A REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ON SCAFFOLDING FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION

Springer Science and Business Media LLC - Tập 10 Số 2 - Trang 437-455 - 2012
Tzu‐Chiang Lin1, Ying‐Shao Hsu2, Shu-Sheng Lin3, Maio-Li Changlai4, Kun Yang5, Ting-Ling Lai6
1Department of Life Science, National Taiwan Normal University, 88, Section 4 Ting-Chou road, Taipei, 116, Taiwan
2Graduate Institute of Science Education and Department of Earth Sciences, National Taiwan Normal University, 88, Section 4 Ting-Chou road, Taipei, 116, Taiwan
3Graduate Institute of Science Education, National Chiayi University, Chiayi, Taiwan
4The Center of General Education, Chung Kuo Institute of Technology, Taipei, Taiwan
5Graduate Institute of Education and Center for Teacher Education, Chung Yuan Christian University, Jhongli, Taiwan
6Department of Educational Technology, Tamkang University, New Taipei, Taiwan

Tóm tắt

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G. & Seibert, D. (2004). Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students’ ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(3), 344–370.

Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., Winters, F. I., Moos, D. C. & Greene, J. A. (2005). Adaptive human scaffolding facilitates adolescents’ self-regulated learning with hypermedia. Instructional Science, 33(5–6), 381–412.

Berk, R. A. (1995). Something old, something new, something borrowed, a lot to do! Applied Measurement in Education, 8(1), 99–109.

Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T. & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73(2), 125–230.

Chou, C. & Tsai, C.-C. (2002). Developing web-based curricula: Issues and challenges. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34(6), 623–636.

Clark, D. B. & Sampson, V. T. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253–277.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S. & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dabbagh, N. & Kitsantas, A. (2005). Using web-based pedagogical tools as scaffolds for self-regulated learning. Instructional Science, 33(5–6), 513–540.

Davis, E. A. & Miyake, N. (2004). Explorations of scaffolding in complex classroom systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 265–272.

Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.

Hadwin, A. F., Wozney, L. & Pontin, O. (2005). Scaffolding the appropriation of self-regulatory activity: A socio-cultural analysis of changes in teacher–student discourse about a graduate research portfolio. Instructional Science, 33(5–6), 413–450.

Hannifin, M. J., Land, S. M. & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 115–140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hill, J. & Hannafin, M. J. (2001). Teaching and learning in digital environments: The resurgence of resource-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3), 37–52.

Holliday, W. G. (2005). A balanced approach to science inquiry teaching. In N. G. Lederman & L. B. Flick (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 201–217). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Hsu, Y.-S., Wu, H.-K. & Hwang, F.-K. (2008). Fostering high school students’ conceptual understandings about seasons: The design of a technology-enhanced learning environment. Research in Science Education, 38(2), 127–147.

Jensen, E. (2000). Brain-based learning: A reality check. Educational Leadership, 57(7), 76–80.

Kunpfer, N. & McLellan, H. (1996). Descriptive research methodologies. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 1196–1212). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Land, S. M. (2000). Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 61–78.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lee, M.-H., Wu, Y.-T. & Tsai, C.-C. (2009). Research trends in science education from 2003 to 2007: A content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 31(15), 1999–2020.

McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J. S. & 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.

National Association for Research in Science Teaching (2009). NARST strand descriptions. Reston, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.narst.org/about/strands.cfm

Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451.

Puntambekar, S. & Hubscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1–12.

Puntambekar, S. & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185–217.

Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J. S., Fretz, E., Duncan, R., et al (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.

Quintana, C., Zhang, M. & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). A framework for supporting metacognitive aspects of online inquiry through software-based scaffolding. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 235–244.

Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Rømer, T. A. (2002). Situated learning and assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(3), 233–241.

Rossman, G. B. & Yore, L. D. (2009). Stitching the pieces together to reveal the generalized patterns: Systematic research reviews, secondary reanalyses, case-to-case comparisons, and metasyntheses of qualitative research studies. In M. C. Shelley II, L. D. Yore & B. Hand (Eds.), Quality research in literacy and science education: International perspectives and gold standards (pp. 575–601). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Sandoval, W. A. & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345–372.

Singer, J., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S. & Chambers, J. C. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 165–178.

Sins, P. H. M., Savelsbergh, E. R. & van Joolingen, W. R. (2005). The difficult process of scientific modelling: An analysis of novices’ reasoning during computer-based modelling. International Journal of Science Education, 27(14), 1695–1721.

Stone, C. A. (1993). What is missing in the metaphor of scaffolding? In E. Forman, N. Minick & C. Stone (Eds.), Context for leaning: Sociocultural dynamics in children’s development (pp. 169–183). New York: Oxford University Press.

Stone, C. A. (1998a). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 344–364.

Stone, C. A. (1998b). Should we salvage the scaffolding metaphor? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 409–413.

Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305–335.

Tsai, C.-C. & Wen, M. L. (2005). Research and trends in science education from 1998 to 2002: A content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 27(1), 3–14.

van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D. & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137–158.

Wertsch, J., Mcnamee, G., McLare, J. & Budwig, N. (1980). The adult–child dyad as a problem solving system. Child Development, 51(4), 1215–1221.

Wood, D., Bruner, J. S. & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 17(2), 89–100.

Wu, H.-K. (2003). Linking the microscopic view of chemistry to real-life experiences: Intertextuality in a high-school science classroom. Science Education, 87(6), 868–891.

Yore, L. D. & Lerman, S. (2008). Metasyntheses of qualitative research studies in mathematics and science education [Editorial]. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(2), 217–223.