Examining the nature of scaffolding in an early literacy intervention

Rodgers, E., D’Agostino, J.V., Harmey, S.J., Kelly, R.H., Brownfield, K. (2016). Examining the nature of scaffolding in an early literacy intervention. Reading Research Quarterly, 51(3), 345-360.


The first half of this research report functioned as a primer on scaffolding for me. The actual research report in the second half of the article, though interesting, did not present findings that were strongly conclusive, probably due to methodological problems, which are thoroughly discussed at the end of the article. However, the clear, concise discussion of the contingencies of scaffolding that preceded the summary of the research findings really helped me get a handle on the whole concept of scaffolding, which I think may be the most fundamental—and the most difficult—teaching skill of all.

Research by Wood (and others) on scaffolding contingencies provides us with some concepts to help us wrap our minds around scaffolding. The researchers in the Rodgers et al study organized their inquiry around three kinds of contingencies: 1) temporal contingency (i.e., when or how frequently scaffolding is provided), 2) instructional contingency (i.e., how much to scaffold, or perhaps the level of scaffolding provided), and 3) domain contingency (i.e., what kind of scaffolding is provided).

In the study here, domain scaffolding seemed to be the most important contingency. Being able to match the kind of scaffolding with the kind of difficulty a child was having with an unknown word seemed to be about the only thing that differed between teachers who had been classified as having “higher outcomes” and those classified as having “lower outcomes”. I did have serious questions about classifying and comparing these two very small samples of teachers the way it was done in the study, but it is still an interesting idea that some teachers seem to be better able to pinpoint what a child is not attending to about an unknown word, and then, even better, they are able to provide just the right kind and amount of help that allows the child to figure the word out.

Rodgers et al used the categories developed for Reading Recovery’s running records assessments to describe the kinds of difficulties children had with words they encountered when reading aloud. The categories are types of information the child is supposedly “neglecting”, or not attending to, about a word. There were three categories: 1) visual information (how the word looks), 2) structure (the function of the word within the oral language of the text), and 3) meaning (how the word relates to the meaning of the story). These categories seem roughly analogous to the cueing systems used for miscue analysis (graphophonemic, syntactic, and semantic cues) though I like the miscue analysis categories better because they focus positively on what a child is looking at rather than negatively at what a child is “neglecting”.

Whatever way you look at it, though, the idea that a skillful teacher can home in on just what the child needs, and then provide just the right help, is intriguing. Anyone who has ever taught any sort of complex skill to novices can relate to just how difficult this is. First, you need a deep knowledge of the skill and its components. Then, you need to have the presence of mind to closely observe the learner and what parts of the skill he/she is or is not doing. Then, you have to be able to access a strategy and give the learner just enough support, but not so much that you do it for him/her. The learner must do the work, and he/she must realize that, in order to feel successful.

All of this skillful teaching has to occur in real time, in the moment, and the timing, the level of help, and focusing with pinpoint accuracy, all are essential to make it all work. Competent scaffolding is truly a beautiful (and often elusive) thing, and it is, I believe, the heart of the “art and science” of teaching. As a teacher educator, I realized that scaffolding is itself a complex skill that will require skillful scaffolding from me for some of the prospective teachers I work with. How about that—scaffolding to teach how to do scaffolding!

Interestingly, not much research has been done on the nature of effective scaffolding. As important as the concept of scaffolding is in teaching, I found that surprising. If you asked a roomful of teachers to name important theories of teaching, scaffolding would probably come up, along with related references to Vygotsky’s theories and the notion of the “Zone of Proximal Development” (within which scaffolding would be important). We need to know more about how scaffolding works, what good scaffolding is, and how to help teachers scaffold well. Rodgers et al at least make a start on that.