Geneticus Investigatio: a technology-enhanced learning environment for scaffolding complex learning in genetics

Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2020, Pages

  Deep, Anurag ^a   Murthy, Sahana ^a   Bhat, Jayadeva ^a  

^a INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY BOMBAY   (India)

Author keywords

Complex learning; Design based research; Geneticus Investigatio; Problem solving

Indexed keywords

EID: 85096831895     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17937078     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s41039-020-00145-5     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action. DC: Washington.
2. Bahar, M., Johnstone, A. H., & Hansell, M. H. (1999). Revisiting learning difficulties in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 33(2).
3. Barab, S. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2002). Smart people or smart contexts? Cognition, ability, and talent development in an age of situated approaches to knowing and learning. Educational psychologist, 37(3), 165–182. DOI: 10.1207/S15326985EP3703_3
4. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn, (vol. 11). Washington, DC: National academy press.
5. Brooke, J. (1996). SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry, 189(194), 4–7.
6. Brownell, S. E., Kloser, M. J., Fukami, T., & Shavelson, R. (2012). Undergraduate biology lab courses: Comparing the impact of traditionally based “cookbook” and authentic research-based courses on student lab experiences. Journal of College Science Teaching, 41(4), 36.
7. Chen et al. 2013) W. Chen, C. Looi, W. Xie, & Y. Wen, (2013) Empowering argumentation in the science classroom with a complex CSCL environment. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computers in Education. Indonesia: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education.
8. Concord Consortium. (2010). Geniverse (Accessed: 16 May. 2019). Geniverse [Online]. Available: https://geniverse-lab.concord.org
9. Cooper, S., Hanmer, D., & Cerbin, B. (2006). Problem-solving modules in large introductory biology lectures. The American Biology Teacher, 68(9), 524–530. DOI: 10.2307/4452059
10. Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 91–142. DOI: 10.1207/S15327809JLS1201_4
11. De Jong, T., Sotiriou, S., & Gillet, D. (2014). Innovations in STEM education: The Go-Lab federation of online labs. Smart Learning Environments, 1(1), 3. DOI: 10.1186/s40561-014-0003-6
12. 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. DOI: 10.3102/00346543068002179
13. Demetriadis, S. N., Papadopoulos, P. M., Stamelos, I. G., & Fischer, F. (2008). The effect of scaffolding students’ context-generating cognitive activity in technology-enhanced case-based learning. Computers & Education, 51(2), 939–954. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.012
14. Etkina, E, Van Heuvelen, A, White-Brahmia, S, Brookes, DT, Gentile, M, Murthy, S, Warren, A. (2006). Scientific abilities and their assessment. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res, 2(2), 020103.
15. Frerejean, J., van Merriënboer, J. J., Kirschner, P. A., Roex, A., Aertgeerts, B., & Marcellis, M. (2019). Designing instruction for complex learning: 4C/ID in higher education. European Journal of Education.
16. Guan, J., Su, X., Qian, D., & Yu, E. (2014). Current situation and strategy of the promotion of e-schoolbag application area—Based on analysis of content of teachers’ interviews. E-Education Research, 35(10), 53–59.
17. Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74. DOI: 10.1119/1.18809
18. Hashemi, M., Azizinezhad, M., Najafi, V., & Nesari, A. J. (2011). What is mobile learning? Challenges and capabilities. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 2477–2481. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.483
19. Hester, S. D., Nadler, M., Katcher, J., Elfring, L. K., Dykstra, E., Rezende, L. F., & Bolger, M. S. (2018). Authentic Inquiry through Modeling in Biology (AIM-Bio): An introductory laboratory curriculum that increases undergraduates’ scientific agency and skills. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(4), ar63.
20. Hoskinson, A. M., Caballero, M. D., & Knight, J. K. (2013). How can we improve problem-solving in undergraduate biology? Applying lessons from 30 years of physics education research. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12(2), 153–161. DOI: 10.1187/cbe.12-09-0149
21. Jouble (2013). H5p.org (Accessed: 20 May. 2019). H5p [Online]. Available: https://h5p.org/
22. Karagoz, M., & Çakir, M. (2011). Problem solving in genetics: Conceptual and procedural difficulties. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 11(3), 1668–1674.
23. Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Scaffolding problem-solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computers & Education, 56(2), 403–417. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.024
24. Kirschner, P. A., & Van Merriënboer, J. (2008). Ten steps to complex learning a new approach to instruction and instructional design. DOI: 10.4135/9781412964012.n26
25. Lang, J. D., Cruse, S., McVey, F. D., & McMasters, J. (1999). Industry expectations of new engineers: A survey to assist curriculum designers. Journal of Engineering Education, 88(1), 43–51. DOI: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.1999.tb00410.x
26. Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guidance. Review of educational research, 86(3), 681–718. DOI: 10.3102/0034654315627366
27. Makransky, G., Bonde, M. T., Wulff, J. S., Wandall, J., Hood, M., Creed, P. A., … Nørremølle, A. (2016). Simulation-based virtual learning environment in medical genetics counselling: An example of bridging the gap between theory and practice in medical education. BMC medical education, 16(1), 98. DOI: 10.1186/s12909-016-0620-6
28. McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2014). Educational design research, In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 131-140) (). New York, NY: Springer.)
29. NRC (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
30. Orcajo, T., & Aznar, M. (2005). Solving problems in genetics II: Conceptual restructuring. International Journal of Science Education, 27(12), 1495–1519. DOI: 10.1080/09500690500186584
31. Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., De Jong, T., Van Riesen, S. A., Kamp, E. T., … Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational research review, 14, 47–61. DOI: 10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003
32. 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. The journal of the learning sciences, 13(3), 337–386. DOI: 10.1207/s15327809jls1303_4
33. Rodenbusch, S. E., Hernandez, P. R., Simmons, S. L., & Dolan, E. L. (2016). Early engagement in course-based research increases graduation rates and completion of science, engineering, and mathematics degrees. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(2).
34. Schon, D. A. (1983). 1983, The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
35. Shuman, L. J., Besterfield-Sacre, M., & McGourty, J. (2005). The ABET “professional skills”—can they be taught? Can they be assessed? Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 41–55. DOI: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00828.x
36. Slotta, J. (2002). Designing the web-based inquiry science environment (WISE). Educational technology, 42(5), 15–20.
37. Suárez, Á., Specht, M., Prinsen, F., Kalz, M., & Ternier, S. (2018). A review of the types of mobile activities in mobile inquiry-based learning. Computers & Education, 118, 38–55. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.11.004
38. Thompson, N., & McGill, T. J. (2017). Genetics with Jean: The design, development and evaluation of an affective tutoring system. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(2), 279–299. DOI: 10.1007/s11423-016-9470-5
39. Van Merriënboer, J. J. (1997). Training complex cognitive skills: A four-component instructional design model for technical training. Educational Technology.
40. Van Merriënboer, J. J., & Dolmans, D. H. J. M. (2015). Research on instructional design in the health sciences: From taxonomies of learning to whole-task models. Researching medical education, 193-206.
41. Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2007). Alternate models of instructional design: Holistic design approaches and complex learning. Trends and issues in instructional design and technology, 72–81.
42. Xun, G. E., & Land, S. M. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding III-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational technology research and development, 52(2), 5–22. DOI: 10.1007/BF02504836
43. Yin, C. J., Uosaki, N., Chu, H. C., Hwang, G. J., Hwang, J. J., Hatono, I., & Tabata, Y. (2017). Learning behavioural pattern analysis based on students’ logs in reading digital books. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Computers in Education (pp. 549-557).