Editing Instructional scaffolding (section)

==The role of guidance==

===Guidance and cognitive load===
Learner support in scaffolding is known as guidance.  While it takes on various forms and styles, the basic form of guidance is any type of interaction from the instructor that is intended to aid and/or improve student learning.<ref name="multiple">{{Cite book |last1=Wise |first1=A. F. |url=https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2009-09809-005 |title=Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure? |last2=O'Neill |first2=D. K. |publisher=[[Routledge]] |year=2009 |isbn=9780415994248 |editor-last=Tobias |editor-first=S. |location=New York |pages=82–105 |chapter=Beyond More Versus Less: A Reframing of the Debate on Instructional Guidance |editor-last2=Duffy |editor-first2=T. M.}}</ref>  While this a broad definition, the role and amount of guidance is better defined by the instructor's approach. Instructionists and constructionists approach giving guidance within their own instructional frameworks.  Scaffolding involves presenting learners with proper guidance that moves them towards their learning goals.  Providing guidance is a method of moderating the [[cognitive load]] of a learner.  In scaffolding, learners can only be moved toward their learning goals if cognitive load is held in check by properly administered support.

Traditional teachers tend to give a higher level of deductive, diadactic instruction, with each piece of a complex task being broken down. This teacher-centered approach, consequently,  tends to increase the cognitive load for students.

Constructivist instructors, in contrast, approach instruction from the approach of guided discovery with a particular emphasis on transfer.  The concept of transfer focuses on a learner's ability to apply learned tasks in a context other than the one in which it was learned.<ref name="multiple"/>  This results in constructivist instructors, unlike classical ones, giving a higher level of guidance than instruction.

===Amount of guidance===

Research has demonstrated that higher level of guidance has a greater effect on scaffolded learning, but is not a guarantee of more learning.<ref name=":6" />  The efficacy of higher amount of guidance is dependent on the level of detail and guidance applicability.<ref name="multiple"/>  Having multiple types of guidance (i.e. worked examples, feedback) can cause them to interact and reinforce each other.  Multiple conditions do not guarantee greater learning, as certain types of guidance can be extraneous to the learning goals or the modality of learning.  With this, more guidance (if not appropriate to the learning) can negatively impact performance, as it gives the learner overwhelming levels of information.<ref name="multiple"/>   However, appropriately designed high levels of guidance, which properly interact with the learning, is more beneficial to learning than low levels of guidance.

===Context of guidance===

Constructivists pay close attention to the context of guidance because they believe instruction plays a major role in knowledge retention and transfer.<ref name="multiple"/> Research studies<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Wieman |first1=C. |last2=Perkins |first2=K. |date=2005 |title=Transforming physics education |url=https://physicscourses.colorado.edu/EducationIssues/papers/PhysicsTodayFinal.pdf |journal=[[Physics Today]] |volume=59 |issue=11 |pages=36–41|doi=10.1063/1.2155756 |bibcode=2005PhT....58k..36W }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Hrepic |first1=Z. |last2=Zollman |first2=D. A. |last3=Rebello |first3=N. S. |date=2007 |title=Comparing students' and experts' understanding of the content of a lecture |journal=Journal of Science Education and Technology |volume=16 |issue=3 |pages=213–224 |doi=10.1007/s10956-007-9048-4|bibcode=2007JSEdT..16..213H |citeseerx=10.1.1.472.2790 |s2cid=41297923 }}</ref> demonstrate how the context of isolated explanations can have an effect on student-learning outcomes. For example, Hake's (1998) large-scale study<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Hake |first=R. R. |date=1998 |title=Interactive engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics course |journal=[[American Journal of Physics]] |volume=66 |issue=1 |pages=64–74 |doi=10.1119/1.18809|bibcode=1998AmJPh..66...64H |s2cid=14835931 }}</ref> demonstrated how post-secondary physics students recalled less than 30% of material covered in a traditional lecture-style class. Similarly, other studies<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Capon |first1=N. |last2=Kuhn |first2=D. |date=2004 |title=What's so good about problem-based learning? |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/3233851 |journal=Cognition and Instruction |volume=22 |issue=1 |pages=61–79 |doi=10.1207/s1532690Xci2201_3 |jstor=3233851 |s2cid=37373838 |issn=0737-0008 |oclc=926325171|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Miller |first1=C. |last2=Lehman |first2=J. |last3=Koedinger |first3=K. |date=1999 |title=Goals and learning in microworlds |journal=[[Cognitive Science (journal)|Cognitive Science]] |volume=23 |issue=3 |pages=305–336 |doi=10.1016/S0364-0213(99)00007-5}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Swartz |first1=D. L. |last2=Martin |first2=T. |date=2004 |title=Inventing to prepare for learning: The hidden efficiency of original student production in statistics instruction |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/3233926 |journal=Cognition and Instruction |volume=22 |issue=2 |pages=129–184 |doi=10.1207/s1532690xci2202_1 |jstor=3233926 |s2cid=11677856}}</ref> illustrate how students construct different understandings from explanation in isolation versus having a first experience with the material. A first, experience with the material provides students with a "need to know",<ref name="multiple"/> which allows learners to reflect on prior experiences with the content, which can help learners construct meaning from instruction.<ref name="multiple"/> [[Worked-example effect|Worked examples]] are guiding tools that can act as a "need to know" for students. Worked examples provide students with straightforward goals, step-by-step instructions as well as ready-to-solve problems that can help students develop a stronger understanding from instruction.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Carroll |first=W. |date=1994 |title=Using worked examples as instructional support in the algebra classroom |journal=[[Journal of Educational Psychology]] |volume=86 |issue=3 |pages=360–367|doi=10.1037/0022-0663.86.3.360 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Trafton |first1=J. G. |last2=Reiser |first2=B. J. |date=1993 |title=The contribution of studying examples and solving problems to skill acquisition |journal=15th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society |oclc=30662070}}</ref>

===Timing of guidance===
Guiding has a key role in both constructivism and 'instructivism'. For instructivists, the timing of guidance is immediate, either at the beginning or when the learner makes a mistake, whereas in constructivism it can be delayed.<ref name="multiple"/> It has been found that immediate feedback can lead to [[cognitive load|working memory load]] as it does not take in consideration the process of gradual acquisition of a skill,<ref name="anderson">{{Cite journal |last1=Anderson |first1=John R. |last2=Corbett |first2=Albert T. |last3=Koedinger |first3=Kenneth R. |last4=Pelletier |first4=Ray |date=1995 |title=Cognitive Tutors: Lessons Learned |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/1466690 |journal=[[The Journal of the Learning Sciences]] |volume=4 |issue=2 |pages=167–207 |doi=10.1207/s15327809jls0402_2 |jstor=1466690 |s2cid=22377178|url-access=subscription }}</ref> which also relates to the amount of guidance being given. Research on [[Intelligent tutoring systems|intelligent-tutoring systems]] suggests that immediate feedback on errors is a great strategy to promote learning. As the learner is able to integrate the feedback from short-term memory into the overall learning- and problem-solving task, the longer the wait on feedback and the harder it is for the learner to make this integration.<ref name="anderson"/> Yet, in another study it was found that providing feedback right after the error can deprive the learner of the opportunity to develop evaluative skills.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Mathan |first1=S. |title=Artificial intelligence in education: Shaping the future of learning through intelligent technologies |last2=Koedinger |first2=K. R. |publisher=[[IOS Press]] |year=2003 |isbn=9781586033569 |editor-last=Hoppe |editor-first=U. |location=Amsterdam |pages=13–20 |chapter=Recasting the feedback debate: Benefits of tutoring error detection and correction skills |editor-last2=Verdejo |editor-first2=F. |editor-last3=Kay |editor-first3=J.}}</ref> Wise and O'Neill bring these two, seemingly contradictory findings, and argue that it does not only prove the importance of the role of feedback, but that points out a timing feature of feedback: immediate feedback in the short term promotes more rapid problem-solving, but delaying feedback can result in better retention and [[Transfer of learning|transfer]] in the long term.<ref name="multiple"/>

===Constructivism and guidance===

[[Constructivism (philosophy of education)|Constructivism]] views knowledge as a "function of how the individual creates meaning from his or her own experiences".<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Jonassen |first=D. H. |date=1991 |title=Objectivism versus constructivism: do we need a new philosophical paradigm? |journal=[[Educational Technology Research and Development]] |volume=39 |issue=3 |pages=5–14 |doi=10.1007/BF02296434|s2cid=53412771 }}</ref> Constructivists advocate that learning is better facilitated in a minimally guided environment where learners construct important information for themselves.<ref>{{Cite book |title=Constructivism in education |publisher=Lawrence Erlbaum |year=1995 |isbn=9780805810950 |editor-last=Steffe |editor-first=L. |location=New Jersey |editor-last2=Gale |editor-first2=J.}}</ref> According to constructivism, minimal guidance in the form of process or task related information should be provided to learners upon request and [[direct instruction]] of learning strategies should not be used because it impedes the natural processes learners use to recall prior experiences.
In this view, for learners to construct knowledge they should be provided with the goals and minimal information and support. Applications that promote [[constructivist learning]] require learners to solve authentic problems or "acquire knowledge in information-rich settings".<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Kirschner |first=P. A. |date=1992 |title=Epistemology, practical work and academic skills in science education |url=http://hdl.handle.net/1874/12698 |journal=[[Science and Education]] |volume=1 |issue=3 |pages=273–299 |doi=10.1007/BF00430277 |bibcode=1992Sc&Ed...1..273K |hdl=1874/12698 |s2cid=146174053 |issn=0926-7220|hdl-access=free }}</ref> An example of an application of constructivist learning is science instruction, where students are asked to discover the principles of science by imitating the steps and actions of researchers.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=van Joolingen |first1=W. R. |last2=de Jong |first2=T. |last3=Lazonder |first3=A. W. |last4=Savelsbergh |first4=E. |last5=Manlove |first5=S. |date=2005 |title=Co-Lab: Research and development of an on-line learning environment for collaborative scientific discovery learning |journal=[[Computers in Human Behavior]] |volume=21 |issue=4 |pages=671–688 |doi=10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.039|url=https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/files/6700904/Joolingen05co-lab.pdf }}</ref>

===Instructivism and guidance===
Instructionism are educational practices characterized for being instructor-centered. Some authors see instructionism as a highly prescriptive practice that mostly focuses on the formation of skills, that is very product-oriented and is not interactive;<ref>{{Cite book |title=Handbook of research for educational communications and technology |publisher=[[Simon & Schuster]] |year=1996 |editor-last=Jonassen |editor-first=D. H. |location=New York |oclc=609554959}}</ref>{{Page needed|date=January 2024}} or that is a highly structured, systematic and explicit way of teaching that gives emphasis to the role of the teacher as a transmitter of knowledge and the students as passive receptacles.<ref name="johnson">{{Cite journal |last=Johnson |first=G. |date=2009 |title=Instructionism and Constructivism: Reconciling Two Very Good Ideas |url=https://archive.org/details/ERIC_EJ877941 |journal=International Journal of Special Education |volume=24 |issue=3 |pages=90–98 |via=[[Archive.org]]}}</ref> The 'transmission' of knowledge and skills from the teacher to the student in this context is often manifested in the form of drill, practice and rote memorization.<ref name="johnson"/> An 'instructionist', then, focuses on the preparation, organization and management of the lesson making sure the plan is detailed and the communication is effective.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Adams |first1=G. L. |title=Research on Direct Instruction: 25 years beyond DISTAR |last2=Engelmann |first2=S. |publisher=Educational Achievement Systems |year=1996 |isbn=9780675210140 |location=Seattle |oclc=37500912}}</ref>{{Page needed|date=January 2024}}<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Kameenui |first1=E. J. |title=Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners |last2=Carnine |first2=D. W. |publisher=Merrill |year=1998 |isbn=9780133821857 |location=Upper Saddle River, NJ}}</ref>{{Page needed|date=January 2024}} The emphasis is on the up-front explicit delivery of instruction.<ref name="multiple"/>

Instructionism is often contrasted with constructivism. Both of them use the term ''guidance'' as means to support learning, and how it can be used more effectively. The difference in the use of guidance is found in the philosophical assumptions regarding the nature of the learner,<ref name="johnson"/> but they also differ in their views around the quantity, the context and the timing of guidance.<ref name="multiple"/> An example of application of instructionism in the classroom is [[Direct Instruction|direct instruction]].

=== Minimal guidance in education ===
<blockquote>With traditional power dynamics in the classroom, the teacher is the authority. In order to engage in meaningful student talk, we need to break this hierarchy.''<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |last=Toro |first=Stephanie |date=2021-09-08 |title=Giving Students More Authority in Classroom Discussions |url=https://www.edutopia.org/article/giving-students-more-authority-classroom-discussions/ |access-date=2022-11-13 |website=[[Edutopia]]}}</ref>''</blockquote>Minimal guidance is a general term applied to a variety of pedagogical approaches such as [[Inquiry-based learning|inquiry learning]], learner-centered pedagogy, [[student-centered learning]],<ref>{{Cite web |last=Liebtag |first=Emily |date=2017-08-09 |title=8 Things to Look For in a Student-Centered Learning Environment |url=https://www.gettingsmart.com/2017/08/09/8-things-look-student-centered-learning-environment/ |access-date=2022-11-16 |website=Getting Smart |language=en-US}}</ref> [[project-based learning]], and [[discovery learning]]. It is the idea that learners, regardless of their level of expertise, will learn best through discovering and/or constructing information for themselves in contrast to more teacher-led classrooms which in contrast are described as more passive learning.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal |last1=Kirschner |first1=Paul A. |last2=Sweller |first2=John |last3=Clark |first3=Richard E. |date=June 2006 |title=Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching |url=https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/1874/16899/1/kirschner_06_minimal_guidance.pdf |journal=Educational Psychologist |language=en |volume=41 |issue=2 |pages=75–86 |doi=10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1 |s2cid=17067829 |issn=0046-1520}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Three benefits of a student-centered learning environment |url=https://blog.isb.cn/three-benefits-of-a-student-centered-learning-environment |access-date=2022-11-16 |website=[[International School of Beijing]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Rodriguez |first=Brittany |date=2018-09-06 |title=Active learning vs. passive learning: What's the best way to learn? |url=https://www.classcraft.com/resources/blog/active-learning-vs-passive-learning/ |access-date=2022-11-16 |website=Classcraft}}</ref>{{Unreliable source?|date=January 2024}}<ref>{{Cite web |title=Inquiry-based Learning: Explanation |url=https://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/inquiry/index_sub1.html |access-date=2022-11-16 |website=[[WNET]]}}</ref> <blockquote>A safe approach is to offer three options. The teacher designs two options based on what most students may like to do. The third choice is a blank check – students propose their own product or performance.<ref>{{Cite web |last=McCarthy |first=John |title=Student-Centered Learning: It Starts With the Teacher |url=https://www.edutopia.org/blog/student-centered-learning-starts-with-teacher-john-mccarthy |access-date=2022-11-17 |website=[[Edutopia]]}}</ref></blockquote>In this approach, the role of the teacher may change from what has been described as "sage on the stage" to "guide on the side" with one example of this change in practice being that teachers will not tend to answer questions from students directly, but instead will ask questions back to students to prompt further thinking.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hill |first=Jon |title=Who's the better teacher, Sage on the Stage or Guide on the Side? |url=https://blog.isb.cn/whos-the-better-teacher-sage-on-the-stage-or-the-guide-on-the-side |access-date=2022-11-13 |website=[[International School of Beijing]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Hilger |first=Laura |date=2019-06-18 |title=Teacher-Centered Versus Learner-Centered Learning |url=https://knowledgeworks.org/resources/learner-centered-learning/ |access-date=2022-11-13 |website=KnowledgeWorks}}</ref><ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Bracey Sutton |first=Bonnie |date=1997-07-01 |title=The Teacher as a Guide: Letting Students Navigate Their Own Learning |url=https://www.edutopia.org/teacher-learning-guide |access-date=2022-11-13 |website=[[Edutopia]] |language=}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Jones |first=Dan |date=2015-05-22 |title=Guide on the Side(lines) |url=https://www.edutopia.org/discussion/guide-sidelines |access-date=2022-11-13 |website=[[Edutopia]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Alber |first=Rebecca |date=2013-07-23 |title=Tools for Teaching: How to Transform Direct Instruction |url=https://www.edutopia.org/blog/tools-for-teaching-transform-direct-instruction-constructivism-rebecca-alber |access-date=2022-11-17 |website=[[Edutopia]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Bogdan |first=Paul |date=2011-03-29 |title=Student-Centered Learning Environments: How and Why |url=https://www.edutopia.org/blog/student-centered-learning-environments-paul-bogdan |access-date=2022-11-17 |website=[[Edutopia]]}}</ref>{{Excessive citations inline|date=January 2024}} This change in teaching style has also been described as being a "facilitator of learning" instead of being a "dispenser of knowledge".<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED351195 |title=Mathematics Framework for California Public Schools: Kindergarten through Grade Twelve |date=1992 |publisher=[[California State Department of Education]] |isbn=978-0-8011-1033-7 |location=Sacramento |via=[[Education Resources Information Center]]}}</ref>

Minimal guidance is regarded as controversial<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Lee |first1=Hee Seung |last2=Anderson |first2=John R. |date=2013-01-03 |title=Student Learning: What Has Instruction Got to Do With It? |url=https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143833 |journal=Annual Review of Psychology |language=en |volume=64 |issue=1 |pages=445–469 |doi=10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143833 |pmid=22804771 |issn=0066-4308|url-access=subscription }}</ref> and has been described as a caricature that does not exist in practice, and that critics have combined too many different approaches some of which may include more guidance, under the label of minimal guidance.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Scott |first1=David M. |last2=Smith |first2=Cameron |last3=Chu |first3=Man-Wai |last4=Friesen |first4=Sharon |date=2018-05-02 |title=Examining the Efficacy of Inquiry-based Approaches to Education |url=https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/ajer/article/view/56439 |journal=Alberta Journal of Educational Research |volume=64 |issue=1 |pages=35–54 |doi=10.11575/ajer.v64i1.56439 |issn=1923-1857}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Hmelo-Silver |first1=Cindy E. |last2=Duncan |first2=Ravit Golan |last3=Chinn |first3=Clark A. |date=2007-04-26 |title=Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) |url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00461520701263368 |journal=[[Educational Psychologist (journal)|Educational Psychologist]] |volume=42 |issue=2 |pages=99–107 |doi=10.1080/00461520701263368 |issn=0046-1520 |s2cid=1360735|url-access=subscription }}</ref> However, there is some evidence that in certain domains, and under certain circumstances, a minimal guidance approach can lead to successful learning if sufficient practice opportunities are built in.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Brunstein |first1=Angela |last2=Betts |first2=Shawn |last3=Anderson |first3=John R. |date=November 2009 |title=Practice enables successful learning under minimal guidance. |url=http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/a0016656 |journal=[[Journal of Educational Psychology]] |volume=101 |issue=4 |pages=790–802 |doi=10.1037/a0016656 |issn=1939-2176|citeseerx=10.1.1.210.1094 }}</ref>

==== Minimal guidance in education: criticisms and controversies ====
One strand of criticism of the minimal guidance approach originating in [[Cognitive load|cognitive load theory]] is that it does not align with human cognitive architecture making it an inefficient approach to learning for beginner learners in particular.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Mayer |first=Richard E. |date=January 2004 |title=Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction |url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14736316/ |journal=[[The American Psychologist]] |volume=59 |issue=1 |pages=14–19 |doi=10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14 |issn=0003-066X |pmid=14736316|citeseerx=10.1.1.372.2476 |s2cid=1129364 }}</ref> In this strand of criticism, minimal guidance approaches are contrasted with fully guided approaches to instruction which better match inherent human cognitive architecture.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Clark |first1=Richard E. |last2=Kirschner |first2=Paul A. |last3=Sweller |first3=John |date=Spring 2012 |title=The Case for Fully Guided Instruction |url=https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/Clark.pdf |journal=[[American Educator]] |publisher=[[American Federation of Teachers]] |volume=36 |issue=1 |access-date=2022-11-13}}</ref><ref name=":6">{{Cite journal |last1=Sweller |first1=J. |last2=Kirschner |first2=P. A. |last3=Clark |first3=R. E. |date=2007-04-26 |title=Why Minimally Guided Teaching Techniques Do Not Work: A Reply to Commentaries |url=https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263426 |journal=Educational Psychologist |volume=42 |issue=2 |pages=115–121 |doi=10.1080/00461520701263426 |issn=0046-1520 |s2cid=18152560|citeseerx=10.1.1.561.4084 }}</ref> While accepting this general line of argument, counter-arguments for individual approaches such as problem-based learning have highlighted how these are not minimal guidance approaches, and are consistent with human cognitive architecture.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Schmidt |first1=Henk G. |last2=Loyens |first2=Sofie M. M. |last3=Van Gog |first3=Tamara |last4=Paas |first4=Fred |date=2007-04-26 |title=Problem-Based Learning is Compatible with Human Cognitive Architecture: Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) |url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00461520701263350 |journal=Educational Psychologist |volume=42 |issue=2 |pages=91–97 |doi=10.1080/00461520701263350 |issn=0046-1520 |s2cid=11864555|url-access=subscription }}</ref> Other strands of criticism suggest that there is little empirical evidence for the effectiveness of learner-centered approaches when compared to more teacher-led approaches, and this is despite extensive encouragement and support from national and international education agencies including [[UNESCO]], [[UNICEF]], and the [[World Bank]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Bremner |first1=Nicholas |last2=Sakata |first2=Nozomi |last3=Cameron |first3=Leanne |date=2022-10-01 |title=The outcomes of learner-centred pedagogy: A systematic review |journal=International Journal of Educational Development |volume=94 |pages=102649 |doi=10.1016/j.ijedudev.2022.102649 |issn=0738-0593 |s2cid=251078591 |doi-access=free |hdl-access=free |hdl=10871/130378}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Sakata |first1=Nozomi |last2=Bremner |first2=Nicholas |last3=Cameron |first3=Leanne |date=December 2022 |title=A systematic review of the implementation of learner-centred pedagogy in low- and middle-income countries |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rev3.3365 |journal=[[Review of Education]] |volume=10 |issue=3 |doi=10.1002/rev3.3365 |issn=2049-6613 |s2cid=252265258|url-access=subscription |hdl=10871/130832 |hdl-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last1=Sakata |first1=Nozomi |last2=Bremner |first2=Nicholas |last3=Cameron |first3=Leanne |date=2022-11-04 |title=Is learner-centred pedagogy the answer in low- and middle-income countries? |url=https://www.bera.ac.uk/blog/is-learner-centred-pedagogy-the-answer-in-low-and-middle-income-countries |access-date=2022-11-19 |website=[[British Educational Research Association]]}}</ref> Further more specific criticisms include the following: minimal guidance is inefficient compared to explicit instruction due to a lack of [[Worked-example effect|worked examples]], minimal guidance leads to reduced opportunities for student practice, and minimal guidance happens inevitably in [[project-based learning]] as a result of the teacher having to manage too many student projects at one time.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Groshell |first=Zach |date=2022-11-07 |title=PBL or Direct/Explicit Instruction: What Works? |url=https://educationrickshaw.com/2022/11/07/pbl-or-direct-explicit-instruction-what-works/ |access-date=2022-11-16 |website=Education Rickshaw}}</ref>

==== Minimal guidance in education: synthesis and solutions ====
<blockquote>One of the consequences of this reconceptualization is abandoning the rigid explicit instruction versus minimal guidance dichotomy and replacing it with a more flexible approach based on differentiating specific goals of various learner activities in complex learning.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Kalyuga |first1=Slava |last2=Singh |first2=Anne-Marie |date=December 2016 |title=Rethinking the Boundaries of Cognitive Load Theory in Complex Learning |url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10648-015-9352-0 |journal=[[Educational Psychology Review]] |volume=28 |issue=4 |pages=831–852 |doi=10.1007/s10648-015-9352-0 |issn=1040-726X |s2cid=254468337|url-access=subscription }}</ref></blockquote>There have been several attempts to move beyond the minimal guidance versus fully guided instruction controversy. These are often developed by introducing the variable of learner expertise and using that to suggest adapting instructional styles depending on the level of expertise of the learner, with more expert learners generally requiring less direct instruction.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Bokhove |first1=C. |url=https://uk.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-assets/112572_book_item_112572.pdf |title=The Early Career Framework Handbook. |last2=Campbell |first2=R. |publisher=Sage |year=2020 |isbn=978-1-5297-2457-8 |edition=2nd |pages=75–83 |chapter=Adapting teaching.}}</ref> For example, despite providing many of the criticisms of minimal guidance, [[Cognitive load|cognitive load theory]] does also suggest a role for less direct guidance from the teacher as learners become more expert due to the [[expertise reversal effect]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Kalyuga |first1=Slava |last2=Ayres |first2=Paul |last3=Chandler |first3=Paul |last4=Sweller |first4=John |date=2003-01-01 |title=The Expertise Reversal Effect |url=https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1141&context=edupapers |journal=Educational Psychologist |language=en |volume=38 |issue=1 |pages=23–31 |doi=10.1207/S15326985EP3801_4 |s2cid=10519654 |issn=0046-1520}}</ref> Other attempts at synthesis include using pedagogies more associated with martial arts instruction that apply explicit instruction as a means of fostering student discovery through repeated practice.<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal |last=Trninic |first=Dragan |date=February 2018 |title=Instruction, repetition, discovery: restoring the historical educational role of practice |url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11251-017-9443-z |journal=Instructional Science |volume=46 |issue=1 |pages=133–153 |doi=10.1007/s11251-017-9443-z |issn=0020-4277 |s2cid=255111187 |hdl-access=free |hdl=20.500.11850/226164}}</ref> <blockquote>If instead we entertain the possibility that instruction and discovery are not oil and water, that instruction and discovery coexist and can work together, we may find a solution to this impasse in the field. Perhaps our way out of the instructivist-constructivist impasse thus involves not a "middle ground" compromise but an alternative conceptualization of instruction and discovery.<ref name=":3" /></blockquote>

===Applications===
Instructional scaffolding can be thought of as the strategies that a teacher uses to help learners bridge a cognitive gap or progress in their learning to a level they were previously unable to accomplish.<ref name="Pol, Janneke 2010">{{Cite journal |last1=van de Pol |first1=Janneke |last2=Volman |first2=Monique |last3=Beishuizen |first3=Jos |date=2010 |title=Scaffolding in Teacher–Student Interaction: A Decade of Research |journal=[[Educational Psychology Review]] |volume=22 |issue=3 |pages=271–296 |doi=10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6|url=https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/1044769/96777_330785.pdf }}</ref> These strategies evolve as the teachers evaluate the learners initial level of ability and then through continued feedback throughout the progression of the task. In the early studies, scaffolding was primarily done in oral, face- to-face learning environments. In classrooms, scaffolding may include modelling behaviours, coaching and prompting, thinking out loud, dialogue with questions and answers, planned and spontaneous discussions, as well as other interactive planning or structural assistance to help the learner bridge a cognitive gap. This can also include peer mentoring from more experienced students. These peers can be referred to as MKOs. ''MKO'' stands for 'More Knowledgeable Other'. The MKO is a person who has a higher understanding of an idea or concept and can bridge this cognitive gap. This includes teachers, parents, and as stated before, peers. MKOs are central part of the process of learning in the ZPD, or [[Zone of Proximal Development]]. An MKO may help a student using scaffolding, with the goal being that the student can eventually lead themselves to the answer on their own, without the help of anyone else. The MKO may use a gradual reduction of assistance in order to facilitate this, as described earlier.

There are a wide variety of scaffolding strategies that teachers employ. One approach to looking at the application of scaffolding is to look at a framework for evaluating these strategies.
This model was developed based on the theoretical principles of scaffolding to highlight the use of scaffolding for educational purposes.<ref name="Pol, Janneke 2010"/> It highlights two components of an instructor's use of scaffolding. The first is the instructors intentions and the second refers to the means by which the scaffolding is carried out.

'''Scaffolding intentions:'''
These groups highlight the instructors intentions for scaffolding<ref name="Pol, Janneke 2010"/>
[[File:Scaffolding Intentions.jpg|500px|thumb|left|alt=A Groups of instructional scaffolding]]

<br />
'''Scaffolding means:'''
These groups highlight the ways in which the instructor scaffolds<ref name="Pol, Janneke 2010"/>

[[File:Scaffolding Mean Groups.png|500px|thumb|left|alt=A Groups of scaffolding means]]

Any combination of scaffolding means with scaffolding intention can be construed as a scaffolding strategy, however, whether a teaching strategy qualifies as good scaffolding generally depends upon its enactment in actual practice and more specifically upon whether the strategy is applied contingently and whether it is also part of a process of fading and transfer of responsibility.<ref name=":7">{{Cite book |last1=Jumaat |first1=N. F. |last2=Tasir |first2=Z. |chapter=Instructional Scaffolding in Online Learning Environment: A Meta-analysis |date=2014 |pages=74–77 |title=2014 International Conference on Teaching and Learning in Computing and Engineering |location=Kuching, Malaysia |doi=10.1109/LaTiCE.2014.22|isbn=978-1-4799-3592-5 |s2cid=16100247 }}</ref>

[[File:Cycle of Scaffolding.jpg|500px|thumb|left|alt=A Cycle of Scaffolding]]

'''Examples of scaffolding''':<ref name="Ali">{{cite web |last=Alibali |first=Martha W. |title=Does Visual Scaffolding Facilitate Students' Mathematics Learning? Evidence From Early Algebra |url=https://ies.ed.gov/funding/grantsearch/details.asp?ID=54 |access-date=31 December 2016 |work=[[Institute of Education Sciences]]}}</ref>

Instructors can use a variety of scaffolds to accommodate different levels of knowledge. The context of learning (i.e. novice experience, complexity of the task) may require more than one scaffold strategy in order for the student to master new content.<ref name="Ali"/> The following table<ref>{{Cite web |title=Instructional Scaffolding to Improve Learning |url=http://www.niu.edu/facdev/resources/guide/strategies/instructional_scaffolding_to_improve_learning.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130626021019/http://www.niu.edu/facdev/resources/guide/strategies/instructional_scaffolding_to_improve_learning.pdf |archive-date=2013-06-26 |access-date=2014-07-23 |website=[[Northern Illinois University]], Faculty Development and Instructional Design Center}}</ref> outlines a few common scaffolding strategies:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Instructional scaffolds !! Description of tool
|-
| '''''Advanced organizers'''''<ref>{{cite web |title=Advance Organizer |url=http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Advance_Organizer |access-date=31 December 2016 |work=[[University of Geneva]] EduTech Wiki}}</ref>{{Unreliable source?|date=January 2024}}|| ''Advanced organizers are tools that present new information or concepts to learners.''
These tools organize information in a way that helps learners understand new and complex content. Examples of advanced organizers are:
* [[Venn diagram]]s
* [[Flowchart]]s
* [[Outline (list)|Outlines]]
* [[Rubric (academic)|Rubrics]]
|-
| '''''Modelling'''''<ref>{{cite web |last=Coffey |first=Heather |title=Modeling |url=http://www.learnnc.org/lp/pages/4697 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161227121256/http://www.learnnc.org/lp/pages/4697 |archive-date=27 December 2016 |access-date=31 December 2016 |work=[[University of North Carolina]] LEARN NC}}</ref>|| ''Instructors demonstrate desired behaviour, knowledge or task to students.''
Instructors use modelling to:
* Demonstrate the task students are expected to complete on their own<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Tharp |first1=R. G. |title=Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context |last2=Gallimore |first2=R. |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |year=1988 |isbn=9780521362344 |location=Cambridge}}</ref>{{Page needed|date=January 2024}} (i.e. science experiment)
* Provide step-by-step instructions (i.e. illustrate steps to solving a mathematical problem)
* Encourage students to interact with a new problem or task (i.e. hands-on task that allows students to interact with materials and develop a "need to know")<ref name="multiple" />
|-
| '''''Worked examples''''' || ''A [[Worked-example effect|worked example]] is a step-by-step demonstration of a complex problem or task''.<ref name="Renkl">{{Cite book |last=Renkl |first=A. |title=The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |year=2005 |isbn=9780521838733 |editor-last=Mayer |editor-first=R. E. |location=Cambridge |chapter=The worked-out examples principle in multimedia learning}}</ref>
These types of [[instructional materials]] are commonly implemented in mathematics and science classes and include three key features:<ref name="Renkl"/>

'''1. Problem formation''': A principle or theory is introduced.

'''2. Step-by-step example''': A worked example, that demonstrates how the student can solve the problem, is provided.

'''3. Solution to the problem''': One or more read-to-be solved problems are given for the student to practice the skill.
|-
| '''''Concept maps'''''<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Nesbit |first1=J. C. |title=Learning Through Visual Displays |last2=Adesope |first2=O. O. |publisher=Information Age Publishing |year=2013 |isbn=9781623962333 |editor-last=Schraw |editor-first=G. |series=Current Perspectives on Cognition, Learning & Instruction |location=Greenwich, Conn. |pages=303–328 |chapter=Concept maps for learning: Theory, research and design}}</ref>|| ''[[Concept map]]s are graphical tools for organizing, representing and displaying the relationships between knowledge and concepts.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Cañas |first1=Alberto J. |last2=Novak |first2=Joseph D. |title=What is a Concept Map? |url=https://cmap.ihmc.us/docs/conceptmap.php |access-date=2024-01-23 |website=Cmap Software}}</ref>''
Types of concept maps are:<ref>{{Cite web |title=Kinds of Concept Maps |url=http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/aljarf/Research%20Library/Mind-mapping/Kinds%20of%20Concept%20Maps.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140729152116/http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/aljarf/Research%20Library/Mind-mapping/Kinds%20of%20Concept%20Maps.htm |archive-date=2014-07-29 |access-date=2014-07-23 |website=[[King Saud University]]}}</ref>
* [[Spider mapping|Spider map]]
* Hierarchal/chronological map
* Systems map
* ''Variation:'' [[mind map]]
|-
| '''''Explanations''''' || ''Explanations are ways in which instructors present and explain new content to learners.''
How new information is presented to the learner is a critical component for effective instruction. The use of materials such as visual images, graphic organizers, animated videos, audio files and other technological features can make explanations more engaging, motivating and meaningful for student learning.
|-
| '''''Handouts'''''<ref>{{cite web |title=handouts |url=http://www2.wmin.ac.uk/mcshand/TEACHING/handouts.htm#WHY |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160813032600/https://www2.wmin.ac.uk/mcshand/TEACHING/handouts.htm |archive-date=13 August 2016 |access-date=31 December 2016 |work=[[University of Westminster]]}}</ref>|| ''Handouts are a supplementary resource used to support teaching and learning.''

These tools can provide students with the necessary information (i.e. concept or theory, task instructions, learning goals, learning objectives) and practice (i.e. ready-to-be-solved problems) they need to master new content and skills. Handouts are helpful tools for explanations and worked examples.
|-
| '''''Prompts'''''<ref>{{cite web |last=Webster |first=Jerry |date=13 November 2015 |title=Prompting as a Tool to Support Behavioral and Academic Independence |url=http://specialed.about.com/od/glossary/g/promptinggossary.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170101161400/http://specialed.about.com/od/glossary/g/promptinggossary.htm |archive-date=1 January 2017 |access-date=31 December 2016 |work=[[about.com]]}}</ref>|| ''Prompts are a physical or verbal cue to aid recall of prior or assumed knowledge.''
There are different types of prompts, such as:<ref>{{Cite web |title=Prompting and Fading |url=http://www.tcse.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/prompting_and_fadingtguide.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181123142834/http://www.tcse.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/prompting_and_fadingtguide.pdf |archive-date=2018-11-23 |access-date=2024-01-23 |website=Tri-County Special Education}}</ref>
* '''Physical:''' body movements such as pointing, nodding, finger or foot tapping.
* '''Verbal:''' words, statements and questions that help the learner respond correctly.
* '''Positional:''' placing materials in a specific location that prompts positive student reaction.
|}

===Scaffolding mediated by technology===

When students who are not physically present in the classroom receive instruction, instructors need to adapt to the environment and their scaffolding needs to be adjusted to fit the new learning medium. It can be challenging to find a way to adjust the verbal and visual elements of scaffolding to construct a successful interactive and collaborative learning environment for distance learning.

The recent spread of technology used in education has opened up the learning environment to include AI-based methods, [[hypermedia]], [[hypertext]], [[collaborative learning]] environments, and web-based learning environments. This challenges traditional learning design conceptions of scaffolding for educators.<ref name="Hannafin, M. 1999">{{Cite journal |last1=Hannafin |first1=M. |last2=Hill |first2=J. |last3=Land |first3=S. |date=1997 |title=Student-centered learning and interactive multimedia: Status, issues, and implication |url=https://www.proquest.com/docview/233037032 |journal=Contemporary Education |volume=68 |issue=2 |pages=94–99 |issn=0010-7476 |oclc=424884285 |id={{ProQuest|233037032}} |via=[[ProQuest]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Pea |first=R. D. |date=2004 |title=The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity |url=http://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00190619 |journal=[[Journal of the Learning Sciences]] |volume=13 |issue=3 |pages=423–451|doi=10.1207/s15327809jls1303_6 |s2cid=10481973 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Reiser |first=B. |date=2004 |title=Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work |url=https://www.sesp.northwestern.edu/docs/publications/78857602544049eb20ee68.pdf |journal=[[Journal of the Learning Sciences]] |volume=13930 |pages=273–304 |doi=10.4324/9780203764411-2 |isbn=9780203764411}}</ref>

A 2014 review<ref name=":7" /> of the types of scaffolding used in online learning identified four main types of scaffolding:
* conceptual scaffolding: helps students decide what to consider in learning and guide them to key concepts
* procedural scaffolding: helps students use appropriate tools and resources effectively 
* strategic scaffolding: helps students find alternative strategies and methods to solve complex problems
* metacognitive scaffolding: prompts students to think about what they are learning throughout the process and assists students reflecting on what they have learnt (self-assessment). This is the most common research area and is thought to not only promote [[higher-order thinking]] but also students' ability to plan ahead. Reingold, Rimor and Kalay have listed seven mechanisms of metacognitive scaffolding that encourage students' metacognition in learning.<ref name=":8">{{Cite journal |last1=Reingold |first1=R. |last2=Rimor |first2=R. |last3=Kalay |first3=A. |date=Summer 2008 |title=Instructor's scaffolding in support of student's metacognition through a teacher education online course: a case study |url=https://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/7.2.4.pdf |journal=Journal of Interactive Online Learning |volume=7 |issue=2 |pages=139–151 |oclc=7006892174}}</ref>

These four types are structures that appropriately support students' learning in online environments.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Hannafin |first1=M. J. |title=Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory |last2=Land |first2=S. |last3=Oliver |first3=K. |publisher=Lawrence Erlbaum |year=1999 |isbn=9780805828597 |editor-last=Reigeluth |editor-first=C.M. |location=Mahwah, NJ |pages=115–140 |chapter=Open learning environments: Foundations, methods and models}}</ref> Other scaffolding approaches that were addressed by the researchers included: technical support, content support, argumentation template, questioning and modelling. These terms were rarely used, and it was argued that these areas had unclear structure to guide students, especially in online learning, and were inadequately justified.

As technology changes, so does the form of support provided to online learners. Instructors have the challenge of adapting scaffolding techniques to this new medium, but also the advantage of using new web-based tools such as wikis and blogs as platforms to support and discuss with students.

====Benefits in online learning environments====
As the research in this area progresses, studies are showing that when students learn about complex topics with computer-based learning environments (CBLEs) without scaffolding they demonstrated poor ability to regulate their learning, and failure to gain a conceptual understanding of the topic.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Hill |first1=J. |last2=Hannafin |first2=M. |date=1997 |title=Cognitive strategies and learning from the World Wide Web |journal=Educational Technology Research & Development |volume=45 |issue=4 |pages=37–64 |doi=10.1007/BF02299682 |s2cid=61122897 |issn=1042-1629 |oclc=5649874254}}</ref> As a result, researchers have recently begun to emphasize the importance of embedded conceptual, procedural, strategic, and metacognitive scaffolding in CBLEs.<ref name="Hannafin, M. 1999"/><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Hadwin |first1=A. F. |last2=Wozney |first2=L. |last3=Pantin |first3=O. |date=2005 |title=Scaffolding the appropriation of self-regulatory activity: A socio-cultural analysis of changes in teacher-student discourse about a graduate research portfolio |journal=Instructional Science |volume=33 |issue=5–6 |pages=413–450 |doi=10.1007/s11251-005-1274-7 |s2cid=62714710 |issn=0020-4277 |oclc=425116632}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Baylor |first=A. L. |date=2002 |title=Agent-based learning environments for investigating teaching and learning |url=https://amybaylor.com/Articles/2002JECR.pdf |journal=Journal of Educational Computing Research |volume=26 |issue=3 |pages=249–270|doi=10.2190/PH2K-6P09-K8EC-KRDK |s2cid=62243288 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Puntambekar |first1=S. |last2=Hubscher |first2=R. |date=2005 |title=Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? |url=http://hubscher.org/roland/courses/hf765/readings/EP_puntambekar_hubscher_2005.pdf |journal=Educational Psychologist |volume=40 |issue=1 |pages=1–12|doi=10.1207/s15326985ep4001_1 |s2cid=39373429 }}</ref>

In addition to the four scaffolding guidelines outlined, recent research has shown:
* scaffolding can help in group discussions. In a 2012 study,<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Huang |first1=H. |last2=Wu |first2=C. |last3=Chen |first3=N. |date=2012 |title=The effectiveness of using procedural scaffolding in a paper-plus-smartphone collaborative learning context |journal=Computers & Education |volume=59 |issue=2 |pages=250–259 |doi=10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.015}}</ref> a significant increase in active participation and meaningful negotiations was found within the scaffolded groups as opposed to the non-scaffolded group.
* metacognitive scaffolding can be used to encourage students in reflecting and help build a sense of a community among learners.<ref name=":8" /> Specifically, Reingold, Rimor and Kalay recommend using metacognitive scaffolding to support students working on a common task. They believe this can support learners to experience their work as part of a community of learners.<ref name=":8" />

Online classes do not require movement need to a different city or long distances in order to attend the program of one's choice. Online learning allows a flexible schedule. Assessments are completed at the learner's pace. It makes it easier for introverted students to ask questions or drop their ideas, which boost their confidence.<ref name="r199">{{cite web | last=Mozafaripour | first=Sara | title=16 Advantages to Learning Online | website=University of St. Augustine for Health Sciences | date=2020-06-30 | url=https://www.usa.edu/blog/benefits-of-online-learning/ | access-date=2024-06-26}}</ref>

Online education is cost-effective and reduces travel expenses for both the learning institution and students. It improves technology literacy for teachers and students.<ref name="r435">{{cite web | last=Jaiswal | first=Priya | title=Revolution of Online Education: Advantages And Disadvantages | website=India TV News | date=2020-12-23 | url=https://www.indiatvnews.com/education/news-online-education-advantages-and-disadvantages-online-learning-online-clases-revolution-673353 | access-date=2024-06-26}}</ref>

==== Downfalls in online learning environments ====
An online learning environment warrants many factors for scaffolding to be successful; this includes basic knowledge of the use of technology, social interactions and reliance on students' individual motivation and initiative for learning.  Collaboration is key to instructional scaffolding and can be lost without proper guidance from an instructor creating and initiating an online social space.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last1=Cho|first1=Moon-Heum|last2=Cho|first2=YoonJung|date=April 2014|title=Instructor scaffolding for interaction and students' academic engagement in online learning: Mediating role of perceived online class goal structures|journal=The Internet and Higher Education|volume=21|pages=25–30|doi=10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.008|s2cid=144273353 }}</ref>  

The instructor's role in creating a social space for online interaction has been found to increase students' confidence in understanding the content and goals of the course.  If an instructor does not create this space, a student misses out on critical thinking, evaluating material and collaborating with fellow students to foster learning.  Even with instructors implementing a positive social space online, a research study found that students' perceptions of incompetence to other classmates is not affected by positive online social spaces, but this was found to be less of a problem in face to face courses.<ref name=":0" />  

Due to the distance learning that encompasses an online environment, [[Self-regulation theory|self-regulation]] is essential for scaffolding to be effective; a study has shown that procrastinators are at a disadvantage in online distance learning and are not able to be scaffolded in the same degree as if there was an in-person instructor.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Tuckman |first=Bruce |date=Summer 2005 |title=Relations of academic procrastination, rationalizations, and performance in a web course with deadlines |journal=[[Psychological Reports]] |volume=96 |issue=4 |pages=1015–1021 |doi=10.2466/pr0.96.3c.1015-1021 |pmid=16173372|s2cid=35744706 }}</ref>  

According to the National Centre for Biotechnology Information research paper, teacher-student interactions are not what they used to be. Social relationships among teachers and their students are weakened due to online learning. Teachers tend to have low expectations from their students during online classes, which leads to low participation. Online education increases the risk of anxiety disorder, clinical depression, apathy, learned helplessness, and burnout. Learners without access to a laptop and the internet are often left out of the online learning world. Online learning courses do not provide enough verbal interaction, which makes  it difficult for teachers to measure student engagement and learning outcomes. Students with disabilities often require special software to access educational resources online.<ref name="t149">{{cite web | last=Winograd | first=George | title=Top Advantages And Disadvantages of Online Learning of 2024 | website=Mission Graduate | date=2024-06-22 | url=https://missiongraduatenm.org/disadvantages-of-online-learning/ | access-date=2024-06-26}}</ref>

Students who had more desire to master the content than to receive higher grades were more successful in the online courses.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Cho|first1=Moon-Heum|last2=Shen|first2=Demei|date=Summer 2013|title=Self-regulation in online learning|journal=Distance Education|volume=34|issue=3|pages=290–301|doi=10.1080/01587919.2013.835770|s2cid=144928828}}</ref>  A study by Artino and Stephens<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Artino|first1=Anthony|last2=Stephens|first2=Jason|date=December 2009|title=Academic motivation and self-regulation: A comparative analysis of undergraduate and graduate students learning online|journal=The Internet and Higher Education|volume=12|issue=3–4|pages=146–151|doi=10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.02.001}}</ref> found that graduate students were more motivated in online courses than undergraduate students but suggests that academic level may contribute to the amount of technological support needed for positive learning outcomes, finding that undergraduate students needed less support than graduate students when navigating an online course.