Editing Instructional scaffolding (section)

== Levels and types in the educational setting ==
According to Saye and Brush, there are two levels of scaffolding: soft and hard.<ref name=":5">{{Cite journal |last1=Saye |first1=John W. |last2=Brush |first2=Thomas |date=September 2002 |title=Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments |url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/BF02505026 |journal=[[Educational Technology Research and Development]] |volume=50 |issue=3 |pages=77–96 |doi=10.1007/BF02505026 |s2cid=62241325 |issn=1042-1629|url-access=subscription }}</ref>  An example of soft [[scaffolding]] in the classroom would be when a teacher circulates the room and converses with his or her students.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Simons |first1=Krista D. |last2=Klein |first2=James D. |date=2007 |title=The impact of scaffolding and student achievement levels in a problem-based learning environment |url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11251-006-9002-5 |journal=Instructional Science |volume=35 |pages=41–72 |doi=10.1007/s11251-006-9002-5|s2cid=18487665 |url-access=subscription }}</ref>  The teacher may question their approach to a difficult problem and provide constructive feedback to the students.  According to Van Lier, this type of scaffolding can also be referred to as contingent scaffolding.  The type and amount of support needed is dependent on the needs of the students during the time of instruction.<ref name="Van Lier 1996" />{{Page needed|date=January 2024}}  Unfortunately, applying scaffolding correctly and consistently can be difficult when the classroom is large and students have various needs.<ref>Gallagher, 1997</ref>{{Full citation needed|date=January 2024}}  Scaffolding can be applied to a majority of the students, but the teacher is left with the responsibility to identify the need for additional scaffolding.

In contrast with contingent or soft scaffolding, embedded or hard scaffolding is planned in advance to help students with a learning task that is known in advance to be difficult.<ref name=":5" />  For example, when students are discovering the formula for the [[Pythagorean theorem|Pythagorean Theorem]] in math class, the teacher may identify hints or cues to help the student reach an even higher level of thinking.  In both situations, the idea of "expert scaffolding" is being implemented:<ref name="Holton 127–143">{{Cite journal |last1=Holton |first1=Derek |last2=Clarke |first2=David |date=2006-03-15 |title=Scaffolding and metacognition |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207390500285818 |journal=International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology |volume=37 |issue=2 |pages=127–143 |doi=10.1080/00207390500285818 |s2cid=123464772 |issn=0020-739X|url-access=subscription }}</ref> the teacher in the classroom is considered the expert and is responsible for providing scaffolding for the students.

Reciprocal scaffolding, a method first coined by Holton and Thomas, is a method that involves a group of two or more collaboratively working together.  In this situation, the group can learn from each other's experiences and knowledge.  The scaffolding is shared by each member and changes constantly as the group works on a task.<ref name="Holton 127–143"/>  According to Vygotsky, students develop higher-level thinking skills when scaffolding occurs with an adult expert or with a peer of higher capabilities.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Stone |first=C. Addison |date=July 1998 |title=The Metaphor of Scaffolding: Its Utility for the Field of Learning Disabilities |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/002221949803100404 |journal=[[Journal of Learning Disabilities]] |volume=31 |issue=4 |pages=344–364 |doi=10.1177/002221949803100404 |pmid=9666611 |s2cid=44706306 |issn=0022-2194|url-access=subscription }}</ref>  Conversely, Piaget believes that students discard their ideas when paired with an adult or student of more expertise.<ref>Piaget, 1928</ref>{{Full citation needed|date=January 2024}}  Instead, students should be paired with others who have different perspectives.  Conflicts would then take place between students allowing them to think constructively at a higher level.

Technical scaffolding is a newer approach in which computers replace the teachers as the experts or guides, and students can be guided with web links, online tutorials, or help pages.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Yelland |first1=Nicola |last2=Masters |first2=Jennifer |date=2007 |title=Rethinking scaffolding in the information age |journal=Computers and Education |volume=48 |issue=3 |pages=362–382 |doi=10.1016/j.compedu.2005.01.010}}</ref>  Educational software can help students follow a clear structure and allows students to plan properly.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Lai |first1=Ming |last2=Law |first2=Nancy |date=September 2006 |title=Peer Scaffolding of Knowledge Building Through Collaborative Groups with Differential Learning Experiences |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/gw42-575w-q301-1765 |journal=Journal of Educational Computing Research |volume=35 |issue=2 |pages=123–144 |doi=10.2190/gw42-575w-q301-1765 |s2cid=62585185 |issn=0735-6331|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

===Directive and supportive scaffolding===

Silliman and Wilkinson distinguish two types of scaffolding: 'supportive scaffolding' that characterises the IRF (Initiation-Response-Follow-up) pattern; and 'directive scaffolding' that refers to IRE (Initiation-Response-Evaluation).<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Silliman |first1=E. |title=Language learning disabilities in school-age children and adolescents |last2=Wilkinson |first2=L. C. |publisher=[[Pearson Higher Education]] |year=1994 |isbn=9780675221535 |editor-last=Wallach |editor-first=G. |edition=1st |pages=27 |chapter=Discourse scaffolds for classroom intervention |editor-last2=Butler |editor-first2=K.}}</ref> Saxena (2010)<ref name="Applied Linguistics pp. 163-184">{{Cite journal |last=Saxena |first=M. |date=2010 |title=Reconceptualising teachers' directive and supportive scaffolding in bilingual classrooms within the neo-Vygotskyan approach |journal=Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice |volume=7 |issue=2 |pages=163–184 |doi=10.1558/japl.v7i2.169}}</ref> develops these two notions theoretically by incorporating Bhaktin's (1981)<ref name="Bakhtin, M.M. 1981">{{Cite book |last=Bakhtin |first=M. M. |title=The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M. M. Bakhtin |publisher=[[University of Texas Press]] |year=1981 |isbn=9780292715271 |editor-last=Holquist |editor-first=M. |series=University of Texas Press Slavic series |location=Austin |translator-last=Emerson |translator-first=C. |oclc=6378837 |translator-last2=Holquist |translator-first2=M.}}</ref> and van Lier's (1996)<ref name="Van Lier 1996">{{Cite book |last=Van Lier |first=L. |title=Interaction in the Language Curriculum: Awareness, Autonomy, and Authenticity |publisher=Longman |year=1996 |isbn=9780582248793 |location=London}}</ref> works. Within the IRE pattern, teachers provide 'directive scaffolding' on the assumption that their job is to transmit knowledge and then assess its appropriation by the learners.  The question-answer-evaluation sequence creates a predetermined standard for acceptable participation and induces passive learning. In this type of interaction, the teacher holds the right to evaluate and asks 'known-information' questions which emphasise the reproduction of information. The nature and role of the triadic dialogue have been oversimplified and the potential for the roles of teachers and students in them has been undermined.<ref name="Nassaji, H 2000">{{Cite journal |last1=Nassaji |first1=H. |last2=Wells |first2=G. |date=2000 |title=What's the use of 'triadic dialogue'? An investigation of teacher-student interaction |journal=[[Applied Linguistics (journal)|Applied Linguistics]] |volume=21 |issue=3 |pages=376–406 |doi=10.1093/applin/21.3.376|citeseerx=10.1.1.548.1185 }}</ref>

If, in managing the talk, teachers apply 'constructive power'<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Saxena |first=M. |date=2009 |title=Negotiating conflicting ideologies and linguistic otherness: codeswitching in English classrooms |journal=English Teaching: Practice and Critique |volume=8 |issue=2 |pages=167–187}}</ref> and exploit students' responses as occasions for joint exploration, rather than simply evaluating them, then the classroom talk becomes dialogic.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Nystrand |first=M. |title=Opening Dialogue: Understanding the Dynamics of Language and Learning in the English Classroom |publisher=[[Teachers College Press]] |year=1997 |isbn=9780807735749 |location=New York}}</ref>{{Page needed|date=January 2024}} The pedagogic orientation of this talk becomes 'participation orientation', in contrast to 'display/assessment orientation' of IRE.<ref name="Van Lier 1996"/>{{Page needed|date=January 2024}} In this kind of pattern of interaction, the third part of the triadic dialogue offers 'follow-up' and teachers' scaffolding becomes 'supportive'. Rather than producing 'authoritative discourse',<ref name="Bakhtin, M.M. 1981"/> teachers construct 'internally persuasive discourse' that allows 'equality' and 'symmetry'<ref name="Van Lier 1996"/>{{Rp|page=175}} wherein the issues of power, control, institutional managerial positioning, etc. are diffused or suspended. The discourse opens up the roles for students as the 'primary knower' and the 'sequence initiator',<ref name="Nassaji, H 2000"/> which allows them to be the negotiator and co-constructor of meaning. The suspension of asymmetry in the talk represents a shift in the teacher's ideological stance and, therefore, demonstrates that supportive scaffolding is more than simply a model of instruction.<ref name="Applied Linguistics pp. 163-184"/>{{Rp|page=167}}