Article Summary
Echoing the comments from the earlier Verinikina article, the authors begin by referring to Bruner’s (1983) definition of scaffolding: a process of setting up the situation to make the child’s entry easy and successful and then gradually pulling back and handing the role to the child as he becomes skilled enough to manage it (p. 757). As with the Verinikina article, the authors caution that “scaffolding is not synonymous with help, though it is rightly a kind of help” (p. 757).
They cite van Lier (1996) in claiming that “on theoretical grounds, the process of scaffolding… happens in six steps”, but that “the heart of scaffolding is the contingency step” (p. 757-758). The contingency step, as they describe it, is characterized in that “assistance to the learner is on the show in reaction to the learner’s response” (p. 758). That is, the instructor must be both receptive to the student’s feedback (which is assumed to be happening, because this happens within a constructivist context) and responsive to meet the student in the observed “range” of the ZPD. This coincides with Wood et al. (1978), whom they cite saying that “one of the assumptions of scaffolding is that the teacher knows what the current level of learners is” (p. 758).
Scaffolding is described with different features in different sources; Wells (1999) considers three features (dialogic discource, potentiality of knowing in jointed dialog, and mediation); Van de Pol et al. (2010) identify six intentions for scaffolding (motivation, informing the learner, direction reduction, readjustment, task interest, reward/punishment system for outcome) (p. 758). Lantolf and Appel (1994) believe that “the first thing an instructor needs to do is to attract the interest of the learner”, maintain it, and “push the learner [to pursue] the aim of the task” (p. 759). In this process, the instructor needs to draw comparisons for the learner and manage their frustrations, all before helping the learner reproduce the task for themselves. McKenzie (1999) agrees with the motivation step of Lantolf and Appel, but disagrees with them in that “learners have to be left when it coems to making decision” (p. 759).
How scaffolding works best is a matter of discussion. Nassaji and Swain (2000) believe that the process of scaffolding “has to be negotiated and the scaffolding technique has to be implemented structurally” (p. 760). Baleghizadeh et al. (2011) “concluded that the guidance should be tuned to the minimum level for effective scaffolding”, and van Lier (1988) “emphasizes the current ability of the learners” needs to be addressed since otherwise “it might let [the] learner self-repair”; they conclude that “too much guidance might hinder or slow down the process of learning” (p. 760). In contrast, however, Mariani (1997) believes that “support for the learners [has] to be high and at the same time challenging” (p. 760). Vedder (1985) cautions that scaffolding “has to be particular to any misunderstandings or lack of understanding in the content of the lesson”, and that each learner might need a different scaffolding construct (p. 760).
Generally, questioning is the most widely-used tool in the scaffolding process. Kim (2010) identifies three types of questioning: coaching, facilitating, and collaborating. Coaching questions provide a framework for approaching the problem; facilitating questions invite deeper investigation into the topic; collborating questions ask students to share with each other (p. 761).
Sam (2011) identifies three different kinds of scaffolding: content scaffolding (answers the ‘what’ and ‘how’ questions); strategic scaffolding (answers ‘when’ and why’ questions); and procedural scaffolding (answers the ‘how’ questions).
My Thoughts
This piece is an intriguing foil to the Verinikina article for the same week, as it analyzes the scaffolding process itself rather than presenting potential shortcomings of the metaphor/technique. There’s a real depth of description about research around scaffolding (even though the narrative is kind of jumbled for me).
An interesting note pops out from their description of Anghileri (2006): “[the instructor] neesd to realize that the learner’s question is a sign of wanting more and discovering new things, and this is exactly where progress toward changing potential development to actual development happens” (p. 761). I feel like this is something ‘well-known’, but it strikes me for some reason. Is that really the deeper meaning of a question? Obviously, something like “what is that word” or “is that a 2 or a z” is a little more low-level, but maybe framing other questions as desires to know rather than reconciliations with past material is a good way of thinking.
Citations
Amerian, M., & Mehri, E. (2014). Scaffolding in Sociocultural Theory: Definition, Steps, Features, Conditions, Tools, and Effective Considerations. Scientific Journal of Review, 3(7), 756–765.