Scaffolding dynamics and the emergence of problematic learning trajectories

The amount of instruction provided by teachers versus the amount of instruction actually received by their students in special education

“…Given the premise that teachers place much emphasis on approaching EBD students individually (Steenbeek, Jansen, and van Geert 2012;Cameron 2014) and students with disabilities actually require individual instruction (Cameron, Cook, and Tankersley 2012), the scarce occurrence of individual instruction found overall may be insufficient for meaningful learning gains. Moreover, almost half of the students did not receive any individual instruction.…”

“…This is quite comprehensible, as students with EBD need support to stay on-task during this stage of the instructional process. Intense reciprocal interaction between teacher and student is absolutely necessary to keep these students on track (Steenbeek, Jansen, and van Geert 2012).…”

“…Namely, given the special needs of these students and the fact that intense reciprocal interaction is necessary to keep them learning (Haydon et al 2012), it is conceivable that teachers place much emphasis on approaching these students individually Vaughn et al 2002;Steenbeek, Jansen, and van Geert 2012;Cameron 2014) or in small groups (Baker, Clark, Maier, and Viger 2008;Maggin et al 2009;Hart et al 2011). Generally, based on didactic principles, teachers start their lesson by addressing the whole group, reviewing prerequisite learning, followed by clear statements of the instructional goals, presentation and explanation of new material and guided practice.…”

Changing Patterns of Scaffolding and Autonomy During Individual Music Lessons: A Mixed Methods Approach

“…An alternative perspective based on the complex dynamic systems approach is that motivation and selfdetermination in particular-and learning in general-can be seen as bidirectional, dynamic processes in which student and teacher mutually influence each other. These teacher-student interactions, rather than (or complementary to) individual behaviors, are taken as the unit of analysis (Granott, 1998;Kupers, van Dijk, van Geert, & 134 McPherson, 2015;Meyer & Turner, 2002;Steenbeek, Jansen, & van Geert, 2012;Turner & Patrick, 2008).…”

“…On the other hand, most research based on the complex dynamic systems paradigm quantifies these data (by analyzing the occurrence of patterns in teacher-student interactions) in order to be able to zoom out and look at more global changes over time (Martin & Sherin, 2013). An illustration of this latter approach is a study by Steenbeek et al (2012) in which characteristics of moment-to-moment teacher-student interactions, in this case matches and mismatches in teacher and student actions and reactions, were linked to the emergence of problematic learning trajectories over a longer period of time (in this case 2 years). We see both approaches as complementary and together able to shed light on both how and why change occurs.…”