Scaffolding: Definition, current debates, and future directions

Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology: Fourth Edition

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 505-518

  Belland, Brian R ^a  

^a UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

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

Indexed keywords

EID: 84885923388     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_39     Document Type: Chapter

References (104)

1. Aleven, V. A., & 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
9. Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., & Richardson, J. C. (2011). Problembased learning and argumentation: Testing a scaffolding framework to support middle school students' creation of evidence-based arguments. Instructional Science, 39, 667-694.
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.
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.
12. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. (1990). Reproduction in education, society, and culture (R. Nice, Trans.). London: Sage.
13. Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24, 61-100.
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.
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.
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.
17. Champion, R. H. (1999). Just boil it down. Journal of Staff Development, 20(2), 63-66.
18. Chi, M. T. H. (1996). Constructing self-explanations and scaffolded explanations in tutoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, S33-S49.
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.
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.
21. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9-13.
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.
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.
24. Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (1994). The handbook of research synthesis. New York, NY: Sage.
25. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(2), 35-47.
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.
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.
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.
30. Finfgeld, D. L. (2003). Meta-synthesis: The state of the art-so far. Qualitative Health Research, 13, 893-904.
31. Giere, R. N. (2006). The role of agency in distributed cognitive systems. Philosophy of Science, 73, 710-719.
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. 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.
36. Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Pursuit of explanation within a computer-supported classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 26(8), 979-996.
37. 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.
38. Hurd, P. D. (1998). Scientific literacy: New minds for a changing world. Science Education, 82(3), 407-416.
39. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
40. 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.
41. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63-85.
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 509-539.
45. 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.
46. King, A. (1998). Transactive peer tutoring: Distributing cognition and metacognition. Educational Psychology Review, 10(1), 57-74.
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. Kozulin, A. (1986). The concept of activity in Soviet psychology: Vygotsky, his disciples and critics. American Psychologist, 41(3), 264-274.
50. 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.
51. Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16-25.
52. Lajoie, S. P., Lavigne, N. C., Guerrera, C., & Munsie, S. D. (2001). Constructing knowledge in the context of BioWorld. Instructional Science, 29, 155-186.
53. 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.
54. Lee, H., & Songer, N. B. (2000). Making authentic science accessible to students. International Journal of Science Education, 25(8), 923-948.
55. 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.
56. 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.
57. Linn, M. C. (2000). Designing the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 781-796.
58. Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538.
59. Lobato, J. (2003). How design experiments can inform a rethinking of transfer and vice versa. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 17-20.
60. Luria, A. R. (1976). Cognitive development: Its cultural and social foundations (M. Lopez-Morillas & L. Solotaroff, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
61. 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.
62. Maloch, B. (2002). Scaffolding student talk: One teacher's role in literature discussion groups. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(1), 94-112.
63. 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.
64. 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.
65. 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.
66. 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.
67. Metcalf, S. J. (1999). The design of guided learner - adaptable scaffolding in interactive learning environments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan. UMI number 99598281.
68. 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.
69. Oh, S., & Jonassen, D. H. (2007). Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 95-110.
70. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition & Instruction, 1(2), 117-175.
71. Pata, K., Lehtinen, E., & Sarapuu, T. (2006). Inter-relations of tutors' and peers' scaffolding and decision-making discourse acts. Instructional Science, 34, 313-341.
72. Pea, R. D. (1985). Beyond amplification: Using the computer to reorganize mental functioning. Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 167-182.
73. 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.
74. 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.
75. 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.
76. 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.
77. Pino-Pasternak, D., & Whitebread, D. (2010). The role of parenting in children's self-regulated learning. Educational Research Review, 5, 220-242.
78. 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.
79. 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.
80. 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.
81. 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.
82. Quintana, C., Zhang, M., & Krajcik, J. (2005). A framework for supporting metacognitive aspects of online inquiry through softwarebased scaffolding. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 235-244.
83. 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.
84. Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273-304.
85. 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.
86. 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.
87. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345-372.
88. 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.
89. 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.
90. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283.
91. Schnotz, W. (2010). Reanalyzing the expertise reversal effect. Instructional Science, 38, 315-323.
92. Sinatra, G. M. (2010, September). Constraints on scientific thought and rationality. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Education Research, Seoul, South Korea.
93. Smith, P., & Ragan, T. (1999). Instructional design. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
94. Stone, A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 344-364.
95. Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305-335.
96. 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.
97. van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 271-296.
98. van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2011). Patterns of contingent teaching in teacher-student interaction. Learning and Instruction, 21, 46-57.
99. VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 197-221.
100. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
101. Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159-180.
102. Wertsch, J. V., & Tulviste, P. (1992). L. S. Vygotsky and contemporary developmental psychology. Developmental Psychology, 28(4), 548-557.
103. 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.
104. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89 - 100.