Scrum Methodology as an Effective Scaffold to Promote Students’ Learning and Motivation in Context-based Secondary Chemistry Education
More details
Hide details
Greijdanus College, Zwolle, THE NETHERLANDS
Leiden University Graduate School of Teaching, Leiden University, THE NETHERLANDS
Melbourne Graduate School of Education, The University of Melbourne, AUSTRALIA
Online publish date: 2019-07-06
Publish date: 2019-07-06
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2019;15(12):em1783
Context-based approaches aim at increasing students’ learning and motivation. However, students perceive its complexity often as overwhelming, causing frustration and disengagement. Thus, there is a need for innovative teaching methods to scaffold students in context-based education. Two perspectives are used to argue that Scrum methodology, a project management framework, is a promising candidate. First, its features are described and subsequently connected to six well-known scaffolds from the motivational literature. This exploration showed that implementation of Scrum methodology might lead to improvements of students’ motivation and an increase in cognitive and metacognitive learning achievements. Secondly, an empirical pilot study was conducted. Three experienced chemistry teachers implemented Scrum methodology in their chemistry lessons. Interviews revealed that Scrum methodology visualized students’ learning process and progress. Two teachers reported stable and even better learning outcomes. In addition, they perceived that their students showed increased engagement. However, one of the participating teachers reported student resistance towards parts of the Scrum methodology as well as organizational issues. This teacher emphasized that Scrum methodology is in itself rather complex and that implementation is not an easy job. Although the pilot study suggests that caution is urged, its implementation might give new momentum to reinforce context-based approaches.
Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., & Richardson, J. C. (2008). A scaffolding framework to support the construction of evidence-based arguments among middle school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(4), 401-422.
Belland, B. R., Kim, C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2013). A framework for designing scaffolds that improve motivation and cognition. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 243-270.
Bennett, J. (2017). Bringing science to life. In R. Taconis, P. den Brok, & A. Pilot (Eds.), Teachers Creating Context-Based Learning Environments in Science (pp. 21-39). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of science self‐efficacy beliefs of middle school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 485-499.
Childs, P. E., Hayes, S. M., & O’Dwyer, A. (2015). Chemistry and everyday life: Relating secondary school chemistry to the current and future lives of students. In I. Eilks & A. Hofstein (Eds.), Relevant Chemistry Education (pp. 33-54). Rotterdam: Sense Publisher.
Cole, J. S., Bergin, D. A., & Whittaker, T. A. (2008). Predicting student achievement for low stakes tests with effort and task value. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 609-624.
Cunningham, K. (2016). Variables that impact the implementation of project-based learning in high school science. Detroit: Wayne State University.
De Jong, O., & Treagust, D. (2003). The Teaching and Learning of Electrochemistry. In J. K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust, & J. H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical Education: Towards Research-based Practice (pp. 317-337). Dordrecht: Springer The Netherlands.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The” what” and” why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.
Delhij, A., van Solingen, R., & Wijnands, W. (2015). The EduScrum Guide. Retrieved from
Gilbert, J. K. (2006). On the nature of “context” in chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 957-976.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Smith, J. L., & Priniski, S. J. (2016). Interest Matters. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(2), 220-227.
Harris, C. J., & Rooks, D. L. (2010). Managing inquiry-based science: Challenges in enacting complex science instruction in elementary and middle school classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(2), 227-240.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.
Hulleman, C. S., Schrager, S. M., Bodmann, S. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). A meta-analytic review of achievement goal measures: Different labels for the same constructs or different constructs with similar labels? Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 422.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2008). Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning: The Teacher’s Role. In R. M. Gillies, A. F. Ashman, & J. Terwel (Eds.), The Teacher’s Role in Implementing Cooperative Learning in the Classroom (pp. 9-37). Boston, MA: Springer US.
King, D., & Ritchie, S. M. (2012). Learning science through real-world contexts. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 69-79). Dordrecht: Springer The Netherlands.
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Vermeulen, M. (2013). Social aspects of CSCL environments: A research framework. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 229-242.
Land, S. M., Hannafin, M. J., & Oliver, K. (2012). Student-centered learning environments. In D. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments. Second Edition (pp. 3-21). New York: Routledge.
Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681-718.
Malik, S. A. (2017). Revisiting and re-representing scaffolding: The two gradient model. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1331533.
Mason, A. J., & Singh, C. (2016). Impact of guided reflection with peers on the development of effective problem solving strategies and physics learning. The Physics Teacher, 54(5), 295-299.
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14.
Mergendoller, J. R., Markham, T., Ravitz, J., & Larmer, J. (2006). Pervasive Management of Project Based Learning: Teachers as Guides and Facilitators. In Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues. (pp. 583-615). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Nentwig, P. M., Demuth, R., Parchmann, I., Ralle, B., & Gräsel, C. (2007). Chemie im Kontext: Situating learning in relevant contexts while systematically developing basic chemical concepts. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(9), 1439.
Nisbet, J., & Shucksmith, J. (2017). Learning strategies. London: Routledge.
Parchmann, I., Broman, K., Busker, M., & Rudnik, J. (2015). Context-Based Teaching and Learning on School and University Level. In J. Garcia-Martinez & E. Serrano-Torregrosa (Eds.), Chemistry Education: Best Practices, Innovative Strategies and New Technologies (pp. 259-278). Weinheim: Wiley-VCH.
Pilot, A., & Bulte, A. M. W. (2006). Why Do You “Need to Know”? Context‐based education. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 953-956.
Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., . . . Soloway, E. (2004). A scaffolding design Framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337-386.
Reeve, J. (2009). Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and how they can become more autonomy supportive. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 159-175.
Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273-304.
Rubin, K. S. (2012). Essential Scrum: A practical guide to the most popular Agile process. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Savelsbergh, E. R., Prins, G. T., Rietbergen, C., Fechner, S., Vaessen, B. E., Draijer, J. M., & Bakker, A. (2016). Effects of innovative science and mathematics teaching on student attitudes and achievement: A meta-analytic study. Educational Research Review, 19, 158-172.
Sawyer, R. K. (2014). Introduction: The new science of learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 27-55). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schwaber, K., & Sutherland, J. (2017). The Scrum Guide. The Definitive Guide to Scrum: The Rules of the Game. Retrieved from
Scott, E., Rodríguez, G., Soria, Á., & Campo, M. (2016). Towards better Scrum learning using learning styles. Journal of Systems and Software, 111, 242-253.
Sevian, H., Dori, Y. J., & Parchmann, I. (2018). How does STEM context-based learning work: what we know and what we still do not know. International Journal of Science Education, 40(10), 1095-1107.
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153-189.
Tempelaar, D. T., Wosnitza, M., Volet, S., Rienties, B., Giesbers, B., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2013). The role of self-and social directed goals in a problem-based, collaborative learning context. Higher Education, 66(2), 253-267.
Thoman, D. B., Smith, J. L., Brown, E. R., Chase, J., & Lee, J. Y. K. (2013). Beyond performance: A motivational experiences model of stereotype threat. Educational Psychology Review, 25(2), 211-243.
Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H. (2005). In search of the uniquely human. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(5), 721-727.
Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Sources of self-efficacy in school: Critical review of the literature and future directions. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 751-796.
Vos, M. A. J., Taconis, R., Jochems, W. M. G., & Pilot, A. (2016). Interaction between Teachers and Teaching Materials. In Teachers Creating Context-Based Learning Environments in Science (pp. 125-143). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Weiner, B. (2010). The development of an attribution-based theory of motivation: A history of ideas. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 28-36.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68-81.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100.
Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 302-314.