A coached learning environment for case-based inquiry learning in human biology (In CD-ROM Proceedings of E-Learn 2003, November, 2003, Phoenix) Tom Murray, Merle Bruno, Beverly Woolf, David Marshall, Matthew Mattingly, Sean Wright, & Michael Jellison Hampshire College, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA Introduction We are developing a general framework, called RASHI, to support inquiry learning. We have begun using RASHI to build inquiry learning environments in human biology, environmental engineering (water quality), geology (interpreting seismic activity), and forest ecology (interpreting a forest's history) (Woolf et al. 2003, Murray et al. 2003). In this paper we will focus on our most fully developed project, in the human biology domain, a highly successful college course taught by two experts in the case-based teaching methodology. At this point RASHI has been pilot tested with four students in a clinical setting, and, following a number of modifications, is slated to be used for one unit (one or two weeks) in a Human Biology course in the Fall of 2003. Cognitive tools that scaffold problem solving in specific domains not only help students but enable inquiry-style learning to occur in situations where there would not otherwise be enough human teaching resource available, as in large classes or when the instructor is not fully skilled in the methods of these types of pedagogies. Our software incorporates some of the pedagogical expertise from expert teachers and should thus allow broader use of inquiry-based teaching methods. Pedagogical Approach Inquiry learning is a general term for learning modeled on the scientific inquiry process. It is described in various ways, but generally involves these skill steps: formulating testable hypotheses (or predications or questions,) planning for the systematic gathering of data and other information, acquiring the data and information, date analysis, inferring conclusions (which could include developing a model, an explanation, a diagnosis, etc.), and clearly reporting the findings. The classic description of this process says that in answering one question, many others will arise, creating an inquiry "cycle." In actuality (for both scientists and students) the process may involve several subgoal cycles or back-tracking paths, as the inquiry plan or even the hypothesis itself may need to be revised in mid-stream as new information clarifies things. We confer with the now commonly accepted maxim that deep and meaningful learning is enhanced through peer collaboration and a social constructivist "leaning communities" approach. Pedagogical approaches called case-based, problem-based, project-based, and discovery-based have significant overlap with the inquiry-based approach, and so our work is relevant to these approaches as well. Learning through sustained inquiry activities requires a significant amount of reflection, planning, and other metacognitive and higher level skills. Yet these very skills are lacking in many students. Thus it is crucial to support, scaffold, and teach these skills. Our approach involves providing "cognitive tools" (Lajoie& Azevedo 2000) software that assist the student through reminding, organizational aides, and visualizations; and providing coaching or direct feedback during inquiry. "Human Biology: Selected Topics in Medicine" is a focused, case-based and inquiry-based science course designed to help freshman develop skills they need to complete the science requirement at Hampshire College. Students work in cooperative groups of 4-6 people to solve actual medical cases about which they receive information progressively. Students assign themselves homework tasks to bring information back for group deliberation. The goal is for case teams to work cooperatively to develop a differential diagnosis and recommend treatment. Students write detailed individual final case reports. Changes observed in student work over seven years of developing this course include increased motivation to pursue work in depth, more effective participation on case teams, increase in critical examination of evidence, and more fully developed arguments in final written reports (Bruno & Jarvis 2001, Wenk et al. 1999).