Supporting Students' Construction of Scientific Explanations by Fading Scaffolds in Instructional Materials
The purpose of this study was to determine whether providing students with continuous written instructional support or fading written instructional support (scaffolds) better prepares students to construct scientific explanations when they are no longer provided with support. This article investigat...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Journal of the learning sciences 2006-01, Vol.15 (2), p.153-191 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 191 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 153 |
container_title | The Journal of the learning sciences |
container_volume | 15 |
creator | McNeill, Katherine L. Lizotte, David J. Krajcik, Joseph Marx, Ronald W. |
description | The purpose of this study was to determine whether providing students with continuous written instructional support or fading written instructional support (scaffolds) better prepares students to construct scientific explanations when they are no longer provided with support. This article investigated the influence of scaffolding on 331 seventh-grade students' writing of scientific explanations during an 8-week, project-based chemistry unit in which the construction of scientific explanations is a key learning goal. The unit makes an instructional model for explanation explicit to students through a focal lesson and reinforces that model through subsequent written support for each investigation. Students received 1 of 2 treatments in terms of the type of written support: continuous, involving detailed support for every investigation, or faded, involving less support over time. The analyses showed significant learning gains for students for all components of scientific explanation (i.e., claim, evidence, and reasoning). However, on posttest items lacking scaffolds, the faded group gave stronger explanations in terms of their reasoning compared to the continuous group. Fading written scaffolds better equipped students to write explanations when they were not provided with support. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_229908235</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ733792</ericid><jstor_id>25473515</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>25473515</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c371t-cb32277e9cbcf886a04c469862015758eb216f70c60886ba9fca429d42ec6a1c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LxDAQQIsoqKt_QBSCF0_VSdI2zcGDLOsXiofVc0jTRrLWpiYpuv_e1IoeBE8zzJuXmUySHGA4xQTYmcc5JawEvmpjCkTgjWRnrKVjcTPmkENaZlBsJ7verwAgx8B3kpfl0PfWBdM9o2UY6qYL_gTNbeeDG1QwtkNWo6UyERhtFFp89K3s5Eg8qtboUtZfrpJa27b2yHTo5teWLbqXoXFGtn4v2dIxNPvfcZY8XS4e59fp3cPVzfziLlWU4ZCqihLCWMNVpXRZFhIylRW8LAjgnOVlUxFcaAaqgEgrybWSGeF1RhpVSKzoLDme3u2dfRsaH8TKDi6u4gUhnENJaB6byNSknPXeNVr0zrxKtxYYxHhT8femUTqcpPgh9SMsbhmljJOIjya88sG6H07yjNEcjzPPJ246bd2rfLeurUWQ69Y67WSnjBf0n_GfcjaTiQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>229908235</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Supporting Students' Construction of Scientific Explanations by Fading Scaffolds in Instructional Materials</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><creator>McNeill, Katherine L. ; Lizotte, David J. ; Krajcik, Joseph ; Marx, Ronald W.</creator><creatorcontrib>McNeill, Katherine L. ; Lizotte, David J. ; Krajcik, Joseph ; Marx, Ronald W.</creatorcontrib><description>The purpose of this study was to determine whether providing students with continuous written instructional support or fading written instructional support (scaffolds) better prepares students to construct scientific explanations when they are no longer provided with support. This article investigated the influence of scaffolding on 331 seventh-grade students' writing of scientific explanations during an 8-week, project-based chemistry unit in which the construction of scientific explanations is a key learning goal. The unit makes an instructional model for explanation explicit to students through a focal lesson and reinforces that model through subsequent written support for each investigation. Students received 1 of 2 treatments in terms of the type of written support: continuous, involving detailed support for every investigation, or faded, involving less support over time. The analyses showed significant learning gains for students for all components of scientific explanation (i.e., claim, evidence, and reasoning). However, on posttest items lacking scaffolds, the faded group gave stronger explanations in terms of their reasoning compared to the continuous group. Fading written scaffolds better equipped students to write explanations when they were not provided with support.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1050-8406</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-7809</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JLSBE3</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Philadelphia: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc</publisher><subject>Abstract Reasoning ; Achievement Gains ; Argumentation ; Chemical reactions ; Chemistry ; Comparative Analysis ; Educational research ; Grade 7 ; Instructional Materials ; Learning ; Middle school students ; Organic Chemistry ; Posttests ; Pretests ; Reasoning ; Scaffolding (Teaching Technique) ; Scaffolds ; Science education ; Science Instruction ; Teachers ; Teaching Methods ; Units of Study ; Writing instruction</subject><ispartof>The Journal of the learning sciences, 2006-01, Vol.15 (2), p.153-191</ispartof><rights>Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 2006</rights><rights>Copyright 2006 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright (c) 2006, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c371t-cb32277e9cbcf886a04c469862015758eb216f70c60886ba9fca429d42ec6a1c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c371t-cb32277e9cbcf886a04c469862015758eb216f70c60886ba9fca429d42ec6a1c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25473515$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/25473515$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,27901,27902,57992,58225</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ733792$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>McNeill, Katherine L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lizotte, David J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Krajcik, Joseph</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marx, Ronald W.</creatorcontrib><title>Supporting Students' Construction of Scientific Explanations by Fading Scaffolds in Instructional Materials</title><title>The Journal of the learning sciences</title><description>The purpose of this study was to determine whether providing students with continuous written instructional support or fading written instructional support (scaffolds) better prepares students to construct scientific explanations when they are no longer provided with support. This article investigated the influence of scaffolding on 331 seventh-grade students' writing of scientific explanations during an 8-week, project-based chemistry unit in which the construction of scientific explanations is a key learning goal. The unit makes an instructional model for explanation explicit to students through a focal lesson and reinforces that model through subsequent written support for each investigation. Students received 1 of 2 treatments in terms of the type of written support: continuous, involving detailed support for every investigation, or faded, involving less support over time. The analyses showed significant learning gains for students for all components of scientific explanation (i.e., claim, evidence, and reasoning). However, on posttest items lacking scaffolds, the faded group gave stronger explanations in terms of their reasoning compared to the continuous group. Fading written scaffolds better equipped students to write explanations when they were not provided with support.</description><subject>Abstract Reasoning</subject><subject>Achievement Gains</subject><subject>Argumentation</subject><subject>Chemical reactions</subject><subject>Chemistry</subject><subject>Comparative Analysis</subject><subject>Educational research</subject><subject>Grade 7</subject><subject>Instructional Materials</subject><subject>Learning</subject><subject>Middle school students</subject><subject>Organic Chemistry</subject><subject>Posttests</subject><subject>Pretests</subject><subject>Reasoning</subject><subject>Scaffolding (Teaching Technique)</subject><subject>Scaffolds</subject><subject>Science education</subject><subject>Science Instruction</subject><subject>Teachers</subject><subject>Teaching Methods</subject><subject>Units of Study</subject><subject>Writing instruction</subject><issn>1050-8406</issn><issn>1532-7809</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kE1LxDAQQIsoqKt_QBSCF0_VSdI2zcGDLOsXiofVc0jTRrLWpiYpuv_e1IoeBE8zzJuXmUySHGA4xQTYmcc5JawEvmpjCkTgjWRnrKVjcTPmkENaZlBsJ7verwAgx8B3kpfl0PfWBdM9o2UY6qYL_gTNbeeDG1QwtkNWo6UyERhtFFp89K3s5Eg8qtboUtZfrpJa27b2yHTo5teWLbqXoXFGtn4v2dIxNPvfcZY8XS4e59fp3cPVzfziLlWU4ZCqihLCWMNVpXRZFhIylRW8LAjgnOVlUxFcaAaqgEgrybWSGeF1RhpVSKzoLDme3u2dfRsaH8TKDi6u4gUhnENJaB6byNSknPXeNVr0zrxKtxYYxHhT8femUTqcpPgh9SMsbhmljJOIjya88sG6H07yjNEcjzPPJ246bd2rfLeurUWQ69Y67WSnjBf0n_GfcjaTiQ</recordid><startdate>20060101</startdate><enddate>20060101</enddate><creator>McNeill, Katherine L.</creator><creator>Lizotte, David J.</creator><creator>Krajcik, Joseph</creator><creator>Marx, Ronald W.</creator><general>Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc</general><general>Taylor & Francis Ltd</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>K9.</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20060101</creationdate><title>Supporting Students' Construction of Scientific Explanations by Fading Scaffolds in Instructional Materials</title><author>McNeill, Katherine L. ; Lizotte, David J. ; Krajcik, Joseph ; Marx, Ronald W.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c371t-cb32277e9cbcf886a04c469862015758eb216f70c60886ba9fca429d42ec6a1c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Abstract Reasoning</topic><topic>Achievement Gains</topic><topic>Argumentation</topic><topic>Chemical reactions</topic><topic>Chemistry</topic><topic>Comparative Analysis</topic><topic>Educational research</topic><topic>Grade 7</topic><topic>Instructional Materials</topic><topic>Learning</topic><topic>Middle school students</topic><topic>Organic Chemistry</topic><topic>Posttests</topic><topic>Pretests</topic><topic>Reasoning</topic><topic>Scaffolding (Teaching Technique)</topic><topic>Scaffolds</topic><topic>Science education</topic><topic>Science Instruction</topic><topic>Teachers</topic><topic>Teaching Methods</topic><topic>Units of Study</topic><topic>Writing instruction</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>McNeill, Katherine L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lizotte, David J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Krajcik, Joseph</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marx, Ronald W.</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 Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><jtitle>The Journal of the learning sciences</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>McNeill, Katherine L.</au><au>Lizotte, David J.</au><au>Krajcik, Joseph</au><au>Marx, Ronald W.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ733792</ericid><atitle>Supporting Students' Construction of Scientific Explanations by Fading Scaffolds in Instructional Materials</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of the learning sciences</jtitle><date>2006-01-01</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>153</spage><epage>191</epage><pages>153-191</pages><issn>1050-8406</issn><eissn>1532-7809</eissn><coden>JLSBE3</coden><abstract>The purpose of this study was to determine whether providing students with continuous written instructional support or fading written instructional support (scaffolds) better prepares students to construct scientific explanations when they are no longer provided with support. This article investigated the influence of scaffolding on 331 seventh-grade students' writing of scientific explanations during an 8-week, project-based chemistry unit in which the construction of scientific explanations is a key learning goal. The unit makes an instructional model for explanation explicit to students through a focal lesson and reinforces that model through subsequent written support for each investigation. Students received 1 of 2 treatments in terms of the type of written support: continuous, involving detailed support for every investigation, or faded, involving less support over time. The analyses showed significant learning gains for students for all components of scientific explanation (i.e., claim, evidence, and reasoning). However, on posttest items lacking scaffolds, the faded group gave stronger explanations in terms of their reasoning compared to the continuous group. Fading written scaffolds better equipped students to write explanations when they were not provided with support.</abstract><cop>Philadelphia</cop><pub>Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc</pub><doi>10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1</doi><tpages>39</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1050-8406 |
ispartof | The Journal of the learning sciences, 2006-01, Vol.15 (2), p.153-191 |
issn | 1050-8406 1532-7809 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_229908235 |
source | Jstor Complete Legacy |
subjects | Abstract Reasoning Achievement Gains Argumentation Chemical reactions Chemistry Comparative Analysis Educational research Grade 7 Instructional Materials Learning Middle school students Organic Chemistry Posttests Pretests Reasoning Scaffolding (Teaching Technique) Scaffolds Science education Science Instruction Teachers Teaching Methods Units of Study Writing instruction |
title | Supporting Students' Construction of Scientific Explanations by Fading Scaffolds in Instructional Materials |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-11T04%3A38%3A02IST&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=Supporting%20Students'%20Construction%20of%20Scientific%20Explanations%20by%20Fading%20Scaffolds%20in%20Instructional%20Materials&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20the%20learning%20sciences&rft.au=McNeill,%20Katherine%20L.&rft.date=2006-01-01&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=153&rft.epage=191&rft.pages=153-191&rft.issn=1050-8406&rft.eissn=1532-7809&rft.coden=JLSBE3&rft_id=info:doi/10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E25473515%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=229908235&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ733792&rft_jstor_id=25473515&rfr_iscdi=true |