The findings revealed that the discourse quality was influenced by hard scaffolding (i.e., the teaching goal and the nature of the issue at hand). Given this fact, if issues were either theoretical (Issue 1) or controversial (Issue 4), resources that were explicitly related to the issue must be provided to allow for discussion; otherwise, opportunities were limited for follow-up scaffolding intervention. If the issue was聽related to life experience (Issue 2) or case discussion (Issue 3), it would be easier to promote improved discourse quality and maintain the flow of discourse through adaptive and dynamic scaffolding (i.e., providing related material to enrich prior knowledge, weaving it into the discussion and summarizing it to provide resonance).