Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Design Model of Distributed Scaffolding for Inquiry-Based Learning

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study presents a series of three experiments that focus on how distributed scaffolding influences learners’ conceptual understanding and reasoning from combined levels of triangulation, at the interactive level (discourses within a focus group) and the collective level (class). Three inquiry lessons on plate tectonics (LPT) were designed, implemented and redesigned to explore how students responded to the scaffoldings provided. The results show that the goal-oriented version (LPT3) was significantly more effective at helping students develop an understanding of plate tectonics and evidence-based reasoning than the teacher-led (LPT1) and deconstructed (LPT2) versions (χ 2 = 11.56, p < 0.003). In LPT3, we can identify three key features of the scaffolding: an advanced organizer, deconstruction of complex tasks, and reflection on the whole inquiry cycle at the end of class time. In addition, LPT3 took much less teaching time. In other words, it appears to be effective and efficient, most likely due to synergies between teacher facilitation and lesson scaffolds. The empirical results clarify the functions of the design model proposed for distributed scaffolding: navigating inquiry, structuring tasks, supporting communication, and fostering reflection. Future studies should more closely evaluate the scaffolding system as a whole and synergies between different types of scaffolds for advancing learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of history of science courses on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1057–1095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akindehin, F. (1998). Effect of an instructional package on preservice science teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and acquisition of science-related attitudes. Science Education, 72(1), 73–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ault, C. R., Jr. (1984). The everyday perspective and exceedingly unobvious meaning. Journal of Geological Education, 32, 89–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., Moos, D. C., Johnson, A. M., & Chauncey, A. D. (2010). Measuring cognitive and metacognitive regulatory process during hypermedia learning: issues and challenges. Educational Psychologist, 45(4), 201–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a science apprenticeship program on high school students’ understandings of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 487–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakaguwa, K., Gordon, A., & Campione, J. C. (1993). Distributed expertise in the classroom. In G. Saloman (Ed.), Distributed cognition: psychological and educational considerations (pp. 188–228). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. S. (1961). The art of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31, 21–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. W. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. H. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 20–46). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. W. (2006). Scientific inquiry and science teaching. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science: implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 1–14). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, I., Land, S. M., & Turgeon, A. J. (2005). Scaffolding peer-questioning strategies to facilitate metacognition during online small group discussion. Instructional Science, 33(5–6), 483–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, F. (1998). Qualitative research methods for science education. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds)., International handbook of science education (pp. 1155–1173). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • Flick, L. B., & Lederman, N. G. (Eds.). (2006). Scientific inquiry and nature of science: implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, B., & Taylor, M. (2006). Investigating students’ ideas about plate tectonics. Science Scope, 30(1), 38–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fretz, E. B., Wu, H.-K., Zhang, B.-H., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2002). An investigation of software scaffolds supporting modeling practices. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 567–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, J. J. (1991). Prospective and practicing secondary school science teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about the philosophy of science. Science Education, 75, 121–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Germann, P. J., Haskins, S., & Auls, S. (1996). Analysis of nine high school biology laboratory manuals: promoting scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(5), 475–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gobert, J. D. (2000). A typology of causal models for plate tectonics: inferential power and barriers to understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 937–977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gobert, J. D., & Clement, J. J. (1999). Effects of student-generated diagrams versus student-generated summaries on conceptual understanding of causal and dynamic knowledge in plate tectonics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 39–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzial, M. (1993, April). Technological support for science learners programming in multiple media. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.

  • Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (1999). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 379–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holliday, W. G. (2001). Critically considering science inquiry. Science Scope, 24(7), 54–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holliday, W. G. (2006). A balanced approach to science inquiry teaching. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science: implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 201–218). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, Y. S. (2004). Using the internet to develop students’ capacity for scientific inquiry. Journal of Educational Computing Research¸31(2), 137–161.

  • Hsu, Y.-S. (2008). Learning about seasons in a technologically enhanced environment: The impact of teacher-guided and student-centered instructional approaches on the process of students’ conceptual change. Science Education, 92(2), 320–344.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998a). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3–4), 313–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J., Czerniak, C. M., & Berger, C. F. (1998b). Teaching children science: a project-based approach. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Learning-goals-driven design model: developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (2006). Syntax of nature of science within inquiry and science instruction. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science: implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 301–318). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. (2000). Designing the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 781–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C., Lee, H. S., Tinker, R., Husic, F., & Chiu, J. L. (2006). Teaching and assessing knowledge integration. Science, 313, 1049–1050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marques, L., & Thompson, D. (1997). Misconceptions and conceptual changes concerning continental drift and plate tectonics among Portuguese students aged 16-17. Research in Science and Technological Education, 15(2), 195–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Synergy between teacher practices and curricular scaffolds to support students in using domain-specific and domain-general knowledge in writing arguments to explain phenomena. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(3), 416–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education, Government of Taiwan. (1996). General guidelines of grades 1-9 curriculum. Taipei, Taiwan: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education, Government of Taiwan. (2008). General guidelines of grades 10-12 curriculum. Taipei, Taiwan: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction—what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Keeping the metaphor of scaffolding fresh: a response to C. Addison Stone’s “The metaphor of scaffolding: its utility for the field of learning disabilities”. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 370–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pifarre, M., & Cobos, R. (2010). Promoting metacognitive skills through peer scaffolding in a CSCL environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(2), 237–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puntambekar, S., Stylianou, A., & Goldstein, J. (2007). Comparing classroom enactments of an inquiry curriculum: lessons learned from two teachers. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(1), 81–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quintana, C., Eng, J., Carra, A., Wu, H., & Soloway, E. (1999) Symphony: A Case Study in Extending Learner-Centered Design Through Process Space Analysis. Proceedings of CHI ’99 (Pittsburgh, May) ACM Press.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radinsky, J., Loh, B., Mundt, J., Marshall, S., Gomez, L. M., Reiser, B. J., & Edelson, D. C. (1999, April). Problematizing complex datasets for students: design principles for inquiry curriculum. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Researchers Association, Montreal, Canada.

  • Reid, D. K. (1998). Scaffolding: a broader view. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 386–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rundgren, C.-J., Chang Rundgren, S. N., Tseng, Y.-H., Lin, P.-L., & Chang, C.-Y. (2012). Are you SLiM?—the development of an instrument for civic scientific literacy measurement (SLiM) based on media coverage. Public Understanding of Science, 21(6), 759–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, B. L. (1996). A case study of change in elementary student teacher thinking during an independent investigation in science: learning about the “Face of science that does not yet know”. Science Education, 80, 535–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherin, B., Edelson, D. C., & Brown, M. (2006). On the content of task-structured science curricula. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science: implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 221–248). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snir, J., & Smith, C. (1995). Constructing understanding in the science classroom: integrating laboratory experiments, student and computer models, and class discussion in learning scientific concepts. In D. N. Perkins, J. L. Schwartz, M. M. West, & M. S. Wiske (Eds.), Software goes to school: teaching for understanding with new technologies (pp. 228–254). New York, NY: Oxford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steffe, L., & Gale, J. (Eds.). (1995). Constructivism in education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: a complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, X., Coffey, J. E., Elby, A., & Levin, D. M. (2010). The scientific methods and scientific inquiry: tensions in teaching and learning. Science Education, 94, 29–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trumbull, B. J. (2005). Developing materials to promote inquiry: lessons learned. Science Education, 89, 879–900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuzien, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: a decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 271–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Joolingen, W. R., de Jong, T., & Dimitrakopoulos, A. (2007). Issues in computer supported inquiry learning in science. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 111–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, B. Y. (1993). Thinker tools: causal models, conceptual change, and science education. Cognition and Instruction, 10(1), 1–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M. (2001). Independent inquiry projects for pre-service science teachers: their capacity to reflect on the experience and to integrate inquiry into their own teaching. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

  • Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of “inquiry”: how preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of a theoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 481–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, H. K., & Hsieh, C. E. (2006). Developing sixth graders’ inquiry skills to construct explanations in inquiry learning environments. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1289–1313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeh, Y.-F., Jen, T.-H., & Hsu, Y.-S. (2012). Major strands in scientific inquiry through cluster analysis of research abstracts. International Journal of Science Education, 34(18), 2811–2842.

  • Yore, L. D., Henriques, L., Crawford, B., Smith, L., Gomez-Zwiep, S., & Tillotson, J. (2008). Selecting and using inquiry approaches to teach science: the influence of context in elementary, middle, and secondary schools. In E. Abrams, S. Southerland, & P. Silva (Eds.), Inquiry in the classroom: realities and opportunities (pp. 39–87). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study is based on the work supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, R.O.C. under Grant No. NSC 98-2511-S-003-055 and by the Aim for the Top University Project at the National Taiwan Normal University. The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Prof. Larry Dean Yore and his wife, Sharyl Yore.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate Institute of Science Education, National Taiwan Normal University, No. 88, Sec. 4, Ting-Chou Rd., Wunshan District, Taipei, Taiwan, 11677, Republic of China

    Ying-Shao Hsu

  2. Department of Educational Technology, Tamkang University, New Taipei City, Taiwan, Republic of China

    Ting-Ling Lai

  3. Department of Earth Sciences, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China

    Wei-Hsiu Hsu

Authors
  1. Ying-Shao Hsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ting-Ling Lai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wei-Hsiu Hsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ying-Shao Hsu.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Table 4 Descriptions of the learning tasks, scaffolding designs from DMDS, and teaching practices
Full size table

Appendix 2

Sample questions in the three versions of LPT

A. Sample questions in LPT1 and LPT2

figure a

B. Advanced organizer and sample questions in LPT3

figure b

Appendix 3

Types of supports from distributed scaffolding and student performances in LPT1 and LPT2

figure c

Appendix 3 (continued)

Actual supports from distributed scaffolding in LPT1 and LPT2 over time

figure d

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hsu, YS., Lai, TL. & Hsu, WH. A Design Model of Distributed Scaffolding for Inquiry-Based Learning. Res Sci Educ 45, 241–273 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9421-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9421-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation