Do Video Modeling and Metacognitive Prompts Improve

Educational Psychology Review (2022) 34:1025–1061
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09652-3
INTERVENTION STUDY
Do Video Modeling and Metacognitive Prompts Improve

Self‑Regulated Scientific Inquiry?
Yoana Omarchevska1 · Andreas Lachner1,2 · Juliane Richter1,3 ·

Katharina Scheiter1,2
Accepted: 14 December 2021 / Published online: 20 January 2022

© The Author(s) 2022
Abstract
Guided inquiry learning is an effective method for learning about scientific con-
cepts. The present study investigated the effects of combining video modeling (VM)
examples and metacognitive prompts on university students’ (N = 127) scientific
reasoning and self-regulation during inquiry learning. We compared the effects of
watching VM examples combined with prompts (VMP) to watching VM examples
only, and to unguided inquiry (control) in a training and a transfer task. Depend-
ent variables were scientific reasoning ability, hypothesis and argumentation quality,
and scientific reasoning and self-regulation processes. Participants in the VMP and
VM conditions had higher hypothesis and argumentation quality in the training task
and higher hypothesis quality in the transfer task compared to the control group.
There was no added benefit of the prompts. Screen captures and think aloud proto-
cols during the two tasks served to obtain insights into students’ scientific reasoning
and self-regulation processes. Epistemic network analysis (ENA) and process min-
ing were used to model the co-occurrence and sequences of these processes. The
ENA identified stronger co-occurrences between scientific reasoning and self-regu-
lation processes in the two VM conditions compared to the control condition. Pro-
cess mining revealed that in the VM conditions these processes occurred in unique
sequences and that self-regulation processes had many self-loops. Our findings show
that video modeling examples are a promising instructional method for supporting
inquiry learning on both the process and the learning outcomes level.
Keywords Scientific reasoning · Self-regulation · Video modeling · Metacognitive

prompting · Epistemic network analysis · Process mining
* Yoana Omarchevska
[email protected]
1
Leibniz-Institut Für Wissensmedien, Schleichstraße 6, 72076 Tübingen, Germany
2
University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
3
Macromedia University of Applied Sciences, Stuttgart, Germany
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
1026 Educational Psychology Review (2022) 34:1025–1061
Improving scientific reasoning and argumentation is a central aim of science educa-

tion (Engelmann et al., 2016; OECD, 2013). Consequently, science education has
moved toward more inquiry-based learning approaches. Learning from inquiry can
be more effective than direct instruction when appropriately guided (Lazonder &
Harmsen, 2016). Typically, students use computer simulations to explore scientific
concepts by testing hypotheses, conducting experiments, and evaluating data.
Inquiry learning can improve scientific reasoning by having students “act like
scientists”, thereby improving their learning of the content and the corresponding
scientific processes (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 2004). However, students might strug-
gle with inquiry learning because they lack 1) scientific reasoning skills to conduct
experiments or 2) self-regulation abilities, which are particularly important for
navigating through complex learning environments like simulations. The present
study tested the effectiveness of two types of guidance—video modeling examples
and metacognitive prompts. The video modeling examples provided an integrated
instruction of scientific reasoning and self-regulated learning. The metacognitive
prompts aimed to further ensure the use of self-regulation processes by prompting
students to monitor their scientific reasoning activities during inquiry. To our knowl-
edge, this is the first study to develop an intervention aimed at simultaneously fos-
tering scientific reasoning and self-regulation processes in an integrated way and
test its effectiveness both at the process and product level (i.e., hypothesis and argu-
mentation quality). To show the intervention’s effectiveness at the process level, we
introduced two statistical methods to analyze the conjoint and sequential use of both
types of processes that so far have been used only sparingly in educational research,
namely, ENA and process mining.
Theoretical Framework
Scientific Reasoning and Argumentation
Scientific reasoning and argumentation skills are essential for comprehending and
evaluating scientific findings (Engelmann et al., 2016; Pedaste et al., 2015). These
skills refer to understanding how scientific knowledge is created, the scientific meth-
ods, and the validity of scientific findings (Fischer et al., 2014). Scientific reason-
ing and argumentation are defined as a set of eight epistemic activities, applicable
across scientific domains (extending beyond the natural sciences, see Renkl, 2018
for a similar discussion)—problem identification, questioning, hypothesis genera-
tion, construction and redesign of artefacts, evidence generation, evidence evalua-
tion, drawing conclusions, and communicating and scrutinizing (Fischer et al., 2014;
Hetmanek et al., 2018). During problem identification a problem representation is
built, followed by questioning, during which specific research questions are identi-
fied. Hypothesis generation is concerned with formulating potential answers to the
research question, which are based on prior evidence and/or theoretical models. To
test the generated hypothesis, an artefact can be constructed and later revised based
on the evidence. Evidence is generated using controlled experiments, observations,
or deductive reasoning to test the hypothesis. An important strategy for correct
13
Educational Psychology Review (2022) 34:1025–1061 1027
evidence generation is the control-of-variables strategy (CVS; Chen & Klahr, 1999),
which postulates that only the variable of interest should be manipulated, while all
other variables are held constant. The generated evidence is evaluated with respect
to the original theory. Next, multiple pieces of evidence are integrated to draw con-
clusions and revise the original claim.
Argumentation can be considered a consequence of scientific reasoning
because the generated evidence is used to draw conclusions about scientific issues
(Engelmann et al., 2016). We measured argumentation quality using the claim-
evidence-reasoning (CER) framework which breaks down argumentation into
a claim, evidence, and reasoning (McNeill et al., 2006). The claim answers the
research question, the evidence is the data provided to support the claim, and the
reasoning is the justification why the evidence supports the claim. Last, findings are
scrutinized and communicated to a broader audience.
Students and adults often struggle with argumentation (Koslowski, 2012; Kuhn,
1991; McNeill, 2011) and scientific reasoning (de Jong & van Joolingen, 1998).
However, scientific reasoning and argumentation can be improved with instruction
and practice (Osborne et al., 2004), for example, using inquiry learning.
Computer‑Supported Inquiry Learning
Students can use online simulations to actively learn about scientific concepts and
the inquiry process (Zacharia et al., 2015). During inquiry, students apply some or
all of the aforementioned scientific reasoning processes (van Joolingen & Zacharia,
2009). Using online simulations, students can conduct multiple experiments in
a short amount of time and investigate concepts which are otherwise difficult to
explore (e.g., evolution). More importantly, computer-supported inquiry learning
environments provide unique opportunities for learning, like multiple representations
and non-linear presentation of information (de Jong, 2006; Furtak et al., 2012).
Students’ active engagement during inquiry learning can pose cognitive and
metacognitive challenges for them (Azevedo, 2005; Scheiter & Gerjets, 2007). The
(lack of) understanding of the scientific phenomenon or insufficient inquiry skills
(e.g., inability to generate a testable hypothesis or designing an unconfounded
experiment) can pose cognitive challenges. Moreover, students can experience
metacognitive challenges because they need to self-regulate their inquiry process
(Hadwin & Winne, 2001; Pintrich, 2000).
Self‑Regulated Learning
The importance of metacognition (and self-regulation) for successful scientific rea-

soning was stressed more than 20 years ago (White & Frederiksen, 1998; Schunk
and Zimmerman, 1998). Self-regulated learning is an active, temporal, and cycli-
cal process (Zimmerman, 2013), during which learners set goals, monitor, regulate,
and control their cognition, motivation, and behavior to meet their goals (Boekaerts,
1999; Pintrich, 1999). Metacognition is the cognitive component of self-regulated
learning (Zimmerman & Moylan, 2009) and is predominantly concerned with
13
monitoring and regulation of learning (Nelson & Narens, 1990). Monitoring refers
to students’ ability to accurately judge their own learning. It provides the basis for
regulation, that is, students’ selection and application of learning strategies. Self-
regulation is particularly important for successful inquiry learning (Chin & Brown,
2000; Kuhn et al., 2000; Omarchevska et al., 2021; Reid et al., 2003; White et al.,
2009). For instance, students need to monitor whether they are manipulating the cor-
rect variables or how much data they need before drawing a conclusion. According
to a fine-grained analysis of students’ self-regulation and scientific reasoning pro-
cesses monitoring during scientific reasoning activities was associated with higher
argumentation quality (Omarchevska et al., 2021).
Because of the fundamental importance of accurate monitoring, we assessed
metacognitive monitoring accuracy in relation to hypothesis and argumentation
quality using retrospective confidence judgements (Busey et al., 2000). Moreover,
we assessed students’ academic self-concept and interest. Interest and academic
self-concept are motivational factors that can influence self-regulation (Hidi &
Ainley, 2008; Ommundsen et al., 2005). Interest is a psychological state with both
affective and cognitive components that is also a predisposition to re-engage with
the content in the future (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). Interest is positively associated
with understanding, effort, perseverance (Hidi, 1990) and the maintenance of self-
regulation (e.g., goal setting, use of learning strategies; Renninger & Hidi, 2019).
Academic self-concept is a person’s perceived ability in a domain (e.g., biology;
Marsh & Martin, 2011) which is positively related to effort (Huang, 2011),
interest (Trautwein & Möller, 2016), achievement (Marsh & Martin, 2011) and
self-regulation strategies (Ommundsen et al., 2005). Therefore, we controlled for
students’ interest and academic self-concept.
Guidance During Computer‑Supported Inquiry Learning
Guidance during inquiry can support students’ learning both cognitively and meta-
cognitively by tailoring the learning experience to their needs during specific phases
of inquiry (Quintana et al., 2004). Guidance can be provided using process con-
straints, performance dashboards, prompts, heuristics, scaffolds, or direct presen-
tation of information (de Jong & Lazonder, 2014). Furthermore, guidance should
aim to also support self-regulated learning (Zacharia et al., 2015), as self-regulation
has been shown to be important to successful inquiry learning (Omarchevska et al.,
2021). Therefore, combining scientific reasoning and self-regulation instruction
might be beneficial for teaching scientific reasoning. However, only few studies have
invested whether supporting self-regulation during inquiry improves learning (Lai
et al., 2018; Manlove et al., 2007, 2009). Last, more research on the effects of com-
bining different types of guidance is needed (Lazonder & Harmsen, 2016; Zacharia
et al., 2015). Therefore, we used video modeling examples to support scientific rea-
soning and self-regulation in an integrated way; in addition, metacognitive prompts
were implemented to further support monitoring.
13
Video Modeling Examples
The rationale for using video modeling examples is rooted in theories of example-
based learning during which learners acquire new skills by seeing examples of how
to perform them correctly. Novice learners can benefit from studying a detailed step-
by-step solution to a task before attempting to solve a problem themselves (Renkl,
2014; van Gog & Rummel, 2010). Studying worked examples reduces unnecessary
cognitive load and frees up working memory resources so learners can build a prob-
lem-solving schema (Cooper & Sweller, 1987; Renkl, 2014). Example-based learn-
ing has been studied from a cognitive (cognitive load theory; Sweller et al., 2011)
and from a social-cognitive perspective (social learning theory; Bandura, 1986).
From a cognitive perspective, most research has focused on the effects of text-based
worked examples, whereas social-cognitive studies have focused on (video) mod-
eling examples (cf. Hoogerheide et al., 2014). Video modeling examples integrate
features of worked examples and modeling examples (van Gog & Rummel, 2010)
and they often include a screen recording of the model’s problem-solving behav-
ior combined with verbal explanations of the problem-solving steps (McLaren et al.,
2008; van Gog, 2011; van Gog et al., 2009).
Video modeling examples can support inquiry and learning about scientific rea-
soning principles (Kant et al., 2017; Mulder et al., 2014). Watching video modeling
examples before or instead of an inquiry task led to performing more controlled
experiments, indicating that students can learn an abstract concept like controlling
variables (CVS) using video modeling examples (Kant et al., 2017; Mulder et al.,
2014). Outside the context of inquiry learning, using video modeling examples to
train self-regulation skills (self-assessment and task selection) improved students’
learning outcomes in a similar task (Kostons et al., 2012; Raaijmakers et al., 2018a,
2018b) but this outcome did not transfer to a different domain (Raaijmakers et al.,
2018a).
Nevertheless, most studies have focused on either supporting scientific reason-
ing (e.g., CVS, Kant et al., 2017; Mulder et al., 2014) or self-regulation during
inquiry learning (Manlove et al., 2007). Likewise, video modeling research has also
focused on either supporting scientific reasoning (Kant et al., 2017; Mulder et al.,
2014) or self-regulation (Raaijmakers et al., 2018a, 2018b). However, these studies
have investigated scientific reasoning and self-regulation separately, whereas video
modeling examples may be particularly suitable for integrating instruction of both
scientific reasoning and self-regulated learning. Scientific reasoning principles can
be easily demonstrated by showing how to conduct experiments correctly. Providing
verbal explanations of the model’s thought processes can be used to integrate self-
regulated learning principles into instruction on scientific reasoning. For example,
explaining the importance of planning for designing an experiment is one way to
integrate these two constructs. Metacognitive monitoring can be demonstrated by
having the model make a mistake, detect it, and then correct it (vicarious failure;
Hartmann et al., 2020). In contrast to previous research focused on task selection
and self-assessment skills (Kostons et al., 2012; Raaijmakers et al., 2018a, 2018b),
we investigated the effectiveness of video modeling examples for training and trans-
fer of other self-regulation skills—planning, monitoring, and control. Moreover, we
13
studied whether a video modeling intervention that integrates scientific reasoning

and self-regulation instruction will improve inquiry learning. To ensure that par-
ticipants engaged with the videos constructively (Chi & Wylie, 2014), we supple-
mented the video modeling examples with knowledge integration principles which
involve “a dynamic process of linking, connecting, distinguishing, and structuring
ideas about scientific phenomena” (Clark & Linn, 2009, p. 139). To further support
self-regulated learning, we tested the effectiveness of combining video modeling
examples with metacognitive prompts.
Metacognitive Prompting
Metacognitive prompts are instructional support tools that guide students to reflect
on their learning and focus their attention on their thoughts and understanding
(Lin, 2001). Prompting students to reflect on their learning can help activate their
metacognitive knowledge and skills, which should enhance learning and transfer
(Azevedo et al., 2016; Bannert et al., 2015). Metacognitive prompts support self-
regulated learning by reminding students to execute specific metacognitive activities
like planning, monitoring, evaluation, and goal specification (Bannert, 2009; Fyfe &
Rittle-Johnson, 2016). Metacognitive prompts are effective for supporting students’
self-regulation (Azevedo & Hadwin, 2005; Dori et al., 2018) and hypothesis devel-
opment (Kim & Pedersen, 2011) in computer-supported learning environments.
Even though providing support for self-regulated learning improves learning and
academic performance on average (Belland et al., 2015; Zheng, 2016), some stud-
ies did not find beneficial effects of metacognitive support on learning outcomes
(Mäeots et al., 2016; Reid et al., 2017). To understand why, it is necessary to con-
sider the learning processes of students (Engelmann & Bannert, 2019). Process data
could help determine whether students engaged in the processes as intended by the
intervention or identify students who failed to do so. For instance, process data can
provide further insights on the influence of prompts on the learning process (Engel-
mann & Bannert, 2019; Sonnenberg & Bannert, 2015).
Modeling Learning Processes
In the following, we will introduce two highly suitable methods for studying the
interaction between scientific reasoning and self-regulation processes—epistemic
network analysis (Shaffer, 2017) and process mining (van der Aalst, 2016). These
methods go beyond the traditional coding-and-counting approaches by providing
more insight into the co-occurrences and sequences of learning processes.
Epistemic Network Analysis
Epistemic network analysis (ENA; Shaffer, 2017) is a novel method for modeling
the temporal associations between cognitive and metacognitive processes during
learning. In ENA “the structure of connections among cognitive elements is more
important than the mere presence or absence of these elements in isolation” (Shaffer
13
et al., 2016, p. 10). Therefore, it is essential to not only consider individual learn-
ing processes, but also preceding and following processes. ENA measures the struc-
ture and the strength of connections between processes, based on their temporal co-
occurrence, and visualizes them in dynamic network models (Shaffer et al., 2016).
The advantage of ENA is that the temporal patterns of individual connections can
be easily captured and compared between individuals. In an exploratory think aloud
study (Omarchevska et al., 2021), we found that students who were monitoring dur-
ing scientific reasoning activities achieved higher argumentation quality than their
peers who did not monitor using ENA. These findings demonstrated the added value
of studying the temporal interaction between scientific reasoning and self-regulation
processes and its effects on argumentation quality. The present study builds upon
these findings by studying the effects of an intervention on learning processes as
revealed not only by ENA, but also by process mining.
Process Mining
Process mining is a suitable method for modeling and understanding self-regula-

tion processes (Bannert et al., 2014; Engelmann & Bannert, 2019; Roll & Winne,
2015). Process mining is a form of educational data mining, which uses event data
to discover process models. Process models reveal the sequences between learning
events, which provides insights into the sequential relationships between cognitive
and metacognitive processes (Engelmann & Bannert, 2019).
In educational research, process mining was used to discover different student
profiles and their learning processes in relation to their grades (Romero et al., 2010).
Furthermore, process mining provided additional insights into the sequential struc-
ture of self-regulated learning processes (Bannert et al., 2014; Sonnenberg & Ban-
nert, 2015, 2019). However, process mining techniques have not been used to model
the relationship between scientific reasoning and self-regulated learning processes
yet. Therefore, we used process mining to identify sequential relationships between
scientific reasoning and self-regulation processes and combined it with ENA find-
ings for a comprehensive analysis of the interaction between the two processes as
each method has its unique benefits.
Process mining does not provide a statistical comparison between different pro-
cess models, which is, however, offered within ENA. In contrast, ENA does not
provide information about the direction of the relationship and does not consider
when the same process is performed several times, whereas process mining provides
information about the direction of the path and information about self-loops. To our
knowledge, this is the first study to combine both methods and to use them to test
the effects of educational interventions at the process level.
The Present Study
This study tested the effects of two types of guidance—video modeling examples
and metacognitive prompts—on scientific reasoning performance and self-regula-
tion during inquiry learning. Participants engaged in an inquiry training and transfer
13
task using two computer simulations. Screen captures and think aloud protocols
were used to collect scientific reasoning and self-regulation process data, respec-
tively. Effects of the intervention were expected to occur for 1) scientific reason-
ing ability as measured with a multiple-choice test, 2) scientific reasoning and self-
regulation processes, and 3) the product of scientific reasoning, namely, the quality
of the generated hypotheses and of the argumentation provided to justify decisions
regarding the hypotheses. We preregistered (https://aspredicted.org/vs43g.pdf) the
following research questions and hypotheses:
RQ1) Can video modeling and metacognitive prompts improve scientific reason-
ing ability?
In line with Kant et al. (2017), we hypothesized that students in the two VM
conditions would have higher scientific reasoning posttest scores than the control
group (H1a). Because of the benefits of providing metacognitive support (Azevedo
& Hadwin, 2005), we hypothesized that the VMP condition would further
outperform the VM condition (H1b).
RQ2) What are the immediate effects of video modeling and metacognitive
prompts while working on an inquiry training task at the product level
(hypothesis and argumentation quality) and process level (scientific reasoning and
self-regulation)?
In line with Mulder et al. (2014), we hypothesized that students in the two VM
conditions would have higher hypothesis and argumentation quality (H2a) than the
control group in the training task. In line with Kim and Pedersen (2011), we hypothesized
that the VMP condition would further outperform the VM condition (H2b).
RQ3) Do the effects of video modeling and metacognitive prompts on scientific
reasoning products and processes transfer to a novel task?
In line with van Gog and Rummel (2010), we hypothesized that students in the
two VM conditions would have higher hypothesis and argumentation quality (H3a)
than the control group in the transfer task. In line with Bannert et al. (2015), we
hypothesized that the VMP condition would outperform the VM condition (H3b).
Additionally, we explored the process models of participants’ scientific reasoning
and self-regulation processes in different conditions using ENA and process mining
in the two tasks. Moreover, we explored participants’ monitoring accuracy for
hypothesis and argumentation quality in both tasks.
Method
Participants and Design
Participants were 127 university students from Southern Germany (26 males,
Mage = 24.3 years, SD = 4.81). Participants had an academic background in sci-
ence (n = 40), humanities (n = 43), law (n = 11), social science (n = 20), or other
(n = 14). Participation in the experiment was voluntary and informed consents were
obtained from all participants. The study was approved by the local ethics commit-
tee (2019/031). The experiment lasted 1 h and 30 min and participants received a
monetary reward of 12 Euros.
13
Fig. 1 The design and procedure of the experiment divided in three phases and the corresponding virtual
experiment used in each phase
The experiment had a one-factorial design with three levels and participants
were randomly placed in one of three conditions. In the first condition (VMP,
n = 43), participants watched video modeling examples (VM) before working
with the virtual experiments and they received metacognitive prompts (P) dur-
ing the training phase (see Fig. 1). In the second condition (VM, n = 43), partici-
pants watched the same video modeling examples without receiving metacogni-
tive prompts during the training phase. In the third condition (control, n = 41),
participants engaged in unguided inquiry task with the same virtual experiment
that was used in the video modeling examples; however, they received neither
video modeling instruction nor metacognitive prompts.
A priori power analysis using G*Power (Faul et al., 2007) determined the
required sample size to be 128 participants (Cohen’s f = 0.25, power = 0.80,
α = 0.05) for contrast analyses. Effect size calculations were based on previous
research using video modeling examples to enhance scientific reasoning (Kant
et al., 2017). Data from one participant were not recorded due to technical
issues, resulting in a sample size of 127.
13
Fig. 2 The Archimedes’ Principle simulation. Copyright (2021) by Explore Learning. Reprinted with
permission
Materials and Procedure
Phase 1—Instruction
We first assessed demographic information, conceptual knowledge, academic inter-

est and self-concept (Fig. 1). During the instruction, participants either watched
video modeling examples (intervention groups) or they engaged in an unguided
inquiry learning task using the simulation Archimedes’ Principle (control group,
Fig. 2). In this simulation, a boat is floating in a tank of water. The boat’s dimen-
sions and weight and the liquid’s density can be varied. When the boat sinks, the
displaced liquid overflows in a cylinder. In this way, Archimedes’ principle, which
states that the upward buoyant force that is exerted on a body immersed in a fluid, is
equal to the weight of the fluid that the body displaces, can be investigated.
In the two video modeling conditions, participants watched 3 non-interactive
videos (each 3 min on average). The videos were screen captures recorded using
Camtasia Studio which showed a female model’s interactions with the simulation
Archimedes’ principle. The model was thinking aloud and explaining the different
steps of scientific reasoning, but she was not visible in the videos.
To engage participants with the videos, knowledge integration principles were
used (Clark & Linn, 2009). Before watching each video, participants’ ideas about
the topic of each video modeling example were elicited (e.g., “When conducting a
scientific experiment, what is important to keep in mind before you start collecting
13
data?”). After watching each video, participants noted down the most important
points and compared their first answer to what was explained in the video, which
engaged them in reflection (Davis, 2000).
In the first video, the model explained problem identification and hypothesis gen-
eration. She explained how to formulate a research question and a testable hypoth-
esis. Then, she developed her own hypothesis, which she later tested.
In the second video, the model explained planning a scientific experiment and the
control of variables strategy (CVS). To demonstrate CVS, we used a coping model
(van Gog & Rummel, 2010), who initially made a mistake by manipulating an irrel-
evant variable, which she then corrected, and explained that manipulating irrelevant
variables can lead to confounded results, thereby also demonstrating metacognitive
monitoring.
In the last video, evidence generation, evidence evaluation, and drawing conclu-
sions were modeled by conducting an experiment to test the hypothesis. Data were
systematically collected and presented in a graph. The model explained the impor-
tance of conducting multiple experiments to not draw conclusions prematurely,
which also modeled metacognitive monitoring and control. Last, she evaluated the
evidence and drew conclusions.
In the control condition, participants worked with the same virtual experiment
used in the videos without receiving guidance. They answered the same research
question as the model in the videos. To keep time on task similar between condi-
tions, participants had 10 min to work on the task.
Phase 2—Training Task
Participants were first instructed to think aloud by asking them to say everything
that comes to their mind without worrying about the formulation. Participants
were given a short practice task (“Your sister’s husband’s son is your children’s
cousin. How is he related to your brother? Please say anything you think out loud
as you get to an answer.”). Participants watched a short video about photosynthesis,
which served to re-activate their conceptual knowledge. Then, they solved the train-
ing inquiry task using the simulation Photosynthesis and an experimentation sheet.
In Photosynthesis (see Fig. 3), the rates of photosynthesis (measured by oxygen pro-
duction) are inferred by manipulating different variables (e.g., light intensity).
Participants were asked to answer the following research question: “How does
light intensity influence oxygen production during photosynthesis?”. They wrote
down their hypothesis, collected data using the simulation and answered the
research question on the experimentation sheet. We asked participants to support
their answers with evidence. Hypothesis and argumentation quality were coded from
these answers. Participants made retrospective confidence judgments regarding their
hypothesis (“How confident are you that you have a testable hypothesis?”) and their
final answer (“How confident are you that you have answered the research question
correctly?”).
Participants in the VM and in the control condition solved the task using only
the Photosynthesis simulation and the worksheet. In the VMP condition, students
additionally received 3 metacognitive prompts (see Table 1), which asked them to
13
Fig. 3 The Photosynthesis simulation. Copyright (2021) by Explore Learning. Reprinted with permission
Table 1 The metacognitive prompts used in the video modeling and prompting condition
Process Prompt
Evidence Generation How confident are you that you are manipulating the correct variable to test your
hypothesis?
Evidence Generation How confident are you that you have collected enough data to test your hypoth-
esis?
Evidence Evaluation How confident are you that you have interpreted your data correctly?
monitor specific scientific reasoning activities. Each prompt asked participants to

rate their confidence on a scale from 0 to 100. The first two prompts were presented
as pop-up messages during the training task after 3 and 9 min, respectively. The
third prompt was visible after participants finished the training task and gave the
option to go back and conduct more experiments.
Phase 3—Transfer Task
In the transfer task, all participants worked with the Energy Conversion in a System
(see Fig. 4) simulation. First, participants read a short text about the law of conser-
vation of energy which provided them with the necessary conceptual knowledge to
use the simulation. In Energy Conversion in a System, participants could manipulate
the quantity and the initial temperature of water in a beaker. Water is heated using a
13
Fig. 4 The Energy Conversion in a System simulation. Copyright (2021) by Explore Learning. Reprinted
with permission
falling cylinder attached to a rotating propeller that stirs the water in a beaker. The
mass and height of the cylinder could be adjusted. The change in the water’s tem-
perature is measured and energy is converted from one form to another.
The transfer task had an identical structure to the training task and was deliv-
ered through the experimentation sheet. Participants were asked to use the simu-
lation to answer the question “How does changing the waters’ initial temperature
and the water’s mass affect the change in temperature?”. Participants investigated
the influence of two variables (water mass and water temperature) and noted down
their results in a table with four columns (water mass, water initial temperature,
water final temperature, change in temperature), which provided further guidance.
Retrospective confidence judgments were provided for the hypothesis and the final
answer. The task was the same in all conditions.
Measures
Conceptual Knowledge
Conceptual knowledge in photosynthesis (e.g., “What is the function of the chlo-

roplasts?”) and energy conversion (e.g., “The law of conservation of energy states
that…”) was assessed prior to the experiment using 5 multiple-choice items with
5 answer options for each topic. Each question had one correct answer and “I do
not know” was one of the answer options. Both scales had low internal consistency
13
(photosynthesis, Cronbach’s α = 0.63; energy conversion, Cronbach’s α = 0.15),

because they assessed prior understanding of independent facets related to photo-
synthesis and energy conversion. Therefore, computing internal consistency for such
scales might not be appropriate (Stadler et al., 2021).
Academic Self‑Concept and Interest in Science
The academic self-concept scale comprised 5 items rated on a Likert scale (Cron-
bach’s α = 0.93) ranging from 1 (I do not agree at all) to 4 (I completely agree)
(Grüß-Niehaus, 2010; Schanze, 2002). An example item of the scale is “I quickly
learn new material in natural sciences.”. Likewise, interest in science was assessed
using a 5-item Likert scale (Cronbach’s α = 0.94) ranging from 1 (I do not agree at
all) to 4 (I completely agree) (Wilde et al., 2009). An example item of the scale is “I
am interested in learning something new in natural sciences.”.
Scientific Reasoning Ability
Scientific reasoning ability was assessed using 12 items from a comprehensive

instrument (Hartmann et al., 2015; Krüger et al., 2020) that assessed the skills
research question formulation (4 items), hypothesis generation (4 items), and
experimental design (4 items). For each skill, we chose easy, medium, and diffi-
cult questions, based on data obtained by the authors of the instrument. Since the
test was originally developed for pre-service science teachers, we chose items that
did not rely on prior content knowledge. The questions matched the domains of the
inquiry tasks (biology, physics). The scale had low internal consistency (Cronbach’s
α = 0.31), most likely because the test assessed three independent skills (cf. Stadler
et al., 2021).
Scientific Reasoning Products

Hypothesis Quality To assess hypothesis quality, we developed a coding scheme
which scored participants’ hypotheses based on their testability (0–2) and correct-
ness (0–2), adding up to a maximum score of 4, see Table 2. Due to the complexity
of the coding scheme, we used consensus ratings (Bradley et al., 2007) for the scor-
ing (initial inter-rater agreement: Krippendorff’s α = 0.65). Two raters independently
scored all hypotheses (N = 127) and then discussed all disagreements until a consen-
sus was reached.
Argumentation Quality Argumentation quality was assessed by coding partici-

pants’ answers to the research questions. The quality of the claim, the evidence, and
the reasoning were scored between 0 and 2, adding up to a maximum score of 6
(McNeill et al., 2006), see Table 3. We adapted the coding scheme from McNeill
et al. (2006) to the context of our study. Participants were given an extra point when
they evaluated their hypothesis in their final answer. Again, we used consensus rat-
ings (initial agreement: Krippendorff’s α = 0.67) for the scoring.
13
Table 2 Coding scheme used for assessing hypothesis quality
Level
Component 0 1 2
Testability
Criteria
The hypothesis is not testable, it is stated as a The hypothesis is partially testable. The The hypothesis is formulated in a way that can be
question, it does not make a prediction. The dependent and independent variables are tested. Dependent and independent variables
dependent or independent variables are not stated but the direction of the relationship is are specified. If–then statements are used, and
specified not specified the relationship is specified
Example from data Under what conditions does the plant produce Light intensity influences oxygen production When I increase the light intensity then oxygen
its maximum amount of oxygen? during photosynthesis production will increase as well
Correctness
Criteria The hypothesis is incorrect or not stated at all The hypothesis is partially correct (one variable The hypothesis is correct
is correct, the other is incorrect or irrelevant)
Example from data Plants need light for photosynthesis Temperature has an effect on oxygen produc- The higher the light intensity, the higher the
tion. (irrelevant variable) oxygen production during photosynthesis
Note. The examples given in the table are taken from the training task. The same coding scheme was applied for the transfer task
13
1039
Table 3 Coding scheme used for assessing argumentation quality
1040
Level
Component 0 1 2
13
Claim
Criteria
Does not make a claim or makes an inaccurate Makes an accurate but incomplete claim. Makes an accurate and complete claim
claim Includes irrelevant variables
Example from data The example shows that a lot of oxygen was Depending on the temperature, the curve of If the light intensity is increased above 40%,
produced at full light intensity (100%). (inac- oxygen production runs longer or shorter the oxygen production remains unchanged at
curate claim) linearly before it stagnates. (irrelevant vari- 30 mL/h
able: temperature)
Evidence
Criteria Does not provide evidence or only provides Appropriate and insufficient or inappropriate Provides appropriate evidence and no inappropri-
inappropriate evidence evidence ate evidence
Example from data As light intensity increases, oxygen produc- oxygen production increases when certain The light intensity influences the oxygen flow
tion increases up to a certain point. (vague temperature (perfect 24–28), right light linearly up to a value of 37% under constant
evidence) intensity (50–60%), quite high CO2 level conditions
(from 420 ppm) (appropriate and inappropri-
ate evidence)
Reasoning
Criteria Does not provide reasoning or only provides Repeats evidence that links it to the claim, uses Accurate and complete reasoning that links evi-
reasoning that does not link evidence to the some scientific principles but insufficient dence to claim, mentions scientific principles
claim
Example from data The initial temperature has an influence on the With a light intensity of 60% we have a maxi- The greater the mass of the water that is to be
temperature at the end of the water and on mum O2 production heated, the lower is the temperature increase,
the mass since the height energy, which is converted into
heat, remains the same, but is distributed over
more water molecules. This happens indepen-
dently of the initial temperature
Scientific Reasoning and Self‑Regulation Processes
We used screen captures and think aloud protocols to assess scientific reasoning and
self-regulation processes, which were coded using Mangold INTERACT® (Man-
gold International GmbH, Arnstorf, Germany; version 9.0.7). Using INTERACT,
the audio (think aloud) and video (screen captures) can be coded simultaneously.
First, two experienced raters independently coded 20% of the videos (n = 25) and
reached perfect agreement (κ = 1.00); therefore, each rater coded half of the remain-
ing videos. Due to technical issues with the audio recording, the process data analy-
sis was conducted on a smaller sample (N = 88, nVMP = 29, nVM = 37, ncontrol = 22).
The raters used the coding scheme in Table 4, which was previously used
by Omarchevska et al. (2021) to code scientific reasoning, self-regulation, and
the use of cognitive strategies. Scientific reasoning processes were coded from
both data sources, whereas self-regulation processes and use of cognitive strate-
gies were coded from the think aloud protocols only. Regarding scientific reason-
ing, we focused on the epistemic activities problem identification, hypothesis gen-
eration, evidence generation, evidence evaluation, drawing conclusions (Fischer
et al., 2014). As measures of self-regulation, we coded the processes of planning
(goal setting), monitoring (goal progress, information relevance), and control. We
coded the use of cognitive strategies, namely, activation of prior knowledge and
self-explaining.
Monitoring Accuracy
Monitoring accuracy was measured by calculating bias scores, based on the match
between the confidence judgements scores and the corresponding performance
scores for hypothesis and argumentation quality (4 monitoring accuracy scores per
participant). Since confidence judgements scores ranged from 0 to 100 and hypoth-
esis and argumentation quality scores ranged from 0 to 6, they were rescaled to
range between 0 and 100. Monitoring accuracy was computed by subtracting the
hypothesis and argumentation quality scores from the confidence judgment scores
(Baars et al., 2014). Positive scores indicate overestimation, negative scores indicate
underestimation, and scores close to zero indicate accurate monitoring (Baars et al.,
2014).
Data Analyses
To test our preregistered hypotheses, we used contrast analyses: Contrast 1 (0.5,

0.5, -1) compared the VMP and the VM conditions to the control condition and
Contrast 2 (1, -1, 0) compared the VMP and the VM conditions to each other. We
applied the Bonferroni correction for multiple tests which resulted in α = 0.025
for all contrast analyses. Benchmarks for effect sizes were: η2 = 0.01, 0.06, 0.14
and d = 0.20, 0.50, 0.80 for small, medium, and large effects, respectively.
We first compared the groups in the scientific reasoning ability posttest using
contrast analysis (H1a, H1b) with scientific reasoning ability pretest as a covariate.
We then applied contrast analyses to compare hypothesis and argumentation quality
in the training (H2a, H2b) and the transfer task (H3a, H3b). We explored monitoring
13
accuracy in the two tasks using one-way ANOVAs. To explore the training and
transfer effects on the process level, we used ENA and process mining.
Epistemic Network Analysis
ENA is a modeling tool which quantifies the strength of co-occurrence between

codes within a conversation (Shaffer, 2017). A conversation is defined as a set of
lines which are related to each other. ENA quantifies the co-occurrences between
different codes in a conversation and visualizes them in network graphs. Hence,
the strength of the co-occurrences can be visually and statistically compared
between groups. Since the number of codes may vary, the networks are first nor-
malized before they are subjected to a dimensional reduction. ENA uses singular-
value decomposition to perform dimensional reduction, which produces orthogonal
dimensions that maximize the variance explained by each dimension (Shaffer et al.,
2016). The position of the networks’ centroids, which correspond to the mean posi-
tion of all points in the network, can be compared. The strength of individual con-
nections can be compared using network difference graphs, which subtract the cor-
responding connection weights in different networks.
We used the ENA Web Tool (version 1.7.0) (Marquart et al., 2018) to compare
the epistemic networks of participants in the VMP and VM conditions to the con-
trol condition in the training and the transfer tasks. Participants served as units of
analysis and the two tasks as conversations. We used the coded process data from
the screen captures and think aloud protocols as input for the analysis. We used the
codes problem identification, hypothesis generation, evidence generation, evidence
evaluation, drawing conclusions, planning, monitoring, control, and self-explaining
(see Tables 6 and 7 for the training and transfer tasks, respectively). Due to the very
low frequency of activation of prior knowledge, this code was excluded from all pro-
cess analyses. Due to the low frequency of planning in the control condition, plan-
ning was also excluded from the analysis of the control condition in both tasks.
Process Mining
We used process mining to model the sequences of scientific reasoning and self-
regulation processes in different conditions. We used the HeuristicsMiner algorithm
(Weijters et al., 2006), to mine the sequence in which participants engaged in these
processes during the training and the transfer tasks, which was implemented in the
ProM framework version 5.2 (Verbeek et al., 2010). The HeuristicsMiner algorithm
is well suited for educational data mining, because it deals well with noise and pre-
sents the most frequent behavior found in an event log without focusing on specifics
and exceptions (i.e., low frequent behavior) (Weijters et al., 2006). The dependen-
cies among the processes in an event log are represented in a heuristic net.
The heuristic net indicates the dependency and frequency of a relationship
between two events (Weijters et al., 2006). In the heuristic net, the boxes represent
the processes and the arcs connecting them represent the dependency between them.
Dependency (0–1) represents the certainty between two events, with values closer
to 1 indicating stronger dependency. The frequency reflects how often a transition
13
Table 4 Coding scheme used for assessing scientific reasoning, self-regulation, and cognitive strategies processes
Major category Source Definition or example from data
Scientific Reasoning
Problem Identification TA “I need to investigate how temperature influences O2 production.”
Hypothesis Generation TA “If I increase light intensity, then oxygen production will increase.”
Evidence Generation Video Participant manipulates the correct, incorrect, or irrelevant variable, use of CVS
Evidence Evaluation Video + TA “From 45% onwards the curve isn ‘t rising anymore.”
Drawing Conclusions Video + TA “This is only true up until a light intensity of 40%.”
Self-Regulated Learning
Planning TA “First, I will increase light intensity.”
Goal setting TA “I will set the light intensity to 0% and increase it gradually by 10%.”
Monitoring TA “Now I understand it.”
Goal progress TA “Okay… I do not know yet about the CO2 level.”
Information Relevance TA “The temperature and the CO2 level should remain constant.”
Control TA “Now I will try and keep the temperature constant while increasing the mass.”
Cognitive Strategies
Activation of Prior Knowledge TA “I have to remember the video that was presented to me earlier.”
Self-explanation TA “Which means that the initial temperature does not have any impact.”
Note. TA think aloud, Video Screen capture. The examples are from the training and the transfer tasks
13
1043
between two events occurred. The dependency is shown on the top, whereas the frequency
is shown below it on each arrow. An arc is pointing back to the same box indicates a self-
loop, showing that a process was observed multiple times in a row (Sonnenberg & Ban-
nert, 2015). To ease generalizability to other studies using the HeuristicMiner (e.g., Engel-
mann & Bannert, 2019; Sonnenberg & Bannert, 2015), we kept the recommended default
threshold values, namely, dependency threshold = 0.90, relative-to-best-threshold = 0.05,
positive observations threshold = 10. The dependency threshold determines the threshold
for including dependency relations in the output model, the positive observations threshold
determines the minimum observed sequences required to be included in the output model
(Sonnenberg & Bannert, 2015; Weijters et al., 2006). For a detailed description of the Heu-
risticsMiner, the reader is referred to Weijters et al. (2006) and Sonnenberg and Bannert
(2015). We used the same process data and exclusion criteria as in the ENA.
Results
Control Variables
A MANOVA with the control variables (conceptual knowledge, interest, academic

self-concept) revealed no differences between conditions, F < 1, see Table 5 for
descriptive statistics.
Scientific Reasoning Ability
A contrast analysis with scientific reasoning ability (pretest) as a covariate revealed

no group differences in the posttest scores (Contrast 1, β = 0.04, p = 0.57, d = 0.22;
Contrast 2, β = -0.02, p = 0.76, d = 0. Thus, there was no support for H1a and H1b.1
Effects on the Training Task
Product Level Contrast 1 showed that the VMP and VM conditions had higher
hypothesis quality, t(124) = 2.60, p = 0.010, d = 0.49, and higher argumentation qual-
ity, t(124) = 2.75, p = 0.007, d = 0.52, than the control group, see Fig. 5. Contrast 2
showed no significant differences between the VMP and VM in hypothesis qual-
ity, p = 0.75, d = 0.02, and argumentation quality, p = 0.91, d = 0.02. These findings
indicate that while video modeling improved scientific inquiry at the product level
(H2a), there was no significant added benefit of the metacognitive prompts in the
training task (H2b). The groups did not differ in monitoring accuracy regarding
hypothesis quality, p = 0.20, η2 = 0.03, and argumentation quality, p = 0.20, η2 = 0.03.
1
Additional analyses revealed that time on task was significantly shorter for the posttest, F(1,
121) = 475.21, p < .001, Wilk’s Λ = .203, ηp2 = .79, suggesting that participants clicked through the post-
test very quickly. Therefore, this finding should be interpreted with caution.
13
Table 5 Descriptive statistics (and SDs) for the control and dependent variables, and monitoring accu-
racy (bias)
Variable VMP VM Control
(n = 43) (n = 43) (n = 41)
Conceptual knowledge training task (0–5) 3.90 (1.41) 3.84 (1.27) 4.10 (1.09)
Conceptual knowledge transfer task (0–5) 1.07 (0.80) 1.19 (0.79) 1.24 (0.70)
Academic self-concept in science (1–4) 1.34 (0.76) 1.20 (0.78) 1.32 (0.81)
Interest in science (1–4) 1.92 (0.87) 1.68 (0.80) 1.85 (0.82)
Scientific reasoning ability pretest (0–12) 5.41 (2.03) 5.30 (1.75) 5.17 (1.94)
Scientific reasoning ability post-test (0–12) 5.32 (2.19) 5.33 (1.76) 5.02 (2.19)
Hypothesis quality training task (0–4) 3.28 (1.33) 3.30 (1.05) 2.29 (1.54)
Argumentation quality training task (0–6) 3.72 (2.05) 3.70 (1.93) 2.51 (1.78)
Hypothesis quality transfer task (0–4) 1.98 (1.21) 2.10 (1.26) 1.33 (1.20)
Argumentation quality transfer task (0–6) 2.57 (1.89) 2.81 (1.68) 3.02 (1.21)
Bias hypothesis training task (0–100) -6.16 (33.34) -3.95 (27.97) 8.71 (43.13)
Bias argumentation training task (0–100) 11.01 (34.79)* 12.79 (34.72)* 23.83 (35.80)*
Bias hypothesis transfer task (0–100) 4.30 (33.98) 8.27 (38.74) 29.01 (31.66)*
Bias argumentation transfer task (0–100) 15.78 (35.49)* 22.50 (32.77)* 27.58 (23.47)*
*
indicates a significant deviation from zero as revealed in a one-sample t-test (p < .05), Cohen’s d ranges
from 0.20 to 1.18 for significant differences
Process Level We used ENA and process mining to model the connections between
scientific reasoning and self-regulation processes. We first compared the VMP and
VM conditions to the control condition and then the two VM conditions to each
other. The frequencies of the processes are provided in Table 6.
ENA: VMP and VM vs. Control. Along the X axis, a two sample t-test showed
that the position of the control group centroid (M = 0.33, SD = 0.76, N = 22) was sig-
nificantly different from the VMP and VM centroid (M = -0.11, SD = 0.84, N = 66;
t(39.23) = -2.32, p = 0.03, d = 0.54). Along the Y axis, the position of the control
group’s centroid (M = -0.21, SD = 0.74, N = 22) was not significantly different from
the VMP and VM centroid (M = 0.07, SD = 0.73, N = 66; t(35.90) = -1.52, p = 0.14,
d = 0.37).
Thicker green lines in Fig. 6 illustrate stronger co-occurrences of Monitoring,
Planning and Evidence Evaluation, Evidence Generation, Hypothesis Generation,
and Drawing Conclusions in the two VM conditions than in the control condition.
Participants in the control condition (purple) were Self-Explaining during Evidence
Generation and Evidence Evaluation more often than in the VM conditions. The dif-
ference between the centroids’ positions on the X-axis results from stronger connec-
tions between scientific reasoning and self-regulation processes in the VMP and VM
networks. Taken together, participants in the VM conditions were self-regulating
during scientific reasoning activities more frequently than participants in the control
condition.
ENA: VMP vs. VM. Two sample-t tests revealed no differences between the
position of the VMP centroid compared to the VM control along either the X axis,
13
Fig. 5 The immediate training effects of video modeling (VM) and metacognitive prompts (P) on
hypothesis and argumentation quality. Error bars show standard errors
t(55.53) = 0.52, p = 0.60, d = 0.13) or the Y axis, t(59.54) = -0.42, p = 0.67, d = 0.11.
Thus, the epistemic networks of the groups with video modeling were similar (for
details see online supplementary materials).
Process Mining. The process model of the two video modeling conditions in the
training task (Fig. 7) illustrates a very strong dependency between Problem Identi-
fication and Hypothesis Generation. Participants started their inquiry by identify-
ing the problem and then generating a hypothesis to investigate it. Next, there were
strong sequential relationships between Evidence Generation and Planning. More
frequently, participants were planning before evidence generation. A strong recipro-
cal relationship indicates that participants were also planning after evidence gen-
eration. Similar reciprocal relationships are observed between Evidence Generation,
Self-Explaining and Evidence Evaluation, and between Drawing Conclusions and
Evidence Generation. Monitoring and Control were not related to specific scientific
reasoning processes and both processes had strong self-loops, which indicates that
these processes were performed sequentially several times. This finding implies that
Monitoring and Control did not have high enough dependencies to other events to be
included in the process model. This could also indicate that Monitoring and Control
were not related to one other specific process, but rather they were (weakly) con-
nected to several other (scientific reasoning) processes.
13
Table 6 The total frequencies (and percentages) of process events per condition in the training task
VMP (n = 29) VM (n = 37) Control (n = 22)
Problem Identification 20 (0.97%) 28 (0.95%) 17 (0.65%)

Hypothesis Generation 19 (0.92%) 32 (1.09%) 9 (0.35%)
Evidence Generation 1797 (86.69%) 2495 (84.95%) 2339 (89.9%)
Evidence Evaluation 133 (6.42%) 196 (6.67%) 124 (4.77%)
Drawing Conclusions 42 (2.03%) 66 (2.24%) 31 (1.19%)
Planning 13 (0.63%) 12 (0.41%) 2 (0.07%)
Monitoring 30 (1.45%) 54 (1.84%) 28 (1.07%)
Control 9 (0.43%) 31 (1.06%) 11 (0.42%)
Self-explaining 9 (0.43%) 18 (0.61%) 41 (1.58%)
Activation of Prior Knowledge 1 (0.05%) 5 (0.17%) 0
Total 2073 2937 2602
In contrast, in the control condition (Fig. 8), Problem Identification, Hypothesis

Generation, and Monitoring were disconnected from other processes and no self-
loops were observed. Similar to the two video modeling conditions, reciprocal links
between Evidence Generation and Drawing Conclusions and between Self-Explain-
ing and Evidence Evaluation were discovered. However, in contrast with the two
video modeling conditions, the reciprocal links between Self-Explaining and Evi-
dence Evaluation were disconnected from Evidence Generation.
Effects on the Transfer Task
Product Level Contrast 1 indicated that VMP and VM had higher hypothesis qual-
ity than the control condition, t(124) = 3.06, p = 0.003, d = 0.58, but they did not
differ significantly from each other (Contrast 2, t(124) = -0.22, p = 0.83, d = 0.05),
see Fig. 9. The three groups did not differ in argumentation quality (Contrast 1,
t(124) = 0.09, p = 0.93, d = 0.02; Contrast 2, t(124) = 1.09, p = 0.28, d = 0.22). These
findings provide partial support for H3a in that video modeling helped students to
generate high-quality hypotheses during scientific inquiry but did not improve their
argumentation. There was no significant added benefit of metacognitive prompts in
the transfer task (H3b).
The three groups differed significantly in monitoring accuracy regarding hypoth-
esis quality, F(2, 122) = 5.68, p = 0.004, η2 = 0.09. Post hoc comparisons with Bon-
ferroni corrections indicated that participants in the control condition overestimated
their hypothesis quality, compared to the VMP, p = 0.006, and the VM condition,
p = 0.028. There were no differences in monitoring accuracy for argumentation qual-
ity, p = 0.20, η2 = 0.02.
Process Level Descriptive statistics are reported in Table 7.

ENA: VMP and VM vs. Control. Two sample-t tests revealed no differ-
ences between the position of the VMP and VM centroid compared to that of the
13
Fig. 6 The epistemic network difference between the VMP and VM (left, green) conditions and the con-
trol (right, purple) condition in the training task
Fig. 7 The process model of the VMP and VM conditions combined (n = 66) in the training task. The top
number (referring to the arrows) represents the dependency (0–1) and the number below represents the
frequency of each sequence. The numbers in the boxes represent the frequency of each process
13
Fig. 8 The process model of the control condition (n = 22) in the training task. The top number (referring
to the arrows) represents the dependency (0–1) and the number below represents the frequency of each
sequence. The numbers in the boxes represent the occurrence of each process
control along either the X axis, t(34.29) = -0.63, p = 0.53, d = 0.16, or the Y axis,
t(34.90) = -1.43, p = 0.16, d = 0.36. Thus, the epistemic networks of the groups with
and without video modeling were similar (for details see online supplementary
materials).
ENA: VMP vs. VM. Two sample t-tests showed no significant differences
between the centroids of the VMP and VM conditions along the X, t(57.37) = -1.62,
p = 0.11, d = 0.40, and the Y axis, t(54.76) = -0.43, p = 0.67, d = 0.11. These findings
indicate that there were no significant differences between the epistemic networks of
participants in the two video modeling conditions in the transfer task (for details see
online supplementary materials).
Discussion
The present study investigated the effectiveness of video modeling examples and
metacognitive prompts for improving scientific reasoning during inquiry learn-
ing with respect to students’ scientific reasoning ability, self-regulation and sci-
entific reasoning processes, and hypothesis and argumentation quality. We used
two types of process analyses, ENA and process mining, to illustrate the interac-
tion between self-regulated learning and scientific reasoning processes.
Our findings on the product level provide partial support for our hypotheses
that video modeling improved hypothesis and argumentation quality in the train-
ing task (H2a) and hypothesis quality in the transfer task (H3a). Likewise, on the
process level, we found more sequential relationships between scientific reason-
ing and self-regulated learning processes in the two video modeling conditions
than in the control condition. We found no added benefit of the metacognitive
prompts on either the product (H2b, H3b) or the process level.
We observed no effects on scientific reasoning ability (H1a, H1b), which
is likely because of the identical pre- and posttest items. Participants’ behav-
ior during the posttest and the significantly shorter time-on-task suggested that
13
Fig. 9 The transfer effects of video modeling (VM) and metacognitive prompts (P) on hypothesis and
argumentation quality. Error bars show standard errors
many participants rushed through the posttest and did not attempt to solve it
again, thereby attesting to the importance of identifying alternative, more pro-
cess-oriented measures for scientific reasoning. Therefore, we refrain from
drawing conclusions about the influence of video modeling examples and meta-
cognitive prompts on scientific reasoning ability and earmark this aspect of our
study as a limitation.
Theoretical Contributions
First, video modeling examples were beneficial for improving participants’ hypoth-
esis and argumentation quality in the training task and for improving hypothesis
quality in the transfer task. Therefore, video modeling examples can support stu-
dents during inquiry learning and positively affect their hypothesis quality prior to
the inquiry tasks and their argumentation quality. Previous research found positive
effects of video modeling examples on performance and inquiry processes, com-
pared to solving an inquiry task (Kant et al., 2017) and our findings extend them to
hypothesis and argumentation quality. This provides further support of the benefits
of observational learning (Bandura, 1986) for teaching complex procedural skills
like scientific reasoning.
Second, next to learning outcome measures, we provide a fine-grained analysis
of students’ scientific reasoning and self-regulation processes. Prior research has
stressed the importance of self-regulation during complex problem-solving activi-
ties (e.g., Azevedo et al., 2010; Bannert et al., 2015) like scientific reasoning (e.g.,
13
Table 7 The total frequencies (and percentages) of process events per condition in the transfer task
VMP (n = 29) VM (n = 37) Control (n = 22)
Problem Identification 15 (1.06%) 29 (1.59%) 13 (1.15%)

Hypothesis Generation 11 (0.78%) 35 (1.92%) 9 (0.79%)
Evidence Generation 1037 (73.4%) 1208 (66.12%) 806 (71.39%)
Evidence Evaluation 235 (16.64%) 358 (19.59%) 192 (17%)
Drawing Conclusions 43 (3.05%) 67 (3.67%) 34 (3.01%)
Planning 8 (0.6%) 9 (0.5%) 2 (0.18%)
Monitoring 26 (1.84%) 52 (2.85%) 28 (2.48)
Control 17 (1.2%) 35 (1.92%) 11 (0.87%)
Self-explaining 18 (1.28%) 33 (1.81%) 34 (3.01%)
Activation of Prior Knowledge 2 (0.14%) 1 (0.05%) 0
Total 1412 1827 1129
Manlove et al., 2009; Omarchevska et al., 2021; White et al., 2009). Our findings
illustrate the importance of self-regulation processes during scientific reasoning
activities and the role of video modeling for supporting this relationship. Specifi-
cally, students who watched video modeling examples were monitoring and plan-
ning during evidence generation and evidence evaluation more frequently than the
control group. We contribute to the literature on self-regulated inquiry learning by
showing that an integrated instruction of self-regulation and scientific reasoning
resulted in more connections between scientific reasoning processes, more self-reg-
ulation, and higher hypothesis and argumentation quality. However, to ensure that an
integrated instruction of scientific reasoning and self-regulation is more beneficial
than an isolated one, future research should compare video modeling examples that
teach self-regulation and scientific reasoning separately to our integrated instruc-
tion. Furthermore, we primarily relied on (meta)cognitive aspects of self-regulated
learning. Future research should also investigate motivational influences (Smit et al.,
2017) which were shown to be relevant for learning from video modeling examples
(Wijnia & Baars, 2021).
Modeling the sequential use of scientific reasoning processes highlights the value
of a process-oriented perspective for inquiry learning. ENA showed a densely con-
nected network of scientific reasoning and self-regulation processes for students in
the experimental conditions. This corroborates previous findings on the relationship
between scientific reasoning and self-regulation processes and argumentation qual-
ity (Omarchevska et al., 2021) and extends it to the influence on hypothesis quality
as well. The video modeling examples in this study were designed based on our
previous findings regarding self-regulating during scientific reasoning, which fur-
ther highlights the value of video modeling examples as a means of providing such
an integrated instruction. Video modeling examples were successful in teaching
self-regulation (self-assessment and task selection skills; Raaijmakers et al., 2018a,
2018b) or scientific reasoning (CVS; Kant et al., 2017; Mulder et al., 2014). Our
findings extend these benefits for planning, monitoring, and the epistemic activities
13
regarding scientific reasoning (Fischer et al., 2014). Raaijmakers et al., (2018a,

2018b) showed mixed findings regarding transfer. In our case, our intervention
transferred only regarding hypothesis quality, which was explicitly modeled in the
videos, but did not enhance argumentation quality. The combination of process and
learning outcome analyses demonstrated that 1) modeling hypothesis generation
principles resulted in higher hypothesis quality and 2) integrating self-regulation and
scientific reasoning instruction resulted in a conjoint use of scientific reasoning and
self-regulation processes for students who watched the video modeling examples.
Our findings confirm the value of inquiry models (e.g., Fischer et al., 2014; Klahr
& Dunbar, 1988; Pedaste et al., 2015) to not only describe the inquiry processes but
to also inform interventions, as it was done in this study. At the same time, our find-
ings suggest that current theoretical models describing scientific inquiry as a set of
cognitive processes (Fischer et al., 2014; Klahr & Dunbar, 1988; Pedaste et al., 2015)
need to be augmented with respect to metacognition. A framework integrating meta-
cognition in the context of online inquiry was proposed by Quintana et al. (2005).
The framework is focused on supporting metacognition in the context of informa-
tion search and synthesis to answer a research question. The present study provides
further evidence with respect to planning, monitoring, and control as important
self-regulation processes for scientific reasoning and inquiry learning. Moreover,
we tested the cyclical assumption of self-regulation, meaning that performance on
one task can provide feedback for the learning strategies used in a follow-up task
(Panadero & Alonso-Tapia, 2014). Our process analyses showed that increasing one
component of self-regulated learning (e.g., monitoring) in the instruction can result
in recursive use of that component in similar learning situations. This results in near
transfer from applying the concepts taught in the video modeling examples to a new
context (training task), but also in medium transfer, since the transfer task involved
a new context and an additional challenge of manipulating a second variable. The
cyclical nature of self-regulated learning is often assumed (Zimmerman, 2013), but
it is rarely tested in successive learning experiences.
Methodological Contributions
We used two innovative process analyses—ENA and process mining—to investi-

gate how scientific reasoning and self-regulation processes interacted in students
who either watched video modeling examples or engaged in unguided inquiry learn-
ing prior to the inquiry tasks. Previous research on scientific reasoning using pro-
cess data often used coding-and-counting methods, which use process frequencies
to explain learning outcomes (e.g., Kant et al., 2017). A drawback of coding-and-
counting methods is that when the frequencies of processes are analyzed in isolation,
important information about the relationships between processes is lost (Csanadi
et al., 2018; Reimann, 2009). For example, Kant et al. (2017) counted and com-
pared the number of controlled and confounded experiments between conditions.
While this analysis yielded important information about inquiry learning, it did not
provide information about how participants engaged in these processes. Learning
processes do not occur in isolation and studying their co-occurrence and sequential
13
flow can show how they are related to each other and provide a more comprehensive
view of learning (Csanadi et al., 2018; Shaffer, 2017). Therefore, we use ENA and
process mining to model the sequential relationships between scientific reasoning
and self-regulation processes. Second, we integrated findings from both methods
which can help to overcome the drawbacks of each method. Such approach is of
interest to researchers analyzing learning processes as mediators between learning
opportunities offered and students’ learning outcomes. We illustrate the potential of
advanced methods that go beyond the isolated frequencies of single processes with-
out accounting for their interplay with other processes.
ENA statistically compares the position of the centroids and the strength of co-
occurrences between conditions, whereas such comparison is difficult using process
mining (Bolt et al., 2017). ENA found no differences between the two video mode-
ling conditions; therefore, we compared the strength of connections among different
processes between the video modeling conditions to the control condition. The two
video modeling conditions significantly differed from the control condition in the
training task and these differences were displayed in the epistemic networks of the
two groups—scientific reasoning processes co-occurred more frequently with self-
regulation processes in the video modeling conditions than the control condition.
ENA revealed that planning co-occurred with evidence generation more
frequently in the experimental conditions, whereas process mining identified that
more frequently, planning occurred prior to evidence generation, which could not be
determined using ENA. Planning before generating evidence during inquiry learning
is more beneficial because it helps students to first consider what experiment they
want to conduct, which variables they want to manipulate, and to avoid randomly
manipulating variables to test their hypothesis. The importance of planning during
evidence generation was explained in the video modeling examples. Showing that
participants applied this concept during their inquiry could explain the effectiveness
of the video modeling examples. Furthermore, ENA showed stronger relationships
between drawing conclusions and evidence generation in the experimental
conditions. Process mining found the same reciprocal relationship and showed that,
more frequently, evidence generation was followed by drawing conclusions. This
relationship corresponds to scientific reasoning (e.g. Fischer et al., 2014) and inquiry
(Pedaste et al., 2015) frameworks. In conclusion, ENA provides information about
the strength of the co-occurrence between different processes, whereas process
mining provides information about the direction.
Process mining identifies self-loops, indicating that the same process is per-
formed several times in a row, whereas ENA does not consider loops. The process
models identified monitoring self-loops but no strong dependencies between mon-
itoring and other processes. In ENA, monitoring was connected to several scien-
tific reasoning activities in the video modeling conditions. In the control condition,
monitoring had no self-loops and it was disconnected from other activities; like-
wise, no relationships between monitoring and other processes were observed in the
ENA. In conclusion, our findings show that a combination of both methods pro-
vides a more comprehensive analysis of the interaction between scientific reasoning
and self-regulation processes. An integration of the findings of both approaches can
complement the drawbacks of each method and provide information about global
13
differences between the groups (ENA), the strength of co-occurrence between spe-
cific processes (ENA), the specific sequence of relationships (process mining), and
identify self-loops of individual processes (process mining).
Educational Implications
Based on our findings we can recommend the use of video modeling examples to
teach scientific reasoning. Students who watched video modeling examples gener-
ated higher-quality hypotheses in a training and a transfer task, and higher-quality
arguments in the training task, compared with students who engaged in unguided
inquiry learning. Furthermore, video modeling examples enhanced self-regulation
during scientific reasoning activities. Students who watched video modeling exam-
ples were planning and monitoring more frequently their scientific reasoning pro-
cesses than students in the control group. The benefits were found despite the rather
short instruction time of the video modeling examples (10 min), thereby attesting
to their efficiency. Our video modeling examples did not only demonstrate how to
perform unconfounded experiments but also provided narrative explanations of
the model’s thought processes. Thereby, self-regulation instruction was integrated
within scientific reasoning instruction. Teachers can easily create video modeling
examples and use them in science education. Consequently, teachers are increas-
ingly using instructional videos in online platforms like YouTube or KhanAcademy.
However, instructional videos are focused on teaching content, whereas we provided
evidence that video modeling examples can also be used to convey specific learning
strategies like scientific reasoning.
Limitations and Future Directions
Several limitations to our findings should be considered. First, since the scientific
reasoning pre- and posttest items were identical and participants simply repeated
their answers from pre- to posttest, we could not assess the effectiveness of the inter-
vention on scientific reasoning ability reliably. Therefore, the effects of video mod-
eling examples and metacognitive prompts on scientific reasoning ability should be
investigated in future research. Nevertheless, the present study showed that video
modeling examples improved scientific reasoning products and processes, which
one might argue are more meaningful measures than declarative scientific reason-
ing knowledge. Second, due to technical difficulties with the audio recording, the
process data analyses were conducted using a smaller sample size. A replication of
the process analyses with a larger dataset would be beneficial for confirming the
effectiveness of video modeling examples on the process level.
Third, the intervention effects were only partly visible in the transfer task, in
which only a better hypothesis quality was achieved. This could indicate that the
benefits of video modeling examples are not robust enough to attain transferable
knowledge. Conceptual knowledge for the transfer task was lower than the training
task; therefore, applying the learned processes to a more complex task could have
been challenging for learners. Last, only hypothesis quality was explicitly modeled
13
in the videos. Future research should test these different explanations for the lack of
transfer regarding argumentation quality, for example, with a longer delay between
the training and the transfer tasks.
Furthermore, no benefits of the metacognitive prompts were observed on the
product or process level. One explanation is that participants in the video modeling
conditions were already self-regulating sufficiently in the training task, as identified
by the process data. This finding suggests that video modeling examples were suffi-
cient for fostering self-regulation in the training task. Therefore, providing the meta-
cognitive prompts in the training task might have been unnecessary. One direction
for future research would be to provide the metacognitive prompts in the transfer
task to further support self-regulation after the intervention took place. Second, prior
research on supporting monitoring and control has suggested that active generative
tasks during (Mazzoni & Nelson, 1995) or after learning (Schleinschok et al., 2017;
van Loon et al., 2014) can improve monitoring accuracy. Furthermore, providing
metacognitive judgements was only effective for learning after retrieval (Ariel et al.,
2021). Therefore, generating a written response to the prompt or retrieving infor-
mation from the video modeling examples before the prompts might increase their
effectiveness.
Conclusions
The present study provided evidence on the effectiveness of video modeling exam-
ples for improving scientific reasoning process and products. Watching video mod-
eling examples improved hypothesis and argumentation quality in the training task
and hypothesis quality in the transfer task. Students who watched video modeling
examples were also self-regulating more during scientific reasoning activities, as
indicated by the process analyses. Thus, an integrated instruction of self-regulation
and scientific reasoning resulted in a conjoint use of these processes. Therefore, the
present study provided evidence for the effectiveness of video-modeling examples
both at the product and process level using fine-grained analyses regarding the co-
occurrence and sequence of scientific reasoning and self-regulation processes. Our
findings are applicable outside the context of science education as video modeling
examples can be used to support other task-specific and self-regulatory processes in
an integrated manner. Likewise, our methodological approach combining process and
product measures, can also be applied to other questions in educational psychology.
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10648-021-09652-3.
Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This research was supported
as part of the LEAD Graduate School & Research Network [GSC1028], which was funded within the
framework of the Excellence Initiative of the German federal and state governments.
Declarations
Conflict of Interest The experimental design and the hypotheses of this study were preregistered in As-
Predicted (https://aspredicted.org/vs43g.pdf) prior to data collection. The authors declare no competing
13
interests.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as
you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is
not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission
directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licen
ses/by/4.0/.
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A.,
… Tuan, H. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education,
88(3), 397–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10118
Ariel, R., Karpicke, J. D., Witherby, A. E., & Tauber, S. K. (2021). Do judgments of learning directly
enhance learning of educational materials? Educational Psychology Review, 33, 693–712. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09556-8
Azevedo, R. (2005). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role
of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 199–209. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15326985ep4004_2
Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition – Implica-
tions for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33(5–6), 367–379. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11251-005-1272-9
Azevedo, R., Moos, D. C., Johnson, A. M., & Chauncey, A. D. (2010). Measuring cognitive and meta-
cognitive regulatory processes during hypermedia learning: Issues and challenges. Educational
Psychologist, 45(4), 210–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2010.515934
Azevedo, R., Martin, S. A., Taub, M., Mudrick, N. V., Millar, G. C., & Grafsgaard, J. F. (2016). Are
pedagogical agents’ external regulation effective in fostering learning with intelligent tutoring sys-
tems? In International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 197–207). Springer, Cham.
Baars, M., van Gog, T., de Bruin, A., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (2014). Effects of problem solving after worked
example study on primary school children’s monitoring accuracy. Applied Cognitive Psychology,
28, 382–391. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3008
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Bannert, M. (2009). Supporting self-regulated hypermedia learning through prompts: A discussion.
Zeitschrift Für Pädagogische Psychologie, 23(2), 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652.
23.2.139
Bannert, M., Reimann, P., & Sonnenberg, C. (2014). Process mining techniques for analyzing patterns
and strategies in students’ self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 9(2), 161–185.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-013-9107-6
Bannert, M., Sonnenberg, C., Mengelkamp, C., & Pieger, E. (2015). Short- and long-term effects of
students’ self-directed metacognitive prompts on navigation behavior and learning performance.
Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 293–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.038
Belland, B. R., Walker, A. E., Olsen, M. W., & Leary, H. (2015). A pilot meta-analysis of computer-based
scaffolding in STEM education. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(1), 183.
Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: Where we are today. International Journal of Educational
Research, 31(6), 445–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0883-0355(99)00014-2
Bolt, A., van der Aalst, W. M. P., & de Leoni, M. (2017). Finding process variants in event logs. In
OTM Confederated International Conferences “On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems” (pp.
45–52). Springer.
13
Bradley, E. H., Curry, L. A., & Devers, K. J. (2007). Qualitative data analysis for health services research:
Developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. Health Services Research, 42(4), 1758–1772. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00684.x
Busey, T. A., Tunnicliff, J., Loftus, G. R., & Loftus, E. F. (2000). Accounts of the confidence-accuracy
relation in recognition memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7(1), 26–48. https://doi.org/10.
3758/bf03210724
Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of the control of vari-
ables strategy. Child Development, 70(5), 1098–1120. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00081
Chi, M. T., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learn-
ing outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.
965823
Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 109–138. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1098-
2736(200002)37:2%3c109::aid-tea3%3e3.0.co;2-7
Clark, D., & Linn, M. C. (2009). Designing for knowledge integration: The impact of instructional time.
Journal of Education, 189(1–2), 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022057409189001-210
Cooper, G., & Sweller, J. (1987). Effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical
problem-solving transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 347–362. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0022-0663.79.4.347
Csanadi, A., Eagan, B., Kollar, I., Shaffer, D. W., & Fischer, F. (2018). When coding-and-counting is not
enough: Using epistemic network analysis (ENA) to analyze verbal data in CSCL research. Inter-
national Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(4), 419–438. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11412-018-9292-z
Davis, E. A. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. Inter-
national Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819–837. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900412293
de Jong, T. (2006). Computer simulations-technological advances in inquiry learning. Science, 312, 532–
533. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1127750
de Jong, T., & Lazonder, A. W. (2014). The guided discovery principle in multimedia learning. In R. E.
Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 371–390). Cambridge
University Press.
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. https://doi.org/10.3102/
00346543068002179
Dori, Y. J., Avargil, S., Kohen, Z., & Saar, L. (2018). Context-based learning and metacognitive prompts
for enhancing scientific text comprehension. International Journal of Science Education, 40(10),
1198–1220. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1470351
Engelmann, K., Neuhaus, B. J., & Fischer, F. (2016). Fostering scientific reasoning in education–meta-
analytic evidence from intervention studies. Educational Research and Evaluation, 22(5–6), 333–
349. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2016.1240089
Engelmann, K., & Bannert, M. (2019). Analyzing temporal data for understanding the learning process
induced by metacognitive prompts. Learning and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstr
uc.2019.05.002
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analy-
sis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39,
175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146
Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Ufer, S., Sodian, B., Hussmann, H., Pekrun, R., … Eberle, J. (2014). Scientific rea-
soning and argumentation: Advancing an interdisciplinary research agenda in education. Frontline
Learning Research, 2(3), 28–45. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v2i2.96
Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental stud-
ies of inquiry-based science teaching. Review of Educational Research, 82, 300–329. https://doi.
org/10.3102/0034654312457206
Fyfe, E. R., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2016). Feedback both helps and hinders learning: The causal role of
prior knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(1), 82–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu00
00053
Grüß-Niehaus, T. (2010). Zum Verständnis des Löslichkeitskonzeptes im Chemieunterricht - der Effekt
von Methoden progressiver und kollaborativer Reflexion [Comprehension of the dissolution con-
cept in chemistry education: The effect of methods of progressive and collaborative reflection].
Hannover, Germany: Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Universität.
13
Hadwin, A. F., & Winne, P. H. (2001). CoNoteS2: A software tool for promoting self-regulation. Educa-
tional Research and Evaluation, 7, 313–334. https://doi.org/10.1076/edre.7.2.313.3868
Hartmann, C., Gog, T., & Rummel, N. (2020). Do examples of failure effectively prepare students for
learning from subsequent instruction? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 34(4), 879–889. https://doi.
org/10.1002/acp.3651
Hartmann, S., Upmeier zu Belzen, A., Krüger, D., & Pant, H. A. (2015). Scientific reasoning in higher
education: Constructing and evaluating the criterion-related validity of an assessment of preservice
science teachers’ competencies. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 223(1), 47–53. https://doi.org/10.1027/
2151-2604/a000199
Hetmanek, A., Engelmann, K., Opitz, A., & Fischer, F. (2018). Beyond intelligence and domain
knowledge. In F. Fischer, C. A. Chinn, K. Engelmann, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Scientific reasoning
and argumentation (pp. 203–226). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/97802
03731826-12
Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational
Research, 60(4), 549–571. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543060004549
Hidi, S., & Renninger, A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psy-
chologist, 41(2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4
Hidi, S., & Ainley, M. (2008). Interest and self-regulation: Relationships between two variables that
influence learning. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated
learning: Theory, research and applications (pp. 77–109). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
and Associates
Hoogerheide, V., Loyens, S. M. M., & van Gog, T. (2014). Comparing the effects of worked examples
and modeling examples on learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 80–91. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.013
Huang, C. (2011). Self-concept and academic achievement: A meta-analysis of longitudinal relations.
Journal of School Psychology, 49, 505–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.07.001
Kant, J. M., Scheiter, K., & Oschatz, K. (2017). How to sequence video modeling examples and
inquiry tasks to foster scientific reasoning. Learning and Instruction, 52, 46–58. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.04.005
Kim, H. J., & Pedersen, S. (2011). Advancing young adolescents’ hypothesis-development perfor-
mance in a computer-supported and problem-based learning environment. Computers & Educa-
tion, 57(2), 1780–1789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.03.014
Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science,
12(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(88)90007-9
Koslowski, B. (2012). Scientific reasoning: Explanation, confirmation bias, and scientific practice.
In G. J. Feist & M. E. Gorman (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of science (pp. 151–192).
Springer.
Kostons, D., Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2012). Training self-assessment and task-selection skills: A cogni-
tive approach to improving self-regulated learning. Learning and Instruction, 22, 121–132. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.004
Krüger, D., Hartmann, S., Nordmeier, V., & Upmeier zu Belzen, A. (2020). Measuring scientific rea-
soning competencies – Multiple aspects of validity. In O. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, H. Pant, M.
Toepper, & C. Lautenbach (Eds.), Student Learning in German Higher Education (pp. 261–280).
Springer.
Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A., & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to support
inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 495–523. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xc
i1804_3
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge University Press.
Lai, C.-L., Hwang, G.-J., & Tu, Y.-H. (2018). The effects of computer-supported self-regulation in sci-
ence inquiry on learning outcomes, learning processes, and self-efficacy. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 66(4), 863–892. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9585-y
Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guidance.
Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681–718. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627366
Lin, X. (2001). Designing metacognitive activities. Educational Technology Research and Development,
49(2), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02504926
Mäeots, M., Siiman, L., Kori, K., Eelmets, M., Pedaste, M., & Anjewierden, A. (2016). The role of a
reflection tool in enhancing students’ reflection. 10th Annual International Technology, Education
and Development Conference (INTED 2016) (pp. 1892–1900).
13
Manlove, S., Lazonder, A. W., & de Jong, T. (2007). Software scaffolds to promote regulation during
scientific inquiry learning. Metacognition and Learning, 2, 141–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11409-007-9012-y
Manlove, S., Lazonder, A. W., & de Jong, T. (2009). Trends and issues of regulative support use dur-
ing inquiry learning: Patterns from three studies. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(4), 795–803.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHB.2008.07.010
Marquart, C. L., Hinojosa, C., Swiecki, Z., Eagan, B., & Shaffer, D. W. (2018). Epistemic Network Anal-
ysis (Version 1.7.0) [Computer software]. Available from http://app.epistemicnetwork.org
Marsh, H. W., & Martin, A. J. (2011). Academic self-concept and academic achievement: Relations and
causal ordering. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 59–77. https://doi.org/10.1348/
000709910X503501
Mazzoni, G., & Nelson, T. O. (1995). Judgments of learning are affected by the kind of encoding in
ways that cannot be attributed to the level of recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learn-
ing, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1263–1274. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.5.1263
McLaren, B. M., Lim, S., & Koedinger, K. R. (2008). When and how often should worked examples be
given to students? New results and a summary of the current state of research. In B. C. Love, K.
McRae, & V.M. Sloutsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the cognitive sci-
ence society (pp. 2176‐2181). Austin: Cognitive Science Society.
McNeill, K. L. (2011). Elementary students’ views of explanation, argumentation, and evidence, and
their abilities to construct arguments over the school year. Journal of Research in Science Teach-
ing, 48(7), 793–823. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20430
McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of
scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sci-
ences, 15(2), 153–191. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1
Mulder, Y. G., Lazonder, A. W., & de Jong, T. (2014). Using heuristic worked examples to promote
inquiry-based learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 56–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.
2013.08.001
Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In G. H.
Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 125–173). Academic Press.
OECD. (2013). Trends shaping education 2013. Paris, France: Author. https://doi.org/10.1787/trends_
edu-2013-en
Omarchevska, Y., Lachner, A., Richter, J., & Scheiter, K. (2021). It takes two to tango: How scientific
reasoning and self-regulation processes impact argumentation quality. Journal of the Learning Sci-
ences, 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2021.1966633
Ommundsen, Y., Haugen, R., & Lund, T. (2005). Academic self-concept, implicit theories of ability, and
self-regulation strategies. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 49(5), 461–474. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00313830500267838
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
Panadero, E., & Alonso-Tapia, J. (2014). How do students self-regulate? Review of Zimmerman’s cycli-
cal model of self-regulated learning. Anales De Psicología, 30(2), 450–462. https://doi.org/10.
6018/analesps.30.2.167221
Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., & Tsourlidaki, E.
(2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research
Review, 14, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003
Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning.
International Journal of Educational Research, 31(6), 459–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0883-
0355(99)00015-4
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pin-
trich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.) Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). Academic Press. https://doi.
org/10.1016/b978-012109890-2/50043-3
Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., & Soloway, E. (2004). A
scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 13, 337–387. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_4
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.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4004_5
13
Raaijmakers, S. F., Baars, M., Paas, F., van Merriënboer, J. J., & Van Gog, T. (2018a). Training self-
assessment and task-selection skills to foster self-regulated learning: Do trained skills transfer
across domains? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 32(2), 270–277. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3392
Raaijmakers, S. F., Baars, M., Schaap, L., Paas, F., Van Merriënboer, J., & Van Gog, T. (2018b). Train-
ing self-regulated learning skills with video modeling examples: Do task-selection skills transfer?
Instructional Science, 46(2), 273–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9434-0
Reid, D. J., Zhang, J., & Chen, Q. (2003). Supporting scientific discovery learning in a simulation envi-
ronment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0266-
4909.2003.00002.x
Reid, A. J., Morrison, G. R., & Bol, L. (2017). Knowing what you know: Improving metacomprehension
and calibration accuracy in digital text. Educational Technology Research & Development, 65(1),
29–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9454-5
Reimann, P. (2009). Time is precious: Variable- and event-centred approaches to process analysis in
CSCL research. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3),
239–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-009-9070-z
Renkl, A. (2014). Toward an instructionally oriented theory of example-based learning. Cognitive Sci-
ence, 38, 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12086
Renkl, A. (2018). Scientific reasoning and argumentation: Is there an over-emphasis on discipline
specificity? In F. Fischer, C. A. Chinn, K. Engelmann, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Scientific reasoning
and argumentation: The roles of domain-specific and domain-general knowledge (pp. 194–200).
New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203731826-11
Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. E. (2019). Interest development and learning. In K. A. Renninger & S.
E. Hidi (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of motivation and learning (pp. 265–290). Cambridge
University Press.
Roll, I., & Winne, P. H. (2015). Understanding, evaluating, and supporting self-regulated learning
using learning analytics. Journal of Learning Analytics, 2, 7–12. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.
2015.21.2
Romero, C., Ventura, S., Pechenizkiy, M., & Baker, R. S. (2010). Handbook of educational data min-
ing. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Schanze, S. (2002). Wissenserwerb mithilfe der internetbasierten Lernumgebung ChemNet: Eine
empirische Untersuchung zum Lernen mit linearen und vernetzten Hypertexten [Knowledge
acquisition by means of the online learning environment ChemNet: An empirical study of linear
and cross-linked hypertexts]. Kiel, Germany: Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel.
Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2007). Learner control in hypermedia environments. Educational Psychol-
ogy Review, 19(3), 285–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9046-3
Schleinschok, K., Eitel, A., & Scheiter, K. (2017). Do drawing tasks improve monitoring and control
during learning from text? Learning and Instruction, 51, 10–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learn
instruc.2017.02.002
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (1998). Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-
reflective practice. Guilford Press.
Shaffer, D. W., Collier, W., & Ruis, A. R. (2016). A tutorial on epistemic network analysis: Analyzing
the structure of connections in cognitive, social, and interaction data. Journal of Learning Ana-
lytics, 3(3), 9–45. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2016.33.3
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (1998). Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-
reflective practice. Guilford Press.
Smit, K., de Brabander, C. J., Boekaerts, M., & Martens, R. L. (2017). The self-regulation of moti-
vation: Motivational strategies as mediator between motivational beliefs and engagement for
learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 82, 124–134. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijer.2017.01.006
Sonnenberg, C., & Bannert, M. (2015). Discovering the effects of metacognitive prompts on the
sequential structure of SRL-processes using process mining techniques. Journal of Learning
Analytics, 2(1), 72–100. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2015.21.5
Sonnenberg, C., & Bannert, M. (2019). Using process mining to examine the sustainability of instruc-
tional support: How stable are the effects of metacognitive prompting on self-regulatory behav-
ior? Computers in Human Behavior, 96, 259–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.06.003
Stadler, M., Sailer, M., & Fischer, F. (2021). Knowledge as a formative construct: A good alpha is
not always better. New Ideas in Psychology, 60, 100832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsy
ch.2020.100832
13
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.
Trautwein, U., & Möller, J. (2016). Self-concept: Determinants and consequences of academic self-
concept in school contexts. In A. A. Lipnevich, F. Preckel, & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), Psychoso-
cial skills and school systems in the 21st century: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 187–214).
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28606-8_8
Van der Aalst, W. (2016). Process mining – Data science in action. Berlin: Springer.
Van Gog, T. (2011). Effects of identical example-problem and problem-example pairs on learning.
Computers & Education, 57, 1775–1779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.03.019
Van Gog, T., & Rummel, N. (2010). Example-based learning: Integrating cognitive and social-cog-
nitive research perspectives. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 155–174. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10648-010-9134-7
Van Gog, T., Jarodzka, H., Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Paas, F. (2009). Attention guidance during example
study via the model’s eye movements. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 785–791. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.02.007
Van Joolingen, W. R., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2009). Developments in inquiry learning. In N. Balacheff, S.
Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, & S. Barnes (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning (pp. 21–37). Dordrecht,
The Netherlands: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9827-7_2
van Loon, M. H., de Bruin, A. B. H., van Gog, T., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Dunlosky, J. (2014). Can
students evaluate their understanding of cause-and-effect relations? The effects of diagram com-
pletion on monitoring accuracy. Acta Psychologica, 151, 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.
2014.06.007
Verbeek, H. M. W., Buijs, J. C. A. M., Van Dongen, B. F., & van der Aalst, W. M. (2010). Prom 6: The
process mining toolkit. Proceedings of BPM Demonstration Track, 615, 34–39.
Weijters, A. J. M. M., van der Aalst, W. M., & De Medeiros, A. A. (2006). Process mining with the heu-
ristics miner-algorithm. Technische Universiteit Eindhoven. Tech. Rep. WP, 166, 1–34.
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science acces-
sible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xc
i1601_2
White, B. Y., Frederiksen, J. R., & Collins, A. (2009). The interplay of scientific inquiry and metacogni-
tion. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in educa-
tion (pp. 175–205). Routledge.
Wijnia, L., & Baars, M. (2021). The role of motivational profiles in learning problem-solving and self-
assessment skills with video modeling examples. Instructional Science, 49(1), 67–107. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11251-020-09531-4
Wilde, M., Bätz, K., Kovaleva, A., & Urhahne, D. (2009). Überprüfung einer Kurzskala intrinsischer
Motivation (KIM) [Review of a short scale for intrinsic motivation]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der
Naturwissenschaften [Journal for the didactics of science], 15, 31–45.
Zacharia, Z. C., Manoli, C., Xenofontos, N., de Jong, T., Pedaste, M., van Riesen, S. A. N., … Tsour-
lidaki, E. (2015). Identifying potential types of guidance for supporting student inquiry when
using virtual and remote labs in science: a literature review. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 63(2), 257–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9370-0
Zheng, L. (2016). The effectiveness of self-regulated learning scaffolds on academic performance in
computer-based learning environments: A meta-analysis. Asia Pacific Education Review, 17(2),
187–202.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2013). From cognitive modeling to self-regulation: A social cognitive career path.
Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.794676
Zimmerman, B. J., & Moylan, A. R. (2009). Self-regulation: Where metacognition and motivation inter-
sect. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of Metacognition in Educa-
tion (pp. 299–315). Routledge.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.
13

Do Video Modeling and Metacognitive Prompts Improve

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Do Video Modeling and Metacognitive Prompts Improve

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Do Video Modeling and Metacognitive Prompts Improve

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Educational Psychology Review (2022) 34:1025–1061

Do Video Modeling and Metacognitive Prompts Improve

Yoana Omarchevska1 · Andreas Lachner1,2 · Juliane Richter1,3 ·

Accepted: 14 December 2021 / Published online: 20 January 2022

Keywords Scientific reasoning · Self-regulation · Video modeling · Metacognitive

Improving scientific reasoning and argumentation is a central aim of science educa-

Scientific Reasoning and Argumentation

Computer‑Supported Inquiry Learning

The importance of metacognition (and self-regulation) for successful scientific rea-

Guidance During Computer‑Supported Inquiry Learning

Video Modeling Examples

studied whether a video modeling intervention that integrates scientific reasoning

Modeling Learning Processes

Epistemic Network Analysis

Process mining is a suitable method for modeling and understanding self-regula-

The Present Study

Participants and Design

Materials and Procedure

We first assessed demographic information, conceptual knowledge, academic inter-

Phase 2—Training Task

monitor specific scientific reasoning activities. Each prompt asked participants to

Phase 3—Transfer Task

Conceptual knowledge in photosynthesis (e.g., “What is the function of the chlo-

(photosynthesis, Cronbach’s α = 0.63; energy conversion, Cronbach’s α = 0.15),

Academic Self‑Concept and Interest in Science

Scientific Reasoning Ability

Scientific reasoning ability was assessed using 12 items from a comprehensive

Scientific Reasoning Products

Argumentation Quality Argumentation quality was assessed by coding partici-

Scientific Reasoning and Self‑Regulation Processes

To test our preregistered hypotheses, we used contrast analyses: Contrast 1 (0.5,

Epistemic Network Analysis

ENA is a modeling tool which quantifies the strength of co-occurrence between

A MANOVA with the control variables (conceptual knowledge, interest, academic

Scientific Reasoning Ability

A contrast analysis with scientific reasoning ability (pretest) as a covariate revealed

Effects on the Training Task

Problem Identification 20 (0.97%) 28 (0.95%) 17 (0.65%)

In contrast, in the control condition (Fig. 8), Problem Identification, Hypothesis

Effects on the Transfer Task

Process Level Descriptive statistics are reported in Table 7.

Problem Identification 15 (1.06%) 29 (1.59%) 13 (1.15%)

regarding scientific reasoning (Fischer et al., 2014). Raaijmakers et al., (2018a,

We used two innovative process analyses—ENA and process mining—to investi-

Limitations and Future Directions

You might also like