TABLE 1.
Guidelines
| Scaffolding Guidelines | Scaffolding Strategies | Other Motivation Goals Addressed |
|---|---|---|
| Establish Task Value (ETV) | ||
| 1. Foster interest | 1a. Prompt students to choose an aspect of the problem that connects to their interests (Palmer, 2009; Patall, 2013). | PMG, PER, PA |
| 1b. Display driving questions that intrigue students and which can only be addressed through investigating the target material (Barron et al., 1998; Renninger, 2009). | PMG | |
| 1c. Use language that is congruent with students' everyday experiences when describing tasks/content (Albin, Benton, & Khramtsova, 1996; Keller, 1987). | ||
| 2. Establish attainment value | 2a. Provide explanatory rationales for relevance to current and future life (Reeve, 2009; Su & Reeve, 2010). | |
| 2b. Embed expert modeling to illustrate how process is used in authentic settings (Herrington & Oliver, 2000; Powell & Mason, 2013). | PES | |
| 2c. Prompt students to reflect on and articulate attainment value (Kolodner et al., 2003; Turns et al., 2010). | ||
| Promote Mastery Goals (PMG) | ||
| 3. Encourage short-term goals | 3a. Embed peer modeling of specifying and engaging in subprocesses (Miller & Brickman, 2004; Schunk, 1989; Tabachnick, Miller, & Relyea, 2008). | ETV, PES |
| 3b. Prompt the creation of short-term goals. (Quintana et al., 2004; Reiser, 2004). | ETV, PES, PA | |
| 4. Provide and promote informational feedback | 4a. Highlight the goal of developing competence (Anderman & Maehr, 1994; Kaplan & Maehr, 2007). | |
| 4b. Focus feedback on substantive elements of student work (Deci et al., 1996; Rakoczy et al., 2013). | ||
| 4c. Embed reminders to self-congratulate for successes (Brophy, 2010). | PES, PER | |
| 4d. Embed recognition of progress, not just normative success (Ames & Archer, 1988; Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). | PES, PER | |
| 5. Promote cooperation rather than competition | 5a. Highlight importance of cooperation rather than competition (Ames, 1992; Hmelo-Silver, 2004). | PB |
| 6. Emphasize rational goals | 6a. Provide explanatory rationale for rational goals (Chinn et al., 2013). | |
| 6b. Provide peer scaffolding framework to enable students to press each other for understanding (Middleton & Midgley, 2002). | PB | |
| Promote Belonging (PB) | ||
| 7. Encourage shared goals | 7a. Display consensus problem aspect and attainment value, along with groupmates' individual learning goals (Capdeferro & Romero, 2012; Dolmans & Schmidt, 2006). | ETV |
| 8. Accommodate social goals | 8a. Describe how persistence at the shared goal can help students reach social responsibility goals (Brophy, 2010; Tempelaar et al., 2013). | PMG, PER, PES |
| 9. Allow students to co-construct standards | 9a. Embed support for students' co-construction of standards to judge the quality of their scaffold responses and problem solutions (Reeve, 2009; Rogat et al., in press). | PES, PA |
| Promote Emotion Regulation (PER) | ||
| 10. Highlight controllability of actions | 10a. Embed peer modeling of constructive response to failure (Pekrun, 2006; Weiner, 1985). | PES |
| 10b. Explain that failures are a natural part of learning, and encourage students to reflect oncauses of past failures, and what could have been done differently (Belland et al., 2008;Simons & Ertmer, 2006). | ETV, PMG, PES | |
| 11. Promote reappraisal | 11a. Provide an alternative explanation for negative emotions students may feel while struggling with the task so that students perceive that they belong in the profession (Thoman et al., 2013). | PB, PES, PA |
| Promote Expectancy for Success (PES) | ||
| 12. Promote perception of optimal challenge | 12a. Enable students to see that the task is neither too difficult nor too easy through peermodeling (Moos & Azevedo, 2009; Schunk, 2003). | PMG |
| 12b. Persuade students that they can accomplish the scaffolded task (Bandura, 1997; Britner & Pajares, 2006). | ||
| 13. Support productive attribution | 13a. Send teachers alerts based on tracking how students use scaffolding to prompt teacher-provided attributional feedback (Scheuer et al., 2010). | PER |
| 14. Enable identification of reliable processes | 14a. Encourage students to articulate strategy used, associated short-term goal, and whether it was a strategy they would use again, and why (Chinn et al., 2011; Herrenkohl & Cornelius, 2013). | |
| Promote Autonomy (PA) | ||
| 15. Use noncontrolling language | 15a. Incorporate only noncontrolling language in scaffolding messages (Reeve & Halusic, 2009). | PMG, PER |
| 16. Provide meaningful cognitive choice | 16a. Enable students to choose among a reasonable number of stakeholder position options with the help of choosing criteria (Chinn et al., 2013; Rogat et al., in press). | ETV |
| 17. Help students direct their own learning | 17a. Display processes students identified as reliable, from which students choose to meet shared goals and short-term goals (Weinstein et al., 2011). | |
| 17b. Embed support for scheduling project segments/processes (Loyens et al., 2008). | PMG, PES | |
| 17c. Embed support for students to self-evaluate strategy use (Loyens et al., 2008). |
Note. When we note that a strategy also addresses another motivational goal, it does not necessarily address the other motivational goal in the same way that the main strategies listed under that goal.