We know that scaffolding is important. That’s providing successive levels of support to help students achieve higher levels of understanding and performance. It involves breaking a task down into parts, providing structured controlled practice, and gradually moving towards freer practice with less support. The concept is similar to the way scaffolding is used in construction to support workers as they build or repair structures, or how training wheels are used to help children learn to ride a bike when they are young.
However, although scaffolding is important and absolutely something we need to consider, is it possible to go over the top? To extend the construction metaphor, do you need to use scaffolding if you’re only moving up one step on a flight of stairs? Do you need to reinforce the scaffolding three times to ensure it is strong, or is once enough? Put another way, is it valuable to provide different controlled activities that essentially do the same thing? When is it appropriate to move onto free practice and how can you kick the habit of too much controlled practice?
The answers to these questions can help us make our classrooms more communicative and student-centred.
Here’s an example from a lesson I observed recently.
Context. A pre-intermediate class in a private language school in Vietnam. We’re going to focus on a 30-minute section of a class that dealt with vocabulary. There were 25 learners in the class seated in five groups of five, with a white board at the front.
The students had studied the target vocabulary using flashcards for homework. In class, they worked in small groups, taking turns to test each other. One student read out target words, and the group members said definitions as quickly as possible. Next, the students played a game where they turned over cards one by one, a kind of memory game where they needed to match definitions with target forms. Then, as a whole class, they played “backs to the board”, with one member from each team facing the class, the teacher writing a word on the board, and the team members describing the word or phrase without using it or any gestures. Then, they looked at a text and filled in blanks using the target items written on the whiteboard.
Here’s a reflection on that example.
This was a fun session, with the students clearly engaged and working really nicely together in groups. The teacher planned everything meticulously – preparing cards, worksheets, audio recordings, flashcards…it was truly impressive!
But let’s take a step back and think about the individual components here, each activity, and how they build on each other. What do you think? Do the activities build on one another? Is the difference in challenge between each activity sufficient to promote development? Yes, the students were busy, but is it simply busy-work, something that keeps us occupied but is not necessarily productive or meaningful. Is it just filling time in the lesson?
In a chat with the teacher after the session, I raised these questions and together we identified and analysed the mechanics of each activity. We decided that pretty much all the activities focused on the connections between words and their meanings, and, with the exception of the fill-in-the-blanks activity, they all mostly concentrated on meaning. That’s the case because students were generally presented with the form and had to recall the meaning. This means that the definition elicitation activity, the matching game, and the backs-to-the-board competition essentially did the same thing…which might be a problem. By reflecting on the mechanics of each activity, the teacher recognised that she had over scaffolded, that there wasn’t sufficient progression between activities to maintain learning momentum.
Now, let’s think about the fill-in-the-blanks activity, what did that focus on? Well, the learners were provided with the target forms on the white board, so they needed to focus on which target item meaning was most appropriate for each blank and copy the form from the board into the space provided. So again, we can see that this activity largely focused on meaning.
With second language learning, yes the meaning of target words is important, but we absolutely also need to pay attention to the target form. And crucially, we need to provide opportunities for generative use once knowledge of form has been established. Thinking about this class, there weren’t enough opportunities for creative language use. So, less scaffolding and more freer practice! Here are some great amendments suggested by the teacher.
- Start with the fill-in-the-blanks activity, but don’t show the target items on the board. This puts an added focus on word form, by making students recall the target form. If most of the answers are correct, skip the other controlled practice activities and move to free practice.
- Change the first activity, where students tested one another in groups, by asking students to read definitions rather than target forms. They could also work in pairs, so all students are engaged. If most of the answers are correct, skip the other controlled practice activities and move onto free practice.
- Change the controlled practice activities to a spot-the-difference picture task. In pairs with slightly different pictures, students explain aspects of their image to find differences, with the differences relating to the target vocabulary. If there are any issues, go back to one of the more controlled practice activities.
What do you think? For me, these are fantastic suggestions and would dramatically improve the lesson!
Here are three strategies to help development
- Look at a textbook. Textbooks can often over scaffold. Consider the activities and whether they develop on one another or if there is lots of repetition. If the latter, think about how you can adapt the book.
- Reflect using a lesson plan for an upcoming class. Do you have activities that do the same thing? Do you have too many micro-scaffolds? Do you plan to use the lesson plan flexibly, ignoring and/or moving around aspects when needed? How can you be sure you will teach the students, not the lesson plan?
- Reflect on a class you taught, thinking not only about how an activity went (i.e., did the learners engage), but also about what an activity did. Were there any overlaps in the areas of focus?
That’s all for this edition. Happy teaching and let me know what you think and how you get on in the comments or on social media.
Until next time,
Sam