A review of empirical evidence on scaffolding for science education

International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 437-455

  Lin, Tzu Chiang ^a   Hsu, Ying Shao ^a   Lin, Shu Sheng ^b   Changlai, Maio Li ^c   Yang, Kun Yuan ^d   Lai, Ting Ling ^e  

^a NATIONAL TAIWAN NORMAL UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^b NATIONAL CHIAYI UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^c CHINA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Taiwan)

^d CHUNG YUAN CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^e TAMKANG UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

content analysis; fading; scaffolding; science learning; science teaching

Indexed keywords

EID: 84859423370     PISSN: 15710068     EISSN: 15731774     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10763-011-9322-z     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Berk, R. A. (1995). Something old, something new, something borrowed, a lot to do! Applied Measurement in Education, 8(1), 99-109.
4. 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.
5. Chou, C. & Tsai, C.-C. (2002). Developing web-based curricula: Issues and challenges. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34(6), 623-636.
6. Clark, D. B. & Sampson, V. T. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253-277.
7. 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.
8. Dabbagh, N. & Kitsantas, A. (2005). Using web-based pedagogical tools as scaffolds for self-regulated learning. Instructional Science, 33(5-6), 513-540.
9. Davis, E. A. & Miyake, N. (2004). Explorations of scaffolding in complex classroom systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 265-272.
10. Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Jensen, E. (2000). Brain-based learning: A reality check. Educational Leadership, 57(7), 76-80.
17. 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.
18. Land, S. M. (2000). Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 61-78.
19. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. National Association for Research in Science Teaching (2009). NARST strand descriptions. Reston, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://www. narst. org/about/strands. cfm.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
30. Rømer, T. A. (2002). Situated learning and assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(3), 233-241.
31. 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.
32. Sandoval, W. A. & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345-372.
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. 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.
36. Stone, C. A. (1998a). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 344-364.
37. Stone, C. A. (1998b). Should we salvage the scaffolding metaphor? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 409-413.
38. Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305-335.
39. 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.
40. 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.
41. Wertsch, J., Mcnamee, G., McLare, J. & Budwig, N. (1980). The adult-child dyad as a problem solving system. Child Development, 51(4), 1215-1221.
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. 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.