Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Abstract
Scaffolding provides content-area teachers (CATs) with an effective means to integrate language instruction into
content-area instruction for English language learners (ELLs). Data for this study were derived from 33 CAT discussions
while they were pursuing professional development in an American university classroom over 32 weeks. The discussions
yielded 408 scaffolding statements that were coded and analyzed. The findings identified linguistic, conceptual, social and
cultural scaffolding as part of the CATs’ personal practical knowledge. Also, the findings demonstrated that CATs’
knowledge of cultural scaffolding is limited in comparison to other scaffolding strategies. The findings have an impact on
the nature of ELL instruction and its effectiveness.
r 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Scaffolding; English language learners; Content-area teachers; Content-based language instruction; Teacher personal practical
knowledge; Cultural scaffolding
0742-051X/$ - see front matter r 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.003
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Pawan / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1450–1462 1451
content-area teachers (CATs) report lacking pre- knowledge of scaffolding, what this constitutes and
paration of any kind in working with ELLs what is prioritized by teachers when the instruction
(National Centre for Educational Statistics, 2002). of ELLs is concerned.
Given their direct involvement with ELLs, and the
fact that the latter spend 80% of their school day
with CATs (Dong, 2002), it is thus important to 1.1.2. Types of scaffolding
understand CATs’ practical knowledge or knowl- Vygotsky (1978) defines ‘‘scaffolding’’ as the
edge in the practice of scaffolding instruction for social interaction between experts and novices
ELLs. during which the former engage in supportive
Research on scaffolding has primarily focused on behaviors and create supportive environments for
the impact on learning of various scaffolding novices to acquire skills and knowledge at a higher
strategies and applications. Current research on competency level. Nevertheless, the concept of
scaffolding, however, lacks data on teachers’ knowl- ‘‘scaffolding’’ has evolved from learning support
edge of scaffolding strategies. These data are and assistance at the interpersonal level to one that
essential for identifying those areas of pedagogy includes the use of a multitude of tools, guides and
that should be reinforced or added to teacher resources (Brush & Saye, 2001). Studies at the
education programs. interpersonal level include Ulanoff and Pucci
The purpose of this study is to identify major (1999), Nassaji and Cumming (2000), and Mohan
types of scaffolding recognized by CATs in the US and Beckett (2003). The common thread in all these
as well as a significant variation and emphasis in studies is the effect of expert assistance on language
teachers’ practical knowledge (TPK) of scaffolding learners. For example, Ulanoff and Pucci (1999)
strategies. The research questions for the study are looked at teachers’ use of the concurrent translation
thus as follows: and preview–review approaches amongst 60 bilin-
gual elementary students (third graders) in Los
a. Do CATs perceive, as effective, scaffolding Angeles and found that the preview–review ap-
practices for ELLs in the learning of academic proach contributed to the highest scores in vocabu-
content areas or subject matter in English? lary tests.
b. What scaffolding categories do these practices Peers and/or equal non-experts (Antón, 1999) are
fall under? also included in scaffolding studies focusing on
c. In what ways do these categories inform us about interpersonal interactions. Ewald (2005) argues that
how CATs’ ELL instruction can be supported peer interactions proceeded naturally even without
and reinforced? the attainment of a good common grade (positive
interdependence) as motivation. de Guerrero and
1.1. Theoretical framework Villamil (2000) undertook a study of scaffolding
mechanisms used during interactions between two
1.1.1. Scaffolding as practical knowledge of teachers male college English-as-a-second-language (ESL)
Shulman (1986, p. 9) conceptualized teachers’ learners engaged in writing revisions. Results
pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) as the indicated the importance of the peer reader to
intersection between teachers’ knowledge of their mediate learning; the establishment and mainte-
specific subject area and the ways of representing nance of a feeling of intersubjectivity and shared
and formulating the subject in a way that makes it focus between the reader and the writer; and the
comprehensible to others. Scaffolding is a pedago- consequent assumption of independent action and
gical component of PCK and thus that of teachers’ learning on the part of the peer writer. A related
practical knowledge (TPK) of how to teach how to aspect of peer-to-peer scaffolding is its multi-
teach. TPK arises out of prior experiences including dimensionality and fluidity. Cumming-Potvin, Re-
teacher education, life experiences, interaction with nshaw, and van Kraayenoord (2003), for example,
colleagues and students, perceived values and stress that scaffolding has been inadequately con-
constraints operating within the school and class- ceived as a linear process of providing and removing
room environment, as well as teacher interpreta- learning support for learners. They argue for a
tions of the particular circumstances encountered in multi-tiered notion of scaffolding involving the
classroom situations. The current study focuses on dynamic interplay and interactions between mem-
an aspect of teacher knowledge involving CATs’ bers in a group working together, whereby the
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1452 F. Pawan / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1450–1462
boundaries between expert and novices are blurred Language Acquisition for School
and interchangeable.
Cultural scaffolding is exemplified by scholarly
works in the early and mid 1990s on ‘‘primary and
secondary discourses’’ (Gee, 2000), ‘‘funds of knowl-
L1
nt
me
edge’’ (Moll, 1994) and ‘‘cultural responsive teach-
+L
op
ing’’ by Ladson-Billings (1994). In this respect,
2L
vel
De
ang
current pedagogy strives for the interconnectivity
uag
ic
between students’ out-of-school and school experi-
em
e D
Social and
cad
ences that provides a means for students to enter into
eve
Cultural
A
‘‘an intellectual partnership or at least be greatly
L2
lop
Processes
m
helped by cultural artefacts in the form of tools
ent
L1
and information resources’’ (Salomon & Perkins,
1998, p. 5) culturally and historically familiar to L1 + L2 Cognitive Development
them (Gee, 2000; Street, 2005). Cultural scaffolding
defines a pedagogical approach, which, according to The Prism Model
Salomon and Perkins (1998), involves the manipula- Fig. 1. Prism Model (copied with permission).
tion of ‘‘cultural tools.’’ The authors explain that
these tools range from information sources to
socially shared symbol systems that are culturally
and historically situated. The tools form the basis for the use of students’ ‘‘first language at least through
learning systems, action reorganization and the the elementary school years’’ (p. 43). Finally, socio-
determination of what can be carried out (p. 5). cultural factors include the facility given to students
From an instructional perspective, this means that to incorporate into their school learning experi-
the use of cultural referents is central in imparting ences, their past, present and future experiences at
knowledge, skills and attitudes (Ladson-Billings, home, in school, in their community and in the
1994, p. 18). If undertaken well, this pedagogical broader society. The importance of these four
approach will result in ‘‘culturally responsive’’ factors provides the rationale for the use of the
teaching whereby students’ cultural differences in Prism Model as the basis for coding in our study
backgrounds, knowledge base and experiences are (Fig. 1).
used as conduits to teach them more effectively (Gay, As can be seen from the review above, research on
2002). scaffolding has focused on investigations on the
Virginia Collier’s ‘‘Prism Model’’ that emerged impact of scaffolding on student learning. Interest
from a study on factors for school effectiveness for in cultural scaffolding, in particular, has emerged
language minority students (LMS) (Thomas & from efforts to expand the conceptions of literacy
Collier, 2002) specifically contributed to the types and to engage in culturally relevant and meaningful
of scaffolding most relevant to ELLs. The research teaching, given the diversity of students in the
involved a macroscopic study of the impact of American public school systems. This study takes a
instructional strategies on LMS long-term achieve- different turn and investigates practical knowledge
ment that was undertaken by five large school of scaffolding among CATs who work with ELLs.
districts (700,000 students). The utility of the model The findings from this paper will demonstrate that
stems from its ability to identify and demonstrate CATs’ pedagogical knowledge of cultural scaffold-
the interdependency of four factors, namely linguis- ing in ELL instruction is significantly overshadowed
tic, academic, cognitive and socio-cultural support, by their knowledge of conceptual, linguistic and
in helping ELLs to succeed. Linguistic factors cover social scaffolding.
all aspects of language development support includ-
ing formal, informal, conscious and sub-conscious 2. Methodology
aspects of the acquisition and learning of oral as
well as written language skills in students’ first and 2.1. The research setting
second languages. Academic and cognitive factors,
on the other hand, involve sustaining conceptual The research was conducted in 2004–2005 with
and intellectual support in school work and through CAT participants in the Collaborative Teaching
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Pawan / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1450–1462 1453
Table 1
Participant characteristics
Teacher Male Female Years Elementary Middle school High school Adult Total number
role teaching school education of participants
Content 7 26 5–20 15 6 11 1 33
Area All subjects Lang Arts, Math, Science, Remedial
Math, Science Health/ Ed, GED
Physical Ed,
Art,
Journalism,
History
Institute (CTI).1 The main thrust behind the teaching experiences. Fifteen teachers taught at the
program is that ELLs are not just the responsibility elementary level, 11 at the high school level and six
of English-as-a-second-language teachers (ESLTs) were middle school teachers. The elementary school
but also the responsibility of all teachers. Hence, all teachers taught all subjects but not ESL. At the
teachers must undergo teacher education in ELL middle school level, three teachers taught English
instruction as language and content instruction language arts, two taught mathematics and one
cannot be separated (Kaufman & Crandall, 2005). taught science. At the high school level six taught
CATs in the program pursue a 9-month, sustained math and science, two taught health and physical
in-service professional program development on education, and the rest of the teachers each specia-
ELL instruction through online classes that are lized in history, art and journalism. One teacher
supplemented with onsite visits by their instructors taught adult education whose students needed
and workshop consultants. remedial help to obtain a high school diploma.
The participants in this study were in-service
teachers in the 2004–2005 CTI cohort from seven 3.1. Data for the study
school districts that were identified by the Depart-
ment of Education in a Midwestern state as districts Besides data from a survey at the end of the
that are highly impacted by ELL enrollment. The program, data from the study are primarily derived
teachers participated in two identical online gradu- from textual discussions in an online, asynchronous
ate classes that were taught by the same instructor forum. Hence, the main sources of data were:
and specifically designed for CTI participants. The
class is student-centered in that members of the class a. 3734 CATs’ online postings on scaffolding across
select and choose themes for discussion and 32 weeks of instruction and
engagement. After 2 weeks in which the instructor b. two teacher surveys (open-ended and Likert) on
modelled online engagement by leading and mod- opportunities and challenges in scaffolding in-
erating discussions, participants assumed leadership struction for ELLs.
roles in conducting discussion for the remainder of
the course. 3.2. Data collection and analyses
Phase 1: Three coders analyzed statements from Our modifications of the Prism Model (see Table 2)
the participants’ daily postings and identified 408 included the following:
(10% of 3734) as those containing information
related to scaffolding. The unit of analysis consisted 1. We specified that in linguistic scaffolding, the
of a segment of words—most often a sentence language to be scaffolded is English in order to
(declarative or interrogative) or a paragraph of each apply more specifically to the place where the study
posting; 298 such statements alluded to various was undertaken, i.e. where state law establishes that
means for assisting and helping students to keep up English is the official medium of instruction.
with content-area instruction and 110 were state- 2. We collapsed the ‘‘academic’’ and ‘‘cognitive’’
ments that mentioned scaffolding in particular. factors into a single category of conceptual
An example of each is included below: scaffolding. In both factors, the use and acknowl-
Implied statements on scaffolding: edgement of students’ first language to access
schoolwork and to demonstrate existing knowl-
I realize that I need to do more than just rewrite
edge are central in Thomas’ and Collier’s model.
the assignments; I need to alter my delivery and
Hannafin, Land, and Oliver (1999) capture the
use supportive material as well, so students are
essence of those factors at the macro level in their
both learning the content and being given
definition of ‘‘conceptual scaffolding’’ as the
opportunities to practice language.
incorporation of various possible tools, methods
Direct mention of scaffolding: or informative elaborations to achieve and share
understanding.
It does help to speak the child’s language but it is
3. We separated the socio-cultural factor into two
not a requirement for getting licensed in ESL
scaffolding categories. We found the two cate-
here. What is more beneficial is how you teach. It
gories (social and cultural) necessary as students’
needs to be hands-on, interactive, etc. This is
engagement in classroom social activities that
scaffolding, right?
were developed to support learning are not
The coders undertook ‘‘check-coding’’ (Miles and necessarily related to ELLs’ cultural heritage.
Huberman, 1984) whereby they coded separately For example, students are put into social dyads
and later reviewed the data together. There was as conversation partners for the completion of an
93% inter-rater reliability for the three coders based activity rather than as a means to put them in a
on the number of agreements over the total number culturally familiar context. The following quotes
of agreements and disagreements. are illustrative:
Phase 2: As noted previously, we utilized the Group work and social scaffolding: I also set
language acquisition factors in ELL success identi- up group work as I have also found that
fied in Collier’s Prism Model (Thomas & Collier, students do help each other out. And what
2002) as a basis for our coding. We undertook an better way to learn than to teach it yourself. I
initial coding of 104 messages using the model. The have found while going from group to group
initial coding led us to the following modifications as the year progressed, students tend to feel
of the model: more open to get involved in the discussions,
or even sometimes start discussions.
a. Linguistic scaffolding: Simplifying the English Group work and cultural scaffolding: Even
language, for example, by shortening selections, though it may seem like my beginning level 1
speaking in the present tense, avoiding the use of student could get lost in the task, she has
idioms, etc. begun to open up when I put her with one or
b. Conceptual scaffolding: Providing students with two friends who speak Spanish. She has been
supportive frameworks for meaning by providing very quiet, yet when she has her group’s
organizational charts, metaphors, etc. support, she has been more willing to share
c. Social scaffolding: Using social interaction to and to participate.
support and mediate learning (e.g. group work).
d. Cultural scaffolding: Using artifacts, tools and Using the modified coding scheme, the inter-rater
informational sources that are culturally and reliability rate for this coding phase was at 95%.
historically situated within a domain familiar to Phase 3: We administered two survey forms to
learners. students. The first was a set of two open-ended
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Pawan / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1450–1462 1455
Table 2
Scaffolding types
Linguistic: Simplifying and Conceptual: Providing supportive frameworks Social– cultural: Mediating and situating students’
making the ‘‘English’’ language for meaning, providing organizational charts, learning in a social context involving the engagement
more accessible metaphors, etc. and support of others (expert and novice, peer and peer)
(social). Also using artifacts, tools and informational
sources that are specifically culturally and historically
situated within a domain familiar to learners (cultural)
Social Cultural
Total: 21.6% Total: 47.2% Total: 23.4% (Social) Total: 6.3% (Cultural)
Total postings: 408 (298+110)
a
Identified also as special education strategies.
survey questions that we shared during onsite visits conceptual scaffolding. Linguistic and social scaf-
with the teachers in their schools in the middle of folding both received relatively equal attention
the program, after they had been in the program for at 21.6% and 23.4%, respectively. References to
4 months (Table 3). Then by focusing on the most cultural scaffolding, however, occurred in only
frequently occurring themes, we developed a set of 6.3% of the statements in the sample (Table 2).
Likert scale survey questions (Table 4) and dis- Conceptual scaffolding is multi-faceted and a
tributed the survey in the face-to-face weekend combination of teacher-initiated and student-
retreat in July at the end of the program. We then centered activities. Teacher-initiated activities include
tallied the percentages of agreement of responses for teacher modelling, ‘‘showing instead of explaining’’,
each item, i.e. numbers 4 and 5 on the Likert scale. teachers using body language and total physical
response, and think-alouds. The scaffolding also
4. Findings includes ‘‘direct teaching’’ involving teachers struc-
turing choices for students, pre-teaching difficult
4.1. Posting analyses concepts, practicing tests with students, pre-select-
ing websites, demonstrating explicit in- and out-
From the 408 postings analyzed, the majority of-school connections to a topic, and explicitly
of statements (47.2%) consisted of references to stating expectations. Scaffolding in this category
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1456 F. Pawan / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1450–1462
(Merrill, Reiser, Merrill, & Landes, 1995) whereby As the quote illustrates, collaboration is also an
students work with teachers during which time there important component in the work of CATs in
is one-to-one assistance and encouragement from supporting their ELLs.
teachers. Peer learning (Blumenfeld, Marx, Solo-
way, & Krajcik, 1996) is undertaken by virtue of the 4.2. Survey analyses
flexible grouping of students in dyads, small groups
and a combination of individual and group work. The open-ended mid-term survey provided us
Groupings of students with specified tasks (peer with the most frequently occurring items related to
coaching, collaboration via specific roles to com- teachers’ scaffolding opinions that we used in the
plete tasks) are also evident. In terms of ELLs, Likert scale survey (see Tables 3 and 4). In terms of
CATs have placed ELLs in dyads and small groups the latter, in Table 4, question 1 is targeted at
with native speakers (NS) and non-native speakers identifying the importance of scaffolding in terms of
(NNS) of English. Below is a quote illustrating a the overall responsibility of CATs’ job; questions 2
particular type of peer group work as part of a and 3 targeted collaboration and engagement of all
social scaffolding approach: teachers in ELL scaffolded instruction, i.e. central
CTI components; questions 4 and 5 focused on the
It has been very difficult for me to adapt my need for training; and question 6 focused on
curriculum to meet the needs of my ESL the study’s findings under ‘‘cultural scaffolding.’’
students. Recently I have had students that are Table 4 shows the survey items and the percentages
in Upper level Spanish classes work with the ESL of agreement responses to each of the items.
students or translate assignments into Spanish. Survey findings in this study situate CATs’
When participants reported grouping ELLs with scaffolding efforts in a larger context of teachers’
other NNS with similar linguistic (L1) and cultural professional world impacting their pedagogical
backgrounds, the grouping was categorized under knowledge. Although half (52.6%) of CATs re-
‘‘cultural scaffolding.’’ sponding to question 1 in Table 4 acknowledge that
Cultural scaffolding is the use of artifacts, tools scaffolding is important for all students and slightly
and informational sources that are culturally and less than half (38.5%) indicated that collaboration
historically situated within a domain familiar to with their ESL counterparts are important in
students. A total of 6.3% of statements in the scaffolding instruction for ELLs, only 19.2% of
discussions called for helping students make con- those responding to question 3 agree that it is the
nections between the target content-area knowledge responsibility of all teachers. Also, only a small
and that gained from home and community percentage (9.4%) indicated that CATs need train-
experiences. Scaffolding strategies thus included ing in the area, and only 7.6% think that scaffolding
acknowledging and using students’ prior knowl- is difficult. Finally, only 2.5% report that cultural
edge, literature from the students’ home culture and knowledge is important for scaffolding in the
their different learning styles. As mentioned above, content area.
teachers also reported placing ELLs with peer
working groups with others who share similar 5. Discussions and implications
language backgrounds. Finally, CATs also reported
collaborating with Spanish-speaking colleagues for At the overall level, the data included in this study
assistance in ELL instruction and translation. provide insight into the multi-dimensional and
macro aspects of ‘‘teaching presence’’ (Anderson,
Most of our ESL/ELLs could not read even the Rourke, Garrison, & Archer, 2001) that includes
lowest level books offered in the program, so the performance assistance (Bliss, Askew, & Macrae,
librarian got Spanish books in for them. We 1996) in a combination of teacher design and
constantly debate whether or not that is bene- administration of classroom procedures, learning
ficial or not. I also use diaries and as my students facilitation and direct instruction. The data provide
write their ‘‘Diarios,’’ or weekly journals in an indication of what CATs do in the classroom,
Spanish, they begin writing in ‘‘Spanglish.’’ They particularly in instructing and assisting ELLs. At
write what they know in Spanish, but use English more specific levels, and in addition to demonstrat-
for what they don’t know. The resource teacher ing the frequency and the types of scaffolding
helps to translate the Spanish information. undertaken by CATs, the findings of the postings
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1458 F. Pawan / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1450–1462
also demonstrate the opportunities and the chal- study, the teachers’ lack of training is reflected amongst
lenges the teachers encounter in the instruction of the challenges they reported. The following quote is
ELLs. indicative of the situation:
With ESL students, it’s hard to tell if they’re not
5.1. Findings from postings
making the connections because of learning
difficulties, or because of a language deficit, or
5.1.1. Cultural scaffolding
because of cultural differences. How do you
The posting and survey analyses therefore in-
provide ESL students with a link to something in
dicate that cultural scaffolding is seldom referenced
our American real world, when the only real
by CATs and presumably seldom used in the
world they know may be a totally different
classroom. However, amongst the postings categor-
culture? I don’t know how to do thisy
ized under the category, there were also those such
as the use of literature from students’ culture (see
5.1.2. Social scaffolding
Table 2) that demonstrated an orientation toward
While we separated cultural from social scaffold-
Lee’s (2001) ‘‘cultural modelling framework’’ in
ing, the two are sometimes intertwined in teaching.
which supports were developed to lead students to
Teacher postings, on the whole, indicated clearly
reflect on their prior knowledge and its relevance to
whether the scaffolding that teachers used was
the task at hand.
socially or culturally based (see Section 2). Although
A closer look at the cultural scaffolding items in
on the whole, an overview of scaffolding items listed
the postings also suggest efforts to help students
from the posting findings suggests that a majority are
bridge the particularities of their experience, knowl-
teacher-fronted or teacher-led activities, the postings
edge and cultural heritage with elements in their
coded under ‘‘social scaffolding’’ show that almost a
current classroom circumstances. However, it is
quarter of the time, teachers are also engaged in
not evident that scaffolding included interpersonal
student-centered activities, mediated and un-
engagements for the purposes of developing cross-
mediated by them. One the one hand, the findings
cultural relationships with their students. Effective
support assertions such as those by Cazden’s (2001)
teaching must include teachers’ competency to
that teacher talk dominates classroom discourse, but
develop these relationships with their students, the
on the other, the findings suggest teachers’ use of
absence of which can hinder students’ academic and
flexible groupings (one-to-one, peer-to-peer dyads,
social progress (Nieto, cited in Burns, Keyes, &
small groups, etc.) at least some of the time and
Kusimo, 2005). Kramsch (1995) has argued that
demonstrate a certain level of awareness of the
teaching culture is a social process during which
benefits of differentiated instruction.
meaning and understanding emerged through social
interaction. Taken from this perspective, American
5.1.3. Conceptual scaffolding
public school teachers such as the CTI teachers in
Analyses of teacher postings indicate that for
this study as well as teachers elsewhere who plan on
many of the CATs in the study, teaching strategies
undertaking cultural scaffolding should see the
involve scaffolding the conceptual understanding
classroom as a ‘‘privileged site of cross-cultural
of the subject matter being taught. The teachers’
fieldwork’’ (Kramsch, 1993, p. 29). Through tea-
postings indicate that they undertake transmedia-
chers’ interpersonal engagements with students
tive (Siegel, 1995) and multi-modal approaches to
and direct communication with them, teachers
helping students access specialized knowledge. The
would have opportunities to listen, watch and
approaches require that teachers use multiple sign
interpret students’ successes and struggles to achieve
systems to transfer understandings derived from one
meaning as well as to engage with them in their
system to understand another. A social studies
development of a cross-cultural personality, in all its
teacher in the study explained the utility of the
complexities.
multi-modal approach in her teaching:
Nevertheless, as mentioned earlier in the introduc-
tion, a majority of US teachers lack training in Some kids like to talk about what they read,
working with ELLs, even though nationally almost some like to perform as a response, some like to
half (41%) of public school teachers reported instruct- write or draw about what they read, and I like to
ing limited English proficient students (National give them a variety of opportunities to respond
Centre for Educational Statistics, 2002, p. 43). In this and construct their own learning.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Pawan / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1450–1462 1459
It is a scaffolding approach that would be similarly knowledge. Although half of CATs acknowledge
undertaken by effective teachers of all students in all that scaffolding is important for all students,
areas, for example, in literacy by means of multi- including ELLs, only 19.2% indicate that it is the
modal communications (Richards, 2002); music responsibility of all teachers. On the other hand, less
using visual, aural and kinesthetic resources (Ham- than half (38.5%) of the CATs indicated that
mel, 2003); science education through the explora- collaboration with their ESL teacher counterparts
tions of visual, action and linguistic communication (ESLTs) is necessary in undertaking scaffolded
(Jewitt, Kress, Ogborn, & Charalampos, 2001); instruction. These findings suggest several interpre-
math using manipulatives (Weiss, 2005/2006); and tations. They include that the CATs do not feel
history via engagement in multi-media learning equipped to undertake ELL instruction and thus
environments (Saye & Brush, 2002). they rely on ESLTs to provide assistance. Addi-
tionally, CATs may feel that they do not share a
5.1.4. Linguistic scaffolding similar ‘‘community of practice’’ (Wenger, 1998)
CATs also spent time on linguistic scaffolding. with ESLTs that engages them jointly in common
Gee (2000) sees literacy as discourse involving ways tasks over an extended period of time and in which
of using language, of acting and thinking within they share resources, common practices, back-
specified domains. Defined as such, literacy instruc- ground knowledge, beliefs and understandings
tion is an inherent element of all instruction. This is (Wenger, 1998). Also, unlike their ESLT counter-
evident in the following comment from a CAT: parts, CATs are responsible for mainstream, ELLs,
as well as other students with individualized needs.
Teaching US History to Juniors I see that the
The professional lives of these teachers are thus
ESL standards as being very close to what we
encumbered with a multitude of standards to be
also work with. Things such as vocabulary,
addressed for each set of students, a stressful
comprehension, reading, writing, listening skills
situation derived from ‘‘role overload’’ (Conley &
are what we are really teaching all of the
Woosley, 2000). In this respect, specialized training
students.
in scaffolding may be required in order to give
Researchers from content-area instruction are in teachers options for helping ELLs master content
agreement. For example, Akerson (2001) points out material. For example, Saye and Brush (2002)
that teaching reading, writing and communicating conceptualized a distinction between ‘‘soft and
are essential components of teaching scientific hard’’ scaffolds. Soft scaffolds involve teachers
inquiry to elementary students. Similarly, Fang constantly monitoring and providing timely support
(2006) adds that explicit attention to the language to students and thus are generally more associated
of science should be an integral part of science with intensive, individualized and ongoing attention
literacy pedagogy. Draper (2002) argues that by from teachers. Hard scaffolds, on the other hand,
engaging students in literacy activities within are supports that can be embedded ahead of time in
mathematics instruction keeps students engaged instructional materials (e.g. guiding questions).
and interested in the subject and more importantly When computer software is utilized, hard scaffolds
provides them an avenue to access mathematical can be individually adapted to the level of students’
concepts. These activities include teaching students ability and to the difficulty of the task.
how to make meanings out of text and sustaining Also of note in the data is that only a small
conversations regarding the text. (For additional percentage (9.4%) indicated that CATs need train-
efforts on the juxtaposition of literacy in content- ing in the area, and only 7.6% think that scaffolding
area instruction, see also Bing and Thomas (2005, is difficult. One possible interpretation of the finding
chemistry), Bintz and Shelton (2004, social studies), is that the majority of CATs in the study feel that
Witherell, (2000, arts) and Panell (2005, computer they already know how to scaffold for ELLs and/or
classroom).) currently undertaking the process without addi-
tional training. This interpretation could be linked
5.2. Survey findings to what is observed across the four scaffolding
categories in the survey findings. CATs associated
Survey findings in this study situate CATs’ some scaffolding strategies they used with ELLs
scaffolding efforts in a larger context of teachers’ with those used for special education students; these
professional world impacting their pedagogical are marked with an asterisk accompanying items in
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1460 F. Pawan / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1450–1462
and students’ building of and engagement in critical Bintz, W. P., & Shelton, K. S. (2004). Using written conversation
relationships that allow for the interrogation and in middle school: Lessons from a teacher researcher project.
problematization of what each brings into the Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47(6), 492–507.
Bliss, J., Askew, M., & Macrae, S. (1996). Effecting teaching and
classroom. learning: Scaffolding revisited. Oxford Review of Education,
The findings in this study would have benefited 22(1), 37–61.
from classroom teacher observations to provide a Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Soloway, E., & Krajcik,
perspective on the actual manifestation of the teacher J. (1996). Learning with peers: From small group cooperation
knowledge base and its place in enacted practice to collaborative communities. Educational Researcher, 25(8),
37–40.
(Ernest, 1994). Nevertheless, the findings in the study Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2001). The use of embedded scaffolds with
provide guidance on the priorities to be undertaken hypermedia-supported student-centred learning. Journal of
by professional development programs and in- Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10(4), 333–356.
services targeted for CATs who work with ELLs. Bunch, G. C., Abram, P., Lotan, R. A., & Valdes, G. (2001).
They also establish a foundation for action research Beyond sheltered instruction: Rethinking conditions for
academic language development. TESOL Journal, 10(2–3),
to be undertaken by CATs. Teachers can use the 28–33.
findings to reassess their classroom teaching in terms Burns, R., Keyes, M., & Kusimo, P. (2005). Closing achievement
of its components in the learning environment gaps by creating culturally responsive schools. Charleston, WV:
that they want to create for their ELLs. The findings Edvantia.
and the modified ‘‘Prism Model’’ categories can Buzzelli, C. A., & Johnston, B. (2002). The moral dimensions of
teaching: Language, power and culture in classroom interaction.
also be instrumental in eliciting student input as to New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
the scaffolding strategies that are meaningful Case, R. E., & Taylor, S. S. (2005). Language difference or
and purposeful to them. Such information will be learning disability? Clearing House, 78(3), 127–130.
essential if teachers are to recognize legitimate and Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse (2nd ed.). Portsmouth,
necessary practices (Saye & Brush, 2002) in the NJ: Heinemann.
Conley, S., & Woosley, S. A. (2000). Teacher role stress, higher
classroom that are worthy of use in ELL instruction. order needs, and work outcomes. Journal of Educational
Administration, 38(2), 179–201.
Acknowledgements Cumming-Potvin, W., Renshaw, P., & van Kraayenoord, C. E.
(2003). Scaffolding and bilingual shared readings experience:
Promoting primary school students’ learning and develop-
I wish to thank George Cheu-jey Lee for his ment. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 26(2),
insights on this paper. Also, I wish to thank the 54–68.
three coders, Daniel Craig, Erin Schmeidl and Anna de Guerrero, M., & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD:
Lynch. Finally, I am grateful to the anonymous Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language
Journal, 84, 51–68.
reviewers for their instructive comments.
Dong, Y. R. (2002). Integrating language and content: How three
biology teachers work with non-English speaking students.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,
References 5(1), 40–57.
Draper, R. (2002). School mathematics reform, constructivism,
Akerson, V. (2001). Teaching science when your principal says: and literacy: A case for literacy instruction in the reform-
Teach language arts. Science and Children, 38(7), 42–47. oriented math classroom. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Literacy, 45(6), 520–529.
Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing Ernest, P. (1994). The impact of beliefs on the teaching of
context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), mathematics. In A. Bloomfield, & T. Harries (Eds.), Teaching
1–17. and learning mathematics. Derby: Association of Teachers of
Antón, M. (1999). The discourse of a learner-centred classroom. Mathematics.
Sociocultural perspectives on teacher–learner interaction in Ewald, J. D. (2005). Language-related episodes in an assessment
the second language classroom. Modern Language Journal, context: A ‘small-group quiz’. Canadian Modern Language
83, 303–318. Review, 61(4), 565–586.
Arhar, J. (1997). The effects of interdisciplinary teaming on Fang, Z. (2006). The language demands of science reading in
teachers and students. In J. Irvin (Ed.), What current research middle school. International Journal of Science Education,
says to the middle level practitioner (pp. 49–55). Columbus, 28(5), 491–520.
OH: National Middle School Association. Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching.
Bing, W., & Thomas, G. P. (2005). Rationale and approaches for Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106–116.
embedding scientific literacy into the new junior secondary Gee, J. P. (2000). The new literacy studies: From ‘socially situated’
school chemistry curriculum in the People’s Republic of to the work of the social. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton, &
China. International Journal of Science Education, 27(12), R. Ivanic (Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in
1477–1493. context (pp. 180–196). New York: Routledge.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1462 F. Pawan / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1450–1462
Hammel, A. M. (2003). Using multi-modal techniques to Prabhu, N. (1990). There is no best method—Why? TESOL
motivate intuitive and non-intuitive students. American Music Quarterly, 24(2), 161–176.
Teacher, 53(2), 33–34. Phuntsog, N. (1999). The magic of culturally responsive
Hannafin, M. J., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning pedagogy: In search of the genie’s lamp in multicultural
environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 26(3), 97–111.
theories and models, Vol. 2 (pp. 115–140). Mahwah, NJ: Richards, J. C. (2002). Understanding sign systems and their
Erlbaum. applications to students’ literacy development. Journal of
Harper, C., & de Jong, E. (2004). Misconceptions about teaching Reading Education, 27(3), 43–45.
language learners. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1998). Individual and social
48(2), 152–162. aspects of learning. Review of Research in Education, 23, 1–24.
Jewitt, C., Kress, G., Ogborn, J., & Charalampos, T. (2001). Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning
Exploring learning through visual, actional and linguistic about history and social issues in multimedia-supported
communication: The multimodal environment of a science learning environments. Educational Technology Research and
classroom. Educational Review, 53(1), 5–18. Development, 50(3), 77–96.
Kaufman, D., & Crandall, J. A. (Eds.). (2005). Content-based Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: A conception of
instruction in elementary and secondary school settings. teacher knowledge. American Educator, 10(1) 9–15, 43–44.
Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Siegel, M. (1995). More than words: the generative power of
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. transmediation for learning. Canadian Journal of Education,
Oxford: Oxford University Press. 20(4), 455–475.
Kramsch, C. (1995). The cultural component of language Snow, M. A. (1998). Trends and issues in content-based
teaching. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 8, 83–92. instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 243–267.
Kubota, R. (1998). Voices from the margins: Second and foreign Street, B. (Ed.). (2005). Literacies across educational contexts:
language teaching from minority perspectives. Canadian Mediating learning and teaching. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon
Modern Language Review, 54(3), 394–412. Inc.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods: Changing tracks, Thomas, W., Collier, V. (2002). A national study of school
challenging trends. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 59–81. effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term aca-
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers demic achievement. Santa Cruz, CA, and Washington, DC:
of African-American children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Centre for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.
Lee, C. D. (2001). Is October Brown Chinese? A cultural Retrieved November 28, 2005, from /http://www.crede.ucsc.
modelling activity system for underachieving students. Amer- edu/research/llaa/1.1_final.htmlS.
ican Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 97–142. Ulanoff, S. H., & Pucci, S. L. (1999). Learning words from
Merrill, D. C., Reiser, B. J., Merrill, S. K., & Landes, S. (1995). books: The effects of read-aloud on second language
Cognition and Instruction, 13(3), 315–372. vocabulary acquisition. Bilingual Research Journal, 23(4),
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). An expanded 409–422.
sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand US Department of Education (2006). Minority students increase
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. participation in public education. Retrieved April 18, 2006,
Mohan, B., & Beckett, G. H. (2003). A functional approach to from /http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/2005report/
research on content-based language learning: Recasts in 1a/edlite-1a2c-minority.htmlS.
causal explanations. Modern Language Journal, 87(3), Vars, G. F. (1996). Effects of interdisciplinary curriculum and
421–432. instruction. In P. S. Hlebowitsh, & W. G. Wraga (Eds.),
Moll, L. (1994). Vygotsky and education: Instructional implica- Annual review of research for school leaders (pp. 147–164).
tions and applications of sociohistorical psychology. Cam- Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School
bridge: Cambridge University Press. Principals and Scholastic Publishing.
Nassaji, H., & Cumming, A. (2000). What’s in a ZPD? A case Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of
study of a young ESL student and teacher interacting through higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
dialogue journals. Language Teaching Research, 4(2), 95–121. Press.
National Association for Core Curriculum (2000). A bibliography Weiss, D. F. (2005/2006). Keeping it real: The rationale for using
of research on the effectiveness of block-time, core, and manipulatives in the middle grades. Mathematics Teaching in
interdisciplinary team teaching programs. Kent, OH: National the Middle School, 11(5), 238–242.
Association for Core Curriculum. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning
National Centre for Educational Statistics (2002). Schools and and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
staffing survey, 1999–2000: Overview of the data for public, Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the
private, public charter, and Bureau of Indian Affairs negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual,
elementary and secondary schools. Retrieved April 14, 2006 pedagogical, cultural and political challenges facing teachers.
from /http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002313.pdfS. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131–175.
Panell, C. (2005). Teaching Literacy in the Technology Classroom, Witherell, N. (2000). Promoting understanding: Teaching literacy
64(6), 23–25. through the arts. Educational Horizons, 78(4), 179–183.