Scaffolding: Definition, Current Debates, and Future Directions

Chapter

Abstract

Instructional scaffolding can be defined as support provided by a teacher/parent, peer, or a computer- or a paper-based tool that allows students to meaningfully participate in and gain skill at a task that they would be unable to complete unaided. The metaphor of scaffolding has been applied to instruction in contexts ranging from literacy education to science education, and among individuals ranging from infants to graduate students. In this chapter, scaffolding is defined and its theoretical backing is explored. Then scaffolding strategies and examples are explored. Trends, findings, and implications of current empirical research are presented and discussed. Current debates in the scaffolding literature are explored, including whether (a) scaffolding needs to be based on dynamic assessment and fading, and (b) domain-specific knowledge needs to be embedded in scaffolding. Finally, future research directions are outlined, including transfer of responsibility, the interaction between teacher scaffolding and computer-based scaffolding, and other scaffolding aspects.

Keywords

Instructional scaffolding Transfer of responsibility Non-scaffolding instructional support One-to-one scaffolding Computer-based scaffolding Peer scaffolding 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by National Science Foundation early CAREER grant # 0953046. The views expressed herein represent those of the author and not necessarily those of the Foundation.

References

  1. Aleven, V. A. W. M. M., & Koedinger, K. R. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based cognitive tutor. Cognitive Science, 26(2), 147–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angelova, M., Gunawardena, D., & Volk, D. (2006). Peer teaching and learning: Co-constructing language in a dual language first grade. Language and Education, 20(3), 173–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azevedo, R. (2005). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker, R. S. J. D., Corbett, K. D., & Koedinger, K. R. (2007). The difficulty factors approach to the design of lessons in intelligent tutor curricula. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 17(4), 341–369.Google Scholar
  5. Belland, B. R. (2009). Using the theory of habitus to move beyond the study of barriers to technology integration. Computers in Education, 52, 353–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Belland, B. R. (2010). Portraits of middle school students constructing evidence-based arguments during problem-based learning: The impact of computer-based scaffolds. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(3), 285–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Belland, B. R. (2011). Distributed cognition as a lens to understand the effects of scaffolds: The role of transfer of responsibility. Educational Psychology Review, 23(4), 577–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. *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, 401–422.Google Scholar
  9. Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., & Richardson, J. C. (2011). Problem-based learning and argumentation: Testing a scaffolding framework to support middle school students’ creation of evidence-based arguments. Instructional Science, 39, 667–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Belland, B. R., Kim, C., & Hannafin, M. (2010, May). A conceptual framework for increasing middle school students’ science motivation. Paper presented at the 2010 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.Google Scholar
  11. Belland, B. R., Walker, A. E., Leary, H., & Olsen, M. W. (2012, April). Impact of scaffold characteristics and study quality on learning outcomes in STEM education: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
  12. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. (1990). Reproduction in education, society, and culture (R. Nice, Trans.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24, 61–100.Google Scholar
  14. Brophy, J. (1999). Toward a model of the value aspects of motivation in education: Developing appreciation for particular learning domains and activities. Educational Psychologist, 34(2), 75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bybee, R., McCrae, B., & Laurie, R. (2009). PISA 2006: An assessment of scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 865–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Champion, R. H. (1999). Just boil it down. Journal of Staff Development, 20(2), 63–66.Google Scholar
  18. Chi, M. T. H. (1996). Constructing self-explanations and scaffolded explanations in tutoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, S33–S49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cho, K., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem-solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. *Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Conner, D. B., & Cross, D. R. (2003). Longitudinal analysis of the presence, efficacy, and stability of maternal scaffolding during informal problem-solving interactions. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21, 315–334.Google Scholar
  24. Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (1994). The handbook of research synthesis. New York, NY: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(2), 35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Davis, E. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 91–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 819–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Design Principles Database. (n. d.). Design principles database. Accessed 17 January, 2012, at http://www.edu-design-principles.org/dp/designHome.php
  29. Fee, S., & Belland, B. R. (2012). The role of criticism in understanding problem solving: Honoring the work of John C. Belland. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Finfgeld, D. L. (2003). Meta-synthesis: The state of the art—so far. Qualitative Health Research, 13, 893–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gagné, R. M. (1965). The conditions of learning. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  32. Giere, R. N. (2006). The role of agency in distributed cognitive systems. Philosophy of Science, 73, 710–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gijlers, H., Saab, N., van Joolingen, W. R., de Jong, T., & van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2009). Interaction between tool and talk: How instruction and tools support consensus building in collaborative learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 252–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gillies, R. M. (2008). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high students’ behaviours, discourse, and learning during a science-based learning activity. School Psychology International, 29, 328–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gillies, R. M., & Boyle, M. (2006). Ten Australian elementary teachers’ discourse and reported pedagogical practices during cooperative learning. The Elementary School Journal, 106, 429–452.Google Scholar
  36. Graesser, A. C., D’Mello, S., & Cade, W. (2009). Instruction based on tutoring. In R. A. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Pursuit of explanation within a computer-supported classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 26(8), 979–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. *Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open-ended learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: Volume II: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 115–140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  39. Hurd, P. D. (1998). Scientific literacy: New minds for a changing world. Science Education, 82(3), 407–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  41. Jacobson, M. (2008). A design framework for educational hypermedia systems: Theory, research, and learning emerging scientific conceptual processes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Miller, B. W., Kim, I., Kuo, L., et al. (2011). Influence of a teacher’s scaffolding moves during child-led small group discussions. American Educational Research Journal, 48(1), 194–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Jonassen, D. H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Design justifications and guidelines. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 439–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. *Kali, Y., & Linn, M. C. (2008). Technology-enhanced support strategies for inquiry learning. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 145–161). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  46. Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 509–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2005). Rapid dynamic assessment of expertise to improve the efficiency of adaptive e-learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. King, A. (1998). Transactive peer tutoring: Distributing cognition and metacognition. Educational Psychology Review, 10(1), 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Koedinger, K. R., & Corbett, A. (2006). Cognitive tutors: Technology bringing learning sciences to the classroom. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 61–78). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., et al. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based learning in a middle school science classroom: Putting Learning by Design into practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kozulin, A. (1986). The concept of activity in Soviet psychology: Vygotsky, his disciples and critics. American Psychologist, 41(3), 264–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3/4), 313–350.Google Scholar
  53. Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lajoie, S. P., Lavigne, N. C., Guerrera, C., & Munsie, S. D. (2001). Constructing knowledge in the context of BioWorld. Instructional Science, 29, 155–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Land, S. M. (2000). Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lee, H., Linn, M. C., Varma, K., & Liu, O. L. (2010). How do technology-enhanced inquiry science units impact classroom learning? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(1), 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lee, H., & Songer, N. B. (2000). Making authentic science accessible to students. International Journal of Science Education, 25(8), 923–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Li, D. D., & Lim, C. P. (2008). Scaffolding online historical inquiry tasks: A case study of two secondary school classrooms. Computers in Education, 50, 1394–1410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lin, T., Hsu, Y., Lin, S., Changlai, M., Yang, K., & Lai, T. (2012). A review of empirical evidence on scaffolding for science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10, 437–455.Google Scholar
  60. Linn, M. C. (2000). Designing the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 781–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lobato, J. (2003). How design experiments can inform a rethinking of transfer and vice versa. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 17–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. *Luria, A. R. (1976). Cognitive development: Its cultural and social foundations (M. Lopez-Morillas & L. Solotaroff, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Lutz, S., Guthrie, J. T., & Davis, M. H. (2006). Scaffolding for engagement in elementary school reading instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(1), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Maloch, B. (2002). Scaffolding student talk: One teacher’s role in literature discussion groups. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(1), 94–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Synergy between teacher practices and curricular scaffolds to support students in using domain-specific and domain-general knowledge in writing arguments to explain phenomena. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18, 416–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Mertzman, T. (2008). Individualising scaffolding: Teachers’ literacy interruptions of ethnic minority students and students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Journal of Research in Reading, 31(2), 183–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Metcalf, S. J. (1999). The design of guided learner-adaptable scaffolding in interactive learning environments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan. UMI number 99598281.Google Scholar
  71. Nersessian, N. J. (2005). Interpreting scientific and engineering practices: Integrating the cognitive, social, and cultural dimensions. In M. Gorman, R. Tweney, D. Gooding, & A. Kincannon (Eds.), Scientific and technological thinking (pp. 17–56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  72. Oh, S., & Jonassen, D. H. (2007). Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. *Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition & Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.Google Scholar
  74. Pata, K., Lehtinen, E., & Sarapuu, T. (2006). Inter-relations of tutors’ and peers’ scaffolding and decision-making discourse acts. Instructional Science, 34, 313–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Pea, R. D. (1985). Beyond amplification: Using the computer to reorganize mental functioning. Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. *Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423451.Google Scholar
  77. Pedersen, S., & Liu, M. (2002–2003). The transfer of problem-solving skills from a problem-based learning environment: The effect of modeling an expert’s cognitive processes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35, 303–320.Google Scholar
  78. Pentimonti, J. M., & Jutice, L. M. (2010). Teachers’ use of scaffolding strategies during read-alouds in the preschool classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37, 241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Pifarre, M., & Cobos, R. (2010). Promoting metacognitive skills through peer scaffolding in a CSCL environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5, 237–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Pino-Pasternak, D., & Whitebread, D. (2010). The role of parenting in children’s self-regulated learning. Educational Research Review, 5, 220–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Pressley, M., Gaskins, I. W., Solic, K., & Collins, S. (2006). A portrait of Benchmark School: How a school produces high achievement in students who previously failed. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 282–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. *Puntambekar, S., & Hübscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 112.Google Scholar
  83. Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Quintana, C., Reiser, J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Quintana, C., Zhang, M., & Krajcik, J. (2005). A framework for supporting metacognitive aspects of online inquiry through software-based scaffolding. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 235–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Raphael, L. M., Pressley, M., & Mohan, L. (2008). Engaging instruction in middle school classrooms: An observational study of nine teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 109(1), 61–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. *Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304.Google Scholar
  88. Rubens, W., Emans, B., Leinonen, T., Skarmeta, A. G., & Simons, R. (2005). Design of web-based collaborative learning environments. Translating the pedagogical learning principles to human computer interface. Computers in Education, 45, 276–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Furtak, E. M. (2006). Informal formative assessment and scientific inquiry: Exploring teacher practices and student learning. Educational Assessment, 11(3&4), 205–235.Google Scholar
  90. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Sawyer, R. K., & Greeno, J. G. (2009). Situativity and learning. In P. Robbins & M. Aydede (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition (pp. 347–367). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Schnotz, W. (2010). Reanalyzing the expertise reversal effect. Instructional Science, 38, 315–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Sherin, B., Reiser, B. J., & Edelson, D. (2004). Scaffolding analysis: Extending the scaffolding metaphor to learning artifacts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 387–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Sinatra, G. M. (2010, September). Constraints on scientific thought and rationality. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Education Research, Seoul, South Korea.Google Scholar
  97. Smith, P., & Ragan, T. (1999). Instructional design. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  98. Stevens, R., Wineberg, S., Herrenkohl, L. R., & Bell, P. (2005). Comparative understanding of school subjects: Past, present, and future. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 125–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Stone, A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 344–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. van Aalst, A., & Truong, M. S. (2011). Promoting knowledge creation discourse in an Asian primary 5 classroom: Results from an inquiry into life cycles. International Journal of Science Education, 33(4), 487–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. *van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 271–296.Google Scholar
  103. van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2011). Patterns of contingent teaching in teacher-student interaction. Learning and Instruction, 21, 46–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 197–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. *Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  106. Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Wertsch, J. V., & Tulviste, P. (1992). L. S. Vygotsky and contemporary developmental psychology. Developmental Psychology, 28(4), 548–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Wood, D. (2003). The Why? What? When? and How? of tutoring: The development of helping and tutoring skills in children. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 7(1&2), 1–30.Google Scholar
  109. *Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89100.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Utah State UniversityLoganUSA

Personalised recommendations