This article was downloaded by: [Heriot-Watt University]

On: 02 January 2015, At: 13:25

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Computers in the Schools:

Interdisciplinary Journal of Practice,
Theory, and Applied Research
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcis20

Scaffolded Inquiry-Based Instruction with

Technology: A Signature Pedagogy for
STEM Education
a b
Kent J. Crippen & Leanna Archambault
a
University of Florida , Gainsville , Florida , USA
b
Arizona State University , Tempe , Arizona , USA
Published online: 18 Apr 2012.

To cite this article: Kent J. Crippen & Leanna Archambault (2012) Scaffolded Inquiry-Based
Instruction with Technology: A Signature Pedagogy for STEM Education, Computers in the Schools:
Interdisciplinary Journal of Practice, Theory, and Applied Research, 29:1-2, 157-173, DOI:
10.1080/07380569.2012.658733

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2012.658733

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 13:25 02 January 2015
 Computers in the Schools, 29:157–173, 2012
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0738-0569 print / 1528-7033 online
DOI: 10.1080/07380569.2012.658733

Scaffolded Inquiry-Based Instruction

with Technology: A Signature Pedagogy
for STEM Education

KENT J. CRIPPEN
University of Florida, Gainsville, Florida, USA

LEANNA ARCHAMBAULT
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 13:25 02 January 2015

Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA

Inquiry-based instruction has become a hallmark of science ed-

ucation and increasingly of integrated content areas, including
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) educa-
tion. Because inquiry-based instruction very clearly contains sur-
face, deep, and implicit structures as well as engages students to
think and act like scientists, it is considered a signature pedagogy of
science education. In this article the authors discuss the nature of
scaffolded inquiry-based instruction and how it can be applied to
the use of emerging technologies, such as data mashups and cloud
computing, so that students not only learn the content of STEM, but
can also begin answering the critical socioscientific questions that
face the modern era.

KEYWORDS inquiry-based instruction, science education, STEM,

signature pedagogy, mashup

Over the last 25 years, the landscape of K–12 classrooms has significantly
changed to include a focus on literacy rather than mastery of declarative
subject knowledge. This movement places additional emphasis on devel-
oping reasoning, understanding the nature of science (National Research
Council [NRC], 2006), and using inquiry as the primary pedagogy (NRC,
2000). Inquiry-based instruction has become a hallmark of science educa-
tion and increasingly in the integration of science, technology, engineering,

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under
Grant No. EPS-0919123 & EPS-1006797.
Correspondence should be addressed to Kent J. Crippen, 2423 Norman Hall, PO Box
117048, Gainesville FL 32611. E-mail: kcrippen@coe.ufl.edu

157
 158 K. J. Crippen and L. Archambault

and mathematics (STEM). According to the National Science Education Stan-

dards, inquiry includes “the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural
world and propose explanations based on evidence derived from their work”
(NRC, 1996, p. 23).
The notion of engaging students to think like a scientist is indicative of
the nature of inquiry and has become what could be considered a signature
pedagogy of STEM education. According to Shulman (2005), signature ped-
agogies have the following characteristics: (a) a surface structure, including
specific and discernible acts of teaching and learning; (b) a deep structure,
including a set of acceptable tenets regarding how to best convey and teach
the content to students; and (c) an implicit structure that is made of up
a group of desirable beliefs, attitudes, values, and/or dispositions that are
important to the profession. Signature pedagogies are also defined by what
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 13:25 02 January 2015

they do not intend to convey or accomplish. Each of these criteria can be

applied to inquiry-based instruction.
Alhough challenging to implement, inquiry-based instruction affords an
opportunity to enact STEM as a multidisciplinary construct addressing timely
and critical issues. It is clear that teachers’ preparation to facilitate inquiry
has a profound bearing on the success of their instruction (NRC, 2006) and
difficulties related to implementing inquiry are well documented (Roehrig &
Luft, 2004). The situation is further confounded by the rapid development of
emerging technologies. Unfortunately, schools have been rather slow in em-
bracing the use of technology when it comes to signature pedagogies within
specific content areas. This is significant, as education cannot hope to meet
the demands of a globalized, knowledge-based society without leveraging
available 21st century communication technologies that serve as both the
delivery mechanisms for instruction as well as the future platforms in which
students will work and perform. As such, in this article the authors describe
how scaffolded inquiry-based instruction can be applied to using emerging
technologies in the classroom so that students not only learn the content of
STEM, but can also begin answering the critical socioscientific questions that
face the modern era, such as issues related to climate change, sustainability,
and energy. First, a discussion of inquiry-based instruction as a signature
pedagogy is appropriate.

STRUCTURE OF INQUIRY-BASED INSTRUCTION

Surface Structure of Inquiry
One of the elements of a signature pedagogy is a surface structure that in-
cludes specific and discernible acts of teaching and learning (Shulman, 2005).
This is demonstrated through the foundations of inquiry, which come from
the ideas of one of the fathers of modern education, John Dewey. Dewey
recognized students’ knowledge and natural curiosity as being pivotal to
 Inquiry as Signature Pedagogy 159

learning. Based on Dewey’s philosophy that education begins with the cu-
riosity of the learner, his inquiry model has five specific and cyclical stages:
asking questions, investigating solutions, creating new knowledge as infor-
mation is gathered, discussing discoveries and experiences, and reflecting
on new-found knowledge. Dewey (1938) strongly advocated for experien-
tial learning: “There is no discipline in the world so severe as the discipline
of experience subjected to the tests of intelligent development and direction”
(p. 114).
Contemporary models for inquiry-based instruction include Bybee’s
(1993) 5E model of Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, and Evaluate
and Gowin and Alvarez (2005)’s Vee diagram. These models emphasize
a learning-cycle approach supported by understanding how students learn
science concepts and skills (Donovan & Bransford, 2005) and is indicative
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 13:25 02 January 2015

of the clear set of instructional events that Shulman described as a signature

pedagogy.

Deep Structure of Inquiry

In addition to the surface structure of inquiry-based instruction, a deep struc-
ture espouses beliefs concerning how to teach content to students. These
beliefs have been articulated in a companion document to the National Sci-
ence Education Standards (NSES; NRC, 2000) that describes inquiry-based
teaching as involving students in developing and practicing both scientific
inquiry skills as well as knowledge of content (NRC, 1996). The present ap-
plication and elaboration of the NSES five essential features of inquiry are
outlined below:

1. Learners are engaged by scientifically oriented questions. Typically, each

lesson is framed and focused on an essential or big question. These ques-
tions are based on real-world problems and are written so that they are
applicable to students’ everyday lives.
2. Learners give priority to evidence, which allows them to develop and eval-
uate explanations that address scientifically oriented questions. Students
gather data and generate an artifact from reference information. Student
work is not open-ended, but directed, with a set of steps that guides them
to explore and collect specific evidence related to the STEM content of
the big question.
3. Learners formulate explanations from evidence to address scientifically
oriented questions. Typically, this evidence is collected and compiled into
a chart, diagram, or other data representation that serves as the artifact of
their analysis. Later, this artifact is presented and defended, becoming the
central focus of a collaborative discussion.
 160 K. J. Crippen and L. Archambault

4. Learners evaluate their explanations in light of alternative explanations,

particularly those reflecting scientific understanding. Once the claim state-
ments are written, students compare their claims against what scientists
accept as valid. This expert opinion is generally provided as a short piece
of narrative text, a few elements of multimedia, two to three Web sites or
special reports, or their textbooks.
5. Learners communicate and justify their proposed explanations. Using a
framework known as argue-to-learn (Andriessen, Baker, & Suthers, 2003),
students present, explain, and justify their artifacts, claims, and analysis to
their teacher and peers.

These essential features represent the acceptable tenets for how best to
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 13:25 02 January 2015

convey and teach STEM content.

Implicit Structure of Inquiry

According to Shulman (2005), the implicit structure of a signature pedagogy
consists of a set of desirable beliefs, attitudes, values, and/or dispositions that
the field holds as significant and important. Within inquiry-based instruction,
these emanate from the belief that students are curious as a function of
being human. They have a natural curiosity and instinctively want to figure
out what is happening, the reasoning behind it, and what will happen next.
This can be achieved through observation, gathering data, synthesizing the
data as information, and comparing the results to existing knowledge—many
of the same activities as actual scientists undergo when contributing to their
fields (Dunbar, 2000). Because our lives are significantly shaped by scientific
discoveries, being able to engage in inquiry is of tremendous importance.
In doing so, students are exposed to asking important questions, gathering
quality evidence, critically reasoning, and using this information to make and
evaluate their decisions.

Non-Traits of Inquiry
Signature pedagogies are also defined by what they do not intend to con-
vey or accomplish. In the case of inquiry, the pedagogy is intended to
de-emphasize the notion of scientific knowledge as fact or belief by focus-
ing on the epistemic nature of scientific knowledge (i.e., evidence-claim-
reason) (Sandoval, 2005). Learning with inquiry should involve the use of
argument—a form of reasoning that emphasizes the use of evidence in sup-
port of a claim. Argument is the accepted mechanism for establishing scien-
tific knowledge as a distinct and culturally established body of information
(Zimmerman, 2000). Toulmin (1958) defined the elements of an argument
 Inquiry as Signature Pedagogy 161

as evidence, claim, warrant, rebuttal, and backing. Informal reasoning is the

mechanism of argumentation and represents the processes of developing a
claim. Often, the historical problem of students learning about complex so-
cioscientific issues (e.g., evolution) can be traced to their misunderstanding
of the nature of scientific knowledge and its distinction from other forms
of knowing and believing (Nussbaum, Sinatra, & Poliquin, 2008). Under-
standing argument implies a mature view of the nature of science, and the
evaluation of a scientific claim is accepted as a component of scientific liter-
acy (Wallace, Hand, & Yang, 2004).

LEARNING EFFECTIVENESS OF INQUIRY-BASED INSTRUCTION

Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 13:25 02 January 2015

While inquiry-based instruction has a rich history, empirical support for its
use has been lacking and in some cases contradictory (Kirschner, Sweller, &
Clark, 2006). However, recent research has demonstrated the effectiveness
of guided inquiry over more traditional verification approaches to labora-
tory instruction (Blanchard et al., 2010). The findings of Blanchard et al.
(2010) illustrated the importance of guidance, feedback, and scaffolding in
the process (Alfieri, Brooks, Aldrich, & Tenenbaum, 2010). The success-
ful use of scaffolded inquiry-based instruction with technology must serve
self-regulated learning as the primary outcome (Schraw, Crippen, & Hartley,
2006). Self-regulated learning refers to our ability to understand and con-
trol the learning environment through using goals, applying positive affect,
implementing strategies, and using monitoring and reflection.
The core value of inquiry-based learning is rooted in a belief in the
power of human experience. To further the case for scaffolded inquiry-
based learning with technology, the literature related to the effectiveness of
experiential learning is examined. According to Gosen and Washbush (2004),
several studies have used objective learning tests to measure experiential
learning and found higher gains in test scores from classes that incorporated
methods based on experiential learning theory (Burns, Rubin, & Bojack,
1990; Premi & Shannon, 2001). This also extended to activities that employed
the use of computer-aided exercises (Burns, Rubin, & Bojack, 1990).
In addition to studies that assess learning using experiential models,
researchers have also examined students’ perceived learning. When asking
students to assess their own learning, participants reported expanded gains,
including better communication skills and media usages (Rocha, 2000), appli-
cation of acquired concepts in the real world (Beaumie, Williams, & Dattilo,
2002), increased confidence (Manoque, Brown, Nattress, & Fox, 1999), en-
joyment (Dedeke, 1999), and improved moral reasoning (Smith, Strand, &
Bunting, 2002). Studies focused on experiential learning have also reported
an increase in self-regulation and peer self-esteem (Nichols & Steffy, 1999),
 162 K. J. Crippen and L. Archambault

an increase in group cohesion (Glass & Benshoff, 2002), and an increase in

skills related to Kolb’s experiential cycle (Brodbeck & Greitemeyer, 2000).

INQUIRY-BASED INSTRUCTION IN THE 21ST CENTURY

As inquiry-based instruction has emerged as a signature pedagogy in STEM

education, the Internet and World Wide Web have profoundly shifted the
ways in which humans interact with knowledge, information, and data (Leu,
Kinzer, Coiro, & Cammack, 2004). Ultimately, communication technologies
level the workplace while increasing competition on a global level (Fried-
man, 2005). Increasingly, modern-day computing has moved from desktop-
based platforms to Web-based platforms, as major computer companies,
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 13:25 02 January 2015

including Google, IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, and SAP have embraced Web-
based services and developed supportive environments. Currently, most
desktop software applications, including games and productivity tools, have
equivalent online versions. Data storage, as well as the entire information
infrastructure is being moved to the Web. This new approach, where the
Web exists as a platform that supports communication and services, is char-
acterized by the term cloud computing. Cloud computing affords the use of
on-demand Internet-based resources that are accessed virtually from a client
computer (Chen & Tsai, 2010).
With the Internet and cloud computing, users no longer need desk-
top software and storage space. As part of this movement, information is
increasingly becoming available on the cloud, including U.S. census data,
geological, geographical, biological, and medical data. New forms of hard-
ware (e.g., smart phones, tablet computers) are expressly designed to work
on the cloud. The use and creation of software tools as services that allow
these data to be combined and “mashed up” to create a meaningful out-
put, often in the form of a scientific visualization, are only on the verge of
taking hold. A mashup involves connecting two or more Web-based appli-
cations to compose new sets of data and applications. Essential skills for
the 21st century workforce involve utilizing these developing tools, together
with the ability to ask significant questions related to real-world problems,
investigate possible solutions, interpret results, and then to repeat the in-
quiry cycle where appropriate (The Conference Board, 2006). Cyberlearning
has become the term used to describe this use of networked computing
and communications technologies, including mashups, to support learning
(National Science Foundation [NSF], 2008).
Unfortunately, cyberlearning opportunities that leverage the use of cloud
computing and data mashups have yet to become common. In STEM fields
we see a widening gap between what students are expected to do with cur-
rent technologies and what we prepare them to do (NRC, 2006; NSF, 2007).
This results in a tremendous loss of human capital, an inability to meet the
 Inquiry as Signature Pedagogy 163

changing demands of the workforce, and loss of global prominence in terms

of economic and intellectual leadership. Because of the necessary skills, the
technological contexts in which they are applied, and the continued demand
for a STEM-related workforce, it is both timely and crucial to examine science
and computer education as well as how students learn in these interactive
contexts (i.e., Web 2.0). Increasingly, STEM education needs to prepare stu-
dents to meet the demands of a globalized, knowledge-based world by
leveraging available 21st century communication technologies. Next, the au-
thors describe how the signature pedagogy of inquiry-based instruction can
be applied to this emerging type of computing (i.e., mashups) so that stu-
dents can begin answering important scientific questions facing the world
today.
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 13:25 02 January 2015

USE OF INQUIRY WITH WEB-BASED TOOLS

While advances in technology push us forward into the 21st century, methods
of teaching and classroom instruction have remained much the same. How-
ever, with the advent of cloud computing, including Software-as-a-Service
(SaaS) and mashup, Web-based learning objects can be incorporated in the
classroom and beyond—thus, exemplifying the notion of cyberlearning. Ac-
cording to the NSF Task Force on Cyberlearning (NSF, 2008):

Cyberlearning has tremendous potential right now because we have pow-

erful new technologies, increased understanding of learning and instruc-
tion, and widespread demand for solutions to educational problems. In
the last decade, the design of technologies and our understanding of
how people learn have evolved together, while new approaches to re-
search and design make the development and testing of technologies
more responsive to real-world requirements and learning environments.
(p. 5)

Some well-known mashup sites are presented in Table 1. Common mashup

services include maps (e.g., Google Map), videos (e.g., YouTube), social

TABLE 1 Examples of Web-Based Mashup Tools

Name Source Guide

Yahoo Pipe http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/ http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/docs

JackBe http://www.jackbe.com/products/ http://demo.jackbe.com/mashlets/
index.php autoCA/
http://www.jackbe.com/products/
mashboard.php
IBM Mashup http://www.ibm.com/software/ http://tinyurl.com/mashup-IBM
Center info/mashup-center
 164 K. J. Crippen and L. Archambault

networks and discussion tools (e.g., Facebook, Google Plus, and Edmodo),
photos (e.g., Flickr), search (e.g., Google, Yahoo!), visualization (e.g., Many
Eyes), and widgets (e.g., Widgetbox). These applications and sources offer
numerous interesting new data outputs, including visualizations of multiple
datasets. For example, one can use Google Maps and images from the Web
to produce a representation illustrating the impact of rising sea water due to
climate change on U.S. coastal cites (http://www.mibazaar.com/nationunder
siege/index.html).
To take advantage of these new technologies to benefit student learning,
teachers need to become aware of their existence, learn how to use them,
and become comfortable with the methods by which they are implemented
for both classroom and home use. Currently, we are involved in creating
a repository of activities about the impact of climate change in the Great
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 13:25 02 January 2015

Basin region of the United States. This project includes content modules for
secondary science that incorporate inquiry-based instruction as a pedagog-
ical strategy using mashup tools (http://climatechange.education.unlv.edu).
Using an example from this project, the following section details the use of
mashup tools as part of an inquiry-based cyberlearning module. Readers are
encouraged to visit the site and view fully functioning, free examples that
are being used by students in southern Nevada, USA.

21ST CENTURY INQUIRY-BASED INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACHES

Mashup
As with any inquiry, the lesson begins with a focus on an essential or big
question. For example, let’s consider, What does it take to survive and thrive
in our town, 30 years from today? This question asks students to use the
definition of climate (i.e., a 30-year average of weather) to consider how their
current lifestyle might be impacting their future. Following the big question,
module activities are divided into different sections. First, students are asked
to respond to applicable multimedia with their initial ideas regarding the
big question. For the question about future climate, this could include local
media reports or images of recognizable local attractions and habitat.
Next, students collect and explore evidence related to STEM content of
the big question to construct a response in the form of a scientific argument.
This is where appropriate simulations, multimedia resources, and mashup
tools are provided in a structured, Web-based environment so that students
can identify the evidence and claim portions of their arguments (Figure 1).
In Figure 1, using Google Earth, students from Las Vegas, Nevada, USA,
have marked the location of their school and are asked to consider the
projected impact of a +4◦ C change in average global temperature on forest
fires, crops, and sea level by viewing the mashed up resources from the Met
Office Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom.
 Inquiry as Signature Pedagogy 165
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 13:25 02 January 2015

FIGURE 1 Mashup example using the Google Map API with multiple data sets. Elements in
the image include a school in Las Vegas, Nevada, USA and the icons and circles describe the
impacts of a projected +4◦ C change in average global temperatures on such things as forest
fires, crops, and sea level. Data sources include a projected +4◦ change: Met Office Hadley
Centre, United Kingdom (http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/global-issues/climate-change/priorities/
science/) (color figure available online).

Students analyze the data and use it to generate an explanation (i.e.,

knowledge claim) about the scientific ideas of the lesson. Typically, the
students’ arguments take the form of a series of scaffolded evidence-claim-
reason statements. Their analysis produces an inscription (e.g., chart, table,
graph) that is shared with members of the class as the evidence component
of their argument. For the question about future climate, students create a
table that includes a series of evidence-claim-reason statements for items
they will need in the future in order to live in the projected climate.
After students have considered the big question, gathered evidence
through the use of a data mashup and other Web-based interactive ele-
ments, and have generated their own arguments related to the question, the
accepted scientific understanding for the content is presented. Students are
then guided to compare and contrast their explanation to the one that is cur-
rently accepted by the scientific community. Finally, students share, justify,
 166 K. J. Crippen and L. Archambault

and defend their arguments and inscriptions with their classmates and
teacher.
The culminating activity of the lesson is to reflect on the module’s big
question. Ultimately, students synthesize their understanding by using the ev-
idence to compare and contrast their ideas with those of their peers, teacher,
and the scientific community. Mashup serves an integral component to the
lesson as an analysis and visualization process, affording the opportunity to
develop 21st century skills and to fulfill the vision of cyberlearning. Next, the
authors consider a more detailed example that involves applying a scaffolded
version of the Vee diagram.

Vee Diagrams
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 13:25 02 January 2015

A Vee diagram, which takes its name after the structure of the letter V , is
a research-based scaffold for inquiry-based instruction. Gowin and Alvarez
(2005) described the Vee diagram as “a way to aid in the understanding of
meaningful relationships among events, processes, or objects. It is a tool that
helps one observe the interplay between what is known and what needs
to be known or understood” (p. 35). As a representation, the Vee diagram
identifies the elements of scientific knowledge as they are used in a scientific
investigation (e.g., research question, analysis) (Figure 2). The open portion
of the Vee subtly illustrates the role of research questions in framing an

FIGURE 2 A modified form of Gowin’s Vee diagram. The activity proceeds from left to
right through the Vee, by articulating initial ideas, constructing a concept map, completing a
mashup activity, performing an analysis and generating an artifact, stating claims, considering
the expert opinion, and concluding with a reflection on the entire process and updating the
concept map.
 Inquiry as Signature Pedagogy 167

investigation while at the same time, the tip of the Vee points directly to
the object, events, or material under investigation. As a learning scaffold,
students use the Vee diagram as a guide, following a series of steps in which
they are responsible for clearly identifying and documenting the elements
of an investigation. In a parallel fashion, these steps serve to reinforce and
make explicit the process and products of learning. The form and process
of completing a Vee diagram during an investigation illustrate its utility as a
grounded approach for inquiry-based learning.
Using Vee diagrams as a grounded approach to inquiry is an application
of a signature pedagogy, since each lesson is framed and focused on an
essential or big question that is based on a meaningful, real-world problem.
Following the big question, the lesson progresses from the left side of the
Vee diagram to the right side, from thinking activities to doing activities.
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 13:25 02 January 2015

Scaffolded Vee Diagrams

One of the ways the Vee diagram can be modified is through the addition
of scaffolded sentence starter prompts that help students describe their ideas
regarding concepts that underlie the big question. This adaptation, which
we describe as scaffolded Vee diagrams (Crippen, Archambault & Kern, in
press), is a blending of two different powerful frameworks, the Vee diagram
(Gowin & Alvarez, 2005) and the principles and techniques of scaffolded
knowledge integration (Linn, 2006). This technique can be mediated entirely
with technology and involves the process of inquiry as a flow of conceptual
and methodological steps that are used to address a research question with a
knowledge claim (Table 2). Collaborative argumentation is the process that
guides how students communicate and justify their individual knowledge

TABLE 2 Components and Supporting Theoretical Frameworks Involved in a Scaffolded Vee

Diagram

Component Theoretical framework Strategies

Lesson Inquiry-based learning, as defined by Vee diagram

structure the 5-essential features of inquiry
(NRC, 2000)
Technology Computer Supported Collaborative Data analysis Production of
Learning (CSCL) (Stahl, Koschmann, inscriptions (e.g., charting,
& Suthers, 2006) graphing, mashup)
Learning Collaborative argumentation Knowledge integration
mechanism Scaffolded knowledge integration environment (e.g., claim
(Linn, 2006) scaffolds, sentence starter
prompts)
Learning Self-regulated learning (cognition, Evaluation and reflection (e.g.,
outcomes metacognition, belief) (Schunk, learning strategy use, efficacy)
2001)
 168 K. J. Crippen and L. Archambault

claims against the accepted scientific understanding as presented by valid,

authoritative multimedia sources (Andriessen et al., 2003). These arguments
are also measured against the competing claims offered by other students
who are working as peer investigators.
After providing their initial ideas by completing sentence starter
prompts, students are provided with concepts used to construct a concept
map. They are encouraged to revisit and update the concept map at any
time during the inquiry in a recursive fashion (Kern & Crippen, 2008). This
initial mapping exercise completes the thinking side of the Vee diagram and
focuses student attention on the resources to be studied (Figure 2).
The doing side of the scaffolded Vee diagram begins with an analysis
of the activity and/or reference information. Using the technique of mashup,
the software and services of cloud computing are available as powerful
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 13:25 02 January 2015

tools for analyzing the wealth of data available on the Web. Student work
is not open-ended, but directed with a set of steps that guide them to ex-
plore and collect specific evidence related to the STEM content of the big
question. This evidence is collected and compiled into a chart, diagram, or
other data representation that serves as the artifact of their analysis. The
process of the scaffolded Vee diagram concludes with a critical discussion
and collaboration among students and teacher that include all elements of
the inquiry, but especially focused on the artifacts of analysis. Table 3 in-
cludes a summary of the components of the doing side of the scaffolded Vee
diagram.

TABLE 3 The Components, Their Function, a General Task Description, and Example
Learning Scaffolds Used in the Thinking Side of the Scaffolded Vee Diagram

Component Function Task Scaffold

Analysis and Produces a set of data Students are guided to Partially completed
artifacts in the form of an perform the analysis and diagram, table,or
artifact that will be construct the artifact. other data
used in constructing graphic
a scientific claim
Claim(s) Describes an evidence- Students explain their Evidence-Claim-
claim-reason related reasoning by using their Reason table or
to addressing the big evidence to construct a argument
question claim. prompt
Expert opinion Describes the Students use provided Self-evaluation
declarative scientific multimedia or Web prompts
knowledge related to resource to compare their Self-monitoring
the big question claims against what prompts
scientists think.
Reflection Analyzes and critiques Students present, compare, Activity prompts
how ideas are similar and critique their claims,
and different from then respond about how
other students their ideas compare with
other students.
 Inquiry as Signature Pedagogy 169

The Vee diagram has a rich history of use in education and has been
modified into various forms and evaluated through research in numerous
ways (Novak, 1990). It has been used successfully as a scaffold for learning
in undergraduate science laboratories (Passmore, 1998), applications in K–12
science classrooms (Knaggs & Schneider, 2011), and in the context of online
learning (Nussbaum, 2008). Regardless of the form of the Vee diagram used,
prior empirical research has established its effectiveness as a support for
inquiry-based learning: face-to-face, blended, and online learning that span
the educational continuum from elementary to graduate school.
Currently, the software CMap Tools is used to create scaffolded Vee
diagrams. CMap Tools is distributed free for education and is available at
http://cmap.ihmc.us. Readers can use the “Shared CMaps in Places” fea-
ture from within CmapTools to find the server named UNLV COE (NV-
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 13:25 02 January 2015

USA). Here, under the authors names, are sample lessons and a tem-
plate of the scaffolded Vee diagram that can be tailored for individual
lessons.

IMPLICATIONS OF USING INQUIRY AND MASHUP

Since publication of A Nation at Risk: An Imperative for Educational Reform

(1983), science education reform has emphasized the goal for students to
know the methods of scientific inquiry along with acquiring a basic under-
standing of science necessary for making informed decisions about scien-
tific issues affecting their lives. The essential features of inquiry emphasized
by the NSES committee are consistent with the claim that school science
needs to engage students with ill-defined real-world problems instead of
well-defined idealistic problems, involve students in long-term projects in-
stead of short-term discrete activities, and situate inquiry in complex socio-
technological contexts instead of pure scientific problems (Duschl & Grandy,
2005). These changes are designed to develop scientifically literate citizens
who can make informed decisions concerning socioscientific issues (Gott &
Duggan, 1996). In the 21st century, part of this decision-making process
should involve the most up-to-date technological tools, including cloud
computing and mashups, that provide students with the ability to gather
and analyze complex data sets. While freely accessible mashup tools exist,
particularly those that allow students to program their own data mashup out-
puts, such as Yahoo! Pipes, these resources remain largely unused in today’s
classrooms.
The educational relevance of socioscientific issues and the strategy of
using mashup as part of inquiry-based instruction for generating unique new
collections of information and representations are not limited to STEM edu-
cation. By nature, socioscientific issues impact groups of people and include
social, political, and cultural components that are intertwined with policy
 170 K. J. Crippen and L. Archambault

and bureaucracy. As such, these issues may be equally as relevant and ap-
propriate for use in other educational venues, such as social science educa-
tion. In addition, the core concept of mashup and the current technologies
used to accomplish the strategy, transcend STEM education. Mashup can
be applied to any two or more data sources that share at least one com-
mon variable and the nature of these variables can range widely. Producing,
communicating, and learning with representations of mashed-up data align
with contemporary forms of computational, multimodal, and informational
literacy.
With inquiry-based instruction, the teacher’s role is that of a guide and
knowledgeable expert who continuously assesses students’ understanding
formatively and challenges them to further their understanding. Teachers are
encouraged to develop inquiry-supportive learning environments in which
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 13:25 02 January 2015

students can simulate inquiry as members of a learning community. This

should include cyberlearning materials that enable them to extend learning
beyond the confines of the brick and mortar classroom. Such modules can
be Web-based with the most current and freely available sets of data, using
the latest in cloud computing and mashup tools to leverage the affordance
of today’s sophisticated technology.
In-service and pre-service teachers would benefit from university-level
coursework and professional-development opportunities that focus on how
to use inquiry-based instruction to create, scaffold, and implement cyber-
learning materials. Research that investigates the impact of using emerging
technologies to explore real-world problems using inquiry as the central ped-
agogical approach will become increasingly important. This impact might
include gains in students’ scientific knowledge, but it might also positively
influence students’ interest and dispositions with respect to STEM-related
career paths. The development and use of cyberlearning tools might have
a similar positive outcome on the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of
teachers as well. Whatever the outcome, it seems clear that, as access and
availability of rich data sets and the ability to manipulate them in meaningful
ways continue to evolve, educators must adapt their practices to include
such cyberlearning opportunities.
According to Shulman (2005), “Signature pedagogies are important pre-
cisely because they are pervasive. They implicitly define what counts as
knowledge in a field and how things become known. They define how
knowledge is analyzed, criticized, accepted, or discarded.” (p. 54). Within
the field of STEM education, inquiry-based instruction clearly meets these
criteria. It is the notion of teaching what it is to think, perform, and act as
a scientist—precisely the embodiment of a signature pedagogy (Shulman,
2005). This approach, indicative of the promise that signature pedagogies
represent, holds tremendous potential to enable future generations to be-
gin tackling some of the greatest problems facing the world in the 21st
century.
 Inquiry as Signature Pedagogy 171

REFERENCES

Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2010). Does discovery-
based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1),
1–19.
Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (Eds.). (2003). Arguing to learn: Confronting
cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Dor-
drecht, Holland: Kluwer.
Beaumie, K., Williams, R., & Dattilo, J. (2002). Student perceptions of interactive
learning modules. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34, 453–473.
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, 577–616.
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 13:25 02 January 2015

Brodbeck, F. C., & Greitemeyer, T. (2000). Effects of individual versus mixed indi-
vidual and group experience in rule induction on group member learning and
group performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 621–648.
Burns, A. C., Rubin, R. S., & Bojack, J. (1990). Computer-aided exercises vs. work-
book exercises as learning facilitator in the principles of marketing course.
Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, 17, 29–33.
Bybee, R. (1993). An instructional model for science education. Developing biological
literacy. Colorado Springs, CO: Biological Sciences Curriculum Study.
Chen, Y., & Tsai, W. T. (2010) Service-oriented computing and Web data manage-
ment: From principles to development. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
Crippen, K. J., Archambault, L. M., & Kern, C. (in press). Using scaffolded Vee dia-
grams to enact inquiry based learning In A. Hirumi (Ed.), Designing online and
hybrid learning environments: A grounded approach to facilitating e-learning.
Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE).
Dedeke, A. (1999). Design, integration, and student evaluation of response papers
in an introductory management course. Journal for Education of Business, 77,
211–214
Dewey, J. (1938, 1997). Experience and education. New York, NY: Touchstone
Books.
Donovan, M. S., & Bransford, J. D. (Eds.). (2005). How students learn: Science in the
classroom. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Dunbar, K. (2000). How scientists think in the real world: Implications for science
education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21, 49–58.
Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. E. (2005, February). Reconsidering the character and role
of inquiry in school science: Framing the debates. Paper presented at the Inquiry
Conference on Developing a Consensus Research Agenda, Rutgers University,
Newark, NJ.
Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century.
New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.
Glass, J. S., & Benshoff, J. M. (2002). Facilitating group cohesion among adolescents
through challenge course experiences. Journal of Experiential Education, 25,
268–277.
Gosen, J., & Washbush, J. (2004). A review of scholarship on assessing experiential
learning effectiveness. Simulation and Gaming, 35, 270–293.
 172 K. J. Crippen and L. Archambault

Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (1996). Practical work: Its role in the understanding of
evidence in science. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 791–
806.
Gowin, B. D., & Alvarez, M. C. (2005). The art of educating with V diagrams: New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kern, C., & Crippen, K. J. (2008, September). Mapping for conceptual change. The
Science Teacher, 75, 32–38.
Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why unguided learning does not
work: An analysis of the failure of discovery learning, problem-based learning,
experiential learning and inquiry-based learning. Educational Psychologist, 41,
75–86.
Knaggs, C. M., & Schneider, R. M. (2011). Thinking like a scientist: Using Vee-maps
to understand process and concepts in science. Research in Science Education,
doi: 10.1007/s11165-011-9213-x
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 13:25 02 January 2015

Leu, D. J., Jr., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., & Cammack, D. (2004). Toward a theory of
new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and commu-
nication technologies. In R. B. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models
and processes of reading (5th. ed., pp. 1568–1611). Newark, NJ: International
Reading Association.
Linn, M. C. (2006). The knowledge integration perspective on learning and instruc-
tion. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences
(pp. 243–64). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Manoque, M., Brown, G. A., Nattress, B. R., & Fox, K. (1999). Improving student
learning in root canal treatment using self-assessment. International Endodontic
Journal, 32, 397–405.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform. A report to the nation and the Secretary
of Education, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html
National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the national science educa-
tion standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
National Research Council (NRC). (2006). America’s lab report: Investigations in high
school science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Science Foundation (NSF). (2007). Cyberinfrastructure vision for 21st cen-
tury discovery. Arlington, VA: NSF Cyberinfrastructure Council.
National Science Foundation (NSF). (2008). Fostering learning in the networked
world: The cyberlearning opportunity and challenge (A 21st century agenda for
the National Science Foundation). Arlington, VA: Author.
Nichols, J. D., & Steffy, B. E. (1999). An evaluation of success in an alternative
learning programme: Motivational impact versus completion rate. Educational
Review, 51(3), 207–219.
Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept maps and Vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools to
facilitate meaningful learning. Instructional Science, 19, 29–52.
Nussbaum, M. E. (2008). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Pref-
ace and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 345–359.
 Inquiry as Signature Pedagogy 173

Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M., & Poliquin, A. (2008). The role of epistemological
beliefs and scientific argumentation in promoting conceptual change. Interna-
tional Journal of Science Education, 30, 1977–1999.
Passmore, G. G. (1998). Using Vee diagrams to facilitate meaningful learning and
misconception remediation in radiologic technologies laboratory education. Ra-
diologic Science & Education, 4(1), 11–28.
Premi, J., & Shannon, S. I. (2001). Randomized controlled trial of an educational
program for individualized learning. Journal of Continuing Education in the
Health Professions, 17, 245–249.
Rocha, C. J. (2000). Evaluating experiential teaching methods in a policy practice
course: The case for service learning to increase political participation. Journal
of Work Education, 36, 53–63.
Roehrig, G. H., & Luft, J. A. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning secondary
science teachers in implementing scientific inquiry lessons. International Jour-
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 13:25 02 January 2015

nal of Science Education, 26, 3–24.

Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their
influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89, 634–656.
Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. D. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in
science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning.
Research in Science Education, 36, 111–139.
Schunk, D. H. (2001). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In B.
J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic
achievement: Theoretical perspectives (Vol. 2, pp. 125–152). Mahwah, NJ: Erl-
baum.
Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134,
52–59.
Smith, C. A., Strand, S. E., & Bunting, C. J. (2002). The influence of challenge course
participation on moral and ethical reasoning. Journal of Experiential Education,
25, 278–280.
Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative
learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences
(pp. 409–425). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
The Conference Board. (2006). Are they really ready to work: Employers’ perspec-
tives on the basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st
century U.S. workforce. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/documents/FINAL_
REPORT_PDF09-29-06.pdf
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University
Press.
Wallace, C. S., Hand, B., & Yang, E.-M. (2004). The science writing heuristic: Using
writing as a tool for learning in the laboratory. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing
borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice
(pp. 355–368). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Zimmerman, C. (2000). The development of scientific reasoning skills. Developmen-
tal Review, 20, 99–149.