Prior studies on scaffolding for investigative inquiry practices (i.e. forming a question/hypothesis, collecting data, and analyzing and interpreting data [21]) revealed that students who received scaffolding were better able to both learn practices and transfer these competencies to new topics than were students who did not receive scaffolding. Prior studies have also shown that after removing scaffolding, students continued to demonstrate improved inquiry performance on a variety of practices across new driving questions over time. However, studies have not examined the relationship between the amount of scaffolding received and transfer of inquiry performance; this is the focus of the present study. 107 middle school students completed four virtual lab activities (i.e. driving questions) in Inq-ITS. Students received scaffolding when needed from an animated pedagogical computer agent for the first three driving questions for the Animal Cell virtual lab. Then they completed the fourth driving question without access to scaffolding in a different topic, Plant Cell. Results showed that students' performances increased even with fewer scaffolds for the inquiry practices of hypothesizing, collecting data, interpreting data, and warranting claims; furthermore, these results were robust as evidenced by the finding that students required less scaffolding as they completed subsequent inquiry activities. These data provide evidence of near and far transfer as a result of adaptive scaffolding of science inquiry practices.

Examining the interaction between content knowledge, inquiry proficiency, and writing proficiency is central to understanding the relative contribution of each proficiency on students' written communication about their science inquiry. Previous studies, however, have only analyzed one of these primary types of knowledge/proficiencies (i.e. content knowledge, inquiry proficiency, and writing proficiency) at a time. This study investigated the extent to which these proficiencies predicted students' written claims, evidence for their claims, and reasoning linking their claims to the evidence. Results showed that all three types of proficiencies significantly predicted students' claims, but only writing proficiency significantly predicted performance on evidence and reasoning statements. These findings indicate the challenges students face when constructing claim, evidence, and reasoning statements, and can inform scaffolding to support these challenges.

When validating assessment models built with data mining, generalization is typically tested at the student-level, where models are tested on new students. This approach, though, may fail to find cases where model performance suffers if other aspects of those cases relevant to prediction are not well represented. We explore this here by testing if scientific inquiry skill models built and validated for one science topic can predict skill demonstration for new students and a new science topic. Test cases were chosen using two methods: student-level stratification, and stratification based on the amount of trials ran during students' experimentation. We found that predictive performance of the models was different on each test set, revealing limitations that would have been missed from student-level validation alone.