Claims

Less successful teachers tended to provide less support because they mistakenly thought prompting was not part of scaffolding

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? Less successful teachers showed a tendency to provide less support because they mistakenly thought that prompting was not part of scaffolding. → J. van de Pol 2014

Evidence

J. van de Pol 2014

J. van de Pol, M. Volman, F. Oort, J. Beishuizen. (2014). Teacher scaffolding in small-group work: an intervention study. Journal of the Learning Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.805300

q2 · i? · causal · r1

The article reports, as an interpretation of the intervention data, that "Less successful teachers showed a tendency to provide less support because they mistakenly thought that prompting was not part of scaffolding."

"Less successful teachers showed a tendency to provide less support because they mistakenly thought that prompting was not part of scaffolding."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id less-successful-teachers-misconception-prompting-not-scaffolding
title Less successful teachers tended to provide less support because they mistakenly thought prompting was not part of scaffolding
description Less successful teachers tended to provide less support because they mistakenly thought prompting was not part of scaffolding
status review
evidence_strength weak
newest_evidence 2014
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-18
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — j-van-de-pol-2014

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.