Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Modeling Student Learning Behavior Patterns in an Online Science Inquiry Environment

  • Original research
  • Published:
Technology, Knowledge and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigated how the frequency and level of assistance provided to students interacted with prior knowledge to affect learning in the Voyage to Galapagos (VTG) science inquiry-learning environment. VTG provides students with the opportunity to do simulated science field work in Galapagos as they investigate the key biology principles of variation, biological function, and natural selection. Thirteen teachers used the VTG module during their Natural Selection and Evolution curriculum unit. Students (N = 1728) were randomly assigned to one of four assistance conditions (Minimal-, Medium-, Medium–High, or High-Assistance). We predicted we would find an “Expertise Reversal Effect” (Kalyuga et al. in Edu Psychol Rev 194:509–539, 2007), whereby students with little prior knowledge benefit from assistance and students with higher prior knowledge benefit from minimal assistance. However, initial analyses revealed no interaction between prior knowledge and condition on student learning. To further explore results, we grouped students into 5 clusters based on student behaviors recorded during the use of VTG. The effect of assistance conditions within these clusters showed that, in two of the five clusters, results were consistent with the Expertise Reversal Effect. However, in two other clusters, the effect was reversed such that students with low prior knowledge benefited from lower amounts of assistance and vice versa. Though this study has not identified which specific characteristics determine optimal assistance levels, it suggests that prior knowledge is not sufficient for determining when students will differentially benefit from assistance. We propose that other factors such as self-regulated learning should be investigated in future research.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. One hundred and nine students were omitted from these analyses due to missing data, leaving 1619 students in this analysis.

  2. One-hundred and twenty-three students were omitted from this analysis due to missing data, leaving 1605 students in this analysis.

References

  • Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19(6), 716–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based cognitive tutor. Cognitive Science, 26(2), 147–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aleven, V., Roll, I., McLaren, B. M., & Koedinger, K. R. (2016). Help helps, but only so much: Research on help seeking with intelligent tutoring systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education., 26(1), 205–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, D. L., Fisher, K. M., & Norman, G. J. (2002). Development and evaluation of the conceptual inventory of natural selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching., 39(1), 952–978.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., Landis, R. S., Feyzi-Behnagh, R., Duffy, M., Trevors, G., Harley, J. M., Hossain, G. (2012). The effectiveness of pedagogical agents’ prompting and feedback in facilitating co-adapted learning with MetaTutor. In International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 212–221). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

  • Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70(5), 1098–1120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 1–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (2001). Models of data: A theory of how people evaluate data. Cognition and Instruction, 19(3), 323–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Jong, T. (2006). Scaffolds for scientific discovery learning (pp. 107–128). Handling complexity in learning environments: Theory and research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., Shouse, A. W., & Schweingruber, H. A. (2007). What research says about K-8 science learning and teaching. Principal, 87(2), 16–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Everitt, B. S., & Hand, D. J. (1981). Finite Mixture Distributions. Monograph on applied Probability and Statistics.

  • Junlei, L., & Klahr, D. (2006). Chapter 20: The psychology of scientific thinking: Implications for science teaching and learning. Teaching Science in the 21st Century, 307–328.

  • Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 509–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and instruction, 26(3), 379–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M. (2009). Learning through productive failure in mathematical problem solving. In B. Kaur, Y. Ben Har & M. Kapur (Eds.), Mathematical problem solving (pp. 43–68). Singapore: World Scientific.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M. (2016). Examining productive failure, productive success, unproductive failure, and unproductive success in learning. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 289–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, L., Brown, T., Hargrave, S., & Hill, R. (2003). Promoting quality teachers through a supportive mentoring environment for pre-service and first-year teachers. In Annual Meeting for Association of Teacher Educators, Santa Fe, NM.

  • Keselman, A. (2003). Supporting inquiry learning by promoting normative understanding of multivariable causality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(9), 898–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinnebrew, J. S., Segedy, J. R., & Biswas, G. (2014). Analyzing the temporal evolution of students’ behaviors in open-ended learning environments. Metacognition and learning, 9(2), 187–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klahr, D. (2009). “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heavens”: What about direct instruction? In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist theory applied to instruction: Success or failure? Taylor and Francis.

  • Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15(10), 661–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koedinger, K. R., & Aleven, V. (2007). Exploring the assistance dilemma in experiments with cognitive tutors. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 239–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., & Pease, M. (2008). What needs to develop in the development of inquiry skills? Cognition and Instruction., 26(4), 512–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2012). Seeding evolutionary thinking by engaging children in modeling its foundations. Science Education, 96(4), 701–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, E. L. (1993). The effect of computer simulations on introductory thermodynamics understanding. Educational Technology, 33(1), 45–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, Y., & Aleven, V. (2013, July). Supporting students’ self-regulated learning with an open learner model in a linear equation tutor. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 219–228). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

  • Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., Geier, R., et al. (2004). Inquiry-based science in the middle grades: Assessment of learning in urban systemic reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1063–1080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matlen, B. J., & Klahr, D. (2013). Sequential effects of high and low instructional guidance on children’s acquisition of experimentation skills: Is it all in the timing? Instructional Science, 41(3), 621–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poitras, E. G., & Lajoie, S. P. (2013). A domain-specific account of self-regulated learning: the cognitive and metacognitive activities involved in learning through historical inquiry. Metacognition and Learning, 8(3), 213–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quellmalz, E. S., Silberglitt, M. D., Buckley, B. C., Loveland, M. T., & Brenner, D. G. (2016). Simulations for supporting and assessing science literacy. Handbook of Research on Technology Tools for Real-World Skill Development (pp. 191–229).

  • 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. The journal of the learning sciences, 13(3), 337–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The journal of the learning sciences, 13, 273–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B. K., Steinmuller, F., & Leone, A. J. (2001). BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms (pp. 263–305). Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Released Biology Test Questions from the California Standards Test (2009). Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/documents/cstrtqbiology.pdf

  • Rivet, A. E., & Krajcik, J. S. (2004). Achieving standards in urban systemic reform: An example of a sixth grade project-based science curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(7), 669–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roll, I., Baker, R. S. J. D., Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2014). On the benefits of seeking (and avoiding) help in online problem-solving environments. Journal of the learning sciences, 23(4), 537–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roll, I., Holmes, N. G., Day, J., & Bonn, D. (2012). Evaluating metacognitive scaffolding in guided invention activities. Instructional Science, 40(4), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education, 58(1), 136–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabourin, J. L., Shores, L. R., Mott, B. W., & Lester, J. C. (2013). Understanding and predicting student self-regulated learning strategies in game-based learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 23(1–4), 94–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sao Pedro, M., Jiang, Y., Paquette, L., Baker, R.S. & Gobert, J. (2014). Identifying transfer of inquiry skills across physical science simulations using educational data mining. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 222–229).

  • Schlattmann, P. (2009). Medical applications of finite mixture models. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 3(4), 207–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 129–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The annals of statistics, 6(2), 461–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slotta, J. D., & Linn, M. C. (2009). WISE science: Web-based inquiry in the classroom. Amsterdam: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and instruction, 4(4), 295–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Joolingen, W., de Jong, T., & Dimitrakopoulou, A. (2007). Issues in computer supported inquiry learning in science. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 23(2), 111–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational psychology review, 17(2), 147–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, I. R., & Pasley, J. D. (2004). What is high-quality instruction? Educational Leadership, 61(5), 24.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (2005). A theoretical framework and approach for fostering metacognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 211–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305A110021 to WestEd. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education. This work reflects the significant efforts of researchers, educators, and programmers. The authors wish to acknowledge the efforts and expertise of other members of the team in developing the intervention: Bruce McLaren, David Brown, Jerry Richardson, Nick Matzke, and Russell Almond who contributed to the theoretical and practical design work. The authors would also like to acknowledge the prior work on a non web-based version of VTG (National Science Foundation grant award number 9618014, Weihnacht and Durham).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. WestEd STEM, 400 Seaport Ct. Suite 222, Redwood City, CA, 94063, USA

    Daniel G. Brenner, Bryan J. Matlen, Andrew Grillo-Hill, Kim Luttgen & Marina Varfolomeeva

  2. Australian Council for Educational Research, Adelaide, Australia

    Michael J. Timms

  3. UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA

    Perman Gochyyev

Authors
  1. Daniel G. Brenner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bryan J. Matlen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael J. Timms
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Perman Gochyyev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andrew Grillo-Hill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kim Luttgen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Marina Varfolomeeva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel G. Brenner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brenner, D.G., Matlen, B.J., Timms, M.J. et al. Modeling Student Learning Behavior Patterns in an Online Science Inquiry Environment. Tech Know Learn 22, 405–425 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-017-9325-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-017-9325-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation