Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Maria Margoudi1, Zacharoula Smyrnaiou 1
1 Educational Technology Lab, School of
Philosophy, Department of Pedagogy, National
and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
[email protected] , [email protected]
Tracing scaffolding
in technology-
enhanced inquiry
learning activities
by exploiting a digital platform.
Theoretical Background
Problem:
Scaffolding practices cannot find effective
application in today's classrooms
Solution:
Technology Computer-based Scaffolds
(Davis and Miyake, 2004)
Theoretical Background
Question:
Types and purposes of scaffolding?
Answer:
Moore et al. (2014) Propose a common
framework of scaffolding types
5 scaffolding
types:
Scope of Domain
Knowledge
Inquiry Pathway
Sequencing Feedback
Cueing
Moore et al. (2014)
Explicit vs. Implicit
instructional guidance
Explicit
Implicit
(Podolefsky et al., 2013) ,(Smyrnaiou et al, 2013)
Inquiry-Based Science Learning
(IBSL)
innovative approach to science education
use of computer-based learning environments
virtual scaffolding possibilities
(Moore et al., 2014)
Methodology
Aim:
Tracing both implicit and explicit scaffolding
techniques used during the experimentation of
students with this scientific microworld, while
engaging in an inquiry-based activity.
Methodology Research Questions:
1. The role and significance each of the five scaffolding types during an inquiry learning process that integrates the engagement with an e-slate scientific microworld?
2. What is the interaction between implicit and explicit scaffolding techniques in an Inquiry-Based Science Learning (IBSL) activity for science education?
Research design
Location: School Settings
Duration:
60 min
Participants:
Group of 3
14 years old students
Cognitive Module:
Kinematics and Dynamics in Physics education
Research Design
The students engage in inquiry-based science learning (IBSL) activities with the implementation of both implicit and explicit instructional guidance.
Research Tools
Question- naire
E-Slate
mwd
Work-
sheets
Procedure
E-SLATE
platform
is
a source
of
Preman
ufacture
d
educati
onal
software
,
called
microwo
rlds.
The students were asked to engage with the
microworld’s activities, while working as team.
During this process they received instructional
guidance by a teacher and a researcher.
Variation
tools Stage
Question
buttons
Logo
button
Data Collection Procedure
A voiceover of the procedure (screen
recording software).
A questionnaire answered by each student,
assessing what helped them the most during
the activities (worksheet, microworld,
teacher/researcher) on a scale from 1 (not
helpful at all) to 4 (very helpful).
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Q#1 Q#2 Q#3 Q#4 Q#5
QUESTIONNAIRE
Worksheet Microworld Teacher/Researcher
Results
19%
50%
17%
9% 5%
SCAFFOLDING TYPES
Scope of Domain
Knowledge
Inquiry Pathway
Sequencing
Feedback
Cueing
Results
ISC
36% ESC
64%
SCAFFOLDING TECHNIQUES
Implicit Scaffolding
Explicit Scaffolding
Results
Interaction between implicit- explicit
scaffolding techniques
Conclusions
Occurrence rate
(from voice over)
Implicit Scaffolding
(36%)
Explicit Scaffolding
(64%)
Importance
(from questionnaire)
1st: Microworld
(implicit scaffolding)
2nd: Guidance of the teacher
(explicit scaffolding)
3rd: Worksheet
(explicit scaffolding)
Inquiry Pathway (50%)
Cognitive issues (laws of physics):
“T: You can play the simulation again if you want, in order to find out
what type of motion we are looking for or you may use the physics
laws you already know.”
Coordination of the students):
“R: Let's begin then, you all have instructions in front of you.
The first step is to run the software which you
will find on the computer’s desktop.”
Conclusions
Role and Significance of each Scaffolding
Type
Scope of Domain Knowledge (19%)
Particular curriculum and grade level “S1: Let me read the question: Which parameters affect the movement? Under what circumstances would it collide with earth? Can you prevent it from happening?
S1: The next question asks if the mass plays any role in the first
phase of the movement and why?”
Sequencing (17%)
Support from the microworld “S2: Lets experiment with the microworld.
(They change the rates of speed and mass sliders) S2: Press the start button and see what happens.”
Conclusions
Role and Significance of each Scaffolding
Type
Feedback (9%)
Microworld’s response to students’ actions “S3: It’s my turn now.
(Presses the reset button and changes the values of the sliders ) S3: Oh no I killed everyone! (The meteorite collides with Earth)
S1: What is the movement of the comet? (They click the button new question
and read the possible answers) S3: The first one S2: Yes, I agree S1: Correct!
(They choose the 1st answer and the
microworld displays feedback: "correct")
Cueing (5%)
Guidance from the microworld “S1: Click on the buttons “start”, “stop” and
“reset” to control the simulation, check what parameters
you can change in the logo code, answer the questions and see possible scenarios.
(They click on the help button and read the instructions given)”
Conclusions
Role and Significance of each Scaffolding
Type
Any Questions?
