Supporting learning of variable control in a computer-based biology environment: Effects of prompting college students to reflect on their own thinking.
Lin, X., & Lehman, J. D. (1999). Journal of research in science teaching, 36(7), 837-858.
-
examining45Students, gradePS
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2019
- Practice Guide (findings for Computer-based biology environment)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Contextually dissimilar problem - Reason Justification vs. No prompt |
Computer-based biology environment vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.47 |
1.70 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Contextually similar problem - Reason Justification vs. No prompt |
Computer-based biology environment vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
18.09 |
16.39 |
No |
-- | |
|
Contextually dissimilar problem - Rule-based vs. No prompt |
Computer-based biology environment vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.52 |
1.70 |
No |
-- | |
|
Contextually dissimilar problem - Emotion-focused vs. No prompt |
Computer-based biology environment vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.31 |
1.70 |
No |
-- | |
|
Contextually similar problem - Rule-based vs. No prompt |
Computer-based biology environment vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
16.69 |
16.39 |
No |
-- | |
|
Contextually similar problem - Emotion-focused vs. No prompt |
Computer-based biology environment vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
16.59 |
16.39 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 95%
Male: 5% -
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Midwest
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in an introductory biology course for elementary education majors at a major Midwestern university.
Study sample
Most of the students in the study were sophomores or juniors, and almost all (95%) were female.
Intervention Group
Both intervention and comparison students completed the same computer-based simulation of a biology lab activity. Intervention students received prompts at three points in the simulation. One group received "reason justification" prompts, another group received "rule based" prompts, and the third group received "emotion focused" prompts. The prompts were designed to support metacognition and lead to deeper learning of the content.
Comparison Group
The comparison students completed the same computer-based simulation of a biology lab activity as the intervention students, but they did not receive any metacognitive prompts.
Support for implementation
The computer simulation involved an on-screen biologist who presented several experiments that she designed but that were purposely inconclusive because some variables in the experiments were not controlled. Students were invited to help fix the experiments. ""To solve Paula’s problems, students needed to be able to (a) identify the types of problems Paula had and why she could not draw any conclusions; (b) understand the general idea of control of variables; (c) decide which variables would have most potential to affect the results of the problem; (d) identify confounding variables that might obscure the results; (e) isolate variables as well as combine the variables appropriately; (f ) identify experiments that did not produce useful data and repair them; (g) find appropriate ways to measure and explain the results; (h) understand random behavior to interpret experimental outcomes; and (i) replicate experiments to verify results."" (p. 842). The prompts were embedded in three places in the simulation: (1) after the students had been presented with the experiment; (2) after the students had selected materials and supplies for their experiment; and (3) after they had drawn conclusions from their experiments. The technology was the simulation. The study tested the effectiveness of prompts for enhancing learning from simulations.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).