- Email: [email protected]
Conceptualising and grounding scaffolding in complex educational contexts
Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 2 (2013) 1–2
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Learning, Culture and Social Interaction journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lcsi
Conceptualising and grounding scaffolding in complex educational contexts The special issue brings together a collection of papers that critically examine and extend the existing conceptualisations of ‘scaffolding’ in the current psychological and educational literature. It aims at shedding new light on scaffolding from the perspective of theory, methodology and pedagogical practice. The scaffolding metaphor has its origin in the analysis of dyadic adult child interaction as introduced by Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976), and is closely connected to the socio-cultural theory of Vygotsky and his concept of Zone of Proximal Development (e.g., Vygotsky, 1978). The essence of the concept characterises the sensitive, supportive intervention of a more expert other in the progress of a learner who is actively involved in solving a problem, but who is not quite able to manage this task alone. Since this seminal work, the metaphor has been applied mainly to teaching and learning contexts where the problems addressed are well structured, and in experimental or naturalistic settings that involve one-to-one, expert–novice interactions. The authors of this issue elaborate the connexions between scaffolding and sociocultural theory. Sociocultural theory focuses on the mediation of teaching and learning and considers the role of language and other cultural tools in interactions. Common understanding cannot be taken for granted; rather, it has to be constructed as part of the interaction. The scaffolding concept therefore does not only apply to task completion but importantly extends to the language and symbols that the participants use in their efforts to create meaning and mutual understanding. This insight becomes crucial in 21st century classrooms where teachers have to adapt to learners with a diversity of cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Furthermore, new technologies, such as computers, internet and interactive whiteboard IWB, have revolutionised teaching and learning in our times. An urgent question is therefore what scaffolding processes look like, when they involve new mediational means, and what possibilities these means bring about. In the literature there is a lack of agreement on how to define scaffolding. Some recent studies have tended to consider any type of assistance by a tutor as scaffolding. Moreover, researchers sometimes look at scaffolding as a teacher's strategy, rather than as an interactive process in which tutor and tutee act responsively to each other. Scaffolding has been operationalised broadly by some, restrictedly by others, and researchers of interaction have found a lot of scaffolding or rather very little scaffolding, accordingly. A first challenge is, therefore, to reconceptualise scaffolding, starting from the original conception as sensitive support in interaction processes, acknowledging that scaffolding is not just any help, but a responsive help that contributes to the gradual hand over of responsibility from the tutor to the tutee. From this stand point, the authors in this issue consider the extent to which the metaphor of scaffolding can be constructively and fruitfully employed in diverse contexts without distorting or losing its meaning. A second challenge is to go beyond the dyadic interaction in well structured tasks that have been a characteristic of scaffolding studies and to consider how the concept can be extended to novel settings. Responding to the above challenges, the papers in this issue re-conceptualize and empirically ground the concept of scaffolding in complex and diverse experimental and naturalistic educational contexts that encompass a wide variety of interactional arrays. These include: expert–novice as well as peer interactions; small-group as well as whole class teaching and learning environments; teacher-led as well as child-led discussions; interactions with a teacher's actual or vicarious presence; and teacher–student and peer interactions which are and are not mediated by ICT (including computers and IWB). At the same time, the studies comprise teaching and learning of various knowledge domains, including mathematics, science, social studies, language and literacy in schools in the UK, the Netherlands and Mexico. They employ a variety of methodological approaches for micro-genetic as well as longitudinal analyses on the interactional and dialogic processes that sit at the heart of development, teaching and learning in these diverse sociocultural settings. In a review of current literature, a first paper by Christine Howe considers the claim that scaffolding leads to generalised and abstract learning. She shows that for learning to take place, the guidance of pupils by an expert is pivotal, but not sufficient. In her review, she highlights the crucial role of conflicting perspectives and the way these are resolved in peer interaction. Sylvia Rojas-Drummond and her colleagues, in their article, connect scaffolding theory with current dialogical approaches to teaching and learning. Their contribution is twofold. Firstly, they elaborate on the concept of scaffolding by connecting it to key sociocultural constructs, including importantly guided participation. Secondly, they propose a system of analysis, adapted from both scaffolding
2210-6561/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.12.002
2
E. Elbers et al. / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 2 (2013) 1–2
and dialogic conceptualisations of teaching and learning, which allows researcher observation of interaction in the classroom with new lenses. The research by Jantien Smit and Dolly van Eerde is based on observations of a series of mathematical lessons in a multilingual primary classroom. Their interest lies in how whole-class scaffolding can be conceptualised. They offer a long term perspective on the scaffolding of children's use of mathematical terms and expressions, and show how the scaffolding process, with its characteristic elements of diagnosis, responsiveness and gradual handover of responsibility, takes place. Janneke van de Pol and Ed Elbers, in their article, study teacher–student interaction in the context of students' work in small groups. Their analysis at a micro-level allows them to investigate the contingent and non-contingent adaptations of teacher regulation in response to students' contributions. By providing these detailed analyses of the contingency of teachers' support, these authors take the dynamic nature of scaffolding into account and are able to show how the teacher's contingent instructions influence students' shifts in understanding. Lastly, Paul Warwick, Neil Mercer and Ruth Kershner report a study on how teachers, through predesigned activities in the IWB, vicariously scaffold children's use of talk for learning in science. Their paper sheds new light into how affordances of IWBs relate to characteristics of scaffolding. In addition, it proposes novel theoretical insights into the relationships between scaffolding, dialogue and children's self-regulation. Taken together, these novel studies show how the concept of scaffolding can be meaningfully applied to learning and teaching in diverse contemporary educational settings. The papers thus contribute to our understanding and harnessing of processes of social interaction, dialogue, development, teaching and learning. References Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.
Ed Elbers Department of Education, Utrecht University, The Netherlands Utrecht University, Department of Education, Heidelberglaan 1, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands. Tel.: +31 30 2533010. E-mail address: [email protected]. Sylvia Rojas-Drummond Facultad de Psicologia, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México Janneke van de Pol Department of Education, Utrecht University, The Netherlands 5 October 2012
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Learning, Culture and Social Interaction journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lcsi
Conceptualising and grounding scaffolding in complex educational contexts The special issue brings together a collection of papers that critically examine and extend the existing conceptualisations of ‘scaffolding’ in the current psychological and educational literature. It aims at shedding new light on scaffolding from the perspective of theory, methodology and pedagogical practice. The scaffolding metaphor has its origin in the analysis of dyadic adult child interaction as introduced by Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976), and is closely connected to the socio-cultural theory of Vygotsky and his concept of Zone of Proximal Development (e.g., Vygotsky, 1978). The essence of the concept characterises the sensitive, supportive intervention of a more expert other in the progress of a learner who is actively involved in solving a problem, but who is not quite able to manage this task alone. Since this seminal work, the metaphor has been applied mainly to teaching and learning contexts where the problems addressed are well structured, and in experimental or naturalistic settings that involve one-to-one, expert–novice interactions. The authors of this issue elaborate the connexions between scaffolding and sociocultural theory. Sociocultural theory focuses on the mediation of teaching and learning and considers the role of language and other cultural tools in interactions. Common understanding cannot be taken for granted; rather, it has to be constructed as part of the interaction. The scaffolding concept therefore does not only apply to task completion but importantly extends to the language and symbols that the participants use in their efforts to create meaning and mutual understanding. This insight becomes crucial in 21st century classrooms where teachers have to adapt to learners with a diversity of cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Furthermore, new technologies, such as computers, internet and interactive whiteboard IWB, have revolutionised teaching and learning in our times. An urgent question is therefore what scaffolding processes look like, when they involve new mediational means, and what possibilities these means bring about. In the literature there is a lack of agreement on how to define scaffolding. Some recent studies have tended to consider any type of assistance by a tutor as scaffolding. Moreover, researchers sometimes look at scaffolding as a teacher's strategy, rather than as an interactive process in which tutor and tutee act responsively to each other. Scaffolding has been operationalised broadly by some, restrictedly by others, and researchers of interaction have found a lot of scaffolding or rather very little scaffolding, accordingly. A first challenge is, therefore, to reconceptualise scaffolding, starting from the original conception as sensitive support in interaction processes, acknowledging that scaffolding is not just any help, but a responsive help that contributes to the gradual hand over of responsibility from the tutor to the tutee. From this stand point, the authors in this issue consider the extent to which the metaphor of scaffolding can be constructively and fruitfully employed in diverse contexts without distorting or losing its meaning. A second challenge is to go beyond the dyadic interaction in well structured tasks that have been a characteristic of scaffolding studies and to consider how the concept can be extended to novel settings. Responding to the above challenges, the papers in this issue re-conceptualize and empirically ground the concept of scaffolding in complex and diverse experimental and naturalistic educational contexts that encompass a wide variety of interactional arrays. These include: expert–novice as well as peer interactions; small-group as well as whole class teaching and learning environments; teacher-led as well as child-led discussions; interactions with a teacher's actual or vicarious presence; and teacher–student and peer interactions which are and are not mediated by ICT (including computers and IWB). At the same time, the studies comprise teaching and learning of various knowledge domains, including mathematics, science, social studies, language and literacy in schools in the UK, the Netherlands and Mexico. They employ a variety of methodological approaches for micro-genetic as well as longitudinal analyses on the interactional and dialogic processes that sit at the heart of development, teaching and learning in these diverse sociocultural settings. In a review of current literature, a first paper by Christine Howe considers the claim that scaffolding leads to generalised and abstract learning. She shows that for learning to take place, the guidance of pupils by an expert is pivotal, but not sufficient. In her review, she highlights the crucial role of conflicting perspectives and the way these are resolved in peer interaction. Sylvia Rojas-Drummond and her colleagues, in their article, connect scaffolding theory with current dialogical approaches to teaching and learning. Their contribution is twofold. Firstly, they elaborate on the concept of scaffolding by connecting it to key sociocultural constructs, including importantly guided participation. Secondly, they propose a system of analysis, adapted from both scaffolding
2210-6561/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.12.002
2
E. Elbers et al. / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 2 (2013) 1–2
and dialogic conceptualisations of teaching and learning, which allows researcher observation of interaction in the classroom with new lenses. The research by Jantien Smit and Dolly van Eerde is based on observations of a series of mathematical lessons in a multilingual primary classroom. Their interest lies in how whole-class scaffolding can be conceptualised. They offer a long term perspective on the scaffolding of children's use of mathematical terms and expressions, and show how the scaffolding process, with its characteristic elements of diagnosis, responsiveness and gradual handover of responsibility, takes place. Janneke van de Pol and Ed Elbers, in their article, study teacher–student interaction in the context of students' work in small groups. Their analysis at a micro-level allows them to investigate the contingent and non-contingent adaptations of teacher regulation in response to students' contributions. By providing these detailed analyses of the contingency of teachers' support, these authors take the dynamic nature of scaffolding into account and are able to show how the teacher's contingent instructions influence students' shifts in understanding. Lastly, Paul Warwick, Neil Mercer and Ruth Kershner report a study on how teachers, through predesigned activities in the IWB, vicariously scaffold children's use of talk for learning in science. Their paper sheds new light into how affordances of IWBs relate to characteristics of scaffolding. In addition, it proposes novel theoretical insights into the relationships between scaffolding, dialogue and children's self-regulation. Taken together, these novel studies show how the concept of scaffolding can be meaningfully applied to learning and teaching in diverse contemporary educational settings. The papers thus contribute to our understanding and harnessing of processes of social interaction, dialogue, development, teaching and learning. References Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.
Ed Elbers Department of Education, Utrecht University, The Netherlands Utrecht University, Department of Education, Heidelberglaan 1, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands. Tel.: +31 30 2533010. E-mail address: [email protected]. Sylvia Rojas-Drummond Facultad de Psicologia, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México Janneke van de Pol Department of Education, Utrecht University, The Netherlands 5 October 2012