Effects of scaffolds and scientific reasoning ability on web-based scientific inquiry

Year 2016, Volume: 3 Issue: 1, 12 - 24, 01.06.2016

Hsiao-Ching She Hui-Ling Wu Hsiao-Lan Weng

Abstract

This study examined how background knowledge, scientific reasoning ability, and various scaffolding forms influenced students’ science knowledge and scientific inquiry achievements. The students participated in an online scientific inquiry program involving such activities as generating scientific questions and drawing evidence-based conclusions, while being scaffolded either directly or indirectly. Results indicated that student knowledge and scientific reasoning can predict scientific inquiry ability development. Only scientific reasoning has a significant effect on student comprehension. Level of scientific reasoning and types of scaffolding significantly influenced students’ scientific inquiry abilities. In particular, prior reasoning skills significantly affected how they identified variables and made conclusions in both post- and retention tests. Students who used the online program benefitted from direct scaffolding, which helped them make hypotheses and draw conclusions better than indirect scaffolding. Direct scaffolding was especially useful for students with high prior reasoning skills. Students with high prior reason skills who used direct scaffolding were better able to make hypotheses and draw conclusions.

Keywords

Scaffolding, Direct and indirect scaffolding; Scientific inquiry; scientific reasoning; Web-based learning

References

• Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N.G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A.,et al. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397–419
• Arnold, J. C., Kremer, K. & Mayer, J. (2014). Understanding students’ experiments: What kind of support do they need in inquiry tasks? International Journal of Science Education, 36(16), 2719-2749.
• Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (2015). Science. Retrieved September 8, 2015 from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/science/rationale
• Azevedo, R., Winters, F., & Moos, D. (2004). Can students collaboratively use hypermedia to learn science? The dynamics of self- and other- regulatory processes in an ecology classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(3), 215-245.
• Bransford, J. Brown, A. & Cocking, R. (1999). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
• Brush, T. & Saye, J. (2001). The use of embedded scaffolds with hypermedia-supported student-centered learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10(4), 333-356.
• Cavallo, A. (1996). Meaningful learning, reasoning ability, and students’ understanding and problem solving of topics in genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(6), 625-656.
• Chang, C. Y. (2010). Does problem solving = prior knowledge + reasoning skills in earth science? An exploratory study. Research in Science Education, 40(2), 103-116.
• Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of the control of variables strategy. Child development, 70(5), 1098-1120.
• Chin, C. (2002). Student-generated questions: encouraging inquisitive minds in learning. Teaching and Learning, 23(1), 59-67.
• Chin, C. & Osborne, J. (2008). Students’ questions: A potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1-39.
• Cuccio‐Schirripa, S., & Steiner, H. E. (2000). Enhancement and analysis of science question level for middle school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 210-224.
• Cuevas, P., Lee, O., Hart, J., & Deaktor, R. (2005). Improving science inquiry with elementary students of diverse backgrounds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 337-357.
• de Jong, T. (2006). Scaffolds for scientific discovery learning. In J. Elen & R. Clark’s (Eds), Handling complexity in learning environments: research and theory (pp.107-128). UK: Elsevier Science Ltd.
• Elliot, K. & Paige, K. (2010). Middle year students talk: Science sux or science rock! Teaching Science, 56(1), 13-16.
• Gerber, B. L., Cavallo, A. M., & Marek, E. A. (2001). Relationships among informal learning environments, teaching procedures and scientific reasoning ability. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 535-549.
• Germann, P. (1985). Directed-inquiry approach to learning science process skills: Treatment effects and aptitude-treatment interactions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(3), 237-250.
• Grandy, R., & Duschl, R. A. (2007). Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: Analysis of a conference. Science and Education, 16(2), 141–166.
• Graesser, A. C., & Olde, B. A. (2003). How does one know whether a person understands a device? The quality of the questions the person asks when the device breaks down. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 524-536.
• Graesser, A., McNamara, D., & VanLehn, K. (2005). Scaffolding deep comprehension strategies through Point&Query, AutoTutor, and iS.TART. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 225-234
• Guisasola, J., Ceberio, M., & Zubimendi, J. L. (2006). University students' strategies for constructing hypothesis when tackling paper-and-pencil tasks in physics. Research in Science Education, 36(3), 163-186.
• Hand, B., Prain, V., Lawrence, C., & Yore, L. (1999). A writing in science framework designed to enhance literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 21(10), 1021-1035.
• Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In Reigeluth, C. (Ed.) Instructional Design Theories and Models (Vol. II). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Hmelo-Silver, C. & Azevedo, R. (2006). Understanding complex systems: Some core challenges. The Journal of the Learning Science, 15(1), 53-61.
• Jiang, F. & McComas, W. (2015). The effects of inquiry teaching on student science achievement and attitudes: Evidence from propensity score analysis of PISA data. International Journal of Science Education, 37(3), 554-576.
• Johnson, M. A., & Lawson, A. E. (1998). What are the relative effects of reasoning ability and prior knowledge on biology achievement in expository and inquiry classes? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(1), 89-103.
• Kanari, Z. & Millar, R. (2004). Reasoning from data: How students collect and interpret data in science investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(7), 748-769.
• Kaya, S. (2015). The effect of the type of achievement grouping on students’ question generation in science. The Australian Educational Researcher, 42(4), 429-411.
• Keys, C. W. (1998). A study of grade six students generating questions and plans for open-ended science investigations. Research in Science Education, 28(3), 301-316.
• Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
• Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3-4), 313-350.
• Lajoie, S. P., Guerrera, C., Munsie, S. D., & Lavigne, N. C. (2001). Constructing knowledge in the context of BioWorld. Instructional Science, 29(2), 155-186.
• Lawson, A.E., Abraham, M.R., & Renner, J.W. (1989). A theory of instruction: Using the learning cycle to teach science concepts and thinking skills. (NARST Monograph No. 1).
• Lawson, A. E., Alkhoury, S., Benford, R., Clark, B.R., & Falconer, K.A. (2000). What kinds of scientific concepts exist? Concept construction and intellectual development in college biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 996-1018.
• Lawson, A. E. (1999). A scientific approach to teaching about evolution & special creation. The American Biology Teacher, 61(4), 266-274.
• Lawson, A.E. (2003). Allchin’s shoehorn, or why science is hypothetico-deductive. Science & Education, 12(3), 331–337.
• Lawson, A. E. (2005). What is the role of induction and deduction in reasoning and scientific inquiry? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 716-740.
• Lawson, A., Banks, D., & Logvin, M. (2007). Self-efficacy, reasoning ability, and achievement in college biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 706-724.
• Liao, Y. W. & She, H. C. (2009). Enhancing eight grade students’ scientific conceptual change and scientific reasoning through a web-based learning program. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 228-240.
• Lorch Jr, R. F., Lorch, E. P., Calderhead, W. J., Dunlap, E. E., Hodell, E. C., & Freer, B. D. (2010). Learning the control of variables strategy in higher and lower achieving classrooms: Contributions of explicit instruction and experimentation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(1), 90-101.
• Minner, D., Levy, A., Century, J. (2009). Inquiry-based science instruction: What is it and what does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496.
• National Curriculum Board (2009). The shape of the Australian curriculum: Science. Barton, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.
• National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
• National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning. National Academy Press: Washington, DC.
• Oh, P. S. (2010). How can teachers help students formulate scientific hypotheses? Some strategies found in adductive inquiry activities of earth science. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 541-560.
• Olsher, G. (1999). Biotechnologies as a context for enhancing junior high-school students' ability to ask meaningful questions about abstract biological processes. International Journal of Science Education, 21(2), 137-153.
• Quintana, C. & Fishman, B. (2006). Supporting science learning and teaching with software-based scaffolding. Paper presented in Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association. San Francisco, CA.
• Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 181–221.
• Saye, J. & Brush, T. (1999). Student engagement with social issues in a multimedia-supported learning environment. Theory and Research in Social Education, 27(4), 472-504.
• Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Duschl, R. A., Schulze, S., & John, J. (1995). Students' understanding of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. The journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 131-166.
• Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in
• an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and
• scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(4), 610–645.
• Sharma, P. & Hannafin, M. (2007). Scaffolding in technology-enhanced learning environments. Interactive Learning Environment, 15(1), 27-46.
• van Rens, L., Pilot, A., & van der Schee, J. (2010). A framework for teaching scientific inquiry in upper secondary school chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 788-806.
• Wang, L, Zhang, R., Clarke, D., & Wang, W. (2015). Enactment of scientific inquiry: Observation of two cases at different grade levels in China Mainland. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(2), 280-297.
• Wilhelm, P., Beishuizen, J. J., & van Rijn, H. (2005). Studying inquiry learning with FILE. Computers in human behavior, 21(6), 933-943.
• Williams, K. & Cavallo, A. M. L. (1995) Relationships between reasoning ability, meaningful learning and students’ understanding of physics concepts. Journal of College Science Teaching, 24(5), 311-314.
• Woods-McConney, A. Oliver, M. C., McConney, A., Schibeci, R., & Maor, D. (2014). Science engagement and literacy: A retrospective analysis for students in Canada and Australia. International Journal of Science Education, 36(10), 1588-1608.
• Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27(2), 172-223.