Using Technology to Scaffold Progressive Teaching

  • Jeppe BundsgaardEmail author


A Practice Scaffolding Interactive Platform (PracSIP) is a social learning platform which supports students in collaborative project-based learning by simulating a professional practice. It puts the core tools of the simulated practice at the students’ disposal, and it organizes collaboration, structures the students’ activity, and interactively supports subject learning. It facilitates students’ development of complex competencies, and at the same time, it supports the students’ development of skills defined in the curriculum. The paper introduces the concept, presents the theoretical foundations, and gives an example of a PracSIP


  1. Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., et al. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1102–1134. Scholar
  2. Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Prospects and challenges for inquiry-based approaches to learning. In H. Dumont, D. Istance, & F. Benavides (Eds.), The nature of learning: Using research to inspire practice. Paris, France: OECD.Google Scholar
  3. Barron, B. J., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3). Retrieved from Scholar
  4. Bradley-Levine, J., & Mosier, G. (2014). Literature review on project-based learning. Retrieved from
  5. Bundsgaard, J. (2005). Bidrag til danskfagets it-didaktik, med særligt henblik på kommunikative kompetencer og på metodiske forandringer af undervisningen (2. udgave). Odense, Denmark: Ark.Google Scholar
  6. Bundsgaard, J. (2009). A practice scaffolding interactive platform. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on computer supported collaborative learning (Vol. 1, pp. 522–526). Rhodes, Greece: International Society of the Learning Sciences. Retrieved from
  7. Bundsgaard, J., & Fougt, S. S. (Forthcoming). Faglighed og scenariedidaktik. In T. Hanghøj, J. Bundsgaard, M. Misfeldt, S. S. Fougt, & V. Hetmar (Eds.), Scenariedidaktik. Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
  8. Darling-Hammond, L., & Barron, B. (2010). Prospects and challenges for inquiry-based approaches to learning. In The nature of learning (pp. 199–225). OECD Publishing. Retrieved from;
  9. Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 533–568. Scholar
  10. Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gregersen, C., & Mikkelsen, S. S. (2007). Ingen arme, ingen kager!. Copenhagen: Unge Pædagoger.Google Scholar
  12. Hatfield, D., & Shaffer, D. W. (2006). Press play: Designing an epistemic game engine for journalism. In Paper presented at the paper presented at the international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS). Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
  13. Hixson, N. K., Ravitz, J., & Whisman, A. (2012). Extended professional development in project-based learning: Impacts on 21st century skills teaching and student achievement. West Virginia Department of Education. Retrieved from
  14. Krajcik, J. S., & Shin, N. (2014). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 275–297). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  15. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from
  16. Mergendoller, J. R., Maxwell, N. L., & Bellisimo, Y. (2006). The effectiveness of problem-based instruction: A comparative study of instructional methods and student characteristics. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(2).
  17. OECD Publishing. (2010). The nature of learning: Using research to inspire practice. Washington: Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development.Google Scholar
  18. Pea, R. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D., Walberg-Henriksson, H., & Hemmo, V. (2007). Science education NOW. A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Bruxelles, Belgium: Europakommisionen.Google Scholar
  20. Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2002). Performance of students in project-based science classrooms on a national measure of science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(5), 410–422. Scholar
  21. Shaffer, D. W. (2005). Epistemic games. Innovate, 1(6). Retrieved from
  22. Shaffer, D. W. (2006). Epistemic frames for epistemic games. Computers & Education, 46(3), 223–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Walker, A., & Leary, H. (2009). A problem based learning meta analysis: Differences across problem types, implementation types, disciplines, and assessment levels. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(1), 6–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from
  25. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark

Personalised recommendations