ARTICLE IN PRESS

New Ideas in Psychology 23 (2005) 152–165

www.elsevier.com/locate/newideapsych

Coding online content-informed scaffolding of

mathematical thinking
K. Ann Renningera,, Lillian S. Raya, Ilana Luftb, Erica L. Newtonc
a
Swarthmore College, Department of Educational Studies, 500 College Avenue, Swarthmore, PA 19081-1397, USA
b
State University of New York at Albany, USA
c
University of Pennsylvania, USA
Available online 11 July 2006

Abstract

This article describes the Mathematical Mentoring Coding Scheme (MMCS), a coding scheme that
identifies indicators relevant to the study of content-informed scaffolding. Content-informed
scaffolding refers to the use of subject matter content in ill-defined problem spaces to focus the
learner, and provide and fade feedback so that the learner becomes autonomous. It is suggested that
the MMCS could also double as a rubric for instruction in content-informed scaffolding. Two case
examples of preservice teachers’ scaffolding of elementary students’ problem solving serve as
illustrations.
r 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction

The task of scaffolding may be one of the most challenging and ill-defined aspects of
teaching and learning. Sometimes linked with coaching (West & Staub, 2003), distributed
learning (distributed scaffolding, Puntambekar & Kolodner, 1998), guided participation
(Rogoff, 1990), instruction (instructional scaffolding, Hogan & Pressley, 1997), and
mentoring (Zachary, 2000), scaffolding involves providing a learner with feedback and
then fading, or adjusting, this feedback in relation to the learner’s responses (Collins,
Brown, & Newman, 1989; Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976). In addition, it involves modeling
ways of thinking (asking questions, revising strategies, etc.) for the learner. Thus,
scaffolding is a dynamic and reciprocal collaborative process.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 610 328 8347; fax: +1 610 690 8673.
E-mail address: krennin1@swarthmore.edu (K. Ann Renninger).

0732-118X/$ - see front matter r 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2006.05.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Ann Renninger et al. / New Ideas in Psychology 23 (2005) 152–165 153

Where the human tutor excels or errs, of course, is in being able to generate
hypotheses about the learner’s hypotheses and often to converge on the learner’s
interpretation. It is in this sense that the tutor’s theory of the learner is so crucial to
the transactional nature of tutoring y effectiveness depends y upon the tutor and
tutee modifying their behavior over time to fit the perceived requirements and/or
suggestions of the other. The effective tutor must have at least two theoretical models
to which he must attend. One is a theory of the task or problem and how it may be
completed. The other is a theory of the performance characteristics of his tutee.
Without both of these, he can neither generate feedback nor devise situations in
which his feedback will be more appropriate for this tutee in this task at this point in
task mastery. The actual pattern of effective instruction, then, will be both task and
tutee dependent, the requirements of the tutorial being generated by the interaction of
the tutor’s two theories. (Wood et al., 1976, p. 97).

Underlying the idiosyncratic nature of scaffolding are theories that are likely to be
mediated by the learner’s and the scaffolder’s interests, problem-solving beliefs, and levels
of skill (Renninger, Ray, Luft, & Newton, 2006)—not to mention the sociocultural context
in which scaffolding is extended, or the nature and context of the task (Cocking &
Renninger, 1993; Collins et al., 1989; Pea, 2004; Wood et al., 1976). Building on
discussions of psychological distance (Cocking & Renninger, 1993; Collins et al., 1989;
Hunt, 1961; Piaget, 1954; Renninger & Cocking, 1993; Rogoff, 1990; Sigel, 1970, 1993;
Vygotsky, 1978; Wood et al., 1976), scaffolding describes bridging the distance between
what the learner understands and what still needs to be understood by focusing the learner,
and both providing and fading task-informed feedback. The task of scaffolding is not
simply promotion of performance (Pea, 2004), nor does it lack subject matter content
(West & Staub, 2003). The Mathematical Mentoring Coding Scheme (MMCS; see
Appendix A), described in this article, was developed in order to study a practice that is
often either assumed or overlooked in discussions of scaffolding (Pea, 2004): using subject
matter content to focus the learner, and providing and fading feedback in ill-defined
problem spaces, so that the learner becomes autonomous. Two case examples are provided
as illustrations.
Scaffolding in the classroom is complicated, because some students may receive
scaffolding while others may not, and/or some students may seek feedback while others
may not. In addition, the person providing scaffolding may not know what had been
suggested as a previous course of action. Furthermore, scaffolding in the context of the
classroom may not be appropriately gauged to the students’ strengths and needs, and/or to
the possibilities for working with the given task, at least in part because there is so little
time for reflection, and for some teachers, due to their level of content knowledge.
Study of scaffolding in the classroom is also compromised because reliably identifying
what counts as scaffolding is challenging, and there is no guarantee that there are enough
repeat instances to use for purposes of comparison. Because scaffolding in the classroom is
so complex, it is difficult to assess whether its effectiveness is due to one or another
condition. Thus, even if the complexity of scaffolding in the classroom is fully appreciated,
it is hard to identify and study scaffolding in this context (see related discussion in Davis &
Miyake, 2004).
In contrast, the online problem-solving environment provides a controlled setting for
scaffolding when a live mentor interacts with a learner around his or her problem solving.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
154 K. Ann Renninger et al. / New Ideas in Psychology 23 (2005) 152–165

Online, feedback can be provided for every problem that the learner engages. Also,
because this feedback is delivered in an asynchronous context, it affords both the learner
and the person doing the scaffolding time to reflect on the problem, as well as the work of
the other, over multiple interactions. In addition, because work online is often archived,
the person doing the scaffolding can review prior work of the learner and/or his or her
ability to make use of feedback. Time for reflection and archived prior work allow each
new interaction to be faded according to the learner’s needs.
In contrast to the complications of studying scaffolding in the classroom, study of
scaffolding online allows agreement on the characteristics of scaffolding that might be
assessed and coded. Not only does the online environment allow for more planned
scaffolding, the archiving of exchanges also permits focused analysis of scaffolding
characteristics, increasing the likelihood that conditions supporting effective scaffolding
can be identified. It appears that the study of online scaffolding should inform both the
practice and study of scaffolding in the classroom.
The MMCS was developed to assess the quality of mentoring support for elementary
students’ mathematical thinking as part of the National Science Foundation-
funded Online Mentoring Project (OMP; see Renninger et al., 2006; Ray & Renninger,
2006). In the OMP, preservice teachers (PTs) mentored students’ work with the Math
Forum’s Problems of the Week (PoWs). Like the Dad’s Cookies problem depicted in Fig. 1,
the PoWs are non-routine challenge problems, problems that are not easily solved by
simply applying an algorithm. In submitting their solutions, learners write out the solution
paths they used and are then scaffolded by mentors. While this type of scaffolding may
consist of a single exchange, the learner has an open-ended opportunity to revise and
resubmit his or her solution and, in this sense, assume more responsibility for learning.
Typically, this type of scaffolding is handled by Math Forum staff members or trained
volunteers, and it focuses on engaging the learners in reflecting on their strategies and
revising their work both by providing them with necessary support and with models of
how they might think about mathematics; the mentors do not provide learners with the
solutions. In the OMP, as part of their preservice mathematics training, PTs are taught to
mentor, as a way of supporting them to learn how to provide scaffolding for their future
students’ work.

Dad’s Cookies
Dad bakes some cookies. He eats one hot out of the oven and leaves the rest on
the counter to cool. He goes outside to read.
Dave comes into the kitchen and finds the cookies. Since he is hungry, he eats
half a dozen of them.
Then Kate wanders by, feeling rather hungry as well. She eats half as many as
Dave did.
Jim and Eileen walk through next, and each of them eats one third of the
remaining cookies.
Hollis comes into the kitchen and eats half of the cookies that are left on the
counter.
Last of all, Mom eats just one cookie.
Dad comes back inside, ready to pig out. "Hey!" he exclaims. "There is only one
cookie left!"
How many cookies did Dad bake in all?

Fig. 1. Sample Math Forum Problem of the Week (PoW).

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Ann Renninger et al. / New Ideas in Psychology 23 (2005) 152–165 155

As described elsewhere, PTs readiness to engage with the elementary students varied
greatly, and it appears to be mediated by the PTs’ interest for mathematics, mathematical
beliefs, and mathematical content knowledge (Renninger et al., 2006). Support that the PT
was providing to the student was assessed in the initial draft of the MMCS; the MMCS
was subsequently refined to address how the mentor was interacting with both the student
and the problem.

2. Two case examples

Fig. 2 depicts the work of two PT mentors, one strong and one weak. PT1 and PT2
would likely be more or less effective in their scaffolding of elementary students to think
mathematically in work with Dad’s Cookies. In order to scaffold students effectively, the
PT mentor needs to: (a) connect to the mathematics of the problem in order to support the
student who is being mentored to make this connection (Chi, Siler, & Jeong, 2004; Ma,
1999; Schoenfeld, 1987; Verschaffel, De Corte, & Borghart, 1997; Vygotsky, 1978), and
(b) identify the student’s strategy, evaluate it, and work with the student to possibly revisit
what he or she has done (DeCorte, Verschaffel, & Op’t Eynde, 2000; Lampert, 1986;
RAND Mathematics Study Panel, 2002; Schoenfeld, 1987). The process of scaffolding also
involves developing a collaboration (Collins et al., 1989; Gauvain, 2001; Rogoff, 1990;
Vygotsky, 1978) with the student that is respectful of the students’ readiness to be
autonomous in problem solving (Deci, 1992; Piaget, 1954; Renninger, Farra, & Feldman-
Riordan, 2000) and the students’ needs for emotional support (Neitzel & Stright, 2003;
DeCorte, Verschaffel, & Op’t Eynde, 2000).
If we look closely at the work of PT1, strengths include:

 making a connection with specific math in Student 1’s problem solving,

 leading Student 1 to reflect on her strategy, in that she may not have realized
exactly why the number of cookies Hollis ate was half the number Jim or Eileen each
ate,
 supporting Student 1’s autonomy by asking, rather than telling, her to explain, and
 being specifically encouraging/emotionally supportive.

PT1’s response might have benefited from:

 reflecting with the student about strategy use, as Student 1 may have needed more
support in verbalizing her connection, and
 asking Student 1 to explain a different part of the problem than the one already
discussed.

In contrast, PT2’s strengths include:

 connecting to specific math content in Student 2’s solution (the idea that Jim and
Eileen’s cookies are ‘‘unknown’’),
 suggesting useful problem-solving strategies,
 supporting Student 2’s autonomy by not being too directive, and
 using tone to provide emotional support.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
156 K. Ann Renninger et al. / New Ideas in Psychology 23 (2005) 152–165

Fig. 2. Samples of mentoring.

PT2’s response might have benefited from:

 not suggesting that trial and error are required to find out how many cookies Jim and
Eileen ate—(PT2 fails to connect the student’s work to the mathematics of the problem),
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Ann Renninger et al. / New Ideas in Psychology 23 (2005) 152–165 157

 addressing Student 2’s strategy specifically—Student 2 is unlikely to realize why her

work is not considered to be ‘‘step-by-step’’,
 being more specific in order to support an increase in Student 2’s autonomy as a
problem solver, and
 using tone to provide emotional support in the second paragraph.

2.1. Coding scaffolding

Given differences between PT1 and PT2 in their readiness to scaffold elementary
students, coding of scaffolding focuses on how the PT interacts with both the student and
the mathematics of the problem. In the first iteration of the MMCS, assessment focused on
the support that the PT provided to the student, using Connections, Strategy, Autonomy,
and Emotional Support as components. However, as in the case of PT2, many of the PTs
provided support that was strong in some ways and challenged in other ways, making the
coding unclear. While the initial coding scheme addressed the spirit of the research on
scaffolding (e.g. Pea, 1987; Wood et al., 1976) and the culture of mathematics (e.g.
Schoenfeld, 1987; Lave, 1992), its emphasis on supporting the child did not fully address
the reciprocal nature of the mentoring relationship (Valsiner, 1984). In particular, it did
not address what the PT brings to the collaboration. Since interest, mathematical beliefs,
level of skill, sociocultural context, and nature and context of the task affect how mentors
are prepared to engage with scaffolding (Renninger et al., 2006; see related discussions in
RAND Mathematics Study Panel, 2002), the coding scheme would be more theoretically
consistent and informative about the nature of scaffolding in a particular instance if it also
addressed PT engagement.1
In light of the work of PT1 and PT2, the original coding scheme only provided a sense
of what each mentor did well. It did not provide clarity about the PTs’ scaffolding
because the scales were not parallel across the different components (Connections,
Strategy, Autonomy, and Emotional Support). In the revised MMCS, each component
was coded using similar scales; this was achieved by focusing the coding on the PTs’
ability and willingness to engage with the mathematics behind each component. Briefly,
PTs who successfully scaffold by assessing the student’s current level and providing
feedback that enables the student to reach a new mathematical understanding are
coded as being at the highest level, Level 4 (e.g. giving the student emotional support
that reflects a specific mathematical achievement of the student). PTs who attempt
to assess the students’ current level or give support to help them reach new understanding,
but either inaccurately assess the students’ level or give inaccurate information, are
coded as Level 3 (e.g. giving emotional support that suggests the student’s math is
correct, when in fact it is inaccurate). PTs who give suggestions, but do not attempt
to tailor their suggestions to the students’ current level or the understanding they could
reach, are coded as Level 2 (e.g. saying something generic to each student, like ‘‘Great job,
thanks for your submission’’). PTs who make no attempt to give useful support are
coded as Level 1 (e.g. giving the student no emotional support by being discouraging

1
It is likely that the control afforded by the online environment made the study of individual contributions to
the scaffolding collaboration possible.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
158 K. Ann Renninger et al. / New Ideas in Psychology 23 (2005) 152–165

in tone throughout the response). Thus, in the revised MMCS, PT1 would probably be
coded as:
Connections: 4 (succeeded in making a useful connection to the student’s math),
Strategy: 4 (succeeded in supporting the student’s own strategy),
Autonomy: 4 (successfully provided support at the appropriate level),
Emotional Support: 4 (successfully provided specific, meaningful emotional support).
PT2 would probably be coded as:
Connections: 3 (attempted to connect to the student’s reasoning but made an error),
Strategy: 2 (did not sufficiently address or support the student’s strategy),
Autonomy: 2 (was not specific enough in her support),
Emotional Support: 3 (attempted to give meaningful emotional support, but what
was supported was not correct).
We see that PT1 is successfully engaging in all four components of mentoring, while PT2
has some challenges both with understanding the mathematics and engaging Student 2’s
specific work. The challenges and strengths that need to be addressed in supporting the
PTs’ scaffolding are clearer in the second coding scheme.
The case examples in Fig. 2 illustrate the potential of using content to focus attention,
and provide and fade feedback. PT1 had rich content at the center of each act of focusing
or providing feedback, while PT2, despite providing feedback and focusing attention, is not
able to anchor her response in the content, and therefore her mentoring is not as likely to
engage the student in thinking and reflecting mathematically.
PT1’s appreciation of Student 1’s strategy for finding the number of cookies Hollis ate is
intended to bring Student 1’s attention to an especially sophisticated aspect of her
mathematical strategy in a way that encourages her to reflect and think again, rather than
simply telling her why it was mathematically interesting. This leaves an opening for
returning to the conversation. This kind of response is significantly different than a
supportive but content-less response (e.g. ‘‘Great job’’), because it focuses the learner on a
specific aspect of the task, chosen to stretch her mathematical thinking. PT1’s second
challenge for the learner also involves reflecting on the problem. In particular, the learner
is encouraged to use words to explain her thinking; this is another technique for supporting
the learner to reflect on the problem, but it also clarifies the learner’s thinking for the
mentor. Asking the student to provide an explanation for a confused person serves as
another kind of focus or task constraint; by giving Student 1 a specific audience, the
mentor scaffolds Student 1’s explanation. PT1 had to recognize that Student 1’s
unorthodox strategy was not only valid, but it involved an interesting insight that needed
to be developed further. The focusing of learner attention is specifically informed by the
content of the problem and requires a mentor who thinks mathematically.
PT2 first attempts to draw Student 2’s focus to the claim that ‘‘trial and error’’ is
necessary to solve the problem. Either because PT2 does not know that the problem can be
solved without trial and error, or because she does not think Student 2 is ready to solve it
without trial and error, PT2 tells Student 2 that she is correct in thinking that the problem
requires trial and error. PT2’s feedback is not open-ended; instead, she tells the student that
she is correct. Especially, since the student is not correct, this method is ineffective for
focusing the student’s attention on her strategy and does not encourage Student 2 to think
about other strategies besides trial and error. It could even prevent Student 2 from
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Ann Renninger et al. / New Ideas in Psychology 23 (2005) 152–165 159

thinking about other strategies. PT2’s strategy of asking Student 2 to explain her work
step-by-step is a good method of focusing Student 2 on the problem, since explaining her
thinking could help Student 2 reflect on her mathematics. However, PT2 does not provide
Student 2 with a focus for how to explain her work. She asks Student 2 to explain all the
work she did, step by step. Since Student 2 has already failed to sufficiently explain her
work, simply asking her to do it over again will probably not be enough to focus her
reflection. PT2 may not have asked for a more specific focus, because she had a hard time
identifying the key elements of the problem, which would have made her unable to focus
Student 2 on a single central element.
These two case examples, along with application of the MMCS to the work of
approximately 50 additional PTs, illustrate that the PTs’ levels of mathematical content
knowledge greatly influence their ability to scaffold (Renninger et al., 2006). In fact, PT1 is
a mathematics major, and PT2 is a special major in education and sociology. The power of
non-routine challenge problems for students (and PTs and teachers) is that they do not
allow you to simply apply an algorithm to solve the problem. Thus, if mentors are weak in
mathematics or believe that mathematics is only about getting the right answer, they may
overlook the portion of the solution that contains exciting math, they may not recognize a
correct or nearly correct solution path, or they may reduce the process of problem solving
to whether the answer is correct or not, preventing the learner from reflecting on their
mathematics. In fact, the PTs with weak mathematics skills who were studied did not
attempt to stretch the mathematical thinking of students with well-developed solutions,
and they had an even harder time supporting the work of students with satisfactory, but
incomplete, solutions to those students whose mathematics was at a level similar to the
PTs’ (Renninger et al., 2006).

3. Discussion

Scaffolding online in an asynchronous context can support the person doing the
scaffolding and the learner to reflect. It allows the person doing the scaffolding to gauge
the strengths and needs of the learner and to respond to him or her in ways that could
stretch mathematical thinking. The MMCS directs attention to (a) the types of
Connections that the mentor makes with the learner’s work and supports the learner to
make with the mathematics in the task, (b) the ways by which the mentor supports and
extends the learner’s Strategies, (c) how the mentor supports the learner’s increasing
Autonomy in problem solving, and (d) the mentor’s provision of Emotional Support for
the learner. Aggregating coded data from each exchange within an initial period of time,
and comparing this to data from a second time period, permits analyses of change. Because
the rubric allows assessment of four components (Connections, Strategy, Autonomy, and
Emotional Support), each can be studied and needed remediation can be determined.
The components of the MMCS would make little sense if the MMCS were not content
informed; in fact, identification of the components was informed by the literature
describing mathematical thinking as well as that on scaffolding. A content-informed
coding scheme gives definition to the process of scaffolding. That each component reliably
includes four levels of response allows assessment of scaffolding and also provides a rubric
for understanding scaffolding processes.
In its present form, the MMCS can also be used to identify the ability and willingness of
PTs to engage as mentors with mathematics content. Low ratings on any one component
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
160 K. Ann Renninger et al. / New Ideas in Psychology 23 (2005) 152–165

indicate a need for additional support. For example, the MMCS pointed to the PTs’ need
for additional support to develop their interest for the subject content, subject content
beliefs, and subject content knowledge (Renninger et al., 2006).
Interestingly, the MMCS might also serve as a rubric (coupled with detailed knowledge
and analysis of the task) for persons learning to mentor, in that it outlines possibilities for
content-informed scaffolding.2 In Wood et al.’s (1976) pyramid task, for example, the
ability to articulate the possibilities for the task provided the tutor with clearly defined
parameters within which to work. Because the pyramid tutor understood both the most
effective (only) strategy for constructing the pyramid and could anticipate the
complications learners might have, he was able to concentrate on when and how to focus
the learners, and provide and fade feedback. In an ill-defined problem space, like solving a
non-routine challenge problem, it is much harder for the mentor to anticipate all of the
possible ways to work with the task. As a result, the content of the non-routine challenge
problem, or an open-ended task, becomes a central focus for scaffolding and provides the
mentor with a challenging task. The mentor needs to consider when and how to focus and
give feedback, and the mentor needs to worry about the content, which ideas to extend,
and the range of possibilities for effectively stretching the learner.
The mentor using the MMCS as a rubric should realize that he or she must be able to
identify the mathematics in the problem in order to recognize the learner’s mathematical
thinking, and be prepared to provide the learner with a well-developed solution so that
mathematical understanding can be stretched. Facilitating that movement requires
understanding the necessary mathematics. It also involves considering likely strategies of
the learner and ways in which to respond to these strategies. Imagining possible levels of
the learner’s work and the support needed at each level could help the mentor support the
learner’s autonomy. Finally, the mentor might consider the kinds of mathematical thinking
or insights that would demonstrate the learner’s understanding of the problem, so that
emotional support can be provided. Given this kind of preparation, the task might feel
more defined, and like the pyramid tutor, the mentor could begin to focus on how he or she
will deliver his or her support—when to model, when to focus attention, and when to give
feedback. Although the impact of using the coding scheme as a rubric for scaffolding
remains to be tested, it provides details about the components of scaffolding that increase
understanding and should allow improved assessment of the scaffolding process both
online and in the classroom.

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge editorial support and feedback from Vanessa Gorman, Nira
Granott, and Cynthia Lanius. This coding scheme was developed during work on the
OMP (NSF Grant no. 0127516). The findings and recommendations expressed in this
article are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National
Science Foundation.
2
It is expected that the MMCS could be adapted for use with tasks other than mathematics. This expectation is
based on two premises. First, the coding scheme was developed based on theories and methods from a number of
literatures, including work on scaffolding, learning, mathematical thinking, children’s play, and motivation.
Second, its revision was undertaken as part of a research and development project focused on supporting the
development of mentoring.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Ann Renninger et al. / New Ideas in Psychology 23 (2005) 152–165 161

Appendix A. Mathematical Mentoring Coding Scheme (MMCS)3

A.1. Overview

The MMCS was developed to assess PTs’ support for elementary students’
mathematical thinking in work with online challenge problems. A form of content-
focused coaching (West & Staub, 2003), it consists of four independent but related
components: Connections, Strategy, Autonomy, and Emotional Support. The coding
scheme builds on the three components used to code mathematical thinking in problem
solving: Connections, Strategy and Autonomy (Renninger et al., 2000); although in the
MMCS, these components are adapted to evaluate a mentor’s response to a learner’s
solution rather than to evaluate the solution itself. The additional component of
Emotional Support measures the level and type of encouragement that mentors provide
(Neitzel & Stright, 2003).
Each of the MMCS components consists of a 4-point scale. Briefly, mentors who
successfully scaffold by assessing the learner’s current level and providing feedback that
enables the learner to reach a new mathematical understanding are coded as Level 4 (e.g.
giving the learner emotional support that reflects a specific mathematical achievement of
the learner). Mentors who attempt to assess the learner’s current level or give support to
help them reach new understanding, but either inaccurately assess the learner’s level or give
inaccurate information, are coded as Level 3 (e.g. giving emotional support that suggests
the learner’s math is correct, when in fact it is inaccurate). Mentors who give suggestions,
but do not attempt to tailor their suggestions to the learner’s current level or the
understanding they could reach, are coded as Level 2 (e.g. saying something generic to each
learner, like ‘‘great job, thanks for your submission’’). Mentors who make no attempt to
give useful support are coded as Level 1 (e.g. giving the learner no emotional support by
being discouraging in tone throughout the response).

A.2. The MMCS

A.2.1. Connections
The Connections a learner makes during problem solving refers to his/her readiness to
identify links between mathematical concepts and real-world situations. In addition, they
indicate the learner’s present ability to interpret a problem and develop multiple solution
strategies for solving it.
Applied to in mentoring, Connections describe the importance a mentor places on using
real-world links to help illustrate a mathematical concept or preserve mathematical
meaning (Verschaffel et al., 1997). Connections also assess the mentor’s acceptance of
different kinds of strategies and his or her ability to interpret a learner’s line of thinking
based on the solution provided (Fennema & Loef, 1992; Fennema et al., 1996).

A.2.1.1. Level 1. Does not bring in outside information, cannot succeed in finding a
connection. Only addresses the accuracy of the learner’s work.
3
Use of the MMCS should be undertaken by two persons with a high level of pedagogical content knowledge of
mathematics.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
162 K. Ann Renninger et al. / New Ideas in Psychology 23 (2005) 152–165

A.2.1.2. Level 2. Brings in outside information, but it is not math (e.g. suggests they fix
spelling or units). Usually accurate with outside information. Does not appear to have
tried to bring in mathematical connections or to look at ‘‘deeper’’ or ‘‘broader’’ math that
the learner is doing.

A.2.1.3. Level 3. Brings in outside mathematics, but the mathematics is inaccurate,

unclear, or not at a useful level.

A.2.1.4. Level 4. Brings in outside mathematics/real-world connections in a meaningful

way, and is accurate in these connections and in the mathematics employed.

A.2.2. Strategy
Strategy in problem solving refers to a learner’s ability to explain mathematical
concepts, work with mathematical terms, and explain decision-making processes in
working with a problem.
Applied to in mentoring, Strategy describes a mentor’s ability to (a) provide cognitive
support, in the form of metacognitive information and goal orientation, (b) provide
content support, and (c) successfully communicate mathematical concepts and terms to
learners. Metacognitive information includes providing learners with ideas for task
management techniques or strategies, serving to advance the learner’s understanding of
how the task works, or providing a rationale for the use of a particular strategy (Neitzel &
Stright, 2003). Goal orientation refers to a mentor’s ability to keep the learner on track
with his or her chosen strategy and help the learner to focus on the problem. Content
support refers to a mentor’s ability to communicate the mathematical concepts involved in
the problem.

A.2.2.1. Level 1. Focuses on the accuracy of the learner’s final solution. Provides no
cognitive support or minimal content support. Communication is incomprehensible.

A.2.2.2. Level 2. Centers feedback on advice and suggestions, but does not address the
learner’s work. Provides minimal cognitive and content support. Communication is
unclear or convoluted.

A.2.2.3. Level 3. Provides the learner with a minimal description of his/her work.
Feedback points out areas of content problems but does not necessarily constructively
address the problem or the work already completed. Communication may be slightly
convoluted or long-winded.

A.2.2.4. Level 4. Provides the learner with a clear, useful, and non-judgmental
description of his/her work, supporting work completed, and calling attention to what
has been accomplished. Feedback either points learner to specific activity, an alternative
strategy, and/or encourages the learner to relate information to key concepts.

A.2.3. Autonomy
Autonomy in problem solving refers to a learner’s ability to be independent in problem
solving. It is interpreted by the need for mentor feedback, which supports the development
of learner responses in future submissions, focuses the learner’s mathematical thinking
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Ann Renninger et al. / New Ideas in Psychology 23 (2005) 152–165 163

through the use of tools such as models, examples, and scaffolding, and emphasizes
problem solving.
Applied to in mentoring, Autonomy describes a mentor’s ability to transfer
responsibility for problem solving to the learner (Neitzel & Stright, 2003). Mentors who
encourage a high degree of cognitive involvement will use prompts, questions, and hints
when responding to the learners’ solutions, rather than providing the learner with the
answer or with direct instructions.

A.2.3.1. Level 1. Assumes no responsibility for supporting learner’s problem solving.

Does not address the learner’s problem-solving work.

A.2.3.2. Level 2. Takes full responsibility for supporting learner’s problem solving.
Proposes general problem-solving strategies that are not specific to that learner’s work.
Responses reflect suggestions from the online mentoring guide instead of reflections that
match the learner response level.

A.2.3.3. Level 3. Takes responsibility for supporting the learner’s problem solving. Uses
prompts, questions, and hints in order to help learners understand concepts on their own,
but also suggests specific strategies for the learner to try or concepts the learner should
think about. However, the number of prompts and/or suggestions is either too many or
too few to address the learner’s specific needs.

A.2.3.4. Level 4. Limits control to the minimum necessary for the learner to progress.
Uses prompts, questions, and hints that allow the learner to formulate strategies and draw
conclusions on his or her own.

A.2.4. Emotional Support

In mentoring, Emotional Support refers to the amount and type of encouragement that
a mentor provides in his or her feedback to learners (Neitzel & Stright, 2003). Applied to
mentoring, encouragement can either be general or specific in nature. General
encouragement consists of non-specific praise, whereas specific encouragement focuses
on the particular strengths and work of learners.

A.2.4.1. Level 1. Does not provide learner with encouraging response.

A.2.4.2. Level 2. Provides general encouragement that is either undeserved or irrelevant

to the learner’s work.

A.2.4.3. Level 3. Provides either general encouragement that is meaningful, or specific

encouragement that is not correct and/or not in proportion to the learner’s work.

A.2.4.4. Level 4. Provides learners with meaningful, specific encouragement appropriate

to their work describes an action or step the learner used.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
164 K. Ann Renninger et al. / New Ideas in Psychology 23 (2005) 152–165

References

Chi, M. T. H., Siler, S. A., & Jeong, H. (2004). Can tutors monitor students’ understanding accurately? Cognition
and Instruction, 22(3), 363–387.
Cocking, R. R., & Renninger, K. A. (1993). Psychological distance as a unifying theory of development. In R. R.
Cocking, & K. A. Renninger (Eds.), The development and meaning of psychological distance (pp. 3–18).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading,
writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert
Glaser (pp. 453–493). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence, Erlbaum.
Davis, E. A., & Miyake, N. (2004). Explorations of scaffolding in complex classroom systems. Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 13(3), 265–272.
Deci, E. L. (1992). The relation of interest to the motivation of behavior: A self-determination theory perspective.
In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 43–70).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
DeCorte, E., Verschaffel, L., & Op’t Eynde, P. (2000). Self-regulation: A characteristic and a goal of mathematics
education. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 687–726).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., Jacobs, V. R., & Empson, S. B. (1996). A longitudinal
study of learning to use children’s thinking in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 27(4), 403–434.
Fennema, E., & Loef, M. (1992). Teachers’ knowledge and its impact. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of
research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 147–164). NY: NY, Macmillan.
Gauvain, M. (2001). The social context of cognitive development. New York: Guiford Press.
Hogan, K., & Pressley, M. (1997). Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches & issues. Albany, NY:
Brookline.
Hunt, J. M. (1961). Intelligence and experience. New York: Ronald Press.
Lampert, M. (1986). Knowing, doing, and teaching multiplication. Cognition and Instruction, 3(4), 305–342.
Lave, J. (1992). Word problems: A microcosm of theories of learning. In P. Light, & G. Bull (Eds.), Context and
cognition: Ways of learning and knowing (pp. 74–92). Hertfordshire, England: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Neitzel, C., & Stright, A. D. (2003). Mothers; scaffolding of children’s problem solving: Establishing foundation
of academic self-regulatory competence. Journal of Family Psychology, 17(1), 147–159.
Pea, R. D. (1987). Cognitive technologies for mathematics education. In A. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science
and mathematics education (pp. 89–122). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for
learning, education, and human activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451.
Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. (M. Cook, Trans.). New York: Basic Books.
Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (1998). Distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn in a Learning
by DesignTM environment. In: Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, 1998
(pp. 35–41).
RAND Mathematics Study Panel. (2002). Mathematical proficiency for all students: Toward a strategic research
and development program in mathematics education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Ray, L. & Renninger, K. A. (2006). Preservice teachers’ readiness to engage content-focused mentoring for
mathematics: Interest, mathematical beliefs, and level of skill as explanatory constructs. Paper presented at the
International Conference on Motivation, Landau, Germany.
Renninger, K. A., & Cocking, R. R. (1993). Psychological distance and behavioral paradigms. In R. R. Cocking,
& K. A. Renninger (Eds.), The development and meaning of psychological distance (pp. 19–33). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Renninger, K. A., Farra, L., & Feldman-Riordan, C. (2000). The impact of The Math Forum’s Problems of the
Week on students’ mathematical thinking. In: Proceedings of ICLS, 2000. http://www.mathforum.org/articles/
rennin2_2000.html
Renninger, K. A., Ray, L., Luft, I., & Newton, E. (2006). A comprehension tool for mathematics?: The Math
Forum@Drexel’s Online Mentoring Project. Poster session presented at the seventh International Conference of
the Learning Sciences, Bloomington, IN.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Ann Renninger et al. / New Ideas in Psychology 23 (2005) 152–165 165

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Schoenfeld, A. (1987). What’s all the fuss about metacognition? In A. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science and
mathematics education (pp. 189–215). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sigel, I. E. (1970). The distancing hypothesis: A causal hypothesis for the acquisition of representational thought.
In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Miami Symposium on the Prediction of Behavior, 1968: Effects of early experience
(pp. 99–118). Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press.
Sigel, I. E. (1993). The centrality of the distancing model for the development of representational competence.
In R. R. Cocking, & K. A. Renninger (Eds.), The development and meaning of psychological distance
(pp. 141–158). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Valsiner, J. (1984). Construction of the zone of proximal development in adult–child joint action: The
socialization of meals. In B. Rogoff, & J. V. Wersch (Eds.), Children’s learning in the zone of proximal
development: New directions for child development (pp. 65–76). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Verschaffel, L., De Corte, E., & Borghart, I. (1997). Pre-service teachers’ conceptions and beliefs about the role of
real-world knowledge in mathematical modeling of school word problems. Learning and Instruction, 7(4),
339–359.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner,
S. Scribner, & E. Suoberman, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
West, L., & Staub, F. C. (2003). Content-focused coaching. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17, 89–100.
Zachary, L. J. (2000). The mentor’s guide: Facilitating effective learning relationships. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.