Meta-Analysis of Inquiry-Based Learning: Effects of Guidance

Review of Educational Research

Volumn 86, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 681-718

  Lazonder, Ard W ^a   Harmsen, Ruth ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

age appropriate support; discovery learning; inquiry learning; instructional support; learner guidance

Indexed keywords

EID: 84979622944     PISSN: 00346543     EISSN: 19351046     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0034654315627366     Document Type: Article

References (156)

1. F.Abd-El-KhalickS.BouJaoudeR.DuschlN.LedermanR.Mamiok-NaamanA.HofsteinH..Tuan (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88, 397–419. doi:10.1002/sce.10118
2. S.*AbdullahA.Shariff (2008). The effects of inquiry-based computer simulation with cooperative learning on scientific thinking and conceptual understanding of gas laws. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 4, 387–398. Retrieved from http://www.ejmste.org/v4n4/EURASIA_v4n4_Abdullah.pdf
3. Achieve. (2010). International science benchmarking report. Taking the lead in science education: Forging next-generation science standards. Retrieved from http://www.achieve.org/files/InternationalScienceBenchmarkingReport.pdf
4. S.Alessi (1995, April). Dynamic versus static fidelity in a procedural simulation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
5. L.AlfieriP.J.BrooksN.J.AldrichH.R.Tenenbaum (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning?Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 1–18. doi:10.1037/a0021017
6. D.P.Ausubel (1962). Learning by discovery. Educational Leadership, 20, 113–117.
7. A.J.*BaroodyM.D.EilandD.J.PurpuraE.E.Reid (2012). Fostering at-risk kindergarten children’s number sense. Cognition and Instruction, 30, 435–470. doi:10.1080/07370008.2012.720152
8. A.J.*BaroodyM.D.EilandD.J.PurpuraE.E.Reid (2013). Can computer-assisted discovery learning foster first graders’ fluency with the most basic addition combinations?American Educational Research Journal, 50, 533–573. doi:10.3102/0002831212473349
9. M.L.Bittinger (1968). A review of discovery. The Mathematics Teacher, 61, 140–146.
10. M.BorensteinL.V.HedgesJ.P.T.HigginsH.R.Rothstein (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, England: Wiley.
11. J.S.Bruner (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31, 21–32.
12. J.S.BrunerJ.J.GoodnowG.A.Austin (1956). A study of thinking. New York, NY: Wiley.
13. B.D.BurnsR.Vollmeyer (2002). Goal specificity effects on hypothesis testing in problem solving. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 241–261. doi:10.1080/02724980143000262
14. M.C.CañadasJ.DeulofeuL.FigueirasD.ReidO.Yevdokimov (2007). The conjecturing process: Perspectives in theory and implications in practice. Journal of Teaching and Learning, 5, 55–72. Retrieved from http://ojs.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/JTL/article/view/82
15. T.F.CarolanS.D.HutchinsC.D.WickensJ.M.Cumming (2014). Costs and benefits of more learner freedom: Meta-analyses of exploratory and learner control training methods. Human Factors, 56, 999–1014. doi:10.1177/0018720813517710
16. Z.*ChenD.Klahr (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
17. D.B.*ChinI.M.DohmenD.L.Schwartz (2013). Young children can learn scientific reasoning with teachable agents. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 6, 248–257. doi:10.1109/Tlt.2013.24
18. C.A.ChinnB.A.Malhotra (2002a). Children’s responses to anomalous scientific data: How is conceptual change impeded?Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 327–343. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.327
19. C.A.ChinnB.A.Malhotra (2002b). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175–218. doi:10.1002/sce.10001
20. J.Cohen (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. H.Cooper (1998). Synthesizing research: A guide for literature reviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22. C.D’AngeloD.RutsteinC.HarrisR.BernardE.BorokhovskiG.Haertel (2014). Simulations for STEM learning: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
23. E.A.*Davis (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 819–837. doi:10.1080/095006900412293
24. K.*De JongS.Brand-Gruwel (2008). Stimuleren van ontdekkend leren met behulp van proceswerkbladen: Effecten op taakprestaties [Stimulating inquiry learning by means of process worksheets: Effects on pupils’ task performance]. Pedagogische Studiën, 85, 451–475.
25. T.De Jong (2006). Scaffolds for scientific discovery learning. In (Eds.), Handling complexity in learning environments: Theory and research (pp. 107–128). London, England: Elsevier.
26. T.De JongA.W.Lazonder (2014). The guided discovery learning principle in multimedia learning. In (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 371–390). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
27. T.De JongM.C.LinnZ.C.Zacharia (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 340, 305–308. doi:10.1126/science.1230579
28. T.*De JongE.MartinJ.M.ZamarroF.EsquembreJ.SwaakW.R.Van Joolingen (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)1098-2736(199905)36:5<597::Aid-Tea6>3.0.Co;2-6
29. T.De JongS.SoteriouD.Gillet (2014). Innovations in STEM education: The Go-Lab federation of online labs. Smart Learning Environments, 1(3). doi:10.1186/s40561-014-0003-6
30. T.De JongW.R.Van Joolingen (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68, 179–202. doi:10.3102/00346543068002179
31. B.De VriesH.Van der MeijA.W.Lazonder (2008). Supporting reflective web searching in elementary schools. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 649–665. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.021
32. D.*DeanD.Kuhn (2007). Direct instruction vs. discovery: The long view. Science Education, 91, 384–397. doi:10.1002/Sce.20194
33. P.J.N.*DejonckheereK.Van de KeereN.Mestdagh (2009). Training the scientific thinking circle in pre- and primary school children. Journal of Educational Research, 103, 1–16. doi:10.1080/00220670903228595
34. P.J.N.*DejonckheereK.Van de KeereI.Tallir (2011). Are fourth and fifth grade children better scientists through metacognitive learning?Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 9, 133–156. Retrieved from http://investigacion-psicopedagogica.org/revista
35. G.*DykeD.AdamsonI.HowleyC.P.Rose (2013). Enhancing scientific reasoning and discussion with conversational agents. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 6, 240–247. doi:10.1109/Tlt.2013.25
36. M.*EckhardtD.UrhahneO.ConradU.Harms (2013). How effective is instructional support for learning with computer simulations?Instructional Science, 41, 105–124. doi:10.1007/s11251-012-9220-y
37. S.FreemanS.L.EddyM.McDonoughM.K.SmithN.OkoroaforH.JordtM.P.Wenderoth (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings for the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111, 8410–8415. doi:10.1073/pnas.1319030111
38. Z.*Fund (2007). The effects of scaffolded computerized science problem-solving on achievement outcomes: A comparative study of support programs. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 410–424. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00226.x
39. E.M.FurtakT.SeidelH.IversonD.C.Briggs (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82, 300–329. doi:10.3102/0034654312457206
40. M.L.GickK.J.Holyoak (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306–355. doi:0.1016/0010-0285(80)90013-4
41. H.GijlersT.De Jong (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
42. H.*GijlersT.De Jong (2009). Sharing and confronting propositions in collaborative scientific discovery learning. Cognition and Instruction, 27, 239–268. doi:10.1080/07370000903014352
43. H.*GijlersT.De Jong (2013). Using concept maps to facilitate collaborative simulation-based inquiry learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22, 340–374. doi:10.1080/10508406.2012.748664
44. A.C.*GraesserJ.WileyS.R.GoldmanT.O’ReillyM.JeonB.McDaniel (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
45. M.G.*HagemansH.Van der MeijT.De Jong (2013). The effects of a concept map-based support tool on simulation-based inquiry learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 1–24. doi:10.1037/A0029433
46. I.*HanJ.B.Black (2011). Incorporating haptic feedback in simulation for learning physics. Computers & Education, 57, 2281–2290. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.012
47. L.V.HedgesI.Olkin (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
48. L.V.HedgesT.D.Pigott (2004). The power of statistical tests for moderators in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 9, 426–445. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.9.4.426
49. G.Hermann (1969). Learning by discovery: A critical review of studies. Journal of Experimental Education, 38, 58–72.
50. J.HigginsS.G.ThompsonJ.J.DeeksD.G.Altman (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 327, 557–560. doi:0.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
51. C.E.Hmelo-SilverR.Golan DuncanC.A.Chinn (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42, 99–107. doi:10.1080/00461520701263368
52. Y.Hochberg (1988). A sharper Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance. Biometrica, 75, 800–802. doi:10.1093/biomet/75.4.800
53. K.*Hogan (1999). Thinking aloud together: A test of an intervention to foster students’ collaborative scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 1085–1109. doi:10.1002/(Sici)1098-2736(199912)36:10<1085::Aid-Tea3>3.0.Co;2-D
54. K.*Huang (2011). Metaconceptually-enhanced simulation-based inquiry learning: Effects on the 8th grade students’ conceptual change and science epistemological beliefs (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Oklahoma, Norman.
55. C.D.*HulshofT.De Jong (2006). Using just-in-time information to support scientific discovery learning in a computer-based simulation. Interactive Learning Environments, 14, 79–94. doi:10.1080/10494820600769171
56. C.*Hushman (2011). Examining the influence of instructional strategy on student learning and self-efficacy in science (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
57. B.InhelderJ.Piaget (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York, NY: Basic Books.
58. J.JanssenG.ErkensG.KanselaarJ.Jaspers (2007). Visualization of participation: Does it contribute to successful computer-supported collaborative learning?Computers & Education, 49, 1037–1065. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.01.004
59. Z.KanariR.Millar (2004). Reasoning from data: How students collect and interpret data in science investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 748–769. doi:10.1002/tea.20020
60. D.E.KaplanJ.B.Black (2003). Mental models and computer-based scientific inquiry learning: Effects of mechanistic cues on adolescent representation and reasoning about causal systems. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12, 483–493. doi:10.1023/B:JOST.0000006308.01183.85
61. M.KapurN.Rummel (2012). Productive failure in learning from generation and invention activities. Instructional Science, 40, 645–650. doi:10.1007/s11251-012-9235-4
62. A.*Keselman (2003). Supporting inquiry learning by promoting normative understanding of multivariable causality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 898–921. doi:10.1002/Tea.10115
63. P.A.KirschnerJ.SwellerR.E.Clark (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
64. D.Klahr (2000). Exploring science: The cognition and development of discovery processes. Cambridge: MIT Press.
65. D.Klahr (2013). What do we mean? On the importance of not abandoning scientific rigor when talking about science education. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 110, 14075–14080. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212738110
66. D.KlahrK.Dunbar (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1–48. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1201_1
67. D.KlahrA.L.FayK.Dunbar (1993). Heuristics for scientific experimentation: A developmental study. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 111–146. doi:10.1006/cogp.1993.1003
68. D.KlahrJ.Li (2005). Cognitive research and elementary science instruction: From the laboratory, to the classroom, and back. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14, 217–238. doi:10.1007/s10956-005-4423-5
69. D.KlahrM.Nigam (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15, 661–667. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00737.x
70. C.M.*KnaggsR.M.Schneider (2012). Thinking like a scientist: Using vee-maps to understand process and concepts in science. Research in Science Education, 42, 609–632. doi:10.1007/s11165-011-9213-x
71. B.*KolloffelT.H.S.EysinkT.De Jong (2010). The influence of learner-generated domain representations on learning combinatorics and probability theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.07.008
72. S.KoerberB.SodianN.KropfD.MayerK.Schwippert (2011). The development of scientific reasoning in elementary school age: Understanding theories, designing experiments, interpreting data. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 43, 16–21. doi:10.1026/0049-8637/A000027
73. S.KoerberB.SodianC.ThoermerU.Nett (2005). Scientific reasoning in young children: Preschoolers’ ability to evaluate covariation evidence. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 64, 141–152. doi:10.1024/1421-0185.64.3.141
74. B.Koslowski (2008, July). Scientific reasoning is not necessarily plagued by confirmation bias. Paper presented at the 29th meeting of the International Congress of Psychology, Berlin, Germany.
75. B.*KramarskiV.Dudai (2009). Group-metacognitive support for online inquiry in mathematics with differential self-questioning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40, 377–404. doi:10.2190/EC.40.4.a
76. D.Kuhn (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
77. D.KuhnE.AmselM.O’Loughlin (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
78. D.*KuhnD.Dean (2005). Is developing scientific thinking all about learning to control variables?Psychological Science, 16, 866–870. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01628.x
79. D.KuhnS.Franklin (2006). The second decade: What develops (and how). In (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2. Cognition, perception, and language (6th ed., pp. 953–994). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
80. D.KuhnM.Garcia-MilaA.ZoharC.Andersen (1995). Strategies of knowledge acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 60(4), 1–157 (Serial No. 245). doi:0.2307/1166059
81. D.*KuhnJ.Katz (2009). Are self-explanations always beneficial?Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 103, 386–394. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2009.03.003
82. D.KuhnE.Phelps (1982). The development of problem-solving strategies. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 17, 1–44. doi:10.1016/S0065-2407(08)60356-0
83. J.*KunstingJ.KempfJ.Wirth (2013). Enhancing scientific discovery learning through metacognitive support. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 349–360. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.07.001
84. A.W.Lazonder (2014). Inquiry learning. In (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 453–464). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
85. A.W.*LazonderA.Egberink (2014). Children’s acquisition and use of the control-of-variables strategy: Effects of explicit and implicit instructional guidance. Instructional Science, 42, 291–304. doi:10.1007/s11251-013-9284-3
86. A.W.LazonderM.G.HagemansT.De Jong (2010). Offering and discovering domain information in simulation-based inquiry learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 511–520. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.001
87. A.W.*LazonderE.Kamp (2012). Bit by bit or all at once? Splitting up the inquiry task to promote children’s scientific reasoning. Learning and Instruction, 22, 458–464. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.05.005
88. J.S.*LedermanN.G.LedermanP.-O.WickmanL.Lager-Nyqvist (2007, April). An international, systematic investigation of the relative effects of inquiry and direct instruction. Paper presented at the Annual International Conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
89. C.-Y.LeeM.-P.Chen (2009). A computer game as a context for non-routine mathematical problem solving: The effects of type of question prompt and level of prior knowledge. Computers & Education, 52, 530–542. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.10.008
90. X.D.*LinJ.D.Lehman (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
91. M.W.LipseyD.B.Wilson (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
92. R.F.*LorchE.P.LorchW.J.CalderheadE.E.DunlapE.C.HodellB.D.Freer (2010). Learning the control of variables strategy in higher and lower achieving classrooms: Contributions of explicit instruction and experimentation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 90–101. doi:10.1037/A0017972
93. R.F.*LorchE.P.LorchB.D.FreerE.E.DunlapE.C.HodellW.J.Calderhead (2014). Using valid and invalid experimental designs to teach the control of variables strategy in higher and lower achieving classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 18–35. doi:10.1037/a0034375
94. S.K.*MacGregorY.Lou (2005). 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
95. P.-A.*MandrinD.Preckel (2009). Effect of similarity-based guided discovery learning on conceptual performance. School Science and Mathematics, 109, 133–145. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2009.tb17949.x
96. S.*ManloveA.W.LazonderT.De Jong (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
97. S.*ManloveA.W.LazonderT.De Jong (2007). Software scaffolds to promote regulation during scientific inquiry learning. Metacognition and Learning, 2, 141–155. doi:10.1007/s11409-007-9012-y
98. J.*Mannheimer Zydney (2005, April). Deeping our understanding through multiple perspectives: The effectiveness of scaffolding in a learning environment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
99. J.*MarschnerH.ThillmannJ.WirthD.Leutner (2012). Wie lässt sich die Experimentierstrategie-Nutzung fördern? Ein Vergleich verschieden gestalteter Prompts [How can the use of strategies for experimentation be fostered? A comparison of differently designed prompts]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 15, 77–93. doi:10.1007/s11618-012-0260-5
100. B.J.*MatlenD.Klahr (2013). Sequential effects of high and low instructional guidance on children’s acquisition of experimentation skills: Is it all in the timing?Instructional Science, 41, 621–634. doi:10.1007/s11251-012-9248-z
101. C.*MilneJ.L.PlassB.D.HomerR.N.SchwartzM.KhanD.ChingY.K.Chang (2011, April). Developing narrative scaffolds for use within multimedia chemistry simulations: Challenges and possibilities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
102. C.*MilneJ.L.PlassB.D.HomerY.WangT.JordanR.N.SchwartzE..Hayward (2010, April). Exploring the possibilities for narrative in the use of multimedia simulations for the teaching and learning of chemistry. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.
103. J.*MinogueD.Borland (2012, March). Investigating students’ ideas about buoyancy and the influence of haptic feedback. Paper presented at the Annual International Conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Indianapolis, IN.
104. R.*Moreno (2004). Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional Science, 32, 99–113. doi:10.1023/B:Truc.0000021811.66966.1d
105. K.*MorganD.W.Brooks (2012). Investigating a method of scaffolding student-designed experiments. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 513–522. doi:10.1007/s10956-011-9343-y
106. Y.G.*MulderA.W.LazonderT.De Jong (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
107. Y.G.MulderA.W.LazonderT.De Jong (2014). Using heuristic worked examples to promote inquiry-based learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 56–64. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.08.001
108. Y.G.*MulderA.W.LazonderT.De JongA.AnjewierdenL.Bollen (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
109. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
110. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
111. National Science Foundation. (2000). An introduction to inquiry. In Inquiry: Thoughts, views, and strategies for the K-5 classroom (Vol. 2, pp. 1–5). Washington, DC: Author.
112. H.*NeberM.A.Anton (2008). Promoting pre-experimental epistemic activities in chemistry education: Focusing on the role of students’ epistemic questions. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1801–1821. doi:10.1080/09500690701579546
113. M.NjooT.De Jong (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
114. D.E.PennerD.Klahr (1996). The interaction of domain-specific knowledge and domain-general discovery strategies: A study with sinking objects. Child Development, 67, 2709–2727. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.ep9706244829
115. J.PieknyD.GruberC.Maehler (2014). The development of experimentation and evidence evaluation skills at preschool age. International Journal of Science Education, 36, 334–354. doi:10.1080/09500693.2013.776192
116. J.PieknyC.Maehler (2013). Scientific reasoning in early and middle childhood: The development of domain-general evidence evaluation, experimentation, and hypothesis generation skills. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 31, 153–179. doi:0.1111/j.2044-835X.2012.02082.x
117. J.L.*PlassB.D.HomerR.N.SchwartzC.E.MilneT.JordanS.Yavner (2013, April). What you see is what you get: Using visual scaffolds in multimedia simulations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
118. S.PuntambekarR.Hubscher (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
119. C.QuintanaB.J.ReiserE.A.DavisJ.KrajcikE.FretzR.G.DuncanE.. Soloway (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 337–386. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1303_4
120. A.*RaesT.SchellensB.De WeverE.Vanderhoven (2012). Scaffolding information problem solving in web-based collaborative inquiry learning. Computers & Education, 59, 82–94. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.11.010
121. D.J.*ReidJ.ZhangQ.Chen (2003). Supporting scientific discovery learning in a simulation environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 9–20. doi:10.1046/j.0266-4909.2003.00002.x
122. G.D.Rey (2011). Reset button and instructional advice in computer simulations. European Psychologist, 16, 58–67. doi:1027/1016-9040/a000042
123. L.P.RieberM.W.Parmley (1995). To teach or not to teach? Comparing the use of computer-based simulations in deductive versus inductive approaches to learning with adults in science. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13, 359–374. doi:10.2190/M8VX-68BC-1TU2-B6DV
124. I.*RollN.G.HolmesJ.DayD.Bonn (2012). Evaluating metacognitive scaffolding in guided invention activities. Instructional Science, 40, 691–710. doi:10.1007/s11251-012-9208-7
125. R.Rosenthal (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638–641. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638
126. N.*SaabW.R.Van Joolingen (2005). Supporting collaborative discovery learning by presenting a tool. In (Eds.), CSCL 2005: The Next 10 Years, Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 2005 (pp. 541–546). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
127. A.SamarapungavanP.MantzicopoulosH.Patrick (2008). Learning science through inquiry in kindergarten. Science Education, 92, 868–908. doi:10.1002/sce.20275
128. M.A.Sao PedroJ.D.GobertN.T.HeffernanJ.E.Beck (2009). Comparing pedagogical approaches for teaching the Control of Variables Strategy. In (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1294–1299). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
129. M.A.*Sao PedroJ.D.GobertP.Sebuwufu (2011, April). The effects of self-explanations on robust understanding of the control of variables strategy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
130. L.Schauble (1996). The development of scientific reasoning in knowledge-rich contexts. Developmental Psychology, 32, 102–119. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.32.1.102
131. L.SchaubleR.GlaserR.A.DuschlS.SchulzeJ.John (1995). Students’ understanding of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 131–166. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0402_1
132. S.SilerD.KlahrM.Strand-CaryC.Magaro (2009, April). Adapting an effective lesson plan for a computer-based tutor. Paper presented at the Thirteenth European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
133. B.SodianD.ZaitchikS.Carey (1991). Young children’s differentiation of hypothetical beliefs from evidence. Child Development, 62, 753–766. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1991.tb01567.x
134. M.*SteffenskyE.-M.LangkesC.H.CarstensenC.Nölke (2012). Alltagssituationen und Experimente: Was sind geeignete naturwissenschaftliche Lerngelegenheiten für Kindergartenkinder? Ergebnisse aus dem SNaKE-Projekt [Daily life and experiments: What are the appropriate learning settings for children in kindergarten? Findings from the SNaKE project]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 15, 37–54. doi:10.1007/s11618-012-0262-3
135. M.Strand-CaryD.Klahr (2008). Developing elementary science skills: Instructional effectiveness and path independence. Cognitive Development, 23, 488–511. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2008.09.005
136. K.A.Strike (1975). The logic of learning by discovery. Review of Educational Research, 45, 461–483. doi:10.3102/00346543045003461
137. J.*SwaakW.R.Van JoolingenT.De Jong (1998). Supporting simulation-based learning: The effects of model progression and assignments on definitional and intuitive knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 8, 235–252. doi:10.1037/a0021017
138. H.Taba (1963). Learning by discovery: Psychological and educational rationale. Elementary School Journal, 63, 308–316. doi:10.1086/460059
139. E.E.TothD.KlahrZ.Chen (2000). Bridging research and practice: A cognitively-based classroom intervention for teaching experimentation skills to elementary school children. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 423–459. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI1804_1
140. J.E.Tschirgi (1980). Sensible reasoning: A hypothesis about hypotheses. Child Development, 51, 1–10. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.ep12325377
141. J.*Van der MeijH.Van der MeijR.Harmsen (2013, August). Animated pedagogical agents: Do they enhance student motivation and learning in an inquiry learning environment?Paper presented at the fifteenth European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction, Munich, Germany.
142. K.Varma (2014). Supporting scientific experimentation and reasoning in young elementary school students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23, 381–397. doi:10.1007/s10956-013-9470-8
143. M.V.J.*VeenmanJ.J.ElshoutV.V.Busato (1994). Metacognitive mediation in learning with computer-based simulations. Computers in Human Behavior, 10, 93–106. doi:10.1016/0747-5632(94)90031-0
144. M.V.J.VeenmanP.WilhelmJ.J.Beishuizen (2004). The relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills from a developmental perspective. Learning and Instruction, 14, 89–109. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2003.10.004
145. K.VeermansW.R.Van JoolingenT.De Jong (2006). Use of heuristics to facilitate scientific discovery learning in a simulation learning environment in a physics domain. Interactive Learning Environments, 28, 341–361. doi:10.1080/09500690500277615
146. C.*Vreman-de OldeT.De Jong (2006). Scaffolding learners in designing investigation assignments for a computer simulation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 63–73. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00160.x
147. L.S.Vygotsky (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
148. B.Y.White (1993). ThinkerTools: Causal models, conceptual change, and science education. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 1–100. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1001_1
149. A.*WichmannD.Leutner (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
150. A.*WichmannS.Timpe (2013, August). Increasing interaction by offering variable manipulation possibilities in inquiry learning. Paper presented at the Fifteenth European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction, Munich, Germany.
151. D.B.Wilson (2005). Meta-analysis macros for SAS, SPSS, and Stata. Retrieved from http://mason.gmu.edu/~dwilsonb/ma.html
152. M.*WollenschlagerJ.MollerU.Harms (2011). Effects of componential feedback on performance in scientific reasoning. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 25, 197–202. doi:10.1024/1010-0652/A000040
153. M.*Zhang (2013). Supporting middle school students’ online reading of scientific resources: Moving beyond cursory, fragmented, and opportunistic reading. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29, 138–152. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00478.x
154. C.Zimmerman (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27, 172–223. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2006.12.001
155. A.*ZoharA.Ben David (2008). Explicit teaching of meta-strategic knowledge in authentic classroom situations. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 59–82. doi:10.1007/s11409-007-9019-4
156. A.*ZoharB.Peled (2008). The effects of explicit teaching of metastrategic knowledge on low- and high-achieving students. Learning and Instruction, 18, 337–353. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.07.001