Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

How Tablet-Student Ratio and External Scripts Affect Knowledge Acquisition and Cognitive Load in Scientific Collaborative Inquiry Learning? A Three-Round Quasi-Experiment

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

With the advancement of informational and portable technologies, virtual manipulatives based on tablets are applied to support students’ learning in science education. However, research on the impact of tablet-student ratios on individual knowledge acquisition and cognitive load in collaborative inquiry learning has not been addressed in detail yet. The purpose of this study is to examine the influence of tablet-student ratios (1:1 or 1:m) and external script availability (with or without) on students’ knowledge acquisition and cognitive load in collaborative inquiry learning when using virtual manipulatives. A three-round quasi-experiment was conducted across 3 months with 130 fifth graders from four classes learning three scientific inquiry themes. The four classes, class A (1:1 group with external script condition) with 31 students, class B (1:m group with external script condition) with 34 students, class C (1:1 group without external script condition) with 33 students, and class D (1:m group without external script condition) with 32 students, constitute four technology affordance conditions. The research conducted a pretest, posttest, and repeated-measures ANOVA to explore the effects of technology affordances on students’ knowledge acquisition and cognitive load of collaborative learning. Results show that technology affordances have impacts on students’ knowledge acquisition and cognitive load during collaborative inquiry activities. Moreover, the impacts changed over time. This study has practical implications for the instructional design of mobile device-supported collaborative inquiry activities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  • Abrahamson, D., & Sánchez-García, R. (2016). Learning is moving in new ways: The ecological dynamics of mathematics education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(2), 203–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antle, A. N. (2014). Scratching the surface: Opportunities and challenges from designing interactive tabletops for learning. In V. R. Lee (Ed.), Learning technologies and the body: Integration and implementation in formal and informal learning environments (pp. 55–73). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, T., Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., & Ploetzner, R. (2010). Collaborative inquiry learning: Models, tools, and challenges. International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 349–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, J. W., & Pow, J. W. (2020). The role of social annotation in facilitating collaborative inquiry-based learning. Computers & Education, 147, 103787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chu, H. C. (2014). Potential negative effects of mobile learning on students’ learning achievement and cognitive load—a format assessment perspective. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(1), 332–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). L. Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crompton, H., Burke, D., & Gregory, K. H. (2017). The use of mobile learning in PK-12 education: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 110, 51–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL, Can we support CSCL (pp. 61–91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., & Betrancourt, M. (2006). Collaboration load. In J. Elen & R. E. Clark (Eds.), Theory, Handling Complexity in Learning (pp. 142–163). Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2007). Designing integrative scripts. Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 275–301). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, R. A., & Bliuc, A. (2015). An exploration into first-year university students’ approaches to inquiry and online learning technologies in blended environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(5), 970–980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Haake, J. M., & Mandl, H. (2007). Perspectives on collaboration scripts. Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 1–10). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fokides, E., & Mastrokoukou, A. (2018). Results from a study for teaching human body systems to primary school students using tablets. Contemporary Educational Technology, 9(2), 154–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García-Carmona, A. (2020). From inquiry-based science education to the approach based on scientific practices: A critical analysis and suggestions for science teaching. Science and Education, 29(2), 443–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzmán, J. L., & Joseph, B. (2021). Web-based virtual lab for learning design, operation, control, and optimization of an anaerobic digestion process. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30, 319–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ha, O., & Fang, N. (2018). Interactive virtual and physical manipulatives for improving students’ spatial skills. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(8), 1088–1110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harper, B., & Milman, N. B. (2016). One-to-one technology in K-12 classrooms: A review of the literature from 2004 through 2014. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(2), 129–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2016). Seven affordances of computer-supported collaborative learning: How to support collaborative learning? How Can Technologies Help? Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 247–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory: How many types of load does it really need? Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (2007). Scripting collaborative learning processes: A cognitive perspective. Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 13–37). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., Kirschner, F., Zambrano, R., & J. (2018). From cognitive load theory to collaborative cognitive load theory. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(2), 213–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koning, B. B. D., & Tabbers, H. K. (2011). Facilitating understanding of movements in dynamic visualizations: An embodied perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 23(4), 501–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larrain, A., Howe, C., & Freire, P. (2018). ‘More is not necessarily better’: Curriculum materials support the impact of classroom argumentative dialogue in science teaching on content knowledge. Research in Science & Technological Education, 36(3), 282–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leon, A. C., & Heo, M. (2009). Sample sizes required to detect interactions between two binary fixed-effects in a mixed-effects linear regression model. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 53(3), 603–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, C. P., Wong, L. H., & Shao, Y. J. (2012). Comparison of 1:1 and 1:M CSCL environment for collaborative concept mapping. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(2), 99–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Y. T., & Lin, Y. C. (2016). Effects of mental process integrated nursing training using mobile device on students’ cognitive load, learning attitudes, acceptance, and achievements. Computers in Human Behavior, 55(PB), 1213–1221.

  • Liu, C. C., Hsieh, I. C., Wen, C. T., Chang, M. H., Fan Chiang, S. H., Tsai, M. J., Chang, C. J., & Hwang, F. K. (2021). The affordances and limitations of collaborative science simulations: The analysis from multiple evidences. Computers & Education, 160, 104029.

  • Lu, K., Pang, F., & Shadiev, R. (2021). Understanding the mediating effect of learning approach between learning factors and higher order thinking skills in collaborative inquiry-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69, 2475–2492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mende, S., Proske, A., Körndle, H., et al. (2017). Who benefits from a low versus high guidance CSCL script and why? Instructional Science, 45, 439–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Min, J., Lin, Y. T., & Tsai, H. C. (2016). Mobile APP for motivation to learning: An engineering case. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(8), 2048–2057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moyer, P. S., Bolyard, J. J., & Spikell, M. A. (2002). What are virtual manipulatives? Teaching Children Mathematics, 8(6), 372–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olympiou, G., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2012). Blending physical and virtual manipulatives: An effort to improve students’ conceptual understanding through science laboratory experimentation. Science Education, 96(1), 21–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F. G. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 429–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., & Van Merrienboer, J. (1994). Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 6(4), 351–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., et al. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reychav, I., & Wu, D. (2015). Mobile collaborative learning: The role of individual learning in groups through text and video content delivery in tablets. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 520–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reychav, I., & Wu, D. (2016). The interplay between cognitive task complexity and user interaction in mobile collaborative training. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 333–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sung, Y., Chang, K., & Liu, T. (2016). The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching and learning on students’ learning performance: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Computers & Education, 94, 252–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, F., Wecker, C., Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2017). Socio-cognitive scaffolding with computer-supported collaboration scripts: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 29(3), 477–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C., & Le, H. (2022). The more, the merrier? Roles of device-student ratio in collaborative inquiries and its interactions with external scripts and task complexity. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(8), 1517–1542.

  • Wang, C., Fang, T., & Gu, Y. (2020a). Learning performance and behavioral patterns of online collaborative learning: Impact of cognitive load and affordances of different multimedia. Computers & Education, 143, 103683.

  • Wang, C., Fang, T., & Miao, R. (2018). Learning performance and cognitive load in mobile learning: Impact of interaction complexity. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(6), 917–927.

  • Wang C., Ma Y., & Wu F. (2020b). Comparative performance and involvement in collaborative inquiry learning: Three modalities of using virtual lever manipulative. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(5), 587–596.

  • Wong, L., & Looi, C. (2011). What seams do we remove in mobile-assisted seamless learning? A critical review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2364–2381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zacharia, Z. C., & Olympiou, G. (2011). Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 317–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng, B., Warschauer, M., Lin, C. H., & Chang, C. (2016). Learning in one-to-one laptop environments: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1052–1084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, L., KaLyuga, S., Lee, C., & Lei, C. (2016). Effectiveness of collaborative learning of computer programming under different learning group formations according to students’ prior knowledge: A cognitive load perspective. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 27(2), 171–192.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research is funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [Grant No. 62207003].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Educational Technology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

    Cixiao Wang

  2. Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

    Cixiao Wang & Qian Dong

  3. Science Education and Research Group, Beijing Yuxiang Primary School Huilongguan School, Beijing, China

    Yuying Ma

Authors
  1. Cixiao Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Qian Dong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yuying Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Qian Dong.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in the study were following the ethical standards of the Research Ethics Review Committee of the Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University.

Consent Informed

Consent was obtained from all students included in the study. Data was reported anonymously in the study.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1 ES Before Inquiry

figure a

Appendix 2 ES During Inquiry

figure b

Appendix 3 Inquiry Tasks in Group Worksheets

Learning theme

Task 1

Task 2

Refraction of light (RL)

What happens when light enters the water from the air?

If change the angle of the incident light from air, what happens to the ANGLE of refraction? Find the pattern

Electrical circuits (EC)

State the function of the components in a circuit diagram by analyzing the states of switches, currents, and bulbs

Add a small bulb in a given circuit (modifying a circuit diagram) to enable the two small bulbs to light up or go out at the same time

Electromagnetic induction (EI)

Given an electromagnetic system, figure out in what situation the light goes on and try to find the pattern of the changing of brightness

Try to list some hypotheses of the relationship between the characteristics of some components in a given electromagnetic system. Test these hypotheses by observing the phenomenon in the VM by changing some settings

Appendix 4 Sample Items for Post-tests

Refraction of Light (RL)

  1. 1.

    When light enters the water from the air, it deflects inward. ( )

    Answer: True (T)

  2. 2.

    Among the following phenomena, the refraction of light is ( ).

    1. A

      The sun shone on the thick leaves and appeared light spots on the ground.

    2. B

      The diver saw the man on the shore getting taller in the water.

    3. C

      People saw “white clouds” floating in the water by the lake.

    4. D

      We can see objects that do not emit light from all directions.

    Answer: B

Electrical Circuits (EC)

  1. 1.

    Connect two intact small bulbs in series. When one small bulb is on, the other will be on. ( )

    Answer: True (T)

  2. 2.

    Which of the following description is correct? ( )

    1. A

      As long as the switch is closed, the small bulb will light up.

    2. B

      Wires can connect circuits.

    3. C

      The power supply can consume electric energy.

    4. D

      A small bulb can still glow when its filament is broken.

    Answer: B

Electromagnetic Induction (EI)

  1. 1.

    Placing the magnet stationary in the coil will produce an electric current. ( )

    Answer: False (F)

  2. 2.

    Which of the following description of the magnet is correct? ( )

    1. A

      The magnet moves in the coil of the closed circuit and the bulb emits light.

    2. B

      The magnet moves in the coil of the closed circuit without changing the voltage.

    3. C

      The magnetism of a magnet will never disappear.

    4. D

      Magnets are divided into the South Pole and the North Pole.

    Answer: A

Appendix 5 Cognitive Load Scale

Mental load

1. The difficulty of this learning activity for me

2. The difficulty of this learning content for me

3. The difficulty of this related knowledge for me

4. The difficulty of this learning process for me

Mental effort

1. The degree of mental effort I invested into the learning activity

2. The degree of energy I devoted to the learning activity

3. The degree of time tension during the learning activity

4. The degree of nervousness during the learning activity

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, C., Dong, Q. & Ma, Y. How Tablet-Student Ratio and External Scripts Affect Knowledge Acquisition and Cognitive Load in Scientific Collaborative Inquiry Learning? A Three-Round Quasi-Experiment. J Sci Educ Technol 32, 211–226 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-10024-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-10024-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation