Collaborative Processes in Species Identification Using an Internet-Based Taxonomic Resource
Author(s):
Jani Kontkanen (presenting / submitting) Patrick Dillon (presenting) Sirpa Kärkkäinen Anu Hartikainen-Ahia Mauri Åhlberg
Conference:
ECER 2013
Network:
06. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Format:
Paper

Session Information

06 SES 09, Digital Learning Resources

Paper Session

Time:
2013-09-12
11:00-12:30
Room:
D-406
Chair:
Theo Hug

Contribution

Modern biology curricula focus on aspects of genetics, ecology and evolution, and there is less coverage of systematics than in earlier times. However, Randler (2008) argues that the ability to identify species is not only important to understanding these branches of biology, but also for a better understand of biodiversity and many present day environmental and sustainability issues. This research is about the processes involved in the identification of species by students using a visually-rich internet resource. This presentation will illustrate the research method and discuss results in the context of (i) dialogue and collaboration (Clark et al 1996), and (ii) the use of visually-rich, internet-based taxonomic resources in species identification (Cook, 2006).

 

The research was conducted with teacher students studying multidisciplinary studies in basic education at the University of Eastern Finland. Students worked in groups collaboratively identifying birds using the NatureGate online resource (www. naturegate.net).  NatureGate is a free, open access, interactive resource structured around a photographic database that supports identification of plants and animals.

Method

Birds were photographed in the field and the photographs brought into the lecture room in digital format or uploaded to an internet page for identification using the database. Collaborative group work was recorded and transcriptions made of the dialogue. Transcripts were analysed in three stages: (i) Sequence of menu choices leading to the identification of the bird. These were recorded as operational flow charts showing the selections made in NatureGate and the dialogue associated with each selection. (ii) The recordings were viewed a second time relative to the operational flow charts and the charts were revised where necessary and annotated with illustrative detail of the dialogue. (iii) Data from stages (i) and (ii) were consolidated to find generalised patterns of usage and dialogue. The recordings were analysed for the following categories of dialogue: recall, discussion, comparison, analysis, assertion, argument, synthesis. The content of the dialogue was analysed for detail of the following knowledge categories: • Biological. • Ecological. • Conservation or environmental management. • How participants drew on previous experience of bird identification. • Comments that show difficulties with interpretation or in working through the process.

Expected Outcomes

Outcomes of the research are currently being analysed and will be reported in full for the first time at the conference. Analytical categories for collaboration involve looking for evidence of the following: • Understanding the work of one another rather than doing the same work. • Emergent, shared knowledge (joint work) that is more than the sum of the individual participants’ contributions. • Joint planning, deciding, acting and thinking. • Products that reflect a blending of all participants’ contributions. • Participants’ listening and analysing each other’s contributions. • Processes of mutual validation of what is being selected and negotiated. Analytical categories for using the visually-rich, internet-based taxonomic resources in species identification are: • Picking out the distinctive features of a bird (e.g. size, colouration – see the NatureGate site for a full list) – these are the ‘variables’. • Working systematically with the variables, eliminating some, taking others to the next stage and so on. • Making comparisons, looking for similarities and differences. • Using analogy and metaphor in their descriptions of a bird. • How all of these things are interacting with what they are going on the computer with the NatureGate site.

References

Clark, C. et al. 1996, Collaboration as Dialogue: Teachers and Researchers Engaged in Conversation and Professional Development, American Educational Research Journal, 33 (1), 193-231. Cook, M.P. 2006. Visual representation in science education: the influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design, Science Education, published online 20.06.06 Randler, C. 2008. Teaching species identification. A prerequisite for learning biodiversity and understanding ecology, Eurasian Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 4 (3), 223-231.

Author Information

Jani Kontkanen (presenting / submitting)
University of Eastern Finland
Education
Joensuu
Patrick Dillon (presenting)
University of Eastern Finland, Finland
Sirpa Kärkkäinen
University of Eastern Finland, Finland
Anu Hartikainen-Ahia
University of Eastern Finland, Finland
Mauri Åhlberg
University of Helsinki, Finland

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.