Jari Kukkonen
Scaffolding Inquiry in Science
Education by Means of Computer
Supported Collaborative Learning:
Pupils’ and Teacher Students’
Experiences
Publications of the University of Eastern Finland
Dissertations in Education, Humanities, and Theology No 62
JARI KUKKONEN
Scaffolding inquiry in
science education by means
of computer supported
collaborative learning:
pupils’ and teacher students’
experiences
Esitetään Itä-Suomen yliopiston
filosofisen tiedekunnan suostumuksella
julkisesti tarkastettavaksi Joensuussa Educa-rakennuksen
salissa E100 perjantaina 20. helmikuuta klo 12.
Kopio Niini Oy
Helsinki, 2015
Sarjan toimittaja: Ritva Kantelinen
Myynti: Itä-Suomen yliopiston kirjasto
ISBN: 978-952-61-1678-5 (print.)
ISSNL: 1798-5625 (print.)
ISSN: 1798-5625 (print.)
ISBN: 978-952-61-1679-2 (PDF)
ISSNL: 1798-5625(PDF)
ISSN: 1798-5633 (PDF)
Kukkonen, Jari
Scaffolding inquiry in science education by means of computer supported collaborative
learning: pupils’ and teacher students’ experiences
Joensuu, University of Eastern Finland, 2015.
Publications of the University of Eastern Finland. Dissertations in Education, Humanities, and
Theology; 62
ISBN: 978-952-61-1678-5 (print.)
ISSNL: 1798-5625 (print.)
ISSN: 1798-5625 (print.)
ISBN: 978-952-61-1679-2 (PDF)
ISSNL: 1798-5625(PDF)
ISSN: 1798-5633 (PDF)
ABSTRACT: SCAFFOLDING INQUIRY IN SCIENCE EDUCATION BY
MEANS OF COMPUTER SUPPORTED COLLABORATIVE LEARNING:
PUPILS’ AND TEACHER STUDENTS’ EXPERIENCES
This dissertation investigates firstly computer supported collaborative scaffolded science
inquiry learning from the perspectives of primary school pupils as learners and teacher
students conceptions of scaffolded science inquiry teaching and learning. Research
evidence has accumulated showing that inquiry learning is beneficial for the
development of the scientific understanding of complex topics e.g. circulation systems in
biology, and that inquiry learning with simulation helps understanding of topics like the
greenhouse effect. In both cases the learning gains shown by research seem to be related
to substantial scaffolding of the inquiry learning process. The scaffolding of science
inquiry should be incorporated in the design of learning environments with suitable
technology, curricula strategies, and the conscious efforts of teachers to support the
learning. Moreover, one of the important aims of science instruction is in the acquisition
of scientific thinking and communicating which can be achieved through the use of
accurate scientific models and scientific (cultural) tools e.g. symbols, numeracy,
representations of the discipline, and certain forms of technology.
The first two studies (Studies I and II) discuss computer supported collaborative inquiry
learning in the context of advances in fifth grade pupils understanding of a complex and
multifaceted phenomena, the greenhouse effect. The design experiment addresses the
effects of sequential scaffolds for simulation-based collaborative inquiry learning and the
role of knowledge artefacts in the learning process. The theoretical investigation of the
simulation based inquiry shows that simulations are effective means of instruction when
they are integrated with other forms of instruction, when there are well designed support
structures for learners interacting with the simulation, and when learner reflection which
challenges previous conceptions is encouraged. The importance of integration with other
forms of instruction is tied with the fact that learners need to have enough background
information to be able to productively interact with the simulation. The problem of
learning about the greenhouse effect has been studied extensively and research that
iii
learning needs to take into account complex matters like the carbon cycle (CO2), water
cycle (vapour), structure of the atmosphere (e.g. confusion with the ozone layer,
greenhouse gases) and energy balance (interactions of sun and heat radiation). Following
the principles of design research, an instructional intervention, that is a sequence of
lessons and scaffolding of the lessons during the studying process, was designed with
practitioners, a teacher student and his supervisor. In Study I, it was found through the
qualitative analysis of pre- and post-intervention annotated drawings that pupils
demonstrated significant enrichments in their piecemeal evolving conceptions about the
atmosphere and the greenhouse effect. Furthermore the delayed interview data
discussed in Study II showed some permanency in the conceptions and hinted that the
conceptions related to the intervention had connected with other studies e.g. mentions
about photosynthesis.
Studies III and IV discuss pre-service teachers’ readiness for enacting computer
supported collaborative inquiry learning. Study III focuses on the conceptions the preservice teacher have about inquiry learning and how the conceptions are reflected in the
context of a winter ecology inquiry scaffolded with cross linked small group blogs. The
conceptions about the inquiry teaching and learning at the beginning were somewhat
vague, referring loosely to some observations and interesting questions to be answered.
The reflections during and after the inquiry activity could be categorized mostly as
considerations about what design, material, and methods were used and could be used in
teaching the winter ecology inquiry. Also the purposeful use of Blogs was reflected from
a curricula point of view. However, there was less reflection on ways to enact (how) the
instructional, pedagogical and curricula issues were and should be implemented in
practice. Study III raised the question: to what extent do teacher students come to realize,
during their studying in a designed (course) setting, the benefits of scaffolding offered by
technology, peers and the teacher?
Study IV investigated pre-service teachers’ experiences of the scaffolded use of a Wiki in
structuring a dissection inquiry of the adaptation to life in water. The Wiki was designed
to scaffold the use of digital imaging to support problematizing (noticing the features and
functions of organs beyond the surface level) during the sense making process and
enabling pre-service teachers to make model comparisons between their own models and
expert models. Quantitative data on the benefits experienced were collected through
responses to questions posted through an online questionnaire. Structure equation
modelling was carried out in investigating the relationships between scaffolding and the
experienced benefits of using technology. As an indicator of intentional and active
participation the technology was seen to encourage knowledge acquisition and support
deeper thinking on the topic. Digital imaging had the strongest positive relationship to
the experienced benefits of the technology, but there was no direct relationship with the
use of the Wiki. However, scaffolding by structuring the activity with the Wiki had
meditational, indirect, effects through visualizations and peer support to intentional and
active participation and thus the scaffolds were working during the inquiry
synergistically. In the context of teacher education this may mean that teacher students
iv
recognize the benefits of using technology only from a significant experience (the
visualization in this study) and thus may under value the role of the technology itself.
The deeper structure and benefits of the intended scaffolding with the technology in the
design of the inquiry learning environment, the Wiki in the Study IV, may go unnoticed.
These two sets of studies (pupils: Studies I and II; teacher students: Studies III and IV)
share in their designs the collaborative learning settings using computer-based artefacts,
and the design focus on scaffolding the complex learning settings. For the science inquiry
perspective, the settings included modelling and the learning was facilitated by
comparisons of models. This dissertation also emphasizes the importance of teacher
training by recognizing the difficulty that teacher students have in reflecting and fully
understanding the demands of inquiry teaching. Most likely, in-service teacher training
will be needed to address this matter.
v
Kukkonen, Jari
Luonnontieteiden yhteisöllisen tutkivan oppimisen tukeminen tietokonetuetun yhteisöllisen
oppimisen keinoin: oppilaiden ja opettajaksi opiskelevien kokemuksia
Joensuu, University of Eastern Finland, 2015.
Publications of the University of Eastern Finland. Dissertations in Education, Humanities, and
Theology; 62
ISBN: 978-952-61-1678-5 (print.)
ISSNL: 1798-5625 (print.)
ISSN: 1798-5625 (print.)
ISBN: 978-952-61-1679-2 (PDF)
ISSNL: 1798-5625(PDF)
ISSN: 1798-5633 (PDF)
TIIVISTELMÄ: LUONNONTIETEIDEN YHTEISÖLLISEN TUTKIVAN
OPPIMISEN TUKEMINEN TIETOKONETUETUN YHTEISÖLLISEN
OPPIMISEN KEINOIN: OPPILAIDEN JA OPETTAJAKSI OPISKELEVIEN
KOKEMUKSIA
Tässä
väitöskirjassa
tutkitaan
tieto-ja
viestintäteknologiaa
käyttävässä
oppimisympäristössä tapahtuvaa tuettua (scaffolded) luonnontieteen yhteisöllistä
tutkivaa oppimista. Tutkimuksessa käsitellään ensimmäiseksi viidesluokkalaisten
oppilaiden kokemuksia tuetusta luonnontieteiden tutkivasta oppimisesta simulaation
avulla ja toiseksi luokanopettajaksi opiskelevien käsityksiä ja kokemuksia tutkivasta
oppimisesta ja opettamisesta. Edeltävä tutkimustieto osoittaa, että tuettu tutkiva
oppiminen auttaa oppilaita hankkimaan luonnontieteellistä ymmärrystä suhteellisen
monimutkaisista ilmiöistä, kuten verenkiertojärjestelmä ja kasvihuoneilmiö. Sekä
simulaatioiden avulla että muutoin tapahtuvan luonnontieteellisen tutkivan opiskelun,
oppimisen ja opettamisen tuloksellisuus on kytköksissä tutkivan oppimisen prosessin
suhteellisen runsaaseen tukemiseen (scaffolding). Edelleen tutkivan oppimisen prosessin
tukemisen tulee onnistuakseen olla sidoksissa sopivan teknologisen oppimisympäristön
suunnitteluun, opetussuunnitelmallisiin ratkaisuihin; sekä erityisesti opettajan tietoiseen
pyrkimykseen ja ponnisteluun oppimisen tukemisessa. Luonnontieteiden oppimisen
yhtenä tärkeänä päämääränä on luonnontieteellisen ajattelutavan ja kommunikoinnin
oppiminen. Näiden päämäärien saavuttamiseksi edellytetään luonnontieteellisten
mallien ja välineiden; esimerkiksi symbolien, laskentamenettelyjen, tieteenalan
esitystapojen, sekä tiettyjen teknologioiden hallintaa.
Väitöskirjatutkimuksen ensimmäinen osa, tutkimukset yksi (I) ja kaksi (II),
tarkastelevat miten viidesluokkalaisten oppilaiden ymmärrys kasvihuoneilmiöstä
muuttuu opiskeltaessa tietokonetuetusti simulaation avulla, yhteisöllisen ja tutkivan
oppimisen mallin mukaan. Tämän design –tutkimuksen tehtävänä on tarkastella
jatkumona seuraavien tukimuotojen sekä tieto-artefaktien roolia oppimisprosessin
edistämisessä. Aiempien tutkimustulosten perusteella simulaatioiden avulla tutkiva
oppiminen on tehokasta silloin, kun simulointi integroituu muuhun opetukseen; oppija
saa riittävästi tukea simulaation kanssa tapahtuvaan vuorovaikutukseen sekä
vi
simulointitehtävät haastavat reflektoimaan omia ennakkokäsityksiään kognitiivisten
ristiriitojen muodostumiseksi. Erityisen tärkeäksi simuloinnin avulla tutkimisessa
muuhun opetukseen integroinnin tekee se, että oppilaalla on oltava riittävästi
ennakkotietoa tutkittavana olevista käsitteistä, joiden vaikutusta simulaation avulla
tutkitaan.
Vasta
tällöin
oppija
pystyy
tuotteliaaseen
päämäärätietoiseen
vuorovaikutukseen simulaation avulla. Kasvihuoneilmiön ymmärtämistä koskeva aiempi
tutkimus osoittaa, että ilmiön ymmärtäminen vaatii toisiinsa vuorovaikuttavien
tekijöiden tuntemusta. Tekijöitä ovat mm. hiilenkierto, vedenkierto, ilmakehän rakenne ja
kasvihuonekaasut sekä auringosta tulevan säteilyn vuorovaikutus maapallon
energiatasapainoon. Design ¬–tutkimuksen periaatteiden mukaisesti aluksi suunniteltiin
edeltävän tutkimuksen pohjalta opetuskokeilu (design –experiment). Opetuskokeilun
lähtökohtana oli rakentaa opetuksellinen jatkumo, joka tarjoaisi tukea kasvihuoneilmiön
tutkimiseen simulaation avulla. Ensimmäiseksi oppilaat tutkivat tuetusti keskeisiä
ilmiöitä, kuten ilmakehän rakennetta ja lopuksi simulaation avulla systemaattisesti
kasvihuoneilmiötä. Ensimmäisessä tutkimuksessa esitetään, kuinka viidesluokkalaisten
oppilaiden käsitykset kasvihuoneilmiöstä muuttuivat opetuskokeilun vaikutuksesta.
Käsitysten muutosta tutkittiin oppilaiden tekemien selittein varustettujen piirrosten
avulla. Oppilaiden piirustuksista, jotka oli tehty ennen ja jälkeen kokeilun, voitiin todeta
merkittävää tieteellisten mallien mukaisten käsitteiden lisääntymistä ilmakehän
rakenteesta ja kasvihuoneilmiöstä.
Lisäksi tutkimuksessa II tehdyn viivästetyn
haastattelun tulosten perusteella voidaan todeta, että käsityksissä kasvihuoneilmiöstä on
pysyvyyttä sekä joitain sidoksia myöhemmin opetuksessa käsiteltyihin ilmiöihin, kuten
yhteyttämiseen.
Tutkimuksissa kolme (III) ja neljä (IV) tarkasteltiin opettajaksi opiskelevien
valmiuksia suunnitella ja toteuttaa tietokoneavusteista yhteisöllistä luonnontieteiden
tutkivaa oppimista. Väitöskirjan osatutkimuksen kolme kohteena oli selvittää opettajaksi
opiskelevien käsityksiä tutkivasta oppimisesta sekä selvittää, miten he reflektoivat omaa
käsitystään tutkivasta oppimisesta opetuskokeilun yhteydessä. Opiskelijat tekivät
itsenäistä talviluonnon ekologiaan liittyvää tutkimusta. Lisäksi tutkittiin, kuinka
käsitykset tutkivan oppimisen luonteesta muuttuvat. Opiskelijoiden omaa talviluonnon
tutkimista tuettiin rss-syötteiden avulla toisiinsa kytkettyjen blogien avulla, siten että eri
ryhmät pystyivät seuraamaan samanaikaisesti oman pienryhmänsä sekä muiden
ryhmien tutkimuksen suunnittelua ja etenemistä. Tutkimuksen (III) alkuvaiheessa
opettajaksi opiskelevat kuvasivat tutkivaa oppimista epämääräisesti; mielenkiintoisen
kysymyksen selvittämisenä sekä havaintojen tekemisenä. Opiskelijoiden reflektiota
selvitettiin opiskelun jälkeen analysoimalla heidän blogikirjoituksensa ja havaittiin, että
opiskelijat pohtivat mitä materiaaleja, menetelmiä sekä opetuksen järjestelyjä tarvitaan.
Lisäksi he pohtivat blogin käyttöä opetussuunnitelmallisesta näkökulmasta sisällön
opettamisen ja tieto- ja viestintäteknologian yhdistämisen mahdollisuutena. Sen sijaan
pedagoginen pohdinta siitä, miten koetun kaltainen tutkiva oppiminen voisi edistää
luonnontieteellisen ymmärryksen kehittymistä, oli vähäisempää. Kolmas tutkimus nosti
esiin entistä selvemmin tutkimuksellisen ongelman; missä määrin opettajaksi opiskelevat
osaavat erottaa opiskelun tueksi suunnitellun teknologian käytön, vertaistuen sekä
opettajan antaman tuen merkitystä opiskelun ja oppimisen edistämisessä.
vii
Väitöskirjan neljäs tutkimus käsitteli opettajaksi opiskelevien kokemuksia Wikin
avulla jäsennettyä tietokonetuettua tutkimusta kalojen sopeutumisesta vesielämään.
Tutkimuksessa Wikiä käytettiin tukemaan preparointi-tutkimista ja mallintamista
digitaalisen kuvankäsittelyn avulla. Wikin käyttö suunniteltiin problematisoimaan
havaintojen tekoa ja suuntaamaan opiskelijoiden tutkimista syvällisempään analyysiin
kalan elinten toimintojen ymmärtämisessä sekä ohjaamaan heitä vertaamaan omia
mallejaan asiantuntijan malleihin. Tutkimusaineisto kerättiin online –kyselyn avulla;
tarkoituksena oli selvittää, miten opettajaksi opiskelevat kokivat hyötyvänsä teknologian
käytöstä
tutkimuksen
tekemisessä.
Aineisto
analysoitiin
kvantitatiivisesti.
Rakenneyhtälö –mallinnuksen avulla pyrittiin selvittämään tutkimuksen tekemisen
tukijärjestelyiden hyödyllisyyttä sekä tukijärjestelyiden välistä yhteyttä oman aktiivisen,
tavoitteellisen ja tarkoituksenmukaisen opiskelun kokemiseen. Analyysi osoitti, että
opettajaksi opiskelevat kokivat hyödyllisimmäksi tukijärjestelyksi digitaalisen kuvan
avulla mallintamisen. Vaikka Wiki oli suunniteltu tärkeimmäksi tukimuodoksi, sen
koettiin ensisijaisesti tukeneen digitaalista mallintamista sekä yhteisöllistä työskentelyä
pienryhmissä. Wiki osoittautui olevan vain välillisesti yhteydessä oman aktiivisen,
tavoitteellisen ja tarkoituksenmukaisen opiskelun kokemiseen. Opettajankoulutuksen
kannalta tulos valitettavasti näyttäisi osoittavan, että opettajaksi opiskelevat eivät
välttämättä tiedosta niitä tukimuotoja, joilla heidän oppimistaan tuetaan. Vain ne tuet
havaitaan, jotka ovat välittömimmin koettavissa; esimerkiksi tässä tutkimuksessa
mallintaminen digitaalisen kuvan avulla.
Yhteisenä piirteenä kaikissa neljässä osatutkimuksessa oli selvittää tapoja
yhteisöllisen tutkivan oppisen tukemiseksi tietokoneperustaisten artefaktien avulla
monimutkaisten ilmiöiden opetuksessa. Luonnontieteiden opetuksen näkökulmasta tässä
tutkimuksessa korostuvat opiskelijoiden omien ja luonnontieteellisten mallien vertailun
merkitys sekä opettajan tietämyksen merkitys tutkivan oppimisen tukena. Väitöskirjan
tulosten perusteella on syytä kiinnittää huomiota opettajankoulutuksessa tarjottavien
tutkivan oppimisen kokemusten monipuolisuuteen ja riittävyyteen. Myöskin on
erityisesti huolehdittava siitä, että tuen muodot tulevat eksplisiittisesti reflektoinnin
kohteeksi. Kun huomioidaan opettajankoulutuksen sisältöjen monipuolisuus, on varsin
todennäköistä, ettei opettajankoulutuksen aikana luonnontieteiden tutkiva oppiminen
tule riittävästi käsitellyksi. Etenkin tästä syystä kentällä työskentelevät opettajat
tarvitsevat kyseisen aiheen täydennyskoulutusta.
viii
Acknowledgements
The work towards this dissertation started from an EU-funded project VccSSe (Virtual
Community Collaborating Space for Science Education). From the early phase of the
project Professor Tuula Keinonen, Lecturer Sirpa Kärkkäinen and Senior Researcher
Teemu Valtonen actively collaborated with me. Very soon this collaboration started to
focus on intensive research in scaffolding of science inquiry learning (thanks to Tuula)
and furthermore application of the approach within teacher education. In the first study
the classroom experimentation would not have happened without help from Teacher
Päivi Vesala (during VccSSe project there were many other teachers, whom I owe similar
gratitude from insights of the practicalities in simulation based inquiry in school). From
the beginning of this research the continuous support from my supervisors Tuula
Keinonen and Sirpa Kärkkäinen have been invaluable.
Lecturer Anu Hartikainen-Ahia and the TOTY-group have been part of the
knowledge building community during the application of the inquiry approach within
teacher education. In the later stages of this research, Professor Patrick Dillon joined the
core group and became one of my supervisors. While the persons mentioned are those
who have been the active co-authors for the articles in this dissertation there are several
other people from the Philosophical Faculty and especially the School of Applied
Educational Science and Teacher Education who have supported the advancement of this
work. I would like to express my gratitude to external reviewers of the thesis Professor
Shu-Nu Chang Rundgren, and Professor Heli Ruokamo for their efforts, comments, and
advice for further develop of my dissertation. Also there are many anonymous reviewers
of the articles, whose contribution has greatly helped to develop the dissertation.
Of course, during such a long period of time there are a lot of people who have been
supporting my working (e.g. “east-wing team”, friends, relatives and family) who I wish
to thank here also.
Joensuu, December 2014
Jari Kukkonen
ix
List of empirical studies
Study I
Kukkonen, J. E., Kärkkäinen, S., Dillon, P., & Keinonen, T. (2014). The effects of scaffolded
simulation-based inquiry learning on fifth-graders' representations of the greenhouse
effect.
International
Journal
of
Science
Education,
36(3),
406-424.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.782452
Study II
Kukkonen, J. E., Kärkkäinen, S., & Keinonen, T. (2013). Fifth Graders' Views of
Atmosphere. The International Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Learning.19(3),
113-129.
Study III
Kukkonen, J., Kärkkäinen, S., Valtonen, T. & Keinonen, T. (2011). Blogging to Support
Inquiry-based Learning and Reflection in Teacher Students Science Education. Problems of
education in the 21st century, 31(31), 73-84.
Study IV
Kukkonen, J., Dillon, P., Kärkkäinen, S., Hartikainen-Ahia, A. & Keinonen, T. (2014). Preservice teachers’ experiences of scaffolded learning in science through a computer
supported collaborative inquiry. Education and Information Technologies. Online first
22.4.2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10639-014-9326-8
The author of this dissertation was the corresponding author for these four studies. The
author had significant responsibility in planning, designing, analysis as well as reporting
the results for these four studies.
x
Table of Contents
Abstract .................................................................................................................... iii
Tiivistelmä ............................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................... ix
List of empirical studies........................................................................................ x
Table of Contents ................................................................................................... xi
1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1
2 Computer supported collaborative inquiry learning ................................... 3
2.1 Scaffolding in science inquiry learning ..................................................................... 3
2.2 An overview of computer supported collaborative inquiry learning................... 5
2.3 Computer supported collaborative inquiry learning in science education .......... 7
3 Scaffolding the CSCL process in science education ..................................... 12
4 Empirical Research.............................................................................................. 17
4.1 Aims of the research .................................................................................................... 17
4.2 Design-based research as practise oriented program ............................................. 17
4.3 Design of the empirical studies .................................................................................. 19
5 An overview of the empirical studies.............................................................. 21
5.1 Pupils learning from scaffolded simulation-based inquiry (Studies I and II) ..... 21
5.2 Teacher students’ inquiry learning and teaching conceptions (Study III) ........... 26
5.3 Teacher students’ inquiry learning experiences of scaffolding (Study IV) .......... 28
6 Main Findings and General Discussion ......................................................... 34
6.1 The effects of sequential scaffolds for simulation-based collaborative inquiry
learning ............................................................................................................................... 34
6.2 Teacher students’ inquiry teaching and learning conceptions .............................. 36
6.3 Teacher students’ experienced benefits of scaffolding with technology for
collaboration ....................................................................................................................... 37
6.4 Conclusions: Scaffolding and model comparisons.................................................. 38
References................................................................................................................ 40
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: The empirical studies their design and research topics, data sources and main
methods. ................................................................................................................................. 20
Table 2: Tasks and scaffolds in the learning process. ....................................................... 23
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Technology-enhanced scaffolds for computer supported collaborative inquiry
learning. .................................................................................................................................. 15
Figure 2: Technology-enhanced scaffolds for computer supported collaborative inquiry
learning. .................................................................................................................................. 29
Figure 3: Relations of scaffolds to experienced benefits after dissection inquiry
(standardized estimates). ..................................................................................................... 31
THE MOST ESSENTIAL ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
CSCL………………………………….…….Computer supported collaborative learning
ICT ................................................................Information and communication technology
SEM………………………………………………………....Structural equation modelling
TPACK…………………………………..Technological pedagogical content knowledge
xii
1 Introduction
This dissertation started from an EU-funded project VccSSe (Virtual Community
Collaborating Space for Science Education, 2007-2009) that was concerned with
advancing the use of simulations in education. In the VccSSe-project we were interested
in designing, studying and disseminating effective ways to use simulations in science
education. My task among others in the project was to participate in the experimentation
and implementation of simulation-based learning in the classroom. A greenhouse effect
simulation was used in the project first with an activity with teacher students who
experimented with some simulations from the University of Colorado PhET collection
(http://phet.colorado.edu) and also translated some of the simulations into Finnish. Later
an instructional intervention, based on the idea of simulation-based inquiry, was
developed in collaboration with a teacher student, a supervising teacher and me during
the advanced teaching practice of the teacher student. Even though several other teachers
were contacted in order to accomplish similar activities for using simulations in teaching,
only a few volunteered for the VccSSe-project’s intervention activities. In part, these
experiences aroused my interest in investigating teacher students’ skills and their
willingness to enact inquiry teaching and learning.
Using previous research literature to investigate effective ways to use simulations in
science education, we noticed that it was essential to further study the circumstances
where effective inquiry-based science teaching and learning approaches could be
implemented. It soon turned out that while the definitions of inquiry itself varies, inquiry
refers at least to what scientist do, how students learn and the pedagogical approach
teachers employ. However, research on effective inquiry learning shares an essential
feature, namely, the scaffolding of the inquiry learning. There is substantial researchbased knowledge about effective simulation-based science learning; here again the
scaffolding and inquiry learning turned out to be the key concepts. Therefore scaffolding
the science inquiry learning was an important activity also in the VccSSe-project where
the effects of scaffolded inquiry were to be examined among fifth graders. Earlier we had
found also that learner-centred collaborative teaching approaches, such as inquiry-based
science education, are challenging to implement with information and communication
technology (ICT) even for experienced teachers (Valtonen, Wulff, & Kukkonen, 2006;
Valtonen, Kukkonen, Puruskainen, & Hatakka, 2007). The challenges of inquiry learning
raised the question of studying also teacher students’ conceptions and perceived benefits
of the scaffolding that accompanies inquiry learning. In the case of computer supported
science inquiry learning, it is always necessary that teachers have the skills to plan and
carry out the inquiry process with their pupils. Teacher education should be able to
support teacher students´ development of the skills, knowledge and habits required in
conducting inquiry learning processes.
For at least a decade research and development with technology enhanced learning
environments including scaffolded science inquiry learning have been conducted under
1
the framework of design based research. While rapidly developing technology had
previously lead to sequential approaches in testing new developments in “interventions”
in the classroom, the design based approach takes account of social context early in the
design process. Design based research attempts to advance research, design and practice
by requiring participants to collaborate in the early phase of the design of the technology
enhanced learning environment in order to achieve maximal fit in the local context. The
process of actual enactment in different settings is an important part of the research e.g.
in the case of science inquiry learning the different settings include the interactions
between the materials, the teachers and the learners. Also this dissertation addresses the
challenge to adapt rapidly changing technologies (e.g. adapting simulations and social
software; blog and Wiki) to local contexts and to study the features of design and the
effect of the design on learning.
While previous research clearly states that in many cases science inquiry learning
would be an effective way of learning science, the actual enactment of computer
supported collaborative science inquiry learning is dependent on the design in use. The
computerized collaborative science inquiry learning environments are designed to be
used mainly with a different language than Finnish and to fit into a different curriculum
and educational system, therefore it is important to study the adaptation of the designs in
Finnish educational settings.
The personal experiences gained from the VccSSe-project, showed great diversity in
curriculum, educational systems, and teachers’ willingness to conduct simulation-based
inquiry as well as in possibilities to use ICT in classrooms in the five participating
European countries.
This dissertation contributes to the field of computer supported collaborative science
inquiry learning in the context of primary school education. Firstly, the aim is to examine
the scaffolding of fifth graders’ science inquiry learning process, while aiming to design a
model for scaffolded simulation-based inquiry and the effects of scaffolding. Secondly,
the aim is to examine primary school teacher students’ readiness to enact inquiry
teaching and learning, and furthermore the effects of scaffolded inquiry to the
experienced benefits of the scaffolding.
2
2 Computer supported
collaborative inquiry
learning
Science education has been one of the influential fields of study and application in the
research area of using ICT in education. The gradual shift of focus from the study of
supporting individual learners to supporting learning through participating in
communities of practices has been a characteristic of the research in both fields: the
development of computer supported collaborative learning in the field of ICT in
education; and inquiry-based approaches in field of science education. According to
Minner, Levy and Century (2010) inquiry learning refers to the way students learn, the
pedagogical approach, and what the scientist do. The core activity of inquiry learning is
defined by Quintana, Reiser, Davis, Krajcik, Fretz, Duncan and Soloway (2004, 341) “as
the process of posing questions and investigating them with empirical data, either
through direct manipulation of variables via experiments or by constructing comparisons
using existing data sets”. Inquiry-based science education is a wider concept which
includes inquiry learning as a core concept, but inquiry-based science education also
addresses several other issues e.g. the nature of science (NOS), curricular knowledge, the
teachers’ knowledge base for implementing inquiry, student learning of science process
skills to name a few (Keys & Bryan, 2001; Capps & Crawford, 2013).
Research and development in the field of ICT in education has recently become
oriented more towards an approach called computer supported collaborative learning
(CSCL) (e.g. Koschmann, 1996; Strijbos, Kirschner, & Martens, 2004; Stahl, Koschmann, &
Suthers, 2006; Lipponen 2001; Resta & Laferrière, 2007; Valtonen, 2011; Laru, 2012).
Stahl et al. (2006) claim that CSCL is an emerging branch of learning sciences and the
development of CSCL parallels paradigmatic changes in the field of learning sciences
generally and the development of science inquiry learning especially. Both of these fields
have moved from considering learning as almost solely an individual or personal matter
to it being a more social and group related process (Koschmann, 1996; Kirschner, Martens,
& Strijbos, 2004; Stahl, 2005).
2.1 SCAFFOLDING IN SCIENCE INQUIRY LEARNING
In the field of science education a synthesis of research for the years 1984 to 2002
concludes that inquiry-based science instruction has had a positive impact on content
learning (Minner et al., 2010). More specifically, the amount of active thinking and
3
emphasis on drawing conclusions from data were predictors of understanding science.
Moreover, the amount of inquiry, especially hands-on engagement with science
phenomena and students’ taking responsibility for their own learning, were significant
predictors of better learning (Minner et al., 2010). However, in the studies analysed
“students’ own responsibility” was not found to mean that inquiry learning is one form
of ‘‘minimally guided instruction’’ as Kirschner, Sweller and Clark (2006) claim. Instead,
most of the studies analysed had incorporated substantial scaffolding during the science
inquiry learning (Minner et al., 2010). Kirschner et al. (2006) importantly points out that
when novices study new content, it is extremely important to take into account the
limitations of their working and long-term memory, otherwise teaching and learning can
be ineffective and frustrating. Hmelo-Silver, Duncan and Chinn (2007) responded to the
challenges that Kirschner et al. (2006) raised, by arguing that inquiry learning has usually
been shown to be effective when it is combined with extensive scaffolding and guidance
to facilitate student learning. Also Alfieri, Brooks, Aldrich and Tenenbaum (2011) based
on a meta-analysis of 160 studies suggest that unassisted inquiry does not benefit learners
whereas enhanced inquiry with feedback, worked examples, scaffolding and elicited
explanations, does.
Minner et al.’s (2010) review emphasises several long-term research-projects
dedicated to developing computerised collaborative science inquiry learning
environments that take into account and combine the characteristics of effective learning
environments. Quite often computerised collaborative science inquiry needs to be
combined with curricula development and teacher training. Some examples of
environments so developed are: WISE, Web-Based Integrated Science Environment
(Varma & Linn, 2012); BGuILE, Biology Guided Inquiry Learning Environment (Reiser,
Tabak, Sandoval, Smith, Steinmuller, & Leone, 2001); CoVis; Collaborative Visualization
over the Internet (Pea, 2002), TinkerTools (White & Frederiksen, 1998). For at least a
decade this kind of research and development with technology enhanced learning
environments (e.g. concerning necessary scaffolding during science inquiry learning) has
been conducted under the framework of design based research (Wang & Hannafin, 2005).
While rapidly developing technology had previously lead to sequential approaches in
testing new developments in “interventions” in the classroom, the design based approach
takes account of social context early in the design process. Design based research
attempts to advance research, design and practice by requiring participants (e.g. teachers)
to collaborate in the early phase of the design of the technology enhanced learning
environment in order to achieve maximal fit in the local context. The process of actual
enactment in different settings is an important part of the research e.g. in the case of
science inquiry learning the different settings include the interactions between the
materials, the teachers and the learners (the Design-Based Research Collective, 2003).
However, design based research also grounds the designs in earlier research and aims to
develop more general advances for both theory and design simultaneously (Wang &
Hannafin, 2005; the Design-Based Research Collective, 2003).
In the case of computer supported science inquiry learning, it is always necessary that
teachers have the skills to plan and carry out the inquiry process with their pupils (e.g.
Williams, Linn, Ammon, & Gearhart, 2004; Viilo, Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, & Hakkarainen,
4
2011; Gerard, Varma, Corliss, & Linn, 2011). Teacher education should be able to support
teacher students´ development of skills, knowledge and habits required in conducting
inquiry learning processes. Unfortunately neither the teachers’ nor the teacher students’
readiness to enact inquiry teaching (Fishman, Marx, Best, & Tal, 2003; Kim & Tan, 2011;
Williams et al., 2004; Windschitl, 2003; Windschitl, 2004; Lakkala, Lallimo, &
Hakkarainen, 2005), nor habits of scaffolding (Bliss, Askew, & Macrae, 1996) can be taken
for granted. In a series of studies, Windschitl (2003,2004) has shown that teacher
students’ conceptions of inquiry learning are too simplified, linear and unproblematized,
and too loosely connected to theory or modelling (Windschitl, Thompson, & Braaten,
2008). Windchitl (2004) also points out that the actual willingness of the teacher or teacher
students to carry out inquiry based teaching seems to be explained more by their
previous experiences of participation in demanding scientific research or demanding
inquiry teaching and learning. It takes years of practice to be skilled in the use of methods
of inquiry and to develop relevant content knowledge and reasoning within this domain.
2.2 AN OVERVIEW
INQUIRY LEARNING
OF
COMPUTER
SUPPORTED
COLLABORATIVE
One practical limitation in educational settings where the collaborative use of ICT is
introduced has been the cost of the equipment which has led to working in pairs and
groups rather than individually. However this limitation of resources has, in practice, in
some respects, been a success factor for ICT and collaborative learning. Lou, Abrami and
d’Apollonia (2001) found many beneficial effects of group learning with computer
technology compared to individual studying with computers. In their meta-analysis of
122 studies, working in pairs was found to support better individual achievement (posttest scores). Also larger groups performed better in tests than those studying alone. In
group tasks (e.g. grades given based on group assignments/products) bigger groups (3-5
students) were found to have better performance than pairs. Learner-controlled software
was found to support group task performance better and also minimal or no feedback
from software was found to be more effective than elaborate feedback from software in
group performance. Employing specific cooperative learning strategies, instead of
offering general encouragement to collaborate or work individually was found to
improve group performance. For group performance difficult tasks were found to be
more favourable. Interestingly, social context was most important in achievement tests
for low ability students but it also improved the achievement of high ability learners (Lou
et al., 2001).
Scardamalia and Bereiter’s (1994) research and development on Computer Supported
Intentional Learning Environment (CSILE) parallels the rise of the computer supported
collaborative learning (CSCL) paradigm. According to Scardamalia and Bereiter (1994),
the ideas in CSILE were based on three lines of research and thought: 1. Intentional
learning, phrased as a matter of having life goals that include a personal learning agenda
(Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006) instead of just trying to do well in school tasks and
activities. 2. The process of progressive expertise: “a process of reinvestment in
progressive inquiry or problem solving, addressing at increasing levels of complexity, the
5
problems of one's domain”. 3. Restructuring schools so that they become knowledgebuilding communities. This restructuring requires combining social support with
intentional learning and supporting the process of developing progressive expertise with
continued adaptation by making a contribution to increasing collective knowledge.
Recently Scardamalia and Bereiter (2006) emphasized the importance of collective
improvement of ideas as an aim of knowledge building during collaborative inquiry to
enrich the collective knowing of the learning community. Scardamalia and Bereiter (2006)
point out that people are not honoured for what they keep in their minds, rather for what
they contribute to the community’s knowledge. In contributing to the community’s
knowledge the creation of “epistemic artefacts” such as conceptual artefacts, theories and
models or “epistemic things” like concrete models and experimental setups, have
enhanced deliberate knowledge creation and idea improvements in the community
(Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006).
Interestingly the research related to using computers in education has influenced the
learning sciences generally. In research focusing on individual learning, the study of
artificial intelligence and cognitive tutoring have provided sophisticated models of
information processing in human learners and in computerised tutoring of individual
learners. However, research on implementing the tutoring systems in actual educational
settings has also made clear that in order for the tutoring to be an effective instructional
tool one has to: 1) investigate the fit with curricula and 2) the learner support and
scaffolding must be collaboratively developed with skilful teachers (Koedinger &
Corbett, 2006). This kind of change in the focus of research and development in the field
of intelligent tutoring systems in education is an illustrative example of the development
in ICT in education. The field has changed from an optimistic view of individualised
learning with computer based tools (Anderson, 1983) to more socially oriented, situated
and community based approaches e.g. study of collaborative learning with an algebra
tutor (Rummel, Mullins, & Spada, 2012).
Regarding the relationship between collaborative learning and knowledge building,
Stahl (2006; 2012) suggests that small groups are the engines of knowledge building and
the artefacts in use are of utmost importance to progressive knowing within those
groups. According to Lemke (2001), artefacts in science are similarly important: the core
sense-making process of scientific investigation involves instrumentation and
technologies, distributing cognition between persons and artefacts and between persons
and persons, and distributed cognition mediated by artefacts, discourses, symbolic
representations and the like. These remarks of the importance of artefacts in science are
related to the sociocultural approach of science education (Lemke, 2001; Osborne &
Dillon 2010) and they are grounded in research about the interconnectedness of the
scientists´ activities to the social organization of scientific work (e.g. studies of Bruno
Latour: Latour & Woolgar, 1986; Latour 1991/2006). However, Hakkarainen (2003a)
criticizes sociology of science studies for neglecting the cognitive aspects of scientific
work and the role of individual learning of the scientists through cultural activities.
Hakkarainen (2003a) states that cognitive explanations cannot and should not be
excluded from the analysis of “science in action”, but instead cognition should be
considered from a cultural-historical theory of cognition (e.g. Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch,
6
1985). Hakkarainen (2003a) argues that a cultural-historical theory of cognition explains
the development of mental processes by connecting the use of symbol systems and
psychological tools during communicative activity. Furthermore, Hakkarainen (2003a)
concludes that the nature of scientific research, introducing the actual processes of the
creation and the discovery of scientific knowledge, and especially progressive inquiry,
should be part of science education (see also Lemke, 2001; Osborne & Dillon, 2010).
However, Hakkarainen (2003a) as well as Lemke (2001) and Osborne and Dillon (2010)
emphasizes that it is important to guide students in using systematically external
representational tools (artefacts) in a disciplinary way (see also Tabak & Reiser, 2008).
Recently Dillenbourg, Järvelä and Fischer (2009) have characterized the evolution of
research in computer supported collaborative learning. According to them, there is a shift
towards some kind of merging of CSCL into wider pedagogical settings and
approximately from 1995 to 2005 the focus of the research in CSCL has been to engineer
learning environments to include real time analysis of activities and to utilize these in
different educational settings. According to Dillenbourg et al. (2009), after 2005 the focus
of research and development has moved into “more comprehensive environments”
including non-collaborative activities, multiple activities and multiple tools in both
digital and physical spaces in which the teacher is one key actor and the activities must
be orchestrated properly in order for the teaching to be effective. Dillenbourg et al. (2009)
raise some key questions arising from the research of CSCL. Firstly, in CSCL there is not a
single recipe, but in the design of CSCL environments one should create conditions in
which effective interactions will occur. Three main categories of interaction have been
found to facilitate learning: explanation, argumentation/negotiation and mutual
regulation. Secondly, the focus of research has moved from individual learner-system
interactions to group and social interactions even though the theoretical perspective takes
into account both individual learning and social cognition. Thirdly, task representations
mediate verbal interactions and shape social interactions, and if they get internalized they
shape learners´ reasoning - a Vygotskian statement about the importance of
psychological tools (cf. Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1985). Fourthly, not all interactions in
collaborative learning are productive (e.g. Lipponen, 2001; Kreijns, Kirschner, & Jochems,
2003; Häkkinen & Järvelä, 2006; Häkkinen & Hämäläinen, 2012) and therefore
interactions need to be scaffolded (e.g. with scripting cf. Hämäläinen, 2008; Laru, 2012)
even though there is a risk of over-scripting (Dillenbourg, 2002; Hämäläinen, 2008, 56-58).
2.3 COMPUTER SUPPORTED COLLABORATIVE INQUIRY LEARNING IN
SCIENCE EDUCATION
In his book “Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context” Kozulin (2003)
describes psychological tools as symbolic artefacts –signs, symbols, texts, formula, and
graphic organizers– that after internalization help individuals to master their own
psychological functions. Kozulin (2003) also emphasizes that each culture has its own set
of tools and situations, socio-cultural activities, in which the appropriation of these tools
is done by the learners. Activity here means humans as active subjects interacting with
7
fragments of the world (objects of the activity), changing it, and changing themselves in
the process (Giest & Lompscher, 2003).
In a Vygotskian view one key challenge for science education is that scientific
concepts are fundamentally different from spontaneous concepts. Spontaneous concepts
arise from generalizations of everyday activities whereas scientific concepts represent
generalizations of the experiences of humankind (Karpov, 2003). According to Wertsch
(1985), this difference between spontaneous concepts and scientific concepts was
described by Vygotsky in terms of scientific concepts having decontextualized
relationships –scientific concepts have internal hierarchical systems of interrelationships
mediated through other concepts (Wertsch 1985, 103) whereas spontaneous concepts
have structures that are more unsystematic and more in direct connection with the
objects. However, Karpov (2003) points out that Vygotsky´s views on scientific concepts
and their importance to learning did not take into account the need to include procedural
knowledge in the learning of the concepts. Wertsch (1985, 196) also points out that
semiotic mediation of word meanings is not enough, more accurate would be to consider
activity as the unit of analysis. For science learning this means that scientific concepts
mediate meanings only if they are supported by students’ mastery of relevant
procedures. In other words, scientific concepts must be accompanied with methods for
scientific analysis in those subject domains (Karpov, 2003, 68).
In a sociocultural perspective on learning, cognitive competencies emerge through
guided participation in communities of practice in which there is continuous interaction
with other people through meditational means or cultural tools (Hatano & Wertsch,
2001). According to Gauvain (2001) cultures have developed many types of cultural tools
like symbol systems, numeracy, and forms of technology that support daily activities,
communicate ideas and sometimes transform human thinking. She also states that one
important part of mental development is the gradual acquisition of skills for
understanding and using symbolic, representational systems in culturally specific ways.
In guided participation the scaffolds for appropriating cultural tools are essential and
closely related to Tabak´s disciplinary stance, that is, disciplinary ways of knowing,
doing and talking (Tabak, 2004). Cultural tools enable some communality among the
group of practitioners, yet they allow individuals to be active and make unique actions.
These interrelated means or tools include physical tools, shared knowledge, and shared
patterns of behaviour in using the means (Hatano & Wertsch, 2001).
Scientific models have an important role in communities of scientists; they serve as
cultural tools in the community of practice by contributing to communication between
scientists. Models, which are used as cultural tools in scientific communities have several
characteristics: 1) the model is related to the target (e.g. a system, object), 2) the model is
a research tool which is used to obtain information about the target which cannot be
directly observed or measured, 3) the model cannot interact directly with the target it
represents, 4) the model bears some analogies to the target and it allows the possibility to
derive and test hypotheses when studying the target, 5) the model is, in general, as
simple as possible and differs from the target, 6) the model compromises between
analogies and differences with the target, and 7) the model is developed through
iteration, revised during the stages of studying the target (Van Driel & Verloop, 1999).
8
According to Gobert and Pallant (2004), scientific inquiry type learning involves
replicating the activities and tasks of science –including developing, working and
communicating with scientific models. In these activities, students are engaged in a
collaborative search for evidence, and engage in collaborative design and collaborative
analysis and reporting.
There is evidence of problems regarding students’ conceptions of scientific models
such as respiratory systems (Chi, De Leeuw, Chiu, & LaVancher, 1994; Gadgil, NokesMalach, & Chi, 2012). Setting up comparisons between expert scientific models and
students personal models has been suggested as an effective way to support the learning
of complex phenomena. Gadgil et al. (2012) studied change in students’ mental models of
the respiratory system through making a study contrasting a self-explanation approach
and a holistic confrontation approach. In the holistic confrontation approach (Gadgil et
al., 2012), during study learners were asked to make comparisons of their own diagrams
(flawed models) with an expert model, while in the self-explanation approach students
were asked to explain the expert model. During the intervention, students were asked to
think aloud but also some questions were asked: in the comparison situation they had to
explain about comparison of the models as well as their structure and function, whereas
in the explaining situation they had to explain about the expert model, its structure and
function. Gadgil et al. (2012) found that comparison of the models led to better learning;
specifically, after the intervention 90 % of the students were able to produce a correct
double-loop model, whereas self-explanation led to 64% being correct. Declarative
knowledge and knowledge interference tests indicated similar effects. Analysis also
showed that students produced more constructive, function related statements in the
model comparison condition than they did in the explaining condition (Gadgil et al.,
2012).
Özdemir and Clark (2007) characterize the problem of studying students’ conceptions
as cognitive (mental) models, questioning whether the student´s knowledge is most
accurately represented as a coherent theory like construction (as scientific models are), or
if it is more like a collection of piecemeal, continually evolving, constructs (which they
call ‘knowledge-as-elements perspective’) (e.g. p-prims of diSessa, 2002). In order to
demonstrate the difference between these points of view, diSessa, Gillespie and Esterly
(2004) made what they called a ‘quasi-replication’ of Ioannides and Vosniadou (2002)
study and found that in the case of the concept of forces, thee coherence in pupils´
conceptions is not as strong as Ioannides and Vosniadou (2002) claimed. A somewhat
similar discrepancy in the conceptions of force was found from Turkish students´
knowledge in Özdemir´s and Clark´s (2009) study. Özdemir and Clark (2007) also discuss
the implications of this discrepancy in pupils’ conceptions (knowledge-as-elements
perspective) in curricula design. Namely, it raises the need to activate the reconstruction
of knowledge from these piecemeal constructs in multiple contexts, with multiple
(computational) representations, and to expect more diversity in students’ descriptions of
complex phenomena. Pupils have also difficulties in identifying the relevant meanings of
individual concepts in their proper contexts with respect to the problems, like
multifaceted environmental problems such as the greenhouse effect (Österlind, 2005).
9
Schoultz, Säljö and Wyndhamn (2001) discuss the tool dependent nature of human
reasoning. When a concrete tool like a globe is used to support pupils’ thinking, there is
clear benefit to their reasoning and they produce more accurate explanations about
gravitation and scientific conceptions of it. Stahl (2006) also emphasises the role of tools,
using the term artefacts when defining group cognition and social meaning making
processes. Stahl (2006) points out that in Vygosky´s theory the cultural tools or artefacts
(including symbols) are central to interpersonal meaning making. The meaning emerges
firstly in the external intersubjective world of other peoples and physical objects in which
individuals reciprocally construct interpretations during joint activity. In the second stage
these meaning making activities can take further transformations and lead to
internalization of the process as a psychological function or cognitive artefact (Stahl, 2006,
339). Schoultz et al. (2001) demonstrated in their study how cultural models reshaped the
way pupils re-interpreted their conceptions during social participation, in this case when
discussing about gravitation and the Earth. Vosniadou, Skopeliti and Ikospentaki (2005)
could partially reproduce the effect of pupils reasoning with external, cultural models
leading to more accurate scientific conceptions. However, pupils (1st and 3rd graders)
still tended to produce confused explanations soon after the tool was removed.
Vosniadou et al. (2005, 336) state that when describing reasoning with readymade
models, different learning goals are in question than when one generates one’s own
models and bases one’s reasoning on them. The importance of cultural tools in reasoning
has also been demonstrated by Jakobsson, Mäkitalo and Säljö (2009) in the gradual
refinement of pupils´ conceptions of the greenhouse effect. They show how skilful pupils
are in reasoning about the phenomenon when they are allowed to interact with each
other and with cultural tools as meditational means.
Computer simulations have been shown to offer one effective way to present concrete
scientific models to support student-centred science instruction which emphasizes the
skills, attitudes and values of scientific inquiry (Smetana & Bell, 2012). Clark, Nelson,
Sengupta and D’Angelo (2009) define simulations as computational models of real or
hypothesized situations or phenomena that allow users to explore the implications of
manipulating or modifying parameters in the model where simulations can be started,
stopped, examined and restarted with new parameters in ways not possible in real
situations. Smetana and Bell (2012) conclude, based on a review of 61 studies starting
from the 1970s, that simulations are effective instructional tools when instruction
involves students in inquiry-based science explorations. According to them simulations
can help students to cope with complex tasks and the use of simulations can be
supportive to lower achieving students. However, the effective use of simulations
presumes that the simulation-based inquiry: (a) is integrated with other forms of
instruction, i.e. curricular fit in design; (b) incorporates high-quality support structures
for learners interacting with the simulation, i.e. it is properly scaffolded; (c) encourages
learner reflection; and (d) promotes cognitive dissonance for challenging previous
conceptions. Smetana and Bell (2012) also point out that the relationship of scaffolding to
the instructional setting and the sequence in which simulations are most effective in
different settings are both worthy of further study.
10
Previous research has frequently highlighted that an inquiry-based approach and
field work are not only important but essential in teaching and learning about ecology at
primary and secondary school levels, as well as at university level (e.g. Chin & Chia,
2006; Ergazaki & Zogza, 2008; Finn, Maxwell, & Calver, 2002; Sander, Jelemenska, &
Kattmann, 2006). After careful comparison of inquiry learning models, Bell, Urhahne,
Schanze and Ploetzner (2010) discovered that collaborative inquiry learning has been
described with its main elements being similar to those of the inquiry process. Typically,
a model starts from “orienting and asking questions”, from which students ideally find
the driving question to be investigated by scientific means. This is followed by the
hypothesis generation process in which an observable relation between variables can be
formulated. In the planning process, validation of the hypothesis is explicated by the
selection of appropriate measurement instruments or methods. The investigation process
consists of empirical actions to collect information or data e.g. making experiments,
measurements, and organizing the data. In the analysis and interpretation phase, the data
should be used for making arguments for or against the hypothesis. In the case of science
learning, there should be a process of model creation or refinement based on theoretical
considerations combined with the results of the inquiry process. In the conclusions and
evaluation process, all the students’ previous accomplishments should be evaluated
against other experiments and theory in the field in question in order to find out how the
results fit within the theory or models. Communication is described as a whole process
lasting through the inquiry and leading to reflection on one’s own work while at the
same time collaborating with other participants in the inquiry work. Finally, the
“prediction” process connects knowledge already gained and the results of the inquiry
process into broader possibilities of application to the theory which might lead back to
the starting point, asking new questions and orienting to a new inquiry cycle (Bell et al.,
2010).
Since a dedicated computerised collaborative inquiry learning environment is not
always available, it is necessary that teachers have the skills to plan and carry out the
inquiry process with their pupils. Teacher education should be able to support teacher
students´ development of the skills, knowledge and habits required in conducting
inquiry learning processes. Recently there has been heavy emphasis toward using social
software as tools for collaborative learning practices. Social software like blogs, wikienvironments, Facebook etc. have been described as software which support users’
interaction and collaboration (Boyd, 2003). According to Alexander (2006), social software
sets users into more active roles; users create and publish material, comment on each
other’s work, create and participate, acting simultaneously both as readers and writers
(Maged, Kamel, & Wheelert, 2007; Sinclair, 2007). These characteristics of social software
align well with the features of inquiry learning described by Bell et al. (2010) and
explained in the previous paragraph. Social software potentially provides numerous tools
for supporting students’ active interaction and the building of new knowledge during the
inquiry process.
11
3 Scaffolding the CSCL
process in science education
According to Wood, Bruner and Ross (1976), scaffolding is a process during which a
more expert person helps another who is less expert in the context of skill acquisition or
problem solving. Through scaffolding the novice will be able to accomplish the task goal
or solve a problem that is beyond unassisted efforts. In order to be able to learn from the
experience, the novice must comprehend and be able to recognize a path which provides
a solution to a class of problems and be able to produce the solutions without assistance.
Wood et al. (1976) also propose six critical tasks or scaffolds for the tutor: 1. Recruitment:
arousing and sustaining the learner’s interest in the task; 2. Reduction in degrees of
freedom: reducing the number or complexity of the activities which are needed to
accomplish the task; 3. Direction maintenance: keeping the learner on track towards the
furthest goal, not being satisfied with accomplishing success in the sub-goal; 4. Marking
the critical features: showing the relevancy of features in the process of accomplishing the
task; 5. Controlling frustration: helping the learner to avoid stress overload during work,
yet avoiding full dependency on the tutor or scaffolds; 6. Demonstrating or modelling the
solution of the task.
Puntambekar and Kolodner (2005) have rephrased the central features of scaffolded
instruction: a. common goal, shared understanding of the activity; b. ongoing diagnosis
of the student’s capacities and level of understanding as a basis for evaluating the
support needed for accomplishment of the task and sub-goals; c. dynamic and adaptive
support, based on the ongoing diagnosis; d. dialogic interaction which enables teacher
and peers to assess the student´s understanding and role changes during the task; e.
fading and gradual transfer of responsibility (of control) to the learner. According to
Sharma and Hannafin (2007), scaffolding and the zone of proximal development (ZDP)
both involve interaction between the novice and the expert; the novice usually being the
learner, working and performing a task at a developmental level that would be out of
his/her reach without the assistance of an expert, i.e. the strategies suggested by Wood et
al. (1976) and Puntambekar and Kolodner (2005).
Reiser (2004) offers two aims for scaffolding: the first is to support the learner in
accomplishing the task and the second is to support learning from the task and
improving future performance. These two goals imply two scaffolding strategies:
scaffolding by structuring and scaffolding by problematizing. Further, Reiser (2004)
claims that the main situations where scaffolding is needed in collaborative inquiry
learning are: unfamiliar strategies (e.g. inquiry strategies); unfamiliar interaction
practices (e.g. collaborative planning, evaluation, keeping track of alternatives);
unfamiliar discourse practices (e.g. expressing hypothesis, arguing on the basis of
12
evidence, also falsifying); non-reflective work, which raises the need for scaffolding by
problematizing (the learner tends to focus on superficial aspects of products/objects
instead of the explanations and arguments they produce); and superficial understanding
(e.g. no scientific constructs and formal representations).
Development of expert like model-based reasoning during inquiry is an important
learning goal for all learners of science and scaffolding the process is very important. For
example Hsu, Lin, Wu, Lee and Hwang (2011) studied how people with different levels
of knowledge and expertise reason while designing an inquiry for investigating air
quality: experts (atmospheric science PhD students), ‘intermediates’ (PhD students in a
different field), advanced novices (talented 11th and 12th graders) and novices (10th
graders). They asked the participants to elaborate details of their research design,
including potential variables, data collection and the prediction of results. In their
analysis, they identified different reasoning strategies and found that experts used
model-based theory driven reasoning; intermediates and advanced novices used relationbased reasoning; and novices used phenomena-based reasoning or in many cases,
inappropriate reasoning and justifications. Overall, the designing of an appropriate
investigation about air quality was a somewhat difficult task for the participants and it
was almost too difficult for the novices, the 10th graders. However, Hsu et al. (2011)
concluded that there was a gradual increase in modelling skills across the groups as well
as interaction between the knowledge structures and modelling skills, leading to expertlike knowledge and reasoning. Based on their findings, Hsu et al. (2011) suggest the
following design principles for model-based teaching and curricular development: 1.
Designing of learning activities to encourage model-based reasoning; 2. Scaffolding one’s
modelling with multiple representations; 3. Testing the models in an authentic context;
and 4. Nurturing novices’ domain-specific knowledge during modelling.
Similar learning needs in teacher students have been reported by Windschitl (2003;
2004). Windschitl (2003; 2004) claims that in many cases teacher students’ conceptions of
inquiry learning are too simplified, linear and unproblematic and loosely connected to
theory or modelling. However, with a carefully scaffolded inquiry project most of the
participating teacher students reconceptualised more expert like conceptions about the
importance of theory and model-based reasoning during inquiry and about the inquiry
process and learning within it (Windschitl et al., 2008).
Nowadays, scaffolding in computer supported collaborative learning includes
symbols, numeracy, representations of the discipline, and certain forms of technology
(Sherin, Reiser, & Edelson 2004; Quintana et al., 2004). According to Reiser (2004), tools
can be a critical factor in tasks that involve accessing, manipulating, storing and
reasoning about information; for example, visualisation with tools can provide
conceptually meaningful representations and help users form deep models of the
underlying system. Quintana et al. (2004) define three central processes related to
scientific reasoning and scaffolding: sense making as a process for testing hypotheses and
interpreting data; process management for controlling the inquiry process and
articulation; and reflection, as a process for constructing and articulating what has been
learned. Firstly, in sense making, learners must understand how to represent with formal
scientific representations (e.g. chemical structures) what they intuitively know and what
13
is also known. They must also be able to modify these representations to develop an
empirical test, encode new information into representations (e.g. numerical values and
graphical representation) and make inferences in a disciplinary way, while noting what is
important about scientific situations. Secondly, science inquiry is an ill-structured
problem solving process in which learners need support for process management. During
the investigation, novice learners may lack the expert’s knowledge about the relevant
actions and activities such as implementing the investigation plan and keeping track of
the hypothesis and results. Thirdly, reflection processes are critical parts of inquiry and
essential to process management and sense making. Inquiry involves constructing and
articulating arguments, reviewing and reflecting on them, synthesizing explanations of
results, deciding the weaknesses and strengths in one’s own thinking and within the
investigation process (Quintana et al., 2004). Wu and Pedersen (2011) found that at least
in a relatively short (10 sessions) intervention, a combination of early teacher-based
metacognitive and computer-based continuous procedural scaffolding was most effective
in supporting the development of science inquiry skills. However, students still needed
conceptual scaffolds to support their conceptual learning.
Kali and Linn (2008) in an analysis of supports used in studies of several technologyenhanced science learning environments (e.g. Wise, Model-IT) have listed four
scaffolding meta-principles found to be effective: a) make science accessible e.g. by
communicating the diversity of science inquiry and by connecting the learning to
interests or ideas of the learner, b) make thinking visible e.g. by templates to organize
learners ideas or by animating, visualizing, articulating, or representing complex
phenomena in multiple ways, c) enable students to learn from each other e.g. by asking
them to explain their ideas and to critique the ideas of others, and d) promote selfdirected learning e.g. by encouraging reflection, helping the monitoring of progress and
encouraging self-explanations.
To summarize, the scaffolding inquiry with means of computer supported
collaborative learning should take into account the scaffolding principles presented in
Figure 1. Figure 1 is a tentative model of technology-enhanced scaffolds for computer
supported collaborative inquiry learning. The model is made by integrating Kali and
Linn’s (2008) scaffolding principles with (i) previously discussed socio-cultural learning
principles (see chapter 2.3.); (ii) Stahl’s (2006, 210) mediating tools and systems (see also
Suthers, 2006); and (iii) mental model development (Buckley, Gobert, Kindfield, Horwitz,
Tinker, Gerlits, Wilensky, Dede, & Willet, 2004).
14
Interpersonal
Cultural
models
and
tools
Scaffolds: Help Learners Learn from Each Other
Mediating
Organisational
tools and
memory
artifactssystems
Model comparison
Cuturalartifacts
Instructional
models
diagrams
explanations
graphs
simulations
Scaffolds: Make Science Accessible
Learner's model
Interpretation
declarative,
procedural,
and
inferential knowledge
inference
reasoning
generating
evaluation
Model revision
Intrapersonal
Individual
Public
statements
Personal external
memory devices
prior knowledge
Model reinforcement
Scaffolds: Make Thinking Visible
Phenomena
experiences
experiments
new information
Scaffolds: Promote Reflection
Cultural
Figure 1: Technology-enhanced scaffolds for computer supported collaborative inquiry learning.
According to Stahl (2006), the computerized tools can have an important role in a small
group’s shared meaning making, allowing the participants to make mutual contributions
and interpretations in the joint social problem space (see also Sarmiento & Stahl, 2008a,
2008b). The computerized learning environments can serve as an organisational memory
of the group, and also as a place to (re)construct participants own conceptions (Stahl,
2012). Similarly, Jonassen, Peck and Wilson (1999) and Vahtivuori, Ruokamo, Tella and
Tuovinen (2002) argue, when defining critical factors of meaningful learning, that
learning should be active enabling learners to manipulate the environment and the
objects in it in order to see the consequences of their activities (see also Ausubel, 1963).
For meaningfulness the learning should also be constructive offering possibilities for
learners to articulate (e.g. by making artifacts) and express their own conceptions (after
making interpretations) and then explore the topic (e.g. with cultural models) and reflect
on it more deeply in order to develop more complex mental models (e.g. by making
comparisons of their own mental models with cultural/scientific models).
In Figure 1 it is also suggested that cultural models and tools of the science
community/culture should be made accessible by scaffolding. This scaffolding could
mean that by designing and offering instructional models, usually somewhat simpler
models than those used by the researchers/scientific community, students’ reasoning that
would otherwise be too demanding (e.g. by primary school children cf. Edelson, Gordin,
15
& Pea, 1999) might be supported. In this dissertation one example is the simulation of the
greenhouse effect which is modified for pedagogical reasons. However, as mentioned
earlier, also the models of the research community (cultural models in Figure 1) differ in
level of detail or analogy to the phenomena (cf. Van Driel & Verloop, 1999) and therefore
several instructional models may be required during instruction. Several models may be
needed also in order to have available the multiple representations suggested by Hsu et
al., (2011). However, research seems to indicate that in many cases learning of complex
phenomena leads to learners’ models (cf. Buckley et al., 2004) that are inconsistent and
more like collections of piecemeal, continually evolving, constructs (knowledge-as
elements) (Özdemir & Clark 2007, 2009; diSessa, 2002; diSessa et al., 2004). Model
comparison may help the process of gaining more coherent scientific conceptions (Gadgil
et al., 2012).
Recently Belland (2011) has reviewed computer supported scaffolding of illstructured problems from the perspective of distributed cognition and sets out the
ultimate goal of scaffolding to gradually transfer responsibility of executive functioning from
scaffold provider to learner. In the context of distributed cognition, the cognitive system
consists of information and agents with an executive function, where cognition is
distributed among the individual, other individuals and various artefacts such as
physical and symbolic tools (cf. Lemke, 2001), and no individual alone carries out the
entire extent of the cognition required to complete the overall task (e.g. inquiry or
problem solving) (Hutchins, 1991; Putnam & Borko, 2000; Belland, 2011). This perspective
changes the nature of computer-based scaffolds so that the scaffolds allow students to
engage in cognition that is beyond what they can do by themselves, for example scaffolds
can simplify the process of creating and making evidence-based arguments (Belland,
2011; Tabak & Reiser, 2008). Belland (2011) also offers four principles for scaffolding,
derived from a review of research findings), which he claims are supported by empirical
evidence of their effectiveness. (The two most extensively supported by the literature are:
1) support problem reformulation through qualitative modelling, and 2) have students
work cooperatively. The first: 1) support problem reformulation through qualitative
modelling, is similar to Kali and Linn’s (2008) guideline of making thinking visible and
by reformulating the problem through qualitative modelling: students can make choices
regarding pertinent information and pertinent characteristics of stakeholders in order to
assume the executive function. Also Jonassen et al. (1999) and Vahtivuori et al., 2002)
suggest that learning should be intentional (the learner having the executive function)
and the learning environment should offer opportunities for learners to articulate their
own goals, the decisions they make, the strategies they use, and the answers they find.
The second: 2) have students work cooperatively, is similar to Kali and Linn’s (2008)
guideline of enabling students to learn from each other. In a distributed cognitive
perspective, having multiple students’ representations and shared tools may lead to more
elaboration from different perspectives during problem solving (Belland, 2011). Jonassen
et al. (1999) and Vahtivuori et al. (2002) suggest that for meaningful learning the learning
should be collaborative and conversational; the learning environment should offer
learners opportunities (scaffolding) to negotiate common understandings about the topic
and benefit from the multiple viewpoints of their peers.
16
4 Empirical Research
4.1 AIMS OF THE RESEARCH
This research investigates scaffolding as a critical aspect of the design and
implementation of computer supported collaborative inquiry learning in science
education among primary school pupils and teacher students.
The first two studies (studies I and II) discuss computer supported collaborative
inquiry learning investigating:
a) The effects of sequential scaffolds for simulation-based collaborative inquiry learning
b) The role of knowledge artefacts in advancing understanding of a complex and multifaceted
phenomena (the greenhouse effect).
The research task of the two following studies (III and IV) about teacher students’
conceptions of inquiry learning arose from the initial design of the first two studies of
simulation-based inquiry. Specifically, the teacher student and supervising teacher who
enacted the final design into practice in a fifth grade class both raised concerns about the
demanding nature of the simulation-based inquiry of the greenhouse effect. A review of
the literature revealed similar concerns about inquiry teaching and so the two matters
came together as a topic for further research. The context of Study III was a teacher
students’ winter ecology inquiry and the context of Study IV was teacher students’
inquiry learning about the adaptation of fish to water. The research investigations of the
second two studies were to investigate teacher students:
a) Initial conceptions of inquiry (Study III)
b) The effects of scaffolding (Study III and Study IV) on their experiences with inquiry
learning and conceptions about scaffolding needs and effective ways of scaffolding
c) The role of knowledge artefacts and multiple representations in advancing understanding of
complex and multifaceted topics: winter ecology (Study III) and fish adaptation into water
(Study IV).
4.2 DESIGN-BASED RESEARCH AS PRACTISE ORIENTED PROGRAM
In recent years research in ICT in education has increasingly combined iterative design,
research and practice with concurrent activity in design-based research in order to
develop both theoretical insights and practical influences (Wang & Hannafin, 2005). The
rapid development of technologies may offer new possibilities in dealing with
educational problems but it also brings new challenges. Similarly science education
inquiry learning offers promises of learning gains (cf. Minner et al, 2010), but also is
challenging for both teachers and students. This dissertation investigates inquiry learning
in science education through design-based research and investigates the modes of
scaffolding with technology in the process of inquiry learning.
17
The Design-Based Research Collective (2003) argues that design-based research is a
blended approach which tries to address the need to integrate and engineer theorydriven learning environments and to support research of learning in context through the
systematic design of instructional strategies and tools such as activity structures,
institutions, scaffolds, and curricula (see also Collins, Joseph, & Bielaczyc, 2004).
According to Barab and Squire (2004), the fundamental assumption in design-based
research is that cognition does not belong solely to an individual thinker, instead it is a
distributed process co-constituted across individuals, the environment, and the activity in
which the learner participates (see also Vesisenaho & Dillon, 2013). Barab and Squire
(2004) stress that in seeking to engage students in the making of science, it has been
found that learning science must involve developing technological tools, curriculum and
theories (also “prototheories”; Design-Based Research Collective, 2003). In this way
students may systematically develop an understanding of how such learning occurs and
be able to make predictions about it. Such design research can yield outcomes that have
better potential for influencing educational practice, while the designs can be adopted
elsewhere and the research results can be validated through subsequent use (Barab &
Squire, 2004). In design research the research process is managed, designed, implemented
and systematically refined in collaboration with practitioners (e.g. teachers, students) in
order to advance pragmatic and theoretical aims simultaneously (Wang & Hannafin, 2005;
Design-Based Research Collective, 2003; Barab & Squire (2004 ).
Barab and Squire (2004) claim that design-based research has pragmatic philosophical
underpinnings (also Cobb, Confrey, diSessa, Lehrer, & Schauble, 2003; Wang & Hannafin,
2005) in which theories are judged not by claims to truth but by their ability to produce
changes in the world (Barab & Squire, 2004, 6). In other words, the importance of local
context is not only affecting the research but the changes in local context arising from the
design experiments are necessary, though not sufficient, evidence for the viability of a
theory. This according to Barab and Squire (2004) is consequential to the issue of what
counts as creditable evidence for the theory and they propose that sound methodological
argument in the social sciences should touch the issues of trustworthiness, creditability
and usefulness. Trustworthiness and creditability are according to Barab and Squire (2004)
akin to reliability and validity and usefulness somewhat akin to generalizability and
external validity. However, these claims do not necessarily require the use of objective
and quantitative methods for demonstrating that criteria have been met. Barab and
Squire (2004) explain that design-based research is a mode of inquiry that embraces the
notion of consequential validity and even though the research is adapted to local
practices (Wang & Hannafin, 2005; Design-Based Research Collective, 2003; Barab &
Squire, 2004) it can achieve replicability of essential features of the design and theory, not
by simply sharing the designed artefact, but by providing rich descriptions of context
(also in qualitative approach see Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2007), guiding the emerging
theory, the design features of the intervention, and the impact of these features on
participation and learning (Barab & Squire, 2004).
Anderson and Shattuck (2012) claim that in practice the design-based research
program has utilized mixed methods approaches for a decade by using a variety of
research tools and techniques (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012). The design-based research
18
program shares the same pragmatic philosophical underpinning to mixed methods
approaches as explained by Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004). However, Niaz (2008, 288)
has explained how modern philosophy can be applied to mixed methods research to
resolve some of the problems with pragmatic philosophical approaches. As Niaz (2008,
302) observes, “mixed methods research programmes (not paradigms) in education can
facilitate the construction of robust research strategies, provided that we let the problem
situation (as studied by practicing researchers), decide the methodology”.
4.3 DESIGN OF THE EMPIRICAL STUDIES
The four studies are presented in Table 1. The table shows participants, design and
research topics, data sources and methods. This dissertation investigates inquiry learning
in science education by making design-based research and investigates the modes of
scaffolding with technology in the process of inquiry learning. The central design topic
for studies I and II is to develop the sequence of scaffolds to enable the young pupils to
conduct the simulation-based inquiry (practical aim of Studies I and II) and
simultaneously investigate the effects of the scaffolding and use of the multiple
representations in collaborative learning of a complex, multifaceted topic, in this case the
greenhouse effect (learning theoretical aim). The central design topic for studies III and
IV is to scaffold the teacher students’ collaborative inquiry with social media (blog and
Wiki) and simultaneously investigate teacher students’ conceptions about inquiry
teaching and learning, and their conceptions about scaffolding. In these empirical studies
we assume the mixed methods approach for design-based research as relevant; the
problem situation has great influence on the methodology for both the design of the
learning environment (practical aims) as well as to the research methods (theoretical
aims).
19
Table 1: The empirical studies their design and research topics, data sources and main methods.
Study
I
Subjects
Design and Research
Data Source
Data analysis
topic
Fifth grade
Design topic: sequence
Annotated
Qualitative
pupils (n=21)
of scaffolds of
drawings
content analysis
simulation-based
inquiry
Research topic:
Effects of scaffolded
simulation-based
inquiry and multiple
representations to
pupils’ conceptions of
II
the greenhouse effect.
Fifth grade
Design topic: scaffolds
Stimulated (with
Qualitative
pupils (n=21)
of simulation-based
drawings)
content analysis
inquiry
interview
Research topic:
Consistency of the
pupils’ conceptions of
the greenhouse effect.
III
Primary school
Design topic:
blog writings/
Qualitative
teacher
scaffolding collaborative
postings
content analysis
students
inquiry learning with
online
(descriptive
(n=12)
blogs
questionnaire
statistics)
Research topic:
Teachers students
conceptions of inquiry
IV
teaching and learning
Primary school
Design topic:
online
Statistical
teacher
scaffolding collaborative
questionnaire
analysis
students
inquiry learning with
(n=114)
Wiki and digital imaging
Research topic:
Teachers students
conceptions of scaffolds
during inquiry learning
20
5 An overview of
the empirical studies
5.1 PUPILS LEARNING FROM SCAFFOLDED SIMULATION-BASED
INQUIRY (STUDY I AND II)
Study I
Kukkonen, J. E., Kärkkäinen, S., Dillon, P., & Keinonen, T. (2014). The effects of scaffolded
simulation-based inquiry learning on fifth-graders' representations of the greenhouse
effect.
International
Journal
of
Science
Education,
36(3),
406-424.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.782452
Study II
Kukkonen, J. E., Kärkkäinen, S., & Keinonen, T. (2013). Fifth Graders' Views of
Atmosphere. The International Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Learning. 19(3),
113-129.
Studies I and II examined the influence of scaffolded simulation-based inquiry learning
on fifth-graders’ (n=21) conceptions of the atmosphere generally and of the greenhouse
effect specifically.
Background
A key mechanism is that greenhouse gases selectively absorb some of the Sun’s energy
that is first radiated by the Earth’s surface and then radiated back towards the Earth,
warming the atmosphere. The main greenhouse gases are water vapour, carbon dioxide
(CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). Even this simplified description shows
that complex phenomena are involved which require a multiplicity of topics to be
covered in the design of instructional interventions to assist pupils in learning about
them.
The design of the studies builds on earlier research as follows: Shepardson, Niyogi,
Roychoudhury and Hirsch, (2011b) composed a ‘climate system framework’ which
includes several key constructs among which are: climate and weather system, earth´s
energy budget, solar radiation, atmosphere, oceans and land and vegetation. They claim
that in order to acquire the knowledge and skills to understand climate change, pupils
should study historical data and use model-based projections in support of gradual
conceptual progression. Edelson et al. (1999) have addressed global warming within a
similar integrative curricular framework incorporating a computer-based, visual inquiry
approach. Varma and Linn (2012) suggest investigating the underlying processes through
21
visual inquiry where activities are offered for controlled experimentation and exploration
of interactions of the variables involved: solar energy, infrared energy, greenhouse gases,
clouds and albedo.
In the work reported in this dissertation, we used a translated version of the
greenhouse effect simulation from the University of Colorado PhET collection
(http://phet.colorado.edu) within a series of scaffolded lessons. The simulation is visually
rich and involves experimenting with variables.
Design Principles Important to Learning
Design research tries to advance the principle that results have better potential for
influencing educational practice when the designs can be adopted elsewhere and
research results can be validated through consequential use. The key design principles of
each design topic are reported hereafter for each study in the dissertation. Since studies I
and II share the same design, the shared design principles are reported here.
Based on the results of 61 studies, Smetana and Bell (2012) conclude that simulations
are effective instructional tools when they: (a) are integrated with other forms of
instruction; (b) incorporate high-quality support structures for learners interacting with
the simulation; (c) encourage learner reflection; and (d) promote cognitive dissonance for
challenging previous conceptions.
Chang, Chen, Lin and Sung (2008) combine aspects of scaffolding which in several
studies have been found to be conditions for significant advantages in simulation-based
inquiry learning. The first is to ascertain the level of background knowledge in order for
learners to make a hypothesis. The better the background knowledge, the more learners
benefit from higher interactivity simulations (i.e. those involving more parameters) and
gain significantly increased comprehension scores. Learners with lower background
knowledge benefit more from lower interactivity (restricted parameters), but do not
necessarily get a significant increase in comprehension scores (Park, Lee, & Kim, 2009).
Second, it is important to help learners to make, evaluate and modify hypotheses while
conducting experiments in simulation-based inquiry learning.
Then learners need help in conducting experiments and in interpreting data. Finally,
they need help in regulating the learning process (i.e. following through an activity rather
than stopping when early sub-goals are achieved) which is also one target for scaffolding.
These critical aspects of simulation-based inquiry learning are in accordance with the
findings of Rutten, van Joolingen and van der Veen (2011) who conclude that it is very
important to find the right balance between mandatory support and creative freedom.
When giving support, the best timing for providing background information is before
task practice.
Methods
The context of the studies I and II was the unit “What is the greenhouse effect?” for fifth
grade pupils. The intervention was developed by the school teacher, the teacher student
and the two science educators/researchers through a series of iterative development
22
cycles on the planning and revision of instruction guides, assignments and worksheets
and the evaluation of resources. The unit comprised five lessons dealing with an
introduction to the Earth as a planet of different interacting cycles and systems which
affect each other, including the basic physics and chemistry. The topics included the
climate, the atmosphere, clouds, gases, the carbon cycle and their impact on the
greenhouse effect culminating in a systematic investigation, with the aid of the
simulation, about the dynamic interactional effects of these factors to the average
temperature as the central mechanism of the greenhouse effect.
Based on previous studies, it was assumed that for the utility of the simulation-based
inquiry, there should be two important scaffolds (Table 2): the first to ensure some
background knowledge of the factors (variables) that contribute to the phenomena under
investigation with the simulation (the greenhouse effect) and the second to ensure
systematic experimentation with the simulation, namely systematically controlling the
variables and making observations.
Table 2: Tasks and scaffolds in the learning process.
Lesson
Tasks
Scaffold
1st, 45 min
Drawing and mind map
Discussion
2nd, 90 min
Structure of atmosphere,
Background information,
Water cycle
(Problem
guiding
solving,
group
work,
use
of
questions
on
worksheet, discussion
internet, discussion)
3rd, 45 min
Carbon cycle
Background
(Reading, inquiry, search for information on
worksheet, discussion
information,
the net, group work, discussion )
4th, 90 min
Greenhouse effect
(Simulation:
greenhouse
University
a
effect
of
Procedural scaffolding for
translated
version
simulation
from
Colorado
of
the
investigation of one variable
at a time
PhET
(http://phet.colorado.edu collection )
5th, 45 min
Drawing, mind map
Discussion
Data of Study I
The pupils were asked to make annotated drawings about the greenhouse effect both
before and after scaffolding through simulation-based instructional interventions. The
data were analysed qualitatively (Patton, 1990) to investigate the impact of the
interventions on the representations that pupils used in their descriptions of the
greenhouse effect.
23
Results of Study I
The study focused on the development and enrichment of pupils’ representations as an
indicator of the extent to which they had appropriated the tools and the representations
used in the scaffolded simulation-based inquiry sequence. The emergence of new
systematic representations of radiation was found from the post intervention annotated
drawings. Most pupils (18) had drawn photons either with balls (14) or with arrows (4);
the use of these representations was similar to those used in the simulation. Sixteen of
them had also labelled the photons as infrared and sunlight photons in a very systematic
manner. Nine drawings had descriptions of the sun’s radiation turning into infrared
radiation “rays coming from the sun go down, heat radiation goes up”. Nine drawings
showed clouds preventing heat or infrared radiation escaping from the atmosphere. Four
drawings showed unnamed gases preventing heat or infrared radiation escaping from
the atmosphere.
The models pupils drew could be grouped into six categories according to their
diversity. The five (out of 21) most diversified models included descriptions of photon
types which were drawn and named; there were also descriptions of how radiation
behaves when being absorbed and emitted from the Earth’s surface and the prevention of
heat or infrared radiation escaping from the atmosphere. The next four (4/21) models
were similar to the most diversified, except that they did not have the description of
radiation being absorbed and emitted from the Earth’s surface. In the third group of
models (4/21) the photon types were drawn and named, the behaviour of radiation was
described as being absorbed and emitted from the Earth’s surface, but the prevention
mechanism was not described. In the fourth group of models (3/21) the photon types
were drawn and labelled. There were two models which presented only photons and
three drawings in which these representations were not used.
The classification of pupils´ descriptions of their drawings against the model
categories of Shepardson, Choi, Niyogi & Charusombat (2011a) was used. The most
diversified drawings related to the Shepardson model 4 (greenhouse gases ‘trap’ the
Sun’s rays, heating the Earth; may or may not identify specific greenhouse gases) and
model 5 (Sun rays are ‘bounced’ or reflected back and forth between the Earth’s surface
and greenhouse gases, heating the Earth). The spread of the seven models in third and
fourth categories in this study were similar to Shepardson et al.’s (2011a) model 4
(greenhouse gases, but no heating mechanism) and model 3 (simply gases in the
atmosphere) respectively but with added elements (photons). Interestingly, of the two
least diversified models in this study, one belonged to the most advanced model 5 (Sun
rays are ‘bounced’ or reflected) of the categorisation of Shepardson et al. (2011a) and the
other to model 3.
Data of Study II
After the intervention twelve pupils were interviewed. The interview comprised of
asking the pupils open-ended questions and probing, whenever necessary, to obtain data
seen as useful by the researcher. Pupils were chosen based on their willingness to
24
participate and with parents’ permission for them to be interviewed. The interviews (1015 minutes) were conducted in a quiet room at school four months after the intervention in
order to find out the longer term consistency of the pupils models. The interview started
with the interviewer presenting the pupil with his/her annotated drawing. The interview
simulated the approach of Jakobsson et al. (2009) in the way that drawings served as an
external tool to reason about the phenomena.
Results of Study II
The analysis of the interview is presented in the context of the annotated drawings
showing pupils’ conceptions about the atmosphere. Before the intervention, pupils
generally drew and wrote about such gases as carbon dioxide, oxygen and nitrogen
whereas after the intervention, they included other gases, for example ozone, hydrogen,
argon and methane. In terms of changing conceptions about carbon dioxide and oxygen:
before the intervention, pupils had not drawn or written anything about carbon dioxide
being taken out of the atmosphere. However, after the intervention pupils explained
during the interview how the process of photosynthesis affects the amounts of oxygen
and carbon dioxide. This may indicate that pupils’ conceptions about the atmosphere
included some knowledge of the carbon cycle (see table 2). Before the intervention,
pupils drew the atmosphere surrounding the Earth, but after the intervention many (9)
pupils also drew and named different layers in the atmosphere.
Before the intervention, no pupils mentioned anything about the elements of the
Earth’s energy cycle, but after the intervention they drew and wrote that the amount of
energy retained by the Earth is dependent on the Earth’s surface. When pupils were
interviewed, one girl, Elsa, spoke about incoming solar radiation and outgoing terrestrial
radiation emitted by the Earth. After the intervention, pupils mentioned the important
role of the atmosphere. For example, they spoke about how the atmosphere protects us
from harmful radiation and the ozone layer protects the Earth from the Sun's harmful
ultraviolet rays. After the intervention, pupils wrote that clouds reflect visible radiation
back to space; clouds also reflect part of the infrared radiation back to the surface.
Interviews also showed that many pupils could still, after four months, explain how
radiation interacts with the earth surface, clouds and greenhouse gases.
Conclusions of Studies I and II
Studies I and II indicate that the scaffolded sequence produced enrichment in pupils’
conceptions about the atmosphere. Based on the analysis of the annotated drawings in
Study I, it was noticed that the pupils’ models were still inconsistent indicating that they
were more like piecemeal evolving constructs. The analysis of the interview data in Study
II also showed inconsistencies in the pupils’ models and there was uncertainty in their
verbal descriptions about the issues represented in the drawings.
Studies I and II discuss one group of 21 students which was an ordinary primary
school class. The arrangement of another treatment group called a ‘loosely scaffolded
inquiry group’ (not ensuring the amount of background knowledge) had only 10
25
participating pupils (not reported in these articles). The loosely scaffolded group’s
teacher arranged the session of working with simulation without ensuring similarly
students’ knowledge of atmosphere, greenhouse gases, carbon cycle, as it was in the case
of the more scaffolded group reported here. The loosely scaffolded group, comprising of
ten boys, did not name or produce descriptions of photon types, the behaviour of
radiation was not described, nor the prevention of heat or infrared radiation escaping
from the atmosphere, in their after simulation annotated drawings. The differences in the
groups’ drawings provides tentative support for the necessity of scaffolding the
simulation by ensuring the relevant background knowledge of the variables in the
simulation. On the other hand, these studies (I and II) cannot conclusively differentiate
the effects of the simulation and the sequence of the knowledge related to the variables in
the simulation activity, and therefore more research should be conducted to find out
about the interaction of the pupils with the technology and with other pupils.
5.2 TEACHER STUDENTS’ INQUIRY LEARNING AND TEACHING
CONCEPTIONS (STUDY III)
Study III
Kukkonen, J., Kärkkäinen, S., Valtonen, T. & Keinonen, T. (2011). Blogging to Support
Inquiry-based Learning and Reflection in Teacher Students Science Education. Problems of
education in the 21st century, 31(31), 73-84.
Study III aimed to clarify primary school teacher students’ (n=12) conceptions of inquiry
learning and their experiences with the use of cross linked (with rss-feeds) blogs for
scaffolding collaborative knowledge building in the context of a science course which
included collaborative inquiry-based approaches.
Design Principles Important to Learning
Neither teachers’ nor teacher students’ readiness to enact inquiry teaching (Fishman et al.,
2003; Williams et al., 2004; Kim & Tan, 2011; Windschitl, 2003; Windschitl, 2004) can be
taken for granted. In a series of studies, Windschitl (2003,2004) has shown that teacher
students’ conceptions of inquiry learning are too simplified, linear, unproblematic, and
too loosely connected to theory and modelling (Windschtl et al., 2008).
Methods
Teacher education should be able to support teacher students´ development of skills,
knowledge and habits required for conducting inquiry learning. Teacher students were
asked to design and conduct a small inquiry and report the phases of the process in a
blog along with their ideas about inquiry-based teaching and learning. The inquiry
process was scaffolded mostly by the teacher but also by groups through shared meaning
making and collaboration with the blogs and between groups by linking the blogs with
rss-feeds.
26
Research data consists of the students’ written work in their blogs concerning inquirybased learning, the use of blogs, and the role of both inquiry-based learning and the use
of blogs in primary school science education. A group of four students worked with one
blog which was related to their topic and altogether there were three different project
blogs. Before inquiry work, the teacher students were asked to write about their
conceptions of inquiry learning with a few sentences and twelve postings were written in
the three blogs. During the project, teacher students reported progress with their work in
the group blogs. In addition, they were asked to write reflectively about the use of blogs
in their inquiry learning project, the role of inquiry learning in their own learning and in
their future teaching, and about their expectations for inquiry learning as future primary
school teachers. In total they wrote about two to three pages of postings (text) per blog.
The students were also asked to complete a questionnaire about technological
pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) (see Koehler & Mishra, 2009) in order to reveal
insight into their views about the scaffolding needed for their own inquiry processes, as
well as the role of scaffolding in inquiry learning in primary schools.
Results
Initially the results indicated that the twelve students mentioned only some of the main
processes of inquiry learning: conducting experiments (4 mentions), working with a
research question (3 mentions) and some kind of analysis (4 mentions). Less was written
about setting a hypothesis (one mention), working with theory (2 mentions) or reporting
the results (2 mentions). In the beginning of the process, the following were missing from
their descriptions: clear definitions of data collection, modelling and making predictions,
processes that set the inquiry into wider conceptual and theoretical frameworks.
The most common category about inquiry learning and blogging apparent in teacher
students’ reflections was about the instructional approach, knowledge about inquiry
learning and blogging, and the premise of the approach (why does it matter what
methods, materials or course design were used and what would I use?). The second most
common category was reflections on instructional content, what advantages or
limitations this kind of instructional approach had or could have in their own teaching.
The third category was reflections of cross-disciplinary integration of biology, ICT
(blogging) and inquiry learning. The fourth category was reflections about the important
learning experiences, both potential and realised, that could be achieved in the teacher
students’ own teaching. The fifth category was reflections on curricular premises of ICT
integration and inquiry learning. Reflections on processes (the ‘how’ questions) were
fewer. There was even less reflection on issues of pedagogical knowledge and least
reflection on how to arrive at the goals and rationale.
Conclusions
The teacher students were able to formulate meaningful problems for inquiry in
accordance with curricula demands. However, teacher students noticed the need for care
and sufficient time in developing the research questions and suitable methods for the
27
study. These problems required teacher students to ponder on how they could find out
what they wanted to know, leading them to varied information gathering methods and
different modes of inquiry (field studies, surveys). These findings indicate the progress
made by the teacher students in extending the overwhelmingly simplified assumptions
about inquiry learning they had written before the inquiry learning activity. This might
imply the gradual development of a more accurate view of inquiry learning and teaching
as well as related professional knowledge and the teacher´s skills that Windchitl (2004)
refers to. The teacher students could critically reflect on the instructional approach of
using blogs to support the process of inquiry learning, focusing on the content issues
(what design, material and methods were used and what would I use?) and also figuring
out premises (why does it matter what methods, materials or course design were used)
and how blogging supports the group working. They did not, however, reflect so much
on how blogging supported the shared meaning making and how this effect could be
achieved in future teaching. The combination of blogging, inquiry learning and field
work was, in general, seen as good. The teacher students clearly stated many good
arguments for this kind of approach. However, the questionnaire did raise serious doubts
about their actual confidence in applying online teaching (e.g. blogs) in their own future
teaching.
The target group of this case study was small (12 teacher students) and unfortunately
only 7 out of 12 teacher students responded to the TPACK-questionnaire, therefore the
results of that part of this study remain only suggestive. The context was a voluntary
course and therefore one could assume that the students were motivated and confident
with their inquiry skills. A larger group of students may have increased the variety of
inquiry skills yet the small volunteer group of teacher students was considered to be
representative case of inquiry skilled teacher students.
5.3 TEACHER STUDENTS’ INQUIRY LEARNING EXPERIENCES OF
SCAFFOLDING (STUDY IV)
Study IV
Kukkonen, J., Dillon, P., Kärkkäinen, S., Hartikainen-Ahia, A. & Keinonen, T. (2014). Preservice teachers’ experiences of scaffolded learning in science through a computer
supported collaborative inquiry. Education and Information Technologies. Online first
22.4.2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10639-014-9326-8
In study IV the dissection inquiry activity was designed for teacher students to learn
about scaffolded collaborative inquiry and collaborative knowledge building, using
cultural tools of the discipline and modelling during inquiry (in biology).
Design Principles Important to Learning
The design of the scaffolding for the inquiry was made using the principles of
technology-enhanced scaffolding for computer supported collaborative inquiry learning
as suggested in paragraph 3 of this dissertation (see Figure 2).
28
Interpersonal
Scaffolds: Help Learners Learn from Each Other
Peer support in groups
Mediating
Organisational
tools and
memory
artifactssystems
Model comparison
Cuturalartifacts
Instructional
models
diagrams
explanations
graphs
simulations
Cultural
models
and
tools
Scaffolds: Make Science Accessible
Access to science through Wiki
Learner's model
Interpretation
declarative,
procedural,
and
inferential knowledge
inference
reasoning
generating
evaluation
prior knowledge
Model reinforcement
Model revision
Intrapersonal
Individual
Scaffolds: Make Thinking Visible
Visualisation (problematizing with
Public representations)
statements
Phenomena
Personal external
experiences
experiments
memory devices
new information
Scaffolds: Promote Reflection
Model comparisons
Cultural
Figure 2: Technology-enhanced scaffolds for computer supported collaborative inquiry learning.
The preconfigured Wiki was intended to be the support for the organisational memory of
the group (Stahl, 2006, 210) and offer ‘scaffolding by structuring’ for using the cultural
tools of the discipline of biology (cf. Tabak & Reiser, 2008) thus making the science
accessible for the teacher students (cf. Kali & Linn, 2008). The modelling tasks assigned
through the Wiki with images was designed to encourage the students “to make the
thinking visible” (cf. Kali & Linn, 2008; Larusson & Alterman, 2009) to peers and to
support the emergence of the joint social problem space for the small groups (Roschelle &
Teasley, 1995; Sarmiento & Stahl, 2008a). The modelling with images as structured in the
Wiki was designed to encourage making comparisons between models: teacher students’
own models, fellow students’ models and expert models (cf. Gadgil et al, 2012) and thus
promote reflection.
The models delivered with the Wiki were assumed to be tools for visualisation (cf.
Reiser, 2004) that would provide conceptually meaningful representations and help
students form deep models of underlying systems (fish organs, their functions and
knowledge of adaptation to water life). White and Pea (2011) point out that during
challenging collaborative tasks, the use of multiple representations can help learners to
reappraise their roles in team activities and experiment with finding different meanings
and uses for the representations. However, realising the problems students have in
conducting inquiries (cf. Study III), scaffolding that utilises devices and strategies to
29
support and guide students (novices) in carrying out complex and difficult tasks, the Wiki
was used to offer representational structures and materials to guide student´s
interactions during collaboration (cf. Larusson & Alterman, 2009).
Methods
The research in Study IV was conducted with 114 teacher students (75% female, 25%
male). The teacher students worked in 28 groups of four, investigating the adaptation of
fish to water. The groups conducting the investigation were equipped with laptops with
a wireless connection, digital cameras, one fish per group and dissection equipment and
a preconfigured Wiki.
Data on pre-service teachers’ experiences of the scaffolding offered by the computer
supported collaborative inquiry activity were collected through an online questionnaire.
The questionnaire was modified from the instrument used by Valtonen, Kukkonen,
Dillon and Väisänen (2009) for investigating meaningful learning with high school
students in online contexts. The questionnaire contained 40 items concerning issues such
as learning about the science content (e.g. the prestructured Wiki helped me understand
the topic as a whole), visualization (e.g. image modelling clarified my understanding of
the structure-function relation), intentionality of learning (e.g. I was able to set my own
learning goals), peer support in groups (e.g. working in groups motivated me to work
harder), and active participation (e.g. technology encouraged me in knowledge
acquisition).
In order to investigate the relations between the experiences of scaffolding, the data
were analysed through structural equation modelling (SEM). SEM offers the possibility to
simultaneously carry out confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and regression analysis to
develop a model which allows estimation and statistical testing of the interrelationships
among latent constructs. The SEM modelling allows also statistical estimation of the
goodness of fit of the model with the data and the parameter estimates of the relations
between the constructs (Reisinger & Mavondo 2007).
Results
The relative small number of participants (114) constrained the SEM analysis and the
amount of indicator variables had to be carefully assigned/selected. For accurate
parameter estimates, a sample size of 100 may be adequate when variances are low and
each latent construct is represented with 3 or 4 measured variables (Fabrigar, Porter, &
Norris, 2010). Taking this into consideration, and the results of preliminary principal
component analysis from the same data (Vesisenaho, Valtonen, Kukkonen, HavuNuutinen, Hartikainen, & Kärkkäinen, 2010), a five latent constructs model with 14
indicator variables was developed with Amos 21 software (Figure 3). The model in figure
3 showed a reasonably good fit. The normal fit index (NFI = 0,864) was somewhat lower
than the 0,95 which Hu and Bentler (1999) recommend as the lower limit yet the NFI has
been shown to underestimate the fit with small samples (Byrne, 2001). According to
Byrne (2001), for smaller sample sizes the comparative fit index CFI and Tucker-Lewis
30
Index TLI should be chosen. These goodness-of-fit indices were above the suggested
lower limit of 0,95 (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Byrne, 2001) CFI =0,977 and TLI =0,971. Also the
root mean square error of approximation RMSEA = 0,038 was below the recommended
upper limit of 0,05 indicating a good fit (Byrne, 2001). The standardized root mean
square residual SRMR (0,0664) was below the recommended 0,08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
Figure 3: Relations of scaffolds to experienced benefits after dissection inquiry (standardized
estimates).
31
Figure 3 shows relationships between the three constructs concerned with the
experienced benefits of scaffolding and the constructs ‘active participation’ and
‘intentional participation’.
The predicted relations:
There will be experienced benefits in making the topic accessible by structuring and
scaffolding the activity with a pre-structured Wiki and that this in turn will have a
positive relation on 1) students’ experienced benefits of technology to support intentional
participation and 2) their experienced benefits of technology to support active participation in
collaborative inquiry (Reiser, 2004; Larusson & Alterman, 2009).
The predicted relations from the construct ‘access to science through Wiki’ in the
hypothesis could not be established with statistical significance. There were positive
relationships between the construct ‘access to science through Wiki’ and the construct
‘visualization’ (β=0,44; p =0,003) and between ‘access to science through Wiki’ and ‘peer
support’ (β=0,28; p=0,025).
The predicted relationships:
There will be experienced benefits of making visualizations with digital imaging in
order to compare models and this in turn will have a positive relation on 1) students’
experienced benefits of technology to support intentional participation and 2) their
experienced benefits of technology to support active participation in collaborative inquiry
(Gadgil et al., 2012; White & Pea, 2011; Tabak, 2004)
could be established with statistical significance. There was a positive relationship
between ‘visualization’ and ‘intentional participation’ ( β=0,48; p=0,005) and between
‘visualization’ and ‘active participation’ (β=0,49; p=0,004).
The predicted relationships:
There will be experienced benefits of peer support and that this in turn will have a positive
relation on 1) students’ experienced benefits of technology to support intentional
participation and 2) their experienced benefits of technology to support active participation in
collaborative inquiry (Scardamalia & Bereiter ,1994; Roschelle & Teasley, 1995;
Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006; Stahl, 2006; Sarmiento & Stahl, 2008a)
could be established only partially. There was a positive relationship between ‘peer
support’ and ‘intentional participation’ (β=0,39; p=0,021). Interestingly the strongest
direct relationship was between ‘intentional participation’ and ‘active participation’
(β=0,58; p=0,001).
For the hypothesized relationships in a) there were indirect, mediated positive
relationships between the construct ‘access to science through Wiki’ and the construct
‘intentional participation’ (β=0,32; p= 0,002) and between the construct ‘access to science
through Wiki’ and the construct ‘active participation’ (β=0,400; p=0,003). For the
hypothesized relationships in c) there was in addition to the direct relationship also an
indirect, mediated positive relationship between the construct ‘peer support’ and the
32
construct ‘active participation’ (β=0,228; p=0,008). Interestingly, the construct
‘visualization’ had the strongest total effect (direct + indirect) in the model to the
construct ‘active participation’ (β=0,768; p=0,008).
On the 1-5 scale measuring the extent to which the pre-service teachers agreed with
given statements, the three items for ‘visualization’ gave the highest level of agreement
with a mean of 3,99 (SD=0,615), indicating the importance of the pre-service students’
modelling with images and then comparing their own models with expert models in
order to better understand the structure of the fish. The second most agreed scale was
‘peer support’, with a mean of 3,9 (SD=0.759) indicating the importance of peer support
in motivating work and drawing attention to detail that would otherwise have gone
unnoticed by some individuals. An almost similar agreement concerned ‘access to science
through Wiki’ with a mean of 3,76 (SD=0,79) indicating the role of the Wiki in scaffolding
to help the pre-service teachers focus on the central concepts and understand the
phenomena as a whole (e.g. the structure-function relation and the adaptation of the fish
to water).
Conclusions
The four scaffolding meta-principles suggested by Kali and Linn (2008), combined with
Jonassen et al.’s (1999) principles for using technology for meaningful learning, seem to
be appropriate for designing technology-enhanced learning environments for science
inquiry e.g. as guidelines for the design of pre-structured Wikis and perhaps for other
social media tools. Scaffolding with the pre-structured Wiki facilitated the pre-service
teachers’ inquiry by making the science accessible (Kali & Linn, 2008): it was influential in
the visualization and also in peer support in the groups, The path model (Figure 2)
suggests that scaffolding by structuring the activity with the Wiki had meditational,
indirect, effects through visualizations and peer support to intentional and active
participation and thus there is reason to assume that the scaffolds were working during
the inquiry activity as synergistic, enmeshed, intertwined, scaffolds (cf. Tabak, 2004).
The data from Study IV consisted of the responses of one cohort (n=114) of teacher
students. For exploratory factor analysis the size of the data is large enough (first phase of
the analysis) but in the structural equation modelling the size of the data was somewhat
limiting (e.g. in amount of included variables). Yet, the analysis yielded to a model with
reasonably good fit and therefore the results of Study IV should be generalizable to
primary school teacher students in the early phase of their teacher education.
33
6 Main Findings and
General Discussion
6.1 THE EFFECTS OF SEQUENTIAL SCAFFOLDS FOR SIMULATIONBASED COLLABORATIVE INQUIRY LEARNING
The intervention designed for studying the atmosphere and the greenhouse effect
produced a substantial increase of pupils’ relevant descriptions of the factors involved in
the explanation of this very demanding topic. Study I shows that there was an increase in
knowledge; pupils produced increased amounts of descriptions of composition of the
clouds and more gases were mentioned in the annotated drawings after the intervention.
The most remarkable change was in the emergence of systematic descriptions of the role
of radiation in the greenhouse effect. However, this increase in descriptions did not lead
to consistent conceptual models, as shown in Study I. When compared to the models of
Shepardson et al. (2011a) pupils’ models were more like continually evolving constructs
(knowledge-as-elements). The interview data in Study II also further confirms that the
pupils’ conceptions still were evolving, for example in the case of the carbon cycle and
photosynthesis and their relation to the greenhouse effect.
According to Hansen (2010), the greenhouse effect, even in a condensed and
popularized version, is a very demanding topic for both teachers and [Norwegian]
students in secondary education. One recurring finding in research about students’
conceptions about the greenhouse effect is the confusion between the greenhouse effect
and ozone depletion. As Hansen (2010) points out one of the reasons for this is that
educators believe that there is a lack of possibilities to offer experimental approaches in
teaching about factors involved in the greenhouse effect. In Study I the scaffolded
simulation-based collaborative inquiry showed that studying the greenhouse effect can
lead to experimental approaches if the instruction includes a simulation of it. However, in
the light of previous research about both using simulations and inquiry approaches in
education, it was clear that the design of the instruction needs to be carefully scaffolded
(orchestrated).
From the theoretical point of view, in the design it was noticed that the simulation
could be effective only if the pupils have relevant background information (Chang et al.,
2008) and the simulation is integrated with other forms of instruction (Smetana & Bell,
2012). In practice this was noticed as a key challenge during the design of the simulationbased inquiry intervention. This became clear also from the discussions and the scaffold
development work with the teacher student and his supervising teacher, as well as from
the “curriculum guidelines”. It was noticed from the literature that the background
knowledge to the greenhouse effect should be substantial in order for pupils to being able
to benefit from interacting with the simulation in ways suggested by the literature (cf.
34
Giest & Lompscher, 2003). There are many complex interacting systems affecting the
greenhouse effect (e.g. Shepardson et al. 2011b), that need to be considered as relevant
key “variables” or abstract scientific principles. Varma and Linn (2012) suggest that for
learning the greenhouse effect pupils should investigate the underlying processes
through visual inquiry and exploration of interactions of the variables involved: solar
energy, infrared energy, greenhouse gases, clouds and albedo. Shepardson et al. (2011b)
suggest a ‘climate system framework’ which includes several key constructs among
which are: climate and weather system, earth´s energy budget, solar radiation,
atmosphere, oceans and land and vegetation. As in any design, in this study also there
were constrains like the curriculum and, most importantly, time. The curriculum
guidelines for primary schools set the learning goal: “knows air composition, knows
chemical symbols for gases in atmosphere and understands the importance of
atmosphere for life” which implicitly includes the “natural” greenhouse effect. After
negotiation with the teacher student and supervising teacher the following were
produced: worksheets (templates) with the main online sources to structure the pair
activities in investigating the structure of the atmosphere, the water cycle, and the carbon
cycle, and procedural scaffolding for simulation of the greenhouse effect with a
translated version of greenhouse effect simulation from the University of Colorado PhET
(http://phet.colorado.edu collection).
The learning gains suggest that local practical implementation was successful, thus
indicating the viability of the theoretical framework for the design of the scaffolds tied
with the background knowledge and the curricula fit (cf. Chang et al., 2008; Smetana &
Bell, 2012). The scaffolding guidelines suggested by Kali and Linn (2008) were endorsed
in this study. They are: first guideline a), make science accessible e.g. by communicating
the diversity of science inquiry and by connecting the learning to interests or ideas of the
learner. In this study this was achieved by making the annotated drawings in the
beginning of the sequence of lessons. However, the drawings were mainly used for data
collection and for future designs it would be of interest to see if pupils arranging their
own (pre)models, e.g. with blogs to continuously encourage comparison of models,
would affect the learning (cf. Gadgil et al., 2012). For example pupils had some previous
knowledge about carbon dioxide (CO2) as a greenhouse gas and pupils also included
sources of it in their drawings. However, the role of vapour and its interaction with
radiation was more accurately described in the post intervention drawings. The second
guideline b), make thinking visible e.g. by templates to organize learners ideas or by
animating, visualizing, articulating, or representing complex phenomena in multiple
ways. In the greenhouse effect intervention this guideline was enacted with document
templates to structure the pupils’ inquiry in topics, and the materials suggested to
support the studying process included multiple representations of the phenomena (e.g.
for carbon cycle http://www.smy.fi/koulut/carbon/index.html). Kali and Linn (2008) have
suggested scaffolding guideline c), enable students to learn from each other e.g. by asking
students to explain their ideas and to critique the ideas of others. In this case pupils
worked as pairs during the investigations and each session ended with whole class
discussions on the results of the pupils’ investigations. Again it would be interesting to
investigate if the sharing of products e.g. by the use of linked blogs (as in Study III)
35
would enhance learning of the topics. These discussions also might be considered as a
means to partially fulfil guideline d), promote self-directed learning e.g. by encouraging
reflection, monitoring of progress and, and by (self-) explanations. Interestingly many of
the topics were remembered also in the interview (see Study II), however, since the
drawings were used during the interview one could argue that many of the topics
discussed by the pupils during the interview are a form of tool dependent reasoning,
which Schoultz et al. (2001) demonstrated also in their study.
6.2 TEACHER STUDENTS’ INQUIRY TEACHING AND LEARNING
CONCEPTIONS
In Study III teacher students were challenged to conduct an inquiry about winter ecology
from a biological or a geographical perspective. During their inquiry the students were
requested to reflect on the process in order to gain insights for their future teaching. The
inquiry was scaffolded mostly by the instructor due to fact that the group was small (16
students at the beginning) and the students were allowed to freely choose the topic of
their inquiry. However, the process and the reflection of it were also scaffolded with
blogs for communicating both within the groups of four students and between the
groups by connecting the blogs with rss-feeds to exchange information about group
progress with the task. Unfortunately in the beginning the findings that teachers’
readiness is limited (cf. Fishman et al., 2003; Kim & Tan, 2011; William et al., 2004;
Windschitl, 2003; Windschitl, 2004) was reinforced from the data of the reflections
students made when starting their inquiry. However, during the process teacher students
gained a clearer picture about the inquiry process as well as the possibilities of
technology to support the process. The analysis revealed that the reflection teacher
students produced in their blogs focused mostly on instructional and curricula
knowledge; there was less about pedagogical matters. Teacher students reflected most on
the instructional aspects of the inquiry learning and teaching. The reflections could be
categorized as considerations about what design, material, and methods were used and
could be used in teaching the winter ecology inquiry, and also the premises: why such an
approach, combining the inquiry with continuous reporting in blogs, was technically
enabling collaboration. Also the purposeful use of ICT in education was reflected from a
curricula point of view. There was less reflection on ways to enact (how) the instructional,
pedagogical and curricular issues were implemented and should be implemented in
practice. This pattern of reflection, with less about how the instructional, pedagogical and
curricula aims could be achieved, was similar to the results in Granberg’s (2010) study. In
conclusions the benefits of the blogs as a shared workspace were somewhat realised.
However, Study III raises the question: to what extent do teacher students come to realize,
during their studying in a designed (course) setting, the benefits of scaffolding offered by
technology, peers and the teacher?
There is evidence that computer supported collaborative inquiry learning is
demanding for teachers and that a productive, progressive inquiry culture emergences in
the classroom only through teachers’ efforts (Hakkarainen, 2003b). Urhahne, Schanze,
Bell, Mansfield and Holmes (2010) have studied the roles of teachers in four computer
36
supported collaborative inquiry learning environments in classrooms. The studies affirm
the importance of the teacher in the context of inquiry learning. Williams et al. (2004, 190)
note that: “Inquiry teaching is challenging for many elementary science teachers, because
it requires them to integrate and utilize deep understanding of science content, pedagogy,
and technology.” Teachers are considered to develop their knowledge and
understanding through critical reflection. Usually these processes of reflection are
triggered by an unexpected or puzzling event which cannot be handled with daily
routines (Schön, 1987).
6.3 TEACHER STUDENTS’ EXPERIENCED BENEFITS OF SCAFFOLDING
WITH TECHNOLOGY FOR COLLABORATION
Study IV investigated how technology, especially a pre-structured Wiki, could be used as
an effective addition to the collaboration between lecturer and teacher students in coconstructing synergistic scaffolds for inquiry learning in science education. Small groups
were equipped with: a laptop with a wireless connection, digital cameras, and a prestructured Wiki to scaffold the activity by structuring and problematizing. They used
digital imaging to make comparisons while conducting structure-function reasoning
during an inquiry into the adaptation of fish to life in water.
Even though there was no direct relation to self-reported learning benefits from the
use of the Wiki as would be suggested by the findings of Larusson and Alterman (2009),
the Wiki was indeed the place in which the teacher students produced and used the
multiple representations during challenging, collaborative tasks to help their peers
reappraise their roles in team activities (cf. White & Pea, 2011).
Only two out of six hypothesized connections could be established with statistical
significance during the structural equation modelling. The strongest positive relation
was from comparisons (digital imaging and edited rapports in the Wiki) to intrapersonal
learning (see Figure 3). The second direct relation was from peer support in the small
groups to intentional learning. However, there was also an indirect relation from peer
support in the small groups through intentional learning to intrapersonal learning. In
addition to the hypothesized relations there was also a positive relation from intentional
learning to intrapersonal learning. The scaffolding constructs correlated structuring, and
problematizing correlated with comparisons; structuring, and problematizing correlated
with peer support in the small groups, and peer support in the small groups correlated
with structuring and problematizing. Thus this Study IV gave reason to assume that the
designed use of technology was working as synergistic scaffolds (cf. Tabak, 2004) during
the inquiry activity.
In Study IV the use of the pre-structured Wiki and digital imaging served as critical
parts of a joint social problem space by allowing the teacher students to make model
comparisons collaboratively and to learn from each other. The model comparisons (with
digital imaging) were found to be effective both in making science accessible with
examples of expert and peer produced models, and in promoting self-directed learning
37
by encouraging reflection and self-explanations (cf. Kali & Linn, 2008, Figure 1) while
comparing the different models in collaboration with peers.
6.4 CONCLUSIONS: SCAFFOLDING AND MODEL COMPARISONS
These two sets of studies (pupils: Studies I and II; teacher students: Studies III and IV)
have in common the following: the collaborative learning settings included, or were
facilitated by, comparisons of models and use of computer-based artefacts, and the
design focus was on using scaffolding in complex learning settings (cf. Figure 1). In the
case of the greenhouse effect the main focus was to design and try out the scaffolding
needed to support the teaching and learning of a very demanding topic. Based on the
previous research literature, a sequence of activities (curricular design) was developed
enabling young pupils (fifth graders) to carry out an inquiry sequence on this demanding
and complex topic which consists of many systems e.g. the carbon cycle, the water cycle,
the structure of the atmosphere and radiation. The process began with externalization
through annotated drawings of the pupils’ own conceptions about the atmosphere and
the greenhouse effect. Later the issues in the model were investigated with online sources
and finally with a dynamic simulation. After the intervention the pupils again made
annotated drawings which included carefully made representations of radiation
(radiation with labels) which may indicate that pupils had appropriated some new tools
to interpret and describe the phenomena. In this respect, the study demonstrates that the
design of the scaffolding was supporting the learning. However, it is still a matter for
further investigation if the consistency of the pupils’ conceptions of the greenhouse effect
could be advanced with use of larger groups sharing their models and products. In
Studies I and II, pupils worked in pairs during their investigations; the use of computers
as organizational memories (cf. Figure 1) could be made available for example with
similar use of Wiki or blogs as in Study IV. Also the research on the way pupils used the
knowledge artefacts (working templates, online recourses, simulation) to construct joint
activities could be video recorded and analyzed in order to investigate the ways in which
pupils construct cognitive artefacts (cf. Stahl, 2006).
In Study III the teacher students stated that they had benefitted from possibilities to
construct and share and compare the artefacts used and produced during their inquiries.
However, the teacher students clearly also noticed both the complexity of inquiry as
learners and the scaffolding the teacher needs to offer. Study III was a small group case
study and it would be interesting to make the experiment with a larger group of teacher
students and develop further the processes of reflection, especially investigating the
relation of reflecting into pedagogical issues to the “how” questions and to technological
pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). In Study III unfortunately only some of the
teacher students responded to the questionnaire and therefore this question could not be
addressed.
In Study IV teacher students evaluated as highly beneficial the model comparisons
and peer support in groups, but less highly the structuring and problematizing with
Wikis. Also, the structural equation modelling showed positive relationships only
between the first two scaffolds and the experienced benefits of the use of technology. Yet,
38
the structuring and problematizing with Wikis was aimed, in the design, to be the most
important scaffolding (of course accompanying the teacher scaffolding). This may
indicate that it is difficult for teacher students as learners to become cognizant with the
factors that support demanding working (accomplishing tasks that would not be possible
without scaffolding) and offer explanations of why inquiry teaching is so demanding for
the teachers. In Study IV data from answers to the open questions in the questionnaire
and the contents of the Wiki are still to be analyzed and reported. These data will inform
further the accomplishments the teacher students made during the inquiry and also their
reflections about the modelling as a teaching and learning tool. Preliminary analysis of
the open questions (Hartikainen, Kärkkäinen, Kukkonen, & Valtonen, 2009) supports the
results in the model (Figure 3) presented in Study IV, mostly recognizing the importance
of the modelling. Studies I to IV show that the inquiry learning and teaching is
demanding, but effective for learning complex topics. The studies also show that research
offers knowledge and relevant scaffolding guidelines for teachers in instructional design
(cf. Figure 1) and that well designed online recourses (e.g. freely available simulations)
and social software can be used as critical parts of the learning environment. In Study IV,
pre-service teachers clearly noticed the benefit of using the visualizations with digital
imaging, but the use of Wikis was somewhat unnoticed by the participants. For teacher
education this unfortunately means that pre-service teachers may recognize the benefits
of using technology only from a significant, immediate, experience of it (the visualization
in the Study IV) and thus under value the role of the technology itself. The deeper
structure and benefits of the technology-enhanced inquiry learning environment (the
Wiki in the Study IV) may remain unnoticed. It would be a matter for further study to
investigate if the pre-service teacher students are able to recognize the features of the
design (e.g. scaffolding with Wiki), when directly required to reflect continuously on the
design of the scaffolding offered during the inquiry activity. This dissertation also
emphasizes the importance of teacher training by recognising the difficulty that teacher
students have in reflecting and fully understanding the demands of inquiry teaching.
Most likely, in-service teachers training will be needed to address this matter.
39
References
Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0 A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning?
EDUCAUSE Review, 41(2), 33-44.
Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based
instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1-18.
Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in
education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16-25.
Ausubel, D.P. (1963). The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning: An Introduction to
School Learning. New York. Grune and Stratton.
Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1-14.
Belland, B. (2011). Distributed Cognition as a Lens to Understand the Effects of Scaffolds:
The Role of Transfer of Responsibility. Educational Psychology Review, 23(4),
577–600.
Bell, T., Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., & Ploetzner, R. (2010). Collaborative inquiry learning:
Models, tools, and challenges. International Journal of Science Education, 32(3),
349-377.
Bliss, J., Askew, M., & Macrae, S. (1996). Effective teaching and learning: Scaffolding
revisited. Oxford Review of Education, 22(1), 37.
Boyd, S. (2003). Are you ready for social software? Darwin Magazine (IDG). Retrieved
October 6, 2008:
http://www.stoweboyd.com/message/2006/10/are_you_ready_f.html
Buckley, B. C., Gobert, J. D., Kindfield, A. C. H., Horwitz, P., Tinker, R. F., Gerlits, B.,
Wilensky, U., Dede, C., & Willet, J. (2004). Model-based teaching and learning
with BioLogicaTM: What do they learn? How do they learn? How do we know?
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(1), 23-41.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts,
applications, and programming. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers.
Capps, D. K., & Crawford, B. A. (2013). Inquiry-based instruction and teaching about
nature of science: Are they happening? Journal of Science Teacher Education,
24(3), 497-526.
Chang, K., Chen, Y., Lin, H., & Sung, Y. (2008). Effects of learning support in simulationbased physics learning. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1486-1498.
Chi, M. T. H., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting selfexplanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18(3), 439-477.
Chin, C. & Chia, L-G. (2006). Problem-based learning: Using III-structured problems in
biology project work. Science Education 90, 44-67.
40
Clark, D.B., Nelson, B., Sengupta, P., and D’Angelo, C. (2009). Rethinking science
learning through digital games and simulations: Genres, examples, and evidence.
Paper commissioned for the National Research Council Workshop on Gaming and
Simulations,
October
6-7,
Washington,
DC.
Available
http://www.academia.edu/493598/Rethinking_science_learning_through_digital_g
ames_and_simulations_Genres_examples_and_evidence [accessed September 18.
2013]
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R. & Schauble, L. (2003). Design Experiments in
Educational Research .Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.
Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and
methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15-42.
The Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-Based Research: An Emerging
Paradigm for Educational Inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.
Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning
with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL. can we
support CSCL? (pp. 61-91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.
Dillenbourg, P., Järvelä, S., & Fischer, F. (2009). The evolution of research on computersupported collaborative learning. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. Jong, A.
Lazonder & S. Barnes (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning (pp. 3-19). Springer
Netherlands.
diSessa, A. A. (2002). Why "conceptual ecology" is a good idea. In M. Limon, & L. Mason
(Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change. issues in theory ans practice (pp. 29-60).
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
diSessa, A. A., Gillespie, N. M., & Esterly, J. B. (2004). Coherence versus fragmentation in
the development of the concept of force. Cognitive Science, 28(6), 843-900.
Edelson, D., C., Gordin D.N. & Pea, R., D. (1999). Addressing the Challenges of InquiryBased Learning Through Technology and Curriculum Design, Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 8(3-4), 391-450.
Ergazaki, M. & Zogza, V. 2008. Exploring lake ecology in a computer-supported learning
environment. Journal of Biological Education 42 (2), 30-34.
Fabrigar, L. R., Porter, R. D., & Norris, M. E. (2010). Some things you should know about
structural equation modeling but never thought to ask. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 20(2), 221–225.
Finn, H., Maxwell, M. & Calver, M. 2002. Why does experimentation matter in teaching
ecology? Journal of Biological Education 36 (4). 158-162.
Fishman, B. J., Marx, R. W., Best, S., & Tal, R. T. (2003). Linking teacher and student
learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 19(6), 643-658.
Gadgil, S., Nokes-Malach, T. J., & Chi, M. T. H. (2012). Effectiveness of holistic mental
model confrontation in driving conceptual change. Learning and Instruction,
22(1), 47-61.
Gauvain, M. (2001). Cultural tools, social interaction and the development of thinking.
Human Development (0018716X), 44(2), 126-143.
41
Gerard, L. F., Varma, K., Corliss, S. B. and Linn, M. C. (2011). Professional Development
for Technology-Enhanced Inquiry Science. Review of Educational Research, 81(3),
408–448. DOI: 10.3102/0034654311415121
Giest, H. & Lompscher (2003). Formation of Learning Activity and Theoretical Thinking
in Science Teaching. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.),
Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context.(pp.267-288). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Gobert, J. D., & Pallant, A. (2004). Fostering students' epistemologies of models via
authentic model-based tasks. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(1),
7-22.
Granberg, C. (2010). Social software for reflective dialogue: Questions about reflection
and dialogue in student teachers’ blogs. Technology, Pedagogy and Education,
19(3), 345-360.
Hakkarainen, K. (2003a). Can Cognitive Explanations Be Eliminated? Science &
Education 12: 671–689.
Hakkarainen, K. (2003b). Emergence of progressive-inquiry culture in computersupported collaborative learning. Learning Environments Research, 6(2), 199-220.
Hansen, P. J. K. (2010). Knowledge about the greenhouse effect and the effects of the
ozone layer among norwegian pupils finishing compulsory education in 1989,
1993, and 2005—What now? International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 397419.
Hatano, G., & Wertsch, J. V. (2001). Sociocultural approaches to cognitive development:
The constitutions of culture in mind. Human Development (0018716X), 44(2), 7783.
Hartikainen, A., Kärkkäinen, S., Kukkonen, J. & Valtonen, T. (2009). Piirrosmallista
valokuvamalliksi – luokanopettajaopiskelijoiden oppimiskokemuksia teknologiaavusteisesta mallintamisesta [From drawing model to image model – Primary
teacher students learning experiences about technology-enhanced modelling].
Kasvatustieteen päivät, 2009, 26.–27. 11. Tampere. Retrieved July 6, 2013:
http://kasvatus2009.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/kasvatustoisinsilmin.pdf
Hmelo-Silver, C., Duncan, R., & Chinn, C. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in
problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark
(2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.
Hsu, Y.-S., Lin, L.-F., Wu, H.-K., Lee D.-Y., & Hwang, F.-K. (2011). A Novice-expert study
of modeling skills and knowledge structures about air quality. Journal of Science
Education & Technology, DOI:10.1007/s10956-011-9349-5.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
Hutchins, E. (1991). The social organization of distributed cognition. In L. B. Resnick, J.
M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp.
283-307). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Häkkinen, P. & Hämäläinen, R. (2012). Shared and personal learning spaces: Challenges
for pedagogical design. Internet and Higher Education, 15 (4), 231–236.
42
Häkkinen, P. & Järvelä, S. (2006.) Sharing and constructing perspectives in web-based
conferencing. Computers & Education, 47(4), 433–447.
Hämäläinen, R., (2008). Designing and Investigating Pedagogical Scripts to Facilitate
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. University of Jyväskylä. Finnish
Institute for Educational Research. Research Reports 24. Jyväskylä: University
Printing House.
Ioannides, C., & Vosniadou, S. (2002). Exploring the changing meanings of force: From
coherence to fragmentation. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 2(1), 5-61.
Jakobsson, A., Mäkitalo, Å., & Säljö, R. (2009). Conceptions of knowledge in research on
students' understanding of the greenhouse effect: Methodological positions and
their consequences for representations of knowing. Science Education, 93(6), 978995.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research
paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
Jonassen, D.H., Peck, K. L.,&Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: A
constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River: Merrill.
Kali, Y., & Linn, M. C. (2008). Technology-enhanced support strategies for inquiry
learning. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll
(Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd
ed., pp. 145–161). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Karpov, Y.V., (2003). Vygotsky’s doctrine of scientific concepts. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis,
V. Ageyev & S. Miller M. (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context.
(pp. 65-82). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Keys, C. W., & Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co‐ constructing inquiry ‐ based science with
teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 38(6), 631-645.
Kim, M., & Tan, A. (2011). Rethinking difficulties of teaching inquiry-based practical
work: Stories from elementary pre-service teachers. International Journal of
Science Education, 33(4), 465-486.
Kirschner, P. A., Martens, R. L., & Strijbos, J. (2004). CSCL in higher education? In J.
Strijbos, P. A. Kirschner & R. L. Martens (Eds.), What we know about CSCL: And
implementing it in higher education (pp. 3-30). Hingham, MA, USA: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
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.
Koedinger, K. R., & Corbett, A. T. (2006). Cognitive tutors: Technology bringing learning
science to the classroom. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), the Cambridge Handbook of the
Learning Sciences. (pp. 61-78). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge?
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
43
Koschmann, T. (1996). Paradigm shifts and instructional technology: An introduction. In
T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 123). Mahwah,New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kozulin, A. (2003). Psychological tools and mediated learning. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis,
V. S. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural
context.(pp.15-38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social
interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review
of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(3), 335-353.
Lakkala, M., Lallimo, J., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). Teachers’ pedagogical designs for
technology-supported collective inquiry: A national case study. Computers &
Education, 45(3), 337-356.
Laru, J. (2012). Scaffolding learning activities with collaborative scripts and mobile
devices. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis. Series E, Scientiae rerum socialium 125.
Tampere: Juvenes Print.
Larusson, J. A., & Alterman, R. (2009). Wikis to support the “collaborative” part of
collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning, 4(4), 371-402.
Latour, B. (2006). We have never been modern [Emme koskaan olleet moderneja] (R.
Suikkanen Trans.). Tampere: Vastapaino.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific knowledge
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lipponen, L. (2001). Computer-supported collaborative learning: From promises to
reality. Turku: Pallosalama.
Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science
education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 296-316.
Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., & d’Apollonia, S. (2001). Small group and individual learning with
technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 449-521.
Maged, N., Kamel, B., & Wheelert, S. (2007). The emerging Web 2.0 social software: An
enabling suite of sociable technologies in health and health care education. Health
Information and Libraries Journal, 24(1), 2–23.
Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction? What is
it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474-496.
Niaz, M. (2008). A Rationale for Mixed Methods (Integrative) Research Programmes in
Education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 42(2), 287-305
Onwuegbuzie, A., & Leech, N. (2007). Validity and qualitative research: An oxymoron?
Quality & Quantity, 41(2), 233-249.
Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2010). How science works: What is the nature of scientific
reasoning and what do we know about students’ understanding? In Osborne, J., &
Dillon, J. (Eds.) Good Practice in Science Teaching: What Research has to Say, (pp.
20-45). Belkshire, England. Open Universtity Press.
44
Park, S. I., Lee, G., & Kim, M. (2009). Do students benefit equally from interactive
computer simulations regardless of prior knowledge levels? Computers &
Education, 52(3), 649-655.
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Second edition.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Pea, R. D. (2002). Learning Science through Collaborative Visualization over the Internet.
Proceedings of the Nobel Symposium NS 120 pp. 1-13. Retrieved June 13, 2013:
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/file/index/docid/190616/filename/A109_Pea_02_Nobel_CoVis.pdf
Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding:
Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 42(2), 185-217.
Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have
to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.
Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., Kyza, E.,
Edelson, D., & Soloway, E. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to
support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337-386.
Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding Complex Learning: The Mechanisms of Structuring and
Problematizing Student Work, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273-304.
Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., Sandoval,W. A., Smith, B. K., Steinmuller, F., & Leone, T. J. (2001).
BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology
classrooms. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: 25 years
of progress (pp. 263–306). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Reisinger, Y. & Mavondo, F. (2007). Structural Equation Modeling, Journal of Travel &
Tourism Marketing, 21(4), 41-71.
Resta, P., & Laferrière, T. (2007). Technology in support of collaborative learning.
Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 65-83.
Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative
problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning
(pp. 69–197). Berlin: Springer.
Rummel, N., Mullins, D., & Spada, H. (2012). Scripted collaborative learning with the
cognitive tutor algebra. International Journal of Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning, 7(2), 307-339.
Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van der Veen, J. T. (2011). The learning effects of
computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education, 58(1), 136153.
Sander, E., Jelemenska, P. & Kattmann, U. (2006). Towards a better understanding of
ecology. Journal of Biological Education 40 (3), 119-123.
Sarmiento, J., & Stahl, G. (2008a). Extending the joint problem space: Time and sequence
as essential features of knowledge building. International Conference of the
Learning Sciences (ICLS 2008), Utrecht, Netherlands. Retrieved October 26, 2012:
http://gerrystahl.net/pub/icls2008johann.pdf
45
Sarmiento, J. W., & Stahl, G. (2008b). Group creativity in interaction: Collaborative
referencing, remembering, and bridging. International Journal of HumanComputer Interaction, 24(5), 492-504.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building
communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and
technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences
(pp. 97-115). West Nyack, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Schoultz, J., Saljö , R., & Wyndhamn, J. (2001). Heavenly talk: Discourse, artefacts, and
children’s understanding of elementary astronomy. Human Development, 44,
103–118.
Schön, D., A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Sharma, P., & Hannafin, M. J. (2007). Scaffolding in technology-enhanced learning
environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 15(1), 27-46.
Shepardson, D.P., Choi, S., Niyogi, D. & Charusombat, U. (2011a). Seventh grade
students' mental models of the greenhouse effect. Environmental Education
Research, 17(1), 1-17.
Shepardson, D. P., Niyogi, D., Roychoudhury, A., & Hirsch, A. (2011b). Conceptualizing
climate change in the context of a climate system: Implications for climate and
environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 18(3), 323-352.
Sherin, B., Reiser, B. J., & Edelson, D. (2004). Scaffolding analysis: Extending the
scaffolding metaphor to learning artefacts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3),
387-421.
Sinclair, B. (2007). Commons 2.0: Library Spaces Designed for Collaborative Learning.
EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 30(4).
Smetana, L. K., & Bell, R. L. (2012). Computer simulations to support science instruction
and learning: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science
Education, 34(9), 1337-1370.
Stahl, G. (2005). Group cognition in computer-assisted collaborative learning. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 79-90.
Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition. MIT Press Cambridge, MA.
Stahl, G. (2012). Cognizing mediating: Unpacking the entanglement of artefacts with
collective minds. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative
Learning, 7(2), 187-191.
Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative
learning: An historical perspective. Cambridge Handbook of the Learning
Sciences, 2006
Strijbos, J., Kirschner, P. A., & Martens, R. L. (Eds.). (2004). What we know about CSCL:
And implementing it in higher education. Hingham, MA, USA: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Suthers, D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A
research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 315-337.
46
Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305-335.
Tabak, I., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Software-realized inquiry support for cultivating a
disciplinary stance. Pragmatics & Cognition, 16(2), 307-355.
Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., Bell, T., Mansfield, A., & Holmes, J. (2010). Role of the teacher in
Computer ‐ supported collaborative inquiry learning. International Journal of
Science Education, 32(2), 221-243.
Vahtivuori, S., Ruokamo, H., Tella, S., & Tuovinen, H. (2002). Pedagogical models in the
design and assessment of network-based education. In World Conference on
Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (Vol. 2002, No. 1,
pp. 1676–1681).
Valtonen, T., Kukkonen, J., Puruskainen, T., & Hatakka, O. (2007). Verkkooppimisympäristöt opettajien oppimiskäsitysten haastajina [Online learning
challenging teachers’ conceptions of learning]. Kasvatus, 39(5), 444–453.
Valtonen, T., Kukkonen, J., Dillon, P., & Väisänen, P. (2009). Finnish high school students’
readiness to adopt online learning: Questioning the assumptions. Computers &
Education, 53(3), 742-748.
Valtonen, T., Wulff, A., & Kukkonen, J. (2006). High school teachers' course designs and
their professional knowledge of online teaching. Informatics in Education-an
International Journal, (Vol 5_2), 301-316.
Valtonen, T. (2011). An insight into collaborative learning with ICT: Teachers' and
students' perspectives. Publications of the University of Eastern Finland.
Dissertations in Education, Humanities, and Theology. No 12. Joensuu: Kopijyvä.
Van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (1999). Teachers' knowledge of models and modelling in
science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(11), 1141-1153.
Varma, K., & Linn, M. (2012). Using interactive technology to support students’
understanding of the greenhouse effect and global warming. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 21(4), 453-464.
Vesisenaho, M. & Dillon, P. (2013). Localizing and contextualizing information and
communication technology in education: A cultural ecological framework,
Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 21 (2), 239-259.
Vesisenaho, M., Valtonen, T., Kukkonen, J., Havu-Nuutinen, S., Hartikainen, A., &
Karkkainen, S. (2010). Blended learning with everyday technologies to activate
students’ collaborative learning. Science education international, 21(4), 272–283.
Viilo, M., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2011). Supporting the
technology ‐ enhanced collaborative inquiry and design project: A teacher’s
reflections on practices. Teachers and Teaching, 17(1), 51-72.
Vosniadou, S., Skopeliti, I., & Ikospentaki, K. (2005). Reconsidering the role of artefacts in
reasoning: Children's understanding of the globe as a model of the earth. Learning
and Instruction, 15(4), 333-351.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
47
Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced
learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development,
53(4), 5-23.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA:
Havard University Press.
White B. Y. & Frederiksen J. R. (1998). Inquiry, Modeling, and Metacognition: Making
Science Accessible to All Students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3-118.
White, T., & Pea, R. (2011). Distributed by design: On the promises and pitfalls of
collaborative learning with multiple representations. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 20(3), 489-547.
Williams, M., Linn, M. C., Ammon, P., & Gearhart, M. (2004). Learning to teach inquiry
science in a technology-based environment: A case study. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 13(2), 189-206.
Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can
investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom
practice? Science Education, 87(1), 112-143.
Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of inquiry: how preservice teachers reproduce the
discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 41(5), 481-512.
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). How novice science teachers
appropriate epistemic discourses around model-based inquiry for use in
classrooms. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 310.
Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17, 89–100.
Wu, H., & Pedersen, S. (2011). Integrating computer- and teacher-based scaffolds in
science inquiry. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2352-2363.
Österlind, K. (2005). Concept formation in environmental education: 14-year olds’ work
on the intensified greenhouse effect and the depletion of the ozone layer.
International Journal of Science Education, 27(8), 891–908.
Özdemir, G., & Clark, D. B. (2007). An overview of conceptual change theories. Eurasia
Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(4), 351-361.
Özdemir, G., & Clark, D. (2009). Knowledge structure coherence in turkish students’
understanding of force. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(5), 570-596.
48
PUBLICATIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND
DISSERTATIONS IN EDUCATION, HUMANITIES, AND THEOLOG Y
1. Taru Viinikainen. Taipuuko “akrobaatti Aleksandra”? Nimikekonstruktio ja nimikkeen taipuminen
lehtikielessä 1900-luvulta 2000-luvulle. 2010.
2. Pekka Metso. Divine Presence in the Eucharistic Theology of Nicholas Cabasilas. 2010.
3. Pekka Kilpeläinen. In Search of a Postcategorical Utopia. James Baldwin and the Politics of ‘Race’ and
Sexuality. 2010.
4. Leena Vartiainen. Yhteisöllinen käsityö. Verkostoja, taitoja ja yhteisiä elämyksiä. 2010.
5. Alexandra Simon-López. Hypersurrealism. Surrealist Literary Hypertexts. 2010.
6. Merja Sagulin. Jälkiä ajan hiekassa. Kontekstuaalinen tutkimus Daniel Defoen Robinson Crusoen
suomenkielisten adaptaatioiden aatteellisista ja kirjallisista traditioista sekä subjektikäsityksistä. 2010.
7. Pirkko Pollari. Vapaan sivistystyön kieltenopettajien pedagogiset ratkaisut ja käytänteet teknologiaa
hyödyntävässä vieraiden kielten opetuksessa. 2010.
8. Ulla Piela. Kansanparannuksen kerrotut merkitykset Pohjois-Karjalassa 1800- ja 1900-luvuilla. 2010.
9. Lea Meriläinen. Language Transfer in the Written English of Finnish Students. 2010.
10. Kati Aho-Mustonen. Group Psychoeducation for Forensic Long-term Patients with Schizophrenia. 2011.
11. Anne-Maria Nupponen. »Savon murre» savolaiskorvin. Kansa murteen havainnoijana. 2011.
12. Teemu Valtonen. An Insight into Collaborative Learning with ICT: Teachers’ and Students’ Perspectives. 2011.
13. Teemu Kakkuri. Evankelinen liike kirkossa ja yhteiskunnassa 1944-1963. Aktiivinen uudistusliike ja
konservatiivinen sopeutuja. 2011.
14. Riitta Kärkkäinen. Doing Better? Children’s and Their Parents’ and Teachers’ Perceptions of the Malleability
of the Child’s Academic Competences. 2011.
15. Jouko Kiiski. Suomalainen avioero 2000-luvun alussa. Miksi avioliitto puretaan, miten ero koetaan ja miten
siitä selviydytään. 2011.
16. Liisa Timonen. Kansainvälisty tai väisty? Tapaustutkimus kansainvälisyysosaamisen ja kulttuurienvälisen
oppimisen merkityksenannoista oppijan, opettajan ja korkeakoulutoimijan pedagogisen suhteen rajaamissa
kohtaamisen tiloissa. 2011.
17. Matti Vänttinen. Oikeasti hyvä numero. Oppilaiden arvioinnin totuudet ja totuustuotanto rinnakkaiskoulusta
yhtenäiskouluun. 2011.
18. Merja Ylönen.
Aikuiset opin poluilla. Oppimistukikeskuksen asiakkaiden opiskelukokemuksista ja
kouluttautumishalukkuudelle merkityksellisistä tekijöistä. 2011.
19. Kirsi Pankarinkangas. Leskien keski-iässä tai myöhemmällä iällä solmimat uudet avioliitot. Seurantatutkimus.
2011.
20. Olavi Leino. Oppisopimusopiskelijan oppimisen henkilökohtaistaminen ja oppimismahdollisuudet työpaikalla.
2011.
21. Kristiina Abdallah. Translators in Production Networks. Reflections on Agency, Quality and Ethics. 2012.
22. Riina Kokkonen. Mittarissa lapsen keho ja vanhemmuus – tervettä lasta sekä ”hyvää” ja ”huonoa”
vanhemmuutta koskevia tulkintoja nyky-Suomessa. 2012.
23. Ari Sivenius. Aikuislukion eetos opettajien merkityksenantojen valossa. 2012.
24. Kamal Sbiri. Voices from the Margin. Rethinking History, Identity, and Belonging in the Contemporary North
African Anglophone Novel. 2012.
25. Ville Sassi. Uudenlaisen pahan unohdettu historia. Arvohistoriallinen tutkimus 1980-luvun suomalaisen
romaanin pahan tematiikasta ja ”pahan koulukunta” –vuosikymmenmääritteen muodostumisesta
kirjallisuusjärjestelmässä. 2012.
26. Merja Hyytiäinen. Integroiden, segregoiden ja osallistaen. Kolmen vaikeasti kehitysvammaisen oppilaan
opiskelu yleisopetuksessa ja koulupolku esiopetuksesta toiselle asteelle. 2012.
27. Hanna Mikkola. ”Tänään työ on kauneus on ruumis on laihuus.” Feministinen luenta syömishäiriöiden ja
naissukupuolen kytköksistä suomalaisissa syömishäiriöromaaneissa. 2012.
28. Aino Äikäs. Toiselta asteelta eteenpäin. Narratiivinen tutkimus vaikeavammaisen nuoren aikuisen
koulutuksesta ja työllistymisestä. 2012.
121
29. Maija Korhonen. Yrittäjyyttä ja yrittäjämäisyyttä kaikille? Uusliberalistinen hallinta, koulutettavuus ja
sosiaaliset erot peruskoulun yrittäjyyskasvatuksessa. 2012.
30. Päivikki Ronkainen. Yhteinen tehtävä. Muutoksen avaama kehittämispyrkimys opettajayhteisössä. 2012.
31. Kalevi Paldanius. Eläinlääkärin ammatti-identiteetti, asiakasvuorovaikutuksen jännitteiden hallinta ja
kliinisen päättelyn yhteenkietoutuminen sekapraktiikassa. 2012.
32. Kari Korolainen. Koristelun kuvailu. Kategorisoinnin analyysi. 2012.
33. Maija Metsämäki. Influencing through Language. Studies in L2 Debate. 2012.
34. Pål Lauritzen. Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge of Mathematical Functions. 2012.
35. Eeva Raunistola-Juutinen. Äiti ja nunna - Kirkkojen maailmanneuvoston naisten vuosikymmenen ortodoksiset
naiskuvat. 2012.
36. Marja-Liisa Kakkonen. Learning Entrepreneurial Competences in an International Undergraduate Degree
Programme. A Follow-Up Study. 2012.
37. Outi Sipilä. Esiliina aikansa kehyksissä – moniaikaista tekstiilikulttuuria ja repre-sentaatioita kodista,
perheestä, puhtaudesta ja käsityöstä 1900-luvun alkupuolen Suomessa. 2012.
38. Seija Jeskanen. Piina vai pelastus? Portfolio aineenopettajaopiskelijoiden ammatillisen kehittymisen
välineenä. 2012.
39. Reijo Virolainen. Evankeliumin asialla - Kurt Frörin käsitys evankelisesta kasvatuksesta ja opetuksesta
Saksassa 1930-luvulta 1970-luvulle. 2013.
40. Katarzyna Szal. Finnish Literature in Poland, Polish Literature in Finland – Com-parative Reception Study
from a Hermeneutic Perspective. 2013.
41. Eeva-Liisa Ahtiainen. Kansainvälistymisen ja laadunvarmistuksen yhteys ammatti-korkeakoulun
asiakirjateksteissä. Tapaustutkimus. 2013.
42. Jorma Pitkänen. Fides Directa – Fides Reflexa. Jonas Laguksen käsitys vanhurskauttavasta uskosta. 2013.
43. Riitta Rajasuu. Kuopiossa, Oulussa ja Turussa vuosina 1725–1744 ja 1825–1844 syntyneiden kastenimet. 2013.
44. Irina Karvonen. Pyhän Aleksanteri Syväriläisen koulukunta – 1500-luvun luostarihistoriaa vai 1800-luvun
venäläiskansallista tulkintaa? 2013.
45. Meri Kytö. Kotiin kuuluvaa. Yksityisen ja yhteisen kaupunkiäänitilan risteymät. 2013.
46. Jörg Weber. Die Idee von der Mystagogie Jesu im geistigen Menschen: Einführung in die »christliche
Theosophie« des Corpus Areopagiticum. 2013.
47. Tuija, Lukin. Motivaatio matematiikan opiskelussa – seurantatutkimus motivaatiotekijöistä ja niiden välisistä
yhteyksistä yläkoulun aikana. 2013.
48. Virpi Kaukio. Sateenkaari lätäkössä. Kuvitellun ja kerrotun ympäristöestetiikka. 2013.
49. Susanna Pöntinen. Tieto- ja viestintäteknologian opetuskäytön kulttuurin diskursiivinen muotoutuminen
luokanopettajaopiskelijoiden puheessa. 2013.
50. Maria Takala-Roszczenko. The ‘Latin’ within the ‘Greek’: The Feast of the Holy Eucharist in the Context of
Ruthenian Eastern Rite Liturgical Evolution in the 16th–18th Centuries. 2013
51. Erkki Nieminen. Henki vastaan alkoholi: AA-toiminnan synty ja kehitys Lahdessa 1950-1995. 2014.
52. Jani Kaasinen. Perinnerakentaminen käsitteenä ja osana teknologiakasvatusta - opettajaopiskelijoiden
käsitykset, käsitysten jäsentyneisyys ja muutos perinnerakentamisen opintojakson aikana. 2014.
53. Gerson Lameck Mgaya. Spiritual gifts: A sociorhetorical interpretation of 1 cor 12–14. 2014.
54. Pauli Kallio. Esimiehen muuttuvat identiteetit: Narratiivinen tutkimus keskijohdon identiteeteistä ja
samastumisesta organisaatiomurroksessa. 2014.
55. Sirpa Tokola-Kemppi. Psykoanalyyttisen psykoterapian merkityksiä kirjailijahaastattelujen valossa. 2014.
56. Dhuana Affleck. How does Dialogical Self Theory appear in the light of Cognitive Analytic Therapy? Two
approaches to the self. 2014.
57. Teemu Ratinen. Torjuttu Jumalan lahja. Yksilön kamppailu häpeällistä seksuaalisuutta vastaan. 2014.
58. Päivi Löfman. Tapaustutkimus itseohjautuvuudesta sairaanhoitajakoulutuksen eri vaiheissa. 2014.
59. Päivi Kujamäki. Yhteisenä tavoitteena opetuksen eheyttäminen. Osallistava toimintatutkimus
luokanopettajille. 2014.
60. Henriikka Vartiainen. Principles for Design-Oriented Pedagogy for Learning from and with Museum Objects.
2014.
61. Päivi Kaakkunen. Lukudiplomin avulla lukemaan houkutteleminen yläkoulussa. Lukudiplomin
kehittämistutkimus perusopetuksen vuosiluokilla 7–9. 2014.
122
Jari Kukkonen
Scaffolding Inquiry in
Science Education by Means
of Computer Supported
Collaborative Learning:
Pupils’ and Teacher
Students’ Experiences
This dissertation investigates firstly
computer supported collaborative scaffolded science inquiry learning. Inquiry
learning gains seem to be related to
substantial scaffolding . The first two
studies (studies I and II) discuss scaffolding the computer supported collaborative inquiry learning in the context
of fifth grade pupils understanding of
greenhouse effect. Studies III and IV
discuss pre-service teachers’ readiness for enacting computer supported
collaborative inquiry learning. These
two sets of studies (pupils and teacher
students) share in their designs the
collaborative learning settings using
computer-based artefacts, and the design focus on scaffolding the complex
learning settings.
Publications of the University of Eastern Finland
Dissertations in Education, Humanities, and Theology
isbn: 978-952-61-1678-5 (print.)
issnl: 1798-5625 (print.)
issn: 1798-5625 (print.)
isbn: 978-952-61-1679-2 (PDF)
issn: 1798-5633 (PDF)