Synergy and Students’ Explanations: Exploring the Role of Generic and Content-Specific Scaffolds

International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2018, Pages 1-21

  Delen, Ibrahim ^a   Krajcik, Joseph ^b  

^a USAK UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^b MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Mobile application; Professional development; Scaffolds; Scientific explanations; Synergy; Teacher practices

Indexed keywords

EID: 84986295374     PISSN: 15710068     EISSN: 15731774     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10763-016-9767-1     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Achieve (2013). Next generation science standards. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
2. Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 91–142.
3. Delen, I. (2014). Supporting students’ scientific explanations: A case study investigating the synergy focusing on a teacher’s practices when providing instruction and using mobile devices (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
4. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A. & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
5. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
6. Gotwals, A. W. & Songer, N. B. (2010). Reasoning up and down a food chain: Using an assessment framework to investigate students’ middle knowledge. Science Education, 94(2), 259–281.
7. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3), 381–391.
8. 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. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 77, 317-337.
9. Kuhn, A., McNally, B., Schmoll, S., Cahill, C., Lo, W. T., Quintana, C., & Delen, I. (2012). How students find, evaluate and utilize peer-collected annotated multimedia data in science inquiry with Zydeco. In J. A. Konstan, E. Chi & K. Höök (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3061–3070). Austin, TX: ACM.
10. Laru, J., Järvelä, S. & Clariana, R. (2012). Supporting collaborative inquiry during a biology field trip with mobile peer-to-peer tools for learning: A case study with K-12 learners. Interactive Learning Environments, 20(2), 103–117.
11. Lizotte, D. J., McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2004). Teacher practices that support students’ construction of scientific explanations in middle school classrooms. In Y. B. Kafai, W. A Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. S. Nixon & F. Herrera (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Learning sciences (ICLS) (pp. 310-317). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12. Lo, W. T., Delen, I., Kuhn, A., Duck, J., McGee, S., Quintana, C. & Krajcik, J. (2013). Zydeco: A Mobile-Based Inquiry Learning System to Support Project-Based Learning. Paper presented at Annual International Conference of The American Educational Research Association (AERA), San Francisco, CA.
13. Maldonado, H. & Pea, R. D. (2010). LET’s GO! to the creek: Co-design of water quality inquiry using mobile science collaboratories. In U. Hoppe, R. Pea & C. Liu (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth international IEEE conference on wireless, mobile and ubiquitous technologies in education. Kaohsiung, Taiwan (pp. 81–87). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
14. McNeill, K. L. & Krajcik, J. (2007). Middle school students’ use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In M. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with Data: Proceedings of the 33rd Carnegie Symposium on Cognition (pp. 233–265). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
15. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008a). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53–78.
16. McNeill, K. L. & Krajcik, J. (2008b). Inquiry and scientific explanations: Helping students use evidence and reasoning. In J. Luft, R. Bell & J. Gess-Newsome (Eds.), Science as Inquiry in the Secondary Setting (p. 121–134). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
17. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Synergy between teacher practices and curricular scaffolds to support students in using domain-specific and domain-general knowledge in writing arguments to explain phenomena. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(3), 416-460.
18. McNeill, K. L. & Knight, A. M. (2013). Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of scientific argumentation: The impact of professional development on K-12 teachers. Science Education, 97(6), 936–972.
19. McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & 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.
20. National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
21. National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
22. Osborne, J. (2014). Scientific practices and inquiry in the science classroom. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education, volume 2 (pp. 579–599). New York: Routledge.
23. 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.
24. Quintana, C. (2012). Pervasive science: Using mobile devices and the cloud to support science education. Interactions, 19(4), 76–80.
25. Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 273–304.
26. Sandoval, W. A. & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23–55.
27. Sandoval, W. A. & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic supports for science inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345–372.
28. Simon, S., Erduran, S. & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 235–260.
29. Songer, N. B. (2006). BioKIDS: An animated conversation on the development of curricular activity structures for inquiry science. In R. Keith Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 355–369). New York: Cambridge University Press.
30. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31. Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305–335.
32. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
33. Williams, M., Montgomery, B. L. & Manokore, V. (2012). From phenotype to genotype: Exploring middle school students’ understanding of genetic inheritance in a web-based environment. The American Biology Teacher, 74(1), 35–40.
34. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.