See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/225804703

Scientific Inquiry in Educational

Multi-user Virtual
Environments
ARTICLE in EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW SEPTEMBER 2007
Impact Factor: 2.4 DOI: 10.1007/s10648-007-9048-1

CITATIONS

READS

34

68

2 AUTHORS:
Brian C. Nelson
Arizona State University
50 PUBLICATIONS 557 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Diane Jass Ketelhut

University of Maryland, Coll
45 PUBLICATIONS 630 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Available from: Brian C. Nelson

Retrieved on: 04 October 2015

Educ Psychol Rev

DOI 10.1007/s10648-007-9048-1
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Scientific Inquiry in Educational Multi-user

Virtual Environments
Brian C. Nelson & Diane Jass Ketelhut

# Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2007

Abstract In this paper, we present a review of research into the problems of implementing
authentic scientific inquiry curricula in schools and the emerging use of educational Multi-User
Virtual Environments (MUVEs) to support interactive scientific inquiry practices. Our analysis
of existing literature in this growing area of study reveals three recurrent themes: (1) with
careful design and inclusion of virtual inquiry tools, MUVE-based curricula can successfully
support real-world inquiry practices based on authentic interactivity with simulated worlds and
tools, (2) Educational MUVEs can support inquiry that is equally compelling for girls and boys,
and (3) research on student engagement in MUVE-based curricula is uneven. Based on these
themes, we suggest that future large-scale research should investigate (1) the extent to which
MUVE-based inquiry learning can be a viable substitute for the activities involved in realworld inquiry; (2) the impact of MUVEs on learning and engagement for currently underserved
students, and (3) the impact on engagement and learning of individual aspects of MUVE
environments, particularly virtual experimentation tools designed to scaffold student inquiry
processes and maintain engagement. Additionally, we note that two identified issues with
integrating scientific inquiry into the classroom are currently not addressed by MUVE research.
We urge researchers to investigate whether (1) MUVE-based curriculum can help teachers meet
state and national standards with inquiry curricula; and (2) scientific inquiry curricula
embedded in MUVE environments can help teachers learn how to integrate interactive
scientific inquiry into their classroom.
Keywords Scientific inquiry . Multi-user virtual environment . Engagement . Self-efficacy
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0310188.
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
B. C. Nelson
Arizona State University, Tempe, USA
e-mail: Brian.nelson@asu.edu
D. J. Ketelhut (*)
Curriculum, Instruction, and Technology in Education, Temple University,
444 Ritter Hall, 1301 Cecil B. Moore Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA
e-mail: diane.jass.ketelhut@temple.edu

Educ Psychol Rev

For decades, science educators have worked to infuse inquiry into the K-12 curriculum
(American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) 1990, 1993; NRC 1996).
However, good scientific inquiry is both hard to design and hard to implement (The
National Academies 2005). This issue is compounded by the practice, particularly prevalent
in urban schools, of using non-science teachers in science classrooms (Urban Teacher
Collaborative 2000). These teachers are untrained in experimental design and often rely on
ancillary textbook materials to provide inquiry-based lesson plans. Unfortunately, many of
the inquiry activities associated with textbook materials are meant to clarify and confirm
information already presented to students, rather than to provide true experimentation of
complicated phenomena with unknown outcomes. In this paper, we first investigate the
implementation practices of scientific inquiry now and the issues faced in the K-12 classroom
during implementation, and then we explore whether embedding scientific inquiry curricula
based on interactive inquiry activities with simulated tools in educational Multi-User Virtual
Environments (MUVEs) can present a viable solution to some of these issues.

Inquiry
For the last two decades, scientific inquiry has been a major standard in most policy
doctrines (e.g. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) 1990, 1993;
National Research Council 1996). The National Science Education Standards define
scientific inquiry as
the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations
based on the evidence derived from their work...also ...the activities through which
students develop knowledge and understanding of scientific ideas, as well as an
understanding of how scientists study the natural world (National Research Council
1996, p 23).
However, for many years prior to the mid-twentieth century, this recognition of the
importance of scientific inquiry was not so prevalent. Prior to the 1960s, science education
focused primarily on the content of science, leaving inquiry to scientists (National Research
Council 2000). Dewey was ahead of his time when he suggested that studying the outcomes
of science as opposed to participating in the methods of science was not learning science at
all (Dewey 1944). By the middle of the century, a change in how science was conducted
reinvigorated the push for inquiry in the K-12 classroom. In the 1960s, Joseph Schwab felt
that the emphasis on science as uncovering truth had changed and thus science education
needed to change to showcase the new emphasis on scientific inquiry (Bybee 2000). The
current view is that science cannot be understood as content separated from the process that
created that content (National Research Council 1996).
How should this translate into classroom practice? The National Science Education
Standards frame it as follows:
Inquiry is a multifaceted activity that involves making observations; posing
questions; examining books and other sources of information to see what is already
known; planning investigations; reviewing what is already known in light of experimental evidence; using tools to gather, analyze, and interpret data; proposing answers,
explanations, and predictions; and communicating the results (National Research
Council 1996, p 23).

Educ Psychol Rev

In other words, inquiry should take the form of student-centered interactions with realistic
materials and processes related to inquiry. More recently, the National Research Council has
expanded their description of what constitutes inquiry activities. Laboratory experiences
provide opportunities for students to interact directly with the material world (or with data
drawn from the material world), using the tools, data collection techniques, models and
theories of science (NRC 2005, p. 3. Formatting added by authors). The National Science
Teachers Association (NSTA) supports this definition and suggests that all K-16 teachers
embrace scientific inquiry (National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) 2004). DuVall
(2001) describes in great detail what a scientific inquiry classroom should look like:

Content is learned to provide meaning and detail to investigations and burgeoning

conceptual understanding;
Students seek to find answers to their own questions through their own designs;
Activities require student decision-making not just following directions;
Resources that intrigue and support student learning fill the classroom; these include
but are not limited to textbooks;
Teachers question and probe to push student thinking;
Literacy has a front row seat.

Unfortunately, the policy of implementing inquiry and creating such a science classroom
runs into several roadblocks, not least of which is teacher uncertainty of exactly what constitutes
inquiry and how to implement it. An additional obstacle to more widespread teaching with
scientific inquiry is the push for standards-based curriculum and improved test scores on high
stakes tests. As a result, some suggest that the initial intent of the framers of these policy
standards is lost or corrupted by the time it turns into classroom practice, much like the
childhood game of operator (e.g. Abd-El-Khalick et al. 2004; J. Wright and C. Wright 1998).
In order for teachers to successfully implement scientific inquiry in their classrooms, they
must have a clear understanding of what it entails. Regrettably, many of them do not. For
example, responses to an NSTA position paper on inquiry indicate that many teachers are
unclear about how to implement inquiry in their classroom with some teachers presuming that
traditional cookbook experiments promote inquiry learning for students (Wallace and
Louden 2002). To see if good inquiry instruction could improve teacher understanding,
Windschitl (2004) designed an inquiry-rich pre-service course and then followed 14 preservice teachers as they developed their understanding about scientific inquiry. What he
found was that while these pre-service teachers did develop a better understanding of what
scientific inquiry entailed, they still held on to their own deeply held misconceptions, what he
termed folk aspects of inquiry, including the idea that a hypothesis is a guess. In another
study, pre-service teachers throughout a 10-year period took part in inquiry-based methods
courses. Similar to the Windschitl study, these 143 students held on to some of their own
previous experiences and beliefs. For example, they felt that their primary role was to know
the content well and present it clearly to students. For them, laboratories were something that
you were supposed to do but had no direct relevance to learning. Many of these students said
that they would rather have taken another science course in place of their methods class, thus
negating the benefits of pedagogical instruction (Phelps and Lee 2003).
Why is it so difficult to instill in teachers the same priority for and understanding of
authentic, interactive inquiry that the policymakers have? Windschitl (2004) suggests that
the contextual clues offered to teachers are mixed and therefore leads them to mistaken
ideas. For example, textbooks by and large rarely if at all include authentic scientific
inquiry in their activities. The majority of them are vocabulary dense and activity-poor

Educ Psychol Rev

(Leonard and Chandler 2003). The few activities that are labeled as inquiry generally only
require low-level application or problem-solving (Windschitl 2004; Chinn and HmeloSilver 2002). Amazingly, some still present science as uncovering truth (Trumball et al.
2005). Beginning teachers, teachers teaching outside their certification area, or those with
weak science background rely on these textbooks to give structure and support to their
classes, resulting in many students participating in pseudo-inquiry activities.
Furthermore, there is little agreement in the larger community on what scientific inquiry
is. For example, one study of students of four teachers (Roth 1989) purports to show that
scientific inquiry was frustrating for students and did not lead to learning gains. However,
this study confused scientific inquiry with constructivism. In this study, students were
taught photosynthesis with hands-on experiences and no access to textbooks. Students were
supposed to construct their own understanding of where a newly growing plant gets its
energy. However, according to the NSES definition of scientific inquiry discussed earlier,
scientific inquiry should entail examining books and other sources of information to see
what is already known. If researchers cannot agree about scientific inquiry, it is difficult to
criticize teachers for holding an erroneous understanding!
Thus, some students will experience a version of scientific inquiry despite their teachers
confusion about it; however, student access to inquiry of any sort is not universal. The
following are issues that impact the availability of scientific inquiry-based instruction:

As teachers own experiences with inquiry decrease, so do their students (Windschitl 2004);
Weak science content knowledge is associated with teaching little scientific inquiry
(Windschitl 2004; Roehrig and Luft 2004);
Many schools lack the equipment and resources to offer scientific inquiry experiences
(Marshall and Dorward 2000; National Research Council (NRC) 2005);
Non-Asian minorities have fewer inquiry experiences (National Research Council
(NRC) 2005);
Students in low-level science courses are typically offered direct instruction in the
misguided belief that they need to learn foundational material before they can engage
in inquiry (National Research Council (NRC) 2005).

Finally, the current culture of using high stakes tests to assess student learning and
successful teaching of standardized curricula has negatively impacted scientific inquiry
experiences for students. One review found that 80% of K-8 schools do not teach science
with hands-on inquiry methods (Jorgnenson and Vanosdall 2002). Falk and Drayton (2004)
studied the impact of instituting a high stakes test in Massachusetts on six middle schools.
They found that one school completely abandoned scientific inquiry in an attempt to meet
the test. Four of the schools were still committed to inquiry but felt that they had to
broaden the topics taught in the curriculum and, therefore, give up some of their inquiry
projects. The sixth school had never adopted inquiry and so made no changes.
So, how do we go about successfully implementing scientific inquiry that is authentic
and interactive in all classrooms? What is needed for in-service teachers are curricula that
teach standards with inquiry while modeling for teachers how that can be accomplished
through authentic inquiry activities. There is no simple answer to this question; however,
there are indications that technology-rich curricula might offer a novel approach to the
problem. A growing body of research indicates that a relatively new form of technology,
educational Multi-User Virtual Environments (MUVEs), can be designed to support highly
interactive scientific inquiry learning, work as a model for teachers, and offer a safe
approach to scientific inquiry that could be used by all schools since the only equipment
required would be computers.

Educ Psychol Rev

Educational MUVEs
Educational MUVEs have emerged in recent years as a form of socio-constructivist and
situated cognition-based educational software. Their design draws on a foundation of work
on text-based virtual worlds called multi-user domains (MUDs) (Fanderclai 1995) and
MOOs (multiple-user domains, object-oriented) (Bowers 1987; Falsetti 1995). MOOs, an
offshoot of game-based MUDs, evolved into text-based virtual communities and more
recently into places for collaborative learning. The term MUVE refers primarily to
graphical MOOs (Brdicka 1999).
Educational MUVEs incorporate 2-D and 3-D virtual worlds in which learners control
characters that represent them in the worlds (e.g. Cobb et al. 2002; Nelson et al. 2005).
Through these avatars, learners can explore immersive worlds, interact with objects,
communicate with other users, and engage in collaborative learning activities as they
explore. The content in educational MUVEs varies widelyeach virtual world can have its
own visual theme, curriculum, and set of in-world activities. A consistent theme across
many educational MUVE-based curricula is collaborative inquiry centered on computer
programming (e.g. Annetta and Park 2006, Bruckman 1996, 2000; Dickey 2000, 2003),
and science (e.g. Nelson et. al 2005; Clarke et al. 2006; Corbit 2002).
Early MUVEs
A number of early MUVE studies explored the design, functionality, and potential impact
of educational MUVEs as vehicles for situated, interactive inquiry on student learning,
engagement, and motivation (e.g. Bers 1999; Bruckman 1996; Corbit 2002; Simons and
Clark 2004). Many early educational MUVE- based curricula were implemented in
informal settings. The use of informal settings may have reflected a lack of acceptance of
MUVEs as part of a standard curriculum in school classrooms, and likely had an impact on
the kinds of pedagogy practiced and the types of research questions investigated. For
example, in informal settings participants would be more likely to self-select into the use of
MUVE-based curricula. In addition, participation in MUVEs in informal settings can
continued over extended periods of time, while MUVEs incorporated as part of a
classroom-based curriculum typically have specific, fairly short, implementation periods.
Prominent early MUVEs used primarily in informal learning settings include Zora,
SciCenter, MOOSE Crossing, and Whyville.
Bers (1999) conducted studies on an early 3-D MUVE called Zora. Zora supported the
construction of sharable, virtual artifacts and characters by students, and included tools for
chatting and reflection on the artifacts. In a 1999 pilot study in an after-school workshop, Bers
interviewed 11 middle school students as they created virtual spaces and characters in Zora as
an exercise in identity construction. Bers found that graphical MUVEs supported the development of complex understandings of identity construction among participants (Bers 1999).
SciCentr
An early educational MUVE created specifically for supporting authentic experimentation
and interactive delivery of science content was Corbits SciCentr (Corbit 2002). SciCentr
was designed for use in informal settings as a set of virtual worlds that collectively formed a
virtual science museum. SciCentr included interactive simulation-based science exhibits
housed in 3-D virtual space. Among the exhibits were a plant breeding area and a molecular
modeling simulation. In addition, the SciCentr environment included support for real-time

Educ Psychol Rev

chat among its visitors, with a goal of creating a sustainable community of practice around
science (Corbit 2002). Although Corbit did not report any formalized studies of SciCentr as
a learning environment, anecdotal data from several short-term pilots with high school and
university students suggest that the environment was engaging and motivating to these
groups, although some participants reported feeling daunted by the technical knowledge
needed to create content for the MUVE. Conversely, a group of adult educators introduced
to SciCentr were less enthusiastic about the technology and more concerned about the
content and setting.
MOOSE crossing
MOOSE Crossing provides a good early example of an inquiry-based MUVE, and research
into its use illustrates both the strengths and the weaknesses of educational MUVEs as
platforms for inquiry. In MOOSE Crossing, students can navigate a text-based virtual world
and interact with its objects and inhabitants through typed commands. In addition, students
can create their own creatures to inhabit the world via object-oriented programming
(Bruckman 2000). MOOSE Crossing was used primarily in informal learning settings, such
as after-school programs. Bruckman (1996, 2000) investigated how children create and
share virtual artifacts while learning programming in the MOOSE Crossing environment.
However, when she investigated the effectiveness of MOOSE Crossing as a learning tool,
she found uneven results. In one study, she performed a portfolio-style assessment of 50
children using the MOOSE Crossing environment to study programming (Bruckman 2000).
Approximately 40% of the randomly selected pool of students examined had used MOOSE
Crossing as part of a classroom-based curriculum. The rest used MOOSE Crossing either in
voluntary after-school program or in their own free-time.
Bruckman found that a subset of students actively participated and earned high marks on a
programming skill measure. In addition, she found that there was a positive relationship
between engagement with the environment, as measured by commands typed, and scores on
the programming measure. Although the students used environment in both formal and
informal settings, Bruckman found no significant differences in time-on-task based on setting.
However, while some students in MOOSE Crossing improved their programming skills, many
more did not. In fact, 40% of the sample group never wrote a single programming script
(Bruckman 2000). Bruckman cites this low level of engagement as a key reason for uneven
results in the study and believes that unevenness in engagement and student learning is an
inherent by-product of unguided constructivist MUVE-based learning.
In another MOOSE Crossing study, the learning impact of the environment for girls was
examined (Bruckman et al. 2002). The researchers found that girls spent significantly more
time than boys communicating with others in the environment. In addition, gender was
found to play no role in learning outcomes related to the programming tasks at the center of
the curriculum.
Whyville
Whyville is a 2-dimensional, graphical MUVE designed to support scientific learning and
inquiry (http://whyville.net). Like MOOSE Crossing, Whyville is designed to be used
primarily in informal settings, although it has also been implemented and studied in the
classroom. Students using the Whyville environment can participate in a wide range of
scientific inquiry activities, designed around such content areas as biology, physics, and

Educ Psychol Rev

chemistry (Simons and Clark 2004). In addition, students are able to create and modify
personal avatarsvirtual characters that they control as they navigate the 2-dimensional
space of the Whyville world (Galas 2006). As of 2006, there are 1.7 million registered users
in the Whyville environment (http://whyville.net). Two-thirds of registered users are female
(Galas 2006).
A pair of articles report on an inquiry-based curriculum embedded in Whyville that was
implemented with two 6th grade science classes (Neulight et al. 2007; Galas 2006). In this
Whypox curriculum, students were confronted with a disease outbreak in Whyville that
first manifested itself as red spots and gray color on their avatars faces. In addition, students
infected with Whypox found that their text-based chat was interrupted by ah-choos when
they attempted to communicate with other students. The illness soon spread through the
online community, prompting on- and off-line discussions about the possible causes and
means of controlling the outbreak. Students in the study tracked the spread of the outbreak on
charts in their classroom. In addition, participants were able to gather information about
disease transmission in a virtual Center for Disease Control in the Whyville environment,
and use an Infection Simulator to observe how diseases spread in a population.
In her study, Galas (2006) found that the Whypox outbreak provided a meaningful,
engaging curriculum around which her students could conduct authentic, collaborative
scientific inquiry. Students became deeply involved in gathering data and forming
hypotheses. Many reported working at home in the evenings, setting up online meetings
to discuss the issue, and writing articles on the outbreak for the Whyville online newspaper.
In their report on the Whypox classroom-based implementation, Neulight et al. (2007)
focused on the ability of the MUVE-based curriculum to improve students understanding
of the causes of real-world disease. Analysis of in-class discussions between students and
the teacher, and of pre- and post-implementation surveys of student understanding of
natural infectious disease showed a significant improvement in the number of students
moving from pre-biological (less accurate) to biological (i.e. more accurate) understandings of the mechanisms of infectious disease.
While the Neulight et al. and Galas studies investigated the use of a Whyville curriculum
in a formal classroom setting, Whyville is primarily used as an informal learning
environment; a virtual space that children visit on a voluntary basis. One recent Whyville
study investigated the level of science-related chat taking place among Whyville visitors as
they experienced the previously described Whypox epidemic in informal settings (Foley
and Kobaissi 2006). This study analyzed random samples of text-based user chat messages as
they occurred during the same Whypox outbreak described previously. The researchers hoped
to find if the Whypox outbreak led to science-related discussions among visitors, if visitors
used specially created tools and resources to try and understand the spread of the disease, and
whether there was any evidence of science learning as a result of the Whypox outbreak.
Foley and Kobaissi (2006) found that, while there was some increase in science related
chat during the epidemic, overall chat patterns changed very little. In addition, they found
that only a small proportion of students took part in investigating the Whypox infection.
Although few students discussed the outbreak with others, a number did post messages to a
bulletin board related to the topic. As with MOOSE Crossing, participation among
participants in an informal setting was uneven.
Recent educational MUVEs
Recent research has shifted to the use of highly immersive, 3-dimensional MUVEs.
While these environments take advantage of technological advances to present more

Educ Psychol Rev

authentic and highly interactive virtual contexts for learning, the pedagogical goals are
very similar to those of earlier 2-D and text-based inquiry-based educational MUVE
environments. Much of the current research into education MUVEs continues to center
on the viability of the environments to support learning and collaborative inquiry in
science and programming (e.g. Annetta and Park 2006; Barab et al. 2005b; Clarke and
Dede 2005; Corbit 2002). In addition to the technological advances present in modern
educational MUVEs, there has been a shift toward increased implementation in formal
school settings.
WolfDen
Annetta and Park (2006) describe a distance education graduate course at North Carolina
State University that took place entirely within an educational MUVE. Thirteen students
attended live lectures in a virtual classroom in the courses WolfDen MUVE to learn
about the design of educational MUVEs for teaching science content and inquiry with a
problem-based learning pedagogy. In addition to the virtual classroom, the MUVE housed a
Tutor Room containing support materials, a Game Room with links to MUVE-based
science games, and a large building area in which students could construct their own games.
Students were asked to create and present their own games as a final project in the course.
Annetta and Park report that their MUVE-based course was highly motivating and
engaging for students, with all participants successfully creating a game. However, the
researchers did find that the MUVE-based course posed some challenges. A number of
students were not comfortable with the use of voice-based chat (VoIP) in the synchronous
classes, preferring text. Also, the MUVE-based environment took some effort to master,
although the researchers believe this challenge helped facilitate cooperative learning among
students (Annetta and Park 2006).
The WolfDen MUVE was created using the Active Worlds virtual world-building toolset.
Active Worlds (www.activeworlds.com) provides a robust, relatively simple authoring system
for constructing 3-D graphical MUVEs. Using Active Worlds, designers can produce
MUVEs incorporating multiple objects, sounds, animations, images, and agents (automated
3-D characters that inhabit the MUVE). Large numbers of users can simultaneously occupy
and explore a given MUVE. Users can walk, run, and fly through an Active Worlds MUVE,
entering buildings, climbing mountains, and swimming through virtual bodies of water.
Individual users can chat with other users, or broadcast messages to all nearby citizens and
tourists. In addition, users can click on specially designated objects containing hyperlinks.
Clicking on these objects will trigger the appearance of web pages, images, or web-based
applications in a web browser window embedded in the software.
MUVE-based course: Introduction to RWX modeling
Dickey (2000, 2003) conducted a case study investigating the use of MUVEs built in
Active Worlds for synchronous distance education. Dickey employed participatory
observations, class logs, and interviews with the instructor of a MUVE-based distance
course on 3-D object modeling to examine how the MUVE environment supports
constructivist learning. In her study, Dickey examined the strengths and weaknesses of the
communication tools, experiential tools, and resource tools of the environment. Overall,
Dickey found that the environment and its tools supportive of constructivist learning in a
formal college-level course, despite some technological limitations inherent in the
environment (Dickey 2000, 2003).

Educ Psychol Rev

The Active Worlds development tool studied by Dickey was also used in the creation of
educational MUVEs used in the River City MUVE project at Harvard University and the
Quest Atlantis MUVE project at Indiana University. Both of these large-scale projects focus
specifically on the ability of MUVEs to support authentic scientific inquiry and
collaboration. The groups running these projects have conducted a series of studies in the
past several years that echo and extend the findings of earlier environments like MOOSE
Crossing and Whyville.
River City
River City (http://muve.gse.harvard.edu/rivercityproject/) is an educational MUVE designed
to teach scientific inquiry skills to middle school students. The River City MUVE and
associated curriculum was created specifically for use in formal school settings. Nearly
10,000 students in the United States and internationally have completed the computer labbased River City curriculum as part of their middle school science classes (Nelson 2005).
The interface and activities embedded within River City offer a good example of the
technological affordances of modern MUVEs. The River City virtual world is set in the late
1800s, and named for the river that runs through most of the town. River City includes a
main street with shops, a library, and elementary school, along with institutions such as a
hospital, university, and city hall (Fig. 1).
Upon entering the city, the students avatars can interact with computer-based agents
(residents of the city), digital objects (pictures and video clips), and the avatars of other
students. In exploring, students also encounter visual stimuli such as muddy dirt streets, and
auditory stimuli such as the sounds of coughing town residents. Content in the right-hand
interface-window shifts based on what the student encounters or activates in the virtual
environment, such as a dialogue with an agent or historic photos and accompanying text
that provide additional information about the town and its residents (Fig. 2).
Students work in teams of three or four to develop and test hypotheses about why
residents are ill. Three different illnesses (water-borne, air-borne, and insect-borne) are
integrated with historical, social and geographical content, allowing students to develop and
practice the inquiry skills involved in disentangling multi-causal problems embedded within
a complex environment (Clarke et al. 2006; Nelson et al. 2005). Over the course of a 2
Fig. 1 River City

Educ Psychol Rev

Fig. 2 River City interface

4 week long curriculum, students experience a year of virtual time in River City. First
visiting River City in October 1878, student teams return several times to find that 2
3 months have passed in River City on each subsequent visit. A final sharing day at the end
of the project allows students to compare their research with other teams of students in their
class and to piece together some of the many potential hypotheses and causal relationships
embedded in the virtual environment.
While exploring the River City world, students can also make use of several interactive
tools designed to scaffold their inquiry, manage complexity, and mimic real-world scientific
inquiry processes (Nelson and Ketelhut 2006). These tools for inquiry include a water
sampling tool, mosquito catcher, stool tester, lice test, an environmental health meter, and a
unique tool for running experiments by changing elements in a world to see the results
(Clarke et al. 2006).
A series of studies have been conducted investigating the viability of the River City
MUVE and curriculum to motivate students to learn science, to improve science learning,
and to create learning situations that appeal to girls and boys. Results from pilot
implementations of an early version of the River City MUVE in three public school
classrooms in Boston, MA indicated that the environment is highly motivating for students,
particularly students with lower academic backgrounds (Dede et al. 2002). These findings
were replicated in a larger-scale implementation of the MUVE in 2004 (Clarke et al. 2006;
Ketelhut et al. 2005). In that implementation, more than 1,000 students took part in the
inquiry-based curriculum. As in the pilot study, qualitative student data from this larger
study showed that students (and teachers) were highly motivated by the curriculum, and
actively engaged in what they described as realistic inquiry. In interviews conducted during
the implementation, students reported that they felt like a scientist for the first time
(Clarke and Dede 2005).
An intriguing finding in River City implementations that echoes findings seen with
MOOSE Crossing, is that girls and boys performed equally well through the River City
curriculum. Both the early pilot studies of the MUVE in 2001 and the large-scale

Educ Psychol Rev

implementation in 2004 found no significant differences between boys and girls in learning
outcomes, motivation, or self-efficacy toward science learning (Dede et al. 2004).
In a recent River City study, an individualized, reflective guidance system was
embedded into the River City MUVE, to see whether use of the guidance led to more
effective learning for students. In an exploratory study with 272 middle school students, it
was found that increased viewing of guidance messages was associated with significantly
higher (p<0.05) scores from pre- to post-tests on scientific inquiry skills and disease
transmission knowledge. However, it was also found that a large minority of the students
(25%) with access to the hints system did not use it. While engagement in the main
activities of inquiry was high, use of the guidance component was uneven. In other words,
as with the Moose Crossing study (Bruckman 2000) and the study of student informal
participation in the Whypox curriculum (Foley and Kobaissi 2006), engagement in the
system was not universal. Among the students making use of the guidance system, it was
found that use of embedded guidance messages was equally beneficial for boys and girls.
Interestingly, though, girls were more likely to choose to view guidance messages initially,
and more likely to view more guidance messages overall than boys (Nelson 2005).
In another study of the same student population, Ketelhut (2006) investigated student
engagement with the River City environment, examining characteristics that students selfreported as being the most beneficial in the MUVE. In the study, half of the participating
students listed some aspect of scientific inquiry as a key feature of the project for them in
post-implementation surveys. Nearly a third specifically listed virtual tools, such as the
virtual microscopes or an environmental health meter, while a small but distinct group
emphasized the authenticity of the experience. Furthermore, the five teachers in that
implementation who were well versed in using inquiry in their classroom were very
approving of the scientific inquiry basis of the project; four of them specifically mentioned
that aspects of inquiry were the best ah-ha moment for students.
Quest Atlantis
Like River City, the Quest Atlantis (QA) MUVE is designed to support collaborative
inquiry in realistic virtual contexts (http://atlantis.crlt.indiana.edu/). In Quest Atlantis,
students can take part in a large number of quests to save the people of a virtual Atlantis
from destruction through environmental, moral, and social decay (Socially-responsive
Design Group 2004). The interface and operation of QA is similar to that of River City.
Students explore virtual worlds, interacting with a variety of virtual objects and
collaborating on a series of learning tasks (Barab et al. 2005a, Fig. 3). While River City
is designed for in-class use as part of a regular science curriculum, Quest Atlantis can be
described as a hybrid environment, with implementations taking place in both informal
and formal educational settings.
The research team behind the Quest Atlantis (QA) MUVE has published a series of
studies about the environment describing its benefits on student motivation, engagement,
and learning outcomes (e.g. Barab et al. 2005a, b). Most recently, Barab et al. (2007)
conducted a multi-level study investigating the learning benefits associated with a QA
curriculum designed to support scientific inquiry practices situated in realistic, socially
relevant issues (a socio-scientific approach). Students in the study completed a 2 week
curriculum designed to support their development of environmental awareness and realworld science inquiry skills while investigating an interactive narrative in the QA
environment. Results of the study show positive findings related to student engagement

Educ Psychol Rev

Fig. 3 Quest Atlantis interface

in the MUVE-based curriculum, sophisticated student explanations of curricular processes

and outcomes, and statistically significant improvement on classroom and standardized
assessments of science inquiry processes and content knowledge.
In a previous Quest Atlantis study, Tuzan (2004) conducted a design ethnography to
identify the motivational elements that supported student participation in Quest Atlantis. In
his study, he identified a number of motivational elements in the MUVE-based educational
game, including identity presentation, playing, learning, rewards, immersive context,
fantasy, uniqueness, creativity, curiosity, control and ownership, context of support, and
social relations (Tuzan 2004). Barab et al. (2005a) reported on the design-based research
approach they took in designing and redesigning the Quest Atlantis environment in an
ongoing effort of generating, testing, refining, and evolving theories of participation that
work to preserve the joy and meaning in the processes of learning. Qualitative analysis of
three rounds of studies into Quest Atlantis resulted in a better understanding of some
weaknesses in the design of the world, including the need for a stronger and more engaging
backstory to the world.
To investigate possible interactions between engagement in inquiry and gender, Barabs
Socially-responsive Design Group (2004) conducted an extensive analysis of gender
participation in Quest Atlantis. Like the River City MUVE studies, the QA team found no
differences in terms of overall participation rates in the MUVE between boys and girls.
However, looking specifically at participation as reflected by online communication, it
was found that girls used chat more than boys (p<0.01) and sent more e-mail messages
(p<0.01) than boys. In terms of learning and achievement, the QA MUVE was equally
effective for boys and girls. Girls who participated in a three-quest learning unit about plant
and animal cells saw gains on pre- to post-test scores that were statistically equivalent to

Educ Psychol Rev

those of the boys. Finally, the QA group found that girls wrote more in their online
notebooks when completing quests and engaged in longer metacognitive reflections about
their work in the MUVE.
While research into the Quest Atlantis environment has shown promise, engagement
among students has been uneven. Lim et al. (2006) recently conducted an exploratory study
into the levels of engagement exhibited by students participating in virtual inquiry activities
in Quest Atlantis. Among the eight participants (1112 year olds) at a primary school in
Singapore, the authors found a low level of engagement as measured by a seven-level
engagement taxonomy. Through interviews with the students and observations of the
implementation, the researchers suggested that the biggest contributors to the low
engagement were immersion, interaction, and distraction (p. 223). The authors suggest
that the very immersiveness and interactivity of the MUVE worlds, while motivating,
distracts participating students from the processes and tasks associated with inquiry.

Discussion
One of the problems identified earlier with implementing interactive scientific inquiry
activities in the classroom is the differential access that students have to authentic inquiry.
This inequity partially stems from lack of resources or reliance on the wrong resources. A
common theme that emerges from the literature around educational MUVEs is that they
offer viable platforms for conducting authentic scientific inquiry without requiring anything
more than access to the Internet. Previously, we listed the definition of scientific inquiry
provided by the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council 1996, p
23). As revealed in the literature, aspects of this definition appear to coincide well with
activities supported by educational MUVES (Table 1).
As seen in Table 1, students in educational MUVEs are able to conduct highly
interactive, authentic inquiry activities that span the spectrum of elements outlined in the
NSES definition. In educational MUVEs, students can make observations of phenomena as
they conduct inquiry much as they would in the real world. They can view symptoms of
disease by literally looking at the faces of other participants (through avatars), or by talking
to computer controlled characters in the worlds. They can pose questions of these
embedded agents to gather more information about the issue at hand. MUVEs also support
student-to-student information sharing via text- and voice-based chat. Just as in real-world
inquiry, students in MUVEs can examine a multitude of sources of information to help
them conduct their inquiry. They can select books from virtual libraries, read admissions
charts, demographic records, and other material left laying around in the MUVE. In
addition to these static forms of information, students can make use of virtual tools
including interactive microscopes, bug catchers, disease transmission simulators, and
environmental health meters. These embedded tools can be modeled on their real-world
counterparts to enhance the fidelity of the inquiry process.
Because MUVE-based inquiry takes place over time, with students gathering data
continuously, MUVE-based curricula allow students to continuously review and analyze
their evolving hypotheses in light of new information that is gathered. Once students have
formulated a hypothesis, MUVEs allow them the opportunity to test it by manipulating
independent variables and observing any changes in the environment. Students can then
disseminate findings from their investigation both in the MUVE (by contributing stories to
MUVE-based newspapers, presenting at MUVE-based symposia, or displaying reports or
created products in the MUVE), or in the classroom through traditional presentations to

Educ Psychol Rev

Table 1 Science Inquiry Activities and their MUVE-based Counterparts
Inquiry activity

MUVE-based student activities

Making observations

Exploring MUVE worlds making visual and auditory

observations
Posing questions
Asking questions of computer-based NPCs, fellow students,
and human-controlled mentors/coaches
Examining books and other sources of
Accessing information sources in MUVE-embedded
information to see what is already known
libraries, classrooms, Tutor Rooms, etc.
Using tools to gather, analyze, and interpret Manipulating embedded virtual tools designed to replicate
data
real-world counterparts (microscopes, online notepads,
cameras, etc.) Run experiments using control and
experimental condition worlds.
Planning investigations
MUVE-embedded narrative, scaffolding, and supporting
materials facilitate process of scientific inquiry
Reviewing what is already known in light of After exploring the MUVE, gathering evidence on the
experimental evidence
embedded problems from multiple sources, learners use
that information to design experiments and run MUVEbased experiments. Once they have analyzed the results of
their own experiments, they must compare it with what
they hypothesized earlier and to what the in-world coaches/
mentors told them
Proposing answers, explanations, and
Learners create hypotheses based on collecting evidence to
predictions
predict what they think is causing a piece of the problem
occurring in a given MUVE. They re-evaluate that
hypothesis in the light of the results of their experiment.
Communicating the results
As they conduct inquiry in the MUVE, and after they finish
their investigation, learners communicate results through a
variety of means, including classroom-based research
conferences, articles written for MUVE-based newspapers,
and in-class collaborative graphs and charts.

fellow students. Thus, using the NSES definition of scientific inquiry, it appears that
MUVEs can be a venue for disseminating inquiry-based experiences.
A second theme emerging from educational MUVE research is that the environments are
equally supportive for girls and boys. Although in many cases, girls and boys participate in
varying ways, learners of both genders do equally well with the collaborative, investigative
inquiry that MUVEs support. In some cases, research has shown that the level of
engagement in educational MUVEs is higher for female students, with them writing more
chat and e-mail messages, viewing more hints, and participating in more metacognitive
reflection about their learning.
The American Association of University Women (AAUW) educational foundation lists a
number of design suggestions for computer games for girls (American Association of
University Women 2000):

Rich narrative, intricate games

Customizable, personalizable female characters
Opportunity for collaboration and communication
Social interaction on-screen and between players
Opportunity for positive social action
Appropriate level of difficulty

Educ Psychol Rev

Opportunities to design or create

Strategy and skill requirements

In addition, the report finds that girls prefer games that closely simulate real life and
games that allow for role-play (American Association of University Women 2000;
Subrahmanyam and Greenfield 1998).
Educational MUVEs support many of the features suggested by the AAUW report as
useful for girl-friendly software. MUVEs have tools for social interaction, communication, and collaboration. In addition, graphical MUVEs are typically designed to simulate
real-world contexts and center on role-play, and interaction in a virtual narrative. Perhaps
then it is not surprising to find that implementations of educational MUVEs have found
greater equality in learning outcomes and participation rates among girls than in historical
computer-based learning environments.
That boys and girls perform similarly in these environments is encouraging but in and of
itself not enough. The literature on scientific inquiry indicates that low-performing students and
non-Asian minorities have little access to scientific inquiry. Research on the effect of MUVEs
for these populations is spotty. There is some research on the River City and Quest Atlantis
MUVEs (e.g. Dede et al. 2002; Barab et al. 2005b) that indicates that it is successful with
these subpopulations, but little research in other MUVEs. If educational MUVE-based
inquiry curricula are to be offered as a substitute to physical experimentation, then it is
important that we fully understand their impact on all subpopulations especially those
underserved currently. Consequently, we suggest that future studies conduct systematic
investigations of the ways in which well-designed, MUVE-based inquiry curricula affect the
learning of all students, with a focus on academically underserved groups.
A final theme seen in educational MUVE research to date is that research on student
engagement is not consistent, particularly when used in informal learning settings. The
primary evidence for this comes from the studies on MOOSE Crossing and Whyville. A
relatively large proportion of students in the MOOSE Crossing environment did not
conduct even basic elements of the curriculum (Bruckman 2000). Most Whyville visitors
experiencing the Whypox curriculum in informal settings did not actively participate in the
curriculum (Foley and Kobaissi 2006). However, later MUVE-based projects were much
more successful in engaging students. Smaller studies in River City and Quest Atlantis raise
questions about whether engagement is even across all aspects of the environment and
across all subpopulations of students. In one River City study, a quarter of the students with
access to hints designed to aid inquiry never used the system (Nelson 2005). Similarly, the
engagement level of a small group of Singapore-based students in the Quest Atlantis
environment was rated as low (Lim et al. 2006). On the other hand, The WolfDen
environment was found to be highly engaging for the small group of graduate students
using it as part of a course, and the classroom-based WhyPox curriculum in Whyville
prompted very high levels of engagement among student participants (Galas 2006).
Possible reasons for these conflicting outcomes might relate to the design of the worlds or
to something intrinsic to MUVEs, such as their open-endedness and immersive nature. It
may be that the complexity and open-ended nature of the virtual worlds leads some students
to tune out. It is also possible that the division between informal and formal learning
settings may be playing a role. Lower levels of engagement and participation were found
with MUVEs used in informal settings (MOOSE Crossing and Whyville), than with
MUVEs used in school-based settings (WolfDen and River City).
However, little research has been done to identify whether individual features of
MUVEs might themselves be at the heart of this inconsistency or the basis of the successes.

Educ Psychol Rev

The research on scientific inquiry indicates that individual design features might indeed
have a strong impact on the success of an intervention. For example as discussed
previously, Roth (1989) found that students were frustrated with learning with a inquirybased curriculum, however, other studies found students highly engaged with inquiry-based
curricula (e.g. Gibson and Chase 2002; Leonard et al. 2001). Why should that be? It is
possible that Roths students were frustrated with the strongly constructivist aspects of her
curriculum rather than the inquiry experience itself. Likewise, it is possible that students are
more engaged with some aspects of MUVE environments than others. For example,
MOOSE Crossing is a text-based environment and as such does not have the visual aspects
found in the graphical MUVEs. It seems likely that this alone might be at the heart of the
difficulty in engagement for MOOSE Crossing students. Likewise, students participating in
the River City inquiry curricula cited use of virtual tools for experimentation as important
components in their engagement (Clarke et al. 2006). More research is needed on these
individual components of MUVEs to help illuminate the impact of each on student
engagement and learning.
Finally, in the beginning of this paper, we identified two other issues with implementing
scientific inquiry curriculum in the classroom: teacher understanding of what scientific
inquiry entails and the impact of standardized curriculum and high stakes tests on
pedagogical and curricular decisions. Unfortunately, MUVE research does not indicate
whether scientific inquiry-based MUVEs can serve as models for teachers, ultimately
helping them transform their practice; nor does it indicate whether MUVE-based curricula
can help teachers bridge standards and scientific inquiry. We urge MUVE researchers to
investigate the potential of MUVEs to do this.

Conclusion
Bruce M. Alberts, chair of the National Research Council, stated in 1995, Weve managed
to turn people off of science by making it some kind of rote learning exercise (Panel Urges
Shift of Focus for School Science Courses 1995). This sentiment is partially behind the
current push to create more authentic, interactive inquiry-based science activities for K-12
classrooms. Unfortunately, the literature indicates that many classrooms are still not
inquiry-based. The literature that we have reviewed indicates that there are four reasons for
this failure: confusion about what constitutes inquiry, disagreement about whether all
students can benefit from the experience, unequal access to classroom resources to conduct
scientific inquiry, and conflict with standardized curriculum and high stakes tests.
Although educational multi-user virtual environments can support highly interactive
inquiry activities, and are beginning to be used to deliver inquiry-based science curriculum,
research into the use of these environments for supporting inquiry is still in its early stages.
Studies done to date indicate that educational MUVEs can provide students with access to all
aspects of scientific inquiry as defined by the NSES; that the environments can support
successful inquiry for boys and girls, even with differing patterns of involvement; and that
many students, but not all, find them engaging.
The literature to date, however, does not indicate the extent to which students and teachers
buy into the use of virtual inquiry environments and tools as substitutes for their real-world
counterparts; nor does it indicate what elements of MUVE-based inquiry are central to
successful engagement and which may hamper engagement. Finally, more research needs to
be conducted into the elements of MUVE-based inquiry that can better support academically
underserved populations in the acquisition of authentic inquiry practices. We urge researchers

Educ Psychol Rev

to investigate the potential of educational MUVEs in these areas as part of a large-scale,

systematic program of study around this dynamic and growing field.
Acknowledgements We would like to gratefully acknowledge the collaboration and contribution of the
River City design and research team: Chris Dede, Jody Clarke and Catherine Bowman.

References
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., et al.
(2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397419.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1990). Science for all Americans. New
York: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Project 2061: Benchmarks for science
literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
American Association of University Women (2000). Tech-savvy: Educating girls in the new computer age.
Washington, DC.
Annetta, L. & Park, J. C. (2006). Video games in science: A model for students and teachers creating 3D role
playing games. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Information Technology and
Teacher Education, Orlando, FL.
Barab, S., Arici, A., & Jackson, C. (2005a). Eat your vegetables and do your homework: A design based
investigation of enjoyment and meaning in learning. Educational Technology, 45(1), 1520.
Barab, S., Sadler, T., Heiselt, C., Hickey, D., & Zuiker, S. (2007). Relating narrative, inquiry, and
inscriptions: supporting consequential play. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 5982.
Barab, S., Thomas, M., Dodge, T., Carteaux, R., & Tuzan, H. (2005b). Making learning fun: Quest Atlantis,
a game without guns. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(1), 86107.
Bers, M. U. (1999). Zora: A graphical multi-user environment to share stories about the self. Paper presented
at the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL'99).
Bowers, A. (1987). Creative C.O.W. or a moo is worth a thousand words. Pointer, 32(1), 913.
Brdicka, B. (1999). Multi user virtual environment and its possible use in education. Retrieved 9/28, 2003,
from http://it.pedf.cuni.cz/bobr/MUVE/muveen.htm.
Bruckman, A. (1996). Finding ones own space in cyberspace. Technology Review, 99(1), 4854.
Bruckman, A. (2000). Uneven achievement in a constructivist learning environment. Paper presented at the
International Conference on Learning Sciences, Ann Arbor, MI.
Bruckman, A., Jensen, C., & DeBonte, A. (2002). Gender and programming achievement in a CSCL
environment. Paper presented at the CSCL 2002, Boulder, CO.
Bybee, R. W. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. H. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into
inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 2046). Washington, D.C.: American Association for the
Advancement of Science.
Chinn, C., & Hmelo-Silver, C. (2002). Authentic inquiry: Introduction to the special section. Science
Education, 86, 171174.
Clarke, J., & Dede, C. (2005). Making learning meaningful: An exploratory study of using multi-user
environments (MUVEs) in middle school science. Paper presented at the American Educational Research
Association Conference, Montreal, Canada.
Clarke, J., Dede, C., Ketelhut, D. J., & Nelson, B. (2006). A design-based research strategy to promote
scalability for educational innovations. Educational Technology 46 (3), 2736.
Cobb, S., Neale, H., Crosier, J., & Wilson, J. R. (2002). Development and evalution of virtual learning
environments. In K.M. Stanney (Ed.), Handbook of Virtual Environments: Design, Implementation, and
Applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Corbit, M. (2002). Building virtual worlds for informal science learning (SciCentr and SciFair) in the
Active Worlds Educational Universe (AWEDU). Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environment 11
(1), 5567.
Dede, C., Ketelhut, D. J., & Ruess, K. (2002). Motivation, usability, and learning outcomes in a prototype
museum-based multi-user virtual environment. In P. Bell, R. Stevens & T. Satwicz (Eds.), Keeping
learning complex: The proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the Learning Sciences.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Educ Psychol Rev

Dede, C., Ketelhut, D. J., & Nelson, B. (2004). Design-based research on gender, class, race, and ethnicity
in a multi-user virtual environment. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association
Conference, San Diego, CA.
Dewey, J. (1944). Democracy and education (First free press paperback-1966 ed.): Macmillan Company.
Dickey, M. D. (2000). 3D virtual worlds and learning: An analysis of the impact of design affordances and
limitations in active worlds, blaxxun interactive, and onlive! Traveler: and a study of the implementation
of active worlds for formal and informal education. The Ohio State University.
Dickey, M. D. (2003). Teaching in 3D: Pedagogical affordances and constraints of 3D virtual worlds for
synchronous distance learning. Distance Education, 24(1), 105121.
DuVall, R. (2001). Inquiry in science: From curiosity to understanding. Primary Voices K-6, 10, 39.
Fanderclai, T. L. (1995). MUDs in education: New environments, new pedagogies. Computer Mediated
Education Magazine, 2(1), 8.
Falk, J., & Drayton, B. (2004). State testing and inquiry-based science: Are they complementary or
competing reforms? Journal of Educational Change, 5, 345387.
Falsetti, J. (1995). What the heck is a MOO? And whats the story with all those cows? Paper presented at the
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (29th,
Long Beach, CA, March 26-April 1, 1995).
Foley, B. & Kobaissi, A. (2006). Using virtual chat to study in informal learning in online environments.
Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Galas, C. (2006). Why Whyville? Learning and Leading with Technology, 34(6), 3033.
Gibson, H., & Chase, C. (2002). Longitudinal impact of an inquiry-based science program on middle school
students attitudes toward science. Science Education, 86, 693705.
Jorgnenson, O., & Vanosdall, R. (2002). The death of science? What we risk in the rush toward standardized
tesing and the three R's. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(8), 601606.
Ketelhut, D. J. (2006). Do students with higher self-efficacy exhibit greater and more diverse scientific
inquiry skills: An exploratory investigation in River City, a multi-user virtual environment.
Unpublished dissertation, Harvard University.
Ketelhut, D. J., Clarke, J., Dede, C., Nelson, B., & Bowman, C. (2005). Inquiry teaching for depth and
coverage via multi-user virtual environments. Paper presented at the National Association for Research
in Science Teaching, Dallas.
Leonard, W. H., & Chandler, P. M. (2003). Where is the inquiry in biology textbooks? The American Biology
Teacher, 65(7), 485487.
Leonard, W. H., Speziale, B. J., & Penick, J. E. (2001). Performance Assessment of a Standards-Based High
School Biology Curriculum. American Biology Teacher, 63(5), 310316.
Lim, C. P., Nonis, D., & Hedberg, J. (2006). Gaming in a 3D multiuser virtual environment: Engaging
students in Science lessons. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2), 211231.
Marshall, J., & Dorward, J. (2000). Inquiry experiences as a lecture supplement for preservice elementary
teachers and general education students. American Journal of Physics, 68, S27S36.
National Research Council (1996). National science education standards: Observe, interact, change, learn.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for
teaching and learning. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
National Research Council (NRC) (2005). Americas Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science.
Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision. In M. L. H. Susan, R. Singer & H. A.
Schweingruber (Ed.), Board on science education, center for education, division of behavioral and social
sciences and education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Science Teachers Association (2004). NSTA position statement: scientific inquiry. Draft. Retrieved
August 9, 2004, from http://www.nsta.org/main/forum/showthread.php? t=1175.
Nelson, B. (2005). Investigating the impact of individualized, reflective guidance on student learning in an
educational multi-user virtual environment. Unpublished dissertation, Harvard University.
Nelson, B., & Ketelhut, D. J. (2006, October). Desiging for real-world inquiry in virtual environments. Paper
presented at AECT 2006, Dallas, TX.
Nelson, B., Ketelhut, D. J., Clarke, J., Bowman, C., & Dede, C. (2005). Design-based research strategies for
developing a scientific inquiry curriculum in a multi-user virtual environment. Educational Technology,
45(1), 2134.
Neulight, N., Kafai, Y. B., Kao, L., Foley, B., & Galas, C. (2007). Childrens participation in a virtual
epidemic in the science classroom: Making connections to natural infectious diseases. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 16(1), 4758.
Panel Urges Shift of Focus for School Science Courses (1995, December 7). New York Times.

Educ Psychol Rev

Phelps, A., & Lee, C. (2003). The power of practice: What students learn from how we teach. Journal of
Chemical Education, 80(7), 829832.
Roehrig, G., & Luft, J. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning secondary science teachers in
implementing scientific inquiry lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 324.
Roth, K. (1989). Science education: Its not enough to do or relate. The American Educator, 13(4), 1622,
4648.
Simons, K., & Clark, D. (2004). Supporting inquiry in science classrooms with the web. Computers in the
Schools, 21(3/4), 2336.
Socially-Responsive Design Group (2004). Creating a socially-responsive play space for learning:
Something for girls and boys. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Subrahmanyam, K., & Greenfield, P. M. (1998). Computer games for girls: What makes them play? In J.
Cassell & H. Jenkins (Eds.), From Barbie to Mortal Kombat: Gender and computer games (pp. 4671).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
The National Academies (2005). U.S. High school science lab experiences often poor, but research points
way to improvements. Available: http://www4.nationalacademies.org/ news.nsf/isbn/0309096715?
OpenDocument [2005, August].
Trumball, D., Bonney, R., & Grudens-Schuck, N. (2005). Developing materials to promote inquiry: Lessons
learned. Science Education, 89(6), 879900.
Tuzan, H. (2004). Motivating learners in educational computer games. Bloomington: Indiana University.
Urban Teacher Collaborative (2000). The urban teacher challenge: Teacher demand and supply in the great
city schools. Available: http://www.cgcs.org/pdfs/utc.pdf [2005, August].
Wallace, J., & Louden, W. (2002). Introduction to laboratories. In J. Wallace & W. Louden (Eds.),
Dilemmas of science teaching (pp. 3637). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of inquiry: How preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and
practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 481512.
Wright, J., & Wright, C. (1998). A commentary on the profound changes envisioned by the national science
standards. Teachers College Record, 100(1), 122143.