Difference between revisions of "Conceptual Learning in Chemistry"

From LearnLab
Jump to: navigation, search
(Background and Significance)
(Connections to Other PSLC Studies)
 
(6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 28: Line 28:
 
===Research Questions===
 
===Research Questions===
  
Does [[collaboration]] – and in particular [[collaboration scripts|scripted collaboration]] – improve students’ [[robust learning]], and in particular conceptual learning, in the domain of chemistry?  
+
Does [[collaboration]] – and in particular adaptive [[collaboration scripts|scripted collaboration]] – improve students’ [[robust learning]], and in particular conceptual learning, in the domain of chemistry?  
  
Does the [[collaboration scripts|script]] approach improve students’ collaboration, and does this result in more [[robust learning]] of the chemistry content?
+
Does the adaptive [[collaboration scripts|script]] approach improve students’ collaboration, and does this result in more [[robust learning]] of the chemistry content?
  
 
===Hypothesis===
 
===Hypothesis===
Line 66: Line 66:
 
===Independent Variables===
 
===Independent Variables===
  
To test our hypotheses and the effect of personalization and worked examples on learning, we designed and have executed two 2 x 2 factorial studies. 
+
< TBD >
 
+
*One independent variable is [[Personalization]], with one level impersonal instruction, feedback, and hints and the other personal instruction, feedback, and hints. 
+
*The other independent variable is [[Worked Examples]], with one level tutored problem solving alone and the other tutored problem solving together with worked examples.  In the former condition, subjects only solve problems using the intelligent tutor; no worked examples are presented.  In the latter condition, subjects alternate between observation and self-explanation of a worked example and solving of a tutored problem.  This alternating technique has yielded better learning results in prior research (Trafton and Reiser, 1993).
+
 
+
With respect to personalized language (and because we got a null result in the first two studies), we thought that perhaps our conceptualization and implementation might not be as socially engaging as we had hoped.  This was also suggested to us by Rich Mayer, who reviewed the first study.  In a recent study that Mayer and colleagues did (Wang, Johnson, Mayer, Rizzo, Shaw, & Collins, in press), based on the work of Brown and Levinson (1987), they found that a polite version of a tutor, which provided polite feedback such as, “You could press the ENTER key”, led to significantly better learning than a direct version of the tutor that used more imperative feedback such as, “Press the ENTER key.”  We decided to investigate this in a third in vivo study in which we changed all of the personalized instruction, feedback, and hints of the tutor to more polite forms, similar to that used by Mayer and colleagues.
+
 
+
Thus, for the third study we changed the first independent variable to "Politness," with one level polite instruction, feedback, and hints and the other direct instruction, feedback, and hints.  The 2 x 2 factorial design for our third and most recent study is shown below.
+
 
+
[[Image:Fig2-FactorialDesign.jpg|600px|center]]
+
 
+
Below is a table that provides examples of the differences in language between the polite version of our tutor and earlier versions.
+
 
+
[[image:Table1-FeedbackDiffs.jpg|500px|center]]
+
  
 
===Dependent Variables===
 
===Dependent Variables===
  
To evaluate learning, students are asked to solve pre and post-test stoichiometry problems that are isomorphic to one another and to the tutored problems. Thus, we have focused on [[normal post-test]]s in our studies so far.  When (and if) we see an effect in a normal post-test, we will conduct studies to test [[retention]].
+
< TBD >
  
 
===Findings===
 
===Findings===
  
In two initial 2 x 2 factorial studies, we found that personalized language and worked examples had no significant effects on learning, thus not supporting hypotheses H1 and H2.  On the other hand, there was a significant difference between the pre and posttest in all conditions, suggesting that the intelligent tutor present in all conditions did make a difference in learning.  For study 1 we had N = 63 and for study 2 we had N = 76.  The results of Study 1 are reported in (McLaren, Lim, Gagnon, Yaron, and Koedinger, 2006).  We are currently analyzing the data to test hypothesis H3, that is, to determine if learning with worked examples was more efficient.
+
< TBD >
 
+
One possible explanation for why neither personalized language nor worked examples have made a difference thus far is the switch from a lab environment to in vivo experimentation.  Most of the results from past studies of both personalized language and worked examples come from lab studies, so it may simply be that the realism and messiness of an in vivo study makes it much more difficult for interventions such as these to make a difference to students’ learning.  It may also be that the tutoring received by the subjects simply had much more effect on learning than the worked examples or personalized language.
+
 
+
We recently concluded the third study in which we investigated the use of polite language, rather than personalized language (as shown in the table above).  We have so far only analyzed the first 33 subjects, out of N=84 (for details on the analysis of the first 33 subjects see McLaren, Lim, Yaron, & Yaron, in press).  The preliminary data indicates that the polite condition leads to larger learning gains than the non-polite condition, however, not at a statistically significant level.  Worked examples also did not make a difference to learning.  Thus, once again, hypotheses H1 and H2 were not supported.  We are in the process of analyzing the rest of the data from the remaining subjects who participated in this study, including an investigation of hypothesis H3 and the efficiency of learning.
+
  
 
===Explanation===
 
===Explanation===
  
This study is part of the [[Coordinative Learning]] cluster.  The study follows the Coordinative Learning hypothesis that two (or more) [[sources]] of instructional information can lead to improved robust learning.  In particular, the study tests whether an ITS and personalized (or polite) language used together lead to more robust learning and whether an ITS and worked examples used together lead to more robust learning.
+
This study is part of the [[Interactive Communication]] cluster.
  
 
=== Connections to Other PSLC Studies===
 
=== Connections to Other PSLC Studies===
  
* The key finding of our studies so far has been that learning has not improved when students use an intelligent tutor in conjunction with other instructional techniques.  Two other studies in the [[Coordinative Learning]] cluster, the [[Visual-Verbal Learning (Aleven & Butcher Project)|Aleven/Butcher]] and [[Booth|Booth/Siegler/Koedinger/Rittle-Johnson]] projects, and one study in the [[Interactive Communication]] cluster, the [[Does learning from worked-out examples improve tutored problem solving?|Renkl/Aleven/Salden project]], are also investigating the [[complementary]] effects of intelligent tutoring combined with another instructional technique.
+
* < TBD >
 
+
* Our project differs from the [[Booth|Booth study]] in that we are using only correct examples as a means to strengthen correct [[knowledge components]].  We are not using incorrect examples to weaken incorrect [[knowledge components]], as Booth is testing in her study.
+
 
+
* Our project also relates to the [[Visual-Verbal Learning (Aleven & Butcher Project)|Aleven and Butcher project]] in that we both are exploring the learning value of [[e-Learning Principles]] (they are investigating Contiguity; we are looking at personalization and worked examples).  In addition, like their study, we are prompting [[self-explanation]] as a means to promote robust learning.
+
  
 
===Annotated Bibliography===
 
===Annotated Bibliography===
  
*McLaren, B. M., Lim, S., Yaron, D., and Koedinger, K. R. (2007). Can a Polite Intelligent Tutoring System Lead to Improved Learning Outside of the Lab? In the Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED-07), pp 331-338. [[http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/images/5/5a/AIED-07-PoliteTutoring.pdf 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).
*McLaren, B. M., Lim, S., Gagnon, F., Yaron, D., and Koedinger, K. R. (2006). Studying the Effects of Personalized Language and Worked Examples in the Context of a Web-Based Intelligent Tutor; In the Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS-2006), pp. 318-328. [[http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/images/5/58/ChemStudy1-ITS2006.pdf pdf file]]
+
*McLaren, B. M.  Presentation to the NSF Site Visitors, June, 2006.
+
  
 
===References===
 
===References===
  
*Aleven, V. & Ashley, K. D. (1997).  Teaching Case-Based Argumentation Through a Model and Examples: Empirical Evaluation of an Intelligent Learning Environment, Proceedings of AIED-97, 87-94.
+
*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).  
*Beck, I., McKeown, M. G., Sandora, C., Kucan, L., and Worthy, J. (1996).  Questioning the author: A year long classroom implementation to engage students in textElementary School Journal, 96, 385-414.
+
*Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995).  Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned.  Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 167-207.
*Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987).  Politeness: Some Universals in Language UseCambridge University Press, New York.
+
*Anderson, J. (1990). Cognitive Psychology and its Implications. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York.
*Clark, R. C. and Mayer, R. E. (2003). e-Learning and the Science of Instruction. Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
+
*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.
*Conati, C. and VanLehn, K. (2000).  Toward Computer-Based Support of Meta-Cognitive Skills: a Computational Framework to Coach Self-ExplanationInt’l Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 398-415.
+
*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.
*Gott, S. P., Lesgold, A., & Kane, R. S. (1996).  Tutoring for Transfer of Technical CompetenceIn B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist Learning Environments, 33-48, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
+
*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.
*Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning - Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey. 1984.
+
*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.
*Mathan, S. and Koedinger, K. R. (2002). An Empirical Assessment of Comprehension Fostering Features in an Intelligent Tutoring System. Proceedings of ITS-2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2363, 330-343. Berlin: Springer-Verlag
+
*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).
*Mathan, S. (2003). Recasting the Feedback Debate: Benefits of Tutoring Error Detection and Correction Skills. Ph.D. Dissertation, Carnegie Mellon Univ., Pitts., PA.
+
*Chi, M. T. H. (2005).  Commonsence Conceptions of Emergent Processes: Why Some Misconceptions are RobustThe Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 161-199.
*Mayer, R. E., Johnson, W. L., Shaw, E. and Sandhu, S. (2006). Constructing Computer-Based Tutors that are Socially Sensitive: Politeness in Educational Software, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 64 (2006) 36-42.
+
*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.
*Moreno, R. and Mayer, R. E. (2000). Engaging students in active learning: The case for personalized multimedia messages. Journal of Ed. Psych., 93, 724-733.
+
*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.
*Paas, F. G. W. C. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive load approach.  Journal of Ed. Psych., 84, 429-434.
+
*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.
*Renkl, A. (1997). Learning from Worked-Out Examples: A Study on Individual DifferencesCognitive Science, 21, 1-29.
+
*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.
*Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty and instructional design.   Learning and Instruction, 4, 295-312.
+
*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).
*Trafton, J. G. and Reiser, B. J. (1993).  The contributions of studying examples and solving problems to skill acquisition. In M. Polson (Ed.) Proceedings of the 15th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 1017-1022.
+
*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.
*Wang, N., Johnson, W. L., Mayer, R. E., Rizzo, P., Shaw, E., & Collins, H. (in press). The Politeness Effect: Pedagogical Agents and Learning Outcomes. To be published in the International Journal of Human-Computer Studies.
+
*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 EnvironmentPresented at CHI 2006.
 +
*Harrer, A., McLaren, B. M., Walker, E., Bollen, L. & Sewall, J.  (in press). Creating Cognitive Tutors for Collaborative Learning: Steps Toward Realization.  Accepted for 2006 publication by User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction: The Journal of Personalization Research (UMUAI), Special issue on User Modeling to Support Groups, Communities and Collaboration.
 +
*Harrer, A., Malzahn, N., Hoeksema K., & Hoppe U. (2005). Learning Design Engines as Remote Control to Learning Support Environments. Journal of Interactive Media in Education (Advances in Learning Design. Special Issue, eds. Colin Tattersall, Rob Koper), 2005/05
 +
*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 ChemistryJournal 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.

Latest revision as of 11:06, 17 January 2008

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

StudyTable-Studies123.jpg

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 understanding 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 their conceptual learning, 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 will analyze current use of the VLab, design and implement a computer-mediated collaborative environment around the VLab, using a collaborative software tool called Cool Modes, and execute a lab study to evaluate the effectiveness of this tool. 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 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 the 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 understanding 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 Dave Yaron’s online stoichiometry course, an established part of the PSLC Chemistry LearnLab, and compare individual learning in the course with scaffolded collaborative learning. Before we devise specific support features for the existing online, stoichiometry course, however, our intention is to analyze extant student data from the course to determine the aspects of the current educational materials that could most benefit from collaborative learning.

Nevertheless, we have preliminary ideas about the way we will support collaboration as part of the course, based on some of our past research. In particular, we plan to support collaborating students through the use of collaboration scripts, prompts, questions, and assigned roles that guide students through collaborative work (e.g., Kollar, Fischer & Hesse, 2003; O’Donnell, 1999). Much research has shown that fruitful collaboration does not generally occur by itself (Dillenbourg, Baker, Blaye, & O’Malley, 1995; Rummel & Spada, 2005a). Collaborative partners often do not engage in productive interactions and thus miss the opportunity to benefit from their collaboration. In order to ensure that students can actually profit from their collaboration, it is important that collaborative partners learn how to work together in productive ways. Particularly at the beginning, guidance, instruction, and training are required to achieve effective collaboration (Slavin, 1996). Research in the area of collaborative inquiry learning, particularly relevant to the experimental framework of Yaron’s online stoichiometry course, has also uncovered a need for scaffolded collaboration (Bell, Slotta, Schanze, to appear).

Moreover, 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. For instance, some work has uncovered the dangers of over-scripting, i.e., providing too much structure and support for collaboration (Dillenbourg, 2002). Identifying and being sensitive to such situations in real time will require adaptation. Some of our own work suggests this direction, too: Results of one study (Rummel & Spada, 2005b) indicated that collaboration scripts were beneficial both to collaboration and domain learning. However, in a more recent study Rummel, Spada, & Hauser (in press) found that students observing a model of collaboration (i.e., a worked collaboration example) collaborated better and learned more than students who followed a script. Rummel and colleagues concluded that one problem with scripting may have been that students were overwhelmed by the concurrent demands of collaborating, following the detailed script instructions, and trying to reflect on the scripting on a meta-level in order to learn. Taken together, these 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.

Further evidence for our assumption that adaptive support of collaboration will be most effective for learning also comes from research on cognitive tutors (e.g. Anderson, Corbett, Koedinger, & Pelletier, 1995). A key strength of cognitive tutors is that they provide just-in-time support, tailored to the needs of the individual student in a particular moment. As soon as the student makes an error, he or she receives feedback from the system and usually is given some advice about how to overcome the impasse. In the long run, this is what our adaptive collaboration approach aims at: a collaboration tutor. However, this is obviously an overly ambitious goal to achieve within the initial one-year project. Collaboration as a domain is particularly challenging, because it is very difficult – perhaps impossible – to define all possible paths in the collaboration space ahead of time or to define a “best path” or “buggy paths” through the space. It is only possible to define positive and negative collaborative behaviors in general terms. The challenge is to find ways to monitor those behaviors based on real-time data collected during student collaboration and have the system respond to the collaborating partners accordingly.

In order to make it more tractable for a computer system to respond to a student, yet also supply helpful collaboration support, one promising idea we intend to explore is setting up the collaboration such that only particular actions, and in turn particular paths through the collaboration space, can lead to correct outcomes. In this way, we can make inferences about the collaboration from the observable actions, rather than from natural language content. For instance, suppose that two students are collaborating on a chemistry problem in which they are asked to perform an experiment and answer questions about a particular chemical reaction. Suppose further that one student has some of the available resources (i.e., substances, beakers, meters, etc.) and the other student has other (different) resources necessary to solve the problem. A “positive” solution path for this problem is one in which the students combine substances of equal amounts in a beaker. If the students take this action, then one could assume that either (a) they both understood the concept of dilution underlying this step or (b) one student explained the concept to the other. In other words, their collaboration led to what appears to be a successful conceptual understanding, even though we can’t know precisely how this happened. On the other hand, if they combine substances of unequal quantity, this action may indicate a “buggy path” and an opportunity to scaffold the students’ interaction (i.e., “Can you explain why you combined substances of unequal quantity?”). While it could be argued that a collaboration setup such as this is “artificial” – in fact Micki Chi made an argument against such “artificial” collaboration setups at a recent PSLC luncheon (June 12, 2006) – we would argue that the goal is not to provide a natural collaborative setting during the experimental intervention. Rather, our goal is to provide a framework and scaffolds for collaboration that can ultimately be faded, once the students demonstrate good collaborative behavior and learning. Our hypothesis is that such structure will help students learn productive collaborative behaviors, ones that lead to content learning, and that potentially allow them to subsequently collaborate successfully without support.

In this project plan we request limited seed funding from the PSLC for only the first year of what we project 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, and 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. The first year will also involve technical implementation, in particular a prototype development 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). An additional technical development during the first year, but funded separately by an Office of Naval Research grant (PIs Koedinger, Aleven, and McLaren), will be work on bootstrapping, a technique for collecting and dynamically evaluating collaborative (or single student) behavior, continuing previous work by McLaren and Harrer (Harrer et al, in press; Harrer, McLaren, et al, 2005; McLaren et al, 2005; McLaren et al, 2004). As the bootstrapping technique is developed on the ONR project, the stoichiometry data collected on this project will be run against and tested using bootstrapping. This 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. Toward the end of the first year we will submit a proposal to the DFG, the German equivalent of NSF. If successful, we will continue the work over a subsequent three-year period using the PSLC infrastructure and Chemistry LearnLab as a means to support and perform in vivo experiments. Thus, while the first year of the project, focused on setting the groundwork of the project, will not involve in vivo experimentation, the longer-term emphasis will be on such experimentation. 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

< TBD >

Dependent Variables

< TBD >

Findings

< TBD >

Explanation

This study is part of the Interactive Communication cluster.

Connections to Other PSLC Studies

  • < TBD >

Annotated Bibliography

  • 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).

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. & Sewall, J. (in press). Creating Cognitive Tutors for Collaborative Learning: Steps Toward Realization. Accepted for 2006 publication by User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction: The Journal of Personalization Research (UMUAI), Special issue on User Modeling to Support Groups, Communities and Collaboration.
  • Harrer, A., Malzahn, N., Hoeksema K., & Hoppe U. (2005). Learning Design Engines as Remote Control to Learning Support Environments. Journal of Interactive Media in Education (Advances in Learning Design. Special Issue, eds. Colin Tattersall, Rob Koper), 2005/05
  • 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.