Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Distributed Scaffolding: Synergy in Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments

  • Original research
  • Published:
Technology, Knowledge and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

When technology is employed challenges increase in learning environments. Kim et al. (Sci Educ 91(6):1010–1030, 2007) presented a pedagogical framework that provides a valid technology-enhanced learning environment. The purpose of the present design-based study was to investigate the micro context dimension of this framework and to analyze interactions between the student and tool, teacher and student, and teacher and tool. In this respect, to understand how the roles of the teacher and technology tool are balanced in a technology-enhanced learning environment, the distribution of scaffolds between teacher and the tool were analyzed. Forty-one middle-school students attending an international school in Turkey were scaffolded with technology-based scaffolding treatments in two groups supervised by two teachers. Qualitative analysis was conducted. The results showed that the students benefited from the use of hints, sentence starters and question prompts, which led the students to develop their ability to construct arguments with a claim, ground, backing, warrants, and in some cases, more sophisticated arguments using rebuttals as in the Toulmin argumentation pattern (Toulmin 2003). The results of the study also showed that technology-based scaffolds, which are provided with active support by the teacher, create a more effective environment, and students need multiple forms of support and multiple learning opportunities to learn science successfully in the dynamic and complex environment of the classroom. Since there is a strong interaction and balance between teacher support and the technology scaffolds, there is also a synergetic relationship that promotes student learning and improves the student’s ability to construct arguments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Students’ argumentation in group discussions on a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38(1), 67–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, P., & Davis, E. A. (2000). Designing Mildred: Scaffolding students’ reflection and argumentation using a cognitive software guide. In Fourth international conference of the learning sciences (pp. 142–149). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Bell, P., Hoadley, C. M., & Linn, M. C. (2004). Design-based research in education. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 73–86). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belland, B. R. (2010). Portraits of middle school students constructing evidence-based arguments during problem-based learning: The impact of computer-based scaffolds. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(3), 285–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belland, B. R., Burdo, R., & Gu, J. (2015a). A blended professional development program to help a teacher learn to provide one-to-one scaffolding. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(3), 263–289.

  • Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., & Richardson, J. C. (2008). A scaffolding framework to support the construction of evidence-based arguments among middle school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(4), 401–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belland, B. R., Gu, J., Armbrust, S., & Cook, B. (2015b). Scaffolding argumentation about water quality: A mixed-method study in a rural middle school. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(3), 325–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, K., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuthbert, A. J., & Slotta, J. D. (2004). Designing a web-based design curriculum for middle school science: The WISE ‘Houses In The Desert’ project. International Journal of Science Education, 26(7), 821–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demetriadis, S. N., Papadopoulos, P. M., Stamelos, I. G., & Fischer, F. (2008). The effect of scaffolding students’ context-generating cognitive activity in technology-enhanced case-based learning. Journal of Computers and Education, 51(2), 939–954. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Er, N., & Ardaç, D. (2008). Design and development of a web-based learning tool for middle-level science students: A study on particulate nature of matters for six graders. Retrieved 21 Dec 2009. http://ietc2008.home.anadolu.edu.tr/ietc2008.html.

  • Ge, X., & Land, M. (2003). Scaffolding students’ problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, C.-C., Chiu, C.-H., Lin, C.-H., & Wang, T.-I. (2015a). Enhancing skill in constructing scientific explanations using a structured argumentation scaffold in scientific inquiry. Computers & Education, 91, 46–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, Y.-S., Lai, T.-L., & Hsu, W.-H. (2015b). A design model of distributed scaffolding for inquiry-based learning. Research in Science Education, 45(2), 241–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, P. S., Van Dyke, M., & Chen, Y. (2015c). Examining the effect of teacher guidance on collaborative argumentation in middle level classrooms. RMLE Online, 38(9), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, P. S., Van Dyke, M., Chen, Y., & Smith, T. J. (2015d). The Effect of a graph-oriented computer-assisted project-based learning environment on argumentation skills. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 31(1), 32–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iordanou, K., & Constantinou, C. P. (2015). Supporting use of evidence in argumentation through practice in argumentation and reflection in the context of SOCRATES learning environment. Science Education, 99(2), 282–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011a). Scaffolding 6th graders’ problem solving in technology-enhanced science classrooms: A qualitative case study. Instructional Science, 39(3), 255–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M., & Hannafin, M. (2011b). Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computers & Education, 56, 403–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M. C., Hannafin, M. J., & Bryan, L. A. (2007). Technology-enhanced inquiry tools in science education: An emerging pedagogical framework for classroom practice. Science Education, 91(6), 1010–1030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Köroğlu, L. S. (2009). Sekizinci Sinif Fen Ve Teknoloji Dersi Kalitim Konusunun Tartişma Öğeleri Temelli Rehber Sorularla Desteklenen Benzetim Ortaminda Öğretiminin Akademik Başari Ve Tartişma Öğelerini Kullanma Düzeyine Etkisi. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.

  • Land, S. M., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2003). Scaffolding reflection and articulation of scientific explanations in a data-rich, project-based learning environment: An investigation of progress portfolio. ETR&D, 51(4), 65–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Land, S., Zimmerman, H., Choi, G., Seely, B., & Mohney, M. (2015). Design of mobile learning for outdoor environments. Educational Media & Technology Yearbook, 39, 101–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laru, J., Jarvela, S., & Clariana, R. B. (2012). Supporting collaborative inquiry during a biology field trip with mobile peer-to-peer tools for learning: A case study with K-12 learners. Interactive Learning Environments, 20(2), 103–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leontiev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leontiev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in soviet psychology. Sharpe: Armonk, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, J., Lajoie, S., & Wiseman, J. (2010). Scaffolding problem-based learning with CSCL tools. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5, 283–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nardi, B. A. (1996). Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2013). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction through a transactive discussion script in CSCL. Computers & Education, 61, 59–76.  

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, K., & Hannafin, M. (2001). Developing and refining mental models in open-ended learning environments: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(4), 5–32.

  • Özçinar, H. (2015). Scaffolding computer-mediated discussion to enhance moral reasoning and argumentation quality in pre-service teachers. Journal of Moral Education, 44(2), 232–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pumtambekar, S., & Hübscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puntambekar, S. (2015). Distributing scaffolding across multiple levels: Individuals, small groups, and a class of students. In P. Ertmer (Ed.), Essential readings in problem-based learning (pp. 207–221). Indiana: Purdue University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raes, A., & Schellens, T. (2016). The effects of teacher-led class interventions during technology-enhanced science inquiry on students’ knowledge integration and basic need satisfaction. Computers & Education, 92–93, 125–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, B. J. (2002). Why scaffolding should sometimes make tasks more difficult for learners. In Proceedings of the conference on computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community (pp. 255–264). International Society of the Learning Sciences.

  • Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B. K., Steinmuller, F., & Leone, A. J. (2001). BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 263–305). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, P., & Hannafin, M. J. (2007). Scaffolding in technology-enhanced learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 15(1), 27–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smagorinsky, P., Clayton, C., & Johnson, L. (2015). Distributed scaffolding in a service-learning course. Theory Into Practice, 54, 71–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabak, I., & Reiser, B. J. (1999). Steering the course of dialogue in inquiry-based science classrooms.

  • Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511840005.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk, A. M., & Lazonder, A. W. (2016). Scaffolding students’ use of learner-generated content in a technology-enhanced inquiry learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(1), 194–204. doi:10.1080/10494820.2013.834828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Mind and society (pp. 79–91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1387–1410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zacharia, Z., Manoli, C., Xenofontos, N., Jong, T., Pedaste, M., Van Riesen, S., et al. (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, 257–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zydney, J. M. (2010). The effect of multiple scaffolding tools on students’ understanding, consideration of different perspectives, and misconceptions of a complex problem. Computers & Education, 54(2), 360–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. BTU Koordinatorlugu, Baskent University, Baglica Kampusu Eskisehir Yolu 20. km, Baglica, 06810, Ankara, Turkey

    Hale H. Ustunel

  2. Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, Faculty of Education, Middle East Technical University, Universiteler Mahallesi, Dumlupinar Bulvari No: 1, Cankaya, 06800, Ankara, Turkey

    Saniye Tuğba Tokel

Authors
  1. Hale H. Ustunel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Saniye Tuğba Tokel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hale H. Ustunel.

Additional information

Distributed scaffolding: “Multiple forms of support that are provided through different means to address the complex and diverse learning needs” (Tabak 2004, p. 307).

Synergy: “Characteristic that different components of distributed scaffolding address the same learning need and interact with each other to produce a robust form of support” (Tabak 2004, p. 305).

Taken from parts of the dissertation submitted to the Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology—METU in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Ph.D. degree—Association for Educational Communications and Technology Conference 2011, 2012.

TELE: Technology-enhanced learning environment—“Technologies that support students’ scientific understanding, activities and support practices that facilitate students’ inquiry processes, and methods to sustain technology-enhanced innovations in everyday science classrooms” (Kim et al. 2007, p. 1010).

WISE: Web-Based Inquiry Science Environment. KIE: Knowledge Integration Environment.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 128 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ustunel, H.H., Tokel, S.T. Distributed Scaffolding: Synergy in Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments. Tech Know Learn 23, 129–160 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-017-9299-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-017-9299-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation