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

Instructional Science

Volumn 39, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 255-282

  Kim, Minchi C ^a   Hannafin, Michael J ^b  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Classroom based research; Problem solving; Scaffold; Scaffolding; Scientific inquiry; Technology enhanced learning environments

Indexed keywords

EID: 79954571322     PISSN: 00204277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11251-010-9127-4     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (1983). Instructional scaffolding: Reading and writing as natural language activities. Language Arts, 60, 168-175.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815-843.
7. 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.
8. Clark, D., & Linn, M. C. (2003). Designing for knowledge integration: The impact of instructional time. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 451-493.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). The Jasper project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12. Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916-937.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
16. Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1995). Prospects for scientific visualization as an educational technology. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(3), 249.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. Karplus, R., & Thier, H. D. (1967). A new look at elementary school science. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2004). Designing online learning environments to support scientific inquiry. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 5(1), 1-10.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
36. Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538.
37. Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers and peers: Science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
38. Linn, M. C., & Slotta, J. D. (2000). WISE science. Educational Leadership, 58(2), 29-32.
39. 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.
40. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1995). Designing qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
44. Merriam, S. B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
45. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards: Observe, interact, change, learn. 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. 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.
49. 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.
50. Palincsar, A. S. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction. Educational Psychologist, 21(1-2), 73-98.
51. 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.
52. 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.
53. 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.
54. 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.
55. Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273-304.
56. 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.
57. Robinson, W. R. (2004). The inquiry wheel, an alternative to the scientific method. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(6), 791.
58. 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.
59. 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.
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. Scholz, R. W., & Tietje, O. (2002). Embedded case study methods: Integrating quantitative and qualitative knowledge. Thousan Oaks, CA: Sage.
63. 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.
64. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
65. Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305-335.
66. 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.
67. 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.
68. 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.
69. von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80, 121-140.
70. 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.
71. 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.
72. 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.
73. 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.
74. 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.
75. 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.
76. Yin, R. K. (2003). Applications of case study research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.