research-article

Sensor-Based Interactive Worksheets to Support Guided Scientific Inquiry

Authors:

Samantha W. T. Chan,

Dawn L Garbett,

Alaeddin Nassani,

Philipp M. Scholl,

Suranga NanayakkaraAuthors Info & Claims

IDC '21: Proceedings of the 20th Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference

Pages 1 - 7

https://doi.org/10.1145/3459990.3460716

Published: 24 June 2021 Publication History

Abstract

Scientific inquiry involves prediction, observation and explanation (POE) of phenomena and data. Appropriate guidance through these steps is essential for helping students learn and form positive attitudes towards science. Sensor-based education toolkits are becoming a popular way to provide this guidance, but they typically present different interfaces for measurement and learning materials which places a high cognitive demand on learners. To address this challenge, we developed a web application to integrate the scientific inquiry method where students are guided step-by-step, using a scaffolded-learning approach, through slide-based worksheets that provide direct interaction with real-time sensor measurements. We evaluate this approach through a qualitative analysis of data collected from two field studies in classrooms with a total of 42 students. We show that our approach encouraged positivity and further learning in science. Students displayed and expressed interest to conduct science experiments outside of class. We identify design implications for seamless learning, storytelling and integration of POE guided scientific inquiry with sensor-based toolkits.

Supplementary Material

MP4 File (3459990.3460716.mp4)

Supplementary video

Download
32.96 MB

References

[1]

Jonny Austin, Howard Baker, Thomas Ball, James Devine, Joe Finney, Peli De Halleux, Steve Hodges, Michał Moskal, and Gareth Stockdale. 2020. The BBC micro: bit: from the UK to the world. Commun. ACM 63, 3 (2020), 62–69.

Digital Library

[2]

Nicolas Balacheff, Sten Ludvigsen, Ton de Jong, Ard Lazonder, and Sally Barnes. 2013. Technology-Enhanced-Learning. Vol. 53. 1689–1699 pages. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 arxiv:arXiv:1011.1669v3

[3]

Anne K Bednar, Donald Cunningham, Thomas M Duffy, and J David Perry. 1992. Theory into practice: How do we link. Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation 8, 1(1992), 17–34.

[4]

Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

[5]

Science Buddies. 2001. Hands-on Science Resources for Home and School. https://www.sciencebuddies.org/

[6]

Richard E Clark, Paul A Kirschner, and John Sweller. 2012. Putting Students on the Path to Learning: The Case for Fully Guided Instruction.American Educator 36, 1 (2012), 6–11.

[7]

Alexandra Gendreau Chakarov, Mimi Recker, Jennifer Jacobs, Katie Van Horne, and Tamara Sumner. 2019. Designing a Middle School Science Curriculum that Integrates Computational Thinking and Sensor Technology. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 818–824.

Digital Library

[8]

Helen L Gibson and Christopher Chase. 2002. Longitudinal impact of an inquiry-based science program on middle school students’ attitudes toward science. Science education 86, 5 (2002), 693–705.

[9]

Jane Gilbert. 2017. Back to the future? Aims and ends for future-oriented science education policy - The New Zealand Context. Knowledge Cultures 5, 6 (2017), 74–95. https://doi.org/10.22381/KC5620176

[10]

Globisens. 2011. Globisens’ Labdisc. https://www.globisens.net/

[11]

Peter D Gluckman. 2011. Looking Ahead: Science Education for the Twenty-First Century - A report from the Prime Minister ’s Chief Science Advisor. Number April. 74 pages.

[12]

Google. 2016. Google Science Journal. https://sciencejournal.withgoogle.com/

[13]

Ashiq Hussain, Muhammad Azeem, and Azra Shakoor. 2011. Physics teaching methods: scientific inquiry vs traditional lecture. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 1, 19(2011), 269–276.

[14]

Halszka et al. Jarodzka. 2010. Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning. Instructional Science 22, 2 (2010), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801 arxiv:arXiv:1002.2562v1

[15]

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

[16]

Bilal Khalid Khalaf. 2018. Traditional and Inquiry-Based Learning Pedagogy: A Systematic Critical Review.International Journal of Instruction 11, 4 (2018), 545–564.

[17]

Alex Kuhn, Clara Cahill, Chris Quintana, and Elliot Soloway. 2010. Scaffolding science inquiry in museums with Zydeco. In Proceedings of the 28th of the international conference extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems - CHI EA '10. ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753846.1753987

Digital Library

[18]

Michael J. Lee and Amy J. Ko. 2011. Personifying Programming Tool Feedback Improves Novice Programmers’ Learning. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Computing Education Research(Providence, Rhode Island, USA) (ICER ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 109–116. https://doi.org/10.1145/2016911.2016934

Digital Library

[19]

Xiaojun Meng, Pin Sym Foong, Simon Perrault, and Shengdong Zhao. 2016. 5-Step Approach to Designing Controlled Experiments. In Proceedings of the International Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces(AVI ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, Bari, Italy, 358–359. https://doi.org/10.1145/2909132.2926086

Digital Library

[20]

Xiaojun Meng, Pin Sym Foong, Simon Perrault, and Shengdong Zhao. 2017. NexP: A Beginner Friendly Toolkit for Designing and Conducting Controlled Experiments. In IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 132–141.

[21]

Mary Oliver, Andrew McConney, and Amanda Woods-McConney. 2019. The efficacy of inquiry-based instruction in science: A comparative analysis of six countries using PISA 2015. Research in Science Education(2019), 1–22.

[22]

Fred Paas, Alexander Renkl, and John Sweller. 2003. Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design: Recent Developments. Educational Psychologist 38, 1 (2003), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1

[23]

Fred Paas and John Sweller. 2014. Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, Second Edition (2014), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.004

[24]

Cristina Pombo and Claudia Sáenz-Zulueta. 2018. ”What is this for?” Scientific inquiry as a key to teaching 21st century STEM skills. Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC, USA.

[25]

Mitchel Resnick, John Maloney, Andrés Monroy-Hernández, Natalie Rusk, Evelyn Eastmond, Karen Brennan, Amon Millner, Eric Rosenbaum, Jay Silver, Brian Silverman, 2009. Scratch: programming for all. Commun. ACM 52, 11 (2009), 60–67.

Digital Library

[26]

Alaa Sadik. 2008. Digital storytelling: A meaningful technology-integrated approach for engaged student learning. Educational technology research and development 56, 4(2008), 487–506.

[27]

Albrecht Schmidt. 2016. Increasing Computer Literacy with the BBC micro: bit. IEEE Pervasive Computing 15, 2 (2016), 5–7.

Digital Library

[28]

Paul A Schutz, Reinhard Pekrun, and Gary D Phye. 2007. Emotion in education. Vol. 10. Elsevier.

[29]

Myriad Sensors. 2015. PocketLab. https://www.thepocketlab.com/

[30]

John Sweller. 2011. Cognitive load theory. In Psychology of learning and motivation. Vol. 55. Elsevier, 37–76.

[31]

H5P Team. 2014. H5P - Create and Share Rich, Interactive HTML5 Content. https://www.h5p.org/

[32]

Jeroen J. G. van Merriënboer and John Sweller. 2005. Cognitive Load Theory and Complex Learning: Recent Developments and Future Directions. Educational Psychology Review 17, 2 (2005), 147–177.

[33]

Richard White and Richard Gunstone. 2014. Probing understanding. Routledge.

[34]

Lung Hsiang Wong and Chee Kit Looi. 2011. What seams do we remove in mobile-assisted seamless learning? A critical review of the literature. Computers and Education 57, 4 (2011), 2364–2381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.007

Digital Library

Cited By

Qiao HSuriyaarachchi HCooray SNanayakkara S(2023)Snatch and Hatch: Improving Receptivity Towards a Nature of Science with a Playful Mobile ApplicationProceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference10.1145/3585088.3589384(278-288)Online publication date: 19-Jun-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3585088.3589384
Chua YCooray SCortes JDenny PDupuch SGarbett DNassani ACao JQiao HReis AReis DScholl PSridhar PSuriyaarachchi HTaimana FTang VWeerasinghe CWen EWu MWu QZhang HNanayakkara S(2023)Striving for Authentic and Sustained Technology Use in the Classroom: Lessons Learned from a Longitudinal Evaluation of a Sensor-Based Science Education PlatformInternational Journal of Human–Computer Interaction10.1080/10447318.2023.222948540:18(5073-5086)Online publication date: 29-Jun-2023
https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2229485
Tang VNassani ANanayakkara SBillinghurst M(2022)Kiwrious AR: Exploring AR for Scientific Inquiry and Scaffolded Learning2022 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct)10.1109/ISMAR-Adjunct57072.2022.00201(911-912)Online publication date: Oct-2022
https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR-Adjunct57072.2022.00201
Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Improving Inquiry-Driven Modeling in Science Education through Interaction with Intelligent Tutoring Agents
IUI '15: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces

This paper presents the design and evaluation of a set of intelligent tutoring agents constructed to teach teams of students an authentic process of inquiry-driven modeling. The paper first presents the theoretical grounding for inquiry-driven modeling ...
Can Digital Games Teach Scientific Inquiry?: A Case of How Affordances Can Become Constraints
CHI PLAY

Digital games are increasingly being used to teach the processes of scientific inquiry. These games often make at least one of four key assumptions about scientific inquiry: that inquiry is a problem-solving process which is value-neutral, bounded by ...
The Differences of Collaborative Learning and Scientific Inquiry Competencies between Experienced and Novice Learners in Ubiquitous Problem-Based Learning
WMUTE '12: Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Seventh International Conference on Wireless, Mobile and Ubiquitous Technology in Education

The purpose of this study is to elaborate the ubiquitous problem-base learning(UPBL) model with collaborative learning competence and to investigate the differences of collaborative learning and scientific inquiry competencies between experienced and ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

IDC '21: Proceedings of the 20th Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference

June 2021

697 pages

ISBN:9781450384520

DOI:10.1145/3459990

General Chairs:
Maria Roussou,
Suleman Shahid,
Program Chairs:
Jerry Alan Fails,
Monica Landoni

Copyright © 2021 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 24 June 2021

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Badges

Best Short Paper

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed limited

Conference

IDC '21

Sponsor:

SIGCHI

IDC '21: Interaction Design and Children

June 24 - 30, 2021

Athens, Greece

Upcoming Conference

IDC '25

Sponsor:
sigchi

Interaction Design and Children

June 23 - 26, 2025

Reykjavik , Iceland

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

4
Total Citations
View Citations
380
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)41
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3

Reflects downloads up to 05 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Qiao HSuriyaarachchi HCooray SNanayakkara S(2023)Snatch and Hatch: Improving Receptivity Towards a Nature of Science with a Playful Mobile ApplicationProceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference10.1145/3585088.3589384(278-288)Online publication date: 19-Jun-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3585088.3589384
Chua YCooray SCortes JDenny PDupuch SGarbett DNassani ACao JQiao HReis AReis DScholl PSridhar PSuriyaarachchi HTaimana FTang VWeerasinghe CWen EWu MWu QZhang HNanayakkara S(2023)Striving for Authentic and Sustained Technology Use in the Classroom: Lessons Learned from a Longitudinal Evaluation of a Sensor-Based Science Education PlatformInternational Journal of Human–Computer Interaction10.1080/10447318.2023.222948540:18(5073-5086)Online publication date: 29-Jun-2023
https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2229485
Tang VNassani ANanayakkara SBillinghurst M(2022)Kiwrious AR: Exploring AR for Scientific Inquiry and Scaffolded Learning2022 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct)10.1109/ISMAR-Adjunct57072.2022.00201(911-912)Online publication date: Oct-2022
https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR-Adjunct57072.2022.00201
Cheng MChou WHsu MCheng F(2022)Blending educational gaming with physical experiments to engage high school students in inquiry-based learningJournal of Biological Education10.1080/00219266.2022.215786158:5(1517-1536)Online publication date: 28-Dec-2022
https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2022.2157861

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Figures

Tables

Media

View Table of Conten