Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Patterns of peer scaffolding in technology-enhanced inquiry classrooms: application of social network analysis

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to identify types and patterns of peer scaffolding that occur during inquiry-based learning (IBL) group activities. It employed a single instrumental case approach that integrated quantitative and qualitative analyses of data gathered from 21 students in a ninth grade biology course. A verbal analysis, a content analysis, and a social network analysis (SNA) were performed to identify patterns in group interactions and refine emergent themes. First, nine types of peer scaffolding were identified and found to serve the goals of direction maintenance, cognitive structuring, and simplification. Second, three different patterns related to the high, mixed, and low prior knowledge levels of each group were identified. The high prior knowledge group provided peer scaffolding that focused attention on considerations key to developing their arguments, and this scaffolding may have improved the group’s work. In the mixed prior knowledge group, the students with greater prior knowledge were likely to support those with less prior knowledge. Together, these findings indicate the way students are grouped may impact observable patterns in peer scaffolding. Identifying the difficulties that learners face and the assistance they seek could help instructional designers and teachers identify areas in which students need support during IBL group activities. This study informs educators and practitioners of effective strategies for designing and implementing peer scaffolding to assist inquiry activities in technology-enhanced classroom settings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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 

  • Chi, M. T. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T., Siler, S. A., & Jeong, H. (2004). Can tutors monitor students' understanding accurately? Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 363–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, K., & Jonnasen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, I., Land, S. M., & Turgeon, A. J. (2005). Scaffolding peer-questioning strategies to facilitate metacognition during online small group discussion. Instructional Science, 33(5), 483–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E., & Linn, M. (2000). Scaffolding students' knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 819–837.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Backer, L., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2015). Promoting university students’ metacognitive regulation through peer learning: The potnetial of reciprocal peer tutoring. Higher Education, 70, 469–486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9849-3.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Backer, L., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2016). Eliciting reciprocal peer-tutoring groups’ metacognitive regulation through structuring and problematizing scaffolds. The Journal of Experimental Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2015.1134419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., & Hong, F. (2008). The mechanics of CSCL macro scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 5–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gan, J. S., & Hattie, J. (2014). Promptiong secondary students' use of criteria, feedback specificity and feedback levels during an investigateive task. Instructional Science, 42(6), 861–878. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9319-4.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghali, N., Panda, M., Hassanien, A. E., Abraham, A., & Snasel, V. (2012). Social networks analysis: Tools, measures and visualization. In A. Abraham (Ed.), Computational social networks mining and visualization (pp. 3–12). London: Springer, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handcock, M. S., Hunter, D. R., Butts, C. T., Goodreau, S. M., & Morris, M. (2008). Statnet: Software tools for the representation, visualization, analysis and simulation of network data. Journal of Statistical Software, 24(1), 1548–7660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemberger, L., Kuhn, D., Matos, F., & Shi, Y. (2017). A dialogic path to evidence-based argumentive writing. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(4), 575–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2017.1336714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. R. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing (pp. 117–136). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herring, S. C. (2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 338–376). Cresskill, NY: Hampton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups' ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(4), 341–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hovardas, T., Tsivitanidou, O. E., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2014). Peer versus expert feedback: An investigation of the quality of peer feedback among secondary school students. Computers & Education, 71, 133–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.019.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsi, S., & Hoadley, C. M. (1997). Productive discussion in science: Gender equity through electronic discourse. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 6(1), 23–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, M. J., & Spiro, R. J. (1995). Hypertext learning environments, cognitive flexibility, and the transfer of complex knowledge: An empirical investigation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12(4), 301–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M., & Hannafin, M. (2004). Designing online learning environments to support scientific inquiry. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 5(1), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M., & Hannafin, M. (2011a). Scaffolding 6th graders’ problem solving in technology-enhanced science classrooms: A qualitative case study. Instructional Science, 39(3), 255–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M., & Hannafin, M. (2011b). Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computers & Education, 56(2), 403–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. The Journal of the Learning Science, 12(4), 495–547.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3–4), 313–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Land, S. M. (2000). Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 61–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers and peers: Science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, C.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2008). An analysis of peer interaction patterns as discoursed by on-line small group problem-solving activity. Computers & Education, 50(3), 627–639.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luckin, R. (2010). Re-designing learning contexts: Technology-rich, learner-centred ecologies. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Many, J. E. (2002). An exhibition and analysis of verbal tapestries: Understanding how scaffolding is woven into the fabric of instructional conversations. Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 376–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, N. D., Dornfeld Tissenbaum, C., Gnesdilow, D., & Puntambekar, S. (2019). Fading distributed scaffolds: The importance of complementarity between teacher and material scaffolds. Instructional Science, 47(1), 69–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9474-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(3), 416–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. S. (2003). Theories of communication networks. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and instruction, 1, 17–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A. S., Brown, A. L., & Martin, S. (1987). Peer interaction in reading comprehension instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22(3&4), 231–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pata, K., Lehtinen, E., & Sarapuu, T. (2006). Inter-relations of tutor’s and peers’ scaffolding and decision-making discourse acts. Instructional Science, 34(4), 313–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Science, 13(3), 423–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, S., & Liu, M. (2002). The effects of modeling expert cognitive strategies during problem-based learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(4), 353–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1976). The grasp of consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping stu-dents learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raes, A., Schellens, T., De Wever, B., & Benoit, D. F. (2016). Promoting metacognitive regulation through collaborative problem solving on the web: When scripting does not work. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 325–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, B., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B. K., Steinmuller, F., & Leoner, A. J. (2001). BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 263–305). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, D. R., Schofield, J. W., & Steers-Wentzell, K. L. (2005). Peer and cross-age-tutoring in math: Outcomes and their design implications. Education Psychology Review, 17(4), 327–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogat, T. K., & Adams-Wiggins, K. R. (2014). Other-regulation in collaborative groups: Implications for regulation quality. Instructional Science, 42(6), 879–904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9322-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. (2007). Understanding tutor learning: Knolwedge-building and knolwedge-telling in peer-tutors explanations and questions. Review of Edcuational Research, 77(4), 534–574.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saye, J., & Brush, T. (1999). Student engagement with social issues in a multimedia-supported learning environment. Theory & Research in Social Education, 27(4), 472–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saye, J., & 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G., Dunkle, M. E., & Bendixen, L. D. (1995). Cognitive processes in well-defined and ill-defined problem solving. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shin, N., Jonassen, D. H., & MaGee, S. (2003). Predictors of well-structured and ill-structured problem solving in an astronomy simulation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(1), 7–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silliman, E. R., Bahr, R., Beasman, J., & Wilkinson, L. (2000). Scaffolds for learning to read in an inclusion classroom. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 31, 265–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons, K. D., & Klein, J. D. (2007). The impact of scaffolding and student achievement levels in a problem-based learning environment. Instructional Science, 35(1), 41–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smagorinsky, P., Clayton, C. M., & Johnson, L. L. (2015). Distributed scaffolding in a service-learning course. Theory Into Practice, 54(1), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2015.977665.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Tasker, T. Q., & Herrenkohl, L. R. (2016). Using peer feedback to improve students’ scientific inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(1), 35–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9454-7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tawfik, A. A., Law, V., Ge, X., Xing, W., & Kim, K. (2018). The effect of sustained vs. faded scaffolding on students’ argumentation in ill-structured problem solving. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 436–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Lier, L. (2014). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., Chizhik, A. W., & Sugrue, B. (1998). Equity issues in collaborative group assessment: Group composition and performance. American Educational Research Journal, 35(4), 607–651.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wertsch, J. V., McNamee, G. D., McLane, J. B., & Budwig, N. A. (1980). The adult-child dyad as a problem-solving system. Child Development, 51, 1215–1221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, A., Farrell, R., & Singley, M. (2002, Jan 7–11). Scaffolding group learning in a collaborative networked environment. Paper presented at the Proceedings of CSCL 2002, Colorado.

  • Zamani, M. (2016). Cooperative learning: Homogeneous and heterogeneous grouping of Iranian EFL learners in a writing context. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hanyang University, 222, Wangsimni-ro, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, 04763, South Korea

    Suhkyung Shin

  2. Indiana University, 201 N. Rose Ave., Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA

    Thomas A. Brush & Krista D. Glazewski

Authors
  1. Suhkyung Shin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas A. Brush
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Krista D. Glazewski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Suhkyung Shin.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This paper had submitted for the 2018 Young Researcher competition, was selected for the award.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shin, S., Brush, T.A. & Glazewski, K.D. Patterns of peer scaffolding in technology-enhanced inquiry classrooms: application of social network analysis. Education Tech Research Dev 68, 2321–2350 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09779-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09779-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation