Synergy and Students’ Explanations: Exploring the Role of Generic and Content-Specific Scaffolds

Abstract

In this study, we explored how a teacher used a new mobile application that enables students to collect data inside and outside the classroom, and then use the data to create scientific explanations by using claim-evidence-reasoning framework. Previous technologies designed to support scientific explanations focused on how these programs improve students’ scientific explanations, but these programs ignored how scientific explanation applications can support teacher practices. Thus, to increase our knowledge about using mobile devices in education, this study aims to portray the synergy with an emphasis on a teacher’s practices when using mobile devices in 2 different units (water quality and plants). Synergy can be thought of as various scaffolds (scaffolds in the mobile application and the teacher support) working together to enable students to support creating explanations when using the mobile application. The findings of this study showed that the decrease in the teacher’s support for claims did not affect the quality of the students’ claims. On the other hand, the quality of students’ reasoning was linked with the teacher’s practices. This suggests that when supporting students’ explanations, focusing on components that students find challenging would benefit students’ construction of explanations. To achieve synergy in this process, the collaboration between teacher’s practices, professional development days, and scaffolds designed to support the teacher played a crucial role in aiding students in creating explanations.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Achieve (2013). Next generation science standards. Washington, DC: National Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 91–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Delen, I. (2014). Supporting students’ scientific explanations: A case study investigating the synergy focusing on a teacher’s practices when providing instruction and using mobile devices (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

  4. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A. & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gotwals, A. W. & Songer, N. B. (2010). Reasoning up and down a food chain: Using an assessment framework to investigate students’ middle knowledge. Science Education, 94(2), 259–281.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3), 381–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M. & Fredericks, J. (1998). Inquiry in project based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 77, 317-337.

  9. Kuhn, A., McNally, B., Schmoll, S., Cahill, C., Lo, W. T., Quintana, C., & Delen, I. (2012). How students find, evaluate and utilize peer-collected annotated multimedia data in science inquiry with Zydeco. In J. A. Konstan, E. Chi & K. Höök (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3061–3070). Austin, TX: ACM.

  10. Laru, J., Järvelä, S. & Clariana, R. (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 

  11. Lizotte, D. J., McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2004). Teacher practices that support students’ construction of scientific explanations in middle school classrooms. In Y. B. Kafai, W. A Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. S. Nixon & F. Herrera (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Learning sciences (ICLS) (pp. 310-317). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  12. Lo, W. T., Delen, I., Kuhn, A., Duck, J., McGee, S., Quintana, C. & Krajcik, J. (2013). Zydeco: A Mobile-Based Inquiry Learning System to Support Project-Based Learning. Paper presented at Annual International Conference of The American Educational Research Association (AERA), San Francisco, CA.

  13. Maldonado, H. & Pea, R. D. (2010). LET’s GO! to the creek: Co-design of water quality inquiry using mobile science collaboratories. In U. Hoppe, R. Pea & C. Liu (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth international IEEE conference on wireless, mobile and ubiquitous technologies in education. Kaohsiung, Taiwan (pp. 81–87). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  14. McNeill, K. L. & Krajcik, J. (2007). Middle school students’ use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In M. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with Data: Proceedings of the 33rd Carnegie Symposium on Cognition (pp. 233–265). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

  15. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008a). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53–78.

  16. McNeill, K. L. & Krajcik, J. (2008b). Inquiry and scientific explanations: Helping students use evidence and reasoning. In J. Luft, R. Bell & J. Gess-Newsome (Eds.), Science as Inquiry in the Secondary Setting (p. 121–134). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.

  17. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Synergy between teacher practices and curricular scaffolds to support students in using domain-specific and domain-general knowledge in writing arguments to explain phenomena. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(3), 416-460.

  18. McNeill, K. L. & Knight, A. M. (2013). Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of scientific argumentation: The impact of professional development on K-12 teachers. Science Education, 97(6), 936–972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & 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.

  20. National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Osborne, J. (2014). Scientific practices and inquiry in the science classroom. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education, volume 2 (pp. 579–599). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Osborne, J., Erduran, S. & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Quintana, C. (2012). Pervasive science: Using mobile devices and the cloud to support science education. Interactions, 19(4), 76–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 273–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Sandoval, W. A. & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Simon, S., Erduran, S. & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 235–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Songer, N. B. (2006). BioKIDS: An animated conversation on the development of curricular activity structures for inquiry science. In R. Keith Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 355–369). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Williams, M., Montgomery, B. L. & Manokore, V. (2012). From phenotype to genotype: Exploring middle school students’ understanding of genetic inheritance in a web-based environment. The American Biology Teacher, 74(1), 35–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study is part of the first author’s dissertation. We thank Chris Reimann from Michigan State University CREATE4STEM Institute for all his support in the writing process. This work was supported by NSF [grant number DRL 1020027]. All opinions and conclusions are those of the authors and not of the funding agency.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ibrahim Delen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Delen, I., Krajcik, J. Synergy and Students’ Explanations: Exploring the Role of Generic and Content-Specific Scaffolds. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 16, 1–21 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9767-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Mobile application
  • Professional development
  • Scaffolds
  • Scientific explanations
  • Synergy
  • Teacher practices