Scaffolding learning by modelling: The effects of partially worked-out models

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 53, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 502-523

  Mulder, Yvonne G ^a   Bollen, Lars ^a   De Jong, Ton ^a   Lazonder, Ard W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

completeerproblemen; leren door te modelleren; uitgewerkte voorbeelden

Indexed keywords

EDUCATION; GLUCOSE; INSULIN;

COMPLETEERPROBLEMEN; COMPLETION PROBLEM; LEREN DOOR TE MODELLEREN; UITGEWERKTE VOORBEELDEN; WORKED-OUT EXAMPLES;

STUDENTS;

EID: 84956736999     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.21260     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Alessi, S. M., (2000). Building versus using simulations. In, J. M. Spector, &, T. M. Anderson, (Eds.), Integrated & holistic perspectives on learning, instruction & technology: Improving understanding in complex domains (pp. 175-196). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
2. Baars, M., Visser, S., van Gog, T., Bruin, A. d., &, Paas, F., (2013). Completion of partially worked-out examples as a generation strategy for improving monitoring accuracy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 395-406. DOI: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.09.001
3. CCSSO. (2013). The common core state standards for mathematics. Retrieved december 16, 2013 from www.corestandards.org.
4. Chang, K. E., Sung, Y. T., &, Chen, I. D., (2002). The effect of concept mapping to enhance text comprehension and summarization. Journal of Experimental Education, 71, 5-23. DOI: 10.1080/00220970209602054
5. Chang, K. E., Sung, Y. T., &, Chen, S. F., (2001). Learning through computer-based concept mapping with scaffolding aid. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 21-33. DOI: 10.1111/j. 1365-2729. 2001.00156.x
6. Coll, R. K., &, Lajium, D., (2011). Modeling and the future of science learning. In, M. S. MKhine, &, I. M. Saleh, (Eds.), Models and modeling cognitive tools for scientific enquiry (pp. 3-22). Dordrecht: Springer.
7. de Jong, T., (2006). Computer simulations: Technological advances in inquiry learning. Science, 312, 532-533. DOI: 10.1126/science.1127750
8. 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
9. 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.), Hand book of research on educational communications and technology (3 ed., pp. 457-468). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10. 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
11. Forrester, J., (1961). Industrial dynamics. Waltham, Massachusets: Pegasus Communications.
12. Halloun, I. A., (2006). Modeling theory in science education. (Vol. 24) Dordrecht: Springer.
13. Hansen, J. A., Barnett, M., MaKinster, J. G., &, Keating, T., (2004). The impact of three-dimensional computational modeling on student understanding of astronomy concepts: A qualitative analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1555-1575. DOI: 10.1080/09500690420001673766
14. Harlow, D. B., Bianchini, J. A., Swanson, L. H., &, Dwyer, H. A., (2013). Potential teachers' appropriate and inappropriate application of pedagogical resources in a model-based physics course: A "knowledge in pieces" perspective on teacher learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50, 1098-1126. DOI: 10.1002/tea.21108
15. Hashem, K., &, Mioduser, D., (2011). The contribution of learning by modeling (LbM) to students' understanding of complexity concepts. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning (IJEEEE), 1, 151-155.
16. Henze, I., Van Driel, J., &, Verloop, N., (2007). The change of science teachers' personal knowledge about teaching models and modelling in the context of science education reform. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1819-1846. DOI: 10.1080/09500690601052628
17. Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D. L., &, Kolodner, J. L., (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 247-298. DOI: 10.1207/s15327809jls0903-2
18. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Liu, L., Gray, S., &, Jordan, R., (2015). Using representational tools to learn about complex systems: A tale oftwo classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52, 6-35. DOI: 0.1002/tea.21187
19. Hogan, K., &, Thomas, D., (2001). Cognitive comparisons of students' systems modeling in ecology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10, 319-345. DOI: 10.1023/A:1012243102249
20. Jackson, S. L., Stratford, S. J., Krajcik, J., &, Soloway, E., (1994). Making dynamic modeling accessible to precollege science students. Interactive Learning Environments, 4, 233-257.
21. Levenshtein, V., (1966). Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady, 10, 707-710. DOI: citeulike-article-id:311174
22. 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
23. Louca, L. T., &, Zacharia, Z. C., (2012). Modeling-based learning in science education: Cognitive, metacognitive, social, material and epistemological contributions. Educational Review, 64, 471-492. DOI: 10.1080/00131911.2011.628748
24. Louca, L. T., &, Zacharia, Z. C., (2015). Examining learning through modeling in K-6 science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24, 192-215. DOI: 10.1007 /s10956-014-9533-5
25. Manlove, S., Lazonder, A. W., &, 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
26. Milrad, M., Spector, M. J., &, Davidsen, P. I., (2003). Model facilitated learning. In, S. Naidu, (Ed.), Learning & teaching with technology: Principles and practices (pp. 13-28). London: Kogan Page.
27. Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., &, Century, J., (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction-what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 474-496. DOI: 10.1002/tea.20347
28. Mulder, Y. G., Lazonder, A. W., &, de Jong, T., (2010). Finding out how they find it out: An empirical analysis of inquiry learners' need for support. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 2033-2053. DOI: 10.1080/09500690903289993
29. Mulder, Y. G., Lazonder, A. W., &, de Jong, T., (2011). Comparing two types of model progression in an inquiry learning environment with modelling facilities. Learning and Instruction, 21, 614-624. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.01.003
30. Mulder, Y. G., Lazonder, A. W., &, de Jong, T., (2014). Using heuristic worked examples to promote inquiry-based learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 56-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.08.001
31. Mulder, Y. G., Lazonder, A. W., de Jong, T., Anjewierden, A., &, Bollen, L., (2012). Validating and optimizing the effects of model progression in simulation-based inquiry learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 722-729. DOI: 10.1007/s10956-011-9360-x
32. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
33. Paas, F. G., (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 429-434. DOI: 10.1037/ 0022-0663. 84.4.429
34. 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. DOI: 10.1207/s15326985ep4001-1
35. 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
36. 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
37. Roscoe, R. D., Segedy, J. R., Sulcer, B., Jeong, H., &, Biswas, G., (2013). Shallow strategy development in a teachable agent environment designed to support self-regulated learning. Computers & Education, 62, 286-297. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.008
38. Schwartz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Achér, A., Fortus, D.,..., Krajcik, J., (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 632-654. DOI: 10.1002/tea.20311
39. Schwarz, C. V., &, White, B. Y., (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students' understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 165-205. DOI: 10.1207/s1532690xci2302-1
40. Sins, P. H. M., Savelsbergh, E. R., &, van Joolingen, W. R., (2005). The difficult process of scientific modeling: An analysis of novices' reasoning during computer-based modeling. International Journal of Science Education, 14, 1695-1721. DOI: 10.1080/09500690500206408
41. Slotta, J. D., &, Linn, M. C., (2009). WISE science: Inquiry and the internet in the science classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
42. Stratford, S. J., Krajcik, J., &, Soloway, E., (1998). Secondary students' dynamic modeling processes: Analyzing, reasoning about, synthesizing, and testing models of stream ecosystems. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7, 215-234. DOI: 10.1023/A:1021840407112
43. Sweller, J., &, Cooper, G. A., (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 59-89.
44. Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J., &, Paas, F. G., (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251-296.
45. Tabak, I., (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 305-335. DOI: 10.1207/s15327809jls1303-3
46. van Borkulo, S., (2009). The assessment of learning outcomes of computer modeling in secondary science education. Unpublished PhD. Thesis. University of Twente. Enschede, The Netherlands.
47. van Borkulo, S., van Joolingen, W., Savelsbergh, E., &, de Jong, T., (2012). What can be learned from computer modeling? Comparing expository and modeling approaches to teaching dynamic systems behavior. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 267-275. DOI: 10.1007/s10956-011-9314-3
48. van Dijk, G., Hajer, M., Scharten, R., &, de Vos, B., (2013). Werken aan vaktaal bij de exacte vakken [Working on technical language in science education]. Enschede: Nationaal expertisecentrum leerplanontwikkeling.
49. van Merriënboer, J. J. G., (1990). Strategies for programming instruction in high school: Program completion vs. program generation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 6, 265-285.
50. van Merriënboer, J. J. G., &, de Croock, M. B. M., (1992). Strategies for computer-based programming instruction-program completion vs program generation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8, 365-394.
51. Wecker, C., Rachel, A., Heran-Dörr, E., Waltner, C., Wiesner, H., &, Fischer, F., (2013). Presenting theoretical ideas prior to inquiry activities fosters theory-level knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50, 1180-1206. DOI: 10.1002/tea.21106
52. White, B. Y., &, Frederiksen, J. R., (1990). Causal model progressions as a foundation for intelligent learning environments. Artificial Intelligence, 42, 99-157. DOI: 10.1016/0004-3702(90) 90095-h
53. 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.
54. Wichmann, A., &, Leutner, D., (2009). Inquiry learning multilevel 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
55. Wilensky, U., &, Resnick, M., (1999). Thinking in Levels: A dynamic systems approach to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8, 3-19. DOI: 10.1023/a:1009421303064
56. Wood, D., Bruner, J., &, Ross, G., (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Child Psychiatry, 17, 89-100. DOI: 10.1111/j. 1469-7610. 1976.tb00381.x
57. Wu, H.-K., (2009). Modelling 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
58. Wu, H.-K., Wu, P.-H., Zhang, W.-X., &, Hsu, Y.-S., (2013). Investigating college and graduate students' multivariable reasoning in computational modeling. Science Education, 97, 337-366. DOI: 10.1002/sce.21056
59. Zhang, B., Liu, X., &, Krajcik, J. S., (2006). Expert models and modeling processes associated with a computer-modeling tool. Science Education, 90, 579.
60. Zhang, L., VanLehn, K., Girard, S., Burleson, W., Chavez-Echeagaray, M. E., Gonzalez-Sanchez, J., &, Hidalgo-Pontet, Y., (2014). Evaluation of a meta-tutor for constructing models of dynamic systems. Computers & Education, 75, 196-217. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.015