Systems thinking is regarded as a high‐order thinking skill required in scientific, technological, and everyday domains. However, little is known about systems thinking in the context of science education. In the current research, students' understanding of the rock cycle system after a learning program was characterized, and the effect of a concluding knowledge integration activity on their systems thinking was studied. Answers to an open‐ended test were interpreted using a systems thinking continuum, ranging from a completely static view of the system to an understanding of the system's cyclic nature. A meaningful improvement in students' views of the rock cycle toward the higher side of the systems thinking continuum was found after the knowledge integration activity. Students became more aware of the dynamic and cyclic nature of the rock cycle, and their ability to construct sequences of processes representing material transformation in relatively large chunks significantly improved. Success of the knowledge integration activity stresses the importance of postknowledge acquisition activities, which engage students in a dual process of differentiation of their knowledge and reintegration in a systems context. We suggest including such activities in curricula involving systems‐based contents, particularly in earth science, in which systems thinking can bring about environmental literacy. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 40: 545–565, 2003

The specific spatial abilities required for the study of basic structural geology were characterized by quantitative and qualitative data analysis. A geologic spatial ability test (GeoSAT) was developed and administered to 115 comprehensive high-school students. Six of these students were interviewed. An analysis of students' incorrect answers revealed two types of answers: (a) nonpenetrative answers, which were based on external exposures of the structure; and (b) penetrative answers, which indicated attempts at representing internal properties of the structure. Students who tended to give penetrative incorrect answers performed significantly higher than students who tended to give nonpenetrative incorrect answers. The reasoning of students for these types of answers, as determined by interviews, supported the initial assumption that these answers were given by students with different levels of ability mentally to penetrate the image of a structure, which was named visual penetration ability (VPA). The interview findings indicated that the VPA is one of two complementary factors needed to solve the problems of GeoSAT; the other factor is the ability to perceive the spatial configuration of the structure. It is concluded that the teaching and learning process should provide students with assistance in both of these areas. 1.What are the typical answers students give in solving such problems? 2. What are students' reasoning behind different types of answers? 1. Cross-section subtest, including four problems which require drawing cross-sections of structures presented as block diagrams (Figure la). 2. Completion subtest, including four problems which require completing block diagrams that reveal only a single face (Figure 1 b). Construction subtest, including five problems in which two cross-sections and theirlocation on a very simplified geologic map are given. The students are required to draw a third cross-section at a specified location on the map (Figure lc).Each subtest is based on the same geologic structures, which include inclined flat layers, two types of horizontal folds (upright synclinal and anticlinal), and a plunging anticlinal fold (Figure 2).The test includes an instruction sheet, which gives an illustrated explanation of the concept cross-secrion, designed for non-earth sciences students. In addition, the following guidelines are listed:1. The problems might have more than one correct answer. 2. The layers are continuous and have consistent thicknesses. 3. The block diagrams can be regarded as cut out of larger three-dimensional structures.

Purpose: To support the work of teachers as designers of technology enhanced learning (TaD of TEL) Approach: Synthesis of research on in classical design fields, instruc3onal design, and teachers' design Conclusion: A framework that can be used: (a) by researchers to study teacher design knowledge and work across projects; and/or (b) by developers and facilitators iden3fying key areas to encourage/support in teacher professional development programs that involve teacher--designers in specific seIngs

In this study we describe a mechanism for supporting a community of learning scientists who are exploring educational technologies by helping them to share and collaboratively build design knowledge. The Design Principles Database (DPD) is intended to be built and used by this community to provide an infrastructure for participants to publish, connect, discuss and review design ideas, and to use these ideas to create new designs. The potential of the DPD to serve as a collaborative knowledge-building endeavor is illustrated by analysis of a CSCL study focused on peer-evaluation. The analysis demonstrates how the DPD was used by the researchers of the peer-evaluation study in three phases. In the first phase, design principles were articulated based on a literature review and contributed to the DPD. In the second phase, a peer-evaluation activity was designed based on these principles, and was enacted and revised in a three-iteration study. In the third phase, lessons learned through these iterations were fed back to the DPD. The analysis indicates that such processes can contribute to collaborative development of design knowledge in a community of the learning sciences. Readers of ijCSCL are invited to take part in this endeavor and share their design knowledge with the community.

Abstract:Research on factors affecting curriculum implementation has pointed to the importance of involving teachers, to varying degrees, in shaping the learning scenarios in their own classrooms. While the benefits of Teachers as Designers (TaD) are acknowledged in literature, far less is known about ways of shaping that involvement to yield those benefits. Research is needed to understand how teachers learn through design, how such activities may be supported, and how teacher involvement in design partnerships with researchers impacts the quality of the artefacts created, their implementation, and ultimately, student learning. This workshop speaks to that need by bringing together researchers and practitioners interested in further exploring various TaD aspects.