Bier Miller Negative Scaffolding

The Consequences of Negative Scaffolding for Students Who Learn Slowly—A Commentary on C. Addison Stone's "The Metaphor of Scaffolding: Its Utility for the Field of Learning Disabilities" Andrev^ Biemiller and Donald Meichenbaum

Abstract

-^

—

In this commentary, we discuss the outcomes of effective scaffolding, the processes by which successful scaffolding works, and consider implications for children with learning disabilities or below-average academic progress. Scaffolding aims at transferring responsibility for task accomplishment from a competent person to a learner. In the context of children with educational problems, we explicate our view that current practices in many schools may result in a kind of reverse-scaffolding, preventing rather than encouraging transfer of responsibility for tasks.

//

s

£' 1 caffolding" is a metaphor that has been invoked to describe the process by which adults foster the transfer of responsibility for tasks from themselves to unskilled (and often young) learners. In his thoughtful paper, C. Addison Stone (this issue) has reviewed the evolution of the scaffolding metaphor, from its initial use as a description of the ways in which adults support the language and tasks of preschoolers to its application to a wider range of parental and educational contexts. In this commentary, we are going to summarize Stone's position, explore in greater depth the outcomes of effective scaffolding and the. processes by which successful scaffolding works, and consider implications for children with learning disabilities or belowaverage academic progress. In the context of children with educational problems, we will suggest that cur-

are instilled, and how this model of learning and instruction can be applied to various "atypical" children. Specifically, he notes that the existing literature gives insufficient attention to (a) the shared or joint task perspecStone's Analysis and tive inherent in scaffolded instruction, Reconceptualization of (b) the analyses of the qualitatively difScaffolding ferent types of assistance or the gradaStone's summary of the metaphor tion from direct to indirect assistance seems to be as clear a description of necessary for successful scaffolding, scaffolding as has appeared: and (c) how a transfer of responsibility is effected. The key notion captured by most disStone proposes enriching the scafcussions of the scaffolding metaphor is folding concept with ideas of "knowlthat of a joint but necessarily uneven edge consolidation or conceptual reorengagement in a valued activity, with a gradual shift in responsibility for the ac- ganization" and "communicational tivity. Central to this image are the notions challenge or inference." He sees conof affective engagement, intersubjectivity ceptual reorganization as the product or shared understandings, graduated as- of successful scaffolding. Concerning

rent practices in many schools result in a kind of reverse scaffolding, preventing rather than encouraging transfer of responsibility for tasks.

sistance, and transfer of responsibility.

Stone notes problems and criticisms of the metaphor and suggests clarification of how new "understandings" JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES VOLUME 31, NUMBER 4, JULY/AUGUST 1998, PAGES 365-369

the process by which this result is achieved. Stone writes. The process by which this transfer of understanding and responsibility is ac-

366

complished involves a continuing cycle of communicational tension and resolution. During these cycles the child is engaged in an ongoing process of communicational inference as a means of making sense of the adult's actions or utterances, drawing on both preceding and subsequent actions or utterances to clarify or reconceptualize unfamiliar actions. In this way, the child comes to share more fully the adult's perspective on the activity at hand and is thus more capable of acting in light of a new task definition.

JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES

or he receives. The tutee infers meaning from the tutor's actions and utterances and constructs an understanding of what the task is about and how to execute it on his or her own. We concur with Stone in his call for more research to explicate the mechanisms by which the "dance" (a metaphor somewhat different from "scaffolding") between tutee and tutor takes place.

new task, accomplishing it, and storing the consequences, but also a motivational shift from subordinate, or follower, status to dominant, or leader, status in a task-performing dyad or group, and a communicational shift from

comprehender to producer of taskdirective speech. In describing the outcome of scaffolding as a shift from comprehender to producer, we are echoing the earliest formulations of Bruner and Wood (Wood, Bruner, & Outcomes of Effective Ross, 1976; Wood, & Middleton, 1975), Scaffolding not to mention Vygotsky (1978) and Stone also discusses the applicabilThe outcome of effective scaffold- Luria (1961). This formulation has ity of scaffolding approaches to "atypi- ing has been conceptualized as a trans- rarely been explicitly operationalized cal" children, or children with learning fer of responsibility for task accom- (see, however, Meichenbaum & disabilities—a plausible extrapolation, plishment. The earliest scaffolding Biemiller, 1992, and Biemiller et al., in as the earliest scaffolding studies in- studies typically used a near-transfer press). volved very young children function- task to assess effectiveness of scaffolding below the intellectual level of many ing (if any test of effectiveness was in the "atypical" child studies. Stone used). More recent studies have used Processes by Which concludes that, for methodological rea- conventional achievement tests (e.g., Scaffolding Works sons, studies involving parents and reading comprehension; Brown & Precisely how do these motivational atypical children have yielded limited Campione, 1994; Palincsar & Brown, and communicational shifts come information because they have failed 1987) to assess the consequences of scaf- about? Stone's and Wertsch's emphato explicate mechanisms. (Further- folding. sis on creating shared, or "intersubmore, we note that all of the parentWe suggest that in scaffolding, the jective," tasks may be crucial: Scafatypical-child studies described in- goal of transferring responsibility re- folded tasks should begin not as "your volved learning to perform a specific fers not simply to becoming able to task, performed by me," but as "our task, rather than acquiring a skill that reproduce a skill (or reconstruct a task, engaged in by us" (Stone, this was assessed in the context of a differ- puzzle or model) but to becoming able issue; Wertsch, Minnick, & Arns, 1985; ent task than that initially scaffolded.) to construct a related new task or mean- Wertsch & Tulviste, 1992). We agree However, studies using "grouped" ing independently, using learned skills with Stone that most of the scaffoldscaffolded instruction in schools have and strategies. We further suggest that ing literature has placed insufficient had very promising results, including successfully transferring responsibil- emphasis on the importance of estabthe extensive work on reciprocal teach- ity means lishing a shared task context. ing by Palincsar, Brown, and their asIn virtually all uses of the scaffoldsociates (Brown & Campione, 1994; 1. that the learner comes to function ing concept, there is a deliberate efBrown & Palincsar, 1989; Palincsar & in the activity setting as a leader, fort to systematically reduce levels of Brown, 1984), as well as the work of or dominant person (leading both support and increase learner execuBos and Anders (1990) and Englert himself or herself and others), rather tive responsibility through insisting et al. (1994). than as a subordinate person, de- that the learner make more of the deIn summary. Stone adds a greater pendent on guidance from others, cisions required to construct and acfocus on the communicational process and complish tasks (e.g.. Brown & Ferrara, occurring in scaffolded instruction, 2. that the learner comes to use task- 1985; Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Wood, and on how that process leads to the directive speech spontaneously to Bruner, & Ross, 1976). In some cases, conceptual / executive reorganization construct or plan tasks and guide explicit leadership roles are created that makes possible the transfer of task task accomplishment, just as ini- (e.g., reciprocal teaching, jigsaw acresponsibility observed in successful tially the scaffolding adult provided tivities). scaffolding studies. Stone is to be such direction to the learner. In analyzing this process of increascommended for highlighting the biing learner control, or self-direction, we directional features of scaffolding, Thus, we are stressing not only have noted that the learner not only whereby the tutee is active in influ- Stone's "conceptual reorganization," must make progress in assuming inencing the nature of instruction she which makes possible constructing a creased responsibility for task accom-

VOLUME 31, NUMBER 4, JULY/AUGUST 1998

plishment, but typically also must (a) acquire new skills or procedures (which the scaffolder instructs directly) and (b) gain experience constructing new tasks using both the new skills and previously acquired skills (Meichenbaum & Biemiller, 1998). This distinction between learning new skills that can be used fairly generally (examples from scaffolding studies include fitting blocks together, identifying words, calculating sums, etc.) versus incorporating these skills into novel tasks or courses of action in specific activity settings (e.g., constructing a tower, understanding a reading passage, solving a math problem) is rarely made clear. Typically, educational programs stress skill acquisition but not task construction and transfer. Academic programs often avoid dealing with poorly specified tasks, yet these are what are required in the real world (The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1994; Greeno et al., 1998; Sternberg, Wagner, Williams, & Horvath, 1995). To become independently effective users of learned skills, learners need both kinds of learning settings: those that focus on acquiring skills and those that focus on constructing or adapting tasks to new situations. Thus, to be effective, scaffolded instruction must address both skill acquisition and task construction using acquired skills.

Transferring Responsibility. In both skill-acquiring and taskconstructing situations, the goal is for learners to be able to direct themselves (and others) successfully. Through a combination of teaching directly (when needed), progressively reducing the specificity of assistance, overtly encouraging the child to make decisions (e.g., "What do you think we need to do next?"), and creating responsible leadership roles for the learner, the scaffolder transfers responsibility for the necessary procedural skills and task-construction or problem-solving strategies to the learner, and also transfers the executive responsibility for the

task construction and accomplishment. This conception of the scaffolding process differs from Stone's in that it emphasizes the necessity of (a) teaching some skills and strategies, (b) creating settings in which new tasks can be constructed, and (c) providing the learner with increased executive or leader roles and the language required for constructing tasks in the domain being mastered.

Implications for Atypical Children If we broadly interpret "learning disabled" or "atypical children" as referring to children who achieve at noticeably subaverage levels for a variety of reasons (e.g., related to general cognitive development, socioeconomic status, native language, physical handicaps, specific learning disabilities), it seems clear that educational practices designed to bring such children to independent performance of relevant academic tasks are desirable. Thus, scaffolding as an approach to instruction with this specific goal should be appropriate to atypical children. We share Stone's concern that the currently fashionable emphasis on the integration of atypical children, and on "destreamed" or ungrouped instruction, may deprive many such children of the opportunity to work on tasks that are actually at manageable difficulty levels for them. (Stone notes an important caveat to the proposition that scaffolding, and particularly scaffolding that emphasizes verbal regulation of tasks, is desirable for atypical children. Scaffolding methods aim at transferring verbal understanding and control of a task situation from an adult or competent person to a child or less competent person. When the child's disability involves severely impaired language function, and in some cases limited selfreflection or self-control, the goal of independent verbally-regulated selfdirection of task construction and accomplishment may be unrealistic.)

367

Do Current School Programs "Scaffold" Negatively, That Is, Prevent Less Advanced Children From Developing Independence in Using Academic Skills? In our view, the large majority of atypical children (which sometimes seems to include all children achieving below the 30th or 40th percentile in some educational domain) can benefit from a scaffolded approach to education. (Evidence for this assertion is presented in Meichenbaum & Biemiller, 1992, and Biemiller, Shany, Inglis, & Meichenbaum, in press.) Unfortunately, one of the major problems now experienced by lower achieving children is that current educational practice often reserves the higher levels of scaffolding (transferring task responsibility, stressing use of spontaneous task directive speech, peer tutoring) for children who are advanced in educational achievement. Advanced chil-

dren routinely encounter the full range of scaffolded instruction, from initial demonstration and explanation of new skills and tasks, through indirect hints and support (Good & Brophy, 1994), to being given responsibility to assist "slower" children with skills the able children have consolidated (Meichenbaum & Biemiller, 1992). Indeed, many books on educational practice recommend having advanced children assist others (e.g.. Good & Brophy, 1994; Goodlad, 1984). Less able students receive few such opportunities. Thus, the instructional assistance offered to able students is "titrated"—to use Stone's term—to foster not only the acquisition of new skills but also the active use of acquired skills in dealing with other children's problems, and sometimes in taking leading roles in projects involving construction of new tasks that incorporate learned skills. However, Stone's concerns about the consequences of removing special classes and, more generally, about not adjusting task demands to student competence, are well founded. For the majority of less advanced children, there are no similar opportunities to use their learned skills or to guide

368

others in doing so. As less advanced students and their teachers struggle to keep up with the grade-level curriculum (and are increasingly mandated to do so), they find that there is simply no time to complete the scaffolding of their instruction. Thus, less advanced children rarely reach the point of being able to accept executive responsibility for tasks, and rarely have the time or opportunity to successfully apply those skills in constructing new tasks. The same is often true of special education classes, especially those for students with learning disabilities. More effort is made to bring skill performance closer to grade level than is made to bring students to effective levels of independent selfdirective use of academic skills. As a result, special education students continue to find little meaning in their academic learning. Such students experience academic tasks as something that "others can do, but that I need help with." Truly scaffolded programs would place greater stress on providing all students with constructive tasks at which they could succeed. Both early scaffolding studies and Stone's "enriched scaffolding" emphasize the careful adjustment, or "calibration," of task demands and the titration of adult assistance to student skill levels as necessary to make possible the transfer of responsibility. Unfortunately, mandated "destreamed" educational standards and such careful adjustment of task demands are often incompatible. As Brown and Campione (1994) have stated, until we give up the assumptions that "there exist prototypical normal students, that, at a certain age, they can do a certain amount of work or grasp a certain amount of material, and that they can do so in the same amount of time" (p. 235), we cannot foster independent accomplishment of academic tasks in a wide range of diverse students. In summary, it seems to us that the scaffolding metaphor works all too well for atypical students. Scaffolding theory and practice suggest that to be-

JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES

come effective, independent users of particular skills and knowledge, learners must acquire skills and relevant task-directive language and must be placed in situations requiring increasing responsibility to apply what they learn. However, current educational practice avoids creating situations in which responsibility for tasks can be effectively transferred to less advanced students, and as a consequence they do not become independent in accomplishing academic tasks. Thus, for us, the real lesson of the scaffolding approach to instruction is that a wide range of children can take independent responsibility for using what they learn, but unless the scaffolding approach of carefully adjusting task demands to true student skill levels is taken seriously, many will continue not to gain effective use of a wide range of academic skills. It is the competent students who are more likely to receive the full scaffolding experience, while the less competent students are provided with fewer opportunities to exercise their self-regulatory metacognitive skills. All too often teachers, parents, and more competent peers act as "surrogate frontal lobes" for less competent students, denying them opportunities for a full scaffolding experience. As a result, the gap between those who thrive and those who falter becomes larger.

REFERENCES

Biemiller, A., Shany, M., Inglis, A., & Meichenbaum, D. (in press). Factors influencing children's acquisition and demonstration of self-regulation on academic tasks. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Developing self-regulated learners: From teaching to self-reflective practice. New York: Guilford Press. Bos, C. S., & Anders, P. L. (1990). Interactive teaching and learning: Instructional practices for teaching content and strategic knowledge. In T. E. Scruggs & B. Y. L. Wong (Eds.), Intervention research in learning disabilities (pp. 166-185). New York: Springer-Verlag. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229-272). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Brown, A. L., & Ferrara, R. A. (1985). Diagnosing zones of proximal development. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture and communication: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 273-305). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. (1989). Guided cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and procedure (pp. 393^52). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1994). In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 157-200). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Englert, C. S., Tarrant, K. L., Mariage, T. V., & Oxer, T. (1994). Lesson talk as the work of reading groups: The effectiveness of ABOUT THE AUTHORS two interventions. Journal of Learning DisAndrew Biemiller, PhD, is a professor of abilities, 27, 165-185. human development at the Institute of Child Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1994). Looking Study, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. in classrooms. New York: Harper & Row. His current interests include self-regulation Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school. in education, the interaction of language and New York: McGraw-Hill. reading skills, and classroom applications of Greeno, J., & the Middle School Mathematthese areas. Donald Meichenbaum, PhD, is ics Through Applications Project Group. a professor of psychology (emeritus) at the Uni(1998). The situativity of knowing, learnversity of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, ing, and research. American Psychologist, and consultant to a number of hospitals and 53, 5-26. boards of education. His current interests in- Luria, A. (1961). The role of speech in the clude self-regulation in education, cognitive regulation of normal and abnormal behaviour. behavior modification, and applications of these London: Pergamon Press. in schools and in treatment of patients with Meichenbaum, D., & Biemiller, A. (1992). brain injury. Address: Andrew Biemiller, InIn search of student expertise in the classstitute of Child Study, University of Toronto, room: A metacognitive analysis. In M. 45 Walmer Road, Toronto, Canada M5R 2X2. Pressley, K. Harris, & J. Guthrie (Eds.),

VOLUME 31, NUMBER 4, JULY/AUGUST 1998

Promoting academic competence and literacy: Cognitive research and procedural innovation (pp. 3-56). New York: Academic Press. Meichenbaum, D., & Biemiller, A. (1998). Nurturing independent learners. Brookline, MA: Brookline Books. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehensionfostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1987). Advances in improving the cognitive performance of handicapped students. In M. C. Wang, M. C. Reynolds, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Handbook of special education research and practice. Vol. 1: Learner characteristics and adaptive education (pp. 93-112). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press. Sternberg, R. J., Wagner, R. K., Williams, W. M., & Horvath, J. A. (1995). Testing common sense. American Psychologist, 50, 912-927. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of the higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wertsch, J. V., & Tulviste, P. (1992). L. S. Vygotsky and contemporary developmental psychology. Developmental Psychology, 28, 548-557. Wertsch, M., Minnick, N., & Arns, F. (1985). The creation of context in joint problemsolving. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 150-171). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wood, D., & Middleton, D. (1975). A study of assisted problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 66,181191. Wood, D. J., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.

Art for 2000 JLD Covers Sought As noted on the table of contents, the six covers of this volume year of the Journal of Learning Disabilities feature an original artwork created by Clive Summerfield, a trustee of the Art Dyslexic Trust. We plan to continue showcasing the artwork of individuals with leaming disabilities on JLD covers; therefore, we are now soliciting art for the 2000 issue covers. Individuals with leaming disabilities of any age are encouraged to submit their original work for consideration. The form may be a painting, color photograph, sculpture, computergenerated graphic, or any comparable medium. The work must not exceed a maximum of 24" by 36"; 3-dimensional work must not exceed 20 pounds. Two entries per participant may be submitted. Each entry must include the following information: (a) artist's name, age, address, and phone number; (b) title ofthe work; (c) specific medium used; and (d) size ofthe work. The actual submission ofthe art should be a color reproduction in one ofthe following formats: photograph (not Polaroid), slide (35mm), or computer disk (saved as an EPS of TIFF file on 3 1/2" floppy. Zip disk, 128/230 magnetic-optical disk, or 44/88 SyQuest cartridge). PRO-ED may seek ownership ofthe original artwork selected for the JLD cover. Entries should be postmarked by December 15,1998. PRO-ED assumes no responsibility for entries damaged in the mail. Entries, requests for more information, or questions should be directed to: Judith K. Voress PRO-ED, Inc. 8700 Shoal Creek Blvd. Austin, TX 78757-6897 512/451-3246 • Fax 512/302-9129 e-mail: PROEDl{gaol.com

369