Metaphorical and visual representations of scaffolding

Richard S. LAVIN and Yukari NAKANO

Abstract

The present paper explores some of the ways in which the notion of scaffolding has been
represented visually in the literature. The work builds on the research introduced in Lavin
and Nakano (2017), where we explored some problems in the ways in which the underlying
spatial metaphor of the ZPD was traditionally exploited, seeking in the literature some
innovative visual representations thereof and finally proposing some new visual
representations to depict the notions of movement within the ZPD, as well as the ZPD in
social context and in pairwork. The present paper shows how representations of the related
notion of scaffolding have focused on different aspects of the notion, usually emphasizing a
small number of its defining features. We also offer our own representation of a different
subset of the various aspects of scaffolding, focusing particularly on how the notion can be
related to that of the ZPD. Without three-dimensional displays, it may not be possible to
represent all important aspects of the notion simultaneously, but it is hoped that this brief
survey together with our proposal will increase awareness of the issues involved in choosing
a visual representation and, when dealing with scaffolding within a Vygotskian framework,
show the importance of relating scaffolding to the spatial metaphor of the ZPD.

1. Introduction

Vygotskian and neo-Vygotskian sociocultural theory has held a fascination

for many language teachers since English translations of Vygotsky’s work
appeared in the last few decades of the twentieth century. Yet there are
countless difficulties regarding how Vygotsky’s ideas should be interpreted
and put into practice by teachers.
Swain et al. (2015) make a valiant attempt to render sociocultural concepts
relatable by employing a range of teacher and learner narratives to illustrate
concepts such as the zone of proximal development. This is a most valuable
project, but for us it has a key limitation: It does not make use of visual aids to
illustrate concepts, and we believe that this limits potential uptake.
Thus, in this paper we build on the work on visualizing the ZPD in Lavin and
Nakano (2017) by illustrating the related notion of scaffolding. We also make
mention of attempts to link scaffolding to other related notions, including that
of the ZPD. We conclude with our own proposed visual representation of
scaffolding that also links the notion to the ZPD.

2. The ZPD

We begin by reproducing here a figure from Lavin and Nakano (2017, p. 49)
(shown here as Fig. 1) that shows two students engaged in pairwork. The
student on the right has a larger ZAD (zone of actual development) than the
one on the left. The student on the right also has a larger ZPD (zone of
proximal development) than the one on the left. The ZPD was defined in
Lavin and Nakano (2017) as:
the area between the space representing internalized problem-solving skills
1
(the zone of actual development, ZAD) and the space representing problem-
solving skills beyond current capabilities (the zone of potential development,
ZoPD), i.e. the area where problems can be solved with guidance. (p. 42)
(It should be noted that any external limit on the outer band is just a
diagrammatic convention: there is no principled reason to suggest an absolute
limit on what an individual could learn given enough time.)

Fig. 1: The ZPDs of two students engaged in pairwork. ZPDs are the second of the
three concentric circles (yellow in the colour originals)

3. Existing definitions and visual representations of scaffolding

Scaffolding can be conceptualized as the structured support that allows a

learner to do things successfully that she could not do without that support.
Using the movement-through-space metaphor of the ZPD, we can say that,
since performing a task successfully lays the groundwork for eventually
performing it alone, the task has moved inwards within the ZPD in the
direction of the ZAD.
Scaffolding has been described, defined, and discussed countless times since
Wood et al.’s (1976) seminal paper, where scaffolding is described as an adult
“controlling those elements of the task that are initially beyond the learner's
capacity, thus permitting him to concentrate upon and complete only those
elements that are within his range of competence” in such a way that it results
eventually “in development of task competence by the learner at a pace that
would far outstrip his unassisted efforts” (p. 90).
Wood et al. point out a precondition for success with scaffolding:
“comprehension of the solution must precede production”. In other words, it
is not possible to scaffold any arbitrary skill or knowledge that we would like
the learner to master. Although deep understanding may not be necessary,
the learner needs to be able to recognize in some way that the operations led
by the scaffolder make sense in the context of the problem or situation.
The six defining features of scaffolding as listed by Wood et al. are:

2
1. recruiting interest in the task,
2. simplifying the task,
3. maintaining pursuit of the goal,
4. marking critical features and discrepancies between what has been
produced and the ideal solution,
5. controlling frustration during problem solving, and
6. demonstrating an idealized version of the act to be performed.
Other researchers have from time to time provided slightly different lists of
defining features. For example, Walqui (2006) lists:
1. Continuity: Tasks are repeated, with variations and connected to one
another (e.g. as part of projects).
2. Contextual support: Exploration is encouraged in a safe, supportive
environment; access to means and goals is promoted in a variety of ways.
3. Intersubjectivity: Mutual engagement and rapport are established; there is
encouragement and nonthreatening participation in a shared community of
practice.
4. Contingency: Task procedures are adjusted depending on actions of
learners; contributions and utterances are oriented towards each other and
may be co-constructed (or, see below, vertically constructed).
5. Handover/takeover: There is an increasing role for the learner as skills and
confidence increase; the teacher watches carefully for the learner ’s readiness
to take over increasing parts of the action.
6. Flow: Skills and challenges are in balance; participants are focused on the
task and are ‘in tune’ with each other.
Although Wood et al. did not link the concept of scaffolding explicitly to
sociocultural theory, it very soon became clear that the Vygotskian notion of
the ZPD was a natural fit, to the point where the two concepts are sometimes
seen as having been parts of the same framework all along. (We will note in
passing that there are strong critics of this linkage, among them Lantolf and
Thorne, 2006.) Skills or operations that could be successfully scaffolded could
be defined as those that were in the learner’s ZPD. (Switching things round a
bit, we might say that the ZPD consists of those things that the learner cannot
produce but can comprehend and/or see a path to acquiring.)
Scaffolding as defined by Wood et al. involved a gradual transfer of
responsibility from the scaffolder to the scaffoldee. As pointed out by Stone
(1996), many researchers built upon Wood et al.’s work by examining what
this transfer of responsibility entailed. Van de Pol et al. (2010) visualize this as
in Fig. 2 (p. 274). Progression through a task in time is shown from left to
right. At the beginning of the process, the teacher assumes the lion’s share of
responsibility, providing large amounts of support. This support is contingent
in the sense that the teacher withdraws support that she finds is no longer

3
necessary. This could be simply through an intuitive sense or through various
strategies. Thus, the support fades over time, as the student’s responsibility
correspondingly increases.

Fig. 2:Van de Pol et al.'s representation of scaffolding, focusing on contingency, fading,

and transfer of responsibility

Valsiner (2005) focuses on the interactive and reciprocal nature of the

scaffolding process, where the learner is an active participant, making
counter-suggestions in response to the scaffolder’s guidance. These counter-
suggestions (which could take the form of actions rather than words) serve to
let the scaffolder refine his hypotheses regarding the knowledge and
capabilities of the learner, making it possible to give better-tuned guidance (p.
199). This aspect of scaffolding is shown in Fig. 3.
Other scholars in their representations have attempted to link scaffolding to
the ZPD and other notions. For example, Rojas-Drummond et al. (2013, p. 12)
relate scaffolding both to the ZPD and three planes of sociocultural activity,
the personal plane, the interpersonal plane, and the community plane,
recognizing that what happens between small numbers of people, for
example in the classroom, is related to the wider community of which the
classroom is a part. This representation is shown in Fig. 4.
Van Lier (2004, p. 158) suggests that being the beneficiary or recipient of
scaffolding is complementary with other kinds of interaction, such as
interaction with equal peers, accessing one’s own inner resources, and
providing scaffolding to others. This idea is depicted in Fig. 5.

4
 Fig. 3:Valsiner's (2005) depiction of the reciprocal nature of scaffolding

Fig. 4: Rojas-Drummond et al.'s (2013) depiction of scaffolding and the ZPD within
three planes of sociocultural activity
5
 Fig. 5:Van Lier's (2004) depiction of the complementarity of scaffolding with three
other kinds of interaction

4. A proposal

Of the figures seen so far, Rojas-Drummond et al.'s (2013) representation (Fig.

4) and Van Lier's (2004) attempt to relate scaffolding to the ZPD. To us, Rojas-
Drummond et al.'s representation seems to obscure the relationship rather
than illuminate it, perhaps because of the laudable attempt to also incorporate
the three planes into the same figure. We suggest that that might be better
done at a later stage, after first clarifying the relationship between scaffolding
and the ZPD.
Van Lier's (2004) representation is intriguing. It shows how various kinds of
interaction as well as a learner's inner resources can all work as resources for
expanding the learner's capabilities. Those resources are arranged around a
center labelled "self-regulation", which presumably should be interpreted as
shorthand for capabilities available through self-regulation alone.
Our first thought is that, while Van Lier's (2004) representation aptly shows
6
the various kinds of resources that could be available across a whole range of
situations, it is not very useful as a representation of any specific situation
(where not all of the four types of resources may be available or relevant). In
addition, related to the above point, it is a static depiction, making no attempt
to show how a learner's situation may change over time under the influence
of scaffolding. We should also mention here that in the recent literature
scholars tend to use a broader, and also narrower, definition of scaffolding
than Van Lier (2004) does. On the one hand, interaction with peers is now
often treated as a form of scaffolding, meaning that three of the four outer
quadrants could be combined into one; on the other, accessing internal
resources implies that the learner already has appropriated the capabilities in
question, which would mean that the fourth outer quadrant could be
included in the center.
As a way to depict the microgenetic (or short-term; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006)

development of the learner's actual and latent capabilities as scaffolding

occurs, using the same basic style as in Fig. 1, we offer Fig. 6.

Fig. 6: Our depiction of scaffolding during problem solving and the movement of
capabilities between zones

Although rather crude, this representation has a couple of advantages:

7
1. It has a dynamic aspect, showing how the learner's capabilities change over
time in the course of scaffolding.
2. Scaffolding is depicted as an activity or process that acts on the individual
to bring about change.

There is no definitive way of validating or demonstrating the "correctness" of

this kind of figure. The test lies in whether or not it can be profitably used to
illustrate educational activities in a way that enhances understanding.
Clearly, there is much work still to be done in this respect. In further research,
we plan to develop further representations that also incorporate some of the
other aspects of scaffolding described in this paper, such as fading.
Without color and three dimensions, it may never be possible to represent
adequately all relevant aspects of scaffolding, but, by matching visual features
with actual features in a principled way, with a clear conception of the
metaphor(s) we are employing, it should be possible through a series of
figures to show the key aspects of scaffolding that we wish to communicate to
readers.

References

Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second
language development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Lavin, R. S., & Nakano, Y. (2017). Visualizing the concept of the ZPD in language
education. The Journal of the Graduate School of Language Literature, Prefectural
University of Kumamoto, 10, 39–51.

Rojas-Drummond, S., Torreblanca, O., Pedraza, H., Vélez, M., & Guzmán, K. (2013).
“Dialogic scaffolding”: Enhancing learning and understanding in collaborative
contexts. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 2(1), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.lcsi.2012.12.003

Stone, C. A. (1996). What is missing in the metaphor of scaffolding? In D. Faulkner,

K. Littleton, & M. Woodhead (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in
children’s development (pp. 169–183). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M., Kinnear, P., & Steinman, L. (2015). Sociocultural theory in second language
education: an introduction through narratives. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Valsiner, J. (2005). Scaffolding within the structure of dialogical self: Hierarchical

dynamics of semiotic mediation. New Ideas in Psychology, 23(3), 197–206. https:/
/doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2006.06.001

van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student
interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–296.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6

8
van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic.

Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A

conceptual framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,
9(2), 159-180.

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. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x