English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Received 28 July 2014Received in revised form21 August 201429 August 2014Accepted 30 AugustThe purpose of this research is to understand interactive learning during docent-led tours in a science museum focusing on scaffolding. We developed a scaffolding framework by collating the work of other researchers in related fields. The results show that scaffolding included three dimensions: purpose, interaction, and domain. The purpose dimension, divided into six categories, is related to the intention of the scaffolder and what the scaffolding are for: strategic, social, procedural, conceptual, verbal, and metacognitive. The interaction dimension reflects students’ interaction with the scaffolder in two ways: dynamic (situation specific) and static (planned in advance). The domain dimension is related to two contents: domain-general and domain-specific (such as science). The scaffolding framework was applied to dynamic interactions between docents and visitors. The data was collected from elementary school students’ family visits with the guidance of two docents at the Seodaemun Museum of Natural History. The data collected consisted of surveys, interviews, video-recordings, and transcripts. The analysis shows that five guiding contexts and scaffolding phases were recognized; 1) strategic scaffolding in a poorly illustrated exhibit; 2) conceptual scaffolding in a thoroughly explanative exhibit; 3) verbal scaffolding in misleading interpretation; 4) procedural scaffolding in a manipulative exhibit; and 5) metacognitive scaffolding with inaccurate content. In addition, the results show that the docents used the dynamic and static scaffolding synthetically so that the docent-led tour was effective. In conclusion, this study presents the usefulness of understanding visitors’ science learning through the scaffolding framework, as well as the how docents can scaffold actively.

Analysis of Scaffolding Phase in the Discourse during Docent-led Tours in a Science Museum