Cited by 1,054Innovative Teaching and Learning MethodsIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes

Scaffolding Complex Learning: The Mechanisms of Structuring and Problematizing Student Work

Reiser, Brian J.·2004·Journal of the Learning Sciences

Abstract

There has been much interest in using software tools to scaffold learners in complex tasks, that is, to provide supports that enable students to deal with more complex content and skill demands than they could otherwise handle. Many different approaches to scaffolding techniques have been presented in a broad range of software tools. I argue that two complementary mechanisms can explain how a diversity of scaffolding approaches in software act to support learners. Software tools can help structure the learning task, guiding learners through key components and supporting their planning and performance. In addition, tools can shape students' performance and understanding of the task in terms of key disciplinary content and strategies and thus problematize this important content. Although making the task more difficult in the short term, by forcing learners to engage with this complexity, such scaffolded tools make this work more productive opportunities for learning. I present arguments for these mechanisms in terms of the obstacles learners face, and I present several brief examples to illustrate their use in design guidelines. Finally, I examine how the mechanisms of structuring and problematizing are sometimes complementary and sometimes in tension in design, discuss design tradeoffs in developing scaffolded investigation tools for learners, and consider the reliance of scaffolding on a classroom system of supports.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1207/s15327809jls1303_2

Cites

90 of 90 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?

  • Generic support can be applied across different contexts and domains.

    “generic support, as it can be applied across different contexts and domains (Hein & Prediger, 2017;Reiser, 2004).”
  • A possible explanation for the positive effect of generic support on subject-matter-related knowledge is that structural support might reduce students' need to overly ponder about how to provide feedback, so they can focus explicitly on the learning content.

    “a possible explanation for the positive effect of generic support on subject-matter-related knowledge could be that this structural support might reduce students' need to overly ponder about how to provide feedback (as generic support will explicitly tell them how to do this), so that they can focus explicitly on the learning content (e.g., Hein & Prediger, 2017;Reiser, 2004).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Reiser, B. J.
Affiliations
Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Reiser, Brian J.
Venue
Journal of the Learning Sciences
Published
2004-07
Volume
13
Issue
3
Pages
273-304
ISSN
  • 1050-8406 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7809
OpenAlex
W1999626445
Cited by
1,054
References
90
Citations by year
2026: 71 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 61 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 62 · 2019: 71 · 2018: 84 · 2017: 58 · 2016: 52 · 2015: 61 · 2014: 61 · 2013: 50 · 2012: 45
FWCI
26.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of the Learning Sciences (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Keywords
scaffolding, problematization, design guidelines, design trade-offs

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