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.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 273-304 |
| Number of pages | 32 |
| Journal | Journal of the Learning Sciences |
| Volume | 13 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - 2004 |
Funding
An earlier version of this article was presented at the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning 2002 Conference (January 2002, Boulder, CO). This research was funded by the National Science Foundation under Grants REC–9980055 to the KDI/ASSESS project and REC–9720383 to the Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools and by Grant 97–57 from the James S. McDonnell Foundation, Cognitive Studies for Educational Practice. The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and not necessarily those of these foundations. For additional information about BGuILE software and curricula, see http://www.letus.org/bguile/ and http://www.hi-ce.org/iqwst/ This article builds on the design research of the BGuILE group at Northwestern University, and I am grateful for conversations with my colleagues Iris Tabak, Brian Smith, William Sandoval, Ravit Golan Duncan, and Elena Kyza about principles of scaffolding in learning environments. I am also grateful to my colleagues in the KDI/ASSESS group for discussion of these ideas—Joseph Krajcik, Danny Edelson, Elliot Soloway, Chris Quintana, and Elizabeth A. Davis—and to Bruce Sherin for many fruitful discussions. This article was greatly improved by comments from reviewers Mimi Recker and Phil Bell; and editors Elizabeth A. Davis and Naomi Miyake.
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Education
- Developmental and Educational Psychology