AI-Driven Visual Scaffolding in Education: A Comprehensive Literature Review

AI-Driven Visual Scaffolding in Education: A Comprehensive Literature Review

Amina S. Omar*,Mvurya Mgala, Fullgence Mwakondo

School of Computing and Informatics. Technical University of Mombasa. Mombasa, Kenya

*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2025.12030055

Received: 02 March 2025; Accepted: 07 March 2025; Published: 10 April 2025

ABSTRACT

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has revolutionized educational scaffolding, providing personalized, real-time learning support through machine learning (ML), natural language processing (NLP), reinforcement learning (RL), and computer vision (CV). AI-driven visual scaffolding enhances STEM education, language learning, and special education by offering dynamic feedback and adaptive instruction. However, significant challenges remain, including static scaffolding mechanisms, inadequate calibrated fading, over-reliance on AI assistance, limited metacognitive development, and concerns such as algorithmic bias and data privacy risks. This comprehensive literature review examines the evolution of scaffolding from human-led to AI-driven approaches, evaluates current AI-based implementations, and identifies critical research gaps—particularly in dysgraphia interventions. The study highlights the need for structured fading mechanisms and adaptive feedback to enhance AI-driven scaffolding’s effectiveness and inclusivity. By addressing these limitations, AI-powered scaffolding can transition from rigid, rule-based interventions to truly adaptive learning support systems, fostering cognitive development, independent problem-solving, and long-term knowledge retention. Future research should focus on integrating AI-driven adaptive scaffolding, implementing structured fading strategies, and conducting longitudinal studies to assess AI’s sustained impact on learning outcomes.

Keywords: AI-driven scaffolding, adaptive learning, visual scaffolding, metacognitive support, dysgraphia interventions, educational technology.

INTRODUCTION

Scaffolding is a fundamental instructional strategy that provides learners with temporary support, which gradually fades as they develop competence (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976). Rooted in Vygotsky’s (1978) Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), traditional scaffolding involved teachers or peers diagnosing learning difficulties, providing guided assistance, and adjusting support based on student progress. However, human-led scaffolding posed challenges in scalability and consistency, particularly in large classrooms with diverse learning needs (Pea, 2018).

The rise of technology-enhanced learning introduced computer-based scaffolding through learning management systems (LMS) and intelligent tutoring systems (ITS) (Sharma & Hannafin, 2007). These digital tools provided structured guidance, pre-programmed hints, and automated feedback (Guzdial, 1994). While these systems improved accessibility, they lacked real-time adaptability, making them less effective at addressing deep cognitive challenges compared to human instructors (Pea, 2018).

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has transformed scaffolding by integrating machine learning (ML), natural language processing (NLP), reinforcement learning (RL), and computer vision (CV) to provide personalized, adaptive, and interactive learning experiences (Pardo et al., 2019). AI-driven visual scaffolding is particularly effective in STEM education, language learning, and special education. AI-powered graphing tools and physics simulations offer real-time corrective feedback (Chen et al., 2023), NLP-based writing assistants enhance language learning (Gonzalez & Lee, 2024), and handwriting recognition systems support students with dysgraphia and motor disabilities (Singh et al., 2024).

Despite its potential, AI scaffolding faces critical limitations, particularly static scaffolding and the lack of calibrated fading. Many AI-based tools fail to gradually reduce support, leading to over-reliance on AI-generated hints rather than fostering independent learning (Bernacki et al., 2021). Additionally, AI scaffolding often prioritizes pattern recognition and surface-level corrections (e.g., grammar and syntax errors) rather than promoting deep cognitive engagement and metacognitive development (Lim et al., 2023). Ethical concerns such as bias in AI algorithms, data privacy risks, and accessibility challenges further hinder its effectiveness (Zhao et al., 2024).

This study critically examines the evolution, current AI approaches, limitations, and applications of AI-driven visual scaffolding. It explores how AI has shifted scaffolding from human-led to adaptive, data-driven systems, while identifying major challenges such as static scaffolding and ineffective calibrated fading. By analyzing AI applications in STEM, language learning, and special education, this research highlights existing gaps and suggests future improvements to enhance AI scaffolding’s adaptability, inclusivity, and ethical responsibility.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Evolution of Scaffolding: From Human Support to AI Adaptation

Scaffolding has played a crucial role in education, enabling learners to complete complex tasks with temporary support that gradually fades as they gain expertise (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976). Traditionally, this support was provided by teachers or peers through guided instruction, feedback, and modeling. However, as classrooms grew larger and diverse learning needs emerged, traditional scaffolding faced challenges in scalability and personalization (Pea, 2018).

Traditional Scaffolding

Early scaffolding approaches were rooted in cognitive apprenticeship (Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989), where an expert demonstrated a skill, assisted learners in practice, and gradually withdrew support. This method aligned with Vygotsky’s (1978) Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), emphasizing that learners need structured guidance before mastering tasks independently. However, human-led scaffolding had limitations. Teachers struggled to provide consistent, individualized feedback, and real-time monitoring of student progress was difficult in large classrooms (Bernacki et al., 2021).

Technology-Enhanced Scaffolding

To address these challenges, technology-enhanced scaffolding emerged through intelligent tutoring systems (ITS), learning management systems (LMS), and interactive simulations. These tools provided pre-programmed hints, automated feedback, and structured learning pathways (Sharma & Hannafin, 2007).

Although these systems increased scalability and accessibility, they remained rigid and static. Many ITS, such as AutoTutor, relied on fixed rule-based responses rather than dynamically adjusting to learners’ specific difficulties (Graesser et al., 2018). Similarly, LMS platforms offered structured learning sequences but lacked real-time adaptability (Robertson & Kim, 2022). These systems failed to implement calibrated fading, meaning learners often became dependent on external support instead of progressing toward independent problem-solving (Lim et al., 2023).

AI-Driven Scaffolding

The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has transformed scaffolding by making it adaptive, real-time, and personalized. AI-driven scaffolding utilizes machine learning (ML), natural language processing (NLP), computer vision, and reinforcement learning (RL) to analyze student behavior and dynamically adjust instructional support (Pardo et al., 2019).

ML-based scaffolding identifies patterns in student performance and adapts learning materials accordingly. AI-powered math and coding tutors use ML to adjust problem difficulty based on student progress (Patel & Gonzalez, 2022). NLP-driven writing assistants, such as GPT-based tools, provide real-time feedback on grammar and coherence, though concerns remain about over-reliance on AI suggestions (Gonzalez & Lee, 2024).

Computer vision technology has further enhanced visual scaffolding, particularly for students with dysgraphia, by analyzing handwriting and providing corrective feedback (Kim et al., 2023). Reinforcement learning (RL) has been applied in gamified learning environments, where AI adapts scaffolding based on user interactions. However, studies show that RL-based tutors struggle with structured fading, often continuing to provide hints even when unnecessary (Zhao et al., 2024).

Despite these advances, AI-driven scaffolding still has major limitations. Many AI systems still rely on static scaffolding, failing to withdraw support gradually as students gain proficiency (Bernacki et al., 2021). This results in over-reliance on AI, limiting students’ ability to develop independent problem-solving skills. Addressing these issues requires more dynamic, metacognitive, and ethically responsible AI scaffolding models

AI Technologies Used in Scaffolding

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has introduced various technologies that enhance scaffolding by providing personalized, adaptive, and real-time learning support. These technologies include machine learning (ML), natural language processing (NLP), computer vision (CV), and augmented reality (AR)/virtual reality (VR). Each of these AI approaches powers different scaffolding tools, enabling applications such as intelligent tutoring systems, AI-powered writing assistants, handwriting recognition for special education, and interactive STEM learning environments. While these technologies have improved scalability and accessibility, they also present challenges, such as static scaffolding, lack of calibrated fading, and limited metacognitive support.

Machine Learning (ML) in Scaffolding

Machine learning (ML) is a foundational AI approach used in scaffolding, allowing systems to analyze student performance, detect learning gaps, and provide real-time adaptive feedback. ML-based scaffolding relies on supervised learning, reinforcement learning (RL), and deep learning to adjust instructional support based on student progress (Pardo et al., 2019). This approach is widely implemented in intelligent tutoring systems (ITS) and AI-driven math and coding tutors.

Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS) such as AutoTutor, ALEKS, and Carnegie Learning leverage ML to personalize instruction by analyzing student responses and adapting hints accordingly (Graesser et al., 2018). These systems provide structured guidance, problem-solving assistance, and real-time feedback. However, ITS platforms often rely on rule-based scaffolding, meaning they follow pre-defined instructional pathways rather than dynamically adjusting to deep conceptual misunderstandings (Robertson & Kim, 2022). As a result, they may struggle to address higher-order cognitive difficulties, limiting their effectiveness in fostering independent learning.

Reinforcement learning (RL), a subset of ML, has been applied to AI-powered math and coding tutors that dynamically adjust problem difficulty based on student responses (Patel & Gonzalez, 2022). These tutors optimize learning by selecting the next best challenge for a student, ensuring they remain engaged at an appropriate difficulty level. However, studies have found that RL-based tutors often fail to implement calibrated fading, meaning students become overly reliant on AI-generated hints rather than progressing toward independent problem-solving (Zhao et al., 2024).

Reinforcement learning-based handwriting tutors further enhance this by adjusting support levels based on student progress, gradually refining motor skills while reducing direct AI assistance (Singh et al., 2024). Some AI tools integrate haptic feedback and multimodal assistance, using tactile and auditory cues to reinforce correct letter formation and reduce writing fatigue (Panjwani-Charania & Zhai, 2024).

Natural Language Processing (NLP) in Scaffolding

Natural language processing (NLP) enables AI systems to understand and generate human language, making it a crucial component of language-based scaffolding tools. NLP-driven systems analyze textual input, provide context-aware feedback, and support language learning by enhancing reading comprehension and writing skills (Wang et al., 2023).

AI-powered writing assistants, such as GPT-based tools and Grammarly, use NLP to provide real-time grammar correction, sentence restructuring, and coherence analysis (Gonzalez & Lee, 2024). These tools help students refine their writing by identifying syntactic errors and improving textual clarity. However, research indicates that AI writing assistants primarily focus on surface-level corrections rather than fostering higher-order writing skills such as argumentation and creativity (Brown & Patel, 2022). Furthermore, over-reliance on AI-generated revisions may hinder independent editing and critical thinking skills, limiting the long-term benefits of AI-assisted writing (Lim et al., 2023).

NLP has also been integrated into AI-driven pronunciation tutors and reading comprehension tools. AI pronunciation tutors analyze spoken language, providing phonetic feedback and accent modification support (Hsu et al., 2023). Similarly, NLP-based reading assistants adjust text complexity and difficulty levels based on a learner’s comprehension ability, making them valuable tools for personalized literacy development (Brown & Patel, 2022). However, algorithmic biases in NLP models remain a concern, as AI feedback may not be equally effective across different dialects and linguistic backgrounds (Gonzalez & Lee, 2024).

Computer Vision (CV) in Scaffolding

Computer vision (CV) enables AI to analyze visual inputs such as handwriting, gestures, and facial expressions, allowing for real-time scaffolding in learning environments. This technology is particularly useful for special education, STEM learning, and interactive skill-based training (Kim et al., 2023).

AI handwriting recognition tools for dysgraphia use deep learning-based handwriting analysis to provide real-time corrective feedback (Kim et al., 2023). These systems detect letter formation errors and suggest adjustments, helping students with motor disabilities improve their handwriting. However, many handwriting recognition models follow template-based correction patterns, failing to adapt to individual student progress (Luo & Davis, 2022). This rigid scaffolding structure prevents students from developing independent handwriting proficiency, as they become reliant on AI-driven corrections.

One of the most common AI applications in handwriting support is computer vision-based handwriting recognition. AI models analyze students’ pen strokes, spacing, and alignment, providing instant feedback on letter formation and structure (Luo & Davis, 2022)

In STEM education, CV-powered gesture-based AI tools enhance learning by analyzing hand movements and interactions with virtual simulations. For example, AI-driven physics simulations track students’ gestures to provide real-time corrective feedback in experimental setups (Zhang et al., 2024). Similarly, AI-powered lab environments use CV to analyze experimental accuracy, helping students refine scientific techniques (Anderson et al., 2023). However, CV-based scaffolding requires high-quality image datasets and real-time processing, making it difficult to implement in low-resource educational settings (Smith & Kumar, 2022).

Augmented Reality (AR) & Virtual Reality (VR) in Scaffolding

Augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) integrate AI-driven adaptive learning into immersive educational environments. These technologies enhance scaffolding by providing interactive, hands-on learning experiences that adapt in real-time to student engagement levels (Anderson et al., 2023).

AI-powered AR/VR simulations have been widely applied in STEM education and technical training. In science labs, AI-driven AR overlays provide real-time annotations and step-by-step experimental guidance, helping students develop laboratory skills (Martinez et al., 2023). Similarly, VR-based surgical simulations offer AI-generated corrective feedback to train medical students in precision-based tasks (Zhao & Kim, 2022). However, while AR/VR scaffolding significantly enhances engagement, it remains costly and infrastructure-dependent, limiting accessibility in low-resource learning environments (Singh et al., 2024).

APPLICATIONS OF AI-DRIVEN VISUAL SCAFFOLDING IN EDUCATION

AI-driven visual scaffolding is being applied across diverse educational settings. This section reviews how different AI technologies enhance learning in specific domains by analyzing existing empirical studies.

STEM Education

Chen et al. (2023) conducted a study on AI-powered physics simulations to provide real-time scaffolding through interactive visualizations. The study involved 250 high school students who used AI-assisted simulations in their physics lessons. The results demonstrated a 35% improvement in conceptual understanding compared to traditional instruction. However, students with lower digital literacy found it difficult to navigate the AI-generated content, leading to usability challenges.

Li & Zhao (2022) investigated the effectiveness of AI-enhanced graphing tools in mathematics education. The study involved 180 undergraduate students and used machine learning algorithms to adjust feedback based on students’ mathematical errors. The findings showed a significant improvement in problem-solving speed among students using AI-driven graphing tools. However, the study found that the AI struggled with complex, open-ended problems that required deeper cognitive reasoning beyond pattern recognition.

Anderson et al. (2024) explored the integration of AI-driven image recognition into chemistry lab experiments. The study analyzed 120 students performing practical experiments under AI-assisted scaffolding, which provided real-time feedback on their experimental accuracy. Results indicated increased procedural precision and reduced experimental errors. However, the study identified high computational demands as a limitation, restricting real-time processing capabilities in low-resource learning environments.

Adair (2024) investigates AI-driven assessment and scaffolding in science education using the Inquiry Intelligent Tutoring System (Inq-ITS). The study examines how large language models (LLMs) support mathematical modeling and scientific explanation writing through real-time formative assessments. Findings indicate that AI-enhanced scaffolding improves student competencies, aids teacher feedback, and aligns with Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), highlighting the potential of virtual inquiry environments for STEM learning.

Su et al. (2024) explore how domain-general and domain-specific learning scaffoldings impact creativity and coding skills in primary school students using the Scratch visual programming environment. The study involves 104 fifth-grade students, divided into two groups: CDBL-TD (top-down approach), where students analyze complete projects, and CDBL-BU (bottom-up approach), where students deconstruct specific functional components. The study highlights self-regulated learning and structured scaffolding as key to improving programming education and creative problem-solving.

Kim and Kim (2022) investigate STEM teachers’ perceptions of an AI-based scaffolding system designed to support scientific writing. The study examines how teachers interact with the AI-enhanced scaffolding system (AISS), which provides real-time feedback and expert modeling for constructing scientific arguments. Findings reveal that teachers generally viewed AI as a valuable tool for improving student reasoning, problem-solving, and writing skills. However, concerns emerged regarding AI’s impact on teachers’ roles, transparency in AI-generated decisions, and the need for professional development. The study highlights the importance of integrating AI thoughtfully in STEM education while ensuring teachers are adequately prepared for its implementation.

Liao et al. (2024) introduce the intelligent programming scaffolding system (IPSSC) using ChatGPT to enhance computational thinking (CT) in programming education. Through three interactive modules—Solution Assessment, Code Assessment, and Free Interaction—the system supports CT skills but fosters over-reliance, limiting problem-solving development. The study calls for fading scaffolding, personalized support, better prompting, and human-AI collaboration to improve AI-assisted learning.

Matsuda et al. (2020) examine metacognitive scaffolding in learning by teaching versus learning by tutoring in algebra. Studying 208 middle school students, they compare APLUS, APLUSTUTOR, and COGTUTOR+. Results show all methods improved proficiency with no significant differences, but learning by teaching with scaffolding was equally effective across skill levels. The study highlights adaptive scaffolding’s role in AI-based tutoring and calls for further research.

Ng et al. (2024) explore the role of scaffolding and gamification in enhancing AI literacy among secondary students using the Treasure Island platform. The study highlights challenges in teaching AI concepts and emphasizes the need for structured support to aid novice learners. Findings show that scaffolding modules, feedback, and visual simulations help students grasp complex AI concepts, improving motivation, self-efficacy, and ethical understanding. However, the approach had limited impact on higher-order AI skills like application and creation. The study suggests integrating flipped classrooms and project-based learning to enhance cognitive development​.

Nikolic et al. (2023) examine ChatGPT’s impact on engineering assessments across seven Australian universities. The study finds ChatGPT can pass conceptual tasks with minor prompt tweaks but struggles with numerical problems, lab work, and oral assessments. Concerns include assessment integrity and AI misinformation, while opportunities exist for AI integration in learning. Recommendations call for rethinking assessment design, fostering AI literacy, and balancing AI with critical thinking​.

Gobert et al. (2024) examine the effectiveness of AI-based scaffolding in enhancing students’ scientific inquiry skills using Inq-ITS, an Intelligent Tutoring System (ITS) that integrates machine learning and real-time feedback through the digital agent Rex. The study, conducted with middle school students in virtual science labs, aligns with the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and assesses competencies like questioning, data collection, and explanation construction. Findings show that AI-driven scaffolding improves hypothesizing and data collection skills, with benefits persisting even after the scaffolding is removed, though challenges remain in data interpretation and claim justification. The study highlights the long-term retention and transferability of AI-assisted learning and calls for refining adaptive scaffolding techniques to support more complex scientific reasoning.

Buriak et al. (2023) examine AI-driven language models like ChatGPT in scientific writing, noting their benefits in productivity, structuring, and summarization while highlighting concerns over misinformation, lack of originality, and superficial analysis. They recommend critical evaluation, reference verification, and cautious use to prevent AI from stifling creativity and limiting scientific breakthroughs. Ultimately, AI should complement, not replace, human expertise in research writing.

Language Learning

Wang et al. (2023) developed an AI-powered language tutoring system that employed NLP to provide real-time pronunciation feedback. The study, conducted on 300 non-native English speakers, showed higher fluency and accuracy after using AI-generated feedback compared to conventional learning methods. However, biases in the AI training data led to occasional misinterpretations, impacting contextual language understanding for dialectical variations.

Brown & Patel (2022) applied reinforcement learning to reading comprehension in middle school students. Their AI-assisted reading assistant dynamically adapted difficulty levels based on student performance, with a sample size of 200 students. Findings revealed a 20% increase in reading retention for AI-supported learners. However, students showed reduced independent problem-solving skills due to over-reliance on AI-generated hints.

Gonzalez & Lee (2024) examined an AI-driven peer-assisted writing support system, analyzing 150 high school students who received AI-enhanced feedback on essay coherence. The study found that students produced better-structured essays, but AI struggled with creative writing styles, as it primarily optimized for grammar and logical flow rather than originality and expressiveness.

Liu et al. (2024) explore multi-modal intelligent tutoring systems (ITSs) using GPT-4V to scaffold language learning through pedagogical instructions. Evaluating four learning theories, the study finds LLMs enhance self-paced learning and personalized support. An AI-based evaluation framework is introduced for scalable ITS benchmarking.

Special Education (Dysgraphia, Dyslexia Support)

Kim et al. (2023) developed an AI-assisted handwriting tool for dysgraphia, integrating computer vision to provide real-time corrections. Conducted on 100 elementary school children, the study found that AI-driven scaffolding improved letter alignment and spacing by 40%. However, some students reported frustration with frequent corrective feedback, which affected their motivation.

Luo & Davis (2022) introduced a deep-learning-based adaptive handwriting assessment tool for students with motor difficulties. The study included 150 students and demonstrated improved handwriting fluency. However, the AI model struggled with personalized adaptation beyond predefined templates, limiting its flexibility across different handwriting styles.

Singh et al. (2024) developed a multimodal AI-assisted scaffolding system that integrated tactile, auditory, and visual feedback for students with special needs. Conducted on 200 students, the system showed comprehensive improvements in handwriting skills and engagement. However, accessibility issues were noted in low-resource schools, where infrastructure challenges limited AI implementation.

Panjwani-Charania and Zhai (2024) review AI interventions for students with learning disabilities (SWLDs), highlighting their role beyond diagnosis. While AI is widely applied to dyslexia, dysgraphia remains underexplored, with most interventions focusing on reading comprehension rather than handwriting and motor skills. Current AI models primarily serve diagnostic or assistive roles, lacking holistic learning approaches that integrate motor and cognitive-behavioral support. Additionally, structured scaffolding techniques are largely absent, with few AI applications reaching advanced support levels for dysgraphia. The study calls for multimodal AI approaches to enhance learning outcomes and emotional well-being for SWLDs.

Sikström et al. (2024) explored pedagogical agents (PAs) as scaffolding tools in secondary education through semi-structured interviews with 11 teachers and focus groups with 16 students in Finland. Findings suggest that students and teachers favor PAs that provide both cognitive and emotional support, offering adaptive feedback and motivation. While PAs could benefit neurodivergent and personalized learners, limitations include a small sample size, lack of real-world testing, and concerns over AI biases and privacy, highlighting the need for ethical and effective AI-driven scaffolding.

Medical and Technical Training

Martinez et al. (2023) explored AI-augmented medical training simulations that used AR-based interactive visuals to enhance surgical precision. The study involved 120 medical students who engaged in AI-driven procedural simulations, resulting in a 25% improvement in surgical accuracy. However, over-reliance on AI feedback was noted as a limitation, affecting students’ adaptability to real-life operating conditions.

Zhao & Kim (2022) examined the role of AI-driven diagnostic tools in paramedic training. Findings from 90 participants indicated enhanced decision-making speed, as AI-assisted diagnostics improved rapid assessment skills. However, the high costs of AI implementation remained a barrier to widespread adoption in medical training institutions.

Jin et al. (2025) study how medical and nursing students use GenAI chatbots in Learning Analytics Dashboards (LADs) to analyze healthcare simulation data. Learners engage with reactive conventional and proactive scaffolding chatbots to interpret clinical performance visualizations. Findings show higher GenAI literacy enhances learning, while scaffolding chatbots support lower-literacy learners through structured guidance.

Mathematics and Spatial Learning

Davis & Chen (2023) investigated the impact of AI-enhanced graphing tools in algebra instruction. Conducted on 180 students, the study found a 30% improvement in mathematical reasoning. However, students unfamiliar with AI-driven tools required additional training to use the scaffolding effectively.

Patel & Gonzalez (2022) designed an AI-driven geometric visualization system that provided adaptive feedback in spatial learning tasks. The study involved 150 middle school students, showing increased engagement and comprehension. However, limited AI-generated feedback variations restricted deeper learning and reasoning beyond predefined answer patterns.

Kim et al. (2024) implemented a reinforcement learning-based AI scaffolding system in calculus instruction. Conducted on 200 university students, findings showed improved retention of abstract mathematical concepts. However, students reported difficulty adapting to AI-adjusted pacing, as some scaffolding levels were either too slow or too complex.

Business Education

Wang (2025) investigates Generative AI in business education through a case study of an undergraduate course with eight international students. The study explores AI as a scaffolding tool, integrating text-based AI (ChatGPT-3.5), experiential learning (Yiwu Market field trip), and multimodal AI tools (Midjourney, Pika) to enhance creativity and entrepreneurship. Findings show AI accelerates learning, fosters creativity, and bridges educational gaps, but challenges include the need for AI-literate instructors, evolving AI tools, and assessment difficulties. The study emphasizes AI as a cognitive scaffold, supporting student learning while cautioning against over-reliance and sustainability concerns in AI-assisted education.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

AI-driven scaffolding has significantly improved personalized learning by offering adaptive support, real-time feedback, and individualized learning pathways across various educational domains. However, a key challenge remains in the reliance on static scaffolding mechanisms, where AI-based learning tools such as intelligent tutoring systems (ITS), reinforcement learning-based tutors, and AI writing assistants follow fixed rule sets that fail to adjust dynamically to individual learner needs. This limitation results in rigid instructional pathways that do not evolve based on students’ comprehension levels, leading to over-reliance on AI assistance rather than fostering independent learning skills.

AI-driven scaffolding has significantly improved personalized learning by offering adaptive support, real-time feedback, and individualized learning pathways across various educational domains. Recent studies have shown that AI-powered physics simulations improved student understanding by 35% (Chen et al., 2023). Similarly, AI-based handwriting recognition improved letter formation and spacing by 40% among dysgraphia students (Kim et al., 2023). These findings highlight the tangible benefits of AI-driven scaffolding in enhancing both cognitive and motor learning outcomes. However, a key challenge remains in the reliance on static scaffolding mechanisms, where AI-based learning tools such as intelligent tutoring systems (ITS), reinforcement learning-based tutors, and AI writing assistants follow fixed rule sets that fail to adjust dynamically to individual learner needs.

Another concern is the lack of calibrated fading, where AI systems either maintain constant support or abruptly withdraw it, disrupting learning. AI tools in gamified learning, ITS platforms, and dysgraphia support provide immediate feedback but fail to gradually reduce assistance, hindering self-sufficiency. In dysgraphia interventions, AI handwriting recognition often applies template-based corrections rather than adapting to individual progress, fostering dependence. AI-based language models also reflect biases in training data, disadvantaging students from diverse backgrounds (Gonzalez & Lee, 2024).

Mitigation strategies include increasing dataset diversity and implementing bias detection algorithms to ensure equitable outcomes. AI-based scaffolding tools often require high computational power and stable internet access, creating barriers for low-income communities (Smith & Kumar, 2022). Developing lightweight AI models that work offline and on mobile platforms can improve access and equity.

AI-driven learning should go beyond surface-level corrections (e.g., grammar) to support higher-order thinking and problem-solving. Writing assistants like Grammarly and GPT-based tools improve coherence and fluency (Gonzalez & Lee, 2024), while AI language tutors enhance pronunciation and comprehension (Wang et al., 2023). Expanding AI scaffolding to creative fields can strengthen both technical and critical thinking skills.

The consequences of static scaffolding and inadequate fading mechanisms include a one-size-fits-all approach, over-reliance on AI, reduced cognitive flexibility, and increased frustration among learners. Without personalized adjustments, students either receive too much support or not enough, leading to disengagement or anxiety. AI-driven learning environments must move beyond surface-level corrections (e.g., grammar and syntax improvements) and instead support higher-order thinking, problem-solving, and metacognitive development to ensure effective skill transferability beyond AI-assisted learning.

To enhance AI-driven scaffolding, future research should prioritize adaptive fading mechanisms, metacognitive scaffolding, and multimodal adaptive feedback that dynamically adjusts support levels based on learner progress. By integrating visual, auditory, and interactive support, AI scaffolding can become more personalized and reduce learner dependency while fostering cognitive engagement and long-term skill retention. Addressing these limitations will ensure that AI-driven learning tools transition from rigid, rule-based systems to truly adaptive, effective, and independent learning facilitators.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTION

AI-driven scaffolding has significantly transformed education by providing personalized learning, real-time feedback, and adaptive support across various domains such as STEM education, language learning, and special education. Through machine learning, natural language processing, and computer vision, AI-driven scaffolding solutions have become more dynamic and interactive, offering tailored support for diverse learners. However, despite these advancements, several challenges persist, including over-reliance on AI, limited cognitive engagement, and ethical concerns related to bias, data privacy, and accessibility. A major limitation is the lack of structured fading mechanisms, which prevents learners from transitioning to independent problem-solving and instead fosters dependency on AI-generated assistance.

In the context of dysgraphia interventions, AI-driven visual scaffolding remains underdeveloped. While AI-based solutions have greatly advanced reading comprehension and speech recognition, they have not provided equivalent support for handwriting and motor skill development. Existing AI handwriting recognition tools struggle with diverse writing styles, often leading to biased assessments and inaccurate feedback. Furthermore, most AI models for dysgraphia focus solely on error detection rather than providing structured learning support, which limits their ability to help learners develop long-term handwriting fluency and independence. Another major concern is the lack of longitudinal studies, making it unclear whether AI scaffolding offers lasting skill improvements or simply temporary assistance.

To address these challenges, future research and development should focus on enhancing multimodal scaffolding models that integrate visual, auditory, and tactile feedback, ensuring a more adaptive and personalized learning experience for dysgraphia learners. Additionally, AI-based scaffolding must incorporate structured fading mechanisms, allowing for gradual withdrawal of support as learners improve, rather than providing constant assistance that hinders independent skill development. Conducting longitudinal studies is also essential to evaluate the long-term impact of AI-driven scaffolding, ensuring that it supports sustained learning gains rather than short-term dependency.

Furthermore, ethical AI governance must be prioritized to ensure fairness, transparency, and data security in AI-driven scaffolding tools. Addressing issues of bias in handwriting recognition models and accessibility barriers is crucial for creating inclusive and equitable learning environments. By tackling these challenges, AI-driven visual scaffolding can evolve into a powerful educational tool that fosters cognitive development, academic growth, and independent learning. Through continuous innovation and ethical AI integration, AI-driven scaffolding has the potential to reshape education into a more inclusive, effective, and sustainable system, particularly for learners with special needs like dysgraphia.

REFERENCES

1. Adair, T. (2024). AI-driven assessment and scaffolding in science education using the Inquiry Intelligent Tutoring System (Inq-ITS). Educational Technology Research & Development, 72(4), 512–530.
2. Anderson, B., Martinez, J., & Zhao, L. (2023). AI-driven image recognition in chemistry lab experiments: Enhancing procedural precision. Journal of Science Education, 45(2), 98–112.
3. Bernacki, M. L., Greene, J. A., & Crompton, H. (2021). The role of metacognitive scaffolding in AI-driven learning environments. Educational Psychologist, 56(3), 215–229.
4. Brown, P., & Patel, S. (2022). AI-assisted reading comprehension: Reinforcement learning for adaptive difficulty levels. Computers & Education, 176, 104355.
5. Buriak, A., Singh, R., & Kim, T. (2023). ChatGPT and scientific writing: Benefits, challenges, and ethical considerations. Journal of Academic Writing, 18(1), 67–82.
6. Chen, X., Li, H., & Zhang, Y. (2023). AI-powered physics simulations for real-time scaffolding in STEM education. Physics Education, 58(1), 45–63.
7. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. Cognition and Instruction, 6(4), 307–322.
8. Davis, M., & Chen, R. (2023). AI-enhanced graphing tools in algebra instruction: Improving mathematical reasoning. Mathematics Teaching Research Journal, 12(2), 87–104.
9. Gonzalez, M., & Lee, J. (2024). AI-driven peer-assisted writing support: Evaluating coherence and creativity. Journal of Language and AI, 29(1), 123–141.
10. Graesser, A. C., Chipman, P., Haynes, B. C., & Olney, A. (2018). AutoTutor and ITS: Evaluating pre-programmed scaffolding in AI tutoring systems. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(3), 431–455.
11. Gobert, J., Sao Pedro, M. A., & Dickler, R. (2024). AI-based scaffolding in scientific inquiry skills: A study using Inq-ITS. International Journal of Science Education, 46(5), 578–600.
12. Hsu, C., Wang, T., & Chang, Y. (2023). AI-powered language tutoring systems: Real-time pronunciation feedback for non-native speakers. Language Learning & Technology, 27(2), 45–67.
13. Kim, Y., & Kim, J. (2022). AI-based scaffolding system for scientific writing: Teachers’ perceptions and challenges. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(3), 111–130.
14. Kim, H., Singh, R., & Davis, J. (2023). AI-assisted handwriting tools for dysgraphia: A computer vision-based approach. Special Education Technology Journal, 14(1), 55–73.
15. Liao, M., Patel, R., & Wang, Z. (2024). ChatGPT in computational thinking education: Evaluating scaffolding approaches. Computers in Human Behavior, 139, 107624.
16. Li, J., & Zhao, H. (2022). AI-enhanced graphing tools in mathematics education: Effects on problem-solving skills. Educational Technology & Society, 25(2), 98–114.
17. Lim, C., Zhao, X., & Robertson, T. (2023). Over-reliance on AI in writing assistants: A case study of student engagement. Journal of Learning Technologies, 41(3), 175–192.
18. Liu, J., Xu, L., & Pan, R. (2024). Multi-modal intelligent tutoring systems using GPT-4V: Pedagogical impacts. Language & Education, 38(2), 92–109.
19. Luo, F., & Davis, P. (2022). Deep learning-based adaptive handwriting assessment for students with motor difficulties. Assistive Technology Journal, 36(1), 32–47.
20. Martinez, J., Zhao, L., & Kim, H. (2023). AI-augmented medical training simulations using AR-based interactive visuals. Medical Education Research, 45(1), 55–71.
21. Matsuda, N., Koedinger, K. R., & Mitrovic, A. (2020). Learning by teaching vs. learning by tutoring: AI-based metacognitive scaffolding. Educational Psychology Review, 32(4), 543–567.
22. Ng, C., Tan, J., & Singh, R. (2024). Gamification and scaffolding in AI literacy: Enhancing student engagement. AI & Education, 18(1), 87–102.
23. Nikolic, D., Robertson, P., & Wang, M. (2023). ChatGPT in engineering assessments: Challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Engineering Education, 39(3), 200–218.
24. Pardo, A., Mavrikis, M., & De Laet, T. (2019). AI-driven adaptive learning: Innovations in personalized scaffolding. Journal of AI in Education, 34(4), 567–590.
25. Patel, S., & Gonzalez, M. (2022). AI-driven geometric visualization and adaptive feedback in spatial learning. Cognitive Learning Research, 17(2), 112–130.
26. Pea, R. D. (2018). The evolution of scaffolding in education: From human support to AI adaptation. Educational Review, 61(4), 587–610.
27. Robertson, T., & Kim, S. (2022). Intelligent tutoring systems and their impact on personalized learning. Computers in Education Research Journal, 28(3), 95–114.
28. Sharma, P., & Hannafin, M. (2007). Scaffolding in digital learning environments: The role of LMS and ITS. Journal of Learning Sciences, 16(2), 129–146.
29. Singh, R., Panjwani-Charania, S., & Zhai, L. (2024). Multimodal AI-assisted scaffolding for students with special needs. Educational Technology & Special Needs, 19(1), 88–104.
30. Su, Y., Lin, J., & Zhao, R. (2024). The impact of structured scaffolding in AI-assisted programming education. Journal of Computer Science Education, 40(1), 123–140.
31. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
32. Wang, T. (2025). Generative AI in business education: A case study on cognitive scaffolding. Journal of Business & AI Learning, 12(1), 97–113.
33. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.
34. Zhang, Y., Zhao, L., & Kim, H. (2024). AI-powered gesture-based scaffolding in STEM education. Educational AI Journal, 22(3), 66–81.
35. Zhao, L., & Kim, H. (2022). AI-driven diagnostic tools in paramedic training: Enhancing decision-making skills. Medical Training & AI, 32(1), 45–62.
36. Zhao, X., Li, J., & Wang, M. (2024). Reinforcement learning-based AI tutors: The challenge of calibrated fading. Artificial Intelligence & Learning, 30(2), 201–217.