Changes in Knowledge and Confidence

To understand the effect of the intervention, it is necessary to understand the changes in knowledge and confidence. Figure 4.5 provides a summary of all the data collection points, showing a change in Aimee’s and Tina’s confidence and understanding as discussed in previous sections. Measures of the initial and final level of understanding were recorded by analysing the dyad’s pre-test and post-test concept maps. The levels of

understanding at the end of each session were used to track changes in understanding throughout the intervention and were assessed by analysing responses to the synthesis question at the end of each session. The participants’ individual confidence levels were a record of their responses to the confidence questions asked throughout the study.

Figure 4.5: Changes in participants’ confidence and knowledge during the study

An interesting finding was that both Aimee and Tina not only showed improvement in their science CK and confidence in ability in learning and teaching science, but also altered their language and vocabulary; from generic non-discipline-based language to the use of scientific language and vocabulary. The analysis of responses to the questions in the pre-test and post-test interviews asking what scientists do and how they go about understanding what causes animals to become extinct revealed that Aimee and Tina used

more scientific language in the post-test interview and avoided naïve explanations. For example, in the pre-test interview about what scientists do, Tina responded:

I guess they do experiments to help the world … they will find you solutions to help, as well as testing things doing different, doing, like testing different circumstances to … you know, make the place a bit better.

With regard to how scientists go about understanding what causes animals to become extinct, Tina responded in the pre-test interview with:

I think they count how many in the world first and then they list it as in dangers if it falls below and put tags on them unless they are already extinct. I think they just follow and track what it does and check the health once in a while and see if it is depreciating and if it is they will follow, you know, what did it do compared to something else that has health that still high.

whereas in the post-test interview about what scientists do, Aimee responded: they look at the relationships between things and then what impacts what….related to ecology: relationships between things like, you know, the impacts on each other and the animals then people and animals and other animals, animals and plants and stuff, say like the relationships and the impacts of those.

With regard to how scientists go about understanding what causes animals to become extinct, Aimee responded:

They look at what is impacted them and then they look at how it impacted them and to what extinct and what factors had changed to make them going to extinct.

They test animals in specific habitat and see which one is the healthiest and which one is seems to becoming weaker and then they will test more stuff.

The improvement in Aimee and Tina’s language and vocabulary might result from their exposure to the scientific approaches, scientific metalanguage and activities (hands-on, inquiry instruction) they participated in during the study. Research has identified the benefits of hands-on, inquiry-based science instruction and activities for language development, along with developing CK (Carrier, 2013; O. Lee, Buxton, Lewis, & LeRoy, 2006).

What aspects of the immersive or modelling environments, or of the designed activities helped in improving Aimee’s and Tina’s knowledge and confidence? The way in which the organisation of the learning experiences using Omosa and Omosa NetLogo (the structure of the environments and the representation of data in the spaces) might have contributed to the improvement in Aimee’s and Tina’s understanding and confidence is investigated in the next section, which explores their perceptions and engagement during the intervention.

4.5 Learning in Immersive and Modelling Environments

The contribution of Aimee’s and Tina’s perceptions about their learning in the immersive and modelling environments to the changes in their understanding and confidence was investigated by exploring their responses to the perception questions asked in the short interviews at the end of each session, and the post-test interview. The analysis showed that in general they both had a positive perception about these environments and about learning in these environments; thus, their experiences in these environments might have contributed to the change (improvement) in their understanding and confidence. Positive

perceptions about a learning environment and tasks are essential for learning to occur; otherwise, learners have only a slight chance of learning effectively (Marzano, 2006).

Aimee’s and Tina’s positive perceptions about the immersive and modelling environments and their learning experiences in these environments were clear in their responses during the two short interviews and the post-test interview; they both identified many positive aspects of these environments but almost no main negative aspects. They demonstrated clear perceptions regarding particular features of the immersive and modelling environments as influential factors in their learning. The general consensus was that the visual representations in both environments positively influenced their overall learning experience and helped them understand and learn the content. For example, in the short interview after their experience in the immersive environment (Omosa), their comments about Omosa indicated their understanding and learning from this environment and revealed their positive perceptions:

It is very helpful having the visual and everything … it was good to be able to see it and to be able to understand that there is different, all different factors influence it and it is not, you are not going to necessarily get all your information from one source because you can go around, and you can find out directly from the people, you can find from researchers in the area … In learning about the concept and understand the influences it is really good.

Aimee

you can go around and ask, you could see the environment, so you could see what the animals were doing. Tina

Similarly, in the modelling short interview their comments indicated their understanding and learning from this environment and revealed their positive perceptions:

It was really good, I liked it. It is visually was good to be able to see the relationship … it was very much finding out through learning ourselves and through doing it, which is good and helpful for me. Aimee

I liked it how we had the graph, you can pin point to different spots to see several levels … I liked it, I found it interesting. Tina

In the post-test interview when asked about their perceptions of the two environments in general, Aimee and Tina acknowledged their understanding and learning from both environments. A positive view with regard to incorporating the two environments was revealed by Aimee. Examples of their comments—referring to the immersive environment (Omosa) as the ‘first one’ and the modelling environment (Omosa NetLogo) as the ‘second one’—were:

I think in the end I learnt more about the actual factors and stuff in the second one but the first one helped me understand the whole concept … I think I learnt easier in the second one but I still learn a lot from the first one, because I found that, I …, you know, it took consideration of different point of view of the people who actually lived there and the metrologies people and all of that and so demonstrated a different approach to it in the second, so I think I probably learnt more factual stuff from the second one but the first one defiantly did teach me a lot. Aimee

The second because you are able to see differences and you are able to change the levels, in the first one you only just asking questions and you are only getting prediction from the different people rather than actual facts.

Tina

changes in their understanding and confidence, Aimee’s and Tina’s engagement during the learning experiences was investigated based on analyses of their interactions with the learning resources and with each other while working in the environments. The analysis focuses on the participants’ learning processes and how they developed confidence and understanding of ecology concepts by using the immersive and modelling environments. The analysis of their interactions during the study showed that they were engaged cognitively and collaboratively; evidence for the verbal and non-verbal flow of engagement and technical engagement were also apparent, which might have contributed to the improvement in their understanding and confidence as a result for their experiences in the environments.

As indicated in Chapter 3, recordings of participants’ interactions during their engagement with learning from both environments were used to explore their thought processes during the study and track changes in their confidence and understanding. The recorded data for each dyad were transcribed in full and coded using the engagement coding categories and subcategories shown in Table 3.4. Detailed analysis of these interactions was then undertaken. In the following section the analysis results for cognitive, collaborative, flow and technical engagement are discussed separately for the immersive and modelling environments.