Comparing the effects of representational tools in collaborative and individual inquiry learning

International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 223-251

  Kolloffel, Bas ^a   Eysink, Tessa H S ^a   de Jong, Ton ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

External representations; Inquiry learning; Mathematics; Representational tools; Simulations

Indexed keywords

EID: 79958294194     PISSN: 15561607     EISSN: 15561615     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11412-011-9110-3     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. Ainsworth, S., & Loizou, A. T. (2003). The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or diagrams. Cognitive Science, 27(4), 669-681.
2. Anjewierden, A., Kolloffel, B., & Hulshof, C. (2007). Towards educational data mining: Using data mining methods for automated chat analysis to understand and support inquiry learning processes. In C. Romero, M. Pechenizikiy, T. Calders, & S. R. Viola (Eds.), Applying data mining in e-learning (pp. 23-32). Proceedings of the International Workshop on Appling Data Mining in e-Learning (ADML'07). Crete, Greece, September 2007.
3. Atkinson, R. K., Catrambone, R., & Merrill, M. M. (2003). Aiding transfer in statistics: Examining the use of conceptually oriented equations and elaboration's during subgoal learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 762-773.
4. Bell, T., Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., & Ploetzner, R. (2010). Collaborative inquiry learning: Models, tools, and challenges. International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 349-377.
5. Berthold, K., & Renkl, A. (2009). Instructional aids to support a conceptual understanding of multiple representations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 70-87.
6. Cavalli-Sforza, V., Weiner, A. W., & Lesgold, A. M. (1994). Software support for students engaging in scientific activity and scientific controversy. Science & Education, 78(6), 577-599.
7. Cheng, P. C. H. (1999). Unlocking conceptual learning in mathematics and science with effective representational systems. Computers & Education, 33, 109-130.
8. Clarebout, G., & Elen, J. (2006). Tool use in computer-based learning environments: Towards a research framework. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 389-411.
9. Clarebout, G., & Elen, J. (2009a). Benefits of inserting support devices in electronic learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(4), 804-810. doi: 10. 1016/j. chb. 2008. 07. 006.
10. Clarebout, G., & Elen, J. (2009b). The complexity of tool use in computer-based learning environments. Instructional Science, 37, 475-486. doi: 10. 1007/s11251-008-9068-3.
11. Clarebout, G., Horz, H., & Elen, J. (2009). The use of support devices in electronic learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(4), 793-794. doi: 10. 1016/j. chb. 2008. 07. 004.
12. Cox, R. (1999). Representation construction, externalised cognition and individual differences. Learning and Instruction, 9, 343-363.
13. de Jong, T. (2005). The guided discovery principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 215-229). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. de Jong, T. (2006). Technological advances in inquiry learning. Science, 312, 532-533.
15. de Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M. (1996). Types and qualities of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 31, 105-113.
16. de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68, 179-202.
17. de Jong, T., van Joolingen, W. R., Swaak, J., Veermans, K., Limbach, R., King, S., et al. (1998). Self-directed learning in simulation-based discovery environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 14, 235-246.
18. Ertl, B., Kopp, B., & Mandl, H. (2008). Supporting learning using external representations. Computers & Education, 51, 1599-1608.
19. Eysink, T. H. S., de Jong, T., Berthold, K., Kolloffel, B., Opfermann, M., & Wouters, P. (2009). Learner performance in multimedia learning arrangements: An analysis across instructional approaches. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 1107-1149.
20. Foos, P. W. (1995). The effect of variations in text summary opportunities on test-performance. Journal of Experimental Education, 63(2), 89-95.
21. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Prentice, K., Hamlett, C. L., Finelli, R., & Courey, S. J. (2004). Enhancing mathematical problem solving among third-grade students with schema-based instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 635-647.
22. Garfield, J., & Ahlgren, A. (1988). Difficulties in learning basic concepts in probability and statistics: Implications for research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19(1), 44-63.
23. Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., Opfermann, M., Hesse, F. W., & Eysink, T. H. S. (2009). Learning with hypermedia: The influence of representational formats and different levels of learner control on performance and learning behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 360-370.
24. Gijlers, H., & de Jong, T. (submitted). Facilitating collaborative inquiry learning with shared concept maps and proposition tables.
25. Gijlers, H., & de Jong, T. (2009). Sharing and confronting propositions in collaborative inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 27, 239-268.
26. Greenes, C. (1995). Mathematics learning and knowing: A cognitive process. Journal of Education, 177, 85-106.
27. Hidi, S., & Anderson, V. (1986). Producing written summaries: Task demands, cognitive operations, and implications for instruction. Review of Educational Research, 56, 473-493.
28. Hiebert, J., & Lefevre, P. (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: An introductory analysis. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 1-27). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
29. Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Visualization of agreement and discussion processes during computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1105-1125.
30. Jiang, L., Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2009). The relationships between learner variables, tool-usage behaviour and performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 501-509. doi: 10. 1016/j. chb. 2008. 11. 006.
31. Kaput, J. J. (1995). Creating cybernetic and psychological ramps from the concrete to the abstract: Examples from multiplicative structures. In D. N. Perkins, J. L. Schwartz, M. M. West, & M. Stone Wiske (Eds.), Software goes to school: Teaching for understanding with new technologies (pp. 130-154). New York: Oxford University Press.
32. Kerr, D. S., & Murthy, U. S. (2004). Divergent and convergent idea generation in teams: A comparison of computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13(4), 381-399.
33. Kolloffel, B., Eysink, T. H. S., de Jong, T., & Wilhelm, P. (2009). The effects of representational format on learning combinatorics from an interactive computer-simulation. Instructional Science, 37, 503-517.
34. Kolloffel, B., Eysink, T. H. S., & de Jong, T. (2010). The influence of learner-generated domain representations on learning combinatorics and probability theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(1), 1-11.
35. Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65-99.
36. Löhner, S., van Joolingen, W. R., & Savelsbergh, E. R. (2003). The effect of external representation on constructing computer models of complex phenomena. Instructional Science, 31(6), 395-418.
37. 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(3), 441-461.
38. Lou, Y. P., Abrami, P. C., & d'Apollonia, S. (2001). Small group and individual learning with technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 449-521.
39. Lund, K., Molinari, G., Séjourné, A., & Baker, M. (2007). How do argumentation diagrams compare when student pairs use them as a means for debate or as a tool for representing debate? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2), 273-295.
40. Manlove, S., Lazonder, A. W., & de Jong, T. (2006). Regulative support for collaborative scientific inquiry learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(2), 87-98.
41. Mayer, R. E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory into Practice, 41, 226-232.
42. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. The American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19.
43. Nathan, M. J., Kintsch, W., & Young, E. (1992). A theory of algebra-word-problem comprehension and its implications for the design of learning environments. Cognition and Instruction, 9, 329-389.
44. Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76, 413-448.
45. Niemi, D. (1996). Assessing conceptual understanding in mathematics: Representations, problem solutions, justifications, and explanations. Journal of Educational Research, 89(6), 351-363.
46. Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept maps and vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools to facilitate meaningful learning. Instructional Science, 19(1), 29-52.
47. Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Science & Education, 86(4), 548-571.
48. Ohlsson, S., & Rees, E. (1991). The function of conceptual understanding in the learning of arithmetic procedures. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 103-179.
49. Park, S. I., Lee, G., & Kim, M. (2009). Do students benefit equally from interactive computer simulations regardless of prior knowledge levels? Computers & Education, 52(3), 649-655.
50. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., 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.
51. Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273-304.
52. 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.
53. Rieber, L. P., Tzeng, S. C., & Tribble, K. (2004). Discovery learning, representation, and explanation within a computer-based simulation: Finding the right mix. Learning and Instruction, 14, 307-323.
54. Rittle-Johnson, B., & Koedinger, K. R. (2005). Designing knowledge scaffolds to support mathematical problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 23(3), 313-349.
55. Rittle-Johnson, B., Siegler, R. S., & Alibali, M. W. (2001). Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: An iterative process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 346-362.
56. Saab, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2007). Supporting communication in a collaborative discovery learning environment: The effect of instruction. Instructional Science, 35(1), 73-98.
57. Sharma, P., & Hannafin, M. J. (2007). Scaffolding in technology-enhanced learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 15(1), 27-46.
58. Sins, P. H. M., Savelsbergh, E. R., van Joolingen, W. R., & van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2009). The relation between students' epistemological understanding of computer models and their cognitive processing on a modelling task. International Journal of Science Education, 31(9), 1205-1229.
59. Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
60. Strømsø, H. I., Grøttum, P., & Lycke, K. H. (2007). Content and processes in problem-based learning: A comparison of computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 271-282.
61. Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for cscl. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 315-337.
62. Suthers, D. D. (2008). Empirical studies of the value of conceptually explicit notations in collaborative learning. In S. Okada, S. Buckingham Shum, & T. Sherborne (Eds.), Knowledge cartography (pp. 1-23). Cambridge: MIT Press.
63. Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 183-218.
64. Suthers, D. D., Hundhausen, C. D., & Girardeau, L. E. (2003). Comparing the roles of representations in face-to-face and online computer supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 41(4), 335-351.
65. 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. doi: 10. 1016/j. compedu. 2006. 10. 007.
66. Swaak, J., & de Jong, T. (1996). Measuring intuitive knowledge in science: The development of the what-if test. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 22, 341-362.
67. Swaak, J., & de Jong, T. (2001). Discovery simulations and the assessment of intuitive knowledge. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(3), 284-294.
68. Sweller, J. (1989). Cognitive technology: Some procedures for facilitating learning and problem solving in mathematics and science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 457-466.
69. Tarr, J. E., & Lannin, J. K. (2005). How can teachers build notions of conditional probability and independence? In G. A. Jones (Ed.), Exploring probability in school: Challenges for teaching and learning (pp. 215-238). New York: Springer.
70. Toth, E. E., Suthers, D. D., & Lesgold, A. M. (2002). "Mapping to know": The effects of representational guidance and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry. Science & Education, 86(2), 264-286.
71. Trundle, K. C., & Bell, R. L. (2010). The use of a computer simulation to promote conceptual change: A quasi-experimental study. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1078-1088.
72. van Boxtel, C., van der Linden, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Collaborative learning tasks and the elaboration of conceptual knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 11, 311-330.
73. van der Linden, J., Erkens, G., Schmidt, H., & Renshaw, P. (2000). Collaborative learning. In R. J. Simons, J. van der Linden, & T. Duffy (Eds.), New learning (pp. 37-54). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
74. van der Meijden, H., & Veenman, S. (2005). Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication in a primary school setting. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(5), 831-859. doi: 10. 1016/j. chb. 2003. 10. 005.
75. van Drie, J., van Boxtel, C., Jaspers, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2005). Effects of representational guidance on domain specific reasoning in cscl. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(4), 575-602.
76. 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.
77. van Meter, P., & Garner, J. (2005). The promise and practice of learner-generated drawing: Literature review and synthesis. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 285-325.
78. van Meter, P., Aleksic, M., Schwartz, A., & Garner, J. (2006). Learner-generated drawing as a strategy for learning from content area text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 142-166.
79. Wilensky, U. (1995). Paradox, programming, and learning probability: A case study in a connected mathematics framework. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 14, 253-280.
80. Wouters, P., Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. How to optimize learning from animated expert models? In Annual meeting of the AERA, Chicago, IL, USA, April 2007.
81. Zhang, J. J. (1997). The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive Science, 21(2), 179-217.
82. Zhang, J. W., Chen, Q., Sun, Y. Q., & Reid, D. J. (2004). Triple scheme of learning support design for scientific discovery learning based on computer simulation: Experimental research. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(4), 269-282.