An adaptive scaffolding e-learning system for middle school students' physics learning

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 342-355

  Chen, Ching Huei ^a  

^a NATIONAL CHANGHUA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84905970517     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14495554     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.14742/ajet.430     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Akbulut, Y., Cardak, C. S. (2012). Adaptive educational hypermedia accommodating learning styles: A content analysis of publications from 2000 to 2011. Computers & Education, 58(2), 835-842. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.008
2. Amadieu, F., Tricot, A., Marine, C. (2009). Prior knowledge in learning from a non-linear electronic document: Disorientation and coherence of the reading sequences. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 381-388.
3. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms goals structures and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.
4. Astleitner, H. (2000). Designing emotionally sound instruction: The FEASP-approach. Instructional Science, 28(3), 169-198.
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.
6. Azevedo, R., Moos, D. C., Greene, J. A., Winters, F. I., Cromley, J. G. (2008). Why is externally-facilitated regulated learning more effective than self-regulated learning with hypermedia? Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 45-72.
7. Beed, P., Hawkins, M., Roller, C. (1991). Moving learners toward independence: The power of scaffolded instruction. The Reading Teacher, 44(9), 648-655.
8. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals. New York: McKay
9. Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. D., Frust, E. J., Hill, W. H., Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: Longmans, Green.
10. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
11. Brophy, J. (1999). Toward a model of value aspects of motivation in education: Developing appreciation for particular learning domains and activities. Educational Psychologist, 34(2), 75-85.
12. Brusilovsky, P. (2001). Adaptive hypermedia. User Modeling and User-Adapted Instruction, 11(1-2), 87-110.
13. Bulu, S., Pedersen, S. (2010). Scaffolding middle school students' content knowledge and ill-structured problem solving in a problem-based hypermedia learning environment. Educational Technology Research & Development, 58(5), 507-529. doi: 10.1007/s11423-010-9150-9
14. Chang, W.-L, Sun, Y-C. (2009). Scaffolding and web concordancers as support for language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(4), 283-302.
15. Chen, C.-H. (2010). Promoting college students' knowledge acquisition and ill-structured problem solving: Web-based integration and procedure prompts. Computers & Education, 55(1), 292-303.
16. Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 91-142.
17. De Laat, M., Lally, V., Lipponen, L., Simons, R. (2007). Online teaching in networked learning communities: A multi-method approach to studying the role of the teacher. Instructional Science, 35, 257-286.
18. Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.
19. Demetriadis, S., N., Papadopoulos, P. M., Stamelos, I. G., Fischer, S. (2008). The effect of scaffolding students' context-generating cognitive activity in technology-enhanced case-based learning. Computers & Education, 51, 939-954.
20. Diziol, D., Walker, E., Rummel, N., Koedinger, K. R. (2010). Using intelligent tutor technology to implement adaptive support for student collaboration. Educational Psychology Review, 22(1), 89-102. doi: 10.1007/s10648-009-9116-9
21. Doering, A., Veletsianos, G. (2007). Multi-scaffolding learning environment: An analysis of scaffolding and its impact on cognitive load and problem-solving ability. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(2), 107-129.
22. Ge, X., Chen, C.-H., Davis, K. A. (2005). Scaffolding novice instructional designers' problem-solving processes using question prompts in a web-based learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33(2), 219-248.
23. Ge, X., Land, S. M. (2003). Scaffolding students' problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educatioanl Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 21-38.
24. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., VanLehn, K. (2005). Scaffolding deep comprehension strategies through point&query, autotutor, and iSTART. Educational Psychologist, 40, 225-234.
25. Granello, D. H. (2001). Promoting cognitive complexity in graduate written work: Using Bloom's taxonomy as a pedagogical tool to improve literature reviews. Counselor Education and Supervision, 40(4), 292-307.
26. Greene, B. A., Land, S. M. (2000). A qualitative analysis of scaffolding use in a resource-based learning environment involving the World Wide Web. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(2), 151-179.
27. Grolnick, W. S., Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children's learning: An experimental and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 890-898.
28. Hsiao, I. H., Sosnovsky, S., Brusilovsky, P. (2010). Guiding students to the right questions: Adaptive navigation support in an e-learning system for Java programming. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(4), 270-283. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00365.x
29. Keefe, J. W. (1991). Learning style: Cognitive and thinking skills. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
30. Keller, J.M. (2010). Motivational design for learning and performance. New York, NY: Springer.
31. Kelly, D. (2008). Adaptive versus learner control in a multiple intelligence learning environment. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17(3), 307-336.
32. Kenny, C., Pahl, C. (2009). Intelligent and adaptive tutoring for active learning and training environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 17(2), 181-195. doi: 10.1080/10494820802090277
33. Kim, C. (2012). The role of affective and motivational factors in designing personalized learning environments. Educational Technology Research & Development, 60, 563-584.
34. Lajoie, S. P., Azevedo, R. (2006). Teaching and learning in technology-rich environments. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 803-821). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
35. Land, S., Zembal-Saul, C. (2003). Scaffolding reflection and articulation of scientific explanations in a data-rich, project-based learning environment: An investigation of progress portfolio. Educational Technology Research & Development, 51(4), 65-84.
36. Lo, J.-J., Chan, Y.-C., Yeh, S.-W. (2012). Designing an adaptive web-based learning system based on students' cognitive styles identified online. Computers & Education, 58(1), 209-222. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.018
37. MacGregor, S. K., Lou, Y. (2004). Web-based learning: How task scaffolding and web site design support knowledge acquisition. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(2), 161-175.
38. Magoulas, G. D. , Papanikolaou, K., Grigoriadou, M. (2003). Adaptive web-based learning: Accommodating individual differences through system's adapation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 511-527.
39. Mampadi, F., Chen, S. Y., Ghinea, G., Chen, M.-P. (2011). Design of adaptive hypermedia learning systems: A cognitive style approach. Computers & Education, 56(4), 1003-1011. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.11.018
40. Papanikolaou, K. A., Grigoriadou, M., Kornilakis, H., Magoula, G. D. (2003). Personalising the inter-action in a web-based educational hypermedia system: The case of INSPIRE. User-Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 13(3), 213-267.
41. Park, S., Lee, G., Kim, M. (2009). Do students benefit equally from interactive computer simulations regardless of prior knowledge levels? Computers & Education, 52, 649-655.
42. Peredo, R., Canales, A., Menchaca, A., Peredo, I. (2011). Intelligent web-based education system for adaptive learning. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(12), 14690-14702. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.05.013
43. Pintrich, P., Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
44. Puntambekar, S., Hubscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40, 1-12.
45. Quintana, C., Meilan, Z., Krajcik, J. (2005). A framework for supporting metacognitive aspects of online inquiry through software-based scaffolding. Educational Psychologist, 40, 235-244.
46. Rasmussen, K.L., Davidson-Shivers, G.V. (1998). Hypermedia and learning styles: Can performance be influenced? Journal of Multimedia and Hypermedia, 7(4), 291-308.
47. Reigeluth, C. M. (1996). A new paradigm of ISD? Educational Technology & Society, 36(3), 13-20.
48. Rey, G. D. (2010). Instructional advice, time advice and learning questions in computer simulations. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(5), 675-689.
49. Rosenshine, B., Meister, C. (1992). The use of scaffolds for teaching higher-level cognitive strategies. Educational Leadership, 49(7), 26-33.
50. Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
51. Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3-33). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
52. Shapiro, A. M. (1999). The relationship between prior knowledge and interactice overviews during hypermedia-aided learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 20, 143-167.
53. Shute, V., Towle, B. (2003). Adaptive e-learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(2), 105-114.
54. Sins, P. H. M., Savelsbergh, E. R., Van Joolingen, W. R. (2005). The difficult process of scientific modelling: An analysis of novices' reasoning during computer-based modelling. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1695-1721.
55. Sins, P. H.M., Van Joolingen, W. R., Savelsbergh, E. R., Van Hout-Wolters, B. (2008). Motivation and performance within a collaborative computer-based modeling task: Relations between students' achievement goal orientation, self-efficacy, cognitive processing, and achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 58-77.
56. Specht, M., Oppermann, R. (1998). ACE: Adaptive CourseWare Environment. New Review of HyperMedia & MultiMedia, 4, 141-161.
57. Tseng, J. C. R., Chu, H.-C., Hwang, G.-J., Tsai, C.-C. (2008). Development of an adaptive learning system with two sources of personalization information. Computers & Education, 51(2), 776-786.
58. Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Briere, N. M., Senecal, C., Vallieres, E.F. (1992). The academic motivation scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 1003-1017.
59. Den Boom, VG. , Paas, F., Van Merrienboer, J. J.G., Van Gog, T. (2004). Reflection prompts and tutor feedback in a web-based learning environment: Effects on students' self-regulated learning competence. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 551-567.
60. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
61. Weiner, B. (1990). History of motivational research in education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 616-622.
62. Whipp, J. L., Chiarelli, S. (2004). Self-regulation in a web-based course: A case study. Educational Technology Research & Development, 52(4), 5-22.
63. Wood, P., Bruner, J., Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Development and Psychiatry., 17(89-100).
64. Zhu, E. (2006). Interaction and cognitive engagement: An analysis of four asynchronous online discussions. Instructional Science, 34, 451-480.