Scaffolding argumentation about water quality: a mixed-method study in a rural middle school
A common way for students to develop scientific argumentation abilities is through argumentation about socioscientific issues, defined as scientific problems with social, ethical, and moral aspects. Computer-based scaffolding can support students in this process. In this mixed method study, we exami...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Educational technology research and development 2015-06, Vol.63 (3), p.325-353 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 353 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 325 |
| container_title | Educational technology research and development |
| container_volume | 63 |
| creator | Belland, Brian R. Gu, Jiangyue Armbrust, Sara Cook, Brant |
| description | A common way for students to develop scientific argumentation abilities is through argumentation about socioscientific issues, defined as scientific problems with social, ethical, and moral aspects. Computer-based scaffolding can support students in this process. In this mixed method study, we examined the use and impact of computer based scaffolding to support middle school students' creation of evidence-based arguments during a 3-week problem-based learning unit focused on the water quality of a local river. We found a significant and substantial impact on the argument evaluation ability of lower-achieving students, and preliminary evidence of an impact on argument evaluation ability among low-SES students. We also found that students used the various available support—computer-based scaffolding, teacher scaffolding, and groupmate support—in different ways to counter differing challenges. We then formulated changes to the scaffolds on the basis of research results. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s11423-015-9373-x |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1678714960</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ1060250</ericid><jstor_id>24546624</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>24546624</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-75372dda5a99f4047bb7c8c6393cee96cf39dcbcecdee837192d1e860ef3515c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkEtLBDEQhAdR8PkDPAgBz9E8JsnEm4hPBA_qTQjZpGedZXaiSQZ3_71ZRsSbfemGqv4KqqqOKTmjhKjzRGnNOCZUYM0Vx6utao8KIbEUhG6Xm9QMU8n0brWf0oKUUbLZq96enW3b0PtumCMb5-MShmxzFwZkZ2HM6MtmiOhztH2X1xfIomW3Ao-XkN-DRymPfo26YkZxjLYvqvc9oOTeQ-gPq53W9gmOfvZB9Xpz_XJ1hx-fbu-vLh-x45JkrARXzHsrrNZtTWo1mynXOMk1dwBaupZr72YOnAdouKKaeQqNJNByQYXjB9XpxP2I4XOElM0ijHEokYZK1Shaa0mKi04uF0NKEVrzEbuljWtDidmUaKYSTSnRbEo0q_JzMv1A7Nyv__qBEkmY2DDZpKeiDXOIf5L_hy5SDvGXympRS8lq_g172Ylk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1678714960</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Scaffolding argumentation about water quality: a mixed-method study in a rural middle school</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Education Source</source><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><creator>Belland, Brian R. ; Gu, Jiangyue ; Armbrust, Sara ; Cook, Brant</creator><creatorcontrib>Belland, Brian R. ; Gu, Jiangyue ; Armbrust, Sara ; Cook, Brant</creatorcontrib><description>A common way for students to develop scientific argumentation abilities is through argumentation about socioscientific issues, defined as scientific problems with social, ethical, and moral aspects. Computer-based scaffolding can support students in this process. In this mixed method study, we examined the use and impact of computer based scaffolding to support middle school students' creation of evidence-based arguments during a 3-week problem-based learning unit focused on the water quality of a local river. We found a significant and substantial impact on the argument evaluation ability of lower-achieving students, and preliminary evidence of an impact on argument evaluation ability among low-SES students. We also found that students used the various available support—computer-based scaffolding, teacher scaffolding, and groupmate support—in different ways to counter differing challenges. We then formulated changes to the scaffolds on the basis of research results.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1042-1629</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1556-6501</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11423-015-9373-x</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer Science + Business Media</publisher><subject>Academic Achievement ; Beliefs ; Cognitive Processes ; College Students ; Computer Uses in Education ; Computers ; Education ; Educational Technology ; Elementary Secondary Education ; Environmental Education ; Ethics ; Evidence ; Learning and Instruction ; Low Income Groups ; Middle School Students ; Middle schools ; Mixed Methods Research ; Persuasive Discourse ; Problem Based Learning ; RESEARCH ARTICLE ; Rural areas ; Scaffolding (Teaching Technique) ; Science Instruction ; Scientists ; Secondary School Teachers ; Studies ; Teaching Methods ; Water ; Water Quality</subject><ispartof>Educational technology research and development, 2015-06, Vol.63 (3), p.325-353</ispartof><rights>2015 Association for Educational Communications and Technology</rights><rights>Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-75372dda5a99f4047bb7c8c6393cee96cf39dcbcecdee837192d1e860ef3515c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-75372dda5a99f4047bb7c8c6393cee96cf39dcbcecdee837192d1e860ef3515c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/24546624$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/24546624$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294,57992,58225</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ1060250$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Belland, Brian R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gu, Jiangyue</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Armbrust, Sara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cook, Brant</creatorcontrib><title>Scaffolding argumentation about water quality: a mixed-method study in a rural middle school</title><title>Educational technology research and development</title><addtitle>Education Tech Research Dev</addtitle><description>A common way for students to develop scientific argumentation abilities is through argumentation about socioscientific issues, defined as scientific problems with social, ethical, and moral aspects. Computer-based scaffolding can support students in this process. In this mixed method study, we examined the use and impact of computer based scaffolding to support middle school students' creation of evidence-based arguments during a 3-week problem-based learning unit focused on the water quality of a local river. We found a significant and substantial impact on the argument evaluation ability of lower-achieving students, and preliminary evidence of an impact on argument evaluation ability among low-SES students. We also found that students used the various available support—computer-based scaffolding, teacher scaffolding, and groupmate support—in different ways to counter differing challenges. We then formulated changes to the scaffolds on the basis of research results.</description><subject>Academic Achievement</subject><subject>Beliefs</subject><subject>Cognitive Processes</subject><subject>College Students</subject><subject>Computer Uses in Education</subject><subject>Computers</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Educational Technology</subject><subject>Elementary Secondary Education</subject><subject>Environmental Education</subject><subject>Ethics</subject><subject>Evidence</subject><subject>Learning and Instruction</subject><subject>Low Income Groups</subject><subject>Middle School Students</subject><subject>Middle schools</subject><subject>Mixed Methods Research</subject><subject>Persuasive Discourse</subject><subject>Problem Based Learning</subject><subject>RESEARCH ARTICLE</subject><subject>Rural areas</subject><subject>Scaffolding (Teaching Technique)</subject><subject>Science Instruction</subject><subject>Scientists</subject><subject>Secondary School Teachers</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Teaching Methods</subject><subject>Water</subject><subject>Water Quality</subject><issn>1042-1629</issn><issn>1556-6501</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkEtLBDEQhAdR8PkDPAgBz9E8JsnEm4hPBA_qTQjZpGedZXaiSQZ3_71ZRsSbfemGqv4KqqqOKTmjhKjzRGnNOCZUYM0Vx6utao8KIbEUhG6Xm9QMU8n0brWf0oKUUbLZq96enW3b0PtumCMb5-MShmxzFwZkZ2HM6MtmiOhztH2X1xfIomW3Ao-XkN-DRymPfo26YkZxjLYvqvc9oOTeQ-gPq53W9gmOfvZB9Xpz_XJ1hx-fbu-vLh-x45JkrARXzHsrrNZtTWo1mynXOMk1dwBaupZr72YOnAdouKKaeQqNJNByQYXjB9XpxP2I4XOElM0ijHEokYZK1Shaa0mKi04uF0NKEVrzEbuljWtDidmUaKYSTSnRbEo0q_JzMv1A7Nyv__qBEkmY2DDZpKeiDXOIf5L_hy5SDvGXympRS8lq_g172Ylk</recordid><startdate>20150601</startdate><enddate>20150601</enddate><creator>Belland, Brian R.</creator><creator>Gu, Jiangyue</creator><creator>Armbrust, Sara</creator><creator>Cook, Brant</creator><general>Springer Science + Business Media</general><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8A4</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150601</creationdate><title>Scaffolding argumentation about water quality: a mixed-method study in a rural middle school</title><author>Belland, Brian R. ; Gu, Jiangyue ; Armbrust, Sara ; Cook, Brant</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-75372dda5a99f4047bb7c8c6393cee96cf39dcbcecdee837192d1e860ef3515c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Academic Achievement</topic><topic>Beliefs</topic><topic>Cognitive Processes</topic><topic>College Students</topic><topic>Computer Uses in Education</topic><topic>Computers</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Educational Technology</topic><topic>Elementary Secondary Education</topic><topic>Environmental Education</topic><topic>Ethics</topic><topic>Evidence</topic><topic>Learning and Instruction</topic><topic>Low Income Groups</topic><topic>Middle School Students</topic><topic>Middle schools</topic><topic>Mixed Methods Research</topic><topic>Persuasive Discourse</topic><topic>Problem Based Learning</topic><topic>RESEARCH ARTICLE</topic><topic>Rural areas</topic><topic>Scaffolding (Teaching Technique)</topic><topic>Science Instruction</topic><topic>Scientists</topic><topic>Secondary School Teachers</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Teaching Methods</topic><topic>Water</topic><topic>Water Quality</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Belland, Brian R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gu, Jiangyue</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Armbrust, Sara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cook, Brant</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Education Periodicals</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Educational technology research and development</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Belland, Brian R.</au><au>Gu, Jiangyue</au><au>Armbrust, Sara</au><au>Cook, Brant</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ1060250</ericid><atitle>Scaffolding argumentation about water quality: a mixed-method study in a rural middle school</atitle><jtitle>Educational technology research and development</jtitle><stitle>Education Tech Research Dev</stitle><date>2015-06-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>63</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>325</spage><epage>353</epage><pages>325-353</pages><issn>1042-1629</issn><eissn>1556-6501</eissn><abstract>A common way for students to develop scientific argumentation abilities is through argumentation about socioscientific issues, defined as scientific problems with social, ethical, and moral aspects. Computer-based scaffolding can support students in this process. In this mixed method study, we examined the use and impact of computer based scaffolding to support middle school students' creation of evidence-based arguments during a 3-week problem-based learning unit focused on the water quality of a local river. We found a significant and substantial impact on the argument evaluation ability of lower-achieving students, and preliminary evidence of an impact on argument evaluation ability among low-SES students. We also found that students used the various available support—computer-based scaffolding, teacher scaffolding, and groupmate support—in different ways to counter differing challenges. We then formulated changes to the scaffolds on the basis of research results.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer Science + Business Media</pub><doi>10.1007/s11423-015-9373-x</doi><tpages>29</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1042-1629 |
| ispartof | Educational technology research and development, 2015-06, Vol.63 (3), p.325-353 |
| issn | 1042-1629 1556-6501 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1678714960 |
| source | Jstor Complete Legacy; Education Source; SpringerLink Journals |
| subjects | Academic Achievement Beliefs Cognitive Processes College Students Computer Uses in Education Computers Education Educational Technology Elementary Secondary Education Environmental Education Ethics Evidence Learning and Instruction Low Income Groups Middle School Students Middle schools Mixed Methods Research Persuasive Discourse Problem Based Learning RESEARCH ARTICLE Rural areas Scaffolding (Teaching Technique) Science Instruction Scientists Secondary School Teachers Studies Teaching Methods Water Water Quality |
| title | Scaffolding argumentation about water quality: a mixed-method study in a rural middle school |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-15T03%3A17%3A08IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Scaffolding%20argumentation%20about%20water%20quality:%20a%20mixed-method%20study%20in%20a%20rural%20middle%20school&rft.jtitle=Educational%20technology%20research%20and%20development&rft.au=Belland,%20Brian%20R.&rft.date=2015-06-01&rft.volume=63&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=325&rft.epage=353&rft.pages=325-353&rft.issn=1042-1629&rft.eissn=1556-6501&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11423-015-9373-x&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E24546624%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1678714960&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ1060250&rft_jstor_id=24546624&rfr_iscdi=true |