Original Definition of Scaffolding
The metaphor of scaffolding was first applied to educational contexts when Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) wanted to explain how adults help infants learn to solve problems. They found that adults did not simply tell the infants how to solve the problem or just demonstrate how to do it. Rather, the adults used six strategies—“recruitment, reduction in degrees of freedom, direction maintenance, marking critical features, frustration control, and demonstration”—to temporarily support children’s efforts until they gain sufficient skill (Wood et al., 1976, p. 98). Of note, three of the six original scaffolding strategies are motivational (recruitment, direction maintenance, and frustration control) and the other three are cognitive (reduction in degrees of freedom, marking critical features, and demonstration). Thus, scaffolding in its original sense was equal parts motivational and cognitive support.
Source: A Framework for Designing Scaffolds That Improve Motivation and Cognition by Brian R. Belland , ChanMin Kim & Michael J. Hannafin
Brian R. Belland , ChanMin Kim & Michael J. Hannafin (2013) A Framework for Designing Scaffolds That Improve Motivation and Cognition, Educational Psychologist, 48:4, 243-270, DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2013.838920
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
"Regulation During Cooperative and Collaborative Learning: A Theory-Based Review of Terms and Concepts" by Cornelia Schoor, Susanne Narciss & Hermann Körndle
The Socio-Cognitive Approach
From a (socio-) cognitive perspective, the role of the social in self-regulated learning is to influence individual regulation. The situation and context—including the social context—can influence self-regulation of learning (cf. Nolen & Ward, 2008). This approach focuses on the individual, which is the unit of analysis (Hadwin & Oshige, 2011; Nolen & Ward, 2008; Volet, Vauras, et al., 2009). However, the social context provides support for the development of self-regulation (e.g., Schunk & Zimmerman,1997). Relevant mechanisms for this support are modeling of self-regulation and feedback (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997), which traces back to Bandura (1986). The sociocognitive approach grounds some research on social modes of regulation; for example, Rogat and Linnenbrink-Garcia (2011) placed their work in the context of sociocognitive approaches but also drew on “research examining social regulation of group learning” (p. 376). Järvelä and Hadwin's (2013) analysis of self-, co-, and socially shared regulation is also based on the sociocognitive model of self-regulated learning by Winne and Hadwin (1998).
The Sociocultural Approach
Based on Vygotsky, the sociocultural approach focuses not on individual cognition and motivation (as is the sociocognitive approach) but on socially mediated cognition and motivation at the individual level (Nolen & Ward, 2008). The role of the social is that of a mediator of cognition. The social mediation takes place by externalization and internalization (McCaslin & Hickey, 2001; Nolen & Ward, 2008). The level of analysis is the interaction of the individual with the culture. Although social mediation and cultural influences are relevant mechanisms in all kinds of relationships, social modes of regulation within this approach usually refer to an asymmetric relationship where one person externalizes her skill to make it accessible for the other person who, during their learning process, internalizes that skill (cf. Hadwin, Wozney, & Pontin, 2005). In a broader sense, the culture or social environment as a whole supports the individual's internalization (Volet, Vauras, et al., 2009) or the person's development (McCaslin, 2009; McCaslin & Burross, 2011). Internalization is often seen as a transition from other-regulation to self-regulation (Wertsch & Bivens, 1992), or the appropriation of self-regulation. Other-regulation, in this context, refers to the notion that a more capable person undertakes regulatory tasks for someone else as long as she or he is not able to self-regulate. This transitional period from other- to self-regulation is often called coregulation (Hadwin & Oshige, 2011; McCaslin & Hickey, 2001) although the term coregulation is also used to express that not only the individual but also social sources influence a person's development (McCaslin, 2009; McCaslin & Burross, 2011).
The Situative Approach
An approach that emphasizes the system in which activity occurs is the situative perspective (e.g., Greeno, 2006). Research on socially shared regulation emerged from within this perspective. Here, the main claim is that all cognition occurs as activity within a system. Whereas the sociocultural approach retains an interest in the individual whose processes are shaped by the social environment through internalization, the situative approach views processes from the systemic point of view. The focus is on the individual within a system rather than on the individual. The role of the social is that of a system with which the individual is interwoven. The system might be a learning group, but also a community of practice (Wenger, 1998), or a whole society. The system encompasses not only people but also material, such as the instruments of a cockpit, as in the studies of distributed cognition (e.g., Hutchins, 1995). The material can serve as external representations of knowledge of the system. In communities of practice (Wenger, 1998), a group's (community's) knowledge is preserved in form of practices (cf. Greeno,2006). It is often claimed that, therefore, the unit of analysis must be the system itself, such as a group (Nolen & Ward, 2008). In slight contrast to this claim, Greeno (2006) stressed that analyses at multiple levels, including analysis at the individual level, is possible within the situative perspective. Regulation of group learning, in this perspective, is necessarily studied not only at the individual level but also at the group level.
Source: Cornelia Schoor, Susanne Narciss & Hermann Körndle (2015) Regulation During Cooperative and Collaborative Learning: A Theory-Based Review of Terms and Concepts, Educational Psychologist, 50:2, 97-119, DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2015.1038540