Different forms of scaffolding, different learning outcomes

Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications

Volumn 200, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 611-613

  Molenaar, I ^a   Van Boxte, C A M ^a   Sleegers, P J C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Innovative Learning Arrangements; Metacognition; Primary Education; Scaffolding; Virtual Agents

Indexed keywords

COGNITIVE SYSTEMS; E-LEARNING; KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT;

EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS; GROUP PERFORMANCE; INNOVATIVE LEARNING; INNOVATIVE LEARNING ARRANGEMENT; LEARNING OUTCOME; METACOGNITION; PRIMARY EDUCATION; PROCEDURAL KNOWLEDGE; SCAFFOLDING; VIRTUAL AGENT;

SCAFFOLDS;

EID: 73149119812     PISSN: 09226389     EISSN: 18798314     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.3233/978-1-60750-028-5-611     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (5)

1. Azevado, R., & Hadwin, A.F. (2005) Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognitition-Implications for design of computer-based scaffolding. Instructional science 33, 367-379
2. Bannert, M. & Mengelkamp, C. (2008) Assessment of metacognitive skills by means of instruction to think aloud and reflect when prompted; Does the verbalization method affect learning? Metacogniition learning, 3, 39-58
3. 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.
4. Molenaar, I., Roda C. (2008) Attention management for dynamic and adaptive scaffolding. Pragmatics & Cognition 16(2), 225-271.
5. Reiser, Brian J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences: 13(3), 273-304.