Scaffolding

The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, Second Edition

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 44-62

  Reiser, Brian J ^a   Tabak, Iris ^b  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b BEN GURION UNIVERSITY OF THE NEGEV   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84947422286     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139519526.005     Document Type: Chapter

References (94)

1. Alibali, M. W, & Nathan, M. J. (2007). Teachers’ gestures as a means of scaffolding students’ understanding: Evidence from an early algebra lesson. In R. Goldman, R. D. Pea, & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 349-365). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Ausubel, D. P. (1963). Thepsychology of meaningful verbal learning: An introduction to school learning. New York: Grune and Stratton.
3. Barron, B., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. 7, 3(4-271), 311-.
4. Berland, L. K. (2011). Explaining variation in how classroom communities adapt the practice of scientific argumentation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20 (4), 625-664.
5. Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Students’ framings and their participation in scientific argumentation. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Perspectives on scientific argumentation (pp. 73-93). New York: Springer.
6. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities’ adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191-216.
7. Blumenfeld, P, Soloway, E., Marx, R., Krajcik, J., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26, 369-398.
8. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and schools. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
9. Cazden, C. B. (1979). Peekaboo as an instructional model: Discourse development at home and at school. Stanford, CA: Department of Linguistics, Stanford University.
10. Cazden, C. B. (1997). Performance before competence: Assistance to child discourse in the zone of proximal development. In M. Cole, Y Engeström, & O. Vasquez (Eds.), Mind, culture, and activity: Seminalpapersfrom the laboratory of comparative human cognition (pp. 303-310). New York: Cambridge University Press.
11. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts 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: Erlbaum.
12. Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12 (1), 91-142.
13. de Jong, T. (2006). Scaffolds for scientific discovery learning. In J. Elen & R. E. Clark (Eds.), Handling complexity in learning environments: Theory and research (pp. 107-128). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
14. de Vries, E., Lund, K., & Baker, M. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 63-103.
15. Demetriadis, S. N., Papadopoulos, P. M., Stamelos, I. G., & Fischer, F. (2008). The effect of scaffolding students’ context-generating cognitive activity in technology-enhanced case-based learning. Computers & Education, 51 (2), 939-954.
16. Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL? (pp. 61-91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.
17. Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2010). Technology for classroom orchestration. In M. S. Khine and I. M. Saleh (Eds.), New science of learning (pp. 525-552). New York: Springer.
18. Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for integrating content and process learning in the design of inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355-385.
19. Edelson, D. C., & Reiser, B. J. (2006). Making authentic practices accessible to learners: Design challenges and strategies. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 335-354). New York: Cambridge University Press.
20. Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399-483.
21. Enyedy, N., & Goldberg, J. (2004). Inquiry in interaction: How local adaptations of curricula shape classroom communities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(9), 905-935.
22. Fretz, E. B., Wu, H.-K., Zhang, B., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2002). An investigation of software scaffolds supporting modeling practices. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 567-589.
23. Gagne, R. M. (1965). The conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
24. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper & Row.
25. Greenfield, P. M. (1984). A theory of teacher in the learning activities of everyday life. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 117-138). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
26. Greeno, J. G. (1983). Conceptual entities. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
27. Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15-46). New York; London: MacMillian Library Reference USA; Prentice Hall International.
28. Gutiérrez, K., & Stone, L. (2002). Hypermediating literacy activity: How learning contexts get reorganized. In O. Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives in literacy in early childhood education (pp. 25-51). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
29. Guzdial, M. (1994). Software-realized scaffolding to facilitate programming for science learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 4, 1-44.
30. Herrenkohl, L. R., Palincsar, A. S., DeWater, L. S., & Kawasaki, K. (1999). Developing scientific communities in classrooms: A sociocognitive approach. 8, 3(4-451), 493-.
31. Herrenkohl, L. R., Tasker, T., & White, B. (2011). Pedagogical practices to support classroom cultures of scientific inquiry. Cognition and Instruction, 29(1), 1-44.
32. Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D. L., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 247-298.
33. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42 (2), 99-107.
34. Hutchins, E. (1996). Learning to navigate. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 35-63). New York: Cambridge University Press.
35. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792.
36. Jordan, B. (1989). Cosmopolitical obstetrics: Some insights from the training of traditional midwives. Social Science & Medicine, 28(9), 925-937.
37. Kali, Y., Linn, M. C., & Roseman, J. E. (2008). Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy: Teachers College, Columbia University.
38. Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2012). Designing for productive failure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21 (1), 45-83.
39. Koedinger, K., & Corbett, A. T. (2006). Cognitive tutors: Technology bringing learning sciences to the classroom. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 61-96). West Nyack, NY: Cambridge University Press.
40. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration scripts - a conceptual analysis. EducationalPsychologyReview, 18(2), 159-185.
41. Lajoie, S. P. (2005). Extending the scaffolding metaphor. Instructional Science, 33 (56), 541-557.
42. Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 29-63.
43. Lave, J. (1997). The culture of acquisition and the practice of understanding. In D. Kirshner & J. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives (pp. 63-82). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
44. Lee, C.-Y., & Chen, M.-P. (2009). A computer game as a context for non-routine mathematical problem solving: The effects of type of question prompt and level of prior knowledge. Computers & Education, 52(3), 530-542.
45. Lee, C. D. (2001). Is October Brown Chinese? A cultural modeling activity system for underachieving students. American Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 97-141.
46. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and science literacy: Supporting development in learning in contexts. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner, K. A. Renninger, & I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, 6th ed. (vol. 4). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
47. Lepper, M. R., Woolverton, M., Mumme, D. L., & Gurtner, J. (1993). Motivational techniques of expert human tutors: Lessons for the design of computer-based tutors. In S. P. Lajoie & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 75-105). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
48. Linn, M. C., Bell, P., & Davis, E. A. (2004). Specific design principles: Elaborating the scaffolded knowledge integration framework. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
49. Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538.
50. Looi, C. K., Zhang, B., Chen, W, Seow, P., Chia, G., Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2011). 1: 1 mobile inquiry learning experience for primary science students: A study of learning effectiveness. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(3), 269-287.
51. Luckin, R. (2010). Re-designing learning contexts: Technology rich, learner centred ecologies. New York: Routledge.
52. Many, J. E. (2002). An exhibition and analysis of verbal tapestries: Understanding how scaffolding is woven into the fabric of instructional conversations. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(4), 376-407.
53. McClain, K., & Cobb, P. (2001). An analysis of development of sociomathematical norms in one first-grade classroom. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(3), 236-266.
54. 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.
55. Merrill, D. C., Reiser, B. J., Merrill, S. K., & Landes, S. (1995). Tutoring: Guided learning by doing. Cognition and Instruction, 13 (3), 315-372.
56. Metz, K. E. (2011). Disentangling robust developmental constraints from the instructionally mutable: Young children’s epistemic reasoning about a study of their own design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20, 50-110.
57. Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27, 283-297.
58. Moje, E. B. (2004). Powerful spaces: Tracing the out-of-school literacy spaces of Latino/a youth. In K. Leander & M. Sheehy (Eds.), Spatializing literacy research and practice (pp. 15-38). New York: Peter Lang.
59. Mu, J., Stegmann, K., Mayfield, E., Rose, C., & Fischer, F. (2012). The ACODEA framework: Developing segmentation and classification schemes for fully automatic analysis of online discussions. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(2), 285-305.
60. Nussbaum, E. M., & Edwards, O. V. (2011). Critical questions and argument stratagems: A framework for enhancing and analyzing students’ reasoning practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20, 443-488.
61. O’Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1993). Aligning academic task and participation status through revoicing: Analysis of a classroom discourse strategy. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 24 (4), 318-335.
62. Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Keeping the metaphor of scaffolding fresh - a response to C. Addison Stone’s "the metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities." Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 370-373.
63. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
64. 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.
65. Puntambekar, S., & Hubscher, 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.
66. Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185-217.
67. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., Soloway, E. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337-386.
68. Raes, A., Schellens, T., De Wever, B., & Vanderhoven, E. (2012). Scaffolding information problem solving in Web-based collaborative inquiry learning. Computers & Education, 59(1), 82-94.
69. Ratner, N., & Bruner, J. (1978). Games, social exchange and the acquisition of language. Journal of ChildLanguage, 5(3), 391-401.
70. Reid, D. K., & Stone, C. A. (1991). Why is cognitive instruction effective? Underlying learning mechanisms. Remedial and Special Education, 12 (3), 8-19.
71. Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273-304.
72. Reisman, A. (2012). Reading like a historian: A document-based history curriculum intervention in urban high schools. Cognition and Instruction, 30 (1), 86-112.
73. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.
74. Sawyer, R. K. (2011). What makes good teachers great? The artful balance of structure and improvisation. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Structure and improvisation in creative teaching, 1-24. New York: Cambridge University Press.
75. Schwarz, C. V, Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D., Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632-654.
76. Shen, J. (2010). Nurturing students’ critical knowledge using technology-enhanced scaffolding strategies in science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19 (1), 1-12.
77. Sherin, B. L., Reiser, B. J., & Edelson, D. C. (2004). Scaffolding analysis: Extending the scaffolding metaphor to learning artifacts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 387-421.
78. Slotta, J. D., Tissenbaum, M., & Lui, M. (2013). Orchestrating of complex inquiry: Three roles for learning analytics in a smart classroom infrastructure. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge.
79. Smith, C., Maclin, D., Houghton, C., & Hennessey, M. G. (2000). Sixth-grade students’ epistemologies of science: The impact of school science experiences on epistemological development. Cognition and Instruction, 18(3), 349-422.
80. Squire, K. D., MaKinster, J. G., Barnett, M., Luehmann, A. L., & Barab, S. L. (2003). Designed curriculum and local culture: Acknowledging the primacy of classroom culture. Science Education, 87(4), 468-489.
81. Stone, C. A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 344-364.
82. Suthers, D. D., Vatrapu, R., Medina, R., Joseph, S., & Dwyer, N. (2008). Beyond threaded discussion: Representational guidance in asynchronous collaborative learning environments. Computers and Education, 50, 1103-1127.
83. Suthers, D. D., & Verbert, K. (2013). Learning analytics as a middle space. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge.
84. Tabak, I. (1999). Unraveling the development of scientific literacy: Domain-specific inquiry support in a system of cognitive and social interactions. Dissertation Abstracts International (vol. A 60, p. 43-23). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
85. Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305-335.
86. Tabak, I., & Baumgartner, E. (2004). The teacher as partner: Exploring participant structures, symmetry and identity work in scaffolding. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 393-429.
87. Tabak, I., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Software-realized inquiry support for cultivating a disciplinary stance. Pragmatics & Cognition, 16(2), 307-355.
88. van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22 (3), 271-296.
89. Vattam, S., Goel, A. K., Rugaber, S., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Jordan, R., Gray, S., & Sinha, S. (2011). Understanding complex natural systems by articulating structure-behavior-function models. Educational Technology & Society, 14(1), 66-81.
90. Wertsch, J. V. (1979). From social-interaction to higher psychological processes - clarification and application of Vygotsky theory. Human Development, 22(1), 1-22.
91. Wertsch, J. V., & Stone, C. A. (1985). The concept of internalization in Vygotsky’s account of the genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 162-179). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
92. Wong, L.-H., Boticki, I., Sun, J., & Looi, C.-K. (2011). Improving the scaffolds of a mobile-assisted Chinese character forming game via a design-based research cycle. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1783-1793.
93. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.
94. Wu, L., & Looi, C.-K. (2012). Agent prompts: Scaffolding for productive reflection in an intelligent learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 339-353.