An Experimental Evaluation of Four Face-to-Face Teaching Strategies

Abstract

This study tests a number of predictions about the effectiveness of four different strategies for teaching three to four year old children how to master a difficult construction task. These strategies were derived from previous studies of mother-child and experimenter-child interactions in an assisted learning situation. One strategy the 'contingent approach' was based primarily on theoretical considerations and when used in earlier work as a basis for describing and evaluating maternal teaching it enabled us to predict how well children taught by their mothers would do with a task after instruction. The three other strategies are idealised versions of the teaching methods used by less successful mothers-as-teachers. On the basis of our analysis of effective instruction it is possible to predict how well children taught by these four different techniques by a trained instructor should perform after instruction. The present study largely confirms these predictions. In so doing, it strengthens the supposition that it was maternal behaviour in the earlier work which influenced the children's task abilities and it also corroborates various hypotheses about the essential nature of effective face-to-face instruction.

Scaffolding in Teacher–Student Interaction: A Decade of Research

“…Both Murphy and Messer (2000) and Pratt and Savoy-Levine (1998) studied the effectiveness of scaffolding using the methodology of Wood et al (1978). In this methodology, the degree of control is contingently adapted to the level of the learner in a oneto-one tutoring situation and in keeping with the contingent-shift principle: The tutor increases support to the extent that the learner fails and decreases support to the extent that the child succeeds.…”

The effects of scaffolding in the classroom: support contingency and student independent working time in relation to student achievement, task effort and appreciation of support

“…Contingent support (Wood et al 1978) represents support that is tailored to a student's understanding. Via fading, i.e., decreasing support, the responsibility for learning can be transferred which is the aim of scaffolding.…”

“…Because contingency is a necessary condition for scaffolding, we focus on this crucial aspect. Wood et al (1978) further specified the concept of contingency by focusing on the degree of control that support exerts. They labelled support as 'contingent' when either the tutor increased the degree of control in reaction to student failure or decreased the degree of control in reaction to student success.…”

“…To establish the contingency of each of unit, we used the contingent shift framework ( Van de Pol et al 2012; based on Wood et al 1978). If a teacher used more control after a student's demonstration of poor understanding and less control after a student's demonstration of good understanding, we labelled the support contingent.…”

A Support System for Solving Problems of Two-Triangle Congruence Using ‘Backward Chaining’

“…Based on the theory proposed by Wood et al [18], Matsuda and VanLehn [16] developed a tool called Advanced Geometry Tutor (AGT). AGT applies scaffolding strategies, which adapt the tool to the learner's competence.…”