Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology pp 505–518Cite as

Scaffolding: Definition, Current Debates, and Future Directions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. (1990). Reproduction in education, society, and culture (R. Nice, Trans.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R., McCrae, B., & Laurie, R. (2009). PISA 2006: An assessment of scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 865–883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Champion, R. H. (1999). Just boil it down. Journal of Staff Development, 20(2), 63–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (1996). Constructing self-explanations and scaffolded explanations in tutoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, S33–S49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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 

  • 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 

  • Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (1994). The handbook of research synthesis. New York, NY: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(2), 35–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 91–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 819–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Design Principles Database. (n. d.). Design principles database. Accessed 17 January, 2012, at http://www.edu-design-principles.org/dp/designHome.php

  • 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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Finfgeld, D. L. (2003). Meta-synthesis: The state of the art—so far. Qualitative Health Research, 13, 893–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R. M. (1965). The conditions of learning. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giere, R. N. (2006). The role of agency in distributed cognitive systems. Philosophy of Science, 73, 710–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Pursuit of explanation within a computer-supported classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 26(8), 979–996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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 

  • Hurd, P. D. (1998). Scientific literacy: New minds for a changing world. Science Education, 82(3), 407–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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 

  • Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 509–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (1998). Transactive peer tutoring: Distributing cognition and metacognition. Educational Psychology Review, 10(1), 57–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozulin, A. (1986). The concept of activity in Soviet psychology: Vygotsky, his disciples and critics. American Psychologist, 41(3), 264–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lajoie, S. P., Lavigne, N. C., Guerrera, C., & Munsie, S. D. (2001). Constructing knowledge in the context of BioWorld. Instructional Science, 29, 155–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Land, S. M. (2000). Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 61–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H., & Songer, N. B. (2000). Making authentic science accessible to students. International Journal of Science Education, 25(8), 923–948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Linn, M. C. (2000). Designing the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 781–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lobato, J. (2003). How design experiments can inform a rethinking of transfer and vice versa. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 17–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Luria, A. R. (1976). Cognitive development: Its cultural and social foundations (M. Lopez-Morillas & L. Solotaroff, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maloch, B. (2002). Scaffolding student talk: One teacher’s role in literature discussion groups. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(1), 94–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Oh, S., & Jonassen, D. H. (2007). Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 95–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition & Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pata, K., Lehtinen, E., & Sarapuu, T. (2006). Inter-relations of tutors’ and peers’ scaffolding and decision-making discourse acts. Instructional Science, 34, 313–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pea, R. D. (1985). Beyond amplification: Using the computer to reorganize mental functioning. Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 167–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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), 423–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pino-Pasternak, D., & Whitebread, D. (2010). The role of parenting in children’s self-regulated learning. Educational Research Review, 5, 220–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnotz, W. (2010). Reanalyzing the expertise reversal effect. Instructional Science, 38, 315–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Smith, P., & Ragan, T. (1999). Instructional design. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 344–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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 

  • van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2011). Patterns of contingent teaching in teacher-student interaction. Learning and Instruction, 21, 46–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 197–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wertsch, J. V., & Tulviste, P. (1992). L. S. Vygotsky and contemporary developmental psychology. Developmental Psychology, 28(4), 548–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • *Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Utah State University, 2830 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT, 84322, USA

    Brian R. Belland Ph.D.

Authors
  1. Brian R. Belland Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian R. Belland Ph.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Department of Learning Technologies, C, University of North Texas, North Elm 3940, Denton, 76207-7102, Texas, USA

    J. Michael Spector

  2. W. Sunset Blvd. 1812, St. George, 84770, Utah, USA

    M. David Merrill

  3. , Centr. Instructiepsychol.&-technologie, K.U. Leuven, Andreas Vesaliusstraat 2, Leuven, 3000, Belgium

    Jan Elen

  4. Research Drive, Iacocca A109 111, Bethlehem, 18015, Pennsylvania, USA

    M. J. Bishop

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Belland, B.R. (2014). Scaffolding: Definition, Current Debates, and Future Directions. In: Spector, J., Merrill, M., Elen, J., Bishop, M. (eds) Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_39

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation