McLaren et al - Conceptual Learning in Chemistry

From Pslc
Jump to: navigation, search

Supporting Conceptual Learning in Chemistry through Collaboration Scripts and Adaptive, Online Support

Bruce M. McLaren, Nikol Rummel, Andreas Harrer, Hans Spada, Niels Pinkwart

Overview

PI: Bruce M. McLaren

Co-PIs: Nikol Rummel, Andreas Harrer, Hans Spada, Niels Pinkwart

Others who have contributed 160 hours or more:

  • Dimitra Tsovaltzi, University of Saarland, Germany, experimental design and execution
  • Isabel Braun, Freiburg University, Germany, experimental design and execution
  • Oliver Scheuer, University of Saarland, Germany, data mining and programming
  • Roger Miller, University of Saarland, Germany, programming

The goal of this one-year project is to build/integrate technology and perform small-scale lab tests in preparation for in vivo studies in later years.

Abstract

Chemistry students, like students in physics, mathematics, and other technical disciplines, often learn to solve problems algorithmically, applying well-practiced procedures to textbook problems. But often these students do not understand the underlying conceptual aspects of the problems they solve algorithmically. An important setting for promoting conceptual knowledge in chemistry is the laboratory, where students must apply not only pre-defined problem solving procedures, but must also plan experiments, hypothesize outcomes, conduct and monitor experiments, and evaluate outcomes. In the PSLC Chemistry LearnLab, the Virtual Laboratory (VLab) is the online software environment used to simulate a real chemistry laboratory and assist students in their conceptual understanding of chemistry. However, the VLab on its own is not enough. We propose to further assist chemistry students in gaining conceptual knowledge, first, through having pairs of students collaborate on problems, assisted by computer-mediated collaboration scripts that extend the VLab and, later, through dynamic adaptation of those collaboration scripts.
In this one-year project, we conducted a pilot study (STUDY 1) comparing how singles and dyads solve chemistry problems with the VLab with and without scripts. We used the results to inform the design of a computer-mediated collaborative environment around the VLab, using a collaborative software tool called FreeStyler. In a subsequent small-scale study (STUDY 2) we compared an adaptive and a non-adaptive version of the system. The adaptation was realized by a human wizard sending feedback to the students following a predefined model. A qualitative data analysis of this study revealed a tendency for the dyads that received the adaptive feedback to improve collaborative skills and be more motivated than the non-adative dyads.
The one-year PSLC project will provide the foundation for an externally-funded project, still conducted within the PSLC Chemistry LearnLab, in which we will perform full-scale in vivo studies to test the hypotheses that (1) collaboration, supported by collaboration scripts, can promote the creation and strengthening of conceptual chemistry knowledge components and (2) that dynamic adaptation of the collaboration scripts can further improve that learning.

Glossary

See Scripted Collaborative Problem Solving Glossary

Research Questions

Does collaboration – and in particular adaptive scripted collaboration – improve students’ robust learning, and in particular conceptual learning, in the domain of chemistry?

Does the adaptive script approach improve students’ collaboration, and does this result in more robust learning of chemistry content?

Hypothesis

These research questions led us to the following two hypotheses:

H1
Computer-mediated collaboration, facilitated by collaboration scripts and added to experimental exercises within the stoichiometry course, can promote the creation and strengthening of conceptual stoichiometry knowledge components.
H2
Computer-mediated collaboration, facilitated by adaptive collaboration scripts and added to experimental exercises within the stoichiometry course, can promote the creation and strengthening of conceptual stoichiometry knowledge components.

Background and Significance

A central issue in chemistry education is teaching students to problem solve conceptually rather than simply apply mathematical equations. Research in chemistry education has shown that students tend to learn and solve problems “algorithmically” but often do not grasp the deeper conceptual aspects of chemistry and reasoning necessary to be more creative and flexible problem solvers (Gabel & Bunce, 1994; Bodner & Herron, 2002). Dave Yaron, the chair of the Pittsburgh Science of Learning Center (PSLC)’s Chemistry LearnLab, has expressed a similar view in observing his students, saying, “many students learn the mathematical tools necessary to solve chemistry problems but don’t know when to appropriately apply those tools” (Personal communication between McLaren and Yaron February 27, 2006; also discussed in Yaron et al, 2003). The phenomenon that learners have problems transferring instructed procedures to new problems due to a lack of conceptual understanding has been observed and investigated also in other domains, for example, math (Singley & Anderson, 1989).

The difficulty chemistry students have can be viewed as a transfer problem, an important area of investigation in the PSLC’s emerging theory of robust learning. In particular, while chemistry students often have success on problems that are very similar to ones illustrated in a textbook or demonstrated in a classroom, they tend to struggle with problems that could be solved with similar techniques but are not obviously of the same type (e.g., the source and target problems don’t share surface features). This difficulty is due to students lacking the conceptual knowledge of chemistry to recognize similar core problems that come in “different clothes.”

There is some descriptive evidence in chemistry education research indicating that collaborative activities can improve conceptual learning in chemistry (e.g. Towns & Grant, 1998; Fasching & Erickson, 1985). Other studies, while not focused specifically on conceptual versus algorithmic learning, have demonstrated increased performance as well as motivational benefits of collaborative learning in chemistry (Ross & Fulton, 1994). On the other hand, none of these collaborative learning studies in chemistry was a randomized controlled experiment. In general, there is a lack of controlled experimentation on the potential benefits of collaborative learning in chemistry. However, such evidence exists in math (Berg, 1993, 1994), physics (Hausmann, Chi & Roy, 2004; Ploetzner, Fehse, Kneser, & Spada, 1999), or scientific experimentation (Teasley, 1995). Research in collaborative learning has shown promise in helping students to more deeply process information and thus improve their conceptual learning. A few different mechanisms are accountable for the benefits of collaborative activities, like giving explanations to the partner, receiving help from the partner after making a mistake or asking for help, and co-constructing or jointly negotiating knowledge (Hausmann, Chi, & Roy, 2004; Ploetzner, Dillenbourg, Preier, & Traum, 1999; Webb, 1989; Webb, Trooper, & Fall, 1995). In sum, results from this research lead us to the assumption that it would be worthwhile investigating the advantages of collaborative activities on the acquisition of robust, transferable conceptual knowledge in controlled experimental studies in chemistry.

In this project, we will test the hypothesis that a computer-supported collaborative learning system can help students improve their conceptual understanding of chemistry. Our goal is to help students actively process the material they encounter, moving them away from the mechanical, algorithmic approach taken by many chemistry students. In terms of the PSLC theoretical framework, we assume that the collaborative situation creates additional learning events through the above cited mechanisms of receiving help, giving explanations, and co-constructing knowledge. In addition, the collaborative setting may increase the likelihood that students capitalize on the learning events offered by the domain setting (i.e. the chemistry learning environment). That is, collaborative interactions can increase the likelihood of particular path choices in the learning event space that benefit learning. To test our hypothesis, we will develop collaborative extensions to the Virtual Lab (VLab) and compare individual learning in the course with scaffolded collaborative learning.

We believe that it might be best to scaffold collaboration in an adaptive fashion, emphasizing and fading structured support for collaboration according to the particular needs of the specific collaborators. Past studies suggest that different students, under different circumstances, may benefit from different types of collaboration support; thus, a collaborative learning system that can adapt its support might prove quite powerful. One study that we are aware of, in which adaptive, strategic “prompts” in a collaborative system were shown to lead to productive collaboration and support for learning, is the work of Gweon, Rosé, Carey, & Zaiss (2006). While interest in adaptive collaborative learning systems is on the rise in the computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) community (Soller, Jermann, Muehlenbrock, & Martinez, 2005), little progress has yet been made on the implementation of adaptive support.

This PSLC project is only the first year of what we intend to be a four-year project. Our goal in the first year will be to

  • analyze problem solving in the stoichiomery course, both individual and collaborative,
  • perform small-scale (i.e., small N) lab studies to experiment with the general hypothesis that collaboration support, in the form of collaboration scripts, can enhance conceptual learning of stoichiometry,
  • develop a prototype of an online collaboration system that integrates the VLab, an online simulation of chemistry experimentation and an integral part of the PSLC Chemistry LearnLab (Yaron et al, 2003), with Cool Modes, a software tool that facilitates computer-mediated collaboration and simulation (Pinkwart, 2003).

The technical work will then set the stage for the adaptive collaboration effort we propose in the second phase of the project.

The second phase of the project, after the initial year of PSLC seed funding, will focus on full-scale in vivo experimentation, first testing collaboration scripts and, later, adaptive collaboration scripts. The second phase of the project will also involve continued technical development to support dynamic adaptation of collaborative support, continuing work on the bootstrapping technique, described above, and investigating the use of cognitive tutoring techniques to support collaboration.

Independent Variables

STUDY 1
  • scripted (paper-based script consisting of the steps "Orientation", "Experimentation", "Drawing a Conclusion" and "Making an Evaluation") vs unscripted
  • singles vs dyads (students sitting next to each other)
  • control: unscripted singles


STUDY 2
  • non-adaptive scripted dyads (computer-implemented script consisting of the steps "Plan & Design", "Test", and "Interpret & Conclude") vs adaptive scripted dyads (non-adaptive script + adaptive support provided by a human wizard using a flowchart to recognize situations of bad collaboration and bad script practice)
  • control: non-adaptive scripted dyads


Figure 1. Screenshot of the computer-based CoChemEx script. The tabs at the top show the different script phases. Human-triggered prompts ("Message from Wizard" in the middle of the screenshot) are only seen by students in the "adaptive" condition. In the "non-adaptive" condition, students receive no prompts.

CoChemEx.jpg

Dependent Variables

STUDY 1
  • Learning
  • Problem solving performance and efficiency
    • Average problem solving time
    • Average number of problems solved
    • Average number of VLab actions performed (per action type)
STUDY 2
  • Learning
  • Problem solving behavior (measured by counting the number of occurrences of behavior classes)
    • good and bad script practice (behavior according to the script)
    • good and bad collaboration practice
    • progress during a session with respect to script and collaboration practice (improved, deteriorated, stable)

Findings

Due to the small sample size of both studies we cannot report meaningful statistical results. Our findings are therefore preliminary and of anecdotal nature.

STUDY 1

The pre-posttest data (Table 1) reveal no substantial differences in the gain scores between the four conditions. The scripted dyad condition performed the poorest in the pre-post test analysis; it was the only group that scored lower on average on the posttest than the pretest. Moreover, in the interviews after the problem solving the scripted dyads unanimously expressed the view that the script was not helpful. However, our results also indicate that, in spite of the perceived constraints of the script, it was nonetheless helpful: An additional log file analysis revealed that the scripted conditions were more efficient in solving problems because they performed far fewer “mix solution” actions in the VLab. That is, they took less steps to achieve similar results. At least anecdotally, collaboration was also helpful, as the scripted and unscripted dyads conditions solved 12 problems in total, while the singles solved only 8 problems (Table 2).


Table 1: Pre-Posttest results

Condition N Pretest (SD) Posttest (SD) Gain (SD)
Scripted dyads 8 4.44 (0.82) 4.31 (0.88) -0.13 (0.52)
Scripted singles 4 3.88 (1.11) 4.38 (1.25) 0.50 (1.48)
Unscripted dyads 8 3.56 (0.62) 4.06 (1.37) 0.50 (1.49)
Unscripted singles 4 4.38 (0.63) 4.38 (0.63) 0.00 (1.08)


Table 2: Problem solving performance

Condition N Avg. time problem type 1 (DNA) Avg. time problem type 2 (Oracle) # problems solved type 1 (DNA) # problems solved type 2 (Oracle)
Scripted dyads 4 19min 43min 3 2
Scripted singles 4 20min 39min 3 1
Unscripted dyads 4 18min 27min 4 3
Unscripted singles 4 21min 36min 3 2


STUDY 2

The test results showed a tendency of better conceptual understanding in the adaptive condition. With a highest possible score of 6 points, the adaptive condition mean was M=4.6 (SD 1.63) whereas the non-adaptive condition scored in average M=3.5 (SD 2.81). A process analysis (Table 3) based on video recordings showed a big difference in terms of “good script practice” and “good collaborative practice” in favor of the adaptive dyads. “Bad collaborative practice” is also considerably less in the adaptive condition. Looking at tendencies during sessions we see that students’ collaboration and scripting practice improved for all of the three dyads in the adaptive conditions whereas it remained stable (1 dyad) or even deteriorated (2 dyads) in the non-adaptive condition.


Table 3: Process analysis results

Analysis category Avg. counts adaptive(SD) Avg. counts non-adaptive(SD)
Good scripting practice 6.33 (2.51) 5.00 (2.64)
Bad scripting practice 4.33 (3.21) 7.33 (2.30)
Good collab. practice 5.66 (1.15) 3.00 (1.00)
Bad collab. practice 2.00 (1.00) 1.66 (1.15)


Explanation

STUDY 1

Scripted dyads might have been overloaded by the simultaneous demands of getting acquainted with a computer-based learning environment, collaborating with a partner, attending to a script, and solving a task (Rummel & Spada, 2005b; Rummel, Spada, & Hauser, 2006). The fact that they had to work with a paper-based script, which involved a lot of reading and monitoring of their own activities, increased this effect. As a consequence, we simplified the task in STUDY 2 by using a less complicated script and introducing individual (non-collaborative) script phases.

STUDY 2

Our qualitative data analysis suggests that adaptive feedback can improve collaborative skills and might have positive motivational effects. Given the small N, larger scaled studies are needed to get results which are statistically more meaningful.


Connections to Other PSLC Studies

Annotated Bibliography

  • Tsovaltzi, D., Rummel, N., Pinkwart, N., Scheuer, O., Harrer, A., Braun, I. & McLaren, B.M. (2008). CoChemEx: Supporting Conceptual Chemistry Learning via Computer-Mediated Collaboration Scripts. In P. Dillenbourg and M. Specht (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (EC-TEL 2008), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5192 (pp. 437-448). Berlin: Springer. [pdf file]
  • McLaren, B.M., Rummel, N., Pinkwart, N., Tsovaltzi, D., Harrer, A., & Scheuer, O. (2008). Learning Chemistry through Collaboration: A Wizard-of-Oz Study of Adaptive Collaboration Support. In the Proceedings of the Workshop on Intelligent Support for Exploratory Environments (ISEE 08) at the European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (ECTEL-08), Maastricht, the Netherlands, September 17, 2008. [pdf file]
  • Tsovaltzi, D., McLaren, B.M., Rummel, N., Scheuer, O., Harrer, A., Pinkwart, N. & Braun, I., (2008). Using an Adaptive Collaboration Script to Promote Conceptual Chemistry Learning. In B. Woolf, E. Aimeur, R. Nkambou, S. Lajoie (Eds), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS-08), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5091 (pp. 709-711). Berlin: Springer. [pdf file]
  • Harrer, A., Pinkwart, N., McLaren, B.M., & Scheuer, O., (2008). How Do We Get the Pieces to Talk? A New Software Architecture to Support Interoperability between Educational Software Tools. In B. Woolf, E. Aimeur, R. Nkambou, S. Lajoie (Eds), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS-08), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5091 (pp. 715-718). Berlin: Springer. [pdf file]
  • McLaren, B.M., Rummel, N., Tsovaltzi, D., Braun, I., Scheuer, O., Harrer, A., and Pinkwart, N. (2007). The CoChemEx Project: Conceptual Chemistry Learning through Experimentation and Adaptive Collaboration. In the Proceedings of the Workshop on 'Emerging Technologies for Inquiry Based Learning in Science' , AIED-07. (p. 36-48). Los Angeles (CA). [pdf file]

References

  • Aleven, V., McLaren, B. M., Roll, I. and Koedinger, K. R. (2004). Toward Tutoring Help Seeking: Applying Cognitive Modeling to Meta-Cognitive Skills; In the Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS-2004).
  • Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 167-207.
  • Anderson, J. (1990). Cognitive Psychology and its Implications. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York.
  • Bell, T., Slotta, J., Schanze, S. (to appear). Perspectives on collaborative inquiry learning: An International network for research, curriculum and technology. Special Issue of the International Journal of Science Education, to appear at the end of 2006.
  • Berg, K. F. (1993, April). Structured cooperative learning and achievement in a high school mathematics class. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Atlanta, GA.
  • Berg, K. F. (1994, April). Scripted Cooperation in High School Mathematics: Peer interaction and achievement. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, Louisiana.
  • Bodner, G. M., & Herron, J. D. (2002). Problem-Solving in Chemistry. In (J.K. Gilbert et al, Eds.) Chemical Education: Towards Research-Based Practice. Kluwer Academic Publishers. 235-266.
  • BouJaoude, S. & Barakat, H. (2003). Students’ Problem Solving Strategies in Stoichiometry and their Relationships to Conceptual Understanding and Learning Approaches, Electronic Journal of Science Education, 7 (3).
  • Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Commonsence Conceptions of Emergent Processes: Why Some Misconceptions are Robust. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 161-199.
  • de Jong, T. (2006). Scaffolds for computer simulation based scientific discovery learning. In J. Elen, R. E. Clark (Eds.) Dealing with complexity in learning environments (pp. 107-128). London: Elsevier Science Publishers.
  • 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., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1995). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In P. Reimann & H. Spada (Eds.), Learning in humans and machines: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189-211). Oxford: Elsevier/Pergamon.
  • Fasching, J. L. & Erickson, B. L. (1985). Group discussions in the chemistry classroom and the problem-solving skills of students. Journal of Chemical Education, 62, 842-848.
  • Gabel, D. L. (1981). Facilitating problem solving in high school chemistry. Indiana University, School of Education, Bloomington. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 210 192).
  • Gabel, D. L. & Samuel, K. V. (1986). High school students’ ability to solve molarity problems and their analog counterparts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 165-176.
  • Gabel, D. L., & Bunce, D. M. (1994). Research on Problem Solving: Chemistry. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning. New York: Simon & Schuster. 301-326.
  • Gweon, G., Rosé, C., Carey, R. & Zaiss, Z. (2006). Providing Support for Adaptive Scripting in an On-Line Collaborative Learning Environment. Presented at CHI 2006.
  • Harrer, A., McLaren, B. M., Walker, E., Bollen, L., and Sewall, J. (2005). Collaboration and Cognitive Tutoring: Integration, Empirical Results, and Future Directions; In the Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Education (AIED-05), Amsterdam, the Netherlands, July 2005.
  • Hausmann, R. G., Chi, M. T. H. & Roy, M. (2004). Learning from collaborative problem solving: An analysis of three hypothesized mechanisms. In K. D. Forbus, D. Gentner & T. Regier (Eds.), 26nd annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 547-552). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Hoppe, H. U. (2004). Collaborative mind tools. In M. Tokoro & L. Steels (Eds.), An earning zone of one’s own - sharing representations and flow in collaborative learning environments (p. 223-234). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.
  • King, A. (1998). Transactive peer tutoring: Distributing cognition and metacognition. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 57-74.
  • King, A. (1991). Improving lecture comprehension: Effects of a metacognitive strategy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 331-346.
  • Klahr, D. & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1-48.
  • Koedinger, K. R., Klahr, D., Perfetti, C., & VanLehn, K. (2004). Pittsburgh science of learning center: Studying robust learning with learning experiments in real classrooms. NSF Proposal, submitted and granted.
  • Koedinger, K., Aleven, V., Heffernan, N., McLaren, B. M., & Hockenberry, M. (2004). Opening the Door to Non-Programmers: Authoring Intelligent Tutor Behavior by Demonstration; In the Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS-2004).
  • Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2003). Cooperation scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. In B. Wasson, R. Baggetun, U. Hoppe & S. Ludwigsen (Eds.), Proceedings of the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 2003 Conference (pp. 59-61). Bergen, Norway: InterMedia, University of Bergen.
  • Koper, R. & Tattersall, C. (ed): Learning Design: A Handbook on Modelling and Delivering Networked Education and Training, Springer Verlag (2005).
  • Kramarski, B. (2004). Making sense of graphs: Does metacognitive instruction make a difference on students’ mathematical conceptions and alternative conceptions? Learning and Instruction, 14(6), 593-619.
  • Kuhn, M., Hoppe, H. U., Lingnau, A., & Fendrich, M. (2004). Evaluation of exploratory approaches in learning probability based on computational modelling and simulation. In Pedro Isaias, Kinshuk, and Demetrios G. Sampson, editors, Proceedings of the IADIS conference of Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (CELDA), pages 83–90, *Lisbon, Portugal. IADIS Press.
  • Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A., & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 495-523.
  • Lingnau, A., Kuhn, M., Harrer, A., Hofmann, D., Fendrich, M. & Hoppe, H. U. (2003). Enriching traditional classroom scenarios by seamless integration of interactive media. In Vladan Devedzic, J. Michael Spector, Demetrios G. Sampson, and Kinshuk, editors, Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), pages 135–139, Los Alamitos, CA (USA). IEEE Press.
  • Lythcott, J. (1990). Problem Solving and Requisite Knowledge of Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 67(3). 248-252.
  • McLaren, B. M., Lim, S., Gagnon, F., Yaron, D., & Koedinger, K. R. (2006). Studying the Effects of Personalized Language and Worked Examples in the Context of a Web-Based Intelligent Tutor; Accepted for presentation at the 8th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Jhongli, Taiwan, June 26-30, 2006.
  • McLaren, B. M., Bollen, L., Walker, E., Harrer, A., and Sewall, J. (2005). Cognitive Tutoring of Collaboration: Developmental and Empirical Steps Toward Realization; In the Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL-05), Taipei, Taiwan in May/June 2005.
  • McLaren, B. M., Koedinger, K. R., Schneider, M., Harrer, A., & Bollen, L. (2004). Toward Cognitive Tutoring in a Collaborative, Web-Based Environment; In Engineering Advanced Web Applications, From the Proceedings in Connection with the 4th International Conference on Web Engineering (ICWE 2004), Munich, Germany, 28-30 July, 2004.
  • Mevarech, Z. R., & Kramarski, B. (2003). The effects of metacognitive training versus worked-out examples on students’ mathematical reasoning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(4), 449-471.
  • Moschkovich, J. N. (1996). Moving up and getting steeper: Negotiating shared descriptions of linear graphs. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(3), 239-277.
  • Nurrenbern, S. C. & Pickering, M. (1987). Conceptual learning versus problem solving: is there a difference? Journal of Chemical Education, 64, 508-510.
  • O’Donnell, A. M. (1999). Structuring dyadic interaction through scripted cooperation. In A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 179-196). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Phelps, A. J. (1996). Teaching to Enhance Problem Solving. Journal of Chemical Education,73:4, 301-303.
  • Pinkwart, N. (2003) A Plug-In Architecture for Graph Based Collaborative Modelling Systems. In U. Hoppe, F. Verdejo & J. Kay (eds.): Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, 535-536.
  • Pinkwart, N. (2005). Collaborative Modeling in Graph Based Environments. Berlin (Germany), dissertation.de - Verlag im Internet.
  • Pinkwart, N., Aleven, V., Ashley, K., & Lynch, C. (2006, to appear). Toward Legal Argument Instruction with Graph Grammars and Collaborative Filtering Techniques. To appear in Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems.
  • Plötzner, R., Dillenbourg, P., Preier, M., & Traum, D. (1999). Learning by explaining to oneself and to others. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning. Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 103-121). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
  • Plötzner, R., Fehse E., Kneser, C., & Spada, H. (1999). Learning to relate qualitative and quantitative problem representations in a model-based setting for collaborative problem-solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 177–214.
  • Robinson, W. R. & Niaz, M. (1991). Performance based on instruction by lecture or by interaction and its relationship to cognitive variables. International Journal of Science Education, 13, 203-215.
  • Ross, M. & Fulton, R. (1994). Active learning strategies in the analytical chemistry classroom. Journal of Chemical Education, 71, 141-143.
  • Rummel, N., Spada, H., & Hauser, S. (2006). Learning to Collaborate in a Computer-Mediated Setting: Observing a Model Beats Learning from Being Scripted. Accepted for presentation at the 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, June 27 - July 1 2006, Indiana University, Bloomington IN.
  • Rummel, N. & Spada, H. (2005a). Can people learn computer-mediated collaboration by following a script? In Fischer, F., Mandl, H., Haake, J. & Kollar, I. (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported communication of knowledge Cognitive, computational, and educational perspectives. Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer.
  • Rummel, N. & Spada, H. (2005b). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer mediated settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2).
  • Sawrey, B. A. (1990). Concept learning versus problem-solving: revisited. Journal of Chemical Education, 67, 253-254.
  • Singley & Anderson (1989). The transfer of cognitive skill. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on Cooperative Learning and Achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(1), 43-69.
  • Soller, A., Jermann, P., Muehlenbrock, M. & Martinez, A. (2005). From Mirroring to Guiding: A Review of State of the Art Technology for Supporting Collaborative Learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15(4), 261-290.
  • Teasley, S. D. (1995). The role of talk in children’s peer collaborations. Developmental Psychology, 31(2), 207-220.
  • Tingle, J. B. & Good, R. (1990). Effects of Cooperative Grouping on Stoichiometry Problem Solving in High School Chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 671-683.
  • Towns, M. & Grant, E. (1998). ‘I believe I will go out of this class actually knowing something:’ Cooperative learning activities in physical chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 819-835.
  • van Joolingen, W. R., de Jong, T., Lazonder, A. W., Savelsbergh, E., & Manlove, S. (2005). Co-lab: Research and development of an on-line learning environment for collaborative scientific discovery learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 671-688.
  • Verdejo, M.F., Barros, B., Gómez Antón, R. & Read, T. (2003). The design and implementation of experimental collaborative learning in a Distance Learning context. In Proceedings of ITHET03, 4th international conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education.
  • Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Education Research, 13, 21-39.
  • Webb, N.M., Troper, J.D., & Fall, R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 406-423.
  • Webb, N. M., & Mastergeorge, A. M. (2003). The development of students’ helping behavior and learning in peer-directed small groups. Cognition and Instruction, 21(4), 361-428.
  • Wittenbaum, G. M., & Stasser, G. (1996). Management of information in small groups. In J. L. Nye & A. M. Brower (Eds.), What’s social about social cognition? Research on socially shared cognition in small groups (pp. 3-28). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Yaron, Evans, & Karabinos (2003). Scenes and Labs Supporting Online Chemistry. Paper presented at the 83rd Annual AERA National Conference, April 2003.
  • Yarroch, W. J. (1985). Students’ understanding of chemical equation balancing. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22, 449-459.