Imagine a child learning to ride a bike. At first, with training wheels, they can ride knowing that they will be protected if the bike wobbles a bit. In time, the training wheels are removed and the rider pedals forward on their own, slowly gaining control (although maybe with a little wobbling). This is an apt metaphor for scaffolding, which offers many potential benefits because it supports students with “training wheels” as they take on new learning by asking questions, making mistakes and slowly gaining confidence in their own abilities.
Like training wheels, scaffolding can make or break a struggling student’s success. However, the scaffolding (or training wheels) must eventually be removed if the goal is to create independent learners and critical problem solvers. If we remove the training wheels from a child’s bike too soon, they may fall flat and skin their knee. However, the skinned knee (or the experience of making a mistake in the classroom) may be beneficial to the learning while also instilling grit in a student. There is a fine line of knowing what student will thrive in the struggle and what student will need more assistance.
Another challenge of scaffolding is that it is time-consuming on the part of the educator. In an ideal world, teachers would have enough time to understand the learning styles and needs of each student; however, this may not always be possible. We must also remember that scaffolding is distinct from differentiated teaching in that scaffolding may mean introducing vocabulary or previewing a text for the whole class, whereas differentiated instruction involves differentiating the same lesson to various levels of students in their understanding. Scaffolding activities must be able to meet the strengths of students with very different learning styles — which, again, can eat up much of the teacher’s planning process.3
Let’s take a deeper look at some of the most common mistakes educators make when applying scaffolding techniques:
1. Too Much Front-loading (Overloading Students With Too Much Initial Information)
Fisher and Fry note that students deserve an opportunity to wrestle with ideas and information, which may mean staying in the struggle for a bit.1 Without embracing the struggle, they believe that with excessive front-loading (a type of scaffolding) students have a hard time finding their own momentum and balance as learners. This means that if we do provide any scaffolds, as teachers, we must also fade as we determine students’ readiness to take on the independent practice (or the “You Do” piece). We want to set our students up for success, and if we spend too much time on the before, we may instill student dependency on the tools and supports, which impedes their achievement of independence.
2. Failing To Strike the Balance Between Scaffolding and Independence
An interesting study by Volman investigated whether scaffolding affects students’ achievement, task effort and appreciation of teacher support, when students work in small groups. They studied the effects of support quality and duration of independence. Compared to the high-quality support group, where independent work time was short and help occurred often, the group that received less support was more successful in stimulating students’ achievement and efforts.4
On the flip-side, where there was a longer independent work time (and help occurred less often), high-quality support was more effective in promoting students’ achievement. In addition, higher levels of support quality resulted in a greater appreciation for that support. These findings indicate that the place of scaffolding depends on the allowance of time and support in the independent time allotment efforts. Success still depends on the independent working time of the groups and students’ efforts. We must continue to model and encourage no matter what because support appears to be appreciated. In the “I Do” method, we model and continually recognize success as we slowly release students to independence.
Also, in the “I Do” model, we recognize where supports are needed for various levels of learners (as we observe and formatively assess), which enables educators to:
- Identify where students are in the learning process1
- Ask how far they are from independence
- Get the student involved in their own learning
We must remind ourselves that much of our role can be that of an encourager; students who feel supported (especially with scaffolds) appear to do better in independent working time. However, before achieving independence in the “We Do,” scaffolds are provided using tools such as small groups and sentence starters, while teachers check for understanding and provide guidance. Although some students will be ready to move to independence faster, the key is to keep them engaged in the learning process.
3. Neglecting To Understand Scaffold Types and When To Deploy Them
Fisher and Fry discuss guiding students to the goal of independence utilizing various types of scaffolds.1
- Front-end scaffolds are used as the lesson begins as an anticipatory set. Examples include reviewing vocabulary, showing a visual, or even reading something aloud and engaging in a discussion.
- Distributed scaffolds occur during the “We Do” stage and are monitored and changed as the students catch on. This can be part of peer scaffolding, where the learners are already in pairs or groups, supporting one another. A “pause, question, review” approach can prompt student thinking without giving them any answers; it merely prompts the thinking and, when used with a partner, can invoke a new idea.
- Back-end scaffolds can be a part of the reflection process at the end of learning.
Using scaffolding in these ways can encourage learning without engendering dependence among the learners. However, we must know when to fade (as well as when to break up the groups) so as to nudge students toward independence.
4. Failing To Encourage Students While Allowing Them To Tackle Challenges Independently
In her book Limited Mind, Jo Boaler discusses the vitality of the struggle and the allowance for mistakes in the learning process.5 She invokes the example of a skating coach who used to tell his protege, “if you are not falling, you are not learning”; likewise, in the classroom, if you are not struggling, you are not really learning.5 Also in this vein, scientists at UCLA have written about “desirable difficulties,” intimating that our brains crave to be pushed and challenged.6 Therefore, if and when a student struggles and complains about something being difficult, we can instead praise them and say, “That is awesome! You can do this! Keep going!” A logical next step would then be to ask them a prompting question.
5. Misjudging the Timing for Gradual Fading of Support
Our goal is the “You Do” portion of the method, when 90% of the responsibility is placed on the students for their own learning and mastery.1 Again, we continue to encourage and support them in this stage (as the study showed, students who feel supported appear to be more successful because they appreciate the support).
We may see struggle, but productive struggle can be an opportunity for learners to engage in critical thinking and muddle through complex topics. If students know that there are “training wheels” nearby, they may be able to stay in the fight for independence a bit longer.
