Strategic Fading of Scaffolding to Foster Mathematical Autonomy: Supporting the Shift from Descriptive to Symbolic Thinking in Elementary Proportional Reasoning
Abstract
Elementary students’ mathematical thinking is frequently constrained by persistent misconceptions and an overreliance on procedural instruction. International assessments of mathematical literacy consistently report lower levels of achievement among students in many developing countries, underscoring the need for instructional approaches that promote conceptual understanding rather than rote learning. Scaffolding, understood as temporary and adaptive instructional support, has been widely acknowledged as an effective means of facilitating students’ conceptual development. Nevertheless, its classroom enactment—particularly the processes through which support is responsively adjusted and gradually withdrawn—remains insufficiently documented and systematically analyzed in empirical research.
This study aims to examine the forms of scaffolding employed by teachers, their responsive strategies in addressing student errors, and the observable indicators of scaffolding reduction (fading) in mathematics instruction grounded in visual pattern recognition and comparative reasoning. A descriptive qualitative methodology was adopted, using a case study design involving three upper elementary school students. Data were collected through analyses of students’ written work, classroom interaction observations, and semi-structured interviews. The data were analyzed thematically within the framework of contingent scaffolding.
The findings indicate differentiated learning trajectories among the participants. Student MA demonstrated a shift from intuitive verbal descriptions to symbolic comparative reasoning following interactive scaffolding. Student RFM exhibited independent formal reasoning from the outset, requiring minimal instructional support. In contrast, student IAM experienced a substantial conceptual transition after receiving explicit instructional intervention. Notably, all three students were ultimately able to generalize that the number of blue triangles was consistently less than half of the total number of triangles.
These results highlight the critical role of adaptive and contingent scaffolding in fostering conceptual understanding and learning autonomy in elementary mathematics. By documenting the forms, timing, and transitions of instructional support, this study contributes to the empirical literature on scaffolding practices in primary education. Importantly, the findings provide a novel account of how scaffolding is dynamically enacted and strategically faded in response to students’ errors, enabling a progression from descriptive to symbolic proportional reasoning. The identification of concrete indicators of scaffolding reduction aligned with students’ emerging autonomy offers theoretically grounded and practice-oriented implications for the design of adaptive instructional support in elementary mathematics classrooms.
Keywords: instructional scaffolding; mathematical reasoning; mathematics education; proportional reasoning; gradual fading of support.
Full Text:
PDFReferences
OECD, Pisa 2022 Results, vol. I. 2023.
S. Gidalevich and B. Kramarski, “The value of fixed versus faded self-regulatory scaffolds on fourth graders’ mathematical problem solving,” Instructional Science, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 39–68, Feb. 2019, doi: 10.1007/S11251-018-9475-Z.
J. Anghileri, “Scaffolding practices that enhance mathematics learning,” Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 33–52, Feb. 2006, doi: 10.1007/S10857-006-9005-9.
J. van de Pol, M. Volman, and J. Beishuizen, “Scaffolding in Teacher–Student Interaction: A Decade of Research,” Educational Psychology Review, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 271–296, Sep. 2010, doi: 10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6.
N. Matsuda, W. Weng, and N. Wall, “The Effect of Metacognitive Scaffolding for Learning by Teaching a Teachable Agent,” International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 1–37, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.1007/S40593-019-00190-2.
Awi, M. A. Naufal, Sutamrin, and M. Huda, “Enhancing Geometry Achievement in Pre-Service Mathematics Teachers: The Impact of a Scaffolded Flipped Classroom Using a Learning Management System,” Journal of Ecohumanism, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 637–645, Aug. 2024, doi: 10.62754/JOE.V3I6.4035.
M. F. Chen, Y. C. Chen, P. Y. Zuo, and H. T. Hou, “Design and evaluation of a remote synchronous gamified mathematics teaching activity that integrates multi-representational scaffolding and a mind tool for gamified learning,” Education and Information Technologies, vol. 28, no. 10, pp. 13207–13233, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.1007/S10639-023-11708-6.
J. Zeng, P. Zhang, J. Zhou, J. Shang, and J. B. Black, “The impact of embodied scaffolding sequences on STEM conceptual learning,” Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 767–792, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.1007/S11423-024-10438-X.
Y. P. Xin et al., “The Effect of Computer-Assisted Conceptual Model-Based Intervention Program on Mathematics Problem-Solving Performance of At-Risk English Learners*,” Reading & Writing Quarterly, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 104–123, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.1080/10573569.2019.1702909.
P. Ivars, C. Fernández, and S. Llinares, “A Learning Trajectory as a Scaffold for Pre-service Teachers’ Noticing of Students’ Mathematical Understanding,” International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 529–548, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.1007/S10763-019-09973-4.
L. Silva, A. Mendes, A. Gomes, and G. Fortes, “Fostering regulatory processes using computational scaffolding,” International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 67–100, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.1007/S11412-023-09388-Y.
R. L. Brower et al., “Scaffolding Mathematics Remediation for Academically At-Risk Students Following Developmental Education Reform in Florida,” 2017, doi: 10.1080/10668926.2017.1279089.
M. Nickl et al., “Effects of real-time adaptivity of scaffolding: Supporting pre-service mathematics teachers’ assessment skills in simulations,” Learning and Instruction, vol. 94, p. 101994, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1016/J.LEARNINSTRUC.2024.101994.
T. J. E. Faber, M. E. W. Dankbaar, W. W. van den Broek, L. J. Bruinink, M. Hogeveen, and J. J. G. van Merriënboer, “Effects of adaptive scaffolding on performance, cognitive load and engagement in game-based learning: a randomized controlled trial,” BMC Medical Education, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 1–19, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1186/S12909-024-05698-3.
S. Rezat, S. Malik, and M. Leifeld, “Scaffolding Close Reading of Mathematical Text in Pre-service Primary Teacher Education at the Tertiary Level: Design and Evaluation,” International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 215–236, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.1007/S10763-022-10309-Y.
M. P. Kshetree, B. R. Acharya, B. Khanal, R. K. Panthi, and S. Belbase, “Eighth Grade Students’ Misconceptions and Errors in Mathematics Learning in Nepal.,” European Journal of Educational Research, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 1101–1121, 2021, doi: 10.12973/eu-jer.10.3.1101.
T. Sinha and M. Kapur, “Robust effects of the efficacy of explicit failure-driven scaffolding in problem-solving prior to instruction: A replication and extension,” Learning and Instruction, vol. 75, p. 101488, Oct. 2021, doi: 10.1016/J.LEARNINSTRUC.2021.101488.
J. van de Pol, N. Mercer, and M. Volman, “Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students’ Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction,” Journal of the Learning Sciences, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 206–239, Mar. 2019, doi: 10.1080/10508406.2018.1522258.
I. Hidayah, T. B. Adji, and N. A. Setiawan, “Development and evaluation of adaptive metacognitive scaffolding for algorithm-learning system,” IET Software, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 305–312, Aug. 2019, doi: 10.1049/IET-SEN.2018.5072.
C. C. Chang and S. T. Yang, “Interactive
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
