C9  use imagination to express thoughts,  ideas, experiences and feelings’

example, they could write a short reasoning text on the base of the question ‘What if we could use 

all resources of the world’s oceans?’ 

It is expected that after doing the task and assessment of learners achievements learners get 

feedback. I use the following questions which can help to construct the feedback:  

 Is the feedback clear, concise and related to the learning goals?

 Does it identify what was done well, and what needs improvement?

 Does it include how learners can improve?

 Are there instructions how to act on the feedback?

 Is there necessary time to act?

It is noticed that learners like to get feedback. Because it is individual, detailed for every 

learner, sometimes it can be challenging but always supporting. Undoubtedly, giving feedback is a 

challenge for a teacher as well because of time, amount of learners and different learner’s needs. 

But it really works and does the relationships between teacher and learners collaborative.  

Working about the following objective ‘12.R3 skim extended texts with speed to identify 

content meriting closer reading on a range of familiar and unfamiliar general and curricular topics’ I 

usually suggested  a text with ready questions from educational sources. As reading is one of the 

cognitive skills, I thought that the more texts with questions learners red, the higher results they 

would get. It means that the quantity was above quality. But it does not give the whole picture of 

learners’ cognitive skills.  

Nowadays I think it is better to provide learners with texts from different sources such as 

magazines, newspapers, the internet sources in accordance with the topic, learners’ interests and 

level of proficiency. I suggest to learners making their own multiple choice, Yes/No/Not Given, fill 

in the gap questions. Learners discuss the criteria to assess their work. Usually they pose the time 

for skimming, the time for questions making, the amount of key points for questions, format and 

type of the questions, the time for answer, the number of correct answers, and the clarity of the 

questions set. 

It makes learners skim the text to define key concepts which they would like to work about 

and choose the type of questions. They have to go to closer reading and do vocabulary work to 

make the questions. Making the questions learners learn the information from the text in a natural 

way and they feel responsibility for their questions. Then learners swap the texts with questions and 

try to answer them. The work can be organised in groups while for more able learners it can be 

individual. More able learners should be challenged by the array of activities included in the lesson 

because their own creativity should come to the fore. 

Learners do this work with great pleasure because the subsequent discussion defines the best 

questions and leads to peer-assessment and peer-feedback. In this case, reasoning as a cognitive 

skill can be defined and assessed. My learners use the same questions above to make a feedback, 

but they can be biased in their favour and make false claims. Following the suggested scheme [7, p. 

14] that learners are familiar as well, a teacher or learners themselves can check logical links in

their reasoning and improve the way of cognition: Position – Reason 1 – Support for reason 1 – 

Objection – Rebuttal. The number of reasons can vary. The same scheme can be used for checking 

an argumentative essay or for debates lessons.  

552

On the base of learners’ reading task results to improve reading skills I suggest making a 

Literature review. Usually it includes learners’ favourite books, interesting/useful articles, stories, 

etc. and creates a good tradition to share the red information.  Due to the Reading time at our school 

– a special break for reading – learners do the task with enthusiasm.

As a visual result of learners’ work in appliance with the Course Plan, oral presentation 

supported with PPT/graphic organizers/posters/etc. is often suggested in conformity with the 

learning objective ‘

12.C6  organise and present information clearly to others’ [8, p. 10]. Creating 

success criteria we should not forget that the usage of technical tools is not the goal of oral 

presentation but the support for learners to construct their ideas. There are a lot of different 

worksheets with rubrics which can help to assess learners’ skills to present information. But in 

general they are more about the context of the presentation. To my mind, it is preferable to use the 

rubrics which cover such things as literacy in speaking, speaking skills (delivery, eye contact, 

posture, volume), and content. [9] Thereby, I can check not only some language skills but the 

following cognitive as well: concentration, attention, creativity, self-regulation, etc.  

After assessment if some learners have difficulties with speaking skills, which are connected 

with communication skills I try to practise work in pairs and groups. In this case that is a challenge 

for ‘shy’ learners to present information for his/her classmate, then for group and finally for the 

class. Also I use the technique ‘Dissenting opinion’ that helps the learner to become more 

confident. Anyway, the individual approach to each learner should be followed and appropriate 

feedback should be given. 

Thus, use of suitable tools for formative assessment allows teachers to monitor their 

achievements, detect the courses of troubles, and consequently improve learning skills and stimulate 

learning process. Providing detailed feedback for learners gives a clear working plan what learners 

should work about and how to do it. Assessment for learning is not an action which can be 

conducted from time to time but the part of everyday work. When teachers diagnose a struggle with 

respect to formative assessment they should create the plan for improvement and do this process 

constantly. Because one single activity cannot correct learning skills immediately and demands 

permanent attention to the progress of the learning achievements. Assessment for learning must be 

structured and followed step-by-step. Only in this case it gives benefits and understanding how 

learners learn. 

References 

1. Cooper, Damian. "Talk About Assessment: Strategies and Tools to Improve Learning".

Toronto, ON: Thomson Nelson, 2006. [3]

2. Integrated Programme of development English Grade 12 Revised Course plan, University of

Cambridge, 2014. [6], [8]

3. Rationale Thinking Pack. Building critical thinking skills in your classroom. Austhink

Software, March 2007 [7]

4. Lisa Perreault Understanding Reflection: Using the Reflecting Learning Journal

http://tccl.rit.albany.edu/knilt/index.php/Lisa_Perreault (May, 2014)[2]

5. Unknown author Oral Presentation Rubrics

http://www.betterhighschools.org/MidwestSIG/documents/Szachowicz_handout3.pdf (14,

September 2013) [9]

553

6. Linda M. Rhinehart Neas From Portfolios to Rubrics – Ways to Assess English Language

http://www.brighthubeducation.com/esl-teaching-tips/102838-english-language-learning-

assessment-tools/ (23, January 2014)[5]

7. Stiggins R., Arter J., Chappuis J. & Chappuis S. Assessment for Learning Strategies

http://www.edugains.ca/resourcesDI/D.I.%20Enhancement%20Package/Assessment%20for

%20Learning/DI_Assessment%20Cards.pdf (September, 2013)[4]

8. Learning Rx. Train the brain. Get smarter http://www.learningrx.com/assessment-for-

learning.htm  [1]

554

SCAFFOLDING AS A STRATEGY TO BE AN EFFECTIVE MANAGER AND LEADER 

IN TEACHING AND LEARNING 

Yensegenova G. 

Branch of JSC “NCPD “Orleu” institute for professional development 

of North-Kazakhstan region Republic of Kazakhstan in Petropavlovsk 

Republic of Kazakhstan 

Аңдатпа 

Мақалада  мəдени-тарихи  психология  жəне    мəдени-тарихи  теория  əрекетінің  үш 

түсінігі:  ересектермен  қарым-қатынасқа  түсетін  баланың  нақты  балалық  дамуын 

сипаттайтын жақын арадағы даму аймағы, білім алу жəне  

скаффолдинг беріледі. 

Білім беру міндетін шешу үшін үш түсініктің байланысы сипатталады. Скаффолдинг — 

баланың ЖАДА кеңістігінде құрылған ересек адамның балаға деген қарым-қатынасы.  

Түйін  сөздер:  сындарлы  оқыту  теориясы,  мəдени-тарихи  психология,  баланың 

психологиялық дамуы, жақын арадағы даму аймағы, білім алу жəне  

скаффолдинг.

  

Аннотация 

 

В  статье  представлен  анализ  трех  понятий  культурно-исторической  психологии  и 

культурно-исторической  теории  деятельности:  зона  ближайшего  развития,  обучаемость  и 

скаффолдинг, — описывающих реальность детского развития ребенка, взаимодействующего 

с  взрослым.  Описаны  связи  трех  понятий  и  границы  их  применения  для  решения  задач 

обучения.  Скаффолдинг — это  действия  взрослого  по  отношению  к  ребенку, 

выстраивающего пространство ЗБР ребенка.  

Ключевые  слова:  конструктивистская  теория  обучения,  культурно-историческая 

психология,  психическое  развитие  ребенка,  обучаемость,  зона  ближайшего  развития, 

скаффолдинг 

Abstract 

The article presents the analysis of three notions of cultural and historical psychology and 

cultural and historical theory of activities: proximal development zone, learning ability and 

scaffolding, - which describe the reality of children’s development, interrelating with adults. 

Connection of these notions and their application are described. Scaffolding is the relation of adult 

to the child, building the proximal development zone of a child. 

Key words: constructive theory of education, cultural and historical psychology, child’s 

psychological development, learning ability, proximal development zone, scaffolding. 

Instructional scaffolding is a teaching strategy that emphasizes the teaching of new skills by 

engaging students collaboratively in tasks that would be too difficult for them to complete on their 

own. The teaching strategy emphasizes on the role of teachers and others in supporting the learner 

development and providing support structures to get to that next stage or level. This teaching 

strategy originated form Lev Vygotsky socio-cultural theory and his concept of the Zone of 

Proximal Development (ZPD) [1, с.23]. His socio cultural theory spelt out that social interaction 

plays an important role in the development of cognition. He believes that learning occurs through 

participation in social or culturally embedded experiences. In his view, the learner does not learn in 

isolation, rather learning is strongly influenced by social interactions, which take place in 

555

meaningful contexts. Children social interaction with more knowledgeable or capable people and 

their environment significantly affect their ways of thinking and interpreting situations.  

Scaffolding has been defined by Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) as an “adult controlling 

those elements of the task that are essentially beyond the learner's capacity, thus permitting him to 

concentrate upon and complete only those elements that are within his range of competence”. The 

notion of scaffolding has been linked to the work of Soviet psychologist Lev Vygotsky [2, с.88]. 

However, Vygotsky never used the term scaffolding, but emphasized the role of social interaction 

as being crucial to cognitive development, so that learning first occurs at the social or 

interindividual level. Thus, when a child (or a novice) learns with an adult or a more capable peer, 

the learning occurs within the child's zone of proximal development (ZPD). ZPD is defined as the 

“distance between the child's actual developmental level as determined by independent problem 

solving and the higher level of potential development as determined through problem solving under 

adult guidance and in collaboration with more capable peers” [2, с.91]. Enabling the learner to 

bridge this gap between the actual and the potential depends on the resources or the kind of support 

that is provided. 

Key features of scaffolding. The original notion of scaffolding assumed that a single more 

knowledgeable person, such as a parent or a teacher, helps individual learners, providing them with 

exactly the support they need to move forward [3, с.69]. One of the most critical aspects of 

scaffolding is the role of the adult or the expert. The expert is knowledgeable about the content of 

instruction as well as a facilitator with the skills, strategies and processes required for teaching. The 

expert not only helps motivate learners by providing just enough support to enable them to 

accomplish the goal, but also provides support in the form of modeling, highlighting the critical 

features of the task, and providing hints and questions that might help learners to reflect [4, с.32]. In 

this conception then, the adult's role has perceptual and cognitive as well as affective components 

[2, с.55]. 

Although the role of the adult is crucial, descriptions of the notion of scaffolding point to 

several other key elements of scaffolded instruction: 

Common goal. Shared understanding, described as intersubjectivity, is of critical importance 

in scaffolded instruction. Intersubjectivity refers to the combined ownership of the task between the 

adult and the child, and setting a common goal. 

Ongoing diagnosis and adaptive support [3, с.30]. Perhaps the most important feature of 

scaffolding is the fact that the adult is constantly evaluating the child's progress and providing 

support that is appropriate for “this tutee, in this task at this point in task mastering”[1, с. 33]. This 

results in interactions that are different in “content and form from individual to individual” [5], and 

for the same individual at different times. As Wood and colleagues  described, scaffolded 

interactions comprise of a theory of the task and a theory of the tutee. The adult needs to have a 

thorough knowledge of the task and its components, the subgoals that need to be accomplished, as 

well as knowledge of the child's capabilities as they change throughout the instruction [2, с.110]. 

Dialogues and interactions. A critical factor in the ongoing diagnosis and calibrated support is 

the dialogic nature of scaffolding interactions, so that the learner is an active participant and a 

partner in deciding the direction of the interaction, and not a passive recipient. The dialogic nature 

of scaffolding is best illustrated in the reciprocal teaching studies of reading [4, с.132], in which 

students took turns leading the group discussion, engaging in comprehension monitoring strategies. 

Fading and transfer of responsibility. The final feature of scaffolding is reducing the support 

provided to learners so that they are in control and take responsibility for their learning. The best 

scaffolding will eventually lead learners to internalize the processes they are being helped to 

accomplish [5, с. 74]. In the original description by Wood and colleagues, the important aspect of 

556

the transfer of responsibility is that the child has not only learned how to complete a specific task, 

but has also abstracted the process of completing the particular task. 

Examples of scaffolding. The early studies that described scaffolding, be they descriptions of 

parent-child interactions or classroom interactions [6, с.65], were observational rather than 

interventionist studies. One of the earliest accounts of an interventionist study of scaffolding is 

Wood, Bruner and Ross's 1976 study in which 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds engaged in a task of building 

a pyramid from interlocking blocks, with guidance from a tutor. Each child was tutored individually 

and the tutor followed a set of guidelines for her tutoring. But the tutor did not always follow pre-

set rules in her interactions; instead she provided just enough assistance to help the child move 

forward—assistance that was sensitive to, and adapted based on, the child's progress. Wood and 

colleagues documented six types of support that an adult can provide: recruiting the child's interest, 

reducing the degrees of freedom by simplifying the task, maintaining direction, highlighting the 

critical task features, controlling frustration, and demonstrating ideal solution paths. 

Perhaps the most well-known example of the notion of scaffolding in the classroom is the 

work on reciprocal teaching [1, с.63]. In this study, groups of students were supported in the 

process of reading by strategies such as self-directed summarizing (review), questioning, clarifying, 

and predicting. A teacher or a more capable peer took the lead in modeling the strategies until 

students in the group could apply them on their own. The teacher or the peer modeled the strategies 

and used prompts and questions to enable students to apply the four strategies. As described by 

Palinscar and Brown, the teacher used strategies such as prompting (“What question did you think a 

teacher might ask?”); instruction (“Remember, a summary is a shortened version, it doesn't include 

detail”); and modifying the activity (“If you're having a hard time thinking of a question, why don't 

you summarize first?”) [2, с. 45]. Both the Wood, Bruner, and Ross study and the reciprocal 

teaching studies highlight how the key features—intersubjectivity, ongoing diagnosis, tailored 

assistance, and fading—were attained in the dynamic, interactive environment. Whereas the study 

by Wood and colleagues illustrates the tutorial interventions in a one-on-one situation, the 

reciprocal teaching studies were conducted with small groups of learners. In addition, both the 

quality and the quantity of support were varied, based on the needs of a particular learner. As the 

learners attained competence, the scaffolding was faded, giving them more control. 

Scaffolding in classroom situation. The notion of scaffolding is increasingly being used to 

describe the support provided for students to learn successfully in classrooms, especially the use of 

project- or design-based activities to teach math and science. Many of these approaches are based 

on a socioconstruc-tivist model [3, с. 66] emphasizing that learning occurs in a rich social context, 

marked by interaction, negotiation, articulation, and collaboration. The original notion of 

scaffolding, as used in the initial studies of parent-child interactions [4, с. 13] or in teacher-student 

interactions, focused on situations that allowed for one-on-one interactions between the adult or the 

expert and the learner. The one-on-one nature of the tutoring allowed the adult/teacher to provide 

“titrated support” [5, с. 12] that changed based on the progress made by the learner. However, 

classroom situations involving many students do not allow for the fine-tuned, sensitive, 

personalized exchange that occurs in one-on-one or small-group scaffolding [6, с. 130]. Therefore, 

instead of one teacher working with each student, support is provided in a paper or software tool 

that individuals interact with, or classroom activities are redefined so that peers can help each other. 

Software tools in the classroom. Software environments that provide support have been 

developed with the goal of supporting students in the processes that they might find difficult in a 

complex task when it is not possible for a teacher to attend to each student in a class. Several 

software tools have been developed to prompt students to reflect, articulate, and complete the steps 

of a complex task. Examples of such software include ThinkerTools [24], Knowledge Integration 

557

Environment or KIE [1, с. 85], Progress Portfolio [11, с. 47], Beguile [1, с. 52] and Model-It [2, с. 

77]. 

Quintana and colleagues (2004) have put forth a comprehensive scaffolding design 

framework for building software tools to help students learn from inquiry-based science activities. 

Their framework is based on the difficulties that students have during science inquiry and focuses 

on such aspects of the inquiry process as process management, i.e., the ability to engage in 

processes and activities required for inquiry; sense making, which they describe as difficulties that 

learners experience in making sense of their work and finding a direction; and data recording and 

analysis and articulation. 

Reiser (2004) proposed two mechanisms as being essential to software tools that scaffold 

complex learning: structuring and problematizing. Structuring is believed to scaffold students by 

decomposing the task and guiding them through the steps of a complex task. Structuring can be 

provided by using prompts that help students with reflection and articulation, helping them move 

forward in a complex task. For example, in the software tool Explanation Constructor [3, с. 36] is 

an electronic journal that helps students construct their science explanations. In this tool, structuring 

is provided for articulation and reflection by having students record their research questions, 

construct explanations, and articulate their findings. In other words, structuring breaks down a 

complex task into constituent steps to make it more manageable to students. Problematizing, as 

Reiser described it, “is the flip side of structuring”. It involves having learners confront the 

complexity of the task by helping them focus on aspects of the task that need to be resolved. For 

example, having students analyze their findings based on a theoretical framework forces students to 

think about the theoretical constructs that they should use in their explanations, supporting the 

notion of problematizing. 

Software tools and frameworks are based on the difficulties that students have and help 

students with complex tasks and several strategies that they need. They provide an important first 

step in the design of scaffolding; however, if the tools do not fade the support, and do not vary the 

support for different users, they lack the most critical elements of scaffolding, that of ongoing 

diagnosis and calibrated support. 

жүктеу/скачать 16,98 Mb.

Достарыңызбен бөлісу: