Title: Meets Technology Authors: Potential Areas of Future ... · The effects of multimedia-supported problem-based inquiry on student engagement, empathy, and assumptions about history

RUNNING HEAD: Where Scaffolding Meets Technology -1-

Title: Supporting Complex Problem Solving in Socioscientific Inquiry: Where Scaffolding Meets Technology

Authors: Krista Glazewski and Thomas Brush Preferred Format: On-site in Warsaw Indication of Accompanying Paper for Online Discussion: Yes Potential Areas of Future Collaboration with Faculty from UW SoE: Socioscientific Inquiry,

Problem-Based Learning, Scaffolding, Technology-Enhanced Scaffolding, Inquiry Learning, Quality and High Impact Teaching Methods, Advances in STEM Education

Abstract: The purpose of our study was to understand more about the ways in which a teacher experienced online scaffolding tools as a resource to scaffold student inquiry. We wanted to know how an instructor integrated technology- and teacher-based scaffolding practices to implement instruction with his 9th grade biology classes. Understanding more about his practice informs technology recommendations as well as the needs of teachers when involving their students in complex problem solving. In this context, our goal is to deepen our knowledge of what supports are best provided by software and what supports are best provided by the teacher to optimally facilitate meaningful problem solving.

Study Description Introduction

Socioscientific Inquiry (SSI) represents one initiative designed to target interest and knowledge in science. In SSI, students consider scientific issues that have social implications (Sadler, 2004). For example, students might address the question What should be done to ensure a safe food supply? involving targeted biology concepts: cell theory, bacteria, viruses, and systems of the human body. Extensive research conducted over the past decade supports the efficacy of SSI as a means of achieving a variety of learning outcomes including content knowledge (Klosterman & Sadler, 2010), scientific argumentation (Venville & Dawson, 2010), interest in science (Albe, 2008), reflective judgment (Zeidler et al., 2009), and ethical decision-making (Saunders & Rennie, 2013). However, engaging in SSI can be demanding for the learner, simultaneously requiring scaffolding to support learner reasoning.

Hard and Soft Scaffolding Our efforts build on two scaffolding forms to support learners’ SSI reasoning capabilities: hard and soft scaffolds (Brush & Saye, 2002; Saye & Brush, 2002). Hard scaffolds are static supports that can be anticipated in advance based upon known student difficulties with a task (Krajcik et al., 1998; Simons & Klein, 2007). Soft scaffolds are dynamic, timely aid provided by a teacher or peer. Brush and Saye (2002) emphasized need to blend hard and soft scaffolding; that is, teachers plan hard scaffolds, which afford additional time for soft scaffolding. Scaffolding Designs Given the complex nature of SSI reasoning, we designed, developed, and implemented SSI-Net, a suite of tools to streamline hard scaffolding approaches. These tools allow teachers to import any web-based resource, such as a news article, video resource, or audio file. Importable resources can include dynamic Web 2.0 tools, such as Google Forms. Within the imported resource, the teacher can embed hyperlinks and annotations by highlighting words, statements, or


paragraphs (see Figure 1). The teacher can then assemble a set of resources into an activity that also includes directions for students (see Figure 2 for student viewer). When students access the resource, color-coded highlighting signals the teacher’s annotations.

--- Insert Figure 1

--- Insert Figure 2

---

Purpose. The purpose of our study was to understand more about the ways in which a teacher experienced SSI-Net tools as a resource to scaffold student inquiry in SSI. More specifically, we wanted to know how a teacher integrated hard and soft scaffolding practices to plan and implement instruction with his 9th grade biology classes. Methods

Context. Implementation took place during the spring semester and the teacher designed, developed, and implemented an SSI unit that engaged student with the following driving question: When should we use personal genetic information to make decisions? The teacher in our study, Mr. Kaynor, had ten years of secondary science teaching experience, and five at the high school where the study occurred.

Research design and procedures. We examined the teacher’s use of the tools and the compatibility with his existing practices using heuristic case study. Such case studies are used to discover new understandings toward an event, possibly leading toward re-thinking the trend, design, or approach (Merriam, 1998). Specifically, in our study, we investigated how the teacher used the tools, how they fit with his current approaches, and how they prompted him to consider new approaches or practices. The teacher began working with our research and design team during the semester prior to his unit implementation. During this time, he was formally introduced to the SSI model and the planning tools. All ideas were teacher-initiated and all materials were teacher-created. Data sources and analysis. Data included three data sources: (1) teacher interviews (pre-unit, post-unit, and daily debriefings); (2) artifacts of his instructional planning with the SSI-NET tools. (NOTE: Figure 2 above represents one of his annotated resources); and (3) video of his instructional implementation with one class period over the course of 10 days. Data were analyzed for examples and trends that informed how he implemented and integrated hard and soft scaffolding practices.

Findings and Discussion Hard Scaffolding: Providing Embedded Expertise When assembling the resources for students, Mr. Kaynor annotated 29 web-based resources divided across an entry event and five activities. Figure 3 includes his instructional overview of the unit.

--- Insert Figure 3

---


Figure 4 presents the resources and instructions of one activity in which students accessed content that Mr. Kaynor assembled as well as an integrated Google document that students used to report their group work back to him. In the post-unit interview, Mr. Kaynor offered the following reflection: “[When I used] the annotations, I was able to see where student was at in the reading, ‘cause they were able to scroll and focus in on one part of the text, I knew that that was what they were looking at, so that was kind of useful. Also, it allowed me to go around and ask questions as they are reading.”

--- Insert Figure 4

--- Mr. Kaynor’s use of hard scaffolding demonstrates reflects what has come to be known as “embedded expertise” (Brush & Saye, 2002, 2008). Many times, novice learners tend to examine more complex problems superficially, and are unable to apply the domain-specific content knowledge necessary to grapple with the complexity of an issue (Edelson, 2001). However, embedding expertise in the documents and resources may bridge gaps in learner knowledge. Hard Scaffolding: Providing Forward Guidance

Mr. Kaynor also developed other forms of structured guidance primarily through the use of Google Docs and Google Forms, which he embedded directly into the SSI-Net activities. For example, Figure 5 displays Activity 2, which covered transcription and translation. Mr. Kaynor provided forward guidance by having his students prepare for the whole class discussion to occur later in the activity.

--- Insert Figure 5

--- Integrated Soft and Hard Scaffolding: Making Thinking Visible

A third form of scaffolding employed by Mr. Kaynor is reflected in his attempts to make student thinking visible, and he used both hard and soft scaffolding techniques to accomplish this. He solicited constructed responses though Google Forms, which he then embedded in the student activities, as displayed in Figure 6. In this example from Activity 3, Mr. Kaynor provided both source material as well as a form to elicit student thinking about human physical traits ranging in type from human height to hair texture to allergies. Students rated the source of each trait on a scale of 1 (100% Environment) to 10 (100% Genetics) and then provided a rationale. Mr. Kaynor reviewed students’ submissions, provided feedback, and used the results to springboard into another discussion.

--- Insert Figure 6

--- Summary and Conclusion The preliminary analysis demonstrates some key trends: the teacher seamlessly integrated hard and soft scaffolding practices, and placed tremendous reliance on hard scaffolding. Further analyses will clarify the more detailed nature of the teacher’s practices. These will be detailed in the full paper along with implications for design of online scaffolding tools, to include recommendations for achieving reciprocity in the feedback cycle and sustaining forward guidance. In addition, we will discuss ways of supporting teacher practice toward the integration of hard and soft scaffolding.


References Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social

considerations intersect. Research in Science Education, 38, 67-90. Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2002). A summary of research exploring hard and soft scaffolding for

teachers and students using multimedia-supported learning environments. Journal of Interactive Online Learning. Retrieved from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/index.html.

Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2008). The effects of multimedia-supported problem-based inquiry on student engagement, empathy, and assumptions about history. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 2(1), 21-56.

Edelson, D. C. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of The Learning Sciences, 8, 391-450.

Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 355-385.

Klosterman, M. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2010). Multi-level assessment of scientific content knowledge gains associated with socioscientific issues based instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 1017-1043.

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

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513-536.

Saunders, K. J., & Rennie, L. J. (2013). A pedagogical model for ethical inquiry into socioscientific issues in science. Research in Science Education, 43, 253-274.

Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about hisotry and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 77-96.

Simons, K. D., & Klein, J. D. (2007). The impact of scaffolding and student achievement levels in a problem-based learning environment. Instructional Science, 35(1), 41-72.

Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention of grade 10 students’ argumentation, informal reasoning and conceptual understanding in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 952-977.

Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 74-101.


Figure 1. SSI-Net annotation tool. NOTE: Green = Definition; Blue = Background information; Red = Thinking question.


Figure 2. Student view of teacher-compiled resources in iOS.

Activity Panel: Includes teacher-developed resources, questions, and directions.

Resource Viewer Panel: Teacher annotations that are signaled by color-coded highlighting and accessed through hyperlink.


Figure 3. Mr. Kaynor’s instructional overview.


Figure 4. Activity 4 of the unit displaying Resource #3 in the viewer panel. NOTE: Also displayed are a teacher annotations that appear when students select the linked text “health insurance and employers” and “Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act” from the resource.


Figure 5. An example of forward guidance in preparation for a whole-class discussion.


Figure 6. Example of Making Thinking Visible.

Documents

Title: Meets Technology Authors: Potential Areas of Future ... · The effects of multimedia-supported problem-based inquiry on student engagement, empathy, and assumptions about history