TY - GEN
T1 - Dusting off the messy middle
T2 - 18th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, AIED 2017
AU - Li, Haiying
AU - Gobert, Janice
AU - Dicker, Rachel
N1 - Funding Information:
The research reported here was supported by Institute of Education Sciences (R305A120778) to Janice Gobert.
Publisher Copyright:
© Springer International Publishing AG 2017.
PY - 2017
Y1 - 2017
N2 - Researchers are trying to develop assessments for inquiry practices to elicit students’ deep science learning, but few studies have examined the relationship between students’ doing, i.e. performance assessment, and writing, i.e. open responses, during inquiry. Inquiry practices include generating hypotheses, collecting data, interpreting data, warranting claims, and communicating findings [1]. The first four practices involve “doing” science, whereas the last involves writing scientific explanations, i.e. arguing using evidence. In this study, we explored whether what students wrote in their constructed responses reflected what they did during science inquiry in the Inq-ITS system. Results showed that more than half of the students’ writing did not match what they did in the environment. Findings revealed multiple types of students in the messy middle, which has implications for both teacher instruction and intelligent tutoring systems, such as Inq-ITS, in terms of providing real-time feedback for students to address the full complement of inquiry practices [1].
AB - Researchers are trying to develop assessments for inquiry practices to elicit students’ deep science learning, but few studies have examined the relationship between students’ doing, i.e. performance assessment, and writing, i.e. open responses, during inquiry. Inquiry practices include generating hypotheses, collecting data, interpreting data, warranting claims, and communicating findings [1]. The first four practices involve “doing” science, whereas the last involves writing scientific explanations, i.e. arguing using evidence. In this study, we explored whether what students wrote in their constructed responses reflected what they did during science inquiry in the Inq-ITS system. Results showed that more than half of the students’ writing did not match what they did in the environment. Findings revealed multiple types of students in the messy middle, which has implications for both teacher instruction and intelligent tutoring systems, such as Inq-ITS, in terms of providing real-time feedback for students to address the full complement of inquiry practices [1].
KW - Constructed response
KW - Doing science
KW - Explanation skills
KW - Inquiry skills
KW - Log files
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85022191215&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85022191215&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/978-3-319-61425-0_15
DO - 10.1007/978-3-319-61425-0_15
M3 - Conference contribution
AN - SCOPUS:85022191215
SN - 9783319614243
T3 - Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)
SP - 175
EP - 187
BT - Artificial Intelligence in Education - 18th International Conference, AIED 2017, Proceedings
A2 - Andre, Elisabeth
A2 - Hu, Xiangen
A2 - Rodrigo, Ma. Mercedes T.
A2 - du Boulay, Benedict
A2 - Baker, Ryan
PB - Springer Verlag
Y2 - 28 June 2017 through 1 July 2017
ER -