A REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ON SCAFFOLDING FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION

  • Tzu-Chiang Lin
  • Ying-Shao Hsu
  • Shu-Sheng Lin
  • Maio-Li Changlai
  • Kun-Yuan Yang
  • Ting-Ling Lai
Article

Abstract

This content analysis of articles in the Social Science Citation Index journals from 1995 to 2009 was conducted to provide science educators with empirical evidence regarding the effects of scaffolding on science learning. It clarifies the definition, design, and implementation of scaffolding in science classrooms and research studies. The results show important cross-study evidence that most researchers have adopted a qualitative approach (67.44%), focused on learning context (72.09%), and used high school students as participants (53.49%). In designing scaffoldings, researchers have shown a preference for long-term explicit scaffolding using multiple representations to promote procedural and strategic skills and alternative assessments of learner performance. Nevertheless, scaffolding issues related to teacher education are unexpectedly few (11.63%) in empirical research. The results also indicate that there are too few studies to guide researchers in considering fading scaffolds for active learning (9.30%). Future directions and suggestions toward conducting research regarding scaffolding are provided.

Key words

content analysis fading scaffolding science learning science teaching 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

10763_2011_9322_MOESM1_ESM.doc (46 kb)
ESM 1(DOC 46 kb)

References

  1. Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G. & Seibert, D. (2004). Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students’ ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(3), 344–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., Winters, F. I., Moos, D. C. & Greene, J. A. (2005). Adaptive human scaffolding facilitates adolescents’ self-regulated learning with hypermedia. Instructional Science, 33(5–6), 381–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berk, R. A. (1995). Something old, something new, something borrowed, a lot to do! Applied Measurement in Education, 8(1), 99–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T. & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73(2), 125–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chou, C. & Tsai, C.-C. (2002). Developing web-based curricula: Issues and challenges. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34(6), 623–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark, D. B. & Sampson, V. T. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Collins, A., Brown, J. S. & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Dabbagh, N. & Kitsantas, A. (2005). Using web-based pedagogical tools as scaffolds for self-regulated learning. Instructional Science, 33(5–6), 513–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis, E. A. & Miyake, N. (2004). Explorations of scaffolding in complex classroom systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 265–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.Google Scholar
  11. Hadwin, A. F., Wozney, L. & Pontin, O. (2005). Scaffolding the appropriation of self-regulatory activity: A socio-cultural analysis of changes in teacher–student discourse about a graduate research portfolio. Instructional Science, 33(5–6), 413–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hannifin, M. J., Land, S. M. & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 115–140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Hill, J. & Hannafin, M. J. (2001). Teaching and learning in digital environments: The resurgence of resource-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3), 37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Holliday, W. G. (2005). A balanced approach to science inquiry teaching. In N. G. Lederman & L. B. Flick (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 201–217). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  15. Hsu, Y.-S., Wu, H.-K. & Hwang, F.-K. (2008). Fostering high school students’ conceptual understandings about seasons: The design of a technology-enhanced learning environment. Research in Science Education, 38(2), 127–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jensen, E. (2000). Brain-based learning: A reality check. Educational Leadership, 57(7), 76–80.Google Scholar
  17. Kunpfer, N. & McLellan, H. (1996). Descriptive research methodologies. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 1196–1212). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Land, S. M. (2000). Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Lee, M.-H., Wu, Y.-T. & Tsai, C.-C. (2009). Research trends in science education from 2003 to 2007: A content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 31(15), 1999–2020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J. S. & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. National Association for Research in Science Teaching (2009). NARST strand descriptions. Reston, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.narst.org/about/strands.cfm
  23. Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Puntambekar, S. & Hubscher, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J. S., Fretz, E., Duncan, R., et al (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Quintana, C., Zhang, M. & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). A framework for supporting metacognitive aspects of online inquiry through software-based scaffolding. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 235–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Rømer, T. A. (2002). Situated learning and assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(3), 233–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rossman, G. B. & Yore, L. D. (2009). Stitching the pieces together to reveal the generalized patterns: Systematic research reviews, secondary reanalyses, case-to-case comparisons, and metasyntheses of qualitative research studies. In M. C. Shelley II, L. D. Yore & B. Hand (Eds.), Quality research in literacy and science education: International perspectives and gold standards (pp. 575–601). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sandoval, W. A. & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Singer, J., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S. & Chambers, J. C. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 165–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sins, P. H. M., Savelsbergh, E. R. & van Joolingen, W. R. (2005). The difficult process of scientific modelling: An analysis of novices’ reasoning during computer-based modelling. International Journal of Science Education, 27(14), 1695–1721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stone, C. A. (1993). What is missing in the metaphor of scaffolding? In E. Forman, N. Minick & C. Stone (Eds.), Context for leaning: Sociocultural dynamics in children’s development (pp. 169–183). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Stone, C. A. (1998a). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 344–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stone, C. A. (1998b). Should we salvage the scaffolding metaphor? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 409–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tsai, C.-C. & Wen, M. L. (2005). Research and trends in science education from 1998 to 2002: A content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 27(1), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D. & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wertsch, J., Mcnamee, G., McLare, J. & Budwig, N. (1980). The adult–child dyad as a problem solving system. Child Development, 51(4), 1215–1221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S. & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 17(2), 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wu, H.-K. (2003). Linking the microscopic view of chemistry to real-life experiences: Intertextuality in a high-school science classroom. Science Education, 87(6), 868–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yore, L. D. & Lerman, S. (2008). Metasyntheses of qualitative research studies in mathematics and science education [Editorial]. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(2), 217–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tzu-Chiang Lin
    • 1
  • Ying-Shao Hsu
    • 2
  • Shu-Sheng Lin
    • 3
  • Maio-Li Changlai
    • 4
  • Kun-Yuan Yang
    • 5
  • Ting-Ling Lai
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Life ScienceNational Taiwan Normal UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.Graduate Institute of Science Education and Department of Earth SciencesNational Taiwan Normal UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  3. 3.Graduate Institute of Science EducationNational Chiayi UniversityChiayiTaiwan
  4. 4.The Center of General EducationChung Kuo Institute of TechnologyTaipeiTaiwan
  5. 5.Graduate Institute of Education and Center for Teacher EducationChung Yuan Christian UniversityJhongliTaiwan
  6. 6.Department of Educational TechnologyTamkang UniversityNew TaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations