Interactional Scaffolding for Reading Comprehension

Abstract

Understanding how to support student reading comprehension has long been a goal for education research. Yet no existing literature review links interactional scaffolding, defined as the responsive in-person support an expert reader offers to a novice, and reading comprehension. This review employed theories of scaffolding and reading comprehension to establish a theoretical framework, used an iterative search process to account for the terminological diversity of research on interactional scaffolding, and coded the resulting 57 studies according to their research designs and findings. Conclusions about research designs indicate that the observational studies predominate with fewer experimental, mixed methods, and correlational studies. In addition, study populations are overwhelmingly in K-5 settings. Synthesizing the studies' findings produced four themes: (a) diversity in taxonomies of scaffolding, (b) a focus on contingency, (c) ways contextual and mediational resources shape scaffolding, and (d) potential pitfalls when scaffolding does not go as planned. Suggestions for future research include addressing gaps in research designs, extending and refining existing scaffolding taxa, linking specific forms of scaffolding across contexts to reading outcomes, advancing understanding of the mediational means that underpin comprehension, and deepening knowledge of developmental trajectories for comprehension scaffolding.

When to Scaffold Motivational Self-Regulation Strategies for High School Students' Science Text Comprehension

“…Thus, to promote students' reading comprehension and achievements, researchers have strongly underscored the importance of explicitly training students to both monitor and regulate their own motivational processes (Reynolds, 2017;Schwinger and Otterpohl, 2017). However, prior research has not yet sufficiently investigated when best to embed explicit metamotivational scaffolding to enhance learners' active, effective engagement with science reading comprehension tasks and to promote their science literacy.…”

“…Research to date examining before-task scaffolding for selfregulated learning, delivered only at the reflection-before-action phase (per Dewey, 1997;Raelin, 2001), has not sufficiently investigated science reading or scaffolding that specifically focused on metamotivation. In the math and literature learning contexts, pre-task scaffolding given to high-school students to support their cognitive and metacognitive (but not motivational) self-regulated learning (i.e., before math problem solving or literature reading comprehension) has been found to promote learners' motivation to perform the task as well as their academic-domain achievements (Mevarech and Kramarski, 2017;Reynolds, 2017). These findings for before-task cognitive and metacognitive scaffolding suggest the possible benefits of pre-action self-questioning of a metamotivational nature.…”

Exemplary Reading Teachers’ Use of Instructional Scaffolds With Emergent Bilinguals: How Knowledge and Context Shape Their Choices

“…Interactional scaffolds (Reynolds, ; Walqui, ) emerge during exchanges between teachers and students during class. These have also been labeled collaborative (Cazden, ), temporary (Athanases & de Oliveira, ), adaptive (Roehler & Cantlon, ), one‐on‐one (van de Pol, Volman, & Beishuizen, ) and soft (Saye & Brush, ).…”

“…Most studies examining instructional scaffolds, their effectiveness, and their use during reading instruction are conducted in English language classes designed for native‐English‐speaking students (Reynolds, ; Rodgers, ). However, a few observation and interview‐based studies examine teachers’ use of instructional scaffolds during second language reading instruction with EBs and suggest promising scaffolding strategies for both language and reading development.…”

Scaffolding and Inequitable Participation in Linguistically Diverse Book Clubs

“…However, the concept of scaffolding has been critiqued for being too broad (Pea, ) and, therefore, incorporating a variety of characterizations that may or may not help students in learning (Reynolds & Daniel, ; van de Pol, Volman, & Beishuizen, ). Additionally, there has been little research linking interactional scaffolding with reading comprehension (Reynolds, ) and with supporting EBs in mainstream classrooms (Hammond & Gibbons, ).…”