Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ON SCAFFOLDING FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION

  • Published:
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This content analysis of articles in the Social Science Citation Index journals from 1995 to 2009 was conducted to provide science educators with empirical evidence regarding the effects of scaffolding on science learning. It clarifies the definition, design, and implementation of scaffolding in science classrooms and research studies. The results show important cross-study evidence that most researchers have adopted a qualitative approach (67.44%), focused on learning context (72.09%), and used high school students as participants (53.49%). In designing scaffoldings, researchers have shown a preference for long-term explicit scaffolding using multiple representations to promote procedural and strategic skills and alternative assessments of learner performance. Nevertheless, scaffolding issues related to teacher education are unexpectedly few (11.63%) in empirical research. The results also indicate that there are too few studies to guide researchers in considering fading scaffolds for active learning (9.30%). Future directions and suggestions toward conducting research regarding scaffolding are provided.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G. & Seibert, D. (2004). Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students’ ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(3), 344–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., Winters, F. I., Moos, D. C. & Greene, J. A. (2005). Adaptive human scaffolding facilitates adolescents’ self-regulated learning with hypermedia. Instructional Science, 33(5–6), 381–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berk, R. A. (1995). Something old, something new, something borrowed, a lot to do! Applied Measurement in Education, 8(1), 99–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T. & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73(2), 125–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chou, C. & Tsai, C.-C. (2002). Developing web-based curricula: Issues and challenges. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34(6), 623–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D. B. & Sampson, V. T. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., Brown, J. S. & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dabbagh, N. & Kitsantas, A. (2005). Using web-based pedagogical tools as scaffolds for self-regulated learning. Instructional Science, 33(5–6), 513–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E. A. & Miyake, N. (2004). Explorations of scaffolding in complex classroom systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 265–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadwin, A. F., Wozney, L. & Pontin, O. (2005). Scaffolding the appropriation of self-regulatory activity: A socio-cultural analysis of changes in teacher–student discourse about a graduate research portfolio. Instructional Science, 33(5–6), 413–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannifin, M. J., Land, S. M. & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 115–140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, J. & Hannafin, M. J. (2001). Teaching and learning in digital environments: The resurgence of resource-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3), 37–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holliday, W. G. (2005). A balanced approach to science inquiry teaching. In N. G. Lederman & L. B. Flick (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 201–217). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, Y.-S., Wu, H.-K. & Hwang, F.-K. (2008). Fostering high school students’ conceptual understandings about seasons: The design of a technology-enhanced learning environment. Research in Science Education, 38(2), 127–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, E. (2000). Brain-based learning: A reality check. Educational Leadership, 57(7), 76–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunpfer, N. & McLellan, H. (1996). Descriptive research methodologies. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 1196–1212). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M.-H., Wu, Y.-T. & Tsai, C.-C. (2009). Research trends in science education from 2003 to 2007: A content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 31(15), 1999–2020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J. S. & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Association for Research in Science Teaching (2009). NARST strand descriptions. Reston, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.narst.org/about/strands.cfm

  • 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.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J. S., Fretz, E., Duncan, R., et al (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quintana, C., Zhang, M. & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). A framework for supporting metacognitive aspects of online inquiry through software-based scaffolding. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 235–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rømer, T. A. (2002). Situated learning and assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(3), 233–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossman, G. B. & Yore, L. D. (2009). Stitching the pieces together to reveal the generalized patterns: Systematic research reviews, secondary reanalyses, case-to-case comparisons, and metasyntheses of qualitative research studies. In M. C. Shelley II, L. D. Yore & B. Hand (Eds.), Quality research in literacy and science education: International perspectives and gold standards (pp. 575–601). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A. & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, J., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S. & Chambers, J. C. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 165–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sins, P. H. M., Savelsbergh, E. R. & van Joolingen, W. R. (2005). The difficult process of scientific modelling: An analysis of novices’ reasoning during computer-based modelling. International Journal of Science Education, 27(14), 1695–1721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, C. A. (1993). What is missing in the metaphor of scaffolding? In E. Forman, N. Minick & C. Stone (Eds.), Context for leaning: Sociocultural dynamics in children’s development (pp. 169–183). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, C. A. (1998a). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 344–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, C. A. (1998b). Should we salvage the scaffolding metaphor? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 409–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, C.-C. & Wen, M. L. (2005). Research and trends in science education from 1998 to 2002: A content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 27(1), 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D. & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wertsch, J., Mcnamee, G., McLare, J. & Budwig, N. (1980). The adult–child dyad as a problem solving system. Child Development, 51(4), 1215–1221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D., Bruner, J. S. & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 17(2), 89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, H.-K. (2003). Linking the microscopic view of chemistry to real-life experiences: Intertextuality in a high-school science classroom. Science Education, 87(6), 868–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yore, L. D. & Lerman, S. (2008). Metasyntheses of qualitative research studies in mathematics and science education [Editorial]. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(2), 217–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Life Science, National Taiwan Normal University, 88, Section 4 Ting-Chou road, Taipei, 116, Taiwan

    Tzu-Chiang Lin

  2. Graduate Institute of Science Education and Department of Earth Sciences, National Taiwan Normal University, 88, Section 4 Ting-Chou road, Taipei, 116, Taiwan

    Ying-Shao Hsu

  3. Graduate Institute of Science Education, National Chiayi University, Chiayi, Taiwan

    Shu-Sheng Lin

  4. The Center of General Education, Chung Kuo Institute of Technology, Taipei, Taiwan

    Maio-Li Changlai

  5. Graduate Institute of Education and Center for Teacher Education, Chung Yuan Christian University, Jhongli, Taiwan

    Kun-Yuan Yang

  6. Department of Educational Technology, Tamkang University, New Taipei, Taiwan

    Ting-Ling Lai

Authors
  1. Tzu-Chiang Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ying-Shao Hsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shu-Sheng Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maio-Li Changlai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kun-Yuan Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ting-Ling Lai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ying-Shao Hsu.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOC 46 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lin, TC., Hsu, YS., Lin, SS. et al. A REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ON SCAFFOLDING FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 10, 437–455 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-011-9322-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-011-9322-z

Key words

Search

Navigation