Identifying potential types of guidance for supporting student inquiry when using virtual and remote labs in science: a literature review

Educational Technology Research and Development

Volumn 63, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 257-302

  Zacharia, Zacharias C ^a   Manoli, Constantinos ^a   Xenofontos, Nikoletta ^a   de Jong, Ton ^b   Pedaste, Margus ^c   van Riesen, Siswa A N ^b   Kamp, Ellen T ^b   Mäeots, Mario ^c   Siiman, Leo ^c   Tsourlidaki, Eleftheria ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CYPRUS   (Cyprus)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TARTU   (Estonia)

^d Ellinogermaniki Agogi Scholi Panagea Savva AE   (Greece)

Author keywords

Computer Supported Learning; Direct presentation of information; Guidance; Heuristics; Inquiry; Performance dashboard; Process constraints; Prompts; Scaffolds

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925485338     PISSN: 10421629     EISSN: 15566501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11423-015-9370-0     Document Type: Article

References (120)

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. Arnold, J. C., Kremer, K., & Mayer, J. (2014). Understanding students’ experiments—What kind of support do they need in inquiry tasks? International Journal of Science Education,36, 2719–2749. doi:10.1080/09500693.2014.930209.
3. Azevedo, R. (2002). Beyond intelligent tutoring systems: Using computers as METAcognitive tools to enhance learning? Instructional Science,30, 31–45. doi:10.1023/A:1013592216234.
4. Azevedo, R. (2005). Computer environments as metacognitive tools for enhancing learning. Educational Psychologist,40, 193–197. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4004_1.
5. *Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., & Seibert, D. (2004). Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students’ ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia? ContemporaryEducational Psychology, 29, 344–370. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2003.09.002.
6. *Belland, R. B. (2010). Portraits of middle school students constructing evidence-based arguments during problem-based learning: the impact of computer-based scaffolds. Educational Technology Research andDevelopment, 58, 285–309. doi:10.1007/s11423-009-9139-4.
7. Belland, B. R., & Drake, J. (2013). Toward a framework on how affordances and motives can drive different uses of scaffolds: Theory, evidence, and design implications. Educational Technology Research and Development,61, 903–925. doi:10.1007/s11423-013-9313-6.
8. *Biesinger, K., & Crippen, K. (2010). The effects of feedback protocol on self-regulated learning in a web-based worked example learning environment. Computers & Education, 55, 1470–1482. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.013.
9. Bruce, B. C., & Casey, L. (2012). The practice of inquiry: A pedagogical ‘sweet spot’ for digital literacy? Computers in the Schools,29, 191–206. doi:10.1080/07380569.2012.657994.
10. *Butler, A. K., & Lumpe, A. (2008). Student use of scaffolding software: Relationships with motivation and conceptual understanding. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 427–436. doi:10.1007/s10956-008-9111-9.
11. *Chang K. E., Chen Y. L., Lin H. Y., & Sung Y. T. (2008). Effects of learning support in simulation-based physics learning. Computers & Education, 51, 1486–1498. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.01.007.
12. Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of the control of variables strategy. Child Development,70, 1098–1120. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00081.
13. *Cho, Y., & Jonassen, D. (2012). Learning by self-explaining causal diagrams in high-school biology. Asia Pacific Education Review, 13, 171–184. doi:10.1007/s12564-011-9187-4.
14. *Crippen, J. K., & Earl, L. B. (2007). The impact of web-based worked example and self-explanation on performance, problem solving, and self-efficacy. Computers & Education, 49, 809–821. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.018.
15. d’Angelo, C., Rutstein, D., Harris, C., Bernard, R., Borokhovski, E., & Haertel, G. (2014). Simulations for STEM learning: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
16. Davis, E. A. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education,22, 819–837. doi:10.1080/095006900412293.
17. de Jong, T. (2006a). Computer simulations-technological advances in inquiry learning. Science,312, 532–533. doi:10.1126/science.1127750.
18. de Jong, T. (2006b). Scaffolds for scientific discovery learning. In J. Elen & R. E. Clark (Eds.), Handling complexity in learning environments: Theory and research (pp. 107–128). London: Elsevier.
19. *de Jong, T., Härtel, H., Swaak, J., & van Joolingen, W. (1996). Support for simulation-based learning: The effect of assignments in learning about transmission lines. In A. Diaz de Ilarraza Sanchez & I. Fernandez de Castro (Eds.), Computer aided learning and instruction in science and engineering (pp. 9–26). Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/BFb0022586.
20. de Jong, T., & Lazonder, A. W. (2014). The guided discovery principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 371–390). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21. de Jong, T., Linn, M., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science,340, 305–308. doi:10.1126/science.1230579.
22. *de Jong, T., Martin, E., Zamaro, J. M., Esquembre, F., Swaak, J., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1999). The integration of computer simulation and learning support: An example from the physics domain of collisions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 597–615. doi:10.1002/(SICI)10982736(199905)36:5<597::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-6.
23. de Jong, T., Sotiriou, S., & Gillet, D. (2014). Innovations in STEM education: The Go-Lab federation of online labs. Smart Learning Environments,1, 3. doi:10.1186/s40561-014-0003-6.
24. de Jong, T., van Joolingen, W. R., Scott, D., de Hoog, R., Lapied, L., & Valent, R. (1994). SMISLE: System for multimedia integrated simulation learning environments. In T. de Jong & L. Sarti (Eds.), Design and production of multimedia and simulation based learning material (pp. 133–167). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi:10.1007/978-94-011-0942-0_8.
25. *de Jong, T., van Joolingen, W. R., Swaak, J., Veermans, K., Limbach, R., King, S., & Gureghian, D. (1998). Self-directed learning in simulation-based discovery environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 14, 235–246. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2729.1998.143060.x
26. de Jong, T., Weinberger, A., Girault, I., Kluge, A., Lazonder, W. A., Pedaste, M., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2012). Using scenarios to design complex technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development,60, 883–901. doi:10.1007/s11423-012-9258-1.
27. *Demetriadis, N. S., Papadopoulos, M. P., Stamelos, G. I., & Fischer, F. (2008). The effect of scaffolding students’ context-generating cognitive activity in technology-enhanced case-based learning. Computer & Education, 51, 939–954. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.012.
28. Donnelly, D. F., Linn, M. C., & Ludvigsen, S. (2014). Impacts and characteristics of computer-based science inquiry learning environments for precollege students. Review of Educational Research. Available at http://rer.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/08/14/0034654314546954.full.pdf+html. doi:10.3102/0034654314546954.
29. Dunbar, K. (1993). Concept discovery in a scientific domain. Cognitive Science,17, 397–434. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1703_3.
30. *Dunbar, K. (2000). How scientists think in the real world: Implications for science education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21, 49–58. doi:10.1016/S0193-3973(99)00050-7.
31. *Eckhardt, M., Urhahne, D., Conrad, O., & Harms, U. (2013). How effective is instructional support for learning with computer simulations? Instructional Science, 41, 105–124. doi:10.1007/s11251-012-9220-y.
32. *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:10.1080/10508406.1999.967.
33. *Fretz, E. B, Wu, H. K., Zhang, B., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2002). An investigation of software scaffolds supporting modeling practices. Research in Science Education, 32, 567–589. doi:10.1023/A:1022400817926.
34. 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. doi:10.1002/tea.3660270208.
35. Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching. Review of Educational Research,82, 300–329. doi:10.3102/0034654312457206.
36. Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Schuh, K. (2008). Information comparisons in example-based hypermedia environments: supporting learners with processing prompts and an interactive comparison tool. Educational Technology Research and Development,56, 73–92. doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9068-z.
37. *Gijlers, H., & de Jong, T. (2009). Sharing and confronting propositions in collaborative inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 27, 239–268. doi:10.1080/07370000903014352.
38. Girod, M., Rau, C., & Schepige, A. (2003). Appreciating the beauty of science ideas: Teaching for aesthetic understanding. Science Education,87, 574–587. doi:10.1002/sce.1054.
39. Glaser, R., Schauble, L., Raghavan, K., & Zeitz, C. (1992). Scientific reasoning across different domains. In E. D. Corte, M. Linn, H. Mandl, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Computer-based learning environments and problem solving (pp. 345–373). Berlin: Springer.
40. *Graesser, A., Wiley, J., Goldman, S., O’Reilly, T., Jeon, M., & McDaniel, B. (2007). SEEK web tutor: Fostering a critical stance while exploring the causes of volcanic eruption. Metacognition and Learning, 2, 89–105. doi:10.1007/s11409-007-9013-x.
41. Hadwin, A. F., & Winne, P. H. (2001). CoNoteS2: A software tool for promoting self-regulation. Educational Research and Evaluation,7, 313–334. doi:10.1076/edre.7.2.313.3868.
42. *Hand, B. (2004). Using a science writing heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh-grade science: Quantitative and qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 131–149. doi:10.1080/0950069032000070252.
43. Justice, C., Warry, W., Cuneo, C. L., Inglis, S., Miller, S., Rice, J., & Sammon, S. (2001). A grammar for inquiry: Linking goals and methods in a collaborative taught social sciences inquiry course. In: The Allan Blizzard Award Paper: The Award Winning Papers (Windsor: Special Publication of the Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education and McGraw-Hill Ryerson).
44. *Keys, C. W. (2000). Investigating the thinking processes of eight writers during the composition of a scientific laboratory report. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 676–690. doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200009)37:7<676::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-6.
45. *Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 1065–1084. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199912)36:10<1065::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-I.
46. *Kim, J. H., & Pedersen, S. (2011). Advancing young adolescents’ hypothesis- development performance in a computer-supported and problem-based learning environment. Computers & Education, 57, 1780–1789. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.03.014.
47. Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science,12, 1–48. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1201_1.
48. *Klahr, D., Fay, A., & Dunbar, K. (1993). Heuristics for specific experimentation: A developmental study. Cognitive Psychology,25, 111–146. doi:10.1006/cogp.1993.1003.
49. Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A., & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction,18, 495–523. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI1804_3.
50. Kulkarni, D., & Simon, H. A. (1988). The processes of scientific discovery: The strategy of experimentation. Cognitive Science,12, 139–175. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1202_1.
51. *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 inScience (pp. 531–539). Crete, Greece: E-media.
52. *Lajoie, S. P., Lavigne, N. C., Guerrera, C., & Munsie, S. D. (2001). Constructing knowledge in the context of Bioworld. Instructional Science, 29, 155–186. doi:10.1023/A:1003996000775.
53. Langley, P. (1981). Data-driven discovery of physical laws. Cognitive Science,5, 31–54. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6708.1981.tb00869.x.
54. *Lee H. W., Lim K. Y. & Grabowski, B. (2010). Improving self-regulation, learning strategy use, and achievement with metacognitive feedback. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 629–648. doi:10.1007/s11423-010-9153-6.
55. *Lewis, E. L., Stern, J. L., & Linn, M. C. (1993). The effect of computer simulations on introductory thermodynamics understanding. Educational Technology, 33, 45–58.
56. Lim, B.-R. (2004). Challenges and issues in designing inquiry on the Web. British Journal of Educational Technology,35, 627–643. doi:10.1111/j.0007-1013.2004.00419.x.
57. *Lin, X., & Lehman, D.J. (1999). Supporting learning of variable control in a computer-based biology environment: effects of prompting college students to reflect on their own thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 837–858. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199909)36:7<837::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-U.
58. *Löhner, S., van Joolingen, W. R., & Savelsbergh, E. R. (2003). The effect of external representation on constructing computer models of complex phenomena. Instructional Science, 31, 395–418. doi:10.1023/A:1025746813683.
59. *Luchini, K., Quintana, C., & Soloway, E. (2003). Pocket PiCoMap: A case study in designing assessing a handheld concept mapping tool for learners. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 321–328), ACM. doi:10.1145/642611.642668.
60. *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, 161–175. doi:10.1080/15391523.2004.10782431.
61. *Manlove, S., Lazonder, W. A., & 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.
62. *Manlove, S., Lazonder, W. A., & de Jong, T. (2009). Trends and issues of regulative support use during inquiry learning: patterns from three studies. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 795–803. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.07.010.
63. *Marschner, J., Thillmann, H., Wirth, J., & Leutner, D. (2012). How can the use of strategies for experimentation be fostered? Zeitschrift Fur Erziehungswissenschaft, 15, 77–93. doi:10.1007/s11618-012-0260-5.
64. Marshall, J. A., & Young, E. S. (2006). Preservice teachers’ theory development in physical and simulated environments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,43, 907–937. doi:10.1002/tea.20124.
65. *McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 153–191. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1.
66. *Molenaar, I., van Boxtel, A. M. C., & Sleegers, J. C. P. (2010). The effects of scaffolding metacognitive activities in small groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1727–1738. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.022.
67. *Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2008). Exploring the fluctuation of motivation and use of self-regulatory processes during learning with hypermedia. Instructional Science 36, 203–231. doi:10.1007/s11251-007-9028-3.
68. *Moreno, R., Mayer, R., Spires, H., & Lester, J. (2001). The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction, 19, 177–213. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI1902_02.
69. 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.
70. Ødegaard, M., Haug, B., Mork, S. M., & Sørvik, G. O. (2014). Challenges and support when teaching science through an integrated inquiry and literacy approach. International Journal of Science Education,36, 2997–3020. doi:10.1080/09500693.2014.942719.
71. Olympiou, G., Zacharias, Z., & de Jong, T. (2013). Making the invisible visible: Enhancing students’ conceptual understanding by introducing representations of abstract objects in a simulation. Instructional Science,41, 575–596. doi:10.1007/s11251-012-9245-2.
72. *Oshima, J., Oshima, R., Murayama, I., Inagaki, S., Takenaka, M., Yamamoto, T., Nakayama, H. (2006). Knowledge-building activity structures in Japanese elementary science pedagogy. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 229–246. doi:10.1007/s11412-006-8995-8.
73. Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., et al. (in press). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review.
74. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in selfregulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
75. Plass, J. L., & Schwartz, R. N. (2014). Multimedia learning with simulations and microworlds. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 729–761). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
76. Polya, G. (1945). How to solve it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
77. *Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, L. J. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 185–217. doi:10.1002/tea.20048.
78. *Quinn, J., & Alessi, S. (1994). The effects of simulation complexity and hypothesis generation strategy on learning. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 27, 75–91. doi:10.1080/08886504.1994.10782117.
79. 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. The Journal of the Learning Sciences,13, 337–387. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1303_4.
80. *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 Associates.
81. *Sao Pedro, M. A., de Baker, R. S., Gobert, J. D., Montalvo, O., & Nakama, A. (2013). Leveraging machine-learned detectors of systematic inquiry behavior to estimate and predict transfer of inquiry skill. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 23, 1–39. doi:10.1007/s11257-011-9101-0.
82. Scanlon, E., Anastopoulou, S., Kerawalla, L., & Mulholland, P. (2011). How technology resources can be used to represent personal inquiry and support students’ understanding of it across contexts. Journal of Computer Assisted learning,27, 516–529. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00414.x.
83. *Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Raghavan, K., & Reiner, M. (1991). Causal models and experimentation strategies in scientific reasoning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1, 201–238. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0102_3.
84. Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2007). Learner control in hypermedia environments. Educational Psychology Review,19, 285–307. doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9046-3.
85. Schoenfeld, A. (1979). Can heuristics be taught? In J. Lochhead & J. Clement (Eds.), Cognitive process instruction (pp. 315–338). Philadelphia: Franklin Institute Press.
86. Schoenfeld, A. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. New York: Academies Press.
87. *Schunn, C. D., & Anderson, J. R. (1999). The generality/specificity of expertise in scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 23, 337–370. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2303_3.
88. Shapiro, A. M. (2008). Hypermedia design as learner scaffolding. Educational Technology Research and Development,56, 29–44. doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9063-4.
89. Sharples, M., Scanlon, E., Ainsworth, S., Anastopoulou, S., Collins, T., Crook, C., et al. (2014). Personal inquiry: Orchestrating science investigations within and beyond the classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1, 1–34. doi:10.1080/10508406.2014.944642.
90. Shute, V. J., & Glaser, R. (1990). A large-scale evaluation of an intelligent discovery world: Smithtown. Interactive Learning Environments, 1, 51–77. doi:10.1080/1049482900010104.
91. Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., Hanley, P., & Thurston, A. (2014). Experimental evaluations of elementary science programs: A best-evidence synthesis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,51, 870–901.
92. Smith, B. K., & Reiser, B. J. (1997). What should a wildebeest say? Interactive nature films for high school classrooms. Paper presented at the ACM Multimedia, Seattle. doi:10.1145/266180.266365.
93. *Stahl, E., & Bromme, R. (2009). Not everybody needs help to seek help: surprising effects of metacognitive instructions to foster help-seeking in an online-learning environment. Computers & Education, 53, 1020–1028. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.10.004.
94. *Swaak, J., van Joolingen, W. R., & de Jong, T. (1998). Supporting simulation-based learning; the effects of model progression and assignments on definitional and intuitive knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 8, 235–252. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(98)00018-8.
95. Swaak, J., & de Jong, T. (1996). Measuring intuitive knowledge in science: The development of the WHAT-IF test. Studies in Educational Evaluation,22, 341–362. doi:10.1016/0191-491X(96)00019-3.
96. *Thillmann, H., Kunsting, J., Wirth, J., & Leutner, D. (2009). Is it merely a question of ‘what’ to prompt or also ‘when’ to prompt? The role of point of presentation time of prompts in self-regulated learning. Zeitschrift Fur Padagogische Psychologie, 23, 105–115. doi:10.1024/1010-0652.23.2.105.
97. 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. doi:10.1002/sce.10004.
98. *Tschirgi, J. E. (1980). Sensible reasoning: A hypothesis about hypotheses. Child Development,51, 1–10. doi:10.2307/1129583.
99. van Joolingen, W. R., & de Jong, T. (1991). Supporting hypothesis generation by learners exploring an interactive computer simulation. Instructional Science,20, 389–404. doi:10.1007/BF00116355.
100. van Joolingen, W. R., & de Jong, T. (1997). An extended dual search space model of learning with computer simulations. Instructional Science,25, 307–346. doi:10.1023/A:1002993406499.
101. *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 Publishers.
102. van Joolingen, W. R., De Jong, T., & Dimitrakopoulou, A. (2007). Issues in computer supported inquiry learning in science. Journal of Computer Assisted learning,23, 111–119. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00216.x.
103. *van Joolingen, W. R., Giemza, A., Bollen, L., Bodin, M., Manske, S., Engler, J., Halik, K. (2011). SCY cognitive scaffolds and tools (DII.2). Twente: SCY consortium.
104. van Joolingen, W. R., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2009). Developments in inquiry learning. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, & S. Barnes (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning (pp. 21–37). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9827-7_2.
105. *Veermans, K. H. (2003). Intelligent support for discovery learning. Ph.D. thesis, University of Twente.
106. Veermans, K. H., de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (2000). Promoting self directed learning in simulation based discovery learning environments through intelligent support. Interactive Learning Environments,8, 229–255. doi:10.1076/1049-4820(200012)8:3;1-D;FT229.
107. *Veermans, K. H., van Joolingen, W., & 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. doi:10.1080/09500690500277615.
108. 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.
109. White, B. Y., Shimoda, T. A., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1999). Enabling students to construct theories of collaborative inquiry and reflective learning: Computer support for metacognitive development. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education,10, 151–182.
110. *Wichmann, A., & Leutner, D. (2009). Inquiry learning multilevel support with respect to inquiry, explanations and regulation during an inquiry cycle. Zeitschrift Fur Padagogische Psychologie, 23, 117–127. doi:10.1024/1010-0652.23.2.117.
111. Wilhelm, J. A., & Walters, K. L. (2006). Pre-service mathematics teachers become full participants in inquiry investigations. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology,37, 793–804. doi:10.1080/00207390600723635.
112. *Wirth, J., Künsting, J., & Leutner, D. (2009). The impact of goal specificity and goal type on learning outcome and cognitive load. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 299–305. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.004.
113. *Woolf, B., Reid, J., Stillings, N., Bruno, M., Murray, D., Reese, P., Peterfreund, A., & Rath, K. (2002). A general platform for inquiry learning. Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Biarritz, France. doi:10.1007/3-540-47987-2_69. Retrieved 24 Jan, 2012 from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F3-540-47987-2_69?LI=true.
114. *Wu, H. K. (2010). Modeling a complex system: using novice-expert analysis for developing an effective technology-enhanced learning environment. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 195–219. doi:10.1080/09500690802478077.
115. *Yaman, M., Nerdel, C., & Bayrhuber, H. (2008). The effects of instructional support and learner interests when learning using computer simulations. Computer & Education, 51, 1784–1794. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.05.009.
116. Zacharia, Z. C., & Olympiou, G. (2011). Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learning & Instruction,21, 317–331. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.03.001.
117. *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.
118. Zhang, M., & Quintana, C. (2012). Scaffolding strategies for supporting middle school students’ online inquiry processes. Computers & Education,58, 181–196. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.016.
119. Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement—theoretical perspectives (pp. 1–37). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
120. *Zumbach, J. (2009). The role of graphical and text based argumentation tools in hypermedia learning. Computers & Education, 25, 811–817. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.07.005.