Editing Instructional scaffolding (section)

===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}}