Inquiry learning : Multilevel support with respect to inquiry, explanations and regulation during an inquiry cycle;Inquiry-learning: Mehrstufige unterstützung hinsichtlich inquiry, erklärungen und Regulation während eines inquiry-zyklus

Zeitschrift fur Padagogische Psychologie

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 117-127

  Wichmann, Astrid ^a   Leutner, Detlev ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DUISBURG ESSEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Explanations; Inquiry learning; Regulation; Simulation based learning

Indexed keywords

EID: 67651095918     PISSN: 10100652     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1024/1010-0652.23.2.117     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Atkinson, R. K., Renkl, A., & Merrill, M. M. (2003). Transitioning from studying examples to solving problems: Combining fading with prompting fosters learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 774-785.
2. Bell, B. (1985). Students' ideas about plant nutrition: What are they? Journal of Biological Education, 19, 213-218.
3. Bielaczyc, K., Pirolli, P., & Brown, A. L. (1995). Training in selfexplanation and self-regulation strategies: Investigating the effects of knowledge acquisition activities on problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 221-252.
4. Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
5. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145-182.
6. Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.
7. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175-218.
8. Coleman, E. B. (1998). Using explanatory knowledge during collaborative problem solving in science. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 387-427.
9. Conati, C., & VanLehn, K. (2000). Toward computer-based support of meta-cognitive skills: A computational framework to coach self-explanation. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 389-415.
10. de Jong, T., & Joolingen, W. van (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68, 179-201.
11. Fischer, H. E., Klemm, K., Leutner, D., Sumfleth, E., Thiemann, R., & Wirth, J. (2005). Framework for empirical research on science teaching and learning. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16, 309-349.
12. Flavell, J. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.
13. Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Catrambone, R. (2006). Can learning from molar and modular worked examples be enhanced by providing instructional explanations and prompting self-explanations? Learning and Instruction, 16, 104-121.
14. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42, 99-107.
15. Hoppe, H. U., & Gaßner, K. (2002). Integrating collaborative concept mapping tools with group memory and retrieval functions. In G. Stahl (Ed.), International conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL Community (pp. 716-725). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. Joolingen, W. R. van (2004). A tool for the support of qualitative inquiry modeling. In C. K. L. Kinshuk, E. Sutinen, D. Sampson, I. Aedo, L. Uden, & E. Kähkönen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th IEEE conference on advanced learning technologies (pp. 96-100). Washington: IEEE Computer Society
17. Joolingen, W. R. van, & de Jong T. (1991). Supporting hypothesis generation by learners exploring an interactive computer simulation. Instructional Science, 20, 389-404.
18. Keselman, A. (2003). Supporting inquiry learning by promoting normative understanding of multivariable causality. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 40, 898-921.
19. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75-86.
20. Künsting, J., Thillmann, H., Wirth, J., Fischer, H., & Leutner, D. (2008). Computerbasierte Diagnose von Strategien des Experimentierens im naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht [Computer-based assessment of experimentation strategies in sciences learning]. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 55, 1-15.
21. Leutner, D. (1993). Guided discovery learning with computerbased simulation games: Effects of adaptive and nonadaptive instructional support. Learning and Instruction, 3, 113-132.
22. Leutner, D. (2004). Instructional-design principles for adaptivity in open learning environments. In N. M. Seel & S. Dijkstra (Eds.), Curriculum, plans and processes of instructional design: International perspectives (pp. 289-307). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
23. Leutner, D., & Leopold, C. (2006). Selbstregulation beim Lernen aus Sachtexten [Self-regulation while learning from expository text]. In H. Mandl & H. F. Friedrich (Eds.), Handbuch Lernstrategien [Handbook of learning strategies] (pp. 162-171). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
24. Lin, X., & Lehman, J. D. (1999). Supporting learning of variable control in a computer-based biology environment: Effects of promoting college students to reflect on their own thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 837-858.
25. Linn, M. C., & Slotta, J. D. (2000). WISE science. Educational Leadership, 58, 29-32.
26. Löhner, S., Joolingen, W. R. van, Savelsbergh, E. R., & Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. van (2005). Students' reasoning during modeling in an inquiry learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 441-461.
27. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59, 14-19.
28. McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J, Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 153-191.
29. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington: National Academy Press.
30. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 337-387.
31. Rips, L. (1998). Reasoning. In W. Bechtel & G. Graham (Eds.), A companion to cognitive science (pp. 299-305). Malden: Blackwell.
32. Ruberg, L. F., & Baro, J. A. (1999). BioBLAST: A multimedia learning environment to support student inquiry in the biological sciences. In W. C. Bozeman (Ed.), Educational technology: Best practices from America's schools (2nd ed., pp. 62-71). Larchmont: Eye on Education.
33. Safayeni, F., Derbentseva, N., & Canas A. J. (2005). Concept maps: A theoretical note on concepts and the need for cyclic concept maps. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 741-766.
34. Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students' scientific explanations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 5-51.
35. Savelsbergh, E. R., de Jong, T., & Fergusen-Hessler, M. G. M. (1997). The importance of enhanced problem representation: On the role of elaborations in physics problem-solving (Report No. IST-MEMO-97-04). Enschede: Twente University.
36. Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113-125.
37. The TIMSS International Study Center. (1995). Third international mathematics and science study. Boston: Boston College.
38. Veenman, M. V. J., & Verheij, J. (2003). Technical students' metacognitive skills: Relating general vs. specific metacognitive skills to study success. Learning and Individual Differences, 13, 259-272.
39. Veenman, M. V. J., Elshout, J. J., & Busato, V. V. (1994). Metacognitive mediation in learning with computer-based simulations. Computers in Human Behavior, 10, 93-106.
40. White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (2000). Metacognitive facilitation: An approach to making scientific inquiry accessible to all. In J. Minstrell & E. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 331-370). Washington: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
41. Wichmann, A., & Harrer, A. (2007, August). Adaptation of explanation-based inquiry scripts using IMSLD. Paper presented at the 12th biannual conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Budapest, Hungary.
42. Wichmann, A., Kraemer, T., & Jonassen, D. (2005, August). Exploring the benefits of using metacognitive strategies within scientific inquiry. Paper presented at the 11th biannual conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Nikosia, Cyprus.
43. Wirth, J., & Leutner, D. (2006). Selbstregulation beim Lernen in interaktiven Lernumgebungen [Self-regulation while learning in interactive learning environments]. In H. Mandl & H. F. Friedrich (Hrsg.), Handbuch Lernstrategien [Handbook of learning strategies] (pp. 172-184). Göttingen: Hogrefe.