CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 168Innovative Teaching and Learning MethodsVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesScience Education and Pedagogy

Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students’ Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction

Open access
van de Pol, Janneke, Mercer, Neil, Volman, Monique·2019·Journal of the Learning Sciences
DOI 10.1080/10508406.2018.1522258
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Providing contingent or adaptive support (i.e., scaffolding) is effective. Yet it is unclear how it promotes students’ learning. In this mixed-methods study, we investigated to what extent the effect of contingent support for students’ learning is mediated by the extent to which students take up teachers’ support in subsequent small-group work. We define contingent support as support that contains adapted levels of teacher control or regulation based on the learner’s level of understanding. To explore the research question, we analyzed all interactions from 35 lessons of 7 secondary social studies teachers and 7 small groups of students. Logistic multilevel mediation analyses showed that the likelihood of students formulating accurate answers during small-group work was higher when students applied the teacher’s support in subsequent small-group work (as opposed to ignoring that support). However, the contingency of a teacher’s support did not affect students’ uptake or the accuracy of their answers. Additional qualitative analyses showed that students’ uptake of contingent support was sometimes hampered by untimely fading of the support. Moreover, we found that contingent support that was then gradually faded was the most effective in fostering students’ uptake of a teacher’s support.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Students’ application of teacher support predicted greater accuracy in subsequent small-group work, but contingency of support did not predict uptake and no mediation was found. Qualitative follow-up suggested contingent support was taken up when faded in a timely manner, whereas untimely fading accompanied ignored support.

Key findings

  • Uptake positively predicted accuracy: a 1-unit increase in uptake (from copy/repeat to apply) was associated with a 0.25 increase in the log odds of moving to a higher accuracy category.
  • Contingency of support was not related to students’ uptake, and there was no indirect effect of contingency on accuracy via uptake (Hypotheses 1 and 3 not supported).
  • Relevance of support predicted uptake: a 1-unit increase in relevance (from not relevant to relevant) was associated with a 6.37 increase in the log odds of moving from repeat/ignore to apply.
  • In qualitative analysis, 5 of 7 sets with contingent support followed by ignored relevant support showed untimely fading; in 7 sets where contingent support was applied, no premature fading was found.

Methods

  • Mixed-methods study analyzing transcripts of all interactions from 35 lessons (five consecutive lessons per teacher) of 7 secondary social studies teachers and 7 target groups of four students each (N = 28), in an EU project; 13,316 interaction turns were coded.
  • Coded contingency using the contingent shift framework, uptake (ignore, copy/repeat, apply), accuracy of students’ answers, on-task turns, and relevance; interrater Krippendorff’s alphas ranged from .73 to .87.
  • Ordinal logistic multilevel regression with mediation in Mplus 7.4; Level 1 was student-student episode, Level 2 teacher-student episode, Level 3 lesson; controlled for average student understanding during teacher-student interaction and relevance of support, with teacher dummy variables for nesting.

Limitations

  • Stated: the final dataset was relatively small despite 13,316 coded turns, with only 7 teachers and 28 students; uptake was measured only in student-student interactions directly following a teacher-student interaction, not later or remote uptake; future research should examine joint effects of teacher support and within-group interaction quality and teacher- versus student-initiated interactions.
  • Evident: the design is observational, so the mediation model cannot establish causal effects; the sample is limited to eighth-grade social studies in lower secondary vocational education within one EU project, limiting generalizability.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10508406.2018.1522258

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

5 of 53 cited sources checked · 1 supported · 2 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Interpretationown data

    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.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Pino-Pasternak et al., 2010 source
    • cites Van de Pol et al., 2015 source

      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
  • Premisecitation

    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)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Pino-Pasternak et al., 2010 source
    • cites Van de Pol et al., 2015 source

      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
  • Premisecitation

    Scaffolding (temporary support adapted to a student's understanding) is effective for student learning.

    “Providing contingent or adaptive support (i.e., scaffolding) is effective.”
    • Also stated in: § INTRODUCTION · boosted
      “Scaffolding (i.e., temporary support that is adapted to a student's understanding), is known to be effective for student learning (van de Pol, Volman, & Beishuizen, 2010).”
    • Also stated in: § Contingency and Student Learning · boosted
      “In summary, the process of scaffolding, and more specifically the contingency of support, has been shown to promote students' learning.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites van de Pol, Volman, & Beishuizen, 2010 source
  • Premisecitation

    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).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Van de Pol, Volman, Oort, & Beishuizen, 2015 source

      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
  • Findingown data

    For a 1-unit increase in uptake (copy/repeat to apply), there is a 0.25 increase in the log odds of moving from a given level of accuracy to any higher category, holding other variables constant.

    “For a 1-unit increase in uptake (going from copy/repeat to apply), we expect a 0.25 increase in the log odds of moving from a given level of accuracy of students' answers to any higher category when all other variables in the model are held constant.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Accuracy of students' final answers is a valid indicator of their understanding during small-group work.
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 25
  • May combine two claims. 18
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The most central characteristic of scaffolding is contingency, the degree to which support is adapted to a student's understanding.

    “The most central characteristic of scaffolding is that of contingency (i.e., the degree to which support is adapted to a student's understanding; Van de Pol et al., 2010).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Van de Pol et al., 2010 source

      In “Characterizations of scaffolding” (page unavailable), the paper identifies contingency as a common characteristic and defines it as adapting support to the student’s current level. It does not explicitly rank contingency as the most central characteristic; it identifies fading and transfer of responsibility as key characteristics too. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Two indicators of untimely fading were distinguished: (a) lack of teachers checking students' understanding before walking away and/or lack of students demonstrating understanding at the end of the teacher-student episode; (b) students' frustration and demonstration of lack of understanding at the beginning of a subsequent student-student episode.

    “We also distinguished two indicators of this untimely fading: (a) a lack of teachers checking students' understanding before walking away and/or a lack of students demonstrating understanding at the end of the teacher-student episode and (b) students' frustration and demonstration of a lack of understanding at the beginning of a subsequent student-student episode.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The contingency of support by itself did not affect students' uptake or the accuracy of their answers.

    “Our quantitative analysis showed that the contingency of support by itself did not affect students' uptake or the accuracy of their answers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Repeating teachers' explanations only results in an illusion of understanding, as does ignoring teacher support.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    These two indicators often co-occurred.

    “Often these two indicators co-occurred.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In those seven sets, teachers checked students' understanding and/or students demonstrated understanding before the teacher walked away, and/or students were able to proceed after the teacher left.

    “as indicated by teachers checking students' understanding and students demonstrating their understanding before the teacher walked away and/or students being able to proceed after the teacher had left.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The code 'repeat' only occurred twice in the data, which did not enable statistical analysis.

    “The code”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In instances where students ignored contingent support, teachers did not monitor students' understanding at the end of the interaction and/or students did not show demonstrations of (not) understanding.

    “In the instances in which students ignored contingent support, teachers did not monitor students' understanding at the end of the interaction and/or students did not show demonstrations of (not) understanding.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    By applying the support provided, students are better able to continue working constructively and extend and deepen their understanding.

    “By applying the support provided, students are better able to continue working constructively and extend and deepen their understanding (Wittwer et al., 2005;Wittwer & Renkl, 2008).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Wittwer et al., 2005

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Wittwer & Renkl, 2008 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Scaffolding takes into account students' prior knowledge and connects closely to this prior knowledge, which makes applying a teacher's support easier for students.

    “Scaffolding takes into account students' prior knowledge and connects closely to this prior knowledge, which makes applying a teacher's support easier for students (Wittwer & Renkl, 2008).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Wittwer & Renkl, 2008 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The effect of teacher support on on-task behavior and problem solving was greatest when teachers evaluated the group's progress and understanding, as the teachers could adapt their support to the needs of the students.

    “It appeared that the effect of their support on on-task behavior and problem solving was greatest when teachers evaluated the group's progress and understanding, as the teachers could adapt their support to the needs of the students.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chiu (2004) source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    It is mainly the contingency of teacher support that determines the effectiveness of the support.

    “Several studies suggest that it is mainly the contingency of teacher support that determines the effectiveness of the support.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Webb et al. (2009) source
    • cites Meloth and Deering (1999)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Chiu (2004) source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Once a teacher stimulates one student to generate relational thinking, other students in the group spontaneously generate relational thinking collaboratively at an accelerating rate without further teacher support.

    “For example, Lin et al. (2015) wrote,”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lin et al. (2015)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Applying support leads to more profound student understanding as the new information is actually integrated into the students' existing knowledge schemes.

    “Applying support leads to more profound student understanding as the new information is actually integrated into the students' existing knowledge schemes (Wittwer & Renkl, 2008).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Wittwer & Renkl, 2008 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In subsequent group work, students collaboratively formulated an answer and helped each other, drawing on what the teacher had said, even though the teacher's support was not necessarily adaptive to every student within a group.

    “Even though the teacher's support was not necessarily adaptive to every student within a group, in subsequent group work, students collaboratively formulated an answer and helped each other, drawing on what the teacher had said.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chiu (2004) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    In small-group work, teachers need to deal with multiple students at a time, which may complicate diagnosing students' understanding and being adaptive, as students may have different levels of understanding.

    “In the context of small-group work, teachers need to deal with multiple students at a time, which may complicate diagnosing students' understanding and being adaptive, as students may have different levels of understanding.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    In Example C, the support did not seem to be faded too early, and responsibility seemed justly transferred to the students.

    “The support did not seem to be faded too early.The responsibility seemed justly transferred to the students.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Interrater reliability for teacher degree of control coding was Krippendorff's alpha .80 based on independent coding of 16% of the data.

    “To establish interrater reliability, two coders independently coded 16% of the data, resulting in a Krippendorff's alpha of .80 (Krippendorff, 2004).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Krippendorff, 2004

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Previous studies have shown that listening to students before interacting with them is important.

    “Adding to previous studies that have shown that listening to students before interacting with them is important (e.g., Meloth & Deering, 1999;Webb et al., 2009)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Meloth & Deering, 1999

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Webb et al., 2009 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    In small-group work, the prior knowledge of several students needs to be taken into account.

    “In the case of small-group work, this means that the prior knowledge of several students needs to be taken into account.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Two coders independently coded 57% of the data for accuracy, resulting in a Krippendorff's alpha of .73.

    “To establish interrater reliability, two coders independently coded 57% of the data, resulting in a Krippendorff's alpha of .73.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Two coders independently coded 36.9% of the data for on-task coding, resulting in a Krippendorff's alpha of .87.

    “Two coders independently coded 36.9% of the data to establish interrater reliability, resulting in a Krippendorff's alpha of .87.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Contingent support takes into account students' prior knowledge and should be provided at the right time when students need support, which can make further processing of the new information easier for students.

    “Contingent support takes into account students' prior knowledge.It should be provided at the right time when students need support, which can make further processing of the new information easier for students.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Previous research underlines the importance of a teacher checking students' understanding in the scaffolding process before walking away.

    “The importance of a teacher checking students' understanding in the scaffolding process before walking away is underlined by previous research in which researchers and teachers together designed a professional development program aimed at promoting contingent teaching (Van de Pol et al., 2012).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Van de Pol et al., 2012

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Two coders independently coded 45.2% of the data for relevance coding, resulting in a Krippendorff's alpha of .81.

    “To establish interrater reliability, two coders independently coded 45.2% of the data, resulting in a Krippendorff's alpha of .81.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The analysis controlled for the relevance of teacher support to the student-student episode to account for the artefact that students might ignore irrelevant support.

    “To account for this artefact, we coded the relevance of the support of the teacher-student interaction for each of the subsequent student-student interactions and included this variable in our analysis.”
    • Also stated in: § ANALYSIS · plain
      “Furthermore, we controlled for the relevance of the support provided in the teacher-student episode to the task at hand in the student-student episode.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The study highlights the practical educational importance of two defining characteristics of scaffolding: contingency and fading.

    “Our study highlights the practical educational importance of two important defining characteristics of scaffolding: contingency and fading.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The analysis accounted for nesting within teachers by including teacher dummy variables.

    “we accounted for the nesting within teachers by including teacher dummy variables (cf. McNeish & Stapleton, 2016).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites McNeish & Stapleton, 2016

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). The quote only partly states this claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Complete data needed for this study were available for only seven of 17 teachers.

    “We only had complete data needed for this study from seven teachers (data were missing for several reasons, including technical issues and teachers' apparent reluctance to allow recordings among students).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Previous research on small-group work has shown that the quality of students' interactions significantly shapes students' learning.

    “Previous research on small-group work has shown that the quality of students' interactions significantly shapes students' learning (e.g., Hogan, Nastasi, & Pressley, 1999;Volet, Vauras, Salo, & Khosa, 2017).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Hogan, Nastasi, & Pressley, 1999 source
    • cites Volet, Vauras, Salo, & Khosa, 2017

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Uptake of support was only determined during the student-student interactions that directly followed a particular teacher-student interaction (i.e., until the students were helped again by the teacher).

    “Second, we only determined the uptake of support during the student-student interactions that directly followed a particular teacher-student interaction (i.e., until the students were helped again by the teacher).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Previous studies suggest that it is mainly the contingency of teacher support that determines the effectiveness of the support in fostering students' learning.

    “and these previous studies suggest that it is mainly the contingency of teacher support that determines the effectiveness of the support in fostering students' learning (Chiu, 2004;Meloth & Deering, 1999;Webb et al., 2009).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Chiu, 2004 source
    • cites Meloth & Deering, 1999

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Webb et al., 2009 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    In Example D, the fading of the teacher's support did not seem untimely, as the students were able to continue working.

    “The fading of the teacher's support did not seem untimely, as the students were able to continue working.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    The analysis controlled for students' average level of understanding during the teacher-student episode.

    “We also included students' average understanding during teacher-student interaction (which we coded as part of contingency) as a covariate to account for students' understanding during the teacher-student episode”
    • Also stated in: § ANALYSIS · plain
      “We controlled for the effect of students' average level of understanding during the teacher-student episode.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    At least 10% of the data was always double-coded; when the total number of units was somewhat lower, more than 10% (up to 45.2%) of the data was coded.

    “We always double-coded at least 10% of the data.When the total number of units was somewhat lower, we coded more than 10% (up to 45.2%) of the data.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
34 of 34

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    It is unclear how scaffolding promotes students' learning.

    “Yet how scaffolding promotes students' learning remains unclear.”
    “Yet it is unclear how it promotes students' learning.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    It is unclear how contingency affects student learning.

    “Yet it is unclear how contingency affects student learning.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No study has investigated students' delayed uptake of the content of a teacher's support after the teacher has left a group and how this affects students' learning.

    “However, to our knowledge, no study has investigated students' delayed uptake of the content of a teacher's support (e.g., an explanation of the meaning of a particular concept) after the teacher has left a group of students and how this affects students' learning.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    It is less clear how teachers can support students' learning in the setting of small-group work.

    “Yet it is less clear how teachers can support students' learning in the setting of small-group work (e.g., Webb, 2009).”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Mirroring of teachers' behavior or helping style catalyzes students' interaction.

    “Such mirroring is assumed to catalyze the students' interaction.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The link between student uptake and student learning has only been addressed and studied in the context of individual student learning.

    “The link between student uptake and student learning has only been addressed and studied in the context of individual student learning.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The link between student uptake and student learning works similarly in small-group work as in individual student learning.

    “Yet we do not have reason to assume that it works differently in small-group work.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The small-group setting is especially suited for studying students' uptake because students often externalize their thinking in small-group work.

    “This small-group setting is especially suited for studying students' uptake, as students often externalize their thinking in small-group work.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The study is the first to investigate the role of uptake in the scaffolding process, linking teacher-student interactions to subsequent small-group student interactions.

    “The study reported here is the first to investigate the role of uptake in the scaffolding process, linking teacher-student interactions to subsequent smallgroup student interactions.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Accuracy of students' final answers is a valid indicator of their understanding during small-group work.

    “We determined students' understanding during small-group work by coding the accuracy of the answers that students provided within each of the on-task studentstudent episodes.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Contingency of support measured as the percentage of contingent three-turn sequences within an episode is a valid measure of contingent support.

    “Level 2 was the teacher-student episode level and contained the variable contingency of support (a continuous variable representing the percentage of contingent three-turn sequences relative to the total number of three-turn sequences within an episode).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Relevance of support coded as whether it could possibly be relevant to the task is a valid measure of relevance.

    “The support was coded as relevant (1) if it could possibly be relevant to the task under discussion within the student-student episode.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Repeating teachers' explanations only results in an illusion of understanding, as does ignoring teacher support.

    “The code”
13 of 13

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Double-coding maximum conflicts with reported 57%

    Minor

    The paper says the proportion of data double-coded was at most 45.2%, but it separately reports double-coding 57% of the data for accuracy of students' answers.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Designing groupwork (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
  2. 10.1207/student1532690xci1704_2 · DOI
  3. Webb, N. M., & Farivar, S. (1999). Developing productive group interaction in middle school. In A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 117–149). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  4. Wittwer, J., Nückles, M., Hübner, S., & Herbert, M. (2005). How tutors plan and students learn from adaptive explanations: A think-aloud study in online tutoring. In J. Wittwer & M. Nückles (Chairs), Adaptation in tutoring and collaborative learning. Nicosia, Cyprus: Symposium conducted at the 11th biennial conference of the European Association for research on Learning and Instruction.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
van de Pol, J., Mercer, N., & Volman, M.
Affiliations
  • Department of EducationUtrecht University
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of the Learning Sciences
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2018-11-26
Volume
28
Issue
2
Pages
206-239
ISSN
  • 1050-8406 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7809
DOI
10.1080/10508406.2018.1522258
OpenAlex
W2902394069
Semantic Scholar
686614d7bc5c5a17704553d6344a0f441423b00a
Cited by
168
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 2
FWCI
20.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of the Learning Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (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 › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
Keywords
scaffolding, adaptive assistance, small group work, teacher control, secondary school social studies, student understanding, small group interaction

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-23.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-23.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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