Banter: An Alternative Strategy in Creating a Learning Community

Sumita Bhattacharyya

Nicholls State University, Department of Teacher Education, Thibodaux, USA.

DOI: 10.4236/ce.2013.43030                

Abstract

In this qualitative study we investigated the role of bantering in creating a learning community for science education. The curriculum was centered on a technology-integrated Project Based Approach (PBA). We examined the pattern of in-service teachers’ interaction with such a learning environment and perceptions of their future instructional practices that result from collaborative reflection on the use of Banter throughout the semester. The findings suggest that exposure to bantering interaction not only helped the in-service teachers to make decisions about the scientific issues they will face in the future but also helped to construct a more inquiry based understanding of the issues in science teaching. Methodological limits and possibilities were explored through the use of data analysis software such as Inspiration and NVivo.

Keywords

Constructivism; Technology integrated Project Based Approach; Wetland, Self-Confidence; Banter; Belief System; STS; Teachers as Change Agents; Inspiration; NVivo

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Abdal-Haqq, I. (1995). Infusing technology into preservice teacher education. Eric Digest. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education.
[2]	Anderson, R. D., & Mitchener, C. P. (1994). Research on science teacher education, in handbook of research. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (p. 3-37). New York: Macmillan.
[3]	Bhattacharyya, S., Mead, T., & Nathaniel, R. (2011). The influence of science summer camp on African-American high school students’ creer choice. Journal of School Science and Mathematics, 111, 345- 353. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00097.x
[4]	Bhattacharyya, S., Volk, T., & Lumpe, A. (2009).The influence of an extensive inquiry-based field experience on pre-service elementary student teachers’ science teaching beliefs. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20, 199-218. doi:10.1007/s10972-009-9129-8
[5]	Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, S., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palinscar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26, 369-398. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2603&4_8
[6]	Blumenfeld, P. C., Fishman, B. J., Krajcik, J. S., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2000). Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: Scaling up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist, 35, 149-164. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3503_2
[7]	Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.) (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
[8]	Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program description, and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27, 291- 315. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2703_3
[9]	Coley, R. J., Cradler, J., & Engel, P. K. (1996). Computers and classrooms: The status of technology in US schools (Policy information report). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
[10]	Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2003). Introduction. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (Second ed., pp. 1-43). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
[11]	Education Development Center, Inc. (2010). EDC annual report. URL (last checked 5 March 2013). http://www.edc.org/newsroom/annual_report/2010
[12]	Ertmer, P. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47, 47-61. doi:10.1007/BF02299597
[13]	Ertepinar, H., & Omer, G. (1996). Effect of instruction supplied with the investigative—Oriented laboratory approach on achievement in a science course. Journal of Educational Research, 38, 333-341. doi:10.1080/0013188960380306
[14]	Gabbert, B., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1986). Cooperative learning, group-to-individual transfer, process gain and the acquisition of cognitive reasoning strategies. Journal of Psychology, 120, 265-278. doi:10.1080/00223980.1986.10545253
[15]	Gagne, R. M. (1984). Learning outcomes and their effects: Useful categories of human performance. American Psychologist, 39, 377- 378. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.377
[16]	Gardener, H. (1999). Multiple approaches to understanding. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
[17]	Grunwald Associates LLC. (2009). Deepening connection. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, PBS STEM Education Resource Center. http://www.pbs.org/teachers/research
[18]	Hall, L. D., Fisher, C., Musanti, S., & Halquist, D. (2006). Professional development in teacher education: What can we learn from PT3? Tech Trends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 50, 25-31.
[19]	International Society for Technology in Education (1998). National educational technology standards for students. Eugene, OR: Author.
[20]	Jaschik, S. (2010).Tenure rates and faculty mission. Inside Higher Education. URL (last checked April 27 2010). http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/04/27/brown
[21]	Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1994). Learning together and alone. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
[22]	Kimber, K., Pillay, H., & Richards, C. (2007). Techno literacy and learning: An Analysis of the Quality of Knowledge in Electronic. Representations of Understanding Computers and Education, 48, 59-79.
[23]	Light, P., & Mevarech, Z. (1992). Cooperative learning with computers: An introduction. Learning and Instruction, 2, 155-159. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(92)90006-8
[24]	Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., &Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting project-based science. The Elementary School Journal, 97, 431-458. doi:10.1086/461870
[25]	Means, B., & Olson, K. (Eds.) (1997). Technology and education reform. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, US Department of Education.
[26]	National Center for Educational Statistics (2006). Pursuing Excellence. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.
[27]	NRC (National Research Council) (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
[28]	Overbaugh, R., & Lu, R. (2008). The impact of a NCLB-EETT funded professional development program on teacher self-efficacy and resultant implementation. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41, 43-61.
[29]	Patton, M. Q. (Ed.) (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
[30]	Peshkin, A. (1993). The goodness of qualitative research.Educational Researcher, 22(2), 23-29. doi:10.3102/0013189X022002023
[31]	Rosaen, C. L., Hobson, S., & Khan, G. (2003). Making connections: Collaborative approaches to preparing today's and tomorrow’s teachers to use technology. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11, 281-306.
[32]	Ryser, G. R, Beeler, J. E., & McKenzie, C. M. (1995). Effects of a computer-supported intentional learning environment (CSILE) on students’ self-concept, self-regulatory behavior, and critical thinking ability. Journal of Educational Computing Research 13, 375-385. doi:10.2190/XLGB-PXEC-BVXG-GRKN
[33]	Schwab, J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J. J. Schwab, & P. F. Brandwein, (Eds.), The teaching of science (pp. 1-103). New York: Simon and Schuster.
[34]	Stein, S., McRobbie, C., & Ginns, I. (2001). A model for the professsional development of teachers in design and technology, 1999. URL (last checked 1 November 2001). http://www.aare.edu.au/99pap/ste99273.htm
[35]	St. Pierre, E. A. (1997). Methodology in the fold and the irruption of transgressive data. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 10, 175-189. doi:10.1080/095183997237278
[36]	Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
[37]	Vannatta, R. A., & Beyerbach, B. (2000). Facilitating a constructivist vision of technology integration among education faculty and pres- service teachers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33, 132.
[38]	Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. doi:10.1037/11193-000
[39]	Wenglinsky, H., & Silverstein, S. C. (2006). The science training teachers need. Educational Leadership, 64, 24-29.
[40]	Willis, J. W., & Mehlinger, H. D. (1996). Information technology and teacher education. In J. T. J. Sikula, & E. Guyton, (Eds.) Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 978-1209). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
[41]	Wright, V. H., & Wilson, E. K. (2007). A partnership of educators to promote technology integration: Design a master technology teacher program. Education, 128, 80-86.