Past research suggests that digital augmentation, when used as a scaffolding device in science museums, can have a positive impact on both conceptual (content) and cognitive (thinking process) understanding. There is a danger, however, that “overformalization” can occur from scaffolding devices, and that informal learning behaviors—such as experimenting, asking questions, and collaborating with others—can be diminished. Reduction in these behaviors is problematic because of the unique affordances that informal education settings provide over more formal approaches to learning. This paper's authors sought to understand the optimal level of scaffolding—or cognitive, affective, and skills-based support—that science museums and informal learning sites can use to encourage both informal behaviors and deeper cognitive learning.
To understand how students respond to different levels of scaffolding, the researchers selected 307 middle-school students to participate in an activity involving completing an electrical circuit. The research took place at an urban science museum. The students worked in groups of three and were given one of six different conditions for completing the activity and student response sheet; each of the six conditions represented a different level of scaffolding. The first three conditions did not emphasize collaboration, although the students still worked in groups of three. Condition 1 (C1) acted as a control group with no scaffolding; students in this condition completed response sheets individually after the activity. Condition 2 (C2) included an augmented reality device, which offered an animation of moving electrons that the students could use to complete the electrical circuit; they also completed the response sheet individually after the activity. Condition 3 (C3) included the augmented reality plus student response sheet questions, which were read aloud by one of the students in the group before the students began the exercise; in this way, the students were aware of the questions that they would be answering after the activity.
The next three conditions emphasized collaboration with peers in some way. Condition 4 (C4) had the C3 scaffolds plus directions on how to collaborate within their group. Condition 5 (C5) had the C4 scaffolds plus additional knowledge-building prompts, in the form of a bank of ideas from peers; their response sheets were completed collaboratively after the activity. In Condition 6 (C6), the group had all of the C5 scaffolds, but acted collaboratively to complete the response sheet as a group during the exercise instead of after the activity.
The researchers used videos of group interactions during the intervention; a survey of conceptual knowledge administered before and after the exercise to measure knowledge gains; the student response sheets from the intervention; and randomly selected post-intervention interviews to collect data on student behavior and learning. The researchers analyzed video data for informal behaviors, such as experimenting with the exhibit and articulating questions not already posed on the student response sheet.
One of this study's central findings demonstrated the apparent tension between scaffolding for deeper cognitive learning and promoting informal behaviors, such as 31 conversations, experimentation, and questioning. In general, as scaffolding increased, informal behaviors decreased. However, when students were expressly encouraged to collaborate (C4, C5, and C6), more informal behaviors were observed despite the presence of scaffolding.
Another finding of this study was the value of using the augmented reality tool to support conceptual learning, which, in this case, was the projection of moving electrons. This was demonstrated by the much lower learning gains found in C1 compared with the other groups that had the augmented reality tool. The authors suggest that these tools may be particularly effective for teaching physical science topics, particularly when helping visualize characteristics of phenomena that are not visible.
The researchers found that condition C4 seemed to be the “Goldilocks” in terms of scaffolding. The students in this configuration had the questions posted and instructions to participate in collaborative groups. They demonstrated the highest gains in conceptual knowledge, a relatively high ability to theorize (not as high as C5 and C6, however), and the highest number of informal behaviors, such as experimenting, asking questions, and collaborating with others. While the addition of knowledge-building scaffolds (C5) and completing the worksheet during the exercise (C6) helped the students in terms of their ability to theorize, both of the additional scaffolds had a significant impact on informal behaviors.
The Bottom Line
Scaffolding methods, such as providing student response sheets and augmented reality devices, can help enhance knowledge gains in informal learning settings. Augmented reality tools that make visible phenomena that are otherwise invisible—such as animations of moving electrons—are particularly valuable for helping students understand concepts. However, too much scaffolding can also lead to decreases in informal behaviors such as experimentation, asking questions, and collaborating with others. One way to overcome this concern is to expressly encourage collaboration between students.