Advertisement

Testing the Robustness of Inquiry Practices Once Scaffolding Is Removed

  • Haiying LiEmail author
  • Janice Gobert
  • Rachel Dickler
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11528)

Abstract

Intelligent tutoring systems (ITS) with simulated and virtual labs have been designed to enhance students’ science knowledge, including content and inquiry practices; some systems do this via real-time scaffolding. Prior studies have demonstrated that scaffolding can benefit students’ learning and performance. The present study aims to examine the robustness of scaffolding, delivered by a pedagogical agent by providing scaffolding on one activity, removing it, and then evaluating students’ inquiry performance both over multiple time periods (in 40 days, 80 days, and 170 days) and across different topics, thereby addressing far transfer. 107 middle school students in grade 6 received adaptive scaffolding on the first inquiry topic (i.e. Animal Cell) in the intelligent tutoring system, Inq-ITS. Then they received no scaffolding for three topics, namely, Plant Cell, Genetics, and Natural Selection. Results showed that after removing scaffolding, students demonstrated continued growth of inquiry performance from time 1 to time 2, to time 3, and to time 4 for the practices of hypothesizing and collecting data, as well as from time 1 to time 2 and to time 4 for the practice of warranting claims. This pattern was not found in students’ performance on the practice of interpreting data. These findings have implications for designers and researchers regarding the design of scaffolds for the NGSS’ inquiry practices so that they can be effectively transferred. These data also point to the need for additional work to address content practice interactions.

Keywords

Science inquiry Growth in inquiry performance Scaffolding 

References

  1. 1.
    Next Generation Science Standards Lead States: Next generation science standards: for states, by states. National Academies Press, Washington (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    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). Educ. Psychol. 42, 99–107 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kang, H., Thompson, J., Windschitl, M.: Creating opportunities for students to show what they know: the role of scaffolding in assessment tasks. Sci. Educ. 98, 674–704 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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. Pearson (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Quintana, C., Reiser, B.J., Davis, E.A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R.G., Kyza, E., Edelson, D., Soloway, E.: A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. J. Learn. Sci. 13, 337–386 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vygotsky, L.S.: Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1978)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Staer, H., Goodrum, D., Hackling, M.: High school laboratory work in Western Australia: openness to inquiry. Res. Sci. Educ. 28, 219–228 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Campbell, T., Zhang, D., Neilson, D.: Model based inquiry in the high school physics classroom: an exploratory study of implementation and outcomes. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 20, 258–269 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Deters, K.M.: Student opinions regarding inquiry-based labs. J. Chem. Educ. 82, 1178–1180 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brown, A.L., Campione, J.C.: Guided Discovery in a Community of Learners. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Noroozi, O., Kirschner, P.A., Biemans, H.J., Mulder, M.: Promoting argumentation competence: extending from first-to second-order scaffolding through adaptive fading. Educ. Psychol. Rev., 1–24 (2017)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Martin, N.D., Tissenbaum, C.D., Gnesdilow, D., Puntambekar, S.: Fading distributed scaffolds: the importance of complementarity between teacher and material scaffolds. Instr. Sci., 1–30 (2018)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    McNeill, K.L., Lizotte, D.J., Krajcik, J., Marx, R.W.: Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. J. Learn. Sci. 15, 153–191 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gobert, J.D., Moussavi, R., Li, H., Sao Pedro, M., Dickler, R.: Real-time scaffolding of students’ online data interpretation during inquiry with Inq-ITS using educational data mining. In: Auer, M.E., Azad, A.K.M., Edwards, A., de Jong, T. (eds.) Cyber-Physical Laboratories in Engineering and Science Education, pp. 191–217. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76935-6_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Quellmalz, E.S., Timms, M.J., Silberglitt, M.D., Buckley, B.C.: Science assessments for all: integrating science simulations into balanced state science assessment systems. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 49, 363–393 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tabak, I., Reiser, B.J.: Software-realized inquiry support for cultivating a disciplinary stance. Pragmat. Cogn. 16, 307–355 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van Joolingen, W.R., de Jong, T., Lazonder, A.W., Savelsbergh, E.R., Manlove, S.: Co-Lab: research and development of an online learning environment for collaborative scientific discovery learning. Comput. Hum. Behav. 21, 671–688 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reiser, B.J.: Scaffolding complex learning: the mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. J. Learn. Sci. 13, 273–304 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Klahr, D., Nigam, M.: The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychol. Sci. 15, 661–667 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Koedinger, K.R., Anderson, J.R.: Illustrating principled design: the early evolution of a cognitive tutor for algebra symbolization. Interact. Learn. Environ. 5, 161–180 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gobert, J.D., Sao Pedro, M., Raziuddin, J., Baker, R.S.: From log files to assessment metrics: measuring students’ science inquiry skills using educational data mining. J. Learn. Sci. 22, 521–563 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gobert, J.D., Sao Pedro, M.A., Baker, R.S., Toto, E., Montalvo, O.: Leveraging educational data mining for real-time performance assessment of scientific inquiry skills within microworlds. J. Educ. Data Min. 4, 111–143 (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sao Pedro, M., Baker, R., Gobert, J.: Incorporating scaffolding and tutor context into bayesian knowledge tracing to predict inquiry skill acquisition. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, pp. 185–192. EDM Society (2013)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sao Pedro, M.: Real-time assessment, prediction, and scaffolding of middle school students’ data collection skills within physical science simulations. Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester (2013)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moussavi, R., Gobert, J., Sao Pedro, M.: The effect of scaffolding on the immediate transfer of students’ data interpretation skills within science topics. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, pp. 1002–1005. Scopus, Ipswich (2016)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Moussavi, R.: Design, development, and evaluation of scaffolds for data interpretation practices during inquiry. Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester (2018)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Li, H., Gobert, J., Dickler, R.: Automated assessment for scientific explanations in on-line science inquiry. In: Hu, X., Barnes, T., Hershkovitz, A., Paquette, L. (eds.) Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, pp. 214–219. EDM Society, Wuhan (2017)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Corbett, A.T., Anderson, J. R., O’Brien, A.T.: Student modeling in the ACT programming tutor. Cogn. Diagn. Assess., 19–41 (1995)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Li, H., Gobert, J., Dickler, R., Moussavi, R.: The impact of multiple real-time scaffolding experiences on science inquiry practices. In: Nkambou, R., Azevedo, R., Vassileva, J. (eds.) ITS 2018. LNCS, vol. 10858, pp. 99–109. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91464-0_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cavallo, A.M.: Meaningful learning, reasoning ability, and students’ understanding and problem solving of topics in genetics. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 33, 625–656 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Corbett, A., Kauffman, L., Maclaren, B., Wagner, A., Jones, E.: A cognitive tutor for genetics problem solving: learning gains and student modeling. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 42, 219–239 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations