Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Pre-service teachers’ experiences of scaffolded learning in science through a computer supported collaborative inquiry

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Scaffolding helps the novice to accomplish a task goal or solve a problem that otherwise would be beyond unassisted efforts. Scaffolding firstly aims to support the learner in accomplishing the task and secondly in learning from the task and improving future performance. This study has examined pre-service teachers’ experiences of technologyenhanced/computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning when studying the anatomy of fish. The study investigated pre-service teachers’ experiences of scaffolded use of a Wiki in structuring a dissection inquiry activity combined with scaffolded use of digital imaging to support problematizing during the sense making process. Quantitative data on the benefits experienced by the pre-service teachers in using the Wiki and in digital imaging were collected through responses to questions posted through an online questionnaire. Structure equation modeling was used to investigate the relationship between scaffolding with the Wiki and the experienced benefits of using technology. The use of structural scaffolding with the Wiki was not seen to be directly related to the experienced benefits. In encouraging knowledge acquisition and supporting deeper thinking on the topic, digital imaging had the strongest positive relationship to the experienced benefits of the technology, but there was no direct relationship with the use of the Wiki. However, scaffolding by structuring the activity with the Wiki had meditational, indirect, effects through visualizations and peer support to intentional and active participation and thus the scaffolds were working during the inquiry synergistically. For teacher education this means that pre-service teachers may recognize the benefits of using technology only through a significant experience and thus under value the role of the technology itself.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Afifi, A., & Clark, V. (1996). Computer-aided multivariate analysis. London: Chapman & Hall.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, T., Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., & Ploetzner, R. (2010). Collaborative inquiry learning: models, tools, and challenges. International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 349–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belland, B. (2011). Distributed cognition as a lens to understand the effects of Scaffolds: the role of transfer of responsibility. Educational Psychology Review, 23(4), 577–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18(3), 439–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabrigar, L. R., Porter, R. D., & Norris, M. E. (2010). Some things you should know about structural equation modeling but never thought to ask. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(2), 221–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 18(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gadgil, S., Nokes-Malach, T. J., & Chi, M. T. H. (2011). Effectiveness of holistic mental model confrontation in driving conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 22(1), 47–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 25(2), 186–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giest, H., & Lompscher. (2003). Formation of Learning Activity and Theoretical Thinking in Science Teaching. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 267–288). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.

  • Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C., Duncan, R., & Chinn, C. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology : A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River: Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kali, Y., & Linn, M. C. (2008). Technology-enhanced support strategies for inquiry learning. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 145–161). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011a). Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): bridging research and theory with practice. Computers & Education, 56(2), 403–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M., & Hannafin, M. (2011b). Scaffolding 6th graders’ problem solving in technology-enhanced science classrooms: a qualitative case study. Instructional Science, 39(3), 255–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozulin, A. (2003). Psychological tools and mediated learning. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 15–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kukkonen, J., Kärkkäinen, S., Valtonen, T. & Keinonen, T. (2011). Blogging to Support Inquiry-based Learning and Reflection in Pre-service teachers Science Education. Problems of education in the 21st century, 31, 73–84.

  • Larusson, J. A., & Alterman, R. (2009). Wikis to support the “collaborative” part of collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(4), 371–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 296–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maeng, J., Mulvey, B., Smetana, L., & Bell, R. (2013). Preservice teachers’ TPACK: using technology to support inquiry instruction. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(6), 838–857.

    Article  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 

  • Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., 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 

  • 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 

  • Reisinger, Y., & Mavondo, F. (2007). Structural equation modeling. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 21(4), 41–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–197). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sarmiento, J., & Stahl, G. (2008). Extending the joint problem space: Time and sequence as essential features of knowledge building. International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2008), Utrecht, Netherlands. Retrieved from http://GerryStahl.net/pub/icls2008johann.pdf, 3.10.2012

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–115). West Nyack: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoultz, J., Säljö, R., & Wyndhamn, J. (2001). Heavenly talk: discourse, artifacts, and children’s understanding of elementary astronomy. Human Development, 44, 103–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segars, A. H., & Grover, V. (1998). Strategic information systems planning success: an investigation of the construct and its measurement. MIS Quarterly, 22(2), 139–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherin, B., Reiser, B. J., & Edelson, D. (2004). Scaffolding analysis: extending the scaffolding metaphor to learning artifacts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 387–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: a complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabak, I., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Software-realized inquiry support for cultivating a disciplinary stance. Pragmatics & Cognition, 16(2), 307–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., Bell, T., Mansfield, A., & Holmes, J. (2010). Role of the teacher in computer‐supported collaborative inquiry learning. International Journal of Science Education, 32(2), 221–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vahtivuori, S., Ruokamo, H., Tella, S., & Tuovinen, H. (2002). Pedagogical models in the design and assessment of network-based education. In World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (Vol. 2002, No. 1, pp. 1676–1681).

  • Valtonen, T., Kukkonen, J., Dillon, P., & Väisänen, P. (2009). Finnish high school students’ readiness to adopt online learning: questioning the assumptions. Computers & Education, 53(3), 742–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valtonen, T., Pontinen, S., Kukkonen, J., Dillon, P., Väisänen, P., & Hacklin, S. (2011). Confronting the technological pedagogical knowledge of finnish net generation student teachers. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 20(1), 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vesisenaho, M., Valtonen, T., Kukkonen, J., Havu-Nuutinen, S., Hartikainen, A., & Karkkainen, S. (2010). Blended learning with everyday technologies to activate students’ collaborative learning. Science education international, 21(4), 272–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, T., & Pea, R. (2011). Distributed by design: on the promises and pitfalls of collaborative learning with multiple representations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 489–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: what can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87(1), 112–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). How novice science teachers appropriate epistemic discourses around model-based inquiry for use in classrooms. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 310–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, H., & Pedersen, S. (2011). Integrating computer- and teacher-based scaffolds in science inquiry. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2352–2363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Philosophical Faculty, School of Applied Educational Science and Teacher Education, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu Campus, P.O. Box 111, 80101, Joensuu, Finland

    Jari Kukkonen, Patrick Dillon, Sirpa Kärkkäinen, Anu Hartikainen-Ahia & Tuula Keinonen

Authors
  1. Jari Kukkonen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patrick Dillon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sirpa Kärkkäinen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anu Hartikainen-Ahia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tuula Keinonen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jari Kukkonen.

Appendixes

Appendixes

1.1 Appendix 1

Table 9 Questionnaire items
Full size table

1.2 Appendix 2

Fig. 5
figure 5

Measurement model of scaffolds (CFA-model) and experienced benefits after dissection inquiry (standardized estimates, error terms omitted)

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kukkonen, J., Dillon, P., Kärkkäinen, S. et al. Pre-service teachers’ experiences of scaffolded learning in science through a computer supported collaborative inquiry. Educ Inf Technol 21, 349–371 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-014-9326-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-014-9326-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation