Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Vol. 14 No. 36 (2023)
Investigación y pedagogía

Investigación y pedagogía

Jorba and Sanmartí’s Scaffolding and Learning Cycle: Convergence and Application in Mathematical Education

https://doi.org/10.19053/22160159.v14.n36.2023.15113

Published 2023-05-25

  • Yina Marcela Hoyos Doria
    • ,
  • Misael Beltrán
    • ,
  • Pedro Jesús Hernández Rizzo
    • ,
  • Wilson Javier Parra Angarita

Yina Marcela Hoyos Doria
Universidad de Antioquia

Misael Beltrán
Universidad de Antioquia

Pedro Jesús Hernández Rizzo
Universidad de Antioquia

Wilson Javier Parra Angarita
Universidad de Antioquia

Abstract

Although Jorba and Sanmartí's scaffolding and learning cycle have accumulated several
decades of research, no study has performed a conjoint analysis of both methods. Based on their
theoretical approaches, this paper presents a conceptual model for their convergence. This link
made it possible to design and implement a didactic sequence contextualized for the teaching
of rational numbers in rural schools. A novel metacognitive evaluation card was constructed in
order to integrate convergence, the teacher’s role, and the expected student performances. The
worksheet facilitated the results and revealed, from an empirical and descriptive perspective,
that the proposed convergence is effective because it favored the understanding of the content,
promoted student’s; autonomy, and significantly impacted their affectivity. However, the gradual
withdrawal of the teacher’s support and the increasing complexity of the activities caused a
progressive decrease in the student’s; performances. The proposed conjunction adapts well to
the rural school learning context and is expected to be attractive for combining both cognitive
and socio-affective interests.

Keywords

scaffolding, Jorba and Sanmartí’s learning cycle, rural context, mathematical education

PDF (Español) HTML (Español) EPUB (Español) XML (Español)

References

  1. Álvarez, R., Fernández, H., & Rúa, J. (2009). Matemáticas básicas con aplicaciones. Ecoe ediciones.
  2. Bakker, A., Smit, J., & Wegerif, R. (2015). Scaffolding and dialogic teaching in mathematics education: introduction and review. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47, 1047-1065. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0738-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0738-8
  3. Bernal, M., y Martínez, M. (2017). Metodologías activas para la enseñanza y el aprendizaje. Revista Panamericana de Pedagogía, (25), 270-275. https://doi.org/10.21555/rpp.v0i25.1695 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21555/rpp.v0i25.1695
  4. Bieg, M., Goetz, T., Sticca, F., Brunner, E., Becker, E., Morger, V., & Hubbard, K. (2017). Teaching methods and their impact on students’ emotions in mathematics: an experience-sampling approach. ZDM Mathematics Education, 49, 411-422.
  5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0840-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0840-1
  6. Castillo, M. (2011). La socioafectividad en la educación desde la complejidad. Educación y Humanismo, 13(21), 129-146. https://revistas.unisimon.edu.co/index.php/educacion/article/view/2267
  7. Cevikbas, M., & Kaiser, G. (2022). Student Engagement in a Flipped Secondary Mathematics Classroom. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20, 1455-1480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10213-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10213-x
  8. Clark, L., & Watson, D. (2019). Constructing validity: New developments in creating objective measuring instruments. Psychological Assessment, 31(12), 1412-1427. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000626 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000626
  9. Crujeiras, B., y Jiménez, M. (2018). Influencia de distintas estrategias de andamiaje para promover la participación del alumnado de secundaria en las prácticas científicas. Enseñanza de las ciencias, 36(2), 23-42. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.2241 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.2241
  10. de Arriba, R., y Paredes-Velasco, M. (2021, octubre 20-22). Aplicación de andamiaje en un modelo de aprendizaje sostenible y su influencia en el estado emocional durante la COVID-19 [Conferencia]. VI Congreso Internacional sobre Aprendizaje, Innovación y Cooperación (CINAIC 2021), Madrid, España. https://zaguan.unizar.es/record/107739/files/036.pdf
  11. DOI: 10.26754/CINAIC.2021.0036 DOI: https://doi.org/10.26754/CINAIC.2021.0036
  12. Elias, H., Ribeiro, A., & Savioli, A. (2020). Epistemological Matrix of Rational Number: a Look at the Different Meanings of Rational Numbers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18, 357-376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09965-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09965-4
  13. Fernández-Lasarte, O., Ramos-Díaz, E., Goñi, E., y Rodríguez-Fernández, A. (2019). Estudio comparativo entre educación superior y educación secundaria: efecto del apoyo social percibido, el autoconcepto y la reparación emocional en el rendimiento académico. Educación XX1, 22(2), 165-185. https://doi.org/10.5944/educXX1.22526 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5944/educxx1.22526
  14. Gómez, J., Hernández, H., & Hernández, V. (2021). Scaffolding system for solving problems in engineering education. Revista Ingenierías Universidad De Medellín, 20(39), 35-53. https://doi.org/10.22395/rium.v20n39a2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.22395/rium.v20n39a2
  15. Hernández-Sampieri, R., y Mendoza, C. (2018). Metodología de la investigación. Las rutas cuantitativa, cualitativa y mixta. Mc Graw Hill.
  16. Jorba, J., y Sanmartí, N. (1996). Enseñar, aprender y evaluar: un proceso de evaluación continua. Propuesta didáctica para las áreas de las ciencias de la naturaleza y matemáticas. Ministerio de Educación y Cultura.
  17. Kieren, T. (1976). On the mathematical, cognitive, and instructional foundations of rational numbers. En: Lesh, R. (ed.). Number and measurement: Papers from a research workshop, 101-144. Columbus. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED120027.pdf
  18. Kusmaryono, I., & Wijayanti, D. (2020). Tinjauan sistematis: strategis scaffolding pada pembelajaran matematika. Phenomenon: Jurnal Pendidikan MIPA, 10(1), 102-117. https://doi.org/10.21580/phen.2020.10.1.6114 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21580/phen.2020.10.1.6114
  19. López, O., Sanabria, L., y Buitrago, N. (2018). Efecto diferencial de un andamiaje metacognitivo sobre la autorregulación y el logro de aprendizaje en un ambiente combinado. Tecné, Episteme y Didaxis: TED, (44), 33-50. https://doi.org/10.17227/ted.num44-8988 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17227/ted.num44-8988
  20. Masinading, Z., & Gaylo, D. (2022). Differentiated Scaffolding Strategies in Triangle Congruence: Their Effects on Learners’ Academic Performance and Confidence in Mathematics. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 10(2), 131-140. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.10n.2p.131 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.10n.2p.131
  21. Matas, A. (2018). Diseño del formato de escalas tipo Likert: un estado de la cuestión.
  22. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 20(1), 38-47. https://doi.org/10.24320/redie.2018.20.1.1347 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24320/redie.2018.20.1.1347
  23. Park, S., & Esposito, A. (2022). Rational number conceptualization predicts mathematics achievement: Quantity matters. Cognitive Development, 63, 101195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2022.101195 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2022.101195
  24. Reynolds, D. (2017). Interactional Scaffolding for Reading Comprehension: A Systematic Review. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 66(1),135-156. https://doi.org/10.1177/2381336917718820 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2381336917718820
  25. Romero, Y., Tuay, R., y Pérez, M. (2021). Relación emociones y educación en ciencias: estado del arte reportado en eventos académicos. Praxis & Saber, 12(28), e11173. https://doi.org/10.19053/22160159.v12.n28.2021.11173 DOI: https://doi.org/10.19053/22160159.v12.n28.2021.11173
  26. Sandín, M. (2003). Investigación Cualitativa en Educación. Fundamentos y tradiciones. Mc Graw Hill.
  27. Sanmartí, N. (2005). La unidad didáctica en el paradigma constructivista. En: Couso, D. et al. (eds.). Unidades didácticas en ciencias y matemáticas. Capítulo 1, 13-58. Editorial Magisterio.
  28. Sommer, M., y Cabello, V. (2020). Andamios de retiro gradual. Parte 2: Apoyos a la construcción de explicaciones en ciencia primaria. Estudios pedagógicos, 46(1), 269-284. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-07052020000100269 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-07052020000100269
  29. van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in Teacher–Student Interaction: A Decade of Research. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 271-296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6
  30. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17, 89-100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
  31. Wright, V. (2018). Vygotsky and a Global Perspective on Scaffolding in Learning Mathematics. En: Zajda, J. (ed.). Globalisation and Education Reforms. Capítulo 8, 123-135. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1204-8_8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1204-8_8

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.