psychology case study scaffolding

Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development and Scaffolding Theory

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

The zone of proximal development (ZPD) is the difference between what a learner can do without help and what they can do with guidance and encouragement from a skilled partner.

It’s the area where the most sensitive instruction or guidance should be given, allowing the child to develop skills they will then use on their own.

It represents tasks beyond the learner’s current abilities but is attainable with the help and guidance of the more knowledgeable other (MKO). The ZPD is the range of tasks a person can’t complete independently but can accomplish with support.

Thus, “proximal” refers to skills the learner is “close” to mastering. 

ZPD is the zone where instruction is the most beneficial, as it is when the task is just beyond the individual’s capabilities. Challenging tasks promote maximum cognitive growth.

The zone of proximal development was developed by Soviet psychologist and social constructivist Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934).

Vygotsky introduced the ZPD concept to criticize psychometric testing, which only measured current abilities, not potential for development. He argued that assessment should be collaborative in revealing emerging skills.

The zone of proximal development (ZPD) has been defined as:

“the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem-solving under adult guidance, or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86).

For teachers, the ZPD is the space between current teaching knowledge and potential new levels with assistance. Willingness to learn enables ZPD progression.

Vygotsky believed that when a student is in the zone of proximal development for a particular task, providing the appropriate assistance will give the student enough of a “boost” to achieve the task.

Key Features

• Dynamic and Changing: The ZPD is not a static space but constantly shifts as the child learns and develops new skills. As a child’s competence grows, their zone of proximal development also expands to encompass new challenges.
• Individualized: While children might share the same actual developmental level, their zones of proximal development can differ based on their experiences, prior knowledge, and learning styles.
• Not Just Procedures: Successful learning within the ZPD involves more than simply teaching a child procedures. Open-ended, problem-solving tasks, rather than those with predetermined solutions, tend to offer richer opportunities for learning within the ZPD.
• Importance of Collaboration: The ZPD highlights the value of collaboration, where each participant contributes to the task goal, fostering a shared understanding through interaction.

Internalization of Knowledge

Internalization involves transforming external, shared experiences into internal, mental functions. This transition often manifests as a progression from reliance on external cues and prompts from the expert to self-directed inner speech (Leontyev, 1981; Rogoff, 1990) 

Vygotsky proposed that a child’s movement through the zone of proximal development (ZPD) is characterized by a transition from social to individual, mirroring the broader social origins of higher mental functions.

Children gradually internalize the knowledge and skills acquired through social interaction within the ZPD. What starts as external guidance becomes internalized, transforming into independent capabilities.

Individuals internalize the dialogue and guidance previously provided by more knowledgeable others, using it to direct their own actions and thought processes.  

This internal dialogue is not simply a repetition of the expert’s words; it undergoes “syntactic and semantic abbreviation,” becoming a more streamlined and personalized tool for thought.

Internalization within the ZPD isn’t a passive transfer of information but a dynamic process where learners actively participate and engage in meaning-making.

This active engagement ensures that learners don’t simply replicate the expert’s actions but develop a deeper understanding of the underlying principles and strategies.

For example, a child learning to solve a problem with a parent’s guidance doesn’t simply memorize the solution but actively constructs their understanding through dialogue and interaction .

This process, often termed scaffolding, underscores the importance of providing support that aligns with the learner’s current capabilities and gradually diminishes as the learner gains mastery.

Scaffolding Theory

The ZPD has become synonymous with the term “scaffolding” in the literature. However, it is important to note that Vygotsky never used this term in his writing; it was introduced by Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976).

Stone (1998) noted that Wood et al.’s initial description of scaffolding was practical rather than theoretical, and not explicitly connected to the zone of proximal development (ZPD). The link between scaffolding and ZPD was established later by researchers like Bruner (1985) and Cazden (1979).

Wood et al. (1976, p. 90) define scaffolding as a process “that enables a child or novice to solve a task or achieve a goal that would be beyond his unassisted efforts.”

As they note, scaffolds require the adult to “controlling those elements of the task that are initially beyond the learner’s capability, thus permitting him to concentrate upon and complete only those elements that are within his range of competence” (p. 90).

It is important to note that the terms cooperative learning, scaffolding, and guided learning all have the same meaning in the literature.

Scaffolding consists of the activities provided by the educator, or more competent peer, to support the student as he or she is led through the zone of proximal development.

This support can be provided in many different ways, such as modeling or asking questions, and is used across different subjects and age groups.

Scaffolding is a dynamic process that changes based on the student’s progress and the task at hand, so it will look different in different situations.

Intersubjectivity

Intersubjectivity refers to the shared understanding that emerges between a teacher and student when they work together on a task (Behrend, 1990).

This shared understanding is not simply about agreeing on the correct answer or solution; it’s about developing a mutual understanding of the task’s goals, processes, and challenges.

Intersubjectivity ensures that both the expert and learner are invested in the learning process. The expert needs to gauge the learner’s motivation and adjust the support accordingly, while the learner needs to understand the value of the task to be motivated to learn.

Intersubjectivity is crucial for effective scaffolding because it allows the teacher to tailor their support to the student’s individual needs and zone of proximal development (ZPD).

When a teacher and student have intersubjectivity, the teacher can better understand the student’s current level of understanding, anticipate difficulties, and provide appropriate guidance.

Intersubjectivity occurs when two people (e.g., the child and helper) start a task together with different levels of skill and understanding and end up with a shared understanding.

As each member of the dyad adjusts to the perspective of the other, the helper has to translate their own insights in a way that is within the child’s grasp, and the child develops a more complete understanding of the task.

They must work towards the same goal, otherwise there won’t be any collaboration. It is important that they negotiate, or compromise by always working for a shared view.

If you try to force someone to change their mind, you’ll just create conflict. It would be best to stay within the boundaries of the other person’s zone of proximal development.

Challenges related to maintaining intersubjectivity in scaffolding:

• Peer scaffolding can sometimes lack the sensitivity and effectiveness of adult-child scaffolding. This is because peers might not have the same ability to assess and adjust their support to match their partner’s understanding.
• Power imbalances, even in peer interactions, can hinder intersubjectivity. If one partner dominates the interaction, the opportunity for genuine shared understanding and co-construction of knowledge is diminished.
• The increasing use of technology in scaffolding presents challenges to maintaining intersubjectivity. Static tools that don’t adapt to the learner’s understanding miss out on the critical aspects of ongoing diagnosis and calibrated support central to Vygotskian scaffolding.

Contingency

Contingency (or responsiveness) is paramount. This means the teacher continually assesses the learner’s understanding and adjusts their support accordingly.

It’s about providing the right amount of help at the right time.

For example, if a student is struggling, the teacher might offer more direct guidance, while a student demonstrating understanding might receive prompts encouraging independent problem-solving.

This dynamic adaptation ensures that learners are challenged without being overwhelmed.

A key aspect of contingent teaching is the teacher’s ability to recognize and respond to learner cues, both verbal and nonverbal.

This involves carefully attending to learners’ questions, hesitations, partial understandings, and even their emotional responses during the learning process.

By being sensitive to these cues, teachers can provide timely and appropriate support that helps learners overcome impasses and move forward in their understanding.

Enacting contingent teaching in real-world classroom settings demands a high degree of teacher expertise. Teachers must be able to simultaneously monitor the understanding of multiple learners, make rapid judgments about appropriate support, and flexibly adjust their instruction accordingly.

When teachers engage in contingent teaching, consistently adapting their support to the learner’s progress, fading of support occurs naturally as learners demonstrate increasing competence.

This gradual release of responsibility empowers learners to take greater ownership of their learning, ultimately leading to independent mastery of the task or concept.

Fading represents the gradual withdrawal of external support as the learner internalizes new skills and knowledge, prompting a shift from a reliance on the expert to self-directed learning.

Support is tapered off (i.e., withdrawn) as it becomes unnecessary, much as a scaffold is removed from a building during construction. The student will then be able to complete the task again independently.

As learners progress, the expert can strategically withdraw support, providing opportunities for independent practice and problem-solving.

Transfer of responsibility occurs alongside fading, as the student gradually takes on more responsibility for their learning.

Fading encourages learners to actively apply their burgeoning knowledge and skills, fostering a sense of self-efficacy and promoting the internalization of learned concepts.

The effectiveness of fading hinges on the learner’s active role in the learning process. Learners must actively participate in meaning-making through dialogue, negotiation, and problem-solving alongside the expert.

This active engagement helps learners develop “ownership” of the task and fosters deeper cognitive processing.

Furthermore, the concept of intersubjectivity, or shared understanding between the expert and learner, is vital for effective fading.

When learners and experts share a common understanding of the task’s goals and processes, it facilitates the gradual transfer of responsibility and promotes the internalization of knowledge and skills.

Example of Scaffolding

Vygotsky emphasized scaffolding, or providing support to learners to help them reach higher levels of understanding.

This can be mapped to progressing through Bloom’s taxonomy , where educators scaffold tasks from basic understanding to more complex analysis and creation.

For example, a teacher might start by providing information (Remembering) and then ask questions that require understanding.

As students become more proficient, tasks can be scaffolded to require application, analysis, evaluation, and creation.

Example : In teaching a concept like photosynthesis:

• Remembering : The teacher provides the basic definition.
• Understanding : Students explain the process in their own words.
• Application : They might conduct an experiment on plants.
• Analysis : Dive deeper into how different variables affect the process.
• Evaluation : Debate the most critical components of photosynthesis.
• Creation : Design an optimal environment for plant growth.

Each step can be scaffolded, starting with substantial teacher support and gradually releasing responsibility to the students as they climb Bloom’s taxonomy, guiding students from foundational knowledge to higher-order thinking skills.

Wood and Middleton (1975)

The following study provides empirical support for both the practice of scaffolding and the theory of ZPD.

Procedure : 4-year-old children had to use a set of blocks and pegs to build a 3D model shown in a picture. Building the model was too difficult a task for a 4-year-old child to complete alone.

Wood and Middleton observed how mothers interacted with their children to build the 3D model. The type of support included:

• General encouragement e.g., ‘now you have a go.’ • Specific instructions e.g., ‘get four big blocks.’ • Direct demonstration, e.g., showing the child how to place one block on another.

Results : No single strategy was best for helping the child to progress. Mothers whose assistance was most effective were those who varied their strategy according to how the child was doing.

When the child was doing well, they became less specific with their help. When the child started to struggle, they gave increasingly specific instructions until the child started to make progress again.

The study illustrates scaffolding and Vygotsky’s concept of the ZPD. Scaffolding (i.e., assistance) is most effective when the support is matched to the needs of the learner.

This puts them in a position to achieve success in an activity they would previously not have been able to do alone.

Collaborative ZPD

Collaborative ZPD challenges traditional interpretations of Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (ZPD) that focus on the asymmetry between a more knowledgeable individual and a less knowledgeable learner.

Instead, a collaborative ZPD emphasizes the symmetrical nature of learning within peer interactions, where knowledge is co-constructed through mutual contributions and challenges, even among individuals with comparable expertise.

Collaborative ZPD represents a shift from viewing learning as an individual endeavor to recognizing it as a social practice (Tudge, 1992).

It emphasizes the importance of creating environments where learners, regardless of perceived expertise, can engage in symmetrical interactions, leverage language and other semiotic resources to co-construct knowledge, and benefit from the challenges inherent in collaborative dialogue. 

Moving beyond the “More Knowledgeable Other”:

Traditionally, the ZPD has been defined as the distance between a learner’s independent performance and their potential development with guidance from a more knowledgeable other, often an adult or a more capable peer.

However, this reinforces an individualistic and potentially asymmetrical perspective on learning.

Symmetry and shared understanding:

A collaborative ZPD recognizes that learning is not merely a transmission of knowledge from one individual to another but a process of co-construction where all participants contribute to and benefit from the interaction.

This challenges the notion of a fixed expert-novice dichotomy, acknowledging that even within peer groups, roles can be fluid, with individuals taking turns leading, questioning, and supporting each other.

The role of language and semiotic resources:

Language is crucial in establishing a collaborative ZPD. Through dialogue, learners articulate their thinking, challenge each other’s ideas, and negotiate shared understandings.

This dialogic process, characterized by clarification, elaboration, justification, and critique, is essential for promoting metacognitive awareness and regulation. 

Challenge as a catalyst for learning

A defining characteristic of a collaborative ZPD is the presence of challenge, not from an expert figure, but from within the interaction itself.

When peers challenge each other’s ideas, it compels them to clarify, elaborate, and justify their thinking, leading to deeper understanding and the identification of errors or fruitful strategies.

Conversely, the absence of such challenges can hinder the creation of a ZPD, as learners miss opportunities to refine their understanding through dialogue and mutual critique.

Educational Applications

Vygotsky believes the role of education is to provide children with experiences which are in their ZPD, thereby encouraging and advancing their individual learning (Berk, & Winsler, (1995).

“From a Vygotskian perspective, the teacher’s role is mediating the child’s learning activity as they share knowledge through social interaction” (Dixon-Krauss, 1996, p. 18).

1. Effective Scaffolding

Successful scaffolding often involves dialogue and interaction.

This back-and-forth communication allows for ongoing assessment of the learner’s understanding, adjustment of support, and eventual fading of scaffolding as the learner internalizes the skills and knowledge.

Guidance should not simplify the task but rather support the learner in tackling its inherent complexities. Scaffolding requires a delicate balance between providing support and fostering independence.

The ultimate goal of scaffolding is to empower the learner to take ownership of their learning process. This occurs when the learner internalizes the strategies and knowledge imparted through scaffolding, enabling them to tackle similar tasks or challenges autonomously.

Note : Scaffolding can be challenging due to its dynamic and context-dependent nature. It is not simply a set of techniques but an interactive process between the teacher and learner. The effectiveness of scaffolding lies in the interplay between the teacher’s expert guidance and the learner’s active participation in constructing their understanding.

• Modeling : The expert initially demonstrates the desired behavior or strategy. This might involve thinking aloud while solving a problem, demonstrating a skill, or providing worked examples that learners can emulate.
• Hints and Questions: Highlighting the essential aspects of a task helps learners focus on the most important information and processes. Adults can achieve this by emphasizing key concepts, pointing out patterns, or providing examples that illustrate the desired outcome.
• Increased Responsibility : The learner is gradually encouraged to assume a more active role, eventually taking ownership of the learning process.
• Gaining and maintaining the learner’s interest in the task : When learners understand the task’s purpose and find it meaningful, they are more likely to be motivated and engaged.
• Control the child’s level of frustration : Adults should be attentive to the learner’s frustration levels and provide reassurance, adjust the task’s difficulty, or offer breaks when needed. The goal is to prevent discouragement and help learners persevere through challenges.

2. Dynamic Assessment

Dynamic assessment is an interactive approach to conducting assessments that focuses on the student’s ability to respond to intervention. 

While traditional tests primarily focus on what a learner can accomplish independently, dynamic assessment centers on determining the learner’s potential for growth with guidance.

Dynamic assessment is designed to reveal a student’s ZPD by showing what they can do with assistance, which is the essence of Vygotsky’s ZPD concept.

Types of dynamic assessment:

Learning Potential Assessment Device (LPAD) : Developed by Feuerstein (1981), this model uses IQ-like tasks but incorporates mediation – intentional intervention by the examiner. The examiner observes responses, anticipates difficulties, and adjusts support accordingly.

Instead of a simple score, the LPAD provides a cognitive map detailing the learner’s strengths, weaknesses, strategies, and responsiveness to mediation.

Test-Teach-Retest Format : The assessor first determines what the student can do independently, then provides mediated learning experiences, and finally reassesses to see what the student has learned.

By comparing performance before and after intervention, dynamic assessment helps identify the student’s learning potential – a key aspect of their ZPD.

Microgenetic Analysis : This approach analyzes the process of learning as it unfolds over time, focusing on the subtle changes in a learner’s understanding during interactions.

It involves frequent observations over a period of rapid change in a specific cognitive skill, allowing researchers to capture the moment-to-moment shifts in thinking and problem-solving strategies. 

Benefits of dynamic assessment:

Provide a more accurate picture of a learner’s potential: By observing how learners respond to guidance, dynamic assessment can identify emerging abilities that traditional static tests might miss.

Inform instruction: The insights gained from dynamic assessment can be directly applied to tailor teaching strategies to a learner’s specific needs. By understanding a learner’s ZPD, educators can adjust their level of support and select appropriate interventions to maximize learning.

Promote self-regulation: The interactive nature of dynamic assessment can encourage learners to become more aware of their own thinking processes, leading to greater self-monitoring and self-correction. This focus on self-regulation aligns with Vygotsky’s emphasis on the internalization of higher mental functions through social interaction.

Practical limitations:

The dynamic and context-dependent nature of dynamic assessment poses challenges for its measurement and widespread implementation.

Unlike standardized tests with their rigid protocols, dynamic assessment requires considerable expertise and flexibility on the part of the assessor.

There’s no one-size-fits-all approach to dynamic assessment; its application must be tailored to the specific task, domain, and individual learner.

However, the rich insights gained from dynamic assessment, particularly its ability to inform instruction and unlock learning potential, make it a valuable tool for educators and researchers alike.

3. Collaborative Learning

Vygotsky’s theories also feed into current interest in collaborative learning, suggesting that group members should have different levels of ability so more advanced peers can help less advanced members operate within their zone of proximal development.

In mixed-ability groups, more advanced students can provide scaffolding for less advanced peers. This peer support helps less advanced students work within their ZPD, tackling tasks they couldn’t manage independently.

This arrangement benefits both the more and less advanced students. Less advanced students gain from peer explanations and modeling, while more advanced students reinforce their own understanding by teaching others.

When explaining concepts to others, more advanced students often need to reformulate their understanding, leading to deeper processing and learning.

Implementation strategies:

• Thoughtful group composition : Carefully consider how to form groups to ensure a productive mix of abilities without creating too wide a gap.
• Rotating roles : Assign and rotate specific roles within groups to ensure all students have opportunities to lead and support others.
• Structured tasks : Design collaborative tasks that require input from all group members, encouraging full participation.
• Teacher monitoring : While allowing peer scaffolding, monitor groups to ensure accurate information is being shared and all students are engaging appropriately.
• Reflection and debriefing : Include time for students to reflect on both the content learned and the collaborative process, reinforcing the value of mixed-ability teamwork.

4. The Role of Transactive Discussion in Creating Collaborative ZPDs

Transactive discussion is not merely a helpful addition to collaborative learning environments but an essential component in creating collaborative ZPDs.

Rather than viewing learning as a one-sided transmission from a “more knowledgeable other,” the concept of collaborative ZPDs emphasizes the symmetrical and interactive nature of learning within peer groups, even among individuals with similar levels of expertise.

By fostering environments where learners are encouraged to justify their thinking, challenge each other’s ideas, clarify their understanding, and engage in reciprocal dialogue, educators can leverage the power of transactive discussion to promote deep, meaningful, and collaborative learning experiences.

Encouraging “Reasoned Dialogue” :

Teachers should structure activities that require students to engage in meaningful discussions, moving beyond simple agreement or disagreement to a place of justification and co-construction of ideas.

Frame these discussions as opportunities for collective problem-solving rather than debates to be won or lost.

Teachers should demonstrate how to ask probing questions that elicit deeper thinking, challenge assumptions, and encourage students to provide evidence for their claims.

Justification: Unveiling the “Why” and “How” of Thinking: Transactive discussions go beyond simply stating ideas or solutions. Participants are expected to provide reasons for their claims, explaining the “why” and “how” behind their thinking. This process of justification serves multiple purposes:

• Making Thinking Visible: Justification makes learners’ thought processes explicit and observable, both to themselves and to others. This transparency is essential for identifying potential flaws in reasoning, revealing gaps in understanding, and uncovering different approaches to a problem.
• Promoting Deeper Analysis: The act of justifying a claim often compels learners to examine their reasoning more closely. They may uncover hidden assumptions, identify weaknesses in their arguments, or discover new connections and insights that they hadn’t considered before.
• Building a Foundation for Shared Understanding: When learners provide justifications for their ideas, it allows others to follow their line of reasoning, identify points of agreement or disagreement, and engage in a more meaningful exchange. This shared understanding is crucial for collaborative learning to occur.

Clarification: Striving for Precision and Shared Meaning: Clarity and precision are paramount in transactive discussions. Participants are encouraged to:

• Articulate Ideas Clearly: Learners are expected to express their thoughts and ideas in a way that is understandable to others. This may involve using precise language, providing examples, and checking for understanding throughout the discussion.
• Seek Clarification When Needed: Participants are expected to actively monitor their own understanding and to request clarification when they encounter ambiguity or vagueness. This could involve asking for definitions, requesting examples, or paraphrasing to ensure they’ve grasped the intended meaning.
• Negotiate Shared Understanding: Clarification isn’t merely about achieving individual understanding; it’s about ensuring that all participants are working from a common ground, using terminology in a mutually agreed-upon way. This shared understanding forms the foundation for meaningful collaboration and knowledge building.

Mutual Engagement: Embracing Reciprocity and Diverse Perspectives: Transactive discussions are not about one person imparting knowledge to another; they’re about creating a space where all participants can contribute to and learn from each other. This mutual engagement is characterized by:

• Reciprocity in Dialogue: In a transactive discussion, there’s a balanced exchange of ideas. Participants take turns leading, responding, questioning, and building on each other’s contributions. This reciprocal nature ensures that all voices are heard and that learning emerges from the interplay of diverse perspectives.
• Respect for Different Viewpoints: Transactive discussions encourage learners to value and consider alternative viewpoints, even when those viewpoints differ from their own. This open-mindedness is essential for fostering critical thinking, promoting creativity, and arriving at more comprehensive and well-supported conclusions.
• Joint Responsibility for Learning: In a transactive discussion, learning is a collective endeavor. Participants share responsibility for advancing the conversation, clarifying misunderstandings, and co-constructing knowledge. This shared responsibility fosters a sense of ownership and agency, leading to more engaged and motivated learners.

Benefits for Transactive discussion:

Transactive discussion as a mechanism for co-construction of knowledge: Transactive discussion provides the framework for co-construction through social interaction and dialogue.

For example, when learners engage in justification, they must articulate their reasoning, make their thinking visible to others, and open it up for scrutiny.

This process of making thinking external, of explaining “how” and “why,” is crucial for moving learners beyond their current understandings and toward new insights.

Transactive challenges as catalysts for metacognitive activity:  In collaborative ZPDs, challenge doesn’t necessarily come from a more knowledgeable other but arises organically from the interaction itself.

When learners engage in transactive discussion, they naturally challenge each other’s ideas, pushing for clarification, elaboration, and justification.

This process of questioning and probing acts as a catalyst for metacognitive activity, prompting learners to reflect on their own thinking, identify potential errors, and refine their understanding.

The absence of such challenges, conversely, can lead to unsuccessful collaboration, as learners miss out on opportunities to deepen their understanding through dialogue and mutual critique.

Creating a shared conceptual space: Transactive discussion plays a crucial role in establishing a shared understanding in collaborative problem-solving.

Through clarification and elaboration, learners ensure they are working from a common ground, that they have a shared understanding of the problem, and that they are using terminology in a mutually agreed-upon way.

This shared conceptual space is essential for meaningful collaboration, as it allows learners to build on each other’s ideas, identify and address misunderstandings, and work together toward a solution.

Moving beyond individual limitations: The concept of a collaborative ZPD recognizes that individuals, even those with similar levels of expertise, can achieve more together than they can alone. Transactive discussion provides the mechanism for this collective advancement.

By pooling their knowledge, challenging each other’s assumptions, and engaging in joint problem-solving, learners can push past their individual limitations and reach new levels of understanding that would not be possible in isolation.

This is not merely a matter of one learner providing support to another but a truly reciprocal process, with all participants contributing to and benefiting from the interaction.

5. Inquiry-Based Learning

Inquiry-based learning is an educational approach where students drive their own learning through questions, research, and problem-solving.

Inquiry-based learning is typically more structured and guided, whereas discovery learning often involves less teacher intervention.

In this method, learners explore topics or issues by posing questions, investigating, drawing conclusions, and reflecting on their findings.

Teachers act as facilitators, guiding students through the inquiry process rather than directly providing information.

This approach emphasizes critical thinking, evidence-based reasoning, and the development of research skills.

Practical challenges:

One significant challenge lies in effectively supporting students as they navigate the complexities of the inquiry process.

Students often require support in managing the multiple processes involved in inquiry, making sense of their work, and articulating their findings.

Students may struggle with process management, sense-making, and articulation in inquiry-based learning.

Another challenge is ensuring that students internalize the skills and knowledge acquired through inquiry-based learning. The ultimate goal of scaffolding is to guide students towards independent learning, enabling them to apply learned skills in novel situations.

Implementing inquiry-based learning environments:

Implementing inquiry-based learning environments requires thoughtful planning and organization.

Teachers should create flexible physical spaces that encourage collaboration and provide access to diverse resources.

The curriculum needs to be designed around essential questions, allowing for multiple paths of inquiry.

Educators must prepare open-ended questions and scaffolding strategies to guide students while developing their research and critical thinking skills.

Technology integration is crucial for research, collaboration, and presentation of findings. Assessment should focus on both process and product, incorporating peer and self-evaluation.

Fostering a classroom culture that embraces risk-taking and values student voice is important. Time management is key, allowing for extended inquiry periods and reflection. Involving parents and community members can enrich the learning experience.

Finally, continuous reflection and refinement of practices ensure the ongoing effectiveness of the inquiry-based approach.

6. Integrating Scaffolding and Discovery Learning

Scaffolding and discovery learning represent distinct but potentially complementary approaches to teaching and learning.

• Scaffolding : Providing temporary support to students as they learn new skills or concepts.
• Discovery Learning : Encouraging students to explore and construct knowledge independently through inquiry and experimentation.

In contrast to the explicitly guided nature of scaffolding, discovery learning emphasizes learner-driven exploration and construction of knowledge through active engagement with the learning environment.

In discovery learning, learners are encouraged to experiment, solve problems, and draw connections between prior knowledge and new experiences, fostering deeper understanding and independent thinking skills.

Even in learner-centered discovery environments, carefully structured scaffolding can support learners’ exploration and knowledge construction.

Teachers can provide scaffolding during discovery activities through open-ended questions, prompts that encourage reflection, and the introduction of tools and resources that support learners’ investigations.

Open-ended Questions

• Encourage deeper thinking without leading to specific answers
• “What patterns do you notice?”
• “How might this apply to other situations?”
• “What would happen if we changed this variable?”

Prompts for Reflection

• Guide students to think about their learning process
• “What strategy did you use to solve this problem?”
• “How does this new information relate to what you already knew?”
• “What surprised you about your findings?”

Research Evidence

Freund (1990) wanted to investigate if children learn more effectively via Piaget’s concept of discovery learning or guided learning via the ZPD.

She asked a group of children between the ages of three and five years to help a puppet decide which furniture should be placed in the various rooms of a doll’s house. First, Freund assessed what each child already understood about the placement of furniture (as a baseline measure).

Next, each child worked on a similar task, either alone (re: discovery-based learning) or with their mother (re: scaffolding / guided learning). To assess what each child had learned, they were each given a more complex, furniture sorting task.

The study’s results showed that children assisted by their mothers performed better at furniture sorting than the children who worked independently.

Examples of ZPD

Maria just entered college this semester and decided to take an introductory tennis course.  Her class spends each week learning and practicing a different shot.  Weeks go by, and they learn how to properly serve and hit a backhand.

During the week of learning the forehand, the instructor noticed that Maria was very frustrated because she kept hitting her forehand shots either into the net or far past the baseline.

He examines her preparation and swing.  He notices that her stance is perfect, she prepares early, she turns her torso appropriately, and she hits the ball at precisely the right height.

However, he notices that she is still gripping her racquet the same way she hits her backhand, so he goes over to her and shows her how to reposition her hand to hit a proper forehand, stressing that she should keep her index finger parallel to the racquet.

He models a good forehand for her, and then assists her in changing her grip. With a little practice, Maria’s forehand turns into a formidable weapon for her!

In this case, Maria was in the zone of proximal development for successfully hitting a forehand shot.  She was doing everything else correctly, but just needed a little coaching and scaffolding from a “More Knowledgeable Other” to help her succeed in this task.

When that assistance was given, she was able to achieve her goal. Provided with appropriate support at the right moments, students in classrooms will be able to achieve tasks that would otherwise be too difficult for them.

Clinical psychology trainees at the Center for Children and Families at Florida International University are trained using approaches aligned with Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (Hong & del Busto, 2020).

• Trainees are paired with more senior trainees (e.g., a first-year student with a second or third-year student) for co-therapy sessions. The senior trainee scaffolds the junior trainee’s learning by initially taking the lead and modeling skills, then gradually encouraging the junior trainee to become more independent in leading sessions as they demonstrate competence.
• This allows trainees to be involved in clinical care early in their training, with support and coaching from a more experienced peer. It meets them in their zone of proximal development – what they can do with guidance vs what they cannot yet do independently.
• Supervisors assign trainees different roles based on experience level. More senior trainees are given opportunities to develop supervisory skills by training junior peers. Junior trainees are supported in gaining clinical skills.
• The zone of proximal development concept is applied not just for patients in case conceptualization but also for trainees’ own professional development. Supervisors provide individualized support and scaffolding to help each trainee progress.

Social interaction, aided by cultural tools, supports teachers in developing new aspects of their practice and identity. The interpersonal activity facilitates the transformation of their teaching expertise.

This demonstrates the value of mediation through the ZPD (Shabani et al., 2010).

• Collaborative peers and mentors : Observing and discussing teaching practices with experienced colleagues helps teachers learn new instructional approaches and strategies. This social exchange facilitates development within their ZPD.
• Action research : By studying their own teaching through classroom inquiry, teachers can gain insights into improving their methods. The self-reflection shifts their ZPD forward.
• Diaries : Writing reflectively about teaching experiences enables teachers to analyze their development and assumptions. This metacognition expands their ZPD.
• Technology : Using digital tools and platforms introduces teachers to innovative teaching techniques. The technology mediates new pedagogical capabilities.
• TESOL discourse : Engaging with academic research and theory opens teachers to alternative perspectives on teaching and learning. This discourse stretches their ZPD.
• Coursework : Formal professional development courses scaffold teachers’ learning of new knowledge and competencies. The instruction targets their ZPD.
• Student data : Responses and achievement metrics provide feedback to teachers on areas needing growth. This evidence shifts teachers’ self-perception.

Behrend, S. D. (1990). Understanding processes in children’s collaborative problem solving. Unpublished manuscript. University of Pittsburgh.

Berk, L., & Winsler, A. (1995). Scaffolding children’s learning: Vygotsky and early childhood learning. Washington, DC: National Association for Education of Young Children.

Bruner, J. S. (1985). Vygotsky: A historical and conceptual perspective. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 21–34). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Cazden, C. (1979). Peekaboo as an instructional model: Discourse development at home and at school. Stanford Papers and Reports in Child Language Development, 17, 1–19. 

Cho, B.-Y., & Lee, H.-J. (2020). Exploring the use of scaffolding strategies in a virtual learning environment: A sociocultural perspective. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58 (3), 523-545.

Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs . Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Dixon-Krauss, L. (1996). Vygotsky in the classroom. Mediated literacy instruction and assessment. White Plains, NY: Longman Publishers.

Eun, B. (2019). The zone of proximal development as an overarching concept: A framework for synthesizing Vygotsky’s theories. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 51 (1), 18-30.

Goos, M., Galbraith, P., & Renshaw, P. (2002). Socially mediated metacognition: Creating collaborative zones of proximal development in small group problem solving.  Educational Studies in Mathematics ,  49 , 193-223.

Fawcett, L. M., & Garton, A. F. (2005). The effect of peer collaboration on children’s problem-solving ability. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75 (2), 157-169.

Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Hoffman, M. B. (1981). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The learning potential assessment device, theory, instruments and techniques.  International Journal of Rehabilitation Research ,  4 (3), 465-466.

Freund, L. S. (1990). Maternal Regulation of Children’s Problem-solving behavior and Its Impact on Children’s Performance. Child Development , 61, 113-126.

Hong, N., & del Busto, C. T. (2020). Collaboration, scaffolding, and successive approximations: A developmental science approach to training in clinical psychology.  Training and Education in Professional Psychology ,  14 (3), 228.

Kruger, A. C., & Tomasello, M. (1986). Transactive discussions with peers and adults.  Developmental Psychology ,  22 (5), 681.

Leontyev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind.  Moscow: Progress Publishers

Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach . Routledge.

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.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context . Oxford: Oxford University Press

Shabani, K., Khatib, M., & Ebadi, S. (2010). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development: Instructional implications and teachers’ professional development.  English Language Teaching ,  3 (4), 237-248.

Silver, D. (2011). Using the ‘Zone’Help Reach Every Learner. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 47(sup1) , 28-31.

Stone, C. A. (1998). Should we salvage the scaffolding metaphor?.  Journal of learning disabilities ,  31 (4), 409-413.

Stone, C. A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities.  Journal of learning disabilities ,  31 (4), 344-364.

Tudge, J. R. (1992). Processes and consequences of peer collaboration: A Vygotskian analysis.  Child development ,  63 (6), 1364-1379.

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.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wass, R., & Golding, C. (2014). Sharpening a tool for teaching: the zone of proximal development.  Teaching in Higher Education ,  19 (6), 671-684.

Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Child Psychiatry , 17, 89−100.

Wood, D., & Middleton, D. (1975). A study of assisted problem-solving. British Journal of Psychology , 66(2), 181−191.

Further Reading

• Educational implications of Vygotsky’s ZPD
• Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development: Instructional Implications and Teachers” Professional Development
• Scaffolds for Learning: The Key to Guided Instruction

Scaffolding in Teacher–Student Interaction: A Decade of Research

• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 29 April 2010
• Volume 22 , pages 271–296, ( 2010 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Janneke van de Pol 1 ,
• Monique Volman 1 &
• Jos Beishuizen 2  

145k Accesses

791 Citations

33 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Although scaffolding is an important and frequently studied concept, much discussion exists with regard to its conceptualizations, appearances, and effectiveness. Departing from the last decade’s scaffolding literature, this review scrutinizes these three areas of scaffolding. First, contingency, fading, and transfer of responsibility are discerned in this review as the three key characteristics of scaffolding. Second, an overview is presented of the numerous descriptive studies that provided narratives on the appearances of scaffolding and classifications of scaffolding strategies. These strategies are synthesized into a framework for analysis, distinguishing between scaffolding means and intentions . Third, the small number of effectiveness studies available is discussed and the results suggest that scaffolding is effective. However, more research is needed. The main challenge in scaffolding research appears to be its measurement. Based on the encountered and described measurement problems, suggestions for future research are made.

Similar content being viewed by others

Scaffolding: Definition, Current Debates, and Future Directions

Instructors’ conceptualization and implementation of scaffolding in online higher education courses

Vygotsky and a Global Perspective on Scaffolding in Learning Mathematics

Explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

The concept of scaffolding has received a great deal of attention in educational research over the past few decades. An abundance of research on scaffolding in different contexts is thus the result. Scaffolding highlights one of the key aspects of children’s learning, namely that it is often “guided by others” (Stone 1998a , p. 351).

Scaffolding is typically associated with the socio-cultural theory of Vygotsky. Wood et al . ( 1976 ) adopted the scaffolding metaphor to explain the role that adults can play in joint problem-solving activities with children. Borrowed from the field of construction, where a scaffold is a temporary structure erected to help with the building or modification of another structure, the use of scaffolding as a metaphor within the domain of learning refers to the temporary support provided for the completion of a task that learners otherwise might not be able to complete. This support can be provided in a variety of manners that for example includes modeling and the posing of questions for different subjects (e.g., science, social studies) at different ages.

Stone ( 1993 ) described a Vygotskian-inspired analysis of scaffolding. According to Vygotsky, learning first takes place on a social (intermental) level before it takes place on an individual (intramental) level. In Stone’s view, the student is not a passive participant in teacher–student interaction but scaffolding is seen as a fluid, interpersonal process in which both participants are active participants. Both participants actively build common understanding or intersubjectivity through communicative exchanges in which the student learns from the perspective of the more knowledgeable other.

Because scaffolding is such a dynamic intervention finely tuned to the learner’s ongoing progress, the support given by the teacher during scaffolding strongly depends upon the characteristics of the situation like the type of task (e.g., well-structured versus ill-structured) and the responses of the student. Therefore, scaffolding does never look the same in different situations and it is not a technique that can be applied in every situation in the same way.

Cazden ( 1979 ) related Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) early on to scaffolding and suggested that the metaphor be expanded from the domain of parent–child interactions to teacher–student interactions. The ZPD is characterized by Vygotsky ( 1978 ) as: “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (p. 86).

More recently, some authors have argued that the concept of scaffolding has been applied too broadly in educational and psychological research. Pea ( 2004 ) even claimed that “the concept of scaffolding has become so broad in its meanings in the field of educational research and the learning sciences that it has become unclear in its significance.” Puntambekar and Hübscher ( 2005 ) similarly contend that “the scaffolding construct is increasingly being used synonymously with support.” (p. 1). In the frequently cited work of Stone ( 1998a , b ), the utility of the scaffolding metaphor is critically considered. Stone concludes that, in many studies, the metaphor has been removed from its original theoretical context and that this has led to the use of scaffolding as a teacher-initiated, directive instructional strategy that is actually in conflict with the more responsive socio-historical background for the metaphor. Nevertheless, Stone argues in favor of salvaging the scaffolding metaphor without losing sight of its theoretical background in which the student is seen as an active participant. To stay close to this idea of scaffolding, the focus of this review lies on scaffolding in face-to-face interactions (and in particular teacher–student interactions).

Stone ( 1998a ) discussed several studies on scaffolding on teacher–child interactions in which scaffolding was found to be effective. However, these studies were largely observational (e.g., Cazden 1979 ; Langer and Applebee 1986 ; Englert 1992 ; Fleer 1992 ). Virtually no (quasi-) experimental studies were found, and different definitions of scaffolding were used across the several studies. An exception is the work of Palincsar and Brown ( 1984 ) and Palincsar ( 1986 , 1991 ) in which scaffolding is systematically examined via both single-subject and comparative group designs and found to be effective in the context of Reciprocal Teaching. Although scaffolding has continued to be a frequently studied concept since 1998, no systematic review of the literature on scaffolding in teacher–student interaction has been performed since then. The goal of this review is therefore to provide an overview of research on scaffolding in the classroom of the last decade, particularly with regard to its conceptualization, appearances, and effectiveness.

After characterizing the concept of scaffolding and its appearances, a guiding framework will be presented that serves the purpose of analyzing scaffolding but is also an organizing device for the remainder of the review. Thereafter, the descriptive studies are described, since this constituted the majority of the encountered studies. Next, studies on the effectiveness of scaffolding are examined. Finally, the major problem related to scaffolding research—its measurement—is explored and suggestions are made for future scaffolding research.

The literature search for the present review was performed in October 2009. The following databases were searched: Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Educational Resources Information Centre, and PsycINFO. Articles were included when they were (a) SSCI listed; (b) written in English; (c) published between 1998 and 2009; (d) provided a definition or description of scaffolding in the theoretical, methodological, or results sections of the article or refers to Wood et al . ( 1976 ); (e) concerned primary or secondary education; and (f) concerned ‘human’ scaffolding in face-to-face contact. “Scaffold*” was the main search term, and all articles that were found to include this term in the title or in the abstract and met the aforementioned criteria were selected for inclusion in the review. That is, what the authors of the reviewed articles considered scaffolding was used for the conduct of the search and inclusion in the present review and not the characterizations presented later in this article. The articles were analyzed using the following categories: domain, measurement of scaffolding, the dependent variable (only for the effectiveness studies), the type of task, and the goals and means of scaffolding studied. Because scaffolding is so situation specific, the context of each empirical study (i.e., the descriptive and effectiveness studies that use empirical data) in this review will be made explicit by summarizing the aforementioned information in the appendices.

This search resulted in 66 articles of which 27 were theoretical, 26 descriptive, eight effectiveness studies, four editorial introductions of thematic issues, and one meta-analytical. The vast interest in scaffolding in educational research in the last decade is clearly indicated by the finding of four thematic issues on scaffolding: Journal of the Learning Disabilities , 31(4), 1998; Journal of the Learning Sciences , 13 (3), 2004; Instructional Science , 33(5/6) 2005; and New Ideas in Psychology , 23(3), 2005.

Profile of the research

The majority of the theoretical studies focuses on the conceptualization or the metaphor of scaffolding. Scaffolding appears to be most fully developed in the field of literacy (Clark and Graves 2005 ; Pardo 2004 ; Smith 2006 ). Clark and Graves ( 2005 ) provide an overview of several instructional frameworks on literacy (text comprehension) that includes the idea of scaffolding such as Reciprocal Teaching, the Scaffolded Reading Experience, and Direct Explanation of Comprehension Strategies. Clark and Graves ( 2005 ) and Pardo ( 2004 ) also implemented the useful Gradual Release of Responsibility Model (Pearson and Gallagher 1983 ) that involves three phases, namely: (1) teacher responsibility, (2) joint responsibility, and (3) student responsibility. Some authors describe the application of the concept of scaffolding to other areas such as moral development education (Turner and Berkowitz 2005 ) and the value aspects of motivation in education (Brophy 1999 ).

Most empirical studies are small-scaled, descriptive studies with or without an intervention. The majority of these studies focus again on literacy, followed by math and science. One-to-one interactions are studied the least, whole-class and small-group interactions to a greater but similar extent. A small amount of studies investigate the effectiveness of scaffolding.

Characterizations of scaffolding

No consensus exists with respect to the definition of scaffolding, and some authors even criticize the metaphor of scaffolding as a whole (e.g., Aukerman 2007 ; Butler 1998 ; Donahue and Lopez-Reyna 1998 ; Scruggs and Mastropieri 1998 ). These authors contend that the metaphor implies a predefined building and a more student-centered perspective on learning was then pleaded for: Each student’s “building” is different. Following Stone ( 1998a , b ), scaffolding is viewed in this review as an interactive process that occurs between teacher and student who must both participate actively in the process.

Despite the many different definitions of scaffolding encountered, some clearly common characteristics can be distinguished as summarized below. These common characteristics are summarized in a conceptual model, depicted in Fig.  1 . In general, scaffolding is construed as support given by a teacher to a student when performing a task that the student might otherwise not be able to accomplish.

Conceptual model of scaffolding

The first common characteristic in the various definitions of scaffolding is contingency often referred to as responsiveness, tailored, adjusted, differentiated, titrated, or calibrated support. The teacher’s support must be adapted to the current level of the student’s performance and should either be at the same or a slightly higher level. A teacher acts contingently when he/she adapts the support in one way or another to a (group of) student(s). A tool for contingency is diagnostic strategies. To provide contingent support, that is, one must first determine the student’s current level of competence. Only with such knowledge can the support to be provided be adapted to the student’s level of learning (i.e., made contingent). Many authors have acknowledged the importance of diagnosis in relation to scaffolding and was referred to as: dynamic assessment (Lajoie 2005 ; Macrine and Sabbatino 2008 ; Pea 2004 ; Swanson and Lussier 2001 ), formative assessment (Shepard 2005 ), online diagnosis (Palincsar and Brown 1984 ), or monitoring and checking students’ understanding (Garza 2009 ).

The second common characteristic is fading or the gradual withdrawal of the scaffolding. The rate of fading depends upon the child’s level of development and competence. A teacher is fading when the level and/or the amount of support is decreased over time.

Fading of the scaffolding is strongly related to the third common characteristic, namely the transfer of responsibility . Via contingent fading, that is, responsibility for the performance of a task is gradually transferred to the learner. Responsibility is interpreted in this review in a broad sense: it can refer to students’ cognitive or metacognitive activities or to students’ affect. The responsibility for learning is transferred when a student takes increasing learner control.

Thus, in contrast to some authors (e.g., Valsiner and van der Veer 1993 ) who criticize the scaffolding metaphor for focusing only on completing the task, we think of scaffolding as a teaching method that can focus on the development of the child in all its different facets. If a student, for example, works on a series of tasks and the teacher adapts the support responsively to the understanding of the student, the teacher is teaching contingently. If the student gains understanding, the teacher can fade the support over time. While fading the support, the teacher can also transfer the responsibility to the student so that the learner will take more and more control over his/her learning.

Many of the reviewed articles propose specific scaffolding means such as modeling or questioning. However, the use of such strategies does not automatically imply the occurrence of scaffolding, since an interaction in which one of the aforementioned strategies occurs can only be considered scaffolding when the interaction is also characterized by the three key characteristics of scaffolding, namely: contingency, fading, and transfer of responsibility. That is, for scaffolding to occur, the teacher must apply scaffolding strategies that are clearly contingent (i.e., based upon student responses). This support must be faded over time with, as a result, increased student responsibility for the task at hand, as is depicted in Fig.  1 .

While Stone ( 1998a ) has noted that little attention has been paid to the processes by which scaffolding works, quite some authors focused on this subject in the last decade. Certain authors have suggested, for example, that the learner’s cognitive load is reduced with the aid of scaffolding and that this thus allows the learner to perform parts of a task that he or she would otherwise not be able to perform (e.g., Myhill and Warren 2005 ; Turner et al . 1998 ; Van Merriënboer et al . 2003 ). According to Goodwin (2001; cited in Myhill & Warren, p. 68), teachers “lend their mental capacities to learners in order to support and shape learning.”

Another scaffolding process, which is sometimes mentioned, is internalization of the support provided (e.g., Stone 1998a ). The learner internalizes the support structure associated with the scaffolding and, in the end, teacher scaffolding is no longer needed as the learner can provide his or her own support. According to Stone ( 1998a ), the learner does not literally internalize a support structure or scaffolding interchange but, rather, appropriates the essence of a support structure or scaffolding interchange. While van Geert and Steenbeek ( 2005 ) espoused an internalization viewpoint that they refer to as interiorization, they also called for a more detailed model of the relevant processes. Other authors emphasized the importance of a common understanding or so-called intersubjectivity (e.g., Biemiller and Meichenbaum 1998 ; Granott 2005 ; Mascolo 2005 ; Palincsar 1998 ; Puntambekar and Hübscher 2005 ; Rasmussen 2001 ; Vacca 2008 ) or shared meaning (Tabak and Baumgartner 2004 ).

Finally, Mertzman ( 2008 ), Oh ( 2005 ), Meskill ( 2005 ), and Reigosa and Jimenez-Aleixandre ( 2007 ) included the successfulness of scaffolding in their definition of scaffolding, that is, scaffolding that does not work cannot—according to these authors—be termed scaffolding.

Towards a framework for the analysis of scaffolding

While scaffolding strategies are only a part of the cyclic scaffolding process, as can be seen in Fig.  1 , the focus of many articles is on these scaffolding strategies. Although there is a widespread interest in scaffolding strategies as opposed to—for instance—diagnostic strategies, and many valuable classifications have already been made in the last decade, no generally accepted framework for the analysis of these strategies is yet available. To get a grip on the appearances that scaffolding took in the last decades’ research and to seek to organize these appearances, it was decided to develop such a framework for analyzing scaffolding strategies that synthesizes the existing strategies and classifications (see Table  1 ).

Two important scaffolding classifications were taken as the starting point for the framework, namely those of Tharp and Gallimore ( 1988 ) and Wood et al . ( 1976 ). Tharp and Gallimore speak of six means of “assisting performance”: modeling, contingency management, feeding back, instructing, questioning, and cognitive structuring. Wood et al . speak of six scaffolding functions: recruitment, reduction of degrees of freedom, direction maintenance, marking critical features, frustration control, and demonstration. In the last decade, some authors started to see the value of a further distinction in scaffolding strategies, namely the distinction between tools or means for scaffolding ( how is scaffolding taking place) and the goals or intentions ( what is scaffolded) of scaffolding (e.g., Many 2002 ; Silliman et al . 2000 ). This distinction into means and intentions enables us to look more precisely at interactions and results in more nuanced descriptions of teacher–student interactions.

Both the valuable classifications of Wood et al . ( 1976 ) and Tharp and Gallimore ( 1988 ), and the distinction between means and intentions are espoused to arrive at an integrative framework for analysis of scaffolding strategies that distinguishes five scaffolding intentions and six scaffolding means. This framework is useful both for organizing this review and for the future analysis of scaffolding strategies. For all empirical studies discussed in this review, the intentions (metacognitive, cognitive, or affect) and means (feeding back, hints, instructing, explaining, modeling, and questioning) that are studied are presented in the appendices.

Six scaffolding intentions are distinguished. Direction maintenance (A) refers to keeping the learning on target and maintaining the learner’s pursuit of a particular objective. This intention is of a largely metacognitive nature. When the scaffolding intention is cognitive structuring (B), the teacher provides “explanatory and belief structures that organize and justify” (Tharp and Gallimore 1988 , p. 63). Reduction of the degrees of freedom (C) entails taking over those parts of a task that the student is not yet able to perform and thereby simplification of the task for the student. Cognitive structuring and reduction of the degrees of freedom are mainly undertaken to aid the cognitive activities of learners. Finally, two scaffolding intentions concerned with learner affect can be distinguished: recruitment and contingency management/frustration control. Recruitment (D) refers to getting students interested in a task and helping them adhere to the requirements of the task. Contingency management/frustration control (E) concerns the facilitation of student performance via a system of rewards and punishments as well as keeping students motivated via the prevention or minimalization of frustration.

Six scaffolding means to support the learning activities of the student are further distinguished. Feeding back (1) involves the provision of information regarding the student’s performance to the student him/herself. The giving of hints (2) entails the provision of clues or suggestions by the teacher to help the student go forward. The teacher deliberately does not supply the entire solution or detailed instructions under such circumstances. Instructing (3) involves the teacher telling the students what to do or explanation of how something must be done and why. Explaining (4) refers to the provision of more detailed information or clarification by the teacher. Modeling (5) (i.e., Wood et al .’s ( 1976 ) demonstration category) is “the process of offering behavior for imitation” (Tharp and Gallimore 1988 , p. 47). This can include the demonstration of particular skills. Finally, questioning (6) involves asking students questions that require an active linguistic and cognitive answer. Whether a teaching strategy qualifies as scaffolding generally depends upon its enactment in actual practice and more specifically upon whether the strategy is applied contingently and whether it is also part of a process of fading and transfer of responsibility.

Any combination of a scaffolding means with scaffolding intention can be construed as a scaffolding strategy. The number of scaffolding strategies mentioned in the reviewed articles is enormous and, in fact, too great to summarize fully here. However, some examples may be illustrative. Modeling is a frequently mentioned means of scaffolding (e.g., Hmelo-Silver et al . 2007 ; Hung 1999 ; Lee 2001 ; Silliman et al . 2000 ; Smith 2006 ; Yelland and Masters 2007 ). Brophy ( 1999 ) describes the use of modeling to scaffold several types of student activities. First, the modeling of strategies for the learning of key ideas is mentioned as a means to scaffold the metacognitive activities of students together with the intention of direction maintenance. Second, the modeling of key ideas is described as a means to scaffold the cognitive activities of students together with the intentions of cognitive structuring or reduction of the degrees of freedom. Finally, the modeling or presentation of the reasons for why something is worth learning is mentioned as a means to scaffold student affect together with the intentions of recruitment or frustration control. In other words, certain scaffolding means can be used to support different scaffolding intentions.

It should be noted that classification of the strategy utilized by the teacher under a particular set of circumstances largely depends upon the responses of the students as also depicted in the conceptual model of scaffolding presented in Fig.  1 . A question, for instance, can only be considered a question when the student responds to it as such.

Both the presented conceptual model of scaffolding and framework for the analysis of scaffolding strategies (Fig.  1 and Table  1 ) can be used to study scaffolding in future research. In discussing respectively the descriptive and effectiveness studies, the three key characteristics of scaffolding (i.e., contingency, fading, and transfer of responsibility) and the different means and intentions (on a general level—metacognitive, cognitive, and affective) studied will be referred to.

Outcomes of descriptive studies

The goal of most of the descriptive studies was to explore, describe, examine, analyze, and identify types of, or develop an understanding of scaffolding, mainly in the domain of literacy (e.g., Cole 2006 ; Lee 2001 ; McIntyre 2007 ; Meskill 2005 ). Though most studies focused on subject-matter learning, some studies focused on other matters such as engagement (Lutz et al . 2006 ) or identity formation (Tabak and Baumgartner 2004 ). In Appendix  1 , more detailed information on the characteristics of the empirical descriptive studies discussed in this section (domain, measurement of scaffolding, the type of task, and the intentions and means studied as derived from Table  1 ) can be found. Most studies used a Grounded Theory approach (Glaser and Strauss 1967 ) to analyze the data and resulted in numerous rich descriptions of scaffolding in the classroom (e.g., Garza 2009 ; Rueda et al . 2004 ). Sometimes, scaffolding was described within a broader framework such as Reciprocal Teaching (Hacker and Tenent 2002 ).

Besides rich descriptions of scaffolding in the classroom, lists of scaffolding strategies or techniques that were used by ‘ordinary’ teachers (e.g., Mertzman 2008 ), or ‘effective’ or ‘high scope’ teachers (Pressley et al . 2001 ; Wharton-McDonald et al . 1998 ), were another common result of the descriptive studies. Mertzman ( 2008 ), for example, examined the ways in which four elementary school teachers scaffolded the literacy of their pupils (5–8 years old) and reported the following scaffolding techniques: modeling, scolds, praise, repetition, explanations of the answer, convergent questions, focus on meaning, and focus on word recognition and phonics. As mentioned in the previous section, some other authors discerned explicitly or implicitly between the focus of scaffolding; what is scaffolded and the means or tools for scaffolding; how scaffolding is performed (e.g., Maloch 2002 ; Many 2002 ; Postholm 2006 ; Rodgers 2004 ; Silliman et al . 2000 ; Wu and Krajcik 2006 ; Yelland and Masters 2007 ). Many ( 2002 ), for example, described what was scaffolded by two literacy teachers in third, fourth, and fifth grade (conceptual understanding and strategy use) and how it was scaffolded (e.g., modeling, supplying information, clarifying, assisting, questioning, prompting).

Scaffolding researchers in the last decade mainly sought to observe and describe the classroom practices of teachers in order to get a grip on the process and appearances of scaffolding. This frequent use of such a bottom-up approach, which is most common in the scaffolding research of the last decade, indicates that this descriptive stage is the current stage of scaffolding research. Because of the many useful descriptions and classifications, we now have come to a point that we can study scaffolding in a more top-down manner by using the existing scaffolding literature.

An example of one of the few studies that has used a predefined coding scheme to analyze scaffolding is the study of Meyer and Turner ( 2002 ). They discerned between scaffolding and non-scaffolding and within scaffolding between supportive/non-supportive. Although the teachers taught the same lessons, very dissimilar patterns in the teaching of the nine elementary school math teachers were found ranging from many supportive and few non-supportive patterns to almost as many supportive as non-supportive patterns. The fact that not so many authors have used a predefined coding scheme seems to indicate that researchers were mainly searching to observe and describe the classroom practices in order to get a grip on the process and appearance of scaffolding.

Although scaffolding was in many studies equated with (almost) any support given by the teacher, the key characteristics of scaffolding are starting to get more emphasis in the scaffolding research. The first key characteristic, i.e., contingency , was operationalized by for example Maloch ( 2008 ), Myhill and Warren ( 2005 ), Nathan and Kim ( 2009 ), Oh ( 2005 ), and Rodgers ( 2004 ). They focused on the adaptation of the teacher’s support to (a group of) student(s). Oh, for example, used the relatively strict definition of scaffolding adopted from Maybin et al . ( 1992 ) to focus on contingency. This definition clearly dictated which interactions were qualified as scaffolding and which were not: There had to be evidence that the mentor’s support was tuned in to the learner’s present state of understanding, that the learner accomplished the task with the mentor’s situated help, and that the learner performed the task independently. Nathan and Kim ( 2009 ) found that the teacher did not adapt the cognitive complexity level of his elicitations to the nature of the students’ answers (correct/incorrect/partially correct). In Oh and Myhill and Warren, scaffolding was found to be scarce. Myhill and Warren point at the fact that teaching in a contingent manner is so difficult because a teacher has to attend to 30 pupils at the same time.

The second key characteristic of scaffolding, i.e., fading, was operationalized by for example Maloch ( 2002 ). She examined the role of the teacher in literature discussions and found that gradual handover of responsibility was one of the features of scaffolding. This refers both to fading and to transfer of responsibility.

The third key characteristic of scaffolding, transfer of responsibility, was operationalized, for example, by Reigosa and Jimenez-Aleixandre ( 2007 ). They focused on transfer of responsibility in science small-group work (10th grade). The level of autonomous competence dictated whether scaffolding took place or not; the students had to be able to progress independently after they were supported by the teacher. This hardly occurred, due to excessive task difficulty, a school culture that was not related to scaffolding and small-group communication difficulties. Some studies gave a more descriptive account of this aspect of scaffolding, such as Aukerman ( 2007 ).

The variety of descriptive studies offers rich narratives of scaffolding in the classroom. It shows the appearances that scaffolding can take in many different contexts and informs us on the many strategies that can be used. Contingency of support was operationalized relatively often compared to fading and transfer of responsibility. Some studies found indications of the effectiveness of scaffolding in specific contexts but to learn more about the effectiveness of scaffolding, (quasi-) experimental studies and correlational studies are considered in the next section.

Effectiveness of scaffolding

Scaffolding is often presented as an effective instructional method (e.g., Cole 2006 ; Hogan and Pressley 1997 ; Pawan 2008 ). In this section, those studies that took up the challenge of studying the effectiveness of scaffolding, will be discussed. In Appendix  2 , information on several characteristics of the studies (domain, measurement of scaffolding, the dependent variable, type of task, and the intentions and means studied as derived from Table  1 ) can be found. Following Shavelson and Towne ( 2002 ), experimental (random assignment to conditions, all but the independent variables are kept equal between conditions), quasi-experimental (when no random assignment is possible, all but the independent variables are kept equal between conditions), and certain correlational studies (regressions) are included here in this discussion on effectiveness because these allow for causal conclusions. Although other types of studies such as descriptive studies can inform us very well on the processes of scaffolding, they do not allow for causal conclusions. To evaluate the effectiveness of scaffolding, the focus should obviously be upon student outcomes. Nonetheless, just how the effectiveness of scaffolding is evaluated also depends upon—among other things—the objectives set by the authors. These objectives mainly relate to the metacognitive or cognitive activities of students or their affect, as also distinguished in Table  1 . In discussing the studies, the scaffolding strategies (Table  1 ) and the key characteristics of scaffolding, i.e., contingency, fading, and transfer of responsibility (Fig.  1 ), will be referred to if examined.

Effectiveness with respect to metacognitive activities of students

Mercer et al . ( 2004 ) showed the effectiveness of the ‘Thinking Together’ program in which teachers promote ‘Exploratory Talk’ in teacher-led and group-based interactions in science class. In this program, the students learned strategies for reasoning together in small groups such as that all relevant information should be shared and everyone should make his/her opinion clear. The teachers scaffolded the students by asking constructive questions and modeling problem-solving skills during 12 lessons. Each lesson contained a specific talk skill and targeted a specific concept in science such as the topics light and sound. The students in the experimental condition ( N  = 109), in which the teachers were trained to use this program, were better able to use talk for reasoning as measured with coding the transcripts of group work than student in the control condition ( N  = 121) in which teachers received no such training. Furthermore, the students in the experimental condition made greater gains both on group and individual measurements (non-verbal reasoning measured with the Raven Progressive Matrices) than students in the control condition.

Azevedo et al . ( 2005 ) found that the learning activities of seventh and 10th grade students who received adaptive human scaffolding ( N  = 38), which consisted of support of the self-regulated learning of the student, were associated significantly more with shifts in their mental models than students who received fixed (10 domain-specific written questions) scaffolding ( N  = 34) or no (only a learning goal and instructions) scaffolding ( N  = 37) while working individually in a hypermedia learning environment on the circulatory system. Especially the students in the adaptive scaffolding condition (in which students had access to a human tutor who provided support) showed self-regulating behaviors, as concluded from coded thinking-aloud data. Students who received adaptive scaffolding or fixed scaffolding had significantly more gains in their knowledge on the human circulatory system (measured with a matching of definitions to descriptions task, labeling of parts of the circulatory system task, and an essay task) than students who received no scaffolding.

The cognitive apprenticeship model was used in Lajoie et al . ( 2001 ) when they exploratively compared the effects of scaffolding by a teacher (directive style), a researcher (coaching style), and no guidance on students’ performances while working in an online hospital simulation called ‘BioWorld’. Grade 9 students worked in pairs on several cases in which they had to collect evidence to confirm or reject their hypotheses about patients’ problems related to the digestive system. In each condition, two pairs of students were included (total N is thus 9). The teacher and researcher predominantly scaffolded students’ metacognitive activities such as search strategies by modeling what to look for in the assignments. No differences in the performance measurements (such as frequency of symptoms collected, evidence collected, diagnostic accuracy, and final arguments) between the groups were found, possibly due to the small sample size. However, the authors argue that differences in the way students acquire their knowledge are possible and should be explored in the future.

Effectiveness with respect to cognitive activities of students

In a meta-analysis of 30 studies, Swanson and Lussier ( 2001 ) evaluated the effectiveness of three types of dynamic assessment which strongly relates to contingency: scaffolding (testing the limits; scaffolding via prompting and verbal mediation steps), coaching (training and intervening), and strategy training (modeling and general feedback) for all ages and many different tasks (categorized as visual–spatial or verbal tasks). The effect sizes were found to be higher for studies on strategy training, followed by those on scaffolding, followed by those on coaching. The results of this meta-analysis thus showed that scaffolding was not the most effective method of dynamic assessment but also not the least effective method. Although inherent to a meta-analysis, only limited descriptions of the different methods were provided. This hampers the insight into the operationalizations of scaffolding.

Four effectiveness studies investigated, the effect of teacher scaffolding on the cognitive activities of students. Both Murphy and Messer ( 2000 ) and Pratt and Savoy-Levine ( 1998 ) studied the effectiveness of scaffolding using the methodology of Wood et al . ( 1978 ). In this methodology, the degree of control is contingently adapted to the level of the learner in a one-to-one tutoring situation and in keeping with the contingent-shift principle: The tutor increases support to the extent that the learner fails and decreases support to the extent that the child succeeds. Therefore, the key characteristics of contingency and fading are included in these studies.

Murphy and Messer ( 2000 ) studied the effects of scaffolding on the performance of students aged 5 to 7 years on a balance scale test using a pre–posttest design. The children either received scaffolding in a one-to-one situation ( N  = 41), worked in small groups without scaffolding ( N  = 40), or worked alone without scaffolding ( N  = 41). All children first had to balance several beams on the fulcrum, and as a posttest, the children had to balance several familiar objects (such as a pen) on the fulcrum to measure the gains and the degree of transfer. The scaffolding means consisted of, among other things, the provision of explanations, instruction, modeling, hints, and questions contingent upon the level of the individual children. Overall, more children in the scaffolding condition advanced in level of representation than children working either collaboratively or alone. However, only the difference between the scaffolding condition and the small-group condition was significant. The requirement that the scaffolding supports the child with the performance of a task that he or she would otherwise not be able to perform was operationalized explicitly in this study, which meant that the tutor let the child work alone on the task for a while in order to see whether the child could perform the task alone or not. If not, the observations were used to determine the level of the child and the level of contingent support to be provided.

Pratt and Savoy-Levine ( 1998 ) compared the pretest and posttest math performances on four long-division problems of fourth and fifth grade students directly, 1 week later, and 1 month after receiving in a one-to-one setting either fully contingent support ( N  = 8), moderate support ( N  = 8), high support ( N  = 8), partly contingent support ( N  = 8), or no support ( N  = 8). Nine levels of support were identified and the conditions differed with regard to the levels that could be used. In the fully contingent support condition, for example, all levels of support could be used as long as it was responsive to the student, whereas in the moderate support condition, only certain levels of support could be used. In the no-support condition, students did not receive any sessions between pre- and posttest. The students in the experimental conditions participated in a tutoring session in which several long-division problems were solved. Students receiving contingent support (mainly modeling and hints) were able to solve significantly more long-division problems than all of the students in the other conditions both at direct and follow-up measurement. This was one of the few studies in which the implementation of the intervention was checked. In this case, this meant that the audio-taped sessions were coded with regard to actual support provided.

The so-called cognitive apprenticeship model of Collins et al . ( 1989 ) includes scaffolding as an important component. Chiu et al . ( 2002 ) investigated the effectiveness of a cognitive apprenticeship (CA) learning context for the promotion of conceptual change with regard to the notion of chemical equilibrium. The mental models used by 10th grade high school students at pretest and posttest were coded. All students performed a series of hands-on experiments while tutored in a one-to-one setting. The students in the experimental condition were tutored by the researcher according to CA principles (such as scaffolding, coaching, modeling, etc.) and the students in the non-CA condition learned from a tutor (their teacher) without CA support. The students in the experimental condition ( N  = 20) were better capable of constructing the mental models of chemical equilibrium than the students in the control condition ( N  = 10). The effectiveness of the CA approach cannot be entirely attributed to the use of scaffolding as scaffolding was only one aspect of the CA.

The last of the four effectiveness studies on students’ cognitive activities used a within-subjects design to compare the use of different teaching styles by the same teacher over time. Chi et al . ( 2001 ) examined the tutoring provided by inexperienced tutors ( N  = 11) for eighth grade students in a one-to-one learning situation concerned with the human circulatory system. Thereafter, the tutors were instructed to adopt a more interactive or contingent tutoring style, which involved more questioning and provision of hints for the same students with avoidance of more non-interactive means of scaffolding as explaining and feeding back ( N  = 11). A greater number of scaffolding episodes were subsequently observed in a check of intervention fidelity. The students in both situations learned just as effectively, but the students in the interactive tutoring sessions were more constructive. The interactive tutoring elicited more information of the students’ understanding, which allowed the tutors to diagnose the student level of ability more accurately. The students in the interactive tutoring sessions also took greater responsibility for their learning as reflected by the greater frequency of reading aloud observed for this group and significantly higher performance on transfer questions (i.e., questions regarding issues not mentioned anywhere in the tutoring session).

Effectiveness with respect to student affect

Among others, Rosiek ( 2003 ) has noted that research on the scaffolding of student emotions or affect is scarce. Two studies on the effectiveness of scaffolding that met our criteria were encountered: one correlational study and one quasi-experimental study. In a correlational study, Turner et al . ( 1998 ) investigated the whole-class scaffolding of the involvement of fifth and sixth grade students ( N  = 42) by seven teachers. A total of 34 mathematics lessons were observed. Students’ involvement in mathematics was measured with a self-report scale. The teacher utterances were coded and a discourse coding category that reflected the use of whole-class scaffolding strategies to promote student motivation and emotion (i.e., affect) was specifically included in this study. So-called intrinsic support means (i.e., scaffolding intended to support learning goals, evoke student interest/curiosity and/or mediate frustration using questioning and feeding back) and the transfer of responsibility were found to be more often present in the high student-involvement classes than in the low student-involvement classes. A clear relation between the use of particular scaffolding strategies and the degree of student involvement was thus found.

Only one quasi-experimental study measuring the effect of scaffolding on student affect was encountered. Pratt and Savoy-Levine ( 1998 ) measured not only learning outcomes, as described above, but also the enjoyment of the students under the conditions of contingent support, moderate support, high support, partly contingent support, and no support. Enjoyment was measured with a student questionnaire (six items) utilizing a five-point rating scale. Nothing is known though about the validity and reliability of this scale. No differences were found in the degree of enjoyment experienced by the students in the different experimental conditions. However, the students in the control condition with no support scored significantly lower on the affect/enjoyment questionnaire than the students in the other conditions.

Despite the complexity of performing an effectiveness study on scaffolding, some authors took up this challenge and provided useful findings. The results of studies on students’ metacognitive and cognitive activities indicate that scaffolding is effective. The results of studies on students’ affect diverge a bit. With this somewhat limited body of effectiveness research on mainly one-to-one tutoring situations with mostly simple and straightforward tasks, future research might start to focus on more naturalistic classroom situations with all sorts of tasks.

One might wonder why this type of research is relatively scarce. Performing effectiveness studies in educational science is a complicated, time- and money-consuming endeavor. In addition, studying scaffolding in a rigorous and systematic way appears to be especially complex probably because of the complexity of a dynamic concept such as scaffolding. This also applies to the descriptive studies. Therefore, issues related to the complexity of measuring scaffolding will be explored in the next section.

The measurement of scaffolding

Scaffolding is difficult to measure due to its dynamic nature and complexity (Davis and Miyake 2004 ; Granott 2005 ; Renninger and Granott 2005 ; Renninger et al . 2005 ). That is, scaffolding entails the dynamic interaction between people functioning over time. This problem is also relevant in the dynamic assessment literature. Scaffolding is often mentioned in this strand of research as an instruction form that can be used in the intervention phase of dynamic assessment (e.g., Grigorenko 2009 ). In 1998 already, Wong suggested that—due to the complex setting in which scaffolding occurs—the measurement of scaffolding may require more than a unidimensional coding scheme (Wong 1998 ). More recently, Valsiner ( 2005 ) has gone so far as to argue that rating scales are inappropriate to measure scaffolding because they relate to static states while scaffolding is a dynamic process. Presumably due to the complexity of measuring scaffolding, most of the studies in our review were small-scaled; many were case studies or exploratory studies. In the present section, several difficulties with the measurement of scaffolding will be considered—difficulties that appear, in our opinion, to hamper research on scaffolding.

Scaffolding as an intervention

In all of the quasi-experimental studies discussed in the section on the effectiveness of scaffolding strategies above, scaffolding was an independent variable. In the studies by Murphy and Messer ( 2000 ), Pratt and Savoy-Levine ( 1998 ), Chiu et al . ( 2002 ), and Chi et al . ( 2001 ), the teachers or tutors were all instructed to apply certain scaffolding techniques or ideas. To be sure that an intervention has been adequately implemented and the effects of the intervention—or, in this case, scaffolding—are investigated, the behavior of the teacher or tutor should be measured. That is, a manipulation check should be performed to determine the fidelity of intervention implementation. The studies of Pratt and Savoy-Levine and Chi et al . reported such measurement. Pratt and Savoy-Levine coded the audio-taped sessions of the different conditions to check whether the tutor applied the contingent-shift principle, whereas Chi et al . checked the scaffolding behavior of the tutor with an elaborate coding system.

The unit of analysis

In reviewing the methods of measuring scaffolding, many different units of analysis were encountered. Almost all of the studies had a focus on dialogue although some authors emphasized that non-verbal behavior and gestures should also be taken into account (Miller 2005 ). Some studies focused on teacher utterances or, alternatively, teacher interruptions (Mertzman 2008 ). Other studies focused more on the ongoing interaction and thus entailed the coding of teacher utterances in relation to student utterances (e.g., Lee 2001 ; Rodgers 2004 ; Pratt and Savoy-Levine 1998 ; Wu and Krajcik 2006 ). Lutz et al . ( 2006 ) undertook detailed analyses by coding both teacher and student utterances and behavior at 30-s intervals. In many of the studies examined within the context of this review and the more qualitative studies in particular, the unit of analysis was not clearly stipulated. Qualitative descriptions of the characteristics of the scaffolding used in the study were frequently presented (e.g., Hacker and Tenent 2002 ; McIntyre 2007 ).

The unit of analysis used in a study may influence the study outcomes. The unit of analysis can certainly differ depending on the characteristics of scaffolding being considered and thus for contingency versus fading versus transfer of responsibility. This distinction will require analysis on different grain sizes. As already mentioned, predefined coding schemes were used only to a certain extent because of the current stance of the research field. The elaborate coding scheme used by Chi et al . ( 2001 ), which contains several units of analysis and different grain sizes, serves as a good example for the analysis of scaffolding. To start with, both teacher and student statements were coded in order to characterize the interactive versus non-interactive nature of the dialogue between the two. Second, the teacher–student interactions were coded at the level of the conversational turn in order to establish the function of a statement in the interaction. Finally, the episodes or scaffolding dialogues were analyzed as a whole because coding at the level of the statement or the interaction might, in fact, miss the essence of the scaffolding.

Measuring all key characteristics of scaffolding, i.e., contingency, fading, and transfer of responsibility, requires an analysis that makes a systematic distinction between these features. Such an analysis requires different unit of analysis of different grain sizes.

Operationalization of scaffolding

Because there is no consensus with regard to the conceptualization of scaffolding, the results of the different studies are difficult to compare. How the concept is operationalized depends obviously on the characterization that is used. Due to the many different characterizations of scaffolding, many different operationalizations were found and will be explored into greater detail here. The focus will lie on the extent to which the three key characteristics of scaffolding—namely contingency, fading, and transfer of responsibility—are included in these operationalizations. The emphasis in the empirical articles to be considered in this section was either on the behavior and performance of students, the scaffolding provided by the teacher, or sometimes both.

Some studies focused on the behavior of the teacher. In some cases, teacher behavior was coded using a predefined coding scheme or a coding scheme specifically developed for this purpose during data analysis (e.g., Maloch 2002 , 2008 ; Rueda et al . 2004 ). The behaviors of the teachers were categorized as reflecting many different scaffolding strategies. The six scaffolding means of Tharp and Gallimore ( 1988 ) are, for example, distinguished in the study of Postholm ( 2006 ). However, no information is provided on the three key characteristics of scaffolding. Additional or alternative analyses in which these key characteristics are considered could be the next step in future scaffolding research. In a considerable number of the definitions of scaffolding presented in the articles, one or more of the key characteristics of scaffolding are mentioned but many of these same studies do not go on to include the key characteristics in the actual measurement of scaffolding, probably because all three key characteristics are so complex to measure.

In the dynamic assessment literature, attention has been paid to instruments that focus on the key characteristic of contingency. Feuerstein and Feuerstein ( 1991 ), for example, described the mediated learning experience (MLE) to discern the powerful factors in interaction that influence the higher mental functioning in the child. A rating scale with these factors was developed and proved to be a reliable measurement tool to assess the mediational repertory of the assessor. Like in scaffolding, one of the essential factors in MLE is ‘contingent responsivity’ and this is described as

The ability to read the child’s cues and signals related to learning, affective, and motivational needs, and then to respond in a timely and appropriate way. [The possible codes are:] (0) not in evidence, (1) infrequent, inconsistent (ill timed or not appropriate), (2) present but occasionally missing the mark either in timing or appropriateness, or (3) consistently well timed and appropriate to the child’s cues and signals. (Lidz 1991 , p. 109)

Such a rating scale of contingent responsivity could be helpful in standardizing the measurement of contingency, one of the vital components of scaffolding.

Most studies considered both teacher and student behaviors. In the effectiveness studies in which scaffolding was measured, the operationalizations were found to be quite consistent with the definitions used. For example, Chi et al . ( 2001 ) coded both the tutor and student utterances and interaction turns that occurred during one-to-one tutoring sessions on biology. They focused on the contingency and transfer of responsibility in not only their theoretical framework but also their analyses. They also distinguished interactive versus non-interactive tutor comments and elicited versus self-initiated and constructive versus non-constructive student responses.

Less consistency between the definitions presented and the operationalizations adopted characterized the more descriptive studies. In the descriptive studies where the definition and operationalization of scaffolding were consistent, characteristics of the definition were adopted as criteria to determine what qualifies as scaffolding in the data analyses (see Oh 2005 , for example). The relatively strict definition of scaffolding adopted from Maybin et al . ( 1992 ) for use in the Oh study clearly dictated which interactions qualified as scaffolding and which did not: There had to be evidence that the mentor’s support was contingent, that the learner accomplished the task with the mentor’s situated help, and that the learner performed the task independently.

Information sources

Almost all of the studies included in this review used transcriptions of video or audio observations to analyze scaffolding; only field notes were used in the only exception, namely the study of Many ( 2002 ). Some authors also analyzed video recordings of teacher reactions to their videotaped lessons (e.g., Cole 2006 ; Rodgers 2004 ). Interviews with teachers to assess their attitudes and beliefs with regard to scaffolding were also frequently undertaken. Given that scaffolding involves interaction with learners, video observation appears to be vital for its analysis.

Conclusions and Discussion

A vast amount of rich descriptions and classifications of scaffolding strategies in different subject areas has become available in the last decade. Although no consensus exists with regard to the definition of scaffolding, contingency, fading, and transfer of responsibility are distinguished in this review as the key characteristics of scaffolding. These key characteristics deserve focus in future scaffolding analyses. An additional framework for the more precise analysis of scaffolding strategies, which can be useful for the measurement of scaffolding, is synthesized from the existing research body. A distinction between scaffolding means and intentions is made. The scaffolding of students’ cognitive and metacognitive activities is studied to the greatest extent compared to the scaffolding of students’ affect. The means of modeling and questioning are studied the most, mainly with a focus on students’ cognitive activities.

Although most researchers focused on describing and characterizing scaffolding, some effectiveness studies were performed in the last decade. The results of studies that were found on students’ metacognitive and cognitive activities and their affect point largely in the same direction, i.e., that scaffolding is effective.

The main challenge for scaffolding research appears to be its measurement. Several difficulties with regard to the measurement of scaffolding were encountered. The main impediments were no generally accepted measurement instrument and no instrument in which the three key characteristics of scaffolding are considered together. Therefore, some suggestions for the measurement of scaffolding in further research are made here.

First, scaffolding was often not measured in scaffolding research using a clearly reliable and valid measurement instrument. Thus, a need for such an instrument that can facilitate the analysis of scaffolding as a dependent variable and the check on the intervention of scaffolding as an independent variable is apparent. Many very useful (mostly descriptive) studies, which have laid the foundation of such a measurement instrument, are encountered in the search of this review. This foundation is used in this review to arrive at a framework for the analysis of scaffolding strategies.

Second, to determine the effectiveness of scaffolding in future research, student measures are needed as these measures provide a clear indication of whether the scaffolding was effective to start with or not. Third, it is suggested that both teacher and student behavior and their discourse contributions are considered in future research as scaffolding entails interaction. The coding of only teacher actions or strategies is not sufficient. In this review, a conceptual model of scaffolding including the three key characteristics of scaffolding, i.e., contingency, fading, and transfer of responsibility, and a scaffolding framework for the analysis of scaffolding strategies was presented and may prove useful in analyzing scaffolding interactions. Although the focus of the framework is on teacher actions, it was noted that these cannot be accurately coded without consideration of student responses. And in this light, the distinction between scaffolding intentions and means, which is made in the scaffolding framework in relation to student activities, may be useful for studying the process of scaffolding in the future. Only the exact nature of the implementation of a scaffolding intention into actual practice (i.e., means of scaffolding employed) and the responses of students determine whether an interaction can be categorized as scaffolding or not.

A fourth methodological point for consideration in future research is the merit of video observation for the analysis of scaffolding interactions. Fifth, because the appearance of scaffolding depends so heavily on the context, it is of great importance in future scaffolding research that the context be specified into great detail.

Finally, the key characteristics of contingency, fading, and transfer of responsibility need to be addressed in both the definition and analysis of scaffolding. This may involve the conduct of different analyses using different-sized units, but the definition and operationalization of the key characteristics of scaffolding should be clear and consistent.

Although the rich body of research on scaffolding of the last decade provided us with useful knowledge on the appearances of scaffolding, much remains unknown about the effectiveness and processes of scaffolding. Solid research and solid measurement instruments are needed for this purpose. Accurate measurement of the different characteristics of scaffolding will continue to be difficult. Whether an interaction should be characterized as contingent or non-contingent, for example, can be quite ambiguous under certain conditions. Is support only contingent when the student can actually complete the task at hand or is it also contingent when only a little progress has been made (i.e., the student is able to proceed to at least the next step in the conduct of a task)? Is support only contingent when the teacher actually intends it to be contingent? On a different front, several observations must be conducted over time to establish that fading has indeed taken place. Ideally, the observations should involve the same tasks and/or subject matter as one can imagine that the introduction of new material will lead to the scaffolding process being initiated all over again. Virtually the same holds for the transfer of responsibility.

In sum, the measurement and analysis of scaffolding still appears to be in its infancy. Such an endeavor is a time-consuming and elaborate enterprise. The conceptual model of scaffolding and framework for analysis of scaffolding strategies presented here, however, can provide a concrete starting point for the development of an agreed-upon measurement instrument.

We would like to note here that the three key characteristics of scaffolding are closely entwined. Fading, for example, may be seen as an inherent part of contingency. In the study of Pratt and Savoy-Levine ( 1998 ), for instance, the focus was on contingency in both their definition and operationalization of the notion of scaffolding. Yet, if the tutor complied with the contingent-shift principle, the support will be faded automatically because, following the contingent-shift principle, he or she decreased the level of support as the student succeeded. And in the end, when the student continues to succeed, no support is required or provided whatsoever. Contingent teaching thus appears to lead to fading that can lead , in turn, to transfer of responsibility. The three key characteristics of scaffolding are thus closely connected.

The present review has supplied several recommendations for future research. First, a challenge lies in documenting the effectiveness of the use of specific scaffolding strategies under particular circumstances empirically: Which strategies appear to work with which children in which grades and for which subject areas? And although several authors have considered the possible processes underlying scaffolding within the context of their theoretical frameworks, much more empirical research is needed on the processes of internalization and appropriation.

Second, to be able to study (the effectiveness of) scaffolding, which is generally found to be scarce, teachers could be encouraged to improve their scaffolding skills using the framework presented in this review. The scaffolding strategies reviewed here can supply the practical tools for such training. The effectiveness of such training can then be evaluated focusing upon whether trained teachers subsequently display more scaffolding in actual practice than untrained teachers can be determined, and whether or not the scaffolding behavior of teachers who have been trained truly supports the cognitive activities, metacognitive activities, and/or affect of students can be determined.

This review synthesizes the definitions and classifications of scaffolding into a conceptual model of scaffolding and a framework for the analysis of scaffolding strategies, and it scrutinizes the claim that scaffolding is effective and its methodological challenges. Scaffolding is an important and frequently studied concept, but much remains unclear with regard to the effectiveness and use of scaffolding in education. The overview of the scaffolding research and its difficulties of the last decade, which is provided in this review, will hopefully stimulate and advance scaffolding research in the future.

Aukerman, M. S. (2007). When reading it wrong is getting it right: Shared evaluation pedagogy among struggling fifth grade readers. Research in the Teaching of English, 42 , 56–103.

Google Scholar  

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.

Article   Google Scholar  

Biemiller, A., & Meichenbaum, D. (1998). The consequences of negative scaffolding for students who learn slowly—A commentary on C. Addison Stone’s “The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities”. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31 , 365–369.

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 , 75–85.

Butler, D. L. (1998). In search of the architect of learning: A commentary on scaffolding as a metaphor for instructional interactions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31 , 374–385.

Cazden, C. 1979. Peekaboo as an instructional model: Discourse development at home and at school. Palo Alto: Stanford University Department of Linguistics.

Chi, M. T. H., Siler, S. A., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T., & Hausmann, R. G. (2001). Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive Science, 25 , 471–533.

Chiu, M. H., Chou, C. C., & Liu, C. J. (2002). Dynamic processes of conceptual change: Analysis of constructing mental models of chemical equilibrium. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39 , 688–712.

Clark, K. F., & Graves, M. F. (2005). Scaffolding students’ comprehension of text. Reading Teacher, 58 , 570–580.

Cole, A. D. (2006). Scaffolding beginning readers: Micro and macro cues teachers use during student oral reading. Reading Teacher, 59 , 450–459.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing and mathematics. In L. B. Resneck (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honour of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

Davis, E. A., & Miyake, N. (2004). Explorations of scaffolding in complex classroom systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13 , 265–272.

Donahue, M. L., & Lopez-Reyna, N. A. (1998). Conversational maxims and scaffolded learning in children with learning disabilities: Is the flying buttress a better metaphor? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31 , 398–403.

Englert, C. S. (1992). Writing instruction from a sociocultural perspective: The holistic, dialogic, and social enterprise of writing. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25 , 153–172.

Feuerstein, R., & Feuerstein, S. (1991). Mediated learning experience: A theoretical review. In R. Feuerstein, P. S. Klein, & A. J. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Mediated learning experience (MLE): Theoretical, psychosocial and learning implication (pp. 3–51). London: Freund.

Fleer, M. (1992). Identifying teacher–child interaction which scaffolds scientific thinking in young children. Science & Education, 76 , 373–397.

Garza, R. (2009). Latino and white high school students’ perceptions of caring behaviors: Are we culturally responsive to our students? Urban Education, 44 , 297–321.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory . New York: Aldine.

Granott, N. (2005). Scaffolding dynamically toward change: Previous and new perspectives. New Ideas in Psychology, 23 , 140–151.

Grigorenko, E. L. (2009). Dynamic assessment and responses to intervention: Two sides of one coin. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42 , 111–132.

Hacker, D. J., & Tenent, A. (2002). Implementing reciprocal teaching in the classroom: Overcoming obstacles and making modifications. Journal of Education & Psychology, 94 , 699–718.

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 , 99–107.

Hogan, K., & Pressley, M. (1997). Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues . Cambridge: Brookline.

Hung, D. W. L. (1999). Activity, apprenticeship, and epistemological appropriation: Implications from the writings of Michael Polanyi. Educational Psychologist, 34 , 193–205.

Lajoie, P. S., Lavigne, N. C., Guerrera, C., & Munsie, S. D. (2001). Constructing knowledge in the context of BioWorld. Instructional Science, 29 , 155–186.

Lajoie, S. P. (2005). Extending the scaffolding metaphor. Instructional Science, 33 , 541–557.

Langer, J. A., & Applebee, A. N. (1986). Reading and writing instruction: Toward a theory of teaching and learning. In Z. Rothkopf (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 171–194). Washington DC: American Educational Research Association.

Lee, C. D. (2001). Is October Brown Chinese? A cultural modeling activity system for underachieving students. American Educational Research Journal, 38 , 97–141.

Lidz, C. S. (1991). Practitioners’ guide to dynamic assessment . New York: Guilford.

Lutz, S. L., Guthrie, J. T., & Davis, M. H. (2006). Scaffolding for engagement in elementary school reading instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 100 , 3–20.

Macrine, S. L., & Sabbatino, E. D. (2008). Dynamic assessment and remediation approach: Using the DARA approach to assist struggling readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 24 , 52–76.

Maloch, B. (2002). Scaffolding student talk: One teacher’s role in literature discussion groups. Reading Research Quarterly, 37 , 94–112.

Maloch, B. (2008). Beyond exposure: The uses of informational texts in a second grade classroom. Research in the Teaching of English, 42 , 315–362.

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 , 376–407.

Mascolo, M. F. (2005). Change processes in development: The concept of coactive scaffolding. New Ideas in Psychology, 23 , 185–196.

Maybin, J., Mercer, N., & Stierer, B. (1992). ‘Scaffolding’ learning in the classroom. In K. Norman (Ed.), Thinking voices: The work of the national oracy project (pp. 186–195). London: Hodder & Stroughton.

McIntyre, E. (2007). Story discussion in the primary grades: Balancing authenticity and explicit teaching. Reading Teacher, 60 , 610–620.

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 , 359–377.

Mertzman, T. (2008). Individualising scaffolding: Teachers’ literacy interruptions of ethnic minority students and students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Journal of Research in Reading, 31 , 183–202.

Meskill, C. (2005). Triadic scaffolds: Tools for teaching English language learners with computers. Language Learning & Technology, 9 , 46–59.

Meyer, D. K., & Turner, J. C. (2002). Using instructional discourse analysis to study the scaffolding of student self-regulation. Educational Psychologist, 37 , 17–25.

Miller, P. H. (2005). Commentary on: Scaffolding: Constructing and deconstructing development. New Ideas in Psychology, 23 , 207–211.

Murphy, N., & Messer, D. (2000). Differential benefits from scaffolding and children working alone. Educational Psychology, 20 , 17–31.

Myhill, D., & Warren, P. (2005). Scaffolds or straitjackets? Critical moments in classroom discourse. Educational Review, 57 , 55–69.

Nathan, M., & Kim, S. (2009). Regulation of teacher elicitations in the mathematics classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 27 , 91–120.

Oh, P. S. (2005). Discursive roles of the teacher during class sessions for students presenting their science investigations. International Journal of Science Education, 27 , 1825–1851.

Palincsar, A. S. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction. Educational Psychologist, 21 , 261–277.

Palincsar, A. S. (1991). Scaffolded instruction of listening comprehension with first graders at risk for academic difficulty. In A. McKeough & J. L. Lupart (Eds.), Toward the practice of theory-based instruction (pp. 50–65). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

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 , 370–373.

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1 , 117–175.

Pardo, L. S. (2004). What every teacher needs to know about comprehension. Reading Teacher, 58 , 272–280.

Pawan, F. (2008). Content-area teachers and scaffolded instruction for English language learners. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24 , 1450–1462.

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 , 423–451.

Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8 , 317–344.

Postholm, M. B. (2006). The teacher’s role when pupils work on task using ICT in project work. Educational Research, 48 , 155–175.

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.

Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Allington, R., Block, C. C., Morrow, L., Tracey, D., et al. (2001). A study of effective first grade literacy instruction. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15 , 35–58.

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 , 1–12.

Rasmussen, J. (2001). The importance of communication in teaching: A systems-theory approach to the scaffolding metaphor. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33 , 569–582.

Reigosa, C., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Scaffolded problem-solving in the physics and chemistry laboratory: Difficulties hindering students’ assumption of responsibility. International Journal of Science Education, 29 , 307–329.

Renninger, K. A., & Granott, N. (2005). The process of scaffolding in learning and development. New Ideas in Psychology, 23 , 111–114.

Renninger, K. A., Ray, L. S., Luft, I., & Newton, E. L. (2005). Coding online content-informed scaffolding of mathematical thinking. New Ideas in Psychology, 23 , 152–165.

Rodgers, E. M. (2004). Interactions that scaffold reading performance. Journal of Literacy Research, 36 , 501–532.

Rosiek, J. (2003). Emotional scaffolding—An exploration of the teacher knowledge at the intersection of student emotion and the subject matter. Journal of Teacher Education, 54 , 399–412.

Rueda, R., Monzo, L. D., & Higareda, I. (2004). Appropriating the sociocultural resources of Latino paraeducators for effective instruction with Latino students—Promise and problems. Urban Education, 39 , 52–90.

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1998). What happens during instruction: Is any metaphor necessary? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31 , 404–408.

Shavelson, R. J., & Towne, L. (2002). Scientific research in education . Washington DC: National Academy Press.

Shepard, L. A. (2005). Linking formative assessment to scaffolding. Educational Leadership, 63 , 66–70.

Silliman, E. R., Bahr, R., Beasman, J., & Wilkinson, L. C. (2000). Scaffolds for learning to read in an inclusion classroom. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 31 , 265–279.

Smith, L. A. (2006). Think-aloud mysteries: Using structured, sentence-by-sentence text passages to teach comprehension strategies. Reading Teacher, 59 , 764–773.

Stone, C. A. (1993). What is missing in the metaphor of scaffolding? In E. A. Forman, N. M. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning. Sociocultural dynamics in children’s development (pp. 169–183). New York: Oxford University Press.

Stone, C. A. (1998a). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31 , 344–364.

Stone, C. A. (1998b). Should we salvage the scaffolding metaphor? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31 , 409–413.

Swanson, H. L., & Lussier, C. M. (2001). A selective synthesis of the experimental literature on dynamic assessment. Review of Educational Research, 71 , 321–363.

Tabak, I., & Baumgartner, E. (2004). The teacher as partner: Exploring participant structures, symmetry, and identity work in scaffolding. Cognition and Instruction, 22 , 393–429.

Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Turner, J. C., Meyer, D. K., Cox, K. E., Logan, C., DiCintio, M., & Thomas, C. T. (1998). Creating contexts for involvement in mathematics. Journal of Education & Psychology, 90 , 730–745.

Turner, V. D., & Berkowitz, M. W. (2005). Scaffolding morality: Positioning a socio-cultural construct. New Ideas in Psychology, 23 , 174–184.

Vacca, J. S. (2008). Using scaffolding techniques to teach a social studies lesson about Buddha to sixth graders. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51 , 652–658.

Valsiner, J. (2005). Scaffolding within the structure of dialogical self: Hierarchical dynamics of semiotic mediation. New Ideas in Psychology, 23 , 197–206.

Valsiner, J., & van der Veer, R. (1993). The encoding of distance: The concept of the zone of proximal development and its interpretations. In R. R. Cockney & K. A. Renninger (Eds.), The development and meaning of psychological distance (pp. 35–62). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Van Geert, P., & Steenbeek, H. (2005). The dynamics of scaffolding. New Ideas in Psychology, 23 , 115–128.

Van Merriënboer, J. G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load off a learner’s mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 38 , 5–13.

Vygotsky, L.S. 1978. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner and E. Souberman, (Eds.), Mind in society—The development of higher psychological processes . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Wharton-McDonald, R., Pressley, M., & Hampston, J. M. (1998). Literacy instruction in nine first-grade classrooms: Teacher characteristics and student achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 99 , 101–128.

Wong, B. Y. L. (1998). Analyses of intrinsic and extrinsic problems in the use of the scaffolding metaphor in learning disabilities intervention research: An introduction. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31 , 340–343.

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.

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.

Wu, H. K., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Exploring middle school students’ use of inscriptions in project-based science classrooms. Science & Education, 90 , 852–873.

Yelland, N., & Masters, J. (2007). Rethinking scaffolding in the information age. Computers & Education, 48 , 362–382.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers of Educational Psychology Review for their useful comments for improving this paper.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Research Institute of Child Development and Education, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130, 1018 VZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Janneke van de Pol & Monique Volman

Centre for Educational Training, Assessment and Research, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Jos Beishuizen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Janneke van de Pol .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0 ), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

van de Pol, J., Volman, M. & Beishuizen, J. Scaffolding in Teacher–Student Interaction: A Decade of Research. Educ Psychol Rev 22 , 271–296 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6

Download citation

Published : 29 April 2010

Issue Date : September 2010

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Scaffolding
• Teacher–student interaction
• Primary and secondary education
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol
• PMC10434795

Analytics of self-regulated learning scaffolding: effects on learning processes

Tongguang li.

1 Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia

2 Graduate School of Education, Peking University, Beijing, China

3 School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom

4 Department of Educational Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States

Shaveen Singh

Mladen raković, joep van der graaf.

5 Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Gelderland, Netherlands

6 School of Social Sciences and Technology, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Bavaria, Germany

Binrui Yang

Inge molenaar, maria bannert, johanna moore, zachari swiecki, yi-shan tsai, david williamson shaffer, dragan gašević, associated data.

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Self-regulated learning (SRL) is the ability to regulate cognitive, metacognitive, motivational, and emotional states while learning and is posited to be a strong predictor of academic success. It is therefore important to provide learners with effective instructions to promote more meaningful and effective SRL processes. One way to implement SRL instructions is through providing real-time SRL scaffolding while learners engage with a task. However, previous studies have tended to focus on fixed scaffolding rather than adaptive scaffolding that is tailored to student actions. Studies that have investigated adaptive scaffolding have not adequately distinguished between the effects of adaptive and fixed scaffolding compared to a control condition. Moreover, previous studies have tended to investigate the effects of scaffolding at the task level rather than shorter time segments—obscuring the impact of individual scaffolds on SRL processes. To address these gaps, we (a) collected trace data about student activities while working on a multi-source writing task and (b) analyzed these data using a cutting-edge learning analytic technique— ordered network analysis (ONA)—to model, visualize, and explain how learners' SRL processes changed in relation to the scaffolds. At the task level, our results suggest that learners who received adaptive scaffolding have significantly different patterns of SRL processes compared to the fixed scaffolding and control conditions. While not significantly different, our results at the task segment level suggest that adaptive scaffolding is associated with earlier engagement in SRL processes. At both the task level and task segment level, those who received adaptive scaffolding, compared to the other conditions, exhibited more task-guided learning processes such as referring to task instructions and rubrics in relation to their reading and writing. This study not only deepens our understanding of the effects of scaffolding at different levels of analysis but also demonstrates the use of a contemporary learning analytic technique for evaluating the effects of different kinds of scaffolding on learners' SRL processes.

1. Introduction

1.1. self-regulated learning and scaffolding.

Self-regulated learning (SRL) encompasses multiple cognitive, motivational, and emotional aspects of learning and has been thoroughly researched and integrated into education (Panadero, 2017 ). Contrary to views of value achievement, SRL emphasizes the mechanisms by which learners actively control and adjust their learning in response to varying educational contexts (Zimmerman, 1986 ). Various SRL models have been proposed throughout the years. One such model is the COPES model by Winne and Hadwin ( 1998 ), which describes four learning phases—task definition, goal setting and planning, enactment, and adaptation—coupled with five learning facets – condition, operation, product, evaluation, and standard (the COPES model). In this model, learners' strategies are influenced by internal and external conditions to manage learning information and, in turn, produce a learning product. This product is then evaluated against internal and external standards to facilitate learning adaptation. Similarly, Bannert ( 2007 ) proposed a comprehensive SRL framework for hypermedia learning, further subdividing SRL into cognition, metacognition, and motivation. This framework has proven particularly useful in guiding the analysis of trace data gathered in hypermedia environments to understand learners' SRL processes (Bannert et al., 2014 ; Fan et al., 2022a ; Srivastava et al., 2022 ; Lim et al., 2023 ). Consequently, cognitive and metacognitive processes of SRL can be operationalized as patterns and sequences of learning actions, encompassing activities such as orientation—collecting information about the learning task to implement SRL strategies—and evaluation—monitoring learning progress throughout the learning process (Siadaty et al., 2016b ; Saint et al., 2020 ; Fan et al., 2022a ; Srivastava et al., 2022 ).

The beneficial impact of SRL on academic performance has been frequently highlighted in the literature (Greene and Azevedo, 2007 , 2009 ; Broadbent and Poon, 2015 ; Broadbent, 2017 ; Maldonado-Mahauad et al., 2018 ). Moreover, compared to other intrinsic factors such as self-efficacy and motivation, the ability to use effective SRL processes in learning are considered to be more predictive of successful academic performance (Pintrich and De Groot, 1990 ). However, literature has shown that many students find it difficult to use SRL processes without guidance (Greene and Land, 2000 ; Bannert, 2009 ; Jovanović et al., 2017 ; Guo, 2022 ). Thus, there is a need to aid learners in their development of SRL.

As suggested by Bannert and Reimann ( 2012 ), effective SRL instruction should encompass several facets: (1) integration—contextually integrating with the specific learning domain; (2) explanation – elucidating how the suggested SRL processes can be effectively applied; and 3) training—providing ample training such that learners' can effectively use SRL processes. Scaffolding, defined as structured guidance for acquiring skills within a specific learning context until they can perform independently (Pea, 2004 ), may offer a viable solution to these instructional necessities.

1.2. Adaptive scaffolding

Research suggests that SRL scaffolding is positively associated with improvements in academic performance and learning processes. Specifically, SRL scaffolding has been examined from various perspectives, such as the persistence of scaffolding effects (Bannert et al., 2015 ; Sonnenberg and Bannert, 2019 ), effectiveness of technological scaffolds (Milikić et al., 2018 ; Lahza et al., 2022 ), the utility of scaffold training (Bannert, 2009 ), impact on group activities and group performance (Molenaar et al., 2011 ), influence of demographic factors (Pieger and Bannert, 2018 ), and association with different goal orientations (Duffy and Azevedo, 2015 ). Moreover, the effects of scaffolding have been examined in diverse contexts, including educational settings (Azevedo et al., 2004 ; Bannert, 2009 ; Sonnenberg and Bannert, 2016 ) and workplaces (Siadaty et al., 2016a , b ). However, a critical characteristic of the previous studies is that the scaffolding was primarily fixed —i.e., the content of the scaffolding was the same for each student, and the design of the content was largely informed by the findings from the existing literature (Bannert, 2009 ; Bannert et al., 2015 ; Pieger and Bannert, 2018 ; Guo, 2022 ).

Wong et al. ( 2021 ), for example, divided learners into three groups — fixed question prompt, fixed recommendation prompt, and no prompt—and investigated the effect of each compared to a control condition. Their results suggested that neither type of fixed scaffolding significantly affected SRL processes, such as time-management, self-reflection, planning, and self-monitoring. The authors concluded that scaffolding designed to flexibly target specific SRL processes could be more effective. Similarly, a recent systematic literature review by Guo ( 2022 ) found that the adaptivity of scaffolding is a strong moderator of the relationship between SRL processes and learning. Thus, adaptive scaffolding , which responds to actions of individual learners and targets their specific deficiencies, may be more effective in supporting learners' SRL processes (Guo, 2022 ).

Although some previous studies have examined the effects of adaptive scaffolding on SRL processes, this study has several limitations. First, early studies implemented adaptive scaffolding that was only partially automated, limited their use in larger-scale learning contexts, confounding the results. For example, Azevedo et al. ( 2004 ) investigated differences in learners' SRL processes among three scaffolding conditions (adaptive scaffolding, fixed scaffolding, and no scaffolding) and found that learners who received adaptive scaffolding from human tutors more frequently regulated their learning by activating prior knowledge, utilized more diverse learning strategies, and engaged in more help-seeking behaviors. However, the researchers caveated their findings by suggesting that their positive findings could have been due to the presence of the human tutor.

More recently, the adoption of adaptive scaffolding has gathered momentum through the implementation of automated rule-based algorithms. For example, Duffy and Azevedo ( 2015 ) implemented rule-based adaptive scaffolding and found that learners who received this kind of scaffolding used more SRL strategies and spent more time viewing the learning material. Munshi et al. ( 2023 ) also designed an automated rule-based adaptive scaffolding system that tailored SRL suggestions to learners. Specifically, the adaptivity is based on learners' real-time learning behaviors, and learners were offered a procedure or a piece of knowledge that they struggled to properly apply. For instance, when a learner employed an ineffective strategy during a task, such as adding erroneous elements during knowledge construction, immediate scaffolding guided them toward self-assessing their understanding.

While these studies are a step forward in investigating the effectiveness of automated adaptive scaffolding, they were limited because they were only compared to control conditions in which no scaffolding was provided. To more completely understand the utility of automated adaptive scaffolding, it needs to be compared to both a control condition with no scaffolding and a condition in which fixed scaffolding is provided.

1.3. Segmentation analysis

In addition to the limitations described above, prior studies have focused on the effects of scaffolding using data aggregated over the entire learning task (Sitzmann et al., 2009 ; Azevedo et al., 2011 ; Molenaar, 2014 ; Duffy and Azevedo, 2015 ; Sonnenberg and Bannert, 2016 ; Srivastava et al., 2022 ). For instance, Sitzmann et al. ( 2009 ) assessed the effectiveness of adaptive scaffolding by measuring the activation of SRL processes through a questionnaire provided at the end of a learning task. In another study, Duffy and Azevedo ( 2015 ) extracted log file data and measured learners' SRL processes based on the overall frequency of several learning behaviors. In contexts where multiple scaffolds are provided throughout the learning task, this practice limits our understanding of how each specific scaffold is associated with SRL processes. In other words, this approach results in an “averaging out” of the detailed effects of scaffolding.

To address the above limitation, some have suggested segmenting the learning task for analysis to provide better insights into the effects of the individual scaffolds (Molenaar, 2014 ; Knight et al., 2017 ; Saint et al., 2022 ). In the context of implementing SRL scaffolds, segmentation involves dividing the overall learning task into multiple segments based on appropriately defined time windows (e.g., between scaffolding events) and then examining the SRL processes within each segment (Knight et al., 2017 ; Fincham et al., 2018 ; Saint et al., 2022 ). Once the overall learning task is divided into segments, researchers can identify the immediate or lagged changes in SRL processes after each scaffold to evaluate the association between specific scaffolds and SRL processes. This approach can increase our understanding of the effect of each individual scaffold (Saint et al., 2022 ).

Despite these potential benefits, few studies have implemented such a segmentation approach. Among them, two major limitations still remain. First, previous studies have largely focused on changes in general cognitive behaviors, overlooking changes in metacognitive or SRL processes. For example, Munshi et al. ( 2023 ) implemented six scaffolds throughout the learning task and evaluated the behavioral changes immediately after each scaffold. However, this study only examined changes in learning behaviors prompted by each scaffold (e.g., if the scaffold suggests that learners take a quiz to assess their understanding, how many learners took the quiz?) and did not address changes in SRL processes (e.g., if the scaffold suggests that learners should monitor their learning processes, to what extent do they adopt a more monitoring-oriented learning process). Second, segmentation analysis has mostly been conducted over longer learning periods – either segmenting a whole learning semester into different weeks (Mahzoon et al., 2018 ) or a whole week into different days (Dorodchi et al., 2018 ), while few studies have implemented a lower-level segmentation analysis of a single learning task. Conducting such studies at the segment-level should provide a more detailed information about the effect of specific scaffolds on SRL behaviors in addition to the general effects of scaffolding.

1.4. Research questions

In this study, we sought to address the limitations of a prior study that investigated the effect of adaptive scaffolding on SRL processes. To do so, we collected learner interactions (i.e., trace data) with an online environment and compared the SRL processes of learners in three conditions—an adaptive scaffolding condition (AS), a fixed scaffolding condition (FS), and a control condition (CN) in which no scaffolding was provided. This analysis was conducted at two levels: (i) the overall task level and (ii) the task segment level, where segments were defined according to the timing of the scaffolding. Our study was guided by the following research questions:

• How is adaptive scaffolding, compared to fixed scaffolding and no scaffolding, associated with SRL processes when analyzed at the task level?
• How is adaptive scaffolding, compared to fixed scaffolding and no scaffolding, associated with SRL processes when analyzed at the task segment level?

At the task level, we hypothesize that learners who receive adaptive scaffolding will be more likely to engage in high-cognitive and metacognitive SRL processes [as defined in Bannert's SRL model (Bannert, 2007 )] compared to those receiving fixed or no scaffolding. Our hypothesis is grounded in existing literature (Sonnenberg and Bannert, 2015 ; Siadaty et al., 2016a ; Wong et al., 2021 ). For example, Siadaty et al. ( 2016a ) identified that those who received technological scaffolding exhibited more micro-level SRL processes within the forethought or preparatory phase of SRL. At the task segment level, we hypothesize that learners who receive adaptive scaffolding will tend to comply with the scaffolding recommendations more so than those in the other conditions. In other words, when examining differences at the task segment levels, which are defined by time periods between scaffolds, we expect the SRL processes of students in the adaptive condition to align more with the most recent scaffold they received because it was tailored to their prior behaviors. These hypotheses are grounded in the adaptive nature of scaffolding that tailors its assistance to address the unique needs and learning gaps of each individual learner (Duffy and Azevedo, 2015 ; Guo, 2022 ; Lim et al., 2023 ; Munshi et al., 2023 ).

Previous research has highlighted the necessity of recognizing the relationships between the SRL process that learners use instead of viewing these processes in isolation (Saint et al., 2022 ). This conceptual shift is vital because a learner might appear to be engaged in, for example, re-reading the text while also checking task instructions to understand its key aspects. Therefore, taking the co-occurrence of multiple SRL processes into consideration is critical. Moreover, previous studies have acknowledged that SRL processes are context-sensitive and sequence-specific—that is, any given SRL process can precede or follow other SRL processes, and different orders imply different meanings (Fan et al., 2023 ). To account for the connected and sequential nature of SRL processes, we used the network analytic technique, ordered network analysis (ONA) (Tan et al., 2023 ). This technique, as well as the details of our experimental design and data, is described in the sections below.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. research context and design, 2.1.1. participants.

We conducted this study with participants from a graduate level academic writing course at a large university in China. Participants were non-native English speakers. The expected learning outcome of the course was to improve the academic writing skills of first-year graduate students, for whom English was not their first language. As part of the course, participants were tasked with completing a writing assignment on a Moodle-based learning platform that integrated instrumentation tools and learning analytics-based scaffolding (a detailed description of the learning platform is summarized in Section 2.1.2). This study received approval from the ethics committee prior to the commencement of data collection.

Participants for this study were recruited from two separate offerings of the same course (the first round in November 2021 and the second round in April 2022). Consequently, the course design, task design, and learning context covered in both rounds of data collection were identical. The participants hailed from various disciplinary backgrounds and did not receive monetary incentives for their participation in the study. A total of 437 students (137 from round 1 and 300 from round 2) participated in two rounds of data collection, which resulted in a total of 161 valid participants whose data were complete and usable. The data of 276 participants were excluded because they i) did not consent to their data to be analyzed; ii) technical errors (e.g., incomplete data records or scaffolding not successful triggered); or iii) did not submit a complete writing product. A summary of participant numbers is presented in Table 1 . Overall, the participants for each group were randomly assigned and similarly distributed across the study conditions: 53 learners in the control (CN) group (32 from round 1 and 21 from round 2), 57 learners in the fixed scaffolding (FS) group (28 from round 1 and 29 from round 2), and 51 learners in the adaptive scaffolding (AS) group (22 from round 1 and 29 from round 2). The sample consisted of 55 percent female and 45 percent male university students, with minority ethnic groups comprising 12 percent of the population. Their academic majors were diverse, spanning physics, engineering, ecology, and computer science, among others.

Summary of participant information across two rounds of data collection.

2.1.2. Learning platform and task design

The learning platform used in this study was an extended version of the Moodle learning environment, where participants were asked to complete their writing assignment. As depicted in Figure 1 , the platform interface consisted of several main functional zones, including the catalog and navigation zone for learners to navigate and access reading materials, the reading zone for displaying content and enabling learners to use annotation tools for note-taking or highlighting, and the essay writing zone for learners to compose their essays. The platform also incorporated various instrumentation tools, such as a search tool, timer, planner, and scaffolding tool. Such instrumentation tools have been shown useful for capturing trace data and measuring learners' SRL processes (van der Graaf et al., 2021 ). Lastly, scaffolding was provided to learners via a pop-up window, prompting them to regulate their SRL processes. Detailed explanations regarding the types of scaffolding deployed on the platform are presented in the Section 2.1.3.

Snapshot of the learning environment.

Participants in this study were asked to complete four activities related the topic of AI and education: (i) a pre-task activity that consisted of a pre-survey, a pre-knowledge test including 10 multiple choice questions about AI and education and a consent form for participation; (ii) a training activity where participants were instructed on how to use and interact with those embedded instrumentation tools (e.g., how to create annotations and tags); (iii) a two-hour main task activity that involved reading and writing, i.e., a 300–400 word essay on AI and education; and (iv) a post-task activity consisting of a post-task knowledge test including 10 multiple choice questions about AI and education, a transfer test (10 multiple choice questions about the application of AI in medicine), and a post-task survey. The training on how to interact with scaffolds in the training activity was deemed crucial as previous studies have shown that the effectiveness of scaffolds on academic outcomes improves when learners receive prior training (Bannert, 2009 ). For the main writing task, participants were provided with reading materials covering three topics—AI in education, differentiation in education, and scaffolding in education. Based on these materials, participants were asked to compose the essay. The main task was set with a time limit of 120 minute, and the average time spent on the main task was 113 minute. Given that the participants were non-native English speakers, and the task was conducted in English, this imposed an inherent time pressure. This pressure was further amplified by the considerable volume of text contained within the reading materials. We purposefully designed the task this way to encourage participants to adopt a selective reading approach, guided by the task instruction and/or rubric.

2.1.3. Scaffolding design

Participants in this study were allocated to one of three study conditions: the CN, FS, and AS groups. The CN participants received no scaffolding. For the FS group, scaffolds were not differentiated among different participants—everyone received the same scaffolds that were designed according to the participants' general learning needs as referenced from the relevant literature and lab studies (van der Graaf et al., 2022 ). Lastly, the AS group participants received personally tailored scaffolding, the adaptivity of which was determined by an algorithm implementing a rule-based approach. This algorithm included relevant suggestions in the scaffolds based on real-time analysis of SRL processes derived from the three types of trace data (see Section 2.2). The scaffolding was delivered via pop-up windows, and the scaffolding content in the AS group was adaptively adjusted according to observed SRL processes in trace data. Figure 2 illustrates an example of the differences between fixed and adaptive scaffolding pop-up windows. Fixed scaffolds were presented with all learning suggestions (e.g., check and revise your writing according to the marking rubric) that were posited to be useful to learners regardless of their SRL processes. In contrast, if the real-time analysis based on trace data revealed that learners had performed certain SRL processes (e.g.,check and revise your writing according to the marking rubric), the adaptive scaffolds would hide relevant prompts and would only suggest SRL processes that had not been observed in trace data. In cases where learners performed all three suggested SRL processes before the triggering time of the scaffolds, the scaffold windows were hidden.

Segmentation and scaffolding design example.

For FS and AS, five scaffolds were embedded within the main task activity ( Table 2 ). The timing for each scaffold was fixed at 5th, 17th, 40th, 52nd, and 88th minute, which also guided the timing of our segmentation for data analysis ( Figure 2 ). The timing and content design of the scaffolds were informed both theoretically, by aligning with the cycle of SRL (Winne, 1997 ), and empirically, by incorporating findings from previous studies (Lim et al., 2021 ; Srivastava et al., 2022 ). For instance, high-performing learners were shown to employ more metacognitive strategies, such as monitoring their rereading processes and selectively reading, compared to less successful learners (Lim et al., 2021 ). In response, the third scaffold was designed to prompt learners to monitor their reading process. Similarly, a prior lab study identified a positive association between essay revision and academic performance, as measured by the essay score (Raković et al., 2022 ). Accordingly, the last scaffold was created to prompt learners to review their written work before submission. Each scaffold had a distinct theme (i.e., purpose), including understanding the task (1st), starting to read (2nd), monitoring the reading process (3rd), starting to write (4th), and monitoring the writing process (5th). Within each scaffold, based on its main theme, three suggestions were included ( Table 2 ).

Content of the scaffolding.

2.2. Data collection and analysis

2.2.1. data collection.

Data were collected and processed according to the trace-based SRL measurement protocol (see the Electronic Appendix at this link , containing an Action Library and a Process Library, which make up the trace parser) to generate SRL process data for each participant (Siadaty et al., 2016b ; Saint et al., 2020 ; Fan et al., 2021b , 2022a , b ). This study collected three types of trace data: (1) time-stamped navigational logs (i.e., clickstreams), (2) mouse traces incorporating mouse movements and scrolls, and 3) keyboard strokes. The selection of these data types was based on Winne and Hadwin's model of SRL (Winne and Hadwin, 1998 ), which posits that learning conditions, learners' operations on information, and the standards they employ for self-evaluation are adjustable and typically vary over time (Winne, 2017 ). Therefore, considering SRL as a dynamic process, it is crucial to collect time-stamped learning trace data to monitor alterations in learning behavior. Once collected, the data were processed following the trace parser, grounded theoretically in Bannert's self-regulated hypermedia learning framework (Bannert, 2007 ) and adopted in preceding studies (Fan et al., 2022a ; Srivastava et al., 2022 ). The trace parser facilitated the processing of learning trace data through the action and process libraries, mapping trace data onto SRL processes. The validity of collecting trace data and processing via the trace parser has been affirmed in previous studies using think aloud data (Fan et al., 2022b ). Because not all AS learners were presented with every scaffold, for each segment, the data from learners who had not received the corresponding scaffold were excluded. For instance, if a learner has shown all the anticipated SRL processes for the upcoming fifth scaffold, the scaffolding window would be concealed from that learner. Consequently, that learner's trace data in the fifth segment would not be included in our analysis. Table 3 summarized the number of scaffolds that have been triggered for AS learners in each segment.

Count of AS learners receiving each scaffold across two rounds of data collection.

For CN learners, they did not receive any scaffolds. For FS learners, they received all five scaffolds.

2.2.2. Data analysis

After the trace data were coded for SRL processes via the protocol, we analyzed the data using ONA to compare the SRL processes between AS and CN groups, as well as between AS and FS groups. A detailed technical description of ONA is beyond the scope of this study. For more information, see the study by Tan et al. ( 2023 ), which describes ONA, as well as the study by Shaffer et al. ( 2016 ), which describes epistemic network analysis (ENA), the widely used learning analytic technique on which ONA is based.

Briefly, ONA builds on ENA to measure and visualize the frequency of transitions between coded events in the data. Transitions are represented as points in a low-dimensional space (i.e., embeddings) and as network diagrams, whose nodes correspond to the codes and whose edges correspond to the relative frequency of transitions between codes. We chose ONA over other common approaches such as process mining to analyze SRL processes because previous studies had demonstrated data analytic and visual advantages of ONA. For example, Fan et al. ( 2023 ) applied ONA in analyzing SRL tactics used by MOOC learners and found that ONA revealed insights about the frequency, continuity, sequentiality, and role of different learning actions in learning tactics that other techniques such as process mining failed to fully represent.

We conducted the analysis using the ONA package for the programming language R (Marquart et al., 2023 ). The codes described in Table 4 are represented as nodes in the resulted ONA networks. To measure transitions between codes, ONA constructs ordered networks to represent the directed and weighted co-occurrence among coded events within pre-defined segments of data. Any transitions that occur within these segments are counted and contribute to the weight of the resulting network edges.

SRL processes that were measured in the current study were based on the coding scheme proposed by Bannert et al. ( 2014 ).

These processes are measured using the multichannel data (navigation logs, mouse movements, and keystrokes) following the protocol proposed by Siadaty et al. ( 2016b ), Saint et al. ( 2020 ).

To address RQ1, we conducted ONA analysis on the task-level of SRL processes, meaning all transitions within the task were counted. To address RQ2, only transitions that occurred within the same task segment were counted. Although the length of segmented sessions that are involved in the analysis varied from 12 to 36 minute, learners were working on an independent writing task in a structured learning environment without external interruptions. As explained in a previous section, it was plausible for AS learners to not receive one or more scaffolds if they had already demonstrated all expected SRL processes before the corresponding scaffold was triggered. Consequently, in cases where AS learners did not receive a particular scaffold, their corresponding trace data for that segment was excluded from the analysis. For example, if an AS learner did not receive the third scaffold, their trace data from the third segment was removed.

In ONA networks, the directed transitions between codes are represented by tapered edges. The chevron on each edge indicates the direction in which the transition occurred most frequently. For example, a chevron on the edge for first-reading/monitoring pointed toward monitoring indicates that more individuals transitioned from first-reading to monitoring rather than the other way around. Thicker and more saturated edges indicate that the connection occurred more frequently. The size of a given node in the network is proportional to the number of occurrences of that code in the data. The larger the node is, the more times that code followed prior events. The colored circle inside a node represent self-transitions—i.e., repeating the same SRL process. A larger circle means more self-transitions.

The node placement in ONA is the same for each unit of analysis—here, individual learners—facilitating comparisons between networks. Networks can be compared by subtracting their edge weights to find the edges that are stronger in one network vs the other. Additionally, it is possible to average individual networks—by averaging their edge weights—to compare the overall transition patterns between subgroups in the data. In this study, we averaged the networks of individual learners in each experimental condition for comparison. The network edges shown in this study were scaled by multiplying the same constant with each network. This process retained the relative differences among connections and plots while making the network graphs more readable.

Finally, because ONA also creates low-dimensional embeddings for each network using dimensional reduction via singular value decomposition, statistical comparisons can be made between groups of networks. In this study, we compared the average embeddings for each condition using Mann-Whitney tests. These tests indicate whether the pattern of transitions each condition made were significantly different. These tests were conducting using the positions of the embeddings on the first and second dimensions of the embedding space. These dimensions account for the most variance among the units of analysis, and they can be interpreted using the positions of the network nodes in the space. Nodes—and the transitions they represent—that are on the extremes of the dimensions are the most influential at distinguishing between units of analysis.

To address our research questions, we created ONA network subtractions that visually compared the mean network of the AS condition to the mean networks of the FS and CN conditions at the task and segment levels. We conducted Mann-Whitney U tests between the mean networks using their embedding values on the first and second dimensions of the ONA space. The statistical analyses carried out in this study, encompassing mean differences, p -values, effect sizes, and power calculations, are presented in Table 5 . All tests were conducted using a Bonferroni correction to control for family-wise error, where each family consisted of the given level (e.g., task-level or segment 4) and four tests. Power analyses were conducted using the statistical software GPower 3.1.

Statistical result for both task-level and segment-level models.

3.1. RQ1: Effectiveness of scaffolding at the task level

3.1.1. comparison between as and cn groups.

The network subtraction for the AS and CN learners is shown in Figure 3 . Blue edges represent more frequent transitions for the AS learners, while red edges indicate more frequent transitions for the CN learners. The network subtraction shows that CN learners made more frequent self-transitions to first-reading, suggesting a sequential reading approach during some parts of the task. They also made more frequent transitions from first-reading to monitoring and from re-reading to monitoring, suggesting that they were more engaged in monitoring their reading processes throughout the task, for instance, by checking the remaining time. Similarly, compared to AS learners, CN learners made more frequent transitions between monitoring and elaboration/organization. As elaboration/organization involves essay writing as recorded from keystrokes, this strong transition suggests a recurrent cycle of writing, time-checking, and returning to writing processes.

Subtracted ONA network of SRL process between the control (CN, in red) and adaptive scaffolding (AS, in blue) groups for the whole main task.

The figure shows that AS learners made more frequent transitions to orientation (self), from monitoring to orientation, and from orientation to first-reading. This suggests that they tended to use the catalog and navigation window to guide their reading and writing process, and they regularly incorporated task instructions/rubrics in their reading process. More frequent self-transitions to monitoring highlight AS learners' deeper engagement with actions such as navigating to specific pages, referring to previously created notes, searching through annotations, and checking the timer. This pattern points to a more layered, detailed approach to self-regulation among AS learners. In contrast, CN learners mainly exhibited transitions to the monitoring node but not self-transitions within it. This suggests that CN learners also engaged in monitoring their learning progress during their reading and writing processes—but this monitoring tended to occur on an as-needed basis rather than being a consistent, deeply engaged activity as seen in the AS learners. AS learners also made more frequent self-transitions to elaboration/organization, suggesting more involvement in writing and note-taking processes. Moreover, stronger transitions from first-reading to re-reading suggest that they tended not to read sequentially. Instead, they tended to revisit previously read information, indicating a deeper, more thoughtful engagement with the material. In contrast, the CN learners predominantly followed a linear, page-by-page reading strategy, suggesting less thorough engagement with the material.

The statistical test (second row of Table 5 ) indicates that the AS and CN learners differed significantly in their processes along the second dimension of the ONA space. CN learners tended to make more transitions that involved elaboration/organization, monitoring, and re-reading, whereas AS learners tended to make more transitions that involved orientation and first-reading. Taken together, the results suggest that CN learners typically engaged in a sequential and reactive learning approach, often monitoring their progress during reading, re-reading, and writing tasks. Conversely, AS learners demonstrated a deeper, more reflective learning process, regularly integrating task instructions/rubrics into their reading, revisiting previously read information, and partaking in a broad range of monitoring processes.

3.1.2. Comparison between AS and FS groups

The network subtraction for the AS and FS learners is shown in Figure 4 . Blue edges represent more frequent transitions for the AS learners; green edges indicate more frequent transitions for the FS learners. The figure suggests that the FS learners had similar transition patterns to the CN group and that the differences between the AS and FS groups are similar to the differences described above. The one exception is that FS learners did not make more frequent transitions from first reading to monitoring—the thin and faint edge for this transition indicates that AS and FS learners had similar amounts for this transition.

Subtracted ONA network of SRL process between the fixed scaffolding (FS, in green) and adaptive scaffolding (AS, in blue) groups for the whole main task.

The statistical test (fourth row of Table 5 ) indicates that the two groups were significantly different along the second dimension of the space—FS learners tended to make more transitions that involved elaboration/organization, monitoring, and re-reading, while AS learners tended to make more transitions that involved orientation and first-reading. Similar to above findings, the results suggest that FS learners typically engaged in a sequential and reactive learning approach—monitoring their progress after re-reading and writing. AS learners, on the contrary, demonstrated a deeper, more reflective learning process, regularly integrating task instructions/rubrics into their reading, revisiting previously read information, and partaking in a broad range of monitoring processes.

3.2. RQ2: Effectiveness of scaffolding at the segment level

To further investigate how each scaffold was associated with learners' SRL processes, we segmented the data based on the timing of each scaffold. This resulted in five segments, five corresponding network subtractions between the AS and CN learners, and five corresponding network subtractions between the AS and FS learners. All visualizations are included in the Appendix at this link . To address RQ2, our analysis focuses on the segments occurring after the triggering of the fourth and fifth scaffolds. This selection assumes that later segments are likely to include more diverse SRL processes. As shown in Table 5 , no comparisons between the scaffolding groups in these segments were statistically significant. However, the small-medium effect sizes for these results and low statistical power suggest that, if we had more data, these results would be significant. Thus, we still describe the network subtractions as they suggest differences that may become more salient in future studies.

3.2.1. Comparing CN and AS groups post the fourth scaffold

Figure 5 shows the network subtraction for the CN and AS learners at the end of the fourth segment (CN in red; AS in blue). For AS learners, this is the learning stage where they have just received the fourth scaffold, which depending on their prior actions, prompted them to commence writing and do so strategically by employing a range of self-regulated learning techniques.

Subtracted ONA network of the SRL process between the control (CN, in red) and adaptive scaffolding (AS, in blue) groups during the fourth segment of the study task.

CN learners made stronger self-transitions to first-reading and stronger transition from first-reading to monitoring. This suggests that, at this learning stage, there were still heavily engaged in continuous, page-by-page reading while frequently monitoring their reading progress by, for example, checking the remaining time. Furthermore, CN learners made stronger transitions from first-reading to elaboration/organization, indicating that they were creating notes and/or gradually starting writing based on the information they read page-by-page.

AS learners made stronger self-transitions to re-reading and elaboration/organization and stronger transitions from re-reading to elaboration/organization. These transitions suggest that upon receiving the fourth scaffold, AS learners initiated their essay writing process by referring back to previously read pages. This diligent reviewing, understanding, and organizing of their essay content aligned with the recommendations provided in the fourth scaffold, which encouraged learners to' paraphrase the main arguments that you've read and write in your own words'.

3.2.2. Comparing CN and AS groups post the fifth scaffold

Figure 6 shows the network subtraction for the CN and AS learners at the end of the fifth segment (CN in read; AS in blue). In the fourth segment, the results suggested that AS learners were engaged in a process of re-reading to gather useful information for writing, as indicated by the transition from re-reading to elaboration/organization in Figure 5 . However, after receiving the fifth scaffold, the direction of transition reversed (from elaboration/organization to re-reading), suggesting that learners began to check their writing by referring back to previously read pages. Moreover, AS learners made stronger transitions from re-reading to orientation and from re-reading to monitoring, which were not predominant in the fourth segment. This suggests that, after receiving the fifth scaffold, which advised learners to “revise your writing based on the task instruction and marking rubric”, AS learners followed the suggestions and initiated a process of finalizing, revising, and refining their essay by referring back to the task instructions and rubric, as well as their notes.

Subtracted ONA network of the SRL process between the control (CN, in red) and adaptive scaffolding (AS, in blue) groups during the fifth segment of the study task.

In contrast, CN learners seemed to ramp up their writing activities as they neared the end of the task with time running short. This is evidenced by a stronger transition from monitoring to elaboration/organization, suggesting they became more actively engaged in writing after revisiting previously made annotations and keeping a close eye on the remaining time. It appears that the time pressure acted as a spur to their shift into more intensive monitored writing, suggesting that their activities were largely driven by time constraints as opposed to a systematic or methodical approach to learning exhibited by AS learners.

3.2.3. Comparing AS and FS groups post the fourth scaffold

Figure 7 shows the network subtraction for the FS and AS learners at the end of the fourth segment (FS in green; AS in blue). Differences between the two groups are highly similar to the differences we observed between the CN and AS learners in the fourth segment. In particular, the stronger transitions for the FS learners were from first-reading to monitoring, from first-reading to elaboration/organization, from monitoring to elaboration/organization, and from monitoring to re-reading. These transitions suggest that the FS learners were actively monitoring their reading and re-reading processes, utilizing the information gleaned from reading to inform their writing, and subsequently monitoring their writing process. On the contrary, the AS learners made more frequent transitions from re-reading to orientation, from monitoring to orientation, and from elaboration/organization to orientation. These transitions suggest that the AS learners' activities were primarily guided by an understanding of the task requirements before embarking on reading and writing tasks.

Subtracted ONA network of the SRL process between the fixed scaffolding (FS, in green) and adaptive scaffolding (AS, in blue) groups during the fourth segment of the study task.

3.2.4. Comparing AS and FS groups post the fifth scaffold

Figure 8 shows the network subtraction for the FS and AS learners at the end of the fifth segment (FS in green; AS in blue). AS learners made more frequent transitions from re-reading to orientation, from re-reading to monitoring, and from elaboration/organization to re-reading. Additionally, AS learners made more frequent self-transitions to re-reading. Together, these transitions suggest that AS learners were more engaged in a process of checking and refining their essay after receiving the fifth scaffold. Conversely, FS learners made more frequent transitions from first-reading to monitoring, from elaboration/organization to monitoring, and from elaboration/organization to first-reading. These transitions suggest that FS learners were engaged in writing while still reading new information (pages that were not previously read).

Subtracted ONA network of the SRL process between the fixed scaffolding (FS, in green) and adaptive scaffolding (AS, in blue) groups during the fifth segment of the study task.

The analysis of SRL process patterns for the fifth segment suggests parallels between AS-FS and AS-CN learner comparisons. AS learners, across both comparisons, showed a transitions-related essay refinement and revision processes—as indicated by more frequent transitions to elaboration/organization, which capture writing behaviors via keystrokes—while their counterparts, both FS and CN learners, primarily engaged in reading and writing activities, along with monitoring their task progress. This result to a consistent divergence in SRL processes between AS learners and the other two groups during the fifth segment.

4. Discussion

This study used the ONA technique to model learners' SRL processes at both task level and segmented level. By comparing learners across different scaffolding groups, a number of intriguing findings were revealed.

4.1. Research question 1: effectiveness of scaffolding at the task level

This study examined the extent to which the existence of scaffolding facilitates effective SRL processes by comparing the ONA visualizations between AS and CN learners at the overall task level, and the differences in the second dimension of ONA are found to be statistically significant. It is found that AS learners were primarily engaged in task-guided reading and writing, while CN learners were predominantly focused on reading and writing while monitoring their learning progress. Meanwhile, the ONA comparison is also conducted between AS and FS learners to examine how the adaptivity of scaffolding may affect the effectiveness of scaffolding in promoting SRL processes. The comparison of SRL processes between AS and FS learners yielded analogous visualizations to those observed between AS and CN learners, and the differences in the second dimension of ONA are found to be statistically significant. Similar to the CN learners when compared to the AS learners, FS learners exhibited a learning approach that emphasized reading and writing while intermittently monitoring their learning progress. This result parallels the ONA visualizations between AS and CN learners, further corroborating the finding that learners without adaptive scaffolding tend to involve themselves more intensely in the reading and writing processes, monitoring their learning progress as necessary.

The SRL processes exhibited by AS learners present a fitting illustration of the key components of Winne and Hadwin's COPES model (Winne and Hadwin, 1998 ; Winne, 2018 ). As indicated by the COPES model, SRL learners strategically select learning tactics based on the specific conditions of the learning environment and meticulously align these chosen tactics to fulfill task requirements (Winne and Hadwin, 1998 ; Winne, 2017 ; Fan et al., 2021a ). Based on our findings at the task level, AS learners demonstrated these abilities prominently. They showcased a strategic approach in their learning processes, with a clear focus on understanding the requirements of the task before delving into their reading and writing activities. This behavior signifies a mindful and well-planned approach to learning that aligns with the theoretical tenets of a self-regulated learner. Hence, given the strategic SRL processes demonstrated by the AS learners, it can be inferred that the provision of adaptive scaffolding aligns with the promotion of strategic SRL processes.

Drawing upon the findings, it can be inferred that AS learners' deliberate choice of what to read and write, as well as their ongoing integration of task instructions, underscores a heightened level of metacognitive engagement in their learning process. As Butcher and Sumner ( 2011 ) concluded, metacognitive processes in an essay-writing task mainly involve three activities—critical analysis on existing representation (e.g., reading material and the essay constructed by the learners), active searching for relevant information from reading material, and active revising on the existing representation. In the current study, the task-guided SRL processes which were performed by AS learners were highly consistent with those metacognitive processes as posited in Butcher and Sumner ( 2011 ). AS learners' keen engagement in task orientation and reading resonates with Butcher and Sumner ( 2011 )'s emphasis on the critical analysis of existing representations as a key metacognitive process in essay-writing. Furthermore, their pattern of revisiting previously read information, alongside reading new material, and subsequently organizing their essays aligns with the active search for relevant information and the proactive revision of existing representations, further emphasizing their metacognitive engagement in the task.

4.2. Research question 2: effectiveness of scaffolding at different learning segments

To address RQ2, this study carried out a segmentation analysis, aiming to uncover the extent to which each individual scaffold is associated with different SRL processes across different scaffolding groups. This approach is intended to offer nuanced insights into how immediate adjustments in SRL processes correspond with different scaffolding conditions.

The fourth scaffolding encouraged learners to not only start writing but also to write strategically by using various SRL tactics (e.g., as evidenced from the message in the fourth scaffolding, to review annotations, to check requirements, or to read selectively). The findings showed that the FS and CN learners primarily engaged in a more linear, reading-centric process, continuously progressing page-by-page through the reading material and extracting information for their essays. In contrast, the AS learners demonstrated a more strategic approach to writing, regularly referring back to previously read pages or annotations. In sum, compared to those who did not receive scaffolding and those who only received fixed scaffolding, the learners who received adaptive SRL scaffolding tended to engage in more strategic writing and reading processes. While the differences we observed at the segment level were not statistically significant—likely due to low power—they align with previous studies which found that scaffolding—especially adaptive scaffolding—is effective at encouraging strategic learning processes (Azevedo et al., 2004 ). Furthermore, given that ‘orientation' is classified as a metacognitive process according to the SRL model proposed by Bannert ( 2007 ), the current study's findings highlight that adaptive SRL scaffolding, when compared to control conditions and fixed scaffolding is more potent in fostering metacognitive learning processes (Sonnenberg and Bannert, 2016 ).

From the fourth segment to the fifth segment, we observed different SRL process transitions among different scaffolding groups. Specifically, in the comparison between the AS and CN groups, it was observed that those in the CN group failed to exhibit certain SRL processes, including orientation, monitoring, and re-reading. This lack of guidance may have led them to allocate an excessive amount of time to reading, consequently leaving insufficient time for writing and minimizing the opportunities to review and revise their written article. From the theoretical perspective, this can be explained by the phenomena of availability deficiency, which happens when a learner does not have the knowledge or is unaware of the available cognitive or metacognitive processes that can be used in learning (Veenman et al., 2006 ; Wirth, 2009 ). On the contrary, as AS learners exhibited a multitude of SRL processes , suggesting that the implementation of SRL scaffolding may benefit learners by making them aware of available SRL processes. Meanwhile, compared to the FS learners, AS learners still demonstrated earlier SRL processes in task-guided writing and revising their essays. This concludes that, despite the fact that learners in both AS and FS groups received scaffolding which made them being aware of available SRL processes, implementing adaptive and fixed scaffolding still led to different SRL patterns. The potential reason for this finding might be that fixed scaffolding is unable to address the unique needs of individual learners, which could lead to the noncompliance to the provided scaffolding (Guo, 2022 ). Hence, learners are more likely to be receptive to scaffolding when the content is tailored to meet their particular SRL needs. From a theoretical standpoint, a scenario where learners are aware of the existence of various SRL processes, yet refrain from actively utilizing them, aligns with what is typically referred to as ‘production deficiency' (a situation where a learner who is aware of certain learning tactics but failed to utilize them) (Winne, 1997 ; Veenman et al., 2006 ; Wirth, 2009 ). This can be observed in the ONA models in comparison between AS and FS learners, which revealed that although both AS and FS learners received scaffolding, they nevertheless demonstrated distinct SRL processes. Thus, it could be surmised that the adaptivity inherent in scaffolding might play a crucial role in mitigating the phenomenon of production deficiency, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of promoting SRL processes. Overall, our findings lend support to the premise that adaptive scaffolding is potentially the most advantageous approach to support learners' SRL, by fostering an awareness of available SRL resources and concurrently encouraging early utilization of SRL processes.

5. Conclusion

In conclusion, this study utilized the ONA technique to explore varying SRL processes among higher education students participating in a two-hour reading and writing task under three different conditions: no scaffolding, fixed scaffolding, and adaptive scaffolding. Moreover, our investigation extended to both the overall task level and segmented levels. Findings illuminated the profound influence of adaptive scaffolding in fostering learners to be more task-oriented and metacognitively engaged, thus enabling more effective and strategic reading and writing processes. Conversely, learners under fixed scaffolding and no scaffolding conditions tended to delve more into the reading and writing processes, while concurrently monitoring their progress. These findings highlight the potential benefits of incorporating adaptive scaffolding in the learning context to bolster learners' self-regulation.

5.1. Research implication and future practice

At least two research implications and one practical implication can be concluded from our study. First, this study focused on the effectiveness of scaffolding using segmentation to analyze the immediate adjustments in SRL processes after the introduction of each scaffold by segmenting the learning task according to when the scaffolding was provided. Thus, segmentation analysis allowed an in-depth and detailed analysis of each scaffold. Future research should continue using segmentation analysis to deepen the understanding of learners' SRL process and the effectiveness of scaffolding at a segmented level. Second, this study offers the first insights of using the ONA technique to model learners' SRL processes in relation to scaffolding. Compared to other widely-adopted analytical techniques in understanding learners' SRL processes and the effects of scaffolding (e.g., process mining), the ONA technique is advantageous to the extent that it can address four dimensions of learning processes at once, including frequency, continuity, sequentiality, and role of actions (i.e., the function or functions that a learning action plays, which can be different in different learning contexts), which are aspects that other predominately-used techniques alone cannot (Fan et al., 2023 ). Moreover, ONA's deterministic node position layout supports the creation of subtracted networks to visualize differences in SRL processes between groups of learners. As such, future studies are recommended to continue in utilizing the ONA technique to model learners' SRL. For example, a promising direction could be modeling learners' use of learning tactics (e.g., highlighting) by using ONA and exploring if different transitions among learning tactics visualized on ONA can inform different learning strategy patterns. Moreover, we successfully identified the manifestation of distinct SRL processes in learners under different scaffolding conditions. An intriguing direction for future studies would be to probe whether these SRL processes, and the extent to which they are employed, correlate with variations in learning performance. This could yield a deeper understanding of the extent to which adaptive scaffolding could promote learning outcomes. Lastly, the results of this study may also provide some suggestions for practical and instructional improvement. Because we found that adaptive scaffolding can be effective in mitigating the phenomena of availability and production deficiency by not only making learners aware of available SRL resources but also promoting early SRL actions, educational instructors can take advantage of this positive effect by embedding adaptive scaffolding within the learning task. In addition, because we found that adaptive scaffolding was more closely related to more task-guided SRL processes, future instruction can leverage this advantage to design more adaptive scaffolding to further support the development of SRL.

5.2. Limitations

Our study has several limitations. The primary limitation constraint stems from the time limit set for the written task. With a 120-minute time limit, learners might have experienced pressure to complete the task, potentially amplifying the observed differences between the AS and FS conditions. However, we must bear in mind that this was not a tightly controlled laboratory study. Instead, it took place in a classroom setting, adhering to authentic course requirements. Future studies could address this limitation by allotting more ample time for task completion, which could help minimize the potential impact on the disparities between the FS and AS conditions. Second, in order to improve the readability of the ONA visualizations, the edge weights of each network were scaled up by using a consistent multiplier. While this maintains the relative differences between the examined connections, readers may perceive the differences as larger than they were. Moreover, our study did not find significant differences among the various scaffolding groups in terms of their SRL processes at the segmented level. However, our power analyses suggest that the lack of statistical significance for some comparisons may be due to a low N. A possible explanation for the small differences observed in some comparisons is the relatively short duration for each segment. Hence, it may be difficult for learners to significantly adjust their SRL processes just within a short period of time and encouraging more effective SRL processes should be proposed and implemented as a long-term process. We might expect the differences we observed to be more prominent for a longer learning task or a study with more participants. Relatedly, our ONA analysis only explored transitions between pairs of codes. Stronger differences may be observed for longer sequences, but this approach could reduce the interpretability of the results (Swiecki et al., 2019 ). Third, SRL is inherently contextual (Winne, 2010 ), and therefore, the research findings in the current study can only be referred to other similar learning tasks (i.e., read-and-write essay-writing tasks). As such, we suggest future studies investigating SRL learning processes in different learning contexts to test the generalizability of our findings. Lastly, our study encountered some technical difficulties that led to the exclusion of some participants from the data analysis, as illustrated in Table 1 . This resulted in varying attrition rates across the different scaffolding groups. We recommend that future studies aim to replicate our research to verify the repeatability of our results.

Despite these limitations, our results suggest that adaptive scaffolds are associated with positive changes in SRL processes compared to providing fixed scaffolds or no scaffolds at all. Specifically, we found that adaptive scaffolds are effective at 1) encouraging learners to adopt metacognitively task-guided SRL processes and 2) bringing awareness of and facilitating early engagement in SRL processes. This study demonstrates significant novelty in not only deepening our understanding of the effects of scaffolding at the segmented task level but also in using a contemporary network analytic technique to evaluate the effects of adaptive scaffolding on learners' SRL processes.

Data availability statement

Ethics statement.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Ethical Committee in the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences approved the present research. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

TL wrote and revised the draft of the manuscript. YF contributed to the conception and design of the study. YT, YW, and BY performed the ordered network analysis for all research questions. SS, XL, MR, JV, LL, IM, MB, and JM designed the learning platform from which data is collected for this study. ZS, Y-ST, DS, and DG provided guidance on the overall design and data analysis processes. All authors contributed to manuscript revision, read, and approved for submitted version.

Funding Statement

This study was funded through Call 5 of the Open Research Area (ORA) which was jointly supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (BA20144/10-1), Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO464.18.104), and the Economic and Social Research Council of the United Kingdom (ES/S015701/1).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Azevedo R., Cromley J. G., Moos D. C., Greene J. A., Winters F. I. (2011). Adaptive content and process scaffolding: a key to facilitating students' self-regulated learning with hypermedia . Psychol. Test Assess. Model . 53, 106. [ Google Scholar ]
• Azevedo R., Cromley J. G., Seibert D. (2004). Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students” ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia? Contemp. Educ. Psychol . 29 , 344–370. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2003.09.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bannert M. (2007). Metakognition beim lernen mit hypermedien . Mnster: Waxmann Verlag. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bannert M. (2009). Promoting self-regulated learning through prompts . Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie 23 , 139–145. 10.1024/1010-0652.23.2.139 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bannert M., Reimann P. (2012). Supporting self-regulated hypermedia learning through prompts . Instruct. Sci . 40 , 193–211. 10.1007/s11251-011-9167-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bannert M., Reimann P., Sonnenberg C. (2014). Process mining techniques for analysing patterns and strategies in students” self-regulated learning . Metacognit. Learn . 9 , 161–185. 10.1007/s11409-013-9107-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bannert M., Sonnenberg C., Mengelkamp C., Pieger E. (2015). Short-and long-term effects of students” self-directed metacognitive prompts on navigation behavior and learning performance . Comput. Human Behav . 52 , 293–306. 10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.038 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Broadbent J. (2017). Comparing online and blended learner's self-regulated learning strategies and academic performance . Intern. Higher Educ . 33 , 24–32. 10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.01.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Broadbent J., Poon W. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies & academic achievement in online higher education learning environments: a systematic review . Intern. Higher Educ . 27 , 1–13. 10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.04.007 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Butcher K. R., Sumner T. (2011). Self-directed learning and the sensemaking paradox . Human-Comp. Interact . 26 , 123–159. 10.1080/07370024.2011.556552 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dorodchi M., Benedict A., Desai D., Mahzoon M. J., MacNeil S., Dehbozorgi N. (2018). “Design and implementation of an activity-based introductory computer science course (cs1) with periodic reflections validated by learning analytics,”? in 2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) . San Jose, CA: IEEE, 1–8. 10.1109/FIE.2018.8659196 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duffy M. C., Azevedo R. (2015). Motivation matters: Interactions between achievement goals and agent scaffolding for self-regulated learning within an intelligent tutoring system . Comput. Human Behav . 52 , 338–348. 10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.041 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fan Y., Lim L., van der Graaf J., Kilgour J., Raković M., Moore J., et al.. (2022a). Improving the measurement of self-regulated learning using multi-channel data . Metacogn. Learn . 22 , 1–31. 10.1007/s11409-022-09304-z [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fan Y., Matcha W., Uzir N. A., Wang Q., Gašević D. (2021a). Learning analytics to reveal links between learning design and self-regulated learning . Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ . 31 , 980–1021. 10.1007/s40593-021-00249-z [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fan Y., Saint J., Singh S., Jovanovic J., Gac D. (2021b). “A learning analytic approach to unveiling self-regulatory processes in learning tactics,”? in LAK21: 11th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference (New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)), 184–195. 10.1145/3448139.3448211 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fan Y., Tan Y., Raković M., Wang Y., Cai Z., Shaffer D. W., et al.. (2023). Dissecting learning tactics in mooc using ordered network analysis . J. Comput. Assist. Learn . 39 , 154–166. 10.1111/jcal.12735 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fan Y., van der Graaf J., Lim L., Raković M., Singh S., Kilgour J., et al.. (2022b). Towards investigating the validity of measurement of self-regulated learning based on trace data . Metacogn. Learn 17 , 949–987. 10.1007/s11409-022-09291-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fincham E., Gašević D., Jovanović J., Pardo A. (2018). From study tactics to learning strategies: An analytical method for extracting interpretable representations . IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol 12 , 59–72. 10.1109/TLT.2018.2823317 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greene B. A., Land S. M. (2000). A qualitative analysis of scaffolding use in a resource-based learning environment involving the world wide web . J. Educ. Comput. Res . 23 , 151–179. 10.2190/1GUB-8UE9-NW80-CQAD [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greene J. A., Azevedo R. (2007). A theoretical review of winne and hadwins model of self-regulated learning: new perspectives and directions . Rev. Educ. Res . 77 , 334–372. 10.3102/003465430303953 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greene J. A., Azevedo R. (2009). A macro-level analysis of srl processes and their relations to the acquisition of a sophisticated mental model of a complex system . Contemp. Educ. Psychol . 34 , 18–29. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.05.006 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guo L. (2022). Using metacognitive prompts to enhance self-regulated learning and learning outcomes: a meta-analysis of experimental studies in computer-based learning environments . J. Comput. Assist. Learn . 38 , 811–832. 10.1111/jcal.12650 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jovanović J., Gašević D., Dawson S., Pardo A., Mirriahi N., et al.. (2017). Learning analytics to unveil learning strategies in a flipped classroom . Inter. Higher Educ . 33 , 74–85. 10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.02.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Knight S., Wise A. F., Chen B. (2017). Time for change: why learning analytics needs temporal analysis . J. Learn. Anal . 4 , 7–17. 10.18608/jla.2017.43.2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lahza H., Khosravi H., Demartini G., Gašević D. (2022). “Effects of technological interventions for self-regulation: A control experiment in learnersourcing,”? in LAK22: 12th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference , 542–548. 10.1145/3506860.3506911 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lim L., Bannert M., van der Graaf J., Molenaar I., Fan Y., Kilgour J., et al.. (2021). Temporal assessment of self-regulated learning by mining students think-aloud protocols . Front. Psychol . 12, 749749. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.749749 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lim L., Bannert M., van der Graaf J., Singh S., Fan Y., Surendrannair S., et al.. (2023). Effects of real-time analytics-based personalized scaffolds on students self-regulated learning . Comput. Human Behav . 139, 107547. 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107547 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mahzoon M. J., Maher M. L., Eltayeby O., Dou W., Grace K. (2018). A sequence data model for analyzing temporal patterns of student data . J. Learn. Anal . 5 , 55–74. 10.18608/jla.2018.51.5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maldonado-Mahauad J., Pérez-Sanagustin M., Moreno-Marcos P. M., Alario-Hoyos C., Munoz-Merino P. J., Delgado-Kloos C. (2018). “Predicting learners” success in a self-paced mooc through sequence patterns of self-regulated learning,”? in Lifelong Technology-Enhanced Learning: 13th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, EC-TEL 2018, Leeds, UK . Leeds: Springer, 355–369. 10.1007/978-3-319-98572-5_27 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marquart C. L., Tan Y., Cai Z., Shaffer D. W. (2023). ona: Ordered Network Analysis. R package version 0.1.1 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Milikić N., Gašević D., Jovanović J. (2018). Measuring effects of technology-enabled mirroring scaffolds on self-regulated learning . IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol 13 , 150–163. 10.1109/TLT.2018.2885743 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Molenaar I. (2014). Advances in temporal analysis in learning and instruction . Front. Learn. Res . 2 , 15–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Molenaar I., Chiu M. M., Sleegers P., van Boxtel C. (2011). Scaffolding of small groups” metacognitive activities with an avatar . Int. J. Comp.-Supported Collaborative Learn . 6 , 601–624. 10.1007/s11412-011-9130-z [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Munshi A., Biswas G., Baker R., Ocumpaugh J., Hutt S., Paquette L. (2023). Analysing adaptive scaffolds that help students develop self-regulated learning behaviours . J. Comput. Assist. Learn . 39 , 351–368. 10.1111/jcal.12761 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Panadero E. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research . Front. Psychol . 8, 422. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pea R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity . J. Learn. Sci . 13 , 423–451. 10.1207/s15327809jls1303_6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pieger E., Bannert M. (2018). Differential effects of students' self-directed metacognitive prompts . Comput. Human Behav . 86 , 165–173. 10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.022 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pintrich P. R., De Groot E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance . J. Educ. Psychol . 82, 33. 10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Raković M., Fan Y., van der Graaf J., Singh S., Kilgour J., Lim L., et al.. (2022). “Using learner trace data to understand metacognitive processes in writing from multiple sources,”? in LAK22: 12th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference (New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)), 130–141. 10.1145/3506860.3506876 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saint J., Fan Y., Gašević D., Pardo A. (2022). Temporally-focused analytics of self-regulated learning: a systematic review of literature . Comp. Educ . 3, 100060. 10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100060 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saint J., Whitelock-Wainwright A., Gašević D., Pardo A. (2020). Trace-srl: A framework for analysis of microlevel processes of self-regulated learning from trace data . IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol . 13 , 861–877. 10.1109/TLT.2020.3027496 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shaffer D. W., Collier W., Ruis A. R. (2016). A tutorial on epistemic network analysis: Analyzing the structure of connections in cognitive, social, and interaction data . J. Learn. Anal . 3 , 9–45. 10.18608/jla.2016.33.3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Siadaty M., Gašević D., Hatala M. (2016a). Measuring the impact of technological scaffolding interventions on micro-level processes of self-regulated workplace learning . Comput. Human Behav . 59 , 469–482. 10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.025 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Siadaty M., Gašević D., Hatala M. (2016b). Trace-based micro-analytic measurement of self-regulated learning processes . J. Learn. Anal . 3 , 183–214. 10.18608/jla.2016.31.11 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sitzmann T., Bell B. S., Kraiger K., Kanar A. M. (2009). A multilevel analysis of the effect of prompting self-regulation in technology-delivered instruction . Pers. Psychol . 62 , 697–734. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2009.01155.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sonnenberg C., Bannert M. (2015). Discovering the effects of metacognitive prompts on the sequential structure of srl-processes using process mining techniques . J. Learn. Anal . 2 , 72–100. 10.18608/jla.2015.21.5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sonnenberg C., Bannert M. (2016). Evaluating the impact of instructional support using data mining and process mining: A micro-level analysis of the effectiveness of metacognitive prompts . J. Educ. Data Mini . 8 , 51–83. 10.5281/zenodo.3554597 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sonnenberg C., Bannert M. (2019). Using process mining to examine the sustainability of instructional support: how stable are the effects of metacognitive prompting on self-regulatory behavior? Comput. Human Behav . 96 , 259–272. 10.1016/j.chb.2018.06.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Srivastava N., Fan Y., Raković M., Singh S., Jovanovic J., van der Graaf J., et al.. (2022). “Effects of internal and external conditions on strategies of self-regulated learning: a learning analytics study,”? in LAK22: 12th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference (New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)), 392–403. [ Google Scholar ]
• Swiecki Z., Lian Z., Ruis A., Shaffer D. W. (2019). Does Order Matter? Investigating Sequential and Cotemporal Models of Collaboration . Montral, QC: International Society of the Learning Sciences. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tan Y., Ruis A. R., Marquart C., Cai Z., Knowles M. A., Shaffer D. W. (2023). Ordered network analysis,? in Advances in Quantitative Ethnography: 4th International Conference . Copenhagen, Denmark: Springer, 101–116. 10.1007/978-3-031-31726-2_8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van der Graaf J., Lim L., Fan Y., Kilgour J., Moore J., Gašević D., et al.. (2022). The dynamics between self-regulated learning and learning outcomes: an exploratory approach and implications . Metacogn. Learn . 9 , 1–27. 10.1007/s11409-022-09308-9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van der Graaf J., Lim L., Fan Y., Kilgour J., Moore J., Bannert M., et al.. (2021). “Do instrumentation tools capture self-regulated learning?, in LAK21: 11th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference (New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)), 438–448. 10.1145/3448139.3448181 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Veenman M. V., Van Hout-Wolters B. H., Afflerbach P. (2006). Metacogn. Learn : Conceptual and methodological considerations . Metacogn. Learn . 1 , 3–14. 10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Winne P., Hadwin A. (1998). “Studying as self-regulated learning” in Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice , Dj Hacker, J. Dunlosky, A. C. (eds.). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 277–304. [ Google Scholar ]
• Winne P. H. (1997). Experimenting to bootstrap self-regulated learning . J. Educ. Psychol . 89, 397. 10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.397 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Winne P. H. (2010). Improving measurement of self-regulated learning . Educ. Psychol . 45 , 267–276. 10.1080/00461520.2010.517150 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Winne P. H. (2017). “Learning analytics for self-regulated learning,” in Handbook of Learning Analytics (Society for learning Analytics Research (SoLAR)), 241–249. [ Google Scholar ]
• Winne P. H. (2018). Theorizing and researching levels of processing in self-regulated learning . Br. J. Educ. Psychol . 88 , 9–20. 10.1111/bjep.12173 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wirth J. (2009). Promoting self-regulated learning through prompts . Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie 23 , 91–94. 10.1024/1010-0652.23.2.91 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wong J., Baars M., de Koning B. B., Paas F. (2021). Examining the use of prompts to facilitate self-regulated learning in massive open online courses . Comput. Human Behav . 115, 106596. 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106596 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zimmerman B. J. (1986). Becoming a self-regulated learner: which are the key subprocesses? Contemp. Educ. Psychol . 11 , 307–313. 10.1016/0361-476X(86)90027-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Teacher scaffolding of social and intellectual collaboration in small groups: a comparative case study.

• 1 Department of Educational Studies, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States
• 2 Institute of Education, National Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan

This comparative case study features two small groups of students engaging in collaborative dialog about social issues. Based on social constructivist theories, the two groups were compared across three major components of the small groups system: social dynamics, intellectual collaboration, and teacher scaffolding. Our goal was to holistically analyze these small group processes to understand why some small groups were highly successful while others were not, even within the same intervention and with the same teacher. Successful groups were those in which all students were able to access the conversational floor, many ideas were considered, students were able to share ideas and discuss collaboratively, and students were able to raise multiple forms of social reasoning to support and explain ideas. Change in social reasoning essay scores prior to and after the intervention were also considered as evidence of group success. Results show that teacher scaffolding and existing student processes served to amplify one another reciprocally. The teacher heightened productive social norms when they were present, which then served to encourage productive intellectual collaboration. However, when productive group norms were not present, the teacher took increasing control over the group, which further hampered productive social and intellectual interactions.

Introduction

Small group collaboration in classrooms is a complex and dynamic system in which various factors interact to influence student outcomes ( Webb, 1982 ; Gillies, 2003 ). While many small group studies have overarchingly demonstrated the effectiveness of small group collaboration on students’ cognitive development ( Foorman and Torgesen, 2001 ; Gillies, 2004 ; Webb, 2009 ; Webb et al., 2019 ), others have documented the heterogeneity in small group processes among students within classrooms or even under the same intervention practices (e.g., Webb, 1982 ; Barron, 2003 ; Webb et al., 2006 ; Volet et al., 2009 ). Much remains to be understood about why some small groups struggle more than others in small-group collaboration, specifically regarding how teachers orchestrate the dynamic and heterogeneous small group processes in the classroom (e.g., Jadallah et al., 2011 ).

There is also a lack of research that holistically considers small group collaboration processes. While quantitative methodologies have been valuable in identifying specific factors and their functioning, they are often limited in explaining how various factors interact with each other to constitute the dynamic system as a whole ( Yin, 1994 ). As such, we employed comparative case study to analyze how two groups of students interacted with peers and their teacher throughout an established small-group intervention approach called Collaborative Social Reasoning (Lin et al., under review). This methodology enabled us to answer theory-informed questions while allowing us to address additional questions as they arose from observations ( Yin, 1994 ; Merriam and Tisdell, 2016 ).

Our aim was to understand why some small groups of students are highly successful in a collaborative small-group discussion intervention while others are not, even when groups seem comparable and students were taught by the same teacher. Successful groups showed strong collaboration, reasoning, and social interaction. We primarily focus on the processes of teacher scaffolding, social dynamics of the groups, and level of intellectual collaboration during collaborative small-group discussions and how these factors interact and vary between collaborative small groups ( Figure 1 ).

Figure 1. Dynamic system of small group collaboration.

While considerable literature exists in each of these areas, there is little that examines all three within a holistic system, making the contribution of this paper unique. Although we cannot assume that these processes would be generalized to outside of the systems we are studying, our findings can point to critical processes by which teachers facilitate small group collaboration, which can inform effective instructional practices in the future.

Literature Review

Small group discussion as a dynamic social system.

As shown in Figure 1 , we conceptualized small group collaboration in the classroom as a dynamic social system constituting processes of teacher scaffolding, social dynamics, and intellectual collaboration. In this model, social dynamics, such as turn-taking and ability to access the conversational floor, influence intellectual collaboration by ensuring that all ideas are heard and considered. Intellectual collaboration, or the extent to which students build knowledge upon the ideas of others’, influences social dynamics by providing a collaborative, constructive conversational floor for peer relations to grow and social skills to develop. The teacher’s role is to scaffold both of these processes, but these processes can also influence the ways in which the teacher provides scaffolding to the groups. Based on social constructivist theories ( Vygotsky, 1934 ), this model conceptualizes learning as engrained in the social environment in which the learning happened ( Adams, 2006 ); in this context, a small group of collaborating students within a classroom that is within a society. The model is based on prior work reviewed in the next sections and was used to structure our in-depth analysis of the two groups’ collaboration.

Social Dynamics

The ways by which students interact with one another and social relationships with peers can impact students’ academic development ( Wentzel and Watkins, 2002 ; Buchs et al., 2009 ; Lee and Shute, 2010 ). For example, being accepted by peers can motivate students to engage in learning activities and display socially appropriate forms of behavior in group learning ( Wentzel and Watkins, 2002 ). These studies emphasize how social and academic processes coalesce to influence academic outcomes including engagement and problem solving. Vygotsky (1934) also argued about how cognitive development occurs when individuals are tasked with a problem or activity that can be accomplished through concept formation with others. Furthermore, social discourse around the concept enables students to enhance and refine their conceptualization further than they would individually be capable of.

However, the goal structure of the social activity is important. Roseth et al. (2008) showed that collaborative design can be beneficial for students’ peer relationships. They found that cooperative goal structures, when individuals’ goals are inextricably linked and reliant on peers’ goals, promoted positive peer relationships more than either competitive or individualistic goal structures. These positive peer relationships, then, would further enhance the productivity of the group via enhanced social learning. As a result of these findings, we expected the social and cognitive processes within small group discussion to interact to produce greater learning than can be explained by either factor alone, presuming that both exist and are productive in nature. This is represented by the social dynamics and intellectual collaboration boxes in Figure 1 .

For collaborative learning to occur effectively, the teacher must create equal opportunities for everyone to engage in constructive discourse, and students must take responsibility for advancing the group’s understanding by building on each other’s ideas/thinking ( Hmelo-Silver and Barrows, 2008 ). Teacher scaffolding, then, is any teacher move that promotes students’ building and awareness of conceptual understanding ( Boyd and Markarian, 2011 ). Effective construction of knowledge involves group effort that requires an intricate balance of turn taking, meaning making, and reflection. However, there is research that shows that it is not easy to maintain this balance and that discussions may move quickly from equitable to inequitable ( Esmonde, 2009 ; Engle et al., 2014 ; Shah and Lewis, 2019 ).

In their empirical study, Shah and Lewis (2019) emphasize that equity in collaborative learning must be maintained in two ways: relational (the extent to which students demonstrate respect for their peers) and participatory (fair distribution of participation opportunities and participation itself in collaborative learning). Their research suggests that equity cannot be conceptualized as binary. This suggests that a collaborative process cannot be statically inequitable or equitable but is constantly in a state of flux and contingent on various factors, such as nature of the task, participation structure, relative content knowledge between collaborating students, students’ uptake, and teachers’ abilities to moderate these collaborations. Another interesting finding brought out by Shah and Lewis’s (2019) analysis of social interactions in collaboration shows that the net effect on equity of a single interaction is usually very small and it takes a series of small moves which can eventually amplify inequity over time and negatively influence the collaboration. This is important when analyzing factors that lead to either the success or failure of certain groups; inequity is less likely to appear as obvious statements of disrespect or disregard. Instead, it is more likely to present as many small, imperceptible interactions that accumulate over time.

Boaler (2008) further explored the idea of relational equity by describing three areas in which relational equity is perceptible in classrooms: respect for people’s ideas, leading to positive intellectual relations; commitment to the learning of others; and learned methods of communication and support. Boaler’s (2008) study was conducted to explore major differences in achievement, behavior, and culture between three urban high schools with similar populations. They wanted to explore why one school’s incoming freshmen began with the worst math test scores in the district but graduated with the highest. Their study found that high relational equity was the main difference between these schools and contributed substantially to the students’ conceptual learning. These students were devoted to effective, equitable communication to ensure that all collaborators thoroughly learned the material. As a result, students saw learning gains beyond those of otherwise comparable peers at other area schools ( Boaler, 2008 ).

Participatory equity refers to students’ access to the conversational floor. Engle et al. (2014) defined participatory equity as “the degree to which the participant can initiate turns when desired, complete them without interruption, and control who else has access to the floor” (p. 8). The conversational floor, then, is “an evolving, socially negotiated space in which one or more particular people is allowed to present conversational contributions” ( Engle et al., 2014 , p. 253). In the context of small group discussion, participatory equity is achieved when group members have equal access to the conversational floor at will and without interruption.

Considering equity more broadly, Esmonde (2009) analyzed collaborative group work in mathematics classrooms and found that “expert” students tended to dominate certain collaborative activities. Engle et al. (2014) went further and proposed other factors that influence level of control and participation in collaborative discussions. They proposed a theoretical framework with five components to explain why some students tended to have greater influence in group discussions over others. Their findings suggest the following factors influence the level of participation, turn taking, and uptake of students’ ideas: (1) the negotiated merit of each participant’s contributions (i.e., the merit of student’s ideas is negotiated among group members rather than through any objective criteria); each participant’s (2) level of intellectual authority, (3) access to the conversational floor, (4) level of spatial privilege (physical placement, body language, etc.) and (5) level of influence in the discussion. They strongly recommended teachers and researchers consider all these factors when evaluating collaborative discussions or designing classroom activities. Overall, ensuring effective collaboration and uptake is not straightforward, and both teachers and students play important roles in balancing these discussions. The teacher can encourage provision of equal opportunities for students and facilitate connections between students’ ideas, whereas students need to focus on building knowledge and interacting productively with one another.

Relatively few studies have explored the influence of collaborative discussions on peer interactions and social experiences or the opposite (i.e., the influence of peer interactions on collaborative discussions). Anderson et al. (2001) found that when students participated in discussions with open participation, they tended to influence each other’s ways of thinking and phrasing arguments more than when the discussions were teacher-controlled. Lin et al. (under review) found positive impacts of collaborative discussions on classroom relationships, but casual mechanisms and influencing factors have yet to be explored.

Overall, collaborative discussions have been shown to provide students with opportunities to learn from one another, experience varied methods of communicating, make sense of social experiences, and remain engaged and motivated ( Laal and Ghodsi, 2012 ; Wu et al., 2013 ). As mentioned above, social norms, group dynamics, and equity can all impact the effectiveness of group functioning. This study will explore if and how peer interactions and group dynamics influence the quality of collaborative small-group discussions in conjunction with cognitive processes. Next, the intellectual subsystem is considered.

Intellectual Collaboration

Idea building, also referred to as knowledge building, refers to collaborative efforts to construct, transform, and refine collective knowledge through discourse ( Hmelo-Silver and Barrows, 2008 , pp. 48–49). This definition encompasses an infinite range of situations in which discussion helps students build conceptual understanding. However, while a great deal of work has been done on idea building in various collaborative learning settings, much of it has focused on student interactions centering around one “best” or “correct” answer (e.g., Webb, 2000 ; Sfard and Kieran, 2001 ; Hmelo-Silver and Barrows, 2008 ; Ing et al., 2015 ). The assumption underlying this body of work, much of which has been conducted in math classrooms, is that students should arrive at similar understanding around a common answer, which places students in a helper/helpee or expert/novice relationship in which some students are more, and others less, knowledgeable. This is problematic as, in many dilemmas, equally valid reasoning may result in several equally valid conclusions. This is not to say that all ideas should be assumed equally valid, but rather that there may be no “right” answer but instead be multiple well-justified, well-reasoned conclusions or courses of action based on different values, ideas, or perspectives. In these cases, it is more important that students are able to consider, critique, refine, and respond to ideas around a certain topic, rather than that they are able to clearly and effectively explain their solution to a problem. For this reason, we consider idea building as an index of intellectual collaboration, which we define in this study as a process that includes questioning an idea, proposing a new idea, responding/adding to an existing idea, or raising evidence for or against a proposed idea. This process may take multiple forms, and students are not working toward a particular answer, but are rather working to weigh different perspectives, ideas, and domains of knowledge provided by others and then formulate those into their own conclusion ( Cazden, 1988 ; Killen, 2007 ; Hitti et al., 2014 ; Chiasson et al., 2017 ).

Two processes of idea building/intellectual collaboration have been found to be related to students’ learning: provision of detailed explanations, and engagement with others’ ideas ( Webb et al., 2014 ; Ing et al., 2015 ). Vygotsky’s (1934) theory emphasizes the importance of group members being willing to listen to each other’s ideas and respecting it, in order to support idea building. These positive dynamics would help shape one’s own ideas and connect it to others. Warner (2008) suggested that students build knowledge in several ways: explaining, reorganizing, or building on an idea; questioning to show that an idea is valid or invalid; connecting or proposing multiple representations of the idea; applying the same idea in multiple contexts; and raising hypotheticals.

Teacher Scaffolding

Wood et al. (1976) were among the first to apply the term “scaffolding” to education when they explained how adults used varying strategies to help young learners with problem solving. Examples of cognitive scaffolding include slowly increasing the complexity of the problem at hand, encouraging higher level thinking, directing students’ attention to critical features, or modeling reasoning or problem solving. Social scaffolding includes managing group dynamics by helping students support one another, ensuring equal contribution/participation by all, and helping students stay on task and maintain direction toward the goal ( Belland et al., 2013 ). Regardless of the focus of these strategies, they consistently encourage students to build awareness of and depth in their conceptual understanding of the topic at hand ( Boyd and Markarian, 2011 ). In the context of classroom discussions, research has identified principled strategies of cognitive scaffolding to enhance the quality of discussion ( Chinn et al., 2000 ; Alexander, 2017 ; Howe et al., 2019 ). For example, Webb (2009) found that probing students’ explanations to uncover details of their thinking and problem-solving strategies is an effective scaffolding strategy to promote learning. To date, however, there is comparatively less research on the non-academic scaffolding of dialogic discussion or how teachers can support discussions in ways that are beyond prompting for reasoning alone ( Puntambekar and Kolodner, 2005 ; Belland et al., 2008 ; Belland et al., 2013 ).

The effectiveness of scaffolding is dependent on various factors such as contingency (appropriateness of support based on student needs/ability), context, timing of fading, and nature of the task ( Howe, 2013 ; van de Pol et al., 2015 , 2019 ). van de Pol et al. (2015) showed that a combination of the above-mentioned factors together influences student outcomes. Their study highlighted that contingency alone does not ensure effectiveness and that the frequency with which the teacher provides support and the nature of the task is also important in determining the effectiveness of teacher scaffolding. van de Pol et al. (2019) used qualitative analyses to further show that students’ uptake of contingent support was sometimes hampered by untimely fading of the support and that it was most effective when the support faded gradually. In another study, Howe (2013) showed how the efficacy of teacher scaffolding is influenced by the nature of the task. For instance, in group work that requires abstraction and resolving different opinions, teachers are encouraged to use probing to encourage students to explain their reasoning while providing support as students move toward resolution. Overall, these studies highlighted that teacher scaffolding is influenced by many factors and that the nature of scaffolding can vary depending on the task and classroom context.

Teacher’s scaffolding not only influences group processes but can be shaped by group processes, indicating a bidirectional relationship. This means that the teacher both influences and is influenced by the students she/he is scaffolding. Webb et al. (2006) found that students largely mirrored teachers’ modeled discourse and communication patterns. While such research showed how teacher scaffolding can influence student outcomes, Chen and Jiang (2004) demonstrated how the opposite can also play a role, that is, how student group dynamics influenced the way the teacher provides scaffolding. In their study, Group A had better group dynamics and coordination, thereby allowing the teacher to play the role of a ‘follower’ and focus on providing cognitive structuring. Group B, on the other hand, lacked effective communication and coordination, so the mentor had to play the role of an initiator while increasing focus on social psychological aspects such as sensitivity, encouragement, and humor, rather than focusing on cognitive elements. This highlighted the reciprocal influence between teacher scaffolding and student group processes.

Teacher scaffolding is complex and multifaceted, as teachers both influence and are influenced by social processes in the classroom. While many factors may influence the effectiveness of scaffolding, it has been consistently shown that what is most critical is the level of conceptual consideration the teacher is helping the students interact with. This facilitation might take different forms within different contexts. Based on the literature above, we define ideal scaffolding as the timely use of teacher strategies to temporarily support students’ cognitive needs and social needs in a small group discussion (including probing, modeling, direction maintenance, supporting autonomy, frustration control, monitoring group dynamics, etc.) until students gain sufficient skill to engage in a productive discussion ( Webb, 2009 ; Belland et al., 2013 ).

Collaborative Social Reasoning: A Collaborative, Small-Group Intervention

This case study is situated within a dialogic, social reasoning intervention called Collaborative Social Reasoning (CSR). This approach is informed by the substantial literature on Collaborative Reasoning ( Chinn et al., 2001 ; Reznitskaya et al., 2009 ). The fundamental assumption underlying the approach is that knowledge is socially constructed through meaningful and authentic interactions ( Vygotsky, 1934 ). The context of CSR was selected for several reasons: It has been shown to be effective at improving students’ social reasoning (Lin et al., under review); it allows for in-depth analysis of students and teachers engaging in collaborative, democratic discussions; and it is based on ambiguous social-moral dilemmas for which there is no single or simple answer. This enables students and teachers to engage in reasoned argumentation about social issues in genuine, democratic ways, thereby providing ample opportunity for qualitative analysis of the discussions (Lin et al., under review).

Centered specifically on complex social-moral issues, CSR adopts four theoretical and research-driven design principles aiming at creating critical dialog with purposeful and meaningful collaboration (Lin et al., under review): (1) collaborative argumentation, (2) positive social norms, or baseline expectations of respectful and productive interaction, (3) teacher facilitation, and (4) multi-faceted literary texts (Lin et al., under review). The first, collaborative argumentation ( Chinn and Clark, 2013 ), focuses on the goal of building understanding with each other rather than convincing others of a particular viewpoint. Positive social norms included turn-taking, respect for all ideas and opinions, sharing of the conversational floor equitably ( Engle et al., 2014 ), and open participation that enable students to share ideas freely without worrying about teacher evaluation ( Au and Mason, 1981 ).

The purpose of teacher facilitation is to ensure that (1) all students in the group comprehend discussion texts and questions, (2) discussions do not remain at surface levels (e.g., checking facts) but involve higher-level thinking (e.g., critical thinking, metacognition) and (3) group dynamics are effective at supporting high-level cognition and collaboration. In addition, teachers play an important role as a facilitator, who gradually fade their facilitation as students become more independent thinkers.

The use of multi-faceted text is the final design principle of CSR. Fictional stories were selected, excerpted, and adapted in order to facilitate collaborative argumentation with peers ( Walton, 1998 ); stimulate social perspective taking ( Bakhtin, 1981 ); and help students connect thought and action. To achieve these ends, storylines were linked to current social or political issues in the students’ everyday life (e.g., fitting into a social group at school, experiences of racism). The stories were designed to provoke students’ knowledge and experiences about social issues in order to promote collaborative and equitable discussions.

Research Questions

This study applies a case study approach, in which in-depth analysis is completed to holistically explore small group processes as a dynamic social system, to uncover the ways in which teachers carry out these responsibilities in collaborative small group discussions, while also relating these practices to student learning. The present study aims to move beyond the existing work by examining not only the scaffolding that exists, but also how teacher scaffolding interacts with the group dynamics and intellectual collaboration within a discussion-based small-group intervention.

The present study aims to explore the interactions between cognitive, social, and scaffolding processes within small group discussions. This will enable a much fuller understanding of how teachers serve as holistic facilitators in the discussion, rather than simply as enhancers of cognition. Our aim is to explore the following research questions:

• What are the major differences in patterns of social dynamics and intellectual collaboration throughout the course of six CSR discussions between a high-performing (demonstrates high-level, collaborative dialogic, and productive social dynamics) and a low-performing group (demonstrates lack of high-level, collaborative dialogic and productive social dynamics)?

• How are the patterns of social dynamics and intellectual collaboration related to the teacher’s scaffolding strategies?

Materials and Methods

Source of data.

The data were drawn from a larger project in two urban, Midwestern public schools in the United States. The purpose of the larger project was to develop a small-group discussion approach called Collaborative Social Reasoning (CSR), and to examine its impacts on students’ interpersonal competencies and social reasoning. Participating teachers engaged in a 2-day workshop to learn about CSR principles and strategies. Scaffolding strategies were suggested to the teachers, and they were encouraged to give students control of the discussion as much as possible. As a result, teachers were exposed to similar scaffolding strategies but were allowed to implement them in different ways and to different extents.

The larger project contained six fifth-grade classrooms in the treatment condition and six classrooms in two control-comparison conditions. Four small groups were formed in each of the six treatment classrooms, totaling 24 small groups and a total of 144 discussions. The research team transcribed discussions two, four, and six from all 24 small groups (mean age = 10.94 years, SD = 0.41). As a result, analyses that required transcripts were completed based on these weeks’ discussions. However, all videos associated with the study cases were analyzed in depth to uncover differences in small-group discussion processes between the cases. All students were assigned a pseudonym, which are used through the remainder of the paper. Students and teacher were told about the purpose of the larger project: to understand how CSR works and affects students’ learning in an authentic classroom setting. Pseudonyms were also used to represent student and teacher identities in conversations and correspondence about the project. The data were also stored using pseudonyms and/or student ID numbers.

Case Selection

For the purpose of this comparative case study, we selected one high-performing and one low-performing group based on the following procedure and criteria. First, two expert researchers independently reviewed videos of the final (week 6) discussion for all 24 small groups and nominated those that were particularly productive or struggling. Criteria evaluated were number of perspectives considered, nature of social interactions, and depth of social-moral reasoning. Groups that considered many perspectives, had positive social interactions, and showed great depth in their reasoning were nominated as high achieving. Groups in which this was most notably absent were nominated as low performing. There was more than 75% overlap in the groups noted by the two researchers. Groups that were nominated by both researchers were presented to the research team via video clips of the week 6 discussion. The research team was shown the clips without indication of prior evaluation and asked to rate the group’s success in the discussion. Of the groups unanimously agreed to be high- or low-performing, two of the most contrasting groups came from the same teacher in the same school. These two small groups were chosen for the study because they were unanimously agreed to be high- or low-performing and they allowed us to examine teacher’s roles under the same school and cultural contexts, reducing extraneous influencing factors.

For the intervention, groups were designed to be heterogeneous to best represent the classroom composition. We used pretest data collected from the larger project to identify shy, aggressive, popular, and rejected students. This information, along with students’ academic level, race, and gender, were used to create heterogeneous groups within each classroom. For more information on these scales and the group creation procedure, please see Lin et al. (under review) and Nagpal et al. (2020) . In the struggling group, there were two females and four males. Both females and one male were White and the other three students were Black. In the high-performing group, there were three males and four females. Two males were Hispanic and the other was Black. All the females were White. The teacher was a White female in her first year of teaching.

To establish that the two groups of students were comparable at the outset of the intervention, we compared three of the major pre-test measures drawn from the larger project: (1) peer acceptance, defined as the extent to which peers like to work and play with each student, was assessed using a peer nomination approach in which students rated each of their classmates according to how much they liked to play or work with that peer on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 10 (very much) ( Parker and Asher, 1993 ); (2) social reasoning, defined as knowledge about the complex social world ( Turiel, 1983 ), was assessed by an individual essay task, which was coded based on a coding scheme designed to examine the number of perspectives students considered in the essay (see Kraatz et al., 2019 for more details about the coding scheme; inter-rater reliability α = 0.88); (3) academic achievement, which was based on students’ 4th grade state standardized language arts scores. Independent samples t -tests were conducted to compare the groups’ average peer acceptance, social reasoning, and academic performance. There were no significant differences in pre-test peer acceptance [ M = 4.46, SD = 1.18; t (10) = −1.46, p = 0.18], social reasoning [ M = 0.82, SD = 1.33; t (9) = 0.33, p = 0.58], or 4th grade standardized test score [ M = 693, SD = 28.67; t (9) = 0.59, p = 0.57]. Over the course of the intervention, the high-performing group significantly increased their social reasoning score [Time 1 M = 0.86, SD = 1.57; Time 2 M = 2.71, SD = 1.25; t (6) = −2.64, p = 0.04], while the low-performing group did not [Time 1 M = 0.08, SD = 0.96; Time 2 M = 0.50, SD = 0.58; t (3) = 1, p = 0.39]. The average length of discussions in both groups was 24 min, indicating similar time spent in the small groups over the 6 weeks.

CSR Procedure

The CSR intervention occurs over 6 weeks, and students read and discuss one story related to social exclusion each week. Each discussion focuses around a “big question,” which features an ambiguous social moral dilemma. A researcher was present in each classroom during all CSR discussions to monitor the fidelity of the implementation. Prior to the intervention, a norm-setting session lasting about an hour was conducted by a researcher and the teacher within each classroom to elaborate expectations for critical, collaborative, and respectful dialog and give students a chance to set norms for their own discussions. Teachers were trained to facilitate and encourage CSR norms while scaffolding students’ argumentation. However, it was emphasized that the discussion belonged to the students; they controlled the ideas, flow, and turn-taking. Furthermore, in order to promote equity, teachers were encouraged to help students problematize content by encouraging questioning, challenging, and other intellectual contributions; share authority by making students genuine participants in classroom discourse; ensure accountability to others’ and intellectual norms; and provide access to needed resources ( Cornelius and Herrenkohl, 2004 ). Students were encouraged to consider all possible viewpoints before arriving at their own conclusion, with no need for group consensus. The discussion then ended with a teacher-led debriefing session in which students reflected on their individual and group performance with respect to their goals. The group then discussed possible goals for their next discussion.

Group Comparison Approaches

Once the groups were selected, the first and second authors engaged in in-depth analysis of the six discussion videos for each group. Following Creswell and Poth’s (2018) data analysis procedure, we first took detailed notes and completed memoing of the data. Weekly meetings were held in order to compare notes and consolidate areas of interest. We then examined the notes, memos, and codes from the twelve total discussions and compared these to the three major themes previously identified in the literature. Within each of the three major categories, we used pattern matching to examine the ways in which the teacher interacts with both groups of students and then compared the similarities and differences in these interactions ( Yin, 1994 ). We found several areas of difference within the theoretically defined categories: within social dynamics, we found differences in social equity, which can further be broken into participatory and relational equity. Idea building and resulting collaborative arguments differed within the “intellectual collaboration” umbrella, and major differences in teacher scaffolding were noted for both social and cognitive scaffolding moves. The results of the memoing were used to conduct more detailed literature review to guide our in-depth analysis. The qualitative and quantitative analyses were used together in order to triangulate findings and increase validity ( Atkins and Wallace, 2015 ; Merriam and Tisdell, 2016 ).

Two aspects of social dynamics were observed to differ between the high- and low-performing groups: relational equity and participatory equity ( Shah and Lewis, 2019 ). Relational equity refers to respect for others’ differences, ideas, perspectives, and actions ( Boaler, 2008 ). One researcher notated all instances in both groups in which students demonstrated consideration of others’ learning, ideas, and perspectives. These occurrences could be explicit statements such as “oh, I never thought of it like that!” or more subtle, seen through engagement in intellectual conversation in which students considered the ideas of others in relation to their own ideas, demonstrating distribution of power within the group ( Cornelius and Herrenkohl, 2004 ). Each transcript was examined at the turn-of-talk level–each student turn of talk was examined and if it included that student showing relational equity, it was coded as such. One researcher coded all the transcripts, and another researcher independently reviewed the entire coding for reliability. There was 90% agreement between the researchers and any disagreements were discussed until 100% agreement was reached.

In terms of participatory equity, we examined the extent to which students accessed, or were unable to access, the conversational floor ( Engle et al., 2014 ) across the six discussions. This was completed by coding all interruptions that occurred within each discussion. Instances in which students uttered exclamations or other phrases that did not disrupt the flow of the conversation (interjections) were not counted because there was not a genuine conflict for the conversational floor. Examples of interjections include simple agreement (e.g., ‘yeah,’ ‘uh-hm’) or other short, non-essential turns (e.g., ‘That’s weird’). Each interruption was coded during video analysis; videos were initially coded in order to examine the flow of the conversation, which is difficult to do from a transcript. Approximately 25% of all interruption codes were verified by another researcher for accuracy. There was 100% agreement between the two researchers.

Each time two or more students entered the conversation in a way that created a conflict for the floor, an interruption was coded. This could be one student interrupting another, two students initiating a turn of talk at the same time, or students talking over one another. We coded disruptions to the conversation with the assumption that, unless the conversation is disrupted, students are able to gain the floor when they choose to. We did not assume that all students desire to speak with the same frequency, so we did not consider the number of turns each student takes as a measure of equity. During the video analysis, there was no evidence that students wanted but were unable to gain the floor except where interruptions occurred (no students showed signs of wanting but being unable to speak), so this represents a reasonable estimation of equitable access to the floor. Each interruption was further coded as amicable or competitive.

Amicable conflicts occurred in two forms. First, two students may begin speaking simultaneously and one then cedes the floor to the other. This indicates that the students were aware of peers’ speech and saw value in releasing the floor even though this meant their own idea would not be heard immediately. Second, amicable conflicts occurred when one student interrupted another, realized their interruption, and ceased speaking. This was often accompanied with a “sorry” or a nod to the person being interrupted. This shows students’ recognition of their peers’ speech and the equitable norms that require respectful turn-taking. All other interruptions that did not involve the teacher were coded as competitive and tended to take the form of one student interrupting another and both trying to be heard at the expense of the other. Sometimes, the original speaker abruptly ended their attempt to share rather than trying to compete for the floor. Looking at amicable conflicts in addition to total conflicts enables deeper examination of social dynamics; even highly-functioning conversations may have instances of simultaneous speech or accidental interruptions, especially if participants are eager to share, so it can be beneficial to separate these interruptions from those that restrict access to the floor for quieter group members.

Instances of student inviting or encouraging one another to share were also coded as participatory equity. This was done in tandem with the relational equity codes. All codes were completed by the first author and reviewed by the second. There was greater than 90% agreement between researchers. Discrepancies were discussed until 100% agreement was reached.

After coding was completed, videos were again reviewed and notated with observations and explanations that the codes alone could not encapsulate. We used explanation building methods to examine reasons for the findings from the coding. Explanation building methods are a procedure in which various possible explanations are considered iteratively to build an explanation within a case study ( Yin, 1994 ). We completed this procedure to examine the possible impacts that various teacher behaviors had on the functioning of the small groups.

To examine intellectual collaboration, we first considered how often students were building upon each other’s ideas, versus simply sharing without co-construction. In order to examine this, all student turns of talk were analyzed and those that questioned another’s idea in a constructive way, built upon an idea, or provided a different viewpoint or piece of evidence on an idea were counted. We call this code “idea-building.” Simple agreement or disagreement, as well as agreement or disagreement that simply stated an alternate idea without relating that idea to the previous were not counted because they demonstrated little intellectual collaboration. This coding was intended to show how students’ ideas related to one another’s. All codes were completed by the first researcher and reviewed by the second author to ensure consistency and validity. Initial agreement was approximately 90% and any disagreement was discussed until 100% agreement was reached.

Arguments, or claims made about the topics of conversation, made by individual group members were also analyzed. This was done by summarizing all arguments into tables by group member. In order to summarize the trends in the two groups, the number of ideas professed by each group member was counted. For this analysis, we did not conduct a quality evaluation of whether the idea professed was reasonable or made sense; instead, we were simply looking at how many ideas were put forth by each group member during the discussion. Then, the tables were examined to identify trends in reasoning in both groups. For instance, did students consider multiple possible viewpoints in the discussion or simply repeat arguments for one or two? Were they able to support their ideas with evidence? These trends were examined in depth for discussions two and six to compare the starting and ending points in the group’s intellectual collaboration. Week 1 was not included because we assumed students needed time to adjust to the novel discussion format. All points made in the discussions were summarized by one researcher and the first and second author analyzed them collaboratively.

Teacher’s talk was analyzed through creation of tables which placed the teacher’s speech in each group side by side for comparison. Because teacher’s turns of talk were relatively few in each discussion, we were able to examine all teacher turns of talk in each group to identify similarities and differences. This made differences in teacher interactions with each group apparent and similarities and differences salient. Teacher’s turns of talk (excluding interjections and acknowledgments) were categorized by function. Nine different types of teacher cognitive scaffolding emerged: asking open questions, redirection to the Big Question, modeling reasoning, playing devil’s advocate, presenting hypotheticals, prompting individual students to speak, asking clarifying questions, and providing low-level support (e.g., vocabulary, giving instructions). All teacher turns of talk were analyzed collaboratively by the first and second authors, who discussed the key features and differences until 100% agreement was reached. The videos were then revisited in order to examine the ways in which students reacted to the teacher’s input. We particularly focused on the ways in which the teacher interacted with student ideas and how she built upon them or asked students to build upon her ideas.

To examine the role of the teacher’s social scaffolding within these small groups, we also coded each instance of the teacher granting the floor to a particular student (participatory equity) or engaging in promoting relational equity (promotion of value for and validity of varied viewpoints). Because the teacher holds a unique position in which she can prioritize the contributions of some students over others, participatory inequity was also coded, which represents instances in which the teacher puts the contributions of one student or her own ideas above those of another student. This coding was completed on the transcripts for discussions two, four, and six. All transcripts were coded by the first author and an independent researcher coded 33% percent to ensure reliability. Cronbach’s alphas were 0.85, 0.83, and 0.94 for relational equity, participatory equity, and participatory inequity, respectively. Examples of these codes can be found in Table 1 . After coding, videos and transcripts were reviewed in order to identify the ways in which teacher equity moves function within the group. Areas of focus were the group peer dynamics and the interactions and dynamics of how the students shared ideas in relation to teacher talk.

Table 1. Teacher equity codes.

The raw numbers of social dynamics codes are presented in Table 2 . The low-performing group had a discussion with no positive social dynamics in week 4 and showed general decrease in all codes from week 2 to week 6. The high performing group, on the other hand, showed an opposite trend, with increases in all fields from week 2 to week 4 and again in most fields from week 4 to week 6. Discussion lengths are provided to give context to the raw scores. Since all discussions were not equal in length, it is probable that shorter discussions may have fewer codes. However, Table 2 indicates that length alone does not explain the differences between groups.

Table 2. Counts of student social dynamics codes.

The low-performing group generated more conflicts for the floor than the high-performing group over time ( Table 3 ). Additionally, the proportion of amicable conflicts was lower in the low-performing than the high-performing group. This indicates that, in addition to fewer overall conflicts in the high-performing group, they were also able to attend to peer’s speech and adjust their own accordingly. It may seem that the low-performing group improved their interactions over time, as the number of conflicts for the floor peaks early in the intervention. However, this does not seem to be the case; instead, the conflicts were reduced as students became less participatory in the discussion. This was observed during the video analysis. Students in the low-performing group showed signs of low engagement including staring into space, increased fidgeting, or even putting their head on the table. The conversational floor was more open, but not because students were improving at sharing it.

Table 3. Conflicts for the floor.

Further considering these conflicts for the floor, in the low-performing group conflicts tended not to be directly related to the content of talk; students were talking over one another in a competitive way (trying to have their own idea heard) rather than in a collaborative way (building on one another’s ideas). As shown in the most conflict-dense segments of each group’s week 4 discussion in the Appendix , there was a lack of relational equity in the low-performing group, as students were prioritizing their own ideas at the expense of their classmates’ and were not demonstrating respect for the contributions of their peers. Furthermore, researchers’ memos of video analysis documented that in the low-performing group there was, at times, clear animosity between group members, in facial expressions (making a face when someone talked) or body language (turning away from a group member to exclude them from the discussion).

The social dynamics in this group were not always negative; students in this group did encourage one another to speak, ask one another questions, and intentionally attempt to include those group members that participated less frequently, as can be seen in the conflicts for the floor data above. However, these positive social interactions decreased over time, and individual students seemed more and more frustrated with the discussion process.

In the high-performing group, the students contributed more equitably. There were still students who participated more often than others, but the disparity was less severe, and the teacher did not seem to feel it necessary to intervene in participation. In the early discussions, two students served as leaders, showing imbalance of intellectual authority ( Engle et al., 2014 ). However, this is not apparent in the later discussions, with the majority of ideas being addressed to the group as whole and no discernible differences in intellectual authority. In this group, when conflicts for the floor occurred, the students seemed aware and apologized for interruptions or yielded the floor to a peer. There is clear respect for the input and ideas of others, without apparent imbalance of power, showing high levels of relational equity. An example of the respectful exchanges that were the norm in this group is below. In this excerpt from the high-performing group’s week 2 discussion, we see an example of an amicable conflict, in which one student, Cameron, interrupts another, Spencer. Cameron then realizes the interruption, yields the floor back to Spencer, and waits until Spencer finished speaking to share her own point. This awareness of peer’s access to the floor seemed to increase collaboration within the group and promote increasing equity.

Consistent with the result of participatory equity coding, we observed from the discussion videos that even though some students spoke less often than others, they were easily able to gain the floor when they chose to participate, and their body language indicated engagement in the conversation. Furthermore, most conflicts for the floor occurred in the midst of collaboration and are in the pursuit of idea building. Students in this group did not show visible signs of frustration with group dynamics and seemed to consider their collaboration as a source of pride, as seen by comments in their debriefing sessions. The excerpt below was taken from a debriefing after week six’s discussion, which shows that students reported experiencing growth in their own abilities.

In considering the idea building within the two groups, we observed a decrease over time in the low-performing group and an increase in the high-performing group. We observed students in the high-performing group increasing the collaborative nature of their contributions. The opposite happens in the low group. This can be seen in Table 4 .

Table 4. Idea building.

The number of arguments generated by each group member are presented in Table 5 . One high group student was omitted from the table because they were absent in both week 2 and week 6.

Table 5. Number of arguments by group member.

Discourse Data Linking Social Dynamics and Intellectual Collaboration

In this section, we present qualitative evidence from CSR discussions demonstrating how the high- and low-performing groups changed in their social dynamics and intellectual collaboration over time. In the earlier discussions, students in the low-performing group held different initial positions to the Big Question and were able to voice their opinion and explain why they held it. This can be seen in the following excerpt from week 2, in which students are expressing reasons for their differing opinions on whether one character (Aki) should forgive another character (Shirley). Shirley hurt Aki because Aki is of Japanese heritage and Shirley’s father was killed by Japanese soldiers at Pearl Harbor. These students from the low-performing group discuss the characters’ emotion and its connection to the experiences of each, their own ideas about right and wrong, the role of “difference” in social interactions, characters’ rights, and how these factors were situated within the social-historical context. We do see an amicable conflict in this excerpt, as we see Ali yielding the floor to Jordan. However, this did not become the norm in this group, as is evident in Table 3 ’s data on conflicts for the floor.

The high-performing group, on the other hand, started off with less intellectual collaboration between the group members. There were frequent pauses and students were not able to generate ideas as fluently as in the low-performing group, as seen in the week 2 excerpt below. These students discuss the idea of blame, characters’ desires and emotions, and story occurrences. However, the nuance, integration of ideas, and constructive flow that was present in the previous excerpt is not apparent here.

However, over time, we observed less intellectual collaboration in the low-performing group. The majority of different perspectives were raised by two students, Jordan and Ryan, and, as the teacher focused her attention on the other group members, these ideas were often ignored. This led to little change in the contributions from Ryan and Jordan over time and less intellectual collaboration present in the group overall. Ryan and Jordan’s ideas were not picked up by others, who tended to focus on their own opinions. This is seen in particular in Jordan and Peyton’s comments in the following excerpt from week 6. The story for this week focused on a character (Dovey) whose brother (Amos) accidentally killed someone (Parnell) in preventing Parnell from further hurting Dovey, who was unconscious. The question is regarding whether Dovey should tell what she knows or allow the blame to be placed on another deceased character in order to protect her brother. Peyton is discussing the unsavory nature of Parnell, while Jordan is commenting on the unfairness in the story. However, these students are not able to connect their parallel ideas into a coherent overarching conclusion.

The high-performing group, on the other hand, actively engaged with one another’s ideas and considered their ability to do so both a source of group focus and pride as shown in the debriefing comments. Their growth in social dynamics and intellectual collaboration can also be seen in the following excerpt from week 6. Students in this excerpt collaboratively weighed the bad choices made by Parnell and the other characters’ need for self-defense with the severity of Parnell losing his life.

This group worked together to consider as many ideas as possible, to challenge each other, and to build on each other’s ideas. Because of this, the students in the high-performing group increased their idea building and their contributions over time. This indicates that students were not only voicing more ideas, but were able to relate those ideas to one another to build increasingly complex social arguments. The qualitative evidence also supports the results of transcript and video coding. While the coding results showed that the high-performing group engaged in more equitable social interaction and greater numbers of idea building over time, the qualitative evidence supports that the social interactions may have driven the cognitive changes. In the low-performing group, on the other hand, we see social interactions apparently driving a decrease in cognitive engagement and intellectual collaboration. These findings are also evident in the conflict-dense discussion 4 segments presented in the Appendix .

The Role of Teacher Scaffolding

As mentioned previously, the high-performing group began with positive social dynamics but lower levels of social reasoning compared to the low-performing group. The teacher was quick to notice that the high-performing group needed encouragement to consider multiple perspectives and engage in higher level thinking. Thus, she started prompting them to consider alternative viewpoints, while also modeling perspective taking and argumentation. In the low-performing group, the teacher seemed pleased with the advanced social reasoning by a few students but realized that this group had other students who were quiet and disengaged. She then began focusing her attention on these disengaged students by encouraging them to speak repeatedly. This, however, led her to neglect the students who participated fully from the beginning. She did not intervene in turn-taking or other social relations and decreased her cognitive scaffolding as she focused more on equal turns of talk. Even when students looked to her for social support, she did not intervene in the social aspects of the discussion outside of simple participation. In this way, we see her decreasing the authority she gives to students in the discussion as she increasingly controls access to the conversational floor.

The high-performing group members were consistently cognizant of the norms of having an open discussion, maintaining mutual respect, and ensuring equitable participation. Therefore, the teacher seemed to put all her attention on scaffolding the students’ intellectual collaboration. She prompted them to provide reasons for their opinions while encouraging them to make connections to their life and to the texts. She demonstrated and modeled perspective taking by explaining the thoughts and feelings of the characters in the story and what she would have done in their position. She treated students’ ideas as equal to her own and took little control over the discussion mechanics, further increasing the already-high relational equity in this group. On the other hand, in the low-performing group the teacher decreased relational equity over the weeks by controlling access to the floor, dominating the power within the group, and not responding to students’ help-seeking. Table 6 shows the teacher’s social scaffolding in both groups. Examples can be seen in the transcript excerpts below, and Table 7 outlines all instances the teacher’s intervention in both groups, excepting interjections and demonstrations of understanding (e.g., “oh, ok”).

Table 6. Counts of social scaffolding codes.

Table 7. Teacher’s cognitive scaffolding counts.

Overall, while the teacher’s initial scaffolding in both groups of students was quite similar, by the end she served a drastically different role in each group. In the low-performing group, the teacher served more and more as an authority, often posing a question and having each student respond to it directly. She did not challenge students when ideas did not align with previous comments or encourage them to take one another’s ideas into account in their future considerations. This contributed to the lack of collaboration and relational equity in the low-performing group, as, at times, the teacher actively discouraged collaboration by ignoring student comments to ask a different student to respond to an earlier question she had posed. The following is an example of this from week 6.

In the high-performing group, by contrast, the teacher posed ideas and asked students to consider them without putting her contribution on a higher level than the students’. She built questions and ideas from students’ and seemed genuinely interested in students’ input. In this way, she indirectly encouraged collaboration and built relational equity in the high-performing group. An example is seen in the excerpt from week 6 below.

This comparative case study presents how two groups of students who were seemingly similar in their initial social reasoning, academic achievement, and peer acceptance engaged in an intervention called Collaborative Social Reasoning (CSR) and ended up with contrasting levels of social reasoning at posttest. We explored the role of social and cognitive processes and the roles of teacher scaffolding in the dynamic evolution of both the groups. Despite the fact that the two groups of students were facilitated by the same teacher, our findings revealed notable differences between the groups regarding three areas of discussion process: social dynamics, intellectual collaboration, and teacher scaffolding. Specifically, the two groups showed different trajectories of change in relational equity, participatory equity, and idea building. While these practices decreased in the low-performing group, they increased in the high-performing group over time. The ways in which the teacher facilitated the two groups also demonstrated qualitative differences. The teacher seemed to heighten the trends naturally occurring in the students’ social dynamics and intellectual collaboration.

With regard to participatory equity, overall, we observed fewer instances of it in the high-performing group than the low-performing group. In reviewing this group’s discussions, it seems that this is due to the fact that all students were engaged and participating, so invitations to speak were less necessary. When all members of the group elected to share, no one was left sitting silently, and thus, the conversation flowed smoothly and naturally. There was little need for explicit invitations for group members to share, resulting in fewer instances of explicit participatory equity. In contrast, some students in the low-performing group voiced their own opinions to appease the teacher and then returned to silence, without really engaging with ideas or peers, while some other students rarely participated at all. These trends frustrated some students who tried to engage with one another, reducing collaboration over time and leading to greater teacher control.

In terms of relational equity, in the high-performing group students showed respect for the ideas of others, even if it were different from their own. No one seemed to dominate over others. In contrast, in the low performing group, students tended to prioritize their own ideas at the expense of their classmates’ and were not demonstrating respect or value for differences of opinion. Analysis of their expressions and body language further revealed animosity. These students not only generated more conflicts for the floor than the high-performing group over time, but also failed to attend to peer’s speech and adjust their own accordingly. Over a period of time, all of this led to lowered engagement. It was interesting to see how this group, despite starting off on a relatively good note, were not able to balance their social dynamics throughout the intervention. This is in line with Shah and Lewis’s (2019) analysis of social interactions that it takes a series of such small incidences which can eventually accumulate over time and influence group collaboration. In this case, small instances of negative interactions such as interruptions added up over time to worsen the group’s collaboration.

The poor social dynamics of the low-performing group also increased because the teacher began prioritizing the need for silent students to participate over engaging with the ideas of the already-participating students. She began posing a question and asking students to respond to it, instead of considering and building on the ideas that were shared. Chen and Jiang (2004) emphasized the need for teachers to balance multiple dimensions of a discussion while providing contingent scaffolding. The teacher in this study did not maintain such a balance in the low-performing group, probably because of the difficulty in dividing her attention between scaffolding participation and cognitive processes. It is possible that she believed equal numbers of turns of talk was prerequisite for a collaborative discussion and chose her scaffolding strategies accordingly. Future research is needed to identify strategies for finding appropriate balance in cognitive and social scaffolding. In contrast, the high-performing group was able to manage their own social dynamics effectively, and therefore the teacher’s focus on cognitive dimension of the discussion was appropriate to the group’s needs. In the low-performing group, the teacher’s singular focus on cognitive but not social processes was detrimental, and this group spiraled into ineffectiveness over time. These findings thus suggest the reciprocal influence between teacher scaffolding and student group processes.

Our study suggests that intellectual collaboration, including idea building and argumentation, is possible only when positive social dynamics are in place. This is aligned with Vygotsky’s (1934) theory about the intricate relationships between thoughts and affect. In order to build ideas upon others’, group members must be willing to listen to each other’s ideas and to respect different opinions and values. In the low performing group, some of the students focused only on voicing their own opinions, without paying attention to what the others were saying. Some of these students did not appreciate differences in opinion and thereby, did not pick up on each other’s ideas. The high-performing group, on the other hand, actively engaged with one another’s ideas and considered their ability to do so as a source of group focus and pride. They were happy and felt rewarded to have such productive discussions.

The two groups of students’ intellectual collaboration also seem to be affected by how they interacted with the teacher. In watching how the teacher interacted with the students during the discussions, it did seem that high-performing students responded to the teacher’s scaffolding of their intellectual collaboration in a way that enhanced the discussion. When the teacher set up a positive social norm by showing interests in and value for student ideas, the other students in the group followed the norm. Because the teacher engaged in the discussion with the students, her cognitive scaffolding enhanced the opportunities for students to engage in collaborative idea building. The students in the high-performing group therefore were able to actively engage with one another’s ideas and weigh different perspectives by providing detailed explanations. This is aligned with Vygotsky’s (1934) theory that learning occurs through social discourse and collaboration. However, students in the low-performing group became visibly less engaged, with only a few students voicing their opinions in the later discussion. They seldom questioned another’s idea in a constructive way, built upon an idea, or provided a different viewpoint or evidence to support another’s idea. In this group, the teacher acted more as an authoritative figure, choosing students to speak in turn and rarely engaging herself with student ideas. Both the lack of positive social dynamics and the loss of the teacher’s cognitive scaffolding prevented this group from developing the social discourse that Vygotsky (1934) suggested was so critical for learning. These trends could be one of the main factors that explain the difference in both the groups of students’ social reasoning at posttest. These findings also support previous research that has shown how engaging with others’ ideas, providing explanations, considering multiple representations are essential for students’ learning ( Warner, 2008 ; Webb et al., 2014 ; Ing et al., 2015 ).

The Roles of Teacher Scaffolding

In a productive collaborative discussion, intellectual collaboration and social dynamics are interrelated ( Anderson et al., 2001 ; Engle et al., 2014 ), and the teacher serves to support both intellectual collaboration and social dynamics through cognitive and social scaffolding. Interestingly, what we observed in this study was the teacher amplifying existing patterns of relationships between social dynamics and intellectual collaboration in the two groups. This aligns with the bi-directional view of teacher scaffolding, meaning that the teacher both influences and is influenced by the students they are scaffolding ( Chen and Jiang, 2004 ; Webb et al., 2006 ). In responding to each groups’ existing patterns of interaction, the teacher functioned as a heightening influence on existing patterns. The high-performing group was able to manage their own social dynamics effectively which seemed to facilitate their intellectual collaboration over time. The teacher was able to further this trend by increasing her use of cognitive scaffolding strategies, including open questions, playing devil’s advocate, modeling reasoning, and presenting hypotheticals. These interactions are illustrated in Figure 2 . By putting her own ideas into the discussion for consideration, the teacher served to improve argumentation and, indirectly, relational equity. This seemed to give students increasing motivation to value and solicit one another’s opinions, which then further increased positive social dynamics. Even though the teacher’s instances of explicitly referencing relational equity increased in the low-performing group over time, the teacher’s scaffolding does not support these professions; she increases her control of turn-taking and provides low-level support in this group instead of increasing her engagement in equitable discourse. As the focus increasingly became encouraging individuals to talk, there was less cognitive interaction and therefore, less intellectual collaboration in the group.

Figure 2. Supported system of small group collaboration.

In considering the implications of this study, it is possible that these findings could inform how collaborative learning is handled. While these findings are preliminary, if future work also finds that the success of intellectual collaboration is dependent on social dynamics, more emphasis would need to be placed on social interaction in preparing and structuring collaborative learning. Teachers would need to be trained specifically in how to balance their scaffolding between social support and cognitive support while still giving students interpretive authority within the work. This could help ensure that the reciprocal influence between social dynamics and intellectual collaboration is beneficial rather than detrimental to the success of the activity.

Limitations and Future Directions

This research illustrates the ways in which social, intellectual, and instructional factors are inextricably linked in collaborative classroom settings. Too often, these factors are studied separately, which does not enable a comprehensive representation of the complexity of classroom systems. Additionally, these findings point to social dynamics as the driving factor in the groups we studied, which may have implications for how teacher training and collaborative scaffolding take place in the future. These connections must be explored in more detail and in more settings in order to determine whether the patterns identified here are consistent.

Despite the study contributions, there are limitations to this work. As noted, the small number of groups and singular social setting decrease the generalizability of our findings, although the analyses performed in this study are not intended to test any causal relationships. In addition, transcript coding was mainly based on three of the 6 weeks’ discussions due to the labor-intensive process of transcription and coding. The variables that were coded on these 3 weeks of transcripts show a generally linear trend due to the number of time points analyzed. It is possible that the change in these variables is less linear than three timepoints show. Another limitation of the study was that there is limited analysis of post-intervention outcomes. It is not known whether the success of the groups had meaningful implications outside of the discussions, though we did see changes in social reasoning in the high-performing group as noted in the group comparison section. These areas provide fruitful next steps for future research.

This paper provides an initial look at the social, cognitive, and teacher factors within a small group collaborative learning activity as a system, rather than as independent factors, making it unique in its contribution to the field. We found that these factors are inherently interconnected when examining the functioning of the small group, or system, which indicates that work looking at only one of these areas may not accurately represent the learning system. Moving forward, more research should undertake a more holistic research approach so that we can build understanding of the relationships between well-studied individual factors.

This paper provides an important initial step on this journey and provides evidence that teacher intervention in learning activities may amplify existing patterns rather than build more effective systems. If this trend is found in future work, this will have major implications for teacher training. Finally, this work supports the existence of a critical link between social dynamics and intellectual collaboration and indicates that the connection between the two may be deeper and more intertwined than previous work has suggested. While it is expected that teachers influence power dynamics and equity in the classroom, it is interesting that in this study the teacher heightened the existing social and cognitive relations in the groups. In the group that began with positive social dynamics, she heightened equity and contributed to intellectual collaboration. In the group that began with poorer social dynamics, even with slightly better reasoning, she worsened existing problems by affording less and less power to students, increasing what began as moderate inequity and ended as high levels of inequity.

In considering what these findings mean for collaborative learning more broadly, there is no way to know from these data whether similar findings would be seen outside of these small groups. However, there is an interesting question about interacting factors in collaborative learning that is raised by this work. If social dynamics are, as we found here, the driving force behind the success or failure of collaborative learning, then it is even more critical that students are taught to interact productively in the classroom and that positive relationships are supported. Furthermore, if teachers do indeed serve to amplify existing dynamics in other settings, then research on how teachers can productively intervene to overcome negative social dynamics and support collaboration will be critical.

The consistency in the findings across factors also points both to the validity of the findings and to the interrelatedness of the three factors being studied. While separate examples were provided throughout the findings, a single excerpt represented evidence of multiple findings in several cases. While the directionalities of influence do not follow the ideal hypothesized pathways, the connectedness and relatedness of the factors was as complex as our initial figure predicted. This is further evidence for the need to avoid research that looks at classroom factors in a vacuum and move to work that considers cognitive and social systems more holistically.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets presented in this article are not readily available because, as the data consist largely of videos and video transcriptions, they necessarily contain considerable identifying information. As such, limited access to the data corpus can be provided to individuals not approved by the IRB. Additional examples, coding results, and limited identified data can be provided by contacting the first or third authors. Requests to access the datasets should be directed to [email protected] ; [email protected] .

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by The Ohio State University Internal Review Board. Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardian/next of kin. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s), and minor(s)’ legal guardian/next of kin, for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.

Author Contributions

EK was responsible for the majority of the planning, data analysis, and writing of this manuscript. MN contributed significantly to the planning, analysis, and writing of the manuscript. T-JL oversaw the project, provided advice and revisions, and was the primary investigator on the larger project from which this data was taken. M-YH, SH, and SK were part of the research team on the larger project and contributed through intellectual collaboration, coding and theoretical assistance, and manuscript revisions. SS contributed to the planning and implementation of the data collection and is now deceased. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

This research was supported by the National Academy of Education/Spencer Foundation as part of the third author’s postdoctoral fellowship. An additional small research grant from the Spencer Foundation also supported this work. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent views of the foundation.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the research team and the many administrators, teachers, and children without whom this study would not have been possible. We especially thank Michael Glassman, Alyssa Tonissen, Rebecca Sallade, Trent Cash, and Ziye Wen for assisting us through the process.

Adams, P. (2006). Exploring social constructivism: theories and practicalities. Education 34, 243–257. doi: 10.1080/03004270600898893

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Alexander, R. (2017). Towards Dialogic Teaching: Rethinking Classroom Talk , 5th Edn. Thirsk: Dialogos UK Ltd.

Google Scholar

Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., McNurlen, B., Archodidou, A., Kim, S., Reznitskaya, A., et al. (2001). The snowball phenomenon: spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking across groups of children. Cogn. Instr. 19, 1–46. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci1901_1

Atkins, L., and Wallace, S. (2015). Qualitative Research in Education. London: Sage Publications.

Au, K. H., and Mason, J. M. (1981). Social organizational factors in learning to read: the balance of rights hypothesis. Read. Res. Q. 17, 115–152. doi: 10.2307/747251

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays , eds C. Emerson and M. Holquist Austin: University of Texas Press.

Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. J. Learn. Sci. 12, 307–359. doi: 10.1207/S15327809JLS1203_1

Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., and Richardson, J. C. (2008). A scaffolding framework to support the construction of evidence-based arguments among middle school students. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 56, 401–422. doi: 10.1007/s11423-007-9074-1

Belland, B. R., Kim, C., and Hannafin, M. J. (2013). A framework for designing scaffolds that improve motivation and cognition. Educ. Psychol. 48, 243–270. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2013.838920

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Boaler, J. (2008). Promoting “relational equity” and high mathematics achievement through an innovative mixed-ability approach. Br. Educ. Res. J. 34, 167–194. doi: 10.1080/01411920701532145

Boyd, M. P., and Markarian, W. C. (2011). Dialogic teaching: talk in service of a dialogic stance. Lang. Educ. 25, 515–534. doi: 10.1080/09500782.2011.597861

Buchs, C., Chatard, A., Desrichard, O., and Mugny, G. (2009). Social dynamics in judgment and performance in academic settings. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 24, 125–128. doi: 10.1007/bf03173005

Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Chen, F. C., and Jiang, H. M. (2004). Exploration of peer-facilitator dynamics in two contrasting groups. Instr. Sci. 32, 419–446. doi: 10.1007/s11251-004-2275-7

Chiasson, V., Vera-Estay, E., Lalonde, G., Dooley, J. J., and Beauchamp, M. H. (2017). Assessing social cognition: age-related changes in moral reasoning in childhood and adolescence. Clin. Neuropsychol. 31, 515–530. doi: 10.1080/13854046.2016.1268650

Chinn, C., and Clark, D. B. (2013). “Learning through collaborative argumentation,” in International Handbook of Collaborative Learning , eds C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, and A. M. O’Donnell (New York, NY: Routledge), 314–332.

Chinn, C. A., Anderson, R. C., and Waggoner, M. A. (2001). Patterns of discourse in two kinds of literature discussion. Read. Res. Q. 36, 378–411. doi: 10.1598/rrq.36.4.3

Chinn, C. A., O’Donnell, A. M., and Jinks, T. S. (2000). The structure of discourse in collaborative learning. J. Exp. Educ. 69, 77–97. doi: 10.1080/00220970009600650

Cornelius, L. L., and Herrenkohl, L. R. (2004). Power in the classroom: how the classroom environment shapes students’ relationships with each other and with concepts. Cogn. Instr. 22, 467–498. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci2204_4

Creswell, J. W., and Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches , 4th Edn. Great Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Engle, R. A., Langer-Osuna, J. M., and McKinney de Royston, M. (2014). Toward a model of influence in persuasive discussions: negotiating quality, authority, privilege, and access within a student-led argument. J. Learn. Sci. 23, 245–268. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2014.883979

Esmonde, I. (2009). Mathematics learning in groups: analyzing equity in two cooperative activity structures. J. Learn. Sci. 18, 247–284. doi: 10.1080/10508400902797958

Foorman, B. R., and Torgesen, J. (2001). Critical elements of classroom and small-group instruction promote reading success in all children. Learn. Disabil. Res. Pract. 16, 203–212. doi: 10.1111/0938-8982.00020

Gillies, R. M. (2003). The behaviors, interactions, and perceptions of junior high school students during small-group learning. J. Educ. Psychol. 95, 137–147. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.137

Gillies, R. M. (2004). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students during small group learning. Learn. Instr. 14, 197–213. doi: 10.1016/S0959-4752(03)00068-9

Hitti, A., Mulvey, K. L., Rutland, A., Abrams, D., and Killen, M. (2014). When is it okay to exclude a member of the ingroup? Children’s and adolescents’. Soc. Reason. Soc. Dev. 23, 451–469. doi: 10.1111/sode.12047

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., and Barrows, H. S. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cogn. Instr. 26, 48–94. doi: 10.1080/07370000701798495

Howe, C. (2013). Optimizing small group discourse in classrooms: effective practices and theoretical constraints. Int. J. Educ. Res. 63, 107–115. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2013.03.011

Howe, C., Hennessy, S., Mercer, N., Vrikki, M., and Wheatley, L. (2019). Teacher–student dialogue during classroom teaching: does it really impact on student outcomes? J. Learn. Sci. 28, 462–512. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2019.1573730

Ing, M., Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., Turrou, A. C., Wong, J., Shin, N., et al. (2015). Student participation in elementary mathematics classrooms: the missing link between teacher practices and student achievement? Educ. Stud. Math. 90, 341–356. doi: 10.1007/s10649-015-9625-z

Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Miller, B. W., Kim, I. H., Kuo, L. J., et al. (2011). Influence of a teacher’s scaffolding moves during child-led small-group discussions. Am. Educ. Res. J. 48, 194–230. doi: 10.3102/0002831210371498

Killen, M. (2007). Children’s social and moral reasoning about exclusion. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 16, 32–36. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00470.x

Kraatz, E., Ha, S. Y., Lin, T. J., Paul, N., and Tonissen, A. (2019). “Students’ goal setting as predictors of growth in social reasoning in small-group discussions,” in Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association , (Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association).

Laal, M., and Ghodsi, M. (2012). Benefits of collaborative learning. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 31, 486–490. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.091

Lee, J., and Shute, V. J. (2010). Personal and social-contextual factors in K-12 academic performance: an integrative perspective on student learning. Educ. Psychol. 45, 185–202. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2010.493471

Merriam, S. B., and Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative Research: A Guide To Design And Implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Nagpal, M., Lin, T.-J., and Wen, Z. (2020). “Bridging the gap between social reasoning and action: impacts of collaborative discussions,” in Poster Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association , (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association).

Parker, J. G., and Asher, S. R. (1993). Friendship and friendship quality in middle childhood: links with peer group acceptance and felings of loneliness and social dissatisfaction. Dev. Psychol. 29, 611–621. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.29.4.611

Puntambekar, S., and Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: helping students learn science from design. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 42, 185–217. doi: 10.1002/tea.20048

Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L., Clark, A., Miller, B., Jadallah, M., Anderson, R., et al. (2009). Collaborative reasoning: a dialogic approach to group discussions. Camb. J. Educ. 39, 29–48. doi: 10.1080/03057640802701952

Roseth, C. J., Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. T. (2008). Promoting early adolescents’ achievement and peer relationships: the effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures. Psychol. Bull. 134, 223–246. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.223

Sfard, A., and Kieran, C. (2001). Cognition as communication: rethinking learning-by-talking through multi-faceted analysis of students’ mathematical interactions. Mind Cult. Activity 8, 42–76. doi: 10.1207/S15327884MCA0801

Shah, N., and Lewis, C. M. (2019). Amplifying and attenuating inequity in collaborative learning: toward an analytical framework. Cogn. Instr. 37, 423–452. doi: 10.1080/07370008.2019.1631825

Turiel, E. (1983). The Development of Social Knowledge: Morality and Convention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

van de Pol, J., Mercer, N., and Volman, M. (2019). Scaffolding student understanding in small-group work: students’ uptake of teacher support in subsequent small-group interaction. J. Learn. Sci. 28, 206–239. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2018.1522258

van de Pol, J., Volman, M., Oort, F., and Beishuizen, J. (2015). 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. Instr. Sci. 43, 615–641. doi: 10.1007/s11251-015-9351-z

Volet, S., Summers, M., and Thurman, J. (2009). High-level co-regulation in collaborative learning: how does it emerge and how is it sustained? Learn. Instr. 19, 128–143. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.03.001

Vygotsky, L. (1934). Thought and Language. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Walton, D. (1998). The New Dialectic: Conversational Contexts of Argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Warner, L. B. (2008). How do students’ behaviors relate to the growth of their mathematical ideas? J. Math. Behav. 27, 206–227. doi: 10.1016/j.jmathb.2008.07.002

Webb, N. M. (1982). Group composition, group interaction, and achievement in cooperative small groups. J. Educ. Psychol. 74, 475–484. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.74.4.475

Webb, N. M. (2000). Verbal interaction and learning in peer-directed groups. Theory Pract. 24, 32–39. doi: 10.1080/09540250600667892

Webb, N. M. (2009). The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 79, 1–28. doi: 10.1348/000709908X380772

Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., Ing, M., Wong, J., Fernandez, C. H., Shin, N., et al. (2014). Engaging with others’ mathematical ideas: interrelationships among student participation, teachers’ instructional practices, and learning. Int. J. Educ. Res. 63, 79–93. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2013.02.001

Webb, N. M., Loef, M., and Nicholas, C. (2019). “Promoting productive student participation across multiple classroom participation settings,” in Promoting Academic Talk in Schools: Global Practices and Perspectives , ed. R. M. Gillies (Abingdon: Taylor and Francis).

Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., and Ing, M. (2006). Small-group reflections: parallels between teacher discourse and student behavior in peer-directed groups. J. Learn. Sci. 15, 63–119. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1501_8

Wentzel, K. R., and Watkins, D. (2002). Peer relationships and collaborative learning as contexts for academic enablers. Schl. Psychol. Rev. 31, 366–377. doi: 10.1080/02796015.2002.12086161

Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., and Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Child Psychol. Psychiatry Allied Discipl. 17, 89–100. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x

Wu, X., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., and Miller, B. (2013). Enhancing motivation and engagement through collaborative discussion. J. Educ. Psychol. 105, 622–632. doi: 10.1037/a0032792

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research , 2nd Edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Table A1. Discussion four’s most conflict-dense excerpts by group.

Keywords : collaborative discussion, relational equity, participatory equity, teacher scaffolding, idea building

Citation: Kraatz E, Nagpal M, Lin T-J, Hsieh M-Y, Ha SY, Kim S and Shin S (2020) Teacher Scaffolding of Social and Intellectual Collaboration in Small Groups: A Comparative Case Study. Front. Psychol. 11:587058. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.587058

Received: 24 July 2020; Accepted: 12 October 2020; Published: 06 November 2020.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2020 Kraatz, Nagpal, Lin, Hsieh, Ha, Kim and Shin. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Elizabeth Kraatz, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Choose Your Test

• Search Blogs By Category
• College Admissions
• AP and IB Exams
• GPA and Coursework

Vygotsky Scaffolding: What It Is and How to Use It

General Education

If you're an educator or have a student in school, you may have heard of the concept Vygotsky scaffolding. It may sound like a construction term, but Vygotsky scaffolding and the related concept of the zone of proximal development are teaching methods that can help students learn much more information much more quickly than they would with traditional instruction.

However, Vygotsky scaffolding is only effective if you know how to properly implement it; otherwise it can actually hinder a student's learning. Read this guide to learn what scaffolding and the zone of proximal development are, what the scaffolding psychology is, if studies have found these teaching methods to be effective, and how you can use these methods in the classroom to promote learning.

What Is Instructional Scaffolding?

Instructional scaffolding, also known as "Vygotsky scaffolding" or just "scaffolding," is a teaching method that helps students learn more by working with a teacher or a more advanced student to achieve their learning goals.

The theory behind instructional scaffolding is that, compared to learning independently, students learn more when collaborating with others who have a wider range of skills and knowledge than the student currently does. These instructors or peers are the "scaffolding" who help the student expand her learning boundaries and learn more than she would be able to on her own.

Vygotsky scaffolding is part of the education concept "zone of proximal development" or ZPD. The ZPD is the set of skills or knowledge a student can't do on her own but can do with the help or guidance of someone else. It's the skill level just above where the student currently is.

ZPD is often depicted as a series of concentric circles. The smallest circle is the set of skills a student can learn on her own, without any help. Next is the ZPD, or skills a student wouldn't be able to do on her own, but can do with a teacher or peer helping her. Beyond that are skills the student can't do yet, even with help.

For example, say there is a kindergartner who is learning how to read and write. He knows all the letters of the alphabet, but he can't yet read or write words. No matter how much guidance he was given, he could never read a novel on his own at this point, but with a teacher's help, he can learn how to read and write short words like "at," "boy" and "dog" because this skill is within is ZPD. It would have taken him much longer to learn this skill on his own, but it's still simple enough that he can understand it if he has someone to explain it to him. The student's ZPD is reading and writing short words, and the teacher who helps him learn them is the scaffolding.

Proponents of ZPD and instructional scaffolding believe they are highly effective ways to maximize a student's learning. Scaffolding can be used to help a person of any age learn something new, but in the classroom it is most often used with younger students (preschool and elementary school) since they are learning new skills and concepts they haven't been exposed to before most frequently.

What's the History Behind Vygotsky Scaffolding?

Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934) was a Soviet psychologist who coined the term "zone of proximal development" and conducted many studies that led to instructional scaffolding. This is why the concept is often referred to as "Vygotsky scaffolding."

Vygotsky focused his work on developmental psychology, and it was in the 1920s and early 1930s, towards the end of his career, that he developed the concept of ZPD. Vygotsky believed that educators should help students learn within their ZPD so that they can increase their skills and knowledge without becoming frustrated by things that are currently too difficult for them to accomplish.

Vygotsky came up with the idea of ZPD after extensive studying of how young children learn and the effectiveness of different teaching methods. He found that individual knowledge-based tests are often an inaccurate way to measure a young student's intelligence since children need to interact with others who are more intelligent than they currently are in order to learn. He cited many examples of cultures where young children are taught new skills and knowledge passed down by older generations.

For example, when infants are learning how to walk, they often start by holding onto the clothes or hands of an adult or older child, who guides them. The infant will continue to do this until they have enough skills and strength to walk on their own. This way they're able to learn to walk much faster than if they were expected to learn without being able to hold onto anything.

Vygotsky instead believed that the proper way to test young students was to test their ability to solve problems both independently and with the help of an adult. Dr. Maria Montessori, who established the Montessori education philosophy, also published similar research several decades before Vygotsky. Vygotsky died in 1934, less than a decade after he introduced the idea of ZPD, and after his death research on his ideas greatly decreased.

In the 1960s, Vygotsky's work was revived by a new group of psychologists studying developmental psychology. Dr. Jerome Bruner coined the term "scaffolding" and connected it to Vygotsky's work. Dr. Bruner and other psychologists began studying the use of ZPD in different educational contexts, and they found that encouraging students to tackle the most difficult tasks within their ZPD leads to the most learning.

Today scaffolding continues to be studied and used in schools, and much recent research has focused on how to use scaffolding to make classes (including online classes) more effective.

Does Vygotsky Scaffolding Work?

Over the past several decades, numerous studies have been conducted to study the effectiveness of using ZPD and scaffolding as teaching methods. Overall, research has shown that these methods can often help students learn more than they would compared to traditional teaching methods, but they require the instructor to have a good grasp of the student's ZPD so they can adapt the teaching method to them.

An early study from 1975 found that four-year-olds whose mother's interacted with them and gave them advice were able to build significantly more complicated block towers than those who worked alone. The children who were most successful were those whose mothers adapted their strategy based on how well their child was completing the task. They made different comments based on whether the child was doing well or was struggling. A 1990 study found similar results when children were asked to put dollhouse furniture into the correct room. Children whose mothers gave them guidance were significantly more successful than those who completed the task on their own.

A study published in 2000 that focused on a teacher using ZPD and scaffolding to teach a Farsi speaker English found that these methods can be an effective way to teach someone a new language. As the student improved his English skills, his teacher went from teaching individual words and phrases, to asking yes/no questions, to asking questions that required more in-depth responses. This gradual increase in difficulty helped the student improve his English skills while reducing feelings of frustration from attempting language skills beyond his current level.

A similar scaffolding psychology study published in 2014 found that, in a group of 30 Australian language students, those who had tutors that used scaffolding techniques made significantly more progress in their writing quality and strategy application.

Two studies, one from 2003 and one from 2010 , found that ZPD and scaffolding can be effective, but if the instructor doesn't know how to implement them correctly, she is at risk of helping students too much which turns them into passive learners and hinders their growth.

Tips for Using Vygotsky Scaffolding in the Classroom

From the studies discussed above, we know that instructional scaffolding can be an effective teaching tool, but only if the instructor understands how to use it. Below are four tips for using scaffolding in the classroom.

Know Each Student's ZPD

In order to use ZPD and scaffolding techniques successfully, it's critical to know your students' current level of knowledge. Without this information, you won't be able to teach them in their ZPD or provide effective scaffolding support.

Before you begin a lesson with ZPD or Vygotsky scaffolding, find their baseline knowledge by giving a short quiz or having an introductory discussion on the topic where you ask students questions to figure out what they already know.

Also remember that each student will have a different ZPD for each topic you teach. If a class has widely varying ZPDs for a specific topic, it can be more effective to have them work in groups or individually while you walk around the classroom and provide guidance so that you can tailor your techniques to each student's ZPD.

Encourage Group Work

Group work can be a very effective way of using scaffolding principles in the classroom because students can learn from each other while working together on a project. More advanced students can help others learn while improving their own skills by explaining their thought process. Try to create groups that contain students with different skill sets and learning levels to maximize the amount students learn from each other.

Make sure each student in the group is actively participating. If you see one student doing most of the work, have her ask the other students for their opinions, and emphasize the importance of everyone contributing.

Don't Offer Too Much Help

A potential drawback of Vygotsky scaffolding is the possibility of providing too much help. This causes the student to be a passive, instead of active, learner and actually reduces the amount the student learns.

If you're using scaffolding techniques, don't jump in right away and start offering advice. Let each student work on their own first. When they begin to struggle, first start by asking them questions about what they've done and what they think they should do next. As much as possible, ask open-ended questions that encourage them to find a solution on their own, as opposed to just telling them the next step.

For example, if a student is trying to build a block tower, it's much more helpful to say things like "How do you think you can make this tower stronger?" or "Why do you think the tower fell down?" than "You need to make the base bigger."

If after you've had the student think through the problem, then you can begin offering concrete advice for what to do next, but be sure to continue to ask questions to help increase the student's understanding. For example, after giving advice on how to improve the block tower, you can ask "Why do you think making the base bigger helps the tower stay up?"

Have Students Think Aloud

Having students discuss their thought process is one of the best ways to figure out where their current skills are (and thus determine their ZPD) and make sure they're actively learning. As a student is working on a project, have her talk about why she's making certain decisions, what she thinks she should do next, and what she's unsure about. When you give advice, make sure you also explain your own thought process so students can understand why you're making the decisions you did.

Summary: Vygotsky Scaffolding and the Zone of Proximal Development

Vygotsky scaffolding is a teaching method that uses instructors and more advanced peers to help students learn. The Vygotsky theory of cognitive development states that students will learn more when they receive guidance from someone with more skills in the subject they're learning than they would if they were tackling the subject on their own.

Vygotsky scaffolding is part of the education theory the zone of proximal development. The zone of proximal development states that each student, for each subject, has three levels of learning: things the student can accomplish on her own, things she can accomplish with help from someone else (the zone of proximal development) and things she can't accomplish no matter how much help she has. The ZPD and Vygotsky scaffolding theory is that students learn the most when they're in their ZPD.

Soviet psychologist Lev Vygotsky developed the ZPD and the Vygotsky theory of cognitive development, while Jerome Bruner developed scaffolding psychology several decades later. Studies have shown that scaffolding can be a very effective teaching method, as long as the teacher understands the concepts behind it and doesn't provide too much guidance.

If using scaffolding and the zone of proximal development in the classroom, remember to know each student's ZPD, encourage group work, don't offer too much help, and have students explain their thought process out loud.

What's Next?

Are you a teacher writing recommendations for your students? Read all about how to write an outstanding recommendation letter for your students , along with what not to include.

When do colleges start looking at a student's grades? Do colleges look at middle school grades? Read our guide to learn how middle school grades are important for college admissions.

Writing a research paper for school but not sure what to write about? Our guide to research paper topics has over 100 topics in ten categories so you can be sure to find the perfect topic for you.

Trending Now

How to Get Into Harvard and the Ivy League

How to Get a Perfect 4.0 GPA

How to Write an Amazing College Essay

What Exactly Are Colleges Looking For?

ACT vs. SAT: Which Test Should You Take?

When should you take the SAT or ACT?

Get Your Free

Find Your Target SAT Score

Free Complete Official SAT Practice Tests

How to Get a Perfect SAT Score, by an Expert Full Scorer

Score 800 on SAT Math

Score 800 on SAT Reading and Writing

How to Improve Your Low SAT Score

Score 600 on SAT Math

Score 600 on SAT Reading and Writing

Find Your Target ACT Score

Complete Official Free ACT Practice Tests

How to Get a Perfect ACT Score, by a 36 Full Scorer

Get a 36 on ACT English

Get a 36 on ACT Math

Get a 36 on ACT Reading

Get a 36 on ACT Science

How to Improve Your Low ACT Score

Get a 24 on ACT English

Get a 24 on ACT Math

Get a 24 on ACT Reading

Get a 24 on ACT Science

Stay Informed

Get the latest articles and test prep tips!

Christine graduated from Michigan State University with degrees in Environmental Biology and Geography and received her Master's from Duke University. In high school she scored in the 99th percentile on the SAT and was named a National Merit Finalist. She has taught English and biology in several countries.

Ask a Question Below

Have any questions about this article or other topics? Ask below and we'll reply!

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Teacher Scaffolding of Social and Intellectual Collaboration in Small Groups: A Comparative Case Study

Affiliations.

• 1 Department of Educational Studies, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.
• 2 Institute of Education, National Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
• PMID: 33240179
• PMCID: PMC7681239
• DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.587058

This comparative case study features two small groups of students engaging in collaborative dialog about social issues. Based on social constructivist theories, the two groups were compared across three major components of the small groups system: social dynamics, intellectual collaboration, and teacher scaffolding. Our goal was to holistically analyze these small group processes to understand why some small groups were highly successful while others were not, even within the same intervention and with the same teacher. Successful groups were those in which all students were able to access the conversational floor, many ideas were considered, students were able to share ideas and discuss collaboratively, and students were able to raise multiple forms of social reasoning to support and explain ideas. Change in social reasoning essay scores prior to and after the intervention were also considered as evidence of group success. Results show that teacher scaffolding and existing student processes served to amplify one another reciprocally. The teacher heightened productive social norms when they were present, which then served to encourage productive intellectual collaboration. However, when productive group norms were not present, the teacher took increasing control over the group, which further hampered productive social and intellectual interactions.

Keywords: collaborative discussion; idea building; participatory equity; relational equity; teacher scaffolding.

Copyright © 2020 Kraatz, Nagpal, Lin, Hsieh, Ha, Kim and Shin.

PubMed Disclaimer

Dynamic system of small group…

Dynamic system of small group collaboration.

Supported system of small group…

Supported system of small group collaboration.

Similar articles

• Examination of the communication interface between students with severe to profound and multiple intellectual disability and educational staff during structured teaching sessions. Bunning K, Smith C, Kennedy P, Greenham C. Bunning K, et al. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2013 Jan;57(1):39-52. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2011.01513.x. Epub 2011 Dec 12. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2013. PMID: 22151248
• Fading distributed scaffolds: the importance of complementarity between teacher and material scaffolds. Martin ND, Dornfeld Tissenbaum C, Gnesdilow D, Puntambekar S. Martin ND, et al. Instr Sci. 2019;47(1):69-98. doi: 10.1007/s11251-018-9474-0. Epub 2018 Nov 7. Instr Sci. 2019. PMID: 31178600 Free PMC article.
• The teacher's role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. Webb NM. Webb NM. Br J Educ Psychol. 2009 Mar;79(Pt 1):1-28. doi: 10.1348/000709908X380772. Epub 2008 Dec 2. Br J Educ Psychol. 2009. PMID: 19054431 Review.
• The transition to school: adaptation in young children with and without intellectual disability. McIntyre LL, Blacher J, Baker BL. McIntyre LL, et al. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2006 May;50(Pt 5):349-61. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2006.00783.x. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2006. PMID: 16629928
• E pluribus unum: the potential of collaborative learning to enhance Microbiology teaching in higher education. Rutherford S. Rutherford S. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2015 Dec;362(23):fnv191. doi: 10.1093/femsle/fnv191. Epub 2015 Oct 12. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2015. PMID: 26459888 Review.
• How Do Children Socially Learn from Narrative Fiction: Getting the Lesson, Simulating Social Worlds, or Dialogic Inquiry? Gasser L, Dammert Y, Murphy PK. Gasser L, et al. Educ Psychol Rev. 2022;34(3):1445-1475. doi: 10.1007/s10648-022-09667-4. Epub 2022 Mar 4. Educ Psychol Rev. 2022. PMID: 35965954 Free PMC article. Review.
• A qualitative exploration of nursing undergraduates' perceptions towards scaffolding in the flipped classroom of the Fundamental Nursing Practice Course: a qualitative study. Chen L, Lin T, Tang S. Chen L, et al. BMC Fam Pract. 2021 Dec 13;22(1):245. doi: 10.1186/s12875-021-01597-4. BMC Fam Pract. 2021. PMID: 34903171 Free PMC article.
• Adams P. (2006). Exploring social constructivism: theories and practicalities. Education 34 243–257. 10.1080/03004270600898893 - DOI
• Alexander R. (2017). Towards Dialogic Teaching: Rethinking Classroom Talk, 5th Edn Thirsk: Dialogos UK Ltd.
• Anderson R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel K., McNurlen B., Archodidou A., Kim S., Reznitskaya A., et al. (2001). The snowball phenomenon: spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking across groups of children. Cogn. Instr. 19 1–46. 10.1207/s1532690xci1901_1 - DOI
• Atkins L., Wallace S. (2015). Qualitative Research in Education. London: Sage Publications.
• Au K. H., Mason J. M. (1981). Social organizational factors in learning to read: the balance of rights hypothesis. Read. Res. Q. 17 115–152. 10.2307/747251 - DOI

Related information

Linkout - more resources, full text sources.

• Europe PubMed Central
• Frontiers Media SA
• PubMed Central

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development and Scaffolding

Vygotsky created the concept of the zone of proximal development, often abbreviated as ZPD, which came to be a central part of his theory. Language is the way that a child communicates with others after they are born and they continue to learn by interacting with those around them. Building on his idea of social interaction as the basis for learning, he broached the value of a mentor or teacher in the life of a student.

See also: Andragogy Theory – Malcolm Knowles

Vygotsky declared some controversial statements that went against prominent educational research at the time. He dismissed the idea that there was no ideal age for learning and instead introduced ideal stages for learning, a similar opinion as Piaget. He also explained that the cognitive growth increased less for students with a higher intelligence than a lower intelligence when they entered school. He coined this term relative achievement, a method that highlights the departure point of student learning and not just the end result. This led Vygotsky into the idea of the ‘zone of proximal development,’ as it assessed the change in cognitive development of students and not just the final outcome. Students benefit directly from the social interactions in class, and ideally, reach their learning potential with the help of their teacher.

Vygotsky consistently defines the zone of proximal development as the difference between the current level of cognitive development and the potential level of cognitive development. He maintains that a student is able to reach their learning goal by completing problem-solving tasks with their teacher or engaging with more competent peers. Vygotsky believed that a student would not be able to reach the same level of learning by working alone. As a student leaves his zone of current development, he travels through the zone of proximal development towards his learning goal.

The zone of proximal development consists of two important components: the student’s potential development and the role of interaction with others. Learning occurs in the zone of proximal development after the identification of current knowledge. The potential development is simply what the student is capable of learning.

See also: Problem-Based Learning (PBL)

Scaffolding

To help learners achieve independence, Vygotsky outlined scaffolding as a tool for growth. Learners complete small, manageable steps in order to reach the goal. Working in collaboration with a skilled instructor or more knowledgeable peers help students make connections between concepts.

As learners grow within their zone of proximal development and become more confident, they practice new tasks with the social support that surrounds them. Vygotsky maintains that learning occurs through purposeful, meaningful interactions with others.

How Vygotsky Impacts Learning

Many psychologists, including Piaget and Bandura , have assessed the cultural influences on learning, however, only Vygotsky claims that they are inherently woven together. He felt that studies should be analyzing the individual within the society and not the individual itself. Only then could you observe the level of growth, as it is social interaction itself that promotes mental development. While morals, values, and thoughts are believed to be influenced by society, the process of learning is not seen as something that is mimicked. Vygotsky outlined that interactions with others created growth by making connections between concepts. To summarize, Vygotsky’s views on cognitive development can be grouped into four main points, outlined as follows:

• the relationship between the student and the teacher is central to learning;
• society and culture influence the attitudes and beliefs of a student towards learning and education;
• language is the primary tool used in the development of learning in children, including the transfer of sociocultural influences; and
• students benefit greatly in programs that are student-led, as they can use the social interaction to grow towards their potential level of development.

Curriculum – Learning goals and curriculum outlines should be designed around social interaction between students and tasks.

Instruction – The idea of scaffolding is the basis of instruction. Students can achieve their learning potential with guided instruction from their teacher. The teacher constantly reassesses the levels of achievement of the student and creates the next task as a building block to the goal. As an added benefit, the student also learns problem-solving skills from performing leveled tasks on their own.

Assessment – Evaluations are catered to each student based on their zone of proximal development. As teachers strive to see the potential level of cognitive development in all students, assessments must cover a range of abilities. Some students may achieve a higher level with support from their teacher than others.

See also: Inclusive Teaching Strategies

On a more practical note, many wonder how this type of learning can be implemented in schools. Scaffolding seems to be a cycle – the teacher is constantly evaluating the progress of a student throughout a learning activity and consistently responding according to their needs. This means that the teacher adjusts the difficulty of the tasks and learning goals in order for the student to meet the expectations. The zone of proximal development indicates the level of task that the student can accomplish independently, which, in turn, demonstrates the actual activity that can be accomplished with guided support from the teacher. As they create learning goals, teachers must keep in mind the fact that each student will have unique personality traits that will affect their zones.

To summarize, students require many opportunities to demonstrate their point of learning in order for the teacher to create the next steps and support each need. The gradual release of responsibility, which we know as scaffolding, allows students to gain independence in learning tasks as they reach their goals. The teacher begins by offering a strong presence and close guidance; this may include demonstrations, facilitating activities, or explicit teaching of ideas. As the student moves through the zone of proximal development towards the goal, the teacher gradually releases control to the student as they approach their level of potential learning. The tasks become progressively more difficult as the student gains more knowledge and comes closer to reaching their potential level of cognitive development. Some suggest that all tasks should be on the higher end towards the optimal level of the zone of proximal development in order to main the interest of the student. Scaffolding is used as a tool to achieve the potential learning outcomes of a student.

The question remains then: is the theoretical idea of zones of proximal development really that different from what experienced teachers do in the classroom? Vygotsky’s theory is centered on the idea that social interaction is critical to cognitive development. With the exception of some large classes, students actively engage with their teacher and with each other. Collaborating with peers is encouraged but cannot be over-used, as it may actually cause stagnant growth in some cases. Additionally, the teacher is the most educated on the learning process, automatically assessing many factors related to the student’s potential growth.

Language tasks in education are still the best indicator in cognitive development. Such activities allow chain reactions to occur that begin with solid communication skills, lead to clarification of inner speech and continues with growth in thought patterns. However, one must not view language activities as exclusive: it does not mean that a student possesses a low level of cognitive ability if they are unable to orally express themselves. Language is complex, and some do not grasp the subtle meanings present in communication. Other types of intelligence, such a musical and bodily-kinesthetic, are not necessarily compatible with learning-centered on language. It is important to note, however, that early development of language offers an advantage to children in our society, as it offers favoritism towards other educational skills.

Currently, the value of educational software has been inconsistent in relation to Vygotsky’s theory. As there is such a broad variance in computer-based programs available, it is challenging to evaluate its effect on learning. Social interaction looks different when on a computer; now students may be interacting with a human-like software program. Some artificial intelligence systems offer great responses to questions and misunderstandings, but others are not as advanced. There is great hope that a sophisticated program could assess a student’s zone of proximal development and respond appropriately, but for now, the wide range of programs available are too unpredictable.

Vygotsky made it his mission to analyze the effects of socialization of cognitive development. We can see how language is the central approach of his theory, and how the cultural and societal relationships affect learning. In real-life applications, we discussed the utilization of the zone of proximal development by the teacher, which also emphasizes the need for student-directed learning in the educational system. As we move towards remote learning and computer-based applications, we need to evaluate the impact of the social world and the attention required for students.

See also:  Using Bloom’s Taxonomy to Write Effective Learning Objectives: The ABCD Approach

I am a professor of Educational Technology. I have worked at several elite universities. I hold a PhD degree from the University of Illinois and a master's degree from Purdue University.

Similar Posts

Stages of moral development – lawrence kohlberg.

Jean Piaget introduced the idea of how moral development occurs in stages, each level built on life experiences and active reasoning. Lawrence Kohlberg furthered this idea by examining how moral reasoning changes as…

Social Learning Theory: Albert Bandura

Albert Bandura’s “Social Learning Theory” and Its Impact on Teachers and Learning Think back to your childhood. Do you remember learning to ride a bike, how to play checkers, and do simple addition…

ASSURE: Instructional Design Model

ASSURE is an instructional design model that has the goal of producing more effective teaching and learning. “ASSURE” is an acronym that stands for the various steps in the model. The following is…

Jean Piaget and His Theory & Stages of Cognitive Development

One of the most popular theories of cognitive development was created by Jean Piaget, a Swiss psychologist who believed that cognitive growth occurred in stages. Piaget studied children through to their teens in…

Flipped Classroom

What is a flipped classroom? A flipped classroom is an instructional strategy. “Flipping” a classroom entails switching up the usual model through which students encounter new knowledge. In a flipped classroom, students have…

Connectivism Learning Theory

In the field of education, three predominant learning theories have long been at the forefront of theorists’ minds. These are behaviourism, cognitivism, and constructivism. Countless research frameworks have been tied to these three…

• DOI: 10.1521/JSYT.2010.29.4.74
• Corpus ID: 144892349

SCAFFOLDING AND CONCEPT FORMATION IN NARRATIVE THERAPY: A QUALITATIVE RESEARCH REPORT

• Heather L. Ramey , Karen Young , D. Tarulli
• Published 1 December 2010
• Journal of Systemic Therapies

Figures from this paper

21 Citations

Assessing narrative practice conversations from a scaffolding lens, indicators for assessing intervention fidelity in narrative practice: a heuristic review of the concept of scaffolding in white (2007), story-based and bottom-up accountability with children who have experienced trauma: practices that focus on response, visualising narrative practice with a 5-level scaffolding lens: an illustrative case study, phenomenological-narrative inquiry: the worldview of a welsh father who lost his child through court-ordered adoption, separating the problem and the person: insights from narrative therapy with people who stutter, keeping faith: a conversation with michael white, multi-story listening: using narrative practices at walk-in clinics, digital technologies and evolving narrative practice: an autoethnographic study, narrative therapy in a post-pandemic world: a fictional case study of a client living with depression, 27 references, a sequential analysis of externalizing in narrative therapy with children, toward co-composing an evidence base: the narrative therapy re-visiting project, decentering therapy: textual analysis of a narrative therapy session., innovative moments and change in narrative therapy, ontogenesis in narrative therapy: a linguistic-semiotic examination of client change., foucault and the turn to narrative therapy, maps of narrative practice, narrative means to therapeutic ends, narrative practice at a walk-in therapy clinic: developing children's worry wisdom, observing interaction: an introduction to sequential analysis, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers