Effective Teaching and Learning: scaffolding revisited

Effective Teaching and Learning: Scaffolding RevisitedAuthor(s): Joan Bliss, Mike Askew, Sheila MacraeSource: Oxford Review of Education, Vol. 22, No. 1, Vygotsky and Education (Mar., 1996), pp.37-61Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1050802Accessed: 10/10/2010 06:10

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay 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 athttp://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 printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Oxford Review ofEducation.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1050802?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis

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 concepts of 'scaffolding' and 'Zone of Proximal Development' because embedded within them is a psycho-social model of teaching and learning. In this paper these concepts are examined in schooling contexts rather than those of everyday life. A first section outlines the ideas of the American socio-cultural school, for example, Cole, Lave, Rogoff etc. and their link with the work of Vygotsky. Three sections are then devoted to a brief appraisal of the work of researchers who have been particularly concerned with scaffolding and schooling: Newman, Griffin and Cole; Tharp and Gallimore, and Wood on effective learning through scaffolding and contingent control. Section 7 is devoted to our research which 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 differences between scaffolding everyday knowledge and specialist knowledge.

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 Oxford Review 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 fundamental 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 Teaching and 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 appropriate 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 communication 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 questioning that 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 structuring teachers 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 instruction 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 questioning 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) exploratory phase-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, mathematics 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 participants 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 different types 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 directed lesson 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.


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


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


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 happening 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 outnumbered 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 confused;

* 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 particularly 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' involvement 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.


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-intuitive 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 dynamics 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

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276041972_Steps_Towards_the_Formalisation_of_a_Psycho-logic_of_Motion?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-dbe6911973e76088c295d6ee09f18387-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzMwNTczMjtBUzoxMDQwODk3ODY1MTk1NTJAMTQwMTgyODM0NzE0MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276041972_Steps_Towards_the_Formalisation_of_a_Psycho-logic_of_Motion?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-dbe6911973e76088c295d6ee09f18387-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzMwNTczMjtBUzoxMDQwODk3ODY1MTk1NTJAMTQwMTgyODM0NzE0MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235700983_Actual_Minds_Possible_World?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-dbe6911973e76088c295d6ee09f18387-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzMwNTczMjtBUzoxMDQwODk3ODY1MTk1NTJAMTQwMTgyODM0NzE0MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235700983_Actual_Minds_Possible_World?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-dbe6911973e76088c295d6ee09f18387-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzMwNTczMjtBUzoxMDQwODk3ODY1MTk1NTJAMTQwMTgyODM0NzE0MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256636609_Force_and_motion_from_the_beginning?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-dbe6911973e76088c295d6ee09f18387-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzMwNTczMjtBUzoxMDQwODk3ODY1MTk1NTJAMTQwMTgyODM0NzE0MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256636609_Force_and_motion_from_the_beginning?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-dbe6911973e76088c295d6ee09f18387-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzMwNTczMjtBUzoxMDQwODk3ODY1MTk1NTJAMTQwMTgyODM0NzE0MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/243782947_Children''s_ideas_in_science?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-dbe6911973e76088c295d6ee09f18387-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzMwNTczMjtBUzoxMDQwODk3ODY1MTk1NTJAMTQwMTgyODM0NzE0MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/243782947_Children''s_ideas_in_science?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-dbe6911973e76088c295d6ee09f18387-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzMwNTczMjtBUzoxMDQwODk3ODY1MTk1NTJAMTQwMTgyODM0NzE0MQ==


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.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/22223090_The_role_of_tutoring_in_problem_solving?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-dbe6911973e76088c295d6ee09f18387-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzMwNTczMjtBUzoxMDQwODk3ODY1MTk1NTJAMTQwMTgyODM0NzE0MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/22223090_The_role_of_tutoring_in_problem_solving?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-dbe6911973e76088c295d6ee09f18387-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzMwNTczMjtBUzoxMDQwODk3ODY1MTk1NTJAMTQwMTgyODM0NzE0MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/243783129_An_Experimental_Evaluation_of_Four_Face-to-Face_Teaching_Strategies?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-dbe6911973e76088c295d6ee09f18387-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzMwNTczMjtBUzoxMDQwODk3ODY1MTk1NTJAMTQwMTgyODM0NzE0MQ==



Effective Teaching and Learning: scaffolding revisited

Documents

Transcript of Effective Teaching and Learning: scaffolding revisited