Model-Facilitated Learning

Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, Third Edition

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 457-468

  de Jong, Ton ^a   van Joolingen, Wouter R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Inquiry learning: An approach to learning that involves a process of exploring the natural or material world, and that leads to asking questions, making discoveries, and rigorously testing those discoveries in the search for new understanding (NSF, 2000, p. 2).; Model: Structured representation of a system in terms of variables or concepts and their (quantitative or qualitative) relations that can be used for predicting system behavior by means of simulations.; Modeling: The process of creating simulations as a means for learning.; Simulation: Computer based model of a natural process or phenomenon that reacts to changes in values of input variables by displaying the resulting values of output variables.

Indexed keywords

EID: 85026287030     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203880869-40     Document Type: Chapter

References (79)

1. Alessi, S. M. (2000). Building versus using simulations. In Integrated and Holistic Perspectives on Learning, Instruction, and Technology, edited by J. M. Spector and T. M. Anderson, pp. 175-196. Dordrecht: Kluwer.*
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1989). Science for All Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.*
3. Booth Sweeney, L. and Sterman, J. D. (2000). Bathtub dynamics: initial results of a systems thinking inventory. Syst. Dynam. Rev., 16, 249-286.
4. Bravo, C., van Joolingen, W. R., and de Jong, T. (2006). Modeling and simulation in inquiry learning: checking solutions and giving intelligent advice. Simul. Trans. Soc. Modeling Simul. Int., 82(11), 769-784.
5. Brown, J. S., Burton, R. R., and de Kleer, J. (1982). Pedagogical, natural language and knowledge engineering techniques in Sophie I, II, and III. In Intelligent Tutoring Systems, edited by D. Sleeman and J. S. Brown, pp. 227-282. London: Academic Press.*
6. Buckley, B. C. (2000). Interactive multimedia and model-based learning in biology. Int. J. Sci. Educ., 22, 895-935.
7. Chi, M. T. H. (1992). Conceptual change within and across ontological categories: examples from learning and discovery in science. In Cognitive Models of Science, Vol. 15, edited by R. N. Giere, pp. 129-186. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.*
8. Clement, J. (2000). Model based learning as a key research area for science education. Int. J. Sci. Educ., 22, 1041-1053.
9. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV). (1992). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: theory, program, description, and assessment data. Educ. Psychol., 27, 291-315.*
10. Crismond, D. (2001). Learning and using science ideas when doing investigate-and-redesign tasks: a study of naive, novice, and expert designers doing constrained and scaffolded design work. J. Res. Sci. Teaching, 38(7), 791-820.
11. de Jong, T. (1991). Learning and instruction with computer simulations. Educ. Comput., 6, 217-229.*
12. de Jong, T. (2006a). Computer simulations: technological advances in inquiry learning. Science, 312, 532-533.*
13. de Jong, T. (2006b). Scaffolds for computer simulation based scientific discovery learning. In Dealing with Complexity in Learning Environments, edited by J. Elen and R. E. Clark, pp. 107-128. London: Elsevier.
14. de Jong, T. and Njoo, M. (1992). Learning and instruction with computer simulations: learning processes involved. In Computer-Based Learning Environments and Problem Solving, edited by E. de Corte, M. Linn, H. Mandl, and L. Verschaffel, pp. 411-429. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
15. de Jong, T. and van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Rev. Educ. Res., 68, 179-202.
16. Dimitracopoulou, A., Komis, V., Apostolopoulos, P., and Pollitis, P. (1999). Design Principles of a New Modelling Environment for Young Students Supporting Various Types of Reasoning and Interdisciplinary Approaches. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education: Open Learning Environments-New Computational Technologies to Support Learning, Exploration and Collaboration, July 19-23, Le Mans, France.
17. Forrester, J. W. (1961). Industrial Dynamics. Waltham, MA: Pegasus Communications.*
18. Gentner, D. and Stevens, A. L., Eds. (1983). Mental Models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
19. Gobert, J. D. (2000). A typology of causal models for plate tectonics: Inferential power and barriers to understanding Int. J. Sci. Educ., 22, 937-977.
20. Halloun, I. (1996). Schematic modeling for meaningful learning of physics. J. Res. Sci. Teaching, 33, 1019-1041.
21. Harel, I. and Papert, S. (1991). Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
22. Hestenes, D. (1987). Towards a modeling theory of physics instruction. Am. J. Phys., 55, 440-454.
23. Hickey, D. T., Kindfield, A. C. H., Horwitz, P., and Christie, M. A. (2003). Integrating curriculum, instruction, assessment, and evaluation in a technology-supported genetics environment. Am. Educ. Res. J., 40, 495-538.
24. Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D. L., and Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. J. Learn. Sci., 9(3), 247-298.
25. Hogan, K. (1999). Relating students’ personal frameworks for science learning to their cognition in collaborative contexts. Sci. Educ., 83, 1-32.
26. Hogan, K. and Thomas, D. (2001). Cognitive comparisons of students’ systems modeling in ecology. J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 10, 319-344.
27. Hollan, J. D., Hutchins, E. L., and Weitzman, L. (1984). STEAMER: an interactive inspectable simulation-based training system. AI Mag., 5, 15-27.
28. Jackson, S., Stratford, S. J., Krajcik, J., and Soloway, E. (1996). Making dynamic modeling accessible to pre-college science students. Interact. Learn. Environ., 4, 233-257.
29. Kafai, Y. B. (2006). Constructionism. In The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, edited by R. K. Sawyer, pp. 35-47. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
30. Kafai, Y. B. and Resnick, M., Eds. (1996). Constructionism in Practice: Designing, Thinking, and Learning in a Digital World. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
31. Ketelhut, D. J., Dede, C., Clarke, J., and Nelson, B. (2006). A Multi-User Virtual Environment for Building Higher Order Inquiry Skills in Science. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 8-12, San Francisco.
32. Klahr, D. and Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychol. Sci., 15, 661-668.*
33. Kurland, L. and Tenney, Y. (1988). Issues in developing an intelligent tutor for a real-world domain: training in radar mechanics. In Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Lessons Learned, edited by J. Psotka, L. D. Massey, and S. Mutter, pp. 59-85. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.*
34. Kurtz dos Santos, A., Thielo, M. R., and Kleer, A. A. (1997). Students modelling environmental issues. J. Comput. Assist. Learn., 13, 35-47.
35. Lehrer, R. and Schauble, L. (2006). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, edited by R. K. Sawyer, pp. 371-389. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
36. Lin, J.-Y. (2007). Responses to anomalous data obtained from repeatable experiments in the laboratory. J. Res. Sci. Teaching, 44(3), 506-528.
37. Linn, M. C., Bell, P., and Davis, E. A. (2004). Specific design principles: elaborating the scaffolded knowledge integration framework. In Internet Environments for Science Education, edited by M. Linn, E. A. Davis, and P. Bell, pp. 315-341. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
38. Linn, M. C., Lee, H.-S., Tinker, R., Husic, F., and Chiu, J. L. (2006). Teaching and assessing knowledge integration in science. Science, 313, 1049-1050.
39. Löhner, S. (2005). Computer Based Modelling Tasks: The Role of External Representation. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
40. Löhner, S., van Joolingen, W. R., and Savelsbergh, E. R. (2003). The effect of external representation on constructing computer models of complex phenomena. Instruct. Sci., 31, 395-418.
41. Löhner, S., van Joolingen, W. R., Savelsbergh, E. R., and van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2005). Students’ reasoning during modeling in an inquiry learning environment. Comput. Hum. Behav., 21, 441-461.
42. Mandinach, E. B. (1988). The Cognitive Effects of Simulation-Modeling Software and Systems Thinking on Learning and Achievement. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April, New Orleans.
43. Mandinach, E. B. and Cline, H. F. (1996). Classroom dynamics: the impact of a technology-based curriculum innovation on teaching and learning. J. Educ. Comput. Res., 14, 83-102.*
44. Manlove, S., Lazonder, A. W., and de Jong, T. (2006). Regulative support for collaborative scientific inquiry learning. J. Comput. Assist. Learn., 22, 87-98.
45. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? Am. Psychol., 59, 14-19.*
46. Mayer, R. E. and Fay, A. L. (1987). A chain of cognitive changes with learning to program in Logo. J. Educ. Psychol., 79(3), 269-279.
47. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
48. National Science Foundation (NSF). (2000). An introduction to inquiry. In Inquiry: Thoughts, Views and Strategies for the K-5 Classroom, Vol. 2, pp. 1-5. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation.*
49. Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping: a useful tool for science education. J. Res. Sci. Teaching, 27, 937-949.*
50. Ogborn, J. and Wong, D. (1984). A microcomputer dynamical modelling system. Phys. Educ., 19, 138-142.
51. Papaevripidou, M., Constantinou, C. P., and Zacharia, Z. C. (2007). Modelling complex marine ecosystems: an investigation of two teaching approaches with fifth graders. J. Comput. Assist. Learn., 23(2), 145-157.
52. Penner, D. E. (2001). Cognition, computers, and synthetic science: Building knowledge and meaning through modelling. Rev. Res. Educ., 25, 1-37.*
53. Ploger, D. and Lay, E. (1992). The structure of programs and molecules. J. Educ. Comput. Res., 8, 347-364.
54. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G. et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. J. Learn. Sci., 13, 337-387.
55. Resnick, M. (1994). Turtles, Termites, and Traffic Jams. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.*
56. Scanlon, E. and Smith, R. B. (1988). A rational reconstruction of a bubble-chamber simulation using the alternate reality kit. Comput. Educ., 12, 199-207.
57. Schecker, H. P. (1998). Physik-Modellieren, Grafikorientierte Modelbildungssysteme im Physikunterricht. Stuttgart, Germany: Ernst Klett Verlag GmbH.
58. Schwarz, C. V. and White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling. Cogn. Instruct., 23, 165-205.
59. Shute, V. J. and Glaser, R. (1990). A large-scale evaluation of an intelligent discovery world: Smithtown. Interact. Learn. Environ., 1, 51-77.
60. Sins, P. H. M., van Joolingen, W. R., Savelsbergh, E., and van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2007). Motivation and performance within a collaborative computer-based modeling task: relations between students’ achievement goal orientation, self-efficacy, cognitive processing and achievement. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. (doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.12.004).
61. Smith, R. B. (1986). The Alternate Reality Kit: An Animated Environment for Creating Interactive Simulations. Paper presented at the IEEE Computer Society Workshop on Visual Languages, June 25-27, Dallas, TX.
62. Snyder, J. L. (2000). An investigation of the knowledge structures of experts, intermediates and novices in physics. Int. J. Sci. Educ., 22, 979-992.
63. Spector, J. M. (2001). Tools and principles for the design of collaborative learning environments for complex domains. J. Struct. Learn. Intell. Syst., 14, 484-510.*
64. Steed, M. (1992). STELLA, a simulation construction kit: cognitive process and educational implications. J. Comput. Math. Sci. Teaching, 11(1), 39-52.
65. Swaak, J., van Joolingen, W. R., and de Jong, T. (1998). Supporting simulation-based learning; the effects of model progression and assignments on definitional and intuitive knowledge. Learn. Instruct., 8, 235-253.*
66. Towne, D. M., Munro, A., Pizzini, Q., Surmon, D., Coller, L., and Wogulis, J. (1990). Model-building tools for simulationbased training. Interact. Learn. Environ., 1, 33-50.*
67. Van Borkulo, S. P. and van Joolingen, W. R. (2006). A Framework for the Assessment of Modeling Knowledge. Poster presented at the GIREP Conference, August 20-25, Amsterdam.
68. van Joolingen, W. R. and de Jong, T. (1991). Characteristics of simulations for instructional settings. Education and Computing, 6, 241-262.
69. van Joolingen, W. R. and de Jong, T. (2003). SimQuest: authoring educational simulations. In Authoring Tools for Advanced Technology Educational Software: Toward Cost-Effective Production of Adaptive, Interactive, and Intelligent Educational Software, edited by T. Murray, S. Blessing and S. Ainsworth, pp. 1-31. Dordrecht: Kluwer.*
70. van Joolingen, W. R., de Jong, T., Lazonder, A. W., Savelsbergh, E., and Manlove, S. (2005). Co-Lab: research and development of an on-line learning environment for collaborative scientific discovery learning. Comput. Hum. Behav., 21, 671-688.
71. Veermans, K. H., van Joolingen, W. R., and de Jong, T. (2006). Using heuristics to facilitate scientific discovery learning in a simulation learning environment in a physics domain. Int. J. Sci. Educ., 28, 341-361.*
72. Vreman-de Olde, C. and de Jong, T. (2006). Scaffolding the design of assignments for a computer simulation. J. Comput. Assist. Learn., 22, 63-74.
73. White, B. Y. (1993). ThinkerTools: causal models, conceptual change, and science education. Cogn. Instruct., 10, 1-100.*
74. White, B. Y. and Frederiksen, J. R. (1989). Causal models as intelligent learning environments for science and engineering education. Appl. Artif. Intell., 3, 83-106.
75. White, B. Y. and Frederiksen, J. R. (1990). Causal model progressions as a foundation for intelligent learning environments. Artif. Intell., 42, 99-57.
76. White, B. Y. and Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modelling, and metacognition: making science accessible to all students. Cogn. Instruct., 16, 3-118.*
77. White, B. Y. and Frederiksen, J. R. (2005). A theoretical framework and approach for fostering metacognitive development Educ. Psychol., 40, 211-223.
78. Wilensky, U. and Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a firefly: learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories-an embodied modeling approach. Cogn. Instruct., 24, 171-209.
79. Zachos, P., Hick, T. L., Doane, W. E. J., and Sargent, C. (2000). Setting theoretical and empirical foundations for assessing scientific inquiry and discovery in educational programs. J. Res. Sci. Teaching, 37, 938-962.