How Much Guidance Students Need When Designing Experiments in a Computer-Supported Inquiry Learning Environment

Xenofontos, Nikoletta; Zacharia, Zacharias C.; Hovardas, Tasos

doi:10.18178/ijlt.4.1.20-24

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One mechanism by which material scaffolds support learning is structuring . Structuring helps students by decomposing a complex task into the necessary steps to complete it (Reiser 2004 ), such as by providing guidance for participating in authentic scientific practices (Belland et al 2015 ; Xenofontos et al 2018 ). Structuring includes providing organizational mechanisms to help students complete a task or engage in practice, including questions that support reflection and articulation.…”

Section: Materials Scaffoldsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fading distributed scaffolds: the importance of complementarity between teacher and material scaffolds

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Designing learning environments with distributed scaffolding —support distributed across different instructional tools, activities, and the teacher—can help support students’ different needs, but a critical question is how the design incorporates the hallmark feature of responsive support. While most material scaffolds in instructional tools are inherently static, teachers can complement support provided in material scaffolds by providing responsive assistance and mediating students’ interactions within their environment to both support and challenge students. Our study explores the interplay between support embedded in instructional materials and scaffolding provided by teachers. We focused on how teachers’ scaffolding complemented the fading material scaffolds in a paper-and-pencil tool and how this combination of support impacted students’ learning of science practices and content. Differences in teachers’ responsive versus static scaffolding moves corresponded with differences in students’ performance as material scaffolds faded in support. One teacher complemented support provided by the material scaffolds by frequently monitoring students’ understanding and providing additional support as needed, even when material scaffolds faded; her students maintained a high level of performance throughout the unit. In contrast, the other teacher tended to extend the static kind of scaffolding found in the instructional materials rather than adapt support to his students’ needs as material scaffolds faded; his students showed a significant decrease in performance over time. Our findings show that the complementarity between responsive scaffolding moves from the teacher and scaffolding embedded in instructional materials is important for effectively supporting the wide range of students’ needs in the classroom.

show abstract

Section: Materials Scaffoldsmentioning

confidence: 99%