Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Optimal dynamic decision network model for scientific inquiry learning environment

  • Published:
Applied Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While recent studies employ heuristic to support learners in scientific inquiry learning environments, this study examined the theoretical and practical aspects of decision-theoretic approach to simultaneous reason about learners’ scientific inquiry skills and provision of adaptive pedagogical interventions across time. In this study, the dynamic learner model, represented by three different Dynamic Decision Network (DDN) models, were employed and evaluated through a three-phase empirical study. This paper discusses how insights gained and lessons learned from the evaluations of a preceding model had led to the improvements of subsequent model; before finalizing the optimal design of DDN model. The empirical studies involved six domain experts, 101 first-year university learners, and dataset from our previous research. Each learner participated in a series of activities including a pretest, a session with INQPRO learning environment, a posttest, and an interview session. For each DDN model, the predictive accuracies were computed by comparing the classifications given by the model with (a) the results obtained from the pretest, posttest, and learner self-rating scores, and (b) classifications elicited by domain experts based on the learner interaction logs and the graphs exhibited by each model.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Frederiksen JR, White BY (1998) Teaching and learning generic modeling and reasoning skills. J Interact Learn Env 5(1):33–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Linn MC (2000) Designing the knowledge integration environment. Int J Sci Educ 22(8):781–796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Loh B, Marshall S, Radinsky J, Mundt J, Alamar K (1999) Helping students build inquiry skills by establishing classroom norms: how teachers appropriate software affordances. In: Proceedings of annual conference of the American educational researchers association

  4. Pryor A, Soloway E (1997) Foundation of science: using technology to support authentic science learning. http://hi-ce.eecs.umich.edu/papers/

  5. Reiser BJ, Tabak I, Sandoval WA, Smith B, Steinmuller F, Leone TJ (2001) BGuILE: strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In: Carver SM, Klahr D (eds) Cognition and instruction: twenty five years of progress. Erlbaum, Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  6. White B, Frederiksen J, Frederiksen T, Eslinger E, Loper S, Collins A (2002) Inquiry island: affordances of a multi-agent environment for scientific inquiry and reflective learning. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS). Erlbaum, Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  7. Saunders W, Shepardson DP (1987) A comparison of concrete and formal science instruction upon science achievement and reasoning ability of sixth grade students. J Res Sci Teach 24:39–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Krajcik J, Blumenfeld P, Marx RW, Fredericks J, Soloway E (2000) Institutional, curricular, and technological supports for inquiry in science classrooms. In: Proceedings of American association for the advancement of science. Washington

  9. Alonzo AC, Aschbacher PR (2004) Value-added? Long assessment of students’ scientific inquiry skills. In: Proceedings of assessment for reform-based science teaching and learning, a symposium at the annual meeting of the AERA. San Diego

  10. de Jong T (2006) Computer simulations: technological advances in inquiry learning. Science 312:532–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Wenning C (2007) Assessing inquiry skills as a component of scientific literacy. J Phys Teach Educ Online 4(2):21–24

    Google Scholar 

  12. Van Joolingen WR, King S, de Jong T (1997) The SimQuest authoring system for simulation-base discovery environments. In: Proceedings of knowledge and media in learning systems. IOS, Amsterdam, pp 79–87

    Google Scholar 

  13. Paolucci M, Suthers D, Weiner A (1996) Automated advice giving strategies for scientific inquiry. In: Frasson C, Gauthier G, Lesgold A (eds) Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on intelligent tutoring systems, pp 372–381

  14. Hulshof CD, Wilhelm P, Beishuizen JJ, Van Rijn H (2005) FILE: a tool for the study of inquiry learning. Comput Hum Behav 21:945–956

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dragon T, Woolf BP, Marshall D, Murray T (2006) Coaching within a domain independent inquiry environment. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4053, pp 144–153

  16. Shute VJ, Glaser R (1990) A large-scale evaluation of an intelligent discovery world: Smithtown. Interact Learn Environ 1:51–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Veermans KH, Van Joolingen WR (2004) Combining heuristics and formal methods in a tool for supporting simulation-based discovery learning. Lect Notes Comput Sci 3220:217–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. de Jong T, van Joolingen WR (1998) Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Rev Educ Res 68(2):179–201

    Google Scholar 

  19. Saunders W, Shepardson DP (1987) A comparison of concrete and formal science instruction upon science achievement and reasoning ability of sixth grade students. J Res Sci Teach 24:39–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Reid DJ, Zhang J, Chen Q (2003) Supporting scientific discovery learning in a simulation learning environment. J Comput Assist Learn 19:9–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Zhang J, Chen Q, Sun Y, Reid DJ (2004) Triple scheme of learning support design for scientific discovery learning based on computer simulation: experimental research. J Comput Assist Learn 20(4):269–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. van Joolingen WR, de Jong T (1993) Exploring a domain through a computer simulation: traversing variable and relation space with the help of a hypothesis scratchpad. In: Proceedings of simulation-based experiential learning, pp 191–206

  23. Klahr D, Dunbar K (1988) Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cogn Sci 12:1–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Mayer RE (2004) Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? Am Psychol 59:14–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Rieber LP, Parmley MW (1995) To teach or not to teach? Comparing the use of computer-based simulations in deductive versus inductive approaches to learning with adults in science. J Educ Comput Res 14:359–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. van Joolingen WR, de Jong T, Lazonder AW, Savelsbergh E, Manlove S (2005) Co-lab: Research and development of an on-line learning environment for collaborative scientific discovery learning. Comput Hum Behav 21:671–688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Löhner S, van Joolingen WR, Savelsberg ER, van Hout-Wolters B (2005) Students’ reasoning during modeling in an inquiry learning environment. Comput Hum Behav 21:441–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Njoo M, de Jong T (1993) Exploratory learning with a computer simulation for control theory: learning processes and instructional support. J Res Sci Teach 30:821–844

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Shute VJ, Glaser R (1990) A large-scale evaluation of an intelligent discovery world: Smithtown. Int Learn Res 1:51–77

    Google Scholar 

  30. Bunt A, Conati C (2003) Probabilistic student modelling to improve exploratory behaviour. J User Model User-adapt Interact 13(3):269–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Murray RC, VanLehn K, Mostow J (2004) Looking ahead to select tutorial actions: A decision-theoretic approach. Int J Artif Intell Educ 14(3–4):235–278

    Google Scholar 

  32. Conati C (2002) Probabilistic assessment of user’s emotions in educational games. Special issue on merging cognition and affect in HCI. J Appl Artif Intell 16(7–8):555–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Pek P, Poh KL (2005) Making decisions in an intelligent tutoring system. Int J Inf Tech Decis Mak 4(2):207–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kjaerulff U, Madsen A (2007) Bayesian networks and influence diagrams: a guide to construction and analysis. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  35. Howard RA, Matheson J (1981) Readings on the principles and applications of decision analysis. Strategic Decisions Group, Menlo Park

    Google Scholar 

  36. Jensen FV (2001) Bayesian networks and decision graphs. Springer, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Russell S, Norvig P (2003) Artificial intelligence: A modern approach, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  38. Ting CY, Phon-Amnuaisuk S, Chong YK (2008) Modeling and intervening across time in scientific inquiry exploratory learning environment. J Educ Tech Soc 11(3):239–258

    Google Scholar 

  39. Korb KB, Nicholson AE (2004) Bayesian artificial intelligence. Chapman & Hall, London

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Pearl J (1988) Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible inference. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo

    Google Scholar 

  41. Ausubel DP (1968) Educational psychology: A cognitive view. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York

    Google Scholar 

  42. Krajcik J, Blumenfeld P, Marx RW, Fredericks J, Soloway E (2000) Institutional, curricular, and technological supports for inquiry in science classrooms. In: Proceedings of American association for the advancement of science. Washington

  43. Ting CY, Chong CY (2003) Enhancing conceptual change through cognitive tools: an animated pedagogical agent approach. In: Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE international conference on advance learning technology

  44. Chi MT, Roscoe RD (2002) The processes and challenges of conceptual change. In: Limon M, Mason L (eds) Reconsidering conceptual change: issues in theory and practice. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 3–27

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  45. Schafer R, Weyrath T (1997) Assessing temporally variable user properties with dynamic Bayesian networks. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference UM97, pp 377–388

  46. Ting CY, Beik Zadeh M-R, Chong YK (2006) A decision-theoretic approach to scientific inquiry exploratory learning environment. Lect Notes Comput Sci 4053:85–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Ting CY, Phon-Amnuaisuk S (2009) Log data approach to acquisition of optimal Bayesian learner model. Am J Appl Sci 6(5):913–921

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Information Technology, Multimedia University, 63100, Cyberjaya, Malaysia

    Choo-Yee Ting & Somnuk Phon-Amnuaisuk

Authors
  1. Choo-Yee Ting
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Somnuk Phon-Amnuaisuk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Choo-Yee Ting.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ting, CY., Phon-Amnuaisuk, S. Optimal dynamic decision network model for scientific inquiry learning environment. Appl Intell 33, 387–406 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-009-0174-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-009-0174-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation