Scaffolding in a Medicine Education Intervention for Student Teachers Based on the PROFILES Three Stage Model
This paper focuses on describing the effects of scaffolding on the student teachers’ learning process. The scaffolding is based on using information and communication technology in the PROFILES Three Stage Model; Scenario, Inquiry and Decision-making Stages. Six hours of medicine education intervention is conducted as a part of the student teachers’ program in biology education. The scaffolded group is encouraged to work with the case and presentation templates, online, in Google Sites; the unscaffolded group work only with Word documents. During the Scenario Phase, student teachers discuss the important symptoms of flu, its prevention, and sources from which to find reliable information. In the Inquiry Phase, in the light of online materials and resources, student teachers recall and elaborate on these symptoms. In the Decision-making Phase, student teachers conclude their investigation by making a presentation with suggestions for treatment, and justify it with respect to reliable sources. The learning design is mainly based on the existing Internet site (Teaching children about the proper use of medicines). After their presentations, students reflect on questions that arise and discuss the subject. Results show that both groups discuss the reliability of different websites in the same way. However, the scaffolded group is quite effective in searching for information for their presentation, whereas the unscaffolded group has difficulties in finding relevant information. This suggests that by structuring the activity with Google Sites and presentation templates, scaffolding helps student teachers to work intensively and to prepare their presentations. Presentation modelling seems to be beneficial to the students’ sense making process during the investigation, and it also supports them in coping with the collaborative case-based reasoning process.
Rauch (Eds.), Inquiry-based science education in Europe: Reflections from the PROFILES project (pp. 31-42). Berlin: Freie Unviversität Berlin (print Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt).
Demetriadis, S. N., Papadopoulos, P. M., Stamelos, I. G., & Fischer, F. (2008). The effect of scaffolding students’ context-generating cognitive activity in technology-enhanced case-based learning. Computers & Education, 51(2), 939-954.
Hofstein, A., Eilks, I., & Bybee, R. (2010). Societal Issues and the importance for contemporary science education. In I. Eilks & B. Ralle (Eds.), Contemporary science education – implications for science education. Research about orientations, strategies and assessment (pp. 5-22). Aachen: Shaker Verlag.
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2007). The nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1347-1362.
Hämeen-Anttila, K., Airaksinen, M., Timonen, J., Bush, P., & Ahonen, R. (2006). Medicine education for schoolchildren: what do the teachers think? Health Education, 106(6), 480–490.
Jørgensen, M., & Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. London: Sage Publications.
Jourdan, D., Stirling, J., Mannix Mcnamara, P., & Pommier, J. (2011). The influence of professional factors in determining primary school teachers’ commitment to health promotion. Health Promotion International, 26(3), 302-310.
Kukkonen, J., Kärkkäinen, S., Valtonen, T., & Keinonen, T. (2011). Blogging to support inquiry based learning and reflection in teacher students’ science education. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 31, 73-84.
Kukkonen, J., Kärkkäinen, S., Dillon, P., & Keinonen, T. (2013). The effects of scaffolded simulationbased inquiry learning on fifth-graders‘ representations of the greenhouse effect. International Journal of Science Education. Retrieved October 23 2013 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.782452
Leurs, M. T. W., Bessems, K., Schaalma, H. P., & de Vries, H. (2007). Focus points for school health promotion improvements in Duch primary schools. Health Education Research, 22(1), 58-69.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Third edition. Newbury Park,CA: Sage.
Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., & Duncan, R. G. et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337-386.
Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding Complex Learning: The Mechanisms of Structuring and Problematizing Student Work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273-304.
Sherin, B., Reiser, B. J., & Edelson, D. (2004). Scaffolding analysis: Extending the scaffolding metaphor to learning artifacts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 387.
Simon, S. (2012). Effective continuous professional development in science education. In C. Bolte, J. Holbrook., & F. Rauch (Eds.), Inquiry-based science education in Europe: Reflections from the PROFILES project (pp. 17-24). Berlin: Freie Unviversität Berlin.
Speller, V., Byrne, J., Dewhirst, S., Almond, P., Mohebati, L., Norman, M., Polack, S., Memon, A., Grace, M., Margetts, B., & Roderick, P. (2010). Developing trainee school teachers’ expertice as health promoters. Health Education, 110(6), 490-507.
Valdmann, A., Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2012). Evaluating the teaching impact of a prior, context-based, professional development programme. Science Education International, 23(2), 166-185.
Wood, L. A., & Kroger, R. A. (2000). Doing discourse analysis: methods for studying action in talk and text. California: Sage Publications.
In order to ensure both the widest dissemination and protection of material published in CEPS Journal, we ask Authors to transfer to the Publisher (Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana) the rights of copyright in the Articles they contribute. This enables the Publisher to ensure protection against infringement.