Scaffolding Analysis: Extending the Scaffolding Metaphor to Learning Artifacts

Abstract

The scaffolding metaphor was originally developed to describe the support given by a more expert individual in a one-on-one interaction. Since then, the notion of scaffolding has been applied more broadly, and it has been transformed and generalized. Most recently, it has been used by researchers in the learning sciences to describe features and functions of technological artifacts, especially those of educational software. In this article, we present an analytic framework that we believe can guide and systematize these new uses of the scaffolding metaphor. In this new framework, "scaffolds" are not features of artifacts or situations, nor is "scaffolding" something that may be occurring (or not) in a given situation that we observe. Rather, a scaffolding analysis is a kind of comparative analysis that we perform on learning interactions. Because this analysis is comparative, it always produces results that are relative to specific choices that we make in framing the comparative analysis. In this article, we present a theoretical argument for our proposed framework and illustrate the definition by applying it to two software environments.Just over a quarter century ago, the term scaffolding was introduced to psychology by Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976). In that first incarnation, scaffolding was used to describe the support given by a more expert individual in one-on-one tutorial interactions. Since then, this term has been adopted by researchers that study learning and human interaction from diverse perspectives, and it has been transformed and generalized. Most recently, it has been used by researchers in the learning sciences when discussing features and functions of learning artifacts, especially those

Flow-chart proofs with open problems as scaffolds for learning about geometrical proofs

“…Based on using flow-chart proofs with open problems, we provide a 'scaffolding analysis' (derived from the framework by Sherin et al, 2004) of the introductory proof lessons that we designed. The analysis was undertaken in terms of the scaffolding functions that support students' development in understanding formal proofs in geometry.…”

“…First we describe flow-chart proofs with open problems as a scaffold and then give a detailed analysis of the scaffolding functions using the approach proposed by Sherin et al (2004).…”

“…In order to clarify the features of the use of flow-chart proofs with open problems as a scaffold, we adopt the scaffolding analysis proposed by Sherin et al (2004). They do not view 'scaffolds' as 'features' of artefacts or situations nor do they regard scaffolding as "something that may be occurring (or not) in a given situation that we observe" (p. 388); rather, they argue that their 'scaffolding analysis' should be useful for the analysis of the "design rationale" of research and of quasi-experimental and descriptive "empirical work" (p. 398).…”

“…It is important to focus on scaffolding functions because these are indicators of the effectiveness of scaffolds (e.g. Wood, et al, 1976;Sherin, Reiser and Edelson, 2004). In particular we address the following research questions:…”

“…These levels of understanding are used to identify the status of novice learners' understanding and why flow-chart proofs with open problems might function to scaffold their learning. We then apply the 'scaffolding analysis' framework proposed by Sherin et al (2004) as a way to identify "how the additional features of the scaffolded situation lead to changes in performance along a particular dimension" (p. 388). This analytical framework is particularly suitable for addressing our research questions because, as Sherin et al argue, scaffolded situations can be analysed in terms of 'implicit comparison', 'consistency', and 'an analysis of function'.…”