Developments in inquiry learning

Technology-Enhanced Learning: Principles and Products

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 21-37

  Van Joolingen, Wouter R ^a   Zacharia, Zacharias C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CYPRUS   (Cyprus)

Author keywords

Inquiry learning; Learning objects; Learning processes; Ontology

Indexed keywords

EID: 84892259690     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-9827-7_2     Document Type: Chapter

References (51)

1. Abd-El-Khalick, E, Bou Jaoude, S., Duschl, R. A., Hofstein, A., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok, R., et al. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88, 397-419.
2. Anderson. R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 1-12.
3. Anjewierden, A., Kolloffel, B., & Hulshof, C. (2007, September). Towards educational data mining: Using data mining methods for automated chat analysis to understand and support inquiry learning processes. Paper presented at the EC-TEL 2007 - Second European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, Crete, Greece.
4. Bell, P., & Linn, M. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797-817.
5. Cazden, C. B., & Beck, S. W. (2003). Classroom discourse. In S. R. Goldman (Ed.), Handbook of discourse processes (pp. 165-197). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6. D'Souza, D. F., & Wills, A. C. (1999). Objects, components and frameworks with uml, the catalysis approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
7. Friedler, Y., Nachmias, R., & Linn, M. C. (1990). Learning scientific reasoning skills in microcomputer-based laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 173-191.
8. Grosslight, L., Unger, C., Jay, E., & Smith, C. L. (1991). Understanding models and their use in science: Conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 799-822.
9. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 1011-1026.
10. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Mindtools for schools. New York: Macmillan.
11. Jonassen, D., & Strobel, J. (2006). Modeling for meaningful learning. In D. Hung & M. S. Khine (Eds.), Engaged learning with emerging technologies (pp. 1-27). Berlin: Springer.
12. De Jong, T. (2006). Scaffolds for computer simulation based scientific discovery learning. In J. Elen & R. E. Clark (Eds.), Dealing with complexity in learning environments (pp. 107-128). London: Elsevier Science Publishers.
13. De Jong, T., & Pieters, J. M. (2006). The design of powerful learning environments. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd edn., pp. 739-755). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14. De Jong, T., & Van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68, 179-202.
15. Van Joolingen, W. R., & De Jong, T. (1991). Supporting hypothesis generation by learners exploring an interactive computer simulation. Instructional Science, 20, 389-404.
16. 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, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
17. Van Joolingen, W. R., Bollen, L., Hoppe, U., & De Jong, T. (2007). Ciel, architectures for collaborative inquiry and experiential learning. In J. M. Spector, D. G. Sampson, T. Okamoto, Kinshuk, S. A. Cerri, M. Ueno et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the ICALT (pp. 308-312). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.
18. Van Joolingen, W. R., De Jong, T., Lazonder, A. W., Savelsbergh, E. R., & Manlove, S. (2005). Colab: Research and development of an online learning environment for collaborative scientific discovery learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 671-688.
19. Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1-48.
20. Koedinger, K. R., Suthers, D., & Forbus, K. D. (1999). Component-based construction of a science learning space. International Journal of AI and Education, 10, 292-313.
21. Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Middle school students' initial attempts at inquiry in project-based science classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 313-350.
22. Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A., & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 495-523.
23. Kyza, E., Michael, G., & Constantinou, C. (2007). The rationale, design, and implementation of a web-based inquiry learning environment. In C. Constantinou, Z. C. Zacharia & M. Papaevripidou (Eds.), Contemporary Perspectives on New Technologies in Science and Education, Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Computer Based Learning in Science (pp. 531-539). Crete, Greece: E-media.
24. Lajoie, S. P., Guerrera, C., Munsie, S. D., & Lavigne, N. C. (2001). Constructing knowledge in the context of BioWorld. Instructional Science, 29, 155-186.
25. Maor, D., & Fraser, B. J. (1996). Use of classroom environment perceptions in evaluating inquiry-based computer-assisted learning. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 401-421.
26. Mistler-Jackson, M., & Songer, N. B. (2000). Student motivation and Internet technology: Are students empowered to learn science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 459-479.
27. Murray, T., Woolf, B., & Marshall, D. (2004). Lessons learned from authoring for inquiry learning: A tale of authoring tool evolution. In J. C. Lester, R. M. Vicari & F. Paraguaçu (Eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference ITS 2004 (pp. 197-206). Berlin: Springer.
28. Nesbit, J. C., & Winne, P. H. (2003). Self-regulated inquiry with networked resources. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 29, 14-34.
29. Olson, S., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
30. Papaevripidou, M., Constantinou, C. P., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2007). Modeling complex marine ecosystems: An investigation of two teaching approaches with fifth graders. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 23, 145-157.
31. Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B., Steinmuller, F., & Leone, T. 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.
32. Rumbaugh, J., Blaha, M., Premerlani, W., Eddy, F., & Lorensen, W. (1991). Object-oriented modeling and design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
33. Salomon, G., Perkins, D., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2-9.
34. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345-372.
35. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1, 37-68.
36. Settlage, J. (1995). Children's conceptions of light in the context of a technology-based curriculum. Science Education, 79, 535-553.
37. Slotta, J. D. (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, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
38. Slotta, J. D., & Aleahmad, T. (2009). The scalable architecture for interactive learning (SAIL). International Journal of Science Education (in press).
39. Songer, N. B. (1998). Can technology bring students closer to science? In K. Tobin & B. Fraser (Eds.), The international handbook of science education (pp. 333-348). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
40. Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 305-335.
41. 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, 264-286.
42. Veermans, K. H., Van Joolingen, W. R., & De Jong, T. (2006). Use of heuristics to facilitate scientific discovery learning in a simulation learning environment in a physics domain. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 341-361.
43. De Vries, E., Lund, K., & Baker, M. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 63-103.
44. Wecker, C., Kohnle, C., & Fischer, F. (2007). Computer literacy and inquiry learning: When geeks learn less. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 133-144.
45. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry. Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
46. White, B. Y. (1993). Thinkertools: Causal models, conceptual change, and science education. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 1-100.
47. White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. (1998). Inquiry, modelling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 3-118.
48. Winne, P. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning viewed from models of information processing. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd edn., pp. 153-189). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
49. Zacharia, Z. (2005). Beliefs, attitudes, and intentions of science teachers regarding the educational use of computer simulations and inquiry-based experiments in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 792-823.
50. Zacharia, Z. (2007). Comparing and combining real and virtual experimentation: An effort to enhance students' conceptual understanding of electric circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 120-132.
51. Zuzovsky, R., & Tamir, R (1999). Growth patterns in students' ability to supply scientific explanations: Findings from the third international mathematics and science study in Israel. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 1101-1121.