This article was downloaded by: [Pennsylvania State University]On: 15 December 2014, At: 09:43Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Click for updates

International Journal of ScienceEducation, Part B: Communication andPublic EngagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsed20

Tree Investigators: Supporting families'scientific talk in an arboretum withmobile computersHeather Toomey Zimmermana, Susan M. Landa, Lucy R. McClaina,Michael R. Mohneya, Gi Woong Choia & Fariha H. Salmana

a Learning, Design, and Technology, Penn State University,University Park, PA, USAPublished online: 04 Oct 2013.

To cite this article: Heather Toomey Zimmerman, Susan M. Land, Lucy R. McClain, Michael R.Mohney, Gi Woong Choi & Fariha H. Salman (2015) Tree Investigators: Supporting families' scientifictalk in an arboretum with mobile computers, International Journal of Science Education, Part B:Communication and Public Engagement, 5:1, 44-67, DOI: 10.1080/21548455.2013.832437

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2013.832437

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

Tree Investigators: Supporting

families’ scientific talk in an

arboretum with mobile computers

Heather Toomey Zimmerman∗, Susan M. Land,Lucy R. McClain, Michael R. Mohney, Gi Woong Choiand Fariha H. SalmanLearning, Design, and Technology, Penn State University, University Park, PA, USA

This research examines the Tree Investigators project to support science learning with mobile devices

during family public programmes in an arboretum. Using a case study methodology, researchers

analysed video records of 10 families (25 people) using mobile technologies with naturalists at an

arboretum to understand how mobile devices supported science talk related to tree biodiversity.

The conceptual framework brings together research on technological supports for science

learning and research on strategies that encourage families to engage in conversations that

support observation and explanation practices. Findings suggested that families engaged in high

levels of perceptual talk (describing and identifying) while using mobile computers. Commonly,

families articulated scientific observations when supported by prompts, visuals, and scaffolds

delivered by the mobile computers. Families struggled to make explanations about the biological

importance of what they saw in relation to ecological principles; however, families made

connections to their everyday life within explanations they developed at the arboretum. Our

research showed the importance of mobile supports that provided on-demand, localised sense-

making resources for explanation building while limiting observational complexity.

Keywords: Informal science; Mobile technology; Ecology; Parent–child interaction; Science

reasoning; Augmented reality; Science practices

Although many research efforts examine how technology can support science learning

inside of school, less work has analysed how families use technology to support science

learning within leisure activities and informal cultural institutions (Bell, Lewenstein,

International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 2015

Vol. 5, No. 1, 44–67, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2013.832437

∗Corresponding author: Learning, Design, and Technology, Penn State University, University Park,

PA, USA. Email: heather@psu.edu

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

Shouse, & Feder, 2009). Over the last decade, mobile computers (e.g. digital cameras,

smartphones, and tablets) have been increasingly adopted internationally (Gulati,

2008; Kukulska-Hulme, Sharples, Milrad, Arnedillo-Sanchez, & Vavoula, 2009;

McKay, Thurlow, & Zimmerman, 2005; Pachler, Bachmair, & Cook, 2010;

Zickuhr, 2011) by people of all ages. Although the use of mobile computers is not

equitable across ethnic and socioeconomic status (Warschauer & Matuchniak,

2010; Yardi & Bruckman, 2012), mobile devices are quickly becoming ubiquitous

parts of everyday family interactions. For example, a review of mobile learning apps

(Shuler, 2012) found that in Apple iTunes’ education category, 80% of the top-

selling apps target children, yet only 14% of these apps mention use in school. Yet,

even as families and youth acquire mobile computers, and apps are being designed

for non-school settings, the learning opportunities these devices afford within

families’ leisure activities and their visits to informal cultural institutions remain

understudied. As a result, researchers need to document and analyse the emergent

technologically enhanced learning within everyday and informal learning institutions

(ILIs), including museums, gardens, science centres, and zoos.

Our research set out to explore the integration of mobile technologies into outdoor

ILIs to provide scientifically meaningful experiences that respect the nature of learner-

driven out-of-school learning (Bell et al., 2009; Falk & Dierking, 2000; Falk,

Moussouri, & Coulson, 1998; Rahm, 2004). The Tree Investigators project uses

mobile devices that access augmented reality (AR) content and images to support

family science learning through a pedagogical strategy, where learners engage in

talk that connects new biological knowledge to their observations about trees in an

arboretum (a botanical garden focused on trees). AR combines elements of a real-

world physical space with virtual digital materials such as text, audio, and video

(Rogers et al., 2004). Tree Investigators’ layered educational materials are meant to

foster scientific thinking (e.g. descriptions of trees, prompts to support observational

practices, and images for tree species comparisons) in the arboretum.

Conceptual Framework: Supporting family science talk through mobile

computing

The Tree Investigators project supports youth and families, with mobile computers, to

engage in conversations about scientific observations and to develop explanations of

natural phenomena. Accordingly, the driving framework for the research brings

together theories related to: (a) technological supports (Quintana et al., 2004) for

science learning, using mobile computers to augment community-based learning

spaces (Priestnall, Brown, Sharples, & Polmear, 2010) and (b) strategies that encou-

rage talk that supports observation and explanation practices (Berland & Reiser,

2009; Duschl, Schweingruber, & Shouse, 2007; Eberbach & Crowley, 2009),

where learners reflect on and articulate their emerging understandings. The focus

on observation and explanation reflects recommendations for engaging, learner-

centred science learning environments (Bell et al., 2009; Duschl et al., 2007; National

Research Council, 2012; Osborne & Dillon, 2008; Rocard et al., 2007). Our work

Tree Investigators 45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

examines family talk (including nonverbal communication) for evidence of both the

processes and products of learning (Leinhardt, Crowley, & Knutson, 2002), in align-

ment with recommendations for studying informal science learning (Ellenbogen,

Luke, & Dierking, 2004; Rennie, Feher, Dierking, & Falk, 2003).

Mobile Computing Supports for Informal Science Learning

A synthesis of research on technological supports for science learning (Quintana et al.,

2004) with desktop computing in schools developed design recommendations that

technologies should (a) provide learners a structure to manage complex tasks;

(b) include guidance about scientific practices to support learners; and (c) adapt rep-

resentations and language that bridge learners’ understanding to support sense-

making (p. 345). Quintana and colleagues also suggest that technologies support

articulation and reflection of ideas, as echoed by other research syntheses from

school-based programmes with desktop computers aiming to support learners to inte-

grate prior and new understandings (e.g. Linn, Davis, & Bell, 2004). To inform the

theoretical framework for research and development of the Tree Investigator system,

we build from findings about school-based inquiry with desktop computers;

however, we rely mostly on findings on the integration of mobile technologies to

support outdoor science, including forests (Rogers et al., 2004), ponds (Liu, Peng,

Wu, & Lin, 2009), parks (Tan, Liu, & Chang, 2007), and gardens (Chen, Kao, &

Sheu, 2005). Given the content area match of life sciences and the unique issues

with using mobile computers outdoors with limited wireless connectivity, the research

findings from an outdoor mobile learning project share opportunities and challenges

for users. Such projects utilise handheld computers to provide on-demand science

information related to the environment being explored, and the research is typically

conducted in the setting of school grounds or field trips (Liu et al., 2009; Rogers

et al., 2004; Tan et al., 2007) or college-level classes on campus (Chen et al., 2005;

Rieger & Gay, 1997). For instance, Liu et al. (2009) used a mobile website to

provide students with information about the characteristics of plants in an aquatic

pool to aid in plant identification. Similarly, Chen et al. developed a mobile database

of butterflies that visitors to a butterfly garden could use to help identify insects.

Research findings point to gains in factual knowledge (Liu et al., 2009), identification

skills (Chen et al., 2005; Liu et al., 2009), and conceptual understanding (Liu et al.,

2009), suggesting that on-demand technologies can support observations leading to

science learning.

Other scholars have used mobile computers to augment a real-world outdoor

location with data and gaming scenarios to support engagement in science inquiry

(see for example, Dunleavy, Dede, & Mitchell, 2009; Klopfer, 2008; O’Shea, Mitch-

ell, Johnston, & Dede, 2009; Priestnall et al., 2010; Rosenbaum, Klopfer, & Perry,

2006; Squire & Jan, 2007; Squire & Klopfer, 2007). Early work in AR investigated

AR games or simulations for handheld devices (Klopfer 2008; Rosenbaum et al.,

2006). Squire and Klopfer (2007) developed the AR game Environmental Detectives

that was studied with college-level environmental science students. The game

46 H.T. Zimmerman et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

augmented a college campus with data and gaming scenarios about a chemical spill.

Squire and Jan (2007) investigated Mad City Mystery, an AR game that engaged stu-

dents in solving a fictional mystery connected to environmental toxins. Likewise, Out-

break @ the Institute combines an AR gaming scenario around an avian flu outbreak on

a university campus, in which participants are assigned roles (e.g. doctors) to contain

the outbreak. These simulations and gaming AR mobile contexts differ from our Tree

Investigator work’s AR focus on deeply observing natural surroundings. Nonetheless,

these outdoor AR studies are important foundational research that point to high levels

of engagement from users (O’Shea et al., 2009; Squire & Jan, 2007) that result from

design elements such as data collection in real locations (Squire & Klopfer, 2007),

authenticity of roles (Squire & Jan, 2007), and embodiment within the virtual space

(Rosenbaum et al., 2006).

While the design recommendation of supporting inquiry and engagement with

science learning with desktop computers in schools is echoed by the above findings

about learning with mobile computers in the outdoors, a growing body of research evi-

dence shows that people do not always use mobile computers for articulation and

reflection during their interactions with people and technology in informal spaces.

For example, Heath, vom Lehn, and Osborne (2005) analysed 500 hours of video

records of people interacting with computers in multiple museums in the UK and

found that use of computers in museum environments was most often solitary with

low levels of interaction with the computer or other people. In a study of visitors

and staff using mobile handheld computers in the Exploratorium museum (2003),

visitors reported ‘isolation’ when using mobile computers because the handheld

restricted learners’ ability to engage in person-to-person interactions and to fully

engage with the exhibit components. A decade later, research with mobile technol-

ogies echoes that often learners use technology designed for social interaction in an

independent, non-interactive manner; for example, research on Go RoadTrip math

games designed for social interaction in family settings (Goldman, Pea, Hedrick,

Jimenez, & Blair, 2013) were also mostly taken as solitary activities by one person.

Research in environmental settings that does not use technology has similar findings

about the challenges to engage learners in articulation and reflection in outdoor infor-

mal spaces: from a study of 22 fieldtrip visits to outdoor parks in Israel, Morag and Tal

(2012) found most often that naturalists’ assistance was needed to facilitate conversa-

tions in order to elicit people’s prior environmental knowledge during sense-making.

Consequently, these studies suggest designing of interaction with computers to

support articulation and reflection is not enough in informal settings; we posit that

researchers may need to include human interaction as well if social intergenerational

interactions are to be supported by mobile computers.

Supporting the Inquiry Practices of Observation and Explanation with Mobile Computers

Our research builds upon work investigating mobile technologies to support science

inquiry, namely observation (Chen et al., 2005; Liu et al., 2009) of the natural

world in outdoor settings. We expand this work with observation to also include

Tree Investigators 47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

verbal explanation building (as a means of articulation and reflection) as the scientific

inquiry practices supported by our Tree Investigators design. Tree Investigators was

designed to support science talk for families, because observation and explanation

are complex practices that require facilitation (Berland & Reiser, 2009; Eberbach,

2009; Sandoval, 2003) so learners articulate their understandings and socially

reflect on their emerging ideas.

In informal settings, learning is often studied through examining the conversation

elaboration that occurs as people talk in naturally occurring groups in situ (Allen,

2002; Leinhardt & Crowley, 1998). This perspective becomes increasingly important

for conceptualizing learning with mobile computers, given the research presented

earlier that articulation and reflection is not supported well by interaction with

mobile devices; talk that occurs within interactions with friends, families, and

others is a key way that learners articulate and reflect on their understandings. Talk

is analysed as an outcome of learning and as a process of learning, involving articula-

tion to refine understandings (Leinhardt et al., 2002). Conversation elaboration is

used to understand knowledge integration, sense-making, and engagement in

science practices like explanation building. In fact, meaning-making through talk

that connects to prior knowledge and experience has been called the ‘essential learn-

ing behavior’ in out-of-school environments (Bell et al., 2009, p. 143).

Out-of-school science talk is often socially guided in intergenerational interactions;

for example, one family member may connect new biological knowledge to a shared

family experience (Eberbach & Crowley, 2005; Zimmerman, Reeve, & Bell, 2010) to

support sense-making. In a study of parent–child talk about science in ILIs, research-

ers (Callanan & Jipson, 2001) found that adults’ explanations to youth often included

a shared prior experience. Likewise, Crowley and Jacobs (2002) and Palmquist and

Crowley (2007) found that parents structure and filter scientific information for

their children. Other research has found that children also make connections to

assist adults (Zimmerman et al., 2010).

Observation. We build our definition of observation practices from Eberbach and

Crowley (2009), who developed a four-pronged Observation Framework that outlines

a developmental trajectory from novice to expert observer. Our work focuses on one

aspect of their Observation Framework—noticing. In their noticing category, Eber-

bach and Crowley (2009) defined observation as a ‘perceptual and cognitive’ endea-

vour that focuses on seeing only the relevant scientific aspects of an object (ignoring

the irrelevant aspects) and gaining fluency to accurately categorise and label what is

observed in accordance with modern scientific thinking (p. 54). Participation in

observational inquiry has a complexity often unacknowledged (Smith & Reiser,

2005); yet, observing scientific objects and phenomena relies on discipline-specific

tools for theory articulation (i.e. explanations) that require time to develop (Eberbach

& Crowley, 2009). Research on observation (Eberbach, 2009; Eberbach & Crowley,

2009) has shown that when novices are learning to make scientific observations from

objects, they have to see the object and related phenomena in new ways aligned to dis-

ciplinary perspectives.

48 H.T. Zimmerman et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

Explanation. We define the practice of explanation building as occurring when lear-

ners coordinate their prior knowledge, observations, and/or descriptions to make a

causal account through their talk (Bell et al., 2009; Berland & Reiser, 2009;

Duschl, 2008; Obsorne & Patterson, 2011); this coordination is part of the articula-

tion and reflection process leading to learning. Youth can participate in explanation

building with facilitation; these supports occur with supportive peers and adults in

schools (Herrenkohl, Tasker, & White, 2011; Land & Zembal-Saul, 2003; Schauble,

Glaser, Duschl, Schulze, & John, 1995), in homes (Goodwin, 2007; Ochs & Taylor,

1992; Zimmerman, 2012), and in informal institutions (Callanan & Jipson, 2001;

Crowley & Jacobs, 2002). We adopt a conceptual perspective of guided participation

(Rogoff, 2003) from sociocultural psychology that considers the role of elders,

parents, and teachers in human development. Rogoff considers the way that others

help youth bridge meanings and structure participation to enable learning through

observation, talk, and other forms of engagement. Research documented that families

use guided participation in ILIs for generating interest and building knowledge

(Callanan & Jipson, 2001; Crowley & Jacobs, 2002; Gleason & Schauble, 2000;

Palmquist & Crowley, 2007; Zimmerman et al., 2010). We posited that the Natural-

ists can support families’ conceptual development of ecological constructs through

articulation and reflection because prior work has shown that children learn more

science when going through an informal setting with an adult than alone (Fender &

Crowley, 2007), but parents can miss opportunities to support the children fully in

their scientific reasoning (Gleason & Schauble, 2000).

The Tree Investigators Project Design

The Tree Investigators project uses AR to bring web-based media to a smart phone, iPod,

or iPad. The Tree Investigator mobile website is designed for elementary-aged youth to

explore trees on-site at the arboretum with their families. In designing the content for

the mobile website, we adapted the guidelines of Quintana et al. (2004) for supporting

scientific thinking in classrooms with technology: (a) design text and visuals to support

conceptual thinking, observations, and comparisons (support sense-making); and (b)

restrict the complexity of tasks for learners (process management). Our work adapted

these recommendations to align more fully with ILIs and the mobile computing by

building from design principles on: (a) the importance of personalisation to the learn-

ing (Kearney, Schuck, Burden, & Aubusson, 2012), (b) the role of brief just-in-time

interaction with the device, to facilitate learning through conversation (Sharples, Arne-

dillo-Sanchez, Milrad, & Vavoula, 2009), and (c) matching the learners’ expectations

of the experience to the affordances and constraints of the device for ‘seamless’ learning

(Looi et al., 2010; Pea & Maldonado, 2006).

Learner Experience

A typical Tree Investigator’s project visit started with a group of two to three families

who were taken on a tour of predetermined trees at the arboretum. The goal of the

Tree Investigators 49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

experience was for the mobile device to enhance guided tours of the arboretum

through focusing observations by providing contrastive images, asking questions,

bringing in local comparison, and providing basic information about trees—infor-

mation that would often be provided on interpretive signage (this Arboretum had

no interpretive signage as a design choice to not interfere with the aesthetic experience

of the visitors). By providing information on a mobile device, the tour could be more

learner-centred because the visitor could follow the aspects of interest, select images

to look at, and get the required background information or get further extension infor-

mation—customising the tour to individuals’ and families’ backgrounds to trees. We

also were able to intentionally select trees and characteristics in a coordinated way

with our designed resources to support disciplinary practices of observations and

explanations.

A naturalist began the families’ session by telling families that they were going to

learn to look at trees scientifically as ‘Tree Investigators’, and the information and

skills they learned would help identify unique characteristics of trees. The naturalist

led participants on a tour of four to five trees, prompting them to use the supplied

iPad and iPod to access a QR code for each tree (Figure 1, left) that connected

them to a mobile website. The mobile website included text and images about

these deciduous and evergreen trees at the arboretum: white oak, crab apple, hedge

maple, mugo pine, western red cedar, and white pine. These arboretum trees included

trees from the local woodland biome as well as trees from biomes around the world.

Given prior research that found: (a) the general public struggled to use QR codes, (b)

users of mobile devices need to be coached to coordinate the screen and the place

(Hsi, 2003), and (c) interactions that support articulation and reflection are often

not used without prompting visitors in informal spaces (Heath et al., 2005), the

team made the decision to use a naturalist to facilitate participation with the mobile

device. The naturalist did not provide information about the trees; instead, the natur-

alist’s role was threefold:

(1) acting as a ‘tour guide’ leading visitors from tree to tree, since the trees were

unlabelled in the arboretum,

(2) encouraging visitors to scan the QR codes with the mobile computer—reading

the text aloud or sharing images, when appropriate, and

(3) encouraging families to talk about their observations of the trees and new infor-

mation provided by the device. This was accomplished through revoicing

prompts from the mobile website and by asking questions to the families with

the aim of coordinating what the families read on the device with the plant speci-

mens they observed on-site.

Using Text and Images to Augment Learners’ Observations and Explanations

For each tree, the mobile website provided material to help the learners focus their

observations on only three observable characteristics of each tree species that were

scientifically meaningful to biodiversity concepts. The three observable characteristics

50 H.T. Zimmerman et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

(i.e. leaves, flower, fruit, bark) were not the same for each tree but were selected as the

three characteristics that would lead to a successful identification that specific species.

Additionally, the Tree Investigator augmented images and text were tailored to the par-

ticular specimens at the arboretum, given research on the role of personalisation and

customisation as important in learning with mobile devices (Kearney et al., 2012).

The materials were personalised to take into account the age of specimens on-site,

the seasonal differences of visits, and placement of key identifying features (e.g.

‘halfway up the tree’) on a specific tree. The text materials, which were revoiced by

the naturalist encouraged families to talk to each other about what they were seeing

to support observation and explanation practices. Where relevant, characteristics

were photographically augmented if certain features were not visible due to seasonal

variations or maturity of the tree specimen on-site (i.e. pinecones, flowers). For

example, Figure 1 (right centre) shows augmented textual information for a white

oak tree on the screen of a mobile device. Figure 1 (right) shows how the mobile

website constrained the visitors’ observations to focus on only three components of

each tree, channelling their attention to key elements.

Methodology

A collective case study research methodology (Stake, 1995) was employed to under-

stand how youth and families talked about trees while interacting with Tree Investi-

gators. A case study in our study was each family tour at the arboretum. Through a

collective case study, we were able to examine both the individual nuance of each

Figure 1. Left: After scanning a QR code, this is the initial site that a visitor sees from the Tree

Investigator mobile website for one exemplar species, the white oak. Left centre: On page 2 of the

navigation the visitors received a scaffold to understand what is important to explore. Only three

characteristics per tree species were shown to constrain the focus for novice learners. Right

centre: This image shows the augmented textual information and images for a white oak tree’s

fruit element, the acorn on the screen of a mobile device. Each of these elements includes one to

three web pages that included text, images, and question or discussion prompts. The first acorn

page is shown here. Right: This image shows the completed navigation of the white tree oak’s

materials

Tree Investigators 51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

tour using the Tree Investigator mobile materials as well as look across the tours for

similarities and differences. Our project examines the talk that results when families

are supported to make observations and connections to scientifically relevant con-

cepts. This case study allowed for a richer understanding of the families’ learning con-

versations. The social context of families differs from field trip or school settings in

ways that change the confluence of theoretically important factors for research and

design. Family participants come to the space with varied ages, interests, and back-

ground knowledge (e.g. a family group could consist of a parent, a 4-year-old, and

a 10-year-old). In the arboretum, family learning is strictly volitional—families

choose to come to the arboretum, whereas schoolchildren or students in university

classrooms do not have the same level of choice. Families bring their own agendas

(Falk, Moussouri, & Coulson, 1998) and their own goals for fun and education to

Tree Investigators. Given these differences, it is important to investigate how families’

participation in the science practices of observation and exploration can be advanced

through design of a mobile technology learning system, alongside school-based field

trips and university classroom experiences. We used all cases to develop theoretical

insights related to informal learning theory and designs for mobile devices. In this

way, we employed a paradigm to refine theories related to supporting engagement

in science talk of observation and explanation.

Our work looks first across all the cases to describe the types of talk afforded on the

guided tours throughout our dataset. Second, we present a microanalysis from two

episodes of talk from two different cases to illustrate how the digital images on the

mobile devices support deep observational talk and explanation building. This dual

analytical approach is in keeping with our collective case study method to understand

learning both within cases and across all cases. Our inquiry used the following

research question:

. How does the Tree Investigators programme support families’ scientific talk—

especially perceptual, conceptual, connecting, and affective talk—about trees and

biodiversity?

Data Collection and Study Participants

Data collection included video-based records of people interacting with the mobile

devices and each other in the arboretum. Video records were collected, prepared,

transcribed, and analysed in keeping with recommendations for learning sciences

research (Derry et al., 2010).

Given our interest in understanding how families can be supported in observation

and explanation practice with mobile computing, we recruited families who were

members of a nature centre close to the study arboretum. These families represented

normal users of ILI settings, and they also showed an affinity for life-science experi-

ences outdoors. Using a strategic sample of museum visitors has been undertaken

by many informal learning researchers (Allen, 2004; Leinhardt et al., 2002) to

focus the analytical work on actual museum visitors in ILI settings. Families were

defined as a parent (or custodial guardian) and at least one elementary-aged child.

52 H.T. Zimmerman et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

Given that our analytical method required an examination of family talk, English-

language use was required. Families were from various socioeconomic backgrounds,

as indicated by parental job types.

The research sessions occurred at an arboretum in fall 2011 on weekdays when

schools were closed for parent–teacher conferences and teacher professional develop-

ment. This is a study limitation: all families in our study had the resources or the flexi-

bility to bring their child to the arboretum on a weekday to participate in our study. All

25 people consented to have their interactions video-recorded. The 10 families had 15

children, ranging in age from 7 to 11. The research team worked with families in small

groups in tours; visits were approximately 60 minutes long.

Data Analysis

We used a theoretical-driven analytical approach. First, we coded utterances of family

talk at the arboretum, using a coding scheme from a research project on a life-sciences

exhibit in a museum setting (Allen, 2002). We used four of Allen’s codes for science

talk: perceptual, conceptual, connecting, and affective talk. Based on prior research in

ILIs with families (Allen, 2002; Ash, 2003; Eberbach, 2009; Kisiel, Rowe, Vartabe-

dian, & Kopczak, 2012; Zimmerman, Reeve, & Bell, 2008; Zimmerman et al.,

2010), we posit that (a) perceptual and affective talk are tightly bound to observa-

tional practices and (b) conceptual and connecting talk are tightly bound to personally

and scientifically relevant explanations. The codes are described in Table 1, with

exemplars from our dataset.

The full research team met over multiple meetings to code one entire transcript

together, refining the codebook until all six researchers had full agreement on the

codes and their applicability. If need be, the researchers returned to the original

video for clarification. Then, two researchers together coded every transcript until

a consensus was reached. A third researcher spot-checked the coded transcript for

final agreement. Given the collective case study approach, each utterance was con-

sidered in the conversational context of the case—meaning that the full transcript

Table 1. Analytical framework applied to family talk while using Tree Investigators

Code Description Example from our dataset

Perceptual talk

(Per)

Identification, naming, and describing a

feature

† And all the branches are all on

the top

† Its smooth bark

Conceptual talk

(Cpt)

Coordinating from the screen to the trees

including interpretations, inferences, and

predictions

† . . . they’re about as thick as

when you group the pine needles

all together

Connecting talk

(Cnn)

Drawing connections between personal or

science knowledge and the setting

† They do have those—we were at

the Pittsburgh zoo . . .

Affective talk

(Aff)

Feelings or emotion † That one’s interesting

Tree Investigators 53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

was read to ensure the indexicals and general pronouns (i.e. it, he, they, she) were

properly attributed as well as the flow of the conversation were considered in coding.

After the line-by-line analysis was completed across all cases, we identified signifi-

cant episodes of the learners’ interactions with the Tree Investigators system within each

case. We identified extended biological conversation about biodiversity, tree natural

history, and related topics such as food chain, and form and function. We analysed

the full set of cases for examples of conversations that accomplished observation

and explanation—by using the elements of perceptual, conceptual, connecting, and

affective elaborations within the episode. Identified episodes were considered within

the holistic context of the families’ visits to the arboretum. The two excerpts presented

within this paper were selected because the first was an example of elaborated conver-

sation with perceptual talk and the second was an example of perceptual talk plus con-

ceptual talk. These two episodes were representative of the episodes with prolonged

conversations and of the types of biological phenomenon that the learners choose

to discuss (i.e. bark, pinecones). As insights were developed from these two conversa-

tional episodes, the two lead authors re-read the full video data corpus and checked

the findings against other data sources.

Findings

We structure our findings first by describing the science talk supported by Tree Inves-

tigators across all the family talk from the line-by-line analysis. Then, we provide two

microanalysis episodes of observation and explanation at the arboretum that rely on

forms of science talk—perceptual, conceptual, connecting, and affective talk—from

two different cases. These two episodes highlight the importance of AR photographic

media to support family meaning making.

Science Talk Supported by Tree Investigators

Through a line-by-line analysis of each utterance during the Tree Investigators experi-

ence, we found that our participants engaged in science talk while supported by the

mobile computers (Figure 2) during the tours. Figure 2 is labelled as four codes

from Table 1: perceptual, conceptual, connecting, and affective talk. Just over half

of the science talk during the Tree Investigator study was categorised as perceptual—

that related to the tree on-site as well as the augmented images of bark, pinecones,

flowers, and other aspects of trees. Conceptual talk was the next most common cat-

egory across the families. Just under one out of every four science-related utterances

was tied to connecting talk, in which families made personal connections to the trees

based on their prior everyday, educational, and scientific backgrounds. Finally, least

commonly, a family member gave an emotional, or affective, response to the tree

and mobile device content. Only 1 out of 17 utterances counted as affective talk.

These categories are described in further detail below, supported with data excerpts.

Perceptual talk is defined as sense-making talk that includes (a) using gesture(s) to

point to something, (b) naming or identifying a species or a species’ feature, and

54 H.T. Zimmerman et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

(c) describing a species’ trait. There were 224 utterances of perceptual talk. Our data

show that perceptual talk was a key meaning-making tool afforded by Tree Investi-

gators. Perceptual talk most commonly included families naming tree species and

characteristics, as shown in the following excerpts:

. The bark is really smooth.

. And it kinda has like some little spots.

. The cones are small.

. The stap—sap is stickier than most sap and it has a lot of it!

The conceptual talk category involves making inferences, applying existing infor-

mation to the arboretum setting, developing causal biological explanations, and

making new interpretations of the trees on-site. Conceptual talk by the visitors was

less common in our dataset than the perceptual talk; instead, the families and youth

primarily relied on the naturalist or the technology to provide the inference or

interpretations of the relevance of what they saw. When the youth and family did

engage in conceptual talk about the trees on-site, it was often a social undertaking

requiring coordination of family members’ ideas.

. They’re like . . . small and then . . . they’re kinda . . . they’re thicker and . . . they’re

about as thick as when you group the pine needles all together. ((Looking closely

at needles.))

. The outside gets sunlight, but in the middle, there’s no sunlight and so they’re

more—they’re mostly yellow.

. I would expect it to be like up down, and it’s almost at a slant. [About a tree trunk]

There were 122 occurrences of conceptual talk that ranged from simple to complex

interpretations, inferences, and predictions. Learners engaged in conceptual talk when

they made connections from the screen to the tree or involves relationship between the

treeand itsproperties and/orconnected topriorknowledge thatwasnotexplicitly sourced.

Figure 2. The graph represents occurrences of science talk (Allen, 2002) for the 25 research

participants in the context of the arboretum visit

Tree Investigators 55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

Connecting talk brings prior knowledge to the current situation to better understand

a new concept. It is a form of explanation that relies less on observational practices

and more on leveraging previous experiences as resources to mediate new understand-

ings. Connecting talk included making associations to everyday experiences in

people’s life and/or linking to previous knowledge learned within the arboretum

Tree Investigators project. Connecting talk is conversational elaboration that helps

people explain personal or disciplinary relevance in what they are seeing.

. Lemme see. We’ve got one of those in our front yard.

. I have that, I have leaves of those kinds in my backyard.

. They do have those—we were at the Pittsburgh zoo . . .

. They [crab apples] taste like nothing. I’ve tried them before.

There were 67 occurrences of connecting talk that carried explicit connections to

everyday life, prior knowledge, or arboretum exhibits.

Affective talk had 24 occurrences carrying verbal indicators or expressions of feel-

ings or the affective impact of the arboretum experience.

. Whoa, what’s that?

. That is neat!

. They look yummy. I wish we were allowed to eat them.

. Ow! And they’re prickly. Ow! The cones hurt.

Interestingly, in our dataset, it was primarily the adults who verbalised the affective

talk—the youth did not have as many emotional responses as did their parents.

This is in contrast to prior work (Allen, 2004), in which children made a large

number of affective utterances about animals. We posit that the plants in the arbore-

tum setting were more interesting aesthetically to the adults.

Observational and Explanation Talk—A case using perceptual and conceptual talk

Although the graph in Figure 2 show trends across all utterances, it does not show the

socio-technical dynamics of developing explanations from observations. For example,

over three turns of conversation, a 9-year-old developed an explanation about a cedar

tree needle colour:

. ((moving tree branches apart to look deeper into cedar tree)) Some of the leaves are

yellow inside . . .. A lot of these leaves in the middle are yellow because they can’t get

as much sunlight . . .. The outside gets sunlight, but in the middle, there’s no sun-

light and so they’re more—they’re mostly yellow.

In addition to individuals developing full explanations over multiple turns of talk as in

the prior example, developing an explanation in our study involved multiple people

working together to make inferences, apply existing information to the arboretum

setting, and make new interpretations from what was noticed about the trees on-

site. When the youth and family were doing this, it was often a social undertaking

requiring coordination of family members’ ideas, observations from the arboretum

56 H.T. Zimmerman et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

tree specimens, and scaffolds and images from the technology, as shown in the two

episodes below. These two episodes are evidence of the role of augmented digital

photographs to support observational talk and explanation building.

Episode 1: observational talk about bark scales and grooves. In this conversation below,

perceptual talk is highlighted between two families and a naturalist, as they examined

a tree. The families faced a problem because they did not understand a scientific

concept presented by the mobile device, so both families worked together to match

up the augmented digital photograph and text to the actual white oak tree specimen.

The transcript includes Greg (11 years old), his mother Priscilla, Emmy (8 years old),

Lydia (8 years old), and Rachel (Emmy and Lydia’s [twins] mother).

1. Greg: ((reading from Tree Investigator website on a iPad tablet)) ‘The bark is the

covering of a tree. Different trees have different kinds of bark so looking closely at

bark is another way to identify a tree. The white oak bark is [inaudible] with very

shallow grooves and some scales.’

2. Naturalist: ((focused attention to an AR visual)) Alright, so does this picture look

like—here, let’s go up to the tree. We can go right up to it, I think. And, uh, Greg

can sort of show you guys what he has—well, you guys have the same information,

but—that looks pretty similar! ((pointing to a white oak tree))

3. Priscilla: What do they mean by the . . . scales? Is that the—stuff sticking out?

((rubbing finger over part of bark of a white oak on-site)) [Cpt]

4. Rachel: Yeah.

5. Priscilla: Versus the grooves? [Cpt]

6. Naturalist: Mm hmm.

7. Priscilla: Okay.

8. Rachel: Oh, this has something growing on it. [Per]

9. Naturalist: And there might be some more information if you click that right

arrow. Ah! How ’bout that?

10. Priscilla: Read . . .

11. Naturalist: What does that say?

12. Priscilla: Read that, Greg.

13. Greg: ‘Another way for you to identify a white oak is looking at the bark—about

halfway up the tree of a white oak tree’s bark ((Others look upwards at the oak

tree trunk)) tends to have . . . overlapping scales as shown in the picture.’

14. Naturalist: Mm! Overlapping scales. Do you girls see some overlapping sc—yeah,

it looks like it’s overlapping a little bit here ((gets lower and points to tree bark in

between Emmy and Lydia)), and here. Huh!

15. Lydia: ((touching tree bark with finger)) Over here it’s ((inaudible)) . . . and over

here, and here. ((touching the tree bark)) [Per]

Greg (line 1) read information from an iPad about a white oak tree that directed the

families’ attention to an image of tree bark on the mobile computer. Next, the natur-

alist asked the families to look at the oak tree to consider the on-site specimen’s bark.

Greg’s mother, Priscilla, stopped the group (line 3) to clarify the meaning of the word

Tree Investigators 57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

‘scales’. Another mother, Rachel, tried to understand if a scale was part of the bark or

another plant species growing on the tree (lines 4–7). The naturalist supported the

families’ developing understanding by suggesting that the families refer to the iPad

(in line 9). Greg’s mother encouraged the use of the Tree Investigator information

(line 12). Greg read an additional description of the bark’s scales and how the

scales overlap. To use this new information, the naturalist reiterated a personalisation

prompt from the mobile website to channel the families’ observations to the specific

location on the tree on-site (line 13, ‘halfway up’). To help the families connect the

image of the scales on the screen to the specimen on-site, the naturalist pointed to

the white oak tree’s scales (line 14). By coordinating the example image of bark and

the prompts from the mobile site with their observation of the oak tree in front of

them, the families were able to observe the scales. This was further demonstrated

when Lydia pointed out multiple overlapping scales (line 15) on the white oak on-

site. They also learned that observing the markings on the bark was relevant to cate-

gorising a white oak tree versus other trees.

Episode 2: observational talk and explanation building related to pinecones and seeds. In

this episode, observational talk and explanation building is highlighted between two

families who worked with a naturalist to make observations about a white pine tree.

The two boys, both 8 years old, Doug and Pete, worked together to use an image

of a pinecone and an actual pinecone specimen to learn that a pinecones’ shape

carries scientifically relevant information about its age and reproductive readiness.

1. Pete: ((about pinecone)) That looks like a baby one though that just fell off the

tree. [Cpt]

2. Doug: It looks like it has a (curve) [Per] and that you can hang on someone’s

finger. [Cnn]

3. Naturalist: Yeah, it does. Alright go ahead and you guys wanna start reading—

4. Pete: ((reads text from the mobile device)) ‘The pine cones from the white pine

are long. They are about the same length as two middle fingers if you put them

tip-to-tip. The cones have scales that can contain the seeds or the nuts of the

white pine. These seeds will be carried by the wind’.

5. Naturalist: Yeah. Now what do you notice now? Advance that ((referring to

device)). What do you notice . . . on this picture of the white pine cone and

then you look at this one ((refers to pine cone photograph on screen and on-

site))? Do you notice anything? Similarities or differences?

6. Doug: The difference is that this is ((point to actual pine cone)) this is curvy and

can hang on your finger. And if you try to do that with (this), it will fall straight

down. [Cnn]

7. Naturalist: Well it does have the curve to it but take a look at—

8. Doug: Hey, that look—that scale is off. These scales are together. [Per]

9. Naturalist: Yeah! So what do you think that, if the scales are u, what do you think

that means?

10. Doug: That—

58 H.T. Zimmerman et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

11. Pete: That it’s fully-grown. [Cpt]

12. Doug: Yeah.

13. Naturalist: Fully grown. And read the one ((refers to the iPad)) um so it says they

do have seeds in them. So, if it’s closed, do you think there’s seed still in here?

14. Doug: Yeah. [Cpt]

In the above episode, Pete and Doug tackle the seemingly straightforward task of

examining a pinecone. But as they had to coordinate detailed observations from the

screen and a specimen on site to realise that pinecones’ appearances carry scientific

information. Doug made the observation that the scales on the pinecone they were

examining had different features than the pinecone’s image, which was augmented

on the screen. Both boys noticed the curve of the pinecone on the ground and

began to measure the curve of the cones they saw based on whether the curve was

so great, the cone would balance to hang from one of their fingers. Pete used the

image and text from the device to deduce that the pinecone was fully developed

(line 11), and Doug agreed that because the pinecone’s scales were closed, it still

held its seed (line 14).

To make scientific sense of the difference in appearance and to be able to explain the

importance of the difference to tree reproduction and seasonal cycles, the boys used

the texts and image-based augmentations, which facilitated their observational prac-

tice by providing the boys with a quintessential specimen to compare the actual speci-

mens on-site. With additional visual elements from the augmented specimen, the boys

identified contrastive elements as they engaged in a deeper observation. The naturalist

provided additional scaffolds, in the form of questions (lines 5, 9, and 13), which

channelled the boys’ attention to observe and describe key elements of the two differ-

ent pinecones (line 8). The naturalist also facilitated explanation building by

suggesting the boys make connections between the text, images, and onsite specimens

(line 13).

Episodes summarised. In both episodes, families relied on the photographic and

textual augmentations from the mobile computers to see scientifically significant

aspects of the tree bark and pinecone. This was not easily accomplished and both

groups needed suggestions from naturalist, who channelled their attention to key

elements of the photographs, text, and specimens. One group saw the scales on

an oak tree and another group developed an explanation about the pinecone drop-

ping its seeds when it is mature. In this first example, the family members used per-

ceptual talk about bark and conceptual talk based on their prior science knowledge

to accomplish their observations of the bark’s scales. In the example with Doug and

Pete, the boys used connecting talk (related to their body) and perceptual talk

related to pinecones in support of conceptual talk related to the age of a pinecone

to accomplish a distributed explanation about the pinecone on-site. Both examples

show how the AR images, especially, helped the families’ observational practices to

be connected to ecological concepts related to tree features, reproduction, and

seasonal cycles.

Tree Investigators 59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

Discussion

Our study found that the Tree Investigator mobile computing system used in an arbor-

etum supported families to coordinate observations with scientific knowledge. Images

and prompts that were part of an AR mobile website supported families’ observa-

tional practice using contrastive images. To a lesser degree, the digital materials sup-

ported the development of explanations related to trees and the development of

explanations about the differences in trees and their characteristics related to biodi-

versity. Using Allen’s (2002) coding scheme for scientific talk allowed us to consider

the impact of the Tree Investigators programme on the families’ talk, especially on per-

ceptual, conceptual, and connecting talk. Looking at two microanalyses of family talk

allowed for a holistic examination of the evidence of observational and explanation

practices.

Implication to Theory Related to Family Talk in ILI Settings

The Tree Investigators programme supported scientific talk through AR media and

prompts from the mobile website, often redirected and re-voiced by a naturalist, as

well as interactions the families had with each other and with the trees. The Tree Inves-

tigators programme supported the families so that they: (a) noticed relevant aspects of

the trees in a seasonally dynamic environment by coordinating images on the mobile

device with the actual specimen on-site; (b) articulated understandings of scientifi-

cally relevant aspects of the trees through their conceptual and connecting talk; and

(c) understood differences between evergreen and deciduous trees through observing

and conceptual talk.

Research conducted at other outdoor ILIs such as various parks (Liu et al., 2009;

Rogers et al., 2004; Tan et al., 2007; Zimmerman, McClain, & Crowl, 2012), gardens

(Chen et al., 2005; Eberbach & Crowley, 2005), and aquaria (Kisiel et al., 2012) has

noted the importance of talk in meaning making, whether mediated by a mobile

device or exhibit signage. Our study also found that science talk was present to

support observational and explanation practices. In this study, the majority of the

families’ talk was in the form of perceptual (i.e. naming, identifying, and describing)

talk related to the scientific practice of observation. In the example of the family talk

around the scales of tree bark, two families were supported to observe an important

identifying characteristic of a white oak through an AR image, an AR prompt of a

location, and the coaching of a naturalist.

Returning to the Observation Framework from Eberbach and Crowley (2009) that

we used to define scientific observation, the families saw scientific aspects of the trees

(learning to discern relevant aspects): in the first of two episodes, families learned to

check whether the cones’ scales were open or shut in relation to seed production and

pollen dispersal. In the second episode, the families also accurately categorised and

labelled what they observed about tree bark. This framework allowed families’

science practices to be analysed, and can be useful in other work related to mobile

computing outdoors.

60 H.T. Zimmerman et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

Studies on intergenerational learning outdoors (Kisiel et al., 2012; Zimmerman

et al., 2012) show that parents and children mutually shape their family’s science

learning in ILI settings. This mutual support of each other’s thinking was shown

most distinctly in the two case studies, where families made observations that parts

of the tree (i.e. bark, pinecones) differed by species. Priscilla, Rachel, Greg, and

Lydia also noted that the same part of the tree may have a changing appearance as

the tree ages as in the scales. Pete and Doug learned that a pinecone holds seeds,

and the cone looks differently if the seeds have been released or are still held within

the pinecone. These observations and concepts are foundational for future under-

standing of ecological concepts, such as seasonal growth cycles, ecological niche,

the relationship of plant form to its function, and plant–animal interactions. Given

that the text could be read aloud by or to all family members via a smart phone or

tablet, our study found that an advantage of mobile computing to support families

in ILIs is that the reading level of the person holding the device was not a barrier to

accessing scientific information.

Talk related to connecting and conceptual elaborations, which was aligned with the

scientific practice of explanation, was the most challenging for families. Prior work

(e.g. Sandoval, 2003) has suggested that explanation building is difficult for novice

learners. To connect their on-site observations with scientific concepts, the families

needed both a naturalist and the AR media from the mobile device to get to higher

levels of interpretation and explanation related to tree biodiversity. In the example

of two boys understanding concepts related to tree reproduction and seasonal

changes, an AR image of a fully grown pinecone with seeds allowed Pete and Doug

to work to make observations and develop an explanation of the pinecones at the

arboretum. These findings point to the need for distributed augmentation strategies

(Tabak, 2005) to support deeper conceptual talk.

Implications for Informal Science Education Programmes Using Mobile Computers

We started our work with design principles for mobile computing: (a) personalisation

to the learner’s experience (Kearney et al., 2012) and to the life-sciences content and

outdoor setting (Chen et al., 2005; Liu et al., 2009; Tan et al., 2007), (b) encouraging

brief device interactions to facilitate learning through conversations (Heath et al.,

2005; Hsi, 2003; Sharples et al., 2009), and (c) matching the expectations of the lear-

ners’ experience to the affordances and constraints of the device (Looi et al., 2010;

Pea & Moldonado, 2006). In addition, we adapted two guidelines from the Quintana

et al. (2004) framework: supports for sense-making (i.e. designing text and visuals to

support observations and explanations based on comparisons and connections) and

process management (i.e. restricting the complex arboretum setting for the learners).

We also adapted suggestions about the need for extra support for interactivity to

support articulation and reflection (Heath et al., 2005; Hsi, 2003; Meisner et al.,

2007; Morag & Tal, 2012). We reflect on the applicability of this prior work, as well

as findings from our new work, specifically to designing outdoor learning environ-

ments with mobile devices below.

Tree Investigators 61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

First, our intention was to encourage only brief device interactions (Sharples et al.,

2009) with the Tree Investigator media to facilitate learning through conversations

(Leinhardt et al., 2002). As shown through the line-by-line analysis, the families

did spend the majority of their conversations looking away from the mobile computer

and at the arboretum as they engaged in perceptual talk—identifying and describing

trees. This was in keeping with the expectations of the families to use the device while

acknowledging the affordances and constraints of the device (Looi et al., 2010), such

as the size of the screen and the cameras, in support of augmented learning (Klopfer,

2008; Priestnall et al., 2010). Personalisation (Kearney et al., 2012) was key in focus-

ing the families’ observation to a specific specimen and creating connecting talk. In

addition, the Tree Investigator text personalised aspects of the arboretum (as in

‘halfway’ in the second excerpt), and these types of prompts supported families’

meaning making.

Second, we posit that the recommendations of Quintana et al. (2004) about tech-

nology scaffolds to support sense-making are tightly mapped to the perceptual and

conceptual talk in informal science education settings. The learners successfully

made observations as demonstrated by engaging in levels of perceptual talk

showing that they could observe, describe, and share relevant biological knowledge.

This adds to the research about observational support with mobile computers

(Chen et al., 2005; Liu et al., 2009) in the natural world by highlighting the role of

augmenting sites with images of contrastive species, sample specimens, and the speci-

mens shown at different ages, seasons, and stages of the lifecycle. The addition of AR

text and visuals helped the family learners in our studies to see trees scientifically.

In our dataset, there was less discursive evidence of conceptual understanding of

how their new biological knowledge of the arboretum fit into larger scientific expla-

nations and theories related to biodiversity and ecology; additional learner support

was needed. Our findings suggest that new design considerations are needed to

support explanation practice with mobile computers in light of science education

research. For example, we provided text and photographic images just-in-time infor-

mation at each species; however, given the goal to incorporate ecological concepts

within the biological explanations, other kinds of representations may be needed. A

visual conceptual organiser, as suggested for desktop computers (Quintana et al.,

2004), may be important for small-screen mobile computers as well. For example,

a graphic organiser about biodiversity of trees, perhaps in a video format, may assist

learners.

Third, we developed a design recommendation for articulation and reflection in

informal spaces with a human guide, rather than a technological agent, based on find-

ings that people in ILIs did not often seek out interactivity in the same way that the

school-based studies suggest (Goldman et al., 2013; Heath et al., 2005; Hsi, 2003;

Morag & Tal, 2012). In our study, we found that the naturalist redirected families’

attention to both the environmental information on the screen and to the specimens

on-site—allowing for interactions with computers, outdoor site, and each other that

supported articulation and reflection. Given the research in this area, we posit

human interaction is needed at the start of learning; however, we are not able to

62 H.T. Zimmerman et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

say if this is a permanent performance support or a temporary scaffold that designers

can fade away as learners gain more experience talking about science in outdoor ILIs

(see Pea, 2004 for a discussion of performance supports and scaffolds). Additional

research is needed in this area.

Finally, our data suggest that the guideline of Quintana et al. (2004) to restrict task

complexity during initial observational activities is an effective strategy for mobile

computing pedagogy in the arboretum setting. Following this recommendation, we

made a design decision that foregrounded the learners’ experiences with the actual

objects in the arboretum. This limited the number of AR media elements to three

scientifically relevant characteristics per species. However, to take the learning experi-

ence to a more complex conceptual level, perhaps we need to increase the complexity

related to ecological systems over time as the learner gained more experience in obser-

vation and explanation practices. Supporting our proposition that more complex

materials are needed to understand ecological themes, in a study of family explanation

related to evolution, researchers (Tare, French, Frazier, Diamond, & Evans, 2011)

found that families relied heavily on text to support their explanations. As others

have shown that systems thinking in ecology is difficult (Hmelo-Silver, Marathe, &

Liu, 2007), we posit that we may need to provide additional practice time with mul-

tiple opportunities to expand one’s tree repertoire in the next iterations. These

expanded opportunities for practice and expansion would decrease the levels of

learner support over time as has been shown in other work with technology

(Songer, Kelcey, & Gotwals, 2009).

References

Allen, S. (2002). Looking for learning in visitor talk: A methodological exploration. In G. Leinhardt,

K. Crowley, & K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. 259–304). Mahwah,

NJ: LEA.

Allen, S. (2004). Designs for learning: Studying science museum exhibits that do more than enter-

tain. Science Education, 88(1), 17–33. doi:10.1002/sce.20016

Ash, D. (2003). Dialogic inquiry in life science conversations of family groups in a museum. Journal

of Research in Science Teaching, 40(2), 138–162. doi:10.1002/tea.10069

Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A. W., & Feder, M. A. (2009). Learning science in informal environ-

ments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.

Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Edu-

cation, 93(1), 26–55. doi:10.1002/sce.20286

Callanan, M., & Jipson, J. (2001). Explanatory conversations and young children’s developing

scientific literacy. In K. Crowley, C. Schunn, & T. Okada (Eds.), Designing for science: Impli-

cations from everyday, classroom, and professional settings (pp. 21–49). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

Chen, Y. S., Kao, T. C., & Sheu, J. P. (2005). Realizing outdoor independent learning with a butterfly-

watching mobile learning system. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33(4), 395–417.

Crowley, K., & Jacobs, M. (2002). Building islands of expertise in everyday family activity. In G.

Leinhardt, K. Crowley, & K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning in conversations in museums

(pp. 333–356). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

Derry, S., Pea, R., Barron, B., Engle, R., Erickson, F., Goldman, R., . . . Sherin, B. L. (2010). Con-

ducting video research in the learning sciences: Guidance on selection, analysis, technology,

and ethics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 3–53. doi:10.1080/10508400903452884

Tree Investigators 63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive partici-

patory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and

Technology, 18(1), 7–22.

Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and

social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268–291.

Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school.

Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Eberbach, C. (2009). The effects of parents’ conversational style and disciplinary knowledge on children’s

observation of biological phenomena. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.

Eberbach, C., & Crowley, K. (2005). From living to virtual: Learning from museum objects.

Curator: The Museum Journal, 48(3), 317–338.

Eberbach, C., & Crowley, K. (2009). From everyday to scientific observation: How children learn to

observe the biologist’s world. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 39–68. doi:10.3102/

0034654308325899

Ellenbogen, K. M., Luke, J. J., & Dierking, L. D. (2004). Family learning research in museums: An

emerging disciplinary matrix? Science Education, 88(S1), S48–S58.

Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2000). The museum experience. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Falk, J. H., Moussouri, T., & Coulson, D. (1998). The effect of visitors’ agendas on museum learn-

ing. Curator: The Museum Journal, 41(2), 107–120. doi:10.1111/j.2151–6952.1998.tb00822.x

Fender, J. G., & Crowley, K. (2007). How parent explanation changes what children learn from

everyday scientific thinking. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28, 189–210.

Gleason, M. E., & Schauble, L. (2000). Parents’ assistance of their children’s scientific reasoning.

Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 343–378.

Goldman, S. V., Pea, R. D., Hedrick, B., Jimenez, O., & Blair, K. P. (2013, April). Making math-

ematics mobile: The promises and problems. AERA 2013, San Francisco, CA.

Goodwin, M. H. (2007). Occasioned knowledge exploration in family interaction. Discourse &

Society, 18(1), 93–110. doi:10.1177/0957926507069459

Gulati, S. (2008). Technology-enhanced learning in developing nations: A review. The International

Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(1). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/

index.php/irrodl/article/view/477

Heath, C., Vom Lehn, D., & Osborne, J. (2005). Interaction and interactives: Collaboration and

participation with computer-based exhibits. Public Understanding of Science, 14(1), 91–101.

Herrenkohl, L. R., Tasker, T., & White, B. (2011). Pedagogical practices to support classroom cul-

tures of scientific inquiry. Cognition and Instruction, 29(1), 1–44. doi:10.1080/

07370008.2011.534309

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Marathe, S., & Liu, L. (2007). Fish swim, rocks sit, and lungs breathe: Expert—

novice understanding of complex systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 307–331.

Hsi, S. (2003). A study of user experiences mediated by nomadic web content in a museum. Journal

of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), 308–319.

Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Burden, K., & Aubusson, P. (2012). Viewing mobile learning from a ped-

agogical perspective. Research in Learning Technology, 20. doi: 10.3402/rlt.v20i0.14406

Kisiel, J., Rowe, S., Vartabedian, M. A., & Kopczak, C. (2012). Evidence for family engagement in

scientific reasoning at interactive animal exhibits. Science Education, 96(6), 1047–1070.

doi:10.1002/sce.21036

Klopfer, E. (2008). Augmented learning: Research and design of mobile educational games. Cambridge:

MIT Press.

Kukulska-Hulme, A., Sharples, M., Milrad, M., Arnedillo-Sanchez, I., & Vavoula, G. (2009). Inno-

vation in mobile learning: A European perspective. International Journal of Mobile and Blended

Learning, 1(1), 13–35.

Land, S. M., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2003). Scaffolding reflection and articulation of scientific expla-

nations in a data-rich, project-based learning environment: An investigation of progress

64 H.T. Zimmerman et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

portfolio. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(4), 65–84. doi:10.1007/

BF02504544

Leinhardt, G., & Crowley, K. (1998). Museum learning as conversational elaboration: A proposal to

capture, code, and analyze talk in museums. Science. Pittsburgh, PA: Museum Learning Colla-

borative, Technical Report # MLC-01. Retrieved from http://mlc.lrdc.pitt.edu/mlc

Leinhardt, G., Crowley, K., & Knutson, K. (Eds.). (2002). Learning conversations in museums.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (2004). Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Liu, T.-C., Peng, H., Wu, W.-H., & Lin, M.-S. (2009). The effects of mobile natural-science learn-

ing based on the 5E learning cycle: A case study. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4),

344–358.

Looi, C.-K., Seow, P., Zhang, B., So, H.-J., Chen, W., & Wong, L.-H. (2010). Leveraging mobile

technology for sustainable seamless learning: A research agenda. British Journal of Educational

Technology, 41(2), 154–169. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00912.x

McKay, S., Thurlow, C., & Zimmerman, H. T. (2005). Wired whizzes or techno-slaves? Young

people and their emergent communication technologies. In A. Williams, & C. Thurlow,

(Eds.), Talking adolescence: Perspectives on communication in the teenage years (pp. 185–203).

New York: Peter Lang.

Meisner, R., vom Lehn, D., Heath, C., Burch, A., Gammon, B., & Reisman, M. (2007). Exhibiting

performance: Co-participation in science centres and museums. International Journal of Science

Education, 29(12), 1531–1555.

Morag, O., & Tal, T. (2012). Assessing learning in the outdoors with the Field Trip in Natural

Environments (FiNE) framework. International Journal of Science Education, 34(5), 745–777.

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting con-

cepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Ochs, E., & Taylor, C. (1992). Science at dinner. In C. Kramsch & S. McConnell-Ginet (Eds.), Text

and context: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on language study (pp. 29–45). Lexington, MA: D.C.

Heath & Company.

Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. London: Nuffield

Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/fileLibrary/pdf/Sci_Ed_in_

Europe_Report_Final.pdf

Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinc-

tion? Science Education, 95(4), 627–638. doi:10.1002/sce.20438

O’Shea, P. O., Mitchell, R., Johnston, C., & Dede, C. (2009). Lessons learned about designing Aug-

mented realities. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations, 1(1),

1–15.

Pachler, N., Bachmair, B., & Cook, J. (2010). Mobile devices as resources for learning: Adoption

trends, characteristics, constraints and challenges. In N. Pachler, B. Bachmair, & J. Cook

(Eds.), Mobile learning (pp. 73–93). Boston. MA: Springer US. doi:10.1007/978–1–4419–

0585–7

Palmquist, S., & Crowley, K. (2007). From teachers to testers: How parents talk to novice and

expert children in a natural history museum. Science Education, 91(5), 783–804.

Pea, R. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical con-

cepts for learning, education, and human learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3),

423–451.

Pea, R. D., & Moldonado, H. (2006). WILD for learning: Interacting through new computing

devices anytime, anywhere. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge University Handbook of the Learning

Sciences (Chapter 25). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Priestnall, G., Brown, E., Sharples, M., & Polmear, G. (2010). Augmenting the field experience: A

student-led comparison of techniques and technologies. In: E. Brown (Ed.), Education in the

Tree Investigators 65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

wild: Contextual and location-based mobile learning in action. A report from the STELLAR Alpine

Rendez-Vous workshop series (pp. 43–46). Nottingham: Learning Sciences Research Institute,

University of Nottingham. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/edwild

Quintana, C., Reiser, B., Davis, E., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R., . . ., Soloway, E. (2004). A

scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning

Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.

Rahm, J. (2004). Multiple modes of meaning-making in a science center. Science Education, 88(2),

223–247. doi:10.1002/sce.10117

Rennie, L. J., Feher, E., Dierking, L. D., & Falk, J. H. (2003). Toward an agenda for advancing

research on science learning in out-of-school settings. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,

40(2), 112–120.

Rieger, R., & Gay, G. (1997). Using nomadic computing to enhance field study. In R. Hall, N.

Miyake, & N. Enyedy’s (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL ’97: The second international conference on

computer support for collaborative learning (pp. 215–223). Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/

citation.cfm?id=1599800

Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D., Walberg-Henriksson, H., & Hemmo, V. (2007).

Science education now: A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Luxembourg: Office for Offi-

cial Publications of the European Communities.

Rogers, Y., Price, S., Fitzpatrick, G., Fleck, R., Harris, E., Smith, H., . . ., Weal, M. (2004). Ambient

wood: Designing new forms of digital augmentation for learning outdoors. Proceedings of the 2004

conference on interaction design and children: Building a community, pp. 3–10.

doi:10.1145/1017833.1017834. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1017834

Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rosenbaum, E., Klopfer, E., & Perry, J. (2006). On location learning: Authentic applied science

with networked augmented realities. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1),

31–45. doi:10.1007/s10956–006–9036–0

Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations.

Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5–51.

Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Duschl, R. A., Schulze, S., & John, J. (1995). Students’ understanding of

the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. The Journal of the

Learning Sciences, 4(2), 131–166.

Sharples, M., Arnedillo-Sanchez, I., Milrad, M., & Vavoula, G. (2009). Mobile learning: Small

devices, big issues. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. Jong, A. Lazonder, & S. Barnes (Eds.),

Technology-enhanced learning (pp. 233–249). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/

978-1-4020-9827-7

Shuler, C. (2012). iLearn II: An analysis of the education category of Apple’s App Store (pp. 1x32 ed.).

New York, NY: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.

Smith, B. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2005). Explaining behavior through observational investigation and

theory articulation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(3), 315–360.

Songer, N. B., Kelcey, B., & Gotwals, A. W. (2009). How and when does complex reasoning

occur?: Empirically driven development of a learning progression focused on complex reason-

ing about biodiversity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 610–631. doi:10.1002/

tea.20313

Squire, K., & Klopfer, E. (2007). Augmented reality simulations on handheld computers. Journal of

the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 371–413.

Squire, K. D., & Jan, M. (2007). Mad City Mystery: Developing scientific argumentation skills with

a place-based augmented reality game on handheld computers. Journal of Science Education and

Technology, 16(1), 5–29. doi:10.1007/sl0956–006–9037-z

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Staudt.

Tabak, I. (2005). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. Journal of

the Learning Science, 13(3), 305–335.

66 H.T. Zimmerman et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

Tan, T. H., Liu, T. Y., & Chang, C. C. (2007). Development and evaluation of an RFID-based ubi-

quitous learning environment for outdoor learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 15(3),

253–269.

Tare, M., French, J., Frazier, B. N., Diamond, J., & Evans, E. M. (2011). Explanatory parent-child

conversation predominates at an evolution exhibit. Science Education, 95(4), 720–744.

doi:10.1002/sce.20433

Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence

of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 179–225.

doi:10.3102/0091732X09349791

Yardi, S., & Bruckman, A. (2012). Income, race, and class: exploring socioeconomic differences in

family technology use. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference on Human Factors in

Computing Systems (pp. 3041–3050). ACM. doi: 10.1145/2207676.2208716

Zickuhr, K. (2011). Generations and their gadgets. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life

Project.

Zimmerman, H. T. (2012). Participating in science at home: Recognition work and learning in

biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(5), 597–630. doi:10.1002/tea.21014

Zimmerman, H. T., McClain, L. R., & Crowl, M. (2012). Understanding how families use magni-

fiers during nature center walks. Research in Science Education, Early view, 1–22. doi:10.1007/

s11165-012-9334-x

Zimmerman, H. T., Reeve, S., & Bell, P. (2008). Distributed expertise in a science center: Social

and intellectual role-taking by families. Journal of Museum Education, 33(2), 143–152.

Zimmerman, H. T., Reeve, S., & Bell, P. (2010). Family sense-making practices in science center

conversations. Science Education, 94, 478–505. doi:10.1002/sce.20374

Tree Investigators 67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2014