Educational Technology Research and Development

, Volume 56, Issue 4, pp 401–422

A scaffolding framework to support the construction of evidence-based arguments among middle school students

  • Brian R. Belland
  • Krista D. Glazewski
  • Jennifer C. Richardson
Research Article

Abstract

Problem-based learning (PBL) is an instructional approach in which students in small groups engage in an authentic, ill-structured problem, and must (1) define, generate and pursue learning issues to understand the problem, (2) develop a possible solution, (3) provide evidence to support their solution, and (4) present their solution and the evidence that supports it (Barrows, How to design a problem-based curriculum for the preclinical years. Springer Publishing, New York, 1985). However, research has shown that novice problem-solvers and learners without deep content knowledge have difficulty developing strong evidence-based arguments (Krajcik et al., J Learn Sci 7:313–350, 1998a; Reiser, J Lear Sci 13(3):273–304, 2004). In this paper, we discuss the components of (e.g., claims and evidence) and processes of making (e.g., define problem and make claim) evidence-based arguments. Furthermore, we review various scaffolding models designed to help students perform various tasks associated with creating evidence-based arguments (e.g., link claims to evidence) and present guidelines for the development of computer-based scaffolds to help middle school students build evidence-based arguments.

Keywords

Middle school Scaffold design guidelines Problem-based learning Scaffolding Evidence-based arguments 

References

  1. Barrows, H. S. (1985). How to design a problem-based curriculum for the preclinical years. New York: Springer Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Bell, P. (1997). Using argument representations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL ‘97: The second international conference on computer support for collaborative learning (pp. 10–19). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  3. Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Soloway, E., & Krajcik, J. (1996). Learning with peers: From small group cooperation to collaborative communities. Educational Researcher, 25(8), 37–40.Google Scholar
  4. Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2001). The use of embedded scaffolds with hypermedia-supported student-centered learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10, 333–356.Google Scholar
  5. Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1989). Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century. Washington, D.C.: Author.Google Scholar
  6. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chin, C., & Chia, L. (2005). Problem-based learning: Using ill-structured problems in biology project work. Science Education, 90(1), 44–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 819–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de Grave, W. S., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (1999). Profiles of effective tutors in problem-based learning: Scaffolding student learning. Medical Education, 33, 901–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. Ertmer, P. A., & Simons, K. D. (2005–2006). Scaffolding teachers’ efforts to implement problem-based learning. International Journal of Learning, 12(4), 319–327.Google Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Finch, P. M. (1999). The effect of problem-based learning on the academic performance of students studying podiatric medicine in Ontario. Medical Education, 33, 411–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gallagher, S. A. (1997). Problem-based learning: Where did it come from, what does it do, and where is it going? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20(4), 332–362.Google Scholar
  17. Gallagher, S. A., Stepien, W. J., & Rosenthal, H. (1992). The effects of problem-based learning on problem solving. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 195–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gallagher, S. A., Stepien, W. J., Sher, B. T., & Workman, D. (1995). Implementing problem-based learning in science classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 95, 136–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gaskins, I. W., Rauch, S., Gensemer, E., Cunicelli, E., O’Hara, C., Six, L., et al. (1997). Scaffolding the development of intelligence along children who are delayed in learning to read. In K. Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches & issues (pp. 43–73). Cambridge, MA: Brookline.Google Scholar
  20. Ge, X., & Land, S. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Glassner, A., Weinstock, M., & Neuman, Y. (2005). Pupils’ evaluation and generation of evidence and explanation in argumentation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 105–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Greene, B. A., & Land, S. M. (2000). A qualitative analysis of scaffolding use in a resource-based learning environment involving the world wide web. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23, 151–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.Google Scholar
  25. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16, 235–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hogan, K., & Pressley, M. (1997). Scaffolding scientific competencies within classroom communities of inquiry. In K. Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches & issues (pp. 74–107). Cambridge, MA: Brookline.Google Scholar
  27. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1955). De la logique de l’enfant à la logique de l’adolescent: Essai sur la construction des structures opératoires formelles. [The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence: An essay on the construction of formal operational structures]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  28. Jonassen, D. (2003). Using cognitive tools to represent problems. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35, 362–381.Google Scholar
  29. Keys, C. W., & Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 631–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kligyte, G. (2001). ‘I think I know what is good for you.’ User interface design for a CSCL system. Master’s Thesis. University of Art and Design, Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved April 15, 2006 from http://fle3.uiah.fi/papers.html.
  31. Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., et al. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle school science classroom: Putting Learning by Design™ into practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 495–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998a). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 313–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Krajcik, J., Soloway, E., Blumenfeld, P., & Marx, R. (1998b). Scaffolded technology tools to promote teaching and learning in science [Electronic version]. Yearbook (Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development), 1998, 31–45. Retrieved March 8, 2006 from Education Full Text database.Google Scholar
  34. Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A., & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 495–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kwon, Y., & Lawson, A. E. (2000). Linking brain growth with the development of scientific reasoning ability and conceptual change during adolescence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 44–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kyza, E., & Edelson, D. C. (2005). Scaffolding middle school students’ coordination of theory and practice. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11(6), 545–560.Google Scholar
  37. Lajoie, S. P., Lavigne, N. C., Guerrera, C., & Munsie, S. D. (2001). Constructing knowledge in the context of BioWorld. Instructional Science, 29, 155–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(4), 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lee, Y., & Nelson, D. W. (2005). Design of a cognitive tool to enhance problem-solving performance. Education Media International, 42(1), 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lepper, M. R., Drake, M. F., & O’Donnell-Johnson, T. (1997). Scaffolding techniques of expert human tutors. In K. Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches & issues (pp. 108–144). Cambridge, MA: Brookline.Google Scholar
  41. Liu, M. (2004). Examining the performance and attitudes of sixth graders during their use of a problem-based hypermedia learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 357–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Liu, M., & Bera, S. (2005). An analysis of cognitive tool use patterns in a hypermedia learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lohman, M. C., & Finkelstein, M. (2000). Designing groups in problem-based learning to promote problem-solving skill and self-directedness. Instructional Science, 28, 291–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lourenco, O., & Machado, A. (1996). In defense of Piaget’s theory: A reply to 10 common criticisms. Psychological Review, 103(1), 143–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nussbaum, E. M. (2002). Scaffolding argumentation in the social studies classroom. The Social Studies, 93(2), 79–83.Google Scholar
  46. Nystrand, M., & Graff, N. (2001). Report in an argument’s clothing: An ecological perspective on writing instruction in a seventh-grade classroom. The Elementary School Journal, 101, 479–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Oliver, K., & Hannafin, M. J. (2000). Student management of web-based hypermedia resources during open-ended problem solving. Journal of Educational Research, 94(2), 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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
  49. Pedersen, S., & Liu, M. (2002–2003). The transfer of problem-solving skills from a problem-based learning environment: The effect of modeling an expert’s cognitive processes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35, 303–320.Google Scholar
  50. Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958). La nouvelle rhétorique: Traité de l’argumentation [The new rhetoric: Treatise on argumentation] (Vols. 1–2). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  51. Piaget, J. (1947). Le jugement et le raisonnement chez l’enfant. [Judgment and Reasoning of the Child]. Paris: Delachaux & Niestlé.Google Scholar
  52. Puntambekar, 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, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 185–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Raghavan, K., & Glaser, R. (1995). Model-based Analysis and Reasoning in Science: The MARS curriculum. Science Education, 79, 37–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Segers, M. S. R. (1997). An alternative for assessing problem-solving skills: The overall test. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23(4), 373–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Simons, K. D., & Ertmer, P. A. (2005–2006). Scaffolding disciplined inquiry in problem-based learning environments. International Journal of Learning, 12(6), 297–305.Google Scholar
  60. Simons, K. D., & Klein, J. D. (2007). The impact of scaffolding and student achievement levels in a problem-based learning environment. Instructional Science, 35, 41–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Simons, K. D., Klein, J. D., & Brush, T. R. (2004). Instructional strategies utilized during the implementation of a hypermedia, problem-based learning environment: A case study. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 15(3), 213–233.Google Scholar
  62. Smith, P., & Ragan, T. (1999). Instructional design. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  63. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2002). Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  64. van Joolingen, W. R., & de Jong, T. (1991). Supporting hypothesis generation by learners exploring an interactive computer simulation. Instructional Science, 20, 389–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. van Joolingen, W. R., & de Jong, T. (1997). An extended dual search space model of scientific discovery learning. Instructional Science, 25, 307–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load off a learner’s mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Vellom, R. P., & Anderson, C. W. (1999). Reasoning about data in middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Williams, M. D. (1996). Learner-control and instructional technologies. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 957–983). New York: MacMillan Library Reference.Google Scholar
  69. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian R. Belland
    • 1
  • Krista D. Glazewski
    • 2
  • Jennifer C. Richardson
    • 1
  1. 1.Purdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  2. 2.New Mexico State UniversityLas CrucesUSA

Personalised recommendations