Toward Contingency in Scaffolding Reading Comprehension: Next Steps for Research

Abstract

A B S T R A C TAlthough much research exists on scaffolding in reading instruction, confusion about the construct persists. In this commentary inspired by a recent article in Reading Research Quarterly, we argue for the importance of contingency-that is, responsiveness to student thinking-in reading comprehension scaffolding. We begin by defining two sometimes nebulous constructs: scaffolding and comprehension. We then argue that the dynamic, contextual, and affective nature of comprehension calls for a focus on contingency in scaffolding interactions because the requisite assumptions of preplanned scaffolding can obscure students' emergent comprehension. To focus on contingency, three implications for research follow. First, research designs could separate interactional scaffolding from planned scaffolding so as to directly investigate the construct. Second, collaboratively analyzing video data of scaffolding interactions is an effective tool for teacher educators and researchers. Finally, researchers should consider refining, building on, or comparing their findings with existing frameworks to illuminate both the transferable and the idiosyncratic dimensions of contingent scaffolding. This could also include studying students' discursive moves in addition to teachers' utterances, which might offer a new lens on how teachers adjust scaffolds in moment-to-moment interactions. These implications lay a foundation for a research agenda that goes beyond assumptions about students built into planned scaffolding and tackles the challenges of contingent comprehension scaffolding. R ecently in Reading Research Quarterly, Rodgers, D'Agostino, Harmey, Kelly, and Brownfield (2016) declared that even though scaffolding is a widely used construct in reading research, "there is no consensus…about how to operationalize [it]" (p. 345). Even without a consensus, Rodgers and colleagues advanced the field's understanding of scaffolding by focusing on its contingency, that is, its responsiveness to student thinking (van de Pol, Volman, & Beishuizen, 2010). Specifically, using a contingency framework developed by Wood (2003), the Rodgers et al. team coded over 1,000 instructional interactions according to teachers' contingent decisions about when to give help (temporal contingency), how much help to give (instructional contingency), and what to emphasize (domain contingency) and found that domain-contingent scaffolding was associated with improved reading. By conducting this study across teachers sharing the same curriculum (Reading Recovery), the authors separated the effects of contingent scaffolding from those of the fixed curricular framework. This design choice launches our commentary.

Reading comprehension and strategy use in fourth- and fifth-grade French immersion students

“…What can you picture in your head while reading this section?). Past studies have focused on the benefits of scaffolding during reading instruction and the idea that this method is a productive step in students becoming independent readers (Hobsbaum, Peters & Sylva, 1996;Reynolds & Daniel, 2017). In general, reading comprehension scores were not very high, despite student confidence.…”

Measuring Reading Strategy Use

“…The Strategy Use Measure (SUM) was originally designed in the context of CSR to measure students' command of these strategies, but was also intended to serve as a non-curriculum-specific measure of reading strategy use, in alignment with Common Core standards that emphasize strategy use during reading in collaborative contexts (Dewitz, Jones & Leahy, 2009;Reynolds & Daniel, 2017). The SUM was designed to be useful primarily in pedagogical (formative) contexts.…”

Scaffolding and Inequitable Participation in Linguistically Diverse Book Clubs

“…In this vein, Vygotsky () and Mercer () have influenced the concept of scaffolding, originated by Wood, Bruner, and Ross () to describe the relationship in tutor–child dyads in supporting the child in joint problem solving with toys to “achieve a goal which would be beyond his unassisted efforts” (p. 90). 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, ).…”