Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Scaffolding 6th graders’ problem solving in technology-enhanced science classrooms: a qualitative case study

  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In response to the calls to improve and deepen scientific understanding and literacy, considerable effort has been invested in developing sustainable technology-enhanced learning environments to improve science inquiry. Research has provided important guidance for scaffolding learning in mathematics and science. However, these reports have provided relatively little insight into how the different types of scaffolds can (or should) be implemented in dynamic, everyday classroom settings. In this qualitative case study, we examined how students solve scientific problems in technology-enhanced classrooms and how peer-, teacher-, and technology-enhanced scaffolds influenced student inquiry. The results indicated that students manifested distinct inquiry patterns when solving scientific problems and integrated different types of scaffolds to facilitate inquiry activities. These findings suggest that to support scientific inquiry in problem-solving contexts, technology-enhanced scaffolds are effective when supported by clear project goals, relevant evidence, peer- and teacher-assessments, and exemplars of knowledge articulation.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adamson, L. B., Foster, M. A., Roark, M. L., & Reed, D. B. (1998). Doing a Science Project: Gender differences during childhood. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(8), 845–857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. D., & Helms, J. V. (2001). The ideal of standards and the reality of schools: Needed research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (1983). Instructional scaffolding: Reading and writing as natural language activities. Language Arts, 60, 168–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., Barnett, M., & Keating, T. (2000). Virtual solar system project: Building understanding through model building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 719–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815–843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D., & Linn, M. C. (2003). Designing for knowledge integration: The impact of instructional time. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 451–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 293–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 65–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). The Jasper project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916–937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3–4), 391–450.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1995). Prospects for scientific visualization as an educational technology. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(3), 249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grindstaff, K., & Richmond, G. (2008). Learners’ perceptions of the role of peers in a research experience: Implications for the apprenticeship process, scientific inquiry, and collaborative work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(2), 251–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M. J., Land, S. M., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models (Vol. 2, pp. 115–140). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., Oliver, R., & Woo, Y. (2004). Designing authentic activities in Web-based courses. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(1), 3–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, K., & Pressley, M. (1997). Scaffolding scientific competencies within classroom communities of inquiry. In K. Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues (pp. 74–107). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2000). Model-IT: A design retrospective. In M. J. Jacobson & R. B. Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced design for technologies of learning (pp. 77–116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, M. J. (2008). A design framework for educational hypermedia systems: Theory, research, and learning emerging scientific conceptual perspectives. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(1), 5–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, M. J., & Azevedo, R. (2008). Advances in scaffolding learning with hypertext and hypermedia: Theoretical, empirical, and design issues. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(1), 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 693–719). New York, NY: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karplus, R., & Thier, H. D. (1967). A new look at elementary school science. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(6), 631–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M. C., Ertmer, P. A., Tomory, A., Fang, J., Freemyer, S., Sadaf, A., et al. (2009, October). Classroom-based scaffolding for chemistry learning: What critical factors influence rural middle school students’ inquiry? Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Association for Educational Communication and Technology (AECT), Louisville, KY.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). What factors shape interactions between 7th graders’ problem solving and inquiry tools: The case of a web-enhanced learning environment. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Montreal, Canada.

  • Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2006, April). Peers, teachers, and tool scaffolding of 6th graders problem-solving in Web-enhanced, inquiry-supported classrooms. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association (AERA), San Francisco, CA.

  • Kim, M. C. & Hannafin, M. J. (under review). Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): A framework to bridge research and theory with practice.

  • Kim, M. C., Hannafin, M. J., & Bryan, L. A. (2007). Technology-enhanced inquiry tools in science education: An emerging pedagogical framework for classroom practice. Science Education, 91(6), 1010–1030.

    Article  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 (TM) into practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495–547.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C., & Slotta, J. D. (2000). WISE science. Educational Leadership, 58(2), 29–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marbach-Ad, G., Rotbain, Y., & Stavy, R. (2008). Using computer animation and illustration activities to improve high school students’ achievement in molecular genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 273–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1995). Designing qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., Geier, R., et al. (2004). Inquiry-based science in the middle grades: Assessment of learning in urban systemic reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1063–1080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattern, N., & Schau, C. (2002). Gender differences in science attitude–achievement relationships over time among white middle-school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(4), 324–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards: Observe, interact, change, learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education, 86(4), 548–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, K., & Hannafin, M. J. (2001). Developing and refining mental models in open-ended learning environments: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(4), 5–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A. S. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction. Educational Psychologist, 21(1–2), 73–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pea, R. D., & Kurland, D. M. (1987). Cognitive technologies for writing development. In L. Frase (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 14, pp. 71–120). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

    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., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quintana, C., Zhang, M., & Krajcik, J. (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. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivet, A. E., & Krajcik, J. S. (2008). Contextualizing instruction: Leveraging students’ prior knowledge and experiences to foster understanding of middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 79–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, W. R. (2004). The inquiry wheel, an alternative to the scientific method. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(6), 791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez, A. J. (1997). The dangerous discourse of invisibility: A critique of the National Research Council’s National Science Education Standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 19–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2005). Enacting reform-based science materials: The range of teacher enactments in reform classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 283–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (1991). On mathematics as sense-making: An informal attack on the unfortunate divorce of formal and informal mathematics. In J. F. Boss, D. N. Perkins, & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 311–344). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholz, R. W., & Tietje, O. (2002). Embedded case study methods: Integrating quantitative and qualitative knowledge. Thousan Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Songer, N. B., Lee, H.-S., & McDonald, S. (2003). Research towards an expanded understanding of inquiry science beyond one idealized stabdard. Science Education, 87(4), 490–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toth, E. E., Suthers, D. D., & Lesgold, A. M. (2002). “Mapping to know”: The effects of representational guidance and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry. Science Education, 86(2), 264–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Zee, E. H., Iwasyk, M., Kurose, A., Simpson, D., & Wild, J. (2001). Student and teacher questioning during conversations about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 159–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80, 121–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Glasersfeld, E. (1993). Questions and answers about radical constructivism. In K. G. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, R. (1980). The conduct of educational case studies: Ethics, theory and procedures. In W. B. Dockerell & D. Hamilton (Eds.), Rethinking educational research. London: Hodder & Stoughton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, R. M., Kupperman, J., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2000). Science on the web: Students online in a sixth-grade classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(1), 75–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M. (2005). Guest editorial: The future of science teacher preparation in America: Where is the evidence to inform program design and guide responsible policy decisions? Science Education, 89(4), 525–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2003). Applications of case study research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Purdue University, Beering Hall of Liberal Arts and Education, 100 North University Street, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA

    Minchi C. Kim

  2. Learning and Performance Support Laboratory, University of Georgia, 611 Aderhold Hall, Athens, GA, 30602, USA

    Michael J. Hannafin

Authors
  1. Minchi C. Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael J. Hannafin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Minchi C. Kim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kim, M.C., Hannafin, M.J. Scaffolding 6th graders’ problem solving in technology-enhanced science classrooms: a qualitative case study. Instr Sci 39, 255–282 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9127-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9127-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation