Community Building Through Electronic Discussion Boards: Pre-Service Teachers' Reflective Dialogues on Science Teaching

P1: JVP

Journal of Science Education and Technology pp1045-jost-476090 November 13, 2003 17:25 Style file version June 20th, 2002

Journal of Science Education and Technology, Vol. 12, No. 4, December 2003 ( C© 2003)

Community Building Through Electronic DiscussionBoards: Pre-Service Teachers’ Reflective Dialogueson Science Teaching

Jazlin V. Ebenezer,1,5 Frank Lugo,2 Beata Beirnacka,3 and Anton Puvirajah4

This research study focuses on an electronic forum for building a community of pre-serviceteachers to reflect upon new directions in science teaching. The thesis of this paper is to modelthe notion of community building for teacher reflective practice. Through pre-service teachers’WebCT postings on “students’ theories” in science, we provide evidence of how WebCTdiscussion board served as a forum for community building to carry out reflective practice. Weconclude that WebCT discussion board can serve as a viable tool for building a community ofreflective teachers. This study implies that WebCT and similar Internet electronic discussiontools may be effectively used for community building to carry out reflective dialogues in teachereducation.

KEY WORDS: electronic discussion board; community building; reflective dialogue; student theories;chemistry teaching.

A DEEP HUMAN URGE FORCOMMUNITY BUILDING

In the face of idiosyncrasies, people still refuseto give up on community. People continue to holdout for a bona fide solution to community buildingas it is inherently believed—and still many considerthat building a community is essential, necessary, andcrucial to life (Orme, 2001; Walsh, 1997; Weil, 1996).Most people, “male and female, do not and cannotwork alone. They work with the people above andbelow them as well as at their level and value whatthose people have to offer” (Rider and Broughton,1994, p. 254) because it enriches and provides diver-

1Teacher Education Division, College of Education, Wayne StateUniversity, Detroit, Michigan.

2Teacher Education Department, Oakwood Academy, Taylor,Michigan.

3Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning, Faculty ofEducation, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.

4Teacher Education Division, College of Education, Wayne StateUniversity, Detroit, Michigan.

5To whom correspondence should be addressed at Room 299, Col-lege of Education, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan,48202; e-mail: [email protected].

sity to their lives. Despite this deep human urge for“Koinonia” (Greek term for communion and fellow-ship with one another), there is pervasive loss of com-munity because of separation and isolation; there isenormous stresses on the individual as a result of in-creasing size and fragmentation of society; and thereis loss of power and influence because of loss of inter-connectedness. These arguments underpin Bellah’s(1985) rationale for a strong sense of communityand call for restoration of the values and practice ofcommunity in a society. The need for a strong senseof community in a society is also relevant to itssubset—the society of teachers and to their professionof teaching because teacher education has changed—demanding; in fact, calling for community building(Bok, 1990).

COMMUNITY BUILDING INTEACHER EDUCATION

In times of multitudinous changes, teaching hasbecome a complex phenomenon that it necessitates re-flective practice from the onset of teacher preparation(Erickson et al., 1994, emphasis is ours). Pre-service

397

1059-0145/03/1200-0397/0 C© 2003 Plenum Publishing Corporation

P1: JVP


398 Ebenezer, Lugo, Beirnacka, and Puvirajah

teachers have acquired a wealth of knowledge aboutteaching and learning in their experience as students.This unarticulated prior knowledge and understand-ing influence and shape their professional perceptionand disposition. In considering and learning to teachin alternative ways, pre-service teachers need to beprovided learning situations and experiences that en-courage them to articulate, examine, and reconstructtheir prior ideas about teaching and learning. Thismeans, professional reflective practice should be anintegral part of, and begin in, university-based teacherpreparation course work, which involves a teacher ed-ucator building a community in class for modeling andpracticing teaching as inquiry.

When the course community setting providesa spirit of acceptance and connectedness (Belenkyet al., 1986), pre-service teachers would be willingto share and understand their personal knowledgeand its roots as well as consider, accept, and incor-porate alternative ways of teaching. Thus the processof professional learning within a community involves“a process of recognizing and valuing one’s ownvoice, hearing, and responding to the voices of oth-ers, and of balancing the voices through the creationof shared values” (Beattie, 2002, p. 18). Thus, build-ing a community within the space of even a specificuniversity course has much significance and value.Consequently, they become bonded through sharedideals and ideas, which allow them membership toa community of professional learners (Sergiovanni,1992).

COMMUNITY BUILDING VIACOMPUTER TECHNOLOGY

Ayas (2001) points out that reflective practition-ers benefit most from a computer-based communitybecause recipients instantly explore, exchange, andconsider ideas for practice, almost immediately with-out experiencing any delay in time, despite being sep-arated by an inordinate amount of geographical dis-tance. Founded on this premise, this article exploresthe notion of using computer technology as a toolfor building community within science education forpre-service teachers carrying out reflective practiceamong one another.

Community, historically has been defined as, a so-cial unit based on a contiguous geographical commonlocation(s), interest, identification, culture, and/oractivities (Garvin and Tropman, 1992). Today, how-ever, with the rise of computer technology, particu-larly the Internet through the use of the World Wide

Web has altered the paradigm of community as ithas been traditionally considered. In the past, theidea of merging, combining, or even uniting com-puter technology to forge a community was consid-ered antithetical; they were two concepts diametri-cally opposed to each other. The notion of a possiblemarriage between community building and computertechnology created a long-standing tension betweenthe two that have produced persisting stereotypes, inthat; communities are warm and fuzzy, whereas tech-nology is cold, unyielding, mysterious, and dangerous.The reason for these generalizations can be found inhistory—the grim and merciless toil in the factoriesof the industrial revolution—and part can be found inour collective imagination of the idyllic and convivialcommunities that existed once upon a time, in thegood old days before the machine. Unlike the views ofthe past, computer technology now has the potentialof strengthening and building communities (Cashin,2000; Galegher et al., 1998; Harrington and Hathaway,1994; Wohlbruck, 2001) as well as in education (Hsiand Hoadley, 1997; Kraut et al., 1999; Ogbu, 2001;O’Neil, 1995; Nie and Erbring, 2000; Strike, 1993).Indeed, this relationship (Community and ComputerTechnology) has changed the way people interact,how they relate to each other, and even learn.

The relationship between computer technologyand community building are not mutually exclusive.In fact, they are very similar insomuch as, a commu-nity is a web, a web that is real yet intangible, and aweb of social relations. Ideally, the web of communityis a unity, a cohesive force that is supportive, buildsrelationships, and encourages tolerance. On the otherhand—technology too, is a web of sorts, for it alsoconnects people in real and intangible ways. Com-puter technology mediates communication betweenpeople, changes social space, and alters roles and re-lationships in society. Technology, like language, is anatural and inseparable extension to our world andour worldview.

Introducing a technological model for commu-nity formation through electronic discussion boardsfor science pre-service teachers could provide theneeded balance to community building because theweb of community is growing weaker in many ways.Teachers, even from pre-service period, “live” in closeproximity to each other in the school or univer-sity classroom, but they are often atomized and cutoff from one another. The recognition of shared as-pirations and interdependence is missing. The rawingredients—teachers with their associated beliefs, in-terests, and values—exist for forming communities,but the catalytic spark to energize these ingredients

P1: JVP


Community Building for Reflective Practice via e-Discussion Board 399

into an organism we can call community is absent fromthis portrait. Computer technology, in many ways, asa means for building community can be that spark.

COMPUTER AND COMMUNITY BUILDING:A MOVE TO “OTHER” IN TEACHERREFLECTIONS

The “other” may include mentors such as profes-sors, faculty advisors, classroom collaborating teach-ers, and peers. Korthagen (1993) and Tillema (1997)state that mediation and support from the “other” inreflective practice characterize social quality of theact of reflection. This process of exchange indicatesthat openness with the “other” generates and unfoldsideas in multiple perspectives and solutions that con-tribute to better and mutual understanding.

Several methods, in the literature involving the“other” have been proposed and carried out in reflec-tive practice. These methods include action research(Cornett, 1995; Rudduck, 1985, 1989; Zellermayer,1990), case studies (Wallace and Louden, 1992), theuse of metaphors and imagery (Elbaz, 1983), port-folio generation (Barton and Collins, 1993; Paulsonand Paulson 1991; Wade and Yarbrough, 1996), cur-riculum analysis and development (Zeichner, 1983),ethnography (Gitlin and Teitlebaum, 1983), semi-nars (Goodman, 1984), research (Cochran-Smith andLytle, 1999), personal journal writing (Bolin, 1988;Holly, 1989), and dialogue journal writing (Staton,1988; Zulich et al., 1992). Science teacher educa-tors have made use of action research, ethnogra-phy, case studies, and journal writing as ways ofpreparing reflective science teachers (Feldman, 1994;Hewson et al. , 1999; Pedretti, 1996; Tabachnickand Zeichner, 1999). These methods of reflectivepractice involve language, either spoken and/orwritten, vehicles by which teachers can articulatetheir observations, analyses, and actions to anotherperson.

Most notably, dialogue journal writing is usedin teacher education for the “purpose of carrying awritten conversation between two persons (i.e., the“other”) on a regular continuous basis” (Staton, 1988,p. 4). Zulich et al., (1992) note that dialogue jour-naling help students generate their own questions.Erickson et al. (1994) recommend dialogue journal-ing to overcome any negative experiences in studentteaching and other practicum settings especially ifthe journal reflections are responded to in a dialoguewith the faculty advisor. Often, through dialogue jour-naling, the exchange of ideas seems to take place

between the student and his or her mentor. How-ever, having pre-service teachers read and respond toone another’s journal writing about pedagogy mightbe better than sharing with just one other person(Hoover, 1994). If we are to accept Hoover’s claim,then one may ask the questions: Does journal writ-ing adequately facilitate community building amongteachers to reflect about teaching and learning issues?Can electronic dialogue tools replace dialogue journalwriting for promoting learning communities? Thesequestions led us to examine and use the WebCT dis-cussion board as a possible tool for carrying out com-munity building for reflective practice in a chemistrycurriculum and instruction course. The goal in thiscourse was to encourage the development of a com-munity of reflective teachers. Through this experienceof community building for reflective practice, it wasbelieved pre-service teachers would also acquire theknowledge and skills to develop learning communi-ties in their science classrooms. Thus, the followingresearch questions frame this study:

1. How does the WebCT Bulletin Board di-alogues nurture the symbiotic relationshipbetween community building and reflectivepractice?

2. How is community building depicted on We-bCT Bulletin Board for reflective dialogue?

3. How is teacher reflective practice enhancedbecause of community building on WebCTBulletin Board?

This study is significant because it will add tothe existing knowledge base on the characteristics ofcomputer discussions. More specifically, it will informteacher educators’ understanding of how WebCT Bul-letin Board or similar discussion tools may be used topromote community building for reflective practicein teacher education. This study will shed more lighton whether or not electronic discussion tools indeedpromote a social character for reflective practice andthus professional development. This study also con-tributes to methodology because on-line discussionboards can also be used as research tools to jointly;both teachers and their educator generate, organize,and validate dialogues through dialogues, which ad-dresses the issue of validity in this study.

DATA COLLECTION

All 12 chemistry pre-service teachers (7 male; 5female), age ranging 22–35, contributed their postingsfor this research study.

P1: JVP



Chemistry Curriculum and Instruction Course

The three credit hour Chemistry Curriculum andInstruction (C and I) course was scheduled in the sec-ond term (January to April), after their first term ofcourse work and subsequent first block of practicum.The C and I class met Tuesdays and Thursdays(2 days per week) for 2 h each day for 9 weeks, atotal of 36 h. The course readings consisted of theManitoba Chemistry foundation documents, a sug-gested textbook: Becoming a Secondary School Sci-ence Teacher by Ebenezer, and Haggerty (1999), read-ings on relevant articles on (a) students’ conceptionsof chemical concepts and (b) the nature of scientificinquiry.

The course outline stated the following objec-tives: to critically examine your views about the na-ture of chemical inquiry—generation, construction,negotiation, and validation of chemical knowledge—using WebCT and face-to-face; to critically exam-ine your views of chemistry teaching, learning, andassessment—using WebCT and face-to-face; to be-come familiar with the topics, conceptual/skill de-velopment activities, assessment ideas, and learningresources outlined in the Manitoba Chemistry 30Sand 40S Curriculum Documents; to use Manitobachemistry curricula and identify resources whichsupport these curricula; to practice/research Al-ternative methods of chemistry teaching, learning,and assessment; to use Hypermedia as a teach-ing tool for the understanding of theoretical ideasin chemistry; to explore the possibility of teach-ing and learning chemistry using computers (e.g.,CBL); to develop lesson and unit plans which de-pict multi-voices in chemistry education; to engagein reflective practice for teacher development us-ing WebCT; and to establish collaborative rela-tionships with peers and others for sustained dia-logue and inquiry about teaching and learning usingWebCT.

The course was taught though extensive model-ing of the Common Knowledge Construction Model.Thus, to introduce the course, the teacher educatorposted the following welcome message on WebCTbulletin board:

The focus of this course is to help you critically exam-ine your views about the nature of chemical inquiry.Based on the nature of chemical inquiry, I have de-veloped a teaching model known as the CommonKnowledge Construction (CKC) model. This modelhas four interactive phases: Exploring and Structur-ing, Constructing and Negotiating, Translating and

Extending, and Reflecting and Assessing. How wouldyou integrate the nature of chemical inquiry into eachof these phases? Your WebCT ChemEd. conversa-tions should revolve around the nature of chemicalinquiry in all of the phases of the CKC model as wellas the structuring of chemical knowledge. (ArticleNo. 1: posted by Instructor on Tue, Jan. 4, 2000, 11:13Subject: Welcome Message Welcome to the Chem-istry C and I course.)

In the exploring and categorizing phase, pre-service teachers learned to develop a lesson planto explore and categorize children’s ideas using dif-ferent methods. In the constructing and negotiatingmeaning phase, pre-service learned to develop se-ries of lesson plans to incorporate children’s ideasusing different teaching strategies. In the translatingand extending phase, the pre-service teachers learnedto develop lesson plans that show the relationshipamong science, technology, society, and environment.In the reflecting and assessing phase, the pre-serviceteachers learned to write an assessment plan to carryout ongoing and culminating assessment. In each ofthe lesson plans, the nature of chemical inquiry washighlighted. Pre-service teachers were also taught tostructure chemical knowledge using concept mapping(Novak and Gowin, 1985; Thagard, 1992). Togetherwith class discussions, pre-service teachers were alsoexpected to reflect and carry out peer dialoguesbased on the foregoing set of pedagogical contentknowledge.

The assignments consisted of structuring chemi-cal knowledge through concept mapping, five lessonplans and an assessment plan. The lesson plans con-sisted of exploring and structuring students’ “earlytheories” of a chemical phenomenon, two lesson plansfor tracking students’ “developing theories,” one les-son plan for decision making based on a chemical is-sue, and one lesson plan using the Internet. In all thelesson plans, pre-service teachers were expected to in-tegrate the nature of chemical inquiry as well as linkdifferent types of chemical knowledge in appropriatelessons and assessment.

For the Pre-Service Teacher as Researcherconference presentation (Assignment 3), pre-serviceteachers were expected to work with the samepartner when developing lesson plans. Based on theirchemical topic, pre-service teachers were expected toteach their peers, through hands-on and minds-on ac-tivities, how to explore and structure students’ “earlytheories,” track students’ “developing theories,”assist students in making informed decisions aboutchemistry-related societal issues, teach chemistry

P1: JVP



using the Internet, assess students’ “developed theo-ries,” conduct at least two important lab activities. Inall of the foregoing events, pre-service teachers weresupposed to highlight the nature of chemical inquiry.

Assignment 4 consisted of WebCT ChemEdConversations. Pre-service teachers were expectedto conduct peer dialogues focusing on the “Com-mon Knowledge Construction Model” (Ebenezer andConnor, 1998) and the nature of chemical inquiry.Their dialogues were expected to be on the read-ings, class activities, and experiences. The pre-serviceteachers learned to use the WebCT bulletin boardwithin a few minutes on the first day of class and wereexcited about using it for their dialogue.

WebCT Bulletin Board

WebCT is a versatile web-based learning systemthat enables students and teachers to participate in in-teractive learning and teaching. The WebCT bulletinboard discussions tool enables students and teachersto carry out interactive dialogue through posting ofmessages under various topics and also subject head-ings. Individuals interested in a particular topic canthen view and respond to these messages by choosingthe “Bulletins” button to access the discussion toolfrom the homepage. As a default, this leads the usersto the “main forum” bulletin page.

WebCT bulletin board also allows for the facili-tation of several forums. Users can view additional fo-rums available for them to conduct their discussionsby choosing the “Forum” button from menu on theright side. The teacher maintains the forum topics.The forum display also provides students with infor-mation such as the number of unread messages andnumber of total messages. Users can easily view thisto verify if there are any new bulletins.

The buttons on the right side of the screen en-ables users to choose various discussion functions:compose, search, compile, and read messages. The“compose” function, allows students to compose mes-sages under a chosen topic. In composing messagesstudents will need to choose the topic from the listof topics presented and then include a subject head-ing for their messages as well. Users write their mes-sages, which are automatically posted in the messagebox.

The “search” function offers a variety of ways inwhich students can choose to carry out their searchfor a particular message. Students can search for aparticular message by using the full name of the mes-

sage writer, user name of the message writer, subjectof the message, unique message number, date that themessage was sent, or the content of the message. Byusing this function students can sift through hundredsof messages in a relatively timely manner to retrieveonly the messages that interest them. The “compile”function is used basically to “gather together” mes-sages of interest for printing, and for saving locallyeither on the hard drive or on diskette.

Normally, the instructor would post the first mes-sage to welcome the students to the course and We-bCT. If we want to view a certain message, then wewould click on the user name of the particular senderand the message will be displayed. Messages are alsodisplayed on a split screen. However, the size of themessage screen can be changed easily to have largerviewing area. In addition to reading a particular mes-sage by choosing the user name of the message, mes-sages can also be read by choosing the subject of themessage. By choosing the subject, all the messagesthat fall under the subject heading are displayed. Forexample, from the “Main” forum, the subject “FirstMessage” can be chosen to display all the messagesthat fall under that particular subject heading. Allthe messages that fall under the subject heading arecollectively called a thread. In displaying the mes-sages under a particular subject heading, students canchoose to display either only the unread messagesor all of the messages. While the student reads themessages, he or she can reply to a particular messageby choosing the “reply” button and then writing andposting a reply message.

With the aid of Fig. 1, let us focus on how themessages are scaffolded under the subject headingson the forums page to facilitate community buildingfor reflective dialogues. The individual messages aredisplayed in a manner to convey to the viewer the na-ture and the course of discussion. From Fig. 1, underthe subject “Student Theories” we see at first glance,numerous messages scattered about the screen. How-ever, a closer inspection conveys a powerful messageto the viewer. A quick look at the various numbers ofusers on Fig. 1 tells us that a community is develop-ing around the subject “Student Theories.” User STposes message 26, the initial message for this subject.We see numerous postings of messages below mes-sage 26. The ways the messages are displayed belowthe original message tell us about the course of dia-logue. Let us go through the course of dialogue forsubject “Student Theories.”

User ST posts message 26 initially. HD and RDpost messages 28 and 33 respectively in response

P1: JVP



Fig. 1. Chemistry pre-service teachers’ conversational thread.

to message 26. Message 28 does not receive anyresponse. However, messages 35 and 37 are responsesto message 33. Message 40 is posted in response tomessage 35. Message 50 is posted in response to theoriginal message 26, then message 109 is in responseto message 50, message 115 is in response to mes-sage109, message 124 is in response to message 115,message 132 is in response to message 124, message141 is in response to message 132, and message 145is in response to message 124. Message 98 is in re-sponse to the first message 26. Messages are ver-tically aligned to display the process and route ofreplies to messages. For example, replies to message26 are right indented once. These replies are mes-sages 28, 33, 50, and 98. We can see from Fig. 1 thatthese replies are vertically aligned with respect toeach other. More sophisticated dialogue exchangescan also be displayed in similar fashion as above byusing vertical alignment, message number, user name,and time of message. The foregoing account clearly il-lustrates how the WebCT users can communicate witheach other to define their community as a reflectiveone.

Data Analysis

We selected all 312 WebCT bulletin boardpostings, compiled them, and down loaded to a PCfile. Bulletin board dialogue not only involved thedevelopment of pedagogical content knowledge suchas students’ theories, negotiating and constructingmeaning, societal issues, and assessment, outlined intheir course syllabus, but also consisted of generalissues such as student motivation, dropping out ofschool, spiral curriculum, social development, andhomework. Because our focus in the course wasto use “students’ theories” in planning a sequenceof lessons and to incorporate them into relevantteaching strategies, we have chosen the extensivebulletin board notes pre-service teachers posted con-cerning “students’ theories” to answer our researchquestions. Because it is a dialogue among peers andtheir teacher educator, an in-depth analysis of oneissue might be better than discussing several issuesto understand the nature of pre-service teachers’reflective dialogues and community building. In thenext section we will take a closer look at the contents

P1: JVP



of the WebCT Bulletin Board postings to examinethe nature of community building and reflectivedialogues in the computer space.

COMMUNITY BUILDING FORREFLECTIVE PRACTICE

An objective in the Chemistry Curriculum andInstruction course was to help pre-service teachersunderstand how to explore and categorize students’early theories. Hence, a WebCT forum was createdto discuss the notion of “exploring and categorizing”children’s early theories and how the categories oftheories may be used in curriculum development andteaching. At this moment, it is necessary for us to de-scribe briefly how the Chemistry Curriculum and In-struction class was involved in the exploration andcategorizing of student theories.

In class, the teacher educator modeled how toexplore students’ early theories using a unit on solu-tions. The focus was on the concept of dissolving. Theexploration activity consisted of salt dissolving in wa-ter. The questions for exploration focused on macro-scopic and sub-microscopic knowledge in chemistry:What do you think might be happening to salt in wa-ter when salt is added to water? If you were to wearpowerful goggles through which you can actually seewhat is happening to salt and water, what will yousee? Draw a picture of what you might see. We alsodiscussed why exploring students’ prior-teaching the-ories are important. We also drew relationships be-tween the purpose of exploring children’s early theo-ries and the nature of scientific inquiry. Based on theidea of exploring students’ early theories, pre-serviceteachers used WebCT for their reflective dialogues.

In this section, we use excerpts from pre-serviceteachers’ WebCT postings that illustrate how the We-bCT Bulletin Board dialogues nurture the symbioticrelationship between community building and reflec-tive practice; how community building is depicted onWebCT Bulletin Board for reflective dialogue; andhow teacher reflective practice is enhanced because ofcommunity building on WebCT Bulletin Board. Pre-service teachers are given pseudonyms. Following is astimulating posting on students’ s theories (Posting 1).

In class on Tuesday we were talking about the-ories that students have about different aspects ofscience. I have some biology examples (even thoughwe are in chemistry I am sure you can still appreciatethem) that I recognized as “theories” instead of just

a wrong answer, when I was returning my students’assignments. The students were given an incorrectstatement and they were to figure out what the errorwas and provide additional information. In responseto the statement: “Two parents with blood type Ohave a child with blood type A.”

Student response (paraphrased) “There is asmall chance that two parents with blood type Ocould have a child with type A blood. It depends ontheir secondary back up blood system if they havea little type A hidden there. Otherwise they wouldprobably have a child with type O blood.”

In response to the statement: “John has ele-vated leukocyte levels, but he feels fine.”

Student response (paraphrased) “elevatedleukocyte levels mean that John shouldn’t be feelingwell . . .But if the leukocyte levels can change and ifthey rise again they will make him sick.”

My question to you is, once you have identifiedthese “theories” that students have, how do you (a)honor them and (b) how do you help Along & createa new “theory” that is more in-line with the “scientif-ically” correct theory. At this time I cannot wrap mymind around making the leap or series of steps fromA to B. Any suggestions. (Article No. 26: posted bySally Kinko on Wed, Jan. 12, 2000, 21: 49. Subject:“Students’ theories”)

Although the above quote refers to contentknowledge in biology, Sally obviously focuses on“students’ theories.” Furthermore, Sally identifies anexample from her practicum context. WebCT has en-abled Sally to reflect on her biology practicum experi-ence. This may not have happened in the face-to-facediscussion in a chemistry curriculum and instructionclass because the focus was on chemistry and morespecifically solution chemistry. WebCT allows her toreflect on her experience during her first practicum.She may not have reflected on students’ answers toher biology questions in the same way she reflectednow on WebCT, based on what she has been learn-ing in the chemistry methodology class. Dewey (1938)would say that Sally has engaged herself in a deliber-ate thinking process based on “experience and idea.”Liston and Zeichner (1987), Zeichner and Teitelbaum(1982) and Goodman (1986) advise that future teach-ers ought to reflect on the pedagogical and curricularmeans that attain educational aims. Here Sally is ex-amining a pedagogical element (students’ theories) inattaining an educational aim of learning how to helpstudents to explore their early theories (refer to Sally’slast statement in the above excerpt). Sally would liketo know how to respect students’ theories and how tohelp them to create a new “theory.” Sally is request-ing help from her peers by asking thought provoking

P1: JVP



questions: “How do you honor them?” “How do youhelp along and create a new theory?” This requestindeed reveals the nature of community building asSally is able to confide and depend on her peers inhelping her deal with concerns relating to her teach-ing practice. Moreover, the group has now crossedover from an activity of seeking their own individualfulfillment, to a selfless concern for the others in thegroup to learn which in essence represents an authen-tic community.

Hellen replies Sally (Posting 2):for your student theories, maybe you could

probe the student further and try to find out why heor she is thinking this way, of course, there are prob-ably time and other kinds of limits on how much ofthis you could realistically do in class. anyway, in theleukocyte example, it seems as though the studentthinks that leukocytes cause disease, you could try tofind out if this is what he/she thinks and if he/she doesthink this try to find out how or why the student cameto think this. This may help in directing their think-ing. Seems like it would be an asset to be interestedin how your students think! maybe we should be ask-ing THEM more questions! (Article No. 28 [Branchfrom no. 26] posted by Hellen Edgar on Thu, Jan 13,2000, 12:58)

Helen does not seem to care about sentencestructure or capitalization. She does not give Sally aseries of lessons to help the student with an under-standing of the problem of Leukocytes. Instead, Helengenerates an idea to probe the students further to findout why they came to think the way did. Helen feelsthis questioning itself will enable the student to re-think. Helen thinks knowing how students think is anasset. She shares this with Sally in her posting. The factthat Helen felt that it is important to answer Sally’squestion indicates the value put on Sally’s question,which characterizes community building.

Two days later Rani gets on-line (Posting 3).In response to your situation about the students

and their prior knowledge or “early theories” aboutcertain concepts, I agree with Helen in that maybeyou could probe them more about why they thinkthe way they do. I think this would take a lot of timeto do so but it would be really interesting in know-ing why they have formed these theories. Most ofthe time, students just make their own explanationsfor things that are around them without really think-ing about why they think this way. By probing, youmight get them to think a bit deeper about their ex-planations. As well, I think the more you provide thestudents with information about white blood cells orthe human body, the more they will realize why theirtheories do not fit with the way things really func-tion. However, you can’t just tell them that humans

do not have a back up blood system. I think you wouldhave to provide evidence. This is where the evidentialplane of the LEP model would fit in. You have thestudents’ preconceptions Already, which fit into thepsychological plane. By providing evidence, whichwould include some history as to how scientists firstcame up with these correct explanations, hopefullystudents would see the logic in the concepts you havepresented to them. I believe you would have to be pa-tient with the students . . . sometimes it takes a longtime before beliefs can be changed. Rani (ArticleNo. 33: [Branch from no. 26 ] posted by Rani Dayas-ingh on Sat, Jan 15, 2000, 23:27 Subject: re: “Student’sTheories”)

Notice how Rani builds teacher morale by firstagreeing with Helen’s response to Sally—that furtherprobing is necessary to find out why students havedeveloped these theories. She acknowledges that thiswill take time. Furthermore, she states that studentsform ideas without thinking about why they thinkabout something. Like Helen, Rani claims furtherprobing will enable students to think of their explana-tions. Rani extends Helen’s statement when she sug-gests that rather than simply telling students that hu-mans do not have a back up blood system, providinghistorical evidence would help students change theirbeliefs. What is more important is that Rani bringsthe LEP model (Stinner, 1998) taught in another sec-ondary methods course in science to answer Sally’squestion on how to move from their pre-conceptionto new theories. Rani reflects on what she had learnedin another class and connects her understanding tothe issue at hand. This indicates Rani’s pedagogical“cognitive growth” (Dewey, 1938) that has resultedin new ways of dealing with students’ theories. WhileMonk and Osborne (1997) and Stinner and Williams(1993) recognize the value in using theory develop-ment in science in developing student scientific un-derstanding, Hughes and Hewson (1998) view thathistorical evidence may be productively used in con-ceptual change teaching.

In terms of pedagogy, pre-service teachers arecontinuing to reflect on the importance of exploringstudents’ theories and help students seek evidence toevaluate their theories. Dan joins the on-line dialogueto respond to Rani (Posting 4).

It is interesting how we are very concerned with help-ing our students to get the right answer (as it has beencalled several times in class and here in these mes-sages), yet the concept of the “right answer” as suchis so abhorrent to many. We are supposed to valuethe way that they think, but then change them tothink the “right way.” I find this a little bit puzzling,almost as if you step on your mother’s foot, and then

P1: JVP



apologize for doing so, and then stepping on it again.Perhaps I’m not reading into this right, but it seems asif we’re being a little bit hypocritical here. On anotherbend, more related to “student’s theories,” I thinkthat sometimes we must realize that students maybe coming to a particular not with preconceptions,but with NO conceptions about a particular subject.These would be subjects in any of the sciences thatjust don’t come up in every-day life, or that student’ssimply haven’t thought that much about. This can bean advantage or a disadvantage. It is an advantagein that we are the ones forming their first concep-tual systems about a certain topic, but we must thenalso be careful in our communication to the studentsthat we are not the perpetrators of misconceptionsby being unclear in our explanations. I think that thismaybe the way to approach teaching some, not All,units in high school science courses. Anyone want torip me apart on this one? (Article No. 35: [Branchfrom no. 33] posted by Dan Matthews on Mon, Jan.17, 2000, 10:04 Subject: re: “Student’s Theories”)

To value students’ ideas and at the same timeto lead students eventually to the right answersounds paradoxical to Dan. He also uses a metaphor,“Almost as if you step on your mother’s foot,” to il-lustrate his puzzle. And then feels that he may not un-derstand the notion of using students’ theories in les-son sequence. He also reminds us that students cometo us not only with preconceptions, but also with noconceptions.

As an advantage to the teacher, Dan notes thatthe teachers are the once who are developing stu-dents’ first conceptual system. On this note, Danwarns teachers that they should be careful not to in-troduce misconceptions as a result of unclear expla-nations and communication. He also suggests that at-tending to students’ conceptions is just one-way ofteaching school science.

First, it is important to understand that we valuestudents ideas for many reasons: to help students andteachers become aware of students’ ideas; to assessthese ideas and develop and implement a sequenceof lessons based on students’ ideas; to help studentsfind evidence to test the worth of their ideas; to sub-ject their ideas to open debate and inquiry; and toquestion the methods of investigation, and ultimatelydevelop a degree of confidence in their original ornewly developed ideas (Ebenezer and Fraser, 2001).

Second, Dan’s ideas of students coming with “noconception” might be a valid argument because inmost instances, they are proposing explanations basedon the given situation—they are re-organizing theirexperience upon encountering a situation. After All,students may not have structured, developed, consis-

tent ideas about a physical phenomenon (see phe-nomenographic research, for example, Ebenezer andConnor, 1998)

Third, Dan points to the issue of teachers in-troducing “misconceptions.” Dan has a point herebecause research does indicate that teachers findit difficult to identify students’ alternative concep-tions and clarify such meanings when they themselvesare questioning alternative conceptions of scienceconcepts (Ameh, 1987; Ameh and Gunstone, 1985;Bloom, 1989; Kruger, 1990; Linder and Erickson,1989). Teachers may introduce “misconceptions,” buton the other hand science is complex. While we maygive simple, elegant, parsimonious explanations, weshould also be aware of inconsistencies, discrepan-cies, and contradictions in science. This is why it isimportant to discuss the general attributes and thenalso point out the more specific attributes of a spe-cific system. So misconceptions may develop not onlybecause of a teacher’s unclear explanations, but alsobecause of the subject matter and also because of thestudent’s individual experience.

Fourth, Dan notes that using students’ theoriesis not the only way to teach science which appearsto be true. But if our aim of teaching is to developstudents’ conceptual understanding to discriminateknowledge and the process by which this understand-ing takes place, then considering students’ ideas isimportant regardless of the approach used: construc-tivist teaching, inquiry science; Science-Technology-Society-Environment approach.

The key point in our interpretation is how a dis-cussion outside the class through WebCT brings outpersonal beliefs into the open and can be subjectedto debate. Such open debate encourages pre-serviceteachers to execute their judgment about the contentof what they are learning. Goodman (1986), Listonand Zeichner (1987), and Zeichner and Teitelbaum(1982) concur that pre-service teachers should notsimply accept things as they experience. Rather, theyshould imagine what it could be and strive for theideal. Such images would shape the future teacher’spractice and his or her thinking about practice. In linewith these authors’ premises, Dan is truly judging theworth of alternative chemistry teaching by raisingissues such as valuing students’ ideas, students’ withno conceptions, and teachers introducing miscon-ceptions. Dan is making honest statements in anattempt to challenge his peers thinking. In fact, Danis playing the role of the “other” in influencing hispeers to reflect further about using students’ theoriesin chemistry teaching.

P1: JVP



Rani posts a new note on students’ theories af-ter she explored her 14-year-old cousin’s ideas of so-lutions. She did this side experimentation to satisfyher own curiosity. Based on this experience and classdiscussion, Rani makes some beginning claims aboutchildren’s theories (Posting 5).

This past weekend, I decided to find out what pre-conceptions my 14-year-old cousin has in regards towhat was happening when I put salt and water to-gether and mixed them in a glass. This is the samedemonstration Jazlin did in class for us. I used thesame questions to prompt her and think about whatwas happening in the glass. Well, her belief aboutwhat was happening in the glass was very surpris-ing to me. She believed that the salt did melt in thewater. However, it did not melt entirely. Rather, itjust melted to a point where it could not seen by thenaked eye any more. She thought that the salt parti-cles were melting and joining together with the watermolecules. I then asked her if she thought the salt par-ticles were still in solid state or has they now becomeliquid, like the water. Her response was that the saltparticles had maintained their solid state. This answersurprised me because I know she had learned aboutthis, and the concept of dissolving, in class becauselast year she had asked me about it. So I decidedI would ask her about that. I asked her what is thename of this melting down process and she answeredvery quickly, that it was dissolving. When I asked herwhat that meant, she was not quite sure. We stoppedthis conversation there and then she started askingme about what was really happening in the glass. Ihad just started to explain to her what was happen-ing when she interrupted me and explained the wholeprocess to me. I asked her then why she had not toldme this earlier and she said because she did not knowthis was related to what was showing her. She alsotold me that she learned about dissolving in class butdid not remember it because it was explained in afashion where she could not apply to her everydaylife. Well, I just thought I would share that with you.

The early theories that students have about atopic are very powerful tools that we, as teachers, canuse to develop their knowledge even further. All stu-dents come to class with preconceptions about topicsthat they are studying. If teachers do not tap into theirinitial understanding of these topics, the students willfail to grasp the new concepts and information thatis taught to them. They will then learn the materialtaught to them for the sake of passing the test, butwill not incorporate this new knowledge with theirprior knowledge base. Most often, students will alsorevert back to believing in their preconceptions out-side of the classroom. I think as teachers we shouldbegin with our students’ preconceptions. We shouldlearn what it is that they believe is to be true and

work with them from that point on. However, as allstudents are different, I think that we will get manydifferent ideas and theories from the students in re-gards to how the world works. There will, hopefully,be a common link between all of these ideas that wecan work with. Rani (Article No. 65: posted by RaniDayasingh on Tue, Jan. 18, 2000, 12:59 Subject: Stu-dents’ Early Theories).

Rani is curious about the role of students’ theo-ries. She uses the same activity and the same questionsthat her teacher educator used in class to model theexploration phase to find out her own cousin’s ideas ofsolutions. She carries out this activity at home beforeshe could try it out in school. Rani is surprised to notethat her cousin had the same conceptions as childrenin research (Ebenezer and Erickson, 1996), for wa-ter/water activity: “the water particles were meltingand joining together with the water molecules.” UponRani’s further query, she finds out that her cousin ac-tually knew what dissolvingmeant, but was unable totranslate it to an activity shown by her. Rani’s ex-perience with her cousin suggests that students arenot able to translate what they have learned in sci-ence class to everyday life. Also, based on this ex-perience, Rani claims how important it is to find outstudents’ preconceptions. Rani states that she can usethis knowledge to develop students’ knowledge evenfurther. She also feels that students will “fail to graspthe new concepts and information that is taught tothem,” if their preconceptions are not tapped. Sheis also of the view that students’ expressions can begrouped into “common links” so that teachers can“work” with them (see student conception literature,for example, Driver et al., 1996).

Note how Rani’s peers respond to her (Posting 6):“Wow Rani! That is really interesting! . . .Thanks forpaving the way!” (Article No. 68: posted by MelindaPritchard on Tue, Jan. 18, 2000, 14:26 Subject: Stu-dents’ Early Theories). Note the tone in Melinda’s“voice”—it is warm, inviting, friendly, supportive, andnurturing. Similarly, Al is developing the notion ofcommunity building when he states (Posting 7), “Veryinteresting Rani. I definitely believe that what ourprofessor has been telling us about finding out thestudents’ preconceptions is absolutely critical. This iswhere we can almost jump into our student’s headsand see the world as they do. Then we can help themmodify their schema towards the greater truth.” Al(Article No. 81: [Branch from no. 65] posted by AlWoods on Tue, Jan. 18, 2000, 20:08 Subject: re: Stu-dents’ Early Theories). When there is an absence of in-flections, facial expressions, or body language, striking

P1: JVP



the right tone is important in network communication.Melinda’s choice of words indeed promotes commu-nity building.

Some days had passed by. Melinda picks up onthe teacher educator’s note to John in which shequoted Sally’s original questions in the Article No.26. Melinda provides further insights about how tomove learners from A to B that Sally (see Posting 1)asked initially by writing to the teacher educator (seePosting 8 below).

You pose an interesting question. I would liketo suggest a way to (a) honor students’ theories then(b) help create a new theory. Suppose that a studenthas presented an idea that is “incorrect,” but doesexplain some phenomenon. Maybe you could vali-date the students’ theory by saying, “That is a goodidea. It would certainly explain what is happening.Now, how would you explain this . . . ”? At that point,present something that could not be explained by thestudent’s theory, and try to guide him/her from there.Maybe another way to do this is to list all the students’theories. Confirm each of them with the phrase, “Thatis a good idea because . . . ” or “Your theory wouldmake sense because . . . ” Then start testing the theo-ries. As these theories are “disproved,” have themmodify their theories. I think ultimately, studentsshould realize that science is based on “theories”that are usually modified or replaced by new onesas time goes on. It is the PROCESS that should bepraised. I also think that for this method of teaching(or for any productive teaching to occur), a teachermust create an “emotionally safe” environment. Stu-dents should not have to fear ridicule if their initialtheories are incorrect. Indeed, it is the struggle orPROCESS of finding the correct answer that shouldbe emphasized. Not whether or not a student is ini-tially right. (Article No. 109: [Branch from no. 50]posted by Melinda Pritchard on Sat, Jan. 22, 2000,10:17 Subject: re: “Student’s Theories”)

What is amazing is that Melinda picks up onan issue—helping students move from A to B—presented by Sally much earlier during our WebCTconversation. As reported by Harrington (1993), We-bCT allowed Melinda to take advantage of the timethat had elapsed for reflection before responding.Melinda’s opening remarks, “You pose an interestingquestion” makes the community building obvious.

Melinda is suggesting a way to honor students’theories and help create new theory. In doing this,Melinda is helping her peers to “see” other waysof accommodating students’ theories. Actually, whatMelinda is highlighting to her peers are the character-istics of the nature of science such as “that is a goodidea because . . . ” (interest and motivation), “test-ing the theories . . . and then modify their theories”

(methodology and evidence), “replace by new onesas time goes on” (tentative and evolutionary charac-ter of theories), “the struggle or process of the correctanswer should be emphasized” (scientific inquiry).

The development of students’ theories contin-ued throughout Pre-Service Teacher As Researcher(P-STAR) conference. Pre-service teachers were ex-pected to develop lesson plans based on the Com-mon Knowledge Construction Model (Ebenezer andConnor, 1998) in a chemistry topic of their choice andpresent these at the P-STAR conference. The firstpresenters presented students’ conceptions of phys-ical changes. The second lesson was supposed to beconnected to the first lesson to help students test theworth of their ideas. The presenters did not show con-nection between the second lesson and the first les-son. Hal reminds his peers (see Posting 9) about whatthe teacher educator has emphasized in one of herpostings.

First of all, I just wanted to say that your presentationwas really great. The activities were fun and that hasgot to happen in the classrooms. Second. Our edu-cator had noted that we should analyze whether ornot your follow-up activity helped the students mod-ify their pre-conceptions about matter and the statesof matter. I was wondering exactly how you coulddevelop a demonstration that would challenge thekids to believe that water molecules are more tightlypacked as a solid and less as a liquid, etc. (Article No.208: posted by Hal Whitin on Thu, Feb. 3, 2000, 14:26Subject: Day 1 of PSTAR conferences).

The following posting is based on Al’s call foractivities that might help students with their ideas onphysical changes. Mila comments (Posting 10):

Another great presentation of ideas and thoughts—THANKS LEAH AND HELLEN! The student pre-conception that water gets hotter, even when boiling,if you add more heat. Doing a simple boiling curveexperiment on water addresses this preconception.The beauty of this lab is in its simplicity and econ-omy as well as the fact that the students collect theirown data that leads them to the final contradiction oftheir own theory/conception. It is a lab that we caneasily do and have done BUT presented in this ped-agogical sequence (exploring student’s theories andthen negotiating) provides the students and teacherwith a greater opportunity to experience meaningfullearning . . . (Article No. 219: posted by Mila Koreshon Thu, Feb. 3, 2000, 17:21 Subject: Negotiating Stu-dent Theories).

Mila directs the presenters to a lab that contra-dicts personal constructs with physical evidence. Shealso reminds her peers that the boiling curve exper-iment is commonly conducted. “BUT presented in

P1: JVP



this pedagogical sequence (exploring student’s the-ories and then negotiating) provides the studentsand teacher with a greater opportunity to experiencemeaningful learning.” It is this point that Mila is mak-ing has much significance—how a common lab ac-tivity described in most chemistry laboratory manualand/or chemistry textbooks that has a different focusand purpose. Now the lab activity is not simply tracingthe temperature curve of water, rather it can be usedto help students with their theory “that water gets hot-ter, even when boiling, if you add more heat.” The labdone with this focus will be meaningful to students.They are not only learning the knowledge and skillsof this lab, but also finding evidence to either supportor refute their claim. The teacher needs to help stu-dents frame a question based on their theory: Doesthe water get hotter when boiling when more heat isadded?

CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE NOTION OFELECTRONIC SOCIAL SPACE

In this study, the WebCT Bulletin Board spaceavoids pre-service teachers pursuing a solo path inlearning to teach chemistry in a curriculum and in-struction course. In this electronic space pre-serviceteachers carry out reflective dialogues on issues witha singleness of purpose—that is to critically thinkabout innovative practices of teaching science. A sup-portive community of pre-service teachers soon de-velops around the WebCT Bulletin Board to gen-erate, build, disperse, assess, value, and assess eachother’s ideas as they study and experiment with newscience teaching approaches founded on sound phi-losophy and practice. When a pre-service teacher isrequesting help from her peer on WebCT, anothergenerates, shares, and assesses her ideas on how thesituation should be handled (see Posting 2—Helen’sreply to Sally). What is important for us to under-stand is that when one pre-service teacher gener-ates and shares her idea through WebCT postings,it enables all of the peers to have access to the idea.Ideas are generated and assessed not only by peers,but also by the individual who generates the idea.For example, Helen is assessing her own ideas whenshe states that time and other limits may impedethe applicability of her idea of probing students in a“real class.”

Many pre-service teacher members of the We-bCT community are involved in the building, sustain-ing, and valuing of ideas and contributions. Build-

ing ideas occurs once an idea is generated (to buildon a generated idea). An individual member of thecommunity generates the idea, and the members ofthe community subsequently build the idea. We havepreviously pointed out, for example, that Rani con-tributes to community building (see Posting 3). Ranibuilds and sustains ideas by extending one of herpeer’s (Helen) ideas. Rani, obviously, values Helen’sideas, or else she would not at first agree with Helen,and secondly extend Helen’s ideas.

Pre-service teachers’ posted thoughts to the elec-tronic community enable exploration, extension, andresolution to their satisfaction. For example, we see“students theory” issue sustain continuity and becomeextensively explored as a result of being open to mul-tiple voices, which means that the community is opento various members to contribute. More importantly,being open to multiple voices also means having aninclusive community that is open to various ideas, be-liefs, and philosophies. We have seen in the examplesof postings provided in this study that the electroniccommunity of pre-service teachers was indeed opento multiple voices.

Discussions can be directed, extended, and val-ued only if they do not become judgmental. Discus-sions that are negative, and judgmental will ceaseto contribute constructively to the furthering of acommunity of reflective practitioners. Invitations forinquiry through examination, questioning, probing,offering alternatives, and other methods will lead tothe building of community of reflective practitioners.As pre-service teachers hear and listen to each other’svoices that characterize warmth, thoughtfulness, andseriousness, they are genuinely building a community.Open, honest dialogues on the electronic space pro-vide pre-service teachers a sense of community withan opportunity to come to consciously know the be-liefs and practices of their own and their peers asthey relate to “students’ theories.” When pre-serviceteachers expose their beliefs about teaching practicefor “others” to dwell upon, we may infer that theyare truly building trusting relationships within thecommunity.

Pre-service teachers pose provocative questionson the electronic space. These questions cause themembers of the electronic community to think deeplyabout the questions and also about their answers.Provocative questions also cause pre-service teach-ers to re-visit and re-evaluate their held beliefs. Sallyposts a provocative question (in an education context)to her peers: “My question to you is, once you haveidentified these “theories” that students have, (a) how

P1: JVP



do you honor them and (b) how do you help alongand create a new “theory” that is more in-line withthe “scientifically” correct theory.” For Sally’s ques-tions, her peers elicited many thoughtful responses.Noteworthy is Melinda’s response illustrative of ex-tensive thought that has gone into the formation ofthe response (see Posting 6).

WebCT bulletin board enabled opportunities tocontemplate on many issues, which may not have beeneven considered in the context of chemistry teach-ing such as the discussion on a biology topic (seePosting 1). Pre-service teachers subjected their per-sonal views for further reflection and criticism (seePosting 4). Pre-service teachers in this study soughthelp from one another. They cheered each other’svictory. Bok (1990) aptly points out that the inter-action among teachers not only lends mutual supportbut also provides greater vigor, energy, invention, andenthusiasm. Teachers learn best and accomplish morewhen they work together. In line with Dimauro andGal (1994), this study clearly indicates and concludesthat an electronic space such as the WebCT bulletinboard does foster community building for reflectivedialogues for teacher professional development.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE TECHNICALASPECTS OF THE ELECTRONIC SPACE

Although the students (pre-service teachers)who participated in this course were not asked directlyif they experience community—the data, which is tosay the dialogues conducted online, seem to indicatethat they did. For example, in the study Sally was will-ing to contribute to the others in the course without abenefit to herself, which is indicative that the cohesionof this community of learners outweighed the individ-ual interest. The reaction by Sally was to support andhelp the others.

Did WebCT bulletin board help in building acommunity of pre-service teacher inquirers for car-rying out reflective dialogues in this study? On thebasis of the evidence indicated in the postings on thebulletin board, we answer the question: Yes, WebCTwas helpful in community building to engage in reflec-tive dialogues. While there were social factors that wehighlighted above contributed to the development ofcommunity building, there were also technical fea-tures of WebCT that enabled the formation of a com-munity of learners.

WebCT bulletin board space was private and onlyour group of pre-service teachers accessed it. This fea-

ture of the WebCT Bulletin Board encouraged open-ness in pre-service teachers’ reflective dialogues. Theydialogued freely and provided specific details of theirbeliefs and practices with the understanding that theywere sharing only with their peers and their teachereducator.

Asynchronous communication was possible withWebCT. The pre-service teachers were able to re-spond when it was convenient to them. For instance,Melinda joined in the dialogue after she had returnedfrom a trip. It allowed each of them adequate timeto formulate and articulate ideas and thoughtful re-sponses. It also encouraged prompt responses to keepconversations flowing—Rani’s continued responsesto her peers are an example of the flow of conver-sation. Moreover, the emphasis on the personal nar-ratives themselves reflect a community, in so muchas, they provided constructive feedback, mutual re-spect, openness and readiness to see the view pointsof others, acceptance, and mutual support which areall features of an established community.

Because WebCT maintains a chronologicalrecord of dialogue, pre-service teachers were able toeasily sort and read messages chronologically to pre-serve the order of the conversation and reflect the flowand coherence of the dialogue. Pre-service teacherswere able to look back at the experience as originallywritten. And, salient messages were used as exam-ples of practice and reflection, “springs” for dialogue,and professional teaching tools, another point whichspeaks to the validity issue. Although pre-serviceteachers in this study acknowledged the spirit of com-munity that prevailed in class and the developmentof community through WebCT, no systematic datawere collected through individual interviews or sur-veys to support our claims based on the critical anal-ysis of on-line reflective dialogues. Hence, our con-cluding statements on community building throughon-line discussions need to be corroborated with evi-dence from multiple data sources to make this studyeven more credible. We recommend that similar stud-ies corroborate evidence from multiple data sources,which might help to take a critical and reflective lookat the questions of reliability and validity.

Building a community by way of computer tech-nology is not an easy task because the teacher edu-cator had to keep the conversation flowing, coherent,and take time to read and respond to postings. Never-theless, the use of computer technology, as a conduitfor community building among science pre-serviceteachers outweigh the challenges since WebCT dis-cussion board serve as an indispensable and necessary

P1: JVP



resource for carrying out reflective dialogues. Teacherinstitutions have the obligation to teach their scienceteachers an effective model of building and maintain-ing relationships among one another that will supportgroup and individual learning. Exemplifying commu-nity building through the use of computer technol-ogy should discharge this responsibility, in part. Usingcomputer technology, as a tool, to build a commu-nity of science teachers for the purpose of carryingout reflective practice would bring similar yet diversegroup of people together with a set of common goals(Ruopp et al., 1993). It is based on the ideals of com-mitment and shared responsibility. This, of course,does not happen automatically, but must be modeledand taught (Arnold, 1994), and the resulting productwill be a strong community of science teachers car-rying out reflecting dialogues, beginning pre-servicestage, for the enhancement of science education.

REFERENCES

Ameh, C. (1987). An analysis of teachers’ and their students’ viewsof the concept “gravity.” Research in Science Education 17:212–219.

Ameh, C., and Gunstone, R. (1985). Teachers’ concepts in science.Research in Science Education 15: 151–157.

Arnold, A. (1994). Building community through arts experiences.Art Education 47: 47–51.

Ayas, K. (2001). Project-based learning: Building communities ofreflective practitioners. Management Learning 32: 61–76.

Barton, J., and Collins, A. (1993). Portfolios in teacher education.Journal of Teacher Education 44: 200–210.

Beattie, M. (2002). Finding new words for old songs: Creat-ing relationships and community in teacher education. InChristiansen, H., and Ramadevi, S. (Eds.), Reeducating theEducator: Global Perspectives on Community Building, StateUniversity of New York Press, Albany, N.Y.

Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N., and Tarule, J. (1986).Women’s Ways of Knowing, Basic Books, New York.

Bellah, R. N. (1985). Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Com-mitment in American Life, Harper and Row, New York.

Bok, D. (1990). Universities and the Future of America, Duke Uni-versity Press, Durham, NC.

Bolin, F. S. (1988). Helping student teachers think about teaching.Journal of Teacher Education 39: 48–54.

Bloom, J. (1989). Pre-service elementary teachers’ conceptions ofscience, theories and evolution. International Journal of Sci-ence Education 11: 401–415.

Cashin, S. D. (2000). Building community in the twenty-first cen-tury: A post-integrationist vision of the American metropolis.Michigan Law Review 98: 1704–1724.

Cochran-Smith, M., and Lytle, S. L. (1999). The teacher researchmovement: A decade later. Educational Researcher 28: 15–25.

Cornett, J. W. (1995). The importance of systematic reflection: Im-plications of a naturalistic model of research. Anthropologyand Education Quarterly 26: 123–129.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education, Kappa Delta Pi,Bloomington, IN.

DiMauro, V., and Gal, S. O. (1994). Dimensions of network-mediated space for professional discourse of science teacherleaders. The Journal of Science Education and Technology,

Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., and Scott, P. (1996). Young People’sImages of Science, Open University, Buckingham.

Ebenezer, J. V., and Erickson, G. L. (1996). Chemistry Students’Conceptions of Solubility: A Phenomenography. Science Ed-ucation 80: 181–201.

Ebenezer, J. V., and Haggerty, S. M. (1999). Becoming a SecondarySchool Science Teacher, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River,NJ.

Ebenezer, J. V., and Connor, S. (1998). Learning to Teach Science:A Model for the 21st Century, Prentice-Hall, Simon and Schus-ter/A Viacom Company, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Ebenezer, J. V., and Fraser, D. (2001). Chemical engineering stu-dents’ conceptions of energy in solution process: Phenomeno-graphic categories for common knowledge construction. Sci-ence Education 85: 509–535.

Elbaz, F., (1983). Teacher Thinking: A Study of Practical Knowl-edge, Croom Helm Curriculum Policy and Research Series,New York.

Erickson, G., Mayer-Smith, J., Rodriguez, A., Chin, P., and Mitchell,I. (1994). Perspectives on learning to teach science: Insightsand dilemmas from a collaborative practicum project. Inter-national Journal of Science Education 16: 585–597.

Feldman, A. (1994). Erzberger’s Dilemma: Validity in action re-search and science teachers’ need to know. Science Education78: 83–101.

Galegher, J., Sproull, L., and Kiesler, S. (1998). Legitimacy, au-thority, and community in electronic support groups. WrittenCommunication 15: 493–530.

Garvin, C. D., and Tropman, J. E. (1992). Social Work in Contem-porary Society, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Gitlin, A., and Teitelbaum, K. (1983) Linking theory and practice:The use of ethnographic methodology by prospective teachers.Journal of Education for Teaching 9: 225–234.

Goodman, J. (1984). Reflection and teacher education: A case studyand theoretical analysis. Interchange 15: 9–26.

Goodman, J. (1986) Teaching Pre-service Teachers a critical ap-proach to curriculum design: A descriptive account. Curricu-lum Inquiry 16: 179–201.

Harrington, H. L. (1993). The essence of technology and theeducation of teachers. Journal of Teacher Education 44: 5–15.

Harrington, H. L., and Hathaway, R. S. (1994). Computer confer-encing, critical reflection, and teacher development. Teachingand Teacher Education 10: 543–554.

Hewson, P. W., Tabachnick, B., Zeichner, K. M., and Lenberger. L.(1999) Educating prospective teachers of biology: Introduc-tion and research methods. Science Education 83: 247–273.

Holly, M. L. (1989). Reflective writing and the spirit of inquiry.Cambridge Journal of Education 19: 71–80.

Hoover, L. A. (1994). Reflective writing as a window on pre-serviceteachers’ thought processes. Teaching and Teacher Education10: 83–93.

Hsi, S., and Hoadley, C. M. (1997). Productive discussion in science:Gender equity through electronic discourse. Journal of ScienceEducation and Technology 6: 23–36.

Hughes, C., and Hewson, L. (1998) Online interactions: Develop-ing a neglected aspect of the virtual classroom. EducationalTechnology 38: 48–55.

Korthagen, F. A. J. (1993). Two modes of reflection. Teaching andTeacher Education 9: 317–326.

Kraut, R., Lundmark, V., Patterson, M., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay,T., and Scherlis, W. (1999). Internet paradox: A social technol-ogy that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist 53: 1017–1031.

Kruger, C. (1990). Some primary teachers’ ideas about energy.Physics Education 25: 86–91.

Linder, C., and Erickson, G. (1989). A study of tertiary physicsstudents’ conceptualizations of sound. International Journalof Science Education 11: 491–501.

P1: JVP



Liston, D. P., and Zeichner, K. M. (1987). Reflective teacher edu-cation and moral deliberation. Journal of Teacher Education38: 2–8.

Nie, N. H., and Erbring, L. (2000). Internet and Society: A Prelim-inary Report, Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study ofSociety, Stanford.

Novak, J. D., and Gowin, D. B. (1985). Learning How to Learn,Open Press, New York.

Ogbu, N. (2001). Connecting worlds of education and communitybuilding. Nation’s Cities Weekly 24: 3–5.

O’Neil, J. (1995). Technology and schools: A conversation withChris Dede. Educational Leadership October: 7–12.

Orme, M. (2001). A place at the table: Participating in commu-nity building. Journal of the American Society for InformationScience and Technology 52: 439–440.

Monk, M., and Osborne, J. (1997). Placing the history and philoso-phy of science on the curriculum: A model for the developmentof pedagogy. Science Education 81: 405–424.

Paulson, F. L., and Paulson, P. R. (1991). The Making of a Portfolio,Open Press, Oregon.

Pedretti, E. (1996). Learning about science, technology, and soci-ety (STS) through an action research project: Co-constructingan issues-based model for STS education. School Science andMathematics 96: 432–440.

Rider, J., and Broughton, E. (1994). Moving out, moving up: Be-yond the basement and ivory tower Journal of Advanced Com-position 14: 239–255.

Ruopp, R., Gal, S., Drayton, B., and Pfister, M. (1993). LabNet:Toward a Community of Practice, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

Rudduck, J. (1989). Practioner research and programmes of initialteacher education.Westminster Studies in Education 12: 61–72.

Rudduck, J. (1985). Teacher research and research-based teachereducation. Journal of Education for Teaching 11: 281–289.

Sergiovanni, T. (1992). Moral Leadership: Getting to the Heart ofSchool Improvement, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Staton, J. (1988). ERIC/RCS Report: Dialogue journals. LanguageArts 65: 198–201.

Stinner, A. (1998). The teaching of physics and the contexts ofinquiry: From Aristotle to Einstein. Science Education 73: 591–605.

Stinner, A., and Williams, H. (1993). Conceptual change, history,and science stories. Interchange 24: 87–103.

Strike, K. A. (1993). Professionalism, democracy, and discursivecommunities: Normative reflections on restructuring. Ameri-can Educational Research Journal 30: 255–275.

Tabachnick, B. R., and Zeichner, K. M. (1999). Idea and action:Action research and the development of conceptual changeteaching of science. Science Education 83: 309–322.

Thagard, P. (1992). Analogy, explanation, and education. Journalof Research in Science Teaching 29: 537–544.

Tillema, H. H. (1997). Reflective dialogue in teams: A vehicle tosupport belief change in student teachers. European Journalof Teacher Education 20: 283–296.

Wade, R. C., and Yarbrough, D. B. (1996). Portfolios: A tool forreflective thinking in teacher education. Teaching and TeacherEducation 12: 63–79.

Wallace, J., and Louden, W. (1992). Science teaching and teachers’knowledge: Prospects for reform of elementary classrooms.Science Education 76: 507–521.

Walsh, J. (1997). Community building in theory and practice: Threecase studies. National Civic Review 86: 291–314.

Weil, M. O. (1996). Community building: Building community prac-tice. Social Work 41: 481.

Wohlbruck, A. (2001). Linking communities to opportunitiesthrough telecommunications. Economic Development Review17: 34–39.

Zeichner, K. M. (1983). Alternative paradigms of teacher educa-tion. Journal of Teacher Education 34: 3–9.

Zeichner, K., and Teitelbaum, K. (1982). Personalized andinquiry-oriented teacher education: An analysis of twoapproaches to the development of curriculum for field-based experiences. Journal of Education for Teaching 8: 95–117.

Zellermayer, M. (1990). Teachers’ development towards the re-flective teaching of writing: An action research. Teaching andTeacher Education 6: 337–354.

Zulich, J. (1992). Charting stages of pre-service teacher develop-ment and reflection in a multicultural community through di-alogue aournal analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education 8:345–360.