1

The Metaphor of Scaffolding: Its Origins and Various Meanings

Sonny J. Nash

Department of Education, Concordia University

ETEC 613: Learning Theories

Prof. Steven Shaw

December 10, 2019

 2

The metaphor of scaffolding plays a central role in contemporary

discussions of learning. However, as this metaphor has increased in

popularity, it has become more widely used and its definition can be said

to have become obscured (Boblett, 2015).

For this reason, the paper to follow will explore the origins of this

metaphor and discuss its various meanings and applications.

The definition for the word scaffold typically has two meanings.

The first of these usually refers to a platform, and the second to a

supporting framework (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). When talking about the

term scaffolding in education, it has come to generally refer to a variety

of instructional techniques used to aid students in gradually obtaining a

better understanding in the learning process by offering support to them

along the way. In other words, scaffolding in education can be

understood as the temporary support provided to a child to enable them

to complete a task, they otherwise may not be able to complete alone

(Radford, Bosanquet, Webster, Blatchford, & Rubie-Davies, 2014).

Although the term scaffolding was first coined in a study published

by David Wood, Jerome Bruner and Gail Ross titled “The Role of Tutoring
 3

in Problem Solving”, it can be said to have its root tied in the earlier theory

of constructivism (Abdelshaheed, 2019). Constructivism developed from

Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development and was centered on how

individuals create meaning in relation to the interaction between their

experiences and their ideas. Piaget’s views tended to focus on individual

development as distinct from the development which is influenced by

other persons. Nonetheless, its fundamentals were derived from the main

assumption of learning as knowledge acquisition, namely that learners

build their knowledge on their as they are presented with the opportunity

to reformulate the knowledge they previously acquired whilst being

guided by others (Fosnot, 2013). Hence, in constructivism, the learner’s

prior knowledge and experiences are recognized as being influenced by

their external social and cultural environment and learning results from

them “constructing” knowledge out of their experiences. Piaget’s view

focused solely on individual development in relation to what is occurring

within them, distinct from development influenced by other people. Lev

Vygotsky further expanded this view with his theory of social

constructivism, which emphasized the importance of sociocultural

learning, namely how the interactions with others are internalized by

learners to form mental constructs through the zone of proximal

 4

development (Chang, Sung, & Chen, 2002). Vygotsky understood learning

to both a social and interactive process in which children are active

participants rather than passive recipients and defined the zone of

proximal development as the distance between what a child can achieve

on their own and the learning they can achieve with guided assistance

(Raymond, 2000).

Although the two theories were developed separately and almost

forty years apart, their definitions overlap quite nicely. For example,

Vygotsky defined the metaphor for proximal development as being

understood by independent problem-solving and the level of potential

development understood via independent problem-solving under the

guidance of an experienced teacher (Raymond, 2000) and in the study

published by Wood, Bruner and Ross in 1976 wrote that the intervention

of a tutor should involve a kind of “scaffolding” process that would enable

a novice to solve a problem, carry out a task or achieve a goal without

eventual assistance (Raymond, 2000).

Having said this, there is consensus today that for educational

scaffolding to succeed, the learner’s zone of proximal development must

be targeted and as this is said to be constantly evolving as the learner gains

 5

knowledge, scaffolding must be individualized (Boblet, 2015). This is also

because the zone of proximal development is different between

individuals, therefore, two learners can start off at the same level and yet

their zones of proximal development may not evolve at the same time

(Boblet, 2015).

Another important aspect of scaffolding is that scaffolds are meant

to be temporary. As the learner’s abilities increase, scaffolding provided

the teacher will progressively be withdrawn, until the learner can finally

complete the task or master the concepts on their own (Chang, Sung, &

Chen, 2002). Therefore, the goal of educators when using scaffolding

teaching strategies is for students to become independent and self-

regulating learners and problem solvers (Hartman, 2002). As the

learner’s knowledge and learning competency increases, the educator

gradually reduces the supports provided (Hartman, 2002). According to

Vygotsky the external scaffolds provided by the educator can be removed

because the learner has developed “…more sophisticated cognitive

systems, related to fields of learning such as mathematics or language, the

system of knowledge itself becomes part of the scaffold or social support

for the new learning” (Raymond, 2000, p. 176).

 6

As such, to scaffold a group of students would require the teacher to

become more knowledgeable in providing support to facilitate the

learner’s development, whereby facilitating the students’ ability to build

on prior knowledge and internalize new information. Scaffolding

instruction allows the student to go beyond the level of what they can

achieve alone (Boblet. 2015) and a more capable teacher can provide the

scaffolds so that the learner can accomplish- with assistance- the tasks

that he or she could otherwise not complete, thus helping the learner

through the zone of proximal development (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking,

2000). In addition to this, the concepts of mediation and appropriation are

often used when describing the process of scaffolding. Mediation is known

to be what the learner learns on their own from their personal

environments, and appropriation is used to describe the removal of

scaffolds as the learners successfully accomplish tasks on their own

(Boblet, 2015).

In the article titled Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A

decade of research, Val De Pol et al. (2010) maintains that three common

principles must be present for scaffolding to take place, and these are

known as contingency, fading, and transfer of responsibility. Contingency

 7

requires the teacher to adjust their support in accordance to the learner’s

response, with the aim of fading the provided support over time, with the

aim of eventually transferring the responsibility from the teacher to the

student.

In the educational setting, scaffolds may include models, cues,

prompts, hints, partial solutions, think-aloud modeling and direct

instruction (Hartman, 2002). These strategies can be used to prompt the

students to complete the next step of the task. Questions may also be used

as scaffolds to help learners solve a problem or complete a task. The

questions can increase or become more specific until the learner is able to

provide a correct response without prompting (Hartman, 2002).

Once scaffolding became a widely used strategy in the classroom, it

gained prominence in research, especially in the study of language

(Boblet, 2015). For instance, it was adopted for research in second-

language acquisition, literacy research and collaborative practices and

these studies further altered the definition of scaffolding (Aljaafreh &

Lantolf, 1994). In second language acquisition it was used to examine the

use of scaffolding in feedback negotiation and error correction; in literacy

research it was used to develop more reliable instructional methods; in

 8

collaborative practices it was used to measure the quality of verbal

participation during scaffolding (Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994).

Although the concept of scaffolding continues to evolve to present-

day, it still has its roots firmly grounded in sociocultural theory (Stone,

1998) and as scaffolding became more widely used to guide teaching and

learning, several new approaches developed as a result and served to

expand its definition (Lajoie, 2005). Some of these include reciprocal

teaching, instructional scaffolding, assisted performance and grounded

participation (Lajoie, 2005). Reciprocal teaching is an instructional

strategy used to aid in the development of reading comprehension skills

by gradually allowing the learner to take on the role of the teacher by

making them active participants in their learning process and reinforcing

comprehension strategies (Boblet, 2015). There are four strategies used

to reinforce comprehension and these are summarizing, questioning,

predicting, and clarifying (Boblet, 2015).

The second approach of instructional scaffolding involves tailoring

scaffolding to fit the needs of many learners at once, rather than being

individualized, and includes five characteristics, ownership (giving the

learner a sense of purpose in regard to the task), appropriateness (setting

 9

he tasks at the right skill level), structure (presenting the task in a logical

sequence), collaboration (recognizing the learner’s efforts), and

internalisation (gradually removing the scaffolds until the learner can

complete the task independently) (Boblet, 2015).

The third approach that was later added was termed assisted

performance to indicate that scaffolding actually required specialized

training to be executed effectively and includes six characteristics that

could be used on both adults and children and could be applied to

individualized or group learning environments (Boblet, 2015). These

include modeling, contingency management, feedback, instructing,

questioning, and cognitive structuring (Boblet, 2015).

Finally, the last approach that will be discussed here is guided

participation which probably has had the greatest influence in molding

the definition of scaffolding (Boblet, 2015). Guided participation

considers the non-verbal actions involved in the learning process and

places emphasis on collaboration (Boblet, 2015). This approach is intent

on community practice and sees learning as an active process where the

learner is guided through the learning process (Boblet, 2015).

 10

In conclusion, it can be said that although the term of Scaffolding

was first coined by Bruner and his colleagues in 1976 (Abdelshaheed,

2019), it was linking it to Vygotskian sociocultural theory that gave the

theoretical framework its substance. Moreover, it can be deduced that the

concept evolved alongside the concept of the zone of proximal

development, despite not originally being part of Vygotskian sociocultural

theory which eventually became the influencing factor in the development

of teaching and learning (Abdelshaheed, 2019). Even though the concept

continues to evolve, it is still grounded in sociocultural theory and has

contributed to the formation of many successful instructional approaches

that are being used today.

 11

References

Abdelshaheed, B. S. M. (2019). Using Instructional Scaffolding Strategies to

Support Oral Productive Language Skills among English Majors at

Majmaah University. Arab World English Journal, 10(2) 88-101.

DOI:10.24093/awej/vol10no2.8

Aljaafreh, A. & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second

language learning in the Zone of Proximal Development. The Modern

Language Journal, 78(4), 465-483.

Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind,

and Experience & School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Boblett, N. (2015). Scaffolding: Defining the Metaphor. Working Papers in

Applied Linguistics and TESOL, 12 (2), 1-16.

Chang, K., Chen, I., & Sung, Y. (2002). The effect of concept mapping to enhance

text comprehension and summarization. The Journal of Experimental

Education 71(1), 5-23.

Fosnot, C. T. (2013). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. Teachers

College Press.
 12

Hartman, H. (2002). Scaffolding & Cooperative Learning. Human Learning and

Instruction (pp. 23-69). New York: City College of City University of New

York.

Lajoie, S.P. (2005). Extending the Scaffolding Metaphor. Instructional Science,

33: 541-557. DOI: 10.1007/S11251-005-1279-2

Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Scaffolding. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary.

Retrieved April 30, 2020, from https://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/scaffolding

Ngeow, K.K., &Yoon, S. (2001, October). Learning to Learn: Preparing Teachers

and Students for Problem-Based Learning. ERIC Digest.

https: //www.ed.gov/database/ERIC_Digest/ed456524.html

Radford, J., Bosanquet, P., Webster, R., Blatchford, P., & Rubie-Davies, C. (2014).

Fostering learner independence through heuristic scaffolding: A valuable

role for teaching assistants. International Journal of Educational Research,

63, 116–126. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijer

Raymond, E. (2000). Cognitive Characteristics. Learners with Mild Disabilities

(pp. 169-201). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon, A Pearson

Education Company.
 13

Stone, C. A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of

learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 344-364.

Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–

student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review,

22, 271–296. DOI: 10.1007/ s10648-010-9127-6