Abstract
In this study, we examined how learners developed scientific explanations about light with the assistance of various technology-based scaffolds. The study emphasis was on scaffolding processes of reflection and articulation. We used a content-neutral software program (Progress Portfolio) to create the instructional scaffolds. A qualitative research design was used to investigate two pairs of prospective teachers in a science content course in engineering. Our findings suggested that the computer-based scaffolds used in our study were useful to support articulation, reflection, and revision of explanations, when certain conditions were met. A major theme of our findings relates to interacting effects among learner characteristics, teacher coaching, software scaffolding design, and task characteristics.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bell, P. (1997). Using argument representations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.)Proceedings of CSCL 97: The second international conference on computer support for collaborative learning, (10–19). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Blumenfeld, P.C., Soloway, E., Marx, R.W., Krajcik, J.S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning.Educational Psychologist, 26, 369–398.
Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (2000).How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings.The Journal of Learning Sciences, 2, 141–178.
Chi, M., Bassok, M., Lewis, M., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems.Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.
Davis, E., & Linn, M. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE.International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819–837.
Garner R., & Alexander, P.A. (1989). Metacognition: Answered and unanswered questions.Educational Psychologist, 24, 143–158.
Ge, X., & Land, S.M. (2003). Scaffolding students’ problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions.Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 21–38.
Greene, B.A. (1995). Comprehension of text in an unfamiliar domain: Effects of instruction that provides either domain or strategy knowledge.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 313–319.
Greene, B.A., & Land, S.M. (2000). A qualitative analysis of scaffolding use in a resource-based learning environment involving the World Wide Web.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(2), 151–180.
Hannafin, M., Hall, C., Land, S., & Hill, J. (1994). Learning in open-ended environments: Assumptions, methods, and implications.Educational Technology, 34(8), 48–55.
Hannafin, M.J., & Land, S.M. (2000). Technology and student-centered learning in higher education: Issues and practices.Journal of Computing in Higher Education 12(1), 3–30.
Hill, J.R., & Hannafin, M.J. (1997). Cognitive strategies and learning from the World Wide Web.Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(4), 37–64.
King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain.American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 338–368.
King, A., & Rosenshine, B. (1993). Effect of guided cooperative questioning on children’s knowledge construction.Journal of Experimental Education, 61(2), 127–148.
Lajoie, S.P., Lavigne, N.C., Guerrera, C., & Munsie, S.D. (2001). Constructing knowledge in the context of BioWorld.Instructional Science, 29(2), 155–186.
Land, S.M. (2000). Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environments.Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 61–78.
Land, S.M., & Greene, B.A. (2000). Project-based learning with the WWW: A qualitative study of resource integration.Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(1), 45–66.
Lin, X., Hmelo, C., Kinzer, C., & Secules, T. (1999). Designing technology to support reflection.Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(3), 43–62.
Lin, X., & Lehman, J. (1999). Supporting learning of variable control in a computer-based biology environment: Effects of prompting college students to reflect on their own thinking.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 837–858.
Linn, M. (2000). Designing the knowledge integration environment.International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 781–796.
Loh, B., Radinsky, J., Reiser, B.J., Gomez, L.M., Edelson, D.C., & Russell, E. (1997). The Progress Portfolio: Promoting reflective inquiry in complex investigation environments. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.),Proceedings of computer supported collaborative learning ’97. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Loh, B., Radinsky, J., Russell, E., Gomez, L.M., Reiser, B.J., & Edelson, D.C. (1998). The Progress Portfolio: Designing reflective tools for a classroom context. InProceedings of CHI 98 (pp. 627–634). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Merriam, S. (1988).Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Oliver, K., & Hannafin, M. (2001). Developing and refining mental models in open-ended learning environments: A case study.Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(4), 5–32.
O’Malley, C., & Scanlon, E. (1990). Computer-supported collaborative learning: Problem solving and distance education.Computer in Education, 15(1–3), 127–136.
Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities,Cognition and Instruction, 2, 117–175.
Piaget, J. (1976).The grasp of consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Quintana, C., Reiser, B., & Davis, B. (2002, April).Design guidelines for software scaffolds: “The big table.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Salomon, G., Globerson, T., & Guterman, E. (1989). The computer as a zone of proximal development: Internalizing reading-related metacognitions from a reading partner.Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4), 620–627.
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLean, R., Swallow, J., & Woodruff, E. (1989). Computer-supported intentional learning environments.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5(1), 51–68.
Schwartz, D., Lin, X., Brophy, S., & Bransford, J. (1999). Toward the development of flexibly adaptive instructional designs (pp. 183–213). In C. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, Volume II.
Stake, R.E. (1995).The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Webb, N.M., & Palincsar, A.S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee (Eds.),Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841–873). New York: Macmillan.
Yin, R. (1994).Case Study Research (2nd ed). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under NSF REC 9980055, which was granted to the second author. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. The authors would like to acknowledge Joe Taylor for his role in the design and implementation of the study.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Land, S.M., Zembal-Saul, C. Scaffolding reflection and articulation of scientific explanations in a data-rich, project-based learning environment: An investigation of progress portfolio. ETR&D 51, 65–84 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504544
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504544