Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
References
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.
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.
Bransford, J. D., Stein, B. S., Vye, N. J., Franks, J. J., Auble, P. M., Mezynski, K. J., & Perfetto, G. A. (1982). Differences in approaches to learning: An overview. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111(4), 390–398. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.111.4.390.
Britt, M. A., Richter, T., & Rouet, J.-F. (2014). Scientific literacy: The role of goal-directed reading and evaluation in understanding scientific information. Educational Psychologist, 49, 104–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.916217.
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.
Carr, S. (2014). Credit recovery hits the mainstream. Education Next, 14(3), 30–36.
Chinn, C., Buckland, L., & Samarapungavan, A. (2011). Expanding the dimensions of epistemic cognition: Arguments from philosophy and psychology. Educational Psychologist, 46, 141–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.587722.
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.
Dessoff, A. (2009). Reaching graduation with credit recovery. District Administration, 45(9), 43–48.
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.
Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Loyens, S. M. M., Marcq, H., & Gijbels, D. (2016). Deep and surface learning in problem-based learning: A review of the literature. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 21(5), 1087–1112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-015-9645-6.
Drew, S. V. (2012). Open up the ceiling on the common core state standards: Preparing students for 21st-century literacy—now. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56, 321–330. https://doi.org/10.1002/JAAL.00145.
Evensen, D. H., Salisbury-Glennon, J. D., & Glenn, J. (2001). A qualitative study of six medical students in a problem-based curriculum: Toward a situated model of self-regulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 659–676. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.4.659.
Fawcett, L. M., & Garton, A. F. (2005). The effect of peer collaboration on children’s problem-solving ability. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(2), 157–169. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709904X23411.
Ford, M. J. (2015). Educational implications of choosing “practice” to describe science in the Next Generation Science Standards. Science Education, 99(6), 1041–1048. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21188.
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.
Gelman, A. (2004). Exploratory data analysis for complex models. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 13(4), 755–779. https://doi.org/10.1198/106186004X11435.
Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., Van den Bossche, P., & Segers, M. (2005). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis from the angle of assessment. Review of Educational Research, 75, 27–61. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075001027.
Goldman, S. R., Braasch, J. L. G., Wiley, J., Graesser, A. C., & Brodowinska, K. (2012). Comprehending and learning from internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(4), 356–381. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.027.
Greiff, S., Wüstenberg, S., Csapó, B., Demetriou, A., Hautamäki, J., Graesser, A. C., & Martin, R. (2014). Domain-general problem solving skills and education in the 21st century. Educational Research Review, 13, 74–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.10.002.
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.
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.
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.
Hmelo-Silver, C., & Barrows, H. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cognition and Instruction, 26, 48–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000701798495.
Jackson, A., & Davis, G. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.
Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.
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.
Kim, H. S., Prevost, L., & Lemons, P. P. (2015). Students’ usability evaluation of a web-based tutorial program for college biology problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(4), 362–377. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12102.
Kim, J., & Lee, W. (2013). Meanings of criteria and norms: Analyses and comparisons of ict literacy competencies of middle school students. Computers & Education, 64, 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.018.
Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration scripts—a conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18(2), 159–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9007-2.
Krajcik, J., Codere, S., Dahsah, C., Bayer, R., & Mun, K. (2014). Planning instruction to meet the intent of the Next Generation Science Standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 157–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9383-2.
Kuiper, E., Volman, M., & Terwel, J. (2005). The web as an information resource in K–12 education: Strategies for supporting students in searching and processing information. Review of Educational Research, 75, 285–328. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075003285.
Lee, O. (2017). Common core state standards for ELA/literacy and next generation science standards. Educational Researcher, 46(2), 90–102. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17699172.
Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Pihlajamäki, H., & Kotkas, T. (2003). What makes a student group successful? Student-student and student-teacher interaction in a problem-based learning environment. Learning Environments Research, 6, 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022963826128.
Mason, L., Boldrin, A., & Ariasi, N. (2010). Epistemic metacognition in context: Evaluating and learning online information. Metacognition & Learning, 5(1), 67–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-009-9048-2.
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.
McLaughlin, M., & Overturf, B. J. (2012). The common core: Insights into the K–5 standards. The Reading Teacher, 66, 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.01115.
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.
Nash, A. N., Muczyk, J. P., & Vettori, F. L. (1971). The relative practical effectiveness of programmed instruction. Personnel Psychology, 24(3), 397–418.
Oliver, K., & Hannafin, M. J. (2000). Student management of web-based hypermedia resources during open-ended problem solving. Journal of Educational Research, 94, 75–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670009598746.
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.
Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common Core standards: The new U.S. intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 103–116. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11405038.
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.
Reiser, B. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 273–304. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_2.
Roderick, M., & Camburn, E. (1999). Risk and recovery from course failure in the early years of high school. American Educational Research Journal, 36(2), 303–343. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312036002303.
Savery, J. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1002.
Schnotz, W., & Heiß, A. (2009). Semantic scaffolds in hypermedia learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 371–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.016.
Stake, R. E. (1978). The case study method in social inquiry. Educational Researcher, 7(2), 5–8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X007002005.
Strobel, J., & van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(1), 44–58. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1046.
Torp, L., & Sage, S. (1998). Problems as possibilities: Problem-based learning for K-12 education. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Tyler, J. H., & Lofstrom, M. (2009). Finishing high school: Alternative pathways and dropout recovery. The Future of Children, 19(1), 77–103. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.0.0019.
van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 271–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6.
Walker, A. E., & Leary, H. (2009). A problem based learning meta analysis: Differences across problem types, implementation types, disciplines, and assessment levels. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(1), 12–43. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1061.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015.
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.
Yin, R. K. (2015). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
Acknowledgements
Any opinions, findings, or conclusions are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent official positions of NSF.
Funding
This research was supported by Early CAREER Grant 0953046 awarded to the first author by the National Science Foundation (USA).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Belland, B.R., Weiss, D.M., Kim, N.J. et al. An Examination of Credit Recovery Students’ Use of Computer-Based Scaffolding in a Problem-Based, Scientific Inquiry Unit. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 17, 273–293 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9872-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9872-9