Warmend, 2. (2001). Seaffobling: Teaching and learning in Language amd heracy educalins. PETA What If seatfolding? Jennifer Hammond & Pauline Gibbons ‘The preface to this book has explained why a book on scaffolding is timely and worthwhile, in this chapter, we begin to explore questions about the nature of, scaffolding. What is scaffolding? What does it have to offer in terms of extending ‘our understanding of teaching and learning? How do we know it when we see it? How is scaffolding cifferent from (or similar to) good teaching? Where does the metaphor come from, and how far can it be pushed in ‘order to explore a socially and linguistically oriented theory of teaching and learning? We begin this chapter by focusing on the metaphor itself. Scaffolding, as most will be aware, is placed around the outside of new buildings, to allow builders access to the emerging structure as it rises from the ground, | Once the building is able to support itself, the builder removes the scaffolding ‘The metaphor of scaffolding has been widely used in recent years to argue that, in ERIC 132 1 the same way that builders provide essential but temporary support, teachers need to provide temporary supporting structures that will assist learners to develop new understandings, new concepts, and new abilities. As the learner develops control of these, so teachers need to withdraw that support, only to provide further support for extended or new tasks, understandings and concepts. While the metaphor has some obvious limitations, scaffolding is a term that clearly resonates with teachers. Over the past 20 years or so it has been taken up with enthusiasm and, although sometimes used loosely to refer to rather different things, its popularity indicates that it captures something which teachers perceive to be central to their core business ~ something at the heart of effective teaching Mercer (1994) suggests that teachers find the concept of scaffolding appealing because it resonates with their own intuitive conceptions of what it means to intervene successfully in students’ leaming. He argues thatthe term offers what is lacking in much of the literature on education ~ that is, an effective conceptual metaphor for the quality of teacher intervention in learning, In this chapter, we explore the ways in which the term ‘scaffolding’ has been used in educational contexts, and the theoretical underpinnings that have informed such uses, We also address questions about the nature and quality of teacher intervention in learning. The nature of scaffolding in educational contexts ‘Wood, Bruner and Ross (1976) were the first to use the term ‘scaffolding’ as @ metaphor to capture the nature of support and guidance in learning. They used the term to describe the nature of parental tutoring inthe language development of young children. They showed that parents who were ‘successful scafflders’ focused their children's attention on the task at hand, and kept them motivated and working on the task. Such parents divided the task into manageable components and directed their childrens attention to the essential and relevant 14features. n addition, these parents demonstrated and modelled successful 1/3 performance, while keeping the task at an appropriate level of difficulty, Thus the parents provided support through intervention that was tailored to the demands of the task, and determined by the chiles ability to complete it. Bruner (1978:19) describes scaffolding as: ‘nthe steps taken to reduce the degrees of freedom taken in carving out some tosks0 thot the child ean concentrate onthe dificult kil she sin the process of acquiring In the context of classroom interaction, the term scaffolding has been taken up to portray the temporary assistance that teachers provide for their students in order to assist them to complete a task or develop new understandings, so that they will later be able to complete similar tasks alone. Maybin, Mercer and Steirer (1992:186) describe this as the "temporary but essential nature of the mentor's assistance’ in supporting learners to carry out tasks successfully, A number of features are significant in this use of the term, Key features Extending understanding Scaffolding refers to support that is designed to provide the assistance necessary to enable learners to accomplish tasks and develop understandings that they would not quite be able to manage on their own, As Mercer explains (1994:96): “Scaffolding represents the kind and quality of cognitive support which an adult can provide for a child's learning, which anticipates the chila’s own interalisation of mental functions”. The argument here is that teachers, through their sequencing of teaching activities, and through the quality of their support and guidance, are able to challenge and extend what students are able to do. It is by participating in such activites that students are pushed beyond their current abilities and levels of understanding, and itis then that learning occurs and students are able to ‘intemalise’ new understandings. 159 ERIC In a discussion of the implications of teaching, Mariani (1997) explores the classroom consequences of various combinations of high and low teacher support and challenge. He describes the frustrations, insecurity and anxiety experienced by students who experience learning contexts where there is high challenge but inadequate or low support. Such contexts present students with demands that are beyond their capabilities and are likely to result in failure (see Fig. 1.1). Contexts with low challenge and low support are those where students are unlikely to be motivated to do much at all, with the result that little learning will occur and students are ikely to be bored, and perhaps to express this boredom through misbehaviour. Figure 1.1: Framework of leaning contexts Challenge Extension of lea ‘and capability Demands too re i ly Low motivation; | botedom and behaviour problems likely Comfortable/Easy, little learning likely Support ‘Adapted from Mariani, L (1997), ‘Teacher Support and Teacher Challenge in Promoting Learner Autonomy. Perspectives 23 (2), aly. With low challenge and high support, students will operate within their comfort zone and may enjoy their classroom experiences, but they are unlikely to learn @ great deal. tis when the learning context provides both high challenge and high support that most leaming takes place. At such times, students are pushed beyond their curent capabilites. As Vygotsky (1978) wrote, good learning is that Which is ahead of actual development. A major feature of the term ‘scaffolding’ is its ability to capture the role ofthe ‘expert, or more knowledgeable other (typically 16the teacher), in assisting students’ learning, and the role of that knowledgeable 1 other in extending students’ current levels of understanding or current capabilities. ‘As this discussion indicates, scaffolding refers to teacher assistance and support that is designed to help leamers move towards new skils, concepts or understandings. But it is also assistance that is designed to help leemers to ‘work with increasing independence ~ to know not only what to think and do, but how to think and do, so that new skils and understandings can be applied in new contexts, Temporary support further factor related to scaffolding is its temporary nature, Beceuse itis aimed at enabling students to leam independently, teacher support is gradually withdrawn as the learners become increasingly able to complete a task alone. Also critical to effective scaffolding is the ability of teachers to provide timely support. Effective scaffolding is support thet is provided at the point of need. It therefore requires thet teachers have @ good understanding of where their learers are ‘et ~ that is, of what their leamers know (or do not know) at the beginning of an activity, To be truly effective, such support needs to be progressively adjusted to ‘address the needs of different students within the one classroom. This ability to customise support for specific learners is what van Lier (1996), Wells (1986) and others refer to as contingency. The notion of contingency emphasises the importance of teaching strategies being based on, and responsive to, students’ current understandings. It is characterised by how well the teacher is able to judge the need and quality of assistance required by the leemer, and related to the way in which help is paced on the basis of students’ developing understandings. Ideally, the teacher provides room for learner initiatives @s a new ‘concept or process is grasped, but also provides further support if learners begin to falter, The sensitvty and skill involved in responding contingenty to students is sometimes seen as the defining quality of teaching, Van Lier (1996:199) suggests that “even though it does not show up in lesson plans or syllabuses, this local or interactional scaffolding may well be the driving force behind good pedagogy, the hallmark of a good teacher’ 17Macro and micro focuses In addition to a focus on learners and their current levels of understanding, scaffolding requires a clear focus on tasks, It therefore requires thet teachers have a good understanding of: + the curriculum area or field of inquity that their learners are engaging with + the demands of specific tasks that will enable learners to achieve relevant goals. Thetis, scaffolding needs to be thought of in relation to the development of ‘overall programs and curricula, as well as to selection and sequencing of tasks and to the specitic classroom interactions that are part of those tasks. Here we are extending the notion of scaffolding beyond the moment-by-moment interactions between teacher and student to include also the nature and design of the classroom program, To be effective, scaffolding requires clearly articulated goals and learning activities which are structured in ways that enable learners to extend their existing levels of understanding, For this to occur, the goals for any one specific task need to be located within the broader framework of a planned program with its own clearly articulated goals. Thus the learning that occurs as a result of support provided at 2 ‘micro level of interaction (at a task level) needs to be located within the macro framework of a planned program, so that there is a clear relationship between sequential tasks and so that these tasks relate to articulated progrem and curriculum goals. Mercer (1994:101) underlines this view when he argues: ‘ts probably in making a direct conceptual link between two very diferent aspects of teachers’ involvement with pupils learning that the concept of ‘scaffolding’ has mast to offer to educational research ~ the pursuit of curriculum-related goals for learning and the use of specific discourse strotegies witen intervening in children’s learning’ Thus our understanding of the nature of scaffolding includes both the microdevel scaffolding which occurs in the ongoing interactions between teacher and students. and a more macro-level scaffolding which is related to larger issues such as program goals and the selection and sequencing of tasks, 18The relationship between 7 scaffolding and good teaching ‘Alook at the key features of scaffolding above gives rise to questions about the relationship between scaffolding and teaching more generally. Do these features apply spectcally to scaffolding? Do they distinguish scaffolding from other kinds of teaching? In what ways is scaffolding different to what could simply be described as good teaching? Questions of ‘what counts’ as scaffolding in the classroom, and of the relationship between scaffolding and what might be thought of as ‘good teaching, have been tackled by a number of researchers (@g. Maybin et al, 1992; Mercer, 1994; Webster et al., 1996). Maybin, Mercer and Steirer (1992) write: ‘fScaffolding] isnot just any assistance which helps a learner accomplish a task It is help which will enable a learner to accomplish @ task which they would not have been quite able to manage on their own, and it is help which is intended to bring the learner closer toa state of competence which will enable them eventually to complete such a task on their own! Mercer (1994), drawing on his earlier work with colleagues, proposes the following criteria for distinguishing scaffolding from other kinds of teaching and learning: + Students could not succeed without the teacher's intervention. + The teacher aims for some new level of independent competence on the students’ part. + The teacher has the learning of some specific skill or concept in mind. + There must be evidence of students successfully completing the particular task at hand. + There must also be evidence that leamers are now able to go on to deal independently with subsequent elated tasks or problems. Mercer argues that such citera allow educational researchers to “discuss and explain differences in the quality of intellectual support which teachers provide 19QO enc for leamers, while sufficiently stringent to exclude some kinds of ‘help’ which teachers provide’, ‘Asa simple example ofthe diference between ‘scaffolding’ and ‘help, consider @ situation in which a student is unable to spell a particular word. n this situation, the teacher could ‘help’ by providing the correct speling, Alternatively, s/he could ‘scaffold’ how to think about the spelling by, for example, encouraging the student to think about the sounds of the word, end how they could be represented. OF course, there are times when on-the-spot ‘help’ is a valuable kind of assistance, The point we are making here is that scaffolding, in our definition, is qualitatively different from ‘help’ in that it is aimed at supporting students to tackle future tasks in new contexts ~ or, 2s we argued earlier, to know how to think, not simply what to think, Key theoretical concepts in understanding scaffolding ‘Thus far we have discussed the nature of scaffolding ~ what is meant by the term and how to recognise it when we see it in a classroom context. Here we discuss the theoretical underpinning of scaffolding, looking in particular at how it its with ‘mote general theories of teaching and learning. ‘An important element in any discussion of the theoretical basis of scafolding is its reletionship with Wgotshys theories of learning, Although Vygotsky himself never used the term ‘scaffolding, its theoretical basis lies very much within a Vygotskian framework, and his work is frequently cited by those who have taken up the notion of scaffolding in the context of educational research. Broadly, Vygotsky (eg. 1978) argued that learning and cognitive development are culturally and socially based. In other words, learning is a social process rather than an individual one, and occurs in the interaction between individuals. He argued that learning involves @ communicative process whereby knowledge is shared and understandings are constructed in culturally formed settings. in his 20‘emphasis on the social and cultural basis of learning, his work differs significantly from views that have dominated Westem thinking about education. In particular, his views difer from Piagetian theories that have portrayed learning as an essentially individual enterprise. In his original work on scaffolding in child language development, Bruner (1985) drew on the Wgotskian notion that social transaction and interaction, rather than solo performance, constitute the fundamental vehicle of education, it was, he said, the transactional nature of learning that enabled entry into a culture via induction by more skilled members. He argued (p 25): “Too often human learning has been depicted as o paradigm of a lone ‘organism pitted against nature ~ whether in the model ofthe behaviourist" ‘organisms shaping up responses to fit the geometrcs and probabilities of the world of stimult,or in the Piagetian model where @ lone child struggles single handedly to strike some equilibrium between assimilating the world to himself or himself to the world’ ‘The argument that leaming is essentially @ social and cultural process is central to the theoretical basis of scaffolding, To explore the implications of this argument, we need to consider another key concept ~ the zone of proximal development. The zone of proximal development (ZPD) Pethaps the best known and most relevant aspect of Vygotsky's work to the theoretical basis of scaffolding is his notion of the zone of proximal development (ZPD). Wygotsky (1978:86) argued that the ZPD is a key element in the learning process, and he defined this as: ‘the distance between the actual development level (ofthe learner) as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance (Fin collaboration with more capable peers! In relation to education, the major significance of the ZPD is that it suggests the ‘upper and lower limits, or the ‘zone’, within which new learning will occur. If the vaal instruction is too dificult, or pitched too high, the learner is likely either to be frustrated or to tune out. fit is too low, the leamer is presented with no challenge and simply does not learn anything. The notion of the ZPD underpins Mariani's discussion of the merits of high support and high challenge for an effective teaching-learning relationship (see page 4). The point here is that learning will ‘occur when students are working within the ZPD and when teachers, through their mediating support role, are able to assist students to extend their current understandings and knowledge, Its important to note that the concept of ZPD has been widely taken up in educational contexts, and often differently interpreted. Wgotsky died at a young age and, 2s Wells (1999) points out, the place of the ZPD in hs overall theories ‘was not fully articulated, Some have interpreted ZPD as a kindof individual attribute ~ something that each learner possesses, that they take with them from ‘one situation to another, and that therefore can be individually assessed, Others — and we include ourselves here ~ take a diferent view. ‘Wells (1999:330) argues that “rather than being a ‘fixed’ attribute of the learner, the ZPD constitutes a potential for learning that is created in the interaction between participants as they engage in @ particular activity together’. That is, the ZPD is constructed in and through the activity in which learners and teachers jointly participate. Wells goes on to argue that as problems are resolved and solutions constructed, so the potential for further leaming is expanded, and new possibilities are opened up that were initially unforeseen. Thus, the ZPD is co-constucted through the talk that occurs between teacher and students as they patticipate together in a particular task. I is an attribute of those tasks or events, rather than an attibute of the leamer. This also means that the upper limits of the ZPD may change as the task unfolds. in other words, effective scaffolding is able to extend the upper limit of the ZPD, perhaps making it possible for learners to reach beyond what they are thought to be capable of. While teaching experiences should not be completely beyond the capability ofthe learner, Vygotsky's notion challenges the traditional concept of leamer ‘readiness’ by suggesting tha itis the teacher who is largely responsible for initiating each new 22step of learning, based on their understandings of what students are able to do, This wu does not meen that students’ own interests and goals are ignored; indeed, they are an important consideration at the macro level of program planning and identification of goals, However it does mean that when introducing new concepts, the teacher is responsible for the sequencing and pacing of leaming, and for challenging students ‘to extend their current levels of understanding, . ‘The notion of the ZPD also challenges teachers to maintain high expectations of all students, while atthe same time providing ‘contingent’ scaffolding in order to assist learmers to complete tasks successfully. Gibbons (2002, forthcoming) argues ‘that, as far as possible, all learners, including second-language leamers, need to be engaged with authentic and cognitively challenging learning tasks, Its the nature of the support ~ customised support that is responsive to the needs of particular students ~ that is critical for success. ‘The following example is given to ilustrate the principles we have been discussing. It is a short extract in which a father end mother talk with their 14- month-old son, Nigel. Before the conversation occurred, Nigel had been to the 200. While he had been looking at 2 goat, it had tried to eat a plastic lid that he had been holding, The keeper had explained that he shouldn't let the goat eat the lid because it wasn't good for it. As you read this dialogue, look particulary at what the parents are doing, and the effect this has on Nigel's abilty to construct @ short recount of these events. Nigel Treat i Father What tried to eat the id? Ty eat i Wht tied to eat the ld? Goat . mon said no. goat ‘red eat lid. man said no. Nigel Goat try eat lid .. man said no Mother Why afd the man say no? Nigel Goat shouldn't eat lid . [shaking head) good fori enc a 23un Mother The goat shouldn't eot the lid; it's not good for it. Nigel oot ty eat lid .._man said no .. goat shouldn't eat id .. [shoking head} good for i. Source: Halday, MA K (1975) Learning How to Mean: Explorations inthe Development of Language. Edward Amald, London, Notice the kind of scaffolding that the parents provide. Nigel's initial utterance is far from explicit ~ no one who had not shared the experience with him would be able to understand the significance of what he is saying, Fist, its not clear what Cor who Nigel is referring to, and the father’s question what shows Nigel what information he needs to provide, Having extended the inital three-word utterance to something significantly more complete, Nigel relates this more extended version tohis mother, who pushes the dialogue forward with the question why. While Nigel does not take up his mother's use of shouldn't (using, instead, the strategy of indicating a negative by shaking his head), he does provide the reason his mother is seeking (i's not good for it). By the end of these two small conversations, he has elaborated on and made more explicit his original short utterance. Most important, itis clear that what Nigel achieves ~ the final story he tells — has nat simply come from him and his own linguistic resources; this story is 2 collaborative endeavour and has been jointly constructed. This co-construction is important in that, by assisting Nigel to recount his experience at the zoo, his parents are at the same time extending his understanding of the significance of these events. Through countless such interactions, Nigel is enculturated into ways of representing and valuing his world. Educational implications of a social view of learning ‘An implication of the view of learning that we have been outlining here, and of the place of scaffolding within itis that knowledge is collaboratively constructed rather than simply passed on, or handed from teacher to learner. Thatis, knowledge is Constructed in and through joint participation in activities where all parcipants are actively involved in negotiating meaning. Clearly, leamers construct new and a4extended understandings through their collaborative participation in scaffolded activities, But in doing so, they are doing more than simply ebsorbing information or digesting chunks of knowledge. Their active participation, with support from the teacher, enables them to construct and, potentially, transform understandings. Through talk in particular, information and ideas can be shared, points of view explored, and explanations presented. In the process, new ways of thinking and understanding may be constructed, These new ways of thinking and understanding may represent only minor shifts, but they are significant in the ongoing construction of knowledge and the development of alternative perspectives. Not only do teachers impact on students’ learning; students in turn impact on teachers’ understandings. More broadly, this process of negotiating understandings contributes to ongoing development of social and cultural understandings and ‘ways of thinking about the world, In this sense, we can argue that teaching and learning are reciprocal processes (Mercer, 1994). Such a view of leaming also recognises that both teacher and students are active participants in a collaborative learning process, and thus moves away for the well worn debate around teacher-ditected versus student-centred leaming. As Webster, Beveridge and Reed suggest (1996:42), teaching and learning are constructed "as 2 social enterprise which draws on the immediate resources of the participants" ~ that is, both teacher and students. ‘A further implication for this view of learning i thet, as we saw in the example above, language is integral tothe leerning process, Vygotsky hes argued that the external dialogues in which leamers take part are gradually internalised to construct the resources for thinking: outer speech eventually becomes inner thinking, As learners tak through a problem, or as they ‘tak their way to Understanding, they are developing the ‘thinking’ tools for later problem-solving — tools which will eventually become internalised and construct the resources for independent thinking It follows, then, that the kinds of talk that occur in the classroom are ciitical in the development of how students ‘learn to lear’ through language, and ultimately how. a514/1 they leam to think. Cleary, any discussion of the nature of scaffolding must consider the role of language in teaching and learning, The following chapter discusses this role ~ in particular, the relationship of language to effective scaffolding. References and sources ‘rer, 1 (1978) "The Role of Dialogue in Language Acquis Sinai, Aare, R& Level WM (e48), The hile’ Conception of Lanquoge Springer Veag, New York Bruner § (1988) Yygotsy A Historical end ConcepialPespcine’ In Wersch.} (ed), ature, Communication and Cognition: ygoskion Perspectives. Carbidge Univers Press, MA. Gibbons, P (2002, forthcoming Safolting Language, ctolaing, Learning: Woking with ESL Children in the Mainstream Elementary Classroom. Heiner, Mayan (1997) Teacher Supprt an Teacher (Chalg in romain Leamer Autonomy Parpctes 25 (2), tly, aybi J, Merce, N& See, 8 (1982) “Scaoldng! Leeming inthe Gssromt. n Norman, K (ed), Thinking Voices: The Work ofthe Naina Curie Project Hodder & Stoughton fo the National Carica Counc, London. Mercer, N (898) Neo-Wgotslian Theory and (ssrcom Education, a Steer, B & Maytin, 3 (45), Language, Literacy and Leaning in Educational Practice, Multlingul Mattes, Cevedon, UK 26 van Ue, | (1996) teraction in the Language Curriculum: arenes, Autonomy end Authentic. Longman, London. Voge, LS (1962) Though ond Language. MT res, Cambridge, MA, Wygotshy, LS (1878) And in Society The Development of Higher Psychological Processes (Cole et al ed), Harvard Universi Pres, Cambridge, A Webse, ,Beveige M& Red, M (1986) Managing the Ltercey Curicuum, Routledge, Lender Wels (886) Te Heong Mates. Citten Leoming Language and Using Lnguage Lean Nodde 8 Stcugion London, ‘els, G (1989) Dialogic qui: Towards 0 Socicutural Practice end Theory of Education. Cambridge Univesity Press, MA, Wood, 0, Bruner, JS & Ross, G (1876) The Role of “Tutoring in Prblem Song. ourat of Chie Psychology and Psychiatry