Schemes of Scaffolding in Online Education
Abstract
Scaffolding in learning has been argued to facilitate the students’ progress. As the educational paradigm inevitably shifts into online modes, strategies for scaffolding provision need to be adjusted. This study aimed to understand the nature of the online learning environment and explore the aspects, types, and methods of scaffolding provision in online learning contexts by adopting George's (2008) research method into a qualitative design. The data were collected from experts' opinions and previous studies, as published in reputable international journals, using Education Resources Information Center (https://eric.ed.gov/), Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com), and Research Gate (https://www.researchgate.net) as the databases. The research result is presented in an informal method. The review reveals that critical aspects of scaffolding are contingency, fading, and transfer of responsibility, which are applicable in synchronous and asynchronous learning with the support provided by peers, teachers, or technology through static or dynamic interaction. Based on its purpose, the four types of scaffolding are procedural, conceptual, metacognitive, and strategic, which can be performed strategically in online contexts through orientation to the course structure, access to resource and tools, critical thinking development, guidance to problem-solving, provisions of hints, sufficient examples, probing questions, and providing constructive feedback. These findings imply the importance of implementing scaffolding strategies in online learning contexts, although further studies need to be conducted to provide more comprehensive scaffolding models.
References
Abdullah, M. R. T. L., Hussin, Z., Asra, & Zakaria, A. R. (2013). Mlearning scaffolding model for undergraduate English language learning: Bridging formal and informal learning. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(2), 217–233.
Abdullah, R. N., Abdul Muait, J., & Ganefri, G. (2019). Students’ perception towards modern technology as teaching Aids. Asian Journal of Assessment in Teaching and Learning, 9(2), 37–42.
Albrahim, F. A. (2020). Online Teaching Skills and Competencies. In TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology (Vol. 19).
Anderson, T., & Garrison, D. R. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st Century: A Framework for Research and Practice. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Aveyard, H. (2010). Doing a Literature Review in Health and Social Care: A Practical Guide (2nd ed.). New York: Open University Press.
Bautista, R. G. (2013). The reciprocal determinism of online scaffolding in sustaining a community of inquiry in physics. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 3(2), 89–97.
Belland, B. R., Kim, C. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (2013). A Framework for Designing Scaffolds That Improve Motivation and Cognition. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 243–270.
Belland, B. R., Walker, A. E., Kim, N. J., & Lefler, M. (2017). Synthesizing Results From Empirical Research on Computer-Based Scaffolding in STEM Education: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 309–344.
Cacheiro-Gonzalez, M. L., Medina-Rivilla, A., Dominguez-Garrido, M. C., & Medina-Dominguez, M. (2019). The learning platform in distance higher education: Student’s perceptions. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 20(1), 71–95.
Chen, S. Y., & Tseng, Y. F. (2019). The impacts of scaffolding e-assessment English learning: a cognitive style perspective. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 0(0), 1–23.
Dailey-Hebert, A. (2018). Maximizing Interactivity in Online Learning: Moving Beyond Discussion Boards. Journal of Educators Online, 15(3).
De Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual Scaffolding in L2 Peer Revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51–68.
Foley, K., & Marr, L. (2019). Scaffolding extracurricular online events to support distance learning university students. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2019(1), 1–6.
Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157–172.
George, M. W. (2008). Library research. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Hanjani, A. M. (2019). Collective peer scaffolding, self-revision, and writing progress of novice EFL learners. International Journal of English Studies, 19(1), 41–57.
Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory.
Hansen, B., & Gray, E. (2018). Creating Boundaries Within the Ubiquitous Online Classroom. Journal of Educators Online, 15(3).
Harasim, L. (2000). Harasim2000. 3, 41–61.
Hill, J. R., & Hannafin, M. J. (2001). Teaching and learning in digital environments: The resurgence of resource-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3), 37–52.
Hou, H. T., & Keng, S. H. (2020). A Dual-Scaffolding Framework Integrating Peer-Scaffolding and Cognitive-Scaffolding for an Augmented Reality-Based Educational Board Game: An Analysis of Learners’ Collective Flow State and Collaborative Learning Behavioral Patterns. Journal of Educational Computing Research.
Hsiao, E. L., Mikolaj, P., & Shih, Y. T. (2017). A design case of Scaffolding hybrid/online student-centered learning with multimedia. Journal of Educators Online, 14(1).
Khan, A., Egbue, O., Palkie, B., & Madden, J. (2017). Active learning: Engaging students to maximize learning in an online course. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 15(2), 107–115.
Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computers and Education, 56(2), 403–417.
Kim, M. C., Hannafin, M. J., & Bryan, L. A. (2007). Technology-Enhanced Inquiry Tools in Science Education: An Emerging Pedagogical Framework for Classroom Practice. Science Education, 91(6), 1010–1030.
Mahan, K. R. (2020). The comprehending teacher: Scaffolding in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). Language Learning Journal, 0(0), 1–15.
Mamun, M. A. Al, Lawrie, G., & Wright, T. (2020). Instructional design of scaffolded online learning modules for self-directed and inquiry-based learning environments. Computers and Education, 144(December 2018), 103695.
Martin, N. D., Dornfeld Tissenbaum, C., Gnesdilow, D., & Puntambekar, S. (2019). Fading distributed scaffolds: the importance of complementarity between teacher and material scaffolds. Instructional Science, 47(1), 69–98.
Motte, K. (2013). Strategies for online educators. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 258–267.
Nachowitz, M. (2018). Scaffolding progressive online discourse for literary knowledge building. Online Learning Journal, 22(3), 133–156.
Ozan, O. (2013). Scaffolding in Connectivist. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 44–55.
Pentimonti, J. M., Justice, L. M., Yeomans-Maldonado, G., McGinty, A. S., Slocum, L., & O’Connell, A. (2017). Teachers’ Use of High- and Low-Support Scaffolding Strategies to Differentiate Language Instruction in High-Risk/Economically Disadvantaged Settings. Journal of Early Intervention, 39(2), 125–146.
Peterson, A. T., Beymer, P. N., & Putnam, R. T. (2018). Synchronous and asynchronous discussions: Effects on cooperation, belonging, and affect. Online Learning Journal, 22(4), 7–25.
Ranjbar, N., & Ghonsooly, B. (2017). Peer scaffolding behaviors emerging in revising a written task: A microgenetic analysis. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 5(2), 75–90.
Razaghi, M., Bagheri, M. S., & Yamini, M. (2019). The impact of cognitive Scaffolding on Iranian EFL learners' speaking skill. International Journal of Instruction, 12(4), 95–112.
Ribbe, E., & Bezanilla, M. J. (2013). Scaffolding learner autonomy in online university courses El desarrollo de la autonomÃa del estudiante en los cursos online universitarios. Digital Education Review, (24), 98–113.
Schutt, M. (2003). Scaffolding for Online Learning Environments: Instructional Design Strategies that Provide Online Learner Support. Educational Technology, 43(6), 28–35.
Sharma, P., & Hannafin, M. (2004). Scaffolding critical thinking in an online course: An exploratory study. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(2), 181–208.
Stavredes, T. (2012). Effective Online Teaching: Foundations and Strategies for Student Success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
STOUT, G. F. (1891). Ii—Thought and Language. Mind, pp. 181–205.
Tan, Y. L. L. (2018). Meaningful gamification and students’ motivation: A strategy for scaffolding reading material. Online Learning Journal, 22(2), 141–156.
Todo, M. F. L., & Budiarta, I. W. (2018). Critical Discourse Analysis on Kompas Daily Newspaper Report on Profiteering through the Names of President Jokowi and Vice President Jusuf Kalla. RETORIKA: Jurnal Ilmu Bahasa, 4(1).
Valencia-Vallejo, N., López-Vargas, O., & Sanabria-RodrÃguez, L. (2018). Effect of motivational Scaffolding on e-learning environments: Self-efficacy, learning achievement, and cognitive style. Journal of Educators Online, 15(1).
Valencia-Vallejo, N., López-Vargas, O., & Sanabria-RodrÃguez, L. (2019). Effect of a metacognitive scaffolding on self-efficacy, metacognition, and achievement in e-learning environments. Knowledge Management and E-Learning, 11(1), 1–19.
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.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). the Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.
Copyright (c) 2021 RETORIKA: Jurnal Ilmu Bahasa
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
All articles published Open Access will be immediately and permanently free for everyone to read and download. We are continuously working with our author communities to select the best choice of license options, currently being defined for this journal as follows: Creative Commons-Non Ceomercial-Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA)
Abstract viewed = 2044 times
PDF downloaded = 1828 times
2.png)
