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
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
