Fading Scaffolds in STEM: Supporting Students’ Learning on Explanations of Natural Phenomena

Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 596)

Abstract

The development of skills for the explanation of science and natural phenomena is crucial for science education. In Chile, this is one of the most challenging learning goals for teachers and students. Supported by scaffolding theory, this article collects the experiences of applied research using fading scaffolds for developing children’s skills for constructing explanations of natural phenomena. The discussion supports scaffolding as a human process aided by strategically designed resources that can transform the learning experience of both an individual learner and a group of students. Taking into account the different types of scaffolds, we present guidelines for designing pedagogical scaffolding to construct explanations and following-up students’ thinking processes in STEM areas. Further research recommends including transference of these strategies to the teaching of other phenomena and school subjects, as well as new questions about fading scaffolds for supporting students’ learning and skill acquisition.

Keywords

Explanations Science education Scaffolds Natural phenomena 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Funding from CONICYT_PAI, Program for Returning Researchers from Abroad, call 2013 grant number 821320002 and PIA-CONICYT Basal Funds for Centers of Excellence Project FB0003 is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. 1.
    Giere, R.N.: Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1990)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jorba, J., Gómez, I., Prat, A. (eds.): Hablar y Escribir para Aprender: Uso de la Lengua en Situación de Enseñanza-aprendizaje desde las Áreas Curriculares. Síntesis, Barcelona (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yao, J.X., Guo, Y.Y., Neumann, K.: Towards a hypothetical learning progression of scientific explanation. Asia Pac. Sci. Educ. 2(1), 4–20 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gunckel, K.L., Covitt, B.A., Salinas, I., Anderson, C.W.: A learning progression for water in socio-ecological systems. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 49(7), 843–868 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cabello, V.: Explanation construction of scientific phenomena: a study of teachers and their students. In: Lavonen, J., Juuti, K., Lampiselkä, J., Uitto A., Hahl, K. (eds.) Electronic Proceedings of the ESERA 2015 Conference. Science Education Research: Engaging Learners for a Sustainable Future, Part 16 (co-ed. Kariotoglou, P. and Russell, T.), pp. 2760–2769 (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gobierno de Chile: Bases Curriculares 2012 Ciencias Naturales Educación Básica. Ministerio de Educación, Santiago (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    NRC: A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. The National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lead States: Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: Achieve, Inc. On Behalf of the Twenty-six States and Partners that Collaborated on the NGSS (2013). http://www.nextgenscience.org/
  9. 9.
    Ministry of Education, P. R. China: Middle School Science Curriculum Standard for Compulsory Education. Beijing Normal University Press, Beijing (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    OECD: PISA 2015 results in focus (2016). https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-2015-results-in-focus.pdf
  11. 11.
    Songer, N.B., Gotwals, A.W.: Guiding explanation construction by children at the entry points of learning progressions. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 49(2), 141–165 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gobierno de Chile: Informe Nacional Resultados PISA 2012. Ministerio de Educación, Santiago (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barrera, R., Jiménez, P.: Análisis de las Explicaciones Científicas del Estudiantado de Primero Medio Según el Sexo: Una Propuesta Coeducativa para la Enseñanza-aprendizaje del Comportamiento de la Luz en el Ojo Humano. Tesis de Licenciatura en Educación de Física y Matemática, Universidad de Santiago de Chile (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Camacho, J.P., Jara, N., Morales, C., Rubio, N., Muñoz, T., Rodríguez, G.: Los Modelos Explicativos del Estudiantado acerca de la Célula Eucarionte Animal. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias 9(2), 196–212 (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thurston, A., Grant, G., Topping, K.J.: La Construcción de la Comprensión en Ciencias Naturales de Primaria: Una Exploración del Proceso y sus Resultados en los Contenidos de la Luz y la Tierra en el Espacio. Electron. J. Res. Educ. Psychol. 4(8), 1–34 (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Charpak, G.: La Main à la Pâte. Flammarion, Paris (1996)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    McNeill, K.L., Lizotte, D.J., Krajcik, J., Marx, R.W.: Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. J. Learn. Sci. 15(2), 153–191 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zangori, L., Forbes, C.T.: Preservice elementary teachers and explanation construction: knowledge-for-practice and knowledge-in-practice. Sci. Educ. 97(2), 310–330 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sanmartí, N.: Hablar, Leer y Escribir para Aprender Ciencia. In: Fernández, P. (ed.) La Competencia en Comunicación Lingüística en las Áreas del Currículo, pp. 103–128. MEC, Madrid (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Meneses, A., Montenegro, M., Ruiz, M.: Textos Escolares para Aprender Ciencias: Habilidades, Contenidos y Lenguaje Académico. In: Centro de Estudios Ministerio de Educación (ed.) Evidencias Para Políticas Públicas en Educación: Selección de investigaciones sexto concurso FONIDE, pp. 233–277. Mineduc, Santiago (2014)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Roth, K.J.: Developing meaningful conceptual understanding in science. In: Fly Jones, B., Idol, L. (eds.) Dimensions of Thinking and Cognitive Instruction, pp. 139–175. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1990)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ruiz Primo, M.A., Li, M., Tsai, S.P., Schneider, J.: Testing one premise of scientific inquiry in science classrooms: examining students’ scientific explanations and student learning. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 47(5), 583–608 (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Arzola, N., Muñoz, T., Rodríguez, G., Camacho, J.: Importancia de los Modelos Explicativos en el Aprendizaje de la Biología. Revista Ciencia Escolar: Enseñanza y Modelización. 1, 7–16 (2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Leymonié-Sáenz, J.: Aportes para la Enseñanza de las Ciencias Naturales. Unesco, Santiago (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Driver, R., Guesne, E., Tiberghien, A.: Ideas Científicas en la Infancia y la Adolescencia, vol. 8. Morata, Madrid (1999)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Limon, M., Carretero, M.: Las Ideas Previas de los Alumnos, ¿Qué Aporta este Enfoque a la Enseñanza de las Ciencias? In: Carretero, M. (ed.) Construir y Enseñar las Ciencias Experimentales, pp. 19–46. Aique, Buenos Aires (1997)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Eberbach, C., Crowley, K.: From every day to scientific observation: how children learn to observe the biologist’s world. Rev. Educ. Res. 79(1), 39–68 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Legare, C.H.: The contributions of explanation and exploration to children’s scientific reasoning. Child. Dev. Perspect. 8(2), 101–106 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Leuchter, M., Saalbach, H., Hardy, I.: Designing science learning in the first years of schooling. An intervention study with sequenced learning material on the topic of ‘Floating and Sinking’. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 36(10), 1751–1771 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pozo, J.I.: Ni Cambio ni Conceptual. La Reconstrucción del Conocimiento Científico como un Cambio Representacional. In: Pozo, J.I., Flores, F. (eds.) Cambio Conceptual y Representacional en el Aprendizaje y la Enseñanza de la Ciencia, pp. 73–90. Antonio Machado, Madrid (2007)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hernández-Torres, C., Hernández-Abenza, L.M.: La Competencia Lingüística como Eje Clave para el Aprendizaje de las Ciencias en Educación Primaria: Aplicación al Caso de Mezclas Cotidianas. Educación Química 25, 176–182 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lee, H.S., Songer, N.B.: Expanding an understanding of scaffolding theory using an inquiry-fostering science program (2004). http://www.biokids.umich.edu/papers/56LeeSongerScaffolding.pdf
  33. 33.
    Hammond, J., Gibbons, P.: What is scaffolding? In: Hammond, J. (ed.) Scaffolding: Teaching and Learning in Language and Literacy Education, pp. 8–16. Primary, Sydney (2001)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wood, D., Bruner, J.S., Ross, G.: The role of tutoring in problem solving. J. Child Psychol. Psyc. 17, 89–100 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mercer, N.: Neo-Vygotskian theory and classroom education. In: Steirer B., Maybin, J. (eds.) Language, Literacy and Learning in Educational Practice. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, Avon (1994)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    van de Pol, J., Volman, M., Beishuizen, J.: Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: a decade of research. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 22, 271–296 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Vygotsky, L.S.: Thought and Language. MIT Press, Cambridge (1986)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hsu, Y.S., Lai, T.L., Hsu, W.H.: A design model of distributed scaffolding for inquiry-based learning. Res. Sci. Educ. 45, 241–273 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    McNeill, K.L., Krajcik, J.: Synergy between teacher practices and curricular scaffolds to support students in using domain-specific and domain-general knowledge in writing arguments to explain phenomena. J. Learn. Sci. 18(3), 416–460 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., Clark, R.E.: Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educ. Psychol. 41(2), 75–86 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Márquez, C., Roca, M.: Plantear Preguntas: Un Punto de Partida para Aprender Ciencias. Revista Educación y Pedagogía 18(45), 61–71 (2009)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Quintanilla, M., Orellana, M.L., Daza, S.: La Ciencia en las Primeras Edades como Promotora de Habilidades de Pensamiento Científico. In: Daza, S., Quintanilla, M. (eds.) La Enseñanza de las Ciencias Naturales en las Primeras Edades: Su contribución a la Promoción de Competencias de Pensamiento Científico, vol. 5, pp. 59–82. Litodigital, Santiago (2011)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Fiore, E., Leymonié, J.: Didáctica Práctica para Enseñanza Media y Superior. Magró, Montevideo (2007)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Driver, R., Newton, P., Osborne, J.: Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Sci. Educ. 84, 287–312 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P., Erduran, S.: Argumentation in science education: an overview. In: Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P., Erduran, S. (eds.) Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research, pp. 47–70. Springer, Dordrecht (2008)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Schwarz, B.: Argumentation and learning. In: Muller-Mirza, N., Perret-Clermont, A.N. (eds.) Argumentation and Education, pp. 91–126. Springer, New York (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wilhelm, A.G., Munter, C., Jackson, K.: Examining relations between teachers’ explanations of sources of students’ difficulty in mathematics and students’ opportunities to learn. ESJ 117(3), 345–370 (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Valeria M. Cabello
    • 1
  • Martin E. Sommer Lohrmann
    • 2
  1. 1.Centro de Investigación Avanzada en Educación, Departamento de Estudios PedagógicosUniversidad de ChileSantiagoChile
  2. 2.Colegio AlemánUniversidad Central de ChileSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations