Chapter 43: Scaffolding: Definition, current debates, and
future directions
Brian R. Belland
Utah State University, USA
Abstract
Instructional scaffolding can be defined as support provided by a teacher/parent, peer, or
a computer- or 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,
strategies used in and examples of scaffolding are explored. Trends, findings, and
implications of current empirical research are presented and discussed. Furthermore,
current debates in the scaffolding literature are explored. Such debates include (a) what
differentiates scaffolding from simple support, (b) how one can conceptualize the transfer
of responsibility when students use technology-enabled scaffolding, and (c) whether
domain specific knowledge needs to be embedded in scaffolding. Finally, future research
directions are indicated.
Keywords
Belland – 2
Instructional scaffolding: Support provided by a teacher/parent, peer, or a computer- or
paper-based tool that allows students to meaningfully participate in and gain skill at tasks
that they could not complete unassisted
Transfer of responsibility: The learner's assumption of the full burden of the task that
was previously scaffolded
Instructional support: A category that includes both scaffolds and other tools (e.g., job
aids) that help learners accomplish tasks
One-to-one scaffolding: Contingent support provided by one teacher/parent to one
student that allows the latter to meaningfully participate in and gain skill at a task that
he/she could not complete unaided
Computer-based scaffolding: Support delivered by computer that allows students to
meaningfully participate in and gain skill at a task that they could not complete unaided
Peer scaffolding: Support provided by peers and guided by a scaffolding framework that
allows students to meaningfully participate in and gain skill at a task that they could not
complete unaided
Chapter #: Scaffolding– 3
Page 3 of 29
Belland – 4
Chapter 43: Scaffolding: Definition, current debates, and
future directions
Introduction
"The only good kind of instruction is that which marches ahead of development and leads
it; it must be aimed not so much at the ripe as at the ripening functions" (Vygotsky, 1978,
p. 104)
Two central questions in the history of educational scholarship are what type of learning
should be targeted, and how. Though not well known to western scholars until long after
his death, Lev Vygotsky's ideas were immensely influential in leading a shift in the
answers that many researchers gave to these questions. However, upon dissemination of
Vygotsky's ideas among Western scholars it was not readily apparent just how instruction
could march ahead of development. This changed when Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976)
published their description of the process by which parents helped their children solve
problems, and termed this process scaffolding. The purpose of this chapter is to explore
the scaffolding metaphor, including its theoretical foundations, forms, mechanisms,
current research, and current controversies.
Scaffolding Definition
Wood et al. (1976) defined scaffolding as support provided by a teacher/parent (tutor)
that allows students (tutees) to meaningfully participate in and gain skill at problem
solving. However, recent definitions have also highlighted the role of scaffolding in
improving understanding of text and other content (e.g., Azevedo, 2005; Linn, 2000;
Palincsar & Brown, 1984). Central to the idea of scaffolding was that support needed to
be contingent on both task and tutee characteristics (Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989;
Chapter #: Scaffolding– 5
van den Pol, Volman, & Beishuizen, 2010; Wood, 2003; Wood et al., 1976). There are
three types of contingency:
•
Instructional contingency – how to support activity
•
Domain contingency – what to focus on next
•
Temporal contingency – if and when to intervene (Wood, p. 14)
The tutor modifies support based on performance characteristics of the tutee, decides
what to focus tutees on in the next stage of scaffolding, and gradually removes support as
the tutee appears to be able to handle more task elements (Wood). Collins et al. labeled
the gradual removal of scaffolding support as fading.
There are two effects of scaffolding to consider – effects with scaffolding, defined as
what scaffolding enables students to do while using scaffolding and effects of
scaffolding, defined as what students can do differently after using scaffolding (Salomon,
Perkins, & Globerson, 1991). Without the potential for both effects with and effects of,
supports cannot be termed scaffolding (Pea, 2004).
Theoretical Foundations
The scope of this chapter does not allow for a detailed description of the theoretical
backing of scaffolding, but I will contextualize scaffolding's theoretical foundations.
Wood et al. (1976) did not reference Vygotsky. However, other researchers (e.g.,
Annemarie Palincsar) soon made the connection between the idea of scaffolding and
Vygotsky's ideas, in particular that of the Zone of Proximal Development (Pea, 2004).
The ZPD refers to the difference between what students can accomplish without
assistance and what they can accomplish with assistance (Vygotsky, 1978). In the context
of scaffolding, the ZPD refers to the distance between what students can complete
unaided and what they can do with the help of scaffolding. Ultimately, if scaffolding is
Page 5 of 29
Belland – 6
successful, what was the ZPD as pertains to the scaffolded task will disappear because
the tutee will be able to complete the task unaided.
Scholars also made the connection between scaffolding and Vygosky's ideas on the
emergence of consciousness and higher-order thinking through social interaction
(Vygotsky, 1978). According to this perspective, one cannot separate action from the
cultural-historical context in which it develops (Kozulin, 1986; Luria, 1976). As
individuals interact with scaffolds, they gradually internalize the cultural knowledge of
the scaffolds. For example, cultural knowledge about argumentation norms are contained
in argumentation scaffolds. Thus the knowledge that emerges initially in the intermental
plane (i.e., in interactions with scaffolds) then reemerges on the intramental plane (i.e., in
individual's own cognition; Wertsch & Tulviste, 1992).
Spread of Scaffolding Metaphor
Wood et al. (1976) focused on the interactions between parents and their children as the
latter built pyramids with blocks. In its original definition, scaffolding was thus not
associated with formal instruction, but rather with an observation of natural tutoring
processes. However, the metaphor of scaffolding quickly spread to formal instruction, in
subjects ranging from elementary school reading (Lutz, Guthrie, & Davis, 2006;
Palincsar & Brown, 1984) to high school physics (Mäkitalo-Siegl, Kohnle, & Fischer, in
press; Novak, 2002), and for students ranging in ability from those with learning
disabilities (Reid, 1998; Stone, 1998) to average-achieving students (Belland, 2010;
Kolodner et al., 2003). Furthermore, the scaffolding metaphor was expanded from oneto-one tutoring to peer scaffolding and computer-based scaffolding, as described below.
Along the way, some educational researchers began to wonder if the scaffolding
metaphor had become too broad (e.g., Pea, 2004; Puntambekar & Hübscher, 2005; Stone;
Tabak, 2004).
Chapter #: Scaffolding– 7
Problems Posed by Class Sizes
Many authors recognized the utility of the scaffolding metaphor, but wondered whether it
could be optimized for the typical K-12 classroom. In most such classrooms, there are 2030 students and only one teacher. This makes the one-to-one interactions described by
Wood et al. (1976) impractical as a single source of scaffolding (Pea, 2004; Puntambekar
& Kolodner, 2005). With the emergence of more powerful computer technologies, some
researchers (e.g., Pea, 1985) began to wonder if computer tools could provide the
scaffolding function. Similarly, other researchers (e.g., Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994)
wondered if peers of similar ability could provide scaffolding. In the next section, I
describe scaffolding forms.
Scaffolding Forms
The scope of this chapter precludes a discussion of all ways in which authors have
proposed to provide scaffolding. However, there are three main forms - one-to-one, peer,
and computer/paper-based scaffolding. It is important to note that these three forms are
not mutually exclusive, but rather can be combined to form a system of distributed
scaffolding that together can serve students' scaffolding needs (Puntambekar & Kolodner,
2005; Tabak, 2004).
One-to-one
One-to-one scaffolding is generally considered to be the ideal form of scaffolding in that
it is ideally tailored to the needs of individual learners through instructional, domain, and
temporal contingency. One-to-one scaffolding consists of a teacher's contingent support
of students within their respective ZPDs (van den Pol, et al., 2010; Wood, 2003). Such
scaffolding is dependent on the teacher's ability to continually diagnose student ability.
When employing one-to-one scaffolding, fading has been promoted as a method to
Page 7 of 29
Belland – 8
promote transfer of responsibility for the scaffolded task (Collins et al., 1989; van den Pol
et al.). However, one-to-one scaffolding is often not faded (Langer & Applebee, 1986).
When elementary students focused on surface-level details in a reading, the teacher asked
questions that helped students think about the reading from different perspectives and to
discover the underlying themes (Maloch, 2002). This led students to be more critical
readers and the support could be removed (Maloch).
In reciprocal teaching, teachers model the process of summarizing, questioning,
clarifying, and predicting when reading text passages (Palincsar & Brown, 1984). This
led to very substantial increases in reading comprehension scores from pre to posttest,
and these increases remained stable for a long period (Palincsar & Brown).
Highly engaging middle school teachers provided one-to-one scaffolding in the form of
hints and modeling and explanation of expert strategies (Raphael, Pressley, & Mohan,
2008). These same teachers were found to cover more material at a deeper level than lowengaging teachers, who did not provide scaffolding (Raphael et al.). Similarly, one-to-one
scaffolding significantly predicted high engagement among elementary school students
during reading instruction (probability=76%), while the lack thereof significantly
predicted low engagement (probability=62%; Lutz, et al., 2006).
However, one-to-one scaffolding can go awry. Mertzman (2008) found that elementary
teachers provided differential one-to-one scaffolding to students from ethnic minority or
low-SES backgrounds. Often the scaffolding differed from the teachers' stated teaching
philosophy for reading instruction (e.g., focused on phonics rather than comprehension).
Additionally, just because one-to-one scaffolding is generally considered the best for
learners does not mean it is common. Even teachers who were expected by their schools
to engage in one-to-one scaffolding interaction with their students rarely did (van den
Pol, Volman, & Beshuizen, 2011). This is largely due to the sheer difficulty of providing
one-to-one scaffolding to individual students in a class of 20-30 students.
Chapter #: Scaffolding– 9
Peer Scaffolding
In its original definition, scaffolding was said to involve assistance by a more capable
individual such as a parent (Wood et al., 1976). Other authors advanced the idea that
peers can also provide such support (e.g., Gillies, 2008; Pata, Lehtinen, & Sarapuu,
2006). In a classroom of 30 students and one teacher, fostering peer scaffolding may be a
cost-effective way to provide scaffolding to all students. Sometimes students have
differing abilities and can help each other move to higher-order thinking. For example,
elementary and secondary students with stronger English-speaking abilities can help ENL
students improve English-speaking ability through a process of questioning and cuing
English production (Angelova, Gunawardena, & Volk, 2006; Walqui, 2006).
However, students cannot automatically provide effective peer scaffolding. When they
are of similar ability, students often do not have expertise from which other students can
benefit in a scaffolding interaction (King, 1998). Similarly, if all students have the same
knowledge related to the unit content, they will not automatically know how to critically
evaluate each other's work (King; Mercer, Dawes, Wegerif, & Sams, 2004). To promote
effective peer scaffolding, students need to be provided (a) the opportunity to engage in
peer tutoring, and (b) a framework to guide their provision of scaffolding.
Providing an Opportunity for Peer Scaffolding
Expecting students to naturally engage in peer tutoring without recruiting them and
giving them the opportunity to do so is not effective. Rather, students should be prompted
to critically evaluate or otherwise help peers. For example, in the Learning by Design
model (Kolodner et al., 2003), students articulate design ideas in a poster session and are
expected to critique each other’s ideas. Learning by Design students performed as well as
control students in tests of content knowledge but performed significantly better on
Page 9 of 29
Belland – 10
collaboration and metacognitive skills (Kolodner et al.). Furthermore, average-achieving
students who followed a Learning by Design approach performed as well on tests as
honors students who followed a traditional instructional approach.
In Computer-Supported Intentional Learning Environments (CSILE), students can
publish graphical or test notes in a database, which can then be accessed and commented
on by other students (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994). Students can also link notes, but
must provide a justification for how the notes fit together. Before a note is published, it
needs to go through a peer review process. During this process, students can attach notes
to other students' notes asking for clarification and flagging potential problems in the
notes. Elementary school students used CSILE to guide research projects on force,
astronomy, and electricity (Hakkarainen, 2004). The majority of students went from
definitions with little explanatory power to definitions with good explanatory power in
their second and third research projects, and much of this increase was attributed to peer
scaffolding (Hakkarainen). The next generation of CSILE was named Knowledge Forum.
Middle school and high school students who employed a collaborative knowledge
building approach when using Knowledge Forum were more likely to engage in deep
rather than surface learning (Chan & Chan, in press). In a study of Knowledge Forum at
the elementary level, students were found to create more scientifically accurate
definitions of reproduction through peer critiques (van Aalst & Truong, in press).
Furthermore, they gained significantly from pre to posttest (van Aalst & Truong).
In Future Learning Environment (FLE3), students can create knowledge artifacts with the
help of a checklist that indicates the important elements of a knowledge artifact (Rubens,
Emans, Leinonen, Skarmeta, & Simons, 2005). Then peers can comment on each other's
knowledge artifacts. FLE3 is used in primary through post-secondary education, and
teachers find it very useful (Rubens et al.). Teacher education students who used FLE3 in
conjunction with online discussions included significantly more evidence in their
Chapter #: Scaffolding– 11
arguments than control students, who were more likely to simply explain claims (Oh &
Jonassen, 2007).
Similarly, in KnowCat, students critiqued classmates' reports about particular topics
(Pifarre & Cobos, 2010). Doing so led to a significant increase in metacognitive skills, in
particular clarifying and monitoring understanding (Pifarre & Cobos).
In another approach, each student in a group has information that other group members
do not have, and each group member is guided to construct questions to find the missing
information (King, 1998). In this case, students are prompted to ask questions that elicit
articulation and justification.
Providing a Framework for Peer Scaffolding
Students can be taught how to ask thought provoking questions and frameworks for
evaluating their own work and that of others (Gillies, 2008). Junior high students who
were taught and used peer scaffolding strategies were less likely to engage in off task
behavior and learned more than control students, who did not engage in peer scaffolding
(Gillies). Peer scaffolding strategies can be taught explicitly or can be modeled (Fair,
Vandermaas-Peeler, Beaudry, & Dew, 2005; Pata, et al., 2006; Wollman-Bonilla &
Werchadlo, 1999). Students can also be given rubrics to apply in peer critiques (Sandoval
& Reiser, 2004).
Mercer, et al. (2004) provided ground rules for discussion to elementary students learning
science. These rules included:
•
All relevant information is shared;
•
All members of the group are invited to contribute to the discussion;
•
Opinions and ideas are respected and considered;
•
Everyone is asked to make their reasons clear;
Page 11 of 29
Belland – 12
•
Challenges and alternatives are made explicit and are negotiated;
•
The group seeks to reach agreement before taking a decision or acting (Mercer et
al., p. 362)
Students who received the ground rules engaged in more productive group discussions
that evidenced cooperation and sincere consideration of groupmates' contributions and
scored better on a science test than students in the control condition (Mercer et al., 2004).
In KnowCat, students were given guidelines of what to consider classmates' reports "content adequacy, personal elaboration of the ideas, organisation of the ideas,
presentation strategies, and conclusions" (Pifarre & Cobos, 2010, p. 244).
Computer/Paper-based Scaffolding
Computer/paper-based scaffolds can be defined as computer- or paper-based tools that
can provide the scaffolding function. For simplicity's sake, they will be referred to as
computer-based scaffolds. Computer-based scaffolds are often used in self-contained
learning environments, online discussions, or as supplements to classroom-based
instruction.
Self-Contained Learning Environments
Self-contained learning environments consist of an enabling context, resources, tools, and
scaffolds (Hannafin, Land & Oliver, 1999). Hannafin, et al. (1999) described how
scaffolds in self-contained learning environments provide strategic, conceptual,
procedural, and metacognitive support (Hannafin et al.). One example of a self-contained
learning environment is Web-based Inquiry Science Environment (WISE; Linn, Clark, &
Slotta, 2003). Within WISE, students can explore issues related to covered units (e.g., on
deformed frogs), and scaffolds are designed to help students articulate their thoughts on
Chapter #: Scaffolding– 13
the causes of and potential solutions to the central problems and learn from each other.
Scaffolds contained in WISE focus on the epistemology of science, and ask students to
monitor their understanding and make predictions about what will happen (Linn et al.).
WISE also contains information that students can use to consider the problem. Lee, Linn,
Varma, and Liu (2010) compared the performance of secondary science students who
used WISE units for an entire year to that of students exposed to traditional instructional
methods for an entire year on measures of knowledge integration. The students of 24 out
of 27 teachers performed substantially better in tests of knowledge integration (Lee et
al.). Effect sizes ranged from .02 to 1.86.
Bioworld presents high school students with written medical cases, and provides
scaffolds to help students create and test hypotheses about causes of patient problems
(Lajoie, Lavigne, Guerrera, & Munsie, 2001). The system also contains information
about diseases and associated symptoms and scaffolds to help students assess their
confidence in their hypotheses and other decisions. In the end, 90% of students were able
to successfully diagnose encountered patient problems (Lajoie et al.).
Decision Point! is a system designed for high school students in which they decide what
should have been done immediately after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King,
Jr., to continue the quest for equality (Saye & Brush, 2002). They do this by reading
primary source documents and using scaffolds designed to help them consider the
problem in light of what the primary source documents said. Decision Point! led half of
the student groups to create effective persuasive presentations in support of their problem
solutions (Saye & Brush).
ExplanationConstructor contains scaffolds that are integrated with specific disciplinary
content (Sandoval & Reiser, 2004). For example, in one unit using
ExplanationConstructor, high school students explore finch species in the Gallapagos
Islands. The system contained all text that students read as well as scaffolds that
Page 13 of 29
Belland – 14
structured the problem solving process and helped to illustrate to students particularly
pertinent information (Sandoval & Reiser). The scaffolds led students to be able to
evaluate their explanations in epistemic terms (Sandoval & Reiser).
Alien Rescue presents middle school students with a problem scenario that aliens have
arrived at Earth and need to find a suitable new home in our solar system. Students need
to read characteristics of the planets in the solar system and find an appropriate planet for
their assigned aliens. Scaffolds include modeling by experts stating how they would go
about addressing the problem. Such modeling helped students generate more relevant
questions than students in the control group, who were simply told didactically what to
look for (Pedersen & Liu, 2002-2003).
Online Discussions
Computer-based scaffolds can also be used to promote higher level functioning in online
discussions. For example, Choi, Land, and Turgeon (2005) developed computer-based
scaffolds - CoNet-C - to help students construct (a) questions asking classmates to
elaborate their position and consider situations from other perspectives, and (b)
counterarguments. Co-Net-C contained questions for students to consider as they read
classmates' posts. Students using Co-Net-C generated significantly more questions than
students in the control condition (Choi et al.).
Ng, Cheung, Hew (2010) scaffolded students' ill-structured problem solving processes
during online discussions using sentence starters (e.g., I would like to suggest that...) and
message labels (e.g., develop solutions). Students who used the scaffolds spent more time
defining the problem and assessing their solution than their control counterparts (Ng et
al.).
Chapter #: Scaffolding– 15
Rocco (2010) scaffolded preservice teacher education students to reflect on and respond
to classmates' postings rather than simply to summarize each other's postings.
As described above, FLE3 has been used to scaffold online discussions, and led to
significantly better argumentation than that of control students (Oh & Jonassen, 2007).
Jeong and Joung (2007) scaffolded college students' argumentation in online discussions
by providing message constraints (i.e., requiring students to complete messages for each
part of an argument) and requiring students to label their messages according to the
functional category (e.g., argument, evidence). Treatment groups were exposed to (a)
message constraints, (b) message constraints and message labels, or (c) neither. There
was no difference between replies to challenges of peer arguments by students who used
message constraints alone and control students, but students who used message
constraints and message labels replied to peer challenges significantly less than students
who used message constraints alone (Jeong & Joung).
Classroom-based Learning
Self-contained learning environments contain all material with which students interact.
The scaffolds described in this section are designed for students to use as they interact
with materials elsewhere within the classroom and beyond.
Computer-based scaffolds emerged as a solution to the dilemma that teachers in typical
K-12 classrooms cannot be expected to provide adequate one-to-one scaffolding to all
students in a classroom. Saye and Brush (2002) argued that computer-based scaffolding
can be used to supplement one-to-one scaffolding. That is, during inquiry-oriented
instruction, computer-based scaffolding can be provided to a classroom of students, but
the teacher should also roam the classroom to dynamically provide one-to-one
scaffolding to students. Without one-to-one scaffolding provided by a teacher, computer-
Page 15 of 29
Belland – 16
based scaffolding is ineffective (McNeill & Krajcik, 2009; Puntambekar & Kolodner,
2005; Saye & Brush; Tabak, 2004).
The Connection Log is a scaffold designed to help middle school students build evidencebased arguments during problem-based learning units (Belland, 2010; Belland,
Glazewski, & Richardson, in press). In one study, lower-achieving students who used the
Connection Log performed significantly better on a test of argument evaluation ability
(ES=0.61) than lower-achieving control students (Belland et al.). In another study,
average-achieving students who used the Connection Log performed significantly better
on a test of argument evaluation ability (ES=0.62) than average-achieving control
students (Belland).
Belvedere is a system in which students can create concept maps of arguments (Cho &
Jonassen, 2002). It scaffolds students' construction of evidence-based arguments by
indicating which argument elements they needed to have and how these generic elements
interrelated. College students who used Belvedere produced more claims and evidence
than those who did not use Belvedere (Cho & Jonassen).
In the Collaborative Concept Mapping tool, students collaboratively create concept maps
to describe a problem (Gijlers, Saab, van Joolingen, de Jong, & van Hout-Wolters, 2009).
Students using the tool attempted to integrate their ideas with those of groupmates more
than students who used a comparison tool that had preformed hypotheses (Gijlers et al.).
In Knowledge Integration Environment, students were exposed to either self-monitoring
prompts (i.e., prompts that informed students of standards against which they could
assess their understanding) or activity prompts (i.e., prompts that guided students in how
to complete tasks; Davis & Linn, 2000). Students who received self-monitoring prompts
were significantly more likely to explain phenomena using principles and evidence than
students who received activity prompts (Davis & Linn).
Chapter #: Scaffolding– 17
The Design Diary is a paper-based tool that is used in conjunction with Learning by
Design, an instructional model in which middle school students address authentic
problems through the design of artifacts (Kolodner et al., 2003). It contains questions for
students to consider as they are reading expert cases and as they design. Design Diaries
also contain space where students can write their responses to prompts. For example, one
Learning by Design unit requires students to design miniature cars that can navigate hilly
terrain. When Design Diaries were used in isolation, student responses to prompts were
of little depth, but when the tool was used in conjunction with many other scaffolds, such
as poster sessions, student responses to the tool's prompts were more in depth
(Puntambekar & Kolodner, 2005).
Li and Lim (2008) described an approach to scaffold middle school students'
investigation of historical problems. Computer-based scaffolds included an
argumentation template and prompts that helped students to decompose the task and
activate prior knowledge. The effect of the scaffolds was not isolated, but students who
used scaffolds performed well in the inquiry tasks (Li & Lim).
Scaffolding Mechanisms
Mechanisms used in one-to-one scaffolding include (a) enlisting student interest, (b)
controlling frustration, (c) providing feedback, (d) indicating important task/problem
elements to consider, (e) modeling expert processes, and (f) questioning (van den Pol et
al., 2010; Wood et al., 1976). Enlisting student interest and controlling student frustration
highlight the role of scaffolding in creating and sustaining student motivation, and these
functions recognize the central role of student motivation in deploying and improving
higher-order skills (Brophy, 1999; Pino-Pasternak & Whitebread, 2010; Wood et al.). As
the name implies, providing feedback involves informing students of the adequacy of
their performance. Indicating important task/problem elements to consider involves
telling students what they should focus on during their investigations. Modeling expert
Page 17 of 29
Belland – 18
processes refers to showing students either how an expert would approach solving a
similar problem or simply saying what considerations an expert would make when faced
with a similar problem. And questioning is a strategy by which tutors can prod students to
articulate answers that can move them in the right direction toward completing their task.
Not all one-to-one scaffolding involves all such mechanisms (van den Pol et al.).
Not all mechanisms employed in one-to-one scaffolding can be easily integrated into
computer-based scaffolding. For example, automatic feedback is difficult to provide in
computer-based scaffolds that support ill-structured problem solving. This is because
scaffold designers cannot easily specify correct answers and incorrect answers along with
associated feedback when problems have multiple solutions and solution paths. It is
difficult as well to develop computer-based scaffolds that control student frustration.
Reiser (2004) highlighted two competing mechanisms of scaffolding that can be
considered by designers of computer-based scaffolds: structure and problematize.
Structuring refers to the role of scaffolding in simplifying tasks such that learners are not
overwhelmed. Because the task is in their ZPDs, learners cannot engage in the whole task
without assistance. Thus scaffolding should simplify the task while still representing the
whole task (Reiser). Scaffolding should also problematize the task by indicating to
learners important concepts to which they should pay particular attention. Ultimately,
scaffolding should lead to gain in skill, and it is through problematization that this is
possible (Reiser).
Scaffolding Design Guidelines
There is a tension in scaffolding design in that some argue that scaffolding needs to be
developed in design experiments in particular contexts (e.g., Brown, 1992; Cobb,
Confrey, diSessa, Lehrer, & Schauble, 2003), while others argue that scaffolding
principles exist to support performance in a particular content domain (e.g., Kali & Linn,
2008; Quintana et al., 2004; Reiser, 2004). Many authors have proposed design
Chapter #: Scaffolding– 19
guidelines that are said to underlie effective scaffolds (e.g., Azevedo, Cromley, Winters,
Moos, & Greene, 2005; Belland, Glazewski, & Richardson, 2008; Quintana et al.; Reiser,
2004). Kali and Linn (2008) proposed four meta-design guidelines for scaffolding science
inquiry:
•
Make science accessible
•
Make thinking visible
•
Enable students to learn from each other
•
Promote self-directed learning
However, some may question if research evidence supports the notion that the same
design principles that work in one context can be generalized to different contexts, even
those dealing with the same subject and grade level but simply in different schools. The
controversy is partially due to reflections on theoretical core of scaffolding - the idea of
the Zone of Proximal Development. For example, the Zone of Proximal Development as
pertains to problem solving of the average middle school student will differ from that of
an elementary school student. Thus, problem solving scaffolding designed for middle
school students and such scaffolding developed for elementary school students will
differ. The question is if the underlying mechanisms of scaffolding can remain the same
for students of differing ability levels and for different subjects.
In his introduction to the special issue of the Journal of the Learning Sciences that also
contained Reiser (2004) and Quintana et al (2004), Pea (2004) argued against the idea of
universal design principles for scaffolds. Rather, he noted that scaffold design theory
needs to:
•
Predict what types of support will be sufficient for enabling a student to perform
a specific task
•
Distinguish between learners at different developmental levels
•
Account for how to combine different type of scaffolds
Page 19 of 29
Belland – 20
•
Consider the role of human scaffolding (Pea)
Current Controversies
Current controversies regarding scaffolding include (a) the defining characteristics of a
scaffold, (b) how transfer of responsibility can be ascertained, and (c) whether domainspecific knowledge needs to be embedded in scaffolds.
Defining Characteristics of a Scaffold
A key controversy regarding scaffolding pertains to what distinguishes a scaffold from
other instructional supports. A common argument is that, to be labeled a scaffold, a
support needs to (a) be contingent on both students' performance characteristics and
characteristics of the scaffolded task, and (b) promote the transfer of responsibility from
the scaffolder to the scaffoldee (Pea, 2004; Puntambekar & Hübscher, 2005; van den Pol,
et al., 2010). And many authors argue that fading of scaffolds is necessary to promote the
transfer of responsibility (e.g., Pea, 2004). By this measure, many computer-based
scaffolds would not meet the criteria to be called scaffolds. That is, most computer-based
scaffolds cannot provide support that is contingent on students' individual performance
characteristics (Pea; Puntambekar & Hübscher; Sherin, Reiser, & Edelson, 2004). Rather,
such support is often blanketed (Puntambekar & Hübscher). Furthermore, fading of
computer-based scaffolds is often not implemented (Pea; Puntambekar & Hübscher).
When authors do implement fading of computer-based scaffolds, what they describe may
not fit the original definition of fading in that it (a) is based on students indicating that
they believe they do not need the support any more (Metcalf, 1999; Puntambekar &
Hübscher) or (b) simply proceeds according to a predefined schedule (McNeill, Lizotte,
Krajcik, & Marx, 2006). Fading in the original sense of the term has been accomplished
in computer-based scaffolds that support well-structured problem solving because correct
Chapter #: Scaffolding– 21
problem solution paths and adjustments to the scaffolding associated with specific steps
can be specified (e.g., Kayluga & Sweller, 2005; Koedinger & Corbett, 2006).
Transfer of Responsibility
Key to the definition of scaffolding is that it helps students gain skill in the targeted task
(Puntembekar & Hübscher, 2005; Wood et al., 1976). As students gain skill, they should
be able to assume greater responsibility for the scaffolded task. In short, scaffolders
should design support with the goal of transfer of responsibility in mind. The mechanism
by which transfer of responsibility was said to be promoted within one-to-one scaffolding
is fading, or the gradual removal of support. As new forms of scaffolding emerged, many
authors continued to call for the use of fading to promote transfer of responsibility (e.g.,
Pea, 2004; Puntambekar & Hubscher). However, fading within computer-based
scaffolding is not conceptually clear for the reasons described above. Furthermore, even
if one sets scaffolds to disappear at a fixed schedule or has students indicate that they do
not need the scaffolds any more, how one can ascertain that transfer of responsibility has
occurred remains an open question. Has transfer of responsibility occurred if students are
still able to function once scaffolds disappear? How would one know that students are
taking full responsibility for the task?
Domain-Specific Knowledge
Another issue of contention is the extent to which scaffolds need to incorporate domainspecific knowledge. In traditional, one-to-one scaffolding, the issue of whether there
should be domain-specific knowledge is not as crucial since such support is contingent.
That is, the teacher or parent determines exactly what support the student needs at any
given time and provides exactly that. If the needed support includes domain knowledge,
then the teacher/parent will provide it. However, computer-based scaffolds are designed
Page 21 of 29
Belland – 22
and developed before students use them. As such, designers need to determine whether to
incorporate domain-specific knowledge. Many computer-based scaffolds include domainspecific knowledge (McNeill & Krajcik, 2009). There is some evidence that generic
prompts are more effective in certain cases. For example, Davis (2003) found that
students who used generic scaffolds engaged in more productive reflection. However,
McNeill and Krajcik found that students who used domain-specific scaffolds wrote better
arguments than students who used generic scaffolds, but only when the teacher
effectively provided one-to-one scaffolding supporting students' understanding of a
generic argumentation framework. It is of fundamental importance that students be
supported in understanding how what they learn in one context can be applied to new
contexts (Stevens, Wineberg, Harrenkohl, & Bell, 2005). Further research is needed to
determine how best to promote students' application of what they learn in a scaffolded
interaction to new situations.
Conclusion
To prepare students for the challenges of the 21st century, many authors advocated a shift
from a focus on declarative knowledge to a focus on critical thinking (e.g., Hurd, 1998;
Kuhn, 1999; Spektor-Levy, Eylon, & Scherz, 2009). Scaffolding can play a key role in
building students' critical thinking abilities by supporting students as they engage in
complex processes rather than teaching them didactically needed skills before engaging
in complex processes (Lee & Songer, 2000; Linn, 2000; Sinatra, 2010). When developing
scaffolding interventions, it is important to remember the key scaffolding forms - one-toone, peer, and computer-based - and to consider how such forms can be combined into an
overall distributed scaffolding strategy (Puntambekar & Kolodner, 2005; Tabak, 2004). It
is also important to remember that scaffolding's transition from informal interactions
between parents and their children to formal instruction, and to different formats such as
computer-based and peer scaffolding was not theoretically neutral. There are many
Chapter #: Scaffolding– 23
unanswered questions about scaffolding, including what constitutes a scaffold, how
transfer of responsibility can be promoted, and whether scaffolds need to contain domainspecific knowledge. Further research is needed to address these questions, and ultimately
the scaffolding research community needs to address the extent to which all attributes of
scaffolding from Wood et al. (1976)'s original definition needs to be reflected in anything
else called instructional scaffolding.
References
* Please follow APA 6 style very carefully for your references – see
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/ - place an asterisk followed by one space
to the left of what you regard as a core reference – perhaps 10% or more of the references
might be regarded as core references critical to the research in the area of your article.
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.
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
Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., Winters, F. I., Moos, D. C., & Greene, J. A. (2005). Adaptive human
scaffolding facilitates adolescents' self-regulated learning with hypermedia. Instructional
Science, 33, 381-412.
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.
Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., & Richardson, J. C. (In press). Problem-based Learning and
Argumentation: Testing a Scaffolding Framework to Support Middle School Students’ Creation
of Evidence-based Arguments. Instructional Science, DOI: 10.1007/s11251-010-9148-z
* 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.
Brophy, J. (1999). Toward a model of the value aspects of motivation in education: Developing
appreciation for.. Educational Psychologist, 34(2), 75-85.
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating
complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141178.
Chan, C.K.K., Chan, R.Y.Y. (In press). Students’ views about collaboration and learning and
online forum participation in Knowledge Forum. Computers & Education, doi: 10.1016/
j.compedu.2010.09.003
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.
Page 23 of 29
Belland – 24
Choi, I., Land, S. M., & Turgeon, A. J. (2005). Scaffolding peer questioning strategies to facilitate
metacognition during online small group discussion. Instructional Science, 33, 483-511.
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in
educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9-13.
*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: Erlbaum.
Davis, E. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and
directed prompts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 91-142.
* Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompts for
reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 819–837.
Fair, C., Vanermaas-Peeler, M., Beaudry, R. & Dew, J. (2005). "I learned how little kids think":
Third-graders' scaffolding of craft activities with pre-schoolers. Early Child Development and
Care, 175(3), 229-241.
* 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.
Gillies, R. M. (2008). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high students' behaviors,
discourse, and learning during a science-based learning activity. School Psychology
International 29, 328-347.
Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Pursuit of explanation within a computer-supported classroom.
International Journal of Science Education, 26(8), 979-996.
* Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open-ended learning environments: Foundations,
methods, and models. In Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models:
Volume II: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 115-140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Hurd, P. D. (1998). Scientific literacy: New minds for a changing world. Science Education,
82(3), 407-416.
Jeong, A., & Joung, S. (2007). Scaffolding collaborative argumentation in asynchronous
discussions with message constraints and message labels. Computers & Education, 48, 427445.
* 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 (3d ed., pp. 145-161). New York:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kayluga, 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.
King, A. (1998). Transactive peer tutoring: Distributing cognition and metacognition. Educational
Psychology Review, 10(1), 57-74.
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
(Pages 61-78). Cambridge University Press.
Chapter #: Scaffolding– 25
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. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495547.
Kozulin, A. (1986). The concept of activity in Soviet psychology: Vygotsky, his disciples and
critics. American Psychologist, 41(3), 264-274.
Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 1625.
Kyza, E., & Edelson, D. C. (2005). Scaffolding middle school students’ coordination of theory and
practice. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11(6), 545–560.
Lajoie, S. P., Lavigne, N. C., Guerrera, C., & Munsie, S. D. (2001). Constructing knowledge in the
context of BioWorld. Instructional Science, 29, 155-186.
Langer, J.A., & Applebee, A. N. (1986). Reading and writing instruction: Toward a theory of
teaching and learning. Review of Research on Education, 13, 171-194.
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), 7190.
Lee, H, & Songer, N. B. (2000). Making authentic science accessible to students. International
Journal of Science Education, 25(8), 923-948.
Li, D. D., & Lim, C. P. (2008). Scaffolding online historical inquiry tasks: A case study of two
secondary school classrooms. Computers & Education 50, 1394–1410
Lin, X., Hmelo, C. E., Kinzer, C. K., & Secules, T. J. (1999). Designing technology to support
reflection. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(3), 43-62.
Linn, M. C. (2000). Designing the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of
Science Education, 22(8), 781-796.
Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science
Education, 87(4), 517-538.
* Luria, A. R. (1976). Cognitive development: Its cultural and social foundations. Tr. M. LopezMorillas & L. Solotaroff. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
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.
Mäkitalo-Siegl, K., Kohnle, C., & Fischer, F. (In press). Computer-supported collaborative
learning and classroom scripts: Effects on help-seeking processes and learning outcomes.
Learning and Instruction, doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.07.001
Maloch, B. (2002). Scaffolding student talk: One teacher's role in literature discussion groups.
Reading Research Quarterly, 37(1), 94-112
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.
McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’
construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191.
Page 25 of 29
Belland – 26
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), 359377.
Mertzman, T. (2008). Individualizing scaffolding: Teachers' literacy interruptions of ethnic
minority and students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Journal of Research in Reading,
31(2), 183-202.
Ng, C. S. L., Cheung, W. S., & Hew, K. F. (2010). Solving ill-structured problems in
asynchronous online discussions: scaffolds vs. no scaffolds. Interactive Learning
Environments, 18(2), 115-134.
Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or
inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education,
86(4), 548-571.
Oh, S., & Jonassen, D. H. (2007). Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving.
Journal of Computer-assisted Learning, 23, 95-110.
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.
* Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and
comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition & Instruction, 1(2), 117-175.
Pata, K., Lehtinen, E., & Sarapuu, T. (2006). Inter-relations of tutors' and peers' scaffolding and
decision-making discourse acts. Instructional Science, 34, 313-341.
* Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical
concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences,
13(3), 423-451.
Pea, R. D. (1985). Beyond amplification: Using the computer to reorganize mental functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 167-182.
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.
Pifarre, M., & Cobos. R. (2010). Promoting metacognitive skills through peer scaffolding in a
CSCL environment. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5, 237-253.
Pino-Pasternak, D., & Whitebread, D. (2010). The role of parenting in children's self-regulated
learning. Educational Research Review, 5, 220-242.
* 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.
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.
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. The Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337-386.
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),
Chapter #: Scaffolding– 27
61-81.
Reid, D. K. (1998). Scaffolding: A broader view. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 386-396
* Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and
problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273-304.
Rocco, S. (2010). Making reflection public: Using interactive online discussion board to enhance
student learning. Reflective Practice, 11(3), 307-317.
Rubens, W., Emans, B., Leinonen, T., Skarmeta, A. G., & Simons, R. (2005). Design of webbased collaborative learning environments. Translating the pedagogical learning principles to
human computer interface. Computers & Education, 45, 276-294.
Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human
intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2-9.
Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and
epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345-372.
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.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283.
Sherin, B., Reiser, B. J., & Edelson, D. (2004). Scaffolding analysis: Extending the scaffolding
metaphor to learning artifacts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 387-421.
Sinatra, G. M. (2010, September). Constraints on scientific thought and rationality. Paper
presented at the 11th International Conference on Education Research, Seoul, South Korea.
Spektor-Levy, O, Eylon, B. & Scherz, Z. (2009). Teaching scientific communication skills in
science studies: Does it make a difference? International Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education, 7, 875-903.
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.
Stone, A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 344-364.
Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. The
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305-335.
van Aalst, A., & Truong, M. S. (In press). Promoting knowledge creation discourse in an Asian
primary 5 classroom: Results from an inquiry into life cycles. International Journal of Science
Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500691003649656
van den Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2011). Patterns of contingent teaching in teacherstudent interaction. Learning and Instruction, 21, 46-57.
* van den Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction:
A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 271-296.
* Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual
framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159-180.
Page 27 of 29
Belland – 28
Wertsch, J. V., & Tulviste, P. (1992). L. S. Vygotsky and contemporary developmental
psychology. Developmental Psychology, 28(4), 548-557.
Wollman-Bonilla, J. E., & Werchadlo, B. (1999). Teacher and peer roles in scaffolding firstgraders' responses to literature. The Reading Teacher, 52(6), 598-607.
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.
* Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported in part by National Science Foundation early CAREER grant #
DRL0953046. However, the views expressed herein represent those of the author and not
necessarily those of the Foundation.
Author Information
Include the following information for each contributing author:
Complete name (last/family name, first/given name, and middle name or initial as
appropriate and any desired suffix such as Junior, III, etc.): Belland, Brian R.
Institutional affiliation: Utah State University
Institutional address: Logan, UT
Complete mailing address: 2830 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322
Telephone number: 435-797-2535
Fax number (optional):
Email address: [email protected]
Website (optional):
Short biographical sketch (250 words maximum): Brian R. Belland is assistant professor
of Instructional Technology and Learning Sciences at Utah State University. His research
interests center on the use of technology to support middle school students' higher-order
thinking abilities. He received a 2010 National Science Foundation CAREER grant that
Chapter #: Scaffolding– 29
supports a 5-year project examining the use of scaffolding to support middle school
students' construction of evidence-based arguments.
Page 29 of 29