A conceptualisation of whole‐class scaffolding

Abstract

The concept of scaffolding refers to temporary and adaptive support, originally in dyadic adult–child interaction. It has become widely used, also in whole‐class settings, but often in loose ways. The aim of this paper is to theoretically and empirically ground a conceptualisation of whole‐class scaffolding so that it remains close to the origin of the scaffolding concept, but also provides scope for features not salient in one‐to‐one interaction. Drawing an analogy with Vygotsky's concept of Zone of Proximal Development we argue why the extension to whole‐class settings is justified. We further distinguish three key characteristics for whole‐class scaffolding—diagnosis, responsiveness and handover to independence—and illustrate these with examples from a teaching experiment focusing on whole‐class scaffolding language in a multilingual mathematics classroom (age 10–12). The empirical data led to a metaphorical distinction between online and offline enactment of key characteristics, during respectively outside whole‐class interaction. Diagnoses can namely also be made outside lessons, for instance by reading pupils' work; responsiveness can also be realised in adapting instructional activities; and handover to independence can also be fostered in the design of lessons. In addition to this layered nature (online vs. offline), whole‐class scaffolding is often distributed over time. Finally, whole‐class scaffolding is cumulative with pupils' independence emerging as the cumulative effect of many diagnostic and responsive actions over time. We suggest these three features are at the core of whole‐class scaffolding that is deliberately employed to foster long‐term learning processes.

Teacher-Based Scaffolding as a Teacher Professional Development Program in Indonesia

“…Done well, the responsive stage led to the participants' independence because they had many opportunities to share ideas. Smit et al (2013) considered the handover to independence step was the ultimate aim of scaffolding.…”

“…All teachers in the study had a minimum of five years' teaching experience and were working in senior high schools in Sumatera Island, Indonesia. The mathematics teachers were given treatments with the training model [Regular Training (RT)] (Kennedy, 2005), the second group (Bahasa Indonesia teachers) received the standard scaffolding treatments (Smit et al, 2013), and the third group (English teachers) was given treatment in the TBS model. All teachers were given a pre-test and post-test.…”

“…We assumed that scaffolding would be an effective strategy for improving teachers' CK because some researchers have found it can assist teachers to perform their tasks at a higher level of competence (Darling-Hammond & Youngs, 2002). Moreover, other researchers have found that, with suitable facilitation, scaffolding enables teachers as PD participants to solve a problem, carry out a project assignment, and achieve a goal (Engin;Reiser;2004;Smit et al;Wood, Bruner & Ross, 1976). In addition, we surmised, when teachers are active, involved learners in their PD they are more likely to be responsible, motivated, and successful (Vacca, 2008).…”

Scaffolding norms of argumentation-based inquiry in a primary mathematics classroom

“…Over the past decades the metaphor has been extended to include whole-class settings (Smit, Van Eerde, & Bakker, 2013), learning artefacts as scaffolds (Sherin, Reiser, & Edelson, 2004), and long-term supporting systems such as curriculum (Cazden, 2001). For longer-term processes such as the learning of mathematical language or the establishing of norms, we need a conceptualisation of scaffolding that accounts for this time dimension (cf.…”

Flow-chart proofs with open problems as scaffolds for learning about geometrical proofs

“…In the literature (e.g. Yelland and Masters, 2007;Smit, van Eerde and Bakker, 2013;Belland, 2014), scaffolding has been discussed within another influential notion, that of the 'zone of proximal development' (ZPD), originally conceptualised 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). These two notions are generally recognised as something intertwined with each other as they collectively suggest that we need to identify learning progressions which novice learners have to take in order to master certain concepts, and that we need to design instructional interventions in order to scaffold such progressions.…”