Cited by 220Innovative Teaching and Learning MethodsVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesEducational and Psychological Assessments

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

Open access
van de Pol, Janneke, Volman, Monique, Oort, Frans, Beishuizen, Jos·2015·Instructional Science

Abstract

Teacher scaffolding, in which teachers support students adaptively or contingently , is assumed to be effective. Yet, hardly any evidence from classroom studies exists. With the current experimental classroom study we investigated whether scaffolding affects students’ achievement, task effort, and appreciation of teacher support, when students work in small groups. We investigated both the effects of support quality (i.e., contingency) and the duration of the independent working time of the groups. Thirty social studies teachers of pre-vocational education and 768 students (age 12–15) participated. All teachers taught a five-lesson project on the European Union and the teachers in the scaffolding condition additionally took part in a scaffolding intervention. Low contingent support was more effective in promoting students’ achievement and task effort than high contingent support in situations where independent working time was low (i.e. help was frequent). In situations where independent working time was high (i.e., help was less frequent), high contingent support was more effective than low contingent support in fostering students’ achievement (when correcting for students’ task effort). In addition, higher levels of contingent support resulted in a higher appreciation of support. Scaffolding, thus, is not unequivocally effective; its effectiveness depends, among other things, on the independent working time of the groups and students’ task effort. The present study is one of the first experimental study on scaffolding in an authentic classroom context, including factors that appear to matter in such an authentic context.

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/s11251-015-9351-z

Cites

79 of 79 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Contingent support alone is not enough to assist students' uptake.

    “Our findings therefore differ from those of some previous studies (e.g., Pino-Pasternak et al., 2010;Van de Pol et al., 2015) in that contingent support alone is not enough to assist students' uptake.”

    From Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students’ Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction (2019) · cites this paper as Van de Pol et al., 2015

    The citation presents this study as finding that contingent support alone was enough to assist students’ uptake. The Discussion (page unavailable) instead says high-contingency support was not more effective in all situations: its effect on achievement depended on how long students worked independently. The cited passage does not report uptake as an outcome. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Much previous research on scaffolding has only focused on the contingency aspect of scaffolding.

    “However, much previous research on scaffolding has only focused on the contingency aspect of scaffolding (e.g., Pino-Pasternak et al., 2010;Van de Pol et al., 2015)”

    From Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students’ Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction (2019) · cites this paper as Van de Pol et al., 2015

    The Discussion (page unavailable) explicitly says this study took both support contingency and independent working time into account. Although the paper reviews earlier work on contingency, it cannot serve as an example of research that only focused on that aspect. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In small-group work, scaffolding appears to be effective for student learning.

    “Yet also in this context, scaffolding appears to be effective for student learning (e.g., Van de Pol, Volman, Oort, & Beishuizen, 2015).”

    From Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students’ Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction (2019) · cites this paper as Van de Pol, Volman, Oort, & Beishuizen, 2015

    The Discussion (page not available) reports improved achievement with high-contingency support when groups worked independently for long periods, after controlling for task effort. But the Conclusion says scaffolding was not unequivocally effective: its effects depended on independent working time and task effort. The citing sentence omits those conditions. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 82 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van de Pol, J., Volman, M., Oort, F., & Beishuizen, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
Venue
Instructional Science
Published
2015-06-05
Volume
43
Issue
5
Pages
615-641
ISSN
  • 0020-4277 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-1952
OpenAlex
W1946052551
Cited by
220
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1
FWCI
16.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Instructional Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational and Psychological Assessments
Keywords
teacher scaffolding, academic performance, task effort, small group work, pre-vocational education, social studies education, European Union projects

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