UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl)
Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: exploring, measuring, promoting and evaluating scaffolding
van de Pol, J.E.
Publication date 2012
Document Version Final published version
Link to publication
Citation for published version (APA):
van de Pol, J. E. (2012). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: exploring, measuring, promoting and evaluating scaffolding.
General rights
It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Disclaimer/Complaints regulations
If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.
SCAFFOLDING IN
TEACHER-STUDENT INTERACTION
EXPLORING, MEASURING, PROMOTING AND EVALUATING SCAFFOLDING
JANNEKE VAN DE POL
SCAFFOLDING IN
TEACHER-STUDENT INTERACTION
EXPLORING, MEASURING, PROMOTING AND EVALUATING SCAFFOLDING
JANNEKE VAN DE POL
Title: Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction. Exploring, measuring, promoting, and evaluating scaffolding
Titel: Scaffolding in docent-leerling interactie. Het exploreren, meten, bevorderen, en evalueren van scaffolding
Design: Jasper Mittelmeijer Photography: Astrid Zuidema Set design: Marie-Anne Mittelmeijer Printed by: Ipskamp Drukkers, Enschede ISBN: 978-94-6191-399-9
Copyright © 2012 Janneke van de Pol
All rights reserved. No parts of these pages, either text or image may be used for any purpose other than personal use. Therefore, reproduction, modification, storage in a retrieval system or retransmission, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical or otherwise, for reasons other than personal use, is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the author.
EXPLORING, MEASURING, PROMOTING AND EVALUATING SCAFFOLDING
ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor
aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam op gezag van de Rector Magnificus
prof. dr. D.C. van den Boom
ten overstaan van een door het college voor promoties ingestelde commissie, in het openbaar te verdedigen in de Agnietenkapel
op vrijdag 28 september 2012, te 12:00 uur
door
Janneke Eva van de Pol geboren te Rosmalen
Prof. dr. J. J. Beishuizen Overige leden: Prof. dr. E. P. J. M. Elbers
Prof. dr. N. Mercer
Prof. dr. G. T. M. ten Dam Prof. dr. C. A. M. van Boxtel
Prof. dr. B. H. A. M. van Hout-Wolters Prof. dr. B. van Oers
Faculteit der Maatschappij- en Gedragswetenschappen
Chapter 1: General Introduction 5 PHASE 1: Exploring Scaffolding
Chapter 2: Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research 27 Chapter 3: Patterns of contingent teaching in teacher-student interaction 55 PHASE 2: Measuring Scaffolding
Chapter 4: Measuring scaffolding in teacher – small-group interactions 81 PHASE 3: Promoting Scaffolding
Chapter 5: Promoting scaffolding in small-group work: A contingency
perspective 123
Chapter 6: Scaffolding in small-group work: An intervention study 157 PHASE 4: Evaluating Scaffolding
Chapter 7: Effects of scaffolding on students’ on-task behaviour,
appreciation of support and task, and achievement 197
Chapter 8: General conclusion and discussion 233
Appendices A-M 249
References 275
Summary 297
Nederlandse samenvatting (Dutch Summary) 309
About the author 321
Author’s list of publications 323
Acknowledgements 329
List of ICO publications 333
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
If I had to reduce all of educational psychology to just one principle, I would say this: The most important single factor influencing learning is what the learner already knows. Ascertain this and teach him accordingly. (Ausubel, 1968, p. vi) Adapting support to learners’ existing understanding, which is the key characteristic of scaffolding, is crucial in promoting learning (Pino-Pasternak, Whitebread, & Tolmie, 2010). In order to be able to actually connect to students’ existing understanding, it is necessary to first ascertain this existing understanding before giving support, as Ausubel implies. An important vehicle for ascertaining students’ understanding is interaction and dialogue (Mercer & Littleton, 2007). Interaction between teacher and student is therefore vital for learning. The importance of social interaction in the learning process is stressed in sociocultural theories (e.g., Vygotsky, 1978) where learning is seen as a social activity and knowledge as constructed in interaction with others such as teachers.
Yet, ascertaining students’ understanding and teaching them accordingly in social interaction appears to be a major difficulty for teachers (Ruiz-Primo & Furtak, 2007).
Mainly the assessment of students’ existing understanding appears to be problematic (Wittwer & Renkl, 2008).
Drawing on sociocultural theories of learning, this dissertation aims to develop our understanding of how teachers can (learn to) adaptively support students who work in groups and how such support affects students’ learning. This is relevant for classrooms and schools in general, but especially for classrooms and schools employing innovative pedagogies. Innovative pedagogies, which are related to sociocultural and/or social- constructivist theories, have been implemented in an increasing number of schools over the last decades. In these pedagogies, the teacher is expected to stimulate students’
active knowledge construction and to differentiate support, often within a context of small-group learning. However, although some guidelines have been formulated for primary education (e.g., Van Oers, 2009), the new role of the teacher in these innovative pedagogies is often described in vague and abstract terms (e.g., Hargreaves, Moyles, Merry, Paterson, Pell, & Esarte-Sarries, 2003).
The theoretical concept of scaffolding, represents a teaching method that meets
the demands of this new teacher role (e.g., Lin, Hsu, Lin, Changlai, Yang, & Lai, 2012).
However, the operationalisation of this theoretical concept diverges and the term scaffolding has been used loosely in the past decades as a synonym for any type of support (as argued by Mercer & Littleton, 2007; Stone, 1998a). So both on a theoretical and a practical level, scaffolding needs a clearer conceptualisation and needs therefore to be further explored.
Furthermore, no measurement instrument for measuring scaffolding in the classroom, that takes into account the dynamic nature of scaffolding, is available.
Scaffolding in classroom practices has often been measured focusing on teacher actions or strategies only (e.g., Meyer & Turner, 2002). However, scaffolding is a dynamic process that takes place in interaction between e.g., teacher and students. Therefore, both teacher and student actions need to be analysed. More specifically, scaffolding is about adapting support to students’ understanding. So to measure scaffolding, it is not only needed to analyse both teacher and student actions, but it is crucial to map the dynamic adaptation of a teacher’s support to a student’s understanding. To enable any thorough scaffolding research that analyses scaffolding validly, i.e., mapping the dynamic adaptation of the teacher’s support, developing a measurement instrument of scaffolding is crucial.
Probably because of the dynamic nature of the concept, performing scaffolding is difficult and therefore found to be scarce in classroom practice (Oh, 2005). Teachers thus need guidance in developing scaffolding skills. However, no professional development programmes for the promotion of scaffolding are available. Because scaffolding is an appealing concept and a teaching method that is expected to be effective, finding ways of promoting scaffolding is vital.
Finally, scaffolding is expected and assumed to positively affect student learning (Roehler & Cantlon, 1997), both with regard to achievement and with regard to affective and motivational aspects of learning, i.e., students’ engagement with learning.
Scaffolding support keeps a task understandable and challenging at the same time.
However, little is known about the effects of scaffolding in classroom situations as few (quasi-) experimental studies have been conducted in such a context. To develop our understanding and the potential of scaffolding in classroom situations, it is necessary to evaluate its effects in practice.
Summarising, conceptualising scaffolding and finding ways to measure and promote scaffolding is essential for enabling research on the effects of scaffolding. The aims of this dissertation are therefore to:
1) Explore the notion and process of scaffolding 2) Develop ways to measure scaffolding
3) Find ways to promote scaffolding
4) Evaluate the effects of scaffolding on students’ engagement and achievement
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Introduction
Scaffolding metaphorically refers to the process of giving tailored support to students. Scaffolding is:
Connecting – maintaining – supporting – letting go
as described by Tom, a teacher who participated in one of the studies of this dissertation.
His ingenious definition elegantly describes the special type of support that scaffolding is, in that scaffolding:
Connects to students’ current understanding Maintains students’ attention and engagement Supports students’ only there where necessary Lets go of the control as students progress
Scaffolding is a powerful and promising concept for several reasons. First, scaffolding is a useful tool for describing and analysing differentiated support. Within a classroom, different students have different needs. This makes the teacher’s job challenging. There are many ways in which a teacher or even a school system can meet differentiation needs. On a school level, classes or subject courses can be streamed according to ability. Within a classroom, students can be given different tasks or can be allowed to work on similar tasks at their own pace. On a micro-level, teachers can differentiate their help or instruction in interactions with students. Instructional interactions form an important aspect of teaching and the way teachers support their students in those interactions is considered crucial (Seidel & Shavelson, 2007). Support that is adapted to the level of the student can be considered useful as well as efficient;
support that underestimates a student’s understanding is redundant as the student can perform the task alone; support that overestimates a student’s understanding will not be useful to the student and is thus also redundant. Support that is adequately adapted
to a student’s understanding is likely to be useful to the student; it will help the student take a next step in the learning process.
The concept of scaffolding, referring metaphorically to the temporary construction that is used to erect a building, appeals to the imagination and allures to teachers and researchers (e.g., Mercer & Littleton, 2007). Metaphors are helpful in grasping constructs; they are helpful in conceptualising complex relations and they serve as mnemonic devices. Saban, Kocbeker, and Saban (2007) illustrated this in their study in which teachers often mentioned scaffolding as a metaphor for teaching. Scaffolding is an attractive concept because it offers a neat metaphor “for the active and sensitive involvement of a teacher in students’ learning” (Mercer, & Littleton, 2007, p. 18). The general image of scaffolding in construction work and scaffolding support have many parallels such as: (a) both a construction scaffold and scaffolding support provided by a teacher are meant for assistance, (b) both a construction scaffold and scaffolding support provided by a teacher are temporary; it is removed when not needed anymore, (c) both a construction scaffold and scaffolding support provided by a teacher are adaptive, and (d) both a construction scaffold and scaffolding support provided by a teacher have the purpose for the building or student to stand independently. The strong parallels between the general image of a scaffold and teacher support give the concept of scaffolding its elegance and value. A further and more precise anatomisation of the metaphor, however, does not seem useful. That is, relating the elements of the metaphor (e.g., the scaffold, the construction worker, the building that is constructed) directly to the elements of scaffolding support (e.g., the help itself, the tutor, the tutee etc.) is not fruitful as the explanation of the metaphor can then in fact become quite confusing (cf. Stone, 1998a). It rather should be used as a kind of a broad representation or mnemonic device both by researchers and by teachers.
The sociocultural background of scaffolding
Scaffolding was initially used in the context of parent-child interaction (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976) but was in the mid to late 70’s expanded to the classroom context (e.g., Cazden, 1979). Scaffolding has been adopted in many contexts by many authors. It played, for example, a major role in frameworks such as the model of Apprenticeship (Rogoff, 1995), the Cognitive Apprenticeship model of Collins, Brown, and Newman (1989), Reciprocal Teaching (Palincsar, 1986), Situated Learning (Lave
& Wenger, 1991), and Assisted Performance (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988).
The concept of scaffolding stems from a sociocultural background (Vygotsky, 1978) and is also used in constructivist perspectives (e.g., Duffy & Cunningham, 1996). According to these theories, each learner constructs his or her own knowledge
in culturally-embedded social interaction. Each learner absorbs new knowledge and understanding into his or her existing understanding of the world. Therefore, different learners will develop different meanings of the same learning materials, concepts, everyday notions, etc. As learning takes place in social interaction and within a certain culture that is always present, cultural tools and signs play a crucial role in the learning process. In other words, “learning is mediated by tools and signs” (Duffy &
Cunningham, 1996, p. 179). A child’s development advances through the appropriation of mediational means (Vygotsky, 1978). Especially language has been acknowledged to be a major mediational tool by many sociocultural theorists (e.g., Bakhtin, 1981;
Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1979). If learning takes place in social interaction, language and talk are important tools for communicating and for guiding learning. Through the use of language, a more knowledgeable other (e.g., a teacher) can explain, instruct, and question to guide learning. By using language, a learner can express his or her understanding, reason and ask questions and thus learn. By using language, the teacher and the student can co-construct knowledge together in interaction; they can interthink (Mercer & Littleton, 2007). Without language, the co-construction of knowledge would be much more difficult, if not impossible.
Scaffolding is related to one of Vygotsky’s most well-known concepts, namely that of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) (Vygotsky, 1978). Vygotsky argued that educators should be concerned with two developmental levels: the actual level and the potential level. The ZPD represents “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). According to Vygotsky’s theory, all development first takes place in social interaction before it takes place on an individual level. On both levels, language plays a crucial role. Teacher- student interaction as well as student-student interaction (e.g., small-group work) thus are fundamental interactional settings for learning according to sociocultural theories.
Some have criticised the concept of scaffolding, mainly for suggesting that the students’ role is a passive one and for its focus on the predefined end to which the teacher leads the student (Donahue & Lopez-Reyna, 1998; Duffy & Cunningham, 1996). In this dissertation, scaffolding is seen as a process that gives the teacher a guiding role – drawing upon Vygotsky who asserted that all learning was guided by a more knowledgeable other (such as a teacher). We see scaffolding conversations as purposeful conversations in which the teacher’s task is to keep the goal of the learning activity in mind. This does not, however, imply that the teacher is the only person who guides the learning process. Within the purposeful interaction, there is still space for each learner’s own conceptions and these conceptions in fact play a crucial role in the
scaffolding process as the teacher needs these to build upon. The teacher and the student thus contribute both to the learning process as they co-construct knowledge together.
Scaffolding as contingent teaching
Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) introduced scaffolding as a “process that enables a child or novice to solve a problem, carry out a task or achieve a goal which would be beyond his unassisted efforts” (p. 90). They stressed contingency as a critical characteristic of scaffolding support. The degree to which a teacher controls those elements of the task that are initially beyond a learner’s capacity should be contingent or dependent upon a student’s understanding. “Contingent control helps to ensure that the demands placed on the child are likely neither to be too complex, producing defeat, nor too simple, generating boredom or distraction” (Wood, 1991, p. 108). Thus, when a student struggles, the teacher should make the task easier by increasing the degree of control whereas when a student succeeds, a teacher should make the task more challenging by diminishing the degree of control. This principle is called the contingent shift principle. Helping students while applying contingent shifts in control appeared to be very effective in one-to-one situations with regard to e.g., self-regulated learning (Mattanah, Pratt, Cowan, & Cowan, 2005; Pino-Pasternak et al., 2010; Stright, Neitzel, Sears, & Hoke-Sinex, 2001), block-building and puzzle construction tasks (Pratt, Green, MacVicar, & Bountrogianni, 1992; Pratt & Savoy-Levine, 1998; Wood
& Middleton, 1975) and long-division math homework (Pino-Pasternak et al., 2010;
Pratt et al., 1992). Note that contingency is about the adaptation of control, not about whether or not a student actually succeeds in doing a task. When teaching contingently, the degree of control is faded over time and the task responsibility is slowly handed over to the student (Wood & Wood, 1996). In their studies, Wood and his colleagues distinguished several levels of control from little control (general verbal prompts) and medium control (indicates materials) to high control (demonstrates) (cf. Wood, 1991).
The context and what happened before, is thus very important in this interpretation as “the pattern of responses by the teacher to a child’s momentary successes and failures judged in relation to the instructions which predated them is the basis for our evaluation” (Wood, 1991, p. 104).
Another way in which a teacher can act contingently is to connect to and use the actual words and expressions of the students in the ongoing conversation, i.e., to take up the students’ language and understanding. When uptake (Nystrand, Wu, Gamoran,
& Zeiser, 2003; Wells, 2010) takes place, what a student says is (partly) determining the course of a conversation; the teacher acknowledges and uses what a student has
said while deepening that understanding. This does not mean that the teacher cannot introduce new or more academic concepts. However, he or she preferably does so while acknowledging and connecting to the students’ language.
The challenge of contingent teaching
Even though teachers are charmed by the idea of scaffolding, they sometimes also express a certain degree of reserve claiming that it is nothing new or special but rather something they have already been doing. However, although the idea seems self-evident, acting contingently is far from being easy.
Wood (1991) acknowledged that it is difficult to teach children contingently, even in an experimental situation with a straightforward task. In a classroom situation with up to 30 students, often with open-ended tasks, acting contingently seems even a bigger challenge. Contingency entails two aspects: (1) diagnosing students’ understanding, and (2) adapting support to that understanding. As both aspects appear to be problematic from the empirical literature, it is not surprising that being contingent is difficult.
The first aspect of contingency is diagnosing students’ understanding. Diagnostic skills are generally recognised as a distinct feature of successful teaching (Borko, Mayfield, Marion, Flexer, & Cumbro, 1997; Seidel & Shavelson, 2007; Wittwer & Renkl, 2008). However, diagnosing students’ understanding is an activity that is found to be scarce in classroom practice (Elbers, Hajer, Jonkers, Koole, & Prenger, 2008; Lockhorst, Wubbels, & van Oers, 2010; Nathan & Petrinoso, 2003; Snow & Swanson, 1992;
Wittwer & Renkl, 2008), mainly due to its difficulty. Diagnosing students’ understanding appears to be a great challenge for teachers for several reasons: (1) they do not always know how to diagnose students’ understanding, (2) they might suffer from cognitive overload when both having to deal with the (complex) subject matter and with students’
conceptions of that subject-matter, and (3) they experience time constraints when teaching. These three reasons are elaborated below.
First, teachers do not always know how to diagnose students’ understanding (Morrison & Lederman, 2003). Teachers generally tend to:
(1) Give support right away without first diagnosing students’ understanding.
This is an automatic reaction or a habit (Elbers et al., 2008). Helping is the teachers’ job and when a student has a problem, the natural thing to do seems to be to start helping right away.
(2) Use more general sources of information which might not be specific enough to draw conclusions on a student’s understanding of a particular
concept or topic (Elbers et al., 2008). Teachers for example use general estimations of students’ understanding or general knowledge they have about a student – such as “this student is a bad reader”, “this student cannot concentrate well” etc. However, this estimation often appears to be inaccurate (Begeny, Krouse, Brown, & Mann, 2011). In addition, teachers might know from experience with a particular task what obstacles students generally experiences and sometimes then make assumptions about a particular student’s understanding based on this experience.
(3) Ask diagnostic questions that focus on a student’s own estimation of understanding (Chi, Siler, & Yeong, 2004). An example of such a question is: “Do you understand?” These kinds of questions elicit so called claims of understanding (Koole, 2010; Sacks, 1992) such as “yes” or “no” and actually do not give the teacher insight into how a student understands something.
Moreover, students do not appear to be proficient in estimating their own understanding (Chi, de Leeuw, Chiu, & LaVancher, 1994; Rozenblit &
Keil, 2002; Wittwer & Renkl, 2008). And even if students were proficient at estimating their own understanding, eliciting such limited information would still hamper real common understanding between teacher and student.
(4) Tend to use their own knowledge as a reference point. Epley, Keysar, van Boven, and Gilovich (2004) referred to this as egocentric bias. Once certain knowledge structures have developed, it is difficult to put oneself in a novice’s position and to imagine how a novice understands things. This often results in an overestimation of students’ understanding, especially in the case of low-performing learners (Begeny et al., 2011; Wittwer, Nückles,
& Renkl, 2010).
Second, Feldon (2007) mentioned that teachers might suffer from cognitive overload when both having to deal with complex subject matter and with another person’s understanding of that complex subject matter at the same time. This makes diagnosing students’ understanding and deciding which support a student needs at the same time difficult.
Third, a more practical reason for teachers to undertake no diagnostic strategies is that of time constraints in classroom practice (Elbers et al., 2008). Especially in authentic classroom situations with often up to 30 students, there seems to be just too little time to diagnose students’ understanding and giving support right away seems quicker.
The second aspect of contingency is adapting the support to the students’
understanding. Wittwer and Renkl (2008) for example indicated that instructional explanations only work under certain conditions. One crucial condition is that the explanation is adapted to the prior knowledge of a student. Just providing general explanations is not effective (Chi, Siler, Jeong, Yamauchi, & Hausmann, 2001; VanLehn, Siler, Murray, Yamauchi, & Baggett, 2003; Webb & Mastergeorge, 2003; Webb &
Palincsar, 1996). Being adaptive also appears to be a considerable challenge (Ruiz- Primo & Furtak, 2007; Yackel, 2002). However, according to the review of Wittwer and Renkl (2008), the main reason why adapting explanations is so difficult is that teachers (and tutors) have difficulties with assessing or diagnosing students’ understanding, as elaborated above. In an experiment, Nückles, Wittwer, and Renkl (2005), for example, helped tutors by providing them with information on the students’ understanding. In reaction to that, the tutors were able to vary the amount and type of help provided in a tailored way.
Student Engagement and Scaffolding
From a sociocultural perspective, scaffolding is hypothesised to positively affect students’ engagement (e.g., Meyer, 1993; Turner, Meyer, Cox, Logan, DiCintio, &
Thomas, 1998). In a general sense, engagement refers to “the quality of a student’s connection or involvement with the endeavour of schooling and hence with the people, activities, goal, values, and place that compose it“ (Skinner, Kindermann, &
Furrer, 2009). Three types of engagement are usually distinguished: (1) behavioural engagement, (2) emotional engagement, and (3) cognitive engagement (Fredricks et al., 2004).
Behavioural engagement refers to student participation and involvement in learning or academic tasks in a narrow sense and school-related activities in a broader sense.
Most studies investigate on-task behaviour, as is done in this dissertation, but positive conduct and participation in extracurricular activities are also aspects of behavioural engagement (Hughes, Luo, Kwok, & Loyd, 2008).
Emotional engagement represents the positive and negative reactions of students to others in school (Fredricks et al., 2004). It links to concepts such as attitudes, motivation, interest, identity, emotions and value and is used here as a framework to focus on students’ attitudes towards the support style of their teacher and the tasks at hand.
Cognitive engagement refers to the investment and willingness to try hard and work thoughtfully in order to grasp ideas (Fredricks et al., 2004).
Scaffolding involves students as co-participants in the learning process by
providing just enough challenge while keeping task performance always feasible.
The provided support lies within the Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1978).
Wood et al. (1976) indicated that one of the important scaffolding functions is that of frustration control and this can be achieved by providing support that is contingent which enables students to successfully perform a task. In turn, students might thus appreciate scaffolding as this type of support is tailored to their understanding and helps them proceed. Mariani (1997) described the anxiousness that might arise in students when the task is too complex and/or too little support is given. Scaffolding can thus be a tool to balance the degree of challenge and the degree of support.
Numerous studies have demonstrated that students’ engagement is inextricably related to students’ achievement which makes the importance of student engagement clear. Students who are highly engaged perform better (and students who perform better have generally higher engagement levels) (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004). However, apart from its important relationship with and effect on achievement, engagement with the learning context is also an important end in itself (Volman, 2011).
Although scaffolding is hypothesised to affect student engagement, hardly any empirical research has investigated this claim.
Student Achievement and Scaffolding
A bit more research has been performed on the effects of scaffolding on students’
achievement compared to engagement, be it mostly in the contexts of parental scaffolding or tutoring. From a sociocultural perspective, scaffolding is hypothesised to positively influence students’ achievement: contingent support enables students to succeed at a task (Mattanah et al., 2005).
There is some empirical evidence showing that contingent teaching affects students’ performances (Seidel & Shavelson, 2007). However, most studies have been conducted in one-to-one computer-mediated tutoring situations or in the context of parental face-to-face scaffolding. In one-to-one computer-mediated tutoring situations, unadjusted or wrongly adjusted explanations hindered tutees’ learning about computer- related issues and clinical psychology (Nückles, Winter, Wittwer, Herbert, & Hübner, 2006; Wittwer, Nückles, Landmann, & Renkl, 2010). Both explanations that are too difficult and explanations that are too easy have detrimental effects on students’
learning; explanations that are too difficult can cause a comprehension breakdown whereas if an explanation is too easy (i.e., the information provided is already known), attending to this information might prevent the tutee from processing other, more elaborate information (cf. Wittwer et al., 2010; Wittwer & Renkl, 2008).
In the context of parental scaffolding (also one-to-one), challenging contingent
support appeared to be a crucial factor in affecting learners’ outcomes such as self- regulated learning (Mattanah et al., 2005; Pino-Pasternak et al., 2010; Stright et al., 2001), block-building and puzzle construction tasks (Pratt et al., 1992; Pratt & Savoy- Levine, 1998; Wood & Middleton, 1975) and long-division math homework (Pino- Pasternak et al., 2010; Pratt et al., 1992).
In classroom situations, the effects of contingent support have hardly been studied.
Chiu (2004) investigated how two secondary teachers supported students who worked on math problems in small groups. Teachers who evaluated students’ learning before giving support were found to be more effective. However, the actual contingency of the support was not measured. Ruiz-Primo and Furtak (2006; 2007) showed in their small-scaled studies that science teachers who actually used or took up the information that was gathered on the students’ understanding – who worked on science problems – were more effective which indicates the effectiveness of scaffolding.
Considering the potential of the concept and the paucity of effectiveness research on scaffolding in classroom situations, this dissertation aimed to investigate the effects of scaffolding on both students’ engagement and their achievement.
THIS DISSERTATION
Context of this Dissertation
Pedagogic innovations, which are related to sociocultural theory and/or social- constructivism, have been increasingly implemented in the last decades in the Netherlands. In primary education, for example, developmental education, in which learning is embedded in meaningful practices and activities, has been implemented in about 10% of the primary schools in the Netherlands (Van Oers, 2009). Following these theoretical approaches, the teacher is not expected to transmit knowledge, but to construct knowledge together with students in an interactive way. Furthermore, the integration of separate subjects is considered important in these approaches (e.g., Van Oers, 2009). Integrating separate subjects into integrated subject areas or into themes (such as integrating the subjects of geography, history and economics into the integrated subject area of social studies) is considered to make learning more meaningful for students; it matches more with the way children naturally think about the world (e.g., Beane, 1997, cited in Van Boxtel et al., 2009). Integrating subjects is thus expected to make learning more attractive and challenging for students (Lattuca, Voigt, & Fath, 2004).
Secondary education and especially prevocational schools, attended by 56%
of the children (CBS, 2011), engaged in developing such pedagogic innovations concerning the role of the teacher and the integration of subjects. Three innovative types of education are being distinguished in the Netherlands, next to traditional education. In 2007, 33% of lower secondary education (age 12 – 14) was characterised as traditional education called scenario 1 type of education (Monitor Onderbouw, 2007).
In scenario 2 schools, separate subjects continue to exist but projects are introduced in which small-group work is important (in 2007, 31% of all lower secondary school in the Netherlands chose this scenario). In scenario 3, schools integrate subject areas that consist of different subjects, such as social studies that consist of geography, history and economics, and teachers are expected to stimulate students’ active knowledge construction and to differentiate support. Using small-group work is another feature in this scenario. In 2007, 23% of all Dutch lower secondary schools chose this scenario and most of these schools were prevocational schools. In the last scenario, scenario 4, separate subjects do not exist anymore: students learn so-called competences in thematic education. In this scenario, teachers are also expected to stimulate students’
active knowledge construction and to differentiate support. In 2007, 5% of all Dutch lower secondary schools chose this scenario. The innovations that were introduced in the majority of prevocational schools in the Netherlands, affected the role their teachers were expected to adopt, namely that of scaffolding the active learning of students.
Social studies
The subject area of interest in this dissertation, namely that of Social Studies, is a subject area in which the subjects of geography, history, and economics are integrated.
Social studies is the most commonly implemented integrated subject area in innovative schools; ninety-one percent of all schools that work with subject areas, which are mostly prevocational schools, have implemented social studies (Monitor Onderbouw, 2007).
The majority of the schools that participated in one of the studies of this dissertation implemented this subject area (scenario 3), while some participating schools offered students projects but also kept the separate subjects (scenario 2).
Students appear to have difficulties in understanding and using substantive concepts, which is a one of the major aims of social studies (e.g., Kneppers, Elshout- Mohr, van Boxtel, & van Hout-Wolters, 2007 for Economics; Leat, 1998 for Geography;
Van Drie & van Boxtel, 2008 for History; Taylor, 2008 for Geography) and therefore of the lessons studied in this dissertation. Lee (2005) described substantive concepts as
“key concepts of the discipline” (p. 31). In history, for example, substantive concepts refer to “historical phenomena, structures, persons, and periods” (Van Drie & van Boxtel, 2008). Most of the lessons studied in this dissertation were part of a five-lesson
project on the European Union (see Appendix A). Examples of important substantive concepts in this European Union project are democracy, internal market, and border.
Studies focusing on students’ understanding of substantive concepts in social studies showed that students’ understanding of these concepts and their ability to use these concepts was rather limited (Kneppers et al., 2007; Van Drie & van Boxtel, 2008). Van Drie and van Boxtel (2003) argued that students found understanding and using these concepts difficult – amongst other reasons – because: (1) these concepts are abstract and theoretical and understanding of related concepts is oten needed in order to understand a particular concept, and (2) there is often no fixed meaning of a substantive concept in social studies as experts also differ in their interpretations. In addition, a concept can mean different things in different time periods.
As scaffolding is expected to be an effective way of supporting students, this teaching method might help students in this problematic aspect of social studies.
Small-group work
As already noted, small-group work plays an important role in innovative pedagogies. Working in groups provides a stimulating learning context for students as different viewpoints are expressed and reasoning takes place collaboratively (e.g., Reznitskaya et al., 2009). Until recently, the role of the teacher in small-group work generally received little attention (Webb, 2009). Currently, more studies on the teachers’ role in small-group work are being performed, but still little attention is paid to the role of scaffolding or contingency in supporting small groups. However, also in the literature on collaborative learning, the importance of this aspect of support giving is being acknowledged now (Webb, 2009). It is argued that it might not so much be the type of support given that determines the effectiveness of the support, but rather the degree of contingency of the support. However, to our knowledge, almost no studies focused on the degree to which teachers gave contingent help in supporting small groups.
Promoting and studying collaborative learning skills was not an aim and focus of the studies in this dissertation. We focused on how teachers supported students (who worked collaboratively in small groups) with regard to the subject-matter. Collaborative learning or small-group work was the setting in which support was given. In the intervention studies in this dissertation (described in Chapter 5, 6, and 7, see Table 1), the teachers were thus encouraged to promote students’ understanding of the subject- matter, not their collaborative skills. The stimulation of collaboration mainly manifested itself in the design of the project that was used in the studies. This means that the assignments the students worked on were designed in accordance with the principles
of cooperative learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1974), namely: positive interdependence (students need each other), direct face-to-face interaction, individual accountability, interpersonal skills, and attention for reflection on group processes (see Appendix A).
Outline and Research Questions of this Dissertation
This dissertation consists of six connected studies, representing four phases (Table 1).
Table 1
Research Phases and Studies of this Dissertation
GENERAL INTRODUCTION Chapter 1
PHASE 1: Exploring scaffolding…
… in the literature Chapter 2
… in educational practice Chapter 3
PHASE 2: Measuring scaffolding…
… presenting a qualitative and a quantitative analytical framework Chapter 4 PHASE 3: Promoting scaffolding…
… designing a professional development programme Chapter 5
… effects of a professional development programme Chapter 6
PHASE 4: Evaluating scaffolding…
… in terms of students’ engagement and achievement Chapter 7
GENERAL CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION Chapter 8
In the following, each phase will be elucidated. An overview of the research question, aim and data of each study can be found in Table 2.
Phase 1: Exploring scaffolding
In Phase 1, the following main question was explored: How can scaffolding be conceptualised and characterised? The concept of scaffolding is often used as a synonym for just any support and thus tends to lose its theoretical context (as argued by Stone, 1998a). Therefore, we first focused on the conceptualisation of scaffolding.
In Chapter 2, a literature study is described. To be able to connect to the research strand of scaffolding and its findings and to conceptualise scaffolding, a thorough literature review was performed on the last decade’s scientific literature on scaffolding in the classroom. In this review, the relevant scaffolding literature of the last decade was reviewed with regard to the conceptualisations, appearances and effectiveness of scaffolding. A conceptualisation was provided, a framework of scaffolding strategies
was developed and special attention was paid to scaffolding measurement issues.
In Chapter 3, a case study on the scaffolding behaviour of three prevocational social studies teachers at innovative secondary schools is presented. Few systematic analyses of scaffolding in naturalistic settings are available. The case-study was performed in innovative schools because we expected to find more scaffolding there than in traditional schools; teachers in innovative schools are generally expected to take on a scaffolding role of guiding students’ learning as opposed to transmitting knowledge. Three lessons of each teacher were videotaped and the teachers participated in a stimulated-recall interview afterwards. A model of contingent teaching was developed for the purpose of this study. The model consisted of three steps: (1) diagnostic strategies, (2) checking the diagnosis, and (3) intervention strategies. The teachers’ lessons were analysed in the light of this model while attending to their degree of contingency. The ways the teachers helped students were investigated, resulting in a description of patterns of contingent and noncontingent teaching.
Phase 2: Measuring scaffolding
Measuring scaffolding is a complex endeavour and no valid instrument is available.
The aim of Chapter 4 therefore was to develop two frameworks for measuring scaffolding; a qualitative and a quantitative framework. The central research question of this phase was: How can classroom scaffolding in teacher–small-group interactions be analysed from a contingency perspective that takes the interactive nature of scaffolding into account? The qualitative instrument focused on general phases of giving support and was based on the model of contingent teaching that was introduced in Chapter 3. The quantitative contingent shift framework was developed to enable the investigation of the actual degree of contingency of the teachers’ support upon a student’s understanding. In this chapter, these instruments are presented, explained and illustrated.
Phase 3: Promoting scaffolding
In Phase 3, the following main question was addressed: How can scaffolding be effectively promoted? As scaffolding is an important teaching method, finding ways to promote scaffolding and especially teachers’ diagnostic skills is crucial. In the literature, however, few guidelines as to how exactly scaffolding can be conducted and learned exist which makes the design of a development programme for teachers highly relevant. In addition, promoting scaffolding was necessary from the research’s point of view as scaffolding appears to be scarce: in order to be able to study scaffolding and
its effectiveness (which was the aim of the study described in Chapter 7), scaffolding needed to be promoted.
In Chapter 5, the design and evaluation of a professional development programme (PDP) on scaffolding is described. In this study, a PDP aimed at promoting scaffolding was developed. The PDP was designed and evaluated together with four social studies teachers of prevocational secondary education. The four teachers participated during two terms. Again, the key aspect of scaffolding – contingency – was focused upon in this study and the model of contingent teaching (containing the steps of: (1) using diagnostic strategies, (2) checking the diagnosis, and (3) using intervention strategies) was used and further developed. It was hypothesised that by promoting teacher’s diagnostic skills, teachers would also teach more contingently than before. The teachers were videotaped on nine occasions and they were additionally asked to reflect on their lessons afterwards making use of video-examples of their own lessons. The teachers’
knowledge of scaffolding was measured using mind maps and their scaffolding practice was analysed using the videos and the qualitative instrument developed in the study of Chapter 4.
In Chapter 6, the effects of (a shortened version) of the PDP developed in Chapter 5 were investigated in an experimental study. Because of the experimental design, causal effects of the PDP on teachers’ classroom practice could be established. Thirty social studies teachers of prevocational education participated; 17 teachers participated in the professional development programme on scaffolding (i.e., scaffolding condition) whereas 13 teachers did not (i.e., nonscaffolding condition). All teachers taught the same five-lesson project on the European Union (Appendix A). The effects of the PDP were studied in terms of: (1) the quantity of steps of contingent teaching (diagnostic strategies, checking the diagnosis, and, a step that was added later, checking students’
learning), and (2) the quality of all steps of contingent teaching. All teachers in the scaffolding condition were filmed each lesson and each lesson was reflected upon with the researcher using video material of that lesson. All teachers in the nonscaffolding condition were filmed twice (their first and their last lesson). The video files formed the main body of data for this study. Teachers’ contingency was measured using the contingent shift framework developed in Chapter 4 and was additionally characterised by looking at the extent to which the teachers acknowledged and used students’ ideas in their subsequent help (i.e., uptake).
Phase 4: Effects of scaffolding
In the last phase of this dissertation, Phase 4, the following main question was sought to be answered: What are the effects of scaffolding on students’ engagement and
achievement? As indicated, the effects of scaffolding in authentic classroom situations have hardly been studied before. Scaffolding is presumed to positively affect student engagement and achievement but most studies until now have been correlational and no study was performed in the context of prevocational education.
In Chapter 7, the effects of scaffolding on student engagement and achievement were tested. In this experimental study, 30 teachers and 768 students participated; 455 students formed the experimental or scaffolding condition (their teachers participated in the PDP) and 313 students formed the control or nonscaffolding condition (their teachers did not participate in the PDP). All teachers taught the same five-lesson project on the European Union. The contingent shift framework was used to measure the degree of contingency of the teachers’ support. Students’ on-task behaviour (as an indicator of behavioural engagement), appreciation of teacher support and the task (as indicators of emotional engagement), and students’ achievement as measured with a multiple-choice test and a reasoning assignment (Appendix B) were established.
In Chapter 8, the research findings of all studies are summarised and integrated.
Contributions of this dissertation, directions for future research and implications for educational science and for practice are discussed.
Table 2 Overview of the Chapters and Studies of this Dissertation ChapterTypeTitleAim Data gathered
N 1General introduction
Discuss theoretical background and give an outline of the dissertation
PHASE 1: Exploring scaffolding - How can scaffolding be conceptualised and characterised? 2
Literature review Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of researchProvide an overview of research on scaffolding in
the classroom of the last decade, particularly with regard to its conceptualisation, appearances and effectiveness
2007/200866 articles 3Case study
Patterns of contingent teaching in teacher-student interaction Distinguish patterns of contingent and noncontingent teaching
2007/2008
3 schools 3 teachers
PHASE 2: Measuring scaffolding - How can classroom scaffolding in teacher–small-group interactions be analysed from a contingency perspective that takes the interactive nature of scaffolding into account? 4MethodologicalMeasuring scaffolding in teacher – small-group interactionsDevelop measurement frameworks for scaffolding in teacher – student interactions2009/2010- PHASE 3: Promoting scaffolding - How can scaffolding be effectively promoted? 5Developing Promoting scaffolding in small-group work
Develop a professional development programme to promote scaf
folding2008/2009
2 schools 4 teachers
6ExperimentalScaffolding in small-group work – An intervention studyInvestigate effects of PDP based on model of contingent teaching on teachers’ classroom practice
2009/2010
20 schools 30 teachers
PHASE 4: Evaluating scaffolding - What are the effects of scaffolding on students’ engagement and achievement? 7ExperimentalEffects of scaffolding on students’ engagement and achievement Investigate the effects of scaffolding on students’ engagement and achievement2009/2010
20 schools 30 teachers 768
students 8General conclusion and discussion
Summarise and integrate the research findings and contributions of the six studies
SCAFFOLDING IN TEACHER- STUDENT INTERACTION:
A DECADE OF RESEARCH
PHASE 1:
EXPLORING SCAFFOLDING
CHAPTER 2
SCAFFOLDING IN TEACHER-STUDENT INTERACTION:
A DECADE OF RESEARCH
1Abstract
Although scaffolding is an important and frequently studied concept, much discussion exists with regard to its conceptualisations, appearances, and effectiveness.
Departing from the last decade’s scaffolding literature, this review scrutinises these three areas of scaffolding. First, contingency, fading, and transfer of responsibility are discerned in this review as the three key characteristics of scaffolding. Second, an overview is presented of the numerous descriptive studies that provided narratives on the appearances of scaffolding and classifications of scaffolding strategies. These strategies are synthesised into a framework for analysis, distinguishing between scaffolding means and intentions. Third, the small number of effectiveness studies available is discussed and the results suggest that scaffolding is effective. However, more research is needed. The main challenge in scaffolding research appears to be its measurement. Based on the encountered and described measurement problems, suggestions for future research are made.
1 This chapter is based on:
Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction:
A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 271-296.
INTRODUCTION
The concept of scaffolding has received a great deal of attention in educational research over the past few decades. An abundance of research on scaffolding in different contexts is thus the result. Scaffolding highlights one of the key aspects of children’s learning, namely that it is often “guided by others” (Stone 1998a, p. 351).
Scaffolding is typically associated with the sociocultural theory of Vygotsky. Wood et al.
(1976) adopted the scaffolding metaphor to explain the role that adults can play in joint problem-solving activities with children. Borrowed from the field of construction, where a scaffold is a temporary structure erected to help with the building or modification of another structure, the use of scaffolding as a metaphor within the domain of learning refers to the temporary support provided for the completion of a task that learners otherwise might not be able to complete. This support can be provided in a variety of manners that for example includes modelling and the posing of questions for different subjects (e.g., science, social studies) at different ages.
Stone (1993) described a Vygotskian-inspired analysis of scaffolding. According to Vygotsky, learning first takes place on a social (intermental) level before it takes place on an individual (intramental) level. In Stone’s view, the student is not a passive participant in teacher–student interaction but scaffolding is seen as a fluid, interpersonal process in which both participants are active participants. Both participants actively build common understanding or intersubjectivity through communicative exchanges in which the student learns from the perspective of the more knowledgeable other.
Because scaffolding is such a dynamic intervention finely tuned to the learner’s ongoing progress, the support given by the teacher during scaffolding strongly depends upon the characteristics of the situation like the type of task (e.g., well-structured versus ill-structured) and the responses of the student. Therefore, scaffolding does never look the same in different situations and it is not a technique that can be applied in every situation in the same way.
Cazden (1979) related Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) early on to scaffolding and suggested that the metaphor be expanded from the domain of parent–child interactions to teacher–student interactions. The ZPD is characterised by Vygotsky (1978) as: “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (p. 86).
More recently, some authors have argued that the concept of scaffolding has been applied too broadly in educational and psychological research. Pea (2004) even claimed that “the concept of scaffolding has become so broad in its meanings in the
field of educational research and the learning sciences that it has become unclear in its significance.” Puntambekar and Hübscher (2005) similarly contend that “the scaffolding construct is increasingly being used synonymously with support.” (p. 1). In the frequently cited work of Stone (1998a, 1998b), the utility of the scaffolding metaphor is critically considered. Stone concludes that, in many studies, the metaphor has been removed from its original theoretical context and that this has led to the use of scaffolding as a teacher initiated, directive instructional strategy that is actually in conflict with the more responsive sociohistorical background for the metaphor. Nevertheless, Stone argues in favour of salvaging the scaffolding metaphor without losing sight of its theoretical background in which the student is seen as an active participant. To stay close to this idea of scaffolding, the focus of this review lies on scaffolding in face-to-face interactions (and in particular teacher–student interactions).
Stone (1998a) discussed several studies on scaffolding on teacher–child interactions in which scaffolding was found to be effective. However, these studies were largely observational (e.g., Cazden 1979; Englert, 1992; Fleer 1992; Langer &
Applebee 1986). Virtually no (quasi-) experimental studies were found, and different definitions of scaffolding were used across the several studies. An exception is the work of Palincsar and Brown (1984) and Palincsar (1986) in which scaffolding is systematically examined via both single-subject and comparative group designs and found to be effective in the context of Reciprocal Teaching. Although scaffolding has continued to be a frequently studied concept since 1998, no systematic review of the literature on scaffolding in teacher–student interaction has been performed since then.
The goal of this review is therefore to provide an overview of research on scaffolding in the classroom of the last decade, particularly with regard to its conceptualisation, appearances, and effectiveness.
After characterising the concept of scaffolding and its appearances, a guiding framework will be presented that serves the purpose of analysing scaffolding but is also an organising device for the remainder of the review. Thereafter, the descriptive studies are described, since this constituted the majority of the encountered studies. Next, studies on the effectiveness of scaffolding are examined. Finally, the major problem related to scaffolding research—its measurement—is explored and suggestions are made for future scaffolding research.
METHOD
The literature search for the present review was performed in October 2009. The following databases were searched: Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Educational
Resources Information Centre, and PsycINFO. Articles were included when they were (a) SSCI listed; (b) written in English; (c) published between 1998 and 2009; (d) provided a definition or description of scaffolding in the theoretical, methodological, or results sections of the article or refers to Wood et al. (1976); (e) concerned primary or secondary education; and (f) concerned human scaffolding in face-to-face contact.
“Scaffold*” was the main search term, and all articles that were found to include this term in the title or in the abstract and met the aforementioned criteria were selected for inclusion in the review. That is, what the authors of the reviewed articles considered scaffolding was used for the conduct of the search and inclusion in the present review and not the characterisations presented later in this article. The articles were analysed using the following categories: domain, measurement of scaffolding, the dependent variable (only for the effectiveness studies), the type of task, and the goals and means of scaffolding studied. Because scaffolding is so situation specific, the context of each empirical study (i.e., the descriptive and effectiveness studies that use empirical data) in this review will be made explicit by summarising the aforementioned information in Appendices C and D.
This search resulted in 66 articles of which 27 were theoretical, 26 descriptive, eight effectiveness studies, four editorial introductions of thematic issues, and one meta-analytical. The vast interest in scaffolding in educational research in the last decade is clearly indicated by the finding of four thematic issues on scaffolding: Journal of the Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 1998; Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 2004;
Instructional Science, 33(5/6) 2005; and New Ideas in Psychology, 23(3), 2005.
RESULTS
Profile of the research
The majority of the theoretical studies focuses on the conceptualisation or the metaphor of scaffolding. Scaffolding appears to be most fully developed in the field of literacy (Clark & Graves 2005; Pardo 2004; Smith 2006). Clark and Graves (2005) provide an overview of several instructional frameworks on literacy (text comprehension) that includes the idea of scaffolding such as Reciprocal Teaching, the Scaffolded Reading Experience, and Direct Explanation of Comprehension Strategies. Clark and Graves (2005) and Pardo (2004) also implemented the useful Gradual Release of Responsibility Model (Pearson & Gallagher 1983) that involves three phases, namely:
(1) teacher responsibility, (2) joint responsibility, and (3) student responsibility. Some authors describe the application of the concept of scaffolding to other areas such as
moral development education (Turner & Berkowitz, 2005) and the value aspects of motivation in education (Brophy 1999).
Most empirical studies are small-scaled, descriptive studies with or without an intervention. The majority of these studies focus again on literacy, followed by math and science. One-to-one interactions are studied the least, whole-class and small-group interactions to a greater but similar extent. A small amount of studies investigate the effectiveness of scaffolding.
Characterisations of Scaffolding
No consensus exists with respect to the definition of scaffolding, and some authors even criticise the metaphor of scaffolding as a whole (e.g., Aukerman 2007; Butler 1998; Donahue & Lopez-Reyna 1998; Scruggs & Mastropieri 1998). These authors contend that the metaphor implies a predefined building and a more student-centred perspective on learning was then pleaded for: Each student’s “building” is different.
Following Stone (1998a, 1998b), scaffolding is viewed in this review as an interactive process that occurs between teacher and student who must both participate actively in the process.
Despite the many different definitions of scaffolding encountered, some clearly common characteristics can be distinguished as summarised below. These common characteristics are summarised in a conceptual model, depicted in Figure 1. In general, scaffolding is construed as support given by a teacher to a student when performing a task that the student might otherwise not be able to accomplish.
The first common characteristic in the various definitions of scaffolding is contingency often referred to as responsiveness, tailored, adjusted, differentiated, titrated, or calibrated support. The teacher’s support must be adapted to the current level of the student’s performance and should either be at the same or a slightly higher level.
A teacher acts contingently when he/she adapts the support in one way or another to a (group of) student(s). A tool for contingency is diagnostic strategies. To provide contingent support, that is, one must first determine the student’s current level of competence. Only with such knowledge can the support to be provided be adapted to the student’s level of learning (i.e., made contingent). Many authors have acknowledged the importance of diagnosis in relation to scaffolding and was referred to as: dynamic assessment (Lajoie 2005; Macrine & Sabbatino 2008; Pea 2004; Swanson & Lussier 2001), formative assessment (Shepard, 2005), online diagnosis (Palincsar & Brown 1984), or monitoring and checking students’ understanding (Garza, 2009).
The second common characteristic is fading or the gradual withdrawal of
the scaffolding. The rate of fading depends upon the child’s level of development and competence. A teacher is fading when the level and/or the amount of support is decreased over time. Fading of the scaffolding is related to the third common characteristic, namely the transfer of responsibility. Via contingent fading, that is,
Figure 1. Conceptual model of scaffolding
responsibility for the performance of a task is gradually transferred to the learner.
Responsibility is interpreted in this review in a broad sense: it can refer to students’
cognitive or metacognitive activities or to students’ affect. The responsibility for learning is transferred when a student takes increasing learner control.
Thus, in contrast to some authors (e.g., Valsiner & van der Veer, 1993) who criticise the scaffolding metaphor for focusing only on completing the task, we think of scaffolding as a teaching method that can focus on the development of the child in all its different facets. If a student, for example, works on a series of tasks and the teacher adapts the support responsively to the understanding of the student, the teacher is teaching contingently. If the student gains understanding, the teacher can fade the support over time. While fading the support, the teacher can also transfer the responsibility to the student so that the learner will take more and more control over his or her learning.
TEACHER
CONTIGENCY
DIAGNOSTIC STRATEGIES
TIME 1 TIME 2
SCAFFOLDING STRATEGIES*
*SEE TABLE 1 FOR A FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSES OF THESE STRATEGIES
RESPONSE SCAFFOLDING
TEACHER
SUPPORT FADING SUPPORT
STUDENT STUDENT
RESPONS-
IBILITY TRANSFER OF RESPONSIBILITY RESPONSIBILITY
CONTIGENCY
DIAGNOSTIC STRATEGIES SCAFFOLDING STRATEGIES*
RESPONSE SCAFFOLDING
