Effective Teaching and Learning Scaffolding Revisi

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/233305732
Effective Teaching and Learning: Scaffolding Revisited
Article in Oxford Review of Education · March 1996

DOI: 10.1080/0305498960220103
CITATIONS READS
112 5,721
3 authors, including:
Mike Askew
University of the Witwatersrand
63 PUBLICATIONS 917 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Development of primary mathematics teaching View project
Foundation Phase teacher development View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Mike Askew on 03 June 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Effective Teaching and Learning: Scaffolding Revisited
Author(s): Joan Bliss, Mike Askew, Sheila Macrae
Source: Oxford Review of Education, Vol. 22, No. 1, Vygotsky and Education (Mar., 1996), pp.
37-61
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1050802
Accessed: 10/10/2010 06:10
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Oxford Review of
Education.
http://www.jstor.org
Oxford Review of Education, Vol. 22, No. 1, 1996 37
Effective Teaching and Learning: scaffolding revisited
JOAN BLISS, MIKE ASKEW & SHEILA MACRAE
ABSTRACT Education has taken on board the conceptsof 'scaffolding'and 'Zone of

Proximal Development' because embedded within them is a psycho-social model of
teaching and learning. In this paper these conceptsare examined in schooling contexts
rather than those of everyday life. A first section outlines the ideas of the American
socio-culturalschool,for example, Cole, Lave, Rogoff etc. and their link with the work
of Vygotsky. Threesectionsare then devotedto a briefappraisalof the work of researchers
who have beenparticularlyconcernedwith scaffoldingand schooling:Newman, Griffin
and Cole; Tharp and Gallimore,and Woodon effectivelearningthroughscaffoldingand
contingent control. Section 7 is devoted to our researchwhich sets out to explore and
identify scaffolding strategies in three specific primary schooling contexts: design and
technology, mathematics and science. We show the difficulty of scaffolding specialist
knowledge and analyse the reasons for the absence of scaffolding in the classrooms
observed. The last two sections set out our ideas on the differencesbetween scaffolding
everyday knowledgeand specialistknowledge.
1. INTRODUCTION
Ways of thinking about learning and teaching, which for the past two decades have
been significantly influenced by constructivism, are now changing owing to Vygotsky's
influence in two important ways. First, the notion of the adult as crucial to the learning
process is of major importance in Vygotsky's thinking. This new focus arises from the
manner in which Vygotsky defines a child's potential for development, or what is
known as the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), as:
... the distance between the actual development as determined by indepen-
dent problem solving and level of potential development as determined
through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more
capable peers. (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86)
Secondly, the importance attributed to the child's potential development radically
changes ideas about the relationship between learning and development. Until recently
children's spontaneous development had always been the major concern of the educa-
tor. Kozulin (1990) pointed out that for Vygotsky, psychological development does not
precede instruction but depends on it, the difference between actual and potential
development being crucial:
... [ZPD] taps those psychological functions which are in the process of
development and which are likely to be overlooked if the focus is exclusively
on the unassisted child's performance. (p. 170)
Wood et al. (1976) proposed the notion of 'scaffolding' to describe the tutorial process
0305-4985/96/010037-25 ? 1996 Carfax Publishing Ltd

38 OxfordReview of Education
where an adult or 'expert' helps somebody who is less adult or less expert. Intervention
of a tutor in problem solving is crucial because it '... involves a kind of "scaffolding"
process that enables a child or novice to solve a problem, carry out a task or achieve a
goal which would be beyond his unassisted efforts' (p. 90). Bruner argued that, for
Vygotsky, the adult scaffolds in such a way that it is possible for the child '... to
internalise knowledge and convert it [the scaffold] into a tool for conscious control ...
[the adult serving as] a vicarious form of consciousness until such a time as the learner
is able to master his own action through his own consciousness and control' (Bruner,
1986, p. 123).
2. FOCUS OF THIS PAPER
The concepts of 'scaffolding' and ZPD have become important guiding ideas in
education because within them are embedded a psycho-social model of teaching and
learning. But, as yet, research focusing on the nature of scaffolds and their functions in
specific schooling contexts is limited. The focus of this paper is an examination of these
concepts in schooling contexts rather than those of everyday life. Section 3 provides a
background framework, giving an outline of the American socio-cultural approach
where the idea of scaffolding everyday knowledge is promoted. In Section 4 we discuss
Newman, Griffin and Cole's ideas about school learning and teaching in the zone of
proximal development. Tharp and Gallimore's work is the focus of Section 5, more
particularly their use of assisted performance rather than scaffolding in teaching. We
then set out in Section 6 Wood's idea about how effective learning can be promoted
through scaffolding and contingent control. Section 7 is devoted to our research which
set out to explore the practical and theoretical implications of applying the idea of
scaffolding to the study of school teaching and learning in three specific contexts:
design and technology, mathematics and science. The final discussion of Section 8 sets
out our ideas of the differences between scaffolding everyday knowledge and specialist
knowledge.
3. THE AMERICAN SOCIO-CULTURAL APPROACH
The American socio-cultural approach has had a major input into work on scaffolding.
Two of its proponents, Rogoff & Gardner (1984), argue that social interaction is an
important 'cultural amplifier' to extend children's cognitive processes, with the adult
serving the role of expert in introducing children to society's material and conceptual
tools. The socio-cultural approach sees context and cultural practice as the fundamen-
tal units within which cognition has to be analysed. Human mental functioning is seen
as emerging from and located in social practices. Such a theory of culture and cognition
resists the separation of the individual from the daily life environment, focusing on
activity within socially assembled situations.
The work of Vygotsky is crucial to the socio-cultural approach since, as the Labora-
tory of Comparative Human Cognition (1988) pointed out, '... we have not said much
about how within-context interactions result in within-context mastery of essential
cultural knowledge' (p. 334). Vygotsky provided the theoretical anchoring needed by
making explicit the crucial connection between interaction and development through
the ZPD and its use in understanding the role of instruction, with cultures organising
learning environments for their members.
Greenfield (1984) highlights a number of the early ideas about scaffolding based on
Effective Teachingand Learning 39
Wood et al. (1978). She argues that sensitivity to instruction lies in the gap between
comprehension and production. In order for a new skill to be acquired it must be
comprehensible even though it has not yet been produced. Scaffolding involves keeping
the task constant, '... scaffolding ... does not involve simplifying the task during the
period of learning. Instead it holds the task constant while simplifying the learner's role
through the graduated intervention of the teacher' (Greenfield, p. 119). Use of
language is a good example of the gap between comprehension and production. For
instance, children can understand instructions and reproduce actions, following these
instructions, before they themselves can articulate that same language. Some studies
have shown that there is a gap of two years between the use of quantifiers such as 'more,
the same and less' and their production in children's speech.
The work of the American socio-cultural school focuses on areas of informal
learning, for example, how the adults negotiate with children the goals of activities at
home, or how children learn their mother tongue from their parents. In adult situations,
people have been observed learning to weave, tailor, throw pots, ski, etc. In many of
these situations the teaching strategies are not necessarily deliberately employed. Thus,
accounts of this work turn around global descriptions of how scaffolding happens in
everyday settings and less so around formal schooling. The work of Newman et al.
(1989)-as described in the next section-takes the idea of scaffolding into school.
4. THE ZONE OF PROXIMAL DEVELOPMENT

The ZPD, or the Construction Zone, is the focus of the work of Newman et al. (1989)
because, for them, cognitive change takes place and can be observed within this zone.
Their analysis proposes that when children enter the ZPD their cognitive systems will
be modified to take on the system of interactions in the ZPD, dominated by the adult
system of understandings. There is asymmetry between adult and child. Directionality
comes from the domain to be learned, '... the "truth" of maths, geography etc. is the
end point towards which systems of learning and development are pointed' (p. 74).
Although they place the source of cognitive change in the social world, it does not
follow from this that children simply obtain copies of a culture's knowledge through a
process of direct transmission. Newman, Griffin and Cole, like Piaget, see a process of
construction at work but with the origins of knowledge in the social interactions, thus
stressing the importance of the teacher. Children travel through the ZPD in ways which
have not been anticipated, based on their own appropriation of what the teacher makes
available. This also means that, in the school context, the ZPD is not characterised by
an invariant task because the negotiation between teacher and child may change it.
Although the dominant task definition is that of the teacher in a movement towards the
adult system, '... each step is an interactive construction with a variety of possible
outcomes' (p. 75).
Newman, Griffin and Cole, in characterising mechanisms of conceptual change,
propose to use Leont'ev's idea of 'appropriation'. Appropriation of tools comes though
involvement in culturally organised activities in which tools play a role. Less clear is the
way in which appropriation works. According to them, because in the ZPD participants
are either novices or experts, not all parties have the same notion of what is going to
happen, but '... if the educational activity is successful the teacher and the children all
act as if the children are "somewhere else". That other "place" is where they [the
children] could be if their [teachers'] acts are appropriated and if the children appropri-
ate the activities and tools of the others that cohabit in the ZPD' (Newman et al., 1989,
p. 64). They acknowledge that the situation appears paradoxical. For example, if
children need to lean division, it has to be presumed that pupils cannot do it but that
in order for the lesson to work, '... the presumption is that whatever the children are
doing can become a way of doing division!' (p. 64).
In characterising learning in the ZDP, Newman, Griffin and Cole would appear to
say that teachers attempt to teach an idea and pupils attempt to make as much sense
of it as they can, given their own understandings at that time. Receiving encouragement
for their progress, even if only part way along the learning path, learners believe they
are doing well. Teachers also believe pupils will learn more next time. By successive
approximations, learners move towards the teacher's understanding of the idea being
taught. We think that while this is one possible description of what happens during the
teaching-learning process, it would appear to use a notion of 'ambiguity' rather than
one of 'appropriation'. White highlights this:
One of the more compelling things about the Newman, Griffin and Cole's
formulation is that it brings, at last, into our talk about instruction that slight
aura of fuzziness and confusion that is always the backdrop to real communi-
cation among people. Teachers and pupils need not understand one another
much more than people generally do, or attain extraordinary precision of
communication to maintain a worthwhile educational process. (White, 1989,
p. xii).
It is worth noting that the idea 'directionality', provided by the input of the domain
knowledge, is treated as unproblematic. The ease or difficulty of the knowledge to be
learned is not analysed. In discussing how knowledge is assimilated they propose that
within the ZPD objects do not have an unique analysis-a sum, a poem, a concept such
as equivalent fractions, can be understood from a number of different points of view.
But these differences need not cause 'trouble' for the teacher or the child or
the social interaction; the participants can act as if their understandings are the
same. At first, this systematic vagueness about what the object 'really is' may
appear to make cognitive analysis impossible. However it now appears to us
that this looseness is just what is needed to allow change to happen when
people with different analyses interact. It is also the key element for the
process of 'appropriation', (Newman et al., 1989, p. 62)
Again, it would seem to us that 'ambiguity' appears to play an important role.
5. ASSISTED PERFORMANCE REPLACES SCAFFOLDING?
Tharp and Gallimore, while acknowledging the term scaffolding, prefer the idea of
'means of assisting'. For them: 'Teaching consists in assisting performance through the
ZDP. Teaching can be said to occur when assistance is offered at points in the ZDP at
which performance requires assistance' (1991, p. 46). Their argument is that, while it
is natural for adults to assist children in everyday life interactions, this is much less
common in classrooms. With large classrooms it is difficult for teachers to know all the
children well and so provide the '... sensitive and accurate assistance that challenges but
does not upset the learners. The social practices, ideas of fairness and justice, etc. are
often very different in schools and homes. Teachers necessarily behave differently with
pupils in school than with their own children at home. So while parents do not need
help with assisted performance, Tharp and Gallimore claim that teachers do. However,
they suggest that while schools do have particular constraints and technological de-
mands, nonetheless:
... they [schools] have much to learn by examining the informal pedagogy of
everyday life. The principles of good teaching are not different for school than
for home and community. When true teaching is found in schools it observes
the same principles that teaching exhibits in informal settings. (Tharp &
Gallimore, 1988, p. 27)
They propose that there are three major mechanisms for cognitively assisting learners
through the ZPD: modelling, contingency management and feedback. In addition,
three specifically linguistic means of assistance are proposed: instructing, questioning
and cognitive structuring. These same mechanisms can later become meta-cognitive
strategies for learners to control their own learning.
With the exception of cognitive structuring, the other means of assisting seem to us
to be fairly standard teaching strategies already used with varying degrees of success by
teachers. Through 'modelling' teachers can demonstrate something and pupils can
imitate this behaviour. This, however, assumes that the pupils have actually understood
what is being demonstrated. Contingency management is about teachers rewarding or
punishing pupils' behaviour, but this does not generate new behaviour. Feedback can be
extremely powerful, allowing pupils to compare themselves with some established
standard. Thus far we would agree with Tharp and Gallimore. However, we would also
ask whether such feedback guarantees analysis of 'wrong' or 'inappropriate' responses,
the pupils' own conceptualisations of the teachers' ideas, or builds bridges from the
pupils' knowledge to the school knowledge. Without this later type of feedback,
children's learning makes no progress.
Tharp and Gallimore make an important distinction between questioningthat assesses
and questioning that assists. But can pupils see this difference? Also, as Wood (1991)
shows, the more the teacher questions, the less the pupils say. Instructing entails
teachers taking responsibility for the performance, not expecting children to act on their
own. But instruction is important in a different way since Tharp and Gallimore claim
that instructions can be converted into meta-cognitive strategies:
The non-instructing teacher may be denying the learner the most valuable
residue of the teaching interaction: that heard, regulating voice, a gradually
internalised voice, that then becomes the pupil's self regulating 'still small'
instructor. (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988, p. 57)
While we accept the importance of instruction-and of modelling-we ask again
whether pupils simply 'copy' or imitate the instructing teacher? Do pupils' internalisa-
tions mirror teachers' messages? We suggest that pupils make sense of teachers'
instructions in their own ways, sometimes very different from those of the teacher.
With cognitive structuringteachers assist pupils to organise their own experience either
by providing explanations or by suggesting meta-level strategies to help pupils organise
their work. For Tharp and Gallimore, this latter kind of assistance is within the realm
of meta-cognition, for example, structures for memorisation, or rules for accumulating
evidence. This raises the issue of whether scaffolding is considered as similar to or
identical with meta-cognition.
Tharp and Gallimore are under no illusion that such means of assisting are easy.
They point out that teachers need to learn good pedagogical practices and master the
subject matter but that teacher training rarely provides these. For them, teaching is
nested within school which is nested within society. But, '... the larger society is the
context that hatches the activity setting of classrooms, but it is classrooms that produce
the problem solving styles and discourse meanings that prepare new citizens to operate
in mature society. This is a formidable structure indeed and little wonder that it is
conservative' (1988, p. 275). Their message is somewhat pessimistic.
6. SCAFFOLDING AND CONTINGENT CONTROL OF LEARNING

Wood (1986, 1991), too, points out that, '... teaching is a complex, difficult and often
subtle activity', where the teacher's task is not only to transmit facts and information
but also to initiate pupils into ways of conceptualising and reasoning. He proposes that
effective teaching needs contingent control of learning, entailing two fundamental rules
for the teacher: (i) a child's failure must be met by an immediate increase in help or
control; (ii) a child's success in following instruction requires that any further instruc-
tion offers less help than that which pre-dated success.
In examining the relationship between scaffolding and contingent control of learning
Wood firmly puts the emphasis on the learner. The learner needs to make sense of the
world and so must discover those aspects of it to which attention must be given. But
just which ones are they? For Wood, 'uncertainty' is at the heart of human abilities:
When we find ourselves needing to act in a very unfamiliar situation, uncer-
tainty is high and our capacity to attend to and remember objects, features and
events within the situation is limited. Children, being novices of life in general,
are potentially confronted with more uncertainty than the more mature and,
hence, their abilities to select, remember and plan are limited in proportion.
Without help in organising their attention and activity, children may be
overwhelmed by uncertainty. (Wood, 1991, p. 105)
Before helping children with a task, it is necessary to involve them in it. 'Recruitment'
(Wood et al., 1976) becomes 'task induction'-a primary scaffolding function and a sine
qua non of effective learning. Once the learner is involved in the task other scaffolding
functions become operative. Strategies such as 'reduction of degrees of freedom' and
'marking critical features' help pupils to start the task. While 'direction maintenance'
and 'frustration control' keep pupils on the task.
For Wood, learners' limited cognitive resources are effectively supported and aug-
mented by scaffolding which enables them to concentrate on and master the task in
hand. Contingent control is regulatory in that it helps to ensure that, '... the demands
placed on the child are likely neither to be too complex, producing defeat, nor too
simple, generating boredom or distraction' (1991, p. 108).
Wood suggests that the conditions for the generation of contingent learning environ-
ments are more likely to be located in the home or local culture than in school. With
schooling:
We are studying two complex systems that know things: teacher and child. We
believe that these two systems are in asymmetrical states, in that the teacher
knows more than the child and has responsibility for transferring that knowl-
edge. But the asymmetry is not entirely one-sided. The child also knows
things about the world and himself that the teacher does not know. (Wood,
1991, p. 111)
Highlighting some of the problems of teaching and learning, Wood shows that ques-
tioning does not always serve the purpose intended, silencing pupils rather than getting
answers. Also teachers usually start and sustain interactions by demanding and asking,
rather than showing or telling. Demands and questions are forms of control. In
teacher-pupil dialogues, pupils usually only make single moves while teachers' moves
are multi-layered, for example, accepting children's statements, contributing to the
dialogue, asking yet another question.
He argues that effective teaching does not always guarantee sufficient and necessary
conditions for learning. Failure to learn should not be located in the child but seen, '...
as an emergent property of teacher-learner interaction. These, in turn, are tightly
constrained by the nature of the institutions that we have invented to bring teachers and
learners together' (1991, p. 118). While learners are not necessarily to blame for not
learning, the question still remains as to how we can improve teaching. Are the
conditions surrounding learning in school such that it is difficult to achieve successful
learning?
7. OUR STUDY
Objectives
In this study, one of our overall aims was to explore whether the model of scaffolding
used for acquiring everyday knowledge could transfer to specialised school knowledge.
Following on from this, a second aim was to develop a taxonomy of scaffolding
strategies used in three domains-mathematics, science and design and technology-
and how such strategies permit pupils to adopt and maintain responsibility for tasks.
Thus, we set out to identify, classify and describe the functions of scaffolding strategies
used spontaneously and then reflectively by teachers when working with 9 to 11 year
old pupils (at Key Stage 2) in these three domains. We planned to do this through
looking in detail at a small number of teachers over four terms.
Method
Thirteen teachers were involved in our study: five teachers formed the 'core' sample
and a further eight were prepared to take the place of the main participants in the event
of withdrawal. In total, 12 classes of Key Stage 2 pupils were involved: six Year 6, three
Years 5 and 6, three Year 5. A little into the project we perceived that staff expectations
in one school were in conflict with those of the rest of the team and the other teachers
involved in the study. In the interests of all concerned, it was decided to drop that
school.
The plan of the study was iterative: (i) exploratoryphase-school-based work followed
by reflective work out of school (two terms); (ii) developmental phase-also school-
based, followed by reflective work out of school (two terms). During the exploratory
phase we had planned to identify spontaneous scaffolding strategies which would be
'nurtured' and encouraged during the out-of school reflective work. The developmental
phase was to observe these more reflective scaffolding strategies, with discussion of their
role in learning during the out-of-school work, with a view to developing the taxonomy.
The methods of data collection and analysis were qualitative. The work in schools
had two main foci:
(1) Observation of selected lessons in the areas of design and technology, mathemat-
ics and science for each teacher. The aim was to follow the progress of group/s
of pupils and a teacher in a subject area. Audio recordings were made and field
notes taken of all lessons, and videos were made of about 50% of lessons.
(2) Interviews with teachers before and after lessons and with pupils after lessons.
Interviews with teachers were to determine their plans and goals and, afterwards,
their assessment of these. Pupils were interviewed to ascertain whether their
perceptions matched those of the teacher.
During the reflective out-of-school work, the teachers visited the Department (of the
University carrying out the study) for one day, every second week, for a term. The
agenda for discussion consisted of some mix of: video tapes of the teachers themselves
to identify possible scaffolding strategies; examination of lesson plans and written
accounts of teachers' work in school to identify scaffolding strategies; identification of
different types of scaffolds needed for mathematics, science, design and technology
domains; scrutiny of observation of classroom practice when teachers visited one
another's schools and observed one another's lessons.
First Results
During the third term of the study, one of our major findings emerged: a relative
absence of scaffolding in most lessons. Two factors appeared significant: the teaching
strategies used by teachers and their subject knowledge. There were many examples of
teachers leading pupils down dark tunnels (metaphorically speaking), dropping clues,
hints and bits of information as they went. In many lessons the task goal was obscure
and teachers appeared to think that explaining the whole task would give the game
away. Talking with pupils revealed their uncertainty of lesson goals. In interviews,
teachers overestimated the success of their lessons compared with the understanding
demonstrated by interviewed pupils.
Three of the four teachers expressed lack of confidence in teaching science and
design and technology, their knowledge (from their own schooling) bearing little
relevance to what they had to teach. None had much knowledge of design and
technology. This worry about teaching these new areas of the curriculum revealed itself
through a preponderance of mathematics lessons in the first part of our study. This
necessitated our observing pre-specified lessons mainly in science and design and
technology, for the rest of the study.
Discussion Thus Far
Arising from this relative absence of scaffolding, we were faced with asking ourselves a
number of questions. Our first question concerned our own approach to helping
teachers to scaffold either in school or out of school. How much time is required to
internalise, own and use new approaches to teaching, that is, approaches involving scaffolding
strategies?
During the reflective out-of-school phase, when examining videos of their own
lessons, the role of trusted colleagues had been important to give the teachers
confidence. In lesson plan discussions teachers revealed that they were able to plan
lessons with scaffolding but that implementation proved difficult. They saw no intrinsic
differences in scaffolding the different subject areas. Although teachers had described
ways in which working together changed their thinking, the results of the 'live'
observations were disappointing. Those teaching continued to be unaware of strategies
used, whilst teacher observers described almost every strategy as scaffolding.
When the teachers returned to school after the reflective phase, they professed
improved practice and demonstrated greater confidence in discussing scaffolding, but

there was no significant increase in the number of instances that could be described as
scaffolding. When scaffolds were used these were usually on a one-to-one basis. It was
during this phase that we realised our teachers could 'talk scaffolding' but appeared to
implement it only marginally. Their focus was on teaching rather than on pupils'
learning.
This led to two further questions:
* Does the model of scaffolding of everyday knowledge transfer to school knowledge?

* Could we scrutinise the observed lessons for reasons for absence of scaffolding?
We decided to carry out an in-depth analysis of a cross-section of lessons from our four
teachers, to describe what was happening in classrooms in an attempt to understand the
absence of scaffolding. For this, we constructed a new analytic tool which permitted a
detailed characterisation of classroom interactions, including identification of reasons
for absence of scaffolding and descriptions of various kinds of scaffolds.
New Analytic Scheme, Findings and Classroom Examples

In this section we shall look at three aspects of the findings:
* classroom examples to illustrate our analytic scheme;

* profiles of our four teachers;
* profiles of the lessons given.
Before discussing the scheme and its application to the data, we give just a few details
of our approach and how it evolved. Our main criteria were to select lessons for each
teacher: (i) within each of the three subject areas; (ii) which exhibited a range of
teaching strategies; (iii) which were typical of that teacher's style. Initially, the very long
transcripts were broken down into episodes. Accounts of intentions and outcomes of
each episode were written, providing overviews of lessons' development. Episodes had
an internal coherence allowing us to interrupt momentarily, for the purpose of analysis,
the 'relentless flow of the lesson'. Final analysis involved an iterative, grounded
approach, moving back and forth between the evolving framework and the episodes in
transcripts. Emerging from this analysis was a scheme for grouping reasons for absence
of scaffolds or descriptions of types of scaffolds.
Four major groupings of reasons for the absence of scaffolds were identified:
(1) Scaffolding precluded by use of directive teacher strategies.

(2) Scaffolding excluded by initiative being given to pupils.
(3) Teacher/pupil talk but no real interaction: pseudo-interactions or bypassings.
(4) Conditions for scaffolding present but not noticed by the teacher.
Three major groupings describing the presence of different types of scaffolds were
identified:
(5) Attempted, but unsuccessful, scaffolds with unexpected consequences.

(6) Unintended scaffolding.
(7) Scaffolds.
Since there were only four teachers and we used only a limited selection of lessons for
the analysis it was impractical to use sophisticated analyses to quantify the results, and
so we provide percentages of frequencies of presence of the categories of the scheme.
The four groupings of reasons for absence of scaffolding accounted for just under
two-thirds of all instances (65%): the grouping concerned with pseudo-interactions or
bypassings comprised over a quarter of all instances (29%), while the remaining other
three groupings clustered at just over 10% of the instances for each (36% in total).
Descriptions of the presence of scaffolding thus accounted for 35% of all instances,
with successful scaffolds themselves representing only 22% of all instances observed;
these were usually approval or encouragement scaffolds. Attempted but unsuccessful
scaffolds accounted for about 10% of all instances. Unintended scaffolds were much
less, only 3%, but this is probably because we do not yet have a sharp enough coding
instrument to note definite responses to non-verbal gestures and actions.
Pseudo-interactions or bypassings are worthy of note, given the difficulty of joint
interaction experienced by our teachers. This grouping has the highest incidence of
instances and is part of all teachers' profiles. Such a finding reveals that, in many
instances, teachers, for whatever reasons, are possibly not paying as much attention to
pupils' responses as expected. We now describe the analytic scheme in some further
detail, particularly Category 3, pseudo-interactions or bypassings.
Reasons for absence of scaffolding. We have mentioned four major groupings of reasons
for absence of scaffolds. In Category 1-scaffolding precluded by use of directive teaching
strategy-for a range of reasons, such as necessity to get some new or difficult ideas over
clearly, time constraints, etc., teachers decide that it is important to be directive-as a
means of communicating something-thus they keep the initiative in the episode.
However, this often means that an episode contains a substantial amount of 'teacher
talk' with little or no room for 'pupil talk'. In Category 2 scaffolding is excluded by
initiative being given to pupils. Pupils were usually left to do the task without much help
from the teacher. The issue that needs to be addressed here is whether or not pupils
have enough resources on their own to make progress or whether they will acquire them
from somewhere else (e.g. other adults, peers, books, etc.).
Category 3-pseudo-interactions or bypassings-in this third grouping, teachers at-
tempted to develop joint activity, the linchpin of scaffolding, but it was more difficult
than anticipated. Their attempts had some superficial features of joint activity but were
effectively pseudo-interactions or bypassings. These are interactions where both partici-
pants are present but not really interacting. Such 'interactions' had several effects, the
major one being that the role of pupils' contributions was minimised. There are two
major types of sub-groupings:
(1) The teacher interprets, or translates pupils' contributions and/or ideas into
her/his own thinking. This is often in line with the task goals and requires pupils
to 'ignore' all they know or believe. It is as though pupils are not expected to use
their existing knowledge or ideas, or are expected to put them aside and not let
them influence how they do the task. Sometimes this extends to ignoring the
pupils' contributions, or letting them 'hang-fire'. This situation is, of course,
problematic. From evidence, pupils would appear to drop their ideas. However,
we do not know whether or not these carry on in pupils' minds with subsequent
statements/actions of teacher and peers being interpreted by pupils in the light of
these unresolved ideas or beliefs.
(2) Both teacher and pupils talk but each has a different agenda from the other.
Pupils would appear to be pursuing a different line of thinking from that of the
teacher and each side goes along in its own direction, regardless of the other.
This sometimes has a slightly different appearance in that pupils' responses
appear to show little understanding of the subject under discussion. The teacher
does not probe the response or seek any clarification from pupils but glosses over
these possibly because of the need to move the lesson on.
In Category 4-conditions for scaffolding present but not noticed by the teacher-pupils are
crying out to be scaffolded but teacher does not see it, or perhaps chooses not to see
it. Evidence from transcripts or video tapes show that pupils have a problem with an
idea, or are confused about something. The misunderstanding or misconception needs
to be dealt with and made explicit with the teacher's help. On these occasions it is not
clear why the teacher does not follow up the situation. There are several possible
hypotheses about such cases but, of course, it is often not possible from the transcript
of the lesson or even from the interview with the teacher to ascertain what is the real
reason.
Presence of differenttypes of scaffolding. There were three major groupings to describe the
presence of different types of scaffolding. In Category 5-attempted, but unsuccessful,
scaffolds with unexpected consequences-the teacher's behaviour is meant to be a scaffold
but pupil/s interpret it in a way that is different from that expected by the teacher. The
scaffold used 'tunes in' to a different wave length with pupils; in other words, the
scaffold misfires. Pupils' responses would lead to unintended consequences, not wanted
within the framework of the lesson. Usually the teacher does not spell out to pupils the
meaning of their responses and unintended consequences to which they could lead. It
is possible that the teacher feels this would distract from the goal and direction of the
task.
In Category 6-unintended scaffolding-the teacher's actions or words scaffold but
without the teacher's intent. In other words, teachers may do or say something which
helps pupils in an unexpected way, or which is interpreted by pupils in an unexpected
manner. Sometimes this unintended scaffold can have good consequences, but at other
times the consequences may be disastrous. With an unintended scaffold the teacher will
not necessarily be conscious of the fact that pupils' unexpected answers are in response
to something s/he has done. There were very few unintended scaffolds and we do not
include them in this paper.
Category 7 covered actual scaffolds and the majority were approval, encouragement,
structuring work, or organising people scaffolds. There were a number of other
scaffolds such as props scaffolds where the teacher provides a suggestion that will help
pupils throughout the task or localised scaffolds or starting to climb the ladder. With these
latter scaffolds the teacher finds it difficult to help the pupil with an overall idea or
concept simply because it is too large and complex. Therefore, teacher scaffolds one
part of it which could put the pupil on the foot of the ladder to the more general
concept.
There were two other scaffolds which were really more like cueing: the Alpine guide:
step-by-step or foothold scaffolds; and hints and slots scaffolds. With the former, sometimes
arguments in teaching are a little difficult. One way to keep going is to lead step by step
in a series of questions. Each step in the argument is turned into a question, and each
question expects an answer which will, in turn, permit the next question. The latter
type of scaffold refers to those occasions when it is difficult to ask open-ended questions
which really work. 'What is ...?' questions often lead to one specific answer. Sometimes
it is tempting to narrow the question down further and further until only one answer
fits. The answer is a filler for a slot in a statement.
We now give examples taken from four lessons. The examples are fairly extensive and
we hope the reader will be patient with the length; however, it is very difficult to get the
feel or the sense of a lesson without a fair amount of background which contextualises
the example. Lessons 1 and 2 illustrate Categories 3 and 4, bypassings and misfired
scaffolds, plus one hints and slots scaffold. Lesson 3 gives examples of mainly missed
scaffolds, and lesson 4 shows the beginnings of a teacher directedlesson with pupils working
on their own (Categories 1 and 2), together with two misfired scaffolds.
Lesson 1: Area
This was a Year 6, top ability group, with eight pupils: two girls and six boys, the class
size was 27. This is the third in a series of lessons dealing with area and perimeter. The
first lesson, four days earlier, in which the group was asked to find the most economical
way to pen Farmer Giles' hens, proved too difficult for the majority. That lesson dealt
mainly with area. The teacher decided that she needed to backtrack and in the
following lesson the same pupils worked on finding the perimeter of different sized
rectangles. The lesson finished with a challenge from the teacher to find out which of
a circle, square or rectangle, with the same perimeter, had the largest area. She had
already told them that she thought the answer would be a circle but the pupils were not
convinced.
One of the major problems in the second lesson was that some of the pupils thought
that the perimeter of a rectangle changed (got bigger) when drawn diagonally on
squared paper. This problem recurs in this third lesson. We start the lesson at Line 70
of the transcript:
Teacher: Do you remember when we rotated it, because we sort of rotated it, didn't
we, we moved the square around, or the rectangle around, and we still
found that the perimeter was the same, didn't we?
Mark: But if we put it on the square paper though, the size of the perimeter would
change.
Teacher: What do you mean?
Mark: Well if you work on lined paper and rotated it (demonstrates rotating a
rectangle on lined paper)-
Warren: Or like that (Warren rotates the rectangle in the opposite direction).
Mark: If that was plain paper and you rotated it-
Teacher: Would the distance around be any different if you rotated it, whether or not
it was on square paper or lined?
Harvey: No.
Teacher: Just a minute, Harvey, let Mark go on because I think he's saying ...
Harvey: You drew it!
Teacher: Just a second, because I am not sure Mark's convinced yet.
Mark: If you, if that were not squared paper, then, and you had a rectangle and
then you drew it like that way (straight on) and then you rotated it to go that
way (diagonally), then I think that it would not be the distance around-
would not be the same.
Teacher: You think it would not be the same?
Mark: I don't know, I'm not sure, I think it changes if you turn it.
Teacher: Let me try and be clear what I think Mark is saying (pause). Are you saying
the perimeter is different because I've moved it around?
Mark: (looking less sure) I don't know, no ...
Teacher: No?
Mark: If like, it was on this (plain paper), not this (squared paper), I don't know,
if that was em-
Teacher: Go on, go on.
[Mark looks puzzled and says nothing. Other pupils want to join in. When it is clear
that Mark is not going to say anything, the teacher asks Warren to enlarge]
Warren: If it was, I think what Mark's trying to say is, if you drew it on here like it
is there and straight (not diagonal) then it would, no, if you've done it
diagonally the line, he's trying to say, I think he's trying to say it would be
different.
[Conversation between three other children]
Teacher: So let me just try and be clear what you're saying. I think what you are
saying is, here's one, is that if you draw it, it's covering a different number
of squares, but that's not the same as being a different measurement, is it?
Because if you actually measure that distance around it's the same, isn't it,
as whether you measure it that distance round ... (referring to measuring the
rectangle when it is placed straight on or diagonally on the paper).
Bypassings or pseudo-interactions. In this sequence Mark believed that placing a rectangle

diagonally on squared paper (and possibly later on plain paper) would lead to the
perimeter changing its length. During the exchange between the teacher and Mark, the
teacher did not try to find out why Mark holds this belief. In the end, the teacher told
Mark what she wanted him to think, thus attempting to put his idea in line with the goal
of the task, she did not really acknowledge his problem. Here the teacher ignored the
child's ideas, translating them into her own and in this manner asking the child to set
aside his previous ideas or beliefs.
Later in the lesson Mark and Stephen had an idea about the relationship between the
radius and/or the diameter and the circumference. We start at line 548.
Teacher: So what then is the relationship between the radius and the diameter to the
circumference?
Mark: It's a quarter.
Teacher: It's a quarter, is it?
Stephen: No it's not a quarter.
Mark: Yes it is.
Stephen: (Stops and thinks) Yes it's a quarter.
Teacher: I think you're wrong. I think you're inaccurate here, that's my feeling. I
think that needs re-measuring.
[The two boys do some work but do not get very far]
Teacher: It's about four times you're saying, is it? I am asking for too much precision
I think.
Stephen: Five times four is twenty.
Teacher: Right, but it's more than five, is it?
Mark: Well I must say-the first attempt, it was more than five, but now I've made
it exact and I am not so sure.
Teacher: Can I ask you to take a bigger circle, use a different perimeter, because this
is very small to work on. Can I ask you, because I think you're getting
somewhere ... Let's choose a bigger circumference, a longer circumference.
Misfired scaffold. Attempted, but unsuccessful scaffold. The teacher attempted to

scaffold their ideas by suggesting drawing a bigger circle to explore the relationship
between the diameter and the circumference (possible scaffold: test out your theory).
However, this attempt backfired because earlier she had deflated their initiative by
telling them they were wrong (rather than being pleased with their ideas) and they later
lost their enthusiasm for any further work in spite of the scaffold.
Lesson 2: Testing Paper
This was a Year 6, focus group with six pupils: two girls and four boys. The class size
was 30. In this science lesson-the second in a series-the pupils were continuing to
test a variety of papers in a variety of ways. This work was in preparation for the design
and technology project planned for the second half of term (designing and making a
paper bag). They had begun this work the previous week and had already recorded
some of their tests. To help the pupils with their tests, the teacher had drawn up a
questionnaire which pupils had to complete as they carried out the tests. One of the
aims was that, having tested the different papers available in school, the pupils would
be better informed about the sorts of bags for which they might be suitable.
In the sequences which follow, pupils have been testing tracing paper, Kate to find
out how well colouring pencils show up on the paper and Abigail to find how strong the
paper is. We start at line 292.
Kate: Tracing paper is a clear sort of paper, wax crayons-you can't see very well
(on the paper) (Kate is answering the question, 'How well do colouring
pencils show up on this paper? Give a score 1 = poor, 5 = good.')
Teacher: Do you know what? What happens ... Oh I can see in your test that's a very
unusual effect. What's happening there, Kate? (Accidentally Kate had been
leaning on an embossed mat when testing the brown crayon and the pattern
on the mat is visible on the tracing paper.)
Kate: It's turned, it's made it rough-it doesn't look very nice!
Teacher: It hasn't gone on smoothly, has it? That's what you said, made it a bit rough.
Kate: That one's a bit more funny (brown tracing) because I did it on top of that
mat (compared to her other tracings)
Teacher: Yes, it looks like a rubbing, doesn't it, which surface was that?
Kate: That (the tracing paper) was on that (pointing to the mat).
Teacher: Oh, I know, on that mat with the raised surface. Can you think of a time
when that effect might look good though?
Kate: (pause) em ... (long pause)
Teacher: I'm not sure that I can but I was thinking that from here that actually looks
like the bark of a tree. I wondered if you did a rubbing of a bark of a tree
on tracing paper whether that would be a good piece of paper to do it on.
Effective Teaching and Learning 51
You could actually try that in a minute, couldn't you and see if that was a
good use for tracing paper.
Bypassings or pseudo-interactions. Here the teacher took over the pupil's result, translat-
ing it into her own ideas. The accidental creation of a rubbing effect provided a nice
example of something that struck the teacher-as she interpreted it-but which she also
expected to be obvious to the pupil. Rather than asking Kate about what she had done,
the teacher turned the event into something of hers, while presenting it back to the
pupil as something of hers.
We start at Line 388.
Teacher: (Referring to Abigail's answer). It (the tracing paper) is very strong. How
did you find out that it is very strong?
Abigail: Well, I put it on that handle for a bit (wrapped around handle) and
then-for two days actually-and it didn't rip or anything.
Teacher: Did you actually put any pressure on it to make it rip?
Abigail: No.
Teacher: So I wonder if 'strong' is the word, or maybe 'hardwearing' in that context
because you didn't put too much of an effort into ripping it or anything, did
you? See if you can add to that test by trying to rip some. I wouldn't use,
no don't use that piece. Try and rip it and if you decide it's strong still, think
of a good purpose for a nearly see-through paper that's strong.
Bypassings or pseudo-interactions. This interaction was very similar to that with Kate,
described above. Rather than discussing with Abigail the manner in which she had
carried out the test and why, the teacher converted the child's attempt into a task that
she wanted the child to carry out, in the first place paying little attention to the child's
actual results.
A little earlier in the lesson the teacher attempted to scaffold Andrew while he was
carrying out a test on crepe paper. We start at line 220.
Teacher: Andrew how did you do that test? Did you put the crepe paper in a puddle?
Andrew: No.
Teacher: Right, what did you do then?
Andrew: I just put three drips on it.
Teacher: Three drips from where.
Andrew: From the water.
Teacher: Yes-where was the water from?
Andrew: Tap.
Teacher: Do you think three drops is enough to test it, if it was going to soak in? I
mean you might have found something out about that. When you say three
drips of water might get onto something, when it was-what's the word for
when the occasion of a drip of water gets onto something?
Andrew: That's just-(he looks puzzled).
Teacher: If maybe you're standing near the kitchen sink and your brother turns the
tap on too fiercely, what might you feel?
Andrew: Wet?
Teacher: If you get some drops of water on your cheek, because you're brother has
turned the tap on too hard, what do you say the water had done to you, it
begins with an 's'?
Andrew: Spits?
Teacher: Not spits, no!
Andrew: Splash.
Teacher: You would get splashed with a few drops of water, don't you ...?
Hints and slots scaffold. Here the teacher was trying to cue the child into something she
was thinking about and so she narrowed the questions down until only one answer
fitted the slot she had provided.
Lesson 3: Equivalent Fractions
This was a Year 6, low ability group with five pupils: three girls and two boys. The class
size is 27. The lesson was on equivalent fractions. The group with whom the teacher
was working had already done, two days earlier, some work on halves and quarters
(cutting shapes into halves and quarters). The teacher wanted the lesson to be a
practical one. She was aiming 'for as clear a concept of equivalent fractions as possible'.
The group of five pupils was seated around a table with the teacher who had an apple
and a variety of coloured circles and squares. She decided that the group would 'play
at birthdays' and the apple/coloured paper would represent the 'cakes' which would be
cut into slices.
The major two themes throughout the lesson were those of Greg's birthday where a
cake (a cardboard circle) was first cut in half, then into quarters, and finally into
eighths; and Simon's birthday where a cake (a cardboard circle) was first cut into thirds
and then sixths. The teacher moved between these two scenarios. In the following
sequence, which starts at line 542, we are at the beginning of the scenario about
Simon's birthday.
Teacher: Tangerine cake. Now this is going to be trickier (than Greg's cake) because
Simon's got his party, ... he's got Chloe and Danielle coming to his party,
because this is tricky. So how many slices are we going to cut the cake into?
Simon: Three.
Rebecca: Half.
Missed scaffold. The teacher ignored Rebecca's answer-a similar answer was given by
Rebecca several times during the lesson. It is possible that Rebecca thinks all first cuts
result in cutting the cake in half.
Teacher: Three, three. Now this is tricky but let me give you a little tip, if you want
to cut the cake into (three), imagine this is a clock face. If you, where would
the figure 8 be?
Scaffold. 'The clockface' that appears to work for Danielle.

Danielle: The eight would be there (giving a correct indication).
Teacher: Approximately there. Right it, that's the centre, that was the hand there
(teacher marks where the number 8 would be).
Danielle: I know what you are doing, it (12) would be that (Danielle marks where the
number would be).
Teacher: What number would be over there then? (indicating position of the number
4).
Simon: Twelve.
Teacher: No that's twelve (indicating the number 12 marked by Danielle).
Chloe: Six.
Rebecca: Five.
Danielle: Four.
Chloe: Five.
Teacher: Four.
[Danielle marks in the four and is praised for this. Teacher draw lines from the 3 points,
12, 8 and 4 to the centre of circle].
Teacher: All right, now this is only going (to be approximate), because we're not
using a measuring-what thing could we use to help us to measure?
Simon: A clock.
Teacher: A clock would, what other instrument have we got over here?
Rebecca: A ruler.
Teacher: Would that help us to measure (the circle representing the clock).
Rebecca: No, em-a tape measure.
Simon: Compass.
Teacher: Compass might, or a protractor. We're not going to do it now because it's
for another time.
Misfired scaffold. The teacher was attempting to justify the approximateness of the
calculation and tried to build in something about measurement. But the pupils did not
understand the teacher's scaffold in the manner intended and their attempts to guess
what the teacher meant led the lesson in the wrong direction. So the teacher had to
abandon this idea.
A little later in the lesson, the 'pieces of cake' as a metaphor worked only moderately
well for the circle that was cut into halves, quarters and eighths. The teacher then
moved to a second circle trying to get the children to imagine cutting the circle 'cake'
into thirds and sixths; the children had even more difficulty here. Because of these
difficulties the teacher decided to repeat the sequences with 'practice cakes'. She cut the
first 'practice' cake into halves and quarters. We start this sequence at line 645 when
she starts to use the second practice cake, cutting it into three pieces. Rebecca
recognises this activity as being similar to another circle that had been cut into three
previously.
Rebecca: Is that what we've just cut?

Teacher: That's right, exactly right. How much is each piece worth?
Simon: Third.
Danielle: One third.
Teacher: Right so that's-
Simon: A third.
Teacher: And that's? (pointing to another earlier circle cut into quarters).
Danielle: A quarter.
Teacher: Right.
Simon: But there's more in a third than in a quarter (said with great surprise in his
voice).
Teacher: You're right. So the third is bigger than the quarter, you're saying, (pause)
yes it's a bigger slice isn't it?
Missed scaffold. Simon seemed surprised that there was more in a third than in a quarter,
after all, three is smaller than four. The teacher picked up on his observation and could
have scaffolded him here to help him with his difficulty but did not.
Later in the lesson (line 660) there is a comparison between Greg's and Simon's
birthday cakes. One of the few explicit instructions or 'rules' given in an earlier part of
the lesson (line 602) is important for this next sequence. At that time the teacher talked
to the pupils about a circle cut into three, saying: '... a third each, approximately a third
each. Is that all right, one third? So it's one out of three. One slice out of three is one
third, all right?' We now continue at line 660.
Teacher: Now what we did when it was Greg's birthday, we cut the slices like that,
didn't we, so we had-(teacher asking about the circle-pretend cake-that
was cut into fourths and then eighths).
Simon: (after long pause) One eighth.
Teacher: Now it's Simon's birthday we cut them like that (circle first cut into thirds
then teacher cuts one of the thirds into two pieces).
Danielle: It's still not the same.
Teacher: It's still not the same is it, right?
Simon: There's more in there (slice that is one third in size compared to one that
is one sixth).
Teacher: They're bigger slices aren't they?
Greg: Now they're a quarter, that's a quarter. (There are in fact four slices, two
slices of one third each, and another slice cut into two).
Missed scaffold. It would seem that for Greg the number of slices indicated the actual
fraction, thus if there were four slices they must be quarters possibly based on what the
teacher said at line 602 'one slice out of three is one third'. Also a little earlier Rebecca
had made a similar claim and she had not been told that it was wrong.
Lesson 4: Sorting Rocks

This was a Year 6 lesson, with a bright mixed ability group of eight pupils, five boys and
three girls. The class size was 31. This was the second in a series of lessons about rocks
which had followed a visit to the Natural History Museum where pupils had visited the
Earth Science section and done some work on geology. The first lesson was on sorting
Effective Teaching and Learning 55
according to type (sedimentary, igneous and metamorphic) and then according to a

number of properties of these types of rocks. Having sorted the rocks, in this second
lesson the pupils were to devise tests, or remember tests mentioned earlier, to check for
the properties of the different types of rocks and to compare types of rocks.
This second lesson started with recapping. The teacher realised that it would be
difficult for pupils to remember all the possible answers that the teacher hoped she
would get. So as a scaffold the teacher asked one child, Samantha, to be the 'scribe',
the pupils' response were supposed to serve the group as 'data' on how to do the lesson
later on. Samantha carefully noted all the points mentioned but then kept the paper to
herself not allowing the five boys in the group access to the information. So while the
idea was good, the scaffold misfired. Another example of a misfired scaffold is later in the
lesson when the teacher suggested that pupils needed to use a certain instrument to
carry out a test for sorting rocks into different categories. Given that the teacher has
been talking about softness and hardness of rocks, pupils jumped on the idea of a
hammer, present in the classroom, to see if rocks could be smashed. The teacher had
been thinking about a magnifying glass to look at stratification of layers of rocks and
was appalled by the idea that her sample of rocks might be smashed up.
The style of much of this lesson was teacher directed (Category 1) followed by pupils
working on their own (Category 2), which thus ruled out scaffolding. We give just a
short excerpt that happened just after the recapping at the beginning of the lesson to
give the readers a feel for this type of lesson.
Teacher: Right. Samantha, would you like to read out all the different ways we've
thought of, of sorting them.
Samantha: Light and heavy; density; sedimentary, igneous or metamorphic; volcanic
or not; strength; how absorbent it is; hardness; pH test; whether it
weathers easily; colour, shape.
Teacher: Right; that's an awful lot. There are more things than we've got time for
this term for everybody to do. What I am going to suggest you do, please,
is, working in twos or threes I would like you to choose one of those things
from the list and work out how you can do the test and then you will need
to take-I don't know, it depends how many rocks you're going to sort. It
will probably depend on which of those things you're going to try to find
out. [Teacher thinks for a while]. For some of them it will be much easier
to take 10 rocks or 20 rocks and do the sorting. For some of them you may
need to take just a few of the rocks. You may need to look as well to see
whether any of those you think might correlate. Now what do I mean by
correlate? Do you know that?
Chorus: No. [Said quite definitely].
Teacher: Right. If there are two things that go together, you would find out,
probably, by doing a line graph. For instance, we found out that as you got
older so you get taller. The two things correlate; the age and the height,
which is what you expect; they go together. There may be some things on
that list which you suspect go together. In which case you might find the
time to do both tests this week. If you didn't, you could do one test this
week and the other next week and see how they go together; if they go
together; if your prediction is right. Now what I would like you to do,
please, in your twos or threes, is first of all to choose which way you're
56 Oxford Review of Education
going to test this week, then work out how you're going to test it and how
many rocks you're going to test.
[Teacher now rummages in boxes containing the rocks and explains which ones the
pupils may break up, scratch etc. (ones brought in by teacher) and which are for display
and observation only (school property). Pupils are allowed to use these to determine
lightness/density, etc. but they must not be broken up nor should numbers on them be
removed/mixed up. She goes on to show, ask about and talk about, a piece of peat.]
Teacher: What I want you to do is look at the list (which Samantha never allows them
to read) choose which one you are going to do and work out a test. When
you think you've worked out the test come and talk to me about it.
Clearly, it is not possible to illustrate all the categories in the analytic scheme. We hope
that the above examples have provided readers with some picture of what was happen-
ing in the primary classrooms we observed and also show how difficult it is for teachers
to scaffold specialised knowledge. We now pass on to the teachers' profiles which show
how they each dealt with the problems of teaching knowledge which they had difficulty
assimilating themselves.
Teachers'profiles. The four teachers were Sam, Jo, Chris and Les. All Sam's lessons had
a similar profile. Instances of absence of scaffolding predominated with practically no
instances of scaffolding; the overall ratio of absence to presence being 4:1. The major
reason for absence of scaffolding was associated with bypassings or pseudo-interactions;
just over half the instances fall within this grouping. These interactions were concerned
with either translating children's contributions to Sam's own task goal, or 'asking'
pupils to put aside their previous knowledge or experience. The second most important
set of reasons for absence of scaffolds was that of grouping 1 where the teacher's
strategy precludes scaffolding and indeed this captured Sam's directive style.
Jo's analysis is limited since this teacher taught no science or design and technology
lessons. In Jo's lessons, reasons for absence of scaffolding outnumbered scaffolds in a
2:1 ratio. In the groupings concerned with absence of scaffolds, instances ranged almost
equally over groupings 2, 3 and 4. In other words, Jo was rarely a directive teacher,
preferring to give the initiative to the pupils, or participating in pseudo-interactions or
bypassings, and often not noticing the chance to scaffold when pupils appeared to need
it. Within the groupings concerned with scaffolding, Jo had more scaffolds that misfired
than unintended or intended scaffolds.
In Chris's lessons (as with Jo) reasons for absence of scaffolding outnumbered
scaffolds in an approximately 2:1 ratio. Chris's profile in terms of reasons for absence
of scaffolding highlighted a definite directiveness; a tendency to neglect opportunities
for scaffolding but predominantly a participation in bypassings or pseudo-interactions.
In these, the most important reasons underlying Chris's strategies were: teacher and
pupils having different agendas and teacher interpreting pupils' ideas in terms of own
goal. In Chris's lessons pupils were rarely given the initiative (grouping 2). Like Jo, in
the area of scaffQlds, Chris had a substantial number that misfired, and these outnum-
bered successful scaffolds. Chris, however, had more unintended scaffolds than any
other teacher, usually positive non-verbal scaffolds. This corresponded to the atmos-
phere of Chris's lessons where the overall climate of the lesson was pleasant and
agreeable.
Les is a very different teacher from the others insofar as the ratio of reasons for
absence of scaffolds and for presence of scaffolds is 1:1. In other words, Les scaffolded
more than the others. Looking at Les's profile, in the reasons for absence of scaffolding,
groupings 3 and 2 featured importantly. Within the pseudo-interactions or bypassings
(grouping 3), the reasons which predominated were those concerned with teacher-pupil
interaction where nothing was made of pupils' contributions: they existed but 'hung-
fire' in the lesson. The reason that predominated in grouping 2 was that of sending
pupils off to work on their own. In the types of scaffolds used by Les, none was
unintended and very few misfired. Among the scaffolds used by Les, approval was the
most predominant.
We now turn to look at the lessons in terms of the subject content.
Profiles of subjects as presented through lessons. We took a mix of design and technology,
mathematics and science lessons from three of our teachers: Sam, Chris and Les. As Jo
taught no science or design and technology we have only mathematics lessons for this
teacher. It was apparent that two interacting factors affected subject presentation:
* teachers' understanding of lesson subject content was sometimes limited or con-

fused;
* their understanding of the execution of, and/or purposes behind, teaching activities
was unclear. Consequently pupils had difficulty understanding some lessons.
Many mathematics lessons involved abstract ideas: equivalent fractions, negative num-
bers, perimeter, etc. Teachers struggled to teach these ideas, often using examples and
metaphors which hindered pupils' understanding. On the other hand, notions such as
area and angles were easier and tuned in with children's intuitions. Some mathematics
lessons overlapped with design and technology; for example, those on the clinometer
and theodolite. Unfortunately, insufficient details were given of the use of these
instruments, so pupils had difficulty coping with some problems they were required to
solve.
Science lessons proved problematic because, for example, all lessons of one teacher
attempted to meet Attainment Target 1, scientific investigations. However, when
devising investigations pupils were left to work on their own with little guidance and
often found it difficult to proceed systematically. Some science ideas dealing with, for
example, gears, density, identification of igneous and sedimentary rocks were particu-
larly hard for pupils to understand and teachers often did not attempt explanations.
Insulation as a topic, on the other hand, matched experience pupils had of weather and
seasons.
Design and technology lessons appeared, at first, more amenable to scaffolding than
the others, but analysis showed this was not necessarily the case. Pupils were given
procedures to follow and these sometimes worked. However, pupils usually needed to
be rescued by the teacher as they were not familiar with this sort of approach. Some
lesson purposes, for example, making boxes or measuring trees were easily understood
and close to pupils' everyday experience.
A prevalent approach to primary school teaching places emphasis on pupils' involve-
ment in practical activities. But is such an approach sufficient? Of central importance
is teachers' understanding of the purpose of such activities and the subject knowledge
that underpins them. A differentiated analysis of the nature of domain knowledge and
its match with pupils' intuitive knowledge would appear to need further exploration.
58 Oxford Review of Education
Discussion of Study
Each teacher has a definite style which differentiated one from another. However, all
teachers shared the tendency to participate in pseudo-interactions or bypassings. The
so-called interactions are of interest inasmuch as there appears to be some sort of joint
activity, but when the interactions are looked at in detail, this is illusory. There is
practically no joint activity because little use is made of the pupil's contribution.
It is possible that, where socially constructed knowledge is the focus, joint activity is
difficult to negotiate. Where there is some tangible, non-abstract, outcome to a joint
activity, for example basket weaving, scaffolding is favoured. Much school knowledge
(concepts such as negative numbers, fractions, or conservation of energy), initially
exists as part of the teacher's (but not the pupils') knowledge. It is abstract, takes time
to communicate and, thus, is hard to scaffold. The effect of trying to scaffold this
knowledge turns the interaction into a pseudo one, or bypassing, rather than a joint
negotiation, missing the pupils' input. Further investigation is needed into ways of
scaffolding socially constructed knowledge.
It is also possible that dialogue and diagnosis, characteristic of jointly negotiated
activity, are much harder to implement than imagined. Teachers are trained to keep
lessons moving and pupils active; turning to a new style of exchange could be more
problematic than anticipated. Furthermore, this style involves contact with a small
number of pupils at a time which may be difficult with present class size. Dialogue and
diagnosis slow down lessons and require time and patience. It is possible that the
present classroom climate with the need to meet attainment targets militates against
this approach.
It is worth noting that results from dialogue and diagnosis can present difficulties for
teachers. Because of lack of domain knowledge, teachers have problems understanding
pupils' answers and appropriate responses are hard to find. This would help to explain
why there are no scaffolds concerned with domain knowledge.
Situations in which conditions for scaffolding are neglected, or scaffolds misfire,
constituted nearly a quarter of instances. It is important to look for explanations but we
can only hypothesise and clearly more investigation is needed. One possible reason is
that the teachers, with one exception, expressed lack of confidence in teaching science
and design and technology. Their lack of knowledge, combined with a lack of guidance
in National Curriculum documents and little practical support within primary schools,
meant that many teachers were only a step ahead of their pupils. Although teachers
reported they were generally happy teaching mathematics, lesson observation revealed
as much difficulty as with other lessons, although teachers were more accustomed to
teaching mathematics.
Finally, these findings have led us to propose a tentative, new model of teaching and
learning in school where specialised knowledge is involved. Its main characteristic is a
new focus on the learner and domain knowledge. Diagnosis through dialogue of the
learner's level of development and progress is crucial, and a differentiated analysis of
domain knowledge, allowing its matching to pupils' intuitive understandings, should
suggest appropriate scaffolds.
8. LEARNING IN SCHOOL AND IN EVERYDAY LIFE

The American socio-cultural approach puts forward a model for the apprenticeship- of
everyday practical knowledge. For example, Lave (1988) illustrated through her Adult
Math Project (AMP) that adults can be very competent mathematicians in certain
situations through the use of mathematics-in-practice. She showed that the mathemat-
ics learned by the person acting in setting, within certain cultural practices, differs
enormously from the formal systems of mathematics taught in schools.
The American socio-cultural approach describes four major ways in which members
of a culture influence the child's environment so that learning happens: (i) by creating
the occurrence or non-occurrence of problem-solving situations embedded in cultural
practices; (ii) by arranging the frequency at which the repetition of these 'events' is
necessary in order for them to be internalised; (iii) by organising the patterning of
co-occurrences that help the learning of them; (iv) by providing 'props' that can help
to regulate the difficulty of learning something. While these descriptions attempt to
characterise the way in which we lear about the everyday knowledge, are they
adequate for the learning of specialised knowledge, part of the content of the school
curriculum?
There has existed for quite some time a substantial body of evidence which shows
that children (and non-expert adults) have fairly substantial areas of knowledge that are
very different from anything taught to them in school (for example, Driver et al., 1985).
In particular, in a manner similar to Lave's math-in-practice, this research into
children's informal conceptions (sometimes known as alternative or pre- or mis-con-
ceptions) was able to show that children's ideas about science and mathematics were
very different from those of their teachers-a type of cognition in practice. Others have
gone on to show (Carey, 1985; Bliss & Ogbom, 1993, 1994) that both children and
adults have naive theories in areas such as psychology and motion.
The question may well be asked as to where schooling fits into this picture. One of
the central enterprises of schooling is the initiation of pupils into the world of socially
constructed knowledge. Wood (1991) argues that the processes involved in learning in
home and school are different because classroom and everyday discourses differ
considerably from one another. He argues that, 'Arguments, for example, about making
mathematics relevant are likely to founder if they simply choose everyday situations and
ignore that fact that the ground rules for solving everyday practical numerical problems
and abstract formal mathematical problems are different' (p. 99).
It is possible that through the idea of repeated experiences as the basis for learning,
the socio-cultural school slips into a not dissimilar interpretation of learning in school
from that of the constructivist school of thought. One of us (Bliss, 1994) argued, in a
discussion about science teaching, that one objection to constructivism is that it sees the
child just as learning about the world through experience. But science teaching can be
seen as the way in which pupils are introduced to the communal world of science
concepts and techniques, and communal standards of argument and evidence. Con-
structivism rarely distinguishes between making personal sense of the real world, and
understanding the socially constructed world of scientific ideas. This applies not only
to secondary science but also to quite substantial amounts of science taught in the
primary school and to mathematics taught both at primary and secondary levels.
9. CONCLUSION
Scaffolding could happen in school but it is more difficult than we initially imagined.
Our analysis of the literature and the findings from our own study have shown a
number of factors to be critical in the implementation of scaffolding in school,
particularly in certain specialist contexts. First, to imagine that socially constructed
knowledge in areas like science, technology or mathematics is everyday knowledge is to
misunderstand the purpose of schooling, which is the pupil's initiation into grappling
with the theoretical objects of these domains. Following from this, Bliss & Morrison
(1990) argued that, for example, science is not homogeneous and that some concepts
are more accessible to children than others, suggesting a number of different relation-
ships between science ideas and their real world use. Our study showed this was the
case for both science and mathematics and that there was a need for differentiated
analyses of these areas of subject knowledge.
Secondly, as Tharp & Gallimore (1988) point out: 'Lay or parental skills provide a
foundation but they are not enough. Teachers need a more elaborate set of skills in
assistance and they need to be more conscious of their application .... They must learn
the professional skills of assisting performance and learning to apply them at a level far
beyond that required in private life.' We would claim that to help learning requires
diagnosis, through dialogue, of learners' levels of development and their progress.
This diagnosis must be coupled with the suggested differentiated analysis of domain
knowledge, allowing its matching to pupils' intuitive understandings. The planning of
scaffolds-that can build bridges from the pupil's understanding of a domain to the
specialist knowledge of that domain-will need to take into account which aspects of
the domain can build on pupils' intuitive knowledge, which aspects may be counter-in-
tuitive and which may correspond to no intuitions in pupils' knowledge. It will also
challenge the simplistic teaching advice that treats domains as homogeneous.
Everyday and school knowledge may also differ in other very important ways.
Because much school knowledge is specialised (necessarily so) there is always ambiguity
in the teaching-learning situation. Teachers need to believe that children can learn
difficult and complex ideas; this is what school is about. But they must be content that
often pupils can only do this one step or a few steps at a time. Gradually teacher and
pupil negotiate the path to the specialised domain knowledge. Care in this joint activity
of negotiation of the knowledge is crucial to reduce the degree of uncertainty that pupils
face.
REFERENCES
BLSS, J. (1994) Children learning science, in: B. JENNISON& J. OGBORN (Eds) Wonder
and Delight (Bristol, Institute of Physics Publishing).
BLISS,J. & OGBORN,J. (1994) Force and motion from the beginning, International
Journal of Instruction and Learning, 4, pp. 7-25.
BLISS, J. & OGBORN, J. (1993) Steps towards a formalisation of a psycho-logic of
motion, Journal of Intelligent Systems, 3, pp. 1-48.
BLISS, J. & MORRISON,I. (1990) A longitudinal study of pupils' understanding of
dynamics: relationship between cognitive development and performance on dy-
namics items, European Journal of Psychology of Education. Special edition on the
Learning of Physics, 5, 4, pp. 439-458.
BRUNER, J.S. (1986) Actual Minds, Possible Worlds (Cambridge, Harvard University
Press).
CAREY, S. (1985) Conceptual Change in Childhood (Cambridge MA, MIT Press).
DRIVER, R., GUESNE, E. & TIBERGHIEN, A. (1985) Children's Ideas in Science (Milton
Keynes, Open University Press).
GREENFIELD,1P.M. (1984) A theory of the teaching in the learning activities in everyday
life, in: B. ROGOFF& J. LAVE (Eds) Everyday Cognition: its development in social
context (Cambridge, Harvard University Press).
KOZULUN, A. (1990) Vygotsky's Psychology (Hemel Hempstead, Harvester Wheatsheaf).
Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition (1988) Culture and cognitive develop-
ment in: W. KESSEN (Ed.) History, theory and methods, in: PAUL H. MUSSEN
(Ed.) Handbook of Child Psychology, 4th edn.
LAVE, J. (1988) Cognition in practice: mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life
(Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).
NEWMAN,D., GRIFFIN,P. & COLE, M. (1989) The Construction Zone-Working for
Cognitive Change in School (Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Cambridge Uni-
versity Press).
ROGOFF,B. & GARDNER,W. (1984) Adult guidance of cognitive development, in: B.
ROGOFF & J. LAVE (Eds) Everyday Cognition: its development in social context
(Cambridge, Harvard University Press).
ROGOFF,B. & LAVE,J. (Eds) (1984) Everyday Cognition: its development in social context
(Cambridge, Harvard University).
THARP,R.G. & GALLIMORE, R. (1988) Rousing Minds to Life (Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press).
THARP,R.G. & GALLIMORE, R. (1991) A theory of teaching as assisted performance, in:
P. LIGHT, S. SHELDON& M. WOODHEAD(Eds) Learning to Think (London and
New York, Routledge in association with The Open University) , pp. 42-62.
VYGOTSKY,L.S. (1962) Thought and Language (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press).
VYGOSTKY,L.S. (1978) Mind in Society, The Development of Higher Psychological Pro-
cesses. MICHAEL COLE, V. JOHN-STEINER, S. SCRIBNER & E. SOUBERMAN (Eds)
(Cambridge, Harvard University Press).
WHITE, S.H. (1989) Foreword to NEWMAN, D., GRIFFIN, P. & COLE, M. The Construc-
tion Zone (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).
WOOD, D.J. (1991) Aspects of teaching and learning, in: P. LIGHT,S. SHELDON& M.
WOOODHEAD(Eds) Learning to Think (London and New York, Routledge in
association with The Open University (pp. 97-120). Source: M. RICHARDS& P.
LIGHT (Eds) (1986) Children of Social Worlds (Cambridge, Polity Press, pp.
191-212).
WOOD, D.J., BRUNER,J.S. & ROSS, G. (1976) The role of tutoring in problem solving,
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, pp. 89-100.
WOOD, D., WOOD, H. & MIDDLETON, D. (1978) An experimental evaluation of four
face-to-face teaching strategies, International Journal of Behavioural Development, 1,
pp. 131-147.
Correspondence: Dr Joan Bliss, School of Education, King's College, University of

London, Cornwall House, Waterloo Road, London SE1 8WA, UK.
View publication stats

Effective Teaching and Learning Scaffolding Revisi

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Effective Teaching and Learning Scaffolding Revisi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Effective Teaching and Learning: Scaffolding Revisited

Article in Oxford Review of Education · March 1996

Development of primary mathematics teaching View project

Foundation Phase teacher development View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Effective Teaching and Learning: scaffolding revisited

JOAN BLISS, MIKE ASKEW & SHEILA MACRAE

ABSTRACT Education has taken on board the conceptsof 'scaffolding'and 'Zone of

0305-4985/96/010037-25 ? 1996 Carfax Publishing Ltd

2. FOCUS OF THIS PAPER

3. THE AMERICAN SOCIO-CULTURAL APPROACH

4. THE ZONE OF PROXIMAL DEVELOPMENT

5. ASSISTED PERFORMANCE REPLACES SCAFFOLDING?

6. SCAFFOLDING AND CONTINGENT CONTROL OF LEARNING

Discussion Thus Far

improved practice and demonstrated greater confidence in discussing scaffolding, but

* Does the model of scaffolding of everyday knowledge transfer to school knowledge?

New Analytic Scheme, Findings and Classroom Examples

* classroom examples to illustrate our analytic scheme;

(1) Scaffolding precluded by use of directive teacher strategies.

(5) Attempted, but unsuccessful, scaffolds with unexpected consequences.

Bypassings or pseudo-interactions. In this sequence Mark believed that placing a rectangle

Misfired scaffold. Attempted, but unsuccessful scaffold. The teacher attempted to

Lesson 2: Testing Paper

Lesson 3: Equivalent Fractions

Scaffold. 'The clockface' that appears to work for Danielle.

Rebecca: Is that what we've just cut?

Lesson 4: Sorting Rocks

according to type (sedimentary, igneous and metamorphic) and then according to a

* teachers' understanding of lesson subject content was sometimes limited or con-

8. LEARNING IN SCHOOL AND IN EVERYDAY LIFE

Correspondence: Dr Joan Bliss, School of Education, King's College, University of

View publication stats

You might also like