Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T03:19:44.226Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Scaffolding

from Part I - Foundations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

By
Iris Tabak  and
Brian J. Reiser
Edited by
R. Keith Sawyer
R. Keith Sawyer
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Get access

Summary

Scaffolding is the support provided to students by the learning environment, which includes the teacher but also curricular design, technological tools, and classroom social practices. Scaffolding is a social encounter between a teacher and a student and can involve tutoring and mentoring, but is more effective when both teacher and learner participate jointly in a complex and authentic disciplinary practice. Scaffolding simplifies a task so that it is within reach of the learner; it supports learners in participating in authentic disciplinary practices even before they have mastered the discipline; it helps learners focus on the most important aspects of the problem. Effective scaffolding is adaptable and contingent on the learner’s evolving understanding – the degree of structure should be gradually reduced or “faded.” This can be done by inferring a learner’s current understanding using digital traces or dynamic software.

Keywords

scaffoldingconstructivismlearning trajectorytutoringfading
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences , pp. 53 - 71
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Azevedo, R., Moos, D. C., Greene, J. A., Winters, F. I., & Cromley, J. G. (2008). Why is externally-facilitated regulated learning more effective than self-regulated learning with hypermedia? Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(1), 45–72. doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9067-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bang, M. (2017). Towards an ethic of decolonial trans-ontologies in sociocultural theories of learning and development. In Esmonde, I. & Booker, A. N. (Eds.), Power and privilege in the learning sciences: Critical and sociocultural theories of learning (pp. 115–138). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Barron, B., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., et al. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3–4), 271–311.Google Scholar
Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Kinnebrew, J. S. (2017). Learner modeling for adaptive scaffolding in a computational thinking-based science learning environment. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 27(1), 5–53. doi:10.1007/s11257-017-9187-0Google Scholar
Bell, P., Van Horne, K., & Cheng, B. H. (2017). Special issue: Designing learning environments for equitable disciplinary identification. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(3), 367–375. doi:10.1080/10508406.2017.1336021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belland, B. R., Walker, A. E., Kim, N. J., & Lefler, M. (2016). Synthesizing results from empirical research on computer-based scaffolding in stem education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 309–344. doi:10.3102/0034654316670999Google Scholar
Berland, L. K. (2011). Explaining variation in how classroom communities adapt the practice of scientific argumentation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(4), 625–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Students’ framings and their participation in scientific argumentation. In Khine, M. S. (Ed.), Perspectives on scientific argumentation: Theory, practice and research (pp. 73–93). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Berland, L. K., Schwarz, C. V., Krist, C., Kenyon, L., Lo, A. S., & Reiser, B. J. (2016). Epistemologies in practice: Making scientific practices meaningful for students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(7), 1082–1112. doi:10.1002/tea.21257Google Scholar
Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R., Krajcik, J., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 369–398.Google Scholar
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and schools. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Bulu, S. T., & Pedersen, S. (2010). Scaffolding middle school students’ content knowledge and ill-structured problem solving in a problem-based hypermedia learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(5), 507–529. doi:10.1007/s11423-010-9150-9Google Scholar
Cazden, C. B. (1979). Peekaboo as an instructional model: Discourse development at home and at school. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, No. 17. Department of Linguistics, Stanford University, CA.Google Scholar
Cazden, C. B. (1997). Performance before competence: Assistance to child discourse in the zone of proximal development. In Cole, M., Engestrom, Y., & Vasquez, O. (Eds.), Mind, culture, and activity: Seminal papers from the laboratory of comparative human cognition (pp. 303–310). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chang, H.-Y., & Linn, M. C. (2013). Scaffolding learning from molecular visualizations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(7), 858–886. doi:10.1002/tea.21089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In Resnick, L. B. (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 91–142.Google Scholar
de Jong, T. (2006). Scaffolds for scientific discovery learning. In Elen, J. & Clark, R. E. (Eds.), Handling complexity in learning environments: Theory and research (pp. 107–128). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.Google Scholar
de Vries, E., Lund, K., & Baker, M. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 63–103.Google Scholar
Demetriadis, S. N., Papadopoulos, P. M., Stamelos, I. G., & Fischer, F. (2008). The effect of scaffolding students’ context-generating cognitive activity in technology-enhanced case-based learning. Computers & Education, 51(2), 939–954.Google Scholar
Díaz, A., Nussbaum, M., Ñopo, H., Maldonado-Carreño, C., & Corredor, J. (2015). Orchestration: Providing teachers with scaffolding to address curriculum standards and students’ pace of learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 226–239. doi:10.2307/jeductechsoci.18.3.226Google Scholar
Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for integrating content and process learning in the design of inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355–385.3.0.CO;2-M>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelson, D. C., & Reiser, B. J. (2006). Making authentic practices accessible to learners: Design challenges and strategies. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 335–354). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483.Google Scholar
Esmonde, I., & Booker, A. N. (Eds.). (2017). Power and privilege in the learning sciences: Critical and sociocultural theories of learning. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fretz, E. B., Wu, H.-K., Zhang, B., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2002). An investigation of software scaffolds supporting modeling practices. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 567–589. doi:10.1023/a:1022400817926Google Scholar
Gagné, R. M. (1965). The conditions of learning. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Gerard, L., Matuk, C., McElhaney, K., & Linn, M. C. (2015). Automated, adaptive guidance for K-12 education. Educational Research Review, 15(1), 41–58. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2015.04.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gidalevich, S., & Kramarski, B. (2019). The value of fixed versus faded self-regulatory scaffolds on fourth graders’ mathematical problem solving. Instructional Science, 47(1), 39–68. doi:10.1007/s11251-018-9475-zGoogle Scholar
Greenfield, P. M. (1984). A theory of teacher in the learning activities of everyday life. In Rogoff, B. & Lave, J. (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 117–138). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In Berliner, D. C. & Calfee, R. C. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15–46). New York, NY; London, England: Macmillan Library Reference USA; Prentice Hall International.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez, K., & Stone, L. (2002). Hypermediating literacy activity: How learning contexts get reorganized. In Saracho, O. & Spodek, B. (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives in literacy in early childhood education (pp. 25–51). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Guzdial, M. (1994). Software-realized scaffolding to facilitate programming for science learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 4(1), 1–44.Google Scholar
Hermkes, R., Mach, H., & Minnameier, G. (2018). Interaction-based coding of scaffolding processes. Learning and Instruction, 54(1), 147–155. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.09.003Google Scholar
Herrenkohl, L. R., & Bevan, B. (2017). What science and for whom? An introduction to our focus on equity and out-of-school learning. Science Education, 101(4), 517–519. doi:10.1002/sce.21284Google Scholar
Herrenkohl, L. R., Palincsar, A. S., DeWater, L. S., & Kawasaki, K. (1999). Developing scientific communities in classrooms: A sociocognitive approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3–4), 451–493.Google Scholar
Herrenkohl, L. R., Tasker, T., & White, B. (2011). Pedagogical practices to support classroom cultures of scientific inquiry. Cognition and Instruction, 29(1), 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D. L., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 247–298.Google Scholar
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.Google Scholar
Hutchins, E. (1996). Learning to navigate. In Chaiklin, S. & Lave, J. (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 35–63). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jordan, B. (1989). Cosmopolitical obstetrics: Some insights from the training of traditional midwives. Social Science & Medicine, 28(9), 925–937.Google Scholar
Kali, Y., Linn, M. C., & Roseman, J. E. (2008). Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2012). Designing for productive failure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(1), 45–83. doi:10.1080/10508406.2011.591717Google Scholar
Koedinger, K., & Corbett, A. T. (2006). Cognitive tutors: Technology bringing learning sciences to the classroom. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 61–96). West Nyack, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration scripts – A conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18(2), 159–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyza, E. A. (2009). Middle-school students’ reasoning about alternative hypotheses in a scaffolded, software-based inquiry investigation. Cognition and Instruction, 27(4), 277–311. doi:10.1080/07370000903221718Google Scholar
Lajoie, S. P. (2005). Extending the scaffolding metaphor. Instructional Science, 33(5–6), 541–557.Google Scholar
Lave, J. (1997). The culture of acquisition and the practice of understanding. In Kirshner, D. & Whitson, J. A. (Eds.), Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives (pp. 63–82). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Lee, C. D. (2001). Is October Brown Chinese? A cultural modeling activity system for underachieving students. American Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 97–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, C. D. (2017). Expanding visions of how people learn: The centrality of identity repertoires. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(3), 517–524. doi:10.1080/10508406.2017.1336022Google Scholar
Lee, C.-Y., & Chen, M.-P. (2009). A computer game as a context for non-routine mathematical problem solving: The effects of type of question prompt and level of prior knowledge. Computers & Education, 52(3), 530–542.Google Scholar
Lefstein, A., Vedder-Weiss, D., Tabak, I., & Segal, A. (2018). Learner agency in scaffolding: The case of coaching teacher leadership. International Journal of Educational Research, 90, 209–222. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2017.11.002Google Scholar
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and science literacy: Supporting development in learning in contexts. In Damon, W., Lerner, R. M., Renninger, K. A., & Sigel, I. E. (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 4, pp. 153–196). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Lepper, M. R., Woolverton, M., Mumme, D. L., & Gurtner, J. (1993). Motivational techniques of expert human tutors: Lessons for the design of computer-based tutors. In Lajoie, S. P. & Derry, S. J. (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 75–105). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Linn, M. C., Bell, P., & Davis, E. A. (2004). Specific design principles: Elaborating the scaffolded knowledge integration framework. In Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 315–340). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517–538.Google Scholar
Martin, N. D., Dornfeld Tissenbaum, C., Gnesdilow, D., & Puntambekar, S. (2019). Fading distributed scaffolds: The importance of complementarity between teacher and material scaffolds. Instructional Science, 47(1), 69–98. doi:10.1007/s11251-018-9474-0Google Scholar
McClain, K., & Cobb, P. (1997). An analysis of the teacher’s role in guiding the evolution of sociomathematical norms. Paper presented at the 1997 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
McClain, K., & Cobb, P. (2001). An analysis of development of sociomathematical norms in one first-grade classroom. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(3), 236–266.Google Scholar
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Synergy between teacher practices and curricular scaffolds to support students in using domain-specific and domain-general knowledge in writing arguments to explain phenomena. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(3), 416–460. doi:10.1080/10508400903013488Google Scholar
Merrill, D. C., Reiser, B. J., Merrill, S. K., & Landes, S. (1995). Tutoring: Guided learning by doing. Cognition and Instruction, 13(3), 315–372.Google Scholar
Metz, K. E. (2011). Disentangling robust developmental constraints from the instructionally mutable: Young children’s epistemic reasoning about a study of their own design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(1), 50–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 283–297.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, E. M., & Edwards, O. V. (2011). Critical questions and argument stratagems: A framework for enhancing and analyzing students’ reasoning practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 443–488.Google Scholar
O’Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1993). Aligning academic task and participation status through revoicing: Analysis of a classroom discourse strategy. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 24(4), 318–335.Google Scholar
Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Keeping the metaphor of scaffolding fresh – A response to C. Addison Stone’s “The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities.” Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 370–373.Google Scholar
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.Google Scholar
Palincsar, A. S., Fitzgerald, M. S., Marcum, M. B., & Sherwood, C.-A. (2018). Examining the work of “scaffolding” in theory and practice: A case study of 6th graders and their teacher interacting with one another, an ambitious science curriculum, and mobile devices. International Journal of Educational Research, 90(1), 191–208. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2017.11.006Google Scholar
Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1303_6Google Scholar
Puntambekar, S., & Hubscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1–12. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4001_1Google Scholar
Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185–217.Google Scholar
Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.Google Scholar
Radinsky, J., & Tabak, I. (2017). Outgoing editors’ note: The Journal of the Learning Sciences as a mirror of trends in the field. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(1), 1–6. doi:10.1080/10508406.2017.1260414Google Scholar
Raes, A., Schellens, T., De Wever, B., & Vanderhoven, E. (2012). Scaffolding information problem solving in web-based collaborative inquiry learning. Computers & Education, 59(1), 82–94.Google Scholar
Ratner, N., & Bruner, J. (1978). Games, social exchange and the acquisition of language. Journal of Child Language, 5(3), 391–401.Google Scholar
Reid, D. K., & Stone, C. A. (1991). Why is cognitive instruction effective? Underlying learning mechanisms. Remedial and Special Education, 12(3), 8–19.Google Scholar
Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304.Google Scholar
Reiser, B. J., Michaels, S., Moon, J., et al. (2017). Scaling up three-dimensional science learning through teacher-led study groups across a state. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(3), 280–298. doi:10.1177/0022487117699598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reisman, A. (2012). Reading like a historian: A document-based history curriculum intervention in urban high schools. Cognition and Instruction, 30(1), 86–112. doi:10.1080/07370008.2011.634081Google Scholar
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (2019). The creative classroom: Innovative teaching for 21st-century learners. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., et al. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632–654.Google Scholar
Seixas, P. (2017). A model of historical thinking. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49(6), 593–605. doi:10.1080/00131857.2015.1101363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherin, B. L., Reiser, B. J., & Edelson, D. C. (2004). Scaffolding analysis: Extending the scaffolding metaphor to learning artifacts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 387–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C., Maclin, D., Houghton, C., & Hennessey, M. G. (2000). Sixth-grade students’ epistemologies of science: The impact of school science experiences on epistemological development. Cognition & Instruction, 18(3), 349–422.Google Scholar
Stone, C. A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 344–364.Google Scholar
Suthers, D. D., Vatrapu, R., Medina, R., Joseph, S., & Dwyer, N. (2008). Beyond threaded discussion: Representational guidance in asynchronous collaborative learning environments. Computers and Education, 50(4), 1103–1127.Google Scholar
Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305–335.Google Scholar
Tabak, I., & Baumgartner, E. (2004). The teacher as partner: Exploring participant structures, symmetry and identity work in scaffolding. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 393–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabak, I., & Kyza, E. A. (2018). Research on scaffolding in the learning sciences: A methodological perspective. In Fischer, F., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Goldman, S. R., & Reimann, P. (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 191–200). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tabak, I., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Software-realized inquiry support for cultivating a disciplinary stance. Pragmatics & Cognition, 16(2), 307–355.Google Scholar
Tawfik, A. A., Law, V., Ge, X., Xing, W., & Kim, K. (2018). The effect of sustained vs. faded scaffolding on students’ argumentation in ill-structured problem solving. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 436–449. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.035Google Scholar
van de Pol, J., Mercer, N., & Volman, M. (2019). Scaffolding student understanding in small-group work: Students’ uptake of teacher support in subsequent small-group interaction. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(2), 206–239. doi:10.1080/10508406.2018.1522258Google Scholar
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. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6Google Scholar
Vattam, S., Goel, A. K., Rugaber, S., et al. (2011). Understanding complex natural systems by articulating structure-behavior-function models. Educational Technology & Society, 14(1), 66–81.Google Scholar
Vogel, F., Wecker, C., Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2017). Socio-cognitive scaffolding with computer-supported collaboration scripts: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 29(3), 477–511. doi:10.1007/s10648-016-9361-7Google Scholar
Wertsch, J. V. (1979). From social-interaction to higher psychological processes – Clarification and application of Vygotsky theory. Human Development, 22(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
Wertsch, J. V., & Stone, C. A. (1985). The concept of internalization in Vygotsky’s account of the genesis of higher mental functions. In Wertsch, J. V. (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 162–179). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wineburg, S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Wong, L.-H., Boticki, I., Sun, J., & Looi, C.-K. (2011). Improving the scaffolds of a mobile-assisted Chinese character forming game via a design-based research cycle. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1783–1793.Google Scholar
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.Google Scholar
Wu, L., & Looi, C.-K. (2012). Agent prompts: Scaffolding for productive reflection in an intelligent learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 339–353.Google Scholar
Yoon, S. A., Anderson, E., Park, M., Elinich, K., & Lin, J. (2018). How augmented reality, textual, and collaborative scaffolds work synergistically to improve learning in a science museum. Research in Science & Technological Education, 36(3), 261–281. doi:10.1080/02635143.2017.1386645Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×