An Examination of Credit Recovery Students’ Use of Computer-Based Scaffolding in a Problem-Based, Scientific Inquiry Unit
In this study, we investigated how high school credit recovery students worked in small groups and used computer-based scaffolds to conduct scientific inquiry in a problem-based learning unit centered on water quality. We examined how students searched for and evaluated information from different sources, and used evidence to support their claims. Data sources included screen recordings, interviews, scaffold trace data, and scaffold entry quality ratings. Findings indicate that many students struggled to use the scaffolding and did not fully respond to scaffold prompts. Collaboration within small groups was often inhibited by frequent absences, struggles using the scaffolding, desires to complete tasks quickly rather than thoroughly, and an expectation that the group leader address the questions. However, many groups followed the scientific inquiry process prompted by the scaffolding, and support for collaboration within the scaffolds led students to negotiate the meaning of water quality data, and this in turn led students to see water quality as a complex, rather than a binary, construct.
KeywordsArgumentation Credit recovery High school Scaffolding Science education
Any opinions, findings, or conclusions are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent official positions of NSF.
This research was supported by Early CAREER Grant 0953046 awarded to the first author by the National Science Foundation (USA).
- Belland, B. R., Ertmer, P. A., & Simons, K. D. (2006). Perceptions of the value of problem-based learning among students with special needs and their teachers. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1024.
- Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., & Ertmer, P. A. (2009). Inclusion and problem-based learning: Roles of students in a mixed-ability group. Research on Middle Level Education, 32(9), 1–19. Google Scholar
- Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., & Richardson, J. C. (2011). Problem-based learning and argumentation: Testing a scaffolding framework to support middle school students’ creation of evidence-based arguments. Instructional Science, 39, 667–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9148-z.
- Belland, B. R., Kim, C., & Hannafin, M. (2013). A framework for designing scaffolds that improve motivation and cognition. Educational Psychologist, 48, 243–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.838920
- Belland, B. R., Walker, A. E., & Kim, N. J. (2017). A Bayesian network meta-analysis to synthesize the influence of contexts of scaffolding use on cognitive outcomes in STEM education. Review of Educational Research, 87(6), 1042–1081. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317723009.
- Belland, B. R., Walker, A. E., Kim, N. J., & Lefler, M. (2017). Synthesizing results from empirical research on computer-based scaffolding in STEM education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 309–344. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316670999
- Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
- Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2001). The use of embedded scaffolds with hypermedia-supported student-centered learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10(4), 333–356.Google Scholar
- Carr, S. (2014). Credit recovery hits the mainstream. Education Next, 14(3), 30–36.Google Scholar
- Chinn, C., Duncan, R., Dianovsky, M., & Rinehart, R. (2013). Promoting conceptual change through inquiry. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 539–559). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Dessoff, A. (2009). Reaching graduation with credit recovery. District Administration, 45(9), 43–48.Google Scholar
- Dods, R. F. (1997). An action research study of the effectiveness of problem-based learning in promoting the acquisition and retention of knowledge. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20(4), 423–437.Google Scholar
- Gallagher, S. A., & Stepien, W. J. (1996). Content acquisition in problem-based learning: Depth versus breadth in American studies. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19(3), 257–275.Google Scholar
- Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open-ended learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: Volume II: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 115–140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Heppen, J. B., Sorensen, N., Allensworth, E., Walters, K., Rickles, J., Taylor, S. S., & Michelman, V. (2016). The struggle to pass algebra: Online vs. face-to-face credit recovery for at-risk urban students. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2016.1168500.
- Hmelo, C., & Ferrari, M. (1997). The problem-based learning tutorial: Cultivating higher order thinking skills. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20(4), 401–422.Google Scholar
- Hmelo-Silver, C. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16, 235–266. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3.Google Scholar
- Jackson, A., & Davis, G. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.Google Scholar
- Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.Google Scholar
- Kelson, A., & Distlehorst, L. (2000). Groups in problem-based learning (PBL): Essential elements in theory and practice. In D. H. Evensen & C. E. Hmelo (Eds.), Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions (pp. 167–184). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Mason, L., & Scirica, F. (2006). Prediction of students’ argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding. Learning and Instruction, 16, 492–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.09.007.Google Scholar
- Milbourne, J., & Wiebe, E. (2017). The role of content knowledge in ill-structured problem solving for high school physics students. Research in Science Education, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9564-4.
- Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
- Nash, A. N., Muczyk, J. P., & Vettori, F. L. (1971). The relative practical effectiveness of programmed instruction. Personnel Psychology, 24(3), 397–418.Google Scholar
- Picciano, A. G., Seaman, J., Shea, P., & Swan, K. (2012). Examining the extent and nature of online learning in American K-12 education: The research initiatives of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.07.004.Google Scholar
- Pourshanazari, A. A., Roohbakhsh, A., Khazaei, M., & Tajadini, H. (2013). Comparing the long-term retention of a physiology course for medical students with the traditional and problem-based learning. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 18(1), 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-012-9357-0.Google Scholar
- Torp, L., & Sage, S. (1998). Problems as possibilities: Problem-based learning for K-12 education. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Google Scholar
- Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x.Google Scholar
- Yin, R. K. (2015). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.Google Scholar