Supporting Students' Knowledge Integration with Technology-Enhanced Inquiry Curricula - eScholarship

Dynamic visualizations of scientific phenomena have the potential to transform how students learn and understand science. Dynamic visualizations enable interaction and experimentation with unobservable atomic-level phenomena. A series of studies clarify the conditions under which embedding dynamic visualizations in technology-enhanced inquiry instruction can help students develop robust and durable chemistry knowledge. Using the knowledge integration perspective, I designed Chemical Reactions, a technology-enhanced curriculum unit, with a partnership of teachers, educational researchers, and chemists. This unit guides students in an exploration of how energy and chemical reactions relate to climate change. It uses powerful dynamic visualizations to connect atomic level interactions to the accumulation of greenhouse gases. The series of studies were conducted in typical classrooms in eleven high schools across the country. This dissertation describes four studies that contribute to understanding of how visualizations can be used to transform chemistry learning. The efficacy study investigated the impact of the Chemical Reactions unit compared to traditional instruction using pre-, post- and delayed posttest assessments. The self-monitoring study used self-ratings in combination with embedded assessments to explore how explanation prompts help students learn from dynamic visualizations. The self-regulation study used log files of students' interactions with the learning environment to investigate how external feedback and explanation prompts influence students' exploration of dynamic visualizations. The explanation study compared specific and general explanation prompts to explore the processes by which explanations benefit learning with dynamic visualizations. These studies delineate the conditions under which dynamic visualizations embedded in inquiry instruction can enhance student outcomes. The studies reveal that visualizations can be deceptively clear, deterring learners from exploring details. Asking students to generate explanations helps them realize what they don't understand and can spur students to revisit visualizations to remedy gaps in their knowledge. The studies demonstrate that science instruction focused on complex topics can succeed by combining visualizations with generative activities to encourage knowledge integration. Students are more successful at monitoring their progress and remedying gaps in knowledge when required to distinguish among alternative explanations. The results inform the design of technology-enhanced science instruction for typical classrooms.

[1]  R. Azevedo,et al.  The Role of Self-Regulated Learning in Fostering Students' Conceptual Understanding of Complex Systems with Hypermedia , 2004 .

[2]  Michael R. Abraham,et al.  The effects of computer animation on the particulate mental models of college chemistry students , 1995 .

[3]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  Animation: can it facilitate? , 2002, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[4]  Marcia C. Linn,et al.  The Knowledge Integration Perspective on Learning and Instruction , 2005 .

[5]  J. Frederiksen,et al.  A Theoretical Framework and Approach for Fostering Metacognitive Development , 2005 .

[6]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  Training in Self-Explanation and Self-Regulation Strategies: Investigating the Effects of Knowledge Acquisition Activities on Problem Solving , 1995 .

[7]  Jennifer L. Chiu,et al.  Collaboration and knowledge integration , 2009, CSCL.

[8]  J. Osborne,et al.  Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms , 2000 .

[9]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  Reciprocal Teaching of Comprehension-Fostering and Comprehension-Monitoring Activities , 1984 .

[10]  Andrea A. diSessa,et al.  Changing Minds: Computers, Learning, and Literacy , 2000 .

[11]  Kathleen E. Metz Preschoolers' Developing Knowledge of the Pan Balance: From New Representation to Transformed Problem Solving , 1993 .

[12]  Robert B. Kozma,et al.  Th e Use of Multiple Representations and the Social Construction of Understanding in Chemistry , 2012 .

[13]  Gayle Nicoll,et al.  A Qualitative Investigation of Undergraduate Chemistry Students' Macroscopic Interpretations of the Submicroscopic Structure of Molecules , 2003 .

[14]  P. Black,et al.  Assessment and Classroom Learning , 1998 .

[15]  A. Johnstone Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem , 1991 .

[16]  P. Winne,et al.  Feedback and Self-Regulated Learning: A Theoretical Synthesis , 1995 .

[17]  Margaret M. Recker,et al.  Learning Strategies and Transfer in the Domain of Programming , 1994 .

[18]  M. Linn,et al.  Computers, Teachers, Peers: Science Learning Partners , 2000 .

[19]  S. Barab,et al.  Virtual solar system project: Building understanding through model building , 2000 .

[20]  Daniel C. Edelson Learning-for-use : A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities , 2001 .

[21]  A. Koriat,et al.  Comparing objective and subjective learning curves: judgments of learning exhibit increased underconfidence with practice. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[22]  Barbara Y. White,et al.  Dynamic mental models in learning science : The importance of constructing derivational linkages among models , 1999 .

[23]  A. Koriat Monitoring one's own knowledge during study : A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning , 1997 .

[24]  Alan H. Schoenfeld,et al.  Mathematical Problem Solving , 1985 .

[25]  Chen-Lin C. Kulik,et al.  Timing of Feedback and Verbal Learning , 1988 .

[26]  Shaaron Ainsworth,et al.  Examining the Effects of Different Multiple Representational Systems in Learning Primary Mathematics , 2002 .

[27]  Tina Seufert Supporting Coherence Formation in Learning from Multiple Representations , 2003 .

[28]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students' use of a visualization tool in the classroom , 2001 .

[29]  F. Keil,et al.  Explanation and understanding , 2015 .

[30]  J. Frederiksen,et al.  Inquiry, Modeling, and Metacognition: Making Science Accessible to All Students , 1998 .

[31]  Leonid Rozenblit,et al.  The misunderstood limits of folk science: an illusion of explanatory depth , 2002, Cogn. Sci..

[32]  R. Azevedo Using Hypermedia as a Metacognitive Tool for Enhancing Student Learning? The Role of Self-Regulated Learning , 2005 .

[33]  Lih-Juan ChanLin Formats and prior knowledge on learning in a computer-based lesson , 2001, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[34]  M. Linn,et al.  How do students' views of science influence knowledge integration? , 1991 .

[35]  R. Moreno,et al.  Cognitive load and learning effects of having students organize pictures and words in multimedia environments: The role of student interactivity and feedback , 2005 .

[36]  Daniel M. Oppenheimer,et al.  Overcoming intuition: metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[37]  U. Wilensky,et al.  Thinking Like a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Firefly: Learning Biology Through Constructing and Testing Computational Theories—An Embodied Modeling Approach , 2006 .

[38]  L. Vygotsky Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes: Harvard University Press , 1978 .

[39]  A. H. Johnstone,et al.  The development of chemistry teaching: a changing response to changing demand , 1993 .

[40]  T. Lombrozo The structure and function of explanations , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[41]  M. Hegarty Dynamic visualizations and learning: getting to the difficult questions , 2004 .

[42]  Hong Kwen Boo,et al.  Students' Understandings of Chemical Bonds and the Energetics of Chemical Reactions. , 1998 .

[43]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia Learning , 2001, Visible Learning Guide to Student Achievement.

[44]  David F. Treagust,et al.  Analogies in chemistry textbooks , 1995 .

[45]  Thomas J. Greenbowe An Interactive Multimedia Software Program for Exploring Electrochemical Cells. , 1994 .

[46]  E. Davis Prompting Middle School Science Students for Productive Reflection: Generic and Directed Prompts , 2003 .

[47]  Kallen E. Tsikalas,et al.  Can Computer-Based Learning Environments (CBLEs) Be Used as Self-Regulatory Tools to Enhance Learning? , 2005 .

[48]  P. Lachenbruch Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) , 1989 .

[49]  Jennifer L. Chiu,et al.  Self-assessment and self-explanation for learning chemistry using dynamic molecular visualizations , 2008, ICLS.

[50]  Marcia C. Linn,et al.  Impacts of students' experimentation using a dynamic visualization on their understanding of motion , 2008, ICLS.

[51]  Roger Azevedo,et al.  Understanding the complex nature of self-regulatory processes in learning with computer-based learning environments: an introduction , 2007 .

[52]  Stephan Schwan,et al.  Learning with Hyperlinked Videos--Design Criteria and Efficient Strategies for Using Audiovisual Hypermedia. , 2004 .

[53]  Kenneth R. Koedinger,et al.  When and how often should worked examples be given to students? New results and a summary of the current state of research , 2008 .

[54]  M. Chi,et al.  Eliciting Self‐Explanations Improves Understanding , 1994 .

[55]  B. Zimmerman Self-regulating academic learning and achievement: The emergence of a social cognitive perspective , 1990 .

[56]  W. Robinson,et al.  An Inventory for Alternate Conceptions among First-Semester General Chemistry Students , 2002 .

[57]  Yehudit Judy Dori,et al.  Enhancing Undergraduate Students' Chemistry Understanding through Project-Based Learning in an IT Environment , 2005 .

[58]  Mike Stieff,et al.  Increasing Representational Fluency with Visualization Tools , 2006, ICLS.

[59]  W. L. Yarroch Student Understanding of Chemical Equation Balancing. , 1985 .

[60]  Noah S. Podolefsky,et al.  When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment , 2005 .

[61]  Dawn Rickey,et al.  Effectiveness of a MORE Laboratory Module in Prompting Students To Revise Their Molecular-Level Ideas about Solutions , 2007 .

[62]  Lloyd P. Rieber,et al.  Discovery learning, representation, and explanation within a computer-based simulation: finding the right mix , 2004 .

[63]  Roger Osborne,et al.  Children's conceptions of the changes of state of water , 1983 .

[64]  Jonathan Evans In two minds: dual-process accounts of reasoning , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[65]  Yael Kali,et al.  Designing Effective Visualizations for Elementary School Science , 2008, The Elementary School Journal.

[66]  Marcia C. Linn,et al.  WISE Science: Web-Based Inquiry in the Classroom , 2009 .

[67]  Marcia C. Linn,et al.  Designing computer learning environments for engineering and computer science: The scaffolded knowledge integration framework , 1995 .

[68]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. , 1999 .

[69]  M. Scardamalia,et al.  Higher Levels of Agency for Children in Knowledge Building: A Challenge for the Design of New Knowledge Media , 1991 .

[70]  R. Kozma The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding , 2003 .

[71]  R. Bjork Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. , 1994 .

[72]  M. Linn,et al.  How do technology‐enhanced inquiry science units impact classroom learning? , 2010 .

[73]  Roger Azevedo,et al.  Monitoring, planning, and self-efficacy during learning with hypermedia: The impact of conceptual scaffolds , 2008, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[74]  Shaaron Ainsworth,et al.  The effects of self‐explaining when learning with text or diagrams , 2003 .

[75]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  The Roles of Mental Animations and External Animations in Understanding Mechanical Systems , 2003 .

[76]  Gregory Schraw Promoting general metacognitive awareness , 1998 .

[77]  Robert Rosenthal,et al.  Computing Contrasts, Effect Sizes, and Counternulls on Other People's Published Data: General Procedures for Research Consumers , 1996 .

[78]  Robert Tinker,et al.  Molecular Dynamics Simulations of Chemical Reactions for Use in Education , 2006 .

[79]  E. Fennema,et al.  Gender differences in mathematics performance: a meta-analysis. , 1990, Psychological bulletin.

[80]  Albert T. Corbett,et al.  Why Students Engage in “Gaming the System” Behavior in Interactive Learning Environments , 2008 .

[81]  A. Renkl Worked-out examples: instructional explanations support learning by self- explanations , 2002 .

[82]  Michelene T. H. Chi,et al.  Active-Constructive-Interactive: A Conceptual Framework for Differentiating Learning Activities , 2009, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[83]  Vincent Aleven,et al.  An effective metacognitive strategy: learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based Cognitive Tutor , 2002, Cogn. Sci..

[84]  Jennifer L. Chiu,et al.  Teaching and Assessing Knowledge Integration in Science , 2006, Science.

[85]  Michelene T. H. Chi,et al.  Self-Explanations: How Students Study and Use Examples in Learning To Solve Problems. Technical Report No. 9. , 1987 .

[86]  Abbie Brown,et al.  Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in c , 1992 .

[87]  John Dunlosky,et al.  Toward a general model of self-regulated study: An analysis of selection of items for study and self-paced study time. , 1999 .

[88]  Marcia C. Linn,et al.  Internet Environments for Science Education , 2004 .

[89]  Pm Jenkinson,et al.  Cognitive , 2020, Definitions.

[90]  J. Watson,et al.  Progression in high school students'(aged 16–18) conceptualizations about chemical reactions in solution , 2001 .

[91]  P. Pintrich The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. , 2000 .

[92]  Juan R. Burciaga,et al.  Teaching Physics with the Physics Suite , 2004 .

[93]  Douglas B. Clark,et al.  WISE design for knowledge integration , 2003 .

[94]  D. Ardaç,et al.  Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasizes molecular representations on students' understanding of chemical change , 2004 .

[95]  John Dunlosky,et al.  Utilization of Metacognitive Judgments in the Allocation of Study During Multitrial Learning , 1994 .

[96]  R. Kozma,et al.  Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena , 1997 .

[97]  Chris Quintana,et al.  Student-generated animations: supporting middle school students' visualization, interpretation and reasoning of chemical phenomena , 2006 .

[98]  J. Roschelle,et al.  Misconceptions Reconceived: A Constructivist Analysis of Knowledge in Transition , 1994 .

[99]  Bat-Sheva Eylon,et al.  Is an atom of copper malleable , 1986 .

[100]  Yehudit Judy Dori,et al.  Virtual and Physical Molecular Modeling: Fostering Model Perception and Spatial Understanding , 2001, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[101]  Allan G. Harrison,et al.  Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds: A case study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry , 2000 .

[102]  Marcia C. Linn,et al.  Using drawings to support learning from dynamic visualizations , 2008, ICLS.

[103]  Elizabeth A. Davis,et al.  Scaffolding students' knowledge integration: prompts for reflection in KIE , 2000 .

[104]  Haluk Özmen,et al.  Some Student Misconceptions in Chemistry: A Literature Review of Chemical Bonding , 2004 .

[105]  Mary B. Nakhleh,et al.  Are Our Students Conceptual Thinkers or Algorithmic Problem Solvers? Identifying Conceptual Students in General Chemistry , 1993 .

[106]  William A. Sandoval,et al.  Conceptual and Epistemic Aspects of Students' Scientific Explanations , 2003 .

[107]  Georgios Tsaparlis,et al.  Students' Self-Assessment in Chemistry Examinations Requiring Higher- and Lower-Order Cognitive Skills. , 1999 .

[108]  R. Mayer,et al.  Interactive Multimodal Learning Environments , 2007 .

[109]  Wolfgang Schnotz,et al.  Enabling, facilitating, and inhibiting effects of animations in multimedia learning: Why reduction of cognitive load can have negative results on learning , 2005 .

[110]  W. Sandoval,et al.  Explanation-Driven Inquiry: Integrating Conceptual and Epistemic Scaffolds for Scientific Inquiry , 2004 .

[111]  Chris Dede,et al.  Model-Based Teaching and Learning with BioLogica™: What Do They Learn? How Do They Learn? How Do We Know? , 2004 .

[112]  A. Brown Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms , 1987 .

[113]  Nicolas van Labeke,et al.  Representational Decisions When Learning Population Dynamics with an Instructional Simulation , 2002, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[114]  Mitchel Resnick,et al.  Beyond the Centralized Mindset , 1996 .

[115]  Allan Collins,et al.  Toward a Design Science of Education , 1992 .

[116]  Robert B. Kozma,et al.  Learning Chemistry Through the Use of a Representation-Based Knowledge Building Environment , 2002 .

[117]  D. Gabel,et al.  Understanding the Particulate Nature of Matter. , 1987 .

[118]  F. Paas,et al.  Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design: Recent Developments , 2003 .

[119]  P. Shah,et al.  Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning , 2004 .

[120]  Amy Pallant,et al.  Reasoning with Atomic-Scale Molecular Dynamic Models , 2004 .

[121]  Petros Georghiades,et al.  From the general to the situated: three decades of metacognition , 2004 .

[122]  James D. Slotta,et al.  Helping Students Understand Challenging Topics in Science Through Ontology Training , 2006 .

[123]  Dorothy L. Gabel,et al.  Improving Teaching and Learning through Chemistry Education Research: A Look to the Future , 1999 .

[124]  Naomi Miyake Constructive interaction and the iterative process of understanding , 1986 .

[125]  Jan L. Plass,et al.  Design factors for educationally effective animations and simulations , 2009, J. Comput. High. Educ..

[126]  K. Koedinger,et al.  Fostering the Intelligent Novice: Learning From Errors With Metacognitive Tutoring , 2005 .

[127]  Richard Lowe,et al.  Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning , 2004 .

[128]  M. Ferguson-Hessler,et al.  Studying Physics Texts: Differences in Study Processes Between Good and Poor Performers , 1990 .

[129]  Jeffrey D. Karpicke,et al.  Test-Enhanced Learning , 2006, Psychological science.

[130]  T. O. Nelson,et al.  Importance of the kind of cue for judgments of learning (JOL) and the delayed-JOL effect , 1992, Memory & cognition.

[131]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  When static media promote active learning: annotated illustrations versus narrated animations in multimedia instruction. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[132]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  A Framework for Supporting Metacognitive Aspects of Online Inquiry Through Software-Based Scaffolding , 2005 .

[133]  A. Collins,et al.  Cognition and learning. , 1996 .

[134]  K. Koedinger,et al.  Exploring the Assistance Dilemma in Experiments with Cognitive Tutors , 2007 .

[135]  G Mazzoni,et al.  Do memorability ratings affect study-time allocation? , 1990, Memory & cognition.

[136]  Gayle Nicoll,et al.  A report of undergraduates' bonding misconceptions , 2001 .