Understanding how to support student reading comprehension has long been a goal for education research. Yet no existing literature review links interactional scaffolding, defined as the responsive in-person support an expert reader offers to a novice, and reading comprehension. This review employed theories of scaffolding and reading comprehension to establish a theoretical framework, used an iterative search process to account for the terminological diversity of research on interactional scaffolding, and coded the resulting 57 studies according to their research designs and findings. Conclusions about research designs indicate that the observational studies predominate with fewer experimental, mixed methods, and correlational studies. In addition, study populations are overwhelmingly in K–5 settings. Synthesizing the studies’ findings produced four themes: (a) diversity in taxonomies of scaffolding, (b) a focus on contingency, (c) ways contextual and mediational resources shape scaffolding, and (d) potential pitfalls when scaffolding does not go as planned. Suggestions for future research include addressing gaps in research designs, extending and refining existing scaffolding taxa, linking specific forms of scaffolding across contexts to reading outcomes, advancing understanding of the mediational means that underpin comprehension, and deepening knowledge of developmental trajectories for comprehension scaffolding.
*References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.
2.
*AlfassiM. (1998). Reading for meaning: The efficacy of reciprocal teaching in fostering reading comprehension in high school students in remedial reading classes. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 309–332.
3.
*AnkrumJ. W.GenestM. T.BelcastroE. G. (2014). The power of verbal scaffolding: “Showing” beginning readers how to use reading strategies. Early Childhood Education Journal, 42, 39–47.
4.
ApplebeeA. N.LangerJ. A. (1983). Instructional scaffolding: Reading and writing as natural language activities. Language Arts, 60, 168–175.
5.
*AthanasesS. Z.de OliveiraL. C. (2014). Scaffolding versus routine support for Latina/o youth in an urban school: Tensions in building toward disciplinary literacy. Journal of Literacy Research, 46, 263–299.
6.
*AukermanM. (2007). When reading it wrong is getting it right: Shared evaluation pedagogy among struggling fifth grade readers. Research in the Teaching of English, 42, 56–103.
7.
AukermanM. (2013). Rereading comprehension pedagogies: Toward a dialogic teaching ethic that honors student sensemaking. Dialogic Pedagogy, 1, A1–A31.
8.
AzevedoR.HadwinA. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition–Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33, 367–379.
9.
BakhtinM. M. (1994). The Bakhtin reader. London, England: Edward Arnold.
10.
*BeedP. L.HawkinsE. M.RollerC. M. (1991). Moving learners toward independence: The power of scaffolded instruction. The Reading Teacher, 44, 648–655.
11.
BellandB. R. (2014). Scaffolding: Definition, current debates, and future directions. In SpectorM.MerrillM. D.ElenJ.BishopM. J. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 505–518). New York, NY: Springer.
12.
BellandB. R.KimC.HannafinM. J. (2013). A framework for designing scaffolds that improve motivation and cognition. Educational Psychologist, 48, 243–270.
13.
*BillingsL.FitzgeraldJ. (2002). Dialogic discussion and the Paideia seminar. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 907–941.
14.
*BoydM.RubinD. (2006). How contingent questioning promotes extended student talk: A function of display questions. Journal of Literacy Research, 38, 141–169.
15.
*BrabhamE.Lynch-BrownC. (2002). Effects of teachers’ reading-aloud styles on vocabulary acquisition and comprehension of students in the early elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 465.
16.
BrushT.SayeJ. W. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50, 77–96.
17.
CelaniK.McIntyreE.RightmyerE. C. (2006). Knowing the text, knowing the learner: Literature discussions with fifth grade struggling readers. Reading Horizons, 47, 97.
18.
*ChristophJ. N.NystrandM. (2001). Taking risks, negotiating relationships: “One teacher’s transition toward a dialogic classroom”. Research in the Teaching of English, 36, 249–286.
19.
ClarkK. F.GravesM. F. (2005). Scaffolding students’ comprehension of text. The Reading Teacher, 58, 570–580.
20.
ColeA. D. (2006). Scaffolding beginning readers: Micro and macro cues teachers use during student oral reading. The Reading Teacher, 59, 450–459.
21.
*CroweL. K. (2003). Comparison of two reading feedback strategies in improving the oral and written language performance of children with language-learning disabilities. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12, 16–27.
22.
*CroweL. K. (2005). Comparison of two oral reading feedback strategies in improving reading comprehension of school-age children with low reading ability. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 32–42.
23.
*Cumming-PotvinW. (2007). Scaffolding, multiliteracies, and reading circles. Canadian Journal of Education, 30, 483–507.
24.
*DanielS. M.Martin-BeltránM.PeercyM. M.SilvermanR. (2016). Moving beyond Yes or No: Shifting from over-scaffolding to contingent scaffolding in literacy instruction with emergent bilingual students. TESOL Journal, 7, 393–420.
25.
*DiehlH. L.ArmitageC. J.NettlesD. D. H.PetersonC. (2010). The three-phase reading comprehension intervention (3-RCI): A support for intermediate-grade word callers. Reading Horizons, 51, 149.
26.
DoleJ. A.BrownK. J.TrathenW. (1996). The effects of strategy instruction on the comprehension performance of at-risk students. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 62–88.
27.
DoleJ. A.ValenciaS. W.GreerE. A.WardropJ. L. (1991). Effects of two types of prereading instruction on the comprehension of narrative and expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 142–159.
28.
EedsM.WellsD. (1989). Grand conversations: An exploration of meaning construction in literature study groups. Research in the Teaching of English, 23, 4–29.
29.
FisherR. (2005). Teacher-child interaction in the teaching of reading: A review of research perspectives over twenty-five years. Journal of Research in Reading, 28, 15–27.
30.
*FreyN.FisherD. (2010). Identifying instructional moves during guided learning. The Reading Teacher, 64, 84–95.
31.
*GaskinsI. W.RauchS.GensemerE.CunicelliE. (1997). Scaffolding the development of intelligence among children who are delayed in learning to read. In HoganK. E.PressleyM. E. (Eds.), Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues (pp. 43–73). Boston, MA: Brookline Books.
32.
*HackerD. J.TenentA. (2002). Implementing reciprocal teaching in the classroom: Overcoming obstacles and making modifications. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 699.
33.
HammondJ.GibbonsP. (2005). Putting scaffolding to work: The contribution of scaffolding in articulating ESL education. Prospect, 20, 6–30.
34.
HarrisK. R.PressleyM. (1991). The nature of cognitive strategy instruction: Interactive strategy construction. Exceptional Children, 57, 392–404.
35.
HedinL. R.GaffneyJ. S. (2013). Tutoring sixth graders who struggle with reading: Illustrations of Wood’s contingent interventions. Reading Psychology, 34, 207–256.
36.
HirschE. D. (2003). Reading comprehension requires knowledge—of words and the world. American Educator, 27, 10–13.
37.
*JadallahM.AndersonR. C.Nguyen-JahielK.MillerB. W.KimI. H.KuoL. J.…WuX. (2011). Influence of a teacher’s scaffolding moves during child-led small-group discussions. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 194–230.
38.
*KnappN. F.WindsorA. P. (1998). A reading apprenticeship for delayed primary readers. Reading Research and Instruction, 38, 13–29.
39.
*KongA.PearsonP. D. (2003). The road to participation: The construction of a literacy practice in a learning community of linguistically diverse learners. Research in the Teaching of English, 38, 85–124.
40.
*LeeC. D. (1995). A culturally based cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching African American high school students skills in literary interpretation. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 608–630.
41.
LeeC. D. (2000). Signifying in the zone of proximal development: Literate cultural competencies in language minority classrooms. In LeeC. D.SmagorinskyP. (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research: Constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry (pp. 191–225). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
42.
*LeeC. D. (2001). Is October Brown Chinese? A cultural modeling activity system for underachieving students. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 97–141.
43.
*LinT. J.JadallahM.AndersonR. C.BakerA. R.Nguyen-JahielK.KimI. H.…WuX. (2015). Less is more: Teachers’ influence during peer collaboration. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 609.
44.
*LutzS. L.GuthrieJ. T.DavisM. H. (2006). Scaffolding for engagement in elementary school reading instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 100, 3–20.
45.
*LysynchukL. M.PressleyM.VyeN. J. (1990). Reciprocal teaching improves standardized reading-comprehension performance in poor comprehenders. The Elementary School Journal, 90, 469–484.
46.
*MalochB. (2002). Scaffolding student talk: One teacher’s role in literature discussion groups. Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 94–112.
47.
*MalochB. (2004). On the road to literature discussion groups: Teacher scaffolding during preparatory experiences. Literacy Research and Instruction, 44, 1–20.
48.
*MalochB. (2005). Moments by which change is made: A cross-case exploration of teacher mediation and student participation in literacy events. Journal of Literacy Research, 37, 95–142.
49.
*MalochB. (2008). Beyond exposure: The uses of informational texts in a second grade classroom. Research in the Teaching of English, 42, 315–362.
50.
*ManyJ. E. (2002). An exhibition and analysis of verbal tapestries: Understanding how scaffolding is woven into the fabric of instructional conversations. Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 376–407.
51.
*ManyJ. E.TaylorD. L.WangY.SachsG. T.SchreiberH. (2007). An examination of preservice literacy teachers’ initial attempts to provide instructional scaffolding. Reading Horizons, 48, 19–40.
52.
*MariageT. V. (1995). Why students learn: The nature of teacher talk during reading. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 214–234.
53.
*McElhoneD. (2012). Tell us more: Reading comprehension, engagement, and conceptual press discourse. Reading Psychology, 33, 525–561.
54.
*McIntyreE. (2007). Story discussion in the primary grades: Balancing authenticity and explicit teaching. The Reading Teacher, 60, 610–620.
55.
*McIntyreE.KyleD. W.MooreG. H. (2006). A primary-grade teacher’s guidance toward small-group dialogue. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 36–66.
56.
*MertzmanT. (2008). Individualising scaffolding: Teachers’ literacy interruptions of ethnic minority students and students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Journal of Research in Reading, 31, 183–202.
57.
*MeskillC. (2005). Triadic scaffolds: Tools for teaching English language learners with computers. Language Learning & Technology, 9, 46–59.
58.
*MossB.LappD.O’SheaM. (2011). Tiered texts: Supporting knowledge and language learning for English learners and struggling readers. English Journal, 100, 54–60.
59.
MurphyP. K.WilkinsonI. A.SoterA. O.HennesseyM. N.AlexanderJ. F. (2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 740–764.
60.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). The Nation’s Report Card. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved fromhttp://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading
61.
National Reading Panel (US), National Institute of Child Health, & Human Development (US). (2000). Report of the national reading panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.
62.
*PalincsarA. S. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction. Educational Psychologist, 21, 73–98.
63.
*PalincsarA. S.BrownA. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.
64.
*ParsonsS. A. (2012). Adaptive teaching in literacy instruction: Case studies of two teachers. Journal of Literacy Research, 44, 149–170.
65.
*ParsonsS. A.DavisS. G.ScalesR. Q.WilliamsJ. B.KearK. (2010). How and why teachers adapt their literacy instruction. Mentoring Literacy Professionals: Continuing the Spirit of CRA/ALER after 50 Years, 31, 221–236.
66.
PeaR. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 423–451.
67.
PearsonP. D.GallagherG. (1983). The gradual release of responsibility model of instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 112–123.
68.
*PooleD. (2008). Interactional differentiation in the mixed-ability group: A situated view of two struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 228–250.
69.
PuntambekarS.HubscherR. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed?Educational Psychologist, 40, 1–12.
70.
*ReismanA. (2015). Entering the historical problem space: Whole-class text-based discussion in history class. Teachers College Record, 117, 1–44.
71.
*ReynoldsD.GoodwinA. P. (2016a). Making complex texts a reality for all students: Dynamic scaffolding the bridges the gaps between student and text. Voices from the Middle, 23, 25–31.
72.
*ReynoldsD.GoodwinA. P. (2016b). Supporting readers of complex texts: Evidence for motivational scaffolding. AERA Open, 2, 1–16.
73.
RodgersE.D’AgostinoJ. V.HarmeyS. J.KellyR. H.BrownfieldK. (2016). Examining the nature of scaffolding in an early literacy intervention. Reading Research Quarterly, 51, 345–360.
74.
RodgersE. M. (2004). Interactions that scaffold reading performance. Journal of Literacy Research, 36, 501–532.
75.
*RoehlerL. R.CantlonD. J. (1997). Scaffolding: A powerful tool in social constructivist classrooms. In HoganK. E.PressleyM. E. (Eds.), Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues (pp. 6–43). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
76.
*RuedaR.MonzóL. D.HigaredaI. (2004). Appropriating the sociocultural resources of Latino paraeducators for effective instruction with Latino students: Promise and problems. Urban Education, 39, 52–90.
77.
*ScharlachT. D. (2008). START comprehending: Students and teachers actively reading text. The Reading Teacher, 62, 20–31.
78.
StoneC. A. (1993). What is missing in the metaphor of scaffolding? In FormanE. AMinickN. EStoneC. (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children’s development (pp. 169–183). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
79.
StoneC. A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 344–364.
80.
Van de PolJ.VolmanM.BeishuizenJ. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 271–296.
81.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
82.
WalkerA. (1982). The color purple. San Diego, CA: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
83.
WertschJ. V. (1984). The zone of proximal development: Some conceptual issues. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 23, 7–18.
84.
*WinneP. H.GrahamL.ProckL. (1993). A model of poor readers’ text-based inferencing: Effects of explanatory feedback. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 53–66.
85.
WoodD.BrunerJ. S.RossG. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.
86.
*WorthamS. E. (1995). Experiencing the great books. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 2, 67–80.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
