A REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ON SCAFFOLDING FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION
- 1.1k Downloads
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 wordscontent analysis fading scaffolding science learning science teaching
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 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
- Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Jensen, E. (2000). Brain-based learning: A reality check. Educational Leadership, 57(7), 76–80.Google Scholar
- 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
- Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- National Association for Research in Science Teaching (2009). NARST strand descriptions. Reston, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.narst.org/about/strands.cfm
- Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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