Supports for deeper learning of inquiry-based ecosystem science in virtual environments - Comparing virtual and physical concept mapping

Computers in Human Behavior

Volumn 87, Issue , 2018, Pages 459-469

  Metcalf, Shari J ^a   Reilly, Joseph M ^a   Kamarainen, Amy M ^a   King, Jeffrey ^a   Grotzer, Tina A ^a   Dede, Chris ^a  

^a HARVARD GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION   (United States)

Author keywords

Concept maps; Design based research; Inquiry learning; MUVEs; Virtual 3D environments

Indexed keywords

CURRICULA; ECOSYSTEMS; MAPPING; SCAFFOLDS; STUDENTS; VIRTUAL REALITY;

CONCEPT MAPS; DESIGN-BASED RESEARCH; INQUIRY LEARNING; MUVES; VIRTUAL/3D ENVIRONMENTS;

E-LEARNING;

ARTICLE; CONCEPT MAPPING; CURRICULUM; ECOSYSTEM; HUMAN; LEARNING; SCIENTIST; STUDENT;

EID: 85050006016     PISSN: 07475632     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.03.018     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Amiel, T., Reeves, T.C., Design-based research and educational technology: Rethinking technology and the research agenda. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 2008, 29.
2. Barab, S., Squire, K., Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 13:1 (2004), 1–14.
3. Biswas, G., Leelawong, K., Schwartz, D., Vye, N., The Teachable Agents Group at Vanderbilt. Learning by teaching: A new agent paradigm for educational software. Applied Artificial Intelligence 19:3–4 (2005), 363–392.
4. Brown, J.S., Collins, A., Duguid, P., Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational researcher 18:1 (1989), 32–42.
5. Brown, A.L., Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 2:2 (1992), 141–178.
6. Chen, J., Wang, M., Dede, C., Grotzer, T.A., Design of a three-dimensional cognitive mapping approach to support inquiry learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 20:4 (2017), 191–204.
7. Corbalan, G., Kester, L., Van Merriënboer, J.J., Selecting learning tasks: Effects of adaptation and shared control on learning efficiency and task involvement. Contemporary Educational Psychology 33:4 (2008), 733–756.
8. Cox, R., Representation construction, externalised cognition and individual differences. Learning and Instruction 9:4 (1999), 343–363.
9. Creswell, J.W., Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 2013, Sage publications.
10. Cunningham, D., Duffy, T., Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology 51 (1996), 170–198.
11. Davies, M., Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: What are the differences and do they matter?. Higher Education 62:3 (2011), 279–301.
12. Dede, C., Grotzer, T., Metcalf, S.J., Kamarainen, A., Tutwiler, M.S., EcoXPT: Learning through experimentation in an immersive virtual ecosystem. American Educational Research Association (AERA) Conference, San Antonio, TX, 2017.
13. De Jong, T., Linn, M.C., Zacharia, Z.C., Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science 340:6130 (2013), 305–308.
14. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., Young People's images of science. 1996, McGraw-Hill Education, UK.
15. Edelson, D.C., Learning-for-use: A framework for integration content and process learning in the design of inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 8 (2001), 355–385.
16. Goodwin, C., Professional vision. American Anthropologist 96:3 (1994), 606–633.
17. Grotzer, T.A., Kamarainen, A., Tutwiler, M.S., Metcalf, S., Dede, C., Learning to reason about ecosystems dynamics over time: The challenges of an event-based causal focus. BioScience 63:4 (2013), 288–296.
18. Grotzer, T.A., Metcalf, S.J., Tutwiler, M.S., Kamarainen, A.M., Thompson, M., Dede, C., Teaching the systems aspects of epistemologically authentic experimentation in ecosystems through immersive virtual worlds. 2017, National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), San Antonio, TX.
19. Guzdial, M., Software-realized scaffolding to facilitate programming for science learning. Interactive Learning Environments 4:1 (1994), 1–44.
20. Hmelo-Silver, C.E., Duncan, R.G., Chinn, C.A., Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist 42:2 (2007), 99–107.
21. Jonassen, D., Using cognitive tools to represent problems. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 35:3 (2003), 362–381.
22. Jonassen, D.H., Reeves, T.C., Hong, N., Harvey, D., Peters, K., Concept mapping as cognitive learning and assessment tools. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 8(3), 1997, 289.
23. Kafai, Y.B., Quintero, M., Feldon, D., Investigating the “why”in Whypox: Casual and systematic explorations of a virtual epidemic. Games and Culture 5:1 (2010), 116–135.
24. Kamarainen, A., Metcalf, S., Grotzer, T., Dede, C.J., Exploring ecosystems from the inside: How immersion in a multi-user virtual environment supports epistemologically grounded practices in ecosystem science instruction. Journal of Science Education and Technology 24:2 (2015), 148–167.
25. Keppens, J., Hay, D., Concept map assessment for teaching computer programming. Computer Science Education 18:1 (2008), 31–42.
26. Kim, Y.C., Evens, M.W., Michael, J.A., Trace, D., Physiology Tutorials using causal concept mapping. The 13th midwest AI and cognitive science conference, 2002, 61–64.
27. Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., Clark, R.E., 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 (2006), 75–86.
28. Lave, J., Wenger, E., Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. 1991, Cambridge university press.
29. Markham, K.M., Mintzes, J.J., Jones, M.G., The concept map as a research and evaluation tool: Further evidence of validity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 31:1 (1994), 91–101.
30. Metcalf, S.J., Kamarainen, A., Tutwiler, M.S., Grotzer, T.A., Dede, C.J., Ecosystem science learning via multi-user virtual environments. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations 3:1 (2011), 86–90.
31. McClure, J.R., Sonak, B., Suen, H.K., Concept map assessment of classroom learning: Reliability, validity, and logistical practicality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36:4 (1999), 475–492.
32. McNeill, K.L., Krajcik, J.S., Supporting Grade 5-8 Students in Constructing Explanations in Science: The Claim, Evidence, and Reasoning Framework for Talk and Writing. 2011, Pearson.
33. National Research Council, Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. 2012, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13398.
34. Nelson, B.C., Ketelhut, D.J., Scientific inquiry in educational multi-user virtual environments. Educational Psychology Review 19:3 (2007), 265–283.
35. NGSS Lead States, Next generation science Standards: For states, by states. Washington DC. 2013.
36. Novak, J.D., Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 27:10 (1990), 937–949.
37. Oliver, R., Engaging first year students using a web-supported inquiry-based learning setting. Higher Education, 55(3), 2008, 285.
38. Quintana, C., Reiser, B.J., Davis, E.A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R.G., et al., Soloway, E., A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 13:3 (2004), 337–386.
39. Reiser, B.J., Scaffolding complex learning: The Mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 13 (2004), 273–304.
40. Reiser, B.J., Tabak, I., Scaffolding. In the Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. 2nd ed., 2014, Cambridge University Press, 44–62.
41. Rice, D., Ryan, J., Samson, S., Using concept maps to assess student learning in the science classroom: Must different methods compete?. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 35:10 (1998), 1103–1127.
42. Rosen, Y., Tager, M., Making student thinking visible through a concept map in computer-based assessment of critical thinking. Journal of Educational Computing Research 50:2 (2014), 249–270.
43. Sandoval, W.A., Bell, P., Design-based research methods for studying learning in context: Introduction. Educational Psychologist 39:4 (2004), 199–201.
44. Sandoval, W.A., Reiser, B.J., Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education 88:3 (2004), 345–372.
45. Slof, B., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P.A., Janssen, J., Jaspers, J.G.M., Successfully carrying out complex learning-tasks through guiding teams’ qualitative and quantitative reasoning. Instructional Science 40:3 (2012), 623–643.
46. Stoddart, T., Abrams, R., Gasper, E., Canaday, D., Concept maps as assessment in science inquiry learning-a report of methodology. International Journal of Science Education 22:12 (2000), 1221–1246.
47. Suthers, D., Connelly, J., Lesgold, A., Paolucci, M., Toth, E., Toth, J., et al. Representational and advisory guidance for students learning scientific inquiry. Forbus, K.D., Feltovich, P., (eds.) Smart machines in education: The coming revolution in educational technology, 2001, AAAI/Mit Press, Menlo Park, CA, 7–35.
48. Toth, E.E., Suthers, D.D., Lesgold, A.M., “Mapping to know”: The effects of representational guidance and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry. Science Education 86:2 (2002), 264–286.
49. Vygotsky, L.S., Mind in society: The development of higher mental process. 1978, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
50. Wallace, J.D., Mintzes, J.J., The concept map as a research tool: Exploring conceptual change in biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 27:10 (1990), 1033–1052.
51. Wandersee, J.H., Mintzes, J.J., Novak, J.D., Research on alternative conceptions in science. Handbook of research on science teaching and learning, 1994, 177–210.
52. Wang, M., Cheng, B., Chen, J., Mercer, N., Kirschner, P.A., The use of web-based collaborative concept mapping to support group learning and interaction in an online environment. The Internet and Higher Education 34 (2017), 28–40.
53. Wang, F., Hannafin, M.J., Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research & Development 53:4 (2005), 5–23.
54. Wang, M., Kirschner, P., Bridges, S., Computer-based learning environments for deep learning in inquiry and problem-solving contexts. Proceedings of the international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS), 2016.
55. Wang, M., Wu, B., Kirschner, P.A., Extended concept mapping to support problem solving in a computer-based learning environment. Learning environments for deep learning in inquiry and problem-solving contexts, Vol. 13, 2016.