Untitled

Instructional Scaffolding in STEM Education

2016

This chapter covers variations in scaffolding strategies along the following characteristics-scaffolding function (e.g., strategic and conceptual), context specificity (i.e., generic or context-specific), customization (e.g., fading and fading/ adding), and customization schedule (e.g., self-selected and performance-based). These variations and the theoretical basis for these are explained. Then, results from the meta-analysis are shared, which indicate that there are no differences in cognitive outcomes according to scaffolding function, context specificity, and customization. These results are then discussed.

Section: What It Ismentioning

confidence: 99%

Computer-Based Scaffolding Strategy

Instructional Scaffolding in STEM Education

2016

“…Another potential reason behind differences in influence among student subgroups Not all students will interact with scaffolds in the same way, but rather may use scaffolds in ways aligned with their goals (Akhras and Self 2002;Belland and Drake 2013). These goals may influence what students get out of using the scaffold.…”

Section: Influence Among Low-ses Studentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Education Tech Research Dev

Armbrust

et al. 2015

A common way for students to develop scientific argumentation abilities is through argumentation about socioscientific issues, defined as scientific problems with social, ethical, and moral aspects. Computer-based scaffolding can support students in this process. In this mixed method study, we examined the use and impact of computer based scaffolding to support middle school students' creation of evidence-based arguments during a 3-week problem-based learning unit focused on the water quality of a local river. We found a significant and substantial impact on the argument evaluation ability of lowerachieving students, and preliminary evidence of an impact on argument evaluation ability among low-SES students. We also found that students used the various available supportcomputer-based scaffolding, teacher scaffolding, and groupmate support-in different ways to counter differing challenges. We then formulated changes to the scaffolds on the basis of research results.

“…The exact nature of support in computer-based scaffolding varies according to the theoretical framework-e.g., cultural historical activity theory, ACT-R, or knowledge integration-on which the scaffolding is based. Support created according to the activity theory framework is designed to stretch student abilities and foster the kind of struggle that the framework holds leads to learning (Akhras & Self, 2002;Belland & Drake, 2013;Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999;Reiser, 2004). Computer-based scaffolding created according to the ACT-R framework is designed to help students apply declarative knowledge in the context of problems such that they can develop production rules with which to use the target knowledge in the context of solving new problems (Koedinger & Corbett, 2006;VanLehn, 2011).…”

Section: Computer-based Scaffoldingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This means that different learners can see and use scaffolds in different ways (Belland, 2010;Belland & Drake, 2013;Belland et al, 2011). Thus, when designing scaffolding, it is important to think about the processes and situations in which the scaffolding will be used (Akhras & Self, 2002;Belland & Drake, 2013).…”

Section: How Activity Theory Informs Scaffoldingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This in turn helps students develop higher-order psychological processes (Vygotsky, 1962). Thus, from an activity theory perspective, when designing scaffolding, it is important to think broadly about the dispositions and modes of thinking that one wishes to develop in students, rather than about discrete skills students need to develop (Akhras & Self, 2002;Belland & Drake, 2013). This may be accomplished through the use of ethnographies of the professions of interest.…”

Section: How Activity Theory Informs Scaffoldingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Instructional Scaffolding: Foundations and Evolving Definition

Instructional Scaffolding in STEM Education

2016

This chapter covers the definition of instructional scaffolding, as well as its theoretical bases, and how those bases are reflected in computer-based scaffolding. Computer-based scaffolding is defined as a computer-based tool that extends and enhances student capabilities as students engage with authentic and ill-structured tasks. Despite its original atheoretical nature, scaffolding was linked to many theoretical frameworks, including activity theory, Adaptive Character of Thought-Rational (ACT-R), and knowledge integration. This variation in theoretical frameworks has led to differing scaffolding strategies (e.g., fading, adding, and fading/ adding strategies) and overall scaffolding approaches. These are described in depth in this chapter.