Catálogo de publicaciones - libros

In this chapter, I describe the call for the use of problem-centered instructional approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. I note the rationale for this book—specifically that it allows me space to explain the theoretical background of scaffolding and to explore the theoretical implications of a meta-analysis of computer-based scaffolding in STEM education that I completed with colleagues. I also posit instructional scaffolding as an intervention that extends students’ capabilities as they engage with the central problem in problem-centered instructional approaches. I note the difference between one-to-one, peer, and computer-based scaffolding, and articulate that in this book I synthesize research on computer-based scaffolding in STEM education. Finally, I outline the structure of the book.

This chapter covers the definition of instructional scaffolding, as well as its theoretical bases, and how those bases are reflected in computer-based scaffolding. Computer-based scaffolding is defined as a computer-based tool that extends and enhances student capabilities as students engage with authentic and ill-structured tasks. Despite its original atheoretical nature, scaffolding was linked to many theoretical frameworks, including activity theory, Adaptive Character of Thought-Rational (ACT-R), and knowledge integration. This variation in theoretical frameworks has led to differing scaffolding strategies (e.g., fading, adding, and fading/adding strategies) and overall scaffolding approaches. These are described in depth in this chapter.

The contexts in which computer-based scaffolding is used can vary widely. Such variation is by learner population (e.g., grade level and other characteristics such as achievement level and socioeconomic status), subject matter (i.e., science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), and instructional model with which scaffolding is used (e.g., design-based learning and problem-based learning). I describe these variations, and note accompanying variations in effect size estimates. Notably, scaffolding had its strongest impact when students were (a) at the adult level, (b) engaged in project-based learning or problem solving, and (c) from traditional learner populations.

In this chapter, I describe the intended learning outcomes of scaffolding—content knowledge and higher-order thinking abilities—and link these to the goals advanced by the Next Generation Science Standards and related documents from recent curricular revisions in STEM education. Furthermore, I address different ways in which scaffolding’s effect can be measured (assessment level), and explore whether there are differences in the magnitude of scaffolding’s effect according to assessment level. Meta-analysis results show that there is no difference in effect size magnitude on the basis of intended learning outcome (i.e., content knowledge or higher-order thinking abilities). Scaffolding’s effect was greater when measured at the principles level than when measured at the concept level. But scaffolding’s effect was statistically greater than 0 and substantial for all three assessment levels (i.e., concept, principles, and application). These results are then discussed.

This chapter covers variations in scaffolding strategies along the following characteristics—scaffolding function (e.g., strategic and conceptual), context specificity (i.e., generic or context-specific), customization (e.g., fading and fading/adding), and customization schedule (e.g., self-selected and performance-based). These variations and the theoretical basis for these are explained. Then, results from the meta-analysis are shared, which indicate that there are no differences in cognitive outcomes according to scaffolding function, context specificity, and customization. These results are then discussed.

In this chapter, I conclude this book on computer-based scaffolding in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. I note the overall effect size point estimate for scaffolding— = 0.46—and compare that to other effect size estimates in the literature. I summarize the wide variation in contexts in which and learner populations among which scaffolding is used, as well as note the characteristics along which the magnitude of scaffolding’s impact does not vary—contingency, generic versus context specific, and intended learning outcome—as well as characteristics along which it does— problem-centered model with which scaffolding is used, and grade level and learner characteristics. I also note areas in which more research is needed—motivation scaffolding, scaffolding for students with learning disabilities, and scaffolding in the context of project-based and design-based learning.