Structuring versus problematizing as two scaffolding mechanisms

Design · All designs
Evidence · 6 claims (6 for) · 2 studies (2 causal), q3 · 1 of 2 report an effect size · 6 claims rest on one study

Description

The article adopts Reiser's distinction between two mechanisms by which scaffolding affects learning. "Structuring simplifies the learning assignment by reducing its complexity, clarifying the underlying components and supporting performance", for example by showing an exemplary plan, while problematizing increases complexity by posing questions that elicit learners' own strategies and metacognitive activities. The study instantiates these as two avatar scaffold conditions and finds they foster qualitatively different student interactions.

Design Implications

Context

Requirements

• Scaffolds must be context-suitable and delivered at the point in the learning process where the metacognitive activity is typically executed

Constraints

• Structuring scaffolds encourage attention to the scaffold's information but do not invite students to construct their own metacognitive activities

Target Learners

• elementary school students working in small groups

Learning Goals

• metacognitive knowledge and domain knowledge during collaborative inquiry

Claims

• Only Problematizing Scaffolds Raise Domain Knowledge [+M]
• Avatar Metacognitive Scaffolds Raise Metacognitive Knowledge [+M]
• Problematizing scaffolds produced a small significant positive effect on individual metacognitive knowledge compared to structuring scaffolds [+W]
• Problematizing scaffolds produced a small significant positive effect on transfer of individual domain knowledge compared to structuring scaffolds [+W]
• Problematizing scaffolds produced a medium significant positive effect on group performance compared to structuring scaffolds [+W]
• Problematizing scaffolds elicit constructive, interaction-embedded metacognitive activities, whereas structuring scaffolds elicit application of examples [+W]

Related Designs

Examples

-

Key Sources

• Molenaar, I., Chiu, M. M., Sleegers, P., & van Boxtel, C. (2011). Scaffolding of small groups' metacognitive activities with an avatar. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6, 601-624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-011-9130-z

Page metadata

Field	Value
type	design
id	structuring-versus-problematizing-scaffolding-mechanisms
title	Structuring versus problematizing as two scaffolding mechanisms
description	The article adopts Reiser's distinction between two mechanisms by which scaffolding affects learning.
status	review
generated	by process:settle-candidates on 2026-10-18
trust	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources	1 — molenaar-2011

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