Tracing Students’ Actions in Inquiry-Based Simulations

  • Apostolos Michaloudis
  • Anastasios Molohidis
  • Euripides HatzikraniotisEmail author


Our research focuses on inquiry-based simulations that promote scientific process skills. An inquiry continuum was constructed, regarding the number of available variables (complexity of the problem). Students’ actions when using the simulations are recorded in log files. Clicks are divided into four categories, namely, settings, handling, phenomenon, and plot. Log files are analyzed in order to find out which are the factors that affect these actions (clicks), whether the actions contribute to the solution of the problem, and if students do gain scientific process skills through the activity. The results showed that the total number and the number of each type of actions are relevant to the complexity of the problem and the guidance provided by the worksheets. This kind of activities helped our students to gain procedural skills, leading them to adopt scientific strategies for solving the problems. Also, in the log files, there were explorative clicks that reveal how students respond when a new variable, new phenomenon, or new strategy is introduced.


Inquiry continuum Computer simulations Tracing actions 


  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., et al. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akpan, J. P., & Andre, T. (1999). The effect of a prior dissection simulation on middle school students’ dissection performance and understanding of the anatomy and morphology of the frog. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(2), 107–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aleven, V. A., & Koedinger, K. R. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based cognitive tutor. Cognitive Science, 26(2), 147–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell, L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction (pp. 30–33). The Bronx, NY: H.W. Wilson Company.Google Scholar
  5. Bernstein, J., Scheerhorn, S., & Ritter, S. (2010). Using simulations and collaborative teaching to enhance introductory courses. College Teaching, 50, 9–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cano, M., & Esquembre, F. (2013, September 4). Creation of interactive simulations with EJS and FreeFem++. Retrieved from
  8. Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70(5), 1098–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crocker, S., & Knibb, R. C. (2016). The role of outcome and experience in hypothesis testing about food allergy. Health Psychology Update, 25, 19–28.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, 180.Google Scholar
  11. Eick, C., Meadows, L., & Balkcom, R. (2005). Breaking into inquiry: Scaffolding supports beginning efforts to implement inquiry in the classroom. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 49–53.Google Scholar
  12. Esquembre, F. (2003). Easy Java simulations: A software tool to create scientific simulations in Java. In Computer physics communications (Vol. 156, 2nd ed., pp. 199–204). Netherlands: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  13. Garrison, D., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7, 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hehman, E., Stolier, R. M., & Freeman, J. B. (2015). Advanced mouse-tracking analytic techniques for enhancing psychological science. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 18(3), 384–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hertel, J., & Millis, Β. (2002). Using simulations to promote learning in higher education: An introduction. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. Jones, K. (1985). Designing your own simulations. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  17. Keselman, A. (2003). Supporting inquiry learning by promoting normative understanding of multivariable causality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(9), 898–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and science literacy. In W. Damon, R. Lerner, K. A. Renninger, & I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Child psychology in practice (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  19. Lehtinen, A., & Viiri, J. (2017). Guidance provided by teacher and simulation for inquiry-based learning: A case study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(2), 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mackinnon, K., & Brett, C. (2010). Computer science teacher: Current educational conversations and perspectives. Reston, VA: ACSE.Google Scholar
  21. Michaloudis, A., & Hatzikraniotis, E. (2015a). Web-based simulations with the ability to trace learning paths. In Proceedings of the 8th Panhellenic Conference of ICT Teachers “Exploiting Information and Communication Technologies in Teaching Practice”, 26–28 June 2015. Syros (in Greek).Google Scholar
  22. Michaloudis, A., & Hatzikraniotis, E. (2015b). Recording students’ actions in educational simulations. In 9th Panhellenic Conference of Science in Science and New Technologies in Education, 8–10 May 2015. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (in Greek).Google Scholar
  23. Michaloudis, A., & Hatzikraniotis, E. (2016). Inquiry-based simulations and recording of students’ actions. In Proceedings of the 10th Pan-Hellenic and International Conference “ICT in Education”, 23–25 September 2016. University of Ioannina (in Greek).Google Scholar
  24. Michaloudis, A., & Hatzikraniotis, E. (2017a). Fostering students’ understanding with web-based simulations in an inquiry continuum framework. In Research on e-learning and ICT in education (pp. 105–117). New York: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Michaloudis, A., & Hatzikraniotis, E. (2017b). Enhancing students’ ability to “variable control” through inquiry-based simulations. In EDULEARN17 Proceedings (pp. 8775–8785).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mills, G. E. (2006). Guide for the teacher researcher. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  27. Muller, D. A. (2008). Designing effective multimedia for physics education. University of Sydney.Google Scholar
  28. National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  29. Navalpakkam, V., & Churchill, E. (2012, May). Mouse tracking: Measuring and predicting users’ experience of web-based content. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2963–2972). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  30. Novak, G., Patterson, E., Gavrin, A., & Christian, W. (1999). Just-in-time teaching: Blending active learning with web technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  31. Pan, B., Hembrooke, H. A., Gay, G. K., Granka, L. A., Feusner, M. K., & Newman, J. K. (2004, March). The determinants of web page viewing behavior: An eye-tracking study. In Proceedings of the 2004 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications (pp. 147–154). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  32. Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Leijen, Ä., & Sarapuu, S. (2012). Improving students’ inquiry skills through reflection and self-regulation scaffolds. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 9, 81–95.Google Scholar
  33. Quellmalz, E. S., Timms, M. J., Silberglitt, M. D., & Buckley, B. C. (2012). Science assessments for all: Integrating science simulations into balanced state science assessment systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(3), 363–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Scalise, K., Timms, M., Moorjani, A., Clark, L., Holtermann, K., & Irvin, P. S. (2011). Student learning in science simulations: Design features that promote learning gains. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(9), 1050–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schunn, C. D., & Anderson, J. R. (1999). The generality/specificity of expertise in scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 23(3), 337–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Singley, M. K., & Anderson, J. R. (1989). The transfer of cognitive skill (No. 9). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Smetana, L. K., & Bell, R. L. (2012). Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 34(9), 1337–1370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Thompson, A. D., Simonson, M. R., & Hargrave, C. P. (1996). Educational technology: A review of the research (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.Google Scholar
  39. Tschirgi, J. E. (1980). Sensible reasoning: A hypothesis about hypotheses. Child Development, 5l(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Woloshyn, V. E., Paivio, A., & Pressley, M. (1994). Use of elaborative interrogation to help students acquire information consistent with prior knowledge and information inconsistent with prior knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27(2), 172–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Apostolos Michaloudis
    • 1
  • Anastasios Molohidis
    • 1
  • Euripides Hatzikraniotis
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of PhysicsAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations