PUNTAMBAKER AND HÜBSCHERSCAFFOLDING IN A COMPLEX ENVIRONMENTE A
Tools for Scaffolding Students in a Complex Learning
Environment: What Have We Gained and What Have
We Missed?
Sadhana Puntambekar
Department of Educational Psychology
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Roland Hübscher
Department of Information Design and Corporate Communication
Bentley College
This article discusses the change in the notion of scaffolding from a description of the interac-
tions between a tutor and a student to the design of tools to support student learning in pro-
ject-based and design-based classrooms. The notion of scaffolding is now increasingly being
used to describe various forms of support provided by software tools, curricula, and other re-
sources designed to help students learn successfully in a classroom. However, some of the criti-
cal elements of scaffolding are missing in the current use of the scaffolding construct. Although
new curricula and software tools now described as scaffolds have provided us with novel tech-
niques to support student learning, the important theoretical features of scaffolding such as on-
going diagnosis, calibrated support, and fading are being neglected. This article discusses how
to implement these critical features of scaffolding in tools, resources, and curricula. It is sug-
gested that if tools are designed based on the multiple levels of the student understanding found
in a classroom, tools themselves might be removed to achieve fading.
In the past few years, the notion of scaffolding has been an is-
sue of discussion. Stone (1998a) provided an insightful cri-
tique of the “metaphor of scaffolding” and called for enrich-
ing the scaffolding metaphor, especially as it applied to the
field of learning disabilities. As a response to his article,
Palincsar (1998) pointed out that it is the “atheoretical use of
scaffolding that has become problematic” (p. XX). She urged
researchers in the field to consider “repositioning the meta-
phor in its theoretical framework,” “consider ways in which
contexts and activities scaffold learning,” and “research the
relationship between scaffolding and good teaching” (p. 1).
In this article, we reiterate that recommendation, especially
for researchers designing tools for students to learn produc-
tively in complex environments such as classrooms.
In its original use (Bruner, 1975), scaffolding described
interactions between a parent and a child or between a tutor
and a student. The adult (parent, tutor) provided just enough
support based on the progress made by the child on an ongo-
ing basis. With an increase in project-based and design-based
environments for teaching science and math in the context of
a classroom, the notion of scaffolding is now increasingly be-
ing used to describe the prompts and hints provided in tools
to support learning. Scaffolding is no longer restricted to in-
teractions between individuals—artifacts, resources, and en-
vironments themselves are also being used as scaffolds. Sup-
port is now being provided in paper-and-pencil tools
(Puntambekar & Kolodner, 2002), technology resources
(Bell & Davis, 1996; Jackson, Krajcik, & Soloway, 1998),
peer interactions (Puntambekar, Nagel, Hübscher, Guzdial,
& Kolodner, 1997), or teacher-led discussions (Tabak &
Reiser, 1997). As such, the scaffolding construct is being ap-
plied more broadly, to include the support provided in tech-
nology tools, peer interactions, and discussions aimed at the
whole class. Although the original description of scaffolding
does little to explain the multifaceted nature of supporting
learning in the complex environment of a design or pro-
ject-based classroom, we believe that the scaffolding con-
struct is increasingly being used synonymously with support.
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST, 40(1), 1–12
opyright © 2005, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Sadhana Puntambekar, Depart-
ment of Educational Psychology, University of Wisconsin, Madison,
WI 53706. E-mail: puntambekar@education.wisc.edu

By broadening its scope, the scaffolding construct has been
overgeneralized and has therefore been stripped of its origi-
nal meaning.
This article discusses traditional and current instantiations
of the scaffolding construct, what we have gained and missed
in the current implementations of scaffolding, and ways to
scaffold students in a complex learning environment. We ar-
gue that although the new curricula and software tools now
described as scaffolds have provided us with novel tech-
niques to support student learning, the important features of
scaffolding such as ongoing diagnosis, calibrated support,
and fading are being neglected. We provide suggestions
about how to implement these critical features of scaffolding
in tools, resources, and curricula. We suggest that if tools are
designed based on the multiple levels of the student under-
standing found in a classroom, tools themselves might be re-
moved to achieve fading.
We have divided this article into three sections. In the first,
we discuss the key features of scaffolding based on the histori-
cal and theoretical roots of the construct. In the second section,
we review research that purports to design and implement
scaffolding to help students (mainly in a classroom) learn
better. In the final section, we provide suggestions to imple-
mentsomeof thekeyelementsofscaffolding inaclassroom.
KEY FEATURES OF SCAFFOLDING
Scaffolding was defined by Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976)
as an “adult controlling those elements of the task that are es-
sentially beyond the learner’s capacity, thus permitting him
to concentrate upon and complete only those elements that
are within his range of competence” (p. 9). The notion of
scaffolding has been linked to the work of Soviet psycholo-
gist, Lev Vygotsky. Although Vygotsky did not use the term
scaffolding, he believed that learning first occurs at the social
or interindividual level, and emphasized the role of social in-
teractions as being crucial to cognitive development. There-
fore, according to Vygotsky (1978), a child (or a novice)
learns with an adult or a more capable peer; and learning oc-
curs within the child’s zone of proximal development (ZPD).
ZPD is defined as the “distance between the child’s actual de-
velopmental level as determined by independent problem
solving and the higher level of potential development as de-
termined through problem solving under adult guidance and
in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978,
p. 86). Enabling the learner to bridge this gap between the ac-
tual and the potential depends on the resources or the kinds of
support provided. As Stone (1998a) pointed out, the original
description of scaffolding by Wood et al. was largely prag-
matic and not clearly linked to the theoretical notion of the
ZPD, and it was later (Bruner, 1985; Cazden, 1979) that the
notion of scaffolding was linked with the ZPD. Instruction in
the ZPD then came to be viewed as taking the form of provid-
ing assistance (or scaffolding), enabling a child or a novice to
solve a problem, carrying out a task or achieving a goal that
he or she would not be able to achieve on his or her own. Ac-
cording to Greenfield (1999)
The scaffold, as it is known in building construction, has five
characteristics: it provides a support; it functions as a tool; it
extends the range of the worker; it allows a worker to accom-
plish a task not otherwise possible; and it is used to selec-
tively aid the worker where needed. (p. 118)
This analogy embodies two important elements of in-
structional scaffolding. Instructional scaffolding enables a
child or a novice to solve a problem, carry out a task, or
achieve a goal that he or she cannot accomplish on his or her
own (Wood et al., 1976); and describes a support that can eas-
ily be removed when no longer needed. However, an impor-
tant difference that Lepper, Drake, and O’Donnell-Johnson
(1997) pointed out is that this analogy also “carries an inap-
propriate connotation” that the student, much like the worker
or the painter, will return to ground zero when scaffolding is
removed. Lepper et al. pointed out that a more suitable anal-
ogy is that of a tunnel or an arch being supported by a tempo-
rary structure while it is under construction. This support is
later removed when construction is complete and the tunnel
or arch can stand on its own. Although an appropriate anal-
ogy can be a matter of debate, the important aspect of scaf-
folding is the support that an adult or expert provides to the
learner, until the learner is capable of performing independ-
ently after the support is removed.
The original notion of scaffolding assumed that a single,
more knowledgeable person, such as a parent or a teacher,
helped an individual learner by providing him or her with ex-
actly the help he or she needed to move forward (Bruner, 1975;
Wood et al., 1976). In this description, one of the most critical
aspects of scaffolding is the role of the adult or the expert.
Wood et al. documented six types of support that an adult can
provide: recruiting the child’s interest, reducing the degrees of
freedom by simplifying the task, maintaining direction, high-
lighting the critical task features, controlling frustration, and
demonstrating ideal solution paths. The expert is a domain ex-
pert as well as a facilitator who is knowledgeable of the skills,
strategies, and processes required for effective learning. The
expert not only helps motivate the learner by providing just
enough support to enable him or her to accomplish the goal,
but also provides support in the form of modeling, highlight-
ing the critical features of the task, and providing hints and
questions that might help the learner to reflect (Wood et al.,
1976). In this conception, the adult’s role includes perceptual,
cognitive, and affective components (Stone, 1998a).
Central to successful scaffolding is the notion of a shared
understanding of the goal of the activity. Although some ele-
ments of the activity may be beyond what the child could ac-
complish in working alone, intersubjectivity (Rogoff, 1990;
Wertsch, 1985), or a shared understanding of the activity, is
considered critical. Intersubjectivity is attained when the
2 PUNTAMBEKAR AND HÜBSCHER

adult and child collaboratively redefine the task so that there
is combined ownership of the task and the child shares an un-
derstanding of the goal that he or she needs to accomplish.
The adult or expert’s role is to ascertain that the learner is in-
vested in the task as well as to help sustain this motivation,
“making it worthwhile for the learner to risk the next step”
(Wood et al., 1976, p. XX).
A second key element of scaffolding is that the adult pro-
vides appropriate support based on an ongoing diagnosis of
the child’s current level of understanding. This requires that
the adult should not only have a thorough knowledge of the
task and its components, as well as the subgoals that need to
be accomplished, but should also have knowledge of the
child’s capabilities that change as the instruction progresses.
Wood et al. (1976) stated:
The effective tutor must have at least two theoretical models
to which he must attend. One is a theory of the task or prob-
lem and how it may be completed. The other is a theory of
performance characteristics of the tutee. Without both of
these, he can neither generate feedback nor devise situations
in which his feedback will be more appropriate for this tutee,
in this task at this point in task mastering. The actual pattern
of effective instruction then, will be both task and tutee de-
pendent, the requirements of the tutorial being generated by
the interaction of the tutor’s two theories. (p. 97)
The ongoing diagnosis thus leads to a “careful calibration
of support” (Stone, 1998a) so that the adult is able to provide
“graduated assistance” of different types. The adult draws
from a repertoire of methods and strategies to provide sup-
port, constantly fine tuning the support based on the child’s
changing knowledge and skills. Therefore, the amount and
types of strategies are different not only for different learners
who are at different levels in their learning, but also for the
same learner over a period of time. The adult may model the
ideal solutions (Wood et al., 1976) or the appropriate strate-
gies (Palincsar & Brown, 1984) or provide several types of
support such as offering explanations, inviting participation,
modeling desired behavior, and providing clarifications
(Roehler & Cantlon, 1997).
An important point is that the ongoing assessment and ad-
aptation of support is attained through the dialogic and inter-
active nature of scaffolded instruction. As Newman, Griffin,
and Cole (1989) pointed out, “the appropriation process is re-
ciprocal” (p. XX). Although the teacher plays a vital role in
the instructional process, the child is also an active partici-
pant so that scaffolded interactions are a function of partici-
pation by the teacher and the learner. The dialogic interac-
tions (Reid, 1998), such as the ones in the reciprocal teaching
studies (Brown & Palincsar, 1985; Palincsar & Brown,
1984), enable the teacher to conduct an ongoing assessment
of the student’s understanding and allow the student to play a
role in negotiating the interactions. Interactions also enable
the adult to monitor progress, provide appropriate support,
and eventually fade the support so that the learner is now able
to function on his or her own.
The final key theoretical feature of scaffolding is fading the
supportprovided to the learnerso that the learner isnowincon-
trol and taking responsibility for learning. Vygotsky (1978)
theorized that the cognitive processes that first occur on an
interpsychological plane move on to an intrapsychological
plane, a process that he called internalization. There is a trans-
fer of responsibility from the teacher to the learner and the
scaffolding can be removed, as the learner moves toward inde-
pendent activity. According to Vygotsky, internalization is
hardly a mechanical operation. In Wood et al.’s (1976) original
inception, what is important about the transfer of responsibil-
ity is that the child not only learns how to complete a specific
task, but successful scaffolding entails that the child also ab-
stracts the process of completing the particular activity to gen-
eralize this understanding to similar tasks.
Early studies that described scaffolding were mainly ob-
servation studies—quasinatural, as Stone (1998a) called
them—rather than being interventions. Whether the studies
involved parent–child interactions such as those described by
Greenfield (1999) in which she analyzed the interactions of
Mexican mothers teaching their daughters to weave or the
components of classroom interactions discussed by Langer
and Applebee (1986), the studies provided descriptions of
observed interactions.
Oneof theearliest interventionstudiesof scaffolding is that
of Wood et al. (1976). In Wood et al.’s study, 3-, 4-, and
5-year-olds engaged in a task of building a pyramid from inter-
locking blocks. Each child was tutored individually, and the
tutor followed a set of guidelines for her tutoring. The tutor re-
sponded to the child’s actions—for example, if the child suc-
cessfully assembled a pair, the tutor encouraged him or her to
make more of the same; if the child was assembling pieces on
hisorherownandignoredanelement, the tutorwoulddrawthe
child’s attention to it. Tutorial intervention took the form of di-
rect assistance by modeling, a verbal prompt to help the child
think about the task, a verbal direction, or a reminder. Ongoing
diagnosis and careful calibration of support was evident as the
tutor’s response was contingent on what the child accom-
plished at any particular time. In this study, although younger
childrenneededmorehelp, it is interesting that the tutordidnot
always follow preset rules in her interactions, especially with
4-year-olds, and adapted her tutoring to the changing behav-
iors of the child; thereby providing just enough assistance to
help the child move forward—assistance that was sensitive to
the child’s progress.
Perhaps the most well-known intervention of scaffolding
in the classroom is the work on reciprocal teaching (Brown &
Palincsar, 1985; Palincsar & Brown, 1984). According to
Brown and Palincsar, “the procedure we developed is a form
of expert scaffolding” and “reciprocal teaching is a form of
expert scaffolding in the classroom” (p. XX). Palincsar and
Brown’s study helped students with four comprehension
monitoring strategies—self-directed summarizing (review),
SCAFFOLDING IN A COMPLEX ENVIRONMENT 3

questioning, clarifying, and predicting. Learning took place
in an interactive environment in that the teacher and the stu-
dents both took turns in the process. Intersubjectivity was
achieved by getting students to be informed participants who
understood the value and use of the strategies. The teacher
modeled the strategies to make them overt, explicit, and con-
crete. If the passage was new, the teacher helped to draw the
students’ attention to the title, discussed its relation to prior
knowledge, and asked for predictions about the title. The re-
sponsibility for the comprehension monitoring activities was
gradually transferred to the students. As students became
more competent, one of the students acted as a “leader” to
guide the others. The leader summarized the content of the
passage, clarified any difficulties, asked a question, and pre-
dicted what could come next. Feedback was provided to help
students move toward competence.
These early interventions highlight how the key features
(viz., intersubjectivity, ongoing diagnosis, tailored assis-
tance, and fading) were attained in the dynamic, interactive
environment. Although Wood et al.’s (1976) study illustrated
the tutorial interventions in a one-on-one situation, the recip-
rocal teaching studies were conducted with small groups of
learners in a classroom. In these studies, both the quality and
the quantity of support were varied, based on the needs of a
particular learner, or for learners with different needs. As
learners attained competence, the scaffolding was faded, giv-
ing them more control.
TOOLS TO SUPPORT STUDENT LEARNING
With an upsurge in project-based and design-based ap-
proaches to help students learn science and math (Kolodner,
1997; Kolodner et al., 2003; Reiser et al., 2001), the notion of
scaffolding is now increasingly being used to describe the sup-
portprovided in tools tohelpstudents learnsuccessfully.How-
ever, classroom situations involving many students do not al-
low for the fine-tuned, sensitive, personalized exchange that
occurs in one-on-one or small-group scaffolding (Rogoff,
1990). Therefore, instead of one teacher working with each
student, support is now being provided in a paper or software
tool that individuals interact with, or classroom activities are
being redefined so that peers can help each other.
Tools and resources including curricula and artifacts are
all being used to support student learning in classrooms.
Tools and resources are being used not only for demonstrat-
ing relevant aspects of the task or strategies and making co-
vert processes visible (Linn, 1998), but also for promoting
peer interactions. These tools are being described as scaf-
folds or as providing scaffolding. However, are these captur-
ing the theoretically critical features of scaffolding as de-
scribed in the previous section?; or has the notion of
scaffolding been overgeneralized? In this section, we discuss
how tools (especially computer-based tools) and resources
including curricula and artifacts map on to the original tenets
of scaffolding. Specifically, we discuss three issues:

Curricula that aim to create a shared understanding
among a whole class of students.

Tools that offer structure and support for completing a
task, but often do not address the critical features of on-
going diagnosis, graduated assistance, and fading.

Tools that promote peer interactions to enable peers to
support each other’s learning.
Shared Understanding
As previously discussed, an important feature of scaffolding
is the shared understanding of a common goal that provides
motivation to students to engage in the task. Applebee and
Langer (1983) referred to the notion of ownership—“they
[students] must see the point of the task, beyond simple obe-
dience to the teacher’s demands” (p. XX). Although this
shared understanding of the goal was achieved between the
adult and the child in the original notion of scaffolding, it is
now important for the whole class or a group of learners to
share the goal and have ownership of the task so that they are
motivated to learn. Shared understanding in a classroom en-
vironment is achieved in the Biology Guided Interactive
Learning Environment (BGuILE) project through staging ac-
tivities (Reiser et al., 2001). BGuILE includes technol-
ogy-rich curriculum units that focus on helping students con-
struct explanations of complex scientific phenomena based
on data-driven investigations. The staging activities in the
BGuILE curriculum are investigations that prepare students
by providing them with smaller data sets to enable them to
tackle larger and more complex data sets. Similar to recipro-
cal teaching, the staging activities start with the teacher mod-
eling the activities and slowly transferring the responsibility
to the students. Another interesting approach to attain shared
understanding is used in the Learning by Design™ (LBD)
curriculum. LBD (Kolodner et al., 2003) is an approach to
science learning in which middle school students engage in
design projects such as designing a car that can travel on dif-
ferent terrains to help them learn about the physics of forces
and motion. As students engage in their designs, they need to
learn several skills such as redefining the problem, generat-
ing ideas for their designs, making predictions, testing their
designs, evaluating, and redesigning, to name a few. In addi-
tion they need skills such as collaborating with other group
members, articulating and justifying their ideas, and so forth.
In early LBD implementations, it was found that it is not easy
for students to engage in these activities. Therefore, a
launcher unit was created (Holbrook & Kolodner, 2000) to
help students ease into the larger LBD units. In the launcher
unit for physical science, students watch parts of the movie,
Apollo 13, and discuss how the scientists worked together
both before the launch of the spacecraft and when the mis-
sion was endangered. The launcher unit prepares students for
4 PUNTAMBEKAR AND HÜBSCHER

the larger LBD units by enabling them to perform less com-
plex activities and supports the building of skills such as col-
laboration, articulation, critiquing, and so forth. Both the
staging activities and the launcher unit help students to expe-
rience simplified versions of the complex activities. They
prepare students for more difficult activities and create a
shared understanding of the goals of the curriculum, set ex-
pectations, provide motivation, and also provide training in
the necessary skills that students may not be familiar with.
They also prepare the teacher to become familiar with their
“new practices as modelers, coachers & facilitators”
(Kolodner et al., 2003, p. 513).
Ongoing Diagnosis, Graduated Assistance, and
Fading
Although shared understanding of goals and practices has
been achieved in some tools, the issues of ongoing diagnosis
and fading are more challenging because they require tools
that are dynamic and that provide adaptive support. In this
section, we discuss software tools that provide structure and
help students with strategies for better learning, as well as
tools that are designed to promote peer interactions. We ar-
gue that although these tools are described as providing scaf-
folding, they do not do so because they are static and do not
adapt to the student’s skills and knowledge.
Tools that provide structure for complex tasks. Ap-
proaches to science learning have long emphasized the need
to help students through the process of scientific inquiry.
Quintana et al. (2002) summarized three challenges that
learners face: (a) process management (i.e., the ability to en-
gage in processes and activities required for inquiry); (b)
sense making, which they describe as difficulties that learn-
ers experience in making sense of their work and finding a di-
rection; and (c) articulation. Several software tools have been
developed in the past few years to help students with these
difficulties: ThinkerTools (White & Fredrickson, 1998),
STAR LEGACY (Schwartz, Lin, Brophy, & Bransford,
1999), Knowledge Integration Environment (KIE; Linn,
1995), Progress Portfolio (Loh et al., 1998), BGuILE (Reiser
et al., 2001), and Model-It (Jackson et al., 1998), to name a
few. It is beyond the scope of this article to review all of the
software tools designed for science learning. Instead, our dis-
cussion focuses on tools that specifically address the issue of
scaffolding student learning. We discuss studies that illus-
trate the current use of the notion and compare them to the
original notion of scaffolding.
One of the most widely used mechanisms for providing
support is based on the notion of making the tacit explicit,
whether in the form of providing support for a process or a task
or by providing graphical representations. For example, the
KIE (Linn, 1995) consists of a suite of tools to help foster
knowledge integration by developing skills such as reflection,
critiquing, and using evidence to develop an argument. KIE is
based on the notion of “scaffolded knowledge integration”
(Linn, 1995; Linn, Songer, & Eylon, 1996), “where students
are scaffolded, or supported, as they integrate their ideas”
(Bell & Davis, 2000, p. 143). As students work on KIE pro-
jects, they receive prompts to help them through the process of
buildinganargumentbackedbyclaims(Bell&Davis,2000).
One of the tools from KIE, the Sensemaker, helps students
developscientificargumentsbysupporting theprocessofcon-
structing an argument. Sensemaker makes the process visible
and encourages students to reflect on the process. Another
component of KIE is the support provided by an online guid-
ance system, titled Mildred. This tool provides students with
support at four levels—the big picture, what to do, how to do it,
and things to think about. The prompts in KIE include activity
hints (specific prompts to help students in making decisions),
evidence hints, and metacognitive or self-monitoring hints
(Bell & Davis, 1996). Such hints and questions are described
as being important as students reflect on their own or to pro-
mote dialogue when students work in small groups.
KIE has been used extensively in middle schools. Bell and
Davis (2000) reported that the prompts in KIE helped stu-
dents to link evidence with theory and that the percentage of
responses indicative of “causal warrants” was higher than
merely descriptive responses when students used the support
provided in KIE. Studies by Davis (2003) in which generic
and specific prompts for reflection were compared, found
that there was greater evidence of reflection in students re-
ceiving generic prompts as compared to the ones who re-
ceived directed prompts.
The notion of making tacit processes explicit is also ech-
oed in BGuILE (Reiser et al., 2001) in which data-driven ex-
planations and investigations are fostered. The BGuILE pro-
ject provides middle and high school students with
opportunities to engage in complex scientific investigations
using technology-rich curricula. Students learn to investigate
scientific claims and link claims to evidence using primary
datasets. Students use technology tools and study quantita-
tive data to construct explanations for complex scientific
phenomena. Reiser (2002) described two mechanisms of
scaffolding—structuring and problematizing. Structuring the
task involves providing students with tools and workspaces
that provide the structure necessary to make an open-ended
task more manageable. Problematizing involves forcing the
students to confront the complexities of a task, such as pro-
viding a menu to have students examine the data to construct
valid explanations. The Galapagos Finches is a tool in the
BGuILE environment that helps learners understand princi-
ples of ecology by making the key strategies explicit (Reiser,
2002). It enables students to make comparisons across time
or across specific traits to understand a particular population
and articulate their reasoning for data comparison. Studies
using the Galapagos Finches environment have shown that
students have been able to use data to provide scientific ex-
planations of phenomena and understand key scientific ideas
(Reiser, 2002).
SCAFFOLDING IN A COMPLEX ENVIRONMENT 5

ExplanationConstructor (Sandoval, 2003), another tool in
the BGuILE environment, provides support during students’
investigations. This tool helps students to keep an ongoing
electronic journal in which they can explain their findings
based on the questions provided, using the evidence that they
collect as they engage in investigations, such as the Galapagos
Finches. ExplanationConstructor includes prompts that serve
as “epistemic and conceptual scaffolds” (Sandoval, 2003), en-
abling students to construct explanations that are supported
with data from their investigations. In studies with high school
studentsusing this tool,Sandovalused“causalcoherence”asa
measure of connectedness of the causal relations in students’
explanations. It was found in these studies that prompts in
ExplanationConstructor helped students to construct explana-
tions supported by theory. Sandoval made an interesting point
that because of the limited interactivity, the value of using the
software programs may be limited in helping students inter-
pret data or in figuring out “whether their claims make sense”
(p. 45).
Visualization and modeling. The visualization capa-
bilities afforded by technology tools have been used to help
students learn complex scientific phenomena in the
WorldWatcher environment (Edelson, 2001; Edelson,
Gordin, & Pea, 1999). WorldWatcher is based on the notion
that expert scientists have tacit knowledge that they bring to
understand scientific procedures, knowledge that high school
students lack. WorldWatcher makes this knowledge explicit
by providing students with visual representations of scien-
tific phenomena such as climate change. The environment
supports data visualization and data analysis in which stu-
dents can manipulate geographic data by changing the visual
features of the maps and also performing statistical analyses.
In the Create-a-World project, WorldWatcher was used with
another tool, Progress Portfolio (Loh et al., 1998), to support
reflective inquiry.
As students work on an investigation, they use the Prog-
ress Portfolio software to create pages that can contain im-
ages, data, and text entries, as well as annotations. The pages
can be organized either thematically or chronologically. The
Progress Portfolio environment prompts students to formu-
late research questions and provides them with a “data cam-
era” tool to grab images related to their research questions,
annotate the data, and prepare a presentation. In addition, stu-
dents can explore relations by making comparisons across
pages or organizing pages into clusters. Progress Portfolio
also provides a presentation mode for students to communi-
cate their results. A teacher mode allows teachers to custom-
ize templates of pages.
Another tool that uses visualization is Model-It (Jackson et
al., 1998). In the classical description of scaffolding, an adult
or a more capable peer provided tailored assistance within the
ZPD, based on an ongoing assessment of the learner. This sup-
port was faded as the learner became more capable. With ad-
vances in technology, software tools are now being built to
helpachieve thesefunctions.AsnotedbyJacksonetal. (1998),
“building scaffolding into software offers the opportunity to
support diversity through individualized support that accom-
modates learners of different skills, backgrounds and learning
styles, andgrowth throughoptions thatprovidemorepowerful
functionality as the learner develops expertise” (p. 187).
Model-It, a tool based on learner-centered design (Soloway,
Guzdial, & Hay, 1994), helps students build computer models
of complex systems or phenomena by supporting them
through the process of model building. Model-It enables stu-
dents to build dynamic models by providing them with three
modes: plan, build, and test in which they define objects, vari-
ables, and the relations between them. Three types of scaffold-
ing are built into Model-It—supportive scaffolding, reflective
scaffolding, and intrinsic scaffolding. Supportive scaffolding
refers to specific help that the students are provided in the form
of examples, what to do next hints, and so forth, to help com-
pletea task. InModel-It, fadingofsupportivescaffolding isac-
complished by a simple mechanism—a “stop reminding me”
button that thestudentcanchoosewhenheorshedoesnotneed
the hints. Therefore, fading is not automatic but has to be ex-
plicitly initiated by the student. However, the prompting
mechanism is reactivated if the learner continues to neglect an
activity after stopping the reminders. The coaching and mod-
elingfunctionsaredescribedas“passivescaffolds” in that they
are activated by help buttons, so that a student can ask for
contextualizedhelporask foranexample.Reflectivescaffold-
ing promotes reflection on the task by providing prompts in a
notepad window where students can input text. In a series of
studies, Jackson, Krajcik, and Soloway (2000) found that high
school students could successfully build models using the
tool; they also turned off the supportive features and used more
advancedfeaturesof thesoftwareas theydevelopedexpertise.
In more recent work on Model-It, Fretz, Wu, Zhang,
Krajcik, and Soloway (2002a, 2002b) discussed three types of
scaffolds in Model-It—“the process map scaffold,” which
providesstructure for theprocessbydecomposing the task; the
“articulation textbox,”whichprovidessupport forarticulating
explanations; and the “dynamic testing scaffold,” which sup-
ports students by providing multiple representations that are
manipulable. Fretz et al. (2002a, 2002b) found that the support
in Model-It helped students with the plan–test–build process
in building a model. They also found that the process map
helped learners with the modeling task, and the articulation
text box helped facilitate discussions in student pairs.
Peer support. To provide more interactivity and
“on-demand” guidance, the notion of peer support has also
been explored in some current learning environments.
Brown et al. (1993) emphasized the multidimensional na-
ture of the interactions in a classroom where students
of all ages and levels of expertise and interests seed the envi-
ronment with ideas and knowledge that are appropriated by
different learners at different rates, according to their needs
6 PUNTAMBEKAR AND HÜBSCHER

and to the current states of the zones of proximal develop-
ment in which they are engaged, (p. 193)
To support the occurrence of discourse among students in a
classroom, several computer-based discussion tools are now
being used. Tools such as CSILE (Scardamalia & Bereiter,
1994), WebSMILE (Guzdial et al., 1997), and Speakeasy
(Hoadley & Linn, 2000) provide opportunities for asynchron-
ous discussions. These tools have been found to help students
delve deeper into important scientific issues (Scardamalia &
Bereiter, 1994), to provide more scientific justifications for
their designs (Puntambekar et al., 1997), and to generate con-
ceptually richer elaborations (Hsi & Hoadley, 1997). As stu-
dents engage in dialogue and negotiation in a knowl-
edge-building discourse (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994), the
more knowledgeable peers contribute by raising important is-
sues, pointing to resources, and by providing clarifications.
Lessknowledgeablemembersplayan important rolebybring-
ing up questions and asking for clarifications.
Tools That Scaffold Learning: What Have We
Gained and What Have We Missed?
Software tools that provide procedural support are an impor-
tant first step in designing scaffolding. They address the im-
portant pedagogical issue of helping students in a complex
task by constraining the task itself, providing a structure for
organizing arguments and scientific explanations, or by mak-
ing the scientific process more transparent. Further, they also
provide assistance to the teacher in the classroom who cannot
work with all the groups at all times. When a tool provides
structure for a task, students can work with the tool and move
forward in the inquiry process leaving the teacher free to
work with students who might need more help. However, the
description of scaffolding in the tools discussed signals a
change in the way the scaffolding construct has been used in
recent years.
Table 1 summarizes the change in the notion of scaffold-
ing, from the traditional use of the construct to the more re-
cent use of the term. The change reflects the fact that the sup-
port in tools is specifically designed for helping students in
the complex environment of the classroom; therefore, tools,
resources, and curricula embody multiple modes of support
with varied affordances for each. As described in the table,
this change has occurred in the key elements of scaffolding
(i.e., establishing a shared goal, the nature and expertise of
the scaffolder, ongoing diagnosis, and fading).
One of the major changes is in the way of establishing a
shared understanding of a common goal in which students in a
classroom as well as the teacher work together on smaller, less
complex units built into the curriculum. Resources such as the
launcher unit and the staging activities are excellent examples
of achieving shared understanding in a classroom and demon-
strate how this feature can be adapted in a situation that is dif-
ferent from one-on-one teaching. Not only do these resources
providemotivation,but theyalsohelpstudents learn theneces-
sary skills in the context of less complex tasks.
Changes have also occurred in the role of the scaffolder.
Instead of a single, knowledgeable person providing support,
we now have tools and resources, peers, or the learning envi-
ronment itself providing support to students. In recent years,
there has been a definite advancement in designing the types
and techniques of providing support in a complex learning
environment, especially with the help of technology tools.
Although there might have been limitations to the types and
amounts of scaffolding that a single individual can provide to
a whole class of students, recent approaches have been in-
strumental in broadening the scope by designing multiple
modes by which support can be provided. From the multiple
types of hints in the KIE environment to the conceptual and
epistemic supports in ExplanationConstructor, from the visu-
alizations in WorldWatcher to visual aids for modeling in
Model-It, there is a rich array of sophisticated forms of sup-
port to help students in a classroom engage productively in
complex tasks.
However, the support for the scientific process provided in
the tools discussed earlier focuses on providing “blanket sup-
port” (i.e., the amount and type of support is constant for ev-
SCAFFOLDING IN A COMPLEX ENVIRONMENT 7
TABLE 1
Evolution of the Notion of Scaffolding
Feature of Scaffolding Original Notion of Scaffolding Evolved (Current) Notion of Scaffolding
Shared understanding  Adult or expert establishes shared understanding of
common goal and provides motivation
 Authentic task often embedded in the environment;
provides a shared understanding
Scaffolder  Single, more knowledgeable person provides support to
complete the task
 Assistance is provided; tools and resources
 Multimodal assistance provided by a single individual  Distributed expertise—Support is not necessarily provided
by the more knowledgeable person, but by peers as well
Ongoing diagnosis and
calibrated support
 Dynamic scaffolding based on an ongoing assessment of
the learner (individual)
 Passive support—Ongoing diagnosis by peers and or
software is not necessarily undertaken
 Adaptive scaffolding—Support is calibrated and sensitive
to the changing needs of the learner
 Blanket “scaffolding”—Support (especially in tools) is the
same for all students
Fading  Eventual fading of scaffolding as students become capable
of independent activity
 In most cases, support is permanent and unchanging

eryone and is not sensitive to the changing level of under-
standing in learners). Merely providing students with a visual
interface or structure for a process cannot be described as
scaffolding unless the hints and prompts are contingent on an
ongoing diagnosis of student learning.
One of the most essential aspects of cognitive growth
through scaffolding is that the more competent individual (the
tutor) adapts to the evolving knowledge and skills of the less
competent individual (the tutee). This results in interactions
that are different in “content and form from individual to indi-
vidual” (Hogan & Tudge, 1999, p. XX). As Wood et al. (1976)
described, scaffolded interactions are comprised of a theory of
the taskanda theoryof the tutee.The toolsdiscussedearlierare
no doubt based on theories of the task, albeit fairly
course-grained theories that address the difficulties that stu-
dents have in scientific inquiry. Although this is by no means
trivial, we would like to emphasize that a critical element of
providingscaffolding is that tutorial interactionsaregenerated
by an interaction of the theory of the task and the theory of the
tutee, creating support that is relevant to a particular tutee at a
particular time; support is therefore contingent on an ongoing
diagnosis of the learner. Tools that are permanent and un-
changing, in which the theory of the tutee is not updated based
on the interactions, lack two all-important aspects of scaffold-
ing: ongoing diagnosis and calibrated support.
Having peers work with and support one another does
not adequately address the issue of providing support based
on students’ ongoing understanding either. Although group
work and electronic discussion tools provide opportunities
for peer interactions, students working with one another do
not necessarily think about “intentionally” attuning their
support to the changing level of understanding of their part-
ners or other members of the group. One of the most impor-
tant characteristics of scaffolding is its bidirectional,
dialogic nature. Although dialogue is a critical part of peer
interactions, the dialogue may not be focused on adjusting
the support that one student might provide to another.
Rogoff (1990) pointed out some interesting shortcomings
in the sensitivity and effectiveness of the scaffolding pro-
vided by peers as opposed to adults. She maintained that
peer interactions may encourage exploration, performance,
and can provide motivation; in a classroom environment,
peers can be critical of each other and force each other to
think. Expert–novice interactions, on the other hand, are
marked by an assessment of the partner’s level of compe-
tence so that support can be tailored to specific needs,
which is not possible in peer interactions.
Tudge (1990, 2000), who studied the effect of competence
and confidence in peer interactions, found that less compe-
tent peers who received feedback from materials improved
more than those who did not. Tudge (2000) found that peer
interactions could actually deteriorate if a partner was com-
petent but less confident. In their studies with Model-It, Fretz
et al. (2002a, 2002b) also found that peer support was too low
level and hence not very helpful. Therefore,
There is no guarantee that the meaning that is created when
two peers interact will be at a higher level, even if one child is
more competent than another and is providing information
within the less competent peer’s zone of proximal develop-
ment. Rather than casually assuming the cognitive benefits of
pairing a child with a more competent peer, we should pay
more attention to the processes of interaction themselves.
(Tudge, 1990, p. 169)
Even if peers are learning together, co-construction of a zone
of proximal development might be difficult when a more ad-
vanced peer is interacting with a less advanced partner be-
cause, “even if a peer knows what the less advanced child
needs, he or she may have difficulty adjusting to an appropri-
ate level and adjusting as the child improves over time” (Ho-
gan & Tudge, 1999, p. 57).
The final issue is that of fading the support as the learner
becomes capable of independent learning. Tools that provide
static support, or passive scaffolds, contradict the essence of
the scaffolding construct by overlooking the change from
“other” to self-regulation. Relying on students to get the help
they need, or providing passive supports that fade because
students stop using them, do not give an indication of
whether students have internalized the skills. Studies on
metacognition and self-regulation have shown that not all
students are capable of monitoring and regulating their learn-
ing and seeking help when they need it (Hadwin & Winne,
2001). Students, especially novices, might neglect the help
that is given or may not be able to judge when they need help
(Aleven & Koedinger, 2000). Studies by Land and
Zembal-Saul (2001) found that making thinking visible or
the process explicit does not necessarily mean that students
use the support meaningfully. In a classroom study using
Progress Portfolio, Land and Zembal-Saul, found that suc-
cessful learning with the software was contingent on the
background knowledge of the learners as well as students’
ability to monitor their understanding. Good scaffolding im-
plies that a learner is provided with support that can enable
him or her to function independently. The best scaffolding
can be faded because it will eventually lead the learner to in-
ternalize the processes he or she is being helped to accom-
plish (Rogoff, 1990). Therefore, it is important to understand
how students are using the tools and whether they are actu-
ally able to work independently when the tool is removed.
Tosummarize, thereare twomainfacets to thechange in the
scaffolding construct. First, there has been enrichment in the
techniques of providing support; and second, in current imple-
mentations there is a lack of emphasis on the process. Al-
though there have been important developments in designing
tools, the key features of the process of scaffolding (viz., ongo-
ing diagnosis, calibration, of support, and fading) are missing
in the current implementation of the scaffolding construct.
At its core, the scaffolding construct is indicative of a pro-
cess whereby a learner is supported in various ways so that he
or she can function independently when the support is re-
8 PUNTAMBEKAR AND HÜBSCHER

moved. Although the tools developed to provide support
have enriched our understanding of the types of support that
should be provided to students learning complex domains,
there is a lack of attention to the process of scaffolding. Stone
(1998b) described the following:
In enriching our understanding of scaffolding, it is important
that we keep in mind two interrelated points. First, the term
scaffolding serves both as a noun and a verb (Oxford English
Dictionary, 1989). There are entities that serve as scaffolds,
such as diagrams, and these entities serve an important role in
instruction. However, what is most crucial is the process by
which these entities are used to foster new understandings. In
essence, one could argue that the core of the scaffolding met-
aphor rests squarely on viewing it as a process. (p. 412)
MOVING FORWARD WITH DESIGNING
SCAFFOLDING IN A COMPLEX
ENVIRONMENT
Educational researchers are now increasingly recognizing
the need for developing contextualized theories of learning
and teaching that can lead to “usable knowledge”
(Lagemann, 2002). The contexts of a modern classroom are
considerably different from the one-on-one situations in
which scaffolding has been originally provided. To develop
an enriched notion of the scaffolding construct that is rele-
vant to the classroom context inevitably requires changing it
to fit the current needs; however, it is important that we do not
overlook the essential features and the theoretical roots of the
construct. We call for a principled approach to the design and
analysis of the learning supported by the tools in the class-
room context to develop a contextualized theory of the scaf-
folding construct.
We discuss three suggestions to move toward building and
understanding scaffolding in a classroom environment. Our
first suggestion is to take into consideration the multiple
ZPDs in a classroom when designing tools. Second, we dis-
cuss building fading into the whole environment (rather than
each tool) so that the tools themselves might be removed
when students do not need them anymore. Third is the or-
chestration of the classroom environment so that all tools and
agents play a role in supporting student learning.
The scaffolding construct is embedded in the Vygotskian
notion of the ZPD. In the complex environment of the class-
room, there are multiple ZPDs that teachers and researchers
have to take into consideration while building scaffolding.
Once again, going back to Wood et al.’s (1976) original de-
scription of a theory of the task and a theory of the tutee as
crucial to building effective scaffolding, we need theories of
multiple tutees to build scaffolding for a classroom commu-
nity. Studies that help understand the multiple ZPDs in a
classroom will enable the design of a suite of tools based on
the ways in which students of different levels of understand-
ing learn. The tools described in the previous section are
based on an understanding of the kinds of difficulties that stu-
dents have during scientific inquiry. However, to move for-
ward, it is important to understand how students who are at
varying levels of understanding learn with the help of such
tools. Reiser et al. (2001) pointed out that in studies with
ExplanationConstructor, “not all students can construct
well-grounded explanations” (p. 296). Land and
Zembal-Saul (2001) found that one of the conditions that af-
fected learning when students used the computer-based
prompts in Progress Portfolio was that the inadequacy of stu-
dent explanations could go unnoticed unless the teacher
worked with them. Studies that examine how students are ac-
tually using the tools, and the kinds of learning that the tool
promotes in students who are at varying levels of understand-
ing, are important so that support that takes into account the
multiple ZPDs in a classroom can be built. Because many of
the tools discussed have different kinds of support, it is also
crucial that we design studies to understand the role of the
various kinds of support, and whether all students need all the
kinds of support. If tools are built so that students themselves
fade the support when they do not need it, it is important to
understand how students are using this feature. Design stud-
ies (DBRC, 2003) that collect data and record changes over
time are important to iteratively design scaffolding that
works in a classroom. Similarly, Hadwin and Winne (2001)
pointed out that it is important to collect data over time so
that the development of students’ ability to regulate their
learning can be examined across different contexts.
The central concept of scaffolding is that the support is
faded when the learner has internalized the knowledge and
skills. Building software tools that eventually fade the sup-
port, and building the kind of adaptivity that is seen in intelli-
gent tutoring systems, is difficult and time consuming. In a
classroom where many tools are being used to support learn-
ing, the tools themselves may be removed as students show
evidence of internalization. According to Rogoff (1999), one
way to provide scaffolding is to make the messages suffi-
ciently redundant so that if a child does not understand one
aspect of the communication, other forms are available to
make the meaning clear. When scaffolding is provided in
multiple formats, there are more chances for students to no-
tice and take advantages of the environment’s affordances. In
her studies of weavers in Mexico, Greenfield (1999) also em-
phasized the importance of the multimodal assistance that
mothers provided to their daughters who were learning to
weave. In a classroom, it is not possible for one person to pro-
vide support for the multiple students learning at different
rates within their ZPDs. Building redundancy by designing
multiple tools can therefore make up for the lack of gradu-
ated assistance in a single tool, if multiple ways and multiple
levels of scaffolding are tailored to the multiple ZPDs that are
found in any classroom. Rather than looking at a single tool
as providing scaffolding, we need to look at a suite of tools as
providing scaffolding to students. Therefore, even if a partic-
SCAFFOLDING IN A COMPLEX ENVIRONMENT 9

ular tool does not change or fade its prompts, the students
may no longer need the tool; thereby, the tool itself may be
removed. If different types of scaffolds are built based on the
multiple ZPDs that are found in a classroom, then as students
make progress, some of the tools may be removed; thereby
achieving fading. Although, to build fading, we need to un-
derstand whether students are able to function independently
and whether the processes that were supported by tools have
become part of their repertoire, available for future learning.
The biggest challenge that we face, therefore, is the orches-
tration of the tools and activities so that the affordances of each
are taken advantage of. In a complex classroom environment,
it can be difficult to align all the affordances in such a way that
students can recognize and take advantage of the many
affordances. Therefore, effective scaffolding needs to be dis-
tributed, integrated, and multiplied so that students have more
chances to notice and take advantage of the environment’s and
activity’s affordances. This requires a careful engineering of
the whole environment and the multiple agents therein: teach-
ers, tools, resources, peers, and the curriculum.
To orchestrate all the activities and integrate the tools, the
teacher plays the most important role. Brown and Campione
(1994) and Brown et al. (1993) discussed the role of the
teacher in a classroom that is functioning as a community of
learners and is engaged in “guided discovery” as consisting
of a delicate balance between guidance and discovery, where
the teacher has to constantly make judgments about when to
intervene:
The successful teacher must continually engage in on-line
diagnosis of student understanding. She must be sensitive
to current overlapping zones of proximal development,
where certain students are ripe for new learning. She must
renegotiate zones of proximal development so that still
other students might be ready for conceptual growth.
(Brown et al., 1993, p. 207)
CONCLUSION
In this article, we have discussed how the notion of scaffold-
ing has changed as we have moved into scaffolding class-
room communities. As Palincsar (1998) pointed out, scaf-
folding is a very accessible metaphor because it is flexible
and it captures multiple dimensions of teaching and learning,
and hence stands the danger of being treated “lightly.” We
have discussed the main tenets of the original notion of scaf-
folding and have examined how the notion has been applied
to the design of tools in the last 2 decades. Although we now
have a better understanding of ways to build support into
tools and resources, we seem to have missed some of the key
elements of scaffolding such as ongoing diagnosis,
adaptivity, and fading. We have discussed some ways in
which these features can be built into scaffolding in a class-
room environment. As we design more tools and resources to
scaffold students in a classroom, we need to further under-
stand what works and what does not work in a classroom. In
particular, we need to conduct longitudinal studies to answer
questions such as: What are the tools that work best in a
classroom? How can we design scaffolds that are based on
multiple ZPDs found in a classroom, and how can we fade
the scaffolds? Are there strategies (or aspects of the domain)
that are best scaffolded by a teacher rather than by a tool?
What are the best ways to scaffold domain knowledge? What
are the mechanisms by which we can assess that transfer of
responsibility has occurred? We need to better understand the
learning that is taking place during peer conversations, and
during whole-class discussions, to be able to integrate all
these activities in a seamless manner. Each of these issues is
complex. Building tools that scaffold student learning in a
classroom, so that the key theoretical features are not over-
looked, is indeed a nontrivial task; and more research is re-
quired for an understanding of scaffolding that works in a
classroom. Tools such as the ones described in this article are
a first step toward designing scaffolding. More research is re-
quired so that the support that is static and nonadaptive can be
changed to what can truly be described as scaffolding.
REFERENCES
Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2000). Limitations of student control: Do
students know when they need help? In G. Gauthier, C. Frasson, & K.
VanLehn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on In-
telligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 292–303). Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (1983). Instructional scaffolding: Reading
and writing as natural language activities. Language Arts, 60(2),
168–175.
Bell, P., & Davis, E. A. (1996, XXMonthXX). Designing an activity in the
Knowledge Integration Environment. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA),
New York.
Bell, P., & Davis, E. A. (2000). Designing Mildred: Scaffolding students’ re-
flection and argumentation using a cognitive software guide. In S.
O’Connor-Divelbiss (Ed.), Proceedings of the 4th International Confer-
ence of the Learning Sciences (pp. 142–149). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Brown, A. L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakaguwa, K., Gordon, A., &
Campione, J. C. (1993). Distributed expertise in the classroom. In G.
Saloman (Ed.), Distributed cognition: Psychological and educational
considerations (pp. 188–228). Cambridge, XXSTXX: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community
of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive
theory and classroom practice (pp. 229–272). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press/Bradford Books.
Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1985). Reciprocal teaching of comprehen-
sion strategies: A natural history of one program for enhancing learning.
In J. G. Borkowski (Ed.), Intelligence and exceptionality: New directions
for theory, assessment, and instructional practice (pp. 81–132).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Bruner, J. S. (1975). From communication to language: A psychological
perspective. Cognition, 3, 255–287.
Bruner, J. S. (1985). Vygotsky: A historical and conceptual perspective. In J.
V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian
10 PUNTAMBEKAR AND HÜBSCHER

perspectives (pp. 21–34). Cambridge, XXStXX: Cambridge University
Press.
Cazden, C. (1979). Peekaboo as an instructional model: Discourse develop-
ment at home and at school. Stanford Papers and Reports in Child Lan-
guage Development, 17, 1–19.
Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for produc-
tive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. The Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 12, 91–142.
Design-based research collective. (2003). Design-based research: An
emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32,
4–8.
Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of
technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 38, 355–385.
Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the chal-
lenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum de-
sign. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 391–450.
Fretz, E. B., Wu, H.-K., Zhang, B., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2002a,
XXmonthXX). A further investigation of scaffolding design and use in a
dynamic modeling tool. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association (AERA), New Orleans.
Fretz, E. B., Wu, H.-K., Zhang, B., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2002b). An
investigation of software scaffolds supporting modeling practices. Re-
search in Science Education, 32, 567–589.
Greenfield, P. M. (1999). Historical change and cognitive change: A two-de-
cade follow-up study in Zinacantan, a Maya community in Chiapas, Mex-
ico. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6, 92–98.
Guzdial, M., Hübscher, R., Nagel, K., Newstetter, W., Puntambekar, S.,
Shabo, A., et al. (1997). Integrating and guiding collaboration: Lessons
learned in computer-supported collaborative learning research at Georgia
Tech. In N. Enyedy (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Confer-
ence on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (pp. 91–100). To-
ronto: XXpublisherXX.
Hadwin, A. F., & Winne, P. H. (2001). CoNoteS: A software tool for promot-
ing self-regulated learning in networked collaborative learning environ-
ments [Special issue]. Evaluation Research in Education, 7, 313–334.
Hoadley, C. M., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Teaching science through online,
peer discussions: SpeakEasy in the Knowledge Integration Environment.
International Journal of Science Education, 22, 839–857.
Hogan, D. M., & Tudge, J. (1999). Implications of Vygotsky’s theory for
peer learning. In A. M. O’ Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspec-
tives on peer learning (pp. 39–65). Mahwah: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum As-
sociates, Inc.
Holbrook, J., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Scaffolding the development of an
inquiry-based (science) classroom. In S. O’Connor-Divelbiss (Ed.), Pro-
ceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences
(pp. 221–227): Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Hsi, S., & Hoadley, C. M. (1997). Productive discussion in science: Gender
equity through electronic discourse. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 6(1), 23–36.
Jackson, S., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). The design of guided
learner-adaptable scaffolding in interactive learning environments. In
Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
(pp. 187–194). Los Angeles, CA: ACM.
Jackson, S., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2000). Model-It: A design retrospec-
tive. In M. Jacobson & R. Kozma (Eds.), Advanced designs for the tech-
nologies of learning: Innovations in science and mathematics education
(pp.77–115). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Kolodner, J. L. (1997). Educational implications of analogy: A view from
case-based reasoning. American Psychologist, 52, 57–66.
Kolodner, J. L., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., &
Puntambekar, S. (2003). Putting a student-centered Learning by Design™
curriculum into practice: Lessons learned. The Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 12, 485–547.
Lagemann, E. C. (2002). Useable knowledge in education: A memorandum
for the Spencer Foundation Board of Directors (Memorandum). Chicago,
IL: Spencer Foundation. Retrieved XXMonth day, year,XX from
http://www.spencer.org/publications/useable_knowledge_re-
port_ecl_a.htm
Land, S. M., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2001, XXmonthXX). Scaffolding reflec-
tion and revision of explanations during project-based learning: An inves-
tigation of Progress Portfolio. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Seattle, WA.
Langer, J. A., & Applebee, A. N. (1986). Reading and writing instruction:
Toward a theory of teaching and learning. In E. Z. Rothkopf (Ed.), Review
of research in education (Vol. 13, pp. 171–194). Washington, DC: Ameri-
can Educational Research Association.
Lepper, M. R., Drake, M. F., & O’Donnell-Johnson, T. (1997). Scaffolding
techniques of expert human tutors. In K. Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.),
Scaffolding student learning: Instructional issues and approaches (pp.
108–144). Cambridge, MA: Brookline.
Linn, M. C. (1995). Designing computer learning environments for engi-
neering and computer science: The Scaffolded Knowledge Integration
framework. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4, 103–126.
Linn, M. C. (1998, XXmonthXX). Using assessment to improve learning
outcomes: Experiences from the Knowledge Integration Environment
(KIE) and the Computer as Learning Partner (CLP). Paper presented at
the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association
(AERA), San Diego, CA.
Linn, M. C., Songer, N. B., & Eylon, B. (1996). Shifts and convergences in
science learning and instruction: Alternative views. In D. Berliner (Ed.),
Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 438–490). Riverside, NJ:
Macmillan.
Loh, B., Radinsky, J., Russell, E., Gomez, L. M., Reiser, B. J., & Edelson, D.
C. (1998). The Progress Portfolio: Designing reflective tools for a class-
room context. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (pp. 627–634). Los Angeles, CA: ACM.
Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone. Cam-
bridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Keeping the metaphor of scaffolding fresh—A re-
sponse to C. Addison Stone’s “The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for
the field of learning disabilities.” Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31,
370–373.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehen-
sion-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and
Instruction, 1, 117–175.
Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2002). Distributed scaffolding: Helping
students learn science by design. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Puntambekar, S., Nagel, K., Hübscher, R., Guzdial, M., & Kolodner, J. L.
(1997). Intragroup and intergroup: An exploration of learning with com-
plementary collaboration tools. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computer
Support for Collaborative Learning (pp. 207–215). Toronto:
XXpublisherXX.
Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Golan, R., Kyza, E. A.,
et al. (2002). Evolving a scaffolding design framework for designing edu-
cational software. In P. Bell, R. Stevens, & T. Satwicz (Eds.), Keeping
learning complex: The Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference
of the Learning Sciences (pp. 359–366). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Reid, D. K. (1998). Scaffolding: A broader view. Journal of Learning Dis-
abilities, 31, 386–396.
Reiser, B. J. (2002). Why scaffolding should sometimes make tasks more
difficult for learners. In T. D. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.),
Carrying forward the conversation: Proceedings of the International
Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (pp.
255–264). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B., Steinmuller, F., & Leone,
A. J. (2001). BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific in-
quiry in biology classrooms. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition
and Instruction: Twenty five years of progress (pp. xxx–xxx). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
SCAFFOLDING IN A COMPLEX ENVIRONMENT 11

Roehler, L. R., & Cantlon, D. J. (1997). Scaffolding: A powerful tool in so-
cial constructivist classrooms. In K. Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaf-
folding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues (pp. 6–42).
Cambridge, MA: Brookline.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in
sociocultural activity. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rogoff, B. (1999). Thinking and learning in a social context. In J. Lave
(Ed.), Everyday cognition: Development in social context (pp. 1–8). Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ sci-
entific explanations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 5–52.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge
building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3,
265–283.
Schwartz, D. L., Lin, X. D., Brophy, S., & Bransford, J. (1999). Toward the
development of flexibly adaptive instructional designs. In C. M.
Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models (Vol. 2, pp.
xxx–xxx). Mahwah: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Soloway, E., Guzdial, M., & Hay, K. E. (1994). Learner-Centered De-
sign: The challenge for HCI in the 21st Century. Interactions, 1(2),
36–48.
Stone, C. A. (1998a). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of
learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 344–364.
Stone, C. A. (1998b). Should we salvage the scaffolding metaphor? Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 31, 409–413.
Tabak, I., & Reiser, B. (1997). Complementary roles of software-based scaf-
folding and teacher–student interactions in inquiry learning. In R. Hall, N.
Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Con-
ference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (pp. 289–298).
Toronto: XXpublisherXX.
Tudge, J. (1990, April 16–20). Collaborative problem solving in the zone of
proximal development. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the
American Educational Research Association (AERA), Boston, MA.
Tudge, J. (2000). Theory, method, and analysis in research on the relations
between peer collaboration and cognitive development. Journal of Exper-
imental Education, 69(1), 98–112.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psycho-
logical processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition:
Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16,
3–118.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem
solving. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines,
17(2), 89–100.
12 PUNTAMBEKAR AND HÜBSCHER