The Intellectual Structure of Metacognitive Scaffolding in Science Education: A Co-citation Network Analysis

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Kai-Yu Tang ; Chia-Yu Wang ; Hsin-Yi Chang…
• 关键词：Document co ; citation analysis ; Exploratory factor analysis ; Literature review ; Metacognitive scaffolding in science education (MSiSE) ; Social network analysis
• 刊名：International Journal of Science & Math Education
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：March 2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：14
• 期：2
• 页码：249-262
• 全文大小：388 KB
• 参考文献：*Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G. & Seibert, D. (2004). Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students’ ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(3), 344–370.
  *Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., Winters, F. I., Moos, D. C. & Greene, J. A. (2005). Adaptive human scaffolding facilitates adolescents’ self-regulated learning with hypermedia. Instructional Science, 33(5–6), 381–412.
  Bonzi, S. & Snyder, H. W. (1991). Motivations for citation: A comparison of self citation and citation to others. Scientometrics, 21(2), 245–254.CrossRef
  Borgatti, S. P., Everette, M. G. & Freeman, L. C. (2002). UCINET for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytical Technologies.
  *Bulu, S. T. & Pedersen, S. (2010). Scaffolding middle school students’ content knowledge and ill-structured problem solving in a problem-based hypermedia learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(5), 507–529.
  *Choi, I., Land, S. M. & Turgeon, A. J. (2005). Scaffolding peer-questioning strategies to facilitate metacognition during online small group discussion. Instructional Science, 33(5–6), 483–511.
  *Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 91–142.
  Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A. & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 391–409.CrossRef
  Eilam, B. & Aharon, I. (2003). Students’ planning in the process of self-regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 304–334.CrossRef
  Fowler, J. H. & Aksnes, D. W. (2007). Does self-citation pay? Scientometrics, 72(3), 427–437.CrossRef
  Garfield, E., Sher, I. H. & Torpie, R. J. (1964). The use of citation data in writing the history of science. Philadelphia, PA: Institute for Scientific Information.
  *Georghiades, P. (2006). The role of metacognitive activities in the contextual use of primary pupils’ conceptions of science. Research in Science Education, 36(1–2), 29–49.
  Grabe, M. & Holfeld, B. (2014). Estimating the degree of failed understanding: A possible role for online technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30, 173–186.CrossRef
  *Greenleaf, C. L., Litman, C., Hanson, T. L., Rosen, R., Boscardin, C. K., Herman, J. & Jones, B. (2011). Integrating literacy and science in biology: Teaching and learning impacts of reading apprenticeship professional development. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 647–717.
  Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.
  Hsu, Y. S., Yen, M.-H., Chang, W. H., Wang, C.-Y. & Chen, S. (2015). Content analysis of 1998–2012 empirical studies in science reading using a self-regulated learning lens. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education (in press).
  Hyland, K. (2003). Self‐citation and self‐reference: Credibility and promotion in academic publication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(3), 251–259.CrossRef
  *Jarvela, S. & Hadwin, A. F. (2013). New frontiers: Regulating learning in CSCL. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 25–39.
  Kamada, T. & Kawai, S. (1989). An algorithm for drawing general undirected graphs. Information Processing Letters, 31(1), 7–15.CrossRef
  *Keselman, A. (2003). Supporting inquiry learning by promoting normative understanding of multivariable causality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(9), 898–921.
  *Kim, H. J. & Pedersen, S. (2011). Advancing young adolescents’ hypothesis-development performance in a computer-supported and problem-based learning environment. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1780–1789.
  Kim, J. O. & Mueller, C. W. (1978). Factor analysis: Statistical methods and practical issues. California, CA: SAGE publications.
  *Kinnebrew, J. S., Segedy, J. R. & Biswas, G. (2014). Analyzing the temporal evolution of students’ behaviors in open-ended learning environments. Metacognition and Learning, 9(2), 187–215.
  Kyza, E. A. & Edelson, D. C. (2005). Scaffolding middle school students’ coordination of theory and evidence. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11(6), 545–560.CrossRef
  *Lewis, E. B; Kraft, K. J. V., Watts, N. B., Baker, D. R., Wilson, M. J. & Lang, M. (2011). Elementary teachers’ comprehension of flooding through inquiry-based professional development and use of self-regulation strategies. International Journal of Science Education, 33(11), 1473–1512.
  Lin, T. C., Hsu, Y. S., Lin, S. S., Changlai, M. L., Yang, K. Y. & Lai, T. L. (2012). A review of empirical evidence on scaffolding for science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(2), 437–455.CrossRef
  *Malmberg, J., Jarvela, S. & Kirschner, P. A. (2014). Elementary school students’ strategic learning: Does task-type matter? Metacognition and Learning, 9(2), 113–136.
  *Manlove, S., Lazonder, A. W. & de Jong, T. (2006). Regulative support for collaborative scientific inquiry learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(2), 87–98.
  *Manlove, S., Lazonder, A. W. & de Jong, T. (2009). Collaborative versus individual use of regulative software scaffolds during scientific inquiry learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 17(2), 105–117.
  Martin, B. L., Mintzes, J. J. & Clavijo, I. E. (2000). Restructuring knowledge in biology: Cognitive processes and metacognitive reflections. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 303–323.CrossRef
  McCain, K. W. (1990). Mapping authors in intellectual space: A technical overview. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41(6), 433–443.CrossRef
  *Michalsky, T. (2012). Shaping self-regulation in science teachers’ professional growth: Inquiry skills. Science Education, 96(6), 1106–1133.
  *Molenaar, I., Chiu, M. M., Sleegers, P. & van Boxtel, C. (2011). Scaffolding of small groups’ metacognitive activities with an avatar. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(4), 601–624.
  Moos, D. C. & Azevedo, R. (2008). Exploring the fluctuation of motivation and use of self-regulatory processes during learning with hypermedia. Instructional Science, 36, 203–231.CrossRef
  Otte, E. & Rousseau, R. (2002). Social network analysis: A powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. Journal of Information Science, 28(6), 441–453.CrossRef
  *Parker, J. (2006). Exploring the impact of varying degrees of cognitive conflict in the generation of both subject and pedagogical knowledge as primary trainee teachers learn about shadow formation. International Journal of Science Education, 28(13), 1545–1577.
  *Peters, E. E. & Kitsantas, A. (2010). Self-regulation of student epistemic thinking in science: The role of metacognitive prompts. Educational Psychology, 30(1), 27–52.
  *Puntambekar, S. & Stylianou, A. (2005). Designing navigation support in hypertext systems based on navigation patterns. Instructional Science, 33(5–6), 451–481.
  Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 273–304.CrossRef
  *Sandi-Urena, S., Cooper, M. M. & Stevens, R. H. (2011). Enhancement of metacognition use and awareness by means of a collaborative intervention. International Journal of Science Education, 33(3), 323–340.
  Small, H. (1973). Co‐citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265–269.CrossRef
  Tang, K. Y. & Tsai, C. C. (2015). The intellectual structure of research on educational technology in science education (ETiSE): A co-citation network analysis of publications in selected journals (2008–2013). Journal of Science Education and Technology (in press).
  Tang, K. Y., Tsai, C. C. & Lin, T. C. (2014). Contemporary intellectual structure of CSCL research (2006–2013): A co-citation network analysis with an education focus. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9(3), 335–363.CrossRef
  *Veermans, K., van Joolingen, W. & de Jong, T. (2006). Use of heuristics to facilitate scientific discovery learning in a simulation learning environment in a physics domain. International Journal of Science Education, 28(4), 341–361.
  *Ward, R. E. & Wandersee, J. H. (2002). Struggling to understand abstract science topics: A roundhouse diagram-based study. International Journal of Science Education, 24(6), 575–591.
  Wasserman, S. & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
  *White, B. Y. & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.
  White, B. Y., Shimoda, T. A. & Frederiksen, J. R. (2000). Facilitating students’ inquiry learning and metacognitive development through modifiable software advisers. In S. P. Lajoie (Ed.), Computers as cognitive tools II: No more walls: Theory change, paradigm shifts and their influence on the use of computers for instructional purposes (pp. 97–132). Mawah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  White, H. D. (2003). Pathfinder networks and author cocitation analysis: A remapping of paradigmatic information scientists. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(5), 423–434.CrossRef
  White, H. D. & Griffith, B. C. (1981). Author cocitation: A literature measure of intellectual structure. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 32(3), 163–171.CrossRef
  *Wu, H. L. & Pedersen, S. (2011). Integrating computer- and teacher-based scaffolds in science inquiry. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2352–2363.
  Yore, L. D. (2012). Science literacy for all—More than a slogan, logo, or rally flag! In K. C. D. Tan & M. Kim (Eds.), Issues and challenges in science education research: Moving forward (pp. 5–23). Dordrecht, The Netherlands : Springer.
  Zohar, A. & Barzilai, S. (2013). A review of research on metacognition in science education: Current and future directions. Studies in Science Education, 49(2), 121–169.CrossRef
  Zohar, A. & Dori, J. (Eds.). (2012). Metacognition in science education: Trends in current research. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
  
• 作者单位：Kai-Yu Tang (1)
  Chia-Yu Wang (2)
  Hsin-Yi Chang (1)
  Sufen Chen (1)
  Hao-Chang Lo (3)
  Chin-Chung Tsai (1)
  
  1. Graduate Institute of Digital Learning and Education, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan
  2. Institute of Education, National Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan
  3. Department of Digital Content and Technology, National Taichung University of Education, Taichung, Taiwan
  
• 刊物类别：Humanities, Social Sciences and Law
• 刊物主题：Education
  Mathematics Education
  Science Education
  
• 出版者：Springer Netherlands
• ISSN：1573-1774

文摘

The issues of metacognitive scaffolding in science education (MSiSE) have become increasingly popular and important. Differing from previous content reviews, this study proposes a series of quantitative computer-based analyses by integrating document co-citation analysis, social network analysis, and exploratory factor analysis to explore the intellectual structure of the MSiSE literature (i.e. the relationships within and between subfields of MSiSE). Co-citation refers to any two articles that are jointly referenced in other articles. After the computation of co-citation analysis, 27 articles that have been co-cited at least once by follow-up studies as references were identified as the final set of core articles. The whole co-citation profile of 27 cores with the 434 links was then visualized in a network through social network analysis, representing an overview for the intellectual structure of core MSiSE studies. The most cross-referenced underpinnings in the network focused on adaptive scaffolding for self-regulated learning to enhance students’ conceptual understanding and on younger students’ metacognition in online science inquiry learning environments. Furthermore, two emerging topics in the network were identified through an exploratory factor analysis as “non-technological metacognitive scaffolding media,” and “behavior patterns & task analysis in technology-infused environments.” Overall, the study provides an innovative review method of scholarly communication in the MSiSE literature.