Problem-based learning and argumentation: Testing a scaffolding framework to support middle school students' creation of evidence-based arguments

Instructional Science

Volumn 39, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 667-694

  Belland, Brian R ^a   Glazewski, Krista D ^b   Richardson, Jennifer C ^c  

^a UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

English as a New Language; Evidence based arguments; Middle school; Scaffolding; Science education

Indexed keywords

EID: 79961172160     PISSN: 00204277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11251-010-9148-z     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Alberts, B. (2003). On creating a "scientific temper". Science literacy for the twenty-first century (pp. 57-61). Amherst, NY: Prometheus.
2. Apple, M. W. (1975). The hidden curriculum and the nature of conflict. In W. Pinar (Ed.), Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists (pp. 95-119). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
3. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to research in education. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
4. Bell, P. (1997). Using argument representations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL '97 (pp. 10-19). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
5. Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., & Richardson, J. C. (2008). A scaffolding framework to support the construction of evidence-based arguments among middle school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 401-422.
6. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26-55.
7. Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3& 4), 369-398.
8. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
9. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington: National Academies Press.
10. Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the Learning Sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92(3), 473-498.
11. Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2001). The use of embedded scaffolds with hypermedia-supported student-centered learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10, 333-356.
12. Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Author.
13. Chang, C., & Barufaldi, J. P. (1999). The use of a problem-solving-based instructional model in initiating change in students' achievement and alternative frameworks. International Journal of Science Education, 21(4), 373-388.
14. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145-182.
15. Cho, K., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem-solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5-22.
16. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253-277.
17. Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.
18. Cuevas, H. M., Fiore, S. M., & Oser, R. L. (2002). Scaffolding cognitive and metacognitive processes in low verbal ability learners: Use of diagrams in computer-based learning. Instructional Science, 30, 433-464.
19. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (1998). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
20. Duggan, S., & Gott, R. (2002). What sort of science education do we really need? International Journal of Science Education, 24(7), 661-679.
21. Flavell, J. F. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new era of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911.
22. Gallagher, S. A. (1997). Problem-based learning: Where did it come from, what does it do, and where is it going? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 332-362.
23. Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 5-22.
24. Giesbrecht, F. G., & Gumpertz, M. L. (2004). Planning, construction, and statistical analysis of comparative experiments. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
25. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
26. Glassner, A., Weinstock, M., & Neuman, Y. (2005). Pupils' evaluation and generation of evidence and explanation in argumentation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 105-118.
27. Guzetti, B. J., Snyder, T. E., Glass, G. V., & Gamas, W. S. (1993). Meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education to promote conceptual change in science. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 116-161.
28. Hadley, A. O. (1993). Teaching language in context (2nd ed.). Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
29. Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open-ended learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: Vol. II: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 115-140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30. Hawkins, J., & Pea, R. D. (1987). Tools for bridging the cultures of everyday and scientific thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(4), 291-307.
31. Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D. L., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 247-298.
32. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88-140.
33. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
34. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1955). De la logique de l'enfant à la logique de l'adolescent: Essai sur la construction des structures opératoires formelles [From the logic of the child to the logic of the adolescent: Essay on the construction of formal operations]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
35. Jackson, A. W., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York: Teacher's College Press.
36. Jonassen, D. (2003). Using cognitive tools to represent problems. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35, 362-381.
37. Keppel, G. (1982). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
38. Kinney, D. A., Rosier, K. B., & Harger, (2003). The educational institution. In L. T. Reynolds & N. J. Herman-Kinney (Eds.), Handbook of symbolic interactionism (pp. 575-599). Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
39. Knudson, R. E. (1991). Effects of instructional strategies, grade, and sex on students' persuasive writing. Journal of Experimental Education, 59, 141-152.
40. 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, 313-350.
41. Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16-25.
42. Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
43. Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A., & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry learning. Cognition & Instruction, 18(4), 495-523.
44. Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction of argumentive reasoning. Cognition & Instruction, 15(3), 287-315.
45. Kyza, E., & Edelson, D. C. (2005). Scaffolding middle school students' coordination of theory and practice. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11, 545-560.
46. Lather, P. (2003). Issues of validity in openly ideological research. In Y. S. Lincoln & N. K. Denzin (Eds.), Turning points in qualitative research: Tying knots in a handkerchief (pp. 185-215). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
47. Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Pihlajamäki, H., & Kotkas, T. (2003). What makes a student group successful? Student-student and student-teacher interaction in a problem-based learning environment. Learning Environments Research, 6, 59-76.
48. Liu, M., & Bera, S. (2005). An analysis of cognitive tool use patterns in a hypermedia learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 5-21.
49. Marttunen, M., & Laurinen, L. (2001). Learning of argumentation skills in networked and face-to-face environments. Instructional Science, 29, 127-153.
50. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: Toward a shared craft. Educational Researcher, 13(5), 20-30.
51. National Center for Educational Statistics. (2006). The condition of education 2006: Indicator 7: Language Minority School-Age Children. Retrieved April 7, 2007, from: http://nces. ed. gov/programs/coe/2006/pdf/07_2006. pdf.
52. Nussbaum, E. M. (2002). Scaffolding argumentation in the social studies classroom. The Social Studies, 93(2), 79-83.
53. O'Donnell, C. L. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K 12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research, 78, 33-84.
54. Oliver, K., & Hannafin, M. J. (2000). Student management of web-based hypermedia resources during open-ended problem solving. Journal of Educational Research, 94(2), 75-92.
55. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Jiao, Q. G., & Bostick, S. L. (2004). Library anxiety: Theory, research, and applications. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
56. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
57. Palincsar, A. S., Anderson, C., & David, Y. M. (1993). Pursuing scientific literacy in the middle grades through collaborative problem solving. The Elementary School Journal, 93(5), 643-658.
58. 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.
59. Pedersen, S., & Liu, M. (2002-2003). The transfer of problem-solving skills from a problem-based learning environment: The effect of modeling an expert's cognitive processes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35, 303-320.
60. Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958). La nouvelle rhétorique: Traité de l'argumentation [The new rhetoric: Treatise on argumentation] (Vols. 1-2). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
61. Puntambekar, S., & Hübscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40, 1-12.
62. 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.
63. Raudenbush, S. W., Rowan, B., & Cheong, Y. F. (1993). Higher-order instructional goals in secondary schools: Class, teacher, and school influences. American Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 523-553.
64. Sandoval, W. A., & Morrison, K. (2003). High school students' ideas about theories and theory change after a biological inquiry unit. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 40(4), 369-392.
65. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345-372.
66. Sandstrom, K. L., & Fine, G. A. (2003). Triumphs, emerging voices, and the future. In L. T. Reynolds & N. J. Herman-Kinney (Eds.), Handbook of symbolic interactionism (pp. 1041-1057). Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
67. Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 77-96.
68. Simons, K. D., & Klein, J. D. (2007). The impact of scaffolding and student achievement levels in a problem-based learning environment. Instructional Science, 35, 41-72.
69. Stryker, S. (2001). Traditional symbolic interactionism, role theory, and structural symbolic interactionism: The road to identity theory. In J. H. Turner (Ed.), Handbook of sociological theory (pp. 211-231). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
70. Torp, L., & Sage, S. (1998). Problems as possibilities: Problem-based learning for K-12 education. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
71. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2002). Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
72. White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3-118.
73. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.
74. Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2003). Higher-order thinking skills and low-achieving students: Are they mutually exclusive? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 145-181.