00b7d517e849c0bfe1000000.pdf

Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat:http://www.researchgate.net/publication/225804703

ScientificInquiryinEducationalMulti-userVirtualEnvironments

ARTICLEinEDUCATIONALPSYCHOLOGYREVIEW·SEPTEMBER2007

ImpactFactor:2.4·DOI:10.1007/s10648-007-9048-1

CITATIONS

34

READS

68

2AUTHORS:

BrianC.Nelson

ArizonaStateUniversity

50PUBLICATIONS557CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

DianeJassKetelhut

UniversityofMaryland,Coll…

45PUBLICATIONS630CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

Availablefrom:BrianC.Nelson

Retrievedon:04October2015

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Scientific Inquiry in Educational Multi-userVirtual Environments

Brian C. Nelson & Diane Jass Ketelhut

# Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2007

Abstract In this paper, we present a review of research into the problems of implementingauthentic scientific inquiry curricula in schools and the emerging use of educational Multi-UserVirtual Environments (MUVEs) to support interactive scientific inquiry practices. Our analysisof existing literature in this growing area of study reveals three recurrent themes: (1) withcareful design and inclusion of virtual inquiry tools, MUVE-based curricula can successfullysupport real-world inquiry practices based on authentic interactivity with simulated worlds andtools, (2) Educational MUVEs can support inquiry that is equally compelling for girls and boys,and (3) research on student engagement in MUVE-based curricula is uneven. Based on thesethemes, we suggest that future large-scale research should investigate (1) the extent to whichMUVE-based inquiry learning can be a viable substitute for the activities involved in real-world inquiry; (2) the impact of MUVEs on learning and engagement for currently underservedstudents, and (3) the impact on engagement and learning of individual aspects of MUVEenvironments, particularly virtual experimentation tools designed to scaffold student inquiryprocesses and maintain engagement. Additionally, we note that two identified issues withintegrating scientific inquiry into the classroom are currently not addressed byMUVE research.We urge researchers to investigate whether (1) MUVE-based curriculum can help teachers meetstate and national standards with inquiry curricula; and (2) scientific inquiry curriculaembedded in MUVE environments can help teachers learn how to integrate interactivescientific inquiry into their classroom.

Keywords Scientific inquiry . Multi-user virtual environment . Engagement . Self-efficacy

Educ Psychol RevDOI 10.1007/s10648-007-9048-1

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0310188.Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of theauthors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

B. C. NelsonArizona State University, Tempe, USAe-mail: [email protected]

D. J. Ketelhut (*)Curriculum, Instruction, and Technology in Education, Temple University,444 Ritter Hall, 1301 Cecil B. Moore Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19122, USAe-mail: [email protected]

For decades, science educators have worked to infuse inquiry into the K-12 curriculum(American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) 1990, 1993; NRC 1996).However, good scientific inquiry is both hard to design and hard to implement (TheNational Academies 2005). This issue is compounded by the practice, particularly prevalentin urban schools, of using non-science teachers in science classrooms (Urban TeacherCollaborative 2000). These teachers are untrained in experimental design and often rely onancillary textbook materials to provide inquiry-based lesson plans. Unfortunately, many ofthe inquiry activities associated with textbook materials are meant to clarify and confirminformation already presented to students, rather than to provide true experimentation ofcomplicated phenomena with unknown outcomes. In this paper, we first investigate theimplementation practices of scientific inquiry now and the issues faced in the K-12 classroomduring implementation, and then we explore whether embedding scientific inquiry curriculabased on interactive inquiry activities with simulated tools in educational Multi-User VirtualEnvironments (MUVEs) can present a viable solution to some of these issues.

Inquiry

For the last two decades, scientific inquiry has been a major standard in most policydoctrines (e.g. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) 1990, 1993;National Research Council 1996). The National Science Education Standards definescientific inquiry as

“the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanationsbased on the evidence derived from their work...also ...the activities through whichstudents develop knowledge and understanding of scientific ideas, as well as anunderstanding of how scientists study the natural world” (National Research Council1996, p 23).

However, for many years prior to the mid-twentieth century, this recognition of theimportance of scientific inquiry was not so prevalent. Prior to the 1960s, science educationfocused primarily on the content of science, leaving inquiry to scientists (National ResearchCouncil 2000). Dewey was ahead of his time when he suggested that studying the outcomesof science as opposed to participating in the methods of science was not learning science atall (Dewey 1944). By the middle of the century, a change in how science was conductedreinvigorated the push for inquiry in the K-12 classroom. In the 1960s, Joseph Schwab feltthat the emphasis on science as uncovering truth had changed and thus science educationneeded to change to showcase the new emphasis on scientific inquiry (Bybee 2000). Thecurrent view is that science cannot be understood as content separated from the process thatcreated that content (National Research Council 1996).

How should this translate into classroom practice? The National Science EducationStandards frame it as follows:

“Inquiry is a multifaceted activity that involves making observations; posingquestions; examining books and other sources of information to see what is alreadyknown; planning investigations; reviewing what is already known in light of exper-imental evidence; using tools to gather, analyze, and interpret data; proposing answers,explanations, and predictions; and communicating the results” (National ResearchCouncil 1996, p 23).

Educ Psychol Rev

In other words, inquiry should take the form of student-centered interactions with realisticmaterials and processes related to inquiry. More recently, the National Research Council hasexpanded their description of what constitutes inquiry activities. “Laboratory experiencesprovide opportunities for students to interact directly with the material world (or with datadrawn from the material world), using the tools, data collection techniques, models andtheories of science” (NRC 2005, p. 3. Formatting added by authors). The National ScienceTeachers Association (NSTA) supports this definition and suggests that “all K-16 teachersembrace scientific inquiry” (National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) 2004). DuVall(2001) describes in great detail what a scientific inquiry classroom should look like:

– Content is learned to provide meaning and detail to investigations and burgeoningconceptual understanding;

– Students seek to find answers to their own questions through their own designs;– Activities require student decision-making not just following directions;– Resources that intrigue and support student learning fill the classroom; these include

but are not limited to textbooks;– Teachers question and probe to push student thinking;– Literacy has a front row seat.

Unfortunately, the policy of implementing inquiry and creating such a science classroomruns into several roadblocks, not least of which is teacher uncertainty of exactly what constitutesinquiry and how to implement it. An additional obstacle to more widespread teaching withscientific inquiry is the push for standards-based curriculum and improved test scores on highstakes tests. As a result, some suggest that the initial intent of the framers of these policystandards is lost or corrupted by the time it turns into classroom practice, much like thechildhood game of ‘operator’ (e.g. Abd-El-Khalick et al. 2004; J. Wright and C. Wright 1998).

In order for teachers to successfully implement scientific inquiry in their classrooms, theymust have a clear understanding of what it entails. Regrettably, many of them do not. Forexample, responses to an NSTA position paper on inquiry indicate that many teachers areunclear about how to implement inquiry in their classroom with some teachers presuming thattraditional “cookbook” experiments promote inquiry learning for students (Wallace andLouden 2002). To see if good inquiry instruction could improve teacher understanding,Windschitl (2004) designed an inquiry-rich pre-service course and then followed 14 pre-service teachers as they developed their understanding about scientific inquiry. What hefound was that while these pre-service teachers did develop a better understanding of whatscientific inquiry entailed, they still held on to their own deeply held misconceptions, what hetermed “folk” aspects of inquiry, including the idea that a hypothesis is a guess. In anotherstudy, pre-service teachers throughout a 10-year period took part in inquiry-based methodscourses. Similar to the Windschitl study, these 143 students held on to some of their ownprevious experiences and beliefs. For example, they felt that their primary role was to knowthe content well and present it clearly to students. For them, laboratories were something thatyou were supposed to do but had no direct relevance to learning. Many of these students saidthat they would rather have taken another science course in place of their methods class, thusnegating the benefits of pedagogical instruction (Phelps and Lee 2003).

Why is it so difficult to instill in teachers the same priority for and understanding ofauthentic, interactive inquiry that the policymakers have? Windschitl (2004) suggests thatthe contextual clues offered to teachers are mixed and therefore leads them to mistakenideas. For example, textbooks by and large rarely if at all include authentic scientificinquiry in their activities. The majority of them are vocabulary dense and activity-poor

Educ Psychol Rev

(Leonard and Chandler 2003). The few activities that are labeled as inquiry generally onlyrequire low-level application or problem-solving (Windschitl 2004; Chinn and Hmelo-Silver 2002). Amazingly, some still present science as ‘uncovering truth’ (Trumball et al.2005). Beginning teachers, teachers teaching outside their certification area, or those withweak science background rely on these textbooks to give structure and support to theirclasses, resulting in many students participating in pseudo-inquiry activities.

Furthermore, there is little agreement in the larger community on what scientific inquiryis. For example, one study of students of four teachers (Roth 1989) purports to show thatscientific inquiry was frustrating for students and did not lead to learning gains. However,this study confused scientific inquiry with constructivism. In this study, students weretaught photosynthesis with hands-on experiences and no access to textbooks. Students weresupposed to construct their own understanding of where a newly growing plant gets itsenergy. However, according to the NSES definition of scientific inquiry discussed earlier,scientific inquiry should entail “examining books and other sources of information to seewhat is already known.” If researchers cannot agree about scientific inquiry, it is difficult tocriticize teachers for holding an erroneous understanding!

Thus, some students will experience a version of scientific inquiry despite their teachers’confusion about it; however, student access to inquiry of any sort is not universal. Thefollowing are issues that impact the availability of scientific inquiry-based instruction:

– As teachers’ own experiences with inquiry decrease, so do their students (Windschitl 2004);– Weak science content knowledge is associated with teaching little scientific inquiry

(Windschitl 2004; Roehrig and Luft 2004);– Many schools lack the equipment and resources to offer scientific inquiry experiences

(Marshall and Dorward 2000; National Research Council (NRC) 2005);– Non-Asian minorities have fewer inquiry experiences (National Research Council

(NRC) 2005);– Students in low-level science courses are typically offered direct instruction in the

misguided belief that they need to learn foundational material before they can engagein inquiry (National Research Council (NRC) 2005).

Finally, the current culture of using high stakes tests to assess student learning andsuccessful teaching of standardized curricula has negatively impacted scientific inquiryexperiences for students. One review found that 80% of K-8 schools do not teach sciencewith hands-on inquiry methods (Jorgnenson and Vanosdall 2002). Falk and Drayton (2004)studied the impact of instituting a high stakes test in Massachusetts on six middle schools.They found that one school completely abandoned scientific inquiry in an attempt to meetthe test. Four of the schools were still committed to inquiry but felt that they had tobroaden the topics taught in the curriculum and, therefore, give up some of their inquiryprojects. The sixth school had never adopted inquiry and so made no changes.

So, how do we go about successfully implementing scientific inquiry that is authenticand interactive in all classrooms? What is needed for in-service teachers are curricula thatteach standards with inquiry while modeling for teachers how that can be accomplishedthrough authentic inquiry activities. There is no simple answer to this question; however,there are indications that technology-rich curricula might offer a novel approach to theproblem. A growing body of research indicates that a relatively new form of technology,educational Multi-User Virtual Environments (MUVEs), can be designed to support highlyinteractive scientific inquiry learning, work as a model for teachers, and offer a safeapproach to scientific inquiry that could be used by all schools since the only equipmentrequired would be computers.

Educ Psychol Rev

Educational MUVEs

Educational MUVEs have emerged in recent years as a form of socio-constructivist andsituated cognition-based educational software. Their design draws on a foundation of workon text-based virtual worlds called multi-user domains (MUDs) (Fanderclai 1995) andMOOs (multiple-user domains, object-oriented) (Bowers 1987; Falsetti 1995). MOOs, anoffshoot of game-based MUDs, evolved into text-based virtual communities and morerecently into places for collaborative learning. The term MUVE refers primarily tographical MOOs (Brdicka 1999).

Educational MUVEs incorporate 2-D and 3-D virtual worlds in which learners controlcharacters that represent them in the worlds (e.g. Cobb et al. 2002; Nelson et al. 2005).Through these ‘avatars,’ learners can explore immersive worlds, interact with objects,communicate with other users, and engage in collaborative learning activities as theyexplore. The content in educational MUVEs varies widely—each virtual world can have itsown visual theme, curriculum, and set of in-world activities. A consistent theme acrossmany educational MUVE-based curricula is collaborative inquiry centered on computerprogramming (e.g. Annetta and Park 2006, Bruckman 1996, 2000; Dickey 2000, 2003),and science (e.g. Nelson et. al 2005; Clarke et al. 2006; Corbit 2002).

Early MUVEs

A number of early MUVE studies explored the design, functionality, and potential impactof educational MUVEs as vehicles for situated, interactive inquiry on student learning,engagement, and motivation (e.g. Bers 1999; Bruckman 1996; Corbit 2002; Simons andClark 2004). Many early educational MUVE- based curricula were implemented ininformal settings. The use of informal settings may have reflected a lack of acceptance ofMUVEs as part of a standard curriculum in school classrooms, and likely had an impact onthe kinds of pedagogy practiced and the types of research questions investigated. Forexample, in informal settings participants would be more likely to self-select into the use ofMUVE-based curricula. In addition, participation in MUVEs in informal settings cancontinued over extended periods of time, while MUVEs incorporated as part of aclassroom-based curriculum typically have specific, fairly short, implementation periods.Prominent early MUVEs used primarily in informal learning settings include Zora,SciCenter, MOOSE Crossing, and Whyville.

Bers (1999) conducted studies on an early 3-D MUVE called Zora. Zora supported theconstruction of sharable, virtual artifacts and characters by students, and included tools forchatting and reflection on the artifacts. In a 1999 pilot study in an after-school workshop, Bersinterviewed 11 middle school students as they created virtual spaces and characters in Zora asan exercise in identity construction. Bers found that graphical MUVEs supported the devel-opment of complex understandings of identity construction among participants (Bers 1999).

SciCentr

An early educational MUVE created specifically for supporting authentic experimentationand interactive delivery of science content was Corbit’s SciCentr (Corbit 2002). SciCentrwas designed for use in informal settings as a set of virtual worlds that collectively formed avirtual science museum. SciCentr included interactive simulation-based science exhibitshoused in 3-D virtual space. Among the exhibits were a plant breeding area and a molecularmodeling simulation. In addition, the SciCentr environment included support for real-time

Educ Psychol Rev

chat among its visitors, with a goal of creating a sustainable community of practice aroundscience (Corbit 2002). Although Corbit did not report any formalized studies of SciCentr asa learning environment, anecdotal data from several short-term pilots with high school anduniversity students suggest that the environment was engaging and motivating to thesegroups, although some participants reported feeling daunted by the technical knowledgeneeded to create content for the MUVE. Conversely, a group of adult educators introducedto SciCentr were less enthusiastic about the technology and more concerned about thecontent and setting.

MOOSE crossing

MOOSE Crossing provides a good early example of an inquiry-based MUVE, and researchinto its use illustrates both the strengths and the weaknesses of educational MUVEs asplatforms for inquiry. In MOOSE Crossing, students can navigate a text-based virtual worldand interact with its objects and inhabitants through typed commands. In addition, studentscan create their own creatures to inhabit the world via object-oriented programming(Bruckman 2000). MOOSE Crossing was used primarily in informal learning settings, suchas after-school programs. Bruckman (1996, 2000) investigated how children create andshare virtual artifacts while learning programming in the MOOSE Crossing environment.However, when she investigated the effectiveness of MOOSE Crossing as a learning tool,she found uneven results. In one study, she performed a portfolio-style assessment of 50children using the MOOSE Crossing environment to study programming (Bruckman 2000).Approximately 40% of the randomly selected pool of students examined had used MOOSECrossing as part of a classroom-based curriculum. The rest used MOOSE Crossing either involuntary after-school program or in their own free-time.

Bruckman found that a subset of students actively participated and earned high marks on aprogramming skill measure. In addition, she found that there was a positive relationshipbetween engagement with the environment, as measured by commands typed, and scores onthe programming measure. Although the students used environment in both formal andinformal settings, Bruckman found no significant differences in time-on-task based on setting.However, while some students in MOOSE Crossing improved their programming skills, manymore did not. In fact, 40% of the sample group never wrote a single programming script(Bruckman 2000). Bruckman cites this low level of engagement as a key reason for unevenresults in the study and believes that unevenness in engagement and student learning is aninherent by-product of unguided constructivist MUVE-based learning.

In another MOOSE Crossing study, the learning impact of the environment for girls wasexamined (Bruckman et al. 2002). The researchers found that girls spent significantly moretime than boys communicating with others in the environment. In addition, gender wasfound to play no role in learning outcomes related to the programming tasks at the center ofthe curriculum.

Whyville

Whyville is a 2-dimensional, graphical MUVE designed to support scientific learning andinquiry (http://whyville.net). Like MOOSE Crossing, Whyville is designed to be usedprimarily in informal settings, although it has also been implemented and studied in theclassroom. Students using the Whyville environment can participate in a wide range ofscientific inquiry activities, designed around such content areas as biology, physics, and

Educ Psychol Rev

chemistry (Simons and Clark 2004). In addition, students are able to create and modifypersonal ‘avatars’—virtual characters that they control as they navigate the 2-dimensionalspace of the Whyville world (Galas 2006). As of 2006, there are 1.7 million registered usersin the Whyville environment (http://whyville.net). Two-thirds of registered users are female(Galas 2006).

A pair of articles report on an inquiry-based curriculum embedded in Whyville that wasimplemented with two 6th grade science classes (Neulight et al. 2007; Galas 2006). In this“Whypox” curriculum, students were confronted with a disease outbreak in Whyville thatfirst manifested itself as red spots and gray color on their avatars’ faces. In addition, studentsinfected with Whypox found that their text-based chat was interrupted by “ah-choos” whenthey attempted to communicate with other students. The illness soon spread through theonline community, prompting on- and off-line discussions about the possible causes andmeans of controlling the outbreak. Students in the study tracked the spread of the outbreak oncharts in their classroom. In addition, participants were able to gather information aboutdisease transmission in a virtual “Center for Disease Control” in the Whyville environment,and use an “Infection Simulator” to observe how diseases spread in a population.

In her study, Galas (2006) found that the Whypox outbreak provided a meaningful,engaging curriculum around which her students could conduct authentic, collaborativescientific inquiry. Students became deeply involved in gathering data and forminghypotheses. Many reported working at home in the evenings, setting up online meetingsto discuss the issue, and writing articles on the outbreak for the Whyville online newspaper.

In their report on the Whypox classroom-based implementation, Neulight et al. (2007)focused on the ability of the MUVE-based curriculum to improve students’ understandingof the causes of real-world disease. Analysis of in-class discussions between students andthe teacher, and of pre- and post-implementation surveys of student understanding ofnatural infectious disease showed a significant improvement in the number of studentsmoving from “pre-biological” (less accurate) to “biological” (i.e. more accurate) under-standings of the mechanisms of infectious disease.

While the Neulight et al. and Galas studies investigated the use of a Whyville curriculumin a formal classroom setting, Whyville is primarily used as an informal learningenvironment; a virtual space that children visit on a voluntary basis. One recent Whyvillestudy investigated the level of science-related chat taking place among Whyville visitors asthey experienced the previously described “Whypox” epidemic in informal settings (Foleyand Kobaissi 2006). This study analyzed random samples of text-based user chat messages asthey occurred during the same Whypox outbreak described previously. The researchers hopedto find if the Whypox outbreak led to science-related discussions among visitors, if visitorsused specially created tools and resources to try and understand the spread of the disease, andwhether there was any evidence of science learning as a result of the Whypox outbreak.

Foley and Kobaissi (2006) found that, while there was some increase in science relatedchat during the epidemic, overall chat patterns changed very little. In addition, they foundthat only a small proportion of students took part in investigating the Whypox infection.Although few students discussed the outbreak with others, a number did post messages to abulletin board related to the topic. As with MOOSE Crossing, participation amongparticipants in an informal setting was uneven.

Recent educational MUVEs

Recent research has shifted to the use of highly immersive, 3-dimensional MUVEs.While these environments take advantage of technological advances to present more

Educ Psychol Rev

authentic and highly interactive virtual contexts for learning, the pedagogical goals arevery similar to those of earlier 2-D and text-based inquiry-based educational MUVEenvironments. Much of the current research into education MUVEs continues to centeron the viability of the environments to support learning and collaborative inquiry inscience and programming (e.g. Annetta and Park 2006; Barab et al. 2005b; Clarke andDede 2005; Corbit 2002). In addition to the technological advances present in moderneducational MUVEs, there has been a shift toward increased implementation in formalschool settings.

WolfDen

Annetta and Park (2006) describe a distance education graduate course at North CarolinaState University that took place entirely within an educational MUVE. Thirteen studentsattended ‘live’ lectures in a virtual classroom in the course’s “WolfDen” MUVE to learnabout the design of educational MUVEs for teaching science content and inquiry with aproblem-based learning pedagogy. In addition to the virtual classroom, the MUVE housed aTutor Room containing support materials, a Game Room with links to MUVE-basedscience games, and a large building area in which students could construct their own games.Students were asked to create and present their own games as a final project in the course.

Annetta and Park report that their MUVE-based course was highly motivating andengaging for students, with all participants successfully creating a game. However, theresearchers did find that the MUVE-based course posed some challenges. A number ofstudents were not comfortable with the use of voice-based chat (VoIP) in the synchronousclasses, preferring text. Also, the MUVE-based environment took some effort to master,although the researchers believe this challenge helped facilitate cooperative learning amongstudents (Annetta and Park 2006).

The WolfDen MUVE was created using the Active Worlds virtual world-building toolset.ActiveWorlds (www.activeworlds.com) provides a robust, relatively simple authoring systemfor constructing 3-D graphical MUVEs. Using Active Worlds, designers can produceMUVEs incorporating multiple objects, sounds, animations, images, and ‘agents’ (automated3-D characters that inhabit the MUVE). Large numbers of users can simultaneously occupyand explore a given MUVE. Users can walk, run, and fly through an Active Worlds MUVE,entering buildings, climbing mountains, and swimming through virtual bodies of water.Individual users can chat with other users, or broadcast messages to all nearby ‘citizens’ and‘tourists.’ In addition, users can click on specially designated objects containing hyperlinks.Clicking on these objects will trigger the appearance of web pages, images, or web-basedapplications in a web browser window embedded in the software.

MUVE-based course: Introduction to RWX modeling

Dickey (2000, 2003) conducted a case study investigating the use of MUVEs built inActive Worlds for synchronous distance education. Dickey employed participatoryobservations, class logs, and interviews with the instructor of a MUVE-based distancecourse on 3-D object modeling to examine how the MUVE environment supportsconstructivist learning. In her study, Dickey examined the strengths and weaknesses of thecommunication tools, experiential tools, and resource tools of the environment. Overall,Dickey found that the environment and its tools supportive of constructivist learning in aformal college-level course, despite some technological limitations inherent in theenvironment (Dickey 2000, 2003).

Educ Psychol Rev

The Active Worlds development tool studied by Dickey was also used in the creation ofeducational MUVEs used in the River City MUVE project at Harvard University and theQuest Atlantis MUVE project at Indiana University. Both of these large-scale projects focusspecifically on the ability of MUVEs to support authentic scientific inquiry andcollaboration. The groups running these projects have conducted a series of studies in thepast several years that echo and extend the findings of earlier environments like MOOSECrossing and Whyville.

River City

River City (http://muve.gse.harvard.edu/rivercityproject/) is an educational MUVE designedto teach scientific inquiry skills to middle school students. The River City MUVE andassociated curriculum was created specifically for use in formal school settings. Nearly10,000 students in the United States and internationally have completed the computer lab-based River City curriculum as part of their middle school science classes (Nelson 2005).The interface and activities embedded within River City offer a good example of thetechnological affordances of modern MUVEs. The River City virtual world is set in the late1800s, and named for the river that runs through most of the town. River City includes amain street with shops, a library, and elementary school, along with institutions such as ahospital, university, and city hall (Fig. 1).

Upon entering the city, the students’ avatars can interact with computer-based agents(residents of the city), digital objects (pictures and video clips), and the avatars of otherstudents. In exploring, students also encounter visual stimuli such as muddy dirt streets, andauditory stimuli such as the sounds of coughing town residents. Content in the right-handinterface-window shifts based on what the student encounters or activates in the virtualenvironment, such as a dialogue with an agent or historic photos and accompanying textthat provide additional information about the town and its residents (Fig. 2).

Students work in teams of three or four to develop and test hypotheses about whyresidents are ill. Three different illnesses (water-borne, air-borne, and insect-borne) areintegrated with historical, social and geographical content, allowing students to develop andpractice the inquiry skills involved in disentangling multi-causal problems embedded withina complex environment (Clarke et al. 2006; Nelson et al. 2005). Over the course of a 2–

Fig. 1 River City

Educ Psychol Rev

4 week long curriculum, students experience a year of virtual time in River City. Firstvisiting River City in October 1878, student teams return several times to find that 2–3 months have passed in River City on each subsequent visit. A final sharing day at the endof the project allows students to compare their research with other teams of students in theirclass and to piece together some of the many potential hypotheses and causal relationshipsembedded in the virtual environment.

While exploring the River City world, students can also make use of several interactivetools designed to scaffold their inquiry, manage complexity, and mimic real-world scientificinquiry processes (Nelson and Ketelhut 2006). These “tools for inquiry” include a watersampling tool, mosquito catcher, stool tester, lice test, an environmental health meter, and aunique tool for running experiments by changing elements in a world to see the results(Clarke et al. 2006).

A series of studies have been conducted investigating the viability of the River CityMUVE and curriculum to motivate students to learn science, to improve science learning,and to create learning situations that appeal to girls and boys. Results from pilotimplementations of an early version of the River City MUVE in three public schoolclassrooms in Boston, MA indicated that the environment is highly motivating for students,particularly students with lower academic backgrounds (Dede et al. 2002). These findingswere replicated in a larger-scale implementation of the MUVE in 2004 (Clarke et al. 2006;Ketelhut et al. 2005). In that implementation, more than 1,000 students took part in theinquiry-based curriculum. As in the pilot study, qualitative student data from this largerstudy showed that students (and teachers) were highly motivated by the curriculum, andactively engaged in what they described as realistic inquiry. In interviews conducted duringthe implementation, students reported that they ‘felt like a scientist for the first time’(Clarke and Dede 2005).

An intriguing finding in River City implementations that echoes findings seen withMOOSE Crossing, is that girls and boys performed equally well through the River Citycurriculum. Both the early pilot studies of the MUVE in 2001 and the large-scale

Fig. 2 River City interface

Educ Psychol Rev

implementation in 2004 found no significant differences between boys and girls in learningoutcomes, motivation, or self-efficacy toward science learning (Dede et al. 2004).

In a recent River City study, an individualized, reflective guidance system wasembedded into the River City MUVE, to see whether use of the guidance led to moreeffective learning for students. In an exploratory study with 272 middle school students, itwas found that increased viewing of guidance messages was associated with significantlyhigher (p<0.05) scores from pre- to post-tests on scientific inquiry skills and diseasetransmission knowledge. However, it was also found that a large minority of the students(∼25%) with access to the hints system did not use it. While engagement in the mainactivities of inquiry was high, use of the guidance component was uneven. In other words,as with the Moose Crossing study (Bruckman 2000) and the study of student informalparticipation in the Whypox curriculum (Foley and Kobaissi 2006), engagement in thesystem was not universal. Among the students making use of the guidance system, it wasfound that use of embedded guidance messages was equally beneficial for boys and girls.Interestingly, though, girls were more likely to choose to view guidance messages initially,and more likely to view more guidance messages overall than boys (Nelson 2005).

In another study of the same student population, Ketelhut (2006) investigated studentengagement with the River City environment, examining characteristics that students self-reported as being the most beneficial in the MUVE. In the study, half of the participatingstudents listed some aspect of scientific inquiry as a key feature of the project for them inpost-implementation surveys. Nearly a third specifically listed virtual tools, such as thevirtual microscopes or an environmental health meter, while a small but distinct groupemphasized the authenticity of the experience. Furthermore, the five teachers in thatimplementation who were well versed in using inquiry in their classroom were veryapproving of the scientific inquiry basis of the project; four of them specifically mentionedthat aspects of inquiry were the best “ah-ha” moment for students.

Quest Atlantis

Like River City, the Quest Atlantis (QA) MUVE is designed to support collaborativeinquiry in realistic virtual contexts (http://atlantis.crlt.indiana.edu/). In Quest Atlantis,students can take part in a large number of quests to save the people of a virtual Atlantisfrom destruction through environmental, moral, and social decay (Socially-responsiveDesign Group 2004). The interface and operation of QA is similar to that of River City.Students explore virtual worlds, interacting with a variety of virtual objects andcollaborating on a series of learning tasks (Barab et al. 2005a, Fig. 3). While River Cityis designed for in-class use as part of a regular science curriculum, Quest Atlantis can bedescribed as a “hybrid” environment, with implementations taking place in both informaland formal educational settings.

The research team behind the Quest Atlantis (QA) MUVE has published a series ofstudies about the environment describing its benefits on student motivation, engagement,and learning outcomes (e.g. Barab et al. 2005a, b). Most recently, Barab et al. (2007)conducted a multi-level study investigating the learning benefits associated with a QAcurriculum designed to support scientific inquiry practices situated in realistic, sociallyrelevant issues (a ‘socio-scientific’ approach). Students in the study completed a 2 weekcurriculum designed to support their development of environmental awareness and real-world science inquiry skills while investigating an interactive narrative in the QAenvironment. Results of the study show positive findings related to student engagement

Educ Psychol Rev

in the MUVE-based curriculum, sophisticated student explanations of curricular processesand outcomes, and statistically significant improvement on classroom and standardizedassessments of science inquiry processes and content knowledge.

In a previous Quest Atlantis study, Tuzan (2004) conducted a design ethnography toidentify the motivational elements that supported student participation in Quest Atlantis. Inhis study, he identified a number of motivational elements in the MUVE-based educationalgame, including identity presentation, playing, learning, rewards, immersive context,fantasy, uniqueness, creativity, curiosity, control and ownership, context of support, andsocial relations (Tuzan 2004). Barab et al. (2005a) reported on the design-based researchapproach they took in designing and redesigning the Quest Atlantis environment in anongoing effort of generating, testing, refining, and evolving theories of participation thatwork to “preserve the joy and meaning” in the processes of learning. Qualitative analysis ofthree rounds of studies into Quest Atlantis resulted in a better understanding of someweaknesses in the design of the world, including the need for a stronger and more engaging‘backstory’ to the world.

To investigate possible interactions between engagement in inquiry and gender, Barab’s“Socially-responsive Design Group” (2004) conducted an extensive analysis of genderparticipation in Quest Atlantis. Like the River City MUVE studies, the QA team found nodifferences in terms of overall participation rates in the MUVE between boys and girls.However, looking specifically at participation as reflected by online communication, itwas found that girls used chat more than boys (p<0.01) and sent more e-mail messages(p<0.01) than boys. In terms of learning and achievement, the QA MUVE was equallyeffective for boys and girls. Girls who participated in a three-quest learning unit about plantand animal cells saw gains on pre- to post-test scores that were statistically equivalent to

Fig. 3 Quest Atlantis interface

Educ Psychol Rev

those of the boys. Finally, the QA group found that girls wrote more in their onlinenotebooks when completing quests and engaged in longer metacognitive reflections abouttheir work in the MUVE.

While research into the Quest Atlantis environment has shown promise, engagementamong students has been uneven. Lim et al. (2006) recently conducted an exploratory studyinto the levels of engagement exhibited by students participating in virtual inquiry activitiesin Quest Atlantis. Among the eight participants (11–12 year olds) at a primary school inSingapore, the authors found a low level of engagement as measured by a seven-level‘engagement taxonomy.’ Through interviews with the students and observations of theimplementation, the researchers suggested that the biggest contributors to the lowengagement were “immersion, interaction, and distraction” (p. 223). The authors suggestthat the very immersiveness and interactivity of the MUVE worlds, while motivating,distracts participating students from the processes and tasks associated with inquiry.

Discussion

One of the problems identified earlier with implementing interactive scientific inquiryactivities in the classroom is the differential access that students have to authentic inquiry.This inequity partially stems from lack of resources or reliance on the wrong resources. Acommon theme that emerges from the literature around educational MUVEs is that theyoffer viable platforms for conducting authentic scientific inquiry without requiring anythingmore than access to the Internet. Previously, we listed the definition of scientific inquiryprovided by the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council 1996, p23). As revealed in the literature, aspects of this definition appear to coincide well withactivities supported by educational MUVES (Table 1).

As seen in Table 1, students in educational MUVEs are able to conduct highlyinteractive, authentic inquiry activities that span the spectrum of elements outlined in theNSES definition. In educational MUVEs, students can make observations of phenomena asthey conduct inquiry much as they would in the real world. They can view symptoms ofdisease by literally looking at the faces of other participants (through avatars), or by talkingto computer controlled characters in the worlds. They can pose questions of theseembedded agents to gather more information about the issue at hand. MUVEs also supportstudent-to-student information sharing via text- and voice-based chat. Just as in real-worldinquiry, students in MUVEs can examine a multitude of sources of information to helpthem conduct their inquiry. They can select books from virtual libraries, read admissionscharts, demographic records, and other material left ‘laying around’ in the MUVE. Inaddition to these static forms of information, students can make use of virtual toolsincluding interactive microscopes, bug catchers, disease transmission simulators, andenvironmental health meters. These embedded tools can be modeled on their real-worldcounterparts to enhance the fidelity of the inquiry process.

Because MUVE-based inquiry takes place over time, with students gathering datacontinuously, MUVE-based curricula allow students to continuously review and analyzetheir evolving hypotheses in light of new information that is gathered. Once students haveformulated a hypothesis, MUVEs allow them the opportunity to test it by manipulatingindependent variables and observing any changes in the environment. Students can thendisseminate findings from their investigation both in the MUVE (by contributing stories toMUVE-based newspapers, presenting at MUVE-based symposia, or displaying reports orcreated products in the MUVE), or in the classroom through traditional presentations to

Educ Psychol Rev

fellow students. Thus, using the NSES definition of scientific inquiry, it appears thatMUVEs can be a venue for disseminating inquiry-based experiences.

A second theme emerging from educational MUVE research is that the environments areequally supportive for girls and boys. Although in many cases, girls and boys participate invarying ways, learners of both genders do equally well with the collaborative, investigativeinquiry that MUVEs support. In some cases, research has shown that the level ofengagement in educational MUVEs is higher for female students, with them writing morechat and e-mail messages, viewing more hints, and participating in more metacognitivereflection about their learning.

The American Association of University Women (AAUW) educational foundation lists anumber of design suggestions for computer games for girls (American Association ofUniversity Women 2000):

– Rich narrative, intricate games– Customizable, personalizable female characters– Opportunity for collaboration and communication– Social interaction on-screen and between players– Opportunity for positive social action– Appropriate level of difficulty

Table 1 Science Inquiry Activities and their MUVE-based Counterparts

Inquiry activity MUVE-based student activities

Making observations Exploring MUVE worlds making visual and auditoryobservations

Posing questions Asking questions of computer-based NPCs, fellow students,and human-controlled mentors/coaches

Examining books and other sources ofinformation to see what is already known

Accessing information sources in MUVE-embeddedlibraries, classrooms, Tutor Rooms, etc.

Using tools to gather, analyze, and interpretdata

Manipulating embedded virtual tools designed to replicatereal-world counterparts (microscopes, online notepads,cameras, etc.) Run experiments using “control” and“experimental” condition worlds.

Planning investigations MUVE-embedded narrative, scaffolding, and supportingmaterials facilitate process of scientific inquiry

Reviewing what is already known in light ofexperimental evidence

After exploring the MUVE, gathering evidence on theembedded problems from multiple sources, learners usethat information to design experiments and run MUVE-based experiments. Once they have analyzed the results oftheir own experiments, they must compare it with whatthey hypothesized earlier and to what the in-world coaches/mentors told them

Proposing answers, explanations, andpredictions

Learners create hypotheses based on collecting evidence topredict what they think is causing a piece of the problemoccurring in a given MUVE. They re-evaluate thathypothesis in the light of the results of their experiment.

Communicating the results As they conduct inquiry in the MUVE, and after they finishtheir investigation, learners communicate results through avariety of means, including classroom-based researchconferences, articles written for MUVE-based newspapers,and in-class collaborative graphs and charts.

Educ Psychol Rev

– Opportunities to design or create– Strategy and skill requirements

In addition, the report finds that girls prefer games that closely simulate real life andgames that allow for role-play (American Association of University Women 2000;Subrahmanyam and Greenfield 1998).

Educational MUVEs support many of the features suggested by the AAUW report asuseful for ‘girl-friendly’ software. MUVEs have tools for social interaction, communica-tion, and collaboration. In addition, graphical MUVEs are typically designed to simulatereal-world contexts and center on role-play, and interaction in a virtual narrative. Perhapsthen it is not surprising to find that implementations of educational MUVEs have foundgreater equality in learning outcomes and participation rates among girls than in historicalcomputer-based learning environments.

That boys and girls perform similarly in these environments is encouraging but in and ofitself not enough. The literature on scientific inquiry indicates that low-performing students andnon-Asian minorities have little access to scientific inquiry. Research on the effect of MUVEsfor these populations is spotty. There is some research on the River City and Quest AtlantisMUVEs (e.g. Dede et al. 2002; Barab et al. 2005b) that indicates that it is successful withthese subpopulations, but little research in other MUVEs. If educational MUVE-basedinquiry curricula are to be offered as a substitute to physical experimentation, then it isimportant that we fully understand their impact on all subpopulations especially thoseunderserved currently. Consequently, we suggest that future studies conduct systematicinvestigations of the ways in which well-designed, MUVE-based inquiry curricula affect thelearning of all students, with a focus on academically underserved groups.

A final theme seen in educational MUVE research to date is that research on studentengagement is not consistent, particularly when used in informal learning settings. Theprimary evidence for this comes from the studies on MOOSE Crossing and Whyville. Arelatively large proportion of students in the MOOSE Crossing environment did notconduct even basic elements of the curriculum (Bruckman 2000). Most Whyville visitorsexperiencing the Whypox curriculum in informal settings did not actively participate in thecurriculum (Foley and Kobaissi 2006). However, later MUVE-based projects were muchmore successful in engaging students. Smaller studies in River City and Quest Atlantis raisequestions about whether engagement is even across all aspects of the environment andacross all subpopulations of students. In one River City study, a quarter of the students withaccess to hints designed to aid inquiry never used the system (Nelson 2005). Similarly, theengagement level of a small group of Singapore-based students in the Quest Atlantisenvironment was rated as low (Lim et al. 2006). On the other hand, The WolfDenenvironment was found to be highly engaging for the small group of graduate studentsusing it as part of a course, and the classroom-based WhyPox curriculum in Whyvilleprompted very high levels of engagement among student participants (Galas 2006).Possible reasons for these conflicting outcomes might relate to the design of the worlds orto something intrinsic to MUVEs, such as their open-endedness and immersive nature. Itmay be that the complexity and open-ended nature of the virtual worlds leads some studentsto ‘tune out.’ It is also possible that the division between informal and formal learningsettings may be playing a role. Lower levels of engagement and participation were foundwith MUVEs used in informal settings (MOOSE Crossing and Whyville), than withMUVEs used in school-based settings (WolfDen and River City).

However, little research has been done to identify whether individual features ofMUVEs might themselves be at the heart of this inconsistency or the basis of the successes.

Educ Psychol Rev

The research on scientific inquiry indicates that individual design features might indeedhave a strong impact on the success of an intervention. For example as discussedpreviously, Roth (1989) found that students were frustrated with learning with a inquiry-based curriculum, however, other studies found students highly engaged with inquiry-basedcurricula (e.g. Gibson and Chase 2002; Leonard et al. 2001). Why should that be? It ispossible that Roth’s students were frustrated with the strongly constructivist aspects of hercurriculum rather than the inquiry experience itself. Likewise, it is possible that students aremore engaged with some aspects of MUVE environments than others. For example,MOOSE Crossing is a text-based environment and as such does not have the visual aspectsfound in the graphical MUVEs. It seems likely that this alone might be at the heart of thedifficulty in engagement for MOOSE Crossing students. Likewise, students participating inthe River City inquiry curricula cited use of virtual tools for experimentation as importantcomponents in their engagement (Clarke et al. 2006). More research is needed on theseindividual components of MUVEs to help illuminate the impact of each on studentengagement and learning.

Finally, in the beginning of this paper, we identified two other issues with implementingscientific inquiry curriculum in the classroom: teacher understanding of what scientificinquiry entails and the impact of standardized curriculum and high stakes tests onpedagogical and curricular decisions. Unfortunately, MUVE research does not indicatewhether scientific inquiry-based MUVEs can serve as models for teachers, ultimatelyhelping them transform their practice; nor does it indicate whether MUVE-based curriculacan help teachers bridge standards and scientific inquiry. We urge MUVE researchers toinvestigate the potential of MUVEs to do this.

Conclusion

Bruce M. Alberts, chair of the National Research Council, stated in 1995, “We’ve managedto turn people off of science by making it some kind of rote learning exercise” (Panel UrgesShift of Focus for School Science Courses 1995). This sentiment is partially behind thecurrent push to create more authentic, interactive inquiry-based science activities for K-12classrooms. Unfortunately, the literature indicates that many classrooms are still notinquiry-based. The literature that we have reviewed indicates that there are four reasons forthis failure: confusion about what constitutes inquiry, disagreement about whether allstudents can benefit from the experience, unequal access to classroom resources to conductscientific inquiry, and conflict with standardized curriculum and high stakes tests.

Although educational multi-user virtual environments can support highly interactiveinquiry activities, and are beginning to be used to deliver inquiry-based science curriculum,research into the use of these environments for supporting inquiry is still in its early stages.Studies done to date indicate that educational MUVEs can provide students with access to allaspects of scientific inquiry as defined by the NSES; that the environments can supportsuccessful inquiry for boys and girls, even with differing patterns of involvement; and thatmany students, but not all, find them engaging.

The literature to date, however, does not indicate the extent to which students and teachers‘buy into’ the use of virtual inquiry environments and tools as substitutes for their real-worldcounterparts; nor does it indicate what elements of MUVE-based inquiry are central tosuccessful engagement and which may hamper engagement. Finally, more research needs tobe conducted into the elements of MUVE-based inquiry that can better support academicallyunderserved populations in the acquisition of authentic inquiry practices. We urge researchers

Educ Psychol Rev

to investigate the potential of educational MUVEs in these areas as part of a large-scale,systematic program of study around this dynamic and growing field.

Acknowledgements We would like to gratefully acknowledge the collaboration and contribution of theRiver City design and research team: Chris Dede, Jody Clarke and Catherine Bowman.

References

Abd-El-Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., et al.(2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397–419.

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1990). Science for all Americans. NewYork: Oxford University Press.

American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Project 2061: Benchmarks for scienceliteracy. New York: Oxford University Press.

American Association of University Women (2000). Tech-savvy: Educating girls in the new computer age.Washington, DC.

Annetta, L. & Park, J. C. (2006). Video games in science: A model for students and teachers creating 3D roleplaying games. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Information Technology andTeacher Education, Orlando, FL.

Barab, S., Arici, A., & Jackson, C. (2005a). Eat your vegetables and do your homework: A design basedinvestigation of enjoyment and meaning in learning. Educational Technology, 45(1), 15–20.

Barab, S., Sadler, T., Heiselt, C., Hickey, D., & Zuiker, S. (2007). Relating narrative, inquiry, andinscriptions: supporting consequential play. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 59–82.

Barab, S., Thomas, M., Dodge, T., Carteaux, R., & Tuzan, H. (2005b). Making learning fun: Quest Atlantis,a game without guns. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(1), 86–107.

Bers, M. U. (1999). Zora: A graphical multi-user environment to share stories about the self. Paper presentedat the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL'99).

Bowers, A. (1987). Creative C.O.W. or a moo is worth a thousand words. Pointer, 32(1), 9–13.Brdicka, B. (1999). Multi user virtual environment and its possible use in education. Retrieved 9/28, 2003,

from http://it.pedf.cuni.cz/∼bobr/MUVE/muveen.htm.Bruckman, A. (1996). Finding one’s own space in cyberspace. Technology Review, 99(1), 48–54.Bruckman, A. (2000). Uneven achievement in a constructivist learning environment. Paper presented at the

International Conference on Learning Sciences, Ann Arbor, MI.Bruckman, A., Jensen, C., & DeBonte, A. (2002). Gender and programming achievement in a CSCL

environment. Paper presented at the CSCL 2002, Boulder, CO.Bybee, R. W. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. H. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into

inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 20–46). Washington, D.C.: American Association for theAdvancement of Science.

Chinn, C., & Hmelo-Silver, C. (2002). Authentic inquiry: Introduction to the special section. ScienceEducation, 86, 171–174.

Clarke, J., & Dede, C. (2005). Making learning meaningful: An exploratory study of using multi-userenvironments (MUVEs) in middle school science. Paper presented at the American Educational ResearchAssociation Conference, Montreal, Canada.

Clarke, J., Dede, C., Ketelhut, D. J., & Nelson, B. (2006). A design-based research strategy to promotescalability for educational innovations. Educational Technology 46 (3), 27–36.

Cobb, S., Neale, H., Crosier, J., & Wilson, J. R. (2002). Development and evalution of virtual learningenvironments. In K.M. Stanney (Ed.), Handbook of Virtual Environments: Design, Implementation, andApplications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Corbit, M. (2002). Building virtual worlds for informal science learning (SciCentr and SciFair) in theActive Worlds Educational Universe (AWEDU). Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environment 11(1), 55–67.

Dede, C., Ketelhut, D. J., & Ruess, K. (2002). Motivation, usability, and learning outcomes in a prototypemuseum-based multi-user virtual environment. In P. Bell, R. Stevens & T. Satwicz (Eds.), Keepinglearning complex: The proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the Learning Sciences.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Educ Psychol Rev

Dede, C., Ketelhut, D. J., & Nelson, B. (2004). Design-based research on gender, class, race, and ethnicityin a multi-user virtual environment. Paper presented at the American Educational Research AssociationConference, San Diego, CA.

Dewey, J. (1944). Democracy and education (First free press paperback-1966 ed.): Macmillan Company.Dickey, M. D. (2000). 3D virtual worlds and learning: An analysis of the impact of design affordances and

limitations in active worlds, blaxxun interactive, and onlive! Traveler: and a study of the implementationof active worlds for formal and informal education. The Ohio State University.

Dickey, M. D. (2003). Teaching in 3D: Pedagogical affordances and constraints of 3D virtual worlds forsynchronous distance learning. Distance Education, 24(1), 105–121.

DuVall, R. (2001). Inquiry in science: From curiosity to understanding. Primary Voices K-6, 10, 3–9.Fanderclai, T. L. (1995). MUDs in education: New environments, new pedagogies. Computer Mediated

Education Magazine, 2(1), 8.Falk, J., & Drayton, B. (2004). State testing and inquiry-based science: Are they complementary or

competing reforms? Journal of Educational Change, 5, 345–387.Falsetti, J. (1995). What the heck is a MOO? And what’s the story with all those cows? Paper presented at the

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (29th,Long Beach, CA, March 26-April 1, 1995).

Foley, B. & Kobaissi, A. (2006). Using virtual chat to study in informal learning in online environments.Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Galas, C. (2006). Why Whyville? Learning and Leading with Technology, 34(6), 30–33.Gibson, H., & Chase, C. (2002). Longitudinal impact of an inquiry-based science program on middle school

students’ attitudes toward science. Science Education, 86, 693–705.Jorgnenson, O., & Vanosdall, R. (2002). The death of science? What we risk in the rush toward standardized

tesing and the three R's. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(8), 601–606.Ketelhut, D. J. (2006). Do students with higher self-efficacy exhibit greater and more diverse scientific

inquiry skills: An exploratory investigation in “River City,” a multi-user virtual environment.Unpublished dissertation, Harvard University.

Ketelhut, D. J., Clarke, J., Dede, C., Nelson, B., & Bowman, C. (2005). Inquiry teaching for depth andcoverage via multi-user virtual environments. Paper presented at the National Association for Researchin Science Teaching, Dallas.

Leonard, W. H., & Chandler, P. M. (2003). Where is the inquiry in biology textbooks? The American BiologyTeacher, 65(7), 485–487.

Leonard, W. H., Speziale, B. J., & Penick, J. E. (2001). Performance Assessment of a Standards-Based HighSchool Biology Curriculum. American Biology Teacher, 63(5), 310–316.

Lim, C. P., Nonis, D., & Hedberg, J. (2006). Gaming in a 3D multiuser virtual environment: Engagingstudents in Science lessons. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2), 211–231.

Marshall, J., & Dorward, J. (2000). Inquiry experiences as a lecture supplement for preservice elementaryteachers and general education students. American Journal of Physics, 68, S27–S36.

National Research Council (1996). National science education standards: Observe, interact, change, learn.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide forteaching and learning. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

National Research Council (NRC) (2005). America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science.Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision. In M. L. H. Susan, R. Singer & H. A.Schweingruber (Ed.), Board on science education, center for education, division of behavioral and socialsciences and education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Science Teachers Association (2004). NSTA position statement: scientific inquiry. Draft. RetrievedAugust 9, 2004, from http://www.nsta.org/main/forum/showthread.php? t=1175.

Nelson, B. (2005). Investigating the impact of individualized, reflective guidance on student learning in aneducational multi-user virtual environment. Unpublished dissertation, Harvard University.

Nelson, B., & Ketelhut, D. J. (2006, October). Desiging for real-world inquiry in virtual environments. Paperpresented at AECT 2006, Dallas, TX.

Nelson, B., Ketelhut, D. J., Clarke, J., Bowman, C., & Dede, C. (2005). Design-based research strategies fordeveloping a scientific inquiry curriculum in a multi-user virtual environment. Educational Technology,45(1), 21–34.

Neulight, N., Kafai, Y. B., Kao, L., Foley, B., & Galas, C. (2007). Childrens participation in a virtualepidemic in the science classroom: Making connections to natural infectious diseases. Journal of ScienceEducation and Technology, 16(1), 47–58.

Panel Urges Shift of Focus for School Science Courses (1995, December 7). New York Times.

Educ Psychol Rev

Phelps, A., & Lee, C. (2003). The power of practice: What students learn from how we teach. Journal ofChemical Education, 80(7), 829–832.

Roehrig, G., & Luft, J. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning secondary science teachers inimplementing scientific inquiry lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 3–24.

Roth, K. (1989). Science education: It’s not enough to ‘do’ or ‘relate.’ The American Educator, 13(4), 16–22,46–48.

Simons, K., & Clark, D. (2004). Supporting inquiry in science classrooms with the web. Computers in theSchools, 21(3/4), 23–36.

Socially-Responsive Design Group (2004). Creating a socially-responsive play space for learning:Something for girls and boys. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, San Diego, CA.

Subrahmanyam, K., & Greenfield, P. M. (1998). Computer games for girls: What makes them play? In J.Cassell & H. Jenkins (Eds.), From Barbie to Mortal Kombat: Gender and computer games (pp. 46–71).Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

The National Academies (2005). U.S. High school science lab experiences often poor, but research pointsway to improvements. Available: http://www4.nationalacademies.org/ news.nsf/isbn/0309096715?OpenDocument [2005, August].

Trumball, D., Bonney, R., & Grudens-Schuck, N. (2005). Developing materials to promote inquiry: Lessonslearned. Science Education, 89(6), 879–900.

Tuzan, H. (2004). Motivating learners in educational computer games. Bloomington: Indiana University.Urban Teacher Collaborative (2000). The urban teacher challenge: Teacher demand and supply in the great

city schools. Available: http://www.cgcs.org/pdfs/utc.pdf [2005, August].Wallace, J., & Louden, W. (2002). Introduction to “laboratories.” In J. Wallace & W. Louden (Eds.),

Dilemmas of science teaching (pp. 36–37). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of “inquiry:” How preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and

practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 481–512.Wright, J., & Wright, C. (1998). A commentary on the profound changes envisioned by the national science

standards. Teachers College Record, 100(1), 122–143.

Educ Psychol Rev