Advertisement

An Examination of Credit Recovery Students’ Use of Computer-Based Scaffolding in a Problem-Based, Scientific Inquiry Unit

  • Brian R. Belland
  • D. Mark Weiss
  • Nam Ju Kim
  • Jacob Piland
  • Jiangyue Gu
Article

Abstract

In this study, we investigated how high school credit recovery students worked in small groups and used computer-based scaffolds to conduct scientific inquiry in a problem-based learning unit centered on water quality. We examined how students searched for and evaluated information from different sources, and used evidence to support their claims. Data sources included screen recordings, interviews, scaffold trace data, and scaffold entry quality ratings. Findings indicate that many students struggled to use the scaffolding and did not fully respond to scaffold prompts. Collaboration within small groups was often inhibited by frequent absences, struggles using the scaffolding, desires to complete tasks quickly rather than thoroughly, and an expectation that the group leader address the questions. However, many groups followed the scientific inquiry process prompted by the scaffolding, and support for collaboration within the scaffolds led students to negotiate the meaning of water quality data, and this in turn led students to see water quality as a complex, rather than a binary, construct.

Keywords

Argumentation Credit recovery High school Scaffolding Science education 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Any opinions, findings, or conclusions are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent official positions of NSF.

Funding Information

This research was supported by Early CAREER Grant 0953046 awarded to the first author by the National Science Foundation (USA).

References

  1. Belland, B. R., Ertmer, P. A., & Simons, K. D. (2006). Perceptions of the value of problem-based learning among students with special needs and their teachers. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(2), 1–18.  https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1024.
  2. Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., & Ertmer, P. A. (2009). Inclusion and problem-based learning: Roles of students in a mixed-ability group. Research on Middle Level Education, 32(9), 1–19. Google Scholar
  3. Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., & Richardson, J. C. (2011). Problem-based learning and argumentation: Testing a scaffolding framework to support middle school students’ creation of evidence-based arguments. Instructional Science, 39, 667–694.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9148-z.
  4. Belland, B. R., Kim, C., & Hannafin, M. (2013). A framework for designing scaffolds that improve motivation and cognition. Educational Psychologist, 48, 243–270.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.838920
  5. Belland, B. R., Walker, A. E., & Kim, N. J. (2017). A Bayesian network meta-analysis to synthesize the influence of contexts of scaffolding use on cognitive outcomes in STEM education. Review of Educational Research, 87(6), 1042–1081.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317723009.
  6. Belland, B. R., Walker, A. E., Kim, N. J., & Lefler, M. (2017). Synthesizing results from empirical research on computer-based scaffolding in STEM education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 309–344.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316670999
  7. Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Bransford, J. D., Stein, B. S., Vye, N. J., Franks, J. J., Auble, P. M., Mezynski, K. J., & Perfetto, G. A. (1982). Differences in approaches to learning: An overview. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111(4), 390–398.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.111.4.390.Google Scholar
  9. Britt, M. A., Richter, T., & Rouet, J.-F. (2014). Scientific literacy: The role of goal-directed reading and evaluation in understanding scientific information. Educational Psychologist, 49, 104–122.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.916217.Google Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. Carr, S. (2014). Credit recovery hits the mainstream. Education Next, 14(3), 30–36.Google Scholar
  12. Chinn, C., Buckland, L., & Samarapungavan, A. (2011). Expanding the dimensions of epistemic cognition: Arguments from philosophy and psychology. Educational Psychologist, 46, 141–167.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.587722.Google Scholar
  13. Chinn, C., Duncan, R., Dianovsky, M., & Rinehart, R. (2013). Promoting conceptual change through inquiry. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 539–559). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  14. Dessoff, A. (2009). Reaching graduation with credit recovery. District Administration, 45(9), 43–48.Google Scholar
  15. Dods, R. F. (1997). An action research study of the effectiveness of problem-based learning in promoting the acquisition and retention of knowledge. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20(4), 423–437.Google Scholar
  16. Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Loyens, S. M. M., Marcq, H., & Gijbels, D. (2016). Deep and surface learning in problem-based learning: A review of the literature. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 21(5), 1087–1112.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-015-9645-6.Google Scholar
  17. Drew, S. V. (2012). Open up the ceiling on the common core state standards: Preparing students for 21st-century literacy—now. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56, 321–330.  https://doi.org/10.1002/JAAL.00145.Google Scholar
  18. Evensen, D. H., Salisbury-Glennon, J. D., & Glenn, J. (2001). A qualitative study of six medical students in a problem-based curriculum: Toward a situated model of self-regulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 659–676.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.4.659.Google Scholar
  19. Fawcett, L. M., & Garton, A. F. (2005). The effect of peer collaboration on children’s problem-solving ability. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(2), 157–169.  https://doi.org/10.1348/000709904X23411.Google Scholar
  20. Ford, M. J. (2015). Educational implications of choosing “practice” to describe science in the Next Generation Science Standards. Science Education, 99(6), 1041–1048.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21188.Google Scholar
  21. Gallagher, S. A., & Stepien, W. J. (1996). Content acquisition in problem-based learning: Depth versus breadth in American studies. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19(3), 257–275.Google Scholar
  22. Gelman, A. (2004). Exploratory data analysis for complex models. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 13(4), 755–779.  https://doi.org/10.1198/106186004X11435.Google Scholar
  23. Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., Van den Bossche, P., & Segers, M. (2005). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis from the angle of assessment. Review of Educational Research, 75, 27–61.  https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075001027.Google Scholar
  24. Goldman, S. R., Braasch, J. L. G., Wiley, J., Graesser, A. C., & Brodowinska, K. (2012). Comprehending and learning from internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(4), 356–381.  https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.027.Google Scholar
  25. Greiff, S., Wüstenberg, S., Csapó, B., Demetriou, A., Hautamäki, J., Graesser, A. C., & Martin, R. (2014). Domain-general problem solving skills and education in the 21st century. Educational Research Review, 13, 74–83.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.10.002.Google Scholar
  26. Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open-ended learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: Volume II: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 115–140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  27. Heppen, J. B., Sorensen, N., Allensworth, E., Walters, K., Rickles, J., Taylor, S. S., & Michelman, V. (2016). The struggle to pass algebra: Online vs. face-to-face credit recovery for at-risk urban students. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2016.1168500.
  28. Hmelo, C., & Ferrari, M. (1997). The problem-based learning tutorial: Cultivating higher order thinking skills. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20(4), 401–422.Google Scholar
  29. Hmelo-Silver, C. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16, 235–266.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3.Google Scholar
  30. Hmelo-Silver, C., & Barrows, H. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cognition and Instruction, 26, 48–94.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000701798495.Google Scholar
  31. Jackson, A., & Davis, G. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.Google Scholar
  32. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.Google Scholar
  33. Kelson, A., & Distlehorst, L. (2000). Groups in problem-based learning (PBL): Essential elements in theory and practice. In D. H. Evensen & C. E. Hmelo (Eds.), Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions (pp. 167–184). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Kim, H. S., Prevost, L., & Lemons, P. P. (2015). Students’ usability evaluation of a web-based tutorial program for college biology problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(4), 362–377.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12102.Google Scholar
  35. Kim, J., & Lee, W. (2013). Meanings of criteria and norms: Analyses and comparisons of ict literacy competencies of middle school students. Computers & Education, 64, 81–94.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.018.Google Scholar
  36. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration scripts—a conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18(2), 159–185.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9007-2.Google Scholar
  37. Krajcik, J., Codere, S., Dahsah, C., Bayer, R., & Mun, K. (2014). Planning instruction to meet the intent of the Next Generation Science Standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 157–175.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9383-2.Google Scholar
  38. Kuiper, E., Volman, M., & Terwel, J. (2005). The web as an information resource in K–12 education: Strategies for supporting students in searching and processing information. Review of Educational Research, 75, 285–328.  https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075003285.Google Scholar
  39. Lee, O. (2017). Common core state standards for ELA/literacy and next generation science standards. Educational Researcher, 46(2), 90–102.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17699172.Google Scholar
  40. Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Pihlajamäki, H., & Kotkas, T. (2003). What makes a student group successful? Student-student and student-teacher interaction in a problem-based learning environment. Learning Environments Research, 6, 59–76.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022963826128.Google Scholar
  41. Mason, L., Boldrin, A., & Ariasi, N. (2010). Epistemic metacognition in context: Evaluating and learning online information. Metacognition & Learning, 5(1), 67–90.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-009-9048-2.Google Scholar
  42. Mason, L., & Scirica, F. (2006). Prediction of students’ argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding. Learning and Instruction, 16, 492–509.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.09.007.Google Scholar
  43. McLaughlin, M., & Overturf, B. J. (2012). The common core: Insights into the K–5 standards. The Reading Teacher, 66, 153–164.  https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.01115.Google Scholar
  44. Milbourne, J., & Wiebe, E. (2017). The role of content knowledge in ill-structured problem solving for high school physics students. Research in Science Education, 1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9564-4.
  45. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  46. Nash, A. N., Muczyk, J. P., & Vettori, F. L. (1971). The relative practical effectiveness of programmed instruction. Personnel Psychology, 24(3), 397–418.Google Scholar
  47. Oliver, K., & Hannafin, M. J. (2000). Student management of web-based hypermedia resources during open-ended problem solving. Journal of Educational Research, 94, 75–92.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670009598746.Google Scholar
  48. Picciano, A. G., Seaman, J., Shea, P., & Swan, K. (2012). Examining the extent and nature of online learning in American K-12 education: The research initiatives of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 127–135.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.07.004.Google Scholar
  49. Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common Core standards: The new U.S. intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 103–116.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11405038.Google Scholar
  50. Pourshanazari, A. A., Roohbakhsh, A., Khazaei, M., & Tajadini, H. (2013). Comparing the long-term retention of a physiology course for medical students with the traditional and problem-based learning. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 18(1), 91–97.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-012-9357-0.Google Scholar
  51. Reiser, B. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 273–304.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_2.Google Scholar
  52. Roderick, M., & Camburn, E. (1999). Risk and recovery from course failure in the early years of high school. American Educational Research Journal, 36(2), 303–343.  https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312036002303.Google Scholar
  53. Savery, J. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 9–20.  https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1002.Google Scholar
  54. Schnotz, W., & Heiß, A. (2009). Semantic scaffolds in hypermedia learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 371–380.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.016.Google Scholar
  55. Stake, R. E. (1978). The case study method in social inquiry. Educational Researcher, 7(2), 5–8.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X007002005.Google Scholar
  56. Strobel, J., & van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(1), 44–58.  https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1046.Google Scholar
  57. Torp, L., & Sage, S. (1998). Problems as possibilities: Problem-based learning for K-12 education. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Google Scholar
  58. Tyler, J. H., & Lofstrom, M. (2009). Finishing high school: Alternative pathways and dropout recovery. The Future of Children, 19(1), 77–103.  https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.0.0019.Google Scholar
  59. van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 271–296.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6.Google Scholar
  60. Walker, A. E., & Leary, H. (2009). A problem based learning meta analysis: Differences across problem types, implementation types, disciplines, and assessment levels. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(1), 12–43.  https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1061.Google Scholar
  61. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.  https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015.Google Scholar
  62. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x.Google Scholar
  63. Yin, R. K. (2015). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Instructional Technology and Learning SciencesUtah State UniversityLoganUSA

Personalised recommendations