Instructional Scaffolding in Online Learning Environment: A Meta-Analysis

Nurul Farhana Jumaat Department of Educational Sciences, Mathematics and

Creative Multimedia, Faculty of Education, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,

81310, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia. farhanautm@gmail.com

Zaidatun Tasir Department of Educational Sciences, Mathematics and

Creative Multimedia, Faculty of Education, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,

81310, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia. zaidatun@gmail.com

Abstract—Instructional scaffolding or simply known as scaffolding in education is defined as a guidance or support from teachers, instructors or other knowledgeable persons that facilitate students to achieve their goals in learning. Conceptually, scaffolding means providing students with instructions during the early stage of learning before slowly shifting the responsibility to them as they develop their own understanding and skills. As technology extends learning from classroom to learning communities, same goes to the concept of scaffolding. The scaffolding is no longer implemented via face-to-face instruction that literally exists between a teacher and students in a classroom. Currently, the form of instructions that emerges between teachers and students is mediated through technology and the learning communities exist in the online settings. Thus, it is important to acknowledge the suitable form of support required for the students, especially in an online learning environment. The aim of this meta-analysis is to investigate the types of scaffolding that could be implemented in an online learning environment together with its potential in validating students’ success in an online learning setting.

Keywords—Instructional scaffolding; Online learning environment; Meta-analysis;

I. INTRODUCTION Scaffolding or instructional scaffolding has been widely studied in the past [1]. The term is better known as a critical component that facilitates students in learning [2]. However, as technology extends learning beyond a classroom setting, the concept of scaffolding becomes diverse. No longer is the method confined to face-to-face interaction, it even implies students thousands of kilometers away from their colleges. Granted, scaffolding can now be mediated by technology, and the interest for such integration has been increasing [3]. The meta-analysis of this study aims to investigate the types of scaffolding feasible for an online learning environment.

The concept of scaffolding originates from the work of Wood, Bruner and Ross in 1976 [4]. It relates to Social Constructivism Theory pioneered by Lev Vygotsky and his popular concept known as the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). Vygotsky’s Social Constructivism suggests that social interactions among teachers, peers, tutors, parents or instructors contribute to the development

of an individual learning process [5, 6]. In other words, the theory professes that such interactions enable students to learn a new concept effectively [7].

The term ‘scaffolding’ was borrowed from construction field (scaffold is a temporary structure that supports building) [8]. In education, scaffolding has teachers instructing students in the early stages of learning, and gradually lessening their supports as the students gain mastery [9]. This reduces difficulty of complex learning and at the same time, let the students focus on constructing knowledge and higher-order demands like thinking critically [10].

Traditionally, scaffolded instructions were imparted face-to-face by teachers but as the World Wide Web makes its way into education, the concept applies to the technology environment as well [11]. As McLoughlin emphasized, “the concept of scaffolding needs to be redefined into the context where the teacher is not present, as in the online environment” [11].

II. SCAFFOLDING IN ONLINE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

Scaffolding in an online learning environment refers to the supports provided by teachers or instructors via technology. These teachers will use various technological tools and resources that could assist them in teaching. Students gain equal benefits too: they could capitalize the virtual learning environment to communicate with peers, while having their progress monitored regularly by their teachers. Nevertheless, such method requires a structured guideline in order to avoid students’ frustration should they fail to learn. This necessitates online educators to conduct scaffolding properly in line with students’ needs.

The present study refers to an online learning environment as the one that allows students to assess educational resources via technological means. This study also considers the form of support that can adequately enhance the teaching and learning process. This support could be in a form of software or web-based tools or virtual learning objects. Software-based tool is the developed standalone software built into the scaffolded tools, tasks and interfaces [12]. The software provides appropriate

2014 International Conference on Teaching and Learning in Computing and Engineering

978-1-4799-3592-5/14 $31.00 © 2014 IEEE

DOI 10.1109/LaTiCE.2014.22

74

scaffolding strategies that can engage students in their tasks. Web-based tool on the other hand, is an internet-based applications or websites used by teachers as a platform to support students in learning; they include for example, wikis, blogs and social networking sites. Virtual learning objects include 3D-animation cartoon or avatar which is used not only to assist, but to engage students in learning.

III. METHODOLOGY

This study aims to identify types of scaffolding in online learning, its form of supports and its potential in validating students’ success. The following key words were used to search for related publications: scaffolding & online learning, instructor support & online learning and scaffolded instruction & online learners. Conducted via IEEExplore Digital Library, Science Direct, Web of Science and ProQuest, the search has produced 51 hits, but only 10 were deemed relevant to the study following these criteria: (1) the studies concern specific scaffolding types that assist students in learning, (2) the studies must be published between 2008 and the present, and (3) the studies must mention the support forms used by the teachers or instructors to support students in learning. After being analyzed qualitatively, the meta-analysis of studies of scaffolding in an online learning environment were summarized, as presented in Table I.

TABLE I. STUDIES OF SCAFFOLDING IN ONLINE LEARNING

Study Research Purpose(s) Support Form Scaffolding Type

Tiantong and

Teemungsai [13]

To develop four scaffolding modules for collaborative problem based learning through Moodle LMS for a computer programming course

Virtual Object (3D animation expert cartoon)

Metacognitive scaffolding, Conceptual scaffolding, Strategic scaffolding, Procedural scaffolding

Zhang and Quintana

[14]

To support middle school students in online inquiry processes` in learning science subject.

Software-based tool.

Metacognitive scaffolding.

Huang, Wu and Chen

[15]

To evaluate the effectiveness of using procedural scaffolding in fostering students’ discourse levels and learning outcomes.

Web-based tool Procedural scaffolding

Carr, Luckin,

Avramides and Yuill

[16]

An empirical study which investigates learners respond to metacognitive assistance.

Software-based tool (Ecolab)

Metacognitive scaffolding.

Molenaar et

al. [17]

To investigate metacognitive activities among scaffolded students in a collaborative setting with the existence of avatars.

Virtual learning object (an avatar)

Metacognitive scaffolding

Study Research Purpose(s) Support Form Scaffolding Type

Teo and Chai [18]

To scaffold novice students in collaborating critiquing educational video production.

Web-based tool (Knowledge Community)

Metacognitive scaffolding, Strategic scaffolding

James and Okpala

[19]

To analyze the impact of the use of metacognitive scaffolding used to enhanced literacy skills among college students.

Software-based tool (PLATO)

Question prompt, Metacognitive scaffolding

An [20]

To scaffold students’ wiki based, Ill structured problem solving in an online environment.

Web-based Tool (Wikis)

Conceptual scaffolding, Procedural scaffolding, Metacognitive scaffolding, Strategic scaffolding

Reingold, Rimor and

Kalay [21]

To determine and characterize students reflective thought process in an online forum.

Web-based tool (Online Forum)

Technical support, Content support, Procedural support, Metacognitive support.

Li and Lim [22]

To examine the different dimensions of scaffolding for online historical inquiry

Web-based tool Written prompts, Argumentation template, Questioning and Modeling.

As shown in Table I, most studies involved students in higher education and middle school. Instructional scaffolding implemented in these studies vary across disciplines (science, history, literacy skills and programming language). Despite having involved various forms of support (virtual learning objects, software-based tool and web-based tool), these studies have generally compared the effects of various types of scaffolding on students’ success, particularly in online learning. The following section elaborates the results.

IV. RESULTS

A. Types of Scaffolding in Online Learning Environment Based on the meta-analysis, four main types of online

scaffolding were identified: procedural scaffolding, conceptual scaffolding, strategic scaffolding and metacognitive scaffolding. These four types, according to Hannafin, Land and Oliver [23], are structures that appropriately support students’ learning. They are preferred among researchers to study an online learning environment.

Conceptual scaffolding helps students to decide what to consider in learning [24]. It particularly guides them to

75

prioritize fundamental concepts. Procedural scaffolding, in addition, assists students in using available tools and resources while strategic scaffolding suggests alternative ways to tackle problems in learning. Finally, metacognitive scaffolding guides students on what to think during learning [23].

Among the four types, metacognitive scaffolding were the most explored by researchers. It promotes higher order thinking [10] for it assists students to reflect on what they have learnt (self-assess), and assesses their progress [18]. As a result, it allows students to plan ahead.

Other types of scaffolding addressed by researchers include technical support, content support, argumentation template, questioning and modeling. However, these terms were rarely used, probably because they were inadequately justified. None of them provides a clear structure of sentences or prompts that can be used to guide students, especially in an online learning setting.

Technology changes rapidly, so does the form of support provided to online learners. Instructors have been using web-based tools such as wikis and blogs as platforms to support and discuss with students. Software-based tools particularly, have been used in many studies as a form of support. The developed software is like an automated assistance agent that can assist learners by engaging them with strategies and structures. To point out, researchers are now using virtual learning objects such as 3D-animation cartoon expert and avatars to study online scaffolding.

B. Potential of Scaffolding in Online Learning Environment The meta-analysis has revealed the importance of

scaffolding particularly in online settings. Reingold, Rimor and Kalay [21] recommended supporting students to experience a reflective learning process as this contributes to their experience as a community of learners with a common task. Additionally, Tiantong and Teemuangsai [13] found that scaffolding is suitable for active learning. All these findings are consistent with the results reported by Huang, Wu and Chen [15], who found more active participation and meaningful negotiations in the scaffolded group than in the non-scaffolded group discussion.

Previous studies have reported that metacognitive scaffolding could encourage students in reflecting their tasks and at the same time, contribute to their experience as a community of learners with a common task [21]. In their study, Reingold, Rimor and Kalay [21] have listed seven mechanisms of metacognitive scaffolding that encourage students’ metacognition in learning.

Conclusively, it has become a trend among researchers to prefer metacognitive scaffolding because this method is the most effective in an online learning environment. Metacognitive scaffolding supports learners by assisting individual learning management and by guiding appropriate thinking during learning (25).

V. FUTURE SUGGESTIONS

There is a growing interest in integrating scaffolded instructions in online teaching. As described earlier, scaffolding online learners are devoid of the physical presence of teachers. Thus, prior to supporting students in an online learning environment, researchers are encouraged to map out well-structured instructional components such as (1) student’s need, (2) learning objectives, (3) support forms and (4) types of scaffolding appropriate to student’s needs.

Moreover, we suggest that questions and prompt messages from an instructor be carefully designed so that the scaffolds can be delivered effectively. These questions and prompts need to be evaluated by researchers in terms of their suitability, particularly in reflecting and defining each type of scaffolding. This study also prefers to have an inter-rater reliability coded to validate instructors’ questions and prompted messages. Moreover, the technology has changed the way support forms or tools are used to facilitate students in learning, and they have also shifted towards being web- and software-based, and being virtual learning objects. Hence, applying the latest technology is necessary to attract students’ interest, especially when learning tough courses. To demonstrate, Tiantong & Teemuangsai [13] have used a 3D animation expert cartoon to scaffold students in learning a computer programming course. Regardless, the uses of web-based and software-based tools are still relevant as long as they could facilitate students’ performances in learning.

VI. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, four types of scaffolding are typical in an online learning: conceptual scaffolding, procedural scaffolding, strategic scaffolding and metacognitive scaffolding, with the last being the most mentioned in previous studies. Technology also plays an important role: teachers could make full use of technological tools to support their teaching as well as their students in learning. In addition, instructional designs are undeniably important to ensure the effectiveness of scaffolding in online learning. These proper instructional supports can influence the success of online learning.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors would like to thank the Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) and Ministry of Education (MoE) Malaysia for their support in making this project possible. This work was supported by the Research University Grant [Q.J130000.2531.03H03] initiated by MoE.

REFERENCES [1] I. Verenikina, “Understanding scaffolding and the ZPD in educational

research,” Paper presented at the Australian Association of Educational Research Conference, Auckland: New Zealand, Nov. 30 – Dec. 3, 2003.

76

[2] M.T.H. Chi, S. A. Siler, H. Jeong, T. Yamauchi and R. G Hausmann, “Learning from human tutoring,” Cognitive Science, vol. 25, no.4, pp. 471-534, 2001.

[3] B. J. Reiser, “Scaffolding complex learning: the mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work,” The Journal of The Learning Sciences, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 273-304, 2004.

[4] D. Wood, J. Bruner, and G. Ross, “The role of tutoring in problem solving,” Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry And Applied Disciplines, vol. 17, no.2, pp. 89-102, 1976.

[5] S. P. Linder, D. Abbott, and M. Fromberger, “An instructional scaffolding approach to teaching software design,” Journal of Computing in Small Colleges, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 238-250, 2006.

[6] V. P. Dennen and Burner, “The cognitive apprenticeship model in educational practice,” in Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 3rd Ed. New York: Routledge, 2007, pp. 425-439.

[7] L.S. Vygotsky, Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978.

[8] J. van De Pol, M. Volman and J. Beishuizen, “Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research,” Educational Psychology Review, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 271-296, 2010.

[9] A. S. Palinscar, “The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction,” Educational psychologist, vol. 21, no. 1 & 2, pp. 73-98, 1986.

[10] J. Way and L. Rowe, “The role of scaffolding in the design of multimedia learning object,” Paper presented at 11th International Congress on Mathematical Education, Mexico: July. 6 - July 13, 2008.

[11] C. McLoughlin, “Achieving excellence in teaching through scaffolding learner competence,” Proceedings of the 13th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, Perth: Murdoch University, Feb. 9-10, 2004.

[12] C. Quintana, B. J. Reiser, E. A. Davis, J. Krajcik, E. Fretz, R. G. Duncan, et. al, “A scaffolding design framework for software to support science enquiry,” Journal of the Learning Sciences, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 337-386, 2004.

[13] M. Tiantong and S. Teemuangsai, “The four scaffolding modules for collaborative problem-based learning through the computer network on Moodle LMS for the computer programming course,” International Education Studies, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 47-55, 2013.

[14] M. Zhang and C. Quintana, “Scaffolding strategies for supporting middle school students’ online inquiry processes,” Computers & Education, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 181-196, 2012.

[15] H. Huang, C. Wu and N. Chen, “The effectiveness of using procedural scaffolding in a paper-plus-smartphone collaborative learning context,” Computers & Education, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 250-259, 2012.

[16] A. Carr, R. Luckin, R, K. Avramides and N. Yuill, “Scaffolding metacognitive processes in the Ecolab: Help-seeking and achievement goal orientation,” Proceedings at the 15th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Auckland, New Zealand: June 28 – July 1, pp. 432-434, 2011.

[17] I. Molenaar, C. Roda, C. van Boxtel, and P. Sleegers, “Dynamic scaffolding of socially regulated learning in a computer-based learning environment,” Computers & Education, vol. 59, no. 2 , pp. 515–523,2012.

[18] Y. H. Teo and C. S. Chai, “Scaffolding online collaborative critiquing for educational video production,” Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 51-66, 2011.

[19] I. James and C. O. Okpala, “The use of metacognitive scaffolding to improve college students’ academic success,” Journal of College Teaching & Learning, vol. 7, no. 11, pp. 47-50, 2010.

[20] Y. An, “Scaffolding Wiki-Based, III-Structured Problem Solving in an Online Environment,” MERLOT Journal of Online Learning & Teaching. Vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 723-734, 2010.

[21] R. Reingold, R.Rimor, and A. Kalay, “Instructor’s scaffolding in support of student’s metacognition through a teacher education online course: a case study,” Journal of Intercative Online Learning, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 139-151, 2008.

[22] D. D. Li and C. P. Lim, “Scaffolding online historical inquiry tasks: a case study of two secondary school classrooms,” Computers & Education, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 1394-1410, 2008.

[23] M. J. Hannafin, S. Land and K. Oliver, “Open learning environments: Foundations, methods and models,” in C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999, pp. 115-140.

[24] J. R. Hill and M. J. Hannafin, “Teaching and learning in digital environments: The resurgence of resource-based learning,” Educational Technology Research & Developmet, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 37-52, 2001.

[25] Y.H. Teo and C. S. Chai, “Scaffolding online collaborative critiquing for educational video production,” Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, vol1. no.1, pp. 51-66.

77