Heide Sasse, Anke M. Weber, Timo Reuter, Miriam Leuchter
{"title":"Teacher Guidance and On-the-Fly Scaffolding in Primary School Students' Inquiry Learning","authors":"Heide Sasse, Anke M. Weber, Timo Reuter, Miriam Leuchter","doi":"10.1002/sce.21921","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In primary science education, inquiry-based science instruction stands out as an optimal learning environment for fostering domain-specific content and procedural knowledge. Recognizing the effectiveness of different forms of teacher guidance, there is an ongoing debate about the planning of high (<i>structured inquiry</i>) and low (<i>guided inquiry</i>) guidance and their optimal sequencing. This debate revolves around balancing the level of autonomy and the amount of conceptual information given to students. Furthermore, the complete understanding of the impact of responsive teaching, which encompasses a broad range of practices, including on-the-fly scaffolding such as <i>Promoting Participation</i>, <i>Focusing</i>, and <i>Problematizing</i>, remains elusive. To address this gap, this study examines the relationship between planned teacher guidance and specific instances of responsive teaching, particularly on-the-fly scaffolding in the inquiry-based science classroom. A pre-posttest design was employed, involving 164 primary school students (<i>M</i> = 9.9 years, SD = 0.66, 57% female) and one female experimenter. Domain-specific content knowledge contained science concepts of thermal insulation, whereas procedural knowledge comprised the application of the control-of-variables strategy. The sequential order of planned teacher guidance, <i>structured inquiry</i>, and <i>guided inquiry</i>, was systematically varied, and the experimenter was allowed to provide spontaneous on-the-fly scaffolding. The study assesses the influence of planned teacher guidance and specific instances of responsive teaching, particularly on-the-fly scaffolding on students' conceptual and procedural knowledge. Results indicate no differential learning effects based on the order of planned guidance. However, when planned <i>guided inquiry</i> was provided second, the teacher gave less on-the-fly scaffolding. Additionally, <i>Problematizing</i> had a positive effect, while <i>Focusing</i> had a negative effect on students' procedural knowledge learning.</p>","PeriodicalId":771,"journal":{"name":"Science & Education","volume":"109 2","pages":"579-604"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/sce.21921","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science & Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sce.21921","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In primary science education, inquiry-based science instruction stands out as an optimal learning environment for fostering domain-specific content and procedural knowledge. Recognizing the effectiveness of different forms of teacher guidance, there is an ongoing debate about the planning of high (structured inquiry) and low (guided inquiry) guidance and their optimal sequencing. This debate revolves around balancing the level of autonomy and the amount of conceptual information given to students. Furthermore, the complete understanding of the impact of responsive teaching, which encompasses a broad range of practices, including on-the-fly scaffolding such as Promoting Participation, Focusing, and Problematizing, remains elusive. To address this gap, this study examines the relationship between planned teacher guidance and specific instances of responsive teaching, particularly on-the-fly scaffolding in the inquiry-based science classroom. A pre-posttest design was employed, involving 164 primary school students (M = 9.9 years, SD = 0.66, 57% female) and one female experimenter. Domain-specific content knowledge contained science concepts of thermal insulation, whereas procedural knowledge comprised the application of the control-of-variables strategy. The sequential order of planned teacher guidance, structured inquiry, and guided inquiry, was systematically varied, and the experimenter was allowed to provide spontaneous on-the-fly scaffolding. The study assesses the influence of planned teacher guidance and specific instances of responsive teaching, particularly on-the-fly scaffolding on students' conceptual and procedural knowledge. Results indicate no differential learning effects based on the order of planned guidance. However, when planned guided inquiry was provided second, the teacher gave less on-the-fly scaffolding. Additionally, Problematizing had a positive effect, while Focusing had a negative effect on students' procedural knowledge learning.
期刊介绍:
Science Education publishes original articles on the latest issues and trends occurring internationally in science curriculum, instruction, learning, policy and preparation of science teachers with the aim to advance our knowledge of science education theory and practice. In addition to original articles, the journal features the following special sections: -Learning : consisting of theoretical and empirical research studies on learning of science. We invite manuscripts that investigate learning and its change and growth from various lenses, including psychological, social, cognitive, sociohistorical, and affective. Studies examining the relationship of learning to teaching, the science knowledge and practices, the learners themselves, and the contexts (social, political, physical, ideological, institutional, epistemological, and cultural) are similarly welcome. -Issues and Trends : consisting primarily of analytical, interpretive, or persuasive essays on current educational, social, or philosophical issues and trends relevant to the teaching of science. This special section particularly seeks to promote informed dialogues about current issues in science education, and carefully reasoned papers representing disparate viewpoints are welcomed. Manuscripts submitted for this section may be in the form of a position paper, a polemical piece, or a creative commentary. -Science Learning in Everyday Life : consisting of analytical, interpretative, or philosophical papers regarding learning science outside of the formal classroom. Papers should investigate experiences in settings such as community, home, the Internet, after school settings, museums, and other opportunities that develop science interest, knowledge or practices across the life span. Attention to issues and factors relating to equity in science learning are especially encouraged.. -Science Teacher Education [...]