Using a three-dimensional thinking graph to support inquiry learning

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 55, Issue 9, 2018, Pages 1239-1263

  Chen, Juanjuan ^a   Wang, Minhong ^a   Grotzer, Tina A ^b   Dede, Chris ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

^b HARVARD GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION   (United States)

Author keywords

collaborative learning; concept map; external representations; inquiry learning; science education

Indexed keywords

SURVEYS;

COLLABORATIVE LEARNING; CONCEPT MAPS; EXTERNAL REPRESENTATIONS; INQUIRY LEARNING; SCIENCE EDUCATION;

STUDENTS;

EID: 85043369876     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.21450     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Albanese, M. A., & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning. A Review of Literature on Its Outcomes and Implementation Issues. Academic Medicine, 68(1), 52–81
2. Bell, T., Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., & Ploetzner, R. (2010). Collaborative inquiry learning: Models, tools, and challenges. International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 349–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802582241
3. Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. E. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
4. Brna, P., Cox, R., & Good, J. (2001). Learning to think and communicate with diagrams: 14 questions to consider. Artificial Intelligence Review, 15(1–2), 115–134. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006584801959
5. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 1–49. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543063001001
6. Cohen, J. (1992). Statistical power analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1(3), 98–101
7. Cox, R. (1999). Representation construction, externalised cognition and individual differences. Learning and Instruction, 9(4), 343–363
8. Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 91–142
9. de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179–201
10. Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300–329. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457206
11. Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., & Clay-Chambers, J. (2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-based science curricula in the context of urban reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(8), 922–939. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20248
12. Germann, P. J., & Aram, R. J. (1996). Student performances on the science processes of recording data, analyzing data, drawing conclusions, and providing evidence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(7), 773–798. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199609)33:7<773::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-K
13. Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., Van den Bossche, P., & Segers, M. (2005). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis from the angle of assessment. Review of Educational Research, 75(1), 27–61
14. Gijlers, H., & De Jong, T. (2005). The relation between prior knowledge and students' collaborative discovery learning processes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 264–282. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20056
15. Gijlers, H., & de Jong, T. (2013). Using concept maps to facilitate collaborative simulation-based inquiry learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(3), 340–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2012.748664
16. Gijlers, H., Saab, N., Van Joolingen, W. R., De Jong, T., & Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2009). Interaction between tool and talk: How instruction and tools support consensus building in collaborative inquiry-learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(3), 252–267. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00302.x
17. Grotzer, T. A., & Bell Basca, B. (2003). How does grasping the underlying causal structures of ecosystems impact students' understanding? Journal of Biological Education, 38(1), 16–29
18. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107
19. Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students' and scientists' reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 663–687. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1025
20. Hsu, C. C., Chiu, C. H., Lin, C. H., & Wang, T. I. (2015). Enhancing skill in constructing scientific explanations using a structured argumentation scaffold in scientific inquiry. Computers and Education, 91, 46–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.009
21. Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kanselaar, G. (2010). Effects of representational guidance during computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 38(1), 59–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9078-1
22. Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and III-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65–94
23. Kamarainen, A. M., Metcalf, S., Grotzer, T., & Dede, C. (2015). Exploring ecosystems from the inside: How immersive multi-user virtual environments can support development of epistemologically grounded modeling practices in ecosystem science instruction. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(2–3), 148–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9531-7
24. Keselman, A., Kaufman, D. R., Kramer, S., & Patel, V. L. (2007). Fostering conceptual change and critical reasoning about HIV and AIDS. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 844–863. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20173
25. Keys, C. W. (2000). Investigating the thinking processes of eighth grade writers during the composition of a scientific laboratory report. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 676–690
26. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (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(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
27. Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(88)90007-9
28. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Slotta, J. D. (2007). Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 708–721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.021
29. Krathwohl, D. R. (1998). Methods of educational and social science research: An integrated approach (2nd ed.). New York: Longman
30. Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A., & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 495–523
31. Lawson, A. E. (2005). What is the role of induction and deduction in reasoning and scientific inquiry? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 716–740. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20067
32. Lawson, A. E., Banks, D. L., & Logvin, M. (2007). Self-efficacy, reasoning ability, and achievement in college biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 706–724. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20172
33. Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guidance. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681–718. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627366
34. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10034
35. Linn, M. C., & Slotta, J. D. (2000). WISE science. Educational Leadership, 58(2), 29–32
36. Linn, M. C., & Songer, N. B. (1991). Teaching thermodynamics to middle school students: What are appropriate cognitive demands? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(10), 885–918. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660281003
37. Markow, P. G., & Lonning, R. A. (1998). Usefulness of concept maps in college chemistry laboratories: Students' perceptions and effects on achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(9), 1015–1029
38. Njoo, M., & De Jong, T. (1993a). Exploratory learning with a computer simulation for control theory: Learning processes and instructional support. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(8), 821–844. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300803
39. Njoo, M., & de Jong, T. (1993b). Supporting exploratory learning by offering structured overviews of hypotheses. In T. d. J. D. Towne & H. Spada (Eds.), Simulation-based experiential learning (pp. 207–225). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag
40. Noroozi, O., Teasley, S. D., Biemans, H. J. A., Weinberger, A., & Mulder, M. (2013). Facilitating learning in multidisciplinary groups with transactive CSCL scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(2), 189–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-012-9162-z
41. Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education, 86(4), 548–571
42. Novak, J. D., Bob Gowin, D., & Johansen, G. T. (1983). The use of concept mapping and knowledge vee mapping with junior high school science students. Science Education, 67(5), 625–645. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730670511
43. Pedaste, M., de Jong, T., Sarapuu, T., Piksööt, J., van Joolingen, W. R., & Giemza, A. (2013). Investigating ecosystems as a blended learning experience. Science, 340(6140), 1537–1538
44. Penner, D. E. (2000). Explaining systems: Investigating middle school students' understanding of emergent phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 784–806
45. 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(3), 337–386
46. Roth, W. M., & McGinn, M. K. (1998). Inscriptions: Toward a theory of representing as social practice. Review of Educational Research, 68(1), 35–59
47. Roth, W. M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The concept map as a tool for the collaborative construction of knowledge: A microanalysis of high school physics students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(5), 503–534. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300508
48. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Schultz, S. E., Li, M., & Shavelson, R. J. (2001). Comparison of the reliability and validity of scores from two concept-mapping techniques. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 260–278
49. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(6), 569–600
50. Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students' scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5–51
51. Schwendimann, B. A., & Linn, M. C. (2016). Comparing two forms of concept map critique activities to facilitate knowledge integration processes in evolution education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(1), 70–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21244
52. Shin, N., Jonassen, D. H., & McGee, S. (2003). Predictors of well-structured and ill-structured problem solving in an astronomy simulation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(1), 6–33
53. Shute, V. J., & Glaser, R. (1990). A large-scale evaluation of an intelligent discovery world: Smithtown. Interactive Learning Environments, 1(1), 51–77
54. Singer, J., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J., & Clay Chambers, J. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 165–178
55. Slof, B., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Helms-Lorenz, M. (2013). The effects of inspecting and constructing part-task-specific visualizations on team and individual learning. Computers and Education, 60(1), 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.07.019
56. Slof, B., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., Janssen, J., & Jaspers, J. G. M. (2012). Successfully carrying out complex learning-tasks through guiding teams' qualitative and quantitative reasoning. Instructional Science, 40(3), 623–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9185-2
57. Slof, B., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Jaspers, J. G. M. (2010). Design and effects of representational scripting on group performance. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(5), 589–608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9148-3
58. Stoyanov, S., & Kommers, P. (2006). WWW-intensive concept mapping for metacognition in solving ill-structured problems. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life Long Learning, 16(3), 297–316
59. 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(3), 215–234
60. Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2002). The effects of representation on students' elaborations in collaborative inquiry. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL Community (pp. 472–480). Boulder, Colorado (USA). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
61. Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183–218
62. Suthers, D. D., Vatrapu, R., Medina, R., Joseph, S., & Dwyer, N. (2008). Beyond threaded discussion: Representational guidance in asynchronous collaborative learning environments. Computers and Education, 50(4), 1103–1127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.10.007
63. 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(2), 264–286. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10004
64. Van Bruggen, J. M., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2002). External representation of argumentation in CSCL and the management of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00019-6
65. Van Joolingen, W. R., & De Jong, T. (1997). An extended dual search space model of scientific discovery learning. Instructional Science, 25(5), 307–346
66. van Joolingen, W. R., Savelsbergh, E. R., de Jong, T., Lazonder, A. W., & Manlove, S. (2005). Co-Lab: Research and development of an online learning environment for collaborative scientific discovery learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(4), 671–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.039
67. Wang, M., Cheng, B., Chen, J., Mercer, N., & Kirschner, P. A. (2017). The use of web-based collaborative concept mapping to support group learning and interaction in an online environment. Internet and Higher Education, 34, 28–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.04.003
68. Wang, M., Kirschner, P. A., & Bridges, S. M. (2016). Computer-based learning environments for deep learning in inquiry and problem-solving contexts. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 1356-1360). Singapore: International Society of the Learning Sciences
69. Wang, M., Wu, B., Kinshuk, Chen, N.- S., & Spector, J. M. (2013). Connecting problem-solving and knowledge-construction processes in a visualization-based learning environment. Computers and Education, 68, 293–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.05.004
70. 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(10), 1180–1206. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21106
71. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2007). Knowledge convergence in collaborative learning: Concepts and assessment. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 416–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.03.007
72. White, B. Y. (1993). ThinkerTools: Causal models, conceptual change, and science education. Cognition and Instruction, 10(1), 1–100
73. Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of “inquiry:” How preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 481–512
74. Zeineddin, A., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2010). Scientific reasoning and epistemological commitments: Coordination of theory and evidence among college science students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(9), 1064–1093. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20368
75. Zimmerman, C., Raghavan, K., & Sartoris, M. L. (2003). The impact of the MARS curriculum on students' ability to coordinate theory and evidence. International Journal of Science Education, 25(10), 1247–1271. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069022000038303