Journal of Engineering Education Transformations

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Identification of Effective Scaffolding to Novices Using CBLE


Affiliations
1 Chitkara University Institute of Engineering and Technology, Chitkara University, Punjab, India
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


The aim of this study is to discover which kind of scaffolding can effectively promote learning. The past studies have shown mixed results in this regard. The process in which a domain expert gives and withdraws support in order to make a novice learner complete the task is known as scaffolding. A total of four distinct scaffold combinations and four groups were made. This experimental study was repeated twice to cross verify the outcomes using computer based learning environment (CBLE). The CBLE was designed with intelligent web program in PHP and jQuery to evaluate the solutions submitted by the learners instantly. The CBLE acted as an intelligent feedback system. In the first study, it was found that there was a significant effect of different scaffolding treatments on the learning outcomes, F (3,76) = 5.762, p=.001. The result analysis involves multiple comparisons based on Tukey HSD test and indicated that the mean score for the indirect support and adaptive fading (M=4.45, SD=1.191) was considerably different than the others. Likewise, second study also found that there was a significant effect of different scaffold treatments on the learning outcome, F (3,76) = 4.258, p=.008. The Tukey HSD test applied during the second study indicated that the mean score for the indirect support and adaptive fading (M=4.55, SD=1.19) was again significantly different than the others. The present study additionally measured the flow state of all the four groups using Kruskal-Wallis H test and found that indirect support and adaptive fading group was significantly different than direct support and adapting fading group as well as direct support and gradual fading group in both the studies.

Keywords

Computer Based Learning Environment (CBLE), Effective Scaffolding, Intelligent Feedback System.
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • Anwar, I. Y., Irawan, E. B., & As’ari, A. R. (2017). Investigation of contingency patterns of teachers scaffolding in teaching and learning mathematics. Journal on Mathematics Education, 8(1), 65-76.

  • Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (1983). Instructional scaffolding: Reading and writing as natural language activities. Language Arts, 60(2), 168–175.

  • Azevedo, R., Moos, D. C., Johnson, A. M., & Chauncey, A. D. (2010). Measuring cognitive and metacognitive regulatory processes during hypermedia learning: Issues and challenges. Educational Psychologist, 45(4), 210–223.

  • Bliss, J., Askew, M., & Macrae, S. (1996). Effective teaching and learning: Scaffolding revisited. Oxford Review of Education, 22(1), 37–61.

  • Cazden, C. (1979). Peekaboo as an Instructional Model: Discourse Development at Home and at School. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, No. 17.

  • Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser, 18, 32–42.

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow. The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York (HarperPerennial) 1990.

  • D. González-Gómez and J. S. Jeong, “EdusciFIT: A computer-based blended and scaffolding toolbox to support numerical concepts for flipped science education,” Educ. Sci., vol. 9, no. 2, p. 116, 2019.

  • de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher--student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–296.

  • Devolder, A., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2012). Supporting self-regulated learning in computer-based learning environments: systematic review of effects of scaffolding in the domain of science education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(6), 557–573.

  • Englert, C. S. (1992). Writing instruction from a sociocultural perspective: The holistic, dialogic, and social enterprise of writing. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(3), 153–172.

  • Gaffney, J. S., & Anderson, R. C. (1991). Two-tiered scaffolding: Congruent processes of teaching and learning. Center for the Study of Reading Technical Report; No. 523.

  • Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, 2, 115–140.

  • Jackson, S. A., Martin, A. J., & Eklund, R. C. (2008). Long and short measures of flow: The construct validity of the FSS-2, DFS-2, and new brief counterparts. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 30(5), 561–587.

  • Kaushal, R., Panda, S. N., & Kumar, N. (2020). Proposing Effective Framework for Animation Based Learning Environment for Engineering Students. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations.

  • Lajoie, S. P., Guerrera, C., Munsie, S. D., & Lavigne, N. C. (2001). Constructing knowledge in the context of BioWorld. Instructional Science, 29(2), 155–186.

  • Langer, J. A., & Applebee, A. N. (1986). Chapter 5: Reading and Writing Instruction: Toward a Theory of Teaching and Learning. Review of Research in Education, 13(1), 171–194.

  • Li, D. D., & Lim, C. P. (2008). Scaffolding online historical inquiry tasks: A case study of two secondary school classrooms. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1394–1410.

  • Martin, A. J., & Jackson, S. A. (2008). Brief approaches to assessing task absorption and enhanced subjective experience: Examining “short”and “core”flow in diverse performance domains. Motivation and Emotion, 32(3), 141–157.

  • Metcalf, S. J. (1999). The design of guided learner-adaptable scaffolding in interactive learning environments. University of Michigan.

  • Palincsar, A. S. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction. Educational Psychologist, 21(1-2), 73–98.

  • Palincsar, A. S. (1991). Scaffolded instruction of listening comprehension with first graders at risk for academic difficulty. Toward the Practice of Theory-Based Instruction: Current Cognitive Theories and Their Educational Promise, 50–65.

  • Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehensionfostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.

  • P. Denny, J. Prather, B. A. Becker, Z. Albrecht, D. Loksa, and R. Pettit, “A Closer Look at Metacognitive Scaffolding: Solving Test Cases Before Programming,” in Proceedings of the 19th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research, 2019, pp. 1–10.

  • Pea, R. D. (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.

  • 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.

  • Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185–217.

  • 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.

  • Sharma, P., & Hannafin, M. J. (2007). Scaffolding in technology-enhanced learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 15(1), 27–46.

  • Smit, N., van de Grift, W., de Bot, K., & Jansen, E. (2017). A classroom observation tool for scaffolding reading comprehension. System, 65, 117–129.

  • van de Pol, J., & Elbers, E. (2013). Scaffolding student learning: A micro-analysis of teacher-student interaction. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 2(1), 32–41.

  • van de Pol, J., Mercer, N., & Volman, M. (2019). Scaffolding student understanding in smallgroup work: Students’ uptake of teacher support in subsequent small-group interaction. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(2), 206-239.

  • Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). 1976: The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 17: 89-100.


Abstract Views: 254

PDF Views: 1




  • Identification of Effective Scaffolding to Novices Using CBLE

Abstract Views: 254  |  PDF Views: 1

Authors

Rajesh Kumar Kaushal
Chitkara University Institute of Engineering and Technology, Chitkara University, Punjab, India
Naveen Kumar
Chitkara University Institute of Engineering and Technology, Chitkara University, Punjab, India
S. N. Panda
Chitkara University Institute of Engineering and Technology, Chitkara University, Punjab, India
Vinay Kukreja
Chitkara University Institute of Engineering and Technology, Chitkara University, Punjab, India

Abstract


The aim of this study is to discover which kind of scaffolding can effectively promote learning. The past studies have shown mixed results in this regard. The process in which a domain expert gives and withdraws support in order to make a novice learner complete the task is known as scaffolding. A total of four distinct scaffold combinations and four groups were made. This experimental study was repeated twice to cross verify the outcomes using computer based learning environment (CBLE). The CBLE was designed with intelligent web program in PHP and jQuery to evaluate the solutions submitted by the learners instantly. The CBLE acted as an intelligent feedback system. In the first study, it was found that there was a significant effect of different scaffolding treatments on the learning outcomes, F (3,76) = 5.762, p=.001. The result analysis involves multiple comparisons based on Tukey HSD test and indicated that the mean score for the indirect support and adaptive fading (M=4.45, SD=1.191) was considerably different than the others. Likewise, second study also found that there was a significant effect of different scaffold treatments on the learning outcome, F (3,76) = 4.258, p=.008. The Tukey HSD test applied during the second study indicated that the mean score for the indirect support and adaptive fading (M=4.55, SD=1.19) was again significantly different than the others. The present study additionally measured the flow state of all the four groups using Kruskal-Wallis H test and found that indirect support and adaptive fading group was significantly different than direct support and adapting fading group as well as direct support and gradual fading group in both the studies.

Keywords


Computer Based Learning Environment (CBLE), Effective Scaffolding, Intelligent Feedback System.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.16920/jeet%2F2022%2Fv35i4%2F22108