Journal of Family Psychology Copyright 2003 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

2003, Vol. 17, No. 1, 147–159 0893-3200/03/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0893-3200.17.1.147

Mothers’ Scaffolding of Children’s Problem Solving: Establishing a

Foundation of Academic Self-Regulatory Competence
Carin Neitzel and Anne Dopkins Stright
Indiana University

The study examined relations between dimensions of mothers’ scaffolding and children’s
academic self-regulatory behaviors in school. Mothers and their preschool children (68
dyads) were visited in their homes the summer before the child entered kindergarten.
Mothers’ metacognitive content and manner of instruction, emotional support, and transfer of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

responsibility were coded as mothers provided assistance to their children during 4 problem-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

solving tasks. Children’s self-regulatory behaviors were assessed the following school year.
Metacognitive content and manner of instruction were predictors of child behaviors related to
cognitive awareness and management: metacognitive talk, monitoring, and help seeking.
Emotional support and transfer of responsibility were related to children’s task persistence
and behavior control in school. Mothers’ scaffolding appears to lay the foundation for
children’s subsequent academic self-regulatory competence.

Children’s abilities to actively regulate their learning
have been credited for enhancing school performance (Feld-
man, Martinez-Pons, & Shaham, 1995). Children who are
good academic self-regulators have good metacognitive
awareness, adjust cognitively and emotionally to the de-
mands of school, exercise control over their classroom
behavior, monitor their academic task performances, and
seek assistance when it is needed. However, not all children
are successful academic self-regulators. Some children may
fail to self-regulate because they do not have the metacog-
nitive tools to do so (Schraw, 1994). Some children may fail
to self-regulate because they are unwilling to do so (Pintrich
& Schrauben, 1992) or because they do not realize it is their
role or responsibility to be active agents in the learning
process (Zimmerman, 1995). The knowledge, dispositions,
and sense of responsibility children need to become self-
regulated learners in school may be established early during
parent– child interactions within the family.
Family: A Fundamental Foundation for Children’s
Development of Self-Regulation
Children develop abilities to self-regulate from interac-
tions overseen by more competent social partners, in set-
tings that are abundant in communication and supportive
(Wertsch, 1985). Sociocultural theory suggests that the fam-
ily is a social institution within which a culture of educa-
tional competence is born and nurtured (Cole, 1985). Until
children become proficient problem solvers, they rely
Carin Neitzel and Anne Dopkins Stright, Department of Coun-
seling and Educational Psychology, Indiana University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Carin Neitzel, Department of Counseling and Educational Psy-
chology, Indiana University, 201 North Rose Avenue, Blooming-
ton, Indiana 47405. E-mail: cneitzel@indiana.edu
heavily on their parents for assistance when confronted with
problems or tasks beyond their own abilities (Rogoff, 1990;
Vygotsky, 1978). Parents scaffold their children’s problem-
solving efforts until the child acquires or internalizes the
skills that have been demonstrated and is capable of man-
aging the task independently (Bruner, 1986). However, an
explicit model of the function of these supportive behaviors
is needed (Bickhard, 1992).
Scaffolding is defined as an instructional interaction that
is aimed at extending the child’s knowledge, reducing task
complexity, and transferring responsibility while providing
emotional support (Bruner, 1986). However, there are dif-
ferences in the amounts and types of information parents
provide their children (Sternberg, 1994), the degree to
which parents simplify tasks for their children (Rogoff,
1990), the suitability of parents’ responses to their chil-
dren’s emotional needs (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994), the
extent that parents encourage their children’s active cogni-
tive participation in the learning process (Sternberg, 1994),
and parents’ abilities to retain or relinquish their assistive
roles appropriately (Freund, 1990).
The quality of parent– child scaffolding interactions is
jointly determined, influenced by children’s current cogni-
tive abilities (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976) along with
parents’ perceptions of their children’s temperaments, par-
ents’ personal adjustment and education, and parents’ atti-
tudes toward the problem context (Neitzel & Stright, 2001).
In sum, scaffolding may represent an artifact of the family,
reflecting the personalities of its members, resources, goals,
and values. In other words, scaffolding is the product of
numerous attributes of the family that have been linked to
children’s school outcomes previously in independent lines
of research. Differences in patterns of behavior across the
dimensions of scaffolding (cognitive support, emotional
support, and transfer of responsibility) may affect in com-
plex ways the likelihood of children developing and utiliz-
ing effective academic self-regulatory behaviors in school

147
 148 NEITZEL AND STRIGHT
(Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994; Stright, Neitzel, Sears, &
Hoke-Sinex, 2001).
Although previous research has established a connection
between different facets of parents’ scaffolding and chil-
dren’s general competencies in self-regulation (Grolnick &
Ryan, 1989; Pianta, Smith, & Reeve, 1991; Stright et al.,
2001), a thorough study that simultaneously examines the
contributions of all of the major aspects of scaffolding to the
prediction of children’s specific academic self-regulatory
behaviors is lacking. It is hypothesized that parents’ content
and manner of instruction may furnish information about
strategies that the child needs for managing his or her own
learning (monitoring and help seeking), parents’ emotional
support may affect the child’s dispositions toward learning
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
such as willingness to put forth effort and persistence, and
parents’ level of control and recruitment of children’s active
involvement in the problem-solving process may foster the
child’s understanding of self as the responsible agent for
cognitive and behavior control in the classroom.
Parents’ Cognitive Support: Metacognitive Content
and Manner of Instruction
Children’s metacognitive development has been associ-
ated with academic self-regulation (Flavell, 1987). Parents’
instruction during scaffolded problem-solving interactions
is a means by which metacognitive knowledge is shared and
information about strategies and general task management
routines is conveyed (Vygotsky, 1978). Therefore, parents’
abilities to dispense good metacognitive information as they
provide instructional assistance may influence their chil-
dren’s metacognitive development and subsequently chil-
dren’s use of cognitive management strategies such as mon-
itoring progress and seeking assistance in school.
Parents’ provision of metacognitive information to their
children during problem-solving interactions is related to
children’s metacognitive talk in their third-grade classrooms
(Stright et al., 2001). Parents who provide more metacog-
nitive information have children who are more likely to
discuss how an answer was reached and why they approach
a problem a certain way or to make evaluative comments
about their performance. In addition, children who have
information about strategies and about the general nature of
academic tasks are best equipped to cognitively manage
their learning (Schraw, 1994). Specifically, parents who
provide metacognitive information during problem-solving
interactions have children who check their work, recognize
when they make an error and self-correct, and adjust their
strategy use in school (Stright et al., 2001).
However, parents’ provision of metacognitive informa-
tion does not effectively predict children’s metacognitive
talk and monitoring in school if parents do not reduce the
cognitive demands of the task for their children by breaking
down the task and presenting information in small steps,
reviewing the steps, and discussing progress in relation to
the overall task goal (Stright et al., 2001). Parents’ abilities
to deliver instruction in a manner sensitive to their chil-
dren’s cognitive needs may determine whether children
understand and can make use of the metacognitive informa-
tion provided (Wertsch, 1985). Providing instruction in
small steps, with frequent review also may serve as a model
of task management strategies that can be used by the child
in the classroom (Rogoff, Mistry, Goncu, & Mosier, 1993)
and, in addition, may determine whether children view
others as resources for information that will have value to
them. In each of these ways, the content and manner of
parents’ instruction may provide a foundation of metacog-
nitive competence children need in order to regulate their
own learning, to discuss their own thinking, monitor
progress, and seek help in the classroom.
Parents’ Emotional Support of Children’s
Problem-Solving Efforts
Children’s academic self-regulatory behaviors are con-
tingent on motivational as well as metacognitive factors
(Zimmerman, 1995). According to Bandura’s model of
children’s self-regulation (Bandura, 1986), self-regulated
behavior is the product of the balance between a child’s
“skill and will” (Schunk, 1995). It is expected that parents’
emotional support of their children’s problem-solving ef-
forts plays an important role in relation to all self-regulatory
behaviors even after the content and manner of parents’
instruction are taken into consideration. Cognitive manage-
ment is an effortful process, and parents’ emotional support
may cultivate the motivational dispositions needed to secure
children’s self-regulated behavior in the classroom (Eccles,
Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998; Ryan & Pintrich, 1997). Par-
ents’ emotional support is instrumental in the development
of children’s sense of personal competence and control
(Ginsburg & Bronstein, 1993), and children’s sense of per-
sonal competence and control is related to their engagement
in self-regulated behaviors (Brown, 1988; Schunk, 1995).
Emotional support provided by parents has been related
directly to children’s academic self-regulation (Feldman,
Martinez-Pons, & Shaham, 1995). Specifically, Stright et al.
(2001) found that parents’ emotional support during parent–
child problem-solving interactions was related to children’s
metacognitive talk and monitoring in their third-grade class-
rooms. Parents who provided encouragement and displayed
positive attitudes about their children’s abilities to complete
difficult problem-solving tasks had children who discussed
their thinking in the classroom. Even if parents provided
high-quality instruction rich in metacognitive content, if
they did not emotionally support their children during prob-
lem solving, then their children were less likely to monitor
their progress in the classroom. However, in the same study,
emotional support was not related uniquely to children’s
help seeking or active participation in their classrooms. It is
possible that the absence of encouragement and praise may
not necessarily dissuade children from self-regulated behav-
ior as long as their efforts have not been rejected, criticized,
or otherwise responded to negatively. For this reason, the
current study will examine patterns of inappropriate re-
sponses to children’s emotional needs during scaffolded
interactions as well as positive aspects of emotional support.
The overall quality of parents’ emotional support may be
related to children’s willingness to put forth effort and
 MOTHERS’ SCAFFOLDING AND CHILDREN’S SELF-REGULATION
therefore may influence children’s cognitive management,
task persistence, and behavior control in the classroom.
Parents’ Support of Children’s Autonomy
Parents’ scaffolding is anticipated to culminate in transfer
of responsibility as children develop abilities to function
independently in the problem-solving situation. Parents
must gauge when it is appropriate to resign their assistive
roles and hand over responsibility to their children. Parents
may support their children’s transition to autonomous
problem-solving through their timely withdrawal of assis-
tance or through their choice of instructional techniques.
Parents who use prompts, questions, and hints to assist their
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
children rather than simply stating the answer, directing
their children’s actions, or performing the task for their
children may be encouraging their children to assume an
active role in the learning process.
Parents’ strategies for controlling interactions and en-
couraging their children’s autonomy in the problem-solving
process have been related to children’s behavior control in
their classrooms (Pianta et al., 1991) and academic achieve-
ment in school (Grolnick & Ryan, 1989). Parents’ patterns
of control or support of their children’s autonomy influence
the child’s view of self as a responsible agent for behavior
control (Hess, Holloway, Dickson, & Price, 1984).
The adequacy of parents’ transfer of responsibility for
problem-solving interactions to their children may have
implications for children’s cognitive management and task
persistence as well. High levels of control may lead children
to view themselves as passive recipients rather than active
participants in the learning process; although they may be
capable of self-regulation, they may fail to do so because
they do not realize it is their responsibility. Therefore,
parents’ patterns of control may render good cognitive and
emotional support ineffective. This study examines whether
parents’ proficiency in transferring responsibility for prob-
lem solving to their children is important beyond their
cognitive and emotional support of their children.
In summary, parent– child joint problem-solving interac-
tions within the family provide a context for early develop-
ment that may affect significantly the formulation of the
child’s knowledge base, dispositions, and habits (Vygotsky,
1978) and consequently the child’s academic self-regu-
lation. Because the dimensions of scaffolding do not occur
in isolation, all are examined in a hierarchical model of the
effects of scaffolding on children’s self-regulation. It is
hypothesized that it may not be enough for mothers to
provide high-quality metacognitive information; the manner
of instruction may moderate the effects of the content of
instruction. In addition, even if the parent provides good
metacognitive instruction communicated in a developmen-
tally appropriate manner, the child may not be motivated to
use his or her abilities in school if the child has not been
emotionally supported in his or her efforts within the home.
Finally, in the last step of the model, even mothers’ cogni-
tive and emotional support may not be sufficient for solic-
iting children’s self-regulated behavior if mothers have not
encouraged their children to become active participants in
149
their own learning. The content and manner of mothers’
instruction may influence whether children are equipped for
the complex metacognitive demands of cognitive manage-
ment (monitoring and help-seeking), and mothers’ support
of their children’s efforts and control or advocacy of their
children’s autonomy may influence whether children invest
effort in the learning process and act as active agents in their
own cognitive and behavior control in school.
Method
Participants
Sixty-eight family dyads consisting of preschool children and
their mothers participated in this study. All of the families were
from a Midwest university city and its neighboring communities.
Participants were recruited via letters sent home through the com-
munity’s preschools during the summer prior to the children be-
ginning kindergarten. Four of the mothers had less than a high
school education, 16 mothers had a high school education, 15 had
some college, 15 had college degrees, and 18 mothers had some
graduate school education. Fifty-five mothers were married and 13
of the mothers were the single head of household. Fifty-two of the
mothers were employed. Thirty-two of the children were male and
36 were female. The children ranged in age from 4.75 to 6.75
years; the mean age was 5.6 years. Most of the children were
White (60 White, 3 African-American, 2 Hispanic, 1 Asian-
American, 2 mixed race).
Procedure
Each mother– child dyad was visited in their home for approx-
imately an hour and a half during the summer prior to the child’s
entrance into kindergarten. Mothers’ scaffolding behaviors were
assessed through observations of the mother– child pair while the
mother provided instructions and any assistance she believed nec-
essary as her child completed four difficult problem-solving tasks.
The four tasks were designed by the study authors to create a
context in which the mother would have to cognitively and emo-
tionally support her child’s efforts in a potentially frustrating
situation. Because previous studies have reported significant vari-
ation in parents’ scaffolding behaviors across multiple tasks
(Gonzalez, 1996), a variety of tasks were used to ensure that
mothers’ scaffolding behaviors were assessed thoroughly. Prior to
beginning each task, the mother was given directions and an
opportunity to ask questions. The mother then explained the task
and provided assistance as her child attempted each task for 5 min.
For the first task, a revision of Green’s (1995) referential com-
munication task, the child was asked to leave the room and the
mother was shown a picture of a cartoon-like person made from
simple geometric shapes of different colors. The mother was asked
to record on a tape recorder the directions necessary for her child
to reproduce the same picture from a set of geometric shapes
identical to those used to create the original picture. When the
recording was done, the child was called back into the room. The
child was asked to follow the tape recorded instructions to make
the picture. None of the participating children was able to success-
fully complete the task from the recorded instructions only. At the
conclusion of the tape or after 5 min, the mother provided help and
instruction for an additional 5 min.
A traditional problem-solving task, a block puzzle, was used for
the second task. The child was asked to build a tower using a set
of nine animal blocks. The child was told that only one animal
 150 NEITZEL AND STRIGHT
could be standing on the table; all the other animal blocks had to
be stacked in a tower on top of the block chosen to be on the
bottom. The different sizes and shapes of the blocks resulted in
different weights for each block that needed to be taken into
consideration when stacking them. For the third task, an open-
ended planning task, the child was asked to plan a birthday party
for a stuffed bear. The mother assisted as the child decided whom
a bear might like to invite, a game a bear might like to play, a gift
a bear would like, and the kind of cake a bear would like. For the
final task, a creative language task, the child was asked to make up
a story using six puppets: a firefighter, a police officer, a wizard, a
nurse, a doctor, and a baker.
During each problem-solving task, a trained observer noted and
tallied behaviors, and at the conclusion of each problem-solving
interaction made final overall ratings of each scaffolding behavior.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Two educational psychology doctoral students were trained to use
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
the scaffolding coding system over a 1-month period. At the
conclusion of the visit, the parents and children were given a
modest monetary remuneration for their participation in the study.
In order to assess the children’s self-regulation of their learning
at school, children were observed in their kindergarten classrooms
for 48 min (24 min during teacher-directed activities, 24 min
during independent work). Two educational psychology doctoral
students were trained to use the coding system over a 1-month
period. The observer (blind to the data from the home visits and the
hypotheses of the study) coded each child’s self-regulatory behav-
iors after observing for a 4-min interval. No more than three 4-min
intervals of data were collected for a child during one classroom
visit. Consequently, data were collected for each child over at least
4 classroom visits (2 during the fall semester, 2 during the spring
semester).
Measures
Mother’s Scaffolding Behaviors
The mother’s scaffolding behaviors were assessed with an ob-
servational coding system developed by the first author on the
basis of the work of Wood et al. (1976) and Rogoff (1990).1
Aspects of the mother’s cognitive support, emotional support, and
transfer of responsibility were coded. Each aspect of mother’s
scaffolding was rated on a 5-point scale ranging from low (1) to
high (5).
Two aspects of cognitive support were coded. The first aspect of
cognitive support, metacognitive information, was assessed with a
rating of the degree to which the mother provided metacognitive
information to her child that made salient the thinking behind the
problem-solving process. Any information that (a) covered ideas
for task management techniques or strategies, (b) served to ad-
vance the child’s understanding of how the task worked, or (c)
provided a rationale for the use of a particular strategy was counted
as metacognitive information. An example is, “If only one block
can touch the table then you have to start with the biggest one on
the bottom so it can hold all the others.” A second aspect of
cognitive support, mother’s manner of instruction, was coded
using two 5-point ratings. First, a rating was made of the mother’s
regulating task difficulty, the degree to which the mother gave
instructions in small, manageable steps (“Let’s plan one part of the
party at a time. First, . . . ”). Second, a rating was made of the
extent to which the mother reviewed the steps of the task and
discussed progress in relation to the overall goal of the task (“OK,
you finished his hat; now, let’s make his face. Remember, it should
look like a silly clown looking sideways when we are all done”).
Because the two ratings were moderately correlated (r ⫽ .74), an
overall manner of instruction score was created by averaging the
two ratings. A high composite score indicated that the mother
provided meaningful instruction in manageable steps with consis-
tent review of the steps.
Two aspects of emotional support were coded. Rejection was
assessed by rating how rejecting the mother was of the child’s
problem-solving efforts. Rejection included criticism, disapproval,
dismissal of the child’s efforts, or other negative or inappropriate
reactions to the child (“I knew you wouldn’t be able to do it
because you never listen!” “See, you’re not even trying! Your
picture doesn’t look anything like this!”). Encouragement was
assessed by rating the supportive comments that mothers gave
their children such as words of encouragement and positive com-
ments about the task or the child’s ability to do the task. Because
the two ratings were moderately correlated (r ⫽ .65), an overall
score of emotional support was created by reverse coding and
averaging the two ratings. A high score indicated that the mother
provided high levels of positive support to the child.
Two aspects of transfer of responsibility were coded. The moth-
er’s overcontrol of the child was assessed by rating the degree to
which the mother exercised control over her child’s problem-
solving attempts beyond what appeared necessary for the child to
do the task. The degree to which the mother encouraged her child’s
active cognitive involvement in the problem-solving task was the
second aspect of the mother’s transfer of responsibility assessed.
Mothers who used prompts, questions, and hints while providing
assistance to their child rather than simply stating the answer,
directing their child’s actions, or doing the task for the child were
credited with encouraging the child to take an active role cogni-
tively (“Winnie-the-Pooh is a bear too. What presents does he like?
So, what presents do you think Buddy Bear might like?” “If the
baker ate too much cake and is sick, what should happen next?
What do we do when you get sick?”). Because the two ratings were
moderately correlated (r ⫽ .70), an overall score of transfer of
responsibility was created by reverse coding and averaging the two
ratings. A high score indicated that the mother relinquished control
of the task when appropriate and encouraged the child’s autonomy.
To assess intercoder agreement, a second coder was used for
24% of the interactions spaced out equally across the home visits
(n ⫽ 64: 16 home visits ⫻ 4 tasks). The two coders observed
together and independently coded the mother’s scaffolding behav-
iors after each of the four problem-solving tasks. Pearson correla-
tions between the two coders for the seven codes ranged from .81
to .96 and a version of Cohen’s kappa appropriate for ratings (K. J.
Berry & Mielke, 1988) ranged from .81 to .90.
Children’s Academic Self-Regulatory Behaviors
An observational coding system using frequency counts and
3-point ratings was created by the first author on the basis of the
coding system used by Stright et al. (2001) to assess the child’s
academic self-regulatory behaviors in the classroom (see Footnote
1). Five areas of self regulation were assessed: metacognitive talk,
task persistence, behavior self-control, monitoring progress, and
seeking assistance.
First, metacognitive talk was assessed by the use of a frequency
count of instances when the child discussed his or her own think-
ing (e.g., shared information about how an answer was reached or
why he or she approached a problem a certain way or made
comments about his or her performance). Second, a rating was
1
Information about the coding system is available from the
authors on request.
 MOTHERS’ SCAFFOLDING AND CHILDREN’S SELF-REGULATION 151

made of the child’s task persistence during class activities. A high
rating (3) was made if the child sustained effort and maintained
interest in the task throughout most of the observation interval. A
low rating (1) was made if the child was off-task and unenthusi-
astic for the majority of the observation interval. Third, a rating
was made of the child’s lack of behavior self-control. A high rating
(3) was given when the child consistently did not follow instruc-
tions, disrupted other students who were trying to work, inter-
rupted the teacher, or failed to adhere to class routines. Fourth, the
child’s monitoring progress on classwork was assessed by the use
of a frequency count of the child’s checking work, detecting errors,
and correcting work. Finally, the child’s seeking help from the
teacher was assessed with a frequency count.
To assess the intercoder agreement, a second observer coded
20% of the classroom observations. The coders observed together
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
of the mothers’ instructional behaviors were quite different
depending on the task with ratings that spanned nearly the
full range of the scale for all of the instructional behaviors
(Table 1). One-sample t tests indicated that the ranges in
mothers’ behaviors across the four tasks were statistically
significantly different from zero for each of the instructional
behaviors (Table 1).
The alpha coefficient was used to estimate the stability of
mothers’ instructional behaviors across the four tasks to
determine whether the four tasks consistently separated
mothers who were “high” from mothers who were “low” on
each instructional behavior. Despite the variability in her
own instructional behaviors across the four problem-solving

and independently coded 155 of the 816 four-minute intervals of tasks, each mother’s instructional behaviors across tasks
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

data spaced out equally across the school year. For the two codes
assessed on a 3-point rating scale, Pearson’s correlations between
the two coders were .90 and .94 and a version of Cohen’s kappa for
ratings (K. J. Berry & Mielke, 1988) was .88 and .90. For the codes
assessed with frequency counts, a variation of Cohen’s kappa for
frequency data (Scott & Hattfield, 1985) ranged from .83 to .96.
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Prior to the main analyses, each of the variables was
examined to determine whether the assumptions of normal-
ity, linearity, and independence had been upheld. All as-
sumptions associated with linear regression analyses were
met. Next, preliminary analyses were conducted to deter-
mine whether there were differences in the scaffolding
behaviors of mothers of boys versus girls. There were no
significant differences in mothers’ scaffolding behaviors by
child gender, multivariate F(4, 63) ⫽ 0.36, p ⫽ .83. Also,
there were no significant differences between boys and girls
for the five academic self-regulation behaviors, multivariate
F(5, 62) ⫽ 0.95, p ⫽ .46. Therefore, child gender was
collapsed for all further analyses.
Preliminary analyses of the relative variability and sta-
bility in each mother’s personal instructional behaviors
across the different tasks also were conducted. The majority
were consistent relative to the other mothers. Cronbach’s
alpha for scores on the four tasks was .78 for metacognitive
information, .80 for regulating task difficulty, .78 for mon-
itoring and review of the task, .82 for encouragement, .70
for rejection of the child’s problem-solving efforts, .73 for
overcontrol of the problem-solving interaction, and .77 for
recruiting the child’s active role in the problem-solving
process.
For each of the tasks, the correlations and part correla-
tions between the mothers’ instructional behaviors and chil-
dren’s classroom behaviors were examined to determine
whether there were differences in patterns of relations
across the four tasks that would confound the relations
between the predictor and outcome variables if scores for
the four tasks were aggregated. In general, the patterns of
correlations and part correlations between the variables of
interest were similar for each of these tasks.
Because the mothers’ behaviors were consistent across
tasks, and because the patterns of correlations did not
change across the tasks, and because the modest sample size
places constraints on the number of analyses that can be
conducted, a decision was made to average the ratings of
mothers’ instructional behaviors across the four tasks (see
Table 2 for means, standard deviations, and ranges for the
overall scores). These scores were used in all subsequent
analyses.

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Distribution of Ranges in Ratings of Each Mother’s
Instructional Behaviors Across the Four Problem-Solving Tasks
Range in ratings across tasks/
Range in % of mothers with each range
ratings of ratings
Mothers’ instructional behaviors M SD 0 1 2 3 4 t(67)
Metacognitive content 2.22 1.14 9 14 32 33 12 16.01*
Regulating task complexity 1.87 0.71 0 30 52 18 0 22.35*
Monitoring/review of the task 2.15 0.95 3 25 35 33 6 18.63*
Encouragement 1.68 0.95 7 41 31 18 3 14.50*
Rejection 1.23 0.94 22 44 26 6 2 10.55*
Overcontrol 1.64 0.84 5 41 40 12 2 16.09*
Encouraging child’s active
cognitive involvement 1.79 0.74 4 25 58 13 0 20.44*
Note. N ⫽ 68.
*p ⬍ .01.
 152 NEITZEL AND STRIGHT

Table 2 seek help when they needed it (see Table 3). However, an
Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges for Mothers’ examination of part correlations revealed that after mothers’
Scaffolding Behaviors and Children’s scaffolding behaviors were taken into consideration, moth-
Self-Regulatory Behaviors ers’ education was not related significantly to any of the
Behavior M SD Range child’s self-regulatory behaviors, suggesting that the rela-
tion of mothers’ education to children’s self-regulatory be-
Mothers’ scaffolding haviors may be understood best as an indirect influence;
Metacognitive information 2.11 0.70 1.00–4.00
Manner of instruction 2.54 0.66 1.13–4.25 mothers’ education impacts mothers’ scaffolding, and in
Regulating task complexity 2.96 0.74 1.25–4.75 turn, mothers’ scaffolding behaviors influence children’s
Monitoring/review of task 2.42 0.70 1.00–4.00 self-regulatory behaviors. When a set of variables are op-
Emotional support 3.27 0.53 2.13–4.25 erating as mediators of the relations between other vari-
Encouragement 2.10 0.69 1.00–3.50
Rejection 1.60 0.54 1.00–3.00 ables, path analysis is the most appropriate method of anal-
Transfer of responsibility 3.38 0.66 2.00–4.50 ysis (Hoyle & Smith, 1994); however, the modest size of the
sample precluded the use of path analysis in this study.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Overcontrol 2.36 0.78 1.00–4.00

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Encouraging child’s active role 3.11 0.70 1.00–4.25 Mothers’ education was not included in subsequent analyses
Children’s self-regulatory behaviors because the guiding research questions were focused on the
Metacognitive talk 0.74a 0.16 0.48–1.21
Task persistence 2.22 0.32 1.50–2.83 role of the different dimensions of mothers’ scaffolding
Lack of behavior control 1.69 0.45 1.00–3.00 behaviors in predicting children’s academic self-regulatory
Monitoring progress 1.00a 0.17 0.64–1.42 behaviors.
Help seeking 0.80a 0.12 0.52–1.09
Note. N ⫽ 68.
a
The average frequency of children’s self-regulatory behavior dur- Mothers’ Scaffolding and Children’s Academic
ing 4-min coding intervals. All other mean values are average Self-Regulatory Behaviors
ratings of mothers’ and children’s behaviors (5-point scales for
mothers’ scaffolding behaviors; 3-point scales for children’s self-
regulatory behaviors). An examination of bivariate correlations revealed that
mothers who provided more metacognitive information to
their children also tended to provide instruction in a manner
Mothers’ Education, Scaffolding Behaviors, and that reduced cognitive complexity and were more likely to
Children’s Self-Regulatory Behaviors offer emotional support as their children completed the
problem-solving tasks (see Table 3). Mothers who provided
Education was an important resource for mothers’ scaf- instruction in a manner sensitive to their children’s cogni-
folding (see Table 3). Mothers who had higher levels of tive needs typically gave more emotional support as well.
education were more likely to provide metacognitive infor- Mothers who reduced cognitive complexity and were sup-
mation to their children and to regulate task complexity by portive were less likely to be overcontrolling.
giving instructions in small steps with frequent review. Typically in the classroom, children who talked more
Mothers with more education also were more likely to about their thinking were more likely to exhibit increased
emotionally support their children and transfer responsibil- task persistence and better behavior control and also were
ity for the problem-solving interaction to their children. more likely to monitor their progress and ask for help when
Children whose mothers were more educated were more needed (see Table 3). Children who lacked self-control were
likely to talk about their thinking, be persistent in their less likely to persist on school tasks or to monitor their
work, have better behavior control, monitor their work, and progress. Children who were more persistent during their

Table 3
Correlations Between Mothers’ Scaffolding Behaviors and Children’s Self-Regulatory Behaviors
Behavior 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Demographics
1. Mother education —
Mother scaffolding
2. Metacognitive information .53** —
3. Manner of instruction .46** .51** —
4. Emotional support .26* .28* .57** —
5. Transfer of responsibility .29* .20 .40** .47** —
Child self-regulation
6. Metacognitive talk .33** .44** .54** .34** .23 —
7. Task persistence .29* .31** .34** .51** .47** .47** —
8. Lack of behavior control ⫺.25* ⫺.20 ⫺.21 ⫺.35** ⫺.43** ⫺.45** ⫺.61** —
9. Monitoring progress .34** .32** .50** .18 .20 .57** .44** ⫺.50** —
10. Help seeking .29* .31** .36** .42** .41** .54** .46** ⫺.46** .42** —
N ⫽ 68.
*p ⬍ .05. **p ⬍ .01.
 MOTHERS’ SCAFFOLDING AND CHILDREN’S SELF-REGULATION 153

work were more likely to monitor their progress. Children
who were more persistent, had better behavior control, or
monitored their work more carefully were more likely to
seek help. Although there were moderate correlations
among children’s self-regulatory behaviors, the magnitudes
of these correlations also were indicative of sizable portions
of unshared variance, so each of the self-regulatory behav-
iors was explored separately in subsequent analyses, mak-
ing it possible to examine the relative contributions of the
different dimensions of scaffolding for predicting the dif-
ferent aspects of self-regulation.
Pearson correlations were calculated between the aspects
of mothers’ scaffolding and the child self-regulatory behav-
iors (see Table 3). The metacognitive content of mothers’
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
The relative roles of mothers’ metacognitive content of
instruction, manner of instruction, emotional support, and
transfer of responsibility for predicting each of the child’s
self-regulatory behaviors were examined using five hierar-
chical multiple regression equations (see Table 4). The
content of instruction is the foundation of instructional
support (Vygotsky, 1978), as information is conveyed about
processes and strategies that the young child may be lack-
ing; therefore, metacognitive content was the first aspect of
scaffolding entered into the regression model. However,
even high-quality information may not be beneficial if it is
not given in a manner sensitive to the young child’s cogni-
tive needs (Wertsch, 1985). The next step examined the
importance of the manner in which instructions were deliv-

instructions and mothers’ manner of instruction were related
significantly to children’s metacognitive talk, task persis-
tence, and monitoring progress in the classroom. Mothers’
manner of instruction also was related to children’s help-
seeking behaviors. Mothers’ emotional support of their chil-
dren’s problem solving and appropriate transfer of respon-
sibility for the problem-solving interaction to their children
were related to children’s task persistence and behavior
control in the classroom. Mothers’ emotional support also
was related to children’s metacognitive talk and help
seeking.
ered after metacognitive content was taken into account.
Although the content and manner of instruction are funda-
mental, the objective of instructional support is the child’s
eventual autonomous cognitive and regulatory activity, and
models of the socialization process suggest that information
transmitted and procedures or routines modeled are not
likely to be internalized if instruction also is not sensitive to
the emotional needs of the child (Eccles et al., 1998; Grusec
& Goodnow, 1994). The third step tested the unique con-
tribution of mothers’ emotional support and possible role in
modifying the relations between the content and manner of

Table 4
Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Children’s Self-Regulatory Behaviors
Metacognitive Task Lack of Monitoring Help
Variable talk persistence control progress seeking
Step 1
2
Model R (adjusted) .18** .09** .02 .09** .08**
Metacognitive content .44** .31** ⫺.20 .32** .31**
Step 2

Change in R2 .13** .05 .02 .16** .07*

Metacognitive content .22 .19 ⫺.12 .08 .16
Manner of instruction .42** .25 ⫺.15 .46** .31*
Model R2 (adjusted) .30** .12** .03 .24** .14**
Step 3

Change in R2 .00 .15** .08* .01 .09**

Metacognitive content .22 .20 ⫺.12 .08 .16
Manner of instruction .39** ⫺.02 .04 .55** .10
Emotional support .05 .48** ⫺.34* ⫺.10 .37**
Model R2 (adjusted) .29** .26** .09* .24** .22**
Step 4

Change in R2 .00 .06* .09** .00 .04

Metacognitive content .22 .20 ⫺.13 .08 .16
Manner of instruction .39** ⫺.08 .11 .54** .05
Emotional support .05 .37** ⫺.21 ⫺.13 .29*
Transfer of responsibility .00 .29* ⫺.35** .05 .22
Final
2
Final R (adjusted) .28** .32** .18** .23** .25**
Note. N ⫽ 68. Changes in R at each step are in boldface. Other values are standardized regression
2

coefficients (betas).
*p ⬍ .05. **p ⬍ .01.
 154 NEITZEL AND STRIGHT

instruction and children’s self-regulatory behaviors. Finally,

scaffolding culminates in the transfer of responsibility for
the task as children develop abilities to function indepen-
dently in the problem-solving situation. In the terminal step,
the role of mothers’ transfer of responsibility was tested
while controlling for mother’s metacognitive content, man-
ner of instruction, and emotional support.
Metacognitive talk. The overall model of mothers’ scaf-
folding was a significant predictor of children’s metacogni-
tive talk in school (adjusted R2 ⫽ .28, p ⬍ .01). Mothers
who provided more metacognitive information had children
who were more likely to discuss how an answer was
reached or why they approached a problem a certain way or
to make evaluative comments about their performance.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Mothers’ manner of instruction also contributed uniquely to

the prediction of children’s metacognitive talk. A change in
the magnitude of the regression coefficient for mother’s
metacognitive content of instruction was noted when moth-
er’s manner of instruction was introduced into the equation,
an indication of a possible interaction between these vari-
ables (Falk & Miller, 1992). Nonadditive effects were con-
firmed through a separate exploratory regression analysis
predicting children’s metacognitive talk in the classroom
using the following procedure, appropriate for small sam-
ples (W. D. Berry & Feldman, 1985). Mother’s metacogni-
tive content of instruction was entered in the first step, and
the interaction term, Metacognitive Content ⫻ Manner of
Instruction, was added in the second step. A significant
change in R2 at the second step indicated that the interaction
was significant (Pedhazur, 1982).
In order to interpret the meaning of this interaction, low
and high groups for each of the predictor variables (meta-
cognitive content and manner of instruction) were created
with the use of median splits (the split was checked and
adjusted for meaningfulness), and the interaction was plot-
ted (see Figure 1). In addition, follow-up exploratory tests
of the interaction were performed with a procedure de-
scribed by Aiken and West (1991). For each regression line
in the figure, the slope was tested to determine whether it
was significantly different from zero. A significant slope
reflects significant relations between mother’s metacogni-
tive content and children’s metacognitive talk in school for
the group of children represented by that line (children
whose mothers provide instruction in small steps with re-
view at either low or high levels). The line representing
high-quality manner of instruction had a slope significantly
different from zero (␤ ⫽ .41, p ⫽ .02), but the line repre-
senting low-quality manner of instruction did not (␤ ⫽
⫺.20, p ⫽ .25). Even high-quality metacognitive informa-
tion was not effective in predicting children’s metacognitive
talk if the information was not presented in a way that
children could understand. Finally, neither mothers’ emo-
tional support nor transfer of responsibility made significant
unique contributions toward predicting children’s metacog-
nitive talk.
Task persistence. The overall model of mothers’ scaf-
folding was related to children’s task persistence in the
kindergarten classroom (adjusted R2 ⫽ .32, p ⬍ .01). The
metacognitive content of mothers’ instruction contributed
Figure 1. Moderating effect of mothers’ manner of instruction on
the relations between mothers’ metacognitive content of instruc-
tion and children’s metacognitive talk in the classroom. The slope
of the line representing high-quality manner of instruction is
significantly different from zero (␤ ⫽ .41, p ⫽ .02), indicating a
significant relation between mother’s metacognitive content of
instruction and children’s metacognitive talk for children who
received high-quality instruction (instruction given in small steps
with frequent review in relation to the task goal).
significantly to predicting children’s task persistence, and
although mothers’ manner of instruction did not contribute
uniquely to predicting children’s task persistence, once
again, mothers’ manner of instruction appeared to moderate
the relation between metacognitive content and children’s
task persistence. Nonadditive effects were confirmed, the
interaction was plotted, and the slope of each regression line
(representing low- and high-quality instruction) was tested
with the use of the exploratory procedures described above.2
Mothers’ provision of metacognitive information predicted
children’s task persistence only when the content was de-
livered in an understandable manner (␤ ⫽ .37, p ⫽ .04).
However, metacognitive information was not related to
children’s task persistence when the information was not
presented in a developmentally appropriate manner (␤ ⫽
.14, p ⫽ .39). In addition, mothers’ emotional support
appeared to moderate the relation between mothers’ manner
of instruction and children’s task persistence. The interac-
tion was confirmed and plotted, and post hoc tests of the
slopes of the regression lines for high and low levels of
emotional support were completed (see Footnote 2). When
mothers provided high levels of emotional support, manner
of instruction was not related to children’s task persistence:
Their children were likely to sustain effort and interest in
their schoolwork regardless of the mothers’ manner of in-
struction (␤ ⫽ .03, p ⫽ .89). When mothers provided low
2
Figures illustrating these interactions are available from the
authors on request.
 MOTHERS’ SCAFFOLDING AND CHILDREN’S SELF-REGULATION
levels of emotional support, children persisted in their work
more if their mothers regulated task difficulty well during
scaffolding (␤ ⫽ .43, p ⫽ .01). Finally, mothers who more
adequately relinquished control over the problem-solving
interaction, encouraging their children’s autonomy in the
problem-solving process, had children who were better at
sustaining interest and effort in the classroom.
Lack of behavior control. The overall model of the
quality of mothers’ scaffolding was a significant predictor
of children’s lack of behavior control in the classroom
(adjusted R2 ⫽ .18, p ⬍ .01). Neither the metacognitive
content of mothers’ instruction nor the mothers’ manner of
instruction was related significantly to children’s lack of
behavior control. However, after controlling for the meta-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
cognitive content and manner of instruction, mothers’ emo-
tional support was related significantly (negatively) to chil-
dren’s lack of behavior control in school. Mothers who
provided more encouragement and displayed more positive
attitudes about the problem-solving task and their children’s
abilities to do the task had children who were less likely to
be disruptive or fail to follow instructions and class routines.
Mothers’ transfer of responsibility also made a unique con-
tribution to predicting (negatively) children’s lack of behav-
ior control in the classroom, and when mothers’ transfer of
responsibility was entered into the equation, emotional sup-
port was no longer a significant predictor, suggesting that
mothers’ transfer of responsibility moderates the relation
between mothers’ emotional support and children’s lack of
behavior control. Nonadditive effects were confirmed
through exploratory analyses, the interaction was plotted,
and post hoc tests of the slopes of the regression lines for
low and high levels of mother’s transfer of responsibility
were completed (see Footnote 2). When their mothers were
less directive and controlling, children were likely to exhibit
behavior control in the classroom, regardless of the moth-
er’s level of emotional support (␤ ⫽ ⫺.07, p ⫽ .65).
However, when mothers had not encouraged their chil-
dren’s autonomous behavior, emotional support was partic-
ularly important for predicting children’s behavior control
in the classroom (␤ ⫽ ⫺.40, p ⫽ .02).
Monitoring progress. The overall model of mothers’
scaffolding was related significantly to children’s monitor-
ing progress (adjusted R2 ⫽ .23, p ⬍ .01). Mothers who
provided metacognitive information had children who
checked their work, recognized when they had made an
error, self-corrected, and adjusted strategy use appropriately
in school. When manner of instruction was entered into the
instructional model, metacognitive content was no longer a
significant unique contributor, again, suggesting that moth-
ers’ manner of instruction moderates the relation between
metacognitive content and children’s self-monitoring. The
interaction was confirmed and plotted, and post hoc tests of
the slopes of the regression lines for low and high quality
manner of instruction were completed (see Footnote 2).
When instruction was given in small steps with frequent
review, the metacognitive content of mothers’ instruction
predicted children’s monitoring (␤ ⫽ .31, p ⫽ .05). How-
ever, when mothers did not present instructions in small
steps with frequent review, children were not likely to
155
monitor their progress on academic tasks even if their
mothers provided high levels of metacognitive information
(␤ ⫽ ⫺.17, p ⫽ .28). The additional contributions of
mothers’ emotional support and transfer of responsibility
were not significant.
Help seeking. The overall model of mothers’ scaffold-
ing was a significant predictor of children’s help seeking
(adjusted R2 ⫽ .25, p ⬍ .01). The metacognitive content of
mothers’ instruction was a significant predictor. In addition,
mothers’ manner of instruction was associated significantly
with children’s help seeking and also moderated the relation
between metacognitive content and children’s help seeking
(see Footnote 2). For children whose mothers provided
low-quality instruction, the metacognitive content of moth-
ers’ instructions was positively related to children’s help
seeking (␤ ⫽ .35, p ⫽ .05). However, children whose
mothers presented instructions in small steps with frequent
review were likely to seek instructions from their teacher or
peers when having difficulty regardless of the metacognitive
content of their mothers’ instructions (␤ ⫽ ⫺.02, p ⫽ .91).
The contribution of mothers’ emotional support for predict-
ing children’s help seeking also was significant and mod-
erated the relations between mothers’ manner of instruction
and children’s help seeking (see Footnote 2). When mothers
provided high levels of emotional support, children who
received high-quality instruction from their mothers were
likely to seek assistance in the classroom (␤ ⫽ .41, p ⫽ .01).
If children’s emotional needs had not been supported ade-
quately during problem solving, children were not likely to
seek assistance in the classroom even if they had received
high-quality instruction from their mothers in a manner that
regulated the difficulty of the task (␤ ⫽ ⫺.02, p ⫽ .92).
Finally, mothers’ transfer of responsibility did not make a
significant unique contribution to understanding children’s
help-seeking behaviors in class.
Discussion
The present study extends previous research on the rela-
tions between parents’ scaffolding of their children’s
problem-solving and young children’s adjustment to school
by investigating a complete model of scaffolding interac-
tions as a multidimensional process by which children’s
metacognition, task persistence, behavior control, and cog-
nitive management processes such as monitoring and help
seeking may be socialized. Vygotsky (1978) believed that
the child’s desire to act independently is innate but that
access to the means and attitudes for self-regulated behavior
are culturally determined and learned. Parent– child joint
problem-solving interactions within the family appear to lay
the foundation for a culture of academic self-regulatory
competence, serving as a process in which cultural artifacts
such as tools, attitudes or beliefs, and roles may be pro-
cured. More specifically, during scaffolded interactions with
their parents, children may acquire important tools for meta-
cognitive understanding and cognitive management, moti-
vational beliefs and attitudes about the learning process, and
conceptions of roles and responsibilities (their own and
others) needed for academic self-regulation. In these ways,
 156 NEITZEL AND STRIGHT
the family may furnish the fundamental foundation for
children’s academic self-regulatory development and, in
turn, affect whether or not children will be able to derive
maximum benefit from their school experiences.
Children’s Metacognitive Awareness and Cognitive
Management in the Classroom
The mothers’ cognitive support (metacognitive content
and manner of instruction) was important particularly to the
prediction of children’s self-regulatory behaviors related to
cognitive awareness and management: metacognitive talk,
monitoring, and help seeking. Mothers who provided more
metacognitive information during scaffolded interactions
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
had children who more frequently talked about their think-
ing and monitored progress on their classwork. This is
consistent with findings from previous research with third-
grade students (Stright et al., 2001). It seems reasonable to
conclude that information about task management tech-
niques and suggestions for how and when to use strategies
may equip children with important “tools” for cognitive
management, and children’s metacognitive talk may pro-
vide a window into their level of metacognitive knowledge
(Schunk, 1986); however, this study did not examine the
underlying processes, such as children’s metacognitive
knowledge, that would help clarify these relations.
In addition, children’s abilities to derive benefit from the
metacognitive information given by their mothers depended
on the mothers’ manner of instruction, which modified the
relations between the metacognitive content of mothers’
instruction and children’s metacognitive talk and monitor-
ing progress. Again, this finding replicates that of previous
research with older students (Stright et al., 2001). Mothers’
providing instruction in small steps with frequent review
may reduce the cognitive load of a task and allow the child
to receive maximum benefit from metacognitive informa-
tion contained in mothers’ instructions. If children’s previ-
ous experiences within the family are characterized by
instruction presented in a manner that makes it impossible
to understand, then children may not be able to internalize
and use the information to discuss their cognition or monitor
progress. Children may fail to talk about their thinking or
monitor their progress in class because they lack the re-
sources to engage in these behaviors (Schraw, 1994).
The metacognitive content and manner of mothers’ in-
struction also were related to children’s seeking help in the
classroom, contrary to previous findings (Stright et al.,
2001) which indicated that children’s seeking assistance in
their third-grade classrooms was related to whether parents’
instructions were given in an understandable manner but
was not related to the metacognitive content of their par-
ents’ instruction. One explanation for these conflicting find-
ings may be that the metacognitive content of instruction is
more important for young children whose own repertoires
of metacognitive skills may not be as well developed as
those of older children. If parents provide metacognitive
information to their children, then their children may be
more cognitively aware and therefore more likely to recog-
nize that they do not understand and to realize that help is
needed. However, if children’s experiences within the fam-
ily are characterized by instances in which instruction is
presented in a manner that makes it impossible to under-
stand, then children may fail to seek assistance in school
because they assume that the instruction will not be helpful.
It is important that children view others as important re-
sources for information that will have value to them, and
children’s early interactions with their parents may affect
their theories about the usefulness of cognitive strategies
such as seeking assistance.
Mothers’ emotional support also contributed significantly
to predicting children’s help seeking in the classroom. This
finding is consistent with previous research which has found
that the quality of personal relationships with the teacher
(Newman & Schwager, 1993) and attention to social and
emotional needs in the classroom (Ryan, Gheen, & Midg-
ley, 1998) affect help seeking. Mothers’ emotional support
also moderated the relations between mothers’ cognitive
support and children’s help seeking in school. In order for
children to seek help, they not only must realize the need
and be motivated to improve their current level of under-
standing but also must be willing to receive assistance from
others (Ryan & Pintrich, 1997). Children who have not
received adequate emotional support may recognize that
adults are resources but may not be willing to use them
because these children may determine that it simply is not
worth the risk. If their problem-solving efforts typically
have been responded to negatively within the family, chil-
dren may anticipate rejection and be unlikely to seek help in
the classroom. Little research has explored the relations
between models of behavior that the child develops within
the family and the child’s behavior in school. It may be
useful to examine whether children entering school gener-
alize models of interaction with their parents to interactions
with their teacher and peers in the new school setting.
Future research on how previous instructional interactions
within the family may affect the child’s internal working
models about the value of assistance from others would
provide evidence for the link we are hypothesizing to ex-
plain the relations found between mothers’ manner of in-
struction, emotional support, and children’s help seeking in
school.
Children’s Effort and Self-Control in the Classroom
Mothers’ emotional support and mothers’ transfer of re-
sponsibility during problem-solving interactions were im-
portant to the prediction of children’s effort and control in
their classrooms. In particular, mothers’ emotional support
was important for predicting children’s behavior control if
mothers had not encouraged their children’s autonomous
behavior. Whether children believe that completing a task is
within their abilities or worth the effort, and therefore per-
sist in their attempts to complete the task or recognize that
it is their responsibility to do so, may depend on whether
children’s efforts and autonomy have been encouraged in
the past. Parents’ emotional support may be important for
ensuring that children are personally invested (Grusec &
Goodnow, 1994) and parents’ patterns of control or promo-
 MOTHERS’ SCAFFOLDING AND CHILDREN’S SELF-REGULATION
tion of children’s autonomy in problem-solving situations
may be important for demonstrating that children are re-
sponsible for their own behavior control in the classroom
(Hess et al., 1984).
A mediating link between aspects of parents’ scaffolding
and children’s self-regulation may be the impact of parents’
scaffolding on children’s long-term attitudes and beliefs. To
the degree that children’s task persistence and behavior
control are acceptable indicators of motivational disposi-
tions, there is support for this hypothesis; however, to
adequately test this link, research is needed to examine how
parents’ scaffolding relates to children’s mental models of
motivation and control and how these mental models relate
to children’s academic self-regulation in school.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Parents’ scaffolding also may affect how children define
their roles and responsibilities in the learning process. Al-
though children’s behavior control in school may be one
indication that they understand their responsibilities and
roles as active agents in the learning process, research is
needed to examine whether differences in parents’ patterns
of control or support of autonomy are related directly to
children’s definitions of their responsibilities and roles and
whether the differences in children’s definitions are related
to their self-regulatory behaviors in school.
Although the consistency of relations found between the
current study and earlier work with third graders lends
support for our model, longitudinal research is needed to
examine whether developmental differences exist in the
patterns of relations between scaffolding within the family
and children’s self-regulatory behaviors in school. It would
be informative to examine whether the effects of early
socialization within the family on children’s academic self-
regulatory behaviors persist or recede as children spend
more time in school.
Conclusions
Because of the modest sample size, caution must be
exercised in interpreting the results. However, given the size
of the sample, statistically significant results are indicative
of strong effect sizes. The size of the sample did preclude
the analysis of a more dynamic model. The dimensions of
scaffolding do not appear to function in additive fashion;
however, further research is needed using a larger sample so
that interactions between the three dimensions of parental
scaffolding (cognitive support, emotional support, and
transfer of responsibility) can be explored fully. In addition,
research with a larger sample would permit an examination
of a model of family influences that more adequately rep-
resents its complexity. For instance, parent– child scaffold-
ing interactions are believed to mediate the relations among
characteristics of the child and parents’ personal adjustment
and education. In addition, a more precise model of the
relations between parent– child scaffolding interactions and
children’s self-regulatory behaviors in school may be that
parents’ cognitive support (metacognitive content and man-
ner of instruction) influences children’s metacognition and
therefore their ability to persist in their classwork. Parents’
emotional support of their children’s efforts and control or
157
support of their children’s autonomy influence whether chil-
dren put forth effort in their work and whether children are
responsible for their own behavior control in the classroom.
In turn, children’s metacognitive skill, task persistence, and
behavior self-control differentially affect their progress
monitoring and help-seeking behaviors in the classroom. A
larger sample would enable examination of these hypothe-
sized mediated models.
A number of previous studies that have examined parent-
child interactions across multiple tasks report significant
variation across tasks in the parenting behaviors observed
(Gonzalez, 1996). Likewise, the present study revealed
large differences in mothers’ instructional behaviors across
tasks (although there also was a high degree of stability in
mothers’ personal instructional behaviors across the tasks
relative to the other mothers). Parents are the architects and
managers of children’s early experiences (Bradley & Cald-
well, 1995), and mothers’ differing degrees of support de-
pending on the task may reflect emphases, expectations, and
goals in the home that could lead to differences in experi-
ences and opportunities afforded to their children. This issue
warrants further attention in future research.
For decades, scaffolding interactions within the family
have been recognized as contributing to children’s increased
independent functioning on the tasks being scaffolded
(Pratt, Green, MacVicar, & Bountrogianni, 1992; Wood et
al., 1976). Scaffolded interactions between parent and child
also have been credited for children’s more efficient self-
regulated problem-solving behaviors on subsequent tasks
that resemble the task being scaffolded (Freund, 1990;
Radziszewska & Rogoff, 1988). The current study provides
evidence that scaffolding processes within the family may
have more pervasive influences that transcend environmen-
tal settings as well as tasks, inducting children into a culture
of academic self-regulatory competence.
Implications for Application and Public Policy
Beginning school places numerous demands on the child
to assume new roles and meet new expectations for cogni-
tive self-management (Fernie, 1989). Children’s adjustment
to these demands is crucial because the ability of the child
to adapt has long-term as well as immediate consequences
(Fernie, 1989). Therefore, the current findings have impli-
cations for educators as well as parents. It is important for
teachers to be aware that differences in patterns of family
interactions mean that children come to school with differ-
ent levels of metacognitive knowledge and procedures for
academic management. Consequently, some children will
be primed for the demands of school better than others.
Many schools make concerted efforts to incorporate into the
curriculum programs aimed at enhancing children’s meta-
cognitive and cognitive management skills. These findings
suggest the need for approaches that address motivational
components of self-regulation as well as those that intro-
duce basic procedures for cognitive regulation. Children
who are particularly at risk for behavioral problems, lack of
effort and persistence, and failure to seek assistance in
school are children whose parents have not emotionally
 158 NEITZEL AND STRIGHT
supported the child’s efforts and encouraged the child’s
autonomy. This finding suggests that in order to establish
environments supportive of children’s self-regulated behav-
ior, teachers also need to examine the patterns of commu-
nication and control in their classrooms, emotional support
mechanisms that are in place in their classrooms, and rou-
tines or procedures used in their classrooms that may either
sanction or prohibit autonomous behavior.
The current findings have implications for the design of
parent education or intervention programs. Parents’ beliefs
about their own abilities are related significantly to their
instructional behaviors (Hoover-Demsey, Bassler, & Bris-
sie, 1987). Parents may be reluctant to offer assistance to
their children if they do not believe that they have the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
information necessary to provide effective instruction. Of
course, there may be limits to the extent to which parents
can help directly with school skills if they lack the relevant
skills themselves. However, the findings of this study sug-
gest that parents’ models of general task management tech-
niques, emotionally supportive actions, and encouragement
of their children’s independent attempts at problem solving
aid in children’s academic development by fostering the
metacognitive awareness and attitudes toward learning
known to lead to academic competence. Institutional efforts
to design and implement parenting education programs are
not only warranted but may be invaluable.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing
and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A
social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Berry, K. J., & Mielke, P. W. (1988). A generalization of Cohen’s
kappa agreement measure to interval measurement and multiple
raters. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 921–
933.
Berry, W. D., & Feldman, S. (1985). Multiple regression in prac-
tice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bickhard, M. H. (1992). Scaffolding and self-scaffolding: Central
aspects of development. In L. T. Winegar & J. Valsiner (Eds.),
Children’s development within social context: Vol. 2. Research
and methodology (pp. 33–52). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bradley, R. H., & Caldwell, B. M. (1995). The acts and conditions
of the caregiving environment. Developmental Review, 15, 38 –
85.
Brown, A. (1988). Motivation to learn and understand: On taking
charge of one’s own learning. Cognition and Instruction, 5,
311–321.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Cole, M. (1985). The zone of proximal development: Where
culture and cognition create each other. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.),
Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives
(pp. 252–272). New York: Basic Books.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to
succeed. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psy-
chology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development
(pp. 1017–1095). New York: Wiley.
Falk, R. F., & Miller, N. B. (1992). A primer for soft modeling.
Akron, OH: University of Akron Press.
Feldman, S. C., Martinez-Pons, M., & Shaham, D. (1995). The
relationship of self-efficacy, self-regulation, and collaborative
verbal behavior with grades: Preliminary findings. Psychological
Reports, 77, 971–978.
Fernie, D. E. (1989). Becoming a student: Messages from first
settings. Theory Into Practice, 27, 3–10.
Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and develop-
ment of metacognition. In F. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Meta-
cognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 21–29). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Freund, L. S. (1990). Maternal regulation of children’s problem-
solving behavior and its impact on children’s performance. Child
Development, 61, 113–126.
Ginsburg, G. S., & Bronstein, P. (1993). Family factors related to
children’s intrinsic/extrinsic motivational orientation and aca-
demic performance. Child Development, 64, 1461–1474.
Gonzalez, M. M. (1996). Tasks and activities: A parent– child
interaction analysis. Learning and Instruction, 6, 287–306.
Green, R. J. (1995). High achievement, underachievement, and
learning disabilities: A family systems model. In B. A. Ryan,
G. R. Adams, T. P. Gullotta, R. P. Weissberg, & R. L. Hampton
(Eds.), The family–school connection: Theory, research, and
practice (pp. 207–249). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated
with children’s self-regulation and competence in school. Jour-
nal of Educational Psychology, 81, 143–154.
Grolnick, W. S., & Slowiaczek, M. L. (1994). Parents’ involve-
ment in children’s schooling: A multidimensional conceptualiza-
tion and motivational model. Child Development, 65, 237–252.
Grusec, J. E., & Goodnow, J. J. (1994). The impact of parental
discipline methods on the child’s internalization of values: A
reconceptualization of current points of view. Developmental
Psychology, 30, 4 –19.
Hess, R. D., Holloway, S. D., Dickson, W. P., & Price, G. G.
(1984). Maternal variables as predictors of children’s school
readiness and later achievement in vocabulary and mathematics
in sixth grade. Child Development, 55, 1902–1912.
Hoover-Demsey, K. V., Bassler, O. C., & Brissie, J. S. (1987).
Parent involvement: Contributions of teacher efficacy, school
socioeconomic status, and other school characteristics. American
Educational Research Journal, 24, 417– 435.
Hoyle, R. H., & Smith, G. T. (1994). Formulating clinical research
hypotheses as structural equation models: A conceptual over-
view. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 429 –
440.
Neitzel, C., & Stright, A. D. (2002). Parenting behaviors during
child problem-solving: The roles of child temperament, mother
education and personality, and the problem-solving context.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Newman, R. S., & Schwager, M. T. (1993). Students’ perceptions
of the teacher and classmates in relation to reported help seeking
in math class. The Elementary School Journal, 94, 3–17.
Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral re-
search: Explanation and prediction. New York: Holt, Rinehart,
& Winston.
Pianta, R. C., Smith, N., & Reeve, R. E. (1991). Observing mother
and child behavior in a problem-solving situation at school entry:
Relations with classroom adjustment. School Psychology Quar-
terly, 6, 1–15.
Pintrich, P., & Schrauben, B. (1992). Students’ motivational be-
liefs and their cognitive engagement in classroom academic
tasks. In D. H. Schunk & J. L. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions
in the classroom (pp. 149 –183). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pratt, M. W., Green, D., MacVicar, J., & Bountrogianni, M.
(1992). The mathematical parent: Parental scaffolding, parenting
 MOTHERS’ SCAFFOLDING AND CHILDREN’S SELF-REGULATION
style, and learning outcomes in long-division mathematics home-
work. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 13, 17–34.
Radziszewska, B., & Rogoff, B. (1988). Influence of adult and
peer collaborators on children’s planning skills. Developmental
Psychology, 24, 840 – 848.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive develop-
ment in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rogoff, B., Mistry, J., Goncu, A., & Mosier, C. (1993). Guided
participation in cultural activity by toddlers and caregivers.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,
58(1, Serial No. 236).
Ryan, A. M., Gheen, M. H., & Midgley, C. (1998). Why do some
students avoid asking for help? An examination of the interplay
among students’ academic efficacy, teachers’ social-emotional
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
role, and the classroom goal structure. Journal of Educational
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Psychology, 90, 528 –535.
Ryan, A. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). “Should I ask for help?”
The role of motivation and attitudes in adolescents’ help seeking
in math class. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 329 –341.
Schraw, G. (1994). The effect of metacognitive knowledge on
local and global monitoring. Contemporary Educational Psy-
chology, 19, 143–154.
Schunk, D. H. (1986). Verbalization and children’s self-regulated
learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 347–369.
Schunk, D. H. (1995). Inherent details of self-regulated learning
159
include student perceptions. Educational Psychologist, 30, 213–
216.
Scott, M. M., & Hattfield, J. G. (1985). Problems of analyst and
observer agreement in naturalistic narrative data. Journal of
Educational Measurement, 22, 207–218.
Sternberg, R. J. (1994). Answering questions and questioning
answers: Mediating children to intellectual excellence. Phi Delta
Kappan, pp. 136 –138.
Stright, A. D., Neitzel, C. L., Sears, K. G., & Hoke-Sinex, L.
(2001). Instruction begins in the home: Relations between pa-
rental instruction and children’s self-regulation in the classroom.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 456 – 466.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, S. (1976). The role of tutoring in
problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
17, 89 –100.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-regulation involves more than
metacognition: A social cognitive perspective. Educational Psy-
chologist, 30, 217–221.
Received March 20, 2001
Revision received March 15, 2002
Accepted March 28, 2002 䡲