The two teachers' scaffolding moves differed significantly: Mrs. Lewis monitored more, prompted peer idea-sharing, extended materials, and handed over independence more, while Mr. Green provided more static support¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · designr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · 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? Mrs. Lewis engaged in significantly more whole-class monitoring, peer idea-sharing, extending materials, and handover to independence than Mr. Green. → Martin 2019
q2 i? Mr. Green replicated the static support embedded in the materials significantly more often than Mrs. Lewis. → Martin 2019 (2)
Evidence¶
Martin 2019¶
Martin, Nicole D., Tissenbaum, Catherine Dornfeld, Gnesdilow, Dana, Puntambekar, Sadhana. (2019). Fading distributed scaffolds: the importance of complementarity between teacher and material scaffolds. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9474-0
q2 · i? · design · r2
Factorial ANOVAs on coded scaffolding moves in 50 videos of whole-class discussions (26 Mrs. Lewis, 24 Mr. Green; Cohen's kappa = .78), coded in two-minute segments. Significant teacher main effects: whole-class monitoring (F(1,46) = 7.24, p < .001), peer idea-sharing (F(1,46) = 10.15, p = .003; 9.0% vs 1.4%), extending materials (F(1,46) = 17.67, p < .001; 44.7% vs 9.6%), and handover to independence (F(1,46) = 4.58, p = .038; 12.6% vs 3.0%).
"Mrs. Lewis engaged in whole-class monitoring an average of 52.6% of the time, compared to 31.3% for Mr. Green."
Martin 2019 (2)¶
Martin, Nicole D., Tissenbaum, Catherine Dornfeld, Gnesdilow, Dana, Puntambekar, Sadhana. (2019). Fading distributed scaffolds: the importance of complementarity between teacher and material scaffolds. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9474-0
q2 · i? · design · r2
Factorial ANOVA on the static support code (F(1,46) = 4.58, p = .038): Mr. Green provided support redundant to the journal's embedded support more often than Mrs. Lewis. No interaction models were significant, meaning teachers' scaffolding did not significantly differ over time.
"Mr. Green replicated the support in the students’ journal an average of 48.4% of the time, compared to 27.3% for Mrs. Lewis."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- On the physics conceptual test, both teachers' students improved significantly, with a significant teacher-by-time interaction in which Mrs. Lewis's students overcame a lower pre-test disadvantage by post-test
- Both classes improved significantly on the science practices test, with no significant teacher main effect or teacher-by-time interaction
- As material scaffolds faded, Mrs. Lewis's students' performance returned to initial levels between High and Low support, while Mr. Green's students declined significantly across the unit — related
- Report Out performance showed a significant instructor-by-scaffolding-level interaction, with Mrs. Lewis's students significantly outperforming Mr. Green's at Medium and Low material support but not at High — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
teacher-scaffolding-moves-main-effect-differences |
title |
The two teachers' scaffolding moves differed significantly: Mrs. Lewis monitored more, prompted peer idea-sharing, extended materials, and handed over independence more, while Mr. Green provided more static support |
description |
The two teachers' scaffolding moves differed significantly: Mrs. |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2019 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-18 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
2 — martin-2019, martin-2019-2 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.