Computers & Education 56 (2011) 403–417

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu

Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments

(TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice
Minchi C. Kim a, *, Michael J. Hannafin b,1
a
Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Purdue University, Beering Hall Room 4108, 100 N. University St., West Lafayette, IN 47907-2098, USA
b
Department of Educational Psychology and Instructional Technology, Learning and Performance Support Laboratory, University of Georgia, 611 Aderhold Hall, Athens,
GA 30602, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: With the expanding availability and capability of varied technologies, classroom-based problem solving
Received 9 March 2010 has become an increasingly attainable, yet still elusive, goal. Evidence of technology-enhanced problem-
Received in revised form solving teaching and learning in schools has been scarce, understanding how to support students’
30 August 2010
problem solving in classroom-based, technology-enhanced learning environments has been limited, and
Accepted 31 August 2010
coherent frameworks to guide implementation have been slow to emerge. Whereas researchers have
examined the use and impact of scaffolds in mathematics, science, and reading, comparatively little
Keywords:
research has focused on scaffolding learning in real-world, everyday classroom settings. Web-based
Scaffolding
Scaffolds systems have been developed to support problem solving, but implementations suggest variable
Technology-enhanced classrooms enactment and inconsistent impact. The purpose of this article is to identify critical issues in scaffolding
Problem solving students’ technology-enhanced problem solving in everyday classrooms. First, we examine two key
Scientific inquiry constructs (problem solving and scaffolding) and propose a framework that includes essential dimen-
Technology-enhanced learning sions to be considered when teachers scaffold student problem solving in technology-rich classes. We
environments (TELEs) then investigate issues related to peer-, teacher-, and technology-enhanced scaffolds, and conclude by
Technology integration examining implications for research.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Renewed interest in scaffolding has been evident in education research. Numerous journals have published special issues on scaffolding
[see, for example, Educational Psychologist 40(4), Instructional Science 33, Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(1)]. Tech-
nological advances, including cognitive technologies (Pea, 1985), technologies of the mind (Salomon, Perkins, & Globerson, 1991), and mind
tools (Jonassen, 1996), have afforded researchers unique opportunities to scaffold students’ critical thinking and problem solving. Lajoie’s
(2000) view of cognitive tools reifies the wide range of underlying mechanisms involved in human problem solving upon which diverse
cognitive tools are based: modelers, nonmodelers, and middle camp. Modelers suggest that cognitive tools themselves, such as intelligent
tutoring systems, can track and correct learners’ problem solving. Nonmodelers argue that cognitive tools can assist learners in monitoring
their problem solving when supported by peers and instructors. The “middle camp” perspective emphasizes both learners’ problem solving
processes and contextual factors, such as the situatedness of problem context and social interaction in classes (Lajoie, 2000).
While interest in improving problem-solving skills with technologies has been long-standing, progress has been slow. Evidence of
effective problem-solving teaching and learning using such technology tools in schools has been scarce. Some researchers (Hannafin & Land,
2000; Papert, 1987) argue that teachers hold traditional, didactic beliefs and use “old tricks” without substantial, sustainable support for
student-centered problem solving. Other researchers note that it is particularly challenging for teachers to promote student problem solving
due to competing curriculum and assessment pressures and limited time and resources to initiate and sustain the support needed to enact
student-centered, technology-rich teaching-learning practices (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001; Davis & Krajcik, 2005; Ertmer, 2005;

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 765 496 2190; fax: þ1 765 496 1622.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.C. Kim), hannafi[email protected] (M.J. Hannafin).
1
Tel.: þ1 706 542 3157; fax: þ1 706 542 4321.

0360-1315/$ – see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.024
404 M.C. Kim, M.J. Hannafin / Computers & Education 56 (2011) 403–417

Fishman & Krajcik, 2003; Zhao & Frank, 2003). Still others cite limited understanding of how to support technology-enhanced student
problem solving in everyday classrooms and the lack of a coherent framework to guide their design (Hannafin & Kim, 2003; Jonassen, 2000).
Despite a number of studies on scaffolding [see, for example, applications in mathematics (Schoenfeld, 1991), science (Hogan & Pressley,
1997), and reading and writing (Applebee & Langer, 1983; Palincsar, 1986), and studies on diverse scaffolding technologies (Azevedo &
Jacobson, 2008)], scaffolding has proven difficult to implement in complex, everyday classrooms. Technology has minimized some diffi-
culties by allowing students to individually access interactive materials and obtain just-in-time assistance, but few studies have investigated
teacher’s roles, student support, and classroom use of scaffolding technologies.
In science education, for instance, problem solving for inquiry in technology-rich science classes has proven especially popular (Krajcik &
Blumenfeld, 2006; Linn, 2006), yet evidence of implementation, effectiveness and system use suggests that teachers, students, and tech-
nology interact differently in controlled versus real-world, everyday school settings. In this article, we focus on problems and issues inherent
in scaffolding student problem solving with technologies in the classrooms. First, we examine two key constructs (problem solving and
scaffolding) and propose a framework emphasizing essential considerations when teachers scaffold student problem solving in technology-
rich classes. We then analyze research and practices related to peer-, teacher-, and technology-enhanced scaffolds for problem solving, and
examine implications for research.

2. Two key constructs of the framework: problem solving and scaffolding

Several frameworks have been proposed to guide research on student learning with technologies, such as scaffolding hypermedia to
foster self-regulated learning (Azevedo, 2005), software-based metacognitive scaffolding for online inquiry (Quintana, Zhang, & Krajcik,
2005), and epistemic scaffolds to guide technology-supported, explanation-driven inquiry (Sandoval & Reiser, 2004). Problem solving
involves situated, deliberate, learner-directed, and activity-oriented efforts to seek divergent solutions to authentic, personally meaningful
problems through multiple interactions amongst problem solvers, tools, and related resources. Scaffolding, in this context, is a process
through which more knowledgeable others (teachers, peers, or tools) provide cognitive and social supports designed to augment student
problem solving (Vygotsky, 1978; Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976).

2.1. Problem solving

2.1.1. Definitions
While problem solving has long been a goal in education, researchers and theorists have advanced markedly different conceptions and
methods of study. Gagné and Briggs (1974), for example, regarded problem solving as complex combinations of hierarchically-ordered
intellectual skills. Constructivists, such as Vygotsky (1978), conceived of the zone of proximal development as the gap between “actual
developmental level as determined by independent problem solving” and the level of “potential development as determined through
problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more able peers” (p. 86).
Numerous problem-solving phases and associated learning activities have been proposed, reflecting diverse theoretical orientations such
as information processing (Chase & Simon, 1973; Newell, Shaw, & Simon, 1958), cognitive science (Anderson, Boyle, & Reiser, 1985; Chi,
Feltovich, & Glaser, 1981; Paas & van Merriënboer, 1994) and constructivism (Mayer & Wittrock, 2006). In the following, we review
diverse approaches to problem solving in order to compare assumptions and identify where synthesis was feasible.
Polya (1957), a Hungarian mathematician who codified problem-solving processes, analyzed conversations between teachers and
students in mathematics classrooms. Polya proposed four problem-solving steps: understanding the problem, devising a plan, carrying out
the plan, and looking back at work. These activities, often combined with heuristics (e.g., analogy, generalization, induction, specialization,
etc.), outline the largely linear process Polya noted during students’ problem solving. Extending Polya’s approach, Bransford and Stein (1984)
developed a 5-stage problem-solving model that includes identifying problems and opportunities, defining goals, exploring possible
strategies, anticipating outcomes and acting, and looking back and learning. They found that individuals become effective and creative
problem solvers when they analyze their own strategies and apply alternative approaches to their problems. To varying extents, these stages
are integral to contemporary problem-solving models.
However, direct extrapolation from expert-to-novice problem solving has proven difficult. Significant variations have been observed
between novice and expert problem solvers. In the study of working memory among novice and expert chess players, de Groot (1966),
a Dutch researcher, found that experts were more capable than novices in reconfiguring chessboard positions (chunking relevant infor-
mationdchess pieces on the board). Chase and Simon (1973) expanded de Groot’s (1966) results by reporting that experts remembered
more configurations by combining and retrieving multiple patterns into meaningful and functional chunks (approximately 10,000 patterns).
Likewise, Chi et al. (1981) documented how expert physicists’ accumulated domain knowledge link problem representations to abstract
physics principles. Their studies indicate that domain knowledge accumulated through extensive practice help experts to internalize and
expedite problem solving and enable them to implicitly skip some problem-solving procedures.
By examining the relationship between cognitive load and instructional approaches, van Merriënboer, Clark, and de Croock
(2002) identified essential cognitive demands for complex learning that “always involved . achieving integrated sets of learning
goalsdmultiple performance objectives” (p. 40). Their approach emphasized multiple goals and activity-oriented objectives and
parallels many problem solving models. Their approach focuses on coordinating four interrelated components: (1) learning tasks and
problem solving contexts should include “concrete, authentic, whole-task experiences” (p. 43), (2) supportive information and
evidence for problem solution should bridge the gap between learners’ prior knowledge and the problem solving tasks, (3) just-in-
time information should contain procedural guides toward learners’ problem solving activities, and (4) part-task practice should
allow learners exercise automation practice in the complicated skills acquired from problem solving.
More recently, Mayer and Wittrock (2006) delineated four critical characteristics of problem solving: cognitive, process-centered,
directed, and personal. Centering on individual cognitive processes, they defined problem solving as “cognitive processing directed at
transforming a given situation into a goal situation when no obvious method of solution is available” (p. 287). They argued that problem
 M.C. Kim, M.J. Hannafin / Computers & Education 56 (2011) 403–417 405

solving requires students to internally represent externally-manifested problems (e.g., ill- or well-defined problems, routine or nonroutine
problems) through “planning/monitoring, executing, and self-regulating” (p. 289) cognitive activity.
Consistent with Mayer and Wittrock’s emphasis on exploration of multiple-solution paths during problem solving, Jonassen (2007)
identified ill-structured problems for which no single methods or answers exist, including story problems, rule-using and rule-induction
problems, decision-making problems, troubleshooting problems, policy problems, design problems, and dilemmas. Expanding Smith’s
(1961) categorization of factors that impact problem solving performance, Jonassen’s (2007) problem dimensions included internal
factors that address problem solvers’ individual characteristics (e.g., problem solvers’ prior experience, domain knowledge, reasoning skills,
and epistemological beliefs) and external factors that reflect how problems are formed and represented (e.g., complexity, structuredness,
dynamicity) and situated (e.g., cultural expectations).

2.1.2. Problem-solving activities

By investigating principles and practices across problem-solving approaches, it is evident that no single, general problem-solving
procedure will be applicable for all types of problems and problem-solving contexts. Yet, it is difficult to conceptualize problem-solving
activities appropriate for young students that are neither situated in a specific context nor influenced by domain-specific learning tasks. To
address these concerns, we define problem solving as situated, deliberate, learner-directed, activity-oriented efforts to seek divergent
solutions to authentic problems through multiple interactions amongst problem solver, tools, and other resources. We distilled five
problem-solving activities: problem identification and engagement, evidence exploration, explanation reconstruction, communication and
justification of explanation, and revision and reflection of explanation (Kim & Hannafin, 2010; Fig. 1). To illustrate, we situate student
problem solving inquiry in science education based on the National Science Education Standards adopted in the United States (National
Research Council, 1996).
The following example illustrates how the five problem-solving activities are employed by interdisciplinary teams of physicians, health
scientists, biologists, and policy makers. Physicians recently reported an increased number of patients who describe similar symptoms such
as shortness in breath, wheezing and chest pain. Based on this observation, collaborating scientists and public health practitioners identified
the recent urbanization of the town as a possible cause. Local environmental engineers reported a recent increase in the airborne
concentration of ambient particulate matter. In addition, previous epidemiology studies in other cities indicated that increased ambient
particulate matter was associated with increased hospital visits related to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Based on these obser-
vations and findings, scientists hypothesized that air pollutant contributed to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases and decided to explore
this problem further.
Based on experimental protocols, researchers performed intratracheal instillation of particulate matters at high concentration on mice
and observed severe lung inflammation, heart rate anomalies, and atherosclerotic plaque formation. They generated evidence to support
their hypothesis and explained how ambient particulate matters can cause cardiopulmonary diseases. Next, a team of researchers from
health science, biology, medicine, and government discussed whether their experiments sufficiently proved their hypothesis through lab
meetings and conferences and identified other possibilities and different perspectives. They concluded tentatively that the concentration of
particulate matters, route of exposure, differences in the responsiveness between human and mouse do not adequately approximate the real
situation and modified their experimental design accordingly. They introduced a reduced concentration of particulate matters through
inhalation, not intratreacheal instillation, and ultimately planned to conduct the study on healthy humans with an ambient level of
particulate matters.

Fig. 1. Framework for Problem-solving Inquiry in Technology-enhanced Classrooms (Kim & Hannafin, 2010).
406 M.C. Kim, M.J. Hannafin / Computers & Education 56 (2011) 403–417

Scientific classroom problem solving mirrors the process in the field. Problem identification embodies student activities, such as making
observations of natural phenomena by reading and utilizing visualizations in technology-enhanced classrooms. The learning context where
a real-world problem can be found serves to help students to:

- Recognize (the five) situations when they occur in simple or complex problems,
- Understand the relationships expressed in story problems,
- Connect the stories in the problems to his or her own knowledge,
- Use situational knowledge to identify the essential parts of any story, specifying correctly those that are known or unknown,
- Formulate a reasonable strategy for solving the problem,
- Use his or her understanding of the situation to select appropriate (arithmetic) operations (Marshall, 1995, p. 129).

During problem identification and engagement, students find or generate problems that they plan to investigate further. In some classes,
students can select a meaningful problem or project from among alternatives. For instance, in WISE, students read a news article on
increased population of deformed frogs (Linn, Clark, & Slotta, 2003) with extra legs and identify associated problems and possible causes
(chemical pollution, habitat destruction, or parasite). In order to identify associated problems, students record observations of the
phenomena and then infer possible causal relations based on prior knowledge and past experience on biology and environmental science.
During exploration, inquiry involves examining multiple resources, planning investigations, and utilizing tools in order to identify
candidate solutions. Problem solving involves both building mental representations and finding and executing paths to solve the problem
(Novick & Bassok, 2005). Students use a wide array of cognitive skills such as inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, modeling, heuristics,
analogical reasoning, spatial reasoning, decision-making. In the Kids as Global Scientists project, students assume the role of local weather
experts to solve climate problems by accessing pre-selected Web-based resources (Mistler-Jackson & Songer, 2000). In order to forecast local
weather at the conclusion of the project, students access real-time resources and data to address and solve problems related to clouds,
humidity, winds, precipitation, temperature, and pressure. They may build a model to project the weather, run a simulation with the given
data using their spatial thinking, and use heuristics and decision-making skills for possible warnings from the weather.
Explanation and reconstruction incorporates inquiry activities for proposing answers, explanations, and predictions about the problems
explored. While reconstructing the problems, students build and revise not only their external representations of knowledge (i.e., expla-
nations, answers, predictions, conclusions) but also internal mental representations of the knowledge. A mental representation of
knowledge, defined as “an internal description that can be manipulated to form other descriptions” (p. 2) in systematic ways (Holyoak &
Morrison, 2005). Students utilize the results from testing the model that explains the relations between key variables and revise or
justify the models. For instance, SCI-WISE ThinkerTools’ meta-context help students building mental representations by scaffolding students’
scientific investigations with six cycles: Question, Hypothesize, Investigate, Analyze, Model, and Evaluate. To design and perform experiments
and to collect data to test hypotheses, students reference models embedded in ThinkerTools. Next, students analyze data to find salient
patterns, generate models based on their analysis, and apply those models to novel problems to evaluate their models. During each inquiry
cycle, problem solving is scaffolded by embedded SCI-WISE technology-based advisors as well as by peers and teachers who provide
procedural and strategic support, such as how to question, hypothesize, investigate, plan, reason, and represent (White, Shimoda, &
Frederiksen, 2000).
Explanation presentation and communication are intertwined with collaborative problem solving activities, such as inquiring, sharing
ideas, and communicating results as students examine the entire cyclical process of scientific investigation and reasoning (e.g., Scientific
Discovery as Dual Search (SDDS), Klahr, 2000). The focus is on “the three major cognitive components of scientific discovery: searching for
hypotheses, searching for experiments (i.e., data or evidence from experiments or investigations more generally, and evidence evaluation”
(Zimmerman, 2007, p. 174)). In SCOPEdControversy in Space, introductory descriptions prompt students to solve problems as, and to
communicate with, practicing scientists. Inquiry tools support peer collaboration using bulletin boards and chat rooms as well as student-
expert collaboration. Students engage inquiry questions that guide investigations (e.g., discussions about scientific controversy), review
resources proposing competing conclusions and finding further evidence, and present informed positions on the controversy. Students
develop Notes, Journals, and other artifacts (such as PowerPoint Slides to develop a grant proposal) and share feedback with peers, teachers,
and scientists.
Finally, reflection and negotiation involve activities such as justifying, defending, and revising ideas and solutions. Collaborative problem
solving activities are enacted as a team of scientists seek alternative hypotheses to explain anomalies or unexpected findings, and consider
the applicability and impact of the findings to other organisms, theories, and domains. Argumentation is key as a an informal reasoning to
solve both well-structured and ill-structured problems (Hong, Jonassen, & McGee, 2003) by not only through supporting or refuting
a particular standpoint (van Eemeren, Grootendorst, & Henkemans, 2002, p. 38) but also through examining diverse perspectives to draw an
acceptable conclusion (Clark & Sampson, 2008; Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000) and correcting justifications (Cho & Jonassen, 2002; Kuhn,
1991). It is essential that their arguments (justifications, decisions, formulated ideas and beliefs) are linked with collected evidence (Belland,
Glazewski, & Richardson, 2008). In TELEs, WISE prompts students to record their notes electronically but scaffolds the request to clarify
appropriate documentation (e.g., describing new evidence, providing support for validity of evidence, documenting Web addresses). WISE
also provides hints for references to further scaffold reflection (e.g., “Do you know the source and author of the evidence?”, “Is the site
current and does the science seem valid?”, “Does the author use evidence to support the claims he/she makes?”). Students can also use
discussion boards and chat rooms to post solutions and receive feedback from peers and teachers.

2.2. Scaffolding problem solving

2.2.1. Scaffolding
Wood et al. (1976) coined the term and defined scaffolding as assistance from experts that enables children to achieve what is beyond
their ability to accomplish independently. Originally, Wood et al.’s (1976) conceptualization of scaffolding was consistent with Vygotsky’s
model of instruction and emphasizes the teacher’s role as a more knowledgeable learner to help learners to solve problem-oriented tasks
 M.C. Kim, M.J. Hannafin / Computers & Education 56 (2011) 403–417 407

Table 1
Technology-enhanced scaffolding in each inquiry-supported problem solving phase.

Problem-solving phases Scaffolding foci Scaffolding examples Representative features

 Identification &  Intentionality  Providing authentic, situated  Capturing stimulating issues in

engagement  Appropriateness of task/problems contexts science topics in WISE (e.g., Mystery
(Applebee & Langer, 1983)  Providing vivid descriptions of Deformed Frogs)
 Pre-engagement and visualizations  Presenting controversial issues in
 Establishment of a shared goal SCOPE (e.g., declining amphibians)
(Hogan & Pressley, 1997)
 Situation definition
 Intersubjectivity (Wertsch, 1984)
 Exploration  Structure  Taking over lower-order tasks  Calculation and typing features
 Questioning & problematizing (Reiser, 2004)  Providing adequate resource  Simulations, visualizations,
 Maintenance of learning goals and 3D models (e.g., Virtual Solar
(Hogan & Pressley, 1997) System, Model-It)
 “Filtered” resources from the WWW
 Reconstruction  Internalization  Helping students diagnose their  Different types of “advisors” in
 “Tailored” assistance (Hogan & Pressley, 1997) misconceptions SCI-WISE
 Assistance of internalization, independence,  Providing procedural assistance  Text-based questions in
and generalization to other contexts to organize learning processes Progress Portfolio
(Hogan & Pressley, 1997) and resources  Classified “Activities” in WISE
 Presentation &  Collaboration & discussion (Jermann &  Providing multiple perspectives  Knowledge Forum, CSILE
Communication Dillenbourg, 2008; Schrire, 2006)  Providing communication tools  Bulletin board, chat rooms
 Feedback  Synchronous & asynchronous
 Control of frustration and risk group discussion
(Hogan & Pressley, 1997)
 Semiotic mediation (Wertsch, 1984)
 Reflection &  Active diagnosis (Hogan & Pressley, 1997)  Promoting lifelong learning  Online knowledge communities
Negotiation  Engagement in ongoing assessment  Providing metacognitive (CSILE, SCOPE, MediaMOO)
(Kao & Lehman, 1997) assistance  Online Journals and Notes (WISE)

within their zones of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978). Scaffolding support that is provided initially is gradually decreased as learners
become more capable:
More often than not, it (the intervention of a tutor) involves a kind of “scaffolding” process that enables a child or novice to solve
a problem, carry out a task or achieve a goal that would be beyond his unassisted efforts. This scaffolding consists essentially of the adult
“controlling” those elements of the task that are initially beyond the learner’s capacity, thus permitting him to concentrate upon and
complete only those elements that are within his range of competence (p. 90).
Based on their analyses of interactions between tutors and children aged 3 to 5 who constructed a three dimensional pyramid using 21
wood blocks, Wood et al. (1976) discussed six essential functions of scaffolding: (1) recruitment of problem solvers’ interest in the task, (2)
reduction in degrees of freedom (e.g., reducing subsequent tasks), (3) direction maintenance (e.g., motivating and challenging problem
solvers), (4) marking critical features (e.g., explaining a conflict between problem solvers’ acts and correcting problem solving paths), (5)
frustration control (e.g., helping problem solvers pursue the goal without excessive reliance on tutors), and (6) demonstration (e.g.,
modeling the problem solving process based on the performance and state of problem solvers). As evident in the metaphor, scaffolding
functions and extensiveness are determined by the state of the problem solvers’ understanding. Dynamic, embedded assessments are faded
as problem solvers become increasingly proficient. Scaffolding interactions have been examined between tutor and child (Stone, 1993) and
between parent and child in the child’s Zone of Proximal Development (Pratt, Green, MacVicar, & Bountrogianni, 1992).
Social constructivists have characterized classroom-based scaffolding as “the social interaction among students and teachers that precedes
internalization of the knowledge, skills and dispositions deemed valuable and useful for the learners” (Roehler & Cantlon,1997, p. 9). Davis and
Miyake (2004) described classroom scaffolding as assistance without which a learner cannot attain a goal or engage in an activity. Typically,
classroom scaffolding is provided by more capable others to help learners to achieve what they cannot accomplish independently; scaffolds
are generally faded as the locus of responsibility shifts to learners. Research involving different domains, classroom settings, and student age
and ability has generally shown that scaffolding tends to be effective when provided through verbal discourse, teacher modeling, and
pedagogical tools, such as triggering student sense-making (Quintana et al., 2004), task-problematization (Reiser, 2004), visualization and
representations of knowledge (Linn, Clark, et al., 2003), and construction of arguments and explanation (Aleven & Koedinger, 2002).
Consistent with Wood et al. (1976) and Vygotsky’s (1978) description about scaffolding, we define scaffolding as assistance from a more
knowledgeable person that help learners to do a learning task beyond their capability. Dynamic scaffolding is a holistic, integrated, and
synergic approach to support learners in accomplishing their learning goals through the just-in-time and proper integration of multiple
resources (experts, peers, technologies, and learning context).

2.2.2. Scaffolding with technologies

Recently, researchers have studied alternatives to designing and using technologies to scaffold learning. Hill and Hannafin (2001)
classified technology-enhanced scaffolds for open-ended, student-centered learning into four types: conceptual, metacognitive, proce-
dural, and strategic. Hadwin and Winne (2001) contrasted implicit and explicit scaffolds, Saye and Brush (2002) distinguished between hard
408 M.C. Kim, M.J. Hannafin / Computers & Education 56 (2011) 403–417

(fixed, stable, pre-set) and soft (dynamic, flexible, adaptive) scaffolds, and Azevedo, Moos, Greene, Winters, and Cromley (2008) concep-
tualized fixed and adaptive scaffolds to promote self-regulated learning. Consistently, research on metacognitive tools has underscored the
significance of adaptive, human scaffolding in facilitating science learning with technologies. This research reflects a balance between
domain content knowledge and self-regulated learning processes. Azevedo (2005) indicated that such adaptive scaffolding enhances
student problem solving by fostering “(a) shifts in their mental models, (b) gains in declarative knowledge from pretest to posttest, and (c)
process data regarding students’ self-regulatory behavior” (p. 204).
Furthermore, computer-enhanced scaffolding can assist students in structuring complex tasks by “problematizing” (Reiser, 2004, p. 282)
content knowledge. As summarized in Table 1, scaffolding has been applied to help students articulate and act upon problem-solving
processes and learning activities. Given the wide range of examples and uses, researchers seek to understand the differences among and
nature of numerous types of scaffolds and the conditions under which they are effective: “what to scaffold, when to scaffold, how to scaffold,
and when to fade scaffolding” (Lajoie, 2005, p. 542).
Scaffolding research rarely reflects the dynamic and holistic nature of classroom interactions (Kim, Hannafin, & Bryan, 2007). Rather,
research typically focuses on particular features and affordances of technology in a bound setting.

2.2.3. Scaffolding in technology-enhanced classrooms

In the current context, we define scaffolding as cognitive and social supports designed to augment student problem-solving inquiry.
Thus, it is essential to assess the ongoing state of students’ knowledge in order to bridge their capacity to inquire and to fade support as
students learn to accomplish their problem-solving goals without scaffolds. Expanding our original work (Hill & Hannafin, 2001; Kim &
Hannafin, 2007), we further conceptualized scaffolding according to its purposes, interactions, and sources (see Fig. 2).

2.2.3.1. Scaffolding purposes. Among scaffolding purposes, procedural scaffolds guide the student in addressing operational aspects of the
learning environment rather than investing cognitive resources in negotiating routine procedures and navigation. Conceptual scaffolds help
students to identify essential knowledge gaps between what they already know and what they need to know. They guide students
understanding about the problem content, provide support to enhance students’ understanding of the problem and related knowledge, and
are gradually faded as students negotiate the knowledge and skills needed to solve the problem. Metacognitive scaffolds assist students in
assessing their state of understanding, reflect on their thinking, and monitor their problem-solving processes. Strategic scaffolds help
students to consider alternative approaches to addressing problems. Based on preliminary or tentative solutions, strategic scaffolds prompt
students to consider alternatives to framing, addressing and resolving problems, and often involve different stakeholder perspectives and
cultural interpretations.

2.2.3.2. Scaffolding interactions. Scaffolding interactions are typically static or dynamic. Static scaffolding is provided in the form of fixed
guidelines, procedures, or information that typically do not involve negotiation between the students and the scaffold source (e.g., text, tool,
or technology). Dynamic scaffolds provide interactive methods to assess learners’ progress and provide feedback in response to differential
learners’ needs (e.g., cues and prompts). Learners assume responsibility for regulating the amount and pace of scaffolding and determine
which and when scaffolds are deployed.

2.2.3.3. Scaffolding sources and examples. Table 1 and Table 2 summarize salient characteristics and goals of teacher-, peer-, and technology-
enhanced scaffolding for each problem-solving inquiry phase. Teacher-, peer-, and technology-enhanced scaffolding are often utilized in
complementary rather than isolated ways. Research on scientists’ reasoning and thinking for discovery provides further insights on the gap
between scientists and students scaffolding necessary to bridge the gap between real-world settings and the classroom. Dunbar (2007, p.
52) identified three strategies that scientists employ in everyday practice:

(a) Scientists consider unexpected findings as a source of new experiments and theories;
(b) Analogic reasoning is employed to generate hypotheses, design experiments, and interpret data; and
(c) Scientists deploy distributed reasoning when encountering problems in their research.

Fig. 2. Dimensions of Scaffolding Problem Solving Inquiry.

 M.C. Kim, M.J. Hannafin / Computers & Education 56 (2011) 403–417 409

Table 2
Teacher-enhanced and peer scaffolding during inquiry-supported problem solving.

Problem-solving phases Scaffolding foci Scaffolding examples

 Identification &  Intentionality  Help students find/generate authentic

engagement  Appropriateness of task/problems (Applebee & Langer, 1983) problems
 Pre-engagement  Help students identify/clarify individual
 Establishment of a shared goal (Hogan & Pressley, 1997) interests
 Situation definition  Help students find/generate their own goals
 Intersubjectivity (Wertsch, 1984) in this problem solving
 Exploration  Structure  Provide resources for students to explore for
 Questioning & problematizing (Reiser, 2004) evidence
 Maintenance of learning goals (Hogan & Pressley, 1997)  Help students identify anomalies and
conflicting evidence
 Help students continue to pursue solutions
 Reconstruction  Internalization  Help students select and frame resources
 “Tailored” assistance (Hogan & Pressley, 1997) relevant to answer their questions
 Assistance of internalization, independence, and generalization to  Help students connect their evidence to
other contexts (Hogan & Pressley, 1997) theories
 Help students correct naïve assumptions
 Presentation &  Collaboration & discussion (Jermann & Dillenbourg, 2008; Schrire, 2006)  Help students collaborate with peers and share
Communication  Feedback constructive comments
 Control of frustration and risk (Hogan & Pressley, 1997)  Help students present and justify their ideas
 Semiotic mediation (Wertsch, 1984) and theories
 Reflection &  Active diagnosis (Hogan & Pressley, 1997)  Help students reflect on their problem-
Negotiation  Engagement in ongoing assessment (Kao & Lehman, 1997) solving processes
 Help students continually assess their
learning processes

Student problem solving via TELEs, therefore, is scaffolded accordingly to support key scientific reasoning processes. The following
illustrate scaffolding strategies necessary for students’ problem solving activity.
2.2.3.3.1. Problem identification and engagement. During this phase, learners find or generate problems and externalize them by
recording ideas or communicating with others. The goal is to guide learners to observe phenomena, draw inferences as to possible causes,
relate them to their everyday experience, prepare to engage in problem solving activities, and establish shared goals between and among
peers and teachersdactivities crucial in making scientific discoveries in practice. Successful scientists pursue and explore unexpected
findings whereas those who are not tend to ignore unexpected results and confirm what was already known. In order to understand
surprising results, identify problems warranting further exploration, and generate potential causal models to explain the results, scientists
employ a range of cognitive strategies such as inductions, deductions, and causal reasoning (Dunbar, 2007).
To scaffold students’ scientific inquiry, teachers use technologies to access real-world examples to vividly illustrate the nature of science
as complex, social, and challenging. Teachers and peers guide learners to identify authentic problems and to generate their own learning
goals by posing questions, sharing experts’ experiences, and presenting a hypothesis inductively drawn from observations.
Technology-enhanced scaffolding can situate problem identification and engagement by providing vivid descriptions, visualizations, and
related questions and resources to students’ experiences. Such scaffolds can also assist students as they seek information related to
problems and find conflicts, dilemmas, or challenges related to student interests and needs. The Web-enhanced Inquiry Science Environment
(WISE) provides different types of projects and problems (investigation, controversy, critique, and design) that expose students to
provocative science dilemmas (e.g., management of increasing wolf population from diverse perspectives) designed to motivate students in
generating solutions and arguments based on evidence (Linn, Clark, et al., 2003). Students utilize conceptual scaffolds by finding cues and
hints (Pol, Harskamp, Suhre, & Goedhart, 2009) relevant to background knowledge, reading complex, challenging problem contexts and
externalizing their prior knowledge on the problems. Teachers monitor student online inquiry activities by providing feedback in class or
virtually, and students can share their problem solving solutions online. Science Controversies On-line: Partnerships in Education (SCOPE) uses
strategic scaffolds to guide students to explore as scientists such as how to investigate problems in the real-world and how controversy (e.g.,
global warming) is debated within scientific communities (Linn, Davis, & Bell, 2003).
2.2.3.3.2. Problem exploration. When exploring a natural phenomenon, scientists use not only theories, experiments, interpretations,
and formulas, but also their experiences. Their problem solving processes are not always “formulaic” but more complicated and heuristic
(Dunbar, 2007, p. 53). When formulating hypotheses, they tend to use their implicit and explicit knowledge in how a problem is solved in
other problem space and make analogies.
During problem exploration, students probe problems, plan investigations, and test hypotheses. In order to explore problems through
inquiry, students must learn “the ability of the scientists to abstract the crucial features of the current problem and search for other problems
that have been solved” (p. 55). Scaffolds guide students to locate key problem concepts and elements as well as relationships among them, to
progressively structure problem-solving tasks, to show how similar problems are investigated in scientific way, to problematize (Reiser,
2004) learners’ prior perceptions and hypotheses, and to maintain and adjusting learning goals according to alternate theories. While
exploring problems, teachers and peers help students to detect anomalies, conflicting evidence, and refine the problem by posing questions.
Consistent with Salomon et al.’s (1991) conception of intellectual partnerships, technology-enhanced scaffolding can facilitate evidence
exploration by supplanting lower-order tasks such as simple calculations and typing thereby allowing students to allocate cognitive
410 M.C. Kim, M.J. Hannafin / Computers & Education 56 (2011) 403–417

resources to higher-order tasks, such as generating hypotheses, seeking and identifying variables. Computer-based modeling tools can
further support problem solving by supplying simulations, visualizations, and 3D models [see, for example, the Virtual Solar System (Barab,
Hay, Barnett, & Keating, 2000) and Model-It (Jackson, Krajcik, & Soloway, 2000)].
2.2.3.3.3. Problem reconstruction. Scientists reconstruct problems by comparing findings and hypotheses with initial assumptions,
observations and inferences. The findings are supported by scientific data collected through experimentations and observations and models
proposed to explain causations and/or correlations among relevant variables. Similarly during reconstruction, students generate and revise
potential solutions and explanations as they encounter confirmatory or contradictory evidence. As problem reconstruction evolves based
on comparisons with findings and interpretations, teachers and peers help students to identify, select, and frame resources relevant
to answer their questions. Thus, scaffolding helps students to connect existing knowledge to novel experience, thus modifying their
schematadconsidered fundamental to meaningful learning (Mayer, 1984; Piaget, 1976).
In technology-supported learning environments, students often create artifacts to reconstruct explanations by proposing tentative
theories and solutions and presenting supporting evidence; scaffolds have also been devised to support diagnosis and reconstruction of the
explanations. Static procedural support guides students as they conduct inquiries and self-assessments. Students then address challenges,
generate ideas, consider multiple perspectives, conduct research, revise hypotheses, and communicate their findings (Schwartz, Lin, Brophy,
& Bransford, 1999). Narratives and stories can also help bridge student experience with the learning context (Jonassen, 2003). In the Jasper
Series, for example, students identify sub-problems, variables, and related information to inform and test their decisions. Rather than
reading a text to find a mathematical problem, students are immersed in a realistic story where cues and variables (information about plane,
location, distance, weight of the eagle, etc.) are introduced via video vignettes as they seek alternate solutions to the problem. After viewing
the vignette, students work in pairs or groups to generate sub-problems associated with the final complex problem (best path) and access
embedded data as needed by simply re-playing the story. Teachers can also prescribe problem solving approaches via handouts that provide
specific probe questions, or scaffold “guided generation” problem solving (CTGV, 1992, p. 76) by allowing students to engage in complex
problems with minimal explicit structure. By providing just-in-time (ZPD) explanations when students encounter sub-problems beyond
their capability (e.g., for first graders, how to add up miles to calculate distance for the best route), students learn to accommodate and adapt
problem-solving strategies based on individual needs for support.
2.2.3.3.4. Presentation and communication. Typically, the presentation of scientific findings involves distributed rather than solely
individual reasoning. In classrooms, this involves visualizing or verbalizing solutions and explanations, sharing constructive feedback with
peers and teachers, and contemplating potential revisions to proposed solutions. As students propose tentative solutions, they warrant their
claims and justify their theories with evidence. Scaffolds help guide students to challenge their thinking, consider alternative evidence, and
evaluate alternate solutions.
According to Koschmann, Myers, Feltovich, and Barrows (1994), the principle of multiplicity suggests that instruction should reflect
knowledge as “complex, dynamic, context sensitive, and interactively related” (p. 233) by introducing diverse views and resources. During
presentation and communication, teachers and peers collaborate as students learn to justify their ideas. Technology can increase access to
diverse perspectives on human activities, natural phenomena, and societies, thereby supporting collaborative knowledge construction (e.g.,
Knowledge Forum, Computer-Supported Intentional Learning Environments [CSILE], Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1992, 2003), case-based
learning (e.g., Knowledge Innovation for Technology in Education [KITE], Wang, Moore, Wedman, & Shyu, 2003), multiple representations
[WorldWatcher, GLOBE], Edelson, 2001, and multiple interpretations (e.g., MediaMOO).
2.2.3.3.5. Reflection and negotiation. Finally, results provide more than simple solutions to given problems; among scientists, findings
provide the basis for further exploration. Scientists plan further investigations by increasing or reducing the number of variables, or test
their to examine impact on other organisms, theories, domains, and fields of study. During reflection and negotiation learners in class
examine the processes and strategies used and revise their solutions and explanations. Scaffolding emphasizes “active diagnosis” (Hogan &
Pressley, 1997) to help students to detect errors and faulty reasoning and reflect on learning processes and assessment (Kao & Lehman,
1997). Teachers and peers scaffold reflection and negotiation by guiding students to reflect on their problem-solving processes and
assess their progress. The Jasper scaffolds situate the problem in specific, authentic contexts, while providing opportunities to transfer
learning to novel problems and broader contexts. While solving problems, students develop episodic knowledge that can be applied to daily
experiences (Nespor, 1987). Web-based, distributed knowledge communities such as CSILE, SCOPE, MediaMoo, and NewsMaker (Evard,
1996) may further empower students to communicate and negotiate within and among peers, teachers, and experts.
Land and Zembal-Saul (2003) found that reflection and articulation scaffolds employed in physics portfolios helped pre-service teachers
to better frame and revise questions and explanations. They studied two pairs of prospective teachers and examined how scientific
understanding and explanation about light and its properties developed over time. Building from prior knowledge, computer-based
scaffolds designed to externalize the problem solving processes and connect with data representations (e.g., graph, table), experiments, and
conclusions improved problem solving articulation and reflection.
In the framework, problem-solving phases are cyclical rather than linear processes (Pea, 1993). Task authenticity, diversity of
perspectives, articulation of theories, and degree of participation tend to increase concurrently as learners identify, explore, and reconstruct
problems and present explanations and reflect on their learning processes.

3. Critical issues in peer-, teacher-, and technology-enhanced scaffolding in technology-enhanced classrooms

Several factors appear to influence the effectiveness of technology-enhanced scaffolding. While the nature of the problem posed needs to
be consistent with the epistemology embodied in the learning environment (Hannafin, Land, & Oliver, 1999), few studies have indicated how
much (or where) scaffolding should be embedded. WebQuests, for example, scaffold lesson designs using teacher-prescribed problems and
teacher-supplied steps and resources (Wang & Hannafin, 2008). In contrast, the Jasper Series’ (CTGV, 1992, 1997) exploratory approach does
not specify explicit problem-solving paths or strategies. In some cases, tailored, technology-based assistance, such as inquiry maps, hints
(see, for example, WISE, Linn, Clark, et al., 2003), or simulations [for example, WorldWatcher (Edelson, Gordin, & Pea, 1999)] may provide
support available via neither peers nor teachers. In the following, we examine issues associated with peer, teacher, and/or technology-
enhanced scaffolding of problem solving in practice.
 M.C. Kim, M.J. Hannafin / Computers & Education 56 (2011) 403–417 411

3.1. Peer-enhanced scaffolds

Research has yielded inconsistent findings regarding peer interactions or group in science classrooms. According to Schwartz (1995), for
example, student dyads are generally better able to apply problem-solving strategies than are students who work individually. Researchers
have also found that collaboration improved performance in short-term problem-solving projects (Barron, 2000; Stevens & Slavin, 1995;
Web & Palincsar, 1996). On the contrary several challenges have been identified, including difficulties embracing sharing enterprise
among collaborators (Hannafin, Hill, Oliver, Glazer, & Sharma, 2003), scaffolding peer activities (Ge & Land, 2003), and establishing
meaningful problem-solving goals (Barron, 2000). In this section, we identify factors that influence the quality of interactions among peers.
Cognitive load and limited prior experience are among the most oft-cited challenges during peer scaffolding (Hannafin et al., 2003).
Individual differences among students’ inquiry influence the nature and quality of peer interactions. Technology tools often require
considerable cognitive resources as students learn to skim, grasp, and manipulate data. Students have become disoriented in Web-based
learning environments due to the large number of ill-structured resources encountered, particularly when learning environments induce
extraneous cognitive load (Sweller, van Merriënboer, & Paas, 1998) and when students lack adequate prior knowledge and experience. In
such cases, students are inherently limited in their ability to think critically or solve complex problems (Land & Hannafin, 1997) and tend to
focus on task completion rather than meaningful inquiry (Kim & Hannafin, 2007).
Similarly, Krajcik et al. (1998) noted that problems arise from students’ inability to systematically link evidence to plausible arguments
and monitor group work. Pedersen and Liu (2003) reported “floundering” during student-centered learning activities in a computer-based
science program, Alien Rescue. Oliver and Hannafin (2001) noted that middle school students, when asked to frame and resolve earthquake
engineering problems with Knowledge Integration Environments (KIE), relied almost exclusively on procedural scaffolding; while readily
available, they rarely sought conceptual support to explore “how or why” questions. In their study, students tended to search for answers
that satisfied teachers’ expectations rather than attempting difficult problems, posing dilemmas, or exploring alternative explanations.
Students with limited prior knowledge failed to recognize contradictions and tended to accommodate learning experiences within existing,
naïve theories. In effect, attempts to challenge student understanding using contradictory evidence may go undetected, unwittingly reifying
rather than challenging misconceptions.
Several attempts to facilitate accommodation to adaptive scaffolding have been advanced. Mayer and Wittrock (2006) proposed an
integration principle for guiding problem solving by incorporating various kinds of knowledge (facts, procedures, concepts, and strategies)
into scaffolded problem activities. Similarly, in an effort to overcome student misconceptions and the lack of authentic experience, Linn and
her colleagues developed the Scaffolded Knowledge Integration Framework (Linn, 2000; Linn & Hsi, 2000). Embedded scaffolds support
student engagement: making science visible, making thinking visible, helping students learn from each other, and promoting lifelong
science learning (Linn, Clark, et al., 2003). Davis and Linn (2000) reported that prompts based upon these design principles helped students
to reflect on and monitor their inquiry processes.
Although research on collaborative learning during problem solving has proven promising; indeed, collaboration is employed in many
technology-enhanced classrooms (Coleman, 1998; Krajcik et al., 1998), group measures may obscure what is actually learned and under-
stood by individuals; individuals may perform worse, not better, in groups (Barron, 2003). These differences may be a function of the
interplay between individual differences and various social and cognitive factors involved in collaborative problem-solving inquiry. For
instance, the influence or effects of individual prior knowledge, experience, motivation, learning rates, argumentation skills, and openness
to alternatives may be masked during grouping and group interaction due to the social nature of negotiation and meaning-making (Barron,
2003; Coleman, 1998; Schwartz, 1995).
According to the United States’ national science standards, scientific inquiry is defined as “the diverse ways in which scientists study the
natural world” (NRC, 1996, p. 23) and characterize “communicating the results” as an essential inquiry activity (Kim & Hannafin, 2004). The
standards do not, however, address how communities of scientists do (and do not) collaborate and communicate. Barron (2003) suggested
that the “quality of interaction” (p. 307), such as willingness to discuss both correct and flawed solutions, influences group success more
than prior achievement or the accuracy of initial solutions proposed. Nussbaum (2008) also cites the importance of “critical, elaborative
discourse” (p. 349) in collaborative argumentation to diagnose misconceptions, exchange counterarguments, connect different views, and
resolve the conflicts (Nussbaum, Sinatra, & Poliquin, 2005).
Disciplined study is warranted to generate insights related to individual and collaborative problem solving. Research is also needed to
investigate how or if students, as novices, model scientists’ practices and strive to engage in an expert’s community. We need to identify and
examine student interactions during collaborative inquiry processes and to explore strategies that foster effective peer–peer, peer–teacher,
peer–scientist, and peer–technology interactions.
In practice, multiple types of scaffolding interact within everyday classroom contexts that differ from lab settings. For instance, when
used in conjunction with peer- and teacher-enhanced scaffolds, technology-enhanced static scaffolds can serve dynamic functions through
peer prompting and instructor monitoring in classrooms. We need to account better for everyday classroom interactions between and
among peers, teachers, and technology.

3.2. Teacher-enhanced scaffolds

Researchers have been criticized for lacking a unifying theoretical framework (Windschitl & Sahl, 2002), providing little direct evidence
of putting teaching principles into actual practice (Ertmer, 2005), and ignoring critical factors influencing technology use in everyday
schools (Zhao & Frank, 2003). Teachers’ professional and domain knowledge and experience may prove especially important because they
model inquiry processes and co-construct knowledge related to specific domains (Crawford, 2000; Keys & Bryan, 2001). Nespor (1987)
suggested that episodic knowledge, grounded in teachers’ own experiences, provides insights into how learning experiences and critical
incidents are shared. Thus, limitations in domain knowledge and experience may prove difficult to overcome. Land and Zembal-Saul’s
(2003) computer-based portfolio, for example, was designed to support reflection and articulation during project-based learning, but
scaffolds were not used constructively when “teachers failed to detect when learners were not generating appropriate explanations” (p. 80).
412 M.C. Kim, M.J. Hannafin / Computers & Education 56 (2011) 403–417

Differences in teachers’ beliefs in instructional practice pose another potential barrier. Cuban (2001) reported that even teachers who
used computers in their everyday planning and teaching held traditional teaching and learning beliefs: “When we shadowed teachers and
students.we saw what classroom researchers have seen for decades” (p. 95). While influenced by a lack of time, limited resources, and
related teaching pressures, teachers reported preferences for technologies that “fit” existing, didactic instruction; many expressed a lack of
awareness how to promote student-centered learning using technology.
Researchers have also suggested that teacher attitudes toward and experience with technologies are crucial to use within everyday
classroom settings (Becker, 1998; Zhao & Frank, 2003). In some cases, negative attitudes arise from encounters with unreliable (Cuban, 2001)
and defective technologies (Cuban et al., 2001). That is, many teachers are not negatively predisposed but become increasingly skeptical as
they encounter problems while attempting to use technology. Teachers have also identified numerous day-to-day constraints, such as
limited planning time, lack of shared resources (Barab, MaKinster, Moore, & Cunningham, 2001), and mismatched learning goals and
teaching practices. Pedersen and Liu (2003) described conflicts between the goal of promoting student-centered learning and preparing
students for standardized tests among teachers implementing Alien Rescue. Teachers expressed concerns that student-centered problem
solving activities required substantial time to implement and might be ineffective in addressing the factual knowledge assessed by stan-
dardized tests.
Finally, research methods have rarely approximated teacher–student interactions or reflected realistically the challenges of imple-
menting technology-enhanced problem-solving inquiry in everyday classroom contexts. We need to better understand teachers’ contri-
butions to, and interplay among, students, peers, and technology in realistic classroom settings.

3.3. Technology-enhanced scaffolds

Many tools and guidelines have been developed to support learning and teaching in technology-rich classrooms (Demetriadis,
Papadopoulos, Stamelos, & Fischer, 2008; Lindh & Holgersson, 2007; Sanchez, Encinas, Fernandez, & Sanchez, 2002). Critics, however,
suggest that they fail to either reflect how students learn or optimize technological affordances (Hannafin, Kim, & Kim, 2004). In practice,
students experience difficulty utilizing technology scaffolds to inquire in problem-solving inquiry environments, and often require
considerable assistance (Kim & Hannafin, 2007). Teachers tend to use technology scaffolds to supplement ongoing teaching approaches
rather than contextualizing and integrating the scaffolds to facilitate student problem solving (Cuban, 2001).
Researchers have identified examples, strategies, and cautions to promote meaningful technology-enhanced scaffolding. Technology-
enhanced scaffolding, such as WISE’s problem identification support for further investigation from online marine sanctuaries (Linn, Clark,
et al., 2003), may help students to identify authentic, situated problems during initial problem-solving stages. Critics suggest that direct
approaches embedded in technology-enhanced scaffolds, such as telling students which problems to solve or how to solve problems, may
undermine rather than cultivate problem identification. Learners may simply comply with directions rather than internalize guidance.
Indeed, researchers report that students became dependent on static scaffolds (e.g., fixed prompts and supports) and were unable to enact
problem-solving strategies independently once the supports were removed (Oliver & Hannafin, 2001).
Further study is warranted to examine the extent to which static and dynamic technology-enhanced scaffolds can be differentially
applied and balanced to support inquiry activities and contextualize technology-enhanced scaffolds in everyday classroom teaching (Davis
& Krajcik, 2005). Such investigation requires thoughtful and realistic assessments of the real-world challenges and complexities associated
with classroom teachers and teaching to identify how technology affordances can be deployed in both effective and practical ways.

4. Implications for research

4.1. Which scaffolds support problem solving among students with limited prerequisite knowledge?

Research has consistently shown that when students lack prior domain-specific knowledge, they experience problems attempting to
solve even well-structured problems (Shin, Jonassen, & McGee, 2003). This issue is critical in problem-solving environments, which are
typically ill-structured and rely heavily on students’ ownership over their learning. Where learners lack adequate prior knowledge, naïve
assumptions and theories situated in prior experiences and knowledge may limit or fail to adequately inform their inquiry processes. As
a result, they tend to develop robust and oversimplified misconceptions that prove highly resilient to change. This has been described as the
“situated knowledge paradox” (Hannafin & Land, 2000, p. 14) and is especially problematic in problem-solving inquiry because students
initiate activities by finding or generating authentic, driving questions based heavily on their own knowledge and experience.
To overcome such challenges, problem identification activities may be scaffolded through “interactive cycle(s) of investigation” (p. 131) to
structure and guide student observations of natural phenomena, to formulate corresponding questions and hypotheses, and to revise
emergent understanding using evidence that support or contradicts (National Research Council, 2007). When children are unable to
generate appropriate questions (Klahr, 2000), teachers can scaffold or model problem solving procedures, provide plausible hypotheses and
offer multiple perspectives (Dunbar & Klahr, 1989; Klahr, Fay, & Dunbar, 1993). Technologies can customize prompts to account for differ-
ences in prior knowledge and characteristics specific to problem solving processes. In their study with seventy-eight 9th graders in Taiwan,
Lee and Chen (2009) found that students who utilized question prompts designed to help elaborate on reflections and explanations were
better able to solve complex mathematical problems involving multiple variables than those who received general, procedural prompts.
Although problem solving has been studied for decades and numerous tools have been developed to foster student problem solving, we
know surprisingly little about how (or if) these tools influence student conceptions through problem-solving processes or the scaffolds
demonstrated effective in the classroom. For instance, we need to identify the challenges students confront during problem-solving
activities, as well as the strategies they utilize to overcome them. However, these questions cannot be fully addressed by examining only
student achievement using pre- and posttest measures. Rather, it requires close investigation of individual students’ cognitive and
contextualized processes of learning such as student activities with peers and teachers, interactions with technology-enhanced tools,
responses to open-ended, transfer questions, and reflections on inquiry in dynamic classroom settings (Barab & Plucker, 2002).
 M.C. Kim, M.J. Hannafin / Computers & Education 56 (2011) 403–417 413

Most technology research has focused on whether students with limited prerequisite knowledge or skill increased performance on
knowledge tests. While achievement measures have compelling value, this focus can be extended to reflect student cognition, interaction,
and practice situated in complex class dynamics. To examine the influence of and interactions among scaffolding and ways how the three
sources of scaffolds interdependently and synergistically mitigate students’ limited prior knowledge and experience, we also need to
document when, how, and under what conditions peer-, teacher-, and technology-enhanced scaffolds designed to challenge naïve
assumptions are (and are not) effective.

4.2. Which teacher scaffolds facilitate students’ technology-enhanced problem solving in the classrooms?

In science education, the renewed focus on inquiry has highlighted several problems: a shortage of models, lack of guidelines for
teachers, and difficulty in transferring lessons learned from one inquiry setting to another context (Shiland, 1998, 2002). Some researchers
have reinforced the importance of, and requirements for, teacher preparation to implement complex student-oriented, open-ended inquiry
processes (see, for example, Bryan & Atwater, 2002). Crawford (2000) conducted an in-depth analysis of the practices of a successful high
school biology teacher who continuously devised and implemented student-centered inquiry activities. Crawford concluded that teachers
play multiple roles in inquiry classes, including situating instruction in authentic problems, grappling with data, collaborating with students
and teachers, connecting students with the community, modeling the behaviors of a scientist, and fostering student ownership. In tech-
nology-enhanced classes for problem solving, teachers’ roles become even more crucial. Kim, Hannafin, Adams, and Bryan (2004) identified
additional roles in technology-rich science classrooms, including designers, problem solvers, context analysts, coaches, and evaluators. The
skills needed to scaffold students problem solving for inquiry in technology-rich classrooms may prove to be substantially different from
those emphasized in traditional classrooms. In a qualitative study involving Irish higher education faculty, Donnelly (2010) reported that the
interaction patterns within the groups for problem-based learning varied substantially in a blended learning environment. The successful
interaction employs several pedagogical strategies for problem-based learning. These strategies include integrating authentic tasks into the
problem that the learners investigate, maintaining common goals and motivation, and recognizing mutual expectations of learners and
instructors, different roles, and available technologies.
Several researchers have advocated open-ended learning tasks as an alternative to didactic teaching practices. However, students require
significant scaffolding to enact the problem-solving processes associated with full inquiry and partial inquiry in science education (NRC,
2000). In full inquiry classes, students may encounter challenges with “minimal guidance” from the instructors particularly when they
do not have sufficient prior knowledge (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006, p. 75). Teachers may provide direct answers to open questions in
their classrooms because their own experience and beliefs reinforce such practices; indeed, some researchers report that didactic
instruction may be necessary for some students who lack adequate prior domain knowledge to engage problem-solving tasks (Schwartz &
Bransford, 1998). Specific instructional practices and strategies should be understood within the broader teaching frameworks and goals
(Kuhn, 2007).
Important questions relevant to teacher-enhanced scaffolds remain to be further investigated: How should teacher-enhanced scaffolds
be designed to effectively and meaningfully mediate between technology-enhanced scaffolds and student problem solving activities? What
different types of teacher-enhanced scaffolds are proven effective for different types of learners? What are the impact of such different types
of teacher-enhanced scaffolds on students’ problem-solving process and outcomes?
To address these questions, research is needed to study the impact of direct, structured v. induced, elicited teacher-enhanced scaffolds on
student inquiry process and outcomes using multiple data sources such as classroom observations, in-depth interviews, and performance-
based assessment (Hickey & Zuiker, 2003). School-based research on teaching, often criticized for being anecdotal, must be grounded in
solid theoretical frameworks that illustrate connections between and among the various influences in classroom-based practice.

4.3. How do contextual factors and pedagogical strategies scaffold in the classroom?

The difficulties involved in researching classroom-based innovations are not new; problems associated with introducing technological
innovations into everyday classrooms have long-standing and deeply rooted epistemological and cultural roots. For example, LOGO’s mixed
success in improving student understanding was characterized as a mismatch between innovative student-centered epistemology and the
prevailing teacher-centered classroom culture (Papert, 1987). During early efforts to develop the Jasper Series, teachers often appropriated
the problem-based mathematics resources into traditional teaching-learning approaches (Barron et al., 1992). Cuban et al. (2001), in
describing the “paradox” of schools with high technology access but low use as “ad hoc incrementalism” (p. 830), attributed slow evolution
to school culture, the legacy of schools as “academic” institutions, structure and time constraints, and technology defects.
Still, several tools have been developed to assist teachers to incorporate technologies into their classrooms [e.g., Inquiry Learning Forum
(Barab et al., 2001); case-based libraries (Kim, Hannafin, & Kim, 2004)]. For example, the University of Michigan’s Center for Highly
Interactive Computing in Education (Hi-CE) research focused on technology-supported, project-based learning in urban curricula
(Blumenfeld, Fishman, Krajcik, Marx, & Soloway, 2000). The WISE research group collaborated with teachers throughout the United States
and world (Linn & Hsi, 2000). Vanderbilt’s SMART project group integrated Jasper into the curricula of several schools and school districts
nationwide (CTGV, 1997). We need to examine closely how contextual factors facilitate or hinder problem-solving inquiry.
Researchers have identified several effective strategies for scaffolding problem-based learning and inquiry (Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, &
Chinn, 2007); for instance, (1) making disciplinary thinking and strategies explicit, (2) embedding expert guidance, (3) structuring
complex tasks and reducing cognitive load (pp. 101–102). More specifically, several instructional strategies to foster collaborative argu-
mentations have been proposed (Andriessen, 2006): for instance, (1) scaffolding argumentation with a computer-based dialogue game
similar to Knowledge Forum (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2003), (2) scaffolding argumentation with role plays, (3) scaffolding argumentation
through collaborative writing, (4) scaffolding argumentation with argument maps, and (5) scaffolding science learning through technology-
enhanced scaffolds (p. 454).
What is lacking is a comprehensive yet pragmatic framework that describes when and under which conditions pedagogical strategies
can be employed in everyday classroom settings. Both specific pedagogical strategies used to scaffold student inquiry as well as the
414 M.C. Kim, M.J. Hannafin / Computers & Education 56 (2011) 403–417

effectiveness on student inquiry have been largely untested. Video-based teaching examples provide teachers with concrete, contextualized
vignettes (Simmons et al., 1999); evidence of their impact, however, remains rare. Such research may yield important insights needed to
both analyze and scaffold key problem solving and inquiry practices.

5. Conclusions and directions for future research

In addition to the scaffolding examples already detailed, several issues warrant further attention. First, scaffolding in classroom settings is
often complicated by students’ limited scientific background, experience, and knowledge as well as teachers’ tendency to “instruct” rather
than stimulate inquiry. This, in turn, tends to cultivate scientific misconceptions. For instance, while scientists employ analogical reasoning
when hypothesizing relationships between and among concepts, teachers often simplify complex concepts. The nature and structure of the
atom, for example, is often misunderstood when presented via the solar system analogy (Fischler & Lichtfeldt, 1992). Teachers and tech-
nologies can afford significant support where students lack adequate prior knowledge. By scaffolding retrieval cues familiar to practicing
scientists, students can more readily identify and interpret analogy.
For example, students can utilize visualizing simulations and database in TELEs to differentiate the elements (nucleus, electrons for the
atom) and source of the analogy (e.g., sun, planets, planetary orbits and planetary rotation for the solar system), the constraints of the
primitive model of atom (Bohr model), and the advantages of the advanced, quantum mechanics model. Three dimensional virtual reality
allows students to build computational models and explore the dynamics of each system (Barab et al., 2000). When scaffolding analogical
reasoning and generating explanatory models, teachers can support students’ learning progressions involving “successively more sophis-
ticated ways of reasoning within a content domain” (Smith, Wiser, Anderson, & Krajcik, 2006, p. 3). Teachers can sequence learning activities
around “big ideas” that connect various peripheral scientific concepts while deepening foundational scientific knowledge (Plummer &
Krajcik, 2010).
Similarly, students with few opportunities to engage, or experience with, causal reasoning require particular support. Causal models are
derived through hypothesizing and experimenting; successful causal models help to establish empirically-derived relationships between
and among related variables. However, naive students often fail to generate such models in content-focused instructional settings. For
instance, in the health science example, causal relationships can be demonstrated via not only experimentation but also inferred via
everyday observation and heuristically-acquired knowledge. Experiments involving healthy human subjects exposed to an ambient level of
particulate matter may fail to demonstrate causal relationships, whereas studies focusing on children, elderly people or patients with
respiratory and cardiovascular diseases may well demonstrate causal relationships between exposure to ambient particulate matters and
the diseases. Students who rely on textbook knowledge and theories to build causal models tend to narrow problem solutions by failing to
account for alternate or confounding factors.
In order to scaffold causal reasoning during scientific problem solving, TELEs can provide powerful tools to visualize numerous, complex
variables via scenario-based games, simulate how variables are related using graphs, and engage students in real-world situations involving
multilayered problems. The molecules and minds simulations developed in the CREATE group, for example, allow students to examine and
manipulate relationships among key variables (volume, temperature, and pressure). Students can adjust the levels of each variable by
representing real objects (container, flame, and pressure gauge) and simulating variable manipulation using visual graphs and pictures
(Plass et al., 2009). The simulation can then be used to examine scientific problems such as why odors seem to spread faster in hot summer
and why bicycles tires seem flat in the morning.
While there is no dearth of problem-solving tools, we know comparatively little about how to deploy multiple scaffolds. Traditional
scaffolding research, for example, focused on verbal cues and question prompts; technology research has centered on embedded scaffolding
of technology-based inquiry tools (Davis & Miyake, 2004). In contrast, few studies have documented interactions among the scaffolding
alternatives presented in the proposed framework (teacher, peer, and technology). Pea (2004) argued that “scaffolds are not found in
software but are functions of processes that relate people to performances in activity systems over time” (p. 446). Reiser (2004) suggested
that scaffolding be examined as a system:
A final caution to be discussed in exploring models of scaffolding in software tools is that learners, tools, and teachers work together as
a system, and it is an oversimplification to consider how tools can scaffold learners without considering the other aspects of this system
(p. 298).
During everyday classroom teaching, scaffolding needs to involve teacher, peers, and technology. Scientific discovery and investigation
involve a multifaceted problem-solving approach involving a team of experts from various fields. Unprecedented proliferation of tech-
nologies allow scientists to conduct research on fundamental theories underlying natural phenomena that may not be visible but virtually
explicable through computer programs, simulations, and database. Advancement in social-networking technologies foster a wide range of
opportunities for scientists to collaborate and build knowledge simultaneously through distributed reasoning. Such critical practices in the
science disciplines can be mirrored in science classrooms scaffolded by teachers, peers, and tools in complementary ways.
Many other critical questions remain to be addressed under this dynamic, complementary framework. How are student problem solving
and interaction patterns in TELE-supported classroom similar to and different from scientists’ practice in the field? What are the rela-
tionships among different types of scaffolds? As technology-enhanced scaffolding is provided, can teacher scaffolding be faded? If learners
become dependent on technology-enhanced scaffolding, do they interact less with peers or teachers? We also need to better account for
contextual influences in the design of technology-enhanced, problem-solving inquiry consistent with design-based research goals. By
linking of problem solving, inquiry and technology in classroom settings, we hope to provide a needed and empirically grounded framework
to guide future research, theory, and practice.

References

Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2002). An effective meta-cognitive strategy: learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based cognitive tutor. Cognitive Science, 26(2),
147–179.
 M.C. Kim, M.J. Hannafin / Computers & Education 56 (2011) 403–417 415

Anderson, J. R., Boyle, C. F., & Reiser, B. J. (1985). Intelligent tutoring systems. Science, 228, 456–462.
Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443–460). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (1983). Instructional scaffolding: reading and writing as natural language activities. Language Arts, 60, 168–175.
Azevedo, R. (2005). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 199–209.
Azevedo, R., & Jacobson, M. (2008). Advances in scaffolding learning with hypertext and hypermedia: a summary and critical analysis. Educational Technology Research &
Development, 56(1), 93–100.
Azevedo, R., Moos, D. C., Greene, J. A., Winters, F. I., & Cromley, J. G. (2008). Why is externally-facilitated regulated learning more effective than self-regulated learning with
hypermedia? Educational Technology Research & Development, 56, 45–72.
Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., Barnett, M., & Keating, T. (2000). Virtual solar system project: building understanding through model building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37
(7), 719–756.
Barab, S. A., MaKinster, J. G., Moore, J. A., & Cunningham, D. J. (2001). Designing and building an on-line community: the struggle to support sociability in the inquiry learning
forum. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(4), 71–96.
Barab, S. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2002). Smart people or smart contexts? Cognition, ability, and talent development in an age of situated approaches to knowing and learning.
Educational Psychologist, 37(3), 165–182.
Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 403–436.
Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359.
Barron, L., Bransford, J., Campbell, O., Ferron, B., Goin, L., Goldman, E., et al. (1992). The Jasper project: an exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 65–80.
Becker, H. J. (1998). Running to catch a moving train: schools and information technologies. Theory Into Practice, 37(1), 20–30.
Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., & Richardson, J. C. (2008). A scaffolding framework to support the construction of evidence-based arguments among middle school students.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 401–422.
Blumenfeld, P., Fishman, B. J., Krajcik, J. S., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2000). Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: scaling up technology-embedded project-based
science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 149–164.
Bransford, J. D., & Stein, B. S. (1984). The ideal problem solver: A guide for improving thinking, learning, and creativity. New York: Freeman.
Bryan, L. A., & Atwater, M. M. (2002). Teacher beliefs and cultural models: a challenge for science teacher preparation programs. Science Education, 86, 821–839.
Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55–81.
Chi, M., Feltovich, P., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121–152.
Cho, K. -L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50
(3), 5–22.
Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 45(3), 293–321.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The Jasper experiment: an exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 40(1), 65–80.
Cognition & Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). The Jasper project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Coleman, E. B. (1998). Using explanatory knowledge during collaborative problem solving in science. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 387–427.
Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: new roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916–937.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold & underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research
Journal, 38(4), 813–834.
Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.
Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 819–837, [special
issue].
Davis, E. A., & Miyake, N. (2004). Explorations of scaffolding in complex classroom systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 265–272.
Demetriadis, S. N., Papadopoulos, P. M., Stamelos, I. G., & Fischer, F. (2008). The effect of scaffolding students’ context-generating cognitive activity in technology-enhanced
case-based learning. Computers & Education, 51, 939–954.
Donnelly, R. (2010). Harmonizing technology with interaction in blended problem-based learning. Computers & Education, 54, 350–359.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–313.
Dunbar, K. (2007). How scientists think in the real world: implications for science education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 49–58.
Dunbar, K., & Klahr, D. (1989). Developmental differences in scientific discovery strategies. In D. Klahr, & K. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex information processing: The impact of
Herbert A. Simon (pp. 109–143). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-for-use: a framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355–385.
Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 8(3–4), 391–450.
van Eemeren, F., Grootendorst, R., & Henkemans, A. F. (2002). Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: the final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.
Evard, M. (1996). A community of designers: learning through exchanging questions and answers. In Y. Kafai, & M. Resnick (Eds.), Constructionism in practice: Designing,
thinking, and learning in a digital world (pp. 223–240). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fischler, H., & Lichtfeldt, M. (1992). Modern physics and students’ conceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 14(2), 181–190.
Fishman, B. J., & Krajcik, J. (2003). What does it mean to create sustainable science curriculum innovations? A commentary. Science Education, 87, 564–573.
Gagné, R. M., & Briggs, L. J. (1974). Principles of instructional design (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2003). Scaffolding students’ problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 51(1), 21–38.
de Groot, A. D. (1966). Perception and memory versus thought: some old ideas and recent findings. In B. Kleinmuntz (Ed.), Problem solving. New York: Wiley.
Hadwin, A., & Winne, P. (2001). CoNoteS2: a software tool for promoting self-regulation educational research and evaluation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 7, 313–334.
Hannafin, M. J., Hill, J. R., Oliver, K., Glazer, E., & Sharma, P. (2003). Cognitive and learning factors in web-based distance learning environments. In M. G. Moore, &
W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 245–260). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hannafin, M. J., & Kim, M. C. (2003). In search of a future: a critical analysis of research on web-based teaching and learning. Instructional Science, 31(4–5), 347–351.
Hannafin, M. J., Kim, M. C., & Kim, H. (2004). Reconciling research, theory, and practice in web-based teaching and learning: the case for grounded design. Journal of Computing
in Higher Education, 15(2), 3–20.
Hannafin, M. J., & Land, S. M. (2000). Technology and student-centered learning in higher education: issues and practices. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 12(1),
3–30.
Hannafin, M. J., Land, S. M., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: foundations, methods, and models. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models,
Vol. 2 (pp. 115–140). Mahwah: NJ: Erlbaum.
Hickey, D. T., & Zuiker, S. (2003). A new perspective for evaluating innovative science learning environments. Science Education, 87(3), 539–563.
Hill, J. R., & Hannafin. (2001). Teaching and learning in digital environments: the resurgence of resource-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49
(3), 37–52.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark
(2006). Educational Psychologist, 42, 99–107.
Hogan, K., & Pressley, M. (1997). Scaffolding scientific competencies within classroom communities of inquiry. In K. Hogan, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding student learning:
Instructional approaches and issues (pp. 74–107). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Holyoak, K., & Morrison, R. G. (2005). Thinking and reasoning: a reader’s guide. In K. Holyoak, & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning
(pp. 1–9). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hong, N. S., Jonassen, D. H., & McGee, S. (2003). Predictors of well-structured and ill-structured problem solving in an astronomy simulation. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 40(1), 6–33.
416 M.C. Kim, M.J. Hannafin / Computers & Education 56 (2011) 403–417

Jackson, S., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2000). Model-it: a design retrospective. In M. J. Jacobson, & R. B. Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced
design for technologies of learning (pp. 77–116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2008). Group mirrors to support interaction regulation in collaborative problem solving. Computers & Education, 51, 279–296.
Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking. Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85.
Jonassen, D. H. (2003). Designing research-based instruction for story problems. Educational Psychology Review, 15(3), 267–296.
Jonassen, D. H. (2007). Learning to solve complex, scientific problems. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kao, M. T., & Lehman, J. D. (1997). Scaffolding in hypermedia assisted instruction: An example of integration. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of Association for
Educational Communications and Technology, Indianapolis, IN.
Keys, C. W., & Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6),
631–645.
Kim, H., Hannafin, M. J., & Kim, M. C. (2004). Online case-based learning: components, applications, and assessment. Distance Learning, 1(5), 23–31.
Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2004). Designing online learning environments to support scientific inquiry. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 5(1), 1–10.
Kim, M. C., Hannafin, M. J., Adams, J., & Bryan, L. (2004). Middle school students’ problem solving in web-based inquiry environments: a case study. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, Atlanta, GA.
Kim, M. C., Hannafin, M. J., & Bryan, L. A. (2007). Technology-enhanced inquiry tools in science education: an emerging pedagogical framework for classroom practice. Science
Education, 91, 1010–1030.
Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2007). Exploring critical factors influencing middle school students’ problem-solving with Web-enhanced tools in science classes. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2010). Scaffolding 6th Graders’ Problem Solving in Technology-enhanced Science Classrooms: A Qualitative Case Study. Instructional Science,
doi:10.1007/s11251-010-9127-4.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based,
experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 38, 95–104.
Klahr, D. (2000). Exploring science: The cognition and development of discovery process. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Klahr, D., Fay, A., & Dunbar, K. (1993). Heuristics for scientific experimentation: a developmental study. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 111–146.
Koschmann, T. D., Myers, A. C., Feltovich, P. J., & Barrows, H. S. (1994). Using technology to assist in realizing effective learning and instruction: a principled approach to the use
of computers in collaborative learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 227–264.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D. (2007). Is direct instruction an answer to the right question? Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 109–113.
Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. (2006). In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 317–334). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: initial attempts by middle school
students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 313–350.
Lajoie, S. P. (2000)Computers as cognitive tools: No more walls, Vol. II. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lajoie, S. P. (2005). Extending the scaffolding metaphor. Instructional Science, 33, 541–557.
Land, S., & Hannafin, M. J. (1997). Patterns of understanding with open-ended learning environments: a qualitative study. Educational Technology Research and Development,
45(2), 47–73.
Land, S. M., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2003). Scaffolding reflection and articulation of scientific explanations in a data-rich, project-based learning environments: an investigation of
progress portfolio. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(4), 65–84.
Lee, C. -Y., & Chen, M. -P. (2009). A computer game as a context for non-routine mathematical problem solving: the effects of type of question prompt and level of prior
knowledge. Computers & Education, 52, 530–542.
Lindh, J., & Holgersson, T. (2007). Does lego training stimulate pupils’ ability to solve logical problems? Computers & Education, 49, 1097–1111.
Linn, M. C. (2000). Designing the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 781–796.
Linn, M. C. (2006). The knowledge integration perspective on learning and instruction. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 243–264).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517–538.
Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (2003). Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers and peers: Science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Marshall, S. P. (1995). Schemas in problem solving. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (1984). Aids to text comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 19, 30–42.
Mayer, R. E., & Wittrock, M. C. (2006). Problem solving. In P. A. Alexander, & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed.). (pp. 287–304) New York:
Macmillan.
van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Clark, R. E., & de Croock, M. B. M. (2002). Blueprints for complex learning: the 4C/ID-model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2),
39–64.
Mistler-Jackson, M., & Songer, N. B. (2000). Student motivation and internet technology: are students empowered to learn science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37
(5), 459–479.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards: Observe, interact, change, learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19, 317–328.
Newell, A., Shaw, J. C., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Elements of a theory of human problem solving. Psychological Review, 65(3), 151–166.
Novick, L. R., & Bassok, M. (2005). Problem solving. In K. Holyoak, & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 321–350). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M., & Poliquin, A. (2005, April). The role of epistemological beliefs and scientific argumentation in promoting conceptual change. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 345–359.
Oliver, K., & Hannafin, M. J. (2001). Developing and refining mental models in open-ended learning environments: a case study. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 49(4), 5–33.
Paas, F. G. W. C., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of coemetrical problem-solving skills: a cognitive-load approach. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 86(1), 122–133.
Palincsar, A. S. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction. Educational Psychologist, 21(1–2), 73–98.
Papert, S. (1987). Computer criticism vs. technocentric thinking. Educational Researcher, 16(1), 22–30.
Pea, R. D. (1985). Beyond amplification: using the computer to reorganize mental functioning. Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 167–182.
Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations
(pp. 47–87). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 13(3), 423–451.
Pedersen, S., & Liu, M. (2003). Teachers’ beliefs about issues in the implementation of a student-centered learning environment. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 51(2), 57–76.
Piaget, J. (1976). The grasp of consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., Milne, C., Jordan, T., Kalyuga, S., Kim, M., et al. (2009). Design factors for effective science simulations: representation of information. International
Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations, 1(1).
Plummer, J. D., & Krajcik, J. S. (2010). Building a Learning Progression for Celestial Motion: Elementary Levels from an Earth-Based Perspective. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 47(7), 768–787.
Pol, H. J., Harskamp, E. G., Suhre, C. J. M., & Goedhart, M. J. (2009). How indirect supportive digital help during and after solving physics problems can improve problem-
solving abilities. Computers & Education, 53, 34–50.
 M.C. Kim, M.J. Hannafin / Computers & Education 56 (2011) 403–417 417

Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method (2nd ed.). Garden City, NJ: Doubleday.
Pratt, M. W., Green, D., MacVicar, J., & Bountrogianni, M. (1992). The mathematical parent: parental scaffolding, parental style, and learning outcomes in long-division
mathematics homework. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 13, 17–34.
Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.
Quintana, C., Zhang, M., & Krajcik, J. (2005). A framework for supporting metacognitive aspects of online inquiry through software-based scaffolding. Educational Psychologist,
40(4), 235–244.
Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: the mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304.
Roehler, L. R., & Cantlon, D. J. (1997). Scaffolding: a powerful tool in social constructivist classrooms. In K. Hogan, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding student learning: Instructional
approaches and issues (pp. 6–42). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2–9.
Sanchez, J. C., Encinas, L. H., Fernandez, R. L., & Sanchez, M. R. (2002). Designing hypermedia tools for solving problems in mathematics. Computers & Education, 38, 303–317.
Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345–372.
Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. A. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology
Research & Development, 50(3), 77–96.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1992). Text-based and knowledge-based questioning by children. Cognition and Instruction, 9(3), 177–199.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of education (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan Reference, USA. Retrieved 27.05.09,
from. http://ikit.org/fulltext/2003_knowledge_building.pdf.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1991). On mathematics as sense-making: an informal attack on the unfortunate divorce of formal and informal mathematics. In J. F. Boss, D. N. Perkins, &
J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 311–344). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Schrire, S. (2006). Knowledge building in asynchronous discussion groups: going beyond quantitative analysis. Computers & Education, 46, 49–70.
Schwartz, D., Lin, X., Brophy, S., & Bransford, J. (1999). Toward the development of flexibly adaptive instructional designs. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and
models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, Vol. 2 (pp. 183–213). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schwartz, D. L. (1995). The emergence of abstract representations in dyad problem solving. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 321–354.
Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 475–522.
Shiland, T. W. (1998). The atheoretical nature of the national science education standards. Science Education, 82(5), 615–617.
Shiland, T. W. (2002). Reply to Pushkin. Science Education, 86(2), 167–170.
Shin, N., Jonassen, D. H., & McGee, S. (2003). Predictors of well-structured and ill-structured problem solving in an astronomy simulation. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 40(1), 6–33.
Simmons, P. E., Emory, A., Carter, T., Coker, T., Finnegan, B., Crockett, D., et al. (1999). Beginning teachers: beliefs and classroom actions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
36(8), 930–954.
Smith, M. U. (1961). A view from biology. In M. U. Smith (Ed.), Toward a unified theory of problem solving: Views from the content domains (pp. 1–20). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Smith, C. L., Wiser, M., Anderson, C. W., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Implications of research on children's learning for standards and assessment: A proposed learning progression for
matter and the atomic molecular theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 14, 1–98.
Stevens, R. J., & Slavin, R. E. (1995). The cooperative elementary school: effects on students’ achievement, attitudes, and social relations. American Educational Research Journal,
32, 321–351.
Stone, C. A. (1993). What is missing in the metaphor of scaffolding? In E. A. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children’s
development (pp. 169–183) New York: Oxford University Press.
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wang, F., & Hannafin. (2008). Integrating WebQuests in preservice teacher education. Educational Media International, 45(1), 59–73.
Wang, F.-K., Moore, J. L., Wedman, J., & Shyu, C.-R. (2003). Developing a case-based reasoning knowledge repository to support a learning communitydan example from the
technology integration community. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(3), 45–62.
Web, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. C. Berliner, & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841–873). New York:
Prentice Hall.
Wertsch, J. V. (1984). The zone of proximal development: Some conceptual issues. In B. Rogoff, & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), Children’s learning in the “zone of the proximal
development” (pp. 7–17). No 23. New Directions for Child Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
White, B. Y., Shimoda, T. A., & Frederiksen, J. R. (2000). Facilitating students’ inquiry learning and metacognitive development through modifiable software advisers. In
S. P. Lajoie (Ed.), Computers as cognitive tools: No more walls, Vol. 2 (pp. 97–132). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a laptop computer school: the interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture.
American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165–205.
Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17, 89–100.
Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: an ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807–840.
Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27, 172–223.