Collaborative inquiry learning: Models, tools, and challenges

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 32, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 349-377

  Bell, Thorsten ^a   Urhahne, Detlef ^b   Schanze, Sascha ^c   Ploetzner, Rolf ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KIEL   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^c LEIBNIZ UNIVERSITY HANNOVER   (Germany)

^d UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION FREIBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Collaboration; Collaborative inquiry learning; Computer assistance; Computer based learning environments; Inquiry learning; Learning environment; Science education

Indexed keywords

EID: 77649164971     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500690802582241     Document Type: Article

References (105)

1. Avouris, N., Margaritis, M., Komis, V., Saez, A., & Meléndez, R. (2003, July). ModellingSpace: Interaction design and architecture of a collaborative modelling environment. Paper presented at the 6th international conference on Computer Based Learning in Sciences (CBLIS), Nicosia, Cyprus.
2. Barrows, H. S. (1985). How to design a problem-based curriculum for the preclinical years. New York: Springer.
3. Blake, C., & Scanlon, E. (2007). Reconsidering simulations in science education at a distance: Features of effective use. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(6), 491-502.
4. Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palinscar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3-4), 369-398.
5. Bosler, U., Bell, T., & van Gastel, L. (2004). Co-Lab: Supporting teacher development of inquiry learning. In D. Zandvliet (Ed.), NARST Conference 2004, Conference Proceedings [CD-ROM]. Vancouver: National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
6. Buckley, B. C., Gobert, J. D., Kindfield, A. C. H., Horwitz, P., Tinker, R. F., Gerlits, B., et al. (2004). Model-based teaching and learning with BioLogica™: What do they learn? How do they learn? How do we know? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(1), 23-41.
7. Cañas, A. J., Coffey, J. W., Carnot, M. J., Feltovich, P., Hoffman, R. R., Feltovich, J., et al. (2003). A summary of literature pertaining to the use of concept mapping techniques and technologies for education and performance support (Report for The Chief of Naval Education and Training, Pensacola FL 32500). Pensacola, FL: Institute for Human and Machine Cognition.
8. Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. (2001). Knowledge and skills for life: First results from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD.
9. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1993). Anchored instruction and situated cognition revisited. Educational Technology, 33(3), 52-70.
10. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). The Jasper project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11. Cohen, A. (1995, April 18-22). Mediated collaborative learning-How CSILE supports a shift from knowledge in the head to knowledge in the world. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
12. Crook, C. (1991). Computers in the zone of proximal development: Implications for evaluation. Computers & Education, 17, 81-91.
13. Cuevas, P., Lee, O., Hart, J., & Deaktor, R. (2005). Improving science inquiry with elementary students of diverse backgrounds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 337-357.
14. de Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., Entwistle, N., & van Merriënboer, J. (Eds.). (2003). Powerful learning environments. Unravelling basic components and dimensions. Oxford: Elsevier.
15. de Jong, T. (2005). The guided discovery principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 215-228). New York: Cambridge University Press.
16. de Jong, T., & Njoo, M. (1992). Learning and instruction with computer simulations: Learning processes involved. In E. de Corte, M. Linn, H. Mandl, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Computer-based learning environments and problem solving (pp. 411-427). Berlin: Springer.
17. de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179-201.
18. Dewey, J. (1910). Science as subject matter and as method. Science, 31, 121-127.
19. Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
20. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1-19). Oxford: Elsevier.
21. Dix, A., Finlay, J., Abowd G., & Beale, R. (2004). Human-computer interaction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
22. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. (1998). Learning in science: From behaviourisms towards social constructivism and beyond. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 3-25). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
23. Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355-385.
24. Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3-4), 391-450.
25. Evenson, D. H., & Hmelo, C. (Eds.). (2000). Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26. Friedler, Y., Nachmias, R., & Linn, M. C. (1990). Learning scientific reasoning skills in microcomputer-based laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(2), 173-191.
27. Gijlers, H., & de Jong, T. (2005). The relation between prior knowledge and students' collaborative discovery learning processes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 264-282.
28. Gilbert, J., & Boulter, C. (1998). Learning science through models and modelling. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 52-66). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
29. Gobert, J. D. (2000). Introduction to model-based teaching and learning in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 891-894.
30. Gobert, J. D., & Buckley, B., & Clarke, J. E. (2004, April). Modeling Across the Curriculum (MAC): Technology, pedagogy, assessment, and research. Paper presented at the Conference of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
31. Gobert, J. D., & Tinker, R. F. (2004). Introduction to the issue. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(1), 1-5.
32. Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15-46). New York: Macmillan.
33. Harms, U., Mayer, R. E., Hammann, M., Bayrhuber, H., & Kattmann, U. (2004). Kerncurriculum und Standards für den Biologieunterricht in der gymnasialen Oberstufe [Core curriculum and standards for biology at the gymnasium secondary level II]. In H. -E. Tenorth (Ed.), Kerncurriculum Oberstufe II. Biologie, Chemie, Physik, Geschichte, Politik (pp. 22-84). Weinheim: Beltz.
34. Henning, P. H. (2004). Everyday cognition and situated learning. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, 2nd ed. (pp. 143-168). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35. Hmelo, C., & Day, R. (1999). Contextualized questioning to scaffold learning from simulations. Computers & Education, 32, 151-164.
36. Jorde, D., Strømme, A., Sorborg, Ø., Erlien, W., & Mork, S. M. (2003, October). Virtual environments in science-Viten.no. Report no. 17 of the network for IT research and competence in education (ITU). Retrieved August 28, 2008, from http://www.itu.no/Dokumenter/Rapporter/1066214309.29/view.
37. Justi, R. S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2002). Modelling, teachers' views on the nature of modelling, and implications for the education of modellers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 369-387.
38. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Slotta, J. D. (2005). Internal and external collaborative scripts in webbased science learning at schools. In T. Koschmann, D. Suthers, & T. W. Chan (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning 2005: The next 10 years! (pp. 331-340). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Slotta, J. D. (2007). Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 708-721.
40. Koschmann, T. (Ed.). (1996). CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
41. Koschmann, T., Hall, R., & Miyake, N. (Eds.). (2001). CSCL 2 carrying forward the conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
42. Lehtinen, E. (2003). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An approach to powerful learning environments. In E. de Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, & J. van Merrienboer (Eds.), Powerful learning environments: Unravelling basic components and dimensions (pp. 35-53). Oxford: Elsevier Science.
43. Li, S. C., Law, N., & Lui, K. F. A. (2006). Cognitive perturbation through dynamic modelling: A pedagogical approach to conceptual change in science. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(6), 405-422.
44. Lingnau, A., Kuhn, M., Harrer, A., Hofmann, D., Fendrich, M., & Hoppe, H. U. (2003). Enriching traditional classroom scenarios by seamless integration of interactive media. In V. Devedzic, J. Spector, D. Sampson, & Kinshuk (Eds.), Advanced learning technologies: Technology enhanced learning (pp. 135-139). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.
45. Linn, M. C. (2000). Designing the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 781-796.
46. Loh, B., Radinsky, J., Russell, E., Gomez, L. M., Reiser, B. J., & Edelson, D. C. (1998). The progress portfolio: Designing reflective tools for a classroom context. In C. Karat et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of CHI 98 conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 627-634). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
47. Löhner, S., van Joolingen, W. R., Savelsbergh, E. R., & van Hout-Wolters, B. (2005). Students' reasoning during modeling in an inquiry learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 441-461.
48. Manlove, S., Lazonder, A. W., & de Jong, T. (2007). Software scaffolds to promote regulation during scientific inquiry learning. Metacognition and Learning, 2, 141-155.
49. Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 715-726.
50. McElhaney, K. W., & Linn, M. C. (2008). Impacts of students' experimentation using a dynamic visualization on their understanding of motion. International Perspectives in the Learning Sciences: Creating a Learning World. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of the Learning Sciences. International Society of the Learning Sciences Inc., Utrecht, The Netherlands.
51. McGinn, M., & Roth, W. -M. (1999). Preparing students for competent scientific practice: Implications of recent research in science and technology studies. Educational Researcher, 28(3), 14-24.
52. Metcalf, S. J., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2000). Model-It: A design retrospective. In M. J. Jacobson & R. B. Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education (pp. 77-115). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
53. Miller, R., Ogborn, J., Briggs, J., Brough, D., Bliss, J., Boohan, R., et al. (1993). Educational tools for computational modelling. Computers & Education, 21(3), 205-261.
54. Mokros, J. R., & Tinker, R. F. (1987). The impact of microcomputer based labs on children's ability to interpret graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(4), 369-383.
55. Mork, S. M. (2005). Argumentation in science lessons: Focusing on the teacher's role. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 1(1), 17-30.
56. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
57. Niedderer, H., Schecker, H., & Bethge, T. (1991). The role of computer-aided modelling in learning physics. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7(2), 84-95.
58. Njoo, M., & de Jong, T. (1993). Exploratory learning with a computer simulation for control theory: Learning processes and instructional support. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(8), 821-844.
59. Novak, J. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 937-949.
60. Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2008). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct them (Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 01-2006, Revised 01-2008, Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition). Retrieved August 28, 2008 from http://cmap.ihmc.us/ Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf.
61. Papadimitriou, I. Fiotakis, G., Stoica, A., Komis, V., & Avouris, N. (2006). Bridging the gap between physical and abstract worlds: Capturing observed phenomena in abstract models through ModellingSpace. Proc. ICALT 2006, Kerkrade, The Netherlands, 301-305.
62. Piaget, J. (1926). The child's conception of the world. Paris: Alcan.
63. Pilkington, R. M. (2004). Developing discussion for learning (Guest Editorial). Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, Special Issue, 161-164.
64. Pilkington, R. M., & Walker, S. A. (2003). Facilitating debate in networked learning: Reflecting on online synchronous discussion in higher education. Instructional Science, 31(1&2), 41-63.
65. Pilkington, R. M., & Parker-Jones, C. (1996). Interacting with computer-based simulation: The role of dialogue. Computers & Education, 27(1), 1-14.
66. Pinkwart, N. (2003). A plug-in architecture for graph based collaborative modeling systems. In U. Hoppe, F. Verdejo, & J. Kay (Eds.), Shaping the future of learning through intelligent technologies. Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 535-536). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
67. Pinkwart, N. (2005). Collaborative modeling in graph based environments. Berlin: dissertation.de.
68. Quintana, C., Eng, J., Carra, A., Wu, H., & Soloway, E. (1999). Symphony: A case study in extending learner-centered design through process-space analysis. Proceedings of CHI 99 conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 473-480). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
69. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J. S., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337-386.
70. Rahikainen, M., Lallimo, J., & Hakkarainen, K. (2001). Progressive inquiry in CSILE environment: Teacher guidance and students' engagement. In P. Dillenbourg et al. (Eds.), European perspectives on computer-supported collaborative learning. Proceedings of the first European conference on CSCL (pp. 520-528). Maastricht: Maastricht McLuhan Institute.
71. Reid, D. J., Zhang, J., & Chen, Q. (2003). Supporting scientific discovery learning in a simulation environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(1), 9-20.
72. Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B. K., Steinmuller, F., & Leone, A. J. (2001). BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty five years of progress (pp. 263-305). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
73. Renkl, A., Mandl, H., & Gruber, H. (1996). Inert knowledge: Analyses and remedies. Educational Psychologist, 31(2), 115-121.
74. Rubens, W., Emans, B., Leinonen, T., Gomez-Skarmeta, A., & Simons, R. -J. (2005). Design of web-based collaborative learning environments. Translating the pedagogical learning principles to human computer interface. Computers & Education, 45, 276-294.
75. Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students' scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 5-51.
76. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic support for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345-372.
77. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67-98). Chicago, IL: Open Court.
78. ®. In Ann Kovalchick & Kara Dawson, Education and technology: An encyclopedia (pp. 183-192). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
79. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1, 37-68.
80. Schecker, H., Fischer, H. E., & Wiesner, H. (2004). Physikunterricht in der gymnasialen Oberstufe [Physics education at the Gymnasium secondary level II]. In H.-E. Tenorth (Ed.), Kerncurriculum Oberstufe II. Biologie, Chemie, Physik, Geschichte, Politik (pp. 148-234). Weinheim: Beltz.
81. Schwarz, C. V., & White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students' understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165-205.
82. Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Ed.). (2005). Bildungsstandards im Fach Physik für den Mittleren Schulabschluss [Physics education standards for middle school graduation]. Neuwied: Luchterhand.
83. Singer, J., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., & Chambers, J. C. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 165-178.
84. Sins, P. H. M. (2006). Students' reasoning during computer-based scientific modeling. Dissertation at the Graduate School of Teaching and Learning, University of Amsterdam.
85. Slotta, J. D. (2004). The web-based inquiry science environment (WISE): Scaffolding knowledge integration in the science classroom. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 203-231).
86. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Slotta, J. D., Jorde, D., & Holmes, J. (2007). Learning from our peers in international exchanges: When is worth doing, and how can we help it succeed? (Manuscript submitted for review).
87. Smith, B. K., & Reiser, B. J. (1998). National Geographic unplugged: Classroom-centered design of interactive nature films. In C. Karat, A. Lund, J. Coutaz, & J. Karat (Eds.), Proceedings of CHI 98 conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 424-431). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
88. Strijbos, J. W., Kirschner, P. A., & Martens, R. L. (Eds.). (2004). What we know about CSCL: And implementing it in higher education. Boston, MA: Kluwer.
89. Suthers, D. D., Vatrapu, R., Medina, R., Joseph, S., & Dwyer, N. (2008). Beyond threaded discussion: Representational guidance in asynchronous collaborative learning environments. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1103-1127.
90. Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B. K., Steinmuller, F., & Reiser, B. J. (1999, April). Reflection as a vehicle toward local and global understanding. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.
91. Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., Bell, T., Mansfield, A., & Holmes, J. (in press). Computer-assisted collaborative inquiry learning in the classroom: The role of the teacher and design implications. International Journal of Science Education.
92. van Joolingen, W. R., & de Jong, T. (1991). Supporting hypothesis generation by learners exploring an interactive computer simulation. Instructional Science, 20, 389-404.
93. van Joolingen, W. R., & de Jong, T. (1993). Exploring a domain through a computer simulation: Traversing variable and relation space with the help of a hypothesis scratchpad. In D. Towne, T. de Jong, & H. Spada (Eds.), Simulation-based experiential learning (pp. 191-206). (NATO ASI series). Berlin: Springer.
94. van Joolingen, W. R., & de Jong, T. (1996). Design and implementation of simulation-based discovery environments: The SMISLE solution. Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Education, 7, 253-277.
95. van Joolingen, W. R., & de Jong, T. (2003). SimQuest: Authoring educational simulations. In T. Murray, S. Blessing, & S. Ainsworth (Eds.), Authoring tools for advanced technology educational software: Toward cost-effective production of adaptive, interactive, and intelligent educational software (pp. 1-31). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
96. van Joolingen, W. R., de Jong, T., Lazonder, A. W., Savelsbergh, E. R., & Manlove, S. (2005). Co-Lab: Research and development of an online learning environment for collaborative scientific discovery learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(4), 671-688.
97. Veermans, M., & Cesareni, D. (2005). The nature of the discourse in web-based collaborative learning environments: Case studies from four different countries. Computers & Education, 45, 316-336.
98. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
99. Webb, M. E. (1994). Beginning computer-based modelling in primary schools. Computers & Education, 22(1-2), 129-144.
100. Wheeler, G. (2000). The three faces of inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. H. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 14-19). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
101. White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3-118.
102. Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education. New York: Macmillan.
103. Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo: Center for connected learning and computer-based modeling. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
104. Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems approach to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 3-19.
105. 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), 481-512.