Scaffolding in a Medicine Education Intervention for Student Teachers Based on the PROFILES Three Stage Model
Keywords:
Medicine education, Presentation modelling, Scaffolding, Teacher education, Three Stage PROFILES Model
Abstract
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.Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Bolte, C., Streller, S., Holbrook, J., Rannikmäe, M., Hofstein, A., Mamlok Naaman, R., & Rauch, F. (2012). Introduction into the PROFILES project and its philosophy. In C. Bolte, J. Holbrook, & F.
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.
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.
Published
2014-03-31
How to Cite
Kärkkäinen, S., Kukkonen, J., & Keinonen, T. (2014). Scaffolding in a Medicine Education Intervention for Student Teachers Based on the PROFILES Three Stage Model. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 4(1), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.215
Section
FOCUS
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors are confirming that they are the authors of the submitted article, which will be published online in the Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal (for short: CEPS Journal) by University of Ljubljana Press (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education, Kardeljeva ploščad 16, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia). The Author’s/Authors’ name(s) will be evident in the article in the journal. All decisions regarding layout and distribution of the work are in the hands of the publisher.
- The Authors guarantee that the work is their own original creation and does not infringe any statutory or common-law copyright or any proprietary right of any third party. In case of claims by third parties, authors commit themselves to defend the interests of the publisher, and shall cover any potential costs.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
