Everybody and their sister are throwing around the concept of “scaffolding” in educational circles these days – and most are using the term/concept incorrectly.
The most literal translation of the wild Russian’s (Vygotsky) concept of “scaffolding” (created in part by his resentment of Piaget – and the need to explain human social development more completely than he felt Piaget did) is: to provide the necessary and sufficient support for a child accomplishing a task; until such time that the child can accomplish the task on his or her own (all-the-while, gradually removing those aforementioned supports).
Unfortunately, the education world is doing what they so often do, and that is: completely bugger the meaning of something and utilize the term/concept as many cunning linguists have used “fuck” and “shit” as every single part-of-speech. Educators have a deep-seated need to feel intelligent and to feel that they are on the cutting edge of vital and relevant developments in the field (there haven’t been too many); so they often fall prey to the bandwagon syndrome and hop on if whateveritis that is being bandied about — seemingly makes them sound more intelligent.
I recently sat in on the presentation of a literacy consultant who talked about scaffolding a student from-one-point-to-another. I guess in this usage – scaffolding became a participle (a verbal adjective: both defining and demonstrating action – much like ‘my fucking ass is sore’). I told the literacy consultant that she had used “scaffolding” incorrectly – to which she demonstrated immediate umbrage. It was only after I told her that what she actually meant (in this case ‘bridging’ — forming a link of understanding and/or comprehension by which a student might move from one concept to another) that she acquiesced and acknowledged that I apparently knew what I was talking about. I guess I “bridged” this gap without providing a whole lotta support. Fuck me!
Another inappropriate use of “scaffolding” that I have been forced to endure over the past few years is when scaffolding is substituted for “sequencing.” Sequencing is the attempt to set up the steady acquisition of progressively more difficult educational concepts (ala Bloom’s taxonomy). But those scaffolding experts think that you can just scaffold yourself up the ladder – much like a gerund (a verbal noun — for my struggling grammarians) – kinda like: don’t be fucking me up.
What really gets my fucking shit – is when these selfsame purveyors of knowledge suggest that one can scaffold backwards-and-forwards at-the-drop-of-a-hat. In this case they intimate that if a student is chronologically in the 11th Grade – but only has a 4th Grade reading ability – that you somehow magically “scaffold” a person (with many age-connected experiences) to a Fourth Grade edifice – and then, construct the necessary and sufficient supports with this seventeen-year-old to propel him (it’s usually a him) across 7-reading levels (in whatever time you have remaining to work with the student). Talk about a fucked up situation. We might have the past perfect tense tied up here – but this is also a jolly good opportunity to throw the future perfect tense into the mix: I will have scaffolded him into the 11th Grade reading level.
Ay me, much like that seminal article on ADD – which started me off as Dr. Sinn (because it was poorly researched and basically driveling nonsense – but spawned an entire “disease” field) — this fucking scaffolding has been stretched every which way – and now, doesn’t mean a shit, because it can no longer hold anything: not even a-load-of-shit!