Visualizing Research Trends on Instructional Scaffolding: A Science Mapping Study Based on Scopus Data
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study maps the development of global research on instructional scaffolding using a science-mapping and bibliometric approach based on Scopus publications from 2000 to 2025. By employing VOSviewer to analyze keyword co-occurrence, author collaboration, citation patterns, and thematic evolution, the study unveils the intellectual structure and shifting priorities within the field. The results show that scaffolding research is anchored in core themes such as student learning, instructional design, cognitive support, and computer-aided instruction, while recent trends highlight the growing role of adaptive learning systems, artificial intelligence, and technology-enhanced pedagogies. Author network analyses reveal two dominant research communities: one focusing on cognitive and metacognitive scaffolding, and another emphasizing intelligent tutoring and automated support. The analysis of highly cited articles further emphasizes the multidisciplinary nature of scaffolding research, spanning computational thinking, STEM learning, writing instruction, and complex learning design. Overall, the findings provide a comprehensive overview of how instructional scaffolding has evolved, offering valuable insights for educators, researchers, and policymakers to guide future innovation in scaffolded learning environments.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
D. Wood, J. S. Bruner, and G. Ross, “The role of tutoring in problem solving,” J. child Psychol. psychiatry, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 89–100, 1976.
J. Hammond and P. F. Gibbons, “Putting scaffolding to work,” Prospect, 2005.
B. J. Reiser and I. Tabak, “Scaffolding,” 2014.
R. Pea, M. Mills, J. Rosen, K. Dauber, and E. Hoffert, “The diver project: Interactive digital video repurposing,” IEEE Multimed., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 54–61, 2004.
R. Azevedo and A. F. Hadwin, “Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition–Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds,” Instr. Sci., vol. 33, no. 5/6, pp. 367–379, 2005.
S. Y. Lye and J. H. L. Koh, “Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12?,” Comput. Human Behav., vol. 41, pp. 51–61, 2014.
M.-B. Ibáñez and C. Delgado-Kloos, “Augmented reality for STEM learning: A systematic review,” Comput. Educ., vol. 123, pp. 109–123, 2018.
J. J. G. Van Merriënboer, P. A. Kirschner, and L. Kester, “Taking the load off a learner’s mind: Instructional design for complex learning,” Educ. Psychol., vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 5–13, 2003.
S. Graham, D. McKeown, S. Kiuhara, and K. R. Harris, “A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades.,” J. Educ. Psychol., vol. 104, no. 4, p. 879, 2012.
K. L. McNeill, D. J. Lizotte, J. Krajcik, and R. W. Marx, “Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials,” J. Learn. Sci., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 153–191, 2006.
M. Dunleavy and C. Dede, “Augmented reality teaching and learning,” Handb. Res. Educ. Commun. Technol., pp. 735–745, 2013.
M. Kapur and K. Bielaczyc, “Designing for productive failure,” J. Learn. Sci., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 45–83, 2012.
R. Azevedo, J. G. Cromley, and D. Seibert, “Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students’ ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia?,” Contemp. Educ. Psychol., vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 344–370, 2004.
J. Kim, H. Lee, and Y. H. Cho, “Learning design to support student-AI collaboration: Perspectives of leading teachers for AI in education,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 6069–6104, 2022.
G. E. Xun and S. M. Land, “A conceptual framework for scaffolding III-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions,” Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 5–22, 2004.