Effectiveness of Scaffolding Worksheet on Students’ Scientific Explanation Skills in Static Electricity and Application to Living Things
DOI:
10.29303/jppipa.v9i5.2577Published:
2023-05-31Issue:
Vol. 9 No. 5 (2023): MayKeywords:
Fading scaffolding, Scaffolding worksheet, Science explanation skillsResearch Articles
Downloads
How to Cite
Downloads
Metrics
Abstract
This study conducted a quasi experiment to investigate the effectiveness of scaffolding worksheet on students’ scientific explanation. A total of 30 participants were randomly assigned into two groups. One class is the experimental class that received of scaffolding worksheet and one other class as the control class. The comparative analysis results revealed that scaffolding explanation worksheets are effective in improving students’ science explanation skills. The average score of scientific explanation of students in experimental class and control class is 69.10 and 53.00. Regarding the SOLO taxonomic classification, in spite of the fact that the experimental class students on average exceeded the control class students, it can be seen that some students in the experimental class were still at the prestructural and unistructural levels. The incorrect timing to remove scaffolds and misusage of scaffolding worksheet were two possible reasons behind the failure of fading scaffolding practice
References
Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating The Quality of Learning: The SOLO Taxonomy. New York: Academic Press.
Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Supporting argumentation through students' questions: Case studies in science classrooms. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 230-284. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400903530036
Cho, K.-L., & Jonassen, D. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 5-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505022
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). On The Language of Physical Science. Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Hand, B., & Choi, A. (2010). Examining The Impact of Student Use of Multiple Modal Representations in Constructing Arguments in Organic Chemistry Laboratory Classes. Research in Science Education, 40, 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9155-8
Han, X., Luo, H., Yang, J., & Jiang, S. (2021, August). Fading scaffolds for better online learning? A comparative analysis of three scaffolding practices. In International Conference on Blended Learning, 326-337. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80504-3_27
Hanson, D. M. (2005). Designing Process-Oriented Guided-Inquiry Activities. Pacific Crest.
Kapon, S., Ganiel, U., & Eylon, B. S. (2010). Explaining The Unexplainable: Translated Scientific Explanations (TSE) in Public Physics Lectures. International Journal of Science Education, 32(2), 15, 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802566632
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific Explanations: Characterizing and Evaluating The Effects of Teachers’ Instructional Practices on Student Learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 53–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20201
McNeill, K. L. (2009). Teachers’ use of curriculum to support students in writing scientifi c arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93, 233-268. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20294
McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R.W. (2006). Supporting Students’ Construction of Scientific Explanations by Fading Scaffolds in Instructional Materials. Journal of The Learning Sciences, 15, 153–191. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1
Mahanani, I., Rahayu, S., & Fajaroh, F. (2019). The Effect of Inquiry Based Learning with Socioscientific Issues Context on Critical Thinking Skills and Scientific Explanation. Jurnal Kependidikan: Penelitian Inovasi Pembelajaran, 3(1), 53-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.21831/jk.v3i1.20972
National Research Council. (2012). A Framework For K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, And Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2009). Scientific literacy, PISA, and socioscientific discourse: Assessment for progressive aims of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 909-921. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20327
Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 77-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505026
Thalheimer, W., & Cook, S. (2002). How to calculate effect sizes from published research: A simplified methodology. Work-Learning Research, 1(9).
Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., Oort, F., & Beishuizen, J. (2015). The effects of scaffolding in the classroom: support contingency and student independent working time in relation to student achievement, task effort and appreciation of support. Instructional Science, 43, 615-641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-015-9351-z
OECD. (2013). PISA 2015 Draft Science Framework. Paris: Author.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1
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. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4001_1
Åžahin, E., & YaÄŸbasan, R. (2012). Determining Which Introductory Physics Topics Pre-Service Physics Teachers Have Difficulty Understanding and What Accounts for These Difficulties. European Journal of Physics, 33(2), 315. https://doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/33/2/315
Sandoval, W. (2003). Conceptual and Epistemic Aspects of Students’ Scientific Explanations. The Journal of The Learning Sciences, 12, 5–51. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1201_2
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The Quality of Students’ Use of Evidence in Written Scientific Explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 23–55. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2
Tang, K. (2016). Constructing Scientific Explanations Through Premise–Reasoning–Outcome (PRO): An Exploratory Study to Scaffold Students in Structuring Written Explanations, International Journal of Science Education, 38(9), 1415-1440. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. London, England: Cambridge University Press.
Wang, C.Y,. (2015). Scaffolding Middle School Students’ Construction of Scientific Explanations: Comparing A Cognitive Versus A Metacognitive Evaluation Approach. International Journal of Science Education, 37(2), 237-271. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.979378
Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and Literacy in Science Education. Philadelphia PA: Open University Press.
Yeo, J. & Gilbert, J.K. (2014) Constructing A Scientific Explanation-Anarrative Account. International Journal of Science Education, 36(11), 1902-1935. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.880527
Zacharia, C. Z. (2005). The Impact of Interactive Computer Simulations on The Nature and Quality of Postgraduate Science Teachers’ Explanations in Physics. International Journal of Science Education, 27(14), 1741-1767. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500239664
Author Biographies
Wahyuni Handayani, UIN Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung
Tri Wahyu Agustina, Universitas Islam Negeri Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Wahyuni Handayani, Tri Wahyu Agustina
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY License). This license allows authors to use all articles, data sets, graphics, and appendices in data mining applications, search engines, web sites, blogs, and other platforms by providing an appropriate reference. The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions and will retain publishing rights without restrictions.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
