光學在學習和教學中都是一個具有挑戰性的主題，其抽象的概念和對科學模型的錯誤理解是造成學生光學學習困難的重要因素。科學教育學者建議電腦模擬可以促進學生的學習表現，因此我們進行兩項研究來了解電腦模擬的學習環境如何影響學生的概念理解、後設認知監控準確性及改善探究能力。研究一的目的在調查發光射線模型和電腦模擬對學生概念理解和後設認知監控準確性的影響效果。三個高一班級的學生參加了研究一的實驗，其中一個班級(n = 34)參與傳統射線模型的講授課程，另一個班級(n = 33)參與發光射線模型的講授課程，第三個班級(n = 37)則參與電腦模擬結合發光射線模型的課程。透過使用選擇題的前測與後測來比較三個班級學生的概念理解及對概念理解的後設認知監控準確性。研究一的結果顯示發光射線模型改善學生的概念理解，而電腦模擬則有助於提高學生在概念理解的後設認知監控準確性。此外，電腦模擬透過提供3D結構的成像之獨特性促進學生光學概念的理解。研究二的目的是調查引入後設認知鷹架對學生在電腦模擬的環境中進行探究任務之影響。兩個高三班級的學生參加了這項研究，其中一個班級 (n = 33) 參與後設認知鷹架融入電腦模擬的探究課程，另一個班級 (n = 34) 則參與僅有電腦模擬支持的探究課程。透過使用選擇題的前測與後測及學習過程中的學習單來比較兩個班級學生的概念理解、探究思考技能(控制變因策略、數據解釋和圖形理解)、後設認知監控準確性和探究活動的表現。研究二的結果顯示使用不同學習方法之兩個班級的學生，其概念理解和對概念理解的後設認知監控準確性，後測均較前測顯著改善，而將後設認知鷹架融入電腦模擬的探究學習活動則可以改善探究思考技能及對此技能的後設認知監控；特別是在較複雜的探究任務中，引入後設認知鷹架對學習效果的改善更是顯著。這些發現將有助於科學教師發展最佳教學模組來促進學生的光學學習。

Optics is a challenging topic in both learning and instruction. Various abstract concepts and misunderstanding of scientific models are important factors contributing to students’ difficulties in optics learning. Researchers of science education have suggested that computer simulations could enhance students’ learning. Therefore, two studies were conducted to investigate how simulation-based learning environments affect students' conceptual understanding, monitoring accuracy, and improve inquiry abilities. Study 1 aimed to examine the effects of luminous ray model and computer simulations on students’ conceptual understanding and the accuracy of metacognitive monitoring. 10th-grade students in three classes participated in Study 1. One class (n = 34), which received a lecture-based curriculum with the traditional ray model, another class (n = 33), which received a lecture-based curriculum with the luminous ray model, and the other class (n = 37), which received a simulation-based curriculum with the luminous ray model, were compared. Students’ conceptual understanding and monitoring accuracy of conceptual understanding were measured using multiple-choice pre- and post-tests. The results indicated that the luminous ray model had significant impacts on students’ conceptual understanding, whereas computer simulations are helpful in improving students’ monitoring accuracy of conceptual understanding. Furthermore, the unique affordance of computer simulations provided 3D structure of the displayed image to facilitate students’ conceptual understanding. Study 2 aimed to explore the effects of metacognitive scaffolding in simulation-based inquiry. 12th-grade students in two classes participated in this study. One class (n = 33) received simulation-based inquiry combined with metacognitive scaffolding was compared with another class (n = 34), which received only simulation-based inquiry. Students’ conceptual understanding, thinking skills (e.g., the control of variables, data interpretation, and graph comprehension), monitoring accuracy, and inquiry performance were measured using multiple-choice pre- and post-tests and worksheets. The results indicated that students’ conceptual understanding and monitoring accuracy of conceptual understanding in both groups improved significantly from pre-test to post-test. Embedding metacognitive scaffolds in simulation-based inquiry was more conductive to the improvement of thinking skills as well as metacognitive monitoring of thinking skills, especially in the more complex tasks. These findings would help science teachers develop an optimal instructional module to facilitate students’ optics learning.

Abdullah, S., & Shariff, A. (2008). The effects of inquiry-based computer simulation with cooperative learning on scientific thinking and conceptual understanding of gas laws. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 4(4), 387-398.
Adadan, E. (2020). Analyzing the role of metacognitive awareness in preservice chemistry teachers' understanding of gas behavior in a multirepresentational instruction setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(2), 253-278.
Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183-198.
Akpinar, E. (2014). The use of interactive computer animations based on POE as a presentation tool in primary science teaching. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(4), 527-537.
Akuma, F. V., & Callaghan, R. (2019). A systematic review characterizing and clarifying intrinsic teaching challenges linked to inquiry‐based practical work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(5), 619-648.
Alexander, P. A. (2013). Calibration: What is it and why it matters? An introduction to the special issue on calibrating calibration. Learning and Instruction, 24, 1-3.
Ambrose, B. S., Shaffer, P. S., Steinberg, R. N., & McDermott, L. C. (1999). An investigation of student understanding of single-slit diffraction and double-slit interference. American Journal of Physics, 67(2), 146-155.
Azevedo, R. (2007). Understanding the complex nature of self-regulatory processes in learning with computer-based learning environments: An introduction. Metacognition and Learning, 2(2-3), 57-65.
Azevedo, R., Moos, D. C., Johnson, A. M., & Chauncey, A. D. (2010). Measuring cognitive and metacognitive regulatory processes during hypermedia learning: Issues and challenges. Educational psychologist, 45(4), 210-223.
Bendall, S., Goldberg, F., & Galili, I. (1993). Prospective elementary teachers' prior knowledge about light. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(9), 1169-1187.
Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual review of psychology, 64, 417-444.
Bol, L., Hacker, D. J., O'Shea, P., & Allen, D. (2005). The influence of overt practice, achievement level, and explanatory style on calibration accuracy and performance. The Journal of Experimental Education, 73(4), 269-290.
Bruckermann, T., Aschermann, E., Bresges, A., & Schlüter, K. (2017). Metacognitive and multimedia support of experiments in inquiry learning for science teacher preparation. International Journal of Science Education, 39(6), 701-722.
Bryan, J. A., & Slough, S. W. (2009). Converging lens simulation design and image predictions. Physics Education, 44(3), 264-275.
Cavagnetto, A., Hand, B. M., & Norton‐Meier, L. (2010). The nature of elementary student science discourse in the context of the science writing heuristic approach. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 427-449.
Cayvaz, A., Akcay, H., & Kapici, H. O. (2020). Comparison of simulation-based and textbook-based instructions on middle school students’ achievement, inquiry skills and attitudes. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 8(1), 34-43.
Chang, H. P., Chen, J. Y., Guo, C. J., Chen, C. C., Chang, C. Y., Lin, S. H., ... & Chen, C. C. (2007). Investigating primary and secondary students’ learning of physics concepts in Taiwan. International Journal of Science Education, 29(4), 465-482.
Chang, K. E., Chen, Y. L., Lin, H. Y., & Sung, Y. T. (2008). Effects of learning support in simulation-based physics learning. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1486-1498.
Chang, H. P., Chen, C. C., Guo, G. J., Cheng, Y. J., Lin, C. Y., & Jen, T. H. (2011). The development of a competence scale for learning science: Inquiry and communication. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(5), 1213-1233.
Chen, S., Huang, C. C., & Chou, T. L. (2016). The effect of metacognitive scaffolds on low achievers’ laboratory learning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(2), 281-296.
Chen, S., Lo, H. C., Lin, J. W., Liang, J. C., Chang, H. Y., Hwang, F. K., ... & Tsai, C. C. (2012). Development and implications of technology in reform-based physics laboratories. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 8(2), 020113.
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.
Chien, K. P., Tsai, C. Y., Chen, H. L., Chang, W. H., & Chen, S. (2015). Learning differences and eye fixation patterns in virtual and physical science laboratories. Computers & Education, 82, 191-201.
Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 1-49.
Clark, D., & Jorde, D. (2004). Helping students revise disruptive experientially supported ideas about thermodynamics: Computer visualizations and tactile models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 41(1), 1-23.
Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 293-321.
Dai, R., Fritchman, J. C., Liu, Q., Xiao, Y., Yu, H., & Bao, L. (2019). Assessment of student understanding on light interference. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15(2), 020134.
de Jong, T., & Njoo, M. (1992). Learning and instruction with computer simulations: Learning processes involved. In Computer-based learning environments and problem solving (pp. 411-427). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
de Jong, T., & Van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179-201.
Destan, N., & Roebers, C. M. (2015). What are the metacognitive costs of young children’s overconfidence?. Metacognition and Learning, 10(3), 347-374.
Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2012). Overconfidence produces underachievement: Inaccurate self evaluations undermine students’ learning and retention. Learning and Instruction, 22(4), 271-280.
Ebenezer, J., Kaya, O. N., & Ebenezer, D. L. (2011). Engaging students in environmental research projects: Perceptions of fluency with innovative technologies and levels of scientific inquiry abilities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(1), 94-116.
Ergül, R., Şımşeklı, Y., Çaliş, S., Özdılek, Z., Göçmençelebı, Ş., & Şanli, M. (2011). The effects of inquiry-based science teaching on elementary school students' science process skills and science attitudes. Bulgarian Journal of Science & Education Policy, 5(1), 48-68.
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1996). The expert learner: Strategic, self-regulated, and reflective. Instructional Science, 24(1), 1-24.
Eylon, B. S., Ronen, M., & Ganiel, U. (1996). Computer simulations as tools for teaching and learning: Using a simulation environment in optics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 5(2), 93-110.
Fetherstonhaugh, A., Happs, J., & Treagust, D. (1987). Student misconceptions about light: a comparative study of prevalent views found in Western Australia, France New Zealand, Sweden and the United States. Research in Science Education, 17(1), 156-164.
Finkelstein, N. D., Adams, W. K., Keller, C. J., Kohl, P. B., Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., ... & LeMaster, R. (2005). When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 1(1), 010103.
Furtak, E. M., & Penuel, W. R. (2019). Coming to terms: Addressing the persistence of “hands‐on” and other reform terminology in the era of science as practice. Science Education, 103(1), 167-186.
Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300-329.
Galili, I. (1996). Students’ conceptual change in geometrical optics. International Journal of Science Education, 18(7), 847-868.
Galili, I., Bendall, S., & Goldberg, F. (1993). The effects of prior knowledge and instruction on understanding image formation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(3), 271-301.
Galili, I., & Hazan, A. (2000). Learners' knowledge in optics: interpretation, structure and analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 57-88.
Glazer, N. (2011). Challenges with graph interpretation: A review of the literature. Studies in Science Education, 47(2), 183-210.
Goldberg, F., & Bendall, S. (1995). Making the invisible visible: A teaching/learning environment that builds on a new view of the physics learner. American Journal of Physics, 63(11), 978-991.
Goldberg, F. M., & McDermott, L. C. (1986). Student difficulties in understanding image formation by a plane mirror. The Physics Teacher, 24(8), 472-481.
Goldberg, F. M., & McDermott, L. C. (1987). An investigation of student understanding of the real image formed by a converging lens or concave mirror. American Journal of Physics, 55(2), 108-119.
Greene, J. A., Moos, D. C., Azevedo, R., & Winters, F. I. (2008). Exploring differences between gifted and grade-level students’ use of self-regulatory learning processes with hypermedia. Computers & Education, 50(3), 1069-1083.
Gu, X., Chen, S., Zhu, W., & Lin, L. (2015). An intervention framework designed to develop the collaborative problem-solving skills of primary school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(1), 143-159.
Harris, C. J., & Rooks, D. L. (2010). Managing inquiry-based science: Challenges in enacting complex science instruction in elementary and middle school classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(2), 227-240.
Hegarty, M., Kriz, S., & Cate, C. (2003). The roles of mental animations and external animations in understanding mechanical systems. Cognition and Instruction, 21(4), 209-249.
Heywood, D. S. (2005). Primary trainee teachers’ learning and teaching about light: Some pedagogic implications for initial teacher training. International Journal of Science Education, 27(12), 1447-1475.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Understanding complex systems: Some core challenges. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 53-61.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty‐first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28-54.
Hsu, Y. S., & Thomas, R. A. (2002). The impacts of a web-aided instructional simulation on science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 24(9), 955-979.
Hsu, Y. S., Wang, C. Y., & Zhang, W. X. (2017). Supporting technology-enhanced inquiry through metacognitive and cognitive prompts: Sequential analysis of metacognitive actions in response to mixed prompts. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 701-712.
Hubber, P. (2006). Year 12 students' mental models of the nature of light. Research in Science Education, 36(4), 419-439.
Huppert, J., Lomask, S. M., & Lazarowitz, R. (2002). Computer simulations in the high school: Students' cognitive stages, science process skills and academic achievement in microbiology. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 803-821.
Husnaini, S. J., & Chen, S. (2019). Effects of guided inquiry virtual and physical laboratories on conceptual understanding, inquiry performance, scientific inquiry self-efficacy, and enjoyment. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15(1), 010119.
Jeong, H., Songer, N. B., & Lee, S. Y. (2007). Evidentiary competence: sixth graders' understanding for gathering and interpreting evidence in scientific investigations. Research in Science Education, 37(1), 75-97.
Kali, Y., & Linn, M. C. (2008). Technology-enhanced support strategies for inquiry learning. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, 145-161.
Kaltakçı, D. (2012). Development and application of a four-tier test to assess pre-service physics teachers' misconceptions about geometrical optics. (Doctoral dissertation), Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey (2012).
Kaltakci, D., & Eryilmaz, A. (2010). Sources of optics misconceptions. Contemporary Science Education Research: learning and assessment, 13-16.
Kaltakci-Gurel, D., Eryilmaz, A., & McDermott, L. C. (2017). Development and application of a four-tier test to assess pre-service physics teachers’ misconceptions about geometrical optics. Research in Science & Technological Education, 35(2), 238-260.
Kapon, S. (2016). Doing research in school: Physics inquiry in the zone of proximal development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(8), 1172-1197.
Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computers & Education, 56(2), 403-417.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not Work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.
Kleitman, S., & Moscrop, T. (2010). Self-confidence and academic achievements in primary-school children: Their relationships and links to parental bonds, intelligence, age, and gender. In Trends and prospects in metacognition research (pp. 293-326). Springer, Boston, MA.
Kocakülah, M. S., & Kural, M. (2010). Investigation of conceptual change about double-slit interference in secondary school physics. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 5(4), 435-460
Koriat, A. (2008). Subjective confidence in one's answers: the consensuality principle. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(4), 945.
Kostons, D., Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2012). Training self-assessment and task-selection skills: A cognitive approach to improving self-regulated learning. Learning and Instruction, 22(2), 121-132.
Kramarski, B., & Dudai, V. (2009). Group-metacognitive support for online inquiry in mathematics with differential self-questioning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40(4), 377-404.
Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3-4), 313-350.
Kruit, P. M., Oostdam, R. J., van den Berg, E., & Schuitema, J. A. (2018). Assessing students’ ability in performing scientific inquiry: instruments for measuring science skills in primary education. Research in Science & Technological Education, 36(4), 413-439.
Kruit, P. M., Oostdam, R. J., van den Berg, E., & Schuitema, J. A. (2018). Effects of explicit instruction on the acquisition of students’ science inquiry skills in grades 5 and 6 of primary education. International Journal of Science Education, 40(4), 421-441.
Kuhn, D., Garcia-Mila, M., Zohar, A., & Andersen, C. (1995). Strategies of knowledge acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 60 (4), 1–128.
Kuhn, D., & Pease, M. (2008). What needs to develop in the development of inquiry skills?. Cognition and Instruction, 26(4), 512-559.
Kutluay, Y. (2005). Diagnosis of eleventh grade students' misconceptions about geometric optic by a three-tier test (Master's thesis), Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey (2005).
Kuo, C. Y., Wu, H. K., Jen, T. H., & Hsu, Y. S. (2015). Development and validation of a multimedia-based assessment of scientific inquiry abilities. International Journal of Science Education, 37(14), 2326-2357.
Lai, C. L., Hwang, G. J., & Tu, Y. H. (2018). The effects of computer-supported self-regulation in science inquiry on learning outcomes, learning processes, and self-efficacy. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(4), 863-892.
Lakshminarayanan, V., Ghalila, H., Ammar, A., & Varadharajan, S. (2016, September). Role of simulations in optics education. In Optics Education and Outreach IV (Vol. 9946, p. 99460N). International Society for Optics and Photonics.
Langley, D., Ronen, M., & Eylon, B. S. (1997). Light propagation and visual patterns: Preinstruction learners' conceptions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 34(4), 399-424.
Larkin, S. (2009). Metacognition in young children. New York, NY: Routledge.
Lewis, E. L., Stern, J. L., & Linn, M. C. (1993). The effect of computer simulations on introductory thermodynamics understanding. Educational Technology, 33(1), 45-58.
Lorch Jr, R. F., Lorch, E. P., Calderhead, W. J., Dunlap, E. E., Hodell, E. C., & Freer, B. D. (2010). Learning the control of variables strategy in higher and lower achieving classrooms: Contributions of explicit instruction and experimentation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(1), 90-101.
Maki, R. H., Shields, M., Wheeler, A. E., & Zacchilli, T. L. (2005). Individual Differences in Absolute and Relative Metacomprehension Accuracy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(4), 723-731.
Manlove, S., Lazonder, A. W., & de Jong, T. (2006). Regulative support for collaborative scientific inquiry learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(2), 87-98.
Manlove, S., Lazonder, A. W., & de Jong, T. (2007). Software scaffolds to promote regulation during scientific inquiry learning. Metacognition and Learning, 2(2-3), 141-155.
Martinez, G., Naranjo, F. L., Perez, A. L., Suero, M. I., & Pardo, P. J. (2011). Comparative study of the effectiveness of three learning environments: Hyper-realistic virtual simulations, traditional schematic simulations and traditional laboratory. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 7(2), 020111.
McKagan, S. B., Handley, W., Perkins, K. K., & Wieman, C. E. (2009). A research-based curriculum for teaching the photoelectric effect. American Journal of Physics, 77(1), 87-94.
Mešić, V., Hajder, E., Neumann, K., & Erceg, N. (2016). Comparing different approaches to visualizing light waves: An experimental study on teaching wave optics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(1), 010135.
Mikropoulos, T. A., & Natsis, A. (2011). Educational virtual environments: A ten-year review of empirical research (1999–2009). Computers & Education, 56(3), 769-780.
Ministry of Education, Government of Taiwan. 2009. “Curriculum Guidelines of General High School.” Accessed Aug 2009. https://www.k12ea.gov.tw/files/common_unit/a7285432-45bf-4371-b514-3eb12aff9871/doc/99%E6%99%AE%E9%80%9A%E9%AB%98%E4%B8%AD%E8%AA%B2%E7%A8%8B%E7%B6%B1%E8%A6%81.pdf
Ministry of Education, Government of Taiwan. 2018. “Curriculum Guidelines of 12-Year Basic Education.” Accessed Nov 2018. https://stv.naer.edu.tw/classic/data/course_outline/pta_18538_240851_60502.pdf
Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry‐based science instruction—what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474-496.
Morgan, K., & Brooks, D. W. (2012). Investigating a method of scaffolding student-designed experiments. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(4), 513-522.
Myers, M. J., & Burgess, A. B. (2003). Inquiry-based laboratory course improves students’ ability to design experiments and interpret data. Advances in Physiology Education, 27(1), 26–33.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
Nietfeld, J. L., Cao, L., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Metacognitive monitoring accuracy and student performance in the postsecondary classroom. Journal of Experimental Education, 74(1), 7–28.
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.
Olympiou, G., Zacharias, Z., & Dejong, T. (2013). Making the invisible visible: Enhancing students’ conceptual understanding by introducing representations of abstract objects in a simulation. Instructional Science, 41(3), 575-596.
Osborne, J. F., Black, P., Meadows, J., & Smith, M. (1993). Young children's (7‐11) ideas about light and their development. International Journal of Science Education, 15(1), 83-93.
Otero, V. K., Johnson, A., & Goldberg, F. (1999). How does the computer facilitate the development of physics knowledge by prospective elementary teachers?. Journal of Education, 57-89.
Palacios, F. J. P., Cazorla, F. N., & Madrid, A. C. (1989). Misconceptions on geometric optics and their association with relevant educational variables. International Journal of Science Education, 11(3), 273-286.
Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., De Jong, T., Van Riesen, S. A., Kamp, E. T., ... & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47-61.
Pedaste, M., & Sarapuu, T. (2006). Developing an effective support system for inquiry learning in a web‐based environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(1), 47-62.
Peters, E. E., & Kitsantas, A. (2010). Self‐regulation of student epistemic thinking in science: The role of metacognitive prompts. Educational Psychology, 30(1), 27-52.
Piaget, J. (1972). Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Human development, 15(1), 1-12.
Poikela, P., Ruokamo, H., & Teräs, M. (2015). Comparison of meaningful learning characteristics in simulated nursing practice after traditional versus computer-based simulation method: A qualitative videography study. Nurse education today, 35(2), 373-382.
Quigley, C., Marshall, J. C., & Deaton, C. (2011). Challenges to inquiry teaching and suggestions for how to meet them. Science Educator, 20(1), 55-61.
Quintana, C., Zhang, M., & Krajcik, J. (2005). A framework for supporting metacognitive aspects of online inquiry through software-based scaffolding. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 235-244.
Radovanović, J., & Sliško, J. (2014). Introducing self-regulated learning into early physics teaching in Serbia: Design, initial implementation and evaluation of a multi-stage sequence of homework and classwork. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 13(3), 411-424.
Reiss, M. J., & Abrahams, I. (2015). The assessment of practical skills. School Science Review, 357, 40-44.
Rickey, D., & Stacy, A. M. (2000). The role of metacognition in learning chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(7), 915-920.
Ronen, M., & Eliahu, M. (2000). Simulation—A bridge between theory and reality: The case of electric circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16(1), 14-26.
Ronen, M., & Eylon, B. S. (1993). To see or not to see: the eye in geometrical optics-when and how?. Physics Education, 28(1), 52-59.
Rönnebeck, S., Bernholt, S., & Ropohl, M. (2016). Searching for a common ground–A literature review of empirical research on scientific inquiry activities. Studies in Science Education, 52(2), 161-197.
Roth, W. M., & Lucas, K. B. (1997). From “truth” to “invented reality”: A discourse analysis of high school physics students' talk about scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 145-179.
Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Raghavan, K., & Reiner, M. (1991). Causal models and experimentation strategies in scientific reasoning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(2), 201-238.
Schraw, G. (2009). A conceptual analysis of five measures of metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition and Learning, 4(1), 33-45.
Schwarz, C. V., & White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students' understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165-205.
Şengören, S. K. (2010). How do Turkish high school graduates use the wave theory of light to explain optics phenomena?. Physics Education, 45(3), 253-263.
Sheldrake, R. (2016). Students’ intentions towards studying science at upper-secondary school: the differential effects of under-confidence and over-confidence. International Journal of Science Education, 38(8), 1256-1277.
Şimşek, P., & Kabapınar, F. (2010). The effects of inquiry-based learning on elementary students’ conceptual understanding of matter, scientific process skills and science attitudes. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 1190-1194.
Stankov, L. (2000). Complexity, metacognition, and fluid intelligence. Intelligence, 28(2), 121-143.
Stankov, L., Lee, J., Luo, W., & Hogan, D. J. (2012). Confidence: A better predictor of academic achievement than self-efficacy, self-concept and anxiety?. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(6), 747-758.
Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273-1296.
Tao, P. K. (2004). Developing understanding of image formation by lenses through collaborative learning mediated by multimedia computer‐assisted learning programs. International Journal of Science Education, 26(10), 1171-1197.
Tao, P. K., & Gunstone, R. F. (1999). The process of conceptual change in force and motion during computer‐supported physics instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 859-882.
Teichert, M. A., Tien, L. T., Dysleski, L., & Rickey, D. (2017). Thinking Processes Associated with Undergraduate Chemistry Students’ Success at Applying a Molecular-Level Model in a New Context. Journal of Chemical Education, 94(9), 1195-1208.
Triona, L. M., & Klahr, D. (2003). Point and click or grab and heft: Comparing the influence of physical and virtual instructional materials on elementary school students' ability to design experiments. Cognition and Instruction, 21(2), 149-173.
Trundle, K. C., & Bell, R. L. (2010). The use of a computer simulation to promote conceptual change: A quasi-experimental study. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1078-1088.
Tsui, C. Y., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Genetics reasoning with multiple external representations. Research in Science Education, 33(1), 111-135.
Tural, G. (2015). Cross-Grade Comparison of Students' Conceptual Understanding with Lenses in Geometric Optics. Science Education International, 26(3), 325-343.
van der Meij, J., & de Jong, T. (2006). Supporting students' learning with multiple representations in a dynamic simulation-based learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 199-212.
van Joolingen, W. R., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2009). Developments in inquiry learning. Technology-enhanced learning (pp. 21-37). Springer, Dordrecht.
Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press.
Wenning, C. J. (2007). Assessing inquiry skills as a component of scientific literacy. Journal of Physics Teacher Education Online, 4(2), 21-24.
Wosilait, K., Heron, P. R., Shaffer, P. S., & McDermott, L. C. (1999). Addressing student difficulties in applying a wave model to the interference and diffraction of light. American Journal of Physics, 67(7), S5-S15.
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3-118.
White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (2005). A theoretical framework and approach for fostering metacognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 211-223.
Wilke, R.R. & Straits, W.J. (2005). Practical advice for teaching inquiry- based science process skills in biological sciences. American Biology Teacher, 67, 534-540.
Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625-636.
Winn, W., Stahr, F., Sarason, C., Fruland, R., Oppenheimer, P., & Lee, Y. L. (2006). Learning oceanography from a computer simulation compared with direct experience at sea. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1), 25-42.
Zacharia, Z., & Anderson, O. R. (2003). The effects of an interactive computer-based simulation prior to performing a laboratory inquiry-based experiment on students’ conceptual understanding of physics. American Journal of Physics, 71(6), 618-629.
Zacharia, Z. C., Olympiou, G., & Papaevripidou, M. (2008). Effects of experimenting with physical and virtual manipulatives on students' conceptual understanding in heat and temperature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 1021-1035.
Zachos, P., Hick, T. L., Doane, W. E., & Sargent, C. (2000). Setting theoretical and empirical foundations for assessing scientific inquiry and discovery in educational programs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 938-962.
Zhang, W. X., Hsu, Y. S., Wang, C. Y., & Ho, Y. T. (2015). Exploring the impacts of cognitive and metacognitive prompting on students’ scientific inquiry practices within an e-learning environment. International Journal of Science Education, 37(3), 529-553.
Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27(2), 172-223.
Zion, M., & Mendelovici, R. (2012). Moving from structured to open inquiry: Challenges and limits. Science Education International, 23(4), 383-399.
Zohar, A., & Barzilai, S. (2013). A review of research on metacognition in science education: Current and future directions. Studies in Science Education, 49(2), 121-169.