The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 5 of the 53 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students’ Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
15 Own result · 13 Own interpretation · 12 Not checked yet · 9 Own method · 8 No full text of the sources · 7 Sources not found · 4 No basis given · 2 Partly supported · 2 Not supported · 1 Supported · accuracy not yet measured
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pino-Pasternak et al., 2010 source
- Disputedcites Van de Pol et al., 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“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)”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pino-Pasternak et al., 2010 source
- Disputedcites Van de Pol et al., 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > Abstract
What the sources say
- Supportedcites van de Pol, Volman, & Beishuizen, 2010 source
The “Effectiveness of scaffolding” section concludes that studies of students’ metacognitive and cognitive activities indicate scaffolding is effective. It also reports better long-division performance among students receiving contingent support than among those in the comparison conditions. The review notes that the effectiveness evidence is limited and comes mainly from one-to-one tutoring. (LLM, conf=0.92)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § INTRODUCTION · boosted
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Yet also in this context, scaffolding appears to be effective for student learning (e.g., Van de Pol, Volman, Oort, & Beishuizen, 2015).”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > Contingency and Student Learning
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Van de Pol, Volman, Oort, & Beishuizen, 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > The Relationship Between Contingency, Uptake, and Student Accuracy
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Accuracy of students' final answers is a valid indicator of their understanding during small-group work.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Contrary to what we expected, we did not find an effect of contingency on students' uptake (Hypothesis 1).”
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION · plain
“However, contrary to what we expected, contingency of support did not affect the degree to which students applied the support.”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > The Relationship Between Contingency, Uptake, and Student Accuracy
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Contingency of support measured as the percentage of contingent three-turn sequences within an episode is a valid measure of contingent support.
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, in general, the degree of student uptake was relatively low.”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > Conclusion and Implications
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For a 1unit increase in relevance (going from not relevant to relevant), we expect a 6.37 increase in the log odds of moving from repeat/ignore to apply when all other variables in the model are held constant.”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > Contingency of support
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Relevance of support coded as whether it could possibly be relevant to the task is a valid measure of relevance.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As expected, we did find a positive effect of uptake on the accuracy of students' answers (Hypothesis 2).”
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION · plain
“We were not surprised to find that applying support was more effective for students' learning than ignoring support.”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > The Relationship Between Contingency, Uptake, and Student Accuracy
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Accuracy of students' final answers is a valid indicator of their understanding during small-group work.
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An intercept-only model with no predictors showed that 36.09% of the variance was located at the lesson level (Level 3), 0.43% was located at the teacher-student episode level (Level 2), and 63.48% was located at the student-student episode level (Level 1).”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > The Relationship Between Contingency, Uptake, and Student Accuracy
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 25
- It may state two separate claims as one. 18
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > Scaffolding
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Van de Pol et al., 2010 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > Additional Exploratory Qualitative Analyses
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our quantitative analysis showed that the contingency of support by itself did not affect students' uptake or the accuracy of their answers.”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Repeating teachers' explanations only results in an illusion of understanding, as does ignoring teacher support.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Often these two indicators co-occurred.”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > Additional Exploratory Qualitative Analyses
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > Applying Contingent Support
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The code”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > Conclusion and Implications
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > DISCUSSION
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > Teacher Support, Uptake, and Student Learning
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Wittwer et al., 2005
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wittwer & Renkl, 2008 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“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).”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wittwer & Renkl, 2008 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > Contingency and Student Learning
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Chiu (2004) source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Several studies suggest that it is mainly the contingency of teacher support that determines the effectiveness of the support.”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > Contingency and Student Learning
What the sources say
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“For example, Lin et al. (2015) wrote,”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > Teacher Support, Uptake, and Student Learning
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lin et al. (2015)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Applying support leads to more profound student understanding as the new information is actually integrated into the students' existing knowledge schemes (Wittwer & Renkl, 2008).”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > Teacher Support, Uptake, and Student Learning
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wittwer & Renkl, 2008 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > Contingency and Student Learning
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Chiu (2004) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > Contingency and Student Learning
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The support did not seem to be faded too early.The responsibility seemed justly transferred to the students.”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > Applying Contingent Support
hedgedSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“To establish interrater reliability, two coders independently coded 16% of the data, resulting in a Krippendorff's alpha of .80 (Krippendorff, 2004).”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > Contingency of Support
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Krippendorff, 2004
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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)”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Meloth & Deering, 1999
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Webb et al., 2009 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the case of small-group work, this means that the prior knowledge of several students needs to be taken into account.”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > Teacher Support, Uptake, and Student Learning
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To establish interrater reliability, two coders independently coded 57% of the data, resulting in a Krippendorff's alpha of .73.”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > Accuracy of Students' Answers During Small-Group Work
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two coders independently coded 36.9% of the data to establish interrater reliability, resulting in a Krippendorff's alpha of .87.”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > On Task
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > Teacher Support, Uptake, and Student Learning
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Van de Pol et al., 2012
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To establish interrater reliability, two coders independently coded 45.2% of the data, resulting in a Krippendorff's alpha of .81.”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > On Task
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > On Task
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Also stated in: § ANALYSIS · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our study highlights the practical educational importance of two important defining characteristics of scaffolding: contingency and fading.”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > Conclusion and Implications
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“we accounted for the nesting within teachers by including teacher dummy variables (cf. McNeish & Stapleton, 2016).”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > ANALYSIS
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites McNeish & Stapleton, 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > Participants
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > The Current Study
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hogan, Nastasi, & Pressley, 1999 source
- Not matchedcites Volet, Vauras, Salo, & Khosa, 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > Limitations and Future Research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The fading of the teacher's support did not seem untimely, as the students were able to continue working.”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > Example D, Student-Student Interaction
hedgedSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > ANALYSIS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Also stated in: § ANALYSIS · plain
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > Conclusion and Implications
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
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”
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.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > Conclusion and Implications
“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.”
§ Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students' Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction > Accuracy of Students' Answers During Small-Group Work
“To establish interrater reliability, two coders independently coded 57% of the data, resulting in a Krippendorff's alpha of .73.”
Citations
Cites
(1978) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 53,488
Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology.
Shelley, M., & Krippendorff, K. (1984) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2288384 · Cited by 24,351
THE ROLE OF TUTORING IN PROBLEM SOLVING *
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x · Cited by 8,851
Advances in Instructional Psychology
(2019) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315864341 · Cited by 2,538
Eliciting Self‐Explanations Improves Understanding
Michelene, T. H., Leeuw, N. D., Chiu, M., & Lavancher, C. (1994) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1016/0364-0213(94)90016-7 · Cited by 2,492
Scaffolding in Teacher–Student Interaction: A Decade of Research
van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6 · Cited by 1,873 · cited 2×
“In a review, Van de Pol et al. (2010) defined scaffolding as support that is characterized by adaptivity or contingency of support, fading of support over time, and transferring of the responsibility for learning or a task to the student.”
BackgroundSelf-citationDialogue and the Development of Children's Thinking
Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203946657 · Cited by 1,651
Self-citationSkinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. J. (2009) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/0013164408323233 · Cited by 1,587
Barron, B. (2003) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1203_1 · Cited by 1,446 · cited 2×
“We used the following categories of uptake: (a) ignore, (b) copy/repeat, and (c) apply (cf. Barron, 2003).”
BackgroundMethodDialogue and the Development of Children's Thinking: A Sociocultural Approach
Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007) · Open Research Online (The Open University) · Cited by 966
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Cohen, E. G. (1994). Designing groupwork (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
- 10.1207/student1532690xci1704_2 · DOI
- 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.
- 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
Bernacki, M. L., Greene, J. A., & Crompton, H. (2019) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101827 · Cited by 596
Variability of teachers’ technology integration in the classroom: A matter of utility!
Backfisch, I., Lachner, A., Stürmer, K., & Scheiter, K. (2021) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104159 · Cited by 312
A systematic literature review of teacher scaffolding in game-based learning in primary education
Sun, L., Kangas, M., Ruokamo, H., & Siklander, P. (2023) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100546 · Cited by 120
Ouyang, F., Dai, X., & Chen, S. (2022) · International Journal of STEM Education · doi:10.1186/s40594-022-00361-z · Cited by 59
“Consistent with previous research results (van de Pol et al., 2019; Wittwer et al., 2010), during collaborative programming, novice learners usually encounter complex tasks that cause high cognitive loads (Kunkle & Allen, 2016; Margulieux & Catrambone, 2021; Yeomans et al., 2019); in this case, the…”
BackgroundResultInfluentialZhang, Y., Pi, Z., Chen, L., Zhang, X., & Yang, J. (2021) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100950 · Cited by 53
Sari, D. P., & Darhim, D. (2019) · Journal on Mathematics Education · doi:10.22342/jme.11.1.7806.145-156 · Cited by 46
Students’ agency, creative reasoning, and collaboration in mathematical problem solving
Hansen, E. K. S. (2021) · Mathematics Education Research Journal · doi:10.1007/s13394-021-00365-y · Cited by 42
Linking Dialogue with Student Modelling to Create an Adaptive Tutoring System for Conceptual Physics
Katz, S., Albacete, P., Chounta, I., Jordan, P., McLaren, B. M., & Zapata‐Rivera, D. (2021) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-020-00226-y · Cited by 41
Kusmaryono, I., Jupriyanto, J., & Kusumaningsih, W. (2021) · European Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.12973/eu-jer.10.1.341 · Cited by 39
“Scaffolding involves experienced instructors who guide students through the tasks in their ZPD (Khaliliaqdam, 2014; van de Pol & Volman, 2019).”
BackgroundBaucal, A., Jošić, S. M., Stepanovic-Ilic, I., Videnović, M. P., Ivanović, J., & Krstić, K. (2023) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100567 · Cited by 36
Ertugruloglu, E., Mearns, T., & Admiraal, W. (2023) · Educational Research and Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100550 · Cited by 37
Lee, Y.-J., Chung, J. J. Y., Kim, T. S., Song, J. Y., & Kim, J. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3502087 · Cited by 35
“During the session, they were given sample prompts in a blind condition, and we asked them to score questions according to a provided scoring rubric, which is based on the framework for analyzing scaffolding strategies [55] and our goal of creating accurate prompts.”
MethodFeasibility of adaptive teaching with technology: Which implementation conditions matter?
Sibley, L., Lachner, A., Plicht, C., Fabian, A., Backfisch, I., Scheiter, K., & Bohl, T. (2024) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105108 · Cited by 30
Kang, J., Zhou, Y., Rajarathinam, R. J., Tan, Y., & Shaffer, D. W. (2024) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105002 · Cited by 36
van Braak, M., van de Pol, J., Poorthuis, A. M. G., & Mainhard, T. (2020) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101928 · Cited by 28
“Adaptive support (van de Pol, Mercer, & Volman, 2019; van de Pol, Volman, Oort, & Beishuizen, 2015; Wood, Wood, & Mid-dleton, 1978) ensures that students know what to do and how to proceed independently (van de Pol et al., 2015).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialScaffolding Language Learning in the Online Classroom
Bui, H. P., & Nguyen, L. T. (2022) · Intelligent systems reference library · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-99329-0_8 · Cited by 27
The Effects of Three Instructor Participatory Roles on a Small Group’s Collaborative Concept Mapping
Ouyang, F., & Xu, W. (2021) · Journal of Educational Computing Research · doi:10.1177/07356331211057283 · Cited by 27
“…indicated a positive correlation between students ’ application of instructor scaffoldings and their learning effects (Jadallah et al., 2011; van de Pol et al., 2019), our research showed that the students ’ imitation and application of scaffoldings would not necessarily improve the fi nal…”
BackgroundResultInfluentialWang, T., Zheng, J., Tan, C., & Lajoie, S. P. (2023) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.12824 · Cited by 40
Transforming a doctoral summer school to an online experience: A response to the COVID‐19 pandemic
Cullinane, A., McGregor, D., Frodsham, S., Hillier, J., & Guilfoyle, L. (2022) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13195 · Cited by 28
Zhang, H., Zhu, C., Sang, G., & Questier, F. (2023) · International Journal of Technology and Design Education · doi:10.1007/s10798-023-09824-y · Cited by 43
“As argued by van de Pol et al. (2019), providing contingent or adaptive support (i.e., scaffolding) is effective.”
WARWICK, P. V., Cook, V., Vrikki, M., Major, L., & Rasmussen, I. (2020) · Learning Culture and Social Interaction · doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100376 · Cited by 26
“Thus, the teacher used the discussion around group Talkwall posts to explicitly link teacher support with student uptake (van de Pol et al., 2018), coordinating a discussion emphasising the ways in which he has perceived the groups have responded to the DIs for the lesson.”
BackgroundMethodKraatz, E., Nagpal, M. N., Lin, T., Hsieh, M., Ha, S. Y., Kim, S., & Shin, S. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.587058 · Cited by 43
“…with which the teacher provides support and the nature of the task is also important in determining the effectiveness of teacher scaffolding. van de Pol et al. (2019) used qualitative analyses to further show that students’ uptake of contingent support was sometimes hampered by untimely…”
BackgroundEvendi, E., & Verawati, N. N. S. P. (2021) · Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA · doi:10.29303/jppipa.v7ispecialissue.1099 · Cited by 37
“Scaffolding is a form of teacher guidance and encouragement during the learning process, especially to support learning interactions in groups (van de Pol et al., 2019).”
BackgroundSutama, Narimo, S., Anif, S., Prayitno, H. J., Sari, D. P., & Adnan, M. (2020) · Journal of Physics Conference Series · doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1538/1/012065 · Cited by 26
The Dogme Approach: A Radical Perspective in Second Language Teaching in the Post-Methods Era
Nguyen, Q. N., & Bui, H. P. (2020) · Journal of language and Education · doi:10.17323/jle.2020.10563 · Cited by 25
Scaffolding patterns of dialogic exchange in toddler classrooms
Salminen, J., Muhonen, H., Cadima, J., Pagani, V., & Lerkkanen, M. (2020) · Learning Culture and Social Interaction · doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2020.100489 · Cited by 32
Debugging behaviors of early childhood teacher candidates with or without scaffolding
Kim, C., Vasconcelos, L., Belland, B. R., Umutlu, D., & Gleasman, C. (2022) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-022-00319-9 · Cited by 23
“…related to hands-on problem-solving with multimodal objects not a scaffolding approach, as providing answers directly represents a high level of teacher control, and when that is the primary strategy used, it represents a non-con-tingent form of instructional support (van de Pol et al., 2019).”
BackgroundThe Effectiveness of Collaborative Mind Mapping in Hong Kong Primary Science Classrooms
Fung, D. C.-L., & Liang, W. (2022) · International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education · doi:10.1007/s10763-022-10279-1 · Cited by 19
Classroom assessment and learning motivation: insights from secondary school EFL classrooms
Bui, H. P., & Nguyen, T. T. T. (2022) · IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching · doi:10.1515/iral-2022-0020 · Cited by 30
van de Pol, J., de Vries, N., Poorthuis, A. M. G., & Mainhard, T. (2022) · The Journal of Experimental Education · doi:10.1080/00220973.2022.2100732 · Cited by 22
“That is, the level of regulation teachers offer needs to be adapted to students’ understanding (Pino-Pasternak et al., 2010; Van de Pol et al., 2019).”
BackgroundRubric co-creation to promote quality, interactivity and uptake of peer feedback
Yan, D. “. (2024) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2024.2333005 · Cited by 21
“Based on extant literature (Barron 2003; van de Pol et al. 2019), uptake was coded into three categories: (1) ignore, (2) copy/repeat and (3) apply.”
Scaffolding athlete learning in preparation for competition: what matters
Thomas, G. L., Bailey, J., & Engeness, I. (2021) · Sports Coaching Review · doi:10.1080/21640629.2021.1991713 · Cited by 20
“Here, scaffolding that supports learning occurs by offering contingent (or adaptive) support, fading support over time, and developing the agentic capability of the learner (Van De Pol et al., 2018).”
BackgroundInfluentialRogers, L. G., Shearer, K., Southon, S. H., Ray, L. D., & Rempel, G. R. (2021) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/1609406920982148 · Cited by 18
“…a method of providing temporary support for learning that is adapted based on the individual child’s abilities and requirements (Mermelshtine, 2017; van de Pol et al., 2018), was another important strategy that we employed, especially for the younger children and those with developmental…”
MethodPreparing pre-service teachers for instructional innovation with ICT via co-design practice
Chen, W., Pi, Z., Tan, J. S. H., & Lyu, Q. (2022) · Australasian Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.14742/ajet.7743 · Cited by 16
“…a coding scheme was developed by adapting existing coding schemes (W. Chen et al., 2019; Hou & Wu, 2011; Lu & Law, 2012; Tan & Chen, 2022; van de Pol et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020): The coding scheme consists of a total of 13 coding items, which can be classified into five dimensions (1)…”
BackgroundMethodPrevalence and Quality of Mixed Methods Research in Educational Subdisciplines: A Systematic Review
Gierus, B., Du, T., Maduforo, A. N., et al. (2025) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440251335171 · Cited by 16
“For example, as an empirical study of how adaptive support promotes students’ learning in small teamwork, van de Pol et al. (2019) effectively addressed their research questions and provided comprehensive and insightful findings with a pragmatic research design.”
Green, S. L., & Plessis, D. (2023) · International Journal of Learning Teaching and Educational Research · doi:10.26803/ijlter.22.7.8 · Cited by 16
“Van de Pol et al. (2019) argue that, in practice, it is not always clear how to support students, or how the educator can ensure that students are ready and capable to assume responsibility for their studies.”
BackgroundEpistemic scaffolding: understanding and designing the support for epistemic growth in science
Lin, F., & Puntambekar, S. (2024) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/09500693.2024.2349973 · Cited by 18
“On one hand, most existing scaffolding research has predominantly focused on supporting students’ conceptual understanding (e.g. van de Pol et al., 2019), with limited attention given to the epistemic aspect, apart from notable exceptions such as the works of Barzilai et al. (2020) and Sandoval and…”
A contingency perspective on learning and instruction in physical education
Wibowo, J., & Dyson, B. P. (2021) · European Physical Education Review · doi:10.1177/1356336x20985884 · Cited by 15
Hendriks, L. H., Steenbeek, H., Boele, E. H. B., & van Geert, P. L. C. (2023) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2022.1102011 · Cited by 20
Bui, H. P. (2023) · Language Testing in Asia · doi:10.1186/s40468-023-00220-w · Cited by 22
D’Angelo, C. M., & Rajarathinam, R. J. (2024) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13449 · Cited by 14
A systematic review of visual representations for analyzing collaborative discourse
Hu, L., & Chen, G. (2021) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100403 · Cited by 15
Pi, Z., Yang, Y., Zhao, X., Guo, Q., & Li, X. (2024) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105110 · Cited by 13
Forms of understanding for XAI-Explanations
Buschmeier, H., Buhl, H. M., Kern, F., Grimminger, A., Beierling, H., Fisher, J., Groß, A., Horwath, I., Klowait, N. O., Lazarov, S., et al. (2025) · Cognitive Systems Research · doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2025.101419 · Cited by 29
Jin, Y., Sun, J., Ma, H., & Wang, X. (2021) · International Conference of Educational Innovation through Technology (EITT) · doi:10.1109/eitt53287.2021.00077 · Cited by 13
Teachers scaffold student discourse and emotions in knowledge building classrooms
Zhu, G., & Lin, F. (2023) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2023.2172046 · Cited by 13
Xu, W., Dong, X., & Ouyang, F. (2024) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2356399 · Cited by 12
“…CCS group failed to effectively apply scaffoldings in completing tasks and achieve actively cognitive engagement, over-scaffolding might exist and conceptual scaffoldings might be more suitable for students who have basic programming knowledge (Clarke & Bartholomew, 2014; van de Pol et al., 2019).”
Using Artificial Intelligence to Support Peer-to-Peer Discussions in Science Classrooms
Billings, K., Chang, H., Lim-Breitbart, J., & Linn, M. C. (2024) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci14121411 · Cited by 15
Tabak, I., & Reiser, B. J. (2022) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108888295.005 · Cited by 13
Peer Scaffolding During EFL Reading Activities: A Sociocultural Perspective
Yawiloeng, R. (2021) · English Language Teaching · doi:10.5539/elt.v14n12p44 · Cited by 11
Encouraging Vietnamese Students’ Willingness to Communicate Inside L2 English Classrooms
Bui, H. P., Hoang, V. Q., & Nguyen, N. H. (2022) · Language Related Research · doi:10.52547/lrr.13.5.17 · Cited by 12
“This result is also in line with the study by van de Pol et al. (2019).”
ResultPromoting mathematical dialogue
Sjöblom, M. (2022) · doi:10.24834/isbn.9789178772100 · Cited by 11
Hu, W., Gong, R., Wu, S., & Li, Y. (2025) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-025-10526-6 · Cited by 13
“Researchers classify such cognitive scaffolding into different types based on the degree of control (Ouyang et al., 2022; Van de Pol et al., 2019).”
Metacognitive failure in constructing proof and how to scaffold it
Wulan, E. R., Subanji, S., & Muksar, M. (2021) · Al-Jabar Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika · doi:10.24042/ajpm.v12i2.9590 · Cited by 9
“This discovery is supported the previous research about the teacher provided a lot of regulation by asking steering questions and some suggestions (Pol et al., 2019).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialTilak, S., Glassman, M., Lu, M., Wen, Z., Pelfrey, L., Kuznetcova, I., Lin, T., Anderman, E. M., Calvit, A. I. M., Ching, K., et al. (2023) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2023.2171183 · Cited by 9
“The teacher offers contingent support to groups/individuals to foster higher competence (Van de Pol et al., 2019).”
BackgroundHu, L. (2021) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100964 · Cited by 10
Scaffolding Strategies in Promoting Attitudes of Saudi Middle School Science Students
Osman, K., Alrawili, K. S. R., & Almuntasheri, S. (2021) · European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education · doi:10.30935/scimath/11385 · Cited by 9
Chusni, M. M., Saputro, S., Suranto, S., & Rahardjo, S. B. (2022) · Jurnal Cakrawala Pendidikan · doi:10.21831/cp.v41i2.41105 · Cited by 9
Kramar, U., & Knez, M. (2025) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su17062694 · Cited by 22
Tajik, A. (2025) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-6032009/v1 · Cited by 12
Widiastuti, I., Budiyanto, C. W., Towip, T., Estriyanto, Y., Hassan, S. A. H. S., & Pratami, D. (2024) · Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education · doi:10.1108/jarhe-11-2023-0528 · Cited by 8
“Van de Pol et al. (2018) discovered that within the context of small group activities, the teacher ’ s assistance through scaffolding may relate the teacher-student engagements to succeeding small group-student interactions.”
BackgroundGosen, M. N., Willemsen, A., & Hiddink, F. (2024) · Classroom Discourse · doi:10.1080/19463014.2024.2397127 · Cited by 7
“In this case, we adopted the overarching project’s general interest in one-to-one explanation interactions in relation to learning processes such as scaffolding (e.g. van de Pol and Elbers 2013; van de Pol et al. 2014, 2015; van de Pol, Mercer, and Volman 2019).”
TINJAUAN SISTEMATIS: STRATEGIS SCAFFOLDING PADA PEMBELAJARAN MATEMATIKA
Kusmaryono, I., & Wijayanti, D. (2020) · Phenomenon Jurnal Pendidikan MIPA · doi:10.21580/phen.2020.10.1.6114 · Cited by 7
“Terutama tugas yang menuntut penyelesaian masalah dan membutuhkan 2018; Pol et al., 2015; van de Pol et al., 2019, 2015b).”
BackgroundInfluentialSari, I. N., Mahanal, S., & Setiawan, D. (2024) · BIO-INOVED Jurnal Biologi-Inovasi Pendidikan · doi:10.20527/bino.v6i1.17890 · Cited by 7
“Helping to increase students' activeness in learning and completing assignments independently is the goal of scaffolding (Kim et al., 2018; Van de Pol et al., 2019).”
BackgroundNagpal, M. N., Lin, T., Kraatz, E., Kim, S., Ha, S. Y., & Glassman, M. (2025) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/s11251-025-09718-7 · Cited by 10
“This is in line with van de Pol et al (2019) where gradual fading of contingent support was found to be most effective in fostering students’ uptake.”
Applying, not ignoring: how feedback uptake and neural synchrony drive creativity
Yin, J., Jin, Z., Zhang, Y., Li, X., Li, Y., Zhang, G., & Luo, J. (2025) · npj Science of Learning · doi:10.1038/s41539-025-00351-0 · Cited by 6
“Speci fi cally, two trained raters classi fi ed participants ’ responses into three categories: ignore, copy, and apply 70 .”
Lim, J., Shin, Y., Lee, S., Chun, M., Park, J., & Ihm, J. (2023) · The Journal of Experimental Education · doi:10.1080/00220973.2023.2221394 · Cited by 13
“With reference to van de Pol et al. (2019) levels of teacher degree of control in the classroom, the instructors in the LTD and STD class-rooms gave students low or medium control and support.”
Transfer of responsibility from scaffolding to preservice early childhood teachers learning to debug
Belland, B. R., Kim, C., Dinç, E., et al. (2024) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-024-10347-z · Cited by 6
“Contingency means that scaffolding needs to be provided based on a dynamic assessment of students’ current abilities (van de Pol et al., 2019).”
Jeon, C.-H., Shin, J.-Y., & Ryu, S. (2025) · Journal of Science Education and Technology · doi:10.1007/s10956-025-10226-z · Cited by 5
“…studies that employed Hogan et al.’s (1999) framework predominantly focused on quantitatively analyzing the distribution of discourse types in classroom settings, often addressing students'actual communication patterns only at a superficial level (Van de Pol et al., 2019; Webb et al., 2006).”
The Durability and Invisibility of Practice Fields: Insights from Math Teachers Doing Math
Peck, F. A., Renga, I. P., Wu, K., & Erickson, D. (2021) · Cognition and Instruction · doi:10.1080/07370008.2021.1983577 · Cited by 16
Murphy, C. J., Muir, T., & Thomas, D. P. (2025) · Early Childhood Education Journal · doi:10.1007/s10643-025-01928-5 · Cited by 11
“Nevertheless, Cathy provided “temporary support that is adapted to a student’s understand-ing” (van de Pol et al., 2018, p.207).”
A Review of Dogme Approach: Principles and Practices
Zhang, C. (2023) · International Journal of Linguistics Literature & Translation · doi:10.32996/ijllt.2023.6.7.6 · Cited by 4
The Supervisor-Student Relationship
Zackariasson, M., & Magnusson, J. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-66371-0_4 · Cited by 4
Demkanin, P. (2022) · Challenges in physics education · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-06193-6_16 · Cited by 4
The place of microlearning in foreign language teaching methodology: historiographic study
Lykova, K. V., & Savelyeva, N. K. (2024) · Perspectives of science and education · doi:10.32744/pse.2024.3.16 · Cited by 3
Small Group Discussion, an Effective Tool for Learning
Sarfraz, F., Razaq, N., Sarfraz, F., et al. (2021) · Pakistan Journal of Medical and Health Sciences · doi:10.53350/pjmhs2115103281 · Cited by 3
The role of teacher actions for students’ productive interaction solving a linear function problem
Hansen, E. K. S., & Naalsund, M. (2022) · International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education · doi:10.29333/iejme/11921 · Cited by 5
Miwa, C., McDaniel, C. E., & Blakeney, E. A. (2023) · Journal of Interprofessional Care · doi:10.1080/13561820.2023.2170993 · Cited by 3
¿Estudiante o profesor? Relevancia sobre clima motivacional de clase, motivación y rendimiento
Leal-Soto, F., Ferrer‐Urbina, R., Alonso‐Tapia, J., Herrera, E. V. R., & Peredo, R. (2022) · Revista de Psicología · doi:10.18800/psico.202301.004 · Cited by 12
Students’ and Teachers’ Beliefs About Effective Teaching of English for Occupational Purposes
Bui, H. P., & Hương, L. P. H. (2023) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440231153076 · Cited by 3
Hendriks, L. H., Küpers, E., Steenbeek, H., Boele, E. B., & van Geert, P. L. C. (2024) · Classroom Discourse · doi:10.1080/19463014.2024.2360421 · Cited by 5
“Furthermore, the aim was to offer structure and apply scaffolding, defined as offering temporary contingent support to help students achieve higher performance (Van de Pol, Mercer, and Volman 2019; Kupers, van Dijk, and van Geert 2017; Steenbeek, Jansen, and van Geert 2012).”
User Interaction Behavior Analysis for Cognitive Load Detection in Online Learning Processes
Suryani, M., Santoso, H. B., Aji, R. F., Hadi, S., & Schrepp, M. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-93221-2_25 · Cited by 3
Omar, M., & Azid, N. (2020) · Universal Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.13189/ujer.2020.081217 · Cited by 3
“Before cognitive development is built during teaching and learning sessions, social learning needs to exist and will be followed by individual-level learning [24]).”
BackgroundFlores, E. P. Á., Romero-Espinoza, M. D. L. A., & Montaño, S. A. (2022) · Formación universitaria · doi:10.4067/s0718-50062022000500037 · Cited by 3
Syahmani, S., Hafizah, E., Sholahuddın, A., Sauqina, S., Prasetyo, Y. D., & Rahman, N. F. A. (2023) · Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia · doi:10.15294/jpii.v12i3.45737 · Cited by 3
Improving the quality of mathematical discussions: The impact of small-group scaffolding
Calor, S. M., Dekker, R., van Drie, J. P., & Volman, M. L. L. (2024) · Learning Culture and Social Interaction · doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2024.100858 · Cited by 8
Self-citationCourse Calendars and Routine Review to Support College Student Achievement
Holbert, R. M. G. (2025) · College Teaching · doi:10.1080/87567555.2025.2488840 · Cited by 2
Wang, X., Zhang, G. X., & Chen, L. (2025) · Reading and Writing · doi:10.1007/s11145-025-10733-w · Cited by 2
“Closely associated with sociocultural theory and particularly the concept of ZPD (Vygotsky, 1978 ), scaffolding emphasizes the importance of social interaction such as peer collaboration, student engagement, and teacher-student interaction in promoting student development.”
Dellafiore, F., Servi, P., Durante, Á., & Nitto, M. D. (2025) · Clinical Simulation in Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.ecns.2025.101865 · Cited by 2
Zhou, J., Zhao, N., Gao, X., & Han, X. (2026) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2026.102236 · Cited by 3
Tinggie, T. L. G., Tan, K. H., Muslim, N., et al. (2023) · International Journal of Learning Teaching and Educational Research · doi:10.26803/ijlter.22.3.12 · Cited by 2
“The concept of Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory that scaffolding is the support offered in the ZPD, which is the gap between what a learner can achieve independently and what he or she can do with the help of a more competent person, was extended by van de Pol, Mercer, and Volman (2019).”
BackgroundScaffolding principles of content-based science instruction in an international elementary school
Kamrani, Z., Tajeddin, Z., & Alemi, M. (2023) · Pedagogies An International Journal · doi:10.1080/1554480x.2023.2222716 · Cited by 2
“…a problem, doing a task, improving classroom interaction, students’ collaboration and learners’ higher-order thinking skills, or achieving a goal beyond students’ capacity (Belland et al., 2017; Belland, 2014; Jarvis & Baloyi, 2020; Lascotte, 2018; Sharma & Hannafin, 2007; van de Pol et al., 2019).”
BackgroundSelf-study in higher education: Its role in productive discussions and learning outcomes
Lim, J., Shin, Y., Song, M. H., Lee, S., & Ihm, J. (2024) · Active Learning in Higher Education · doi:10.1177/14697874241270429 · Cited by 2
“The instructors allocated the students with low or moderate levels of control and support with reference to Van de Pol et al. (2019).”
Wang, R., Li, X., Hu, W., Li, Y., & Tian, J. (2025) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2025.101753 · Cited by 2
Teaching tactics supporting beginner modelling in upper secondary
Stillman, G. A., & Brown, J. P. (2025) · ZDM · doi:10.1007/s11858-025-01676-1 · Cited by 2
“Delayed uptake has not been studied (van de Pol et al., 2019).”
InfluentialIndication of Scaffolding in Mathematical Modeling
Gürel, Z. (2025) · International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education · doi:10.1007/s10763-025-10576-5 · Cited by 9
“This means that while interacting with a group of students, a teacher may assist with a particular problem, and students can apply that support to the current task or to new tasks in future small-group interactions (Van de Pol et al., 2019).”
Domingo, S. D. C. (2025) · International Journal of ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES · doi:10.21833/ijaas.2025.06.006 · Cited by 2
Quantizing and visualizing the influence of scaffolding moves on mathematical modeling competencies
Czocher, J. A., White, A., Kularajan, S. S., et al. (2025) · Methods in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.metip.2025.100210 · Cited by 2
Hayati, N., Kadarohman, A., Sopandi, W., Pratiwi, A., & Martoprawiro, M. A. (2023) · AIP conference proceedings · doi:10.1063/5.0122568 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- van de Pol, J., Mercer, N., & Volman, M.
- Affiliations
- Department of EducationUtrecht University
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- University of Amsterdam (NL)
- 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
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-23, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-23 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (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
