Dossier
Teaching in inclusive setting:
towards collaborative
scaffolding
Marita Mäkinen 1
PhD, Research Director, School of Education
University of Tampere, Finland
Elina Mäkinen
PhD Student, School of Education
Stanford University, USA
Summary: This study illustrates how teachers conceptualize learning and responding to students’ diversity
in inclusive educational practices. The sociocultural framework and the concept of scaffolding
allow us to gain better understanding of the dynamic learning processes as well as the ethical
and collaborative dimensions of teachers’ competencies needed to promote inclusive practices.
The data consist of 46 interviews with pre-primary, primary, and lower-secondary school teachers.
The results represent three distinct conceptualizations for scaffolding: monitoring achievement,
guiding students in challenging inquiries, and enhancing social dynamics of learning. Based on
our findings, we suggest a model for collaborative scaffolding in the context of diverse classroom
settings. The model consists of six features: autonomy, activation, sensitivity, assistance,
awareness, and trust. Furthermore, the model for scaffolding in diverse classrooms may have
important implications for understanding and promoting inclusive educational practices.
Keywords: Collaborative scaffolding - Inclusive education - learning.
Enseigner dans un cadre inclusif : collaborer pour étayer
Résumé : Le présent article illustre la manière dont les enseignants conçoivent l’amélioration de
l’apprentissage et la manière avec laquelle ils répondent à la diversité des élèves dans des
pratiques inclusives. Le cadre socioculturel offre un concept utile, l’étayage, qui rend plus claire la
compréhension des processus d’apprentissage dynamique ainsi que les dimensions éthiques et
collaboratives des enseignants requises pour promouvoir les pratiques inclusives. Les données
présentées dans cet article proviennent d’interviews menées avec des enseignants d’écoles
maternelles, primaires et des premières classes du collège. Les résultats font apparaître trois
approches distinctes dans lesquelles l’étayage est conçu : le suivi des réussites, le guidage
des élèves dans une tâche difficile et l’amélioration du dynamisme social dans l’apprentissage.
Les résultats proposent un modèle à six attributs, facteurs d’un étayage collaboratif réussi dans
le travail avec une diversité d’élèves, à savoir : autonomie, activation, sensibilité, assistance,
conscience et confiance. Dans l’ensemble, le modèle de l’étayage en relation avec la diversité
des élèves semble avoir des implications importantes dans une compréhension plus large des
pratiques inclusives dans les classes.
Mots-clés : Apprentissage - Collaboration - Éducation inclusive - Étayage.
I
nclusive education has recently been understood more broadly than what its
initial focus on how to provide proper education for students with disabilities in
mainstream schools suggests. The contemporary definition refers to a holistic
educational reform which supports and welcomes diversity amongst all learners;
1. [email protected]
La nouvelle revue de l’adaptation et de la scolarisation - no 55 • 3e trimestre 2011
57
for instance, who come from multicultural and multi-diverse backgrounds or who
are at risk of not achieving up to their potential (Forlin, 2010; Winter, 2006). As such,
the idea of inclusion starts from the belief that education is a basic human right and
the foundation for societal equality.
Since the Salamanca Statement (Unesco, 1994) there has been an agreement at the
global level on the key principles of inclusive education systems. The current education
policy in Finland has reinforced the inclusive reform of basic education by rebuilding
a support system (Special education strategy, 2007). Therefore, the Basic Education
Act (2010/642) and the National Core Curriculum (2010) have been updated in line with
declarations at the global level (e.g. Unesco, 1994, 2009). The new legislation has
abolished the requirement of labeling and diagnosing students before they are entitled
to receive teaching, accommodations, and support most appropriate for their abilities.
Indeed, the updated legislation pays increasing attention to diversity by rebuilding
the instructional step-up support system in order to enhance learning and prevent
educational exclusion (cf. Koivula et al., 2011; Special education strategy, 2007;
Mäkinen et al., 2010). The support is now divided into three parts: common, intensified,
and special support. Teachers are viewed as having the most direct impact on the
day-to-day educational experiences of students (Unesco/Unifec, 2007). Therefore,
teachers’ main task is to discover how to help students in the best possible way
when taking into consideration all of their qualities. Thus, it has become important
to understand teachers’ own conceptualizations of how to improve learning and
how to respond to students’ diversity in inclusive practices. Our main objective is
to shed light on this relatively unexplored topic by following phenomenographical
analysis when describing teachers’ conceptualizations of how to foster learning (i.e.
scaffolding) in diverse classroom settings.
Teaching viewed from a sociocultural perspective
While the movement towards establishing more inclusive settings in education
has been on a fairly distinctive trajectory, implications for the everyday practices of
teaching have remained unclear. Because of the current changes related to inclusive
setting and students diversity discussed above, teaching can no longer be understood
in terms of traditional or even individualistic approach. The following excerpt from
a Finnish novelist (Hyry, 1965) reflects a so-called homogeneous teaching strategy
in transferring literacy to a dyslexic student while ignoring the student’s individual
thoughts, needs, and emotions:
When Hannu was reading, he spelled so slowly that he only got to the fourth
word, and his teacher dictate him with almost all of the letters, except with
A and I (Hyry, 1965).
Zapata (1988) has argued that teachers tend to base their instructional choices
on strategies of learning which have been successful for themselves rather than
on a broader understanding of how an individual student learns. Hence, teachers’
practical knowledge today is challenged by their own experiences of typical cultures
of teaching and learning decades ago.
58
La nouvelle revue de l’adaptation et de la scolarisation - no 55 • 3e trimestre 2011
Dossier
In fact, enhancing multi-diverse students’ learning is a demanding task. Forlin (2010)
argues that especially in many western countries individualistic expectations have
turned teaching into a very challenging task and that the teaching profession is in
despair when faced with students who are disenfranchised with schooling, sabotage
lessons, and render teachers’ lives extremely unpleasant (Rose & Jones, 2007).
Therefore, teaching has become increasingly complex and multilayered (cf. Clandinin
& Connelly, 1996) and many barriers need to be overcome while preparing teachers
for inclusive educational practices.
In this new context, the focus of teaching in inclusive settings can no longer be on
teaching but specifically on learning. Hatch (2010) states that learning provides a
significant framework for all kinds of classroom practices, not just teaching. In addition,
inclusive educational practices are becoming especially significant, because learning
takes place in a variety of cultural and social contexts (cf. Rogoff, 1990). In this study,
we view, similarly to Vygotsky (1962, 1978, 1987), learning as an inherently social
activity. As learning is closely connected to social relations present in classrooms,
both success and failure can be seen as socially organized activities. Moreover, the
Vygotskian approach is useful when considering how teachers should prepare for
contemporary inclusive settings. In what follows, we suggest ways in which the
concept of scaffolding can be used to enhance teaching.
Scaffolding as a framework
for teaching in inclusive settings
Scaffolding has been described as having the capability to describe varied means of
assistance in adult-child interactions and in learning processes from other-regulation to
self-regulation (Rogoff & Gardner, 1984). The concept of scaffolding is not commonly
known among teachers, even though the idea is far from new. Many studies have,
however, used the framework of scaffolding to develop concepts such as contingent
teaching (Wood, Wood, & Middleton, 1978; van de Pol, Volman & Beishuizen, 2011),
assisted performance (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988), cognitive apprenticeship (Rogoff,
1990), guided inquiry (Palicsar, 1998), joint problem-solving (Butler, 1998), flying buttress
(Donahue & Lopez-Reuna, 1998), and responsive teaching (Gaskins et al., 1993).
Together these concepts raise a consensus on two key perspectives on classroom
practices, which are especially important for inclusive settings: all students should
engage in active and continual meaning-making and learning should be guided by
ongoing interactions with significant others.
By utilizing Vygotsky’s framework, Wood et al. (1976) introduced scaffolding as a set
of supportive strategies when guiding children solving cognitive problems. Vygotsky
stated that appropriate guidance is a prerequisite for learning by arguing that ”we
assist each child through demonstration, leading questions and by introducing the
initial elements of the task’s solution” (Vygotsky, 1978, 209). Moreover, the Zone of
Proximal Development (ZPD) brings forth the idea that through assistance, educators
can expose children to experiences within their zones of proximal development and
in this way advance their individual learning (Cazden, 1979). Moreover, Tharp and
Gallimore (1988) have argued that while scaffolding is a natural way for adults to
interact with children in everyday life, it is less common in schooling contexts. This
La nouvelle revue de l’adaptation et de la scolarisation - no 55 • 3e trimestre 2011
59
implies that within classrooms it is difficult to provide such assistance that challenges
but won’t disrupt learning processes.
While Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory has thrived since its early days, the concept
of scaffolding is commonly understood as ’ability training’. Belland et al. (2008), for
instance, argue that scaffolding needs to correspond with students’ abilities and it
needs to be implemented in motivating ways. In connection to this, Pol et al. (2011)
define three distinct features of scaffolding in the teacher-student interaction. First,
contingency refers to pedagogical strategies where a teacher may utilize several tools
such as diagnostic strategies and interventions depending on students’ actions. Second,
fading can be defined as a process where a teacher supports the student in achieving
his or her goal and then gradually dismantles the support so that the student is able
to achieve independently (cf. Bunch, 2009). Third, transfer of responsibility refers to
the shift by which a teacher moves the responsibility to the student.
Hence, the most dominant interpretations of scaffolding reflect a cognitive orientation
to learning, which in recent decades has prevailed both in general and special education.
For example Butler (1998) argues that cognitive-oriented scaffolding represents
students’ knowledge as merely a mirror of adult’s knowledge. Thus, students’ insights
and novel ways of constructing action are to great extent ignored. Similarly, the focus
on special education has been on individual deficits and how these problems can
be overcome (Rueda & Genzuk, 2007; Trent, Artiles & Englert, 1998). In many cases
scaffolding has been stripped of its sociocultural basis and for that reason, Palincsar
(1986, 1998) and Stone (1998) have argued for enriching and extending applications of
the scaffolding metaphor. Most importantly, the ways in which scaffolding is performed
in heterogeneous classrooms and how the supportive strategies are used for teaching
diverse students have not been systematically analyzed.
Furthermore, Gudzial et al. (1995) have pointed out that scaffolding is not significant only
for cognitive problem-solving but also for collaboration. In the context of problem-solving,
scaffolding focuses on individual’s knowledge construction. However, in collaboration,
scaffolding is connected to the social aspects of learning. Similarly, Rosiek (2003)
has emphasized the impact of emotional scaffolding by claiming that teachers’ work
includes anticipation of students’ emotional response to specific topics and tasks. In
fact, already in the early 1900’s, Dewey (1931/1988, 189) stated: “There is no education
when ideas and knowledge are not translated into emotions, interest, and volition”.
Focus of the study
The aim of this study is to describe how teachers interpret and recount their
experiences on enhancing learning in inclusive classrooms. Thus, by examining
teachers’ experiences and understandings we can depict the different nuances
of scaffolding. To that end, our intention is to bring to the fore a variety of the
conceptualizations of scaffolding and ways to respond to students’ diverse needs
in inclusive educational practices.
Research methodology
This research utilizes phenomenographic approach, which explores the variation in
how people describe their experiences concerning a particular phenomenon (Marton
60
La nouvelle revue de l’adaptation et de la scolarisation - no 55 • 3e trimestre 2011
La nouvelle revue de l’adaptation et de la scolarisation - no 55 • 3e trimestre 2011
Dossier
& Booth, 1997; Åkerlind, 2005). In fact, Clandinin and Connelly (1996, 2000) point out
that teachers tend to understand their practices through personal biographies, which
are shaped by different discourse communities in which they work. The aim of our
analysis was to construct qualitatively different categories of teachers’ conceptualisations
of scaffolding. These categories and their relation to one another was the basis for a
framework for understanding successful scaffolding in inclusive practices.
Our data consists of 46 semi-structured interviews with Finnish teachers who work in
inclusive settings in basic education. The interviews were conducted during autumn
2008 and spring 2009. More specifically, we analysed 15 interviews with pre-primary
teachers (P-PRIM), 14 interviews with primary teachers (PRIM), 9 interviews with
lower-secondary teachers (SEC), and 8 interviews with specialized teachers (SPEC).
Most of the interviewees had been teaching for at least ten years. The interviews
focused on everyday classroom practices in relation to two general themes, which
are explained in detail below. Moreover, during the interviews, interviewees were
probed with questions that encouraged them to consider the variety of viewpoints
that the themes raised (cf. Ashworth & Lucas, 2000).
The first theme of the interview focused on teachers’ experiences of scaffolding
learning processes in their classroom practices. Teachers were asked questions about
how they perceived and valued learning, classroom interaction, and diverse students’
participation in classroom activities. In addition, the teachers were asked to describe
their views on and means of assisting the learning of atypical students. The second
theme focused on the principles and contexts of scaffolding, strategies of assisting,
and implementations within everyday classroom practices. Moreover, teachers were
asked to describe their successful and unsuccessful teaching experiences.
The analysis consisted of four stages: close reading, organizing the data, categorizing,
and summarizing the findings. In the close reading, we examined the transcripts
through an iterative reading process. In the organizing stage, the content of the
interviews were compared with each other. Moreover, at this stage we constructed
preliminary categories. The basic unit of organizing was either a longer segment, for
example a complete thought, or a shorter segment, such as a notional statement.
Thus, one sentence could contain more than one conception and one conception
could be part of more than one interview theme.
In the categorizing stage, the statements were separated from the scaffolding contexts
(pre-primary, primary, lower-secondary school) and the conceptualizations were
interpreted as the interviewees’ subjective expressions. The descriptive categories
were formed in accordance with the teachers’ descriptions of their experiences on
students’ needs, understandings of scaffolding, and descriptions of implementations.
The categories were revised until there was a stable outcome space.
In the summarizing stage, we found that the three main categories clearly described
the collective basis of the scaffolding conceptualizations. The categories differed in
content, structure, and scope. At the same time, we want to note that there were
no rigid and well-defined boundaries between the categories. Furthermore, our aim
was to ensure that we would not impose our own expectations of the teachers’
experiences (cf. Ashworth & Lucas, 2000). In what follows, we present our findings
on teachers’ conceptualizations of scaffolding in inclusive education.
61
Scaffolding and responding to student diversity
By conceptualizations of scaffolding we refer to both what teachers perceive to be
scaffolding and what are their understandings and experiences of implementing it. Contrary
to our expectations, teachers’ conceptualizations of scaffolding did not vary according to
different school contexts (i.e. pre-primary, primary or lower-secondary), type of classes
(i.e. mainstream or special needs) or teachers’ professional position (i.e. class, subject
matter or specialized teacher). This may be a consequence of the fact that all teachers
shared, at least rhetorically, some of the views present in the guidelines of the previous
National Core Curriculum (2004). Thus, teachers’ approaches to learning were quite
cognitive constructivist and they had the tendency to assign agency and responsibility
to the students themselves with regard to their learning processes. Moreover, teachers
had a wide knowledge of the typical diagnoses and symptoms behind learning deficits.
However, there was variation in teachers’ conceptualizations of how to approach
learning, attitudes with regard to scaffolding students from diverse backgrounds, and
their roles when scaffolding struggling learners. The main categories of scaffolding
orientation are depicted in Figure 1. The figure is formed by the intersection of two
axes. The vertical axis represents the attitude and approach to scaffolding. The
horizontal axis represents a continuum of scaffolding orientation from teaching
centered to learning centered.
Figure 1. Teachers’ scaffolding orientations in inclusive settings
In what follows, all the categories are discussed in detail in relation to how scaffolding
can promote inclusive practices. We provide quotes that substantiate our findings
from the interviews with the following codes for context and professional position,
i.e. preprimary/class (P-PRIM), primary/class (PRIM), secondary/subject matter class
(SEC), special education/specialized (SPEC), and gender (M/F).
62
La nouvelle revue de l’adaptation et de la scolarisation - no 55 • 3e trimestre 2011
In this category, scaffolding was defined as a way to monitor students’ overall
achievement. Teachers’ approach to learning stressed the construction of content
knowledge, learning outcomes, and students’ responses to directions. To great
extent, students’ diverse needs were neglected. Instead, the view of scaffolding
tended to be similar to assessment, i.e. a strategy for monitoring whether student
completes a task after teacher has given all the relevant facts and knowledge
content. In general, teachers expected students to be able to act independently.
With regard to students who struggled with learning, teachers characterized students
using diagnostic terminology. Moreover, teachers recalled and listed symptoms for
diagnosed disorders:
Dossier
Monitoring achievement
They have reading and writing disabilities, ADHD, Tourette’s, difficulties in
rapid naming, attention deficit disorders, behavioural difficulties, speech
disabilities, depression, language disorders (SEC-F).
In this way, teachers used labels and diagnoses for reifying and simplifying learning
disabilities. Moreover, the previous quote reflects a traditional view of special education
where assistance is being offered on the basis of different diagnoses. In Finland, the
previous legislation (1998/628) stated that students diagnosed with specific disabilities
were entitled to services. Hence, it is not surprising that teachers did not feel they
could contribute to overcoming or even facilitating struggling learners. The teachers
said they would be happy to direct students with learning difficulties to specialists
who could provide appropriate support and accommodations. This type of approach
can be explained by a tendency to view diagnoses as primary determinants of learning
and educational measurements. Consequently, these teachers concluded that some
students did not have the capability to reach certain academic achievements.
The challenge is to get the children with special needs to work independently,
on their own initiative. If I go and help other students, the “SEN child” will
start doing something else (…) those children are hard to face. Even if I talk
to them and look them directly in the eyes, I can’t be sure whether they have
understood me or not. (PRIM-M.)
This quote reflects a pessimistic, status quo view where teaching strategies do not
allow for variability and are defined in terms of giving directions (cf. Singer, 2008;
Forlin, 2010). This type of approach is similar to Heshusius’s (1996) and Jordan’s (1997)
findings where teachers perceived students with special needs as defective and
passive. In this study, the teachers did not acknowledge that there were important
variations in behaviors and learning disabilities of different individuals. Moreover,
they were not able to reflect critically on the medical diagnoses or the cultural and
institutional contexts.
In the context of assisting learning through social interaction, questioning, and other
linguistic means, the teachers did not discuss any techniques that might enhance
successful and productive pedagogical interaction. Similarly, with regard to teachers’
La nouvelle revue de l’adaptation et de la scolarisation - no 55 • 3e trimestre 2011
63
views on leading questions, the interviewed teachers saw questions as a way for the
teacher to check whether the knowledge content had been acquired and whether
they could move on to the next topic.
The problem with questions is that you sort of prepare a new topic with
questions, that you ask children questions about things they can’t have
enough information about. (…) My personal opinion is that it’s the teacher’s
task to teach. (SEC-M.)
This kind of bypassing or pseudo-interaction diminishes the quality of teaching
and neglects the most crucial element of scaffolding: intentional, sensitive and
responsible teaching with accurate feedback (cf. Butler, 1998; Shindler 2010; Stone,
1998). Consequently, this might prevent students from becoming self-responsible
and hinder social belonging among students.
To sum up, some teachers refused to adopt the inclusive ideology introduced by
the new Basic Education Act (2010/642). Furthermore, the teaching strategies and
techniques of these teachers cannot be characterized in terms of scaffolding where
the focus of teaching is on learning, sensitive engagement, shared understandings,
contingency, graduated assistance, and transfer of responsibility, as Pol et al. (2011)
and Vacca (2008) emphasize. In the framework of scaffolding, these teachers
stressed that the aim is to keep students focused on the task at hand, maintain
order in classrooms, and make sure time is not being wasted on social interaction
or other social activities. One could ask how this type of approach might affect
teacher’s professional commitment. Finally, the teachers preferred that students
with special needs were taught by experts in smaller units within the mainstream
schools. The rationale behind was that the traditional system provided specialist
knowledge and support to students whose needs cannot be met in mainstream
classrooms.
Leading the way into challenging inquiries
The defining feature of this category was the conceptualization of scaffolding as
an instructional strategy where teachers could lead students towards challenging
inquiries based on their constantly evolving intellectual potential. This approach
to learning had an individual-cognitive basis, but it also reflected some notions of
Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development. The attitudes towards scaffolding students
with diverse needs were optimistic and dynamic. Students were mainly seen as
children, not atypical students. The teachers believed they could have a positive
effect on learning as described in the following quote:
Learning disabilities can be devastating for children, and in my opinion, an
early treatment can help children in learning. It is important to know the
specific difficulties in order to give the right kind of support. Highly specific
problems are hard to recognize, and if they are diagnosed too late, child’s
self-esteem has already been affected. (P-PRIM-F.)
64
La nouvelle revue de l’adaptation et de la scolarisation - no 55 • 3e trimestre 2011
Dossier
Teachers’ perceptions in this category reflected that by identifying students’ needs
and by giving support they could contribute to learning. Similarly, Chak (2001), Rueda
and Genzuk (2007) argue that through right kind of direction teachers can have an
effect on students’ positive self-image as learners. Consequently, to assist students
these teachers did not draw only upon diagnostic labels but also upon behavioural
traits, cultural background and environment, and previous experience with special
accommodations. Some teachers even thought that all students have special needs,
as described in the quote below:
One student needs continuous guidance and flexible, calibrated support
because of a disorder, two children need more challenging tasks and compelling
inquiries because they are ahead of the other children (SPEC-F).
In teachers’ opinion, all students benefit from support that is focused on cognitively
based self-regulatory strategies. Teachers presented several means for scaffolding
students, e.g. modelling, questioning, and demonstrating. They conceptualized
scaffolding in connection with the viewpoints of learning-oriented, contextual, and
bi-directional learning processes. Thus, they raised the notion of intersubjectivity
as a way to become familiar with the students’ worlds. In addition, they considered
teacher’s participation and feedback to be important. In these processes, teacher
interacts with students and takes the responsibility for their learning.
The most important thing is to throw yourself into what you’re doing in the
class [--] to monitor students’ emotional levels, to be playful and use humour,
to give positive feedback (PRIM-F).
These ideas are consistent with the finding that students develop their learning
strategies on the basis of the feedback they receive (Stone, 2002). The challenge
is to create compelling, balanced, cognitively structured, and temporary support
processes that allow the responsibility to be transferred from the teacher to the
student (cf. Bunch, 2009; Vacca, 2008). One primary school teacher notes that:
Ultimately, learning takes place in the head of the individual but interaction with
the peer group is a very important source for motivation and a way to model
learning and in my opinion, it further enables students to learn. (PRIM- M.)
These teachers conceptualized scaffolding as a process in which their role was to
provide temporary support that will help students in developing new understandings
and abilities. Teachers seemed to be primarily equipped to provide cognitive scaffolding
to assist students in increasing their self-regulatory strategies so that they would
be able to achieve the goal of the task independently.
The teachers understood scaffolding both as a noun and a verb. Consequently, they
positioned themselves as cognitive scaffolds, and they were familiar, for instance,
with computer-based or other types of training games for enhancing memory,
La nouvelle revue de l’adaptation et de la scolarisation - no 55 • 3e trimestre 2011
65
attention, and reasoning. They saw clear directions, purposes, and expectations as
important, because they would keep the students focused in tasks and maximise
learning and efficiency. Furthermore, providing stimuli for challenging inquiries and
creating a supportive environment for learning were essential for learning.
Facilitating social dynamics of learning
In this category, learning was mainly understood as a social activity. In fact, many
studies have shown the limitations imposed by a narrow cognitive focus on scaffolding
pointing out that the sociocultural theory is useful for understanding scaffolding
(cf. Greeno, 1999; Rogoff & Chavajay, 1995; Rosiek, 2003). The interviewed teachers
shared these views. By adopting this kind of context-based and socially tailored
perspective, scaffolding means that the focus is no longer on the individual student.
Thus, the target for scaffolding is rather individuals in interaction with one another
in a specific setting. For these teachers scaffolding was seen as guided participation
and interaction:
A successful moment is when students are eager to learn new things and feel
encouraged to use their new knowledge and abilities (…) when we experience
a moment of flow together, when we experience joy and freedom (SPEC-M).
The statement reflects learning as a dynamic process of transformation and participation
in a learning community. In fact, Rogoff (1995) has discussed learning in similar
terms. The teachers saw respecting students and supporting their personal growth
as important, as was noted in the previous quote. Learning was understood as a
multilayered process, which was influenced by personal involvement with students’
cognition, behavior, and emotions. Within the classroom community, learning processes
were affected by social interaction, assistance, and assessment. According to the
sociocultural approach, the personal and social levels are inseparable (Rogoff, 1995;
Rosiek, 2003). Teachers also pointed out the significance of respecting students
as whole human beings and responding to their emotional, social, cultural, and
cognitive needs. Thus, scaffolding was not just a context-based teaching instruction
or a gradually faded assisted performance (cf. Thrap & Gallimore, 1988), but rather
a way for human mind to function in relation to social practices.
All learning seems to be based on social interaction (…) through social
interaction, shared experiences, and negotiation a person can learn how to
reflect on and frame his learning processes (…) Every unique individual and
student is worth making an effort for and caring about. (PRIM-F.)
Teachers said that the quality of feedback has a crucial effect on scaffolding. They
underlined the importance of strengthening students’ meta-cognitive skills. As
Rogoff (1990) states, educators’ task is to encourage students’ insights, enhance
understanding, and foster interpretation through meta-cognition and guided
participation. These teachers described the means in which students could promote
their own thinking, problem-solving, and achieving a given task. Several teachers
66
La nouvelle revue de l’adaptation et de la scolarisation - no 55 • 3e trimestre 2011
If everything is upside down, you start to listen to the students and guide
them through negociation, you know, like finding out what they think and
feel about this (SEC-F).
Dossier
used the expression “verbalise”, by which they referred to teachers’ strategies to
assist students in expressing their thoughts verbally. At the same time, they were
aware of the clues, messages, and mixed feelings that enhance learning. According
to one secondary school teacher:
These teachers understood that through open and fair interaction they could face the
students’ needs and scaffold the learning progress (cf. van Es & Gamoran Sherin,
2002). The teachers’ implications of scaffolding reflected sensitivity, presence, respect,
joy, and confidence. In the classroom, they wished to act as facilitators and leaders
who are able to create a well-organized social group with correct expectations,
rules, and boundaries. They pondered over the emotional foundation of learning and
emphasized the importance of a safe learning environment where students’ voices
and experiences are expressed and heard. They depicted themselves as seekers of
favourable learning paths, as noted in the following quote:
I organise learning sessions so that they vary as much as possible. Students
work by themselves and they can reason and solve problems together.
When you have thought about the ways of guidance, means of assisting,
and learning strategies from the very beginning, you can probably use them
in higher grades, too. (PRIM-M.)
Their main goal was to raise students’ intrinsic motivation, sense of personal as
well as collective responsibility, and encourage collaboration among students. These
teachers’ conceptualizations of scaffolding were characterised by knowledge of
learning disorders, collaborative learning strategies, and understanding of sociocultural
learning theory. The data also suggests that in relation to their scaffolding practices,
their theoretical expertise was bi-directional and interactive. These teachers could
also be described as self-reflective. They were aware of their own actions, practices,
and ways of thinking. This kind of conceptualization of scaffolding synthesises the
aspects of cognitive and sociocultural views that advance learning.
Conclusion:
How to implement scaffolding in inclusive practices?
The present study has revealed the challenges that teachers encounter when they
are in the process of implementing scaffolding practices in inclusive settings. Our
results show that in order to ensure that teachers have the ability and knowledge to
work in heterogeneous and diverse inclusive settings, a paradigm shift in the focus
of teaching and meeting student diversity is acutely needed.
The paradigm shift suggests at least three prerequisites for developing inclusive
school cultures, policies, and practices. First, teachers have to be aware of the
systemic factors, i.e. educational policy, resources, support structures. Furthermore,
La nouvelle revue de l’adaptation et de la scolarisation - no 55 • 3e trimestre 2011
67
the international conventions and declarations (e.g. Unesco , 1994, 2009) discussed
in the introduction ask for an inclusive viewpoint in which the aim is to place the
local pedagogical practices to a larger international framework.
Second, teachers have to be able to address the cultural issues – such as attitudes,
values, and beliefs – present in diverse school settings. While many scholars have put
emphasis on exploring the belief systems of mainstream teachers (e.g. Cornoldi, et al.,
1998; Forlin 2010; Moberg, 2003; Neilson, 2005; Sikes, Lawson & Parker, 2007) and
prospective teachers (Mäkinen et al., 2009) in relation to inclusive practices, practical
examples are needed for establishing a change in teachers’ attitudes that will improve
teaching in inclusive settings. In the 21st century, students increasingly benefit from
teachers who are sensitive to diversity brought by about by inclusive practices.
Third, teachers need to be engaged with teaching from a sociocultural viewpoint.
Many studies have identified cognitive dimensions present in teaching experiences
in heterogeneous classrooms (Darling-Hammond, 1996; Leinhardt, 1990; Shulman,
1987, 2000), but scaffolding has rarely been viewed as a vehicle for implementing
collaborative elements to teaching. The current results, however, might give the key
for understanding the importance of the paradigm shift discussed above. Following
the sociocultural approach, we propose three ways to modify scaffolding in inclusive
classrooms.
1. From direct teaching to facilitating students’ learning processes. The idea is to
shift students’ learning orientations towards self-responsibility. A process-oriented
learning environment is engaging and prioritizes students’ own interests and needs.
2. Community-based activities. Collaborative scaffolding enables teachers to pay
attention to both the individual and the collective aspects of learning processes.
A discussion led by the teacher after a student activity can be a powerful method
for collaborative scaffolding.
3. Consciousness, reflection, and intentional set of practices in the teacher profession.
Students’ intrinsic motivation is improved when teachers scaffold students with
intentional, reflective, and clarifying questions with regards to the expectations.
In the following, we discuss how collaborative scaffolding can be implemented in
inclusive settings using six key attributes, which are presented in Figure 2.
- Activation suggests that teachers should intentionally promote a shared understanding
of collaboration in classrooms. According to Shindler (2010), collaborative classes
work like teams in which students feel like they can achieve their potential only by
working with others. Thus, teacher’s ultimate goal is to build a learning environment
where students are excited to learn together.
-P
resence refers to teacher’s ability to act in the moment. Also Tolle (2003) argues
that being aware of what is going on in the present moment helps teachers to
notice how the used methods and habits of mind can be changed. Moreover, this
cultivates a positive attitude and energy flow. The so called “yes” frame of mind
allows the teacher to be aware of the social dynamics of learning and the students
to engage in the learning community.
- Sensitivity refers to teacher’s ability to identify students’ implicit and explicit social
cues as well as their cognitive and emotional needs (cf. Rosiek, 2003). Teacher’s
68
La nouvelle revue de l’adaptation et de la scolarisation - no 55 • 3e trimestre 2011
Dossier
goal is to create a needs-satisfying learning environment. Students should be able
to participate in a classroom culture that can be characterized by sense of belonging
and respect. Finally, as part of professional growth and collective well-being, the
teacher should continuously reflect his or her role as a scaffolder.
-A
ssistance means teacher’s contingent (cf. Pol et al., 2011) and contextual support
for students who try to make sense of cognitive and emotional chaos related to
learning. Students should be encouraged to achieve the joy of success through
participation in and contribution to the activities. In some situation, students may
initially resist the support given by the teachers. Thus, collaborative scaffolding
requires commitment, patience, and most importantly, social interaction.
- Trust refers to a classroom environment, which can be characterized by acceptance
and active participation. In connection to this, teachers should be consistent in how
they implement collegial practices. Moreover, predictability allows the students to
feel safe, especially when the described environment is free from bullying, abuse,
and put-downs.
-A
utonomy emphasizes students’ responsibility and intrinsic motivation to
learning. It is of great importance that teachers explicitly express expectations so
that students can internalize them – both individually and collectively – and then
contribute to their best ability. When students experience collective success, their
social bonds will strengthen.
Activation
Presence
Autonomy
Scaffolding
Trust
Sensitivity
Assistance
Figure 2. Model for successful collaborative scaffolding in inclusive setting
Finally, our intention is not to argue that collaborative scaffolding is the only way
to promote inclusive education. However, our study demonstrates that scaffolding
is a useful tool for classifying and making sense of the instructional choices in the
La nouvelle revue de l’adaptation et de la scolarisation - no 55 • 3e trimestre 2011
69
classrooms. Furthermore, it provides a framework for developing ideas around
inclusive practices.
Discussion
Scaffolding metaphor has great potential for advancing educational theory in relation
to the nature of learning and teaching. Our findings demonstrate that scaffolding
should be seen as a dynamic and collaborative tool for enhancing the learning of
diverse students. Many of the interviewed teachers utilized the previously discussed
characteristics of collaborative scaffolding. Therefore, they had a self-reflective
approach to their work. Furthermore, they endeavoured to strengthen their students’
meta-cognition and perceived teaching comprehensively.
Moreover, many teachers processed problems and aimed for open interaction with
students not just as individuals but also collectively. Several of them had acknowledged
the pitfalls of diagnostic labelling within inclusive education because often enough,
educational diagnoses suffer from constant shifts in their meaning. Furthermore,
the labels, then, strengthen simplistic images and distance teachers and students
from one another.
This study suggests that future research on scaffolding would benefit from investigating,
for example, how students themselves conceptualize scaffolding on the basis of their
personal experiences. In addition, the question of how to give more prominence
to collegial working strategies in inclusive settings is of great importance. In fact,
many teachers have found their way into informal teams, networks, and peer groups
where they can explicate their experiences of scaffolding and express ideas that have
been learnt together. Collegial teamwork efforts may produce unique solutions for
challenges present in the context of scaffolding. Furthermore, collegial communities
might play an important role in building a new kind of inclusive school culture.
References
Åkerlind (G. S.), “Variation and commonality in phenomenographic research
methods”, Higher Education Research and Development, 24 (4), 2005, 321-334.
Ashworth (P.) & Lucas (U.), “Achieving empathy and engagement: A practical
approach to the design, conduct and reporting of phenomenographic research”,
Studies in Higher Education, 25 (3), 2000, 295-308.
Basic Education Act (2010/642).
Belland (B. R.), Glazewski (K. D.) & Richardson (J. C.), “A scaffolding framework
to support the construction of evidence-based arguments among middle school
students”, Educational Technology Research and Development, 56 (4), 2008, 401-422.
Bunch (J.), “An approach to reducing cognitive load in the teaching of introductory
database concepts”, Journal of Information Systems Education, 20 (3), 2009, 269-275.
Burns (C.) & Myhill (D.), “Interactive or inactive? A consideration of the nature
of interaction in whole class teaching”, Cambridge Journal of Education, 34 (1),
2004, 35-49.
70
La nouvelle revue de l’adaptation et de la scolarisation - no 55 • 3e trimestre 2011
Butler (D.L.), “In search of the architect of learning: A commentary on scaffolding
as a metaphor for instructional interactions”, Journal of Learning Disabilities,
31(4), 1998, 274-385.
Dossier
Burns (C.) & de Silva Joyce (H.) , “Explicitly supporting learning: An overview”
in A. Burns & H. de Silva Joyce, Eds., Teachers’ Voices 8: Explicitly supporting
reading and writing in the classroom, Macquare University: National Centre for
English Language Teaching and Research, 2005, p. 2-7.
Cazden (C. B.), “Peekaboo as an instructional model: Discourse development at
home and at school”, Papers and reports on child language development (No. 17),
Stanford University Department of Linguistics, Stanford, 1979.
Chak (A.), “Adult sensitivity to children’s learning in the zone of proximal
development”, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 31 (4), 2001, 383-395.
Cornoldi (C.), Terreni, (A.), Scruggs (T.), Mastropieri (M.), “Teacher attitudes
in Italy After twenty years of inclusion”, Remedial and Special Education, 19, (6),
1998, 350.
Clandinin (D. J.) & Connelly (M. E.), “Teachers’ professional knowledge
landscapes: Teacher stories”, Educational Researcher, 25(3), 1996, 24-31.
Clandinin (D. J.) & Connelly (M. E.), Narrative inquiry, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, 2000.
Dewey (J.), Experience and education in the later works of John Dewey, 19251953, Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 1931/1988.
Donahue (M.L.) & Lopez-Reyna (N.A.), “Conversational maxims and scaffolded
learning in children with learning disabilities: Is the flying buttress a better
metaphor?”, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31 (4), 1998, 398-403.
Darling-Hammond (L.), “The right to learn and the advancement of teaching:
Research, policy, and practice for democratic education”, Educational Researcher,
25(6), 1996, 5-19.
Es (E. A.) & Gamoran Sherin (M.), “Learning to notice: Scaffolding new teachers’
interpretations of classroom interactions”, Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 10, (4), 2002, 571-596.
Forlin, Teacher education for inclusion: Changing paradigms and innovative
approaches, Routledge, NY, 2010.
Gaskins (I. W.), Anderson (R. C.), Pressley (M.), Cunicelli (E. A.) & Satlow (E.),
“The moves and cycles of cognitive process instruction”, Elementary School
Journal, 93(3), 1993, 277-304.
Gudzial (M.), Carlson (D.) & Turns (J.), “Facilitating learning with softwarerealized scaffolding for collaboration” in D. Budny, Eds., Frontiers in education,
25th Annual Conference, ETP/Harrison, Atlanta, Georgia, 1995.
Greeno (J.), “Understanding concepts in activity” in C. Weaver, C. Fletcher &
S. Mannes, Eds., Discourse comprehnsion: Essays in honour of Walter Kintsch,
Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1994, p. 65-95.
Hatch (A.), “Rethinking the relationship between learning and development:
Teaching for learning in early childhood classrooms“, The Educational Forum, 74,
(3), 2010, 258–268.
La nouvelle revue de l’adaptation et de la scolarisation - no 55 • 3e trimestre 2011
71
Heshushius (L.), “Modes of consciousness and the self in learning disabilities
research: Considering the past and future” in D. K. Reid, W. P. Hresko, &
H. L. Swanson, Eds., Cognitive approaches to learning disabilities, PRO-ED,
Austin, TX, 1996, p. 617-651
Jordan (A.), “Classroom teachers’ instructional interactions with students who
are exceptional, at risk, and typically achieving”, Remedial & Special Education,
18, (2), 1997, 82-94.
Koivula (P.), Lakkala (S.) & Mäkinen (M.), Teacher Education for Inclusion Country
Report – Finland, Inclusive Education in Action (IAE), 2011. http://www.europeanagency.org/agency-projects/teacher-education-for-inclusion/country-info
Leinhardt (G.), “Capturing craft knowledge in teaching”, Educational Researcher,
19(2), 1990, 18-25.
Neilson (W.), “Disability: Attitudes, history and discourses” in D. Fraser,
R. Moltzen, & K. Ryba, Eds., Learners with special needs in Aotearoa New
Zealand, Dunmore Press, Palmerston North, 2005, p.9-21.
Marton (F.), “Phenomenography” in T. Husén & T. N. Postlethwaite, Eds.,
International encyclopedia of education, Pergamon, Oxford, 1994, 4424-4429.
http://www.ped.gu.se/biorn/phgraph/civil/main/1res.appr.html
Marton (F.) & Booth (S.), Learning and Awareness, Lawrence Erlbaum, New
Jersey, 1997.
Moberg (S.), “Education for all in the North and South: Teachers’ attitudes
towards inclusive education in Finland and Zambia”, Education and Training in
Developmental Disabilities, 38 (4), 2003, 417-428.
Mäkinen (M.), Pantzar (T.) & Merta (J.), Teacher Education for Inclusion in Finland,
Inclusive Education in Action (IAE), 2010. http://www.inclusive-education-inaction.org/iea/index.php?menuid=25&reporeid=214
Mäkinen (M.), Nikander (E.), Pantzar, (T.) & Saari (A.), Inklusiivinen erilaisuus
kasvatuksessa. [Inclusive diversity in education], Tampere: University of Tampere,
2009.
National Core Curricula for Basic Education, Finnish National Board of
Education, 2004.
National Core Curriculum for Basic Education, Changes and amendments
50/011/2010. Finnish Board of Education, 2010.
Palincsar (A. S.), “The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction”,
Educational Psychologist, 21, (1&2), 1986, 73-98.
Palicsar (A. S.), “Keeping the Metaphor of Scaffolding Fresh-A Response to
C. Addison Stone’s «The Metaphor of Scaffolding: Its Utility for the Field of Learning
Disabilities»”, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31 (4), 1998, 370-373.
Pol (J.), Volman (M.) & Beishuizen (J.), “Patterns of contingent teaching in
teacher-student interaction”, Learning and Instruction, 21 (1), 2011, 46-57.
Rogoff (B.), Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context,
Oxford University Press, New York, 1990.
Rogoff (B.), “Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory
appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship” in J.V. Wertsch, P. Del
72
La nouvelle revue de l’adaptation et de la scolarisation - no 55 • 3e trimestre 2011
Rogoff (B.) & Gardner (W.), “Adult guidance of cognitive development” in
B. Rogoff & J. Lave, Eds., Everyday Cognition: its development in social context,
Harvard University, Cambridge, 1984.
Rogoff (B.) & Chavajay (P.), “What’s become of research on the cultural basis
of cognitive development?”, American Psychologist, 50, 1995, 859-877.
Dossier
Rio & A. Alvarez, Eds., Sociocultural studies of mind, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK, 1995, p. 139-164.
Rose (R.) & Jones (K.), “The efficacy of volunteer mentoring scheme in supporting
young people at risk”, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 12 (1), 2007, 3-14.
Rosiek (J.), “Emotional scaffolding: an exploration of the teacher knowledge at
the intersection of student emotion and the subject matter”, Journal of Teacher
Education, 54 (5), 2003, 399-412.
Rueda (R.) & Genzuk (M.), “Sociocultural scaffolding as a means toward academic
self-regulation: Paraeducators as cultural brokers”, Focus on Exceptional Children,
40 (3), 2007, 1-7.
Shindler (J.), Transformative classroom management. Positive strategies to
engage all students and promote a psychology of success, CA, Jossey-Bass, 2010.
Shulman (L. S.), Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform,
Harvard Educational Review, 1987, 57, 1-22.
Shulman (L.), “Teacher development: Roles of domain expertise and pedagogical
knowledge”, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25 (1), 2000, 129-135.
Sikes (P.), Lawson (H.) & Parker (M.), “Voices on: teachers and teaching
assistants talk about inclusion”, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 11
(3), 2007, 355-370.
Special education strategy, Reports of the Ministry of Education, Finland 2007:47,
2007.
Stone (C.A.), “Should we salvage the scaffolding metaphor?”, Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 31, (4), 1998, 409-413.
Stone (C. A.), “Promises and pitfalls of scaffolded instruction for students with
language learning disabilities” in K. Butler & E. Silliman, Eds., Speaking, reading
and writing in children with learning disabilities. New paradigms in research and
practice, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, London, 2002, p. 175-197.
Tharp (R. G.) & Gallimore (R.), Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and
schooling in social context, Cambridge University Press, NY, 1988.
Tolle (E.), Gateways to the now, Simon & Schuster, NY, Audio, 2003.
Trent (S. C.), Artiles (A. J.) & Englert (C. S.), “From deficit thinking to social
constructivism: A review of theory, research, and practice in special education” in
P. D. Pearson & A. Iran0Nejad, Eds., Review of research in education (Vol. 23),
American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC, 1998, p. 277-307.
Unesco (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization),
The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education,
Unesco, Paris, 1994.
Unesco/Unicef (United Nations Educational, Scientific, Cultural Organization/
United Nations Children’s Fund), A human rights-based approach to education:
La nouvelle revue de l’adaptation et de la scolarisation - no 55 • 3e trimestre 2011
73
A framework for the realization of children’s right to education and rights in
education, Unesco & Unicef, Paris/New York, 2007.
Unesco (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization),
Policy guidelines on inclusion in education, Unesco, Paris, 2009.
Vacca (J.S.), “Using scaffolding techniques to teach a social studies lesson
about Buddha to sixth graders”, Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51 (8),
2008, 652-658.
Wood (D.), Bruner (J.) & Ross (G.), “The role of tutoring in problem solving”,
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17 (2), 1976,
89-100.
Wood (D.), Wood (H.) & Middleton (D.), “An experimental evaluation of our
face-to-face teaching strategies”, International Journal of Behavioral Development,
1, 1978, 131-147.
Winter (E. C.), “Preparing new teachers for inclusive schools and classrooms”,
Support for Learning, 21 (2), 2006, 85-91.
Vygotsky (L. S.), “Internalization of higher psychological functions” in M. Cole,
V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman, Eds., Mind in society: The
development of higher psychological processes, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, Mass, 1978.
Vygotsky (L. S.), “The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky”, Vol. 1: Problems of
general psychology (N. Minick, Trans.), Plenum, New York, 1987.
Vygotsky (L.S.), Thought and Language, E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar, Eds. and Trans,
The M.L.T. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1962.
Zapata (J. T.), “Early identification and recruitment of Hispanic teacher candidates”,
Journal of Teacher Education, 2, 1988, 19-23.
74
La nouvelle revue de l’adaptation et de la scolarisation - no 55 • 3e trimestre 2011