Academic Journal
View in EDS
PDF Full Text
HTML Full Text

Examining the Hard, Peer, and Teacher Scaffolding Framework in Inquiry-Based Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments: Impact on Academic Achievement and Group Performance

Bibliographic Details
Title: Examining the Hard, Peer, and Teacher Scaffolding Framework in Inquiry-Based Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments: Impact on Academic Achievement and Group Performance
Language: English
Authors: Shin, Suhkyung, Brush, Thomas A., Glazewski, Krista D.
Source: Educational Technology Research and Development. Oct 2020 68(5):2423-2447.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 25
Publication Date: 2020
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Tests/Questionnaires
Education Level: Grade 9
High Schools
Junior High Schools
Middle Schools
Secondary Education
Descriptors: Scaffolding (Teaching Technique), Active Learning, Inquiry, Technology Uses in Education, Educational Environment, Academic Achievement, Student Attitudes, Grade 9, High School Students, Biology, Science Instruction, Peer Relationship, Group Dynamics
DOI: 10.1007/s11423-020-09763-8
ISSN: 1042-1629
Abstract: The purpose of this study was to examine how students' academic achievement and group performance related to their perceptions of the usefulness of hard, peer, and teacher scaffolds. A single instrumental case approach that integrated quantitative and qualitative analysis was employed for this study, which involved data gathered from 163 students in a ninth-grade biology course. Statistical results suggest that the students' perceived usefulness of hard scaffolding, followed by peer scaffolding, was the most significant variable to predict individual academic achievement. However, only the perceived usefulness of peer scaffolding was found to be a significant predictor of group performance. This finding empirically points to the positive impact that student perceptions of the usefulness of hard, peer, and teacher scaffolds may have on students' individual academic achievement and group performance in IBL (inquiry-based learning) activities.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2020
Accession Number: EJ1269115
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHjPtM4BHU3ZchRwgzYmadcigk49r9CVlbU7V5F6lgH7WwE0vpxsG8snYMa8h22yxUI0AAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDHq3UPeSsIMe4LLBEwIBEICBmuh10C-ohaDMvXTNy1rQQaZTb-pdXlPCRDJQinp5tfQaQUGlH2c8iXB2rkctsHVAu-AsRtWx7Yc2yTE12FefFBaBIpwK6AnxS4ZlS5A8ZFhMdlCYAtL1mwYwkXBlaYaKF5jLk7uCE5RR0LwB0NDnXFp4zQxgELLcPWoZpf4g8ac9r_CWy-nV77yhNlqqQgvAZX63j5QbVC1GKNo=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0146054533;etr01oct.20;2020Sep26.04:11;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0146054533-1">Examining the hard, peer, and teacher scaffolding framework in inquiry-based technology-enhanced learning environments: impact on academic achievement and group performance </title> <p>The purpose of this study was to examine how students' academic achievement and group performance related to their perceptions of the usefulness of hard, peer, and teacher scaffolds. A single instrumental case approach that integrated quantitative and qualitative analysis was employed for this study, which involved data gathered from 163 students in a ninth-grade biology course. Statistical results suggest that the students' perceived usefulness of hard scaffolding, followed by peer scaffolding, was the most significant variable to predict individual academic achievement. However, only the perceived usefulness of peer scaffolding was found to be a significant predictor of group performance. This finding empirically points to the positive impact that student perceptions of the usefulness of hard, peer, and teacher scaffolds may have on students' individual academic achievement and group performance in IBL (inquiry-based learning) activities.</p> <p>Keywords: Inquiry-based learning; Hard scaffolding; Teacher scaffolding; Peer scaffolding; Technology-enhanced classroom</p> <hd id="AN0146054533-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Inquiry-based learning (IBL) is a form of active learning that starts with students posing questions about a particular topic. By engaging in inquiry activities, students pursue the answers to their questions and come to understand they can take responsibility for their learning. IBL has been considered an effective instructional model to promote critical thinking, reasoning, and problem-solving (Kim and Hannafin [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref1">27</reflink>]; Savery and Duffy [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref2">53</reflink>]; Singer et al. [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref3">63</reflink>]). In IBL, students have responsibility for setting learning goals, and managing and monitoring their activities to meet those goals (Hannafin et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref4">21</reflink>]; Palincsar and Brown [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref5">46</reflink>]; Palincsar et al. [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref6">47</reflink>]). However, due to the characteristics of the student-oriented, open-ended inquiry process, students may experience difficulties with limited guidance from a teacher, especially when they do not have sufficient prior knowledge and experience (Kirschner et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref7">31</reflink>]; Sweller [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref8">65</reflink>]), and require significant scaffolding to work through problem-solving processes (Kim and Hannafin [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref9">28</reflink>]).</p> <p>Scaffolding can be defined as assistance from adults or experts that enables students to achieve what is beyond their ability to accomplish independently (Wood et al. [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref10">73</reflink>]). From a social constructivists perspective, scaffolding comprises all those student–teacher interactions that help students develop important knolwedge, skills, and dispositions deemed useful for students (Vygotsky [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref11">68</reflink>]; Wertsch et al. [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref12">70</reflink>]). The concept of scaffolding has expanded to include aid provided not only by teachers but also by peers who are more knowledgeable, such as peers who can help others complete tasks beyond their capability in a classroom environment (Kim and Hannafin [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref13">29</reflink>]). In addition to peer and teacher scaffolding, recently, alternative resources and tools are also seen as scaffolding, such as designing and using technologies to support learning. These types of scaffolding are considered to be hard scaffolding. Hard scaffolding refers to static supports (fixed, stable, preset) that can be planned in advance in anticipation of potential difficulties with a task (Saye and Brush [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref14">55</reflink>]), and it has been widely developed and used to assist students during IBL activities (Lee and Calandra [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref15">36</reflink>]; Oliver and Hannafin [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref16">45</reflink>]). For instance, hard scaffolding can represent different perspectives through expert videos that provide problem-solving strategies as hints, or provide authentic examples in video or text format to aid understanding of specific situations or concepts that may be required to solve problems (Lee and Calandra [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref17">36</reflink>]). In addition to studying hard scaffolding in learning activities, researchers have investigated the effectiveness of hard scaffolding on students' learning outcomes (Linn et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref18">42</reflink>]; Williams and Linn [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref19">71</reflink>]). Some have reported that hard scaffolding is effective in promoting students' understanding of domain knowledge as well as scientific reasoning skills (Lee and Calandra [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref20">36</reflink>]; Walker and Zeidler [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref21">69</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although some research has reported a positive impact of scaffolds on students' knowledge retention and inquiry skills, other research has identified several deficiencies in approaches that only use hard scaffolding. For instance, limitations may emerge when scaffolding excludes interactions between students and more advanced learners or teachers. Students who use hard scaffolds without such interactions might not adequately internalize information presented to them (Krajcik et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref22">32</reflink>]; Lakkala et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref23">34</reflink>]; Li and Lim [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref24">39</reflink>]). Recent scaffolding studies have suggested that inquiry frameworks emphasize peer and teacher facilitation to engage students in inquiry learning while learners interact with scaffolding tools (Choi et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref25">8</reflink>]; Crawford [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref26">12</reflink>]; Kim and Hannafin [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref27">28</reflink>]; Shin et al. [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref28">60</reflink>]; Wu and Pedersen [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref29">74</reflink>]). Previous studies have demonstrated that both peer and teacher scaffolding support learners' disciplinary ways of thinking and facilitate collaborative group work in IBL, and that students benefit from these scaffolds with respect to modeling the inquiry process and co-constructing knowledge on a given topic (Hovardas et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref30">23</reflink>]; Van de Pol et al. [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref31">67</reflink>]). As such, scaffolding frameworks have demonstrated that hard, peer, and teacher scaffolding are of key importance in assisting students' learning in IBL.</p> <p>Students' perceptions of the usefulness of scaffolding may be a critical component to how or why they utilize scaffolds in their learning. In IBL, students draw on their own experiences and prior knowledge during classroom activities, which may impact their use of scaffolding and their evaluations of the utility of different forms of scaffolding (Bransford et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref32">4</reflink>]; Prince and Felder [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref33">49</reflink>]). Accordingly, while carrying out learning tasks, students interpret activities through their different perspectives and selectively use scaffolds in ways that fit their individual needs and goals (Lepper et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref34">38</reflink>]; Sharma and Hannafin [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref35">59</reflink>]). Within this context, teachers design IBL activities and provide scaffolding based on their own understanding of the learners' thinking processes during the activities (Hwang et al. [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref36">24</reflink>]; Lin et al. [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref37">41</reflink>]; Sharma and Hannafin [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref38">59</reflink>]). Thus, even though teachers provide scaffolding with instructional goals aimed at all of their students, such as facilitating thinking processes or reducing difficulties, learners' individual interpretations and perceptions of scaffolding may be an important factor related to how they actually utilize and interact with different types of scaffolds. By extension, this could impact students' learning outcomes in IBL. Given that different types of scaffolding interact with each other within technology-enhanced classroom settings, it is important to better understand what forms of scaffolding learners perceive to be useful and appropriate for their learning in order to design and provide effective contextual scaffolding in IBL.</p> <p>While integrating multiple scaffolding resources from technology tools, peers, and teachers may be a critical strategy for facilitating learning, this scaffolding framework has not yet been empirically tested in K–12 classroom settings. Considering this framework involves students seeking help from their teachers and peers while utilizing multiple scaffolds in order to obtain their learning goals in an actual classroom (Kim and Hannafin [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref39">28</reflink>]), it is important to test whether students' perceptions of the usefulness of hard, peer, and teacher scaffolds impact their learning outcomes with respect to individual achievement (e.g., posttest on domain-specific knowledge) and group performance (e.g., argumentation skills, problem-solving skills). The current study addresses this research gap and aims to empirically test whether students' individual academic achievement and group performance are related to the perceived usefulness of three different types of scaffolding.</p> <hd id="AN0146054533-3">Theoretical framework</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0146054533-4">Hard, peer, and teacher scaffolding in technology-enhanced classroom environments</hd> <p>Scaffolding can be defined as a cognitive and social support in which a more knowledgeable person, such as teacher or adult, guides an individual learner and provides a basis needed to solve a task (Wood et al. [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref40">73</reflink>]). The concept of scaffolding, which emerged from sociocultural theory, assumes that learning occurs in the context of social interactions (Vygotsky [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref41">68</reflink>]; Wertsch et al. [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref42">70</reflink>]). One crucial aspect of successful scaffolding is that students work within their zone of proximal development (ZPD), which is defined as "the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers" (Vygotsky [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref43">68</reflink>], p. 86).</p> <p>In practice, however, it is difficult to accommodate the ZPD of individual students in an actual classroom context; having a single teacher provide scaffolding for an entire class does not allow for personalized exchanges that more fully address the ZPDs of different students (Puntambekar and Hubscher [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref44">50</reflink>]). In order to fill this gap, the notion of scaffolding has expanded to include interactions beyond those limited to individual teacher–student exchanges. Scaffolding now encompasses peer interactions (Ge and Land [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref45">17</reflink>]), instructional strategies (e.g., formal/informal assessments, guided activity, modeling; Kim and Hannafin [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref46">28</reflink>]), and hard tools and resources (Puntambekar and Hubscher [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref47">50</reflink>]).</p> <p>Various types of scaffolds can be used and designed in multiple forms to engage students in inquiry learning activities. Saye and Brush ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref48">55</reflink>]) categorized scaffolding as hard and soft. Hard scaffolds are pre-planned static forms of support that are designed to help students through anticipated difficulties with a particular task. These can be formatted as question prompts, check lists, or concept maps to support learners' problem-solving processes or to provide certain concepts or knowledge while they are actively engaged with a problem (Belland [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref49">2</reflink>]; Krajcik et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref50">32</reflink>]; Shin and Song [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref51">61</reflink>]). In contrast, soft scaffolds are dynamic forms of support that are provided by a teacher or peer to help with the learning process. This type of assistance is generally provided on the fly when, for example, a teacher monitors the progress students make while engaged in a learning activity and intervenes when support or guidance is needed (Pea [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref52">48</reflink>]; Saye and Brush [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref53">56</reflink>]). In addition, Kim et al. ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref54">30</reflink>]) proposed the "microcontext" framework, which describes particular classroom environments in which students build their knowledge with more capable others by interacting with inquiry tools, teachers, and peers. In this framework, three different scaffolds interact with each other: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref55">1</reflink>) students engage in problem-solving processes using Web-based inquiry tools (student–tool interaction), (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref56">2</reflink>) teachers design and develop hard scaffolding to support their students' activities (teacher–tool interaction), and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref57">3</reflink>) teachers facilitate and assist students' IBL activities through different types of scaffolding strategies (teacher–student interaction).</p> <p>When considering technology-enhanced classroom environments, the three different types of scaffolds interact with each other and play a pivotal role in the IBL classroom context (see Fig. 1). Hard scaffolds are designed by teachers in advance to support students' inquiry learning activities. Students engage in a number of different IBL activities such as identifying and defining issues, developing arguments, and reflecting on and evaluating learning processes. These IBL processes are facilitated by peer scaffolding while also utilizing hard scaffolding. In addition, student groups may seek further help from their teacher. In this way, hard, peer, and teacher scaffolding interact with one another dynamically in the classroom environment. Hard scaffolding may promote students' understanding of content and activities, as well as engage them in group discussion (Shin et al. [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref58">60</reflink>]). At the same time, a teacher monitors the progress of individual students or groups to see if they are using their instruction time effectively, and students engage in their activities and receive help from hard and peer scaffolding. Taken together, this scaffolding framework shows that diverse forms of hard, peer, and teacher scaffolding interact in dynamic ways to help learners during their activities in a classroom context, and this process needs to be understood and considered from a broad perspective.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Hard-, peer-, and teacher scaffolding in technology-enhanced classroom environments</p> <hd id="AN0146054533-5">Students' perceptions of the usefulness of hard, peer, and teacher scaffolds in technology-en...</hd> <p>Previous literature highlights the positive influence that scaffolding tools have on students' individual achievement, such as their understanding of domain knowledge and underlying scientific concepts (Demetriadis et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref59">15</reflink>]; Demetriadis and Pombortsis [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref60">14</reflink>]; Jacobson and Archodidou [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref61">25</reflink>]; Reiser [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref62">52</reflink>]). Lee and Calandra ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref63">36</reflink>]) reported that annotations embedded in a Web-based unit facilitated students' prior knowledge, which is crucial for understanding background information and developing arguments with evidence during the problem-solving process. Reiser ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref64">52</reflink>]) found that hard scaffolding provided a supplementary structure that assisted learners' problem-solving processes with opportunities to better understand underlying scientific concepts. In another study, 10th grade students engaged in problem-solving processes utilizing Web-based organizational scaffolding tools in the form of a research plan template and question prompts (Zydney [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref65">77</reflink>]). This results were consistent with findings from other studies that revealed students demonstrated a basic understanding of a problem if assisted by scaffolding tools.</p> <p>In addition, some researchers have found that different types of hard scaffolding are effective in fostering students' scientific inquiry skills such as scientific reasoning and argumentation, skills that are considered a part of group performance in this study since they can be acquired through group inquiry work (Lee and Calandra [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref66">36</reflink>]; Walker and Zeidler [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref67">69</reflink>]). For example, in Belland's ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref68">2</reflink>]) study, a "Connection Log" was utilized in a Web-based environment to allow students to respond to prompts and share answers with peers. The students used the Connection Log to organize information, share their work, and manage and monitor group work throughout the problem-solving process. The results of this study found that scaffolds may assist students in articulating their thoughts and facilitating their thinking process in problem-solving activities. Kim and Hannafin ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref69">28</reflink>]) explored how sixth graders used peer, teacher, and technology-enhanced scaffolds in their classroom during a scientific inquiry activity centered in the Web-based Inquiry Science Environment (WISE), which online resources that promotes knowledge integration of science topics. Embedded scaffolds were available to the students and included inquiry maps, evidence pages, hints, and prompts to help them monitor and reflect on their inquiry activity. The students used electronic notes as a metacognitive scaffold to build an inquiry plan and construct and revise their conceptual understanding of the topic, and they frequently used WISE's scaffolds to identify and resolve the problem. The researchers found that the students perceived the embedded scaffolds (e.g., Web links) as useful in helping them focus on important resources as well as organize the resources and evidence needed to support their argumentation. Walker and Zeidler ([<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref70">69</reflink>]) investigated the use of WISE in SSI (socio-scientific issues) instruction, which highlights the application of scientific and moral reasoning to real-world situations, in science education. Their findings suggested that, by presenting various resources, WISE assisted students' learning processes with respect to identifying multiple viewpoints. The study also emphasized the role of hard scaffolding embedded in WISE; the embedded guiding questions may have helped students in identifying potential bias in online information. However, the researchers found that engaging in inquiry instruction using WISE was not sufficient to promote students' understanding of topics or acquisition of scientific skills. Without any guidance in inquiry-oriented learning, students produced hasty generalizations and did not make explicit references to a conceptual understanding of the nature of science during the classroom debate. This suggests that hard scaffolding tools embedded in Web-based instruction may partially, though not fully, facilitate learners' scientific inquiry skills in IBL.</p> <p>While the potentially positive effects of scaffolding tools are compelling, few studies have investigated the effectiveness of hard scaffolds in light of its interactions with other types of scaffolds provided by peers and teachers (Liu and Tsai [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref71">43</reflink>]; Van de Pol et al. [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref72">67</reflink>]). Although the scaffolding framework is constructed based on previous studies, most scaffolding research in this area has focused on how hard scaffolding impacts students' learning outcomes (Belland [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref73">2</reflink>]; Cho and Jonnasen [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref74">5</reflink>]; Demetriadis et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref75">15</reflink>]; Zydney [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref76">77</reflink>]). In K–12 classrooms, teachers and students negotiate many factors that may shape the implementation of IBL, such as students' prior knowledge and experience, teachers' roles and practices, or the overall classroom culture (Coll et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref77">11</reflink>]; Gonzalez and Dejarnette [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref78">19</reflink>]). By extension, students use embedded scaffolding tools designed to alleviate difficulties in substantially different ways depending on situational factors, prior knowledge, and teacher instructions (Kim et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref79">30</reflink>]). Features that serve as guides to the direction of activities, such as instructions, hints, or prompts, can be employed to support different learning goals and activities (Hmelo-Silver and Barrows [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref80">22</reflink>]; Simons and Klein [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref81">62</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although scaffolding is designed and provided to better support learners' activities, students may differ in how they perceive hard, peer, and teacher support when they interact with these tools. Learners' perceptions of scaffolding are based on their own interpretation and internalization of the scaffolding (Shabo et al. [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref82">58</reflink>]; Sharma and Hannafin [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref83">59</reflink>]), which ultimately influence both their use of scaffolding and their learning experiences. Students' perceptions of scaffolding are positively associated with learning outcomes in areas such as student achievement, critical thinking skills, and attitude (Lee et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref84">37</reflink>]; Mullen and Tallent-Runnels ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref85">44</reflink>]); Yu [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref86">76</reflink>]). For example, Yu ([<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref87">76</reflink>]) investigated students' perceptions of the usefulness of hard scaffolding designs in promoting their ability to generate questions, which is a critical thinking skill required of self-directed learners in online learning environments, and its influence on their attitudes towards student-generated questions. The finding of this study revealed that students' perceived usefulness of hard scaffolding tended to influence attitude formation, which can be predictive of students' intention to act and use the scaffold in their learning. These results suggest that learners' perceptions of the usefulness of scaffolding as a form of support may be a critical factor that can impact both their actual use of scaffolding and learning outcomes. However, little research has been conducted on the relationship among hard, peer, and teacher scaffolding and student achievement, especially in technology-enhanced IBL classroom environments. Given that multiple forms of hard, peer, and teacher scaffolding interact in dynamic ways in a classroom context, it is essential to further research whether students' perceptions of the usefulness of these three scaffolding types impact their achievement in actual K–12 classroom settings.</p> <hd id="AN0146054533-6">Research questions</hd> <p>The purpose of this study was to empirically test whether students' academic achievement and group performance relate to the perceived usefulness of hard, peer, and teacher scaffolding. Specifically, this study focused on the following research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How is students' academic achievement related to the perceived usefulness of hard, peer, and teacher scaffolding?</item> <p></p> <item> How is group performance related to the perceived usefulness of hard, peer, and teacher scaffolding?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0146054533-7">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0146054533-8">Research design and context</hd> <p>This study was designed as an instrumental case study (Stake [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref88">64</reflink>]). It focused on gaining a comprehensive understanding of three different types of scaffolds in IBL activities by exploring students' inquiry learning process with scaffolding tools in a particular case. Specifically, this case study aimed to examine learners' perceptions of the usefulness of hard, peer, and teacher scaffolding and how their perceptions relate to individual academic outcomes as well as group performance.</p> <p>This study took place in 6 ninth-grade biology classes taught by the same teacher during the 2015 spring semester in a rural community in the Midwestern United States. The teacher had 10 years of experience teaching secondary science and math, and had taught IBL units in his classes for the previous 2 years that he worked at the high school. This biology course was designed so students could pursue inquiry-oriented questions within inquiry activities, which allowed students to identify problems that incorporate scientific phenomena and examine their reasonable solutions in class. The six courses consisted of all freshman students and met twice a week for 90 min. This course was designed to provide students a unique opportunity to develop inquiry skills through addressing authentic and complex issues using Web-based learning materials for their investigations. The high school had provided mobile devices for all students to use for course work, so each student had a laptop or Chromebook with internet access to use the Web-based IBL units, search for relevant resources, and create a group presentation while engaged in the inquiry task. Students were familiar with the IBL process since they had experienced IBL activities in the previous and current school year before engaging in the IBL unit in this study.</p> <hd id="AN0146054533-9">Participants</hd> <p>Although 163 students (46% female, 54% male) signed consent forms, four students were excluded from this study because they did not take the posttest. As a result, there were 159 valid responses. The students worked in groups during this project; a total of 41 groups composed of three to five students were included in this study. The teacher grouped students based on their preferences, and each group had been collaboratively working together during the normal course of the curriculum during the school year.</p> <hd id="AN0146054533-10">Inquiry unit design</hd> <p>The goal of the unit was for students to be able to understand the flow of energy through an ecosystem in order to help them make connections between related scientific principles and the food that they eat. The 5-day unit posed the central question "Should there be a meat tax?" and included four activities: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref89">1</reflink>) entry event: exploring background concepts and knowledge about ecology systems, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref90">2</reflink>) class debate: antibiotic use in healthy animals, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref91">3</reflink>) pros and cons of eating meat: identifying and defining issues, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref92">4</reflink>) culminating activity: constructing and evaluating their argumentation (see Table 1).</p> <p>Description of meat tax unit</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Activity</p></th><th align="left"><p>Description</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Activity 1: entry</p><p>Event</p></td><td align="left"><p>An entry event was designed to (a) provide an overview of energy flow through an ecosystem, (b) introduce the driving question for the unit (e.g., should be there a meat tax?), and (c) provide rationale for the societal importance of the driving question</p><p>The teacher provided a video clip and articles focusing on taxing sugary foods to familiarize students with the concepts of a food tax</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Activity 2: class debate</p></td><td align="left"><p>The goal of this activity was to (a) conduct research so that students could understand the use of antibiotics in raising livestock, and (b) understand how "science" research outside of the classroom impacts their daily lives</p><p>Students were asked to individually read news articles embedded in the Activity Viewer, and then engage in a whole-class discussion focusing on the question "Should antibiotics be used in healthy farm animals to promote their growth?"</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Activity 3: quick</p><p>pros/cons research</p></td><td align="left"><p>Groups of 3 to 5 students generated a list of reasons for meat consumption and against meat consumption. In each group, one student was asked to be an activity sheet recorder and two or four students used the resources embedded in the Activity Viewer to search for details on the pros and cons of each position. While identifying the issues, students were asked to consider the question "Should people consume meat as their primary source of protein?" Based on their research, groups chose their position</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Culminating activity</p></td><td align="left"><p>Students engaged in a committee hearing (presentation) in which they played specified roles in society and attempted to persuade the class to adopt their position (either for or against a meat tax)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0146054533-11">Hard scaffolding</hd> <p>The unit was developed in a Web-based learning environment, the Socio-Scientific Inquiry Network (SSINet; https://education.indiana.edu/ssinet), in which students explored authentic socio-scientific issues in the classroom. SSINet supports science teachers in the creation and implementation of IBL curriculum with Web-based design tools that easily allow them to link to and sequence a wide variety of Web-based resources and deliver those resources to students. The "Activity Creator" tool allows teachers to organize resources and hard scaffolds for students via a Web-based "Viewer" (see Fig. 2).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Annotation tool in SSINet</p> <p>In this activity, in the two categories of hard scaffolding provided (i.e., conceptual and strategic), three scaffolds used color-coded annotations to focus student attention on important concepts and issues related to the unit (see Fig. 3, Table 2). In addition, the teacher was able to create additional scaffolds using Web 2.0 tools such as Google Forms and Google Docs, and link them to information within the IBL activity. For example, the activity sheet was a Google document that described role assignments and contained group discussion questions embedded in the culminating group activity for the unit. The unit design utilized in this study can be accessed via the SSINet viewer (https://156.56.1.74/pbltec/pad/activity.html?2299).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 Activity viewer on mobile devices</p> <p>Hard scaffolding designed for the IBL unit</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Types of hard scaffolds</p></th><th align="left"><p>Definitions</p></th><th align="left"><p>Hard scaffolds designed for the IBL unit</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Conceptual scaffolds</p></td><td align="left"><p>Provide definitions of new terms or web-based resources (Hannafin et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr21">1999</xref>; Jackson et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr26">2000</xref>; Saye and Brush <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr55">2002</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Definitions (Green color-coded annotations)</p><p>Background information (Blue color-coded annotations)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Strategic scaffolds</p></td><td align="left"><p>Embed expert advice in the form of text-based responses (Simons and Klein <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr62">2007</xref>) or video clips (Hmelo-Sliver and Barrows 2006; Pedersen and Liu 2002) to assist students in evaluating alternative approaches to address problems</p></td><td align="left"><p>Thinking questions (Red color-coded annotations)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0146054533-12">Measurement</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0146054533-13">Student survey: students' perceptions of the usefulness of hard, peer, and teacher scaffolds</hd> <p>All scales used in this study were 5-point Likert scales to measure students' perceptions of the usefulness of hard, peer, and teacher scaffolds, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The 11 items with three constructs were validated in studies by Schepers et al. ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref93">57</reflink>]) and Chu and Chu ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref94">9</reflink>]), and were adopted in this study. Three experts in instructional education and measurement reviewed and validated the developed survey items to ensure they were measuring what they were supposed to measure. In addition, before administering the survey, all items were validated using a "think aloud" method. Seven ninth-grade students who did not participate in the study were asked to complete the survey. After the survey, an interview was conducted with each student to investigate if these students could understand the meaning of the survey as it was developed. Willis's ([<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref95">72</reflink>], p. 51) guidelines were used during the interview. To briefly summarize these guidelines and the steps they outline: The interviewer asks the target question (survey item) and the subject responds. Then, the interviewer asks a probing question to which the subject answers. Additional cycles of probing questions and answers are possible, after which the interviewer asks the next target question. Each interview lasted approximately 10 min. Based on the interview responses, examples and descriptions of hard scaffolding (e.g., thinking questions [red], definitions [green], background information [blue]), unit titles (e.g., Matter Cycles, Energy Transfer, and Interdependence), and the website URL, which were embedded hard scaffolding, were added to the items to further facilitate understanding.</p> <p>The three constructs used in the scales were incorporated based on a study by Schepers et al. ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref96">57</reflink>]). In their study, the scales for the perceived usefulness of hard scaffolding consisted of four items utilized to assess learners' perceptions of the usefulness of hard scaffolds embedded in the IBL unit (e.g., "Using color-coded annotations improved my performance in class"). However, one item was not included in this study as it was not appropriate within this IBL learning context (i.e., "Using tools enhances my study effectiveness"). Two other constructs focused on the perceived usefulness of peer and teacher scaffolds and consisted of four items. These were used to measure students' perspectives about peer and teacher support during IBL activities (e.g., "The students in my group appreciated any extra effort from me," "My teacher showed a lot of concern for me"). In the current study, Cronbach's alpha was calculated to assess internal consistency among items and the reliability coefficient alpha for hard scaffolding was 0.86, peer scaffolding was 0.68, and teacher scaffolding was 0.70.</p> <hd id="AN0146054533-14">Posttest: Individual academic achievement</hd> <p>A 22-item multiple-choice test related to content knowledge on the food chain and ecology system was given to students at the end of the unit to measure their individual academic achievement. The posttest included the same items developed by the teacher, who had expertise in the learning content. Students could earn up to 22 points on the test.</p> <hd id="AN0146054533-15">Student artifacts: group performance</hd> <p>After the completion of the unit, the artifacts produced during the culminating projects were collected and used to evaluate the quality of the group presentations. A scoring rubric was adapted and modified from Belland, Glazewski, and Richardson's ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref97">3</reflink>]) and Saye and Brush's ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref98">54</reflink>]) rubric for group project presentation ratings. Group performance was measured as interval data according to the quality of their presentations. Each component consisted of specific attributes and criteria, including claims (12 points), evidence (12 points) and connection of claims to evidence (12 points), and each case was worth a total of 36 points (see Appendix Table 10). Two independent raters, an individual who holds a PhD in instructional technology and the researcher were trained together on the scoring rubric until agreement of 90% or better on each component was reached. The initial inter-rater agreement was 0.72 as measured by Cohen's kappa. The raters then discussed differences to reach a consensus. This brought the final agreement level to 0.96.</p> <hd id="AN0146054533-16">Data collection</hd> <p>Before implementing the IBL unit, the teacher explained the purpose of the study and distributed the consent form to students and their parents. After collecting the consent forms, the teacher facilitated the unit for 5 days, with the final day spent on their culminating presentations. During implementation of the unit, each class met twice a week for 3 consecutive weeks. On the first day, the teacher introduced the unit and assigned students to groups based on students' preferences. On the second through fourth day of the unit, students engaged in preparing for the culminating activity and worked in groups of three to five students. Each group was assigned a role with a related position of being for or against the meat tax. In the culminating activity, each group identified the issues and developed their own claims based on evidence while representing the assigned position (either for or against a meat tax). On the last day of the unit, each group had 10 min to present their argument in a persuasive presentation and 5 min to answer questions from other groups. After the group presentations were finished, the survey was administered to students, and the next week, the posttest was administered on the final day of the unit to measure individual academic achievement.</p> <hd id="AN0146054533-17">Data analysis</hd> <p>Pearson's correlations were employed to examine the relationships among (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref99">1</reflink>) students' perceptions of the usefulness of hard, peer, and teacher scaffolds and individual academic achievement, and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref100">2</reflink>) students' perceptions of the usefulness of hard, peer, and teacher scaffolds and group performance.</p> <p>Based on the literature review, two models were developed and tested to determine if the proposed model could explain variance in students' learning outcomes and to assess which independent variables would create the best prediction equation. To answer the first research question, a multiple regression analysis using the enter method was an appropriate analysis technique for testing the model that included a set of all possible predictor variables built from the theory. To analyze the relationships among these factors, the following model specification was formulated:</p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="block" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><mi>A</mi><mi>c</mi><mi>h</mi><mi>i</mi><mi>e</mi><mi>v</mi><mi>e</mi><mi>m</mi><mi>e</mi><mi>n</mi><mi>t</mi><mo>=</mo><msub><mi>β</mi><mn>0</mn></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>β</mi><mn>1</mn></msub><mi>h</mi><mi>a</mi><mi>r</mi><mi>d</mi><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>β</mi><mn>2</mn></msub><mi>p</mi><mi>e</mi><mi>e</mi><mi>r</mi><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>β</mi><mn>3</mn></msub><mi>t</mi><mi>e</mi><mi>a</mi><mi>c</mi><mi>h</mi><mi>e</mi><mi>r</mi><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>ε</mi><mi>i</mi></msub></mrow></math> </ephtml> </p> <p>Graph</p> <p>In this model, students' individual academic achievement was a dependent variable, and students' perceptions of the usefulness of hard, peer, and teacher scaffolds were force entered as predictors in the regression equation simultaneously.</p> <p>Second, a multiple linear regression using the enter method was employed to determine whether students' perceived usefulness of hard, peer, and teacher scaffolds could be used to predict group performance. The model presented below was formulated to analyze the relationships among these factors:</p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="block" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><mi>P</mi><mi>e</mi><mi>r</mi><mi>f</mi><mi>o</mi><mi>r</mi><mi>m</mi><mi>a</mi><mi>n</mi><mi>c</mi><mi>e</mi><mo>=</mo><msub><mi>β</mi><mn>0</mn></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>β</mi><mn>1</mn></msub><mi>h</mi><mi>a</mi><mi>r</mi><mi>d</mi><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>β</mi><mn>2</mn></msub><mi>p</mi><mi>e</mi><mi>e</mi><mi>r</mi><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>β</mi><mn>3</mn></msub><mi>t</mi><mi>e</mi><mi>a</mi><mi>c</mi><mi>h</mi><mi>e</mi><mi>r</mi><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>ε</mi><mi>i</mi></msub></mrow></math> </ephtml> </p> <p>Graph</p> <p>In this formula, <emph>performance</emph> indicates group performance scores derived from evaluations of group presentations using the rubric developed in this study, while <emph>hard</emph>, <emph>peer,</emph> and <emph>teacher</emph> are measures of each group's perceptions of the usefulness of the three types of scaffolds. For the purpose of analyzing group performance, the scores of individuals' perceptions of the usefulness of hard, peer, and teacher scaffolds in each group were averaged together and used as an independent variable. Before conducting Pearson's correlations and a multiple regression, a preliminary analysis was done. All statistical analyses were performed with SPSS 22.0.</p> <hd id="AN0146054533-18">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0146054533-19">Preliminary analysis</hd> <p>The dataset was examined to assess the accuracy of data entry, the presence of missing values, outliers, and the assumptions underlying Pearson's correlation and multiple regression analyses. The analysis examined the degree to which standard assumptions of Pearson's correlation and multiple linear regression were met. First, standard assumptions for Pearson's correlation were met; the models were fit, and it appeared that there was a linear relationship between the various bivariate relationships and no concerns were noted with respect to normality and variance assumptions. The linearity assumption was tested with scatter plots which were linear and in which no curve was present and thus there was also no need to trim outliers. Second, attention was given to meeting the assumption of a multiple linear regression analysis. Graphical plots were examined to investigate the assumptions of homoscedasticity and linearity (Hair et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref101">20</reflink>]). The results revealed that there was no pattern of non-linearity and heteroscedasticity. In addition, multicollinearity was examined. The tolerance statistic for all variables was found to be greater than the cut-off point of 0.10 and the variance inflation factor (VIF) was less than 10 (see Tables 4, 9), indicating that multicollinearity was not an issue for the modeling used in this study (Hair et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref102">20</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0146054533-20">Correlations among perceived usefulness of hard, peer, and teacher scaffolds and individual a...</hd> <p>Table 3 provides means, standard deviations, and the correlation matrix among variables. The results indicated that students perceived that hard scaffolds (<emph>M</emph> = 4.13, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.85) were the most beneficial and useful to them, followed by teacher scaffolds (<emph>M</emph> = 4.06, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.74) and peer scaffolds (<emph>M</emph> = 3.89, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.86). This implies that students perceived that utilizing hard scaffolding, such as annotations embedded in an IBL unit, was the most beneficial to them in terms of understanding the issues and learning content during IBL activities. The results also revealed that the teacher's scaffolding was perceived as a useful form of assistance in terms of helping them understand the topic of the unit and reducing the difficulties they encountered during IBL activities.</p> <p>Pearson correlations and descriptive statistics for hard-, peer-, and teacher scaffolding in academic achievement (n = 159)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Variable</p></th><th align="left"><p>1</p></th><th align="left"><p>2</p></th><th align="left"><p>3</p></th><th align="left"><p>4</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>M</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SD</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>1. Hard scaffold</p></td><td align="left"><p>−**</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>4.13</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.85</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2. Peer scaffold</p></td><td align="left"><p>.277**</p></td><td align="left"><p>–**</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>3.89</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.86</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3. Teacher scaffold</p></td><td align="left"><p>.246**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.582**</p></td><td align="left"><p>–**</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>4.06</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.74</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4. Achievement</p></td><td align="left"><p>.801**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.355**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.291**</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>18.73</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.89</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>**<emph>p</emph> < 0.001 (2-tailed)</p> <p>The correlation analysis showed that students' perceived usefulness of hard scaffolding was significantly correlated with students' perceived usefulness of peer scaffolding (<emph>r</emph> = 0.277; <emph>p</emph> < 0.001) and teacher scaffolding (<emph>r</emph> = 0.246; <emph>p</emph> < 0.001), and was strongly correlated with individual academic achievement (<emph>r</emph> = 0.801; <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). The coefficients of peer and teacher scaffolding were <emph>r</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.077 and <emph>r</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.060, respectively. Even though the <emph>r</emph> = 0.277 and <emph>r</emph> = 0.246 values were statically significant at α = 0.001, only 7.7% of the variance in peer scaffolding perception scores and 6% of the variance in teacher scaffolding perception scores could be explained by hard scaffolding perception scores. In contrast, 64% of the variance in achievement was accounted for by perceived usefulness of hard scaffolds, meaning that perceptions of hard scaffolds accounted for the largest portion of variance in learners' individual achievement.</p> <p>Students' perceptions of the usefulness of peer scaffolding were moderately correlated with the perceived usefulness of teacher scaffolding (<emph>r</emph> =. 582; <emph>p</emph> < 0.001) and individual academic achievement (<emph>r</emph> =. 355; <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). The coefficients of peer and teacher scaffolding were <emph>r</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.338 and <emph>r</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.126, respectively. In addition, students' perceptions of the usefulness of teacher scaffolding were found to be positively correlated with individual academic achievement (<emph>r</emph> = 0.291; <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). The coefficient of individual academic achievement was <emph>r</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.085, indicating that only 8.5% of the variance in individual academic achievement could be accounted for by perceived usefulness of teacher scaffolding.</p> <hd id="AN0146054533-21">Relationships among perceived usefulness of hard, peer, and teacher scaffolds on individual a...</hd> <p>Table 4 presents the ANOVA results of the model. The results of this analysis indicated that the model was statistically significant, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref103">3</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib155" id="ref104">155</reflink>) = 101.04, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001. The results showed that <emph>d</emph> = 1.748, which is between the two critical values of 1.5 and 2.5, indicating that there is no first order linear auto-correlation in the multiple linear regression data. Thus, the residuals are uncorrelated and there is no direct relationship between error terms that are more than a one-time period apart from each other. In this model, the adjusted R<sups>2</sups> was 0.65 and the R<sups>2</sups> was 0.67, which represents a medium effect (Cohen [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref105">10</reflink>]). This indicates that 67% of the variance in the students' achievement scores could be explained by the factors in this model.</p> <p>ANOVA table of the regression model</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Sum of squares</p></th><th align="left"><p>df</p></th><th align="left"><p>F</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Regression</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1583.58</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>101.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.000**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Residual</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>809.79</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>155</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Total</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2393.37</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>158</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>R<sups>2</sups> =.67; <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msubsup><mi>R</mi><mrow><mtext>adj</mtext></mrow><mn>2</mn></msubsup></math> </ephtml> =.65; Durbin–Watson = 1.748 **<emph>p</emph> <.001</p> <p>Table 5 shows standardized coefficients and significance levels of the variables in the regression model. Students' predicted academic achievement is equal to 1.555 + 3.459 (hard) + 0.571 (peer) + 0.166 (teacher). The results indicated that students' perceptions of the usefulness of hard scaffolding was the most significant factor in predicting academic achievement (<emph>t</emph> = 15.51, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mi>β</mi></math> </ephtml> = 0.76), followed by their perceptions of peer scaffolding (<emph>t</emph> = 2.16, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05, <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mi>β</mi></math> </ephtml> = 0.126). However, students' perceptions of the usefulness of teacher scaffolding was not a significant factor in predicting individual academic achievement (<emph>t</emph> = 0.55, <emph>p</emph> > 0.05, <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mi>β</mi></math> </ephtml> = 0.032).</p> <p>Multiple regression results predicting individual academic achievement with hard-, peer-, and teacher scaffolds</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Predictor</p></th><th align="left"><p>B</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SE</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>Beta</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>T</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>Tolerance</p></th><th align="left"><p>VIF</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Constant</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.555</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.219</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>1.28</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.204</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Hard</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.459</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.223</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.759</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>15.51</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.000**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.913</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.096</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Peer</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.571</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.264</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.126</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.16</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.032*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.642</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.558</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Teacher</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.166</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.302</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.032</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.55</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.583</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.913</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.096</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>**<emph>p</emph> < 0.001, *<emph>p</emph> < 0.05</p> <hd id="AN0146054533-22">Correlations among perceived usefulness of hard, peer, and teacher scaffolds and group perfor...</hd> <p>Table 6 presents means, standard deviations, and correlations among the variable findings. The scores indicating individual students' perceptions of the usefulness of hard, peer, and teacher scaffolds in each group were averaged and used as the variable. The results suggest that students perceived teacher scaffolds (<emph>M</emph> = 4.05, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.46) as the most beneficial to them, followed by peer scaffolds (<emph>M</emph> = 3.86, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.58) and hard scaffolds (<emph>M</emph> = 3.42, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.62). This implies that students perceived the teacher's scaffolds as the most useful form of assistance when they engaged in IBL group work.</p> <p>Pearson correlations and descriptive statistics for hard-, peer-, and teacher scaffolds in group performance (n = 41)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Variable</p></th><th align="left"><p>1</p></th><th align="left"><p>2</p></th><th align="left"><p>3</p></th><th align="left"><p>4</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>M</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SD</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>1. Hard scaffolds</p></td><td align="left"><p>–**</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>3.42</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.62</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2. Peer scaffolds</p></td><td align="left"><p>.101</p></td><td align="left"><p>–**</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>3.86</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.58</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3. Teacher scaffolds</p></td><td align="left"><p>.058</p></td><td align="left"><p>.706**</p></td><td align="left"><p>–**</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>4.05</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.46</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4. Group performance</p></td><td align="left"><p>.026</p></td><td align="left"><p>.547**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.478**</p></td><td align="left"><p>–**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>28.78</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.89</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>**<emph>p</emph> < 0.001(2-tailed)</p> <p>Table 7 shows that students' perceptions of the usefulness of peer and teacher scaffolds were significantly and positively correlated, while students' perceptions of the usefulness of hard scaffolds were not statistically significant. Specifically, students' perceived usefulness of peer scaffolds was strongly correlated with their perceived usefulness of teacher scaffolds (<emph>r</emph> = 0.706; <emph>p</emph> < 0.001), and moderately correlated with group performance (<emph>r</emph> = 0.547; <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). The variable of students' perceived usefulness of teacher scaffolds was also found to be positively correlated with group performance (<emph>r</emph> = 0.478; <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). In addition, the coefficient of teacher scaffolds was <emph>r</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.228, which explains approximately 23% of the variance in group performance scores. These results show that teacher scaffolding perception scores accounted for the largest percentage of variance in peer scaffolding perception scores, and both peer and teacher scaffolding perceptions accounted for the largest percentage of variance in learner's individual academic achievement.</p> <p>Group achievement (n = 41)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Min</p></th><th align="left"><p>Max</p></th><th align="left"><p>Mean</p></th><th align="left"><p>SD</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Claim</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>12</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9.61</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.91</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Evidence</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>12</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9.32</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.48</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Reasoning</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>12</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9.95</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.74</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Total</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>18</p></td><td align="left"><p>36</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>28.78</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.89</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The possible ranges of scores for claim, evidence, and reasoning are 0–12, 0–12, and 0–12, respectively</p> <hd id="AN0146054533-23">Relationships among perceived usefulness of hard, peer, and teacher scaffolds on group perfor...</hd> <p>Table 8 illustrates that the model was statistically significant, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref106">3</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref107">37</reflink>) = 5.728, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001. The Durbin-Watson statistic was 1.710, which is between the two critical values of 1.5 and 2.5, indicating that there is no first order linear auto-correlation in the multiple linear regression data. However, the R<sups>2</sups> was 0.32 and the adjusted R<sups>2</sups> was 0.26, indicating that this model explained 32% of the variance in group performance, which represents a small effect (Cohen [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref108">10</reflink>]).</p> <p>ANOVA table of the regression model</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Sum of squares</p></th><th align="left"><p>df</p></th><th align="left"><p>F</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Regression</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>299.072</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.728</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.003**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Residual</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>643.953</p></td><td align="left"><p>37</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Total</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>943.024</p></td><td align="left"><p>40</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>R<sups>2</sups> =.32; <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msubsup><mi>R</mi><mrow><mtext>adj</mtext></mrow><mn>2</mn></msubsup></math> </ephtml> =.26; Durbin–Watson = 1.710 **<emph>p</emph> < 0.001; R<sups>2</sups> =.32</p> <p>Table 9 presents standardized coefficients and significance levels of the variables in the regression model. Students' predicted group performance is equal to 6.651 + 0.208 (hard) + 3.535 (peer) + 1.918 (teacher). The results show that students' perceived usefulness of peer scaffolding was a significant factor in predicting group performance (<emph>t</emph> = 2.191, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05, <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mi>β</mi></math> </ephtml> = 0.422), while the perceived usefulness of hard scaffolding (<emph>t</emph> = 0.195, <emph>p</emph> > 0.05, <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mi>β</mi></math> </ephtml> = 0.027) and teacher scaffolding (<emph>t</emph> = 0.948, <emph>p</emph> > 0.05, <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mi>β</mi></math> </ephtml> = 0.182) were not significant factors in predicting group performance.</p> <p>Multiple regression results predicting group performance with hard-, peer-, and teacher scaffolds for the initial model</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Variable</p></th><th align="left"><p>B</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SE</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>Beta</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>t</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>Tolerance</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>VIF</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Constant</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.651</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.775</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>1.287</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.206</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Hard</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.208</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.067</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.027</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.195</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.847</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.989</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.011</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Peers</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.535</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.613</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.422</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.191</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.035*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.501</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.008</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Teacher</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.918</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.023</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.182</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.948</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.341</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.502</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.994</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>*<emph>p</emph> < 0.05</p> <hd id="AN0146054533-24">Discussion</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0146054533-25">The relationship among hard, peer, and teacher scaffolds, and individual academic achievement</hd> <p>An analysis of the results indicates that the perceived usefulness of hard and peer scaffolding were the most significant factors in predicting students' individual achievement in the model developed in this study. Teacher scaffolding was not a statistically significant predictor of students' individual achievement. One important point related to the finding that hard scaffolding was a significant predictor of students' individual achievement was that students perceived hard scaffolding as the most useful type of assistance for their IBL activities among the three scaffolding categories. These results are consistent with previous studies, which found that hard scaffolds are effective in promoting gains in students' content knowledge after engaging in problem-solving processes (Belland [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref109">2</reflink>]; Walker and Zeidler [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref110">69</reflink>]). This implies that for students in this study, hard scaffolds (e.g., color-coded annotations embedded within the Web-based IBL unit) may have facilitated their learning and helped them focus on important resources and critical aspects relevant to the central driving question of the unit. In this study, three different color-coded annotations were designed and embedded as hard scaffolds into the IBL unit, including definitions, background information, and thinking questions. Hard scaffolds may have the potential to aid students in better comprehending the content and topic, given that Web-based color-coded annotations may assist students' learning in terms of (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref111">1</reflink>) providing different words or terms that offer essential information to understand content (Shin et al. [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref112">60</reflink>]; Simons and Klein [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref113">62</reflink>]), (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref114">2</reflink>) providing contextual information, which helps students' understanding of new information and encourages them to access prior knowledge to facilitate their understanding of central issues (Lee and Calandra [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref115">36</reflink>]; Shin et al. [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref116">60</reflink>]; Simons and Klein [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref117">62</reflink>]), and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref118">3</reflink>) emphasizing critical aspects of the problem, and monitoring and evaluating their progress in completing specific learning activities (Davis and Linn [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref119">13</reflink>]; Raes et al. [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref120">51</reflink>]). The results of this study suggest that students who perceived hard scaffolds as useful were likely to gain higher content knowledge through the IBL activities.</p> <p>The findings also suggest that the perceived usefulness of peer scaffolding was a factor in predicting individual academic achievement. Previous research, which has focused on peer feedback, questioning, and evaluation, has shown that students may improve their work and more effectively engage in knowledge construction when provided opportunities for receiving additional feedback on their progress from their peers (Gielen et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref121">18</reflink>]; Li et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref122">40</reflink>]; Tsivitanidou and Constantinou [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref123">66</reflink>]). This may be due to the fact that peers tend to share similar perspectives and express themselves on a similar language level, which may result in feedback that is more comprehensible when transmitted from peer to peer rather than from teacher to student (Hovardas et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref124">23</reflink>]). As a result, students may perceive peer scaffolding as a useful strategy in their learning which may benefit individual students' academic achievement. This implies that peer scaffolds may have helped students gain knowledge and facilitate comprehension while they engaged with their group members.</p> <p>Although the perceived usefulness of hard and peer scaffolding seemed to be important factors in accounting for individual students' academic achievement, the perceived usefulness of teacher scaffolding was not found to be a significant factor in predicting students' individual learning outcomes. This may be due to the fact that the teacher's scaffolding may have been more focused on group-level work than on individual learning in this specific unit. While the teacher answered some questions asked by individual students seeking help, observation data gathered to complement the quantitative data collected in this study suggested that the teacher mainly interacted with groups of students or facilitated peer scaffolding as opposed to interacting with individual students. Similarly, students also sought the teacher's help as a group rather than as individuals. Thus, although survey responses suggested that individual students perceived the teacher's scaffolds as useful in their learning, teacher scaffolding may not have had a strong impact on individual students' academic achievement since the support provided by the teacher focused on group-level activities.</p> <hd id="AN0146054533-26">The relationships among hard, peer, and teacher scaffolds, and group performance</hd> <p>An analysis of the results revealed that students' perceived usefulness of peer scaffolding was a significant factor in predicting group performance. This finding is consistent with previous studies demonstrating that peer scaffolds, such as peer assessment and questioning, improve group performance and individual reflection on activities (Hovardas et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref125">23</reflink>]; Li et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref126">40</reflink>]; Xiao and Lucking [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref127">75</reflink>]). It has been reported that peer scaffolding can potentially be more helpful than teacher scaffolding in terms of promoting learners' thinking processes (Cho and MacArthur [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref128">7</reflink>]; Cho and Schunn [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref129">6</reflink>]; Hovardas et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref130">23</reflink>]; Tsivitanidou and Constantinou [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref131">66</reflink>]). This may be because students can receive and respond to peer assistance more readily than to teacher scaffolding, although students may not provide higher quality feedback than teachers. Given that students in this study worked collaboratively with their group members while engaged in IBL processes, peer scaffolding may have been the most robust and useful form of scaffolding and may have better assisted group performance as compared to hard and teacher scaffolding.</p> <p>A noteworthy finding is that even though the perceived usefulness of teacher scaffolding had the highest average score among the variables, and the perceived usefulness of teacher scaffolding was positively correlated with the perceived usefulness of peer scaffolding and group performance, this factor was not statistically significant in the developed model in this study in predicting group performance. Although it was not found to be a significant factor, it should be noted that the standard deviation for perceived usefulness of teacher scaffolding was 0.46, meaning that students' responses were narrowly distributed around the mean score of 4.05. This suggests that most students may have perceived the teacher scaffolding as a useful support; therefore, this factor may not yield significant differences in group performance. In addition, a regression analysis showed that perceived usefulness of peer scaffolding was the only significant factor in predicting group performance in the developed model in this study. This suggests that some groups perceived peer scaffolding as a useful support whereas some groups did not. Given that the quality of peer scaffolding can be influenced by students' individual abilities such as prior knowledge or critical thinking skills (Choi et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref132">8</reflink>]; Land [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref133">35</reflink>]; Liu and Tsai [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref134">43</reflink>]) and by group interactions (Barron [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref135">1</reflink>]; Fung et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref136">16</reflink>]; Kwon et al. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref137">33</reflink>]), the quality of peer scaffolding in each group may vary depending on different variables within groups.</p> <p>Lastly, it was found that hard scaffolding was not a significant factor in predicting group performance. This may be related to the fact that the hard scaffolding was designed and embedded in the Web-based IBL unit to assist individual learners' understanding of reading content. In this study, hard scaffolds, such as thinking questions, were provided to assist students' inquiry learning process by directing their focus to aspects of the issue that they might consider and incorporate into their group discussion. However, the results imply that students may utilize hard scaffolds individually when they interact with the content of the inquiry unit and they may find peer scaffolds to be more useful and beneficial to their IBL group activities than hard scaffolds. This may explain why students perceived hard scaffolds as useful to their individual learning more so than to their group interactions, and why hard scaffolding may have shown a significant impact only on individual achievement and not on group performance.</p> <hd id="AN0146054533-27">Conclusion</hd> <p>The current study provides a theoretical scaffolding framework which empirically confirmed that hard, peer, and teacher scaffolds positively impact individual achievement and group performance. The results extend the scope of previous studies by suggesting that students perceive hard and peer scaffolding as better supports in terms of gaining domain knowledge in technology-enhanced IBL classroom environments. Individual students may have benefited from utilizing hard scaffolds to gain domain knowledge when they searched for and explored the learning content embedded in a Web-based inquiry-based unit, whereas peer scaffolding was perceived as the most critical component that benefited students by enhancing both individual academic achievement and group performance in IBL. This result highlights the different roles that scaffolding may play in assisting and facilitating different learning outcomes since scaffolding types interact in dynamic ways in a classroom setting.</p> <p>It is important to note the limitations of our findings: First, the students were not randomly assigned into groups, other variables may yield different findings, and it is unclear whether preferences for different scaffolding had an effect on students' actual learning outcomes. For instance, group interaction patterns may have impacted group performance instead of the peer scaffolding factor. In addition, there is a possibility that students with high prior knowledge earned high scores in individual achievement. Although our findings contribute to the body of knowledge on the relationship between students' perceptions of the usefulness of scaffolding and learning outcomes, due to the absence of a causal relations framework, little was known about how the effectiveness of different types of scaffolds impacted students' outcomes. Thus, further research needs to be conducted to examine these effects.</p> <p>Second, since the student survey was administered at the end of the unit, it is possible that the students' perceptions were influenced by their most recent experiences with the unit, such as the group presentation. Thus, future research needs to utilize different methods to measure students' use of the three types of scaffolding. Specifically, results in this area could be confirmed by quantifying elements for the three types of scaffolding, such as usage or frequency of use.</p> <p>Third, the findings of this study can shed light on the role of peer scaffolding strategies that facilitate IBL in the context of technology-enhanced classroom environments. It was found that students perceived peer scaffolding as the most useful and beneficial to both individual learning and group work. Given that peer scaffolding strategies play a pivotal role in supporting students' IBL activities, it is important to investigate what types of peer scaffolding strategies occur and what support students look for during IBL. Thus, future work should closely investigate how these different types of scaffolds interact with one another and provide rich contextual explanations of technology-enhanced classroom environments.</p> <p>A final limitation regards the uniqueness of hard scaffold designs and how to utilize them in a typical classroom setting. This study was situated in a single research site using a particular web-based IBL unit. As such, the design of scaffolds may affect students' perceptions of the usefulness of the three scaffolding types. The specific classroom context should be taken into account when applying the findings from this study to another classroom context. In future research, these findings should be articulated and expanded to include more participants and different settings.</p> <hd id="AN0146054533-28">Compliance with ethical standards</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0146054533-29">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>The authors declare that they no conflict of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0146054533-30">Appendix</hd> <p>See Table 10.</p> <p>Culminating project rubric</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Argument component</p></th><th align="left"><p>Score</p></th><th align="left"><p>Criteria</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="3"><p>Claim (12)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p> Relevance (topic, stakeholder)</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>Group makes assertion that is related to (1) the meat tax composition (pro or con) and (2) the group's stakeholder position</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Group makes assertion that is related to the meat tax composition (pro or con), but less so to the group's stakeholder position</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Group makes assertion that is related to the meat tax composition (pro or con), but not the group's stakeholder position</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>Group does not make any assertion</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p> Clarity</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>The assertion is clear and complete</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>The assertion is either not clear or not described in enough detail to be complete</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>The assertion is neither clear nor described in enough detail to be complete</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>The assertion is not related to the meat tax issue or the group's stakeholder position</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="3"><p>Evidence (12)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p> Genuine Evidence</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>Evidence is provided with clear citations and references with claim</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>A few citations and references are missing for evidence. (1–2 pieces of evidence)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Group provides evidence with claim, but fails to provide citations and references for evidence</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>Group does not provide evidence with claim. This would also apply if the evidence has nothing at all to do with the claim</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p> Clarity</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>All evidence is clear and described in enough detail</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Some evidence lacks either clarity or details</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Most evidence lacks either clarity or details</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>All evidence has neither clarity nor details</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="3"><p>Connection of claims to evidence (12)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p> Connection (claim—evidence)</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>Group clearly shows relevance of evidence to its associated claim (both link and pertinence)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Group shows relevance of evidence to its associated claim (pertinence), but they do not present the link between the evidence and claim clearly</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Group shows relevance of evidence to its associated claim, but they neither present the link between the evidence and claim clearly nor establish the pertinence of the combination of the claim</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>Group does not show the relevance of evidence to its associated claim. If they do not have a claim and/or evidence, they cannot get higher than a zero here</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p> Quality (Articulation)</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>Articulates the connection between the detailed position (claims) and evidence with well-informed reasoning behind each</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Articulates the connection between the detailed position (claims) and evidence with basic reasoning underlying each</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Discusses the connection between the position and evidence, but does not present clear lines of reasoning behind each position</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>Does not articulate any connection between the position and evidence</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0146054533-31">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0146054533-32"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref55" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Barron B. Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences. 2000; 9; 4: 403-436</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref49" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Belland B. Portraits of middle school students constructing evidence-based arguments during problem-based learning: The impact of computer-based scaffolds. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2010; 58; 3: 285-309</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref57" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Belland B, Glazewski K, Richardson J. Problem-based learning and argumentation: Testing a scaffolding framework to support middle school students' creation of evidence-based arguments. Instructional Science. 2011; 39; 5: 667-694</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref32" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bransford JD, Brown AL, Cocking RR. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. 1999: Washington, DC; National Academy Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref74" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Cho K, Jonnasen DH. The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2002; 50; 3: 5-22</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref129" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Cho K, Schunn CD. Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers & Education. 2007; 48; 3: 409-426</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref128" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Cho K, MacArthur C. Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction. 2010; 20; 4: 328-338</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref25" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Choi I, Land SM, Turgeon AJ. Scaffolding peer-questioning strategies to facilitate metacognition during online small group discussion. Instructional Science. 2005; 33; 5: 483-511</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref94" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Chu R, Chu A. Multi-level analysis of peer support, internet self-efficacy and e-learning outcomes: The contextual effects of collectivism and group potency. Computers & Education. 2010; 55: 145-154</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 19882: Mahwah, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coll C, Rochera M, Gispert I. Supporting online collaborative learning in small groups: Teacher feedback on learning content, academic task and social participation. Computers & Education. 2014; 75: 53-64</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crawford BA. Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2000; 37; 9: 916-937</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davis E, Linn M. Scaffolding students' knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education. 2000; 22: 819-837</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Demetriadis PM, Pombortsis A. Novice student learning in case based hypermedia environment: A quantitative study. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia. 1999; 8: 241-269</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Demetriadis PM, Papadopoulos IG, Stamelos FF. The effect of scaffolding students' context-generating cognitive activity in technology-enhanced case-based learning. Computers & Education. 2008; 51: 939-954</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fung DC-L, To H, Leung K. The influence of collaborative group work on student's development of critical thinking: The teacher's role in facilitating group discussions. Pedagogies: An International Journal. 2016; 11; 2: 146-166</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ge X, Land SM. A conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problem-solving process using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2004; 52; 2: 5-22</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gielen S, Peeters E, Dochy F, Onghena P, Struyven K. Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction. 2010; 20; 4: 304-315</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gonzalez G, Dejarnette A. Teachers' and students' negotiation moves when teachers scaffold group work. Cognition and Instruction. 2015; 33; 1: 1-45</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. 20107: Upper Saddle River, NJ; Pearson Prentice Hall</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hannafin M, Land S, Oliver KReigeluth C. Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory 2. 1999: Mahwah, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: 115-140</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hmelo-Silver CE, Barrows HS. Goals and strategies of a problem-based learning facilitator. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning. 2006; 1; 1: 21-39</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hovardas T, Tsivitanidou OE, Zacharia ZC. Peer versus expert feedback: An investigation of the quality of peer feedback among secondary school students. Computers & Education. 2014; 71: 133-152</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hwang G-J, Chiu L-Y, Chen C-H. A contextual game-based learning approach to improving students' inquiry-based learning performance in social studies courses. Computers & Education. 2015; 81: 13-25</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jacobson MJ, Archodidou A. The design of hypermedia tools for learning: Fostering conceptual change and transfer of complex scientific knowledge. Journal of the Learning Sciences. 2000; 9: 145-199</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jackson S, Krajcik J, Soloway EJacobson MJ, Kozma RB. Model-IT: Adesign retrospective. Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced design for technologies of learning. 2000: Mahwah, NJ; Erlbaum: 77-116</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim M, Hannafin M. Designing online learning environments to support scientific inquiry. Quarterly Review of Distance Education. 2004; 5; 1: 1-10</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim M, Hannafin M. Scaffolding 6th graders' problem solving in technology-enhanced science classrooms: A qualitative case study. Instructional Science. 2011; 39; 3: 255-282</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim M, Hannafin M. Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computers & Education. 2011; 56; 2: 403-417</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim M, Hannafin M, Bryan LA. Technology-enhanced inquiry tools in science education: An emerging pedagogical framework for classroom practice. Science Education. 2007; 91; 6: 1010-1030</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirschner PA, Sweller J, Clark RE. Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist. 2006; 41: 75-86</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krajcik J, Blumenfeld PC, Marx RW, Bass KM, Fredricks J, Soloway E. Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences. 1998; 7; 3&4: 313-350</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kwon K, Hong R-Y, Laffey JM. The educational impact of metacognitive group coordination in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior. 2013; 29; 4: 1271-1281</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lakkala M, Muukkonen H, Hakkarainen K. Patterns of scaffolding in computer-mediated collaborative inquiry. Mentoring and Tutoring. 2005; 13; 2: 281-300</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Land SM. Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2000; 48; 3: 61-78</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee J, Calandra B. Can embedded annotations help high school students perform problem solving tasks using a web-based historical document?. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 2004; 37; 1: 65-84</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee J, Srinivasan S, Trail T, Lewis D, Lopez S. Examining the relationship among student perception of support, course satisfaction, and learning outcomes in online learning. The Internet and Higher Education. 2011; 14; 3: 158-163</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lepper MR, Drake MF, O' Donnell-Johnson THogan K, Pressley M. Scaffolding techniques of expert human tutors. Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues. 1997: Cambridge, MA; Brookline Books: 108-144</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li DD, Lim CP. Scaffolding online historical inquiry tasks: A case study of two secondary school classrooms. Computers & Education. 2008; 50; 4: 1394-1410</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li L, Liu X, Steckelberg AL. Assessor or assessee: How student learning improves by giving and receiving peer feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2010; 41; 3: 525-536</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lin X, Hmelo C, Kinzer CK, Secules TJ. Designing technology to support reflection. Educational Technology Research and Development. 1999; 47; 3: 43-62</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Linn MC, Clark D, Slotta JD. WISE design for knolwedge integration. Science Education. 2003; 87; 4: 517-538</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu CC, Tsai CC. An analysis of peer interaction patterns as discoursed by on-line small group problem-solving activity. Computers & Education. 2008; 50; 3: 627-639</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mullen GE, Tallent-Runnels MK. Student outcomes and perceptions of instructors' demands and support in online and traditional classrooms. The Internet and Higher Education. 2006; 9; 4: 257-266</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oliver K, Hannafin MJ. Student management of web-based hypermedia resources during open-ended problem solving. Journal of Educational Research. 2000; 94; 2: 75-92</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Palincsar AS, Brown AL. Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction. 1984; 1; 2: 117-175</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Palincsar AS, Brown AL, Martin S. Peer interaction in reading comprehension instruction. Educational Psychologist. 1987; 22; 3&4: 231-253</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pea RD. The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences. 2009; 13; 3: 423-451</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prince MJ, Felder RM. Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education. 2006; 95; 2: 123-138</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Puntambekar S, Hubscher R. Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed?. Educational Psychologist. 2005; 40; 1: 1-12</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raes A, Schellens T, De Wever B, Vanderhoven E. Scaffolding information problem solving in web-based collaborative inquiry learning. Computers & Education. 2012; 59; 1: 82-94</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reiser B. Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences. 2004; 13; 3: 273-304</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Savery JR, Duffy TM. Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. 1996: Englewood Cliffs, NJ; Educational Technology Publications</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saye J, Brush T. Student engagement with social issues in a multimedia-supported learning environment. Theory & Research in Social Education. 1999; 27; 4: 472-504</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saye J, Brush T. Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2002; 50; 3: 77-96</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saye J, Brush THamot GE, Patrick JJ, Leming RS. Promoting civic competence through problem-based history learning experiments. Civic learning in teacher education. 2004: Bloomington, IN; Social Studies Development Center: 123-145</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schepers J, Jong A, Wetzels M, Ruyter K. Psychological safety and social support in groupware adoption: A multi-level assessment in education. Computers & Education. 2008; 51: 757-775</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shabo A, Guzdial M, Stasko J. An apprenticeship-based multimedia courseware for computer graphics studies provided on the World Wide Web. Computers & Education. 1997; 29; 2: 103-116</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sharma P, Hannafin M. Learner perceptions of scaffolding in supporting critical thinking. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. 2005; 17; 1: 17-42</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shin S, Brush T, Glazewski K. Designing and implementing web-based scaffolding tools for technology-enhanced socioscientific inquiry. Educational Technology & Society. 2017; 20; 1: 1-12</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shin S, Song H-D. Finding the optimal scaffolding for learners' epistemological beliefs during ill-structured problem solving. Interactive Learning Environments. 2016; 24; 8: 2032-2047</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simons KD, Klein JD. The impact of scaffolding and student achievement levels in a problem-based learning environment. Instructional Science. 2007; 35; 1: 41-72</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Singer J, Marx RW, Krajcik J, Clay CJ. Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist. 2000; 35; 3: 165-178</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stake REX. The art of case study research. 1995: Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sweller J. Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review. 2010; 22; 2: 123-138</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tsivitanidou OE, Constantinou CP. A study of students' heuristics and strategy patterns in web-based reciprocal peer assessment for science learning. The Internet and Higher Education. 2016; 29: 12-22</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van de Pol J, Volman M, Beishuizen J. Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review. 2010; 22: 271-296</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vygotsky LS. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. 1980: Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walker KA, Zeidler DL. Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education. 2007; 29: 1387-1410</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wertsch JV, McNamee GD, McLane JB, Budwig NA. The adult-child dyad as a problem-solving system. Child Development. 1980; 51; 4: 1215-1221</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams M, Linn M. WISE inquriy in fifth grade biology. Research in Science Education. 2003; 32; 4: 415-436</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Willis G. Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. 2005: Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wood D, Bruner JS, Ross G. The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 1976; 17: 89-100</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wu H, Pedersen S. Integrating computer- and teacher-based scaffolds in science inquiry. Computers & Education. 2011; 57; 4: 2352-2363</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xiao Y, Lucking R. The impact of two types of peer assessment on students' performance and satisfaction within a Wiki environment. The Internet and Higher Education. 2008; 11; 3&4: 186-193</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yu F-Y. Scaffolding student-generated questions: Design and development of a customizable online learning system. Computers in Human Behavior. 2009; 25; 5: 1129-1138</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zydney JM. The effect of multiple scaffolding tools on students' understanding, consideration of different perspectives, and misconceptions of a complex problem. Computers & Education. 2010; 54; 2: 360-370</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Suhkyung Shin; Thomas A. Brush and Krista D. Glazewski</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Suhkyung Shin is an Assistant Professor of the Department of Education, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea.</p> <p>Thomas A. Brush is a Professor of Instructional Systems Technology, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA.</p> <p>Krista D. Glazewski is an Associate Professor of Instructional Systems Technology, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib155" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref136"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref137"></nolink>
CustomLinks:
  – Url: https://login.libproxy.scu.edu/login?url=https://www.jstor.org/openurl?issn=10421629&date=2020&volume=68&issue=5&spage=2423
    Name: JSTOR (all content) - s8985755
    Category: fullText
    Text: Full Text from JSTOR
    Icon: https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/branding/jstor/iconJSTOR.gif
    MouseOverText: Full Text from JSTOR
  – Url: https://resolver.ebsco.com/c/xy5jbn/result?sid=EBSCO:eric&genre=article&issn=10421629&ISBN=&volume=68&issue=5&date=20201001&spage=2423&pages=2423-2447&title=Educational Technology Research and Development&atitle=Examining%20the%20Hard%2C%20Peer%2C%20and%20Teacher%20Scaffolding%20Framework%20in%20Inquiry-Based%20Technology-Enhanced%20Learning%20Environments%3A%20Impact%20on%20Academic%20Achievement%20and%20Group%20Performance&aulast=Shin%2C%20Suhkyung&id=DOI:10.1007/s11423-020-09763-8
    Name: Full Text Finder (for New FTF UI) (s8985755)
    Category: fullText
    Text: Find It @ SCU Libraries
    MouseOverText: Find It @ SCU Libraries
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1269115
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Examining the Hard, Peer, and Teacher Scaffolding Framework in Inquiry-Based Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments: Impact on Academic Achievement and Group Performance
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Shin%2C+Suhkyung%22">Shin, Suhkyung</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Brush%2C+Thomas+A%2E%22">Brush, Thomas A.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Glazewski%2C+Krista+D%2E%22">Glazewski, Krista D.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Educational+Technology+Research+and+Development%22"><i>Educational Technology Research and Development</i></searchLink>. Oct 2020 68(5):2423-2447.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 25
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research<br />Tests/Questionnaires
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+9%22">Grade 9</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22High+Schools%22">High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Junior+High+Schools%22">Junior High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Middle+Schools%22">Middle Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scaffolding+%28Teaching+Technique%29%22">Scaffolding (Teaching Technique)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Active+Learning%22">Active Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Inquiry%22">Inquiry</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technology+Uses+in+Education%22">Technology Uses in Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Environment%22">Educational Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Achievement%22">Academic Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+9%22">Grade 9</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22High+School+Students%22">High School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Biology%22">Biology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Instruction%22">Science Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Peer+Relationship%22">Peer Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Group+Dynamics%22">Group Dynamics</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s11423-020-09763-8
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1042-1629
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The purpose of this study was to examine how students' academic achievement and group performance related to their perceptions of the usefulness of hard, peer, and teacher scaffolds. A single instrumental case approach that integrated quantitative and qualitative analysis was employed for this study, which involved data gathered from 163 students in a ninth-grade biology course. Statistical results suggest that the students' perceived usefulness of hard scaffolding, followed by peer scaffolding, was the most significant variable to predict individual academic achievement. However, only the perceived usefulness of peer scaffolding was found to be a significant predictor of group performance. This finding empirically points to the positive impact that student perceptions of the usefulness of hard, peer, and teacher scaffolds may have on students' individual academic achievement and group performance in IBL (inquiry-based learning) activities.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1269115
PLink https://login.libproxy.scu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&scope=site&db=eric&AN=EJ1269115
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11423-020-09763-8
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 25
        StartPage: 2423
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Examining the Hard, Peer, and Teacher Scaffolding Framework in Inquiry-Based Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments: Impact on Academic Achievement and Group Performance
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Shin, Suhkyung
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Brush, Thomas A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Glazewski, Krista D.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 10
              Type: published
              Y: 2020
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1042-1629
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 68
            – Type: issue
              Value: 5
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Educational Technology Research and Development
              Type: main
ResultId 1