Providing guidance in virtual lab experimentation: the case of an experiment design tool
The present study employed a quasi-experimental design to assess a computer-based tool, which was intended to scaffold the task of designing experiments when using a virtual lab for the process of experimentation. In particular, we assessed the impact of this tool on primary school students’ cognitive processes and inquiry skills before and after the study’s treatment, using pre- and post-tests. Our research design involved a group of students who used the computer-based tool/scaffold to design the study’s experiments (experimental condition) and a group of students who used a paper-and-pencil worksheet as a scaffold to design the same experiments (control condition). The primary finding of the study was that the use of the computer-based experiment design tool had a more positive effect on students’ inquiry skills related to identifying variables and designing investigations than the paper-and-pencil one. This might be attributed to the functionalities provided only by the computer-based experiment design tool, which enabled students to focus their attention on crucial aspects of the task of designing experiments through (1) maintaining values for constant variables when planning experimental trials and (2) the provision of instant feedback when classifying variables into independent, dependent and controlled variables. Moreover, students in the two conditions displayed differing patterns of interactions among cognitive process and inquiry skills. Implications for designing and assessing similar computer-based scaffolds are discussed.
KeywordsExperimental design science education Virtual labs Inquiry skills
The authors are thankful to Dr. Anjo Anjewierden and Ms. Siswa A. N. van Riesen for designing and developing the Splash virtual lab and the Experiment design Tool. This study was conducted in the context of the research project Global Online Science Labs for Inquiry Learning at School (Go-Lab), which is funded by the European Community under the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) theme of the 7th Framework Programme for R&D (Grant Agreement No.: 317601).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
- Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.Google Scholar
- De Boer, G. E., Quellmalz, E. S., Davenport, J. L., Timms, M. J., Herrmann-Abell, C. F., Buckley, B. C., et al. (2014). Comparing three online testing modalities: Using static, active, and interactive online testing modalities to access middle school students’ understanding of fundamental ideas and use of inquiry skills related to ecosystems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51, 523–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- de Jong, T. (Ed.). (2014). Preliminary inquiry classroom scenarios and guidelines. D1.3. Go-Lab Project (Global Online Science Labs for Inquiry Learning at School). Retrieved from http://www.go-lab-project.eu/sites/default/files/files/deliverable/file/Go-Lab%20D1.3.pdf.
- Experiment Design Tool. (2015). http://www.golabz.eu/apps/experiment-design-tool. Accessed 25 January 2018.
- Go-Lab – Learning by Experience. (2015). http://www.go-lab-project.eu/. Accessed 25 January 2018.
- Go-Lab Sharing and Authoring Platform. (2015). http://www.golabz.eu/. Accessed 25 January 2018.
- Inquiry Learning Space on Relative Density. (2015). http://graasp.eu/ils/546b3398e9934012b7c65c65/?lang=el (in Greek). Accessed 25 January 2018.
- Kukkonen, J., Dillon, P., Kärkkäinen, S., Hartikainen-Ahia, A., & Keinonen, T. (2016). Pre-service teachers’ experiences of scaffolded learning in science through a computer supported collaborative inquiry. Education and Information Technologies, 21(2), 349–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-014-9326-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Loucks-Horsley, S., & Olson, S. (Eds.). (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Splash: Virtual Buoyancy Laboratory. (2015). http://www.golabz.eu/lab/splash-virtual-buoyancy-laboratory. Accessed 25 January 2018.
- van Joolingen, W. R., Giemza, A., Bollen, L., Bodin, M., Manske, S., Engler, J., et al. (2011). SCY cognitive scaffolds and tools (DII.2). Twente: SCY Consortium.Google Scholar
- Zacharia, Z. C., Manoli, C., Xenofontos, N., de Jong, T., Pedaste, M., van Riesen, S. A., et al. (2015). Identifying potential types of guidance for supporting student inquiry when using virtual and remote labs in science: A literature review. Educational Technology Research & Development, 63(2), 257–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zervas, P. (Ed.). (2013). The Go-Lab inventory and integration of online labs—Labs offered by large scientific organisations. D2.1. Go-Lab Project (Global Online Science Labs for Inquiry Learning at School). Retrieved from http://www.go-lab-project.eu/sites/default/files/files/deliverable/file/Go-Lab-D2.1.pdf.