Effects of developing prompt scaffolding to support collaborative scientific argumentation in simulation-based physics learning

References

• Akaygun, S., & Jones, L. L. (2014). How does level of guidance affect understanding when students use a dynamic simulation of liquid-vapor equilibrium? In I. Devetak & S. A. Glažar (Eds.), Learning with understanding in the chemistry classroom (pp. 243–263). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Alves, G., Viegas, C., Lima, N., & Gustavsson, I. (2016). Simultaneous usage of methods for the development of experimental competences. International Journal of Human Capital and Information Technology Professionals, 7(1), 48–65. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJHCITP.2016010104
   Google Scholar
• Atabas, S., Schellinger, J., Whitacre, I., Findley, K., & Hensberry, K. (2020). A tale of two sets of norms: Comparing opportunities for student agency in mathematics lessons with and without interactive simulations. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 58, 100761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2020.100761
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bell, R., & Loon, M. (2015). Reprint: The impact of critical thinking disposition on learning using business simulations. The International Journal of Management Education, 13(3), 362–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2015.10.003
   Google Scholar
• Belland, B. R., Gu, J., Armbrust, S., & Cook, B. (2015). Scaffolding argumentation about water quality: A mixed-method study in a rural middle school. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(3), 325–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9373-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20286
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cai, S., Wang, X., & Chiang, F. K. (2014). A case study of augmented reality simulation system application in a chemistry course. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang, C. J., Liu, C. C., Wen, C. T., Tseng, L. W., Chang, H. Y., Chang, M. H., Fan Chiang, S. H., Hwang, F. K., & Yang, C. W. (2020). The impact of light-weight inquiry with computer simulations on science learning in classrooms. Computers & Education, 146, 103770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103770
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, Y. C., Hand, B., & Park, S. (2016). Examining elementary students’ development of oral and written argumentation practices through argument-based inquiry. Science & Education, 25(3-4), 277–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9811-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 623–654. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199808)35:6<623::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-O
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiu, J. L., DeJaegher, C. J., & Chao, J. (2015). The effects of augmented virtual science laboratories on middle school students’ understanding of gas properties. Computers & Education, 85, 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.02.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho, K. L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Correia, A. P., Koehler, N., Thompson, A., & Phye, G. (2019). The application of PhET simulation to teach gas behavior on the submicroscopic level: Secondary school students’ perceptions. Research in Science & Technological Education, 37(2), 193–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2018.1487834
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawson, V., & Venville, G. J. (2009). High-school students’ informal reasoning and argumentation about biotechnology: An indicator of scientific literacy? International Journal of Science Education, 31(11), 1421–1445. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690801992870
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring young students’ collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 209–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21076
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Falloon, G. (2019). Using simulations to teach young students science concepts: An experiential learning theoretical analysis. Computers & Education, 135, 138–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.03.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fan, X., Geelan, D., & Gillies, R. (2018). Evaluating a novel instructional sequence for conceptual change in physics using interactive simulations. Education Sciences, 8(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8010029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finkelstein, N. D., Adams, W. K., Keller, C. J., Kohl, P. B., Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., Reid, S., & LeMaster, R. (2005). When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 1(1), 010103. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.1.010103
   Google Scholar
• Gelbart, H., Brill, G., & Yarden, A. (2009). The impact of a web-based research simulation in bioinformatics on students’ understanding of genetics. Research in Science Education, 39(5), 725–751. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008-9101-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glassner, A., Weinstock, M., & Neuman, Y. (2005). Pupils’ evaluation and generation of evidence and explanation in argumentation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(1), 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709904X22278
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Han, J., Kim, K. H., Rhee, W., & Cho, Y. H. (2021). Learning analytics dashboards for adaptive support in face-to-face collaborative argumentation. Computers & Education, 163, 104041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104041
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harney, O. M., Hogan, M. J., & Quinn, S. (2017). Investigating the effects of peer to peer prompts on collaborative argumentation, consensus and perceived efficacy in collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(3), 307–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-017-9263-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heng, L. L., Surif, J., & Seng, C. H. (2015). Malaysian students’ scientific argumentation: Do groups perform better than individuals? International Journal of Science Education, 37(3), 505–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.995147
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hmelo, C. E., Ramakrishnan, S., Day, R. S., Shirey, W. E., Brufsky, A., Johnson, C., Baar, J., & Huang, Q. (2001). Oncology thinking cap: Scaffolded use of a simulation to learn clinical trial design. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 13(3), 183–191. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328015TLM1303_8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsu, C. C., Chiu, C. H., Lin, C. H., & Wang, T. I. (2015). Enhancing skill in constructing scientific explanations using a structured argumentation scaffold in scientific inquiry. Computers & Education, 91, 46–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsu, P. S., Van Dyke, M., Smith, T. J., & Looi, C. K. (2018). Argue like a scientist with technology: The effect of within-gender versus cross-gender team argumentation on science knowledge and argumentation skills among middle-level students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(3), 733–766. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9574-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, H. S., & Oh, E. G. (2018). Scaffolding argumentation in asynchronous online discussion. International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design, 8(2), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJOPCD.2018040103
   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/10.1080/10508406.1998.9672057
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krobthong, T., & Thovicha, A. (2019, May 8–10). Learning achievement of interaction science simulations-based physics. International Academic research Conference in Amsterdam (pp. 29–32).
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D. (2009). Do students need to be taught how to reason? Educational Research Review, 4(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2008.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking & Reasoning, 13(2), 90–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780600625447
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, L., & Reiser, B. (2005, April 4–7). Students constructing and defending evidence-based scientific explanations. Annual meeting of the national Association for research in science teaching (pp. 1–35).
   Google Scholar
• Lin, C. H., Chiu, C. H., Hsu, C. C., & Wang, T. I. (2015). The influence of playing a for or against a controversial position on elementary students’ ability to construct cogent arguments. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24(2), 409–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-014-0193-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin, C. H., Chiu, C. H., Hsu, C. C., Wang, T. I., & Chen, C. H. (2018). The effects of computerized inquiry-stage-dependent argumentation assistance on elementary students’ science process and argument construction skills. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(3), 279–292. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12241
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin, S. S., & Mintzes, J. J. (2010). Learning argumentation skills through instruction in scocioscientific issues: The effect of ability level. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(6), 993–1017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9215-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin, Y. R. (2019). Student positions and web-based argumentation with the support of the six thinking hats. Computers & Education, 139, 191–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.05.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin, Y. R., Fan, B., & Xie, K. (2020). The influence of a web-based learning environment on low achievers’ science argumentation. Computers & Education, 151, 103860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103860
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, M., Bera, S., Corliss, S. B., Svinicki, M. D., & Beth, A. D. (2004). Understanding the connection between cognitive tool use and cognitive processes as used by sixth graders in a problem-based hypermedia learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(3), 309–334. https://doi.org/10.2190/LK2G-8K25-RB8U-PGE9
   Google Scholar
• Liu, Q. T., Liu, B. W., & Lin, Y. R. (2019). The influence of prior knowledge and collaborative online learning environment on students’ argumentation in descriptive and theoretical scientific concept. International Journal of Science Education, 41(2), 165–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1545100
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lizotte, D. J., McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2004, June 22–26). Teacher practices that support students’ construction of scientific explanations in middle school classrooms. Embracing diversity in the learning sciences: Proceedings of the sixth international conference of the learning sciences (pp. 310–317).
   Google Scholar
• Lu, J., Chiu, M. M., & Law, N. W. (2011). Collaborative argumentation and justifications: A statistical discourse analysis of online discussions. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 946–955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.11.021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luo, W., Pelletier, J., Duffin, K., Ormand, C., Hung, W. C., Shernoff, D. J., Zhai, X., Iverson, E., Whalley, K., Gallaher, C., & Furness, W. (2016). Advantages of computer simulation in enhancing students’ learning about landform evolution: A case study using the grand canyon. Journal of Geoscience Education, 64(1), 60–73. https://doi.org/10.5408/15-080.1
   Google Scholar
• Mawhirter, D. A., & Garofalo, P. F. (2016). Expect the unexpected: Simulation games as a teaching strategy. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 12(4), 132–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2015.12.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McAlister, S., Ravenscroft, A., & Scanlon, E. (2004). Combining interaction and context design to support collaborative argumentation using a tool for synchronous CMC. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(3), 194–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00086.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeill, K. L., Katsh-Singer, R., González-Howard, M., & Loper, S. (2016). Factors impacting teachers’ argumentation instruction in their science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 38(12), 2026–2046. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1221547
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. S. (2012). Supporting grade 5-8 students in constructing explanations in science: The claim, evidence, and reasoning framework for talk and writing. Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2004, April 12–16). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations using scaffolded curriculum materials and assessments. Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association (pp. 1–24).
   Google Scholar
• McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mikeska, J. N., & Howell, H. (2020). Simulations as practice-based spaces to support elementary teachers in learning how to facilitate argumentation-focused science discussions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(9), 1356–1399. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21659
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, E. B., Smith, T. L., & Randall, E. (2016, July 17–22). Lecture notes in computer science. International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 112–123). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40238-3_12
   Google Scholar
• Noroozi, O., Kirschner, P. A., Biemans, H. J. A., & Mulder, M. (2018). Promoting argumentation competence: Extending from first- to second-order scaffolding through adaptive fading. Educational Psychology Review, 30(1), 153–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9400-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, J. F., Henderson, J. B., MacPherson, A., Szu, E., Wild, A., & Yao, S. Y. (2016). The development and validation of a learning progression for argumentation in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(6), 821–846. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21316
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Puntambekar, S., & Hubscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4001_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radinsky, J., Goldman, S., & Singer, M. (2008, June 23–28). Students’ sense-making with visual data in small-group argumentation. Proceedings of the eighth International Conference for the Learning Sciences – ICLS 2008 (pp. 237–245).
   Google Scholar
• Rodrigues, S., & Gvozdenko, E. (2011). Student engagement with a science simulation: Aspects that matter. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 1(4), 27–43. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.404
   Google Scholar
• Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. P. (2011). Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education, 95(2), 217–257. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20421
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Srisawasdi, N., Feungchan, W., Meuansechai, K., Kongpet, K., & Panjaburee, P. (2016). The study on integrating visualised simulation into context-aware ubiquitous learning activities for elementary science education. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 10(4), 263–291. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMLO.2016.079502
   Google Scholar
• Srisawasdi, N., & Panjaburee, P. (2015). Exploring effectiveness of simulation-based inquiry learning in science with integration of formative assessment. Journal of Computers in Education, 2(3), 323–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-015-0037-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tawfik, A. A., Law, V., Ge, X., Xing, W., & Kim, K. (2018). The effect of sustained vs. Faded scaffolding on students’ argumentation in ill-structured problem solving. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 436–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tudon-Martinez, J. C., Hernandez-Alcantara, D., Rodriguez-Villalobos, M., Aquines-Gutierrez, O., Vivas-Lopez, C. A., & Morales-Menendez, R. (2020). The effectiveness of computer-based simulations for numerical methods in engineering. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), 14(3), 833–846. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-020-00673-w
   Google Scholar
• Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952–977. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20358
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, C. Y. (2015). Scaffolding middle school students’ construction of scientific explanations: Comparing a cognitive versus a metacognitive evaluation approach. International Journal of Science Education, 37(2), 237–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.979378
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, C. Y., Wu, H. K., Lee, S. W. Y., Hwang, F. K., Chang, H. Y., Wu, Y. T., Chiou, G. L., Chen, S., Liang, J. C., Lin, J. W., Lo, H. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2014). A review of research on technology-assisted school science laboratories. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(2), 307–320. http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.17.2.307
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weng, W. Y., Lin, Y. R., & She, H. C. (2017). Scaffolding for argumentation in hypothetical and theoretical biology concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 39(7), 877–897. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1310409
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeh, K. H., & She, H. C. (2010). On-line synchronous scientific argumentation learning: Nurturing students’ argumentation ability and conceptual change in science context. Computers & Education, 55(2), 586–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zacharia, Z. C. (2007). Comparing and combining real and virtual experimentation: An effort to enhance students’ conceptual understanding of electric circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 120–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00215.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, M. (2014). Who are interested in online science simulations? Tracking a trend of digital divide in internet use. Computers & Education, 76, 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar