Talk:Instructional scaffolding

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Psychology

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Maddyhuerta.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up Needed

The current page does not conform to Wikipedia conventions for source citation (and probably language / style / tone / neutral PoV). It reads like a paper from an education journal rather than like an encyclopedia article. I've attempted some clarifying revisions, and some clean-up edits to the language, but I think the whole thing needs a thorough re-write by an expert in the field, someone familiar with Wikipedia's style guidelines. Memetics (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, where is the citation for (Albanese and Mitchell, 1993)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skillpolitics (talk • contribs) 05:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's Conflated

This article confuses two different subjects. Instructional scaffolding is a teaching tool. Scaffolding theory is a developmental psychology theory. — John Harvey, Wizened Web Wizard Wannabe, ^{Talk to me!} 20:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Scaffolding

Diagree...the other page is a very narrow definition. Scaffolding has a much broader definition now in e-learning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.160.67 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree. "Scaffolding" is not a "theory". It is a process which is part of a particular theory of instruction [see J. Bruner, The Process of Education: Towards a theory of instruction (1966)].

To get a more definitive idea of the process of instructional scaffolding the following article would be ueful: Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 17, 89-100. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.97.194 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the previous post: Scaffolding is a technique that lives inside broader theories of learning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.32.2.1 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vygotsky (1978) reference.

I'm afraid I don't understand this reference as Lev Vygotsky died in 1934. Sorry if I misunderstood something. 85.72.36.254 (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

agreed72.74.242.160 (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is from his later discovered book in Russia, which was translated too English in 1978. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.158.77 (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request edit

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

The last two sections of the page are not academic or particularly factual. I suggest they be deleted altogether. ("Promoting better learning: scaffolding" and "Making Scaffolding Learning Tangible")

example: "Unfortunately new research has brought up this information in quite wrong. Dr. Filmier from Glenewood has unearthed astonishing new research. He says that scaffolding to our knowledge is a type of cosmetic brain malfunction disease."

12.31.97.44 (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sam Sailor ^Sing 15:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Research articles that may have information to contribute to page:

The effect of motivational scaffolding on procrastinators’ distance learning outcomes • Tuckman, B. W. (2007). The effect of motivational scaffolding on procrastinators’ distance learning outcomes. Computers & Education,49(2), 414-422. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.10.002

Effects of interactivity and instructional scaffolding on learning: Self-regulation in online video-based environments • Delen, E., Liew, J., & Willson, V. (2014). Effects of interactivity and instructional scaffolding on learning: Self-regulation in online video-based environments. Computers & Education,78, 312-320. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.018

Academic motivation and self-regulation: A comparative analysis of undergraduate and graduate students learning online • Artino, A. R., & Stephens, J. M. (2009). Academic motivation and self-regulation: A comparative analysis of undergraduate and graduate students learning online. The Internet and Higher Education,12(3-4), 146-151. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.02.001

Instructor scaffolding for interaction and students’ academic engagement in online learning: Mediating role of perceived online class goal structures • Cho, M., & Cho, Y. (2014). Instructor scaffolding for interaction and students academic engagement in online learning: Mediating role of perceived online class goal structures. The Internet and Higher Education,21, 25-30. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.008

Students’ self-regulation for interaction with others in online learning environments • Cho, M., & Kim, B. J. (2013). Students self-regulation for interaction with others in online learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education,17, 69-75. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.11.001

Scaffolding student-generated questions: Design and development of a customizable online learning system • Yu, F. (2009). Scaffolding student-generated questions: Design and development of a customizable online learning system. Computers in Human Behavior,25(5), 1129-1138. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.05.002

Investigating dominant type of online instructor scaffolding • Rabu, S. N., Aris, B., & Tasir, Z. (2016). Investigating dominant type of online instructor scaffolding. EDULEARN16 Proceedings. doi:10.21125/edulearn.2016.0554 Enhancing quality in online learning: Scaffolding planning and design through proactive evaluation

• Sims, R., Dobbs, G., & Hand, T. (2002). Enhancing Quality in Online Learning: Scaffolding Planning and Design Through Proactive Evaluation. Distance Education, 23(2), 135-148. doi:10.1080/0158791022000009169 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maddyhuerta (talk • contribs) 03:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cite bombing / WP:CITESPAM

I have removed most of the blatant cite bombing that had been introduced by SPAs and drive-by IPs. Uncontroversial basic statements do not need countless references to various journal articles, but should be based on 1 reliable source. More controversial or complex statements may need 1-2 more refs for better verification, but none of them needs 5-8 or even more. "Incidentally" such ref bombing often links back to the same small group of authors. Wikipedia is not a link directory to list all available journal articles, nor is it a venue to pad one's academic reputation and own cite count. GermanJoe (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EPSY 3010

Hi group 5! I wanted to start a thread between us to discuss our plan on what we are going to edit on this article. I hope to hear from you all soon! Jlussier88 (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have been looking through at additions to make, and I think the entire page might benefit from some light editing at first? There is a wonderfully large breadth of sources and citations, maybe research can be done through those?Elmerjonathan (talk) 05:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source I found: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1081990 . This could potentially be used to add another category? We should probably brainstorm what we add will center around! Elmerjonathan (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone :) I totally agree that this link would be a great way to enhance this page! I'll start brainstorming a bit next time I get a chance to look at this page (it's getting a bit late to do that tonight haha) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkmaynard (talk • contribs) 05:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay everyone- I think besides a new section (That we should decide on by tomorrow morning or ASAP probably), we should also work on the formatting of the page and maybe adding in some images to break the DENSE information up! Please post any ideas at all you have for new information- any ideas are good ideas! Elmerjonathan (talk) 03:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone - I'm here to help and I think the reformatting and images would be a great idea, I should be able to make some changes this week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmandelbaum (talk • contribs) 13:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright everyone, I added Social Constructivism to the "See Also" section because I thought that was important to do. I tried to upload an image, but wikipedia has some strict copyright rules, so I also tried making my own chart demonstrating scaffolding. Sadly, wikipedia rejected this because it was not a photograph :(. Aside from this, I made some minor edits and added some information for clarity on the page. I also added some information from the source above, as well as added it into the references. Elmerjonathan (talk) 02:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmerjonathan: You should be able to upload charts and diagrams - there are many graphics here that aren't photographs. I'm not seeing anything restricting it here on Wikipedia or over on commons (the preferred place for entirely free images). What issues are you running into? LittlePuppers (talk) 11:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

For some reason, I have this page on my watchlist. That said, I don't know much in this area. I haven't looked at it for a while, but today I noticed a few issues with various recent edits. I've reverted most of the changes (although I did put a few back which I think are uncontroversial), and I'll summarize them here.

(pinging those who may be interested: @Elmerjonathan, Jlussier88, GermanJoe, Yasya, and KH-1:)

43.230.107.194 changed the introduction date from the late 1950s to the late 2010s. I find this unlikely, considering that Bruner died in 2016 and the article was created in 2003. Despite this, the edit was not reverted.
Rahulcoll12341 made two edits (their only ones), which were (suspiciously?) only three and five minutes later, respectively. The first was vandalism, and the second mostly reverted the changes, although they were entirely reverted a few minutes later by GermanJoe - to the version that said 2010s.
50.74.108.28 removed most of the stuff about Bruner (essentially what is currently the first paragraph of the "Theory of scaffolding" section right now), entirely attributing it to Vygotsky (who is also mentioned). Their edit summary was rather... passionate on the topic. Whether he deserves sole attribution is something I'll leave to you guys - after a bit of quick research it looks like he should at least be mentioned. They also changed the date to 1978.
Yasya added a bit in the first couple sentences about Vygotsky, including mentioning that he happened to be dead in 1978.
Nosebagbear changed the wording of the stuff Yasya added, saying that it was only adopted later.
Last, KH-1 removed "thus promoting their own cognitive, affective and psychomotor learning skills and knowledge" from after "These supports are gradually removed as students develop autonomous learning strategies" in the lede. I'm guessing that this is uncontroversial (seeing as it's unrelated to previous edits and KH-1 has been here a while), but due to the lack of an edit summary and just to make sure, I thought I'd lump it in with all of this.

Thanks for taking a look. LittlePuppers (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting to "2010s" was a misclick, thank you for catching it (I probably tried to revert all changes back to the long-standing version, but missed one). But the original version lacks a sufficient secondary source for the "1950s" claim too, so the whole section certainly needs some discussion and clarification from topic experts. Either way, large-scale changes like the recent IP edit should have a clear source and (ideally) be discussed on article talk first, so a revert for now until further clarification seems sensible. GermanJoe (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this is helpful. - Jlussier88