Appendix I

List of Studies Selected and Analysed

  1. Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., Winters, F. I., Moos, D. C., & Greene, J. A. (2005). Adaptive human scaffolding facilitates adolescents’ self-regulated learning with hypermedia. Instructional Science, 33(5-6), 381-412.
  2. Chen, F.-C., & Jiang, H.-M. (2004). Exploration of peer-facilitator dynamics in two contrasting groups. Instructional Science, 32(6), 419-446.
  3. Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815-843.
  4. Chin, C., & Teou, L.-Y. (2009). Using concept cartoons in formative assessment: Scaffolding students’ argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 31(10), 1307-1332.
  5. Chiu, M.-H., & Lin, J. W. (2005). Promoting fourth graders’ conceptual change of their understanding of electric current via multiple analogies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(4), 429-464.
  6. Chiu, M.-H., Chou, C.-C., & Liu, C.-J. (2002). Dynamic processes of conceptual change: Analysis of constructing mental models of chemical equilibrium. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(8), 688-712.
  7. Choi, I., Land, S. M., & Turgeon, A. J. (2005). Scaffolding peer-questioning strategies to facilitate metacognition during online small group discussion. Instructional Science, 33(5-6), 483-511.
  8. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. T. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253-277.
  9. Conner, L. N. (2007). Cueing metacognition to improve researching and essay writing in a final year high school biology class. Research in Science Education, 37(1), 1-16.
  10. Cuevas, H. M., Fiore, S. M., & Oser, R. L. (2002). Scaffolding cognitive and metacognitive processes in low verbal ability learners: Use of diagrams in computer-based training environments. Instructional Science, 30(6), 433-464.
  11. Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2005). Using web-based pedagogical tools as scaffolds for self-regulated learning. Instructional Science, 33(5-6), 513-540.
  12. Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819-837.
  13. Enfield, M., Smith, E. L., & Grueber, D. J. (2007). “A sketch is like a sentence”: Curriculum structures that support teaching epistemic practices of science. Science Education, 92(4), 608-630.
  14. Fretz, E. B., Wu, H.-K., Zhang, B., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2002). An investigation of software scaffolds supporting modeling practices. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 567-589.
  15. Hadwin, A. F., Wozney, L., & Pontin, O. (2005). Scaffolding the appropriation of self-regulatory activity: A socio-cultural analysis of changes in teacher-student discourse about a graduate research portfolio. Instructional Science, 33(5-6), 413-450.
  16. Hadzigeorgiou, Y. (2002). A study of the development of the concept of mechanical stability in preschool children. Research in Science Education, 32(3), 373-391.
  17. Herrenkohl, L. R., Palincsar, A. S., DeWater, L. S., & Kawasaki, K. (1999). Developing scientific communities in classrooms: A sociocognitive approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3-4), 451-493.
  18. Hsu, Y.-S., Wu, H.-K., & Hwang, F.-K. (2008). Fostering high school students’ conceptual understandings about seasons: The design of a technology-enhanced learning environment. Research in Science Education, 38(2), 127-147.
  19. Kulikowich, J. M., & Young, M. F. (2001). Locating an ecological psychology methodology for situated action. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1-2), 165-202.
  20. Lajoie, S. P., Lavigne, N. C., Guerrera, C., & Munsie, S. D. (2001). Constructing knowledge in the context of BioWorld. Instructional Science, 29(2), 155-186.
  21. Lumpe, A. T., & Butler, K. (2002). The information seeking strategies of high school science students. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 549-566.
  22. McGregor, D. (2008). The influence of task structure on students’ learning processes: Observations from case studies in secondary school science. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(4), 509-540.
  23. McNeill, K. L. (2008). Teachers’ use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93(2), 233-268.
  24. McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J. S., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191.
  25. Miller, J. (2009). Teaching refugee learners with interrupted education in science: Vocabulary, literacy and pedagogy. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 571-592.
  26. Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2008). Exploring the fluctuation of motivation and use of self-regulatory processes during learning with hypermedia. Instructional Science, 36(3), 203-231.
  27. Muukkonen, H., Lakkala, M., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). Technology-mediation and tutoring: How do they shape progressive inquiry discourse? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 527-565.
  28. Pata, K., Lehtinen, E., & Sarapuu, T. (2006). Inter-relations of tutor’s and peers’ scaffolding and decision-making discourse acts. Instructional Science, 34(4), 313-341.
  29. Patterson, E. W. (2001). Structuring the composition process in scientific writing. International Journal of Science Education, 23(1), 1-16.
  30. Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185-217.
  31. Ritchie, S., Rigano, D., & Duane, A. (2008). Writing an ecological mystery in class: Merging genres and learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(2), 143-166.
  32. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345-372.
  33. Simons, K. D., & Klein, J. D. (2007). The impact of scaffolding and student achievement levels in a problem-based learning environment. Instructional Science, 35(1), 41-72.
  34. Sins, P. H. M., Savelsbergh, E. R., & van Joolingen, W. R. (2005). The difficult process of scientific modelling: An analysis of novices’ reasoning during computer-based modelling. International Journal of Science Education, 27(14), 1695-1721.
  35. Song, H.-D., Grabowski, B. L., Koszalka, T. A., & Harkness, W. L. (2006). Patterns of instructional-design factors prompting reflective thinking in middle-school and college level problem-based learning environments. Instructional Science, 34(1), 63-87.
  36. van der Valk, T., & de Jong, O. (2009). Scaffolding science teachers in open-inquiry teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 31(6), 829-850.
  37. Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1387-1410.
  38. Whipp, J. L. (2003). Scaffolding critical reflection in online discussions: Helping prospective teachers think deeply about field experiences in urban schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 321-333.
  39. Wu, H.-K. (2003). Linking the microscopic view of chemistry to real-life experiences: Intertextuality in a high-school science classroom. Science Education, 87(6), 868-891.
  40. Wu, H.-K., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Exploring middle school students’ use of inscriptions in project-based science classrooms. Science Education, 90(5), 852-873.
  41. Yeh, Y.-C. (2009). Integrating e-learning into the direct-instruction model to enhance the effectiveness of critical-thinking instruction. Instructional Science, 37(2), 185-203.
  42. Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding preservice science teachers’ evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 437-463.
  43. Zhang, B., Liu, X., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Expert models and modeling processes associated with a computer-modeling tool. Science Education, 90(4), 579-604.

1

Appendix II

Framework of Coding Scheme

Framework of Coding Scheme
Category / Subcategory / Code
A. Research Focus / A.1 Teacher education
A.2 Learning-conceptions
A.3 Learning-contexts
A.4 Goals and policy
A.5 Culture, social, and gender issues
A.6 History, philosophy, epistemology, and NOS
A.7 Curriculum
A.8 Assessment
B. Research Method / B.1 Method / B.1.1 Quantitative
B.1.2 Qualitative
B.1.3 Mixed-method
B.2 Participants / B.2.1 Kindergarten
B.2.2 Elementary school
B.2.3 High school
B.2.4 Undergraduate
B.2.5 Graduate
B.2.6 Life-long
B.2.7 Non-student (teacher)
C. Features ofScaffolding / C.1 Goal / C.1.1 Conceptual understanding
C.1.2 Procedural and strategic skills
C.1.3 Metacognition and epistemology
C.2 Duration / C.2.1 Less than an hour
C.2.2 Hours
C.2.3 Weeks
C.2.4 Semesters
C.2.5 Not clear
C.3 Representation / C.3.1 Written prompts only
C.3.2 Multiple representation
C.3.3 Not clear / Not available
C.4 Explicitness / C.4.1 Explicit
C.4.2 Implicit
C.5 Fading / C.5.1 With fading
C.5.2 Without fading
C.6 Assessment / C.6.1 Traditional
C.6.2 Alternative
C.6.3 Combination
C.6.4 Not clear / Not available
C.7 Effect / C.7.1 Conceptual understanding
C.7.2 Procedural and strategic skills
C.7.3 Metacognition and epistemology
C.7.4 Affective

1