Comparing two types of model progression in an inquiry learning environment with modelling facilities

Learning and Instruction

Volumn 21, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 614-624

  Mulder, Yvonne G ^a   Lazonder, Ard W ^a   de Jong, Ton ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Inquiry learning; Model progression; Model based learning

Indexed keywords

EID: 79960035414     PISSN: 09594752     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.01.003     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Alessi, S. (1995). Dynamic versus static fidelity in a procedural simulation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
2. Carroll J.M., Carrithers C. Blocking learners error states in a training-wheels system. Human Factors 1984, 26:377-389.
3. Dean D., Kuhn D. Direct instruction vs. discovery: the long view. Science Education 2007, 91:384-397. 10.1002/sce.20194.
4. de Jong T. The guided discovery principle in multimedia learning. Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning 2005, 215-229. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 10.2277/0521838738. R.E. Mayer (Ed.).
5. de Jong T., Martin E., Zamarro J.M., Esquembre F., Swaak J., van Joolingen W.R. The integration of computer simulation and learning support: an example from the physics domain of collisions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1999, 36:597-615. 5<597::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-6. 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199905)36.
6. de Jong T., van Joolingen W.R. Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research 1998, 68:179-201. Retrieved from. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1170753.
7. Gagné R.M. The conditions of learning 1977, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York. 3rd ed.
8. Hogan K., Thomas D. Cognitive comparisons of students' systems modeling in ecology. Journal of Science Education and Technology 2001, 10:319-345. 10.1023/A:1012243102249.
9. Kafai Y.B., Resnick M. Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world 1996, Erlbaum, Mawhaw, NJ.
10. Klahr D., Dunbar K. Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science 1988, 12:1-48. 10.1207/s15516709cog1201_1.
11. Klahr D., Nigam M. The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science 2004, 15:661-667. 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00737.x.
12. Krajcik J., Blumenfeld P.C., Marx R.W., Bass K.M., Fredericks J., Soloway E. Instructional, curricular, and technological supports for inquiry in science classrooms. Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science 2000, AAAS, Washington, DC. J. Minstrell, E.H. van Zee (Eds.).
13. Lazonder A.W., van der Meij H. Error-information in tutorial documentation: supporting users' errors to facilitate initial skill learning. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 1995, 42:185-206. 10.1006/ijhc.1995.1009.
14. Lazonder A.W., Wilhelm P., van Lieburg E. Unraveling the influence of domain knowledge during simulation-based inquiry learning. Instructional Science 2009, 37:437-451. 10.1007/s11251-008-9055-8.
15. Lazonder A.W., Hagemans M.G., de Jong T. Offering and discovering domain information in simulation-based inquiry learning. Learning and Instruction 2010, 20:511-520. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.001.
16. Löhner S., van Joolingen W.R., Savelsbergh E.R. The effect of external representation on constructing computer models of complex phenomena. Instructional Science 2003, 31:395-418. 10.1023/A:1025746813683.
17. Manlove S., Lazonder A.W., de Jong T. Regulative support for collaborative scientific inquiry learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 2006, 22:87-98. 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00162.x.
18. Mayer R.E. Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning?. American Psychologist 2004, 59:14-19. 10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14.
19. Mulder Y.G., Lazonder A.W., de Jong T. Finding out how they find it out: an empirical analysis of inquiry learners' need for support. International Journal of Science Education 2010, 32:2033-2053. 10.1080/09500690903289993.
20. Ogborn J. Cognitive development and qualitative modelling. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 1998, 14:292-307. 10.1046/j.1365-2729.1998.144069.x.
21. Quinn J., Alessi S. The effects of simulation complexity and hypothesis-generation strategy on learning. Journal of Research on Computing in Education 1994, 27:75-91.
22. Reigeluth C., Stein F.S. The elaboration theory of instruction. Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status 1983, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. C. Reigeluth (Ed.).
23. Rieber L.P., Parmley M.W. To teach or not to teach? comparing the use of computer-based simulations in deductive versus inductive approaches to learning with adults in science. Journal of Educational Computing Research 1995, 13:359-374. 10.2190/M8VX-68BC-1TU2-B6DV.
24. Sins P.H.M., Savelsbergh E.R., van Joolingen W.R. The difficult process of scientific modeling: an analysis of novices' reasoning during computer-based modeling. International Journal of Science Education 2005, 14:1695-1721. 10.1080/09500690500206408.
25. Slof B., Erkens G., Kirschner P.A., Jaspers J.G.M. Design and effects of representational scripting on group performance. Educational Technology Research and Development 2010, 58:589-608. 10.1007/s11423-010-9148-3.
26. Spannagel C., Girwids R., Löthe H., Zendler A., Schroeder U. Animated demonstrations and training wheels interfaces in a complex learning environment. Interacting with Computers 2008, 20:97-111. 10.1016/j.intcom.2007.08.002.
27. Stratford S.J., Krajcik J., Soloway E. Secondary students' dynamic modeling processes: analyzing, reasoning about, synthesizing, and testing models of stream ecosystems. Journal of Science Education and Technology 1998, 7:215. 10.1023/A:1021840407112.
28. Swaak J., van Joolingen W.R., de Jong T. Supporting simulation-based learning: the effects of model progression and assignments on definitional and intuitive knowledge. Learning and Instruction 1998, 8:235-252. 10.1016/s0959-4752(98)00018-8.
29. van Borkulo, S. P. (2009). The assessment of learning outcomes of computer modelling in secondary science education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Twente, Enschede.
30. van Joolingen W.R., de Jong T., Lazonder A.W., Savelsbergh E.R., Manlove S. Co-Lab: research and development of an online learning environment for collaborative scientific discovery learning. Computers in Human Behavior 2005, 21:671-688. 10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.039.
31. Veenman M.V.J., Elshout J.J. Differential effects of instructional support on learning in simulation environments. Instructional Science 1995, 22:363-383. 10.1007/BF00891961.
32. White B.Y., Frederiksen J.R. Causal model progressions as a foundation for intelligent learning environments. Artificial Intelligence 1990, 42:99-157. 10.1016/0004-3702(90)90095-h.
33. White B.Y., Shimoda T.A., Frederiksen J.R. Enabling students to construct theories of collaborative inquiry and reflective learning: computer support for metacognitive development. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 1999, 10:151-182.
34. Zacharia, Z. C., & Olympiou, G. (2011). Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learning and Instruction, 21, 317-331, doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.03.001.