Individualising scaffolding: teachers' literacy interruptions of ethnic minority students and students from low socioeconomic backgrounds

Abstract

This paper describes a small‐scale study that examined the ways four elementary teachers in the United States scaffolded the literacy of students differently through interruptions. One thousand four hundred and ninety‐eight interruptions were identified and coded in the study. Findings show that teachers' interruption patterns frequently conflicted with or undermined their planned and voiced approaches to literacy instruction. The interruption patterns in this study indicated that some teachers' interactions with the ethnic minority students and students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, while somewhat individualised, had unrecognised patterns which focused these children on phonics and accuracy as opposed to comprehension and meaning. These patterns supported a more passive approach to literacy that replicates and reproduces class and race structures of society.

Scaffolding in Teacher–Student Interaction: A Decade of Research

“…Almost all of the studies had a focus on dialogue although some authors emphasized that non-verbal behavior and gestures should also be taken into account (Miller 2005). Some studies focused on teacher utterances or, alternatively, teacher interruptions (Mertzman 2008). Other studies focused more on the ongoing interaction and thus entailed the coding of teacher utterances in relation to student utterances (e.g., Lee 2001;Rodgers 2004;Pratt and Savoy-Levine 1998;Wu and Krajcik 2006).…”

“…Though most studies focused on subject-matter learning, some studies focused on other matters such as engagement (Lutz et al 2006) or identity formation (Tabak and Baumgartner 2004). In Appendix 1, more detailed Educ Psychol Rev (2010) 22:271-296 277 information on the characteristics of the empirical descriptive studies discussed in this section (domain, measurement of scaffolding, the type of task, and the intentions and means studied as derived from Mertzman (2008), for example, examined the ways in which four elementary school teachers scaffolded the literacy of their pupils (5-8 years old) and reported the following scaffolding techniques: modeling, scolds, praise, repetition, explanations of the answer, convergent questions, focus on meaning, and focus on word recognition and phonics. As mentioned in the previous section, some other authors discerned explicitly or implicitly between the focus of scaffolding; what is scaffolded and the means or tools for scaffolding; how scaffolding is performed (e.g., Maloch 2002;Many 2002;Postholm 2006;Rodgers 2004;Silliman et al 2000;Wu and Krajcik 2006;Yelland and Masters 2007).…”

“…Finally, Mertzman (2008), Oh (2005), Meskill (2005), and Reigosa and JimenezAleixandre (2007) included the successfulness of scaffolding in their definition of scaffolding, that is, scaffolding that does not work cannot-according to these authorsbe termed scaffolding.…”

“…Mertzman (2008), for example, examined the ways in which four elementary school teachers scaffolded the literacy of their pupils (5-8 years old) and reported the following scaffolding techniques: modeling, scolds, praise, repetition, explanations of the answer, convergent questions, focus on meaning, and focus on word recognition and phonics. As mentioned in the previous section, some other authors discerned explicitly or implicitly between the focus of scaffolding; what is scaffolded and the means or tools for scaffolding; how scaffolding is performed (e.g., Maloch 2002;Many 2002;Postholm 2006;Rodgers 2004;Silliman et al 2000;Wu and Krajcik 2006;Yelland and Masters 2007).…”

Reading Literacy and Learning Strategies in First Language Learning: A Multilevel Approach

“…However, teachers play a key role, in facilitating scaffolding in classrooms. According to Mertzman (2008), teachers' planned approaches to literacy instruction conflicted with interruption patterns, "when and how to support and guide students" (p. 183).…”