Scaffolding & Metacognition by Staphni Sim

In Vygotsky’s concept of the zone of proximal development (ZPD), it was noted that there is a level that every child can independently problem solve and another level that they can potentially develop under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers. ZPD is the distance in between the actual development level and the potential development level.

In the video, the teacher employed the scaffolding teaching strategy that provides individualized support based on the pupil’s ZPD. It is observed that an important aspect of her scaffolding instruction was that the scaffolds were temporary. Once the pupils’ problem solving abilities increased, the scaffolds provided by the teacher were progressively withdrawn.

Observing her lesson, one can classify her scaffolding instruction into the three levels as proposed in the framework of Anghileri (2006). At level 1, learning took place through interaction with artefacts (the chess board) and structured tasks (worksheets). Also, pupils used the templates provided in free play to explore the counting of squares. The classroom was also organised in such a way that learning took place through peer collaboration too. It is also observed that there was no direct interaction between the teacher and the pupils, with only emotive feedback provided.

At level 2, there was direct interaction between the teacher and her pupils. The teacher began this stage by showing and telling the mathematical tasks and recalling the rule. She further developed the pupils’ thinking and own understanding of the mathematical knowledge through reviewing and restructuring as she probed pupil’s ways of getting the answer, getting them to justify their solutions and simplified the tasks.

At the highest level, the 3rd level, the teacher engaged her pupils in a conceptual discourse via extending the problem task. She made connections to the learning activities and developed visual representational tools.

Current paradigm for learning suggests that learning is most effective when there is appropriate scaffolding instruction that allows active construction of knowledge. An interesting area of research could look into the areas of scaffolding and metacognition. Although scaffolding and metacognition differs in the agents that bridge the ZPD, both involve cognition. Teacher scaffolds the pupils’ cognition through the various levels, where metacognition mediate between the pupils and their own cognition.

One possible research question could be:
How can scaffolding and metacognition act together to support pupils’ learning?

An experiment can be conducted to study the pre and post effects of scaffolding and metacognition in the pupils. Both quantitative and qualitative methods can be used to analyze the differences in the quality of their work and their perceptions of which types of scaffolding and metacognition questions best supported their learning. One can adapt the questions used in Holton and Clarke (2006). The data for the study can include pupils’ surveys, pupils’ interviews, related class activities, and transcripts of the teacher's verbal instructions given both at the start and end of the experiment.

It would be interesting to discover how these two cognitive activities can work hand in hand to maximize learning in our pupils. Furthermore, the implication for teaching for such a study is that pupils might also be taught the appropriate questioning techniques to self-scaffold their own learning and metacognition.

References
Anghileri, J. (2006). Scaffolding practices that enhance mathematics learning. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8(1).

Holton, D., and Clarke, D. (2006). Scaffolding and metacognition. International Journal of Mathematical Eduation in Science and Technology, 37(2), 127-143.