Effects of explicit and implicit prompts on students’ inquiry practices in computer-supported learning environments in high school earth science

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 38, Issue 11, 2016, Pages 1699-1726

  Fang, Su Chi ^a   Hsu, Ying Shao ^a   Hsu, Wei Hsiu ^b  

^a NATIONAL TAIWAN NORMAL UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^b Chung Cheng Armed Forces Preparatory School   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

computer supported learning; Inquiry practices; scaffolding; written prompts

Indexed keywords

EID: 84982252366     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2016.1213458     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. I.Achieve, (2013). Next generation science standards. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards
2. R.W.Bybee, (2006). Scientific inquiry and science teaching. In L.Flick & N.Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science:Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 1–14). Dordrecht:Springer.
3. C.A.Chinn, & W.F.Brewer, (2001). Models of data:A theory of how people evaluate data. Cognition and Instruction, 19(3), 323–393. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI1903_3
4. E.A.Davis, & N.Miyake, (2004). Explorations of scaffolding in complex classroom systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 265–272. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1303_1
5. T.De Jong, (2006). Scaffolds for scientific discovery learning. In J.Elen & R.E.Clark (Eds.), Handling complexity in learning environments:Research and theory (pp. 107–128). London:Elsevier Science Publishers.
6. T.De Jong, & W.R.Van Joolingen, (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179–201. doi:10.3102/00346543068002179
7. F.Fischer, I.Kollar, K.Stegmann, & C.Wecker, (2013). Toward a script theory of guidance in computer-supported collaborative learning. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 56–66. doi:10.1080/00461520.2012.748005
8. L.B.Flick, & N.G.Lederman, (2006). Scientific inquiry and nature of science:Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education. Dordrecht:Springer.
9. E.B.Fretz, H.-K.Wu, B.-H.Zhang, E.A.Davis, J.S.Krajcik, & E.Soloway, (2002). An investigation of software scaffolds supporting modeling practices. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 567–589. doi:10.1023/A:1022400817926
10. Y.-S.Hsu, (2008). Learning about seasons in a technologically enhanced environment:The impact of teacher-guided and student-centered instructional approaches on the process of students’ conceptual change. Science Education, 92(2), 320–344. doi:10.1002/sce.20242
11. Y.-S.Hsu, H.-Y.Chang, S.-C.Fang, & H.-K.Wu, (2015). Developing technology-infused inquiry learning environment to promote science learning in Taiwan. In M.S.Khine (Ed.), Science education in East Asia:Pedagogical innovations and best practices (pp. 373–403). Cham:Springer International Publishing.
12. Y.-S.Hsu, T.-L.Lai, & W.-H.Hsu, (2015). A design model of distributed scaffolding for inquiry-based learning. Research in Science Education, 45(2), 241–273. doi:10.1007/s11165-014-9421-2
13. M.C.Kim, M.J.Hannafin, & L.A.Bryan, (2007). Technology-enhanced inquiry tools in science education:An emerging pedagogical framework for classroom practice. Science Education, 91(6), 1010–1030. doi:10.1002/sce.20219
14. I.Kollar, F.Fischer, & J.D.Slotta, (2007). Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 708–721. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.021
15. J.Krajcik, C.M.Czerniak, & C.L.Czerniak, (2007). Using learning technology to support students in inquiry. In J.Krajcik, C.M.Czerniak & C.L.Czerniak (Eds.), Teaching science in elementary and middle school:A project-based approach (3rd ed., pp. 163–192). New York:Routledge.
16. E.A.Kyza, C.P.Constantinou, & G.Spanoudis, (2011). Sixth graders’ co-construction of explanations of a disturbance in an ecosystem:Exploring relationships between grouping, reflective scaffolding, and evidence-based explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 33(18), 2489–2525. doi:10.1080/09500693.2010.550951
17. S.M.Land, & M.J.Hannafin, (1997). Patterns of understanding with open-ended learning environments:A qualitative study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(2), 47–73. doi:10.1007/BF02299524
18. D.Leutner, (2000). Double-fading support – a training approach to complex software systems. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16(4), 347–357. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2729.2000.00147.x
19. T.-C.Lin, Y.-S.Hsu, S.-S.Lin, M.-L.Changlai, K.-Y.Yang, & T.-L.Lai, (2012). A review of empirical evidence on scaffolding for science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(2), 437–455. doi:10.1007/s10763-011-9322-z
20. K.W.McElhaney, H.-Y.Chang, J.L.Chiu, & M.C.Linn, (2014). Evidence for effective uses of dynamic visualisations in science curriculum materials. Studies in Science Education, 51(1), 49–85. doi:10.1080/03057267.2014.984506
21. K.L.McNeill, & J.Krajcik, (2008). Scientific explanations:Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53–78. doi:10.1002/tea.20201
22. K.L.McNeill, & J.Krajcik, (2009). Synergy between teacher practices and curricular scaffolds to support students in using domain-specific and domain-general knowledge in writing arguments to explain phenomena. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(3), 416–460. doi:10.1080/10508400903013488
23. K.L.McNeill, D.J.Lizotte, J.Krajcik, & R.W.Marx, (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1
24. K.E.Metz, (2000). Young children’s inquiry in biology:Building the knowledge bases to empower independent inquiry. In J.Minstrell & E.Van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 371–404). Washington, DC:American Association for the Advancement of Science.
25. Ministry of Education. (2001). General guidelines of grade1–9 curriculum:Science and technology. Taipei:Ministry of Education.
26. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards:A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC:National Academies Press.
27. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education:Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC:National Academies Press.
28. K.Oliver, & M.J.Hannafin, (2001). Developing and refining mental models in open-ended learning environments:A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(4), 5–32. doi:10.1007/BF02504945
29. C.Quintana, B.J.Reiser, E.A.Davis, J.Krajcik, E.Fretz, R.G.Duncan, …, E.Soloway, (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1303_4
30. D.Sheskin, (2004). Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures (3rd ed.). Boca Raton, FL:Chapman & Hall/CRC.
31. N.B.Songer, (2006). BioKIDS:An animated conversation on the development of complex reasoning in science. In R.K.Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 355–369). New York:Cambridge University Press.
32. C.A.Stone, (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding:Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 344–364. doi:10.1177/002221949803100404
33. J.-M.Su, H.-Y.Lin, S.-S.Tseng, & C.-J.Lu, (2011). OPASS:An online portfolio assessment and diagnosis scheme to support web-based scientific inquiry experiments. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(2), 151–173.
34. I.Tabak, (2004). Synergy:A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305–335. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1303_3
35. R.F.Tinker, & J.S.Krajcik, (2001). Portable technologies:Science learning in context. Innovations in science education and technology. Dordrecht:Kluwer Publishers.
36. E.E.Toth, D.D.Suthers, & A.M.Lesgold, (2002). ‘Mapping to know’:The effects of representational guidance and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry. Science Education, 86(2), 264–286. doi:10.1002/sce.10004
37. J.Van de Pol, M.Volman, & J.Beishuizen, (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction:A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–296. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6
38. W.R.Van Joolingen, (1998). Cognitive tools for discovery learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 10, 385–397.
39. W.R.Van Joolingen, T.De Jong, & A.Dimitrakopoulou, (2007). Issues in computer supported inquiry learning in science. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 111–119. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00216.x
40. C.Wecker, & F.Fischer, (2011). From guided to self-regulated performance of domain-general skills:The role of peer monitoring during the fading of instructional scripts. Learning and Instruction, 21(6), 746–756. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.05.001
41. C.Wecker, I.Kollar, F.Fischer, & H.Prechtl, (2010). Fostering online search competence and domain-specific knowledge in inquiry classrooms:Effects of continuous and fading collaboration scripts. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences-Volume 1 (pp. 810–817). Chicago, Illinois:International Society of the Learning Sciences.
42. B.White, & J.R.Frederiksen, (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition:Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1601_2
43. B.White, & C.Schwarz, (1999). Alternative approaches to using modeling and simulation tools for teaching science. In W.Feurzeig & N.Roberts (Eds.), Modeling and simulation in science and mathematics education (pp. 226–256). New York:Springer.
44. D.Wood, J.S.Bruner, & G.Ross, (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
45. H.-K.Wu, & C.E.Hsieh, (2006). Developing sixth graders’ inquiry skills to construct explanations in inquiry-based learning environments. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1289–1313. doi:10.1080/09500690600621035
46. H.-K.Wu, & S.Puntambekar, (2012). Pedagogical affordances of multiple external representations in scientific processes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(6), 754–767. doi:10.1007/s10956-011-9363-7