## Key Ideas > [!abstract] Core Concepts > > - **Temporary support within Zone of Proximal Development**: Provides assistance for tasks students can't do independently but can accomplish with guidance > - **Systematic removal is essential**: Scaffolding must fade over time to develop true independence; permanent support prevents learning > - **Multiple forms match different needs**: Visual aids, hints, worked examples, step breakdown, and reduced complexity all provide scaffolding functions ## Definition **Scaffolding**: Temporary instructional support that enables students to complete tasks within their Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1978), gradually withdrawn to develop independent capability (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976). ## Connected to [[Lev Vygotsky]] | [[Completion Problem Effect]] | [[Worked Examples]] | [[Part-whole approach]] | [[Cognitive Load Theory]] | [[Differentiation]] | [[Practice]] | [[Implementation Fidelity]] | [[Making Expert Thinking Visible]] --- ## Scaffolding methods Different scaffolding approaches suit distinct learning situations and require specific removal strategies. Backwards fading uses partially completed problems, gradually increasing the portion students complete independently (van Merriënboer, 1990). This method works well during initial skill development. Teachers remove more steps over time, transitioning from providing most of the solution to requiring complete student work (Renkl & Atkinson, 2003). Visual aids employ diagrams, graphs, and models to illustrate abstract concepts. These tools help when introducing concepts that lack concrete referents. As student understanding develops, teachers fade the visual support, moving towards purely symbolic or verbal representations. Hints and clues provide strategic guidance about methods or strategies without completing the task for students. This approach suits complex multi-step problems where students need direction without dependence. Teachers reduce both specificity and frequency of hints as competence grows. Step breakdown decomposes complex tasks into manageable parts, useful when teaching multi-step procedures. As competence grows, teachers combine steps, gradually requiring students to manage more of the process independently. Worked examples provide fully demonstrated solutions with explanations (Sweller & Cooper, 1985), effective when introducing new problem types. Teachers transition students from studying complete examples to guided practice with partial support, then to independent practice (Atkinson et al., 2000). ## Implementation guidelines Effective scaffolding follows systematic progression from full support to complete independence (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983). The process begins with full teacher demonstration using worked examples. Next comes guided practice with heavy scaffolding, where teachers provide substantial support whilst students attempt tasks. Collaborative work with medium support allows students to work together with reduced teacher input. Independent practice with minimal assistance gives students primary responsibility whilst maintaining teacher availability. Finally, complete independence requires students to work entirely without support. Each stage should continue until students demonstrate consistent success before moving to the next level of independence (Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986). The key to effective scaffolding lies in knowing when to remove support (Pratt & Savoy-Levine, 1998). Teachers should track student success rates during scaffolded practice, allowing data to guide removal decisions rather than predetermined timelines. Research suggests removing supports when students achieve 80% or higher accuracy consistently (Wilson et al., 2019). If performance drops after removal, teachers should provide temporary re-scaffolding, recognising that independence develops unevenly. Teachers must ensure genuine independence before moving to new concepts, giving students time to consolidate learning before progressing. Premature removal causes frustration and failure, whilst delayed removal creates dependency (van de Pol, Volman, & Beishuizen, 2010). Evidence-based monitoring helps strike this balance. ## Key warnings and common pitfalls Several common errors undermine effective scaffolding. Permanent scaffolding prevents independence. Support that never fades creates dependency rather than capability. Students must eventually work without assistance (Puntambekar & Hubscher, 2005). The goal is independence, not supported performance. Over-scaffolding creates learned helplessness. Too much support signals to students that they cannot succeed independently, undermining confidence and motivation (Koedinger & Aleven, 2007). Students internalise the message that their success depends on external help rather than their own capability. Premature removal causes failure. Removing scaffolding too quickly leads to frustration and reinforces the belief that success was due to support, not the student's own ability (van de Pol et al., 2010). The timing of removal requires careful calibration to student readiness. One-size-fits-all approaches ignore variation. Different students need different levels and types of support. Individualisation is essential (Pratt & Savoy-Levine, 1998). Group-based scaffolding decisions often mismatch individual student needs. Scaffolding secure knowledge wastes time. Providing support for content students already know creates dependency and wastes cognitive resources better spent on genuine challenges (Kalyuga, Ayres, Chandler, & Sweller, 2003). This expertise reversal effect means that scaffolding can actually impair learning when applied to already-mastered content. ## Practical examples In algebra instruction, a backwards fading sequence might begin with the teacher demonstrating complete solutions, then having students complete only the final step whilst the teacher provides all previous work. Next, students complete the last two steps, then the last three, gradually assuming more of the solution process until they work independently (van Merriënboer, 1990). For essay writing, teachers might provide complete paragraph frames showing exactly where each element belongs, then reduce support to sentence starters that prompt without dictating, then offer only topic guidance, and finally require independent composition with no structural support. In problem-solving, the sequence moves from worked examples that students study, to guided practice where teachers provide strategic hints, to hints-only support where students work more independently, and finally to independent attempts without assistance (Renkl, Atkinson, & Maier, 2000). Each transition occurs only when student performance indicates readiness. ## References Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. *Review of Educational Research*, 70(2), 181-214. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070002181 Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. *Educational Psychologist*, 38(1), 23-31. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_4 Koedinger, K. R., & Aleven, V. (2007). Exploring the assistance dilemma in experiments with cognitive tutors. *Educational Psychology Review*, 19(3), 239-264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9049-0 Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. *Contemporary Educational Psychology*, 8(3), 317-344. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(83)90019-X Pratt, M. W., & Savoy-Levine, K. M. (1998). Contingent tutoring of long-division skills in fourth and fifth graders: Experimental tests of some hypotheses about scaffolding. *Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology*, 19(2), 287-304. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0193-3973(99)80041-0 Puntambekar, S., & Hubscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? *Educational Psychologist*, 40(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4001_1 Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. K. (2003). Structuring the transition from example study to problem solving in cognitive skill acquisition: A cognitive load perspective. *Educational Psychologist*, 38(1), 15-22. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_3 Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., & Maier, U. H. (2000). From studying examples to solving problems: Fading worked-out solution steps helps learning. In L. R. Gleitman & A. K. Joshi (Eds.), *Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society* (pp. 393-398). Erlbaum. Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), *Handbook of research on teaching* (3rd ed., pp. 376-391). Macmillan. Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. *Cognition and Instruction*, 2(1), 59-89. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0201_3 van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research. *Educational Psychology Review*, 22(3), 271-296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6 van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1990). Strategies for programming instruction in high school: Program completion vs. program generation. *Journal of Educational Computing Research*, 6(3), 265-285. https://doi.org/10.2190/4NK5-17L7-TWQV-1EBM Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). *Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes*. Harvard University Press. Wilson, R. C., Shenhav, A., Straccia, M., & Cohen, J. D. (2019). The eighty five percent rule for optimal learning. *Nature Communications*, 10, 4646. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12552-4 Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. *Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry*, 17(2), 89-100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x ---