A Review of Empirical Evidence on Scaffolding for Science Education

Abstract

This content analysis of articles in the Social Science Citation Index journals from 1995 to 2009 was conducted to provide science educators with empirical evidence regarding the effects of scaffolding on science learning. It clarifies the definition, design, and implementation of scaffolding in science classrooms and research studies. The results show important cross-study evidence that most researchers have adopted a qualitative approach (67.44%), focused on learning context (72.09%), and used high school students as participants (53.49%). In designing scaffoldings, researchers have shown a preference for long-term explicit scaffolding using multiple representations to promote procedural and strategic skills and alternative assessments of learner performance. Nevertheless, scaffolding issues related to teacher education are unexpectedly few (11.63%) in empirical research. The results also indicate that there are too few studies to guide researchers in considering fading scaffolds for active learning (9.30%). Future directions and suggestions toward conducting research regarding scaffolding are provided.

Effectiveness of Computer-Based Scaffolding in the Context of Problem-Based Learning for Stem Education: Bayesian Meta-analysis

“…In this meta-analysis, only 10% of included outcomes were associated with fading, only 6% with adding, and 15% with fading/adding, which is consistent with prior research (Belland et al 2017;Lin et al 2012). Using a traditional meta-analysis approach would have rendered it difficult to compare the effects of fading, adding, and no customization.…”

“…According to the meta-analysis reported by Belland et al (2017), in 65% of the included studies, there was no scaffolding customization. Moreover, Lin et al (2012) also pointed out a lack of a number of studies adopting fading function (9.3%) in a review of 43 scaffolding-related articles. This means that while many scholars maintained that fading is an important element of scaffolding (Collins et al 1989;Dillenbourg 2002;Puntambekar and Hübscher 2005;Wood et al 1976), scaffolding customization has largely been overlooked in scaffolding design.…”

“…However, in the case of problem-based learning for science education, BMA showed a relatively lower effect size (g = .146) than for other disciplines (i.e., Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics). In science education, many scholars have engaged in debates on the proper instructional design, the characteristics of scaffolding, and curriculum, and this led to an inconsistency in scaffolding design among science education researchers (Lin et al 2012). For example, some scholars insisted that science education in PBL requires students' advanced scientific inquiry and higher-order thinking skills (Hoidn and Kärkkäinen 2014), but Zohar and Barzilai (2013) claimed that students' identification of what should be considered for problem-solving by understanding of content knowledge in science education should take precedence over enhancing higher-order thinking skills.…”

Conclusion

“…Indeed, some scholars suggested that interventions that do not include fading cannot be called scaffolding (Pea, 2004;Puntambekar & Hübscher, 2005). The count of outcomes in which scaffolding was faded or added versus when scaffolding was neither added nor faded indicated that the majority of outcomes were associated with no fading or adding (64.9 %), which is consistent with prior research (Lin et al, 2012;Pea, 2004;Puntambekar & Hüb-scher, 2005). But the meta-analysis suggests that scaffold customization does not influence cognitive outcomes.…”

Interactions in vocational education: negotiation of meaning of students and teaching strategies

“…explicating critical or controversial positions) to reveal students' personal knowledge addressing a specific subject Beishuizen 2010, 2011;Wittwer and Renkl 2008). Students respond and show a degree of understanding, giving the teacher indications about what students know and think (Lin et al 2012;Ruiz-Primo and Furtak 2007). Aarkrog (2005) shows that it is difficult for students to learn from the expertise of their teachers since they have to personalize it.…”