Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.5.0499

Analysis of Scaffolding Phase in the Discourse during Docent-led Tours in a Science Museum  

Choi, Moon-Young (Seoul National University)
Kim, Chan-Jong (Seoul National University)
Park, Eun Ji (Seoul National University)
Jung, Won-Young (Korean Environmental Education Program Evaluation and Research)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.34, no.5, 2014 , pp. 499-510 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this research is to understand interactive learning during docent-led tours in a science museum focusing on scaffolding. We developed a scaffolding framework by collating the work of other researchers in related fields. The results show that scaffolding included three dimensions: purpose, interaction, and domain. The purpose dimension, divided into six categories, is related to the intention of the scaffolder and what the scaffolding are for: strategic, social, procedural, conceptual, verbal, and metacognitive. The interaction dimension reflects students' interaction with the scaffolder in two ways: dynamic (situation specific) and static (planned in advance). The domain dimension is related to two contents: domain-general and domain-specific (such as science). The scaffolding framework was applied to dynamic interactions between docents and visitors. The data was collected from elementary school students' family visits with the guidance of two docents at the Seodaemun Museum of Natural History. The data collected consisted of surveys, interviews, video-recordings, and transcripts. The analysis shows that five guiding contexts and scaffolding phases were recognized; 1) strategic scaffolding in a poorly illustrated exhibit; 2) conceptual scaffolding in a thoroughly explanative exhibit; 3) verbal scaffolding in misleading interpretation; 4) procedural scaffolding in a manipulative exhibit; and 5) metacognitive scaffolding with inaccurate content. In addition, the results show that the docents used the dynamic and static scaffolding synthetically so that the docent-led tour was effective. In conclusion, this study presents the usefulness of understanding visitors' science learning through the scaffolding framework, as well as the how docents can scaffold actively.
Keywords
science museum; informal science learning; docent; scaffolding;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Williams, S., & Baxter, J. (1996) Dilemmas of discourse-oriented teaching in one middle school mathematics classroom. The Elementary School Journal, 97(1), 21-38.   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Wood, D., Bruner, J. & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of the Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.   DOI
3 Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447-472.   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Shin, H. (2011). Science learning through interaction with learning affordance of exhibition at a science center (Unpublished master thesis). Seoul National University, Seoul.
5 Tabak, I., Smith, B., Sandoval, W., & Reiser, B. (1996). Combining general and domain-specific strategic support for biological inquiry. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 288-296.
6 Smit, J., & Van Eerde, D. (2013). What counts as evidence for the long-term realisation of whole-class scaffolding? Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 2, 22-31.   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Steffe, L., & Gale, J. (Eds.). (1995). Constructivism in education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8 Stone, C. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 344-364.   DOI
9 Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305-335.   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Tanner, H., & Jones, S. (2000). Scaffolding for success: reflective discourse and the effective teaching of mathematical thinking skills. Research in Mathematics Education, 2(1), 19-32.   DOI
11 Van de Pol, J., & Elbers, E. (2013). Scaffolding student learning: A micro-analysis of teacher-student interaction. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 2, 32-41.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizenm J. (2012). Promoting teacher scaffolding in small-group work: A contingency perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 193-205.   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.
14 NRC (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
15 Pea, R. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423-451.   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Paris, S. (2002). Perspectives on object-centered learning in museums. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17 Park, J. (2012). The role of worksheets in a science center from the perspective of scaffolding metaphor and ZPD: focused on the Inchon Science Center. (Unpublished master thesis). Seoul National University, Seoul.
18 Park, S. (2013). Exploring science learning using smartphones in science museums: Focused on the feature of scaffolding. (Unpublished master thesis). Seoul National University, Seoul.
19 Puntambekar, S., & Hubscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed?. Educational psychologist, 40(1), 1-12.   DOI   ScienceOn
20 Quintana, C., Reiser, B., Davis, E., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R., Kyza, E., Edelson, D., & Soloway, E. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337-386.   DOI   ScienceOn
21 Reiser, B. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273-304.   DOI   ScienceOn
22 Rosiek, J. (2003). Emotional scaffolding an exploration of the teacher knowledge at the intersection of student emotion and the subject matter. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(5), 399-412.   DOI
23 Rowe, S. (2002). The role of objects in active, distributed meaning-making. In S. G. Paris (Ed.), Perspectives on object-centered learning in museums. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
24 Lee, S. (2009). Effects of link scaffolding with semantic networking tool on writing tasks in e-learning environment (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Seoul National University, Seoul.
25 Kim, M. & Hannafin, M. (2011). Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computers & Education, 56, 403-417.   DOI   ScienceOn
26 Kong, A. (2002) Scaffolding in a learning community of practice: A case study of a gradual release of responsibility from the teacher to the students. 47th Annual International Reading Association Convention, San Francisco.
27 Lee, M. (2012). Effects of scaffolding types on performance phase and the outcome in Web-based project-based learning (Unpublished master thesis). Seoul National University, Seoul.
28 Leinhardt, G, Tittle, C., & Knutson, K. (2002). Talking to oneself: Diary studies of museum visits. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, & K. Knutson (Eds.) Learning conversations in museums (pp. 103-132). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
29 Littleton, K. (2013). Adaptation and authority in scaffolding and teacher-student relationships: Commentary on the special issue 'conceptualizing and grounding scaffolding in complex educational contexts'. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 2(1), 52-55.   DOI   ScienceOn
30 McNeill, K., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers' instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53-78.   DOI   ScienceOn
31 McNeill, K., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Synergy between teacher practices and curricular scaffolds to support students in using domain-specific and domain-general knowledge in writing arguments to explain phenomena. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(3), 416-460.   DOI   ScienceOn
32 Han, S. (1999). Vygotsky and education: Cultural historical approach. Seoul: Kyoyookbook.
33 Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children's thinking: A sociocultural approach. New York, NY: Routledge.
34 Falk, J., and Dierking, L. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the making of meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
35 Grinder, A., & McCoy, E. (1985). The good guide: A sourcebook for interpreters, docents, and tour guides. Scottsdale, AZ: Ironwood Publishing.
36 Hammond, J. (2001). Scaffolding: Teaching and learning in language and literacy education. Australia: Primary English Teaching Association.
37 Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2001), What is scaffolding? In J. Hammond (Ed.), Scaffolding: Teaching and learning in language and literacy education (pp. 13-26). Australia: Primary English Teaching Association.
38 Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2005). Putting scaffolding to work: The contribution of scaffolding in articulating ESL education. In J. Hammond & P. Gibbons (Eds.), Special issue: Re-thinking ESL pedagogy: Socio-cultural approaches to teaching and learning. Prospect, 20(1), 6-30.
39 Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 115-140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
40 Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2007). Museums and education: Purpose, pedagogy, performance. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.
41 Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition-Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33(5), 367-379.   DOI
42 Jang, S. (2005). The effects of scaffolding types on the problem solving phase in web-based problem solving instruction (Unpublished master thesis). Seoul National University, Seoul.
43 Kim, C., Shin, M., & Lee, S. (2010). Understanding informal science learning. Seoul: Bookshill.
44 Kim, H., & Kim, K. (2011). A study on methods for activation of docent program at domestic science museums. Korea Scinece & Art Forum, 9, 1-11.   DOI
45 Ballantyne, R., & Packer, J. (2005). Promoting environmentally sustainable attitudes and behaviour through free-choice learning experiences: what is the state of the game?. Environmental Education Research, 11(3), 281-295.   DOI   ScienceOn
46 Choi, J., Kim, C., Lee, C., Lim, J., Lee, S., Byun, H., Sin, M., & Lee, S. (2004). Perceptions of students, teachers and parents regarding natural history and natural history museums. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 24(5), 869-885.   과학기술학회마을
47 Brush, T. & Saye, J. (2002). A summary of research exploring hard and soft scaffolding for teachers and students using a multimedia supported learning environment. The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 1(2), 1-12.
48 Draper, L. (1984). Friendship and the museum experience: The interrelationship of social ties and learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Berkely.
49 Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. (2004). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.