Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.7.1204

Exploring the Components and Functions of Scaffolding in Open Inquiry through Factor Analysis  

Park, Jaeyong (Kangwon National University)
Lee, Kiyoung (Kangwon National University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.32, no.7, 2012 , pp. 1204-1221 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to identify the components of scaffolding in open inquiry and to explore the functions of teachers' scaffolding, which is necessary to support students' open inquiry. In order to identify scaffolding components, at first, we conducted a survey using a questionnaire on what students think about open inquiry on 110 students who performed open inquiry in two middle schools, and then carried out factor analysis based on the survey results. It was attempted to investigate students' perception through focus group interviews corresponding to scaffolding components that were identified through factor analysis. Also, we examined teachers' empirical view of scaffolding functions in open inquiry through in-depth interviews with four teachers. The results of exploratory factor analysis revealed that there were five scaffolding components of open inquiry: motivation, planning, strategy, environment and participation. The results of focus group interviews showed that students experienced difficulties in planning, strategy, environment and participation components, except for motivation component. In particular, students asked for support to strengthen the participation component, which means recognizing their role, active participation and collaboration with peers. Meanwhile, the results of in-depth interviews with teachers showed that teachers' empirical views of scaffolding function in open inquiry were categorized as cognitive (conceptual, metacognitive), emotional (motivational, arbitrative) and strategic. Interviewed teachers preferred the strategic scaffolding and cognitive scaffolding to the emotional scaffolding. Based on the results, we also discussed the implications for performing open inquiry effectively.
Keywords
factor analysis; scaffolding; open inquiry; free inquiry;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 4  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 McLoughlin, C. (2002). Learning support in distance and networked learning environments: Ten dimensions for successful design. Distance Education, 23(2), 149-162.   DOI   ScienceOn
2 National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
3 National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
4 Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345-375.   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehensionfostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117- 175.   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. ETR&D, 50(3), 77-96.   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Stone, C. A. (1993). What is missing in the metaphor of scaffolding? In E. A. Forman & N. Minick & C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children's development (pp. 169-183). New York: Oxford University Press.
8 Stone, C. A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 344-364.   DOI
9 Tomkins, S. P., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2001). Looking for ideas: Observation, interpretation and hypothesis-making by 12 year-old pupils undertaking science investigations. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 791-813.   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed-Ability Classrooms (2nd Edition). Alexandria: ASCD.
11 Van der Valk, T., & De Jong, O. (2008). Scaffolding Science Teachers in Open-inquiry Teaching). International Journal of Science Education, iFirst Article, 1-22.
12 Vasques, J. A. (2008). Tools & Traits: Highly effective science teaching, K-8. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
13 Verenikina, I. (2003). Understanding Scaffolding and the ZPD in Educational Research. Conference papers of AARE(Australian Association for Research in Education), http://aare.edu.au.
14 Weinstein C. S. (1989). Teacher Education Students'Preconceptions of Teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(2), 53-60.
15 Wellington, J., & Ireson, G. (2008). Science learning, science teaching. London: Routledge.
16 Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic Inquiry: Towards a Sociocultural Practice and Theory of Education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
17 Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.   DOI
18 정우경, 이준기, 오상욱 (2011). 중학교 학생들의 자유탐구활동 중 주제선정단계에서 나타난 어려움 조사. 한국과학교육학회지, 31(8), 1199-1213.
19 조희형, 김희경, 윤희숙, 이기영 (2011). 중학교 2.3학년 과학 자유탐구 교수.학습 및 평가. 서울대학교 과학교육연구소.
20 최정임, 엄미리, 허혜자 (2011). 디지털교과서를 위한 인지적 스캐폴딩 설계 원리 개발: 6학년 수학 분수단원을 중심으로. 교육방법연구, 23(1), 31-62.
21 Access Center (2006). Science inquiry: The link to accessing the general education curriculum. Washington, DC: The Access Center.
22 American Association for the Advancement of Science(AAAS), Project 2061. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
23 Enkenberg, J. (2001). Instructional design and emerging models in higher education. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 495-506.   DOI   ScienceOn
24 Bean, T. W., & Patel Stevens, L. (2002). Scaffolding reflection for preservice and inservice teachers. Reflective Practice, 3(2), 205-218.   DOI
25 Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington D. C.: National Academy Press.
26 Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer, Science Scope, 23(6), 42-44.
27 Flick, L. B., & Lederman, N. G. (2006). Scientific inquiry and nature of science(Implication for teaching, learning, and teacher education). Netherlands: Springer.
28 German, P. J., Haskins, S., & Auls, S. (1996). Analysis of nine high school biology laboratory manulas: Promoting scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 475-499.   DOI
29 Gillies, R. M. (2008). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students'behaviours, discourse and learning during a science-based learning activity. School Psychology International, 29(3), 328- 347.   DOI
30 Greenfield, P. M. (1984). A theory of teacher in the learning activities of everyday life. In B. Rogoff&J. Lave (Eds), Everyday cognition: In development in social context(pp. 117-138). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31 Gregory, G. H., & Chapman, C. M. (2006). Differentiated Instructional Strategies: One Size Doesn't Fit All(2nd Ed), California: Corwin Press.
32 Hill, J. R., & Hannafin, M. J. (2001). Teaching and learning in digital environments: The resurgence of resource-based learning. Educational Technology Research & Development, 49(3), 37 52.
33 강원교육과학정보원 (2011). 즐거운 도전! 자유 탐구(중학생용 워크북).
34 Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G. & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.   DOI   ScienceOn
35 Klentschy, M., & Thompson, L. (2008). Scaffolding Science Inquiry Through Lesson Design. NH: Heinemann.
36 Maybin, J., Mercer, N., & Steirer, B. (1992). 'Scaffolding'learning in the classroom. In K. Norman (Ed.). Thinking voices: The work of the National Curriculum Project. London:Hodder and Stoughton for the National Curriculum Council, London.
37 교육과학기술부 (2008). 중학교 교육과정 해설 III: 수학, 과학, 기술∙가정. 대한교과서주식회사.
38 김재윤, 임희준 (2011). 초등학생들이 수행한 자유 탐구의 특징과 문제점 분석. 이화여자대학교 교과교육학연구, 15(2), 535-554.
39 박재용, 이기영 (2011). 중학교 과학 자유 탐구 수행 실태 및 교사와 학생의 인식. 이화여자대학교 교과교육학연구, 15(3), 603-632.
40 박종선, 송영욱, 김범기 (2011). 초등학생들이 선정한 자유탐구활동 주제 분석. 한국과학교육학회지, 31(2), 143-152.
41 박종호, 김재영, 배진호 (2001). 자유탐구활동이 초등학생의 과학탐구능력과 과학적 태도에 미치는 영향. 초등과학교육, 20(20), 271-280.
42 변선미, 김현주 (2011). 자유 탐구 활동에 대한 중학생들의 인식 및 자유 탐구 활동이 중학생들의 과학 탐구능력에 미치는 영향. 한국과학교육학회지, 31(2), 210-224.
43 신재한 (2011). 스캐폴딩(scaffolding) 전략을 활 용한 수업 효과에 대한 메타 분석. 초등교육연구, 24(2), 25-46.
44 신현화, 김효남 (2010). 초등학교 과학과 자유탐구 활동에서 교사와 학생이 겪는 어려움 분석. 초등과학교육, 29(3), 262-276.
45 이순묵 (2000). 요인분석의 기초. 서울: 교육과학사.
46 임성만, 양일호, 김순미, 홍은주, 임재근 (2010). 초등 예비교사들이 자유 탐구 활동 중에 겪은 어려움 조사. 한국과학교육학회지, 30(2), 291-303.