Full-Structured or Supported by Incremental Scaffolds? Effects on Perceived Competence and Motivation

IF 2.2 4区 教育学 Q1 Social Sciences
Cornelia Stiller, Matthias Wilde
{"title":"Full-Structured or Supported by Incremental Scaffolds? Effects on Perceived Competence and Motivation","authors":"Cornelia Stiller, Matthias Wilde","doi":"10.1080/00220973.2023.2269128","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AbstractScientific inquiry is an inquiry-based learning approach that emphasizes student investigation of research questions and the utilization of scientific methods to address those research questions. One such method is experimentation, which is viewed as an open-ended problem-solving process that is mostly perceived by students as a complex procedure. Supplementing open inquiry with instructional support that matches students’ competences is crucial to enable autonomous experimentation. Incremental scaffolds offer instructional guidance during experimentation and allow students to work on a task autonomously. To answer the question of whether guidance through incremental scaffolds, as opposed to full-structured experimenting, might have a positive impact on students’ perceived competence regarding experimentation and motivation, 251 students were assigned to two treatment conditions in our study. The “full-structured group” (n = 122) worked with full-structured experimentation guides and the “incremental scaffolds group” (n = 129) received incremental scaffolds as supporting materials during experimentation. Our results show that the students in the “full-structured group” perceived themselves as significantly more competent in planning, conducting, and analyzing the experiment and were more intrinsically motivated than the students of the “incremental scaffolds group”.Keywords: Experimentationincremental scaffoldspromptsscientific inquiry AcknowledgmentsThe study was conducted in accordance with the legal requirements at the time of the conduction of the study. The principals of the school and the teachers of the participating classes were informed about the study and agreed to its implementation. There was no need for an ethical approval because no person-related data were collected.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).","PeriodicalId":47911,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2023.2269128","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

AbstractScientific inquiry is an inquiry-based learning approach that emphasizes student investigation of research questions and the utilization of scientific methods to address those research questions. One such method is experimentation, which is viewed as an open-ended problem-solving process that is mostly perceived by students as a complex procedure. Supplementing open inquiry with instructional support that matches students’ competences is crucial to enable autonomous experimentation. Incremental scaffolds offer instructional guidance during experimentation and allow students to work on a task autonomously. To answer the question of whether guidance through incremental scaffolds, as opposed to full-structured experimenting, might have a positive impact on students’ perceived competence regarding experimentation and motivation, 251 students were assigned to two treatment conditions in our study. The “full-structured group” (n = 122) worked with full-structured experimentation guides and the “incremental scaffolds group” (n = 129) received incremental scaffolds as supporting materials during experimentation. Our results show that the students in the “full-structured group” perceived themselves as significantly more competent in planning, conducting, and analyzing the experiment and were more intrinsically motivated than the students of the “incremental scaffolds group”.Keywords: Experimentationincremental scaffoldspromptsscientific inquiry AcknowledgmentsThe study was conducted in accordance with the legal requirements at the time of the conduction of the study. The principals of the school and the teachers of the participating classes were informed about the study and agreed to its implementation. There was no need for an ethical approval because no person-related data were collected.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
全结构支架还是增量支架?感知能力和动机的影响
摘要科学探究是一种以探究为基础的学习方式,强调学生对研究性问题进行调查,并运用科学方法解决这些研究问题。其中一种方法是实验,它被视为一个开放式的解决问题的过程,大多数学生认为这是一个复杂的过程。通过与学生能力相匹配的教学支持来补充开放式探究对于实现自主实验至关重要。增量式支架在实验过程中提供指导,并允许学生自主完成任务。为了回答是否通过增量式支架的指导,而不是完全结构化的实验,可能对学生在实验和动机方面的感知能力产生积极影响的问题,我们的研究将251名学生分配到两种治疗条件下。“全结构组”(n = 122)在实验过程中使用全结构实验指南,“增量支架组”(n = 129)在实验过程中使用增量支架作为支撑材料。我们的研究结果表明,“完整结构组”的学生认为自己在计划、执行和分析实验方面明显比“增量支架组”的学生更有能力,并且内在动机更强。关键词:实验增量支架提示科学探究致谢本研究在开展时符合法律要求。学校校长和参与班级的老师被告知了这项研究,并同意实施这项研究。由于没有收集与个人相关的数据,因此不需要伦理批准。披露声明作者未报告潜在的利益冲突。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Education publishes theoretical, laboratory, and classroom research studies that use the range of quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Recent articles have explored the correlation between test preparation and performance, enhancing students" self-efficacy, the effects of peer collaboration among students, and arguments about statistical significance and effect size reporting. In recent issues, JXE has published examinations of statistical methodologies and editorial practices used in several educational research journals.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信