Scaffolding argumentation about water quality: a mixed-method study in a rural middle school

Self Cite

The contexts in which computer-based scaffolding is used can vary widely. Such variation is by learner population (e.g., grade level and other characteristics such as achievement level and socioeconomic status), subject matter (i.e., science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), and instructional model with which scaffolding is used (e.g., design-based learning and problem-based learning). I describe these variations, and note accompanying variations in effect size estimates. Notably, scaffolding had its strongest impact when students were (a) at the adult level, (b) engaged in project-based learning or problem solving and (c) from traditional learner populations. Rationale for this ChapterTo begin this chapter, it is important to discuss the need for a consideration of the context of use of computer-based scaffolding. After all, in its original definition, scaffolding was provided on a one-to-one basis to toddlers who engaged in unstructured problem-solving (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976). All structure to the problem-solving activity was provided by the scaffolding process itself. This was practical when there was one teacher for each student, but lost its practicality as a single source of support when using scaffolding in formal schooling. After all, when a teacher can work on a one-to-one basis with one student for an unlimited time span, the teacher can continually assess what structure is needed, and provide it. This is hard to beat in terms of effectiveness. But in formal school settings, teachers very rarely have this opportunity. So, as researchers turned their attention to how instruction could be centered on problem-solving in formal education, it was important to think about additional ways to provide structure to student learning in 56 3 Context of Use of Computer-Based Scaffolding this context (Palincsar & Brown, 1984;Schmidt, Rotgans, & Yew, 2011). This was often accomplished by pairing scaffolding with formal problem-centered instructional models (e.g., inquiry-based learning and problem-based learning; Crippen & Archambault, 2012;Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn, 2007;Kolodner et al., 2003). Such formal, problem-centered instructional models needed to be paired with support for students' reasoning abilities, and instructional scaffolding (one-to-one and, later, computer-based and peer scaffolding) fit such a need nicely.A natural question is whether the specific problem-centered instructional model with which scaffolding is used influences scaffolding's efficacy. This is an empirical question. It is beyond the scope of this book to investigate variations in the efficacy of one-to-one scaffolding and peer scaffolding based on the specific problem-centered instructional model with which it is used. But I do investigate how the efficacy of computer-based scaffolding varies based on the problem-centered instructional model with which it is used.Deploying scaffolding in formal education environments also entailed an expansion of the age groups with which scaffolding was used. Computer-based...

Section: Results From the Meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Student Demographicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Problem-based Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Context of Use of Computer-Based Scaffolding

Belland

2016

Self Cite

“…Scaffolding has been used to promote the development of higher-order thinking skills (Belland, Glazewski, & Richardson, 2011;Belland, Gu, Armbrust, & Cook, 2015;Kim & Hannafin, 2011) and enhanced content knowledge (Chang & Linn, 2013;Davis & Linn, 2000)-two seemingly disparate instructional goals. These differences in instructional goals can be linked to differences in the theoretical bases to which scaffolding is tied.…”

Section: Higher-order Thinking Skills Versus Content Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

Conclusion

Belland¹

2016

Self Cite

In this chapter, I conclude this book on computer-based scaffolding in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. I note the overall effect size point estimate for scaffolding-g = 0.46-and compare that to other effect size estimates in the literature. I summarize the wide variation in contexts in which and learner populations among which scaffolding is used, as well as note the characteristics along which the magnitude of scaffolding's impact does not vary-contingency, generic versus context specific, and intended learning outcome-as well as characteristics along which it does-problem-centered model with which scaffolding is used, and grade level and learner characteristics. I also note areas in which more research is needed-motivation scaffolding, scaffolding for students with learning disabilities, and scaffolding in the context of projectbased and design-based learning.

“…Scaffolding has been designed to promote higher-order skills such as ill-structured problem-solving ability (Ge & Land, 2004;Liu & Bera, 2005) and argumentation ability (Belland, Gu, Armbrust, & Cook, 2015;McNeill & Krajcik, 2009), and enhanced/deep content knowledge (Davis & Linn, 2000;Koedinger & Corbett, 2006). It is important to note that in the intelligent tutoring systems literature, authors posit a focus on enhancing procedural knowledge (production rules) by which individuals can apply declarative knowledge.…”

Section: Targeted Learning Outcomes Of Scaffoldingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intended Learning Outcomes and Assessment of Computer-Based Scaffolding

Belland

2016

Self Cite

In this chapter, I describe the intended learning outcomes of scaffolding-content knowledge and higher-order thinking abilities-and link these to the goals advanced by the Next Generation Science Standards and related documents from recent curricular revisions in STEM education. Furthermore, I address different ways in which scaffolding's effect can be measured (assessment level), and explore whether there are differences in the magnitude of scaffolding's effect according to assessment level. Meta-analysis results show that there is no difference in effect size magnitude on the basis of intended learning outcome (i.e., content knowledge or higher-order thinking abilities). Scaffolding's effect was greater when measured at the principles level than when measured at the concept level. But scaffolding's effect was statistically greater than 0 and substantial for all three assessment levels (i.e., concept, principles, and application). These results are then discussed.