Internet Forums in Class: Innovation for Science Education by Focusing on Social Media
 
More details
Hide details
1
Dep. of Biology and Chemitry, University of Bremen, Germany
2
Biology & Chemistry, University of Bremen, Germany
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Ingo Eilks   

Biology & Chemistry, University of Bremen, Institute for Science Education (IDN) -, 28334, Bremen, Germany
Publication date: 2020-03-02
 
ARiSE 2020;3(1):3–11
 
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Background Internet forums are a part of the World Wide Web and are frequently used to ask questions and receive answers. They are popular platforms for exchanging information and comparing opinions. Many people query and retrieve information from Internet forums on various topics, many of which are related to science and technology. These include health, cosmetics, technical devices, and environmental issues. The reliability of the corresponding entries in Internet forums, however, should be approached with great caution. Answers found in general Internet forums are often provided by laypeople. Forum posts may contain information without scientific proofand are influenced by personal beliefs and opinions. Material and methods This paper sums up the action research journey of a science teacher who looked into how secondary school students view and use Internet forums and how such Internet forums may be potentially useful for innovation in science teaching. The project encompassed different action research measures. Results It suggests that it is potentially beneficial for teaching to more thoroughly focus on social media in science education, like Internet forums. Conclusions Such media provide examples of content and learning tools for science teaching, which can promote learning and develop critical (scientific) media literacy.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
No conflict of interest reported
 
REFERENCES (39)
1.
Altrichter, H., Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Zuber-Skerritt, O. (2002). The concept of action research. The Learning Organization, 9 (3), 125-131.
 
2.
Altrichter, H.,l Posch, P., & Somekh, B. (2005). Teachers investigate their work: An introduction to the methods of action research. London: Routledge.
 
3.
Belova, N., & Eilks, I. (2015). Research and innovation on learning with and about advertising in science education. In N. L. Yates (ed.), New developments in science education research (pp. 29-50). Hauppauge: Nova.
 
4.
Belova, N., Dittmar, J., Hansson, L., Hofstein, A., Nielsen, J.A., Sjöström, J., & Eilks, I. (2017). Cross-curricular goals and the raise of the relevance of science education. In K. Hahl, K. Juuti, J. Lampiselkä, J. Lavonen & A. Uitto (eds.), Cognitive and affective aspects in science education research (pp. 297-307). Dordrecht: Springer.
 
5.
Bertelsmann Stiftung (2016). Eltern geben jährlich fast 900 Millionen Euro für Nachhilfe aus [Parents spent nearly 900 million Euro for private lessons]. www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/de... (03.07.2018).
 
6.
Bögeholz, S., & Holstermann, N. (2007). Interesse von Jungen und Mädchen an naturwissenschaftlichen Themen am Ende der Sekundarstufe I [Interest of boys and girls on science topics at the end of lower secondary education]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 13, 71 – 86.
 
7.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9 (2), 27-40.
 
8.
Bitkom (2016). Internetrecherche gehört zum Schul-Alltag [Internet search belongs to school daily routine]. www.bitkom.org/Presse/Pressein... (22.11.2016).
 
9.
Cole, J., Watkins, C., & Kleine, D. (2016). Health advice from Internet discussion forums: How bad is dangerous? Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18 (1), e4.
 
10.
DeSanctis, G., Fayard, A.-L., Roach, M., & Jiang, L. (2003). Learning in online forums. European Management Journal, 21, 565-577.
 
11.
Dittmar, J., & Eilks, I. (2015a). Internetforen - Eine bislang kaum erschlossene Quelle für den naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht [Internet forums – A hardly opened source for science lessons]. Der Mathematische und Naturwissenschaftliche Unterricht, 68, 213-217.
 
12.
Dittmar, J., & Eilks, I. (2015b). Aspartam - Ein Beispiel für Arbeitsmaterial aus Internetforen für den Chemieunterricht [Aspartam – An example for teaching materials from Internet forums for chemistry lessons]. Praxis der Naturwissenschaften Chemie in der Schule, 64(5), 35-36.
 
13.
Dittmar, J., & Eilks, I. (2016). Practical work, cooperative learning and Internet forums - An example on teaching about the chemistry of water. I. Eilks, S. Markic & B. Ralle (Eds.), Science education research and practical work (pp. 239-244). Aachen: Shaker.
 
14.
Dittmar, J., & Eilks, I. (2019a). Eine Studie zum Umgang von Schülerinnen und Schülern mit Internetforen und möglichen Konsequenzen für den Chemieunterricht [A study on students’ use of Internet forums and potential implications for chemistry lessons]. Chemie konkret, 26, 103-107.
 
15.
Dittmar, J., & Eilks, I. (2019b). Secondary school students and Internet forums - A survey of student views contrasted with an analysis of Internet forum posts. Education Sciences, 9(2), 121.
 
16.
Dittmar, J., Krasowka, L., & Eilks, I. (2017). Vitamine und Vitaminpräparate – kooperatives Lernen über Internetforen [Vitamins and vitamin preparations – cooperative learning about Internet forums]. RAABits Naturwissenschaften, IV/10, 1-28.
 
17.
Dori, Y., Rodriguez, S., & Schanze, S. (2013). How to promote chemistry learning through the use of ICT. In I. Eilks & A. Hofstein (Eds.), Teaching chemistry (pp. 213-240). Rotterdam: Sense.
 
18.
Eilks, I. (2018). Action research in science education: A twenty-years personal perspective. Action Research and Innovation in Science Education, 1(1), 3-14.
 
19.
Eilks, I., & Ralle, B. (2002). Participatory Action Research in chemical education. In B. Ralle, I. Eilks (eds.), Research in chemical education - What does this mean? (pp. 87-98). Aachen: Shaker.
 
20.
Franke, N., & Hienerth, C. (2006). Prädikatoren der Qualität von Geschäftsideen: Eine empirische Analyse eines Online-Ideen-Forums [Predictors for quality in business ideas. An empirical Analysis of an online-ideas-forum]. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 76 (4), 47-68.
 
21.
gutefrage.net (2016). www.gutefrage.net/faq (22.11.2016).
 
22.
Gräber, W., & Lindner, M. (2009). Interessenstudie Chemieunterricht: Vergleich 1990 – 2008 [Interest study chemistry education: Comparison 1990-2008]. In D. Höttecke (Ed.), Chemie- und Physikdidaktik für die Lehramtsausbildung (pp. 92-94). Münster: Lit.
 
23.
Hofstein, A., & Kempa, R. F. (1985). Motivating strategies in science education: Attempt at an analysis. European Journal of Science Education, 7, 221-229.
 
24.
Krause, M. (2018). Dynamische Prozesse auf der Teilchenebene mithilfe von StopMotion-Videos lernen [Learning dynamic processes on the particle level with StopMotion videos]. In: J. Meßinger-Koppelt & J. Maxton-Küchenmeister (eds.), Naturwissenschaften digital (pp. 68-71), Hamburg: JHS Verlag.
 
25.
Liu, Y. (2010). Social media tools as a learning ressource. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 3(1), 101-114.
 
26.
Mamlok-Naaman, R., Eilks, I., Bodner, G., & Hofstein, A. (2018). Professional development of chemistry teachers. Cambridge: RSC.
 
27.
Markic, S., Broggy, J., & Childs, P. (2013). How to deal with linguistic issues in the chemistry classroom . In I. Eilks & A. Hofstein (eds.), Teaching chemistry (pp. 127-152), Rotterdam: Sense.
 
28.
Marks, R., & Eilks, I. (2009). Promoting scientific literacy using a socio-critical and problem-oriented approach to chemistry teaching: concept, example, experiences. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4, 231-245.
 
29.
Mitchell, J. T., Sweitzer, M. M., Tunno, A. M., Kollins, S. H., & McClernon, F. J. (2016). „I Use Weed for My ADHD”: A qualitative analysis of online forum discussions on cannabis use and ADHD. PLoS ONE, 11(5).
 
30.
OECD (2005). The definition and selection of key competencies. www.oecd.org/pisa/35070367.pdf (15.05.2017).
 
31.
Raymond, E. S., & Moen, R. (2014). How to ask questions the smart way. tty1.net/smart-questions_de.ht... (22.11.2016).
 
32.
Savolainen, R. (2011). Judging the quality and credibility of information in Internet discussion forums. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62, 1243-1256.
 
33.
Schorb, B. (2013). Jugend – Information – Medien [Youth – information - media]. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig.
 
34.
Seibert, J., Kay, C. W. M., & Huwer, J. (2019). EXPlainistry: Creating documentation, explanations, and animated visualizations of chemistry experiments supported by information and communication technology to help school students understand molecular-level Interactions. Journal of Chemical Education, advance article.
 
35.
Statista (w.y.). Anteil der Nutzung von Online-Angeboten durch Lehrer für den Schulunterricht in Deutschland im Jahr 2016 [Portion of use of online-offers by teachers for school lessons in Germany in 2016]. de.statista.com/statistik/date... (19.12.2018).
 
36.
Stuckey, M., Hofstein, A., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Eilks, I. (2013). The meaning of ‚relevance‘ in science education and its implications for the science curriculum. Studies in Science Education, 49, 1–34.
 
37.
Thomas, M. J. W. (2002). Learning within incoherent structures: the space of online discussion forums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 351-366.
 
38.
UNESCO. Wissen im Web 2008 [Knowledge in the Web 2008]. www.unesco.de/publikationen?pa... (02.01.2017).
 
39.
Uusiaautti, S., & Määtä, K. (2014). I am no longer alone – How do university students perceive the possibilites of social media? International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 19, 293-305.