Cited by 177Early Childhood Education and DevelopmentEducational and Psychological AssessmentsChild and Animal Learning Development

Parent–child learning interactions: A review of the literature on scaffolding

Mermelshtine, Roni·2017·British Journal of Educational Psychology

Abstract

Background: Scaffolding can be observed during learning‐based interactions, when interventions by parents are adjusted according to children's observed abilities, with the main goal of enabling the child to work independently (Wood et al ., 1976, Journal of child psychology and psychiatry , 17 , 89). Such contingent instruction behaviours occur from infancy, and are said to be relevant for children's development of executive function, language acquisition, and cognitive and academic abilities. Scaffolding behaviours are considered a product of the family and the wider context, a process affected by parent and child characteristics, and the environment they inhabit. Over 40 years of scaffolding research has produced an abundance of findings. Early investigations were concerned with the conceptualization of scaffolding, whereas more recent studies build upon the theory, testing its correlates and relevance for child development. Aims: This article offers an overview of the literature, focusing on the relevance of scaffolding for child developmental outcomes, and the factors associated with individual differences in the process. Structure: The article is structured such that the origins of the theory and its definitions are discussed first, followed by an overview of the correlates of scaffolding. The review concludes with a critical evaluation of the literature, proposing novel avenues for future research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/bjep.12147

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

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

  • Families with greater social vulnerability provide less and poorer cognitive and socioemotional scaffolding.

    “Families with greater social vulnerability (those with less income, lower social class, or education) spend less time and resources on their children’s education, engage in fewer activities [13], and provide less and poorer cognitive and socioemotional scaffolding [14].”
  • Previous works observed that more highly educated parents provide contingent scaffolding.

    “Previous works observed that more highly educated parents provide contingent scaffolding [14].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mermelshtine, R.
Affiliations
Birkbeck, University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Mermelshtine, Roni
Venue
British Journal of Educational Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-02-21
Volume
87
Issue
2
Pages
241-254
ISSN
  • 0007-0998 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8279
OpenAlex
W2590787318
Cited by
177
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 3
FWCI
3.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • British Journal of Educational Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BIROn (Birkbeck, University of London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Early Childhood Education and Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational and Psychological Assessments
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
Keywords
scaffolding, parent-child interaction, child development, executive function, language acquisition, individual differences, family environment
MeSH terms
Aptitude, Child, Child Development, Cognition, Emotions, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Learning, Parent-Child Relations

About these checks

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

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

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

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

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