The effects of scaffolding in the classroom: support contingency and student independent working time in relation to student achievement, task effort and appreciation of support

Instructional Science

Volumn 43, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 615-641

  van de Pol, Janneke ^a,b   Volman, Monique ^a   Oort, Frans ^a   Beishuizen, Jos ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Contingency; Experimental study; Scaffolding; Secondary education; Small group work; Task effort

Indexed keywords

EID: 84938964157     PISSN: 00204277     EISSN: 15731952     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11251-015-9351-z     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Askell-Williams, H., Lawson, M., & Skrzypiec, G. (2012). Scaffolding cognitive and metacognitive strategy instruction in regular class lessons. Instructional Science,40, 413–443. doi:10.1007/s11251-011-9182-5.
2. Axelrod, M. I., & Zank, A. J. (2012). Increasing classroom compliance: Using a high-probability command sequence with noncompliant students. Journal of Behavioural Education,21, 119–133.
3. Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition—Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science,33, 367–379. doi:10.1007/s11251-005-1272-9.
4. Bicard, D. F., Ervin, A., Bicard, S. C., & Baylot-Casey, L. (2012). Differential effects of seating arrangements on disruptive behaviour of fifth grade students during independent seatwork. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis,45, 407–411.
5. Blatchford, P., Russell, A., Bassett, P., Brown, P., & Martin, C. (2007). The effect of class size on the teaching of pupils aged 7–11 years. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice,18, 147–172. doi:10.1080/09243450601058675.
6. Bliss, J., Askew, M., & Macrae, S. (1996). Effective teaching and learning: scaffolding revisited. Oxford Review of Education,22, 37–61. doi:10.1080/0305498960220103.
7. Boersma, A. M. E., Dam, G. ten, Volman, M., & Wardekker, W. (2009, April). Motivation through activity in a community of learners for vocational orientation. Paper presented at the AERA conference, San Diego
8. Brühwiler, C., & Blatchford, P. (2007). Effects of class size and adaptive teaching competency on classroom processes and academic outcome. Learning and Instruction,21, 95–108. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.11.004.
9. Chi, M. T. H., Siler, S. A., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T., & Hausmann, R. G. (2001). Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive Science,25, 471–533. doi:10.1016/S0364-0213%2801%2900044-1.
10. Chiu, M. M. (2004). Adapting teacher interventions to student needs during cooperative learning: How to improve student problem solving and time on-task. American Educational Research Journal,41, 365–399. doi:10.3102/00028312041002365.
11. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychology Bulletin,112, 155–159. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155.
12. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research,64, 1–35. doi:10.2307/1170744.
13. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika,16, 297–334.
14. Cuevas, H. M., Fiore, S. M., & Oser, R. L. (2002). Scaffolding cognitive and metacognitive processes in low verbal ability learners: Use of diagrams in computer-based training environments. Instructional Science,30, 433–464. doi:10.1023/A:1020516301541.
15. Davis, E. A., & Miyake, N. (2004). Explorations of scaffolding in complex classroom systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences,13, 265–272. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1303_1.
16. De Bruijn, E., Overmaat, M., Glaudé, M., Heemskerk, I., Leeman, J., Roeleveld, J., & van de Venne, J. (2005). Krachtige leeromgevingen in het middelbaar beroepsonderwijs: vormgeving en effecten [Results of powerful learning environments in vocational education]. Pedagogische Studiën,82, 77–95.
17. Dekker, R., & Elshout-Mohr, M. (2004). Teacher interventions aimed at mathematical level raising during collaborative learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics,56, 39–65. doi:10.1023/B:EDUC.0000028402.10122.ff.
18. Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Educational communications and technology (pp. 170–199). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
19. Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, M. (2004). Flawed self-assessment: Implications for health, education and the workplace. Psychological Science in the Public Interest,5, 69–106. doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00018.x.
20. Feyzi-Behnagh, R., Azevedo, R., Legowski, E., Reitmeyer, K., Tseytlin, E., & Crowley, R. (2013). Metacognitive scaffolds improve self-judgments of accuracy in a medical intelligent tutoring system. Instructional Science,. doi:10.1007/s11251-013-9275-4.
21. Fidalgo, Z., & Pereira, F. (2005). Socio-cultural differences and the adjustment of mothers’ speech to their children’s cognitive and language comprehension skills. Learning and Instruction,15, 1–21. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.12.005.
22. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research,74, 59–109. doi:10.3102/00346543074001059.
23. Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S., & Gottfried, A. W. (2001). Continuity of academic intrinsic motivation from childhood through late adolescence: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology,93, 3–13. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.93.1.3.
24. Haladyna, T. M. (1999). Developing and validating multiple-choice test items (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
25. Hughes, J. N., Luo, W., Kwok, O., & Loyd, L. K. (2008). Teacher–student support, effortful engagement, and achievement: A 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology,100, 1–14. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.1.
26. Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 509–539.
27. Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Scaffolding 6th graders’ problem solving in technology-enhanced science classrooms: A qualitative case study. Instructional Science,39, 255–282. doi:10.1007/s11251-010-9127-4.
28. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist,41, 75–86. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.
29. Kline, P. (1999). The handbook of psychological testing (2nd ed.). London: Routeledge.
30. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in content analysis: Some common misconceptions and recommendations. Human Communication Research.,30, 411–433. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00738.x.
31. Leat, D. (1998). Thinking through geography. Cambridge: Chris Kington Publishing.
32. Mattanah, J. F., Pratt, M. W., Cowan, P. A., & Cowan, C. P. (2005). Authoritative parenting, parental scaffolding of long-division mathematics, and children’s academic competence in fourth grade. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,26, 85–106. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2004.10.007.
33. McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247–288.
34. Mercer, N., & Fisher, E. (1992). How do teachers help children to learn? An analysis of teachers’ interventions in computer-based activities. Learning and Instruction,2, 339–355. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(92)90022-E.
35. Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking. A sociocultural approach. New York: Routledge.
36. Molenaar, I., van Boxtel, C., & Sleegers, P. (2011). Metacognitive scaffolding in an innovative learning arrangement. Instructional Science,39, 785–803. doi:10.1007/s11251-010-9154-1.
37. Murphy, N., & Messer, D. (2000). Differential benefits from scaffolding and children working alone. Educational Psychology,20, 17–31. doi:10.1080/014434100110353.
38. Nathan, M. J., & Kim, S. (2009). Regulation of teacher elicitations in the mathematics classroom. Cognition and Instruction,27, 91–120. doi:10.1080/07370000902797304.
39. Otero, J., & Graesser, A. C. (2001). PREG: Elements of a model of question asking. Cognition and Instruction, 19, 143–175.
40. Pino-Pasternak, D., Whitebread, D., & Tolmie, A. (2010). A multidimensional analysis of parent-child interactions during academic tasks and their relationships with children’s self-regulated learning. Cognition and Instruction,28, 219–272. doi:10.1080/07370008.2010.490494.
41. Praetorius, A. K., Lenske, G., & Helmke, A. (2012). Observer ratings of instructional quality: Do they fulfill what they promise? Learning and Instruction,6, 387–400. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.03.002.
42. Pratt, M. W., & Savoy-Levine, K. M. (1998). Contingent tutoring of long-division skills in fourth and fifth graders: Experimental tests of some hypotheses about scaffolding. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19, 287–304. doi:10.1016/S0193-3973(99)80041-0.
43. Rasku-Puttonen, H., Etaläpelto, A., Arvaja, M., & Häkkinen, P. (2003). Is successful scaffolding an illusion?—Shifting patterns of responsibility and control in teacher-student interaction during a long-term learning project. Instructional Science,31, 377–393. doi:10.1023/A:1025700810376.
44. Roehler, L. R., & Cantlon, D. J. (1997). Scaffolding: A powerful tool in social constructivist classrooms. In K. Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues (pp. 6–42). Cambridge: Brookline Books.
45. Roll, I., Holmes, N. G., Day, J., & Bonn, D. (2012). Evaluating metacognitive scaffolding in guided invention activities. Instructional Science,40, 691–710. doi:10.1007/s11251-012-9208-7.
46. Saban, A., Kocbeker, B. N., & Saban, A. (2007). Prospective teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning revealed through metaphor analysis. Learning and Instruction,17, 123–139. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.01.003.
47. Seidel, T., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007). Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: The role of theory and research design in disentangling metaanalytic results. Review of Educational Research, 77, 454–499. doi:10.3102/0034654307310317.
48. Simons, C., & Klein, J. (2007). The impact of scaffolding and student achievement levels in a problem-based learning environment. Instructional Science,35, 41–72. doi:10.1007/s11251-006-9002-5.
49. Slavin, R. E. (2008). What works? Issues in synthesizing educational programme evaluations. Educational Researcher, 37, 5–14. doi; 10.3102/0013189X08314117
50. Stoel, R. D., Peetsma, T. T. D., & Roeleveld, J. (2003). Relations between the development of school investment, self-confidence, and language achievement in elementary education: a multivariate latent growth curve approach. Learning and Individual Differences,13, 313–333. doi:10.1016/S1041-6080(03)00017-7.
51. Stone, C. A. (1998a). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 344–364. doi:10.1177/002221949803100404.
52. Stone, C. A. (1998b). Should we salvage the scaffolding metaphor? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 409–413. doi:10.1177/002221949803100411.
53. Van de Pol, J., & Elbers, E. (2013). Scaffolding student learning: A microanalysis of teacher-student interaction. Learning, Culture, and Social Interaction,2, 32–41. doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.12.001.
54. Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review,22, 271–297. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6.
55. Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2011). Patterns of contingent teaching in teacher-student interaction. Learning and Instruction,21, 46–57. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.10.004.
56. Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., Elbers, E., & Beishuizen, J. (2012). Measuring scaffolding in teacher—small- group interactions. In R. M. Gillies (Ed.), Pedagogy: New developments in the learning sciences (pp. 151–188). Hauppage: Nova Science Publishers.
57. Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., Oort, F., & Beishuizen, J. (2014). Teacher scaffolding in small- group work – An intervention study. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(4), 600–650. doi:10.1080/10508406.2013.805300.
58. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society—the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
59. Wannarka, R., & Ruhl, K. (2008). Seating arrangements that promote positive academic and behavioural outcomes: a review of empirical research. Support for Learning,23(2), 89–93.
60. Webb, N. M. (2009). The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. British Journal of Educational Psychology,79, 1–28. doi:10.1348/000709908X380772.
61. Webb, N. M., & Mastergeorge, A. M. (2003). The development of students’ learning in peer-directed small groups. Cognition and Instruction,21, 361–428. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2104_2.
62. Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., & Ing, M. (2006). Small-group reflections: Parallels between teacher discourse and student behavior in peer-directed groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences,15, 63–119. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1501_8.
63. Wertsch, J. V. (1979). From social interaction to higher psychological process: A clarification and application of Vygotsky’s theory. Human Development,22, 1–22. doi:10.1159/000272425.
64. Wittwer, J., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2010). Using a diagnosis-based approach to individualize instructional explanations in computer-mediated communication. Educational Psychology Review,22, 9–23. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9118-7.
65. Wittwer, J., & Renkl, A. (2008). Why instructional explanations often do not work: A framework for understanding the effectiveness of instruction explanations. Educational Psychologist,43, 49–64. doi:10.1080/00461520701756420.
66. Wood, D. (1988). How children think and learn. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
67. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines,17, 89–100. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x.
68. Wood, D., & Middleton, D. (1975). A study of assisted problem-solving. British Journal of Psychology,66, 181–191. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1975.tb01454.x.
69. Wood, D., & Wood, H. (1996). Commentary: Contingency in tutoring and learning. Learning and Instruction,6, 391–397. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(96)00023-0.
70. Wood, D., Wood, H., & Middleton, D. (1978). An experimental evaluation of four face- to-face teaching strategies. International Journal of Behavioral Development,1, 131–147. doi:10.1177/016502547800100203.