Difference between revisions of "Roll - Inquiry"
|Line 26:||Line 26:|
==Background & Significance==
==Background & Significance==
Revision as of 20:13, 4 December 2009
- 1 Helping Students Become Better Scientists Using Structured Inquiry Tasks
- 1.1 Summary Table
- 1.2 Abstract
- 1.3 Background & Significance
- 1.4 Glossary
- 1.5 Research questions
- 1.6 Independent Variables
- 1.7 Dependent Variables
- 1.8 Hypothesis
- 1.9 Results
- 1.10 Explanation
- 1.11 Further Information
Helping Students Become Better Scientists Using Structured Inquiry Tasks
|Other Contributers||Doug Bonn, James Day|
|Study Start Date||Jan. 1, 2010|
|Study End Date||May. 31, 2010|
|Site||UBC (not a LeanLab site)|
|Number of Students||N = ~200|
|Total Participant Hours||~1,000.|
|DataShop||no data yet|
Background & Significance
This project focuses on SRL behavior during scientific inquiry, and relationships between SRL behavior and domain learning and motivation. While traditional inquiry tasks have inherent benefits of letting students practice key self-regulatory skills, they were shown to be inefficient, and often unproductive, means of instruction. In the absence of adequate support, students often flounder and are lost within the infinite range of possibilities (Veermans, de Jong & van Joolingen, 2000). Consequently, students often fail to learn the target concepts, or at least do not learn them as efficiently as with direct instruction (Kirschner, Sweller & Clark, 2006).
This project evaluates whether supporting students’ metacognitive behavior in inquiry tasks helps students acquire better domain and scientific reasoning skills, without reducing the motivational benefits and high agency that students have in inquiry tasks. I focus on the Invention as Preparation for Learning framework (Schwartz & Taylor, 2004; Roll, Aleven & Koedinger, 2009). In Invention as Preparation for Learning students first attempt to invent a mathematical procedures to evaluate a target property (e.g., variability, probability, etc). Following the invention attempt students receive direct instruction on the canonical procedure, and practice it. Invention as Preparation for learning was shown to improve students’ domain knowledge and motivation (Kapur & Lee, 2009; Roll, Aleven & Koedinger, 2009; Schwartz & Taylor, 2004). At the same time, students demonstrated poor metacognitive behavior, and lack of learning at the metacognitive level (Roll, 2009).
- Structured Invention Tasks
- Self-Regulated Learning
- Scientific Reasoning
- Inquiry tasks
The project has 3 steps, each of which focuses on a different research question:
Step 1: What SRL skills are being used and practiced during structured invention tasks?
Connections to Other Studies
Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 1-48.
Roll, I., Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2009). Helping students know 'further' - increasing the flexibility of students' knowledge using symbolic invention tasks. In N. A. Taatgen, & H. van Rijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the cognitive science society. (pp. 1169-74). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 129-184.
Spring 2010: Do an ethnography in in a 1st year physics lab that uses invention tasks as a normal classroom practice.