A conceptual framework for scaffolding III-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions

  • Xun GE 
  • Susan M. Land


We present a conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. We first examine the characteristics and processes of ill-structured problem solving, namely, problem representation, generating solutions, making justifications, and monitoring and evaluation. Then, we analyze each of the problem-solving processes with regard to its cognitive and metacognitive requirements, the issues and learning problems that might be encountered by students during each process, and the respective role of question prompts and peer interactions in scaffolding each process. Next, we discuss the role of the teacher in relation to the use of the two scaffolding techniques, and their limitations. Last, we discuss implications for instructional design by suggesting some specific guidelines, and made recommendations for future research.


Instructional Design Problem Representation Metacognitive Knowledge Metacognitive Skill Reciprocal Teaching 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning for the Web with KIE.International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brabeck, M. M., & Wood, P. K. (1990). Cross-sectional and longitudinal evidence for differences between well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving abilities. In M. L. Commons, C. Armon, L. Kohlberg, F. A., Richards, T. A., Grotzer, & J. D. Sinnott (Eds.),Adult development: Vol. 2. Models and methods in the study of adolescent and adult thought (pp. 133–146). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  3. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000).How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bransford, J. D., & Stein, B. S. (1993).The IDEAL problem solver: A guide for improving thinking, learning, and creativity (2nd ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.),Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65–115). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.),Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229–270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.),Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 393–451). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Cerbin, B. (1988).The nature and development of informal reasoning skills in college students. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 298805)Google Scholar
  9. Chi, M., Bassok, M., Lewis, M., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems.Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices.Cognition Science, 5, 121–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chi, M. T. H., & Glaser, R. (1985). Problem solving ability. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),Human abilities: An information processing approach (pp. 227–250). New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  12. Chi, M. T. H., Leeuw, N. D., Chiu, M., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding.Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cooper, M. A. (1999). Classroom choices from a cognitive perspective on peer learning. In A. M. O'Donnell & A. King (Eds.),Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 215–233). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  14. Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. (2000). Scaffolding students' knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE.International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feltovich, P. J., Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L., & Feltovich, J. (1996). Collaboration within and among minds: Mastering complexity, individuality and in groups. In T. Koschmann (Ed.),CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 25–44). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  16. Garner, R., & Alexander, P. A. (1989). Metacognition: Answered and unanswered questions.Educational Psychologist, 24, 143–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2003). Scaffolding students' problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions.Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gick, M. L. (1986). Problem solving strategies.Educational Psychologist, 21(1&2), 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Glaser, R., & Chi, M. T. H. (1988). Overview. In M. T. H. Chi, R. Glaser & M. J. Farr (Eds.),The nature of expertise (pp. xv-xxviii). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. Greene, B. A., & Land, S. M. (2000). A qualitative analysis of scaffolding use in a resource-based learning environment involving the World Wide Web.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(2), 151–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Greeno, J. (1978). Nature of problem-solving abilities. In W. Estes (Ed.),Handbook of learning and cognitive processes: Vol. 5. Human information processing (pp. 239–270). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  22. Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional design theories and models: Vol. 2. A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 115–140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. Jacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children's metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction.Educational Psychologist, 22, 255–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1979). Conflict in the classroom: Controversy and learning.Review of Educational Research, 49, 51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994).Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (4th ed.). Boston, Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  26. Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes.Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jonassen, D. H., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M. (1993).Structural knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  28. King, A. (1989). Verbal interaction and problem solving within computer-assisted cooperative learning group.Journal of Educational Computing Research.5(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. King, A. (1991). Effects of training in strategic questioning on children's problem-solving performance.Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 307–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. King, A. (1992). Facilitating elaborative learning through guided student-generated questioning.Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain.American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 338–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. King, A. (1999). Discourse patterns for mediating peer learning. In A. M. O'Donnell & A. King (Eds.),Cognitive perspective on peer learning (pp. 87–115). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  33. King, A., & Rosenshine, B. (1993). Effect of guided cooperative questioning on children's knowledge construction.Journal of Experimental Education, 61(2), 127–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kitchener, K. S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition, and epistemistic cognition: A three-level model of cognitive processing.Human Development, 26, 222–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kitchener, K. S., & King, P. M. (1981). Reflective judgment: Concepts of justification and their relationship to age and education.Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2, 89–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kluwe, R. H., & Friedrichsen, G. (1985). Mechanism of control and regulation in problem solving. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.),Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 183–218). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  37. Lajoie, S. P. (Ed.) (2000).Computers as cognitive tools: No more walls (Vol. 2). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  38. Lajoie, S. P., & Derry, S. J. (Eds.) (1993).Computers as cognitive tools. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  39. Land, S. M. (2000). Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environments.Educational Technology Research and Development, 48 (3), 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Land, S. M., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2003). Scaffolding reflection and articulation of scientific explanations in a data-rich, project-based learning environment: An investigation ofProgress Portfolio.Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(4), 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lin, X. (2001). Designing metacognitive activities.Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lin, X., & Lehman, J. D. (1999). Supporting learning of variable control in a computer-based biology environment: Effects of prompting college students to reflect on their own thinking.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 837–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lin, X., Hmelo, C., Kinzer, C. K., & Secules, T. J. (1999). Designing technology to support reflection.Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(3), 43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mayer, R. E. (1991).Thinking, problem solving, cognition. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  45. Noddings, N. (1985). Small groups as a setting for research on mathematical problem solving. In E. A. Silver (Ed.),Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving (pp. 345–359). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  46. O'Donnell, A. M. (1999). Structuring dyadic interaction through scripted cooperation. In A. M. O'Donnell & A. King (Eds.),Cognitive perspective on peer learning (pp. 179–196). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  47. Palincsar, A. S. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction.Educational Psychologist, 21(1 & 2), 73–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities.Cognition and Instruction, 2, 117–175.Google Scholar
  49. Pressley, M., & McCormick, C. B. (1987).Advanced educational psychology for educators, researchers, and policy makers. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  50. Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1992). The use of scaffolds for teaching higher-level cognitive strategies.Educational Leadership, 4, 26–33.Google Scholar
  51. Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies.Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 181–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to.International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Salomon, G., Globerson, T., & Guterman, E. (1989). The computer as a zone of proximal development: Internalizing reading-related metacognitions from a reading partner.Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4), 620–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environment.Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1985). Fostering the development of self-regulation in children's knowledge processing. In S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.),Thinking and learning skills: Research and open questions (Vol. 2), pp. 563–577). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  56. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Steinbach, R. (1984). Teachability of reflective processes in written composition.Cognitive Science, 8(2), 173–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLean, R. S., Swallow, J., & Woodruff, E. (1989). Computer-supported intentional learning environments.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5(1), 51–68.Google Scholar
  58. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985).Mathematical problem-solving. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  59. Simon, H. A. (1978). Information-processing theory of human problem solving. In W. Estes (Ed.),Handbook of learning and cognitive processes: Vol. 5. Human information processing (pp. 271–295). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  60. Sinnott, J. D. (1989). A model for solution of ill-structured problems: Implications for everyday and abstract problem solving. In J. D. Sinnott (Ed.),Everyday problem solving: Theory and application (pp. 72–99). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  61. Slavin, R. E. (1995).Cooperative learning (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  62. Voss, J. F. (1988). Problem solving and reasoning in illstructured domains. In C. Antaki (Ed.),Analyzing everyday explanation: A casebook of methods (pp. 74–93). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  63. Voss, J. F., & Post, T. A. (1988). On the solving of illstructured problems. In M. H. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. J. Farr (Eds.),The nature of expertise (pp. 261–285). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  64. Voss, J. F., Wolfe, C. R., Lawrence, J. A., & Engle, R. A. (1991). From representation to decision: An analysis of problem solving in international relations. In R. J. Sternberg & P. A. Frensch (Eds.),Complex problem solving: Principles and mechanisms. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  65. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978).Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups.International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Webb, N. M. (1991). Task related verbal interactions and mathematics learning in small groups.Journal for Research in Mathematic Education, 22, 366–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.),Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841–873). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.Google Scholar
  69. Webb, N. M., Troper, J. D., & Fall, R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in small groups.Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 406–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wineburg, S. S. (1998). Reading Abraham Lincoln: An expert-expert study in the interpretation of historical texts.Cognitive Science, 22, 319–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xun GE 
    • 1
  • Susan M. Land
    • 2
  1. 1.Instructional Psychology and Technology program at The University of OklahomaUSA
  2. 2.Instructional Systems program at The Pennsylvania State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations