Scaffolding

I am currently working on a draft of an article that focuses on the use of scaffolding in an early years literacy program. Although not written from the perspective of CA, the article relates to an aspect of the literacture review that I did for my PhD. In the article I examine a claim central the to the program that informed literacy instruction in the classroom where I gathered my data for my PhD research. The claim is that a range of teaching approaches facilitates teaching that results in a balanced classroom program. This is described as a broad scaffold.

Professional development materials in the program outline the way in which a broad scaffold (afforded by teaching approaches) leads to a balanced approach to literacy instruction in the area of writing. I am analysing this material in order to consider the weight of the claim that teaching approaches provide a broad scaffold.

So far I have found it very slippery work. The professional development materials consist of a pastiche of theory and research that presents (minimally) seminal work related to scaffolding. So quotes from Vygotsky and Bruner lead to the statements concerning scaffolding and the provision of a broad scaffold in the program. A small section on the role of conversations in teaching follows. Although this suggests that the materials are fair game for a critique, I am still struggling with how to do it.

One thing that I do know. The use of a broad scaffold to provide balance requires descriptions of teaching approaches. These descriptions, as provided in the professional development materials, become prescriptions of teaching. They must be regarded as so because all teaching approaches, according to the program, can be ordered along a continuum of support so that each always provides the same degree of scaffolding.