Examining the Nature of Scaffolding in an Early Literacy Intervention

Abstract

In this study, we used Reading Recovery as the context to examine the relationship between three types of contingent teaching (temporal, instructional, and domain contingency) and student outcomes in a one‐to‐one literacy tutoring setting. We first created a National Teacher Effectiveness Index for all Reading Recovery teachers in the country and then used that index to identify two distinct groups of teachers from an existing data repository of 38 Reading Recovery teachers in training: those whose students had either lower average gain scores at the end of the school year (n = 6) or higher average gain scores (n = 4). We coded 1,199 teacher and student moves when they interacted at difficulty while reading a new book with teacher support. Results from hierarchical linear modeling analyses showed no significant differences for instructional contingency (the amount of information provided at difficulty), no main effects, and a nonsignificant interaction. Nor did we find statistically significant differences between the two groups of teachers for temporal contingency (the frequency of help). Dramatic differences existed, however, for domain contingency (what the teachers focused on when providing help). Specifically, teachers of students with higher outcomes had 8.3 greater odds of prompting students to use sources of information that they were neglecting while trying to decode a word. These findings provide needed information about the processes of scaffolding and have important implications not only for reading instruction and intervention but also for the ways in which scaffolding is studied.

Scaffolding Word Solving While Reading: New Research Insights

“…As reported elsewhere about this research (E. Rodgers et al., ), we achieved 89% agreement across the raters when they coded the interactions for instructional and domain contingency.…”

“…We divided the videos into two groups: teachers whose students had higher outcomes than the national average for Reading Recovery and those whose students had lower outcomes than average. We used a statistical approach called hierarchical linear modeling to determine whether there were significant differences between the two groups of teachers in terms of how instructionally contingent they were and how domain contingent they were in their interactions to help students problem solve (E. Rodgers et al., ).…”

“…For the last 40 years, beginning with Wood, Bruner, and Ross's () seminal study, researchers and educators have tussled with how to operationalize scaffolding in practice (E. Rodgers, D'Agostino, Harmey, Kelly, & Brownfield, ). In fact, a recent review of scaffolding research found as many as 66 studies devoted to the topic in a 10‐year period alone, from 1998 to 2009, all covering a wide range of subject areas and grades (Van de Pol, Volman, & Beishuizen, ).…”

“…The purpose of this article is to share teaching implications of scaffolding word solving for beginning readers that emerged from a recent study that I coauthored (E. Rodgers et al., ). I will start by providing the background of the study and describing our major conclusions.…”

Oral Reading Accuracy: Findings and Implications From Recent Research

“…What source of information are you prompting when you scaffold word solving? Rodgers and colleagues’ () examination of what teachers focused on when helping students problem solve difficult words mattered quite a bit to student outcomes. Teachers who focused on sources of information (meaning, structure, visual) that were missing in students’ attempts at difficulty were eight times more likely to have students with higher outcomes than teachers who prompted information already used.…”