Multi-level support with respect to inquiry, explanations and regulation during an inquiry cycle [Elektronische Ressource] / vorgelegt von Astrid Wichmann

Astrid Wichmann

Sujets

• Psychologie

Informations

• Publié par: universitat_duisburg-essen
• Publié le: 01 janvier 2010
• Nombre de lectures: 27
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 2 Mo

Extrait

UNIVERSITÄT DUISBURG-ESSEN
FACHBEREICH BILDUNGSWISSENSCHAFTEN
LEHRSTUHL FÜR LEHR-LERNPSYCHOLOGIE


Multi-Level Support With Respect to Inquiry,
Explanations and Regulation During an
Inquiry Cycle

Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades
der Philosophischen Fakultät
der Universität Duisburg-Essen

vorgelegt von
Astrid Wichmann
Geboren am 16.02.1977 in Saarbrücken





Tag der Disputation:
11. Januar 2010
Gutachter:
Prof. Dr. Detlev Leutner Ulrich Hoppe 2
Table of Contents 3

Table of Contents
Abstract .................................................................................................... 7
Zusammenfassung .................................................................................. 8
Acknowledgements ............... 10
List of Tables .......................................................................................... 11
List of Figures ........................ 12
A Note on the Quotes ............................................................................ 13
1 Introduction ....................... 14
2 Theoretical Framework .................................................................... 16
2.1 Inquiry in Classroom Science Learning .................... 16
2.2 Inquiry Learning........................................................................................ 17
2.2.1 Inquiry Processes .......................................................................... 22
2.2.2 Explanations .................. 26
2.2.3 Regulation Processes ..................................................................... 33
2.3 Problems in Inquiry Learning ... 40
2.3.1 Problems During Inquiry Learning ............................................... 41
2.3.2 Problems of Developing Explanations .......... 43
2.3.3 Problems of Regulation ................................................................. 47
2.4 Support During Inquiry Learning.............................. 50
2.4.1 Inquiry Support ............................................................................. 53
2.4.2 Explanation Support ...... 66
2.4.3 Regulation Support ....................................................................... 74

4 Table of Contents

2.4.4 Limitations of Guidance ................................................................ 89
3 Aims of the Thesis ............................................................................ 91
4 Exploratory Study ............. 94
4.1 Aims of the Exploratory Study ................................................................. 94
4.2 Method ...................................... 94
4.2.1 Participants and Design ................................................................. 95
4.2.2 Learning Environment and Procedure .......... 95
4.2.3 Measures ....................................................................................... 98
4.3 Results ..................................................................................................... 101
4.4 Discussion and Implication for the Following Studies ........................... 102
5 Learning Environment.................................................................... 104
5.1 Instructional Approach: Reflective Prediction Cycle ............................. 104
5.2 Topic: Plants in Space ............................................................................. 105
5.3 FreeStyler ................................................................................................ 106
5.3.1 FreeStyler Plug-Ins Used in the Experimental Studies ............... 108
5.3.2 Basic Inquiry Version ................................................................. 111
5.3.3 Advanced Inquiry Version .......................... 112
5.3.4 Inquiry Support Using IMS/LD .................................................. 113
6 Pilot Study ....................................................... 117
6.1 Questions and Hypotheses ...................................................................... 117
6.2 Method .................................... 118
6.2.1 Participants .................................................................................. 118
6.2.2 Design ......................... 119 Table of Contents 5

6.2.3 Learning Environments ............................................................... 121
6.2.4 Procedure..................................................... 121
6.2.5 Measures ................................ 123
6.3 Results ..................................................................................................... 126
6.3.1 Knowledge Pretest ...... 126
6.3.2 Knowledge Posttest ..................................................................... 126
6.3.3 Content Analysis ......... 127
6.3.4 Perceived Use Questionnaire ...................................................... 128
6.4 Discussion ............................................................... 129
7 Main Study ...................................................... 131
7.1 Questions and Hypotheses ...................................... 131
7.2 Method .................................................................... 133
7.2.1 Participants .................................................................................. 133
7.2.2 Design ......................... 133
7.2.3 Procedure..................................................................................... 136
7.2.4 Measures 137
7.3 Results ..................................................................................................... 140
7.3.1 Reliability .................................................................................... 140
7.3.2 Time on Task............... 141
7.3.3 Learning Gain.............................................................................. 142
7.3.4 Effects of Prompts on Knowledge Test Results .......................... 142
7.3.5 Effects of Prompts on Explanation-Application Test Results..... 143
7.4 Discussion ............................................................................................... 144
8 Overall Discussion and Outlook ................... 149

6 Table of Contents

9 References ...................................................................................... 157
Appendix .............................. 167
A Knowledge Pre- and Posttest ........................................................ 168
B Perceived Use Questionnaire (Pilot Study) .................................. 174
C Frequencies in Exploratory Study ................................................ 176 7

Abstract
Engaging students in inquiry learning without sufficient support often results in poor
learning performance. Students need to be supported to benefit from inquiry learning
activities (de Jong, 2006; Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn, 2007). The main goal of
this work is to investigate the effects of supporting regulation using prompts on
learning gain and scientific reasoning in a computer-based inquiry learning context
offering advanced inquiry support. Does learning gain depend on the extent of
inquiry support? Are regulation prompts (e.g. “Compare your result graph with your
hypothesis. Are they different from each other?”) superior in comparison to generic
explanation prompts (e.g. “please explain”) with respect to knowledge gain and
scientific reasoning? Do students benefit from those additional regulation prompts
sustainably? Before these questions were addressed in two experimental studies, an
exploratory study revealed problems to engage in (1) deliberate regulation and (2) a
tendency to write descriptive explanations lacking scientific reasoning while running
experiments in an inquiry cycle. The model-based environment FreeStyler (Hoppe &
Gassner, 2002) was adapted to guide a learner through the respective phases of an
inquiry cycle and to offer prompts. Results of the main experimental study were able
to confirm findings from the pilot study showing an advantage for the regulation
group (students receiving regulation prompts) in comparison to the explanation
group (students receiving explanation prompts only) with respect to knowledge gain.
In addition, it was shown that the regulation group outperformed a basic inquiry
group that served as a baseline receiving minimal support in terms of inquiry and no
support with respect to explanation and regulation. Moreover, the sustainability of
this effect was demonstrated. It was shown that prompts are effective means leading
to deeper processing and that explanation prompts should be augmented with
regulation prompts. Findings suggest in general that in order to engage learners in
inquiry learning, a balance between inquiry support, explanation support, and
regulation support is needed. 8

Zusammenfassung
Das Lernen durch Experimentieren (Inquiry Learning) ohne eine geeignete
Unterstützung führt oft zu schwachen Lernergebnissen. Um mit den Anforderungen,
die sich durch das Experimentieren ergeben adäquat umzugehen, muss dem
Lernenden eine geeignete Unterstützung angeboten werden (de Jong, 2006; Hmelo-
Silver, Duncan, & Chinn, 2007). Hauptziel dieser Arbeit ist es, z