CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 161Innovative Teaching and Learning MethodsScience Education and PedagogyVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes

Instructional Scaffolding in STEM Education

Open access
Belland, Brian R.·2017·Springer eBooks
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-02565-0
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-319-02565-0

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 446 · Cited by 161

Research works printed but not linked: 650

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., & Tuan, H. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International per- spectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397-419. http://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10118. · DOI
  2. Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: Learning by do- ing and explaining with a computer-based cognitive tutor. Cognitive Science, 26(2), 147-179. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2602_1. · DOI · Paper page
  3. Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16-25. http://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11428813. · DOI
  4. Bamberger, Y. M., & Cahill, C. S. (2013). Teaching design in middle-school: Instructors' concerns and scaffolding strategies. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(2), 171-185. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9384-x. · DOI
  5. Barron, B. J. S., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem-and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3-4), 271-311. http://doi.org/10.1080/1050840 6.1998.9672056. · DOI
  6. Barrows, H. S. (1985). How to design a problem-based curriculum for the preclinical years. New York: Springer.
  7. Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. New York: Springer. References
  8. Belland, B. R. (2010). Portraits of middle school students constructing evidence-based arguments during problem-based learning: The impact of computer-based scaffolds. Educational Technol- ogy Research and Development, 58(3), 285-309. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9139-4. · DOI
  9. Belland, B. R. (2014). Scaffolding: Definition, current debates, and future directions. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th edn., pp. 505-518). New York: Springer.
  10. Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., & Richardson, J. C. (2008). A scaffolding framework to support the construction of evidence-based arguments among middle school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(4), 401-422. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9074-1. · DOI
  11. Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., & Richardson, J. C. (2011). Problem-based learning and ar- gumentation: Testing a scaffolding framework to support middle school students' creation of evidence-based arguments. Instructional Science, 39(5), 667-694. http://doi.org/10.1007/ s11251-010-9148-z. · DOI
  12. Belland, B. R., Gu, J., Armbrust, S., & Cook, B. (2013). Using generic and context-specific scaf- folding to support authentic science inquiry. In Proceedings of the IADIS International Confer- ence on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (CELDA 2013) (pp. 185-192).
  13. Belland, B. R., Walker, A., Olsen, M. W., & Leary, H. (2015). A pilot meta-analysis of computer- based scaffolding in STEM education. Educational Technology and Society, 18(1), 183-197.
  14. Belland, B. R., Burdo, R., & Gu, J. (2015). A blended professional development program to help a teacher learn to provide one-to-one scaffolding. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(3), 263-289. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-015-9419-2. · DOI
  15. Belland, B. R., Gu, J., Armbrust, S., & Cook, B. (2015). Scaffolding argumentation about water quality: A mixed method study in a rural middle school. Educational Technology Research & Development, 63(3), 325-353. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9373-x. · DOI
  16. Belland, B. R., Walker, A. E., Kim, N., & Lefler, M. (In Press). Synthesizing results from empirical research on computer-based scaffolding in STEM education: A meta-analysis.
  17. Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3-15. http://doi.org/1 0.3102/0013189X034006003. · DOI
  18. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
  19. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creat- ing complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0202_2. · DOI · Paper page
  20. Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2001). The use of embedded scaffolds with hypermedia-supported student- centered learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10(4), 333-356.
  21. Cafri, G., Kromrey, J. D., & Brannick, M. T. (2010). A meta-meta-analysis: Empirical review of statistical power, Type I error rates, effect sizes, and model selection of meta-analyses published in psychology. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45(2), 239-270. http://doi. org/10.1080/00273171003680187. · DOI · Paper page
  22. Carr, R. L., Bennett, L. D., & Strobel, J. (2012). Engineering in the K-12 STEM standards of the 50 U.S. states: An analysis of presence and extent. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(3), 539-564.
  23. 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 argu- ments to explain phenomena. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(3), 416-460. http://doi. org/10.1080/10508400903013488. · DOI
  24. McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1. · DOI · Paper page
  25. Muukkonen, H., Lakkala, M., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). Technology-mediation and tutoring: How do they shape progressive inquiry discourse? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 527-565. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1404_3. · DOI
  26. Nersessian, N. J. (2008). Creating scientific concepts. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
  27. Nussbaum, E. M. (2002). Scaffolding argumentation in the social studies classroom. The Social Studies, 93(2), 79-83. http://doi.org/10.1080/00377990209599887. · DOI · Paper page
  28. 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. http://doi.org/10.1177/002221949803100406. · DOI · Paper page
  29. Pata, K., Lehtinen, E., & Sarapuu, T. (2006). Inter-relations of tutors' and peers' scaffolding and decision-making discourse acts. Instructional Science, 34(4), 313-341. http://doi.org/10.1007/ s11251-005-3406-5. · DOI
  30. 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. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_6. · DOI · Paper page
  31. Pifarre, M., & Cobos, R. (2010). Promoting metacognitive skills through peer scaffolding in a CSCL environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(2), 237-253. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-010-9084-6. · DOI
  32. Proctor, C. P., Dalton, B., & Grisham, D. L. (2007). Scaffolding English language learn- ers and struggling readers in a universal literacy environment with embedded strategy in- struction and vocabulary support. Journal of Literacy Research, 39(1), 71-93. http://doi. org/10.1080/10862960709336758. · DOI
  33. 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. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4001_1. · DOI · Paper page
  34. Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185-217. http://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20048. · DOI
  35. Puntambekar, S., Stylianou, A., & Goldstein, J. (2007). Comparing classroom enactments of an in- quiry curriculum: Lessons learned from two teachers. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(1), 81-130. http://doi.org/10.1080/10508400709336943. · DOI
  36. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., & Soloway, E. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337-386. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_4. · DOI
  37. Rasku-Puttonen, H., Eteläpelto, A., Häkkinen, P., & Arvaja, M. (2002). Teachers' instructional scaf- folding in an innovative information and communication technology-based history learning en- vironment. Teacher Development, 6(2), 269-287. http://doi.org/10.1080/13664530200200168. · DOI
  38. Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problema- tizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273-304. http://doi.org/10.1207/ s15327809jls1303_2. · DOI · Paper page
  39. Rienties, B., Giesbers, B., Tempelaar, D., Lygo-Baker, S., Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2012). The role of scaffolding and motivation in CSCL. Computers & Education, 59(3), 893-906. http:// doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.010. · DOI
  40. Sabet, M. K., Tahriri, A., & Pasand, P. G. (2013). The impact of peer scaffolding through process approach on EFL learners' academic writing fluency. Theory & Practice in Language Studies, 3(10), 1893-1901. http://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.10.1893-1901. · DOI
  41. Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Develop- ment, 50(3), 77-96. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505026. · DOI · Paper page
  42. Schmidt, H. G., van der Molen, H. T., te Winkel, W. W. R., & Wijnen, W. H. F. W. (2009). Con- structivist, problem-based learning does work: A meta-analysis of curricular comparisons involving a single medical school. Educational Psychologist, 44(4), 227-249. http://doi. org/10.1080/00461520903213592. · DOI
  43. Schmidt, H. G., Rotgans, J. I., & Yew, E. H. (2011). The process of problem-based learning: What works and why. Medical Education, 45(8), 792-806. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365- 2923.2011.04035.x. · DOI · Paper page
  44. Silk, E. M., Schunn, C. D., & Cary, M. S. (2009). The impact of an engineering design curriculum on science reasoning in an urban setting. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(3), 209-223. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9144-8. · DOI
  45. Simons, K. D., & Ertmer, P. A. (2006). Scaffolding disciplined inquiry in problem-based learning environments. International Journal of Learning, 12(6), 297-305.
  46. Srinivasan, M., Wilkes, M., Stevenson, F., Nguyen, T., & Slavin, S. (2007). Comparing problem- based learning with case-based learning: Effects of a major curricular shift at two institutions. Academic Medicine, 82(1), 74-82. http://doi.org/10.1097/01.ACM.0000249963.93776.aa. · DOI
  47. Stearns, P. N. (1994). Meaning over memory: Recasting the teaching of culture and history. Chapel Hill, NC, USA: University of North Carolina Press.
  48. Strobel, J., & van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta- analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem- Based Learning, 3(1), 44-58. http://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1046. · DOI
  49. Sutton, A. J. (2009). Publication bias. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), Handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd edn., pp. 435-452). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
  50. Swanson, H. L., & Deshler, D. (2003). Instructing adolescents with learning disabilities: Converting a meta-analysis to practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(2), 124-135. http://doi.org/10.1177/002221940303600205. · DOI
  51. Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., Oort, F., & Beishuizen, J. (2014). Teacher scaffolding in small-group work: An intervention study. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(4), 600-650. http://doi.org/ 10.1080/10508406.2013.805300. · DOI
  52. Walker, A., & Leary, H. (2009). A problem based learning meta analysis: Differences across prob- lem types, implementation types, disciplines, and assessment levels. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(1), 12-43. http://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1061. · DOI · Paper page
  53. Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5-23. http://doi. org/10.1007/BF02504682. · DOI
  54. Wood, D. (2003). The why? What? When? and How? of tutoring: The development of helping and tutoring skills in children. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 7(1), 1-30.
  55. Yarrow, F., & Topping, K. J. (2001). Collaborative writing: The effects of metacognitive prompting and structured peer interaction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(2), 261-282. http://doi. org/10.1348/000709901158514. References · DOI
  56. Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., & Tuan, H. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International per- spectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397-419. http://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10118. References · DOI
  57. Ainsworth, S., Grimshaw, S., & Underwood, J. (1999). Teachers implementing pedagogy through redeem. Computers & Education, 33(2-3), 171-187. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0360- 1315(99)00031-7. · DOI
  58. Akhras, F. N., & Self, J. A. (2002). Beyond intelligent tutoring systems: Situations, interac- tions, processes and affordances. Instructional Science, 30(1), 1-30. http://doi.org/10.1023 /A:1013544300305. · DOI
  59. Albanese, M. A. (2004). Treading tactfully on tutor turf: does PBL tutor content expertise make a dif- ference? Medical Education, 38, 918-920. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01964.x. · DOI
  60. Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.
  61. Anderson, J. R. (1987). Methodologies for studying human knowledge. Behavioral and Brain Sci- ences, 10(03), 467-477. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00023554. · DOI
  62. Anderson, J. R. (1996). ACT: A simple theory of complex cognition. American Psychologist, 51, 355-365. http://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.51.4.355. · DOI
  63. Anderson, J. R., Matessa, M., & Lebiere, C. (1997). ACT-R: A theory of higher level cognition and its relation to visual attention. Human-Computer Interaction, 12(4), 439-462. http://doi. org/10.1207/s15327051hci1204_5. · DOI
  64. Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y. (2004). An integrat- ed theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1036-1060. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033- 295X.111.4.1036. · DOI
  65. Angelova, M., Gunawardena, D., & Volk, D. (2006). Peer teaching and learning: Co-constructing language in a dual language first grade. Language and Education, 20(3), 173-190. http://doi. org/10.1080/09500780608668722. · DOI
  66. Aufschnaiter, C., von Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101-131. http://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20213. · DOI
  67. Ausubel, D. P. (1980). Schemata, cognitive structure, and advance organizers: A reply to Ander- son, Spiro, and Anderson. American Educational Research Journal, 17(3), 400-404. http://doi. org/10.3102/00028312017003400. · DOI
  68. Baker, R. S. J. D., Corbett, A. T., & Koedinger, K. R. (2007). The difficulty factors approach to the design of lessons in intelligent tutor curricula. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 17(4), 341-369.
  69. Barthes, R. (1994). The semiotic challenge. (R. Howard, Trans.). Berkeley, CA, USA: University of California Press.
  70. Belland, B. R. (2010). Portraits of middle school students constructing evidence-based arguments during problem-based learning: The impact of computer-based scaffolds. Educational Technol- ogy Research and Development, 58(3), 285-309. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9139-4. · DOI
  71. Belland, B. R. (2011). Distributed cognition as a lens to understand the effects of scaffolds: The role of transfer of responsibility. Educational Psychology Review, 23(4), 577-600. http://doi. org/10.1007/s10648-011-9176-5. · DOI · Paper page
  72. Belland, B. R. (2012). Habitus, scaffolding, and problem-based learning: Why teachers' experi- ences as students matter. In S. B. Fee & B. R. Belland (Eds.), The role of criticism in under- standing problem solving: Honoring the work of John C. Belland (pp. 87-100). New York: Springer.
  73. Belland, B. R. (2014). Scaffolding: Definition, current debates, and future directions. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th edn., pp. 505-518). New York: Springer.
  74. Belland, B. R., & Drake, J. (2013). Toward a framework on how affordances and motives can drive different uses of computer-based scaffolds: Theory, evidence, and design implications. Edu- cational Technology Research & Development, 61, 903-925. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11423- 013-9313-6. · DOI
  75. Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., & Richardson, J. C. (2008). A scaffolding framework to sup- port the construction of evidence-based arguments among middle school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(4), 401-422. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007- 9074-1. · DOI
  76. Belland, B. R., French, B. F., & Ertmer, P. A. (2009). Validity and problem-based learning re- search: A review of instruments used to assess intended learning outcomes. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(1), 59-89. http://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1059. · DOI
  77. Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., & Richardson, J. C. (2011). Problem-based learning and ar- gumentation: Testing a scaffolding framework to support middle school students' creation of evidence-based arguments. Instructional Science, 39(5), 667-694. http://doi.org/10.1007/ s11251-010-9148-z. · DOI
  78. Belland, B. R., Kim, C., & Hannafin, M. (2013). A framework for designing scaffolds that improve motivation and cognition. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 243-270. http://doi.org/10.1080/0 0461520.2013.838920. · DOI · Paper page
  79. Belland, B. R., Gu, J., Armbrust, S., & Cook, B. (2013). Using generic and context-specific scaf- folding to support authentic science inquiry. In Proceedings of the IADIS International Confer- ence on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (CELDA 2013) (pp. 185-192).
  80. Belland, B. R., Walker, A., Olsen, M. W., & Leary, H. (2015). A pilot meta-analysis of computer- based scaffolding in STEM education. Educational Technology and Society, 18(1), 183-197.
  81. Belland, B. R., Burdo, R., & Gu, J. (2015). A blended professional development program to help a teacher learn to provide one-to-one scaffolding. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(3), 263-289. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-015-9419-2. · DOI
  82. Belland, B. R., Gu, J., Armbrust, S., & Cook, B. (2015). Scaffolding argumentation about water quality: A mixed method study in a rural middle school. Educational Technology Research & Development, 63(3), 325-353. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9373-x. · DOI
  83. Belland, B. R., Walker, A. E., Kim, N., & Lefler, M. (In Press). Synthesizing results from empirical research on computer-based scaffolding in STEM education: A meta-analysis.
  84. Bierman, P., Massey, C., & Manduca, C. (2006). Reconsidering the textbook. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 87(31), 306-306. http://doi.org/10.1029/2006EO310004. · DOI
  85. Bottge, B. A., Rueda, E., Kwon, J. M., Grant, T., & LaRoque, P. (2007). Assessing and tracking stu- dents' problem solving performances in anchored learning environments. Educational Technol- ogy Research and Development, 57(4), 529-552. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9069-y. · DOI
  86. Bransford, J., Plants, B., & Vye, N. (2003). Three AMIGO3s: Using "anchored modular inquiry" to help prepare future teachers. Educational Technology Research & Development, 51(1), 105- 123. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504521. · DOI
  87. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice. Cam- bridge, MA, USA: The MIT Press.
  88. Cafri, G., Kromrey, J. D., & Brannick, M. T. (2010). A meta-meta-analysis: Empirical review of statistical power, type I error rates, effect sizes, and model selection of meta-analyses published in psychology. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45(2), 239-270. http://doi. org/10.1080/00273171003680187. References · DOI · Paper page
  89. Cavalli-Sforza, V., Weiner, A. W., & Lesgold, A. M. (1994). Software support for students engag- ing in scientific activity and scientific controversy. Science Education, 78(6), 577-599. http:// doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730780604. · DOI
  90. Chang, H.-Y., & Linn, M. C. (2013). Scaffolding learning from molecular visualizations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(7), 858-886. http://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21089. · DOI
  91. Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2012). How features of educational technology applications af- fect student reading outcomes: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 7(3), 198-215. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.05.002. · DOI · Paper page
  92. Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2013). The effectiveness of educational technology applications for enhancing mathematics achievement in K-12 classrooms: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 9, 88-113. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.001. · DOI · Paper page
  93. Chi, M. T. H. (1996). Constructing self-explanations and scaffolded explanations in tutor- ing. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10(7), 33-49. http://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099- 0720(199611)10:7<33::AID-ACP436>3.0.CO;2-E. Cho, K., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem-solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5-22. http://doi. org/10.1007/BF02505022. · DOI
  94. Clancey, W. J. (2008). Scientific antecedents of situated cognition. In P. Robbins & M. Aydede (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer- sity Press.
  95. Clark, D. B., & Linn, M. C. (2013). The knowledge integration perspective: Connections across research and education. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on concep- tual change (pp. 520-538). New York: Routledge.
  96. Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.
  97. Cohen, P. A., Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C.-L. C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A me- ta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19(2), 237-248. http://doi. org/10.3102/00028312019002237. · DOI · Paper page
  98. D'Andrade, R. G. (1981). The cultural part of cognition. Cognitive Science, 5(3), 179-195. http:// doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0503_1. · DOI
  99. Davin, K. J., & Donato, R. (2013). Student collaboration and teacher-directed classroom dynam- ic assessment: A complementary pairing. Foreign Language Annals, 46(1), 5-22. http://doi. org/10.1111/flan.12012. · DOI
  100. Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scaffolding students' knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 819-837. http://doi. org/10.1080/095006900412293. · DOI
  101. Dimitrova, V., & Dicheva, D. (1998). "Who is who": The roles in an intelligent system for foreign language terminology learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 29, 47-57. http:// doi.org/10.1111/1467-8535.00045. · DOI
  102. diSessa, A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 49-70). Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  103. Diziol, D., Walker, E., Rummel, N., & Koedinger, K. R. (2010). Using intelligent tutor technol- ogy to implement adaptive support for student collaboration. Educational Psychology Review, 22(1), 89-102. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-9116-9. · DOI
  104. Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Gijselaers, W. H., Moust, J. H. C., de Grave, W. S., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2002). Trends in research on the tutor in problem-based learning: Conclusions and implications for educational practice and research. Medical Teacher, 24(2), 173-180. http://doi.org/10.1080/01421590220125277. · DOI
  105. Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268-291. http://doi.org/10.310 2/0091732X07309371. · DOI
  106. Engeström, Y. (2009). The future of activity theory: A rough draft. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. D. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp. 303-328). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  107. Eylon, B.-S., & Linn, M. C. (1988). Learning and instruction: An examination of four research perspectives in science education. Review of Educational Research, 58(3), 251-301. http://doi. org/10.3102/00346543058003251. · DOI
  108. Fair, C., Vandermaas-Peeler, M., Beaudry, R., & Dew, J. (2005). "I learned how little kids think": Third-graders' scaffolding of craft activities with preschoolers. Early Child Development and Care, 175(3), 229-241. http://doi.org/10.1080/0300443042000230438. · DOI
  109. Ford, M. J. (2012). A dialogic account of sense-making in scientific argumentation and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 30(3), 207-245. http://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2012.689383. · DOI
  110. Friesen, N. (2012). Critical theory and the mythology of learning with technology. In S. B. Fee & B. R. Belland (Eds.), The role of criticism in understanding problem solving: Honoring the work of John C. Belland (pp. 69-86). New York: Springer.
  111. Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problem-solv- ing processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 5-22. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504836. · DOI
  112. Gentner, D., & Stevens, A. L. (Eds.). (2014). Mental models. New York: Psychology Press.
  113. Gerard, L. F., Varma, K., Corliss, S. B., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Professional development for technology-enhanced inquiry science. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 408-448. http:// doi.org/10.3102/0034654311415121. · DOI
  114. Gillies, R. M., & Boyle, M. (2006). Ten Australian elementary teachers' discourse and reported pedagogical practices during cooperative learning. The Elementary School Journal, 106(5), 429-452. http://doi.org/10.1086/esj.2006.106.issue-5. · DOI
  115. Graesser, A. C., Bowers, C., Hacker, D. J., & Person, N. (1997). An anatomy of naturalistic tutor- ing. In K. Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues (pp. 145-184). Cambridge, MA, USA: Brookline Books.
  116. Greeno, J. G., & van de Sande, C. (2007). Perspectival understanding of conceptions and conceptual growth in interaction. Educational Psychologist, 42(1), 9-23. http://doi. org/10.1080/00461520709336915. · DOI
  117. Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Pursuit of explanation within a computer-supported classroom. Internation- al Journal of Science Education, 26(8), 979-996. http://doi.org/10.1080/1468181032000354. · DOI
  118. Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open-ended learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: Vol- ume II: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 115-140).
  119. Hawkins, J., & Pea, R. D. (1987). Tools for bridging the cultures of everyday and scientific thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(4), 291-307. http://doi.org/10.1002/ tea.3660240404. · DOI · Paper page
  120. Helle, L., Tynjälä, P., Olkinuora, E., & Lonka, K. (2007). "Ain"t nothin' like the real thing'. Mo- tivation and study processes on a work-based project course in information systems design. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2), 397-411. http://doi.org/10.1348/0007099 06X105986. · DOI
  121. Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research & Development, 48(3), 23-48. http://doi. org/10.1007/BF02319856. References · DOI · Paper page
  122. Hlynka, D. (2012). Postmodernism: A twenty-first century primer to problem-based learning. In S. B. Fee & B. R. Belland (Eds.), The role of criticism in understanding problem solving: Honor- ing the work of John C. Belland (pp. 35-42). New York: Springer.
  123. Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students' and scientists' reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 663-687. http://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1025. · DOI
  124. Ifenthaler, D., & Seel, N. M. (2013). Model-based reasoning. Computers & Education, 64, 131- 142. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.014. · DOI
  125. Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Miller, B. W., Kim, I.-H., Kuo, L.-J., Miller, B. W., Dong, T., & Wu, X. (2010). Influence of a teacher's scaffolding moves during child-led small-group discussions. American Educational Research Journal, 48(1), 194-230. http://doi. org/10.3102/0002831210371498. · DOI
  126. Jeong, A., & Joung, S. (2007). Scaffolding collaborative argumentation in asynchronous discus- sions with message constraints and message labels. Computers & Education, 48(3), 427-445. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.02.002. · DOI
  127. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2001). Mental models and deduction. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(10), 434-442. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01751-4. · DOI
  128. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Re- search and Development, 48(4), 63-85. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300500. · DOI · Paper page
  129. Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. New York: Routledge.
  130. Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing con- structivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 61-79. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299477. · DOI
  131. Kali, Y., & Linn, M. C. (2008). Technology-enhanced support strategies for inquiry learning. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd edn., pp. 145-161). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  132. Kali, Y., Orion, N., & Eylon, B.-S. (2003). Effect of knowledge integration activities on students' perception of the earth's crust as a cyclic system. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(6), 545-565. http://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10096. · DOI
  133. Koedinger, K. R., & Aleven, V. (2007). Exploring the assistance dilemma in experiments with cog- nitive tutors. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 239-264. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10648- 007-9049-0. · DOI · Paper page
  134. Koedinger, K. R., & Corbett, A. (2006). Cognitive tutors: Technology bringing learning sciences to the classroom. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 61- 78). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  135. Kolodner, J. L. (1993). Case-based reasoning. San Mateo, CA, USA: Morgan Kaufmann.
  136. Kozulin, A. (1986). The concept of activity in Soviet psychology: Vygotsky, his disciples and critics. American Psychologist, 41(3), 264-274. http://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.3.264. · DOI
  137. Kozulin, A., & Garb, E. (2002). Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension. School Psychol- ogy International, 23(1), 112-127. http://doi.org/10.1177/0143034302023001733. · DOI
  138. Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810-824. http://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20395. · DOI
  139. Laird, J. E. (2008). Extending the SOAR cognitive architecture. In P. Wang, B. Goertzel, & S. Franklin (Eds.), Artificial General Intelligence 2008: Proceedings of the first AGI conference. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
  140. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  141. Leary, H., Walker, A., Shelton, B., & Fitt, M. (2013). Exploring the relationships between tutor background, tutor training, and student learning: A problem-based learning meta-analysis. In- terdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 7(1), 40-66. http://doi.org/10.7771/1541- 5015.1331. · DOI
  142. Leont'ev, A. N. (1974). The problem of activity in psychology. Soviet Psychology, 13(2), 4-33. http://doi.org/10.2753/RPO1061-040513024. · DOI
  143. Lepper, M. R., Drake, M. F., & O'Donnell-Johnson, T. (1997). Scaffolding techniques of expert human tutors. In K. Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches & issues (pp. 108-144). Cambridge, MA, USA: Brookline.
  144. Levpušček, M. P., Zupančič, M., & Sočan, G. (2013). Predicting achievement in mathematics in adolescent students: The role of individual and social factors. The Journal of Early Adoles- cence, 33(4), 523-551. http://doi.org/10.1177/0272431612450949. · DOI
  145. Lidz, C. S. (1995). Dynamic assessment and the legacy of L.S. Vygotsky. School Psychology In- ternational, 16(2), 143-153. http://doi.org/10.1177/0143034395162005. · DOI
  146. Lin, T.-J., Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., Baker, A. R., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Kim, I. H., Kuo, L. J., Miller, B. W., Dong, T., & Wu, X. (2014). Less is more: Teachers' influence during peer collaboration. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 609. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0037758. · DOI
  147. Linn, M. C. (2000). Designing the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 781-796. http://doi.org/10.1080/095006900412275. · DOI
  148. Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538. http://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10086. · DOI
  149. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(5), 265-268. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00449.x. · DOI · Paper page
  150. Luria, A. R. (1976). Cognitive development: Its cultural and social foundations. (M. Cole, Ed., M. Lopez-Morillas & L. Solotaroff, Trans.). Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.
  151. Luria, A. R. (1979). The making of mind: a personal account of Soviet psychology. (M. Cole & S. Cole (Eds.)). Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.
  152. Mahardale, J. W., & Lee, C. B. (2013). Understanding how social and epistemic scripts perpetuate intersubjectivity through patterns of interactions. Interactive Learning Environments, 21(1), 68-88. http://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2010.547204. · DOI
  153. Matthews, M. R. (2004). Reappraising positivism and education: The arguments of Philipp Frank and Herbert Feigl. Science & Education, 13(1-2), 7-39. http://doi.org/10.1023/B:SCED.0000 018544.34295.8b. · DOI
  154. 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 argu- ments to explain phenomena. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(3), 416-460. http://doi. org/10.1080/10508400903013488. · DOI
  155. McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1. · DOI · Paper page
  156. Means, B., & Gott, S. P. (1988). Cognitive task analysis as a basis for tutor development: Articu- lating abstract knowledge representations. In J. Psotka, L. D. Massey, & S. A. Mutter (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems: Lessons learned (pp. 35-58). Hillsdale, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erl- baum Associates.
  157. Metcalf, S. J. (1999). The design of guided learner-adaptable scaffolding in interactive learning en- vironments (PhD Dissertation). Ann Arbor, MI, USA University of Michigan, USA. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (Publication Number 9959821).
  158. Middleton, M. J., & Midgley, C. (2002). Beyond motivation: Middle school students' perceptions of press for understanding in math. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(3), 373-391. http://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2001.1101. · DOI
  159. Mortimer, E. F., & Wertsch, J. V. (2003). The architecture and dynamics of intersubjectivity in science classrooms. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 10(3), 230-244. http://doi.org/10.1207/ s15327884mca1003_5. · DOI
  160. Murray, T. (1999). Authoring intelligent tutoring systems: An analysis of the state of the art. Inter- national Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (IJAIED), 10, 98-129.
  161. Muukkonen, H., Lakkala, M., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). Technology-mediation and tutoring: How do they shape progressive inquiry discourse? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 527-565. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1404_3. · DOI
  162. Nersessian, N. J. (2008). Creating scientific concepts. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
  163. Oh, S., & Jonassen, D. H. (2007). Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solv- ing. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 95-110. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365- 2729.2006.00206.x. · DOI
  164. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175. http://doi. org/10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1. · DOI · Paper page
  165. Pata, K., Lehtinen, E., & Sarapuu, T. (2006). Inter-relations of tutors' and peers' scaffolding and decision-making discourse acts. Instructional Science, 34(4), 313-341. http://doi.org/10.1007/ s11251-005-3406-5. · DOI
  166. 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. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_6. · DOI · Paper page
  167. Pifarre, M., & Cobos, R. (2010). Promoting metacognitive skills through peer scaffolding in a CSCL environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(2), 237-253. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-010-9084-6. · DOI
  168. Pressley, M., Gaskins, I. W., Solic, K., & Collins, S. (2006). A portrait of Benchmark School: How a school produces high achievement in students who previously failed. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 282-306. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.282. · DOI
  169. Pritchard, D. E., Barrantes, A., & Belland, B. R. (2009). What else (besides the syllabus) should students learn in introductory physics? In M. Sabella, C. Henderson, & C. Singh (Eds.), Pro- ceedings of the annual conference of the American Institute of Physics (pp. 43-46). Ann Arbor, MI, USA: American Institute of Physics. http://doi.org/10.1063/1.3266749. · DOI
  170. 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. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4001_1. · DOI · Paper page
  171. Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185-217. http://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20048. · DOI
  172. Quintana, C., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2003). Issues and approaches for developing learner- centered technology. Advances in Computers, 57, 271-321. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0065- 2458(03)57006-1. · DOI
  173. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., Kyza, E., Edelson, D., & Soloway, E. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337-386. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_4. · DOI
  174. 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. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.11.010. · DOI
  175. Raphael, L. M., Pressley, M., & Mohan, L. (2008). Engaging instruction in middle school class- rooms: An observational study of nine teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 109(1), 61- 81. http://doi.org/10.1086/592367. · DOI
  176. Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problema- tizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273-304. http://doi.org/10.1207/ s15327809jls1303_2. · DOI · Paper page
  177. Rodgers, E. M. (2004). Interactions that scaffold reading performance. Journal of Literacy Re- search, 36(4), 501-532. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15548430jlr3604_4. · DOI
  178. Rogoff, B., & Toma, C. (1997). Shared thinking: Community and institutional variations. Dis- course Processes, 23(3), 471-497. http://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709545000. · DOI
  179. Roth, W. (2012). Science of learning is learning of science: Why we need a dialectical approach to science education research. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 7(2), 255-277. http://doi. org/10.1007/s11422-012-9390-6. · DOI
  180. Roth, W., & Lee, Y. (2007). "Vygotsky's neglected legacy": Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186-232. http://doi.org/10.3102/0034654306298273. · DOI
  181. Sabet, M. K., Tahriri, A., & Pasand, P. G. (2013). The impact of peer scaffolding through process approach on EFL learners' academic writing fluency. Theory & Practice in Language Studies, 3(10), 1893-1901. http://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.10.1893-1901. · DOI
  182. Saffi, S. (2005). Discussion de l'arbitraire du signe: Quand le hasard occulte la relation entre le physique et le mental [Discussion of the arbitrariness of the sign: When chance hides the re- lationship between the physical and the mental]. Italies. Littérature-Civilisation-Société, 9, 345-394. http://doi.org/10.4000/italies.487. · DOI
  183. Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Develop- ment, 50(3), 77-96. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505026. · DOI · Paper page
  184. Seethaler, P. M., Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Compton, D. L. (2012). Predicting first graders' de- velopment of calculation versus word-problem performance: The role of dynamic assessment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 224-234. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0024968. · DOI
  185. Self, J. (1998). The defining characteristics of intelligent tutoring systems research: ITSs care, precisely. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (IJAIED), 10, 350-364.
  186. Simons, K. D., & Ertmer, P. A. (2006). Scaffolding disciplined inquiry in problem-based learning environments. International Journal of Learning, 12(6), 297-305.
  187. Skinner, B. F. (1984). The phylogeny and ontogeny of behavior. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7(4), 669-711. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00027990. · DOI
  188. Smagorinsky, P. (1995). The social construction of data: Methodological problems of investigat- ing learning in the zone of proximal development. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 191-212. http://doi.org/10.3102/00346543065003191. · DOI
  189. Solomon, D. L. (2000). Toward a post-modern agenda in instructional technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 5-20. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300497. · DOI
  190. Songer, N. B., & Linn, M. C. (1991). How do students' views of science influence knowledge integration? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 761-784. http://doi.org/10.1002/ tea.3660280905. · DOI
  191. Spada, H. (1994). Conceptual change or multiple representations? Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 113-116. http://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90021-3. · DOI
  192. Stone, C. A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Jour- nal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 344-364. http://doi.org/10.1177/002221949803100404. · DOI · Paper page
  193. Swanson, H. L., & Lussier, C. M. (2001). A selective synthesis of the experimental literature on dynamic assessment. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 321-363. http://doi. org/10.3102/00346543071002321. · DOI · Paper page
  194. Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305-335. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_3. · DOI
  195. Taber, K. S. (2008). Conceptual resources for learning science: Issues of transience and grain- size in cognition and cognitive structure. International Journal of Science Education, 30(8), 1027-1053. http://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701485082. The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relation- ship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2-10. http://doi.org/10.3102/00131 89x019006002. · DOI
  196. Tzuriel, D. (2000). Dynamic assessment of young children: Educational and intervention perspectives. Educational Psychology Review, 12(4), 385-435. http://doi.org/10.1023 /A:1009032414088. · DOI
  197. 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. http://doi.org/10.1007/ s10648-010-9127-6. · DOI · Paper page
  198. Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2011). Patterns of contingent teaching in teacher- student interaction. Learning and Instruction, 21(1), 46-57. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.learnin- struc.2009.10.004. · DOI
  199. Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2012). Promoting teacher scaffolding in small-group work: A contingency perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(2), 193-205. http://doi. org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.09.009. · DOI
  200. Vosniadou, S., Ioannides, C., Dimitrakopoulou, A., & Papademetriou, E. (2001). Designing learn- ing environments to promote conceptual change in science. Learning and Instruction, 11(4-5), 381-419. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00038-4. · DOI

200 of 650 shown

Authors
Belland, B. R.
Affiliations
Utah State University (US)
Corresponding author
Belland, Brian R.
ORCID
Belland, Brian R.
Venue
Springer eBooks
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published
2017
DOI
10.1007/978-3-319-02565-0
OpenAlex
W4232485711
Cited by
161
References
446
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4
FWCI
5.99
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Springer eBooks (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • OAPEN (The OAPEN Foundation) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1251782, 0953046)
  • Utah State University
  • University of Georgia
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Keywords
instructional scaffolding, STEM education, learning support

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review