Advertisement

Research in Science Education

, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 567–589 | Cite as

An Investigation of Software Scaffolds Supporting Modeling Practices

  • Eric B. Fretz
  • Hsin-Kai Wu
  • BaoHui Zhang
  • Elizabeth A. Davis
  • Joseph S. Krajcik
  • Elliot Soloway
Article

Abstract

Modeling of complex systems and phenomena is of value in science learning and is increasingly emphasised as an important component of science teaching and learning. Modeling engages learners in desired pedagogical activities. These activities include practices such as planning, building, testing, analysing, and critiquing. Designing realistic models is a difficult task. Computer environments allow the creation of dynamic and even more complex models. One way of bringing the design of models within reach is through the use of scaffolds. Scaffolds are intentional assistance provided to learners from a variety of sources, allowing them to complete tasks that would otherwise be out of reach. Currently, our understanding of how scaffolds in software tools assist learners is incomplete. In this paper the scaffolds designed into a dynamic modeling software tool called Model-It are assessed in terms of their ability to support learners' use of modeling practices. Four pairs of middle school students were video-taped as they used the modeling software for three hours, spread over a two week time frame. Detailed analysis of coded videotape transcripts provided evidence of the importance of scaffolds in supporting the use of modeling practices. Learners used a variety of modeling practices, the majority of which occurred in conjunction with scaffolds. The use of three tool scaffolds was assessed as directly as possible, and these scaffolds were seen to support a variety of modeling practices. An argument is made for the continued empirical validation of types and instances of tool scaffolds, and further investigation of the important role of teacher and peer scaffolding in the use of scaffolded tools.

scaffolding scaffolds modeling practices modeling software 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (2000). Designs for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., Barnett, M., & Squire, K. (2001). Constructing virtual worlds: Tracing the historical development of learner practices. Cognition and instruction, 19(1), 47–94.Google Scholar
  4. Bell, P., & Davis, E. (2000, June). Designing Mildred: Scaffolding students' reflection and argumentation using a cognitive software guide. Paper presented at the International Conference on the Learning Sciences, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
  5. Buckley, B. C. (2000). Interactive multimedia and model-based learning in biology. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 895–935.Google Scholar
  6. Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315.Google Scholar
  7. Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Clement, J. (2000). Model based learning as a key research area for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1041–1053.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (2001, April). Design principles for scaffolding students' reflection and argumentation in science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.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(8), 819–837.Google Scholar
  11. Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C., & Rutherford, M. (1998). Models in explanations, part 1: Horses for courses? International Journal of Science Education, 20(1), 83–97.Google Scholar
  12. Gilbert, S.W. (1991). Model building and a definition of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(1), 73–79.Google Scholar
  13. Glynn, S. M., Britton, B. K., Semrud-Clikeman, M., & Muth, K. D. (1989). Analogical reasoning and problem solving in science textbooks. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity: Perspectives on individual differences (pp. 383-398). New York, NY: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gobert, J., & Discenna, J. (1997, March). The relationship between students' epistemologies and model-based reasoning. Paper presented at the the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  15. Gobert, J. D., & Buckley, B. C. (2000). Introduction to model-based teaching and learning in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 891–895.Google Scholar
  16. Griffin, P., Belyaheva, A., Soldatova, G., & VHC. (1993). Creating and reconstituting contexts for educational interactions, including a computer program. In E. A. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning (pp. 120-152). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Guzdial, M., Konneman, M., Walton, C., Hohmann, L., & Soloway, E. (1998). Layering scaffolding and CAD on an integrated workbench: An effective design approach for project-based learning support. Interactive Learning Environments, 1(1), 1–37.Google Scholar
  18. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1996). Secondary students' mental models of atoms and molecules: Implications for teaching chemistry. Science Education, 80(5), 509–534.Google Scholar
  19. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1011–1026.Google Scholar
  20. Hestenes, D. (1992). Modeling games in the Newtonian world. American Journal of Physics, 60(8), 732–748.Google Scholar
  21. Hogan, D., & Pressley, M. H. (1997). Becoming a scaffolder of student's learning. In D. Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding student learning (pp. 185-191). New York, NY: Brookline Books.Google Scholar
  22. Ingham, A. M., & Gilbert, J. K. (1991). The use of analogue models by students of chemistry at higher education level. International Journal of Science Education, 13, 193–202.Google Scholar
  23. Jackson, S. L. (1999). The design of guided learner-adaptable scaffolding in interactive learning environments. Unpublished dissertation. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
  24. Jackson, S. L., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1999). Model-It: A design retrospective. In M. Jacobson & R. Kozma (Eds.), Advanced designs for the technologies of learning: Innovations in science and mathematics education (pp. 77-115). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Krajcik, J., Simmons, P. E., & Lunetta, V. N. (1988). A research strategy for the dynamic study of students' concepts and problem solving strategies using science software. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(2), 147–155.Google Scholar
  26. Leinhardt, G., Zsalavsky, O., & Stein, M. K. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60, 1–64.Google Scholar
  27. Linn, M., & Songer, N. (1991). Teaching thermodynamics to middle school students: What are appropriate cognitive demands? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 885–918.Google Scholar
  28. Linn, M. C. (1998). The impact of technology on science instruction: Historical trends and current opportunities. In B. Froser & G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 265-294). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  29. Magnani, L., Nersessian, N. J., & Thagard, P. (Eds.). (1999). Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery. New York, NY: US Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  30. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Metz, K. (1995). Reassessment of developmental constraints on children's science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 65(2), 93–127.Google Scholar
  32. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  33. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  34. Novak, A., & Gleason, C. (2001). Incorporating portable technology to enhance in inquiry, project-based middle school science classroom. In R. Tinker & J. Krajcik (Eds.), Portable technologies: Science learning in context (pp. 29-62). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  35. Penner, D. E. (2001). Cognition, computers, and synthetic science: Building knowledge and meaning through modeling. Review of Research in Education, 25, 1–36.Google Scholar
  36. Penner, D. E., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (1998). From physical models to biomechanics: A design-based modeling approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences: Special Issue: Learning through problem solving, 7(3-4), 429–449.Google Scholar
  37. Quintana, C. (2001). Symphony: A case study for exploring and describing design methods and guidelines for learner-centered design. Unpublished dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
  38. Roth, W.-M. (1996). Knowledge diffusion in a grade 4-5 classroom during a unit on civil engineering:An analysis of a classroom community in terms of its changing resources and practices. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 179–220.Google Scholar
  39. Shah, P. (2002). Review of graph comprehension research: Implications for instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 47–69.Google Scholar
  40. Soloway, E., Guzdial, M., & Hay, K. H. (1994). Learner centered design: The challenge for HCI in the 21st century. Interactions, 1(2), 36–48.Google Scholar
  41. Stewart, J., Hafner, R., Johnson, S., & Finkel, E. (1992). Science as model building: Computers and high-school genetics. Educational Psychologist, 27, 317–336.Google Scholar
  42. Stratford, S. J. (1996). Investigating processes and products of secondary science students using dynamic software. Unpublished dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
  43. Stratford, S. J. (1997). A review of computer-based model research in precollege science classrooms. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 16(1), 3–23.Google Scholar
  44. Stratford, S. J., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Secondary students' dynamic-modeling processes: Analysing, reasoning about, synthesizing, and testing models of stream ecosystems. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7(3), 215–234.Google Scholar
  45. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practices: Learning, meaning, and identity. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition & Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.Google Scholar
  49. Windschitl, M. (2000). Supporting the development of science inquiry skills with special classes of software. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(2), 81–95.Google Scholar
  50. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). Role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17(2), 89–100.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric B. Fretz
    • 1
  • Hsin-Kai Wu
    • 1
  • BaoHui Zhang
    • 1
  • Elizabeth A. Davis
    • 1
  • Joseph S. Krajcik
    • 1
  • Elliot Soloway
    • 1
  1. 1.University of MichiganUSA

Personalised recommendations