Using scenarios to design complex technology-enhanced learning environments

Educational Technology Research and Development

Volumn 60, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 883-901

  de Jong, Ton ^a   Weinberger, Armin ^h   Girault, Isabelle ^d   Kluge, Anders ^e   Lazonder, Ard W ^a   Pedaste, Margus ^g   Ludvigsen, Sten ^e   Ney, Muriel ^d   Wasson, Barbara ^b   Wichmann, Astrid ⁱ   Geraedts, Caspar ^f   Giemza, Adam ^j   Hovardas, Tasos ^c   Julien, Rachel ^d   van Joolingen, Wouter R ^a   Lejeune, Anne ^d   Manoli, Constantinos C ^c   Matteman, Yuri ^f   Sarapuu, Tago ^g   Verkade, Alex ^f   Vold, Vibeke ^b   Zacharia, Zacharias C ^c   more..

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN   (Norway)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CYPRUS   (Cyprus)

^d UNIV GRENOBLE ALPES   (France)

^e UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^f De Praktijk   (Netherlands)

^g UNIVERSITY OF TARTU   (Estonia)

^h SAARLAND UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

ⁱ RUHR UNIVERSITY BOCHUM   (Germany)

^j UNIVERSITY OF DUISBURG ESSEN   (Germany)

more..

Author keywords

Collaborative learning; Inquiry learning; Instructional design; Learning by design; Open learning environments

Indexed keywords

EID: 84866761968     PISSN: 10421629     EISSN: 15566501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11423-012-9258-1     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 1-18. doi: 10. 1037/a0021017.
2. Anderson, L. W., & Kraftwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
3. Azevedo, R., Guthrie, J. T., & Seibert, D. (2004). The role of self-regulated learning in fostering students' conceptual understanding of complex systems with hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30, 87-111. doi: 10. 1037/0022-0663. 96. 3. 523.
4. de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (2007). Model-facilitated learning. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 457-468). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5. de Jong, T., van Joolingen, W. R., Giemza, A., Girault, I., Hoppe, U., Kindermann, J., van der Zanden, M. (2010). Learning by creating and exchanging objects: The SCY experience. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, 909-921. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1467-8535. 2010. 01121. x.
6. Deslauriers, L., & Wieman, C. E. (2011). Learning and retention of quantum concepts with different teaching methods. Physical Review Special Topics, 7, 010101. doi: 10. 1103/PhysRevSTPER. 7. 010101.
7. Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1990). The systematic design of instruction (3rd ed.). New York: Harper Collins College.
8. Etkina, E., Karelina, A., Ruibal-Villasenor, M., Rosengrant, D., Jordan, R., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2010). Design and reflection help students develop scientific abilities: Learning in introductory physics laboratories. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 54-98.
9. Eysink, T. H. S., de Jong, T., Berthold, K., Kollöffel, B., Opfermann, M., & Wouters, P. (2009). Learner performance in multimedia learning arrangements: An analysis across instructional approaches. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 1107-1149. doi: 10. 3102/0002831209340235.
10. Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M., & de Jong, T. (1990). Studying physics text; differences in study processes between good and poor performers. Cognition and Instruction, 7, 41-54.
11. Gagné, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1988). Principles of instructional design (3rd ed.). Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
12. Gijlers, H., & de Jong, T. (2009). Sharing and confronting propositions in collaborative inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 27, 239-268. doi: 10. 1080/07370000903014352.
13. Gustafson, K. (2002). Instructional design tools: A critique and projections for the future. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50, 59-66. doi: 10. 1007/bf02504985.
14. Hickey, D. T., Kindfield, A. C. H., Horwitz, P., & Christie, M. A. (2003). Integrating curriculum, instruction, assessment, and evaluation in a technology-supported genetics environment. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 495-538.
15. Horwitz, P., Gobert, J. D., Buckley, B. C., & O'Dwyer, L. M. (2010). Learning genetics from dragons: From computer-based manipulatives to hypermodels. In M. Jacobson & P. Reimann (Eds.), Designs for learning environments of the future: International perspectives from the learning sciences (pp. 61-89). Berlin: Springer.
16. Jonassen, D. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45, 65-94. doi: 10. 1007/bf02299613.
17. Kluge, A., Furberg, A., Dolonen, J., Ludvigsen, S., Zacharia, Z., Xenofontos, N., et al. (2011). SCY second formative evaluation report. Deliverable DIX. 3. Enschede: The SCY project. Retrieved June 8, 2012 from http://www. scy-net. eu/static/deliverables/SCY%20DIX. 3. pdf.
18. Kluge, A., Furberg, A., Dolonen, J., Ludvigsen, S., Strømme, T., Zacharia, Z. C., et al. (2012). SCY summative evaluation report. Oslo: Intermedia. Retrieved June 8, 2012 from http://www. scy-net. eu/static/deliverables/SCY%20DIX. 4%20final. pdf.
19. Kolloffel, B., de Jong, T., & Eysink, T. H. S. (2011). Comparing the effects of representational tools in collaborative and individual inquiry learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6, 223-251.
20. Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., Ryan, N. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design (tm) into practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 495-547. doi: 10. 1207/S15327809JLS1204_2.
21. Kyza, E. A., Constantinou, C. P., & Spanoudis, G. (2011). Sixth graders' co-construction of explanations of a disturbance in an ecosystem: Exploring relationships between grouping, reflective scaffolding, and evidence based explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 2489-2525. doi: 10(1080/09500693), 2010, 550951.
22. Lajoie, S. P., Lavigne, N. C., Guerrera, C., & Munsie, S. D. (2001). Constructing knowledge in the context of Bioworld. Instructional Science, 29, 155-186.
23. Linn, M. C., Lee, H.-S., Tinker, R., Husic, F., & Chiu, J. L. (2006). Teaching and assessing knowledge integration in science. Science, 313, 1049-1050.
24. Lou, Y. P. (2004). Understanding process and affective factors in small group versus individual learning with technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31, 337-369.
25. 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, 449-521. doi: 10. 3102/00346543071003449.
26. Mäeots, M., Pedaste, M., & Sarapuu, T. (2008, July 1-5). Transforming students' inquiry skills with computer-based simulations. Paper presented at the 8th IEEE International Confernce on Advanced Learning Technologies, Santander, Spain.
27. Marusić, M., & Slisko, J. (2012). Influence of three different methods of teaching physics on the gain in students' development of reasoning. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 301-326. doi: 10(1080/09500693), 2011, 582522.
28. Mayer, R. E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory into Practice, 41, 226-232. doi: 10. 1207/s15430421tip4104_4.
29. Mehalik, M. M., Doppelt, Y., & Schuun, C. D. (2008). Middle-school science through design-based learning versus scripted inquiry: Better overall science concept learning and equity gap reduction. Journal of Engineering Education, 97, 71-85.
30. Merrill, M. D. (2002a). Instructional strategies and learning styles: Which takes precedence? In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional technology (pp. 99-106). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
31. Merrill, M. D. (2002b). A pebble-in-the-pond model for instructional design. Performance Improvement, 41, 41-46. doi: 10. 1002/pfi. 4140410709.
32. tm: A second generation instructional development system. Instructional Science, 26, 243-262.
33. Murray, T. (1999). Authoring intelligent tutoring systems: Analysis of the state of the art. International Journal of AI in Education, 10, 98-129.
34. Plass, J. L., Milne, C., Homer, B. D., Schwartz, R. N., Hayward, E. O., Jordan, T., & Barrientos, J. (2012). Investigating the effectiveness of computer simulations for chemistry learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 394-419. doi: 10. 1002/tea. 21008.
35. Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5, 65-86. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1937-8327. 1992. tb00546. x.
36. Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers and Education, 58, 136-153. doi: 10. 1016/j. compedu. 2011. 07. 017.
37. Scalise, K., Timms, M., Moorjani, A., Clark, L., Holtermann, K., & Irvin, P. S. (2011). Student learning in science simulations: Design features that promote learning gains. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 1050-1078. doi: 10. 1002/tea. 20437.
38. Shen, J., & Linn, M. C. (2010). A technology-enhanced unit of modeling static electricity: Integrating scientific explanations and everyday observations. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 1597-1623. doi: 10. 1080/09500693. 2010. 514012.
39. Sims, R. (2006). Beyond instructional design: Making learning design a reality. Journal of Learning Design, 1, 1-7.
40. Slotta, J. (2004). The web-based inquiry science environment (WISE): Scaffolding knowledge integration in the science classroom. In M. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 203-233). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
41. Smetana, L. K., & Bell, R. L. (in press). Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education. doi: 10. 1080/09500693. 2011. 605182.
42. Spector, J. M., & Davidsen, P. I. (2000). Designing technology-enhanced learning environments. In B. Abbey (Ed.), Instructional and cognitive impacts of web-based education (pp. 241-261). Hershey: Idea Group Publishing.
43. Suthers, D. D., Weiner, A., Connelly, J., & Paolucci, M. (1995). Belvedere: Engaging students in critical discussion of science and public policy issues. Paper presented at the AI&Ed 95, the 7th World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Washington, DC.
44. Tannenbaum, R. S. (2001). Learner interactivity and production complexity in computer-based instructional materials. Retrieved June 8, 2012 from http://ubiquity. acm. org/article. cfm?id=367871.
45. Tsivitanidou, O. E., Zacharia, Z. C., & Hovardas, T. (2011). Investigating secondary school students' unmediated peer assessment skills. Learning and Instruction, 21, 506-519. doi: 10. 1016/j. learninstruc. 2010. 08. 002.
46. 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 Academic.
47. van Joolingen, W. R., de Jong, T., Lazonder, A. W., Savelsbergh, E., & Manlove, S. (2005). Co-lab: Research and development of an on-line learning environment for collaborative scientific discovery learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 671-688. doi: 10. 1016/j. chb. 2004. 10. 039.
48. van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Clark, R. E., & de Croock, M. B. M. (2002). Blueprints for complex learning: The 4c/ID-model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50, 39-61. doi: 10. 1007/bf02504993.
49. Visscher-Voerman, I., & Gustafson, K. (2004). Paradigms in the theory and practice of education and training design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52, 69-89. doi: 10. 1007/bf02504840.
50. Vold, V., Wasson, B., & de Jong, T. (2012). Assessing emerging learning objects: Eportfolios and peer assessment. In K. Littleton, E. Scanlon, & M. Sharples (Eds.), Orchestrating inquiry learning: Contemporary perspectives on supporting scientific inquiry learning (pp. 175-192). London: Routledge.
51. Weinbrenner, S., Engler, J., & Hoppe, H. U. (2011). Ontology-supported scaffolding of concept maps. Paper presented at the 15th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Auckland, New Zealand.
52. White, B. Y., Frederiksen, J., Frederiksen, T., Eslinger, E., Loper, S., & Collins, A. (2002, October 23-26). Inquiry island: Affordances of a multi-agent environment for scientific inquiry and reflective learning. Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS), Seattle, WA.
53. Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a firefly: Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories-an embodied modeling approach. Cognition and Instruction, 24, 171-209. doi: 10. 1207/s1532690xci2402_1.