Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials

Journal of the Learning Sciences

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 153-191

  McNeill, Katherine L ^a   Lizotte, David J ^a   Krajcik, Joseph ^a   Marx, Ronald W ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33645990367     PISSN: 10508406     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. Aikenhead, G. S. (2004). Science-based occupations and the science curriculum: Concepts of evidence. Science Education, 89, 242-275.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Bell, P., & Linn, M. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the Web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797-817.
4. Blumenfeld, P., Fishman, B. J., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2000). Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: Scaling up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist, 35, 149-164.
5. Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
6. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-41.
7. Burkhardt, H., & Schoenfeld, A. H. (2003). Improving educational research: Toward a more useful, more influential, and better-funded enterprise. Educational Researcher, 32(9), 3-14.
8. Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70, 1098-1120.
9. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (2001). Models of data: A theory of how people evaluate data. Cognition and Instruction, 19, 323-393.
10. Chinn, C., & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 109-138.
11. Cho, K.-L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5-22.
12. Cobb, P. (2002). Reasoning with tools and inscriptions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 187-215.
13. Collin, 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 Associates, Inc.
14. Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 91-142.
15. Davis, E. A., & Miyake, N. (2004). Explorations of scaffolding in complex systems. The Journal of the Learning Science, 13, 265-272.
16. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.
17. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
18. Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 391-450.
19. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPing into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915-933.
20. Herrenkohl, L. R., Palincsar, A. S., DeWater, L. S., & Kawasaki, K. (1999). Developing scientific communities in classrooms: A sociocognitive approach. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 451-493.
21. Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students and scientists' reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 663-687.
22. Hogan, K., & Pressley, M. (1997). Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
23. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodríguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792.
24. Kolodner, J. L., & Nagel, K. (1999). The design discussion area: A collaborative learning tool in support of learning from problem-solving and design activities. In C. Hoadley & J. Roschelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the conference of the computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 300-307). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
25. Koslowski, B. (1996). Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., & Fredericks, J. (1998). Inquiry in project based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 77, 317-337.
27. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R., & Soloway, E. (2000). Instructional, curricular, and technological supports for inquiry in science classrooms. In J. Minstrell & E. v. Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 283-315 ). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
28. Krajcik, J., Czerniak, C. M., & Berger, C. (1999). Teaching children science: A project-based approach. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
29. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
30. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319-338.
31. Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A., & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 495-523.
32. Kuhn, D., Schauble, L., & Garcia-Mila, M. (1992). Cross-domain development of scientific reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 9, 285-327.
33. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74, 1245-1260.
34. Kuhn, L., & Reiser, B. (2005, April). Students constructing and defending evidence-based scientific explanations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.
35. Lee, H.-S., & Songer, N. B. (2004, April). Longitudinal knowledge development: Scaffolds for Inquiry. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
36. Lee, O., & Fradd, S. H. (1998). Science for all, including students from non English-language back-grounds. Educational Researcher, 27(4), 12-21.
37. Lizotte, D. J., Harris, C. J., McNeill, K. L., Marx, R. W., & Krajcik, J. (2003, April). Usable assessments aligned with curriculum materials: Measuring explanation as a scientific way of knowing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
38. Lizotte, D. J., McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2004). Teacher practices that support students' construction of scientific explanations in middle school classrooms. In Y. Kafai, W. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. Nixon, & F. Herrera (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth international conference of the learning sciences (pp. 310-317). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
39. McGinn, M. K., & Roth, W.-M. (1999). Preparing students for competent scientific practice: Implications of recent research in science and technology studies. Educational Researcher, 28(3), 14-24.
40. McNeill, K. L., Harris, C. J., Heitzman, M., Lizotte, D. J., Sutherland, L. M., & Krajcik, J. (2004). How can I make new stuff from old stuff? In J. Krajcik & B. J. Reiser (Eds.), IQWST: Investigating and questioning our world through science and technology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
41. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (in press). Middle school students' use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In M. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data: The proceedings of the 33rd Carnegie symposium on cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
42. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2005). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers' instructional practices on student learning. Manuscript submitted for publication.
43. McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Harris, C. J., Scott, L. A., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2003, March). Using backward design to create standards-based middle-school inquiry-oriented chemistry curriculum and assessment materials. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
44. Metz, K. E. (2000). Young children's inquiry in biology: Building the knowledge bases to empower in-dependent inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. H. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiry into inquiry learning and teaching in science(pp. 371-404). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
45. Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science: Problems in the logic of science education. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World, Inc.
46. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
47. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
48. Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 553-576.
49. Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What "ideas-about-science" should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 692-720.
50. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994-1020.
51. Owensby, J. N., & Kolodner, J. L. (2004). Case application suite: Scaffolding use of expert cases in middle-school project-based inquiry classrooms. In Y. Kafai, W. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. Nixon, & F. Herrera (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth international conference of the learning sciences (pp. 310-317). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
52. Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Keeping the metaphor of scaffolding fresh-A response to C. Addison Stone's "The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities." Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 370-373.
53. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
54. Passmore, C., & Stewart, J. (2002). A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 185-204.
55. 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, 423-451.
56. Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context-bound? Educational Researcher, 18(1), 16-25.
57. Quintana, C., Reiser, B., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Golan, R., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for designing educational software. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 337-386.
58. Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 273-304.
59. Reiser, B. J., Krajcik, J., Moje, E. B., & Marx, R. W. (2003, March). Design strategies for developing science instructional materials. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
60. Reiser, B., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W., Smith, B., Steinmuller, F., & Leone, A. (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 Associates, Inc.
61. Reznitskaya, A., & Anderson, R. C. (2002). The argument schema and learning to reason. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 319-334). New York: Guilford.
62. Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S.-Y. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32, 155-175.
63. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513-536.
64. Sandoval, W. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students' scientific explanations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 5-51.
65. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 23-55.
66. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345-372.
67. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1, 37-68.
68. Stone, C. A. (1993). What is missing in the metaphor of scaffolding? In E. A. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children's development (pp. 169-183). New York: Oxford University Press.
69. Stone, C. A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 344-364.
70. Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns in distributed scaffolding. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 305-335.
71. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
72. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F. S., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C. W., et al. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
73. Voss, J. F., & Van Dyke, J. A. (2001). Argumentation in psychology: Background comments. Discourse Processes, 32, 89-111.
74. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. London: Cambridge University Press.
75. White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 3-118.
76. White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (2000). Metacognitive facilitation: An approach to making scientific inquiry accessible to all. In J. Minstrell & E. v. Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 331-370). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
77. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 17, 89-100.
78. Yeh, S. S. (2001). Tests worth teaching to: Constructing state-mandated tests that emphasize critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 30(9), 12-17.
79. Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding preservice science teachers' evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32, 437-465.
80. Zimmerman, C. (2000). The development of scientific reasoning skills. Developmental Review, 20, 99-149.
81. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35-62.