2. Whole-Class Scaffolding Page 1
Susan DeRosa | PSY515H1 BAY PATH UNIVERSITY
Soviet Psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1978) introduced the concept of a zone of proximal
development, believing that the most effective instruction is the kind that is aimed not at the child’s
level of independent performance, but on the skills and concepts to be developed next. Building on
that concept, Bruner (1976) introduced the theory of scaffolding; the act of providing guidance to
help transition through the Zone of Proximal development by focused assistance that is gradually
removed as the child reaches independent proficiency.
Initially scaffolding was limited to formal instruction and developing to more general
learning situations. The role of scaffolding is typically focused on the interaction of parent to child in
order to support autonomy and task competence while managing frustration. Researchers (Smit et al,
2013) further developed the concept of scaffolding from an interaction between parent and child to a
whole-class setting.
The spirit of the original scaffolding concept was retained, using the key characteristics of 1.
Diagnosis, 2. Responsiveness and 3. Handover to independence, while justifying the concept of
whole-class scaffolding. The authors’ also discussed additional features when scaffolding was
applied in larger context layered, distributed and cumulative in nature.
Diagnosis, explicitly defined as assessing the child’s current state, can be applied to the
whole-class through the acknowledgement of the class current skill level. Diagnosis required explicit
attention to specific curriculum design that directly addressed the current state of the class and
identified the next stage of development.
Responsiveness required the teacher’s evaluation of performance to reflect the whole-class,
both inside the classroom from direct observation, and outside the classroom through grading of
assignments and other academic measurements of achievement. Responsiveness also encompassed
3. Whole-Class Scaffolding Page 2
Susan DeRosa | PSY515H1 BAY PATH UNIVERSITY
an integration and accumulation of classroom interactions that required adjustments and adaptations
between lessons which were determined by the whole-class progression.
Finally, Handover to Independence, the ultimate aim of scaffolding, was the most
challenging and complex characteristic in the whole-class environment. Working with students
collectively with multiple zones of proximal development required multiple layers of understanding
and skill and was much more complex than the gradual removal of support seen in a traditional one
on one interaction. The whole-class was viewed as a group existing alongside individual learners
with activities geared toward the whole-classroom setting. Individual student engagement was
fostered as well as promoting initiative as a group. As the whole-class progressed to skill attainment,
peer discussion, peer mentoring and increased student independence was reached.
Application of whole-class scaffolding led to the discovery of three features: 1. Layered 2.
Distributed, and 3. Cumulative. Layered referred to the multi-faceted interactions between student
and teacher inside and out of the classroom, student: student peer discussions between lessons, and
teacher: teacher assessments, diagnoses, and redesigning of lesson plans based on student’s work.
Whole-class scaffolding was distributed, often occurring in a scattered rather than episodic
way. Restructuring and editing of class materials, lesson plans and tools, was determined by the skill
level of the whole-class and therefore very dynamic, requiring a more “macro-perspective”.
Finally, the fundamental mechanics of whole-class scaffolding was seen as cumulative. As
previously described, the dynamic, complex and often re-designed curriculum was based on the
cumulative effect of scattered diagnoses and responsiveness over time.
In summary, the authors concluded that whole-class scaffolding is complex but attainable
and consists of a compilation of teacher actions focused on the deliberate goal of fostering long term
learning.
4. Whole-Class Scaffolding Page 3
Susan DeRosa | PSY515H1 BAY PATH UNIVERSITY
Citations:
Smit, J., van Eerde, A., Bakker, A. (2013). A conceptualization of whole-class scaffolding.
British Educational Research Journal, 39(5), 817-834.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5. Whole-Class Scaffolding Page 4
Susan DeRosa | PSY515H1 BAY PATH UNIVERSITY
Citation:
Leclere, C., Viaux, S. Avril, M. Achard, C., Chetouani, M., Missonnier, S., and Cohen, D. (2014)
Why Synchrony Matters during Mother-Child Interactions: A Systematic Review. PLOS, 9
(12), 1-20.
