Patterns of contingent teaching in teacher–student interaction

By Janneke van de Pol, Monique Volman, Jos Beishuizen. 2011

162 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Education

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/62b8513badff2bad4abe27ab68de44e59a13bc22

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Education

1. Janneke van de Pol
2. Monique Volman
3. J. Smit
4. F. Oort
5. Arthur Bakker
6. Jos Beishuizen
7. K. Makar
8. Dani Ben-Zvi

Citations in the corpus

• A conceptualisation of whole‐class scaffolding (2013, background): “Others have claimed diagnosis to be essential for contingency, and thus for scaffolding (Puntambekar & Hübscher, 2005; Van de Pol et al., 2011).”
• Teacher Scaffolding in Small-Group Work: An Intervention Study (2014, background): “Teachers have often been found to not initially diagnose a student’s understanding before providing support (Elbers et al., 2008; Lockhorst et al., 2010; Nathan & Petrosino, 2003; Van de Pol et al., 2011; Webb et al., 2006; Wittwer et al., 2010).”
• Scaffolding norms of argumentation-based inquiry in a primary mathematics classroom (2015, background): “(p. 21) Research on scaffolding has typically focused on oneto-one or small group interactions, “because whole-class scaffolding is complicated by the multitude of ZPDs in the classroom” (van de Pol et al., 2011, p. 48).”