Model-Based Diagnosis for Regulative Support in Inquiry Learning

  • Wouter van Joolingen
  • Ton de Jong
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE, volume 28)


We discuss the use of models of inquiry processes, such as SDDS and the inquiry cycle for the generation of support on the regulation of these processes. It is argued that such scaffolding must be adaptive as too much scaffolding can actually hinder learning. A major problem encountered is the “paradox of adaptive scaffolding”. In order to make scaffolding adaptive, the system needs to gather information about the learners’ progress. In order to collect this information, often many learner actions are made explicit in the environment, a measure that is a scaffold itself. We discuss a few means of minimizing this unintended scaffolding, using less obtrusive methods for obtaining learner information, and present an example of how such information can be used to support learners in monitoring their progress.


Learning Environment Inquiry Process State Space Model Inquiry Learning Experiment Space 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 167–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anjewierden, A., & Efimova, L. (2006). Understanding weblog communities through digital traces: A framework, a tool and an example. In R. Meersman, Z. Tari, & P. Herrero (Eds.), International workshop on community informatics (COMINF 2006) (pp. 279–289). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Anjewierden, A., & Gijlers, H. (2008). An exploration of tool support for categorical coding. Paper presented at the International Conference for the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2008), Utrecht.Google Scholar
  5. Anjewierden, A., Kolloffel, B., & Hulshof, C. (2007). Towards educational data mining: Using data mining methods for automated chat analysis to understand and support inquiry learning processes. International Workshop on Applying Data Mining in e-Learning (ADML 2007), Crete, pp. 27–36, 2007 (September).Google Scholar
  6. Baker, R., Corbett, A., Koedinger, K., Evenson, S., Roll, I., Wagner, A., et al. (2006). Adapting to when students game an intelligent tutoring system. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 392–401). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Baker, R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Wagner, A. Z. (2004). Off-task behavior in the cognitive tutor classroom: When students “Game the System”. Paper presented at the ACM CHI 2004: Computer-Human Interaction. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Bollen, L., Giemza, A., & Hoppe, H. U. (2008). Flexible analysis of user actions in heterogeneous distributed learning environments. Paper presented at the ECTEL 2008. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., Farr, M., & Farr, M. (Eds.). (1988). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68, 179–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de Jong, T., van Joolingen, W. R., Anjewierden, A., Bollen, L., d’Ham, C., Dolonen, J., et al. (2010). Learning by creating and exchanging objects: The SCY experience. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, 909–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hakkarainen, K., Lipponen, L., & Järvelä, S. (2001). Epistemology of inquiry and computer-supported collaborative learning. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL: Carry forward the conversation (pp. 129–156). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Hakkarainen, K., & Sintonen, M. (2002). The interrogative model of inquiry and computer-supported collaborative learning. Science Education, 11, 25–43. doi: 10.1023/A:1013076706416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hewitt, J., & Scardamalia, M. (1998). Design principles for distributed knowledge building processes. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jonassen, D. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39, 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15, 661–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Koedinger, K., & Aleven, V. (2007). Exploring the assistance dilemma in experiments with cognitive tutors. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 239–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lajoie, S. P., & Derry, S. J. (1993). Computers as cognitive tools. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  20. Löhner, S., van Joolingen, W. R., Savelsbergh, E. R., & van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2005). Students’ reasoning during modeling in an inquiry learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 441–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Manlove, S., Lazonder, A. W., & de Jong, T. (2006). Regulative support for collaborative scientific inquiry learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Manlove, S., Lazonder, A. W., & de Jong, T. (2009). Trends and issues of regulative support use during inquiry learning: Patterns from three studies. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 795–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59, 14–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Njoo, M., & de Jong, T. (1993). Exploratory learning with a computer simulation for control theory: Learning processes and instructional support. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 821–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1993). Technologies for knowledge-building discourse. Communications of the ACM, 36, 37–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Slotta, J. D. (2004). The web-based inquiry science environment (WISE): Scaffolding knowledge integration in the science classroom. In M. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 203–233). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  27. van den Broek, T., & Van Joolingen, W. R. (2008). Exploring experts’ reasoning during modeling an illdefined domain. Unpublished Master thesis. Enschede: University of Twente.Google Scholar
  28. van Joolingen, W. R. (1999). Cognitive tools for discovery learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 10, 385–397.Google Scholar
  29. van Joolingen, W. R., & de Jong, T. (1991). Supporting hypothesis generation by learners exploring an interactive computer-simulation. Instructional Science, 20, 389–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. van Joolingen, W. R., & de Jong, T. (1993). Exploring a domain through a computer simulation: Traversing variable and relation space with the help of a hypothesis scratchpad. In D. Towne, T. de Jong, & H. Spada (Eds.), Simulation-based experiential learning (pp. 191–206). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. van Joolingen, W. R., & de Jong, T. (1997). An extended dual search space model of scientific discovery learning. Instructional Science, 25, 307–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. van Joolingen, W. R., & de Jong, T. (2003). SimQuest: Authoring educational simulations. In T. Murray, S. Blessing, & S. Ainsworth (Eds.), Authoring tools for advanced technology educational software: Toward cost-effective production of adaptive, interactive, and intelligent educational software (pp. 1–31). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. van Joolingen, W. R., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2009). Developments in inquiry learning. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, A. Lazonder, & S. Barnes (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning, principles and products (pp. 21–37). Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load off a learner’s mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Veermans, K. H., de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (2000). Promoting self directed learning in simulation based discovery learning environments through intelligent support. Interactive Learning Environments, 8, 229–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Veermans, K. H., van Joolingen, W. R., & de Jong, T. (2006). Using heuristics to facilitate discovery learning in a simulation learning environment in a physics domain. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 341–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wecker, C., Kohnle, C., & Fischer, F. (2007). Computer literacy and inquiry learning: When geeks learn less. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 133–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Weinbrenner, S., Engler, J., Wichmann, A., & Hoppe, H. U. (2010). Monitoring and analysing students’ systematic behaviour—The SCY pedagogical agent framework. Paper presented at the Fifth European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning 2010. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  39. Weinbrenner, S., Giemza, A., & Hoppe, H. U. (2007). Engineering heterogeneous distributed learning environments using tuple spaces as an architectural platform. Paper presented at the The 7th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies ICALT 2007, Los Alamitos, CA.Google Scholar
  40. White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1990). Causal model progressions as a foundation for intelligent learning environments. Artificial Intelligence, 42, 99–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. White, B. Y., Frederiksen, J., Frederiksen, T., Eslinger, E., Loper, S., & Collins, A. (2002). Inquiry Island: Affordances of a multi-agent environment for scientific inquiry and reflective learning. Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS). MahWah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  42. 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, 120–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Teacher Education and Science CommunicationFaculty of Behavioral Sciences, University of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations