Full-Structured or Supported by Incremental Scaffolds? Effects on Perceived Competence and Motivation

References

• Abd-El-Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., & Tuan, H. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10118
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abdi, A. (2014). The effect of inquiry-based learning method on students’ academic achievement in science course. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 2(1), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2014.020104
   Google Scholar
• Abels, S. (2015). Scaffolding inquiry-based science and chemistry education in inclusive classroom. In N. L. Yates (Ed.), New developments in science education research (pp.77–95). Nova Science Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22933-1_9
   Google Scholar
• Aditomo, A., & Klieme, E. (2020). Forms of inquiry-based science instruction and their relations with learning outcomes: Evidence from high and low-performing education systems. International Journal of Science Education, 42(4), 504–525. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1716093
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aleven, V., Roll, I., McLaren, B. M., & Koedinger, K. R. (2016). Help helps, but only so much: Research on help seeking with intelligent tutoring systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(1), 205–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-015-0089-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnold, J. C., Kremer, K., & Mayer, J. (2014). Understanding students’ experiments—What kind of support do they need in inquiry tasks? International Journal of Science Education, 36(16), 2719–2749. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.930209
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnold, J., Kremer, K., & Mayer, J. (2017). Scaffolding beim Forschenden Lernen [Scaffolding in inquiry-based learning]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 23(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40573-016-0053-0
   Google Scholar
• Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (2022). The Australian Curriculum. Retrieved from https://australiancurriculum.edu.au/media/4682/science_-_sequence_of_content.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Banchi, H., & Bell, R. (2008). The many levels of inquiry. Science and Children, 46(2), 26–29.
   Google Scholar
• Bannert, M. (2009). Promoting self-regulated learning through prompts. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 23(2), 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652.23.2.139
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartholomé, T., Stahl, E., Pieschl, S., & Bromme, R. (2006). What matters in help-seeking? A study of help effectiveness and learner-related factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(1), 113–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2005.01.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell, R. L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 30–33.
   Google Scholar
• Berthold, K., Eysink, T. H. S., & Renkl, A. (2009). Assisting self-explanation prompts are more effective than open prompts when learning with multiple representations. Instructional Science, 37(4), 345–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9051-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berthold, K., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2007). Do learning protocols support learning strategies and outcomes? The role of cognitive and metacognitive prompts. Learning and Instruction, 17(5), 564–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bjønness, B., & Kolstø, S. D. (2015). Scaffolding open inquiry: How a teacher provides students with structure and space. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 11(3), 223–237. https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.878
   Google Scholar
• Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., Osborne, J. W., Sampson, V. D., Annetta, L. A., & Granger, E. M. (2010). Is inquiry possible in light of accountability? A quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction. Science Education, 94(4), 577–616. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20390
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bong, M., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How different are they really? Educational Psychology Review, 15(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021302408382
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brosseau-Liard, P. E., Savalei, V., & Li, L. (2012). An investigation of the sample performance of two nonnormality corrections for RMSEA. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47(6), 904–930. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2012.715252
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brosseau-Liard, P. E., & Savalei, V. (2014). Adjusting incremental fit indices for nonnormality. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 49(5), 460–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.933697
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarebout, G., & Elen, J. (2006). Tool use in computer-based learning environments: Towards a research framework. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(3), 389–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.09.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science Scope, 23(6), 42–44. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315649030-9
   Google Scholar
• Damerau, K. (2012). Molekulare und Zell-Biologie im Schülerlabor – Fachliche Optimierung und Evaluation der Wirksamkeit im BeLL Bio (Bergisches Lehr-Lern-Labor Biologie) [Molecular and cell biology in a student laboratory—Optimisation and evaluation of the efficacy in BeLL Bio]. [Doctoral dissertation]. Bergische UniversitätWuppertal.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, C. R. (2010). Homogeneity of variance. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of research design (Vol. 1, pp. 577–580). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071812082.n250
   Google Scholar
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Jong, T. (2005). The guided discovery principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 215–228). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511816819.015
   Google Scholar
• de Jong, T. (2019). Moving towards engaged learning in STEM domains; There is no simple answer, but clearly a road ahead. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(2), 153–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12337
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dohn, N. B. (2013). Situational interest in engineering design activities. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 2057–2078. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.757670
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• El-Sheikh, A. A., Abonazel, M. R., & Gamil, N. (2017). A review of software packages for structural equation modeling: A comparative study. Applied Mathematics and Physics, 5(3), 85–94.
   Google Scholar
• Engeln, K., Mikelskis-Seifert, S., & Euler, M. (2014). Inquiry-based mathematics and science education across Europe: A synopsis of various approaches and their potentials. In C. Bruguière, A. Tiberghien, & P. Clement (Eds.), Topics and trends in current science education (pp. 229–242). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7281-6_14
   Google Scholar
• Fang, S. ‑C., Hsu, Y. ‑S., & Hsu, W. H. (2016). Effects of explicit and implicit prompts on students’ inquiry practices in computer-supported learning environments in high school earth science. International Journal of Science Education, 38(11), 1699–1726. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1213458
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Flick, L., & Lederman, N. (2006). Introduction. In L. Flick & N. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. ix–xviii). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Franke-Braun, G., Schmidt-Weigand, F., Stäudel, L., & Wodzinski, R. (2008). Aufgaben mit gestuften Lernhilfen—ein besonderes Aufgabenformat zur kognitiven Aktivierung der Schülerinnen und Schüler und zur Intensivierung der sachbezogenen Kommunikation [Tasks with incremental scaffolds—A special task format for the cognitive activation of students and intensification of subject-related communication]. In K. Forschergruppe (Ed.), Lehren – Lernen – Literacy: Bericht 2. Lernumgebungen auf dem Prüfstand: Zwischenergebnisse aus den Forschungsprojekten [Teaching – Learning – Literacy: Report 2. Learning environments on the test bed: Interim results from the research projects] (pp. 27–42). Kassel University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Franken, N., Damerau, K., & Preisfeld, A. (2020). “Experimentieren kann ich gut!”-Experimentbezogene Fähigkeitsselbstkonzepte von Lehramtsstudierenden der Fächer Biologie, Chemie und Sachunterricht [‘I'm good at experimenting!’—Experiment-related self-concepts of student teachers in biology, chemistry, and science education]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Biologie (ZDB)-Biologie Lehren und Lernen, 24, 48–66.
   Google Scholar
• Fretz, E. B., Wu, H.-K., Zhang, B., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2002). An investigation of software scaffolds supporting modeling practices. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 567–589. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022400817926
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2003). Scaffolding students’ problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504515
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hardy, I., Jonen, A., Möller, K., & Stern, E. (2006). Effects of instructional support within constructivist learning environments for elementary school students’ understanding of “floating and sinking”. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 307–326. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.307
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harlen, W. (1999). Effective teaching of science. A review of research. Scottish Council for Research in Education.
   Google Scholar
• Hodson, D. (1996). Laboratory work as scientific method: Three decades of confusion and distortion. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(2), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027980280201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10106
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes, A., Galbraith, D., & White, D. (2011). Perceived competence: A common core for self-efficacy and self-concept? Journal of Personality Assessment, 93(3), 278–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2011.559390
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huitema, B. E. (2011). The analysis of covariance and alternatives. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Humble, S. (2020). Quantitative analysis of questionnaires: Techniques to explore structures and relationships. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429400469
   Google Scholar
• Kalyuga, S. (2013). Effects of learner prior knowledge and working memory limitations on multimedia learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83, 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.005
   Google Scholar
• Kirchhoff, T., Randler, C., & Großmann, N. (2023). Experimenting at an outreach science lab versus at school—Differences in students’ basic need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, and flow experience. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21859
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirchhoff, T., Wilde, M., & Großmann, N. (2022). “I've always thought that I was not good at experiments…”—The benefit of non-formal learning in terms of students’ perceived competence. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 882185. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.882185
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klahr, D. (2000). Exploring science. The cognition and development of discovery processes. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2939.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Kleinert, S., Isaak, R., Textor, A., & Wilde, M. (2021). Die Nutzung gestufter Lernhilfen zur Unterstützung des Experimentierprozesses im Biologieunterricht–eine qualitative Studie [The use of incremental scaffolds to support the experimentation process in the biology classroom: A qualitative study]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 27(1), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40573-021-00126-1
   Google Scholar
• Korkmaz, S., Göksülük, D., & Zararsiz, G. (2014). Mvn: An R package for assessing multivariate normality. The R Journal, 6(2), 151. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2014-031
   Google Scholar
• Kowal, J., & Fortier, M. S. (2000). Testing relationships from the hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation using flow as a motivational consequence. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71(2), 171–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2000.10608895
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krapp, A. (2005). Basic needs and the development of interest and intrinsic motivational orientations. Learning and Instruction, 15(5), 381–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3–4), 313–350. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0703&4_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kultusministerkonferenz (2005). Beschlüsse der Kultusministerkonferenz. Bildungsstandards im Fach Biologie für den Mittleren Schulabschluss. Beschluss vom 16.12.2004 [Educational standards in biology for middle school graduation, Decision from 16/12/2004]. Luchterhand.
   Google Scholar
• Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681–718. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627366
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lederman, J. S. (2009). Teaching scientific inquiry: Exploration, directed, guided, and opened-ended levels. In National geographic science: Best practices and research base (pp. 8–20). Hapton-Brown.
   Google Scholar
• Lederman, N. G., Lederman, J. S., & Antink, A. (2013). Nature of science and scientific inquiry as contexts for the learning of science and achievement of scientific literacy. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 1(3), 138–147.
   Google Scholar
• Marsh, H. W., Martin, A. J., Yeung, A. S., & Craven, R. G. (2017). Competence self-perceptions. In A. J. Elliot, C. S. Dweck, & D. S. Yeager (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation, second edition. Theory and application (pp. 85–115). Guilford Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Mayer, J. (2007). Erkenntnisgewinnung als wissenschaftliches Problemlösen [Gaining knowledge as scientific problem solving]. In D. Krüger (Ed.), Theorien in der biologiedidaktischen Forschung: Ein Handbuch für Lehramtsstudenten und Doktoranden [Theories in biology didactics research: A handbook for student teachers and doctoral students] (pp. 177–186). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-68166-3_16
   Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.59.1.14
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V. V. (1989). Psychometric properties of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60(1), 48–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1989.10607413
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milyavskaya, M., Philippe, F. L., & Koestner, R. (2013). Psychological need satisfaction across levels of experience: Their organization and contribution to general well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(1), 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.10.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Müller, F. H., Hanfstingl, B., & Andreitz, I. (2007). Skalen zur motivationalen Regulation beim Lernen von Schülerinnen und Schülern: Adaptierte und ergänzte Version des Academic Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-A) nach Ryan & Connell. [Scales for motivational regulation in student learning: Adapted and supplemented version of the Academic Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-A) according to Ryan & Connell.]. Alpen-Adria-Universität.
   Google Scholar
• Mustafa, M., Ioannidis, A., Ferreira González, L., Dabrowski, T., & Großschedl, J. (2021). Fostering learning with incremental scaffolds during chemical experimentation: A study on junior high school students working in peer-groups. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 29(2), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.30722/IJISME.29.02.002
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academy Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A guide for teaching and learning. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9596
   Google Scholar
• Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104318
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What “ideas-about-science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10105
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Leijen, Ä., & Sarapu, T. (2012). Improving students’ inquiry skills through reflection and self-regulation scaffolds. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 9(1–2), 81–95.
   Google Scholar
• Reeve, J. (2015). Understanding motivation and emotion. John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Reid, D. J., Zhang, J., & Chen, Q. (2003). Supporting scientific discovery learning in a simulation environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0266-4909.2003.00002.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rönnebeck, S., Bernholt, S., & Ropohl, M. (2016). Searching for a common ground—A literature review of empirical research on scientific inquiry activities. Studies in Science Education, 52(2), 161–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2016.1206351
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosseel, Y. (2021). The lavaan tutorial. Department of Data Analysis, Ghent University.
   Google Scholar
• Ryan, A. M., & Shin, H. (2011). Help-seeking tendencies during early adolescence: An examination of motivational correlates and consequences for achievement. Learning and Instruction, 21(2), 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.07.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy: Does psychology need choice, self-determination, and will? Journal of Personality, 74(6), 1557–1585. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00420.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Publications. https://doi.org/10.1521/978.14625/28806
   Google Scholar
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan, R. M., & Moller, A. C. (2017). Competence as central, but not sufficient, for high-quality motivation. In A. J. Elliot, C. S. Dweck, & D. S. Yeager (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory and application (pp. 216–238). Guilford Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Sadeh, I., & Zion, M. (2012). Which type of inquiry project do high school biology students prefer: Open or guided? Research in Science Education, 42(5), 831–848. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9222-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345–372. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10130
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt-Borcherding, F., Hänze, M., Wodzinski, R., & Rincke, K. (2013). Inquiring scaffolds in laboratory tasks: An instance of a “worked laboratory guide effect”? European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(4), 1381–1395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-013-0171-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt-Weigand, F., Franke-Braun, G., & Hänze, M. (2008). Erhöhen gestufte Lernhilfen die Effektivität von Lösungsbeispielen? Eine Studie zur kooperativen Bearbeitung von Aufgaben in den Naturwissenschaften [Do incremental scaffolds increase the effectiveness of solution examples? A study on cooperative processing of tasks in the sciences]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 36(4), 365–384.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt-Weigand, F., Hänze, M., & Wodzinski, R. (2009). Complex problem solving and worked examples. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 23(2), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652.23.2.129
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schreiber, N., Theyßen, H., & Schecker, H. (2016). Process-oriented and product-oriented assessment of experimental skills in physics: A comparison. In N. Papadouris, A. Hadjigeorgiou, & C. P. Constantinou (Eds.), Insights from research in science teaching and learning (pp. 29–43). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20074-3_3
   Google Scholar
• Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1976). Self-concept: Validation of construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46(3), 407–441. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543046003407
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stender, A., Schwichow, M., Zimmerman, C., & Härtig, H. (2018). Making inquiry-based science learning visible: The influence of CVS and cognitive skills on content knowledge learning in guided inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 40(15), 1812–1831. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1504346
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stiller, C., & Wilde, M. (2021). Einfluss gestufter Lernhilfen als Unterstützungsmaßnahme beim Experimentieren auf den Lernerfolg im Biologieunterricht [Influence of incremental scaffolds during experimenting on learning success in biology lessons]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 24(3), 743–763. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-021-01017-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, L., Bennett, S., & Lockyer, L. (2016). Using concept maps and goal-setting to support the development of self-regulated learning in a problem-based learning curriculum. Medical Teacher, 38(9), 930–935. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159x.2015.1132408
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, A., & Müller, F. (2016). Entwicklung und Validierung der Skalen zur motivationalen Regulation beim Lernen [Development and validation of the scales for motivational regulation in learning processes]. Diagnostica, 62(2), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924/a000137
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wangdi, D., Precharattana, M., & Kanthang, P. (2020). A guided inquiry laboratory to enhance students’ understanding of the law of mechanical energy conservation. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 28(1), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.30722/IJISME.28.01.003
   Google Scholar
• Wheeler, L. (2012). Open-ended inquiry. The Science Teacher, 79(6), 32.
   Google Scholar
• Wichmann, A., & Leutner, D. (2009). Inquiry learning. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 23(2), 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652.23.2.117
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilde, M., Bätz, K., Kovaleva, A., & Urhahne, D. (2009). Überprüfung einer Kurzskala intrinsischer Motivation (KIM) [Validation of a short-scale of intrinsic motivation]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 15, 31–45.
   Google Scholar
• Wirth, J., Thillmann, H., & Künsting, J. (2008). Das Schülerexperiment im naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht. Bedingungen der Lernförderlichkeit einer verbreiteten Lehrmethode aus instruktionspsychologischer Sicht [The student experiment in science teaching. Conditions of the learning supportiveness of a widespread teaching method from an instructional psychology perspective]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 54(3), 361–375.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, S. P. (1992). Adjusted p-values for simultaneous inference. Biometrics, 48(4), 1005. https://doi.org/10.2307/2532694
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar