Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Rising to the Challenge: The Effect of Individual and Social Metacognitive Scaffolds on Students’ Expressions of Autonomy and Competence Throughout an Inquiry Process

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Engaging students in inquiry is a key component in order to fulfill essential goals in science education. To achieve successful engagement in inquiry process, students need to feel competent and autonomous in spite of the cognitive and mental challenges the process entails. The study focuses on the problematizing mechanisms of scaffolds and highlights the centrality of metacognition in the inquiry process. The study’s primary goal was to examine how providing students involved in inquiry with individual, social, or a combination of both metacognitive scaffoldings affected their expressions of competence and autonomy. Using both qualitative and quantitative methods, we examined middle-school students’ expressions of competence and autonomy in an online asynchronous forum that accompanied a year-long socio-scientific inquiry process. The process included four research conditions which differed by the metacognitive scaffolding students received: only individual, only social, both individual and social, and no metacognitive scaffolds. Although no significance difference was observed in students’ expressions of competence in the initial phases of the inquiry among the research groups, students who received individual or social metacognitive scaffolding increased these expressions as they progressed through the process. Expressions of competence by students who received a combination of both types of support remained constant. In contrast, a significant decrease in students’ expressions of competence was observed in the control group. Regarding autonomy, students’ expressions of autonomy from all scaffolded conditions remained constant throughout the inquiry process, except for a significant decrease, experienced by students in the control group. The results are discussed through the lens of problematizing mechanism by which metacognitive scaffolding operate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, D., & Nashon, S. (2007). Predators of knowledge construction: Interpreting students’ metacognition in an amusement park physics program. Science Education, 91(2), 298–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adler, I., Schwartz, L., Madjar, N., & Zion, M. (2018). Reading between the lines: Students' motivational expressions and teacher's motivational support in an online forum during open inquiry. Science Education, 102, 820–855.

  • Adler, I., Zion, M., & Mevarech, Z. R. (2016). The effect of explicit environmentally oriented metacognitive guidance and peer collaboration on students’ expressions of environmental literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(4), 620–663.

  • Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a science apprenticeship program on high school students’ understandings of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 487–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R. L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 30–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belland, B. R., Kim, C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2013). A framework for designing scaffolds that improve motivation and cognition. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 243–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-David, A., & Zohar, A. (2009). Contribution of meta-strategic knowledge to scientific inquiry learning. International Journal of Science Education, 31(12), 1657–1682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenfeld, P. C., Kempler, T. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Motivation and cognitive engagement in learning environments. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 475–488). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 369–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buck, L. B., Bretz, S. L., & Towns, M. H. (2008). Characterizing the level of inquiry in the undergraduate laboratory. Journal of College Science Teaching, 38(1), 52–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, M. M., & Kuo, S. W. (2009). From metacognition to social metacognition: Similarities, differences, and learning. Journal of Education Research, 3(4), 321-338.

  • Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 613–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, B. (2014). From inquiry to scientific practices in the science classroom. Lederman, N. G., & Abell, S. K. (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Science Education Volume II (pp. 529–556). New York NY: Routledge.

  • Davis, E. A., & Miyake, N. (2004). Explorations of scaffolding in complex classroom systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 265–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Backer, L., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2016). Eliciting reciprocal peer-tutoring groups’ metacognitive regulation through structuring and problematizing scaffolds. The Journal of Experimental Education, 84(4), 804–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49(1), 14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., & Hong, F. (2008). The mechanics of CSCL macro scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 5–23.

  • Dorfman, B., Issachar, H., & Zion, M. (2020). Yesterday's students in today's world - Open and guided inquiry through the eyes of graduated high-school biology students. Research in Science Education, 50(1), 123–149

  • Duncan, R. G., & Cavera, V. L. (2015). DCIs, SEPs, and CCs, oh my! Understanding the three dimensions of the NGSS. Science Scope, 39(2), 50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–235). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goos, M., Galbraith, P., & Renshaw, P. (2002). Socially mediated metacognition: creating collaborative zones of proximal development in small group problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 193–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadwin, A. F., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2011). Self-regulated, co-regulated, and socially shared regulation of learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 65–84). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herron, M. D. (1971). The nature of scientific enquiry. The School Review, 171–212.

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofferber, N., Eckes, A., & Wilde, M. (2014). Effects of autonomy supportive vs. controlling teachers’ behavior on students’ achievements. European Journal of Educational Research, 3(4), 177–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurme, T. R., Merenluoto, K., & Järvelä, S. (2009). Socially shared metacognition of pre-service primary teachers in a computer-supported mathematics course and their feelings of task difficulty: A case study. Educational Research and Evaluation, 15(5), 503–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurme, T. R., Palonen, T., & Järvelä, S. (2006). Metacognition in joint discussions: An analysis of the patterns of interaction and the metacognitive content of the networked discussions in mathematics. Metacognition Learning, 1, 181–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iiskala, T., Vauras, M., & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Socially-shared metacognition? Hellenic Journal of Psychology, 1, 147–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iiskala, T., Vauras, M., Lehtinen, E., & Salonen, P. (2011). Socially shared metacognition of dyads of pupils in collaborative mathematical problem-solving processes. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 379–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iiskala, T., Volet, S., Lehtinen, E., & Vauras, M. (2015). Socially shared metacognitive regulation in asynchronous CSCL in science: Functions, evolution and participation. Frontline Learning Research, 3(1), 78–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keselman, A. (2003). Supporting inquiry learning by promoting normative understanding of multivariable causality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(9), 898–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (2002). Structuring peer interaction to promote high-level cognitive processing. Theory into Practice, 41(1), 33–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). 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, 41(2), 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A., & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 495–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J. (2015). Three-dimensional instruction: Using a new type of teaching in the science classroom. Science and Children, 53(3), 6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, S. (2009). Socially mediated metacognition and learning to write. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4(3), 149–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guidance. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, T. (2016). Dive into inquiry: Amplify learning and empower student voice. Irvine, CA: EdTechTeam Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Synergy between teacher practices and curricular scaffolds to support students in using domain-specific and domain-general knowledge in writing arguments to explain phenomena. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(3), 416–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mevarech, Z. R., & Kramarski, B. (1997). IMPROVE: A multidimensional method for teaching mathematics in heterogeneous classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 34(2), 365–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction—what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molenaar, I., Sleegers, P., & van Boxtel, C. (2014). Metacognitive scaffolding during collaborative learning: A promising combination. Metacognition and Learning, 9(3), 309–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panadero, E., & Järvelä, S. (2015). Socially shared regulation of learning: A review. European Psychologist, 20(3), 190–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, A. M., Watkins, J., & Hammer, D. (2017). Problematizing as a scientific endeavor. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 13(2), 020107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 385–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potvin, P., & Hasni, A. (2014). Interest, motivation and attitude towards science and technology at K-12 levels: a systematic review of 12 years of educational research. Studies in Science Education, 50(1), 85–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puntambekar, S., & Hubscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R., & G.,…Soloway, E. . (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 149–172). New York: Springer Science.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Reeve, J., Bolt, E., & Cai, Y. (1999). Autonomy-supportive teachers: How they teach and motivate students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, B. J. (2002). Why scaffolding should sometimes make tasks more difficult for learners. Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community: Proceedings of CSCL 2002 Boulder, Colorado, USA January 7–11.

  • Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, B. J., Berland, L. K., & Kenyon, L. (2012). Engaging students in the scientific practices of explanation and argumentation. The Science Teacher, 79(4), 34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, B., & Tabak, I. (2014). Scaffolding. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (2nd ed., pp. 44–62). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic-dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3–33). Rochester, NY: The University of Rochester Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadeh, I., & Zion, M. (2012). Which type of inquiry project do high school biology students prefer: Open or guided? Research in Science Education, 42(5), 831–848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1–2), 113–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36(1–2), 111–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scogin, S. C., & Stuessy, C. L. (2015). Encouraging greater student inquiry engagement in science through motivational support by online scientist-mentors. Science Education, 99(2), 312–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shedletzky, E., & Zion, M. (2005). The essence of open-inquiry teaching. Science Education International, 16(1), 23–38.

  • Siegel, M. A. (2012). Filling in the distance between us: Group metacognition during problem solving in a secondary education course. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(3), 325–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stefanou, C., Stolk, J. D., Prince, M., Chen, J. C., & Lord, S. M. (2013). Self-regulation and autonomy in problem-and project-based learning environments. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14(2), 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stender, A., Schwichow, M., Zimmerman, C., & Härtig, H. (2018). Making inquiry-based science learning visible: the influence of CVS and cognitive skills on content knowledge learning in guided inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 40(15), 1812–1831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanner, K. D. (2012). Promoting student metacognition . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 11(2), 113–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (2005). A theoretical framework and approach for fostering metacognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 211–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and instruction, 16(1), 3–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, B., Frederiksen, J., & Collins, A. (2009). The interplay of scientific inquiry and metacognition: More than a marriage of convenience. In D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of Metacognition in Education (pp. 175–205). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, M., & Lam, K. K. L. (2019). Metacognitive scaffolding for online information search in K-12 and higher education settings: a systematic review. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(6), 1353–1384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Pons, M. M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23(4), 614–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zion, M., Adler, I., & Mevarech, Z. R. (2015). The effect of individual and social metacognitive instruction on students’ metacognitive performances in an online inquiry discussion. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 52, 50–87.

  • Zion, M., Michalsky, T., & Mevarech, Z. R. (2005). The effects of metacognitive instruction embedded within an asynchronous learning network on scientific inquiry skills. International Journal of Science Education, 27(8), 959–983.

  • Zion, M., Slezak M., Shapira D., Link E., Bashan N., Brumer M., Orian T., Nussinovitch, R., Court D., Agrest B., Mendelovici R., & Valanides, N. (2004). Dynamic, open inquiry in biology learning. Science Education, 88, 728–753.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Yosef Mackler for his editorial assistance and Edna Guttmann for her statistical assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel

    Liron Schwartz, Nir Madjar & Michal Zion

  2. School of Education, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Idit Adler

Authors
  1. Liron Schwartz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Idit Adler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nir Madjar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michal Zion
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michal Zion.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schwartz, L., Adler, I., Madjar, N. et al. Rising to the Challenge: The Effect of Individual and Social Metacognitive Scaffolds on Students’ Expressions of Autonomy and Competence Throughout an Inquiry Process. J Sci Educ Technol 30, 582–593 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-021-09905-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-021-09905-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation