Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
Constructing a representation in which students express their domain understanding can help them improve their knowledge. Many different representational formats can be used to express one’s domain understanding (e.g., concept maps, textual summaries, mathematical equations). The format can direct students’ attention to specific aspects of the subject matter. For example, creating a concept map can emphasize domain concepts and forming equations can stress arithmetical aspects. The focus of the current study was to examine the role of tools for constructing domain representations in collaborative inquiry learning. The study was driven by three questions. First, what are the effects of collaborative inquiry learning with representational tools on learning outcomes? Second, does format have differential effects on domain understanding? And third, does format have differential effects on students’ inclination to construct a representation? A pre-test post-test design was applied with 61 dyads in a (face-to-face) collaborative learning setting and 95 students in an individual setting. The participants worked on a learning task in a simulation-based learning environment equipped with a representational tool. The format of the tool was either conceptual or arithmetical or textual. Our results show that collaborative learners outperform individuals, in particular with regard to intuitive knowledge and situational knowledge. In the case of individuals a positive relation was observed between constructing a representation and learning outcomes, in particular situational knowledge. In general, the effects of format could not be linked directly to learning outcomes, but marked differences were found regarding students’ inclination to use or not use specific formats.
Ainsworth, S., & Loizou, A. T. (2003). The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or diagrams. Cognitive Science, 27(4), 669–681.
Anjewierden, A., Kolloffel, B., & Hulshof, C. (2007). Towards educational data mining: Using data mining methods for automated chat analysis to understand and support inquiry learning processes. In C. Romero, M. Pechenizikiy, T. Calders, & S. R. Viola (Eds.), Applying data mining in e-learning (pp. 23–32). Proceedings of the International Workshop on Appling Data Mining in e-Learning (ADML’07). Crete, Greece, September 2007.
Atkinson, R. K., Catrambone, R., & Merrill, M. M. (2003). Aiding transfer in statistics: Examining the use of conceptually oriented equations and elaboration's during subgoal learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 762–773.
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. CrossRef
Berthold, K., & Renkl, A. (2009). Instructional aids to support a conceptual understanding of multiple representations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 70–87. CrossRef
Cavalli-Sforza, V., Weiner, A. W., & Lesgold, A. M. (1994). Software support for students engaging in scientific activity and scientific controversy. Science & Education, 78(6), 577–599. CrossRef
Cheng, P. C. H. (1999). Unlocking conceptual learning in mathematics and science with effective representational systems. Computers & Education, 33, 109–130.
Clarebout, G., & Elen, J. (2006). Tool use in computer-based learning environments: Towards a research framework. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 389–411. CrossRef
Cox, R. (1999). Representation construction, externalised cognition and individual differences. Learning and Instruction, 9, 343–363. CrossRef
de Jong, T. (2005). The guided discovery principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 215–229). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
de Jong, T. (2006). Technological advances in inquiry learning. Science, 312, 532–533. CrossRef
de Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M. (1996). Types and qualities of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 31, 105–113. CrossRef
de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68, 179–202.
de Jong, T., van Joolingen, W. R., Swaak, J., Veermans, K., Limbach, R., King, S., et al. (1998). Self-directed learning in simulation-based discovery environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 14, 235–246. CrossRef
Ertl, B., Kopp, B., & Mandl, H. (2008). Supporting learning using external representations. Computers & Education, 51, 1599–1608. CrossRef
Eysink, T. H. S., de Jong, T., Berthold, K., Kolloffel, B., Opfermann, M., & Wouters, P. (2009). Learner performance in multimedia learning arrangements: An analysis across instructional approaches. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 1107–1149. CrossRef
Foos, P. W. (1995). The effect of variations in text summary opportunities on test-performance. Journal of Experimental Education, 63(2), 89–95. CrossRef
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Prentice, K., Hamlett, C. L., Finelli, R., & Courey, S. J. (2004). Enhancing mathematical problem solving among third-grade students with schema-based instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 635–647. CrossRef
Garfield, J., & Ahlgren, A. (1988). Difficulties in learning basic concepts in probability and statistics: Implications for research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19(1), 44–63. CrossRef
Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., Opfermann, M., Hesse, F. W., & Eysink, T. H. S. (2009). Learning with hypermedia: The influence of representational formats and different levels of learner control on performance and learning behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 360–370. CrossRef
Gijlers, H., & de Jong, T. (submitted). Facilitating collaborative inquiry learning with shared concept maps and proposition tables.
Gijlers, H., & de Jong, T. (2009). Sharing and confronting propositions in collaborative inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 27, 239–268. CrossRef
Greenes, C. (1995). Mathematics learning and knowing: A cognitive process. Journal of Education, 177, 85–106.
Hidi, S., & Anderson, V. (1986). Producing written summaries: Task demands, cognitive operations, and implications for instruction. Review of Educational Research, 56, 473–493.
Hiebert, J., & Lefevre, P. (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: An introductory analysis. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 1–27). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Visualization of agreement and discussion processes during computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1105–1125. CrossRef
Kaput, J. J. (1995). Creating cybernetic and psychological ramps from the concrete to the abstract: Examples from multiplicative structures. In D. N. Perkins, J. L. Schwartz, M. M. West, & M. Stone Wiske (Eds.), Software goes to school: Teaching for understanding with new technologies (pp. 130–154). New York: Oxford University Press.
Kerr, D. S., & Murthy, U. S. (2004). Divergent and convergent idea generation in teams: A comparison of computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13(4), 381–399. CrossRef
Kolloffel, B., Eysink, T. H. S., de Jong, T., & Wilhelm, P. (2009). The effects of representational format on learning combinatorics from an interactive computer-simulation. Instructional Science, 37, 503–517. CrossRef
Kolloffel, B., Eysink, T. H. S., & de Jong, T. (2010). The influence of learner-generated domain representations on learning combinatorics and probability theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(1), 1–11. CrossRef
Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65–99.
Löhner, S., van Joolingen, W. R., & Savelsbergh, E. R. (2003). The effect of external representation on constructing computer models of complex phenomena. Instructional Science, 31(6), 395–418.
Löhner, S., van Joolingen, W. R., Savelsbergh, E. R., & van Hout-Wolters, B. (2005). Students’ reasoning during modeling in an inquiry learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(3), 441–461. CrossRef
Lou, Y. P., Abrami, P. C., & d’Apollonia, S. (2001). Small group and individual learning with technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 449–521. CrossRef
Lund, K., Molinari, G., Séjourné, A., & Baker, M. (2007). How do argumentation diagrams compare when student pairs use them as a means for debate or as a tool for representing debate? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2), 273–295. CrossRef
Manlove, S., Lazonder, A. W., & de Jong, T. (2006). Regulative support for collaborative scientific inquiry learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(2), 87–98. CrossRef
Mayer, R. E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory into Practice, 41, 226–232. CrossRef
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. The American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19. CrossRef
Nathan, M. J., Kintsch, W., & Young, E. (1992). A theory of algebra-word-problem comprehension and its implications for the design of learning environments. Cognition and Instruction, 9, 329–389.
Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76, 413–448. CrossRef
Niemi, D. (1996). Assessing conceptual understanding in mathematics: Representations, problem solutions, justifications, and explanations. Journal of Educational Research, 89(6), 351–363.
Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept maps and vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools to facilitate meaningful learning. Instructional Science, 19(1), 29–52. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
Ohlsson, S., & Rees, E. (1991). The function of conceptual understanding in the learning of arithmetic procedures. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 103–179.
Park, S. I., Lee, G., & Kim, M. (2009). Do students benefit equally from interactive computer simulations regardless of prior knowledge levels? Computers & Education, 52(3), 649–655. CrossRef
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. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386. CrossRef
Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304. CrossRef
Reid, D. J., Zhang, J., & Chen, Q. (2003). Supporting scientific discovery learning in a simulation environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(1), 9–20.
Rieber, L. P., Tzeng, S. C., & Tribble, K. (2004). Discovery learning, representation, and explanation within a computer-based simulation: Finding the right mix. Learning and Instruction, 14, 307–323. CrossRef
Rittle-Johnson, B., & Koedinger, K. R. (2005). Designing knowledge scaffolds to support mathematical problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 23(3), 313–349. CrossRef
Rittle-Johnson, B., Siegler, R. S., & Alibali, M. W. (2001). Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: An iterative process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 346–362. CrossRef
Saab, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2007). Supporting communication in a collaborative discovery learning environment: The effect of instruction. Instructional Science, 35(1), 73–98. CrossRef
Sharma, P., & Hannafin, M. J. (2007). Scaffolding in technology-enhanced learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 15(1), 27–46. CrossRef
Sins, P. H. M., Savelsbergh, E. R., van Joolingen, W. R., & van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2009). The relation between students’ epistemological understanding of computer models and their cognitive processing on a modelling task. International Journal of Science Education, 31(9), 1205–1229. CrossRef
Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Strømsø, H. I., Grøttum, P., & Lycke, K. H. (2007). Content and processes in problem-based learning: A comparison of computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 271–282. CrossRef
Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for cscl. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 315–337. CrossRef
Suthers, D. D. (2008). Empirical studies of the value of conceptually explicit notations in collaborative learning. In S. Okada, S. Buckingham Shum, & T. Sherborne (Eds.), Knowledge cartography (pp. 1–23). Cambridge: MIT Press. CrossRef
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, 183–218. CrossRef
Suthers, D. D., Hundhausen, C. D., & Girardeau, L. E. (2003). Comparing the roles of representations in face-to-face and online computer supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 41(4), 335–351. CrossRef
Swaak, J., & de Jong, T. (1996). Measuring intuitive knowledge in science: The development of the what-if test. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 22, 341–362. CrossRef
Swaak, J., & de Jong, T. (2001). Discovery simulations and the assessment of intuitive knowledge. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(3), 284–294. CrossRef
Sweller, J. (1989). Cognitive technology: Some procedures for facilitating learning and problem solving in mathematics and science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 457–466. CrossRef
Tarr, J. E., & Lannin, J. K. (2005). How can teachers build notions of conditional probability and independence? In G. A. Jones (Ed.), Exploring probability in school: Challenges for teaching and learning (pp. 215–238). New York: Springer.
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. CrossRef
Trundle, K. C., & Bell, R. L. (2010). The use of a computer simulation to promote conceptual change: A quasi-experimental study. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1078–1088. CrossRef
van Boxtel, C., van der Linden, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Collaborative learning tasks and the elaboration of conceptual knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 11, 311–330. CrossRef
van der Linden, J., Erkens, G., Schmidt, H., & Renshaw, P. (2000). Collaborative learning. In R. J. Simons, J. Van der Linden, & T. Duffy (Eds.), New learning (pp. 37–54). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
van Drie, J., van Boxtel, C., Jaspers, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2005). Effects of representational guidance on domain specific reasoning in cscl. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(4), 575–602. CrossRef
van Joolingen, W. R., de Jong, T., Lazonder, A. W., Savelsbergh, E. R., & 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.
Van Meter, P., & Garner, J. (2005). The promise and practice of learner-generated drawing: Literature review and synthesis. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 285–325. CrossRef
Van Meter, P., Aleksic, M., Schwartz, A., & Garner, J. (2006). Learner-generated drawing as a strategy for learning from content area text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 142–166. CrossRef
Wilensky, U. (1995). Paradox, programming, and learning probability: A case study in a connected mathematics framework. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 14, 253–280. CrossRef
Wouters, P., Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. How to optimize learning from animated expert models? In Annual meeting of the AERA, Chicago, IL, USA, April 2007.
Zhang, J. J. (1997). The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive Science, 21(2), 179–217.
Zhang, J. W., Chen, Q., Sun, Y. Q., & Reid, D. J. (2004). Triple scheme of learning support design for scientific discovery learning based on computer simulation: Experimental research. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(4), 269–282.
- Comparing the effects of representational tools in collaborative and individual inquiry learning
Tessa H. S. Eysink
Ton de Jong
- Springer US
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning
An Official Publication of the International Society of the Learning Sciences
Print ISSN: 1556-1607
Elektronische ISSN: 1556-1615
Neuer Inhalt/© ITandMEDIA, Best Practices für die Mitarbeiter-Partizipation in der Produktentwicklung/© astrosystem | stock.adobe.com