communication lends itself perfectly to the format and questions posed for discussion. In sharp contrast to this specific project where I was constantly looking for quick feedback, a more general discussion, such as our weekly discussions, require more in depth thought and reflection before posting comments and opinions. Donald sums up this point best in his article Is "As Good as Face-to-Face" As Good As It Gets? stating, “Asynchronicity, as well as the text-based nature of online education, necessitates communication by writing thereby allowing time for reflection. The processes of writing and reflecting encourage higher level learning such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, and promotes clearer and more precise thinking.” (Donald 2002) Looking closely at the three communication tools previously discussed it is easy to order them from most desirable to least desirable based on the specific task which was trying to be accomplished. Placing these in a much different context might result in the same ordering or opposite. It all depends on the task at hand and the speed and efficiency with which one wants to accomplish the task.

Implications for My Life As I have attempted to do with all of my master’s degree work, I want to look specifically at how I can impact my own classroom with the knowledge gained from these courses. More specifically in the case of this project, how can I impact the teaching of science to my third grade students through the communication tools I used in completing this assignment? Though only one or two of my students have the knowledge of computers to attempt what Katie and I did for this project, I believe I could have a profound impact on science learning within my classroom through teacher led activities utilizing chat rooms and blog postings. Though our main focus would be on scientific concepts using e-mail, blogs, and chat rooms to communicate with third grade classrooms from other schools, scientists, professionals in the science field, etc., I can see the

positive benefits of exposing my students to these current technologies at such an early age. More than likely, as they enter high school, graduate, and go onto college these current technologies may be obsolete, but the knowledge of how to effectively use new technology to benefit them educationally will be ingrained in them and part of their personal skill set for life. Personally, I am already experiencing the increased availability of up to the minute information specifically concerning the Internet and cell phones. As a pilot I am always keeping an eye to the sky monitoring current weather and forecasts. I recently had a web-based aviation weather service added to my cell phone. It not only gives me real-time weather to use even while in the aircraft but allows me to contact flight service stations anywhere in the country to alter flight plans, and request detailed weather briefings to cross check the weather information I’m receiving on my phone. Reflecting back on the first time I read the instructions for this last inquiry project I’m reminded of the statement of how unusual many of the technologies we are using today were just a short 10 years ago. As we become more and more comfortable with using these technologies that don’t require face-to-face interaction and as they become more readily available and easy to use, I just hope we don’t lose sight of the most basic, personal, and respectful means of communicating, looking another human being in the eye and truly knowing how they feel and know exactly what it is they are communicating to us.

Appendix Data Worksheet / Egg Drop Challenge / Face-to-Face Activity Overview of the interaction: Katie and I met at her house in Battle Creek on the morning of Saturday, November 4th to conduct the egg drop challenge activity. The activity began by first organizing all of the materials on Katie’s dining room table (balloon, two sheets of printer paper, toilet paper tube, four cells from styrofoam egg carton, scotch tape, and small eggs). Next, our conversation of the activity began by asking if one another had ever attempted an egg drop activity before. Neither of us had. With all the materials laid before us, we began brainstorming what might be the best way to construct a capsule to best protect our egg. First, we discussed possibly attaching the balloon (filled with air) to the toilet paper tube in a manner that when we dropped the egg from an eight foot height the balloons opening would be pointing down releasing its air therefore slowing the descent of the egg as it fell. After spending approximately five minutes struggling with how to best attach the balloon to achieve the desired effect and not coming up with a solution, we abandoned the balloon all together and went back to the drawing board. Our next plan of attack focused on using the four place styrofoam egg carton as a cushion to absorb the large amount of force that would be experienced by the egg upon impacting the floor. This plan would end up being the final design to be successfully tested. The design and construction of our final product took approximately ten minutes to complete. The following steps in the design and construction of our final product have been numbered and correspond with the photos following each description. 1. We began by leaving all four cells connected.

2. Second, we placed the egg directly in the center of the styrofoam egg container.

3. Third, we cut one inch slits in the bottom of the toilet paper tube so as to allow it to better fit over top of the egg.

4. Next, we taped the toilet paper tube securely to each of the four cells in the egg container to firmly hold it in place.

Content with our final design, it was off to the basement to test our egg protector. Unsure if the styrofoam would have adequate absorption capabilities we were a little nervous on our first drop. Climbing to the top of the ladder Katie dropped our egg protector from a height of eight feet while I video taped the event. When the container impacted the ground it made a sizeable crashing sound, like a piece of wood smacking cement. Judging by the sound of the impact we were sure the egg had been destroyed. After peeling back the tape and lifting the toilet paper tube from the egg, we were surprised to see the egg fully intact without even a crack. Not fully satisfied we took our egg protector outdoors and dropped it from Katie’s front porch onto the ground below at a height of twelve feet. Again, the egg survived fully intact. Flow, tempo, & rhythm of the experience: From start to finish, the flow of our experience working together with the face-toface activity was extremely smooth. Katie and I made a strong working connection from the start and built upon one another’s ideas for modifying and improving our egg container design. Concerning our rhythm we experienced small pauses in the initial design faze of creating our egg protector. These were quickly overcome though through solid communication back and forth as we both contributed to how we could improve our

design. The overall tempo of this activity was very fast. From start to finish we spent approximately twenty to thirty minutes designing, implementing, and reflecting on our experience with this activity. New ideas about the problem: Before beginning the design of our egg drop container we had the idea of consulting the internet searching for examples of containers designed by others using similar materials we had available. After ten minutes of searching we found numerous examples of containers but none using the materials we had before us. Not finding any useful sites or ideas we quickly abandoned our search and set out to conduct the design from scratch. Another idea about the problem mentioned earlier was trying to incorporate all the materials into our design. We were unable to find a purposeful use for the two sheets of printer paper and balloon, so we simply left them out of the design. Quality of the interaction: The quality of interaction for this specific problem was very high from the start. Having worked with Katie this past summer in East Lansing on numerous projects we already had a good working relationship established. We both exhibit work ethics similar to one another. When this final inquiry project was assigned we were in contact with one another and planning our meeting times, the order in which we would conduct each activity, and setting work schedules the same day as the posting of the assignment.

Data worksheet / Tower of Pencils Challenge / Synchronous Chat Activity Overview of the interaction: Katie and I scheduled and performed the “Tower of Pencils Challenge” on the morning of Sunday, November 5th, the day after completing the face-to-face egg drop challenge. Our synchronous chat began at 10:00 a.m. We began the activity by brainstorming ideas for the base of our tower. We both agreed that using four pencils to create a square would give us the most stability. We both created and e-mailed photos of our squares to one another. Happy with our results, we moved on. We next tackled the problem of building a structure upon this base that would give the most stability to our final structure and the greatest opportunity for height. Katie proposed constructing a cube upon our base while I suggested building a pyramid for rigidity. We each communicated that we would construct our ideas, send each other a photo, and decide which design we would continue with. After reviewing one another’s photos we decided upon the pyramid. This initial phase of the creation of our tower took approximately 15 minutes to complete as the sending of photos back and forth slowed us down considerably. We next tackled the task of creating as much height with the remaining pencils as possible. Through trial and error, and reporting of this trial and error through instant messaging, we came up with the idea to bundle three pencils together that would stand directly in the center of our pyramid being supported by the four pencils making up the pyramid as the first photo demonstrates. We then built upon this bundle of pencils to support the remaining pencils by standing them one-by-one on top of each other with one rubber band to secure them as seen in the second photo.

We concluded the activity by sending each other photos of our completed towers. Flow, tempo, & rhythm of the experience: Compared to the face-to-face egg drop activity, the tower activity posed more of a challenge. Not that the specific task was more difficult to perform, but the slow down in communicating ideas back in forth turned a project that could be quickly and more efficiently completed face-to-face, into a more time intensive endeavor. Overall flow, rhythm, and tempo of the activity moved forward in a blocked manner, meaning we

would communicate our ideas and then pause while waiting for the other to perform the task and reply back. As we fell into a routine of communicating, constructing, and replying the speed with which we performed these blocks of work increased steadily. We were fortunate in that we did not experience any major slow downs or regression due to design failure. New ideas about the problem: What seemed like a complex problem to me at first quickly turned into a simple fix once Katie and I had our tower bases constructed and were focusing on gaining height with our towers. I was initially worried with how we could use each pencil’s height to its full potential and still stand freely without falling over. After constructing our bases and joining one pencil from each corner in the center (see picture above) In order to gain the most height I began to build vertically by sticking one pencil in between the four joined in the center and tying them all together with a rubber band. By the time I connected two more pencils vertically, the bottom pencil gave out ruining the tower. Discussing how we could stabilize this bottom pencil I quickly remembered a video on the construction of the Mackinac Bridge I watched a couple of weeks ago. In the video they discussed how the large cables that held the bridge deck up were in fact constructed of hundreds of smaller cables bundled together allowing for greater strength compared to one single massive wire. Why couldn’t this work for our pencil tower I thought? So, we added two more pencils to the bottom pencil resulting in more rigidity and strength to stack the remaining pencils upon. Quality of interaction: The quality of the interaction was just as high compared to the face-to-face challenge, but at a much slower pace. The time it took to not only come up with a design idea but word it correctly via the chat room so we would clearly understand each other’s ideas was greatly increased compared to if we had been sitting at the same table with one another. What would require minor communication changes if completing this activity face-to-face required more thought and careful execution discussing our plans through the chat room.

Data Worksheet / Catapult Challenge / Asynchronous Posting Overview of the interaction: Katie and I conducted our asynchronous postings over a five day period beginning Tuesday, November 7th and ending Saturday, November 11th. The activity began with each of us constructing an initial design before even starting our postings. Though we did not plan to both come to the postings with an initial design it simply happened this way by coincidence. Stemming from our tower of pencils base design, we both had constructed a base similar to that of a tent with a cross member stabilizing the two ends. (see photo) Not sure how to construct and attach a throwing arm and basket to the catapult base, I quickly consulted Katie’s photos for assistance. Though the beginning of this activity took off fairly quickly with out much delay, I must say I was slowed down midway when confronted with the challenge of the throwing arm and basket. Through a great deal of trial and error, making minor adjustments and changes to the throwing arm in addition to consulting with Katie on the placement of the arm, I was finally successful in launching a ping pong ball.

Flow, tempo, & rhythm of the experience: As previously discussed, the flow of this challenge began very strong with the initial designs of our bases. I was quickly slowed down though when faced with the challenge of attaching the throwing arm to the base. Overall rhythm of our interactions with one another was irregular. Not knowing exactly when the other person would be posting with responses and new ideas also impacted the tempo of the activity slowing it down considerably compared to had we been conducting the challenge face-to-face or in a synchronous chat. New ideas about the problem: In addition to overcoming the problem of designing and rigging a throwing arm and basket I encountered the problem of the catapult throwing the ping pong ball higher than farther. This problem emerged with the first throw of the ping pong ball after completing the construction of the basket and arm. In an attempt to remedy this problem I tried first adjusting the tension on the launching band by simply not pulling the catapult arm as far back as on initial throws. This did not correct the problem. Next, I moved the pivot point of the throwing arm forward and backward testing whether or not if was

affecting the trajectory of the ball. No improvement was experienced. Finally, through consulting Katie, I realized my basket’s dimensions were smaller than hers resulting in the ball not being held securely in place as long as hers, resulting in an earlier ejection from the catapult making the ball travel more vertically than horizontally. After constructing a slightly larger basket I was able to achieve greater travel distances. Quality of the interaction: The overall quality of our communication was fairly good except for a few instances where further clarification of an idea was required for one another to understand the point the other was attempting to make. Unlike the other two interactions, we did not hold a strict schedule of when we would respond to one another’s posts. Having worked together this past summer on numerous projects in East Lansing and with the other two challenges in this final project it was understood that timely interaction and feedback was going to be given not requiring a specific set time when we would respond to each other’s posts.

References Donald, J (August 2002). Is "As Good as Face-to-Face" As Good As It Gets?. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6, Retrieved 11/05/06, from https://angel.msu.edu/section/content/default.asp?WCI=pgDisplay&WCU=CRSC NT&ENTRY_ID=F1E510DD12184BECA6F2C365A5F88A7C Meyer, K (September 2003). FACE-TO-FACE VERSUS THREADED DISCUSSIONS: THE ROLE OF TIME AND HIGHER-ORDER THINKING. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7, Retrieved 11/2/06, from https://angel.msu.edu/section/content/default.asp?WCI=pgDisplay&WCU=CRSC NT&ENTRY_ID=F1E510DD12184BECA6F2C365A5F88A7C Suler, J (2000). Presence in Cyberspace. 1, Retrieved 11/03/06, from http://www.rider.edu/~suler/psycyber/presence.html Tiene, D (2000). Online Discussions: A Survey of Advantages and Disadvantages Compared to Face-to-Face Discussions. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia , 4, Retrieved 11/01/06.