The National Science Foundation–sponsored report Fostering Learning in the Networked World called for “a common, open platform to support communities of developers and learners in ways that enable both to take advantage of advances in the learning sciences.” We review research on science inquiry learning environments (ILEs) to characterize current platforms. We searched databases and 11 major science and technology journals and identified 30 distinct ILEs investigated in articles published from 2008 onwards. We use research-based inquiry principles to analyze ILE features that support learners, teachers, developers, and researchers. We identify ILEs that are taking advantage of learning sciences research, building on the accomplishments of others, and creating the platforms envisioned in the report. We hope that this review will help teachers, designers, and researchers identify platforms they can customize and enhance rather than starting anew if unnecessary. Enhancing existing platforms combines the efforts of many individuals and, thus, strengthens the field.
*AnastopoulouS.SharplesM.AinsworthS.CrookC.O’MalleyC.WrightM. (2011). Creating personal meaning through technology-supported science inquiry learning across formal and informal settings. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 251–273. doi:10.1080/09500693.2011.569958#.UmR7U3CsiSo
2.
AndersonR. D. (2007). Inquiry as an organizing theme for science education. In AbellS. K.LedermanN. G. (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 807–830). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3.
AndersonR. D.HelmsJ. V. (2001). The ideal of standards and the reality of schools: Needed research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 3–16. doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200101)38:1<3::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-V
4.
BarabS. A.LuehmannA. L. (2003). Building sustainable science curriculum: Acknowledging and accommodating local adaptation. Science Education, 87, 454–467. doi:10.1002/sce.10083
5.
BarabS.MakinsterJ.MooreJ.CunninghamD. (2001). Designing and building an on-line community: The struggle to support sociability in the inquiry learning forum. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(4), 71–96. doi:10.1007/BF02504948
6.
*BarabS.PettyjohnP.GresalfiM.VolkC.SolomouM. (2012). Game-based curriculum and transformational play: Designing to meaningfully positioning person, content, and context. Computers & Education, 58, 518–533. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.001
7.
BellR.Gess-NewsomeJ.LuftJ. (2008). Technology in the secondary science classroom. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
8.
BellT.UrhahneD.SchanzeS.PloetznerR. (2010). Collaborative inquiry learning: Models, tools, and challenges. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 349–377. doi:10.1080/09500690802582241
9.
*BerlandL. K. (2011). Explaining variation in how classroom communities adapt the practice of scientific argumentation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20, 625–664. doi:10.1080/10508406.2011.591718
10.
*BerlandL. K.LeeV. R. (2012). In pursuit of consensus: Disagreement and legitimization during small-group argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 1857–1882. doi:10.1080/09500693.2011.645086
11.
BlanchardM.SoutherlandS.OsborneJ.SampsonV.AnnettaL.GrangerE. (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, 577–616. doi:10.1002/sce.20390
12.
BorgmanC. L.AbelsonH.DirksL.JohnsonR.KoedingerK. R.LinnM. C.. . . SzalayA. (2008). Fostering learning in the networked world: The cyberlearning opportunity and challenge. A 21st century agenda for the National Science Foundation. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2008/nsf08204/nsf08204.pdf
13.
*BravoC.Van JoolingenW. R.De JongT. (2009). Using co-lab to build system dynamics models: Students’ actions and on-line tutorial advice. Computers & Education, 53, 243–251. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.02.005
14.
*BuluS. T.PedersenS. (2010). Scaffolding middle school students’ content knowledge and ill-structured problem solving in a problem-based hypermedia learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 507–529. doi:10.1007/s11423-010-9150-9
15.
*ChangK.-E.ChenY.-L.LinH.-Y.SungY.-T. (2008). Effects of learning support in simulation-based physics learning. Computers & Education, 51, 1486–1498. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.01.007
16.
*ChaseC.ChinD.OppezzoM.SchwartzD. (2009). Teachable agents and the protégé effect: Increasing the effort towards learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 334–352. doi:10.1007/s10956-009-9180-4
17.
ChinnC. A.Hmelo-SilverC. E. (2002). Authentic inquiry: Introduction to the special section. Science Education, 86, 171–174. doi:10.1002/sce.10000
18.
*ClarkD. B.NelsonB. C.ChangH.-Y.Martinez-GarzaM.SlackK.D’AngeloC. M. (2011). Exploring Newtonian mechanics in a conceptually-integrated digital game: Comparison of learning and affective outcomes for students in Taiwan and the United States. Computers & Education, 57, 2178–2195. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.05.007
19.
*ClarkD. B.SampsonV. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 293–321. doi:10.1002/tea.20216
20.
*ClarkD. B.TouchmanS.Martinez-GarzaM.Ramirez-MarinF.Skjerping DrewsT. (2012). Bilingual language supports in online science inquiry environments. Computers & Education, 58, 1207–1224. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.11.019
21.
*ClarkeJ.DedeC. (2009). Design for scalability: A case study of the River City curriculum. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 353–365. doi:10.1007/s10956-009-9156-4
22.
CrawfordB. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 613–642. doi:10.1002/tea.20157
23.
*CrossD.TaasoobshiraziG.HendricksS.HickeyD. T. (2008). Argumentation: A strategy for improving achievement and revealing scientific identities. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 837–861. doi:10.1080/09500690701411567
24.
CubanL. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
25.
CuevasP.LeeO.HartJ.DeaktorR. (2005). Improving science inquiry with elementary students of diverse backgrounds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 337–357. doi:10.1002/tea.20053
26.
DedeC. (2010). Technological supports for acquiring 21st century skills. In BakerE.McGawB.PetersonP. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Elsevier.
27.
DedeC.RichardsJ. (2012). Digital teaching platforms: Customizing classroom learning for each student. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
28.
*de JongT.Van JoolingenW. R.GiemzaA.GiraultI.HoppeU.KindermannJ. . . . Van Der ZandenM. (2010). Learning by creating and exchanging objects: The SCY experience. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, 909–921. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01121.x
29.
*de JongT.WeinbergerA.GiraultI.KlugeA.LazonderA.PedasteM. . . . ZachariaZ. (2012). Using scenarios to design complex technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60, 883–901. doi:10.1007/s11423-012-9258-1
30.
*DingN. (2009). Visualizing the sequential process of knowledge elaboration in computer-supported collaborative problem solving. Computers & Education, 52, 509–519. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.10.009
31.
*DingN.BoskerR. J.HarskampE. G. (2011). Exploring gender and gender pairing in the knowledge elaboration processes of students using computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 56, 325–336. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.004
32.
DolonenJ. A.LudvigsenS. R. (2012). Analyzing students’ interaction with a 3D geometry learning tool and their teacher. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1, 167–182. doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.08.002
33.
DonnellyD.O’ReillyJ.McGarrO. (2013). Enhancing the student experiment experience: Visible scientific inquiry through a virtual chemistry laboratory. Research in Science Education, 43, 1571–1592. doi:10.1007/s11165-012-9322-1
34.
*DoriY. J.SassonI. (2008). Chemical understanding and graphing skills in an honors case-based computerized chemistry laboratory environment: The value of bidirectional visual and textual representations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(2), 219–250. doi:10.1002/tea.20197
35.
EdelsonD. C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for integrating content and process learning in the design of inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 355–385. doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3<355::AID-TEA1010>3.0.CO;2-M
36.
EdelsonD. C.GordinD. N.PeaR. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 391–450. doi:10.1080/10508406.1999.9672075
37.
*EslingerE.WhiteB.FrederiksenJ.BrobstJ. (2008). Supporting inquiry processes with an interactive learning environment: Inquiry Island. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 610–617. doi:10.1007/s10956-008-9130-6
38.
EtheredgeS.RudnitskyA. (2003). Introducing students to scientific inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Pearson Education.
39.
*FeldonD. F.KafaiY. B. (2008). Mixed methods for mixed reality: understanding users’ avatar activities in virtual worlds. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 575–593. doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9081-2
40.
*FurbergA.KlugeA.LudvigsenS. (2013). Student sensemaking with science diagrams in a computer-based setting. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8, 41–64. doi:10.1007/s11412-013-9165-4
41.
FurtakE. M.SeidelT.IversonH.BriggsD. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82, 300–329. doi:10.3102/0034654312457206
42.
GerardL. F.LinnM. C. (2013, April). What kind of feedback improves understanding? A comparison of knowledge integration and generic feedback on students’ scientific explanations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
43.
*GerardL. F.SpitulnikM.LinnM. C. (2010). Teacher use of evidence to customize inquiry science instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 1037–1063. doi:10.1002/tea.20367
44.
GerardL. F.VarmaK.CorlissS. B.LinnM. C. (2011). Professional development for technology-enhanced inquiry science. Review of Educational Research, 81, 408–448. doi:10.3102/0034654311415121
45.
*GijlersH.De JongT. (2009). Sharing and confronting propositions in collaborative inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 27, 239–268. doi:10.1080/07370000903014352
46.
*GobertJ. D.O’DwyerL.HorwitzP.BuckleyB. C.LevyS. T.WilenskyU. (2011). Examining the relationship between students’ understanding of the nature of models and conceptual learning in biology, physics, and chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 653–684. doi:10.1080/09500691003720671
47.
*HanssonL.RedforsA.RosbergM. (2011). Students’ socio-scientific reasoning in an astrobiological context during work with a digital learning environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20, 388–402. doi:10.1007/s10956-010-9260-5
48.
*HickeyD.Ingram-GobleA.JamesonE. (2009). Designing assessments and assessing designs in virtual educational environments. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 187–208. doi:10.1007/s10956-008-9143-1
49.
*HickeyD. T.TaasoobshiraziG.CrossD. (2012). Assessment as learning: Enhancing discourse, understanding, and achievement in innovative science curricula. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 1240–1270. doi:10.1002/tea.21056
50.
*HickeyD. T.ZuikerS. J. (2012). Multilevel assessment for discourse, understanding, and achievement. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21, 522–582. doi:10.1080/10508406.2011.652320
51.
HillJ.HannafinM. (2001). Teaching and learning in digital environments: The resurgence of resource-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49, 37–52. doi:10.1007/BF02504914
52.
Hmelo-SilverC. E. (2006). Design principles for scaffolding technology based inquiry. In O’DonnellA. M.Hmelo-SilverC. E.ErkensG. (Eds.), Collaborative reasoning, learning and technology (pp. 147–170). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
53.
Hmelo-SilverC.DuncanR.ChinnC. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42, 99–107. doi:10.1080/00461520701263368
54.
HodsonD. (1988). Toward a philosophically more valid science curriculum. Science Education, 72, 19–40. doi:10.1002/sce.3730720103
55.
HöfflerT. N.LeutnerD. (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17, 722–738. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.013
56.
*HsiehP.ChoY.LiuM.SchallertD. L. (2008). Examining the interplay between middle school students’ achievement goals and self-efficacy in a technology-enhanced learning environment. American Secondary Education, 36(3), 33–50.
57.
*KafaiY. (2008). Understanding virtual epidemics: Children’s folk conceptions of a computer virus. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 523–529. doi:10.1007/s10956-008-9102-x
58.
KaliY. (2006). Collaborative knowledge-building using the Design Principles Database. International Journal of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, 1, 187–201. doi:10.1007/s11412-006-8993-x
59.
KimM. C.HannafinM. J.BryanL. A. (2007). Technology-enhanced inquiry tools in science education: An emerging pedagogical framework for classroom practice. Science Education, 91, 1010–1030. doi:10.1002/sce.20219
60.
*KlischY.MillerL.WangS.EpsteinJ. (2012). The impact of a science education game on students’ learning and perception of inhalants as body pollutants. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 295–303. doi:10.1007/s10956-011-9319-y
61.
*KolloffelB.EysinkT. S.JongT. (2011). Comparing the effects of representational tools in collaborative and individual inquiry learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6, 223–251. doi:10.1007/s11412-011-9110-3
62.
KozmaR. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13, 205–226. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00021-X
63.
KrajcikJ.BlumenfeldP. (2006). Project-based learning. In SawyerR. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 317–334). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
64.
*KrajcikJ.McNeillK. L.ReiserB. J. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92, 1–32. doi:10.1002/sce.20240
65.
*KrangeI.LudvigsenS. (2008). What does it mean? Students’ procedural and conceptual problem solving in a CSCL environment designed within the field of science education. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 25–51. doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9030-4
66.
*KünstingJ.WirthJ.PaasF. (2011). The goal specificity effect on strategy use and instructional efficiency during computer-based scientific discovery learning. Computers & Education, 56, 668–679. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.009
67.
*KyzaE. A.ConstantinouC. P.SpanoudisG. (2011). Sixth graders’ co-construction of explanations of a disturbance in an ecosystem: Exploring relationships between grouping, reflective scaffolding, and evidence-based explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 2489–2525. doi:10.1080/09500693.2010.550951
68.
LeeH.PlassJ. L.HomerB. D. (2006). Optimizing cognitive load for learning from computer-based science simulations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 902–913. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.902
69.
LeeS. W.TsaiC.WuY.TsaiM.LiuT.HwangF.. . .ChangC. (2011). Internet-based science learning: A review of journal publications. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 1893–1925. doi:10.1080/09500693.2010.536998
70.
*LevyD. (2012). How dynamic visualization technology can support molecular reasoning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22, 702–717. doi:10.1007/s10956-012-9424-6
71.
*LevyS.WilenskyU. (2009). Students’ learning with the Connected Chemistry (CC1) Curriculum: Navigating the complexities of the particulate world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 243–254. doi:10.1007/s10956-009-9145-7
72.
LewisT. (2006). Design and inquiry: Bases for an accommodation between science and technology education in the curriculum?Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 255–281. doi:10.1002/tea.20111
73.
LinnM.EylonB.-S. (2011). Science learning and instruction: Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. New York, NY: Routledge.
74.
LinnM. C.GerardL.RyooK.McElhaneyK.LiuO. L.RaffertyA. N. (2014). Computer-guided inquiry to improve science learning. Science, 344, 155–156. doi:10.1126/science.1245980
*LiuM.HortonL.OlmansonJ.TopracP. (2011). A study of learning and motivation in a new media enriched environment for middle school science. Educational Technology Research & Development, 59, 249–265. doi:10.1007/s11423-011-9192-7
77.
*LiuO.LeeH.LinnM. (2010). An investigation of teacher impact on student inquiry science performance using a hierarchical linear model. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 807–819. doi:10.1002/tea.20372
78.
*LiuO. L.LeeH.-S.LinnM. C. (2011). Measuring knowledge integration: Validation of four-year assessments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 1079–1107. doi:10.1002/tea.20441
79.
*Makitalo-SieglK.KohnleC.FischerF. (2011). Computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning and classroom scripts: Effects on help-seeking processes and learning outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 21, 257–266. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.07.001
80.
*ManloveS.LazonderA. W.de JongT. (2009). Collaborative versus individual use of regulative software scaffolds during scientific inquiry learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 17, 105–117. doi:10.1080/10494820701706437
81.
McCrory WallaceR.KuppermanJ.KrajcikJ.SolowayE. (2000). Science on the web: Students online in a sixth-grade classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 75–104. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0901_5
82.
*McElhaneyK. W.LinnM. C. (2011). Investigations of a complex, realistic task: Intentional, unsystematic, and exhaustive experimenters. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 745–770. doi:10.1002/tea.20423
83.
McNeillK. L.PimentelD. S.StraussE. G. (2011). The impact of high school science teachers’ beliefs, curricular enactments and experience on student learning during an inquiry-based urban ecology curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 35, 2608–2644. doi:10.1080/09500693.2011.618193
84.
MinnerD. D.LevyA. J.CenturyJ. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction—What is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984–2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 474–496. doi:10.1002/tea.20347
85.
*MorkS. M. (2011). An interactive learning environment designed to increase the possibilities for learning and communicating about radioactivity. Interactive Learning Environments, 19, 163–177. doi:10.1080/10494820802651060
86.
*MulderY. G.LazonderA. W.De JongT. (2010). Finding out how they find it out: An empirical analysis of inquiry learners’ need for support. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 2033–2053. doi:10.1080/09500690903289993
87.
*MulderY. G.LazonderA. W.De JongT. (2011). Comparing two types of model progression in an inquiry learning environment with modelling facilities. Learning and Instruction, 21, 614–624. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.01.003
88.
*MulderY.LazonderA.De JongT.AnjewierdenA.BollenL. (2012). Validating and optimizing the effects of model progression in simulation-based inquiry learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 722–729. doi:10.1007/s10956-011-9360-x
89.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
90.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
91.
National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
92.
*NelsonB.ErlandsonB. (2008). Managing cognitive load in educational multi-user virtual environments: Reflection on design practice. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 619–641. doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9082-1
93.
*NelsonB.KetelhutD. (2008). Exploring embedded guidance and self-efficacy in educational multi-user virtual environments. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 413–427. doi:10.1007/s11412-008-9049-1
94.
*NicolaidouI.KyzaE. A.TerzianF.HadjichambisA.KafourisD. (2011). A framework for scaffolding students’ assessment of the credibility of evidence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 711–744. doi:10.1002/tea.20420
95.
OrwinR. G. (1983). A fail-safe N for effect size in meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 8, 157–159. doi:10.2307/1164923
96.
OsborneJ.ErduranS.SimonS. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994–1020. doi:10.1002/tea.20035
97.
PeaR. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 423–451. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1303_6
98.
*PedersenS.ArslanyilmazA.WilliamsD. (2009). Teachers’ assessment-related local adaptations of a problem-based learning module. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57, 229–249. doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9044-7
99.
PenuelW. R.FishmanB. J.GallagherL. P.Lopez-PradoB.KorbakC. (2009). Is alignment enough? Investigating the effects of state policies and professional development on science curriculum implementation. Science Education, 93, 656–677. doi:10.1002/sce.20321
100.
PleschC.KaendlerC.RummelN.WiedmannM.SpadaH. (2013). Identifying areas of tension in the field of technology-enhanced learning: Results of an international Delphi study. Computers & Education, 65, 92–105. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.01.018
101.
*PolH.HarskampE.SuhreC. M.GoedhartM. (2008). The effect of hints and model answers in a student-controlled problem-solving program for secondary physics education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 410–425. doi:10.1007/s10956-008-9110-x
102.
*PolH. J.HarskampE. G.SuhreC. J. M.GoedhartM. J. (2009). How indirect supportive digital help during and after solving physics problems can improve problem-solving abilities. Computers & Education, 53, 34–50. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.015
103.
QuintanaC.ReiserB. J.DavisE. A.KrajcikJ.FretzE.DuncanR. G.. . . SolowayE. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 337–386. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1303_4
104.
*RaesA.SchellensT.De WeverB.VanderhovenE. (2012). Scaffolding information problem solving in web-based collaborative inquiry learning. Computers & Education, 59, 82–94. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.11.010
105.
ReiserB. J.TabakI.SandovalW. A.SmithB. K.SteinmullerF.LeoneA. J. (2001). BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In CarverS. M.KlahrD. (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty five years of progress (pp. 263–305). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
106.
RoehrigG. H.LuftJ. A. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning secondary science teachers in implementing scientific inquiry lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 3–24. doi:10.1080/0950069022000070261
107.
*RoscoeR. D.SegedyJ. R.SulcerB.JeongH.BiswasG. (2013). Shallow strategy development in a teachable agent environment designed to support self-regulated learning. Computers & Education, 62, 286–297. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.008
108.
*RyooK.LinnM. C. (2012). Can dynamic visualizations improve middle school students’ understanding of energy in photosynthesis?Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 218–243. doi:10.1002/tea.21003
109.
*SaabN.van JoolingenW. R.van Hout-WoltersB. H. A. M. (2009). The relation of learners’ motivation with the process of collaborative scientific discovery learning. Educational Studies, 35, 205–222. doi:10.1080/03055690802470357
110.
SchwarzC. V.WhiteB. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 165–205. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2302_1
111.
*SegedyJ. R.KinnebrewJ. S.BiswasG. (2013). The effect of contextualized conversational feedback in a complex open-ended learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61, 71–89. doi:10.1007/s11423-012-9275-0
112.
SenguptaP.WilenskyU. (2011). Lowering the learning threshold: Multi-agent-based models and learning electricity. In KhineM. S.SalehI. M. (Eds.), Dynamic modeling: Cognitive tool for scientific inquiry (pp. 141–172). New York, NY: Springer.
113.
*SheH.-C.LeeC.-Q. (2008). SCCR digital learning system for scientific conceptual change and scientific reasoning. Computers & Education, 51, 724–742. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.07.009
114.
*SheH.-C.LiaoY.-W. (2010). Bridging scientific reasoning and conceptual change through adaptive web-based learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 91–119. doi:10.1002/tea.20309
115.
*ShenJ.LinnM. C. (2011). A technology-enhanced unit of modeling static electricity: Integrating scientific explanations and everyday observations. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 1597–1623. doi:10.1080/09500693.2010.514012
116.
SlottaJ. D.ChiM. T. H. (2006). Helping students understand challenging topics in science through ontology training. Cognition and Instruction, 24, 261–289. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2402_3
*SinsP. H. M.SavelsberghE. R.Van JoolingenW. R.Van Hout-WoltersB. H. A. M. (2011). Effects of face-to-face versus chat communication on performance in a collaborative inquiry modeling task. Computers & Education, 56, 379–387. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.022
119.
SquireK. D.MaKinsterJ. G.BarnettM.LuehmannA. L.BarabS. L. (2003). Designed curriculum and local culture: Acknowledging the primacy of classroom culture. Science Education, 87, 468–489. doi:10.1002/sce.10084
120.
StageE. K.AsturiasH.CheukT.DaroP. A.HamptonS. B. (2013). Opportunities and challenges in Next Generation Standards. Science, 340, 276–277. doi:10.1126/science.1234011
121.
*StieffM. (2011). Improving representational competence using molecular simulations embedded in inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 1137–1158. doi:10.1002/tea.20438
122.
*SunD.LooiC.-K. (2013). Designing a web-based science learning environment for model-based collaborative inquiry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22, 73–89. doi:10.1007%/s10956-012-9377-9
123.
*SvihlaV.LinnM. C. (2012). A design-based approach to fostering understanding of global climate change. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 651–676. doi:10.1080/09500693.2011.597453
124.
*ThadaniV.StevensR. H.TaoA. (2009). Measuring complex features of science instruction: Developing tools to investigate the link between teaching and learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18, 285–322. doi:10.1080/10508400902797941
125.
*TsengC.TuanH.ChinC. (2010). Investigating the influence of motivational factors on conceptual change in a digital learning context using the dual-situated learning model. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 1853–1875. doi:10.1080/09500690903219156
126.
*TutwilerM. S.LinM.-C.ChangC.-Y. (2012). Determining virtual environment “fit”: The relationship between navigation style in a virtual field trip, student self-reported desire to visit the field trip site in the real world, and the purposes of science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22, 351–361. doi:10.1007/s10956-012-9398-4
127.
TuviI.NachmiasR. (2001). Current state of web sites in science education—Focus on atomic structure. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10, 293–303. doi:10.1023/A:1012239001340
128.
*van BorkuloS.van JoolingenW.SavelsberghE.de JongT. (2012). What can be learned from computer modeling? Comparing expository and modeling approaches to teaching dynamic systems behavior. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 267–275. doi:10.1007/s10956-011-9314-3
129.
van der ValkT.de JongO. (2009). Scaffolding science teachers in open-inquiry teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 829–850. doi:10.1080/09500690802287155
130.
van JoolingenW. R.de JongT.DimitrakopoulouA. (2007). Issues in computer supported inquiry learning in science. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 111–119. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00216.x
131.
*VarmaK.LinnM. (2012). Using interactive technology to support students’ understanding of the greenhouse effect and global warming. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 453–464. doi:10.1007/s10956-011-9337-9
132.
VoogtJ.KnezekG.CoxM.KnezekD.Ten BrummelhuisA. (2013). Under which conditions does ICT have a positive effect on teaching and learning? A call to action. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29, 4–14. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00487.x
133.
VygotskyL. (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
134.
WebbM. (2005). Affordances of ICT in science learning: Implications for an integrated pedagogy. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 705–735. doi:10.1080/09500690500038520
135.
*WilliamsM.DeBargerA. H.MontgomeryB. L.ZhouX.TateE. (2012). Exploring middle school students’ conceptions of the relationship between genetic inheritance and cell division. Science Education, 96, 78–103. doi:10.1002/sce.20465
136.
WindschitlM. (2004). Folk theories “inquiry”: How preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 481–512. doi:10.1002/tea.20010
137.
*WuH. (2010). Modelling a complex system: Using novice-expert analysis for developing an effective technology-enhanced learning environment. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 195–219. doi:10.1080/09500690802478077
138.
*YehT.-K.TsengK.-Y.ChoC.-W.BarufaldiJ. P.LinM.-S.ChangC.-Y. (2012). Exploring the impact of prior knowledge and appropriate feedback on students’ perceived cognitive load and learning outcomes: Animation-based earthquakes instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 1555–1570. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2011.579640
139.
*ZhangZ. H.LinnM. C. (2011). Can generating representations enhance learning with dynamic visualizations?Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 1177–1198. doi:10.1002/tea.20443
140.
ZionM.MendeloviciR. (2012). Moving from structured to open inquiry: Challenges and limits. Science Education International, 23, 383–399.
141.
*ZydneyJ.GrincewiczA. (2011). The use of video cases in a multimedia learning environment for facilitating high school students’ inquiry into a problem from varying perspectives. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20, 715–728. doi:10.1007/s10956-010-9264-1
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
