The effects of a concept map-based support tool on simulation-based inquiry learning

Journal of Educational Psychology

Volumn 105, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 1-24

  Hagemans, Mieke G ^a   van der Meij, Hans ^a   de Jong, Ton ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Computer simulation; Concept maps; Inquiry learning; Regulation; Sequencing

Indexed keywords

EID: 84880979343     PISSN: 00220663     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0029433     Document Type: Article

References (92)

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. Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
3. Azevedo, R. (2009). Theoretical, conceptual, methodological, and instructional issues in research on metacognition and self-regulated learning: A discussion. Metacognition and Learning, 4, 87-95. doi:10.1007/s11409-009-9035-7
4. Azevedo, R., & Bernard, R. M. (1995). A meta-analysis of the effects of feedback in computer-based instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13, 111-127. doi:10.2190/9LMD-3U28-3A0G-FTQT
5. Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., & Seibert, D. (2004). Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students' ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 344-370. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2003.09.002
6. Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2002). Adaptive guidance: Enhancing self-regulation, knowledge, and performance in technology-based training. Personnel Psychology, 55, 267-306. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2002.tb00111.x
7. Bonestroo, W. J., & de Jong, T. (2012). Effects of planning on task load, knowledge, and tool preference: A comparison of two tools. Interactive Learning Environments, 20, 141-153. doi:10.1080/10494820.2010.484253
8. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2002). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
9. Chen, S. Y., & Angelides, M. C. (2003). Customisation of Internet multimedia information systems design through user modelling. In N. S. Shi & V. K. Murthy (Eds.), Architectural issues of web-enabled electronic business (pp. 241-255). Hershey, PA: Idea Group. doi:10.4018/978-1-59140-049-3.ch016
10. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0502_2
11. Coffey, J. W. (2005). LEO: A concept map based course visualization tool for instructors and students. In S.-O. Tergan & T. Keller (Eds.), Knowledge and information visualization. Searching for synergies (pp. 285-301). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/11510154_15
12. Coffey, J. W. (2007). A meta-cognitive tool for courseware development, maintenance, and reuse. Computers and Education, 48, 548-566. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.03.008
13. Collins, A. (1996). Design issues for learning environments. In S. Vosniadou, E. de Corte, R. Glaser, & H. Mandl (Eds.), International perspec- tives on the design of technology-supported learning environments (pp. 347-361). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. Dansereau, D. F. (2005). Node-link mapping principles for visualizing knowledge and information. In S.-O. Tergan & T. Keller (Eds.), Knowledge and information visualization. Searching for synergies (pp. 61-81). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/11510154_4
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, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511816819.015
16. de Jong, T. (2006). Scaffolds for scientific discovery learning. In J. Elen & R. E. Clark (Eds.), Handling complexity in learning environments: Theory and research (pp. 107-128). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.
17. de Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M. (1996). Types and qualities of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 31, 105-113. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3102_2
18. de Jong, T., & Njoo, M. (1992). Learning and instruction with computer simulations: Learning processes involved. In E. de Corte, M. C. Linn, H. Mandl, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Computer-based learning environments and problem solving (pp. 411-429). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-77228-3_19
19. de Jong, T., & Van der Hulst, A. (2002). The effects of graphical overviews on knowledge acquisition in hypertext. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 219-231. doi:10.1046/j.0266-4909.2002.00229.x
20. de Jong, T., & Van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68, 179-201. doi:10.3102/00346543068002179
21. Diekhoff, G. M. (1983). Testing through relationship judgements. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 227-233. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.75.2.227
22. 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, 391-450. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0803&4_3
23. Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1996). The expert learner: Strategic, self-regulated, and reflective. Instructional Science, 24, 1-24. doi: 10.1007/BF00156001
24. 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
25. Ford, N., & Chen, S. Y. (2000). Individual differences, hypermedia navigation, and learning: An empirical study. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9, 281-311.
26. Friedler, Y., Nachmias, R., & Linn, M. C. (1990). Learning scientific reasoning skills in microcomputer-based laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 173-192. doi:10.1002/tea.3660270208
27. Gall, J. E., & Hannafin, M. J. (1994). A framework for the study of hypertext. Instructional Science, 22, 207-232. doi:10.1007/BF00892243
28. Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2003). Scaffolding students' problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51, 21-38. doi:10.1007/BF02504515
29. Gijlers, H., & de Jong, T. (2005). The relation between prior knowledge and students' collaborative discovery learning processes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 264-282. doi:10.1002/tea.20056
30. Glynn, S. M., Yeany, R. H., & Britton, B. K. (1991). A constructive view of learning science. In S. M. Glynn, R. H. Yeany, & B. K. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science (pp. 3-19). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
31. Hartley, J., & Davies, I. K. (1976). Preinstructional strategies: The role of pretests, behavioral objectives, overviews and advance organizers. Review of Educational Research, 46, 239-265. doi:10.2307/1170040
32. Hofer, B. K., Yu, S. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (1998). Teaching college students to be self-regulated learners. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice (pp. 57-85). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
33. Hulshof, C. D., Wilhelm, P., Beishuizen, J. J., & Van Rijn, H. (2005). FILE: A tool for the study of inquiry learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 945-956. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.03.014
34. Jonassen, D. H., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M. (1993). Structural knowledge: Techniques for representing, conveying, and acquiring structural knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
35. Klahr, D., Fay, A. L., & Dunbar, K. (1993). Heuristics for scientific experimentation: A developmental study. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 111-146. doi:10.1006/cogp.1993.1003
36. Land, S. M. (2000). Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48, 61-78. doi:10.1007/BF02319858
37. Lawless, K. A., & Brown, S. W. (1997). Multimedia learning environments: Issues of learner control and navigation. Instructional Science, 25, 117-131. doi:10.1023/A:1002919531780
38. Lee, M., & Baylor, A. L. (2006). Designing metacognitive maps for web-based learning. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 9, 344-348.
39. Linn, M. C., Lee, H. S., Tinker, R., Husic, F., & Chiu, J. L. (2006). Inquiry learning: Teaching and assessing knowledge integration in science. Science, 313, 1049-1050. doi:10.1126/science.1131408
40. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
41. Loyens, S. M. M., Magda, J., & Rikers, R. M. J. P. (2008). Self-directed learning in problem-based learning and its relationships with selfregulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 411-427. doi: 10.1007/s10648-008-9082-7
42. Lunts, E. (2002). What does the literature say about the effectiveness of learner control in computer-assisted instruction? Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, 1, 59-75.
43. Manlove, S., & Lazonder, A. (2004, June-July). Self-regulation and collaboration in a discovery learning environment. Paper presented at the first meeting of the EARLI-SIG on Metacognition, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
44. Manlove, S., Lazonder, A. W., & de Jong, T. (2006). Regulative support for collaborative scientific inquiry learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 87-98. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00162.x
45. Manlove, S., Lazonder, A. W., & de Jong, T. (2007). Software scaffolds to promote regulation during scientific inquiry learning. Metacognition and Learning, 2, 141-155. doi:10.1007/s11409-007-9012-y
46. Manlove, S., Lazonder, A. W., & de Jong, T. (2009). Collaborative versus individual use of regulative software scaffolds during scientific inquiry learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 17, 105-117. doi:10.1080/10494820701706437
47. Marušić, M., & Sliško, 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
48. Mayer, R. E. (2003). Learning and instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
49. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning. American Psychologist, 59, 14-19. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14
50. McCormick, R. (1997). Conceptual and procedural knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 141-159. doi: 10.1023/A:1008819912213
51. McDonald, S., & Stevenson, R. J. (1998a). Effects of text structure and prior knowledge of the learner on navigation in hypertext. Human Factors, 40, 18-27. doi:10.1518/001872098779480541
52. McDonald, S., & Stevenson, R. J. (1998b). Navigation in hyperspace: An evaluation of the effects of navigational tools and subject matter expertise on browsing and information retrieval in hypertext. Interacting with Computers, 10, 129-142. doi:10.1016/S0953-5438(98)00017-4
53. Merrill, M. D. (1980). Learner control in computer based learning. Computers & Education, 4, 77-95. doi:10.1016/0360-1315(80)90010-X
54. Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76, 413-448. doi:10.3102/00346543076003413
55. 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, 821-844. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660300803
56. Novak, J. D., & Canas, A. J. (2006). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct them. Pensacola, FL: Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition.
57. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Theory, research, and applications. (pp. 451-502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
58. 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
59. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G.,... Soloway, E. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 337-386. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1303_4
60. Reichert, C. A. (1971, February). The effect of learner and task characteristics on learning in scrambled item sequences in programmed instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
61. Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). The elaboration theory: Guidance for scope and sequence decisions. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 425-453). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
62. Reigeluth, C. M. (2007). Order, first step to mastery: An introduction to sequencing in instructional design. In F. E. Ritter, J. Nerb, E. Lehtinen, & T. M. O'Shea (Eds.), In order to learn: How the sequence of topics influences learning (pp. 19-40). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
63. Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 273-304. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1303_2
64. 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: Erlbaum.
65. Ritter, F. E., & Nerb, J. (2007). Call to order: How sequencing effects in humans and artificial systems illuminate each other. In F. E. Ritter, J. Nerb, E. Lehtinen, & T. M. O'Shea (Eds.), In order to learn: How the sequence of topics influences learning (pp. 3-15). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
66. 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. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.93.2.346
67. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 569-600. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199608)33:6569::AID-TEA13.0.CO;2-M
68. Rutten, N., Van Joolingen, W. R., & Van der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education, 58, 136-153. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.017
69. Scalise, K., Timms, M., Moorjani, A., Clark, L. K., 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
70. Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2007a). Learner control in hypermedia environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 285-307. doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9046-3
71. Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2007b). Making your own order: Order effects in system- and user-controlled settings for learning and problem solving. In F. E. Ritter, J. Nerb, E. Lehtinen, & T. M. O'Shea (Eds.), In order to learn: How the sequence of topics influences learning (pp. 195-212). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
72. Schunk, D. H. (2005). Self-regulated learning: The educational legacy of Paul R. Pintrich. Educational Psychologist, 40, 85-94. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4002_3
73. Schunk, D. H. (2008). Metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning: Research recommendations. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 463-467. doi:10.1007/s10648-008-9086-3
74. 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). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
75. Swaak, J., & de Jong, T. (2007). Order or no order: System versus learner control in sequencing simulation-based scientific discovery learning. In F. E. Ritter, J. Nerb, E. Lehtinen, & T. M. O'Shea (Eds.), In order to learn: How the sequence of topics influences learning (pp. 181-194). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
76. Tan, S. C. (2000). The effects of incorporating concept mapping into computer assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23, 113-131. doi:10.2190/6BT9-G2PP-RA5B-XGKA
77. Tennyson, R. D. (1981). Use of adaptive information for advisement in learning concepts and rules using computer-assisted instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 18, 425-438. doi:10.2307/1162631
78. Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M. C. M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 66-73. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.66
79. Trumpower, D. L., & Goldsmith, T. E. (2004). Structural enhancement of learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 426-446. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.02.001
80. Van der Meij, H., Karreman, J., & Steehouder, M. (2009). Three decades of research and professional practice on printed software tutorials for novices. Technical Communication, 56, 265-292.
81. Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1997). Training complex cognitive skills: A four-component instructional design model for technical training. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
82. Veenman, M. V. J. (2011). Learning to self-monitor and self-regulate. In R. Mayer & P. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 197-218). New York, NY: Routledge.
83. 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. doi:10.1016/0747-5632(94)90031-0
84. Veenman, M. V. J., Elshout, J. J., & Meijer, J. (1997). The generality vs domain-specificity of metacognitive skills in novice learning across domains. Learning and Instruction, 7, 187-209. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(96)00025-4
85. White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 3-118. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1601_2
86. White, B., Frederiksen, J., Frederiksen, T., Eslinger, E., Loper, S., & Collins, A. (2002, October). 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, Seattle, WA.
87. Wichmann, A., & Leutner, D. (2009). Inquiry learning: Multi-level support with respect to inquiry, explanations, and regulation during an inquiry cycle. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 23, 117-127. doi: 10.1024/1010-0652.23.2.117
88. Winn, W. (1991). Learning from maps and diagrams. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 211-247. doi:10.1007/BF01320077
89. Winters, F. I., & Azevedo, R. (2005). High-school students' regulation of learning during computer-based science inquiry. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33, 189-217. doi:10.2190/F7HM-9JN5-JUX8-4BM9
90. Zhang, J., Chen, Q., Sun, Y., & 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, 269-282. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00062.x
91. Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation: An analysis of exemplary instructional models. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice (pp. 1-19). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
92. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41, 64-70. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2