Research References - ZPD & Scaffolding
ZPD (Zone of Proximal Development) & Appropriate Challenge
Research shows that extensive periods of boredom yield feelings of entrapment and increase stress levels (Sansone & Smith, 2000). A lack of challenge appears to be the most frequently cited source of school-related boredom in students (Kanevsky & Keighley, 2003). High-ability and high performing students are most prone to becoming bored with school. One study of elementary school students found that 42 percent of their school time was spent passively looking at the teacher or waiting (Greenwood, Horton, & Utley, 2002). Passive learning experiences tend to lead to motivational and classroom behavior problems (Berryman, 1993).
Jarvis and Seifert (2002) found that students avoided work because they were:
- bored
- felt helpless
- were hostile toward their teacher
Differentiated instruction emphasizes the importance of student “readiness” (Hall, 2002). This philosophy asserts that the difficulty of skills taught should be just a bit above a student’s present level of mastery. Soviet psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1979) suggested that with adult help, children can frequently perform tasks that they are unable to complete on their own. Vygotsky adopted the term zone of proximal development to indicate the distance between what children can do alone and what they could achieve with competent assistance. The teacher’s responsibility is to nudge students into their zone of proximal development, nurture success using tasks slightly more advanced than the students can handle alone and, hence, wean them toward independence (Tomlinson et al., 2003).
Students are most engaged when they perceive their work to be challenging and in balance with their skills, the content is relevant, and they feel they have some control over the learning environment (Shernoff et al., 2003). At-risk students perceive themselves as more involved and more competent when they feel they have greater control over decisions and choices; conversely they report being less bored, less confused, and less interested in doing something else when they feel they have such control (DiCintio & Gee, 1999).
Scaffolding
Many educators (Clark & Graves, 2005; Zydney, 2005) propose scaffolding as an effective tool for differentiating instruction for students of diverse needs. Scaffolds may take the following form:
View specific scaffolding examples
Scaffolding and student-centered environment stimulated reflection in middle school and college students (Song, Grabowski, & Koszalka, 2002). Teachers often use cooperative learning activities after scaffolded instruction to decrease students’ reliance on teacher-provided scaffolds (Hartman, 2002).
Larkin (2002) suggests that teachers employ a scaffolding framework that includes four steps:
(1) Model how to perform a new or difficult task,
(2) Work with students to perform the task,
(3) Have students collaborate with a partner to complete the task, and
(4) Individual students exhibit their task competence.
View Scaffolding Steps in Action
Redundancy should be built into the scaffolding process (Puntambekar & Kolodner, 2005). These aids may include not only interactions between individuals but also resources, objects, and environments. Redundancy can aid the process of fading dependence upon the scaffolds as students make progress. Roehler and Cantlon (1997) identified the varieties of scaffolding that teachers offer during ‘‘learning conversations.’’ They found that teachers provide explanations, encourage student participation, confirm and clarify student comprehension, model appropriate behaviors, and invite students to supply hints about how to accomplish a task.
Research indicates that scaffolding has been used effectively to increase learning in a range of subjects and grade levels (Eickholdt, 2004; Zydney, 2005). McKinley (2004) conducted an in investigation of teachers judged successful in teaching high-achieving African-American students. Surveys of the exemplar teachers and their principals revealed that teachers’ effectiveness was attributed primarily to scaffolding instruction and personalized teaching. Also, students designated as “low achieving” who received scaffolded instruction were able to perform significantly higher than their peers who did not achieve the enhanced aid (Applebee, 2003; Delpit, 2003).