MULTIPLE LAYERS OF SCAFFOLDING:

ANALYZING STUDENT WORK AND MENTORING A TEACHER IN THE CONTEXT OF READING CLINIC

Barbara Laster

Towson University

Introduction

A reflection in a mirror confirms many attributes and usually shows a few previously unknown matters.   This is true when the subject of the reflection is teaching (as well as other worthy endeavors). For me, a recent glance in the mirror of my teaching revealed that I am still gravitating towards the students who have the arduous or multifaceted journeys.   Why I went into teaching in the first place more than thirty years ago -- to help those for whom academic learning was a particular challenge -- is still true today. As I teach teachers, I am drawn to those for whom the subject matter is not automatic, but for whom it may be more challenging; those who need to ask more questions and do ask those questions; those who have to work harder to understand the complex concepts in our field; those who may take longer to grasp and apply a new practice but whose passion for achievement and success has a brilliance of its own.

              This is a study of my journey as a mentor of a teacher called TS. TS, a kindergarten teacher by day, matriculated in graduate courses leading to the Masters degree as a reading specialist.   She, unlike many of her peers, often asked for extra help in understanding concepts in her classes that discussed theory or practice. TS also needed more assistance than some of her peers in applying competencies within her literacy practicum courses.   This is a report of how she became a knowledgeable, skilled, and efficient teacher of older students in the context of a university reading clinic.   We will be analyzing this teacher's work in the context of her analysis of the students' work.

              For principals, central office personnel, and professional developers, the lessons of this case may highlight their work with novice or developing teachers.   Teacher development takes intention, time and constructive interventions.

Theoretical Background

              From their inception, reading clinics at universities have focused on best practices for reading instruction.   Eversen (1999) points out that teachers who are trained in reading clinic settings develop expertise in literacy learning that is valuable within schools and within the larger communities of family and social life.   Most university reading clinics are now demonstration sites for children's literacy learning and exemplary teacher training. Derivative of the clinical training offered in reading clinics, there has been an increasing depth in the discussion about many topics including literacy assessment (Freppon, 1997; Hutson, 1998), instructional conversations (Roscos & Walker, 1997), and longitudinal reflection (Hill, 1997; Freppon & Johnson, 2001; Tidwell & Laster, 1998; Laster, 1997). Thus, the focus of the reading clinic research during the last decade has been aspects of teacher development (Laster, 2002).

              Scaffolding professional learning is an echo of scaffolding of student learning.   Meyer (1993) noted that scaffolding, first of all, involves teacher support for student learning.   Secondly, the goal of scaffolding is to transfer responsibility for learning from the teacher to the learner. The context for effective scaffolding must provide for ample student discourse. Finally, interactions between teacher and learner must be as co-participants in a non-threatening (and non-evaluative) atmosphere.   Palinscar (1998) points out that scaffolding may be supplied not only by individuals, but also by contexts and activities that support learning.

Dole, Brown, & Trathen (1996) delineated certain teacher scaffolding behaviors for instruction in comprehension: cueing, prompting, use of analogies and metaphors, questioning, elaborating, and remodeling. Many (2002), in studying scaffolding in children's development of writing, concluded that scaffolding helps learners develop more complex conceptual understanding and develop a repertoire of strategies by bridging actual developmental levels and levels of potential development; this zone of proximal development is the potential level of development or what a student is capable of doing with the support and guidance of others.” (Vygotsky, 1978).

Other researchers (Rosemary, Freppon & Kinnucan-Welsh, 2002) investigate scaffolding in a different light. Their research focuses on scaffolding teacher learning.   To fine-tune professional learning in reading clinics and other clinical settings, Roskos and Rosemary (2001) developed the Teacher Learning Instrument ©(TLI), which scaffolds diagnostic teaching. A series of studies of the TLI at reading clinics (Hill, 2001; Cobb, 2001; Walker & Ward, 2001) and clinical settings within schools (Kinnucan-Welsch & Grogan, 2001; Feist-Willis, Zimmerman, Freppon & Campbell, 2001) confirmed the efficacy of this instrument. Specifically, the TLI assisted teachers to become intentional in their teaching behaviors.   Furthermore, it helped teachers “step back” or self-regulate the amount of teacher versus student talk during instruction.   The TLI aided teachers in their understanding of the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1998) as it pertains to reading instruction and heightened their awareness of scaffolding behaviors.

Rationale

              By guiding one teacher, TS, using a modified Teacher Learning Instrument (TLI), I hoped to carefully   examine teacher development in the context of a reading clinic.   In pragmatic terms, I aimed to address some of the hesitations that TS expressed about her decision-making as a diagnostician and as a teacher. I hoped to assist in the enhancement of her confidence and competence as a teacher of reading.   Because she was enrolled in a K-12 certification program, I was particularly interested in seeing her develop her assessment and instruction approaches with students beyond the primary level of schooling, as she was a kindergarten teacher.   Thus, a fourth grader was assigned to TS as a client for this practicum.

Methodology

The design of the study was an in-depth case study. TS volunteered to be part of this study and she met with me (the professor) one-on-one for a complete explanation of the procedures and expectations.   The general procedures for the Teacher Learning Instrument (TLI) involve audiotape and/or videotape of selected teaching sessions, usually one at the beginning of the semester, one in the middle of the semester, and one at the end of the semester.   The audiotapes/videotapes are then transcribed by the teacher and carefully reviewed; only approximately ten minutes of teaching per session is actually transcribed and thoroughly analyzed.   Subsequently, a discussion between the teacher and the mentor (in this case the professor) centers on how one would categorize each of the teaching interactions.   In this particular study, all of the sessions between mentor and teacher were also audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed.

We met at the beginning of the semester and periodically throughout the semester in a private setting within the university reading clinic. We also were both part of the class (fifteen teachers) in which client assessment and instruction were discussed.   Furthermore, TS wrote personal e-mails to me and participated in online Blackboard discussions about her case and the other aspects of the reading clinic experience. Peripheral to this study but part of the reading clinic setting, TS and I participated in parent workshops, the training and supervising of paraprofessionals/ literacy tutors, and collegial sharing/coaching with a second group of clinical teachers,.

              As part of the advanced practicum, TS and her graduate student colleagues had a variety of assignments to complete that corresponded to the variety of roles that reading specialists fulfill (IRA, 1999).   This study focused mostly on TS in the role of instructor and analyzer of student work; occasionally she also revealed her insights about her development in some of her other roles, such as parent educator, collegial coach and paraprofessional trainer. TS was assigned DM, a fourth grader who was struggling with reading.   TS met DM once per week for one hour at the university reading clinic.   DM was brought to the reading clinic by his parent who participated in the parent workshops while DM was working with TS.  

The Teacher Learning Instrument (TLI) outline provided a protocol for the central instructional focus that TS had with her student, DM.   The components of doing an I-Search Paper became the basis for the TLI protocol. Assessment of DM's instructional needs, in itself, spontaneously became another focus of scaffolding between professor and teacher.   Sessions of instruction -- as well as sessions between professor and teacher   --   were audiotaped and transcribed.   TS transcribed one hour's worth of taped lessons; I transcribed the other three hours of instruction that were selected for analysis by TS.   The sessions that were selected were at the middle and end of the semester because the beginning of the semester involved direct assessment rather than opportunities for instruction.   TS wrote reflections on the transcriptions of her sessions with DM.   I reflected on the transcriptions of my sessions with TS.

     After the semester was over, a research assistant and I analyzed the transcripts using the constant comparison method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).   Categories of behavior emerged (Lincoln & Guba,1985) as two separate coders examined the transcripts.   A third coder then looked at two transcripts to establish an inter-rater reliability; on the professor-teacher transcript the inter-rater reliability was .89 and on the teacher-student transcript it was 1.00. The principal researcher also read over multiple times the e-mail messages, reflections on the transcripts, and Reflection Log of TS.

Findings

              I guided TS to determine DM's most salient instructional goals.   As he presented motivational issues, as well as decoding, comprehension, and writing needs, we determined that an I-Search Paper would provide the most comprehensive approach to instruction for DM. The major steps of the I-Search Process (Macrorie, 1988) include topic selection, setting up 3-5 guiding questions, procuring of resources, reading to answer the questions, note taking, writing the paper in the I-Search format, and making a cover. Thus, using the terminology of the TLI, one could say that TS had multiple protocols to accomplish this comprehensive learning activity. The specific focus for DM's most pressing need was visualization, an aspect of comprehension.   Visualization was emphasized throughout TS's work with DM, both during the reading and during the writing phases of the instruction.

From analyzing the transcripts of the teaching sessions, evidence emerges of the growth in specific literacy skill by DM. He showed increased competence in visualizing when reading. He showed use of his prior knowledge when assimilating new facts. Using the I-Search process of reading and writing to answer specific questions that he had formulated, DM made new links between reading and writing. He read and wrote for an authentic purpose and thus was highly motivated. His I-Search Paper was a significant accomplishment that both he and his mother spoke of.

              The process of the teacher's growth beyond just this one successful semester of student gains is the main focus of this report.   Thus, the transcripts were carefully analyzed for growth of teacher performance. The categories that emerged when coding the data could be grouped by student behaviors, teacher behaviors, and shared behaviors. The salient behaviors were the following:

Student Behaviors

1. Reporting Specific Answers -- When asked a direct question, the student gives a specific answer required to provide information sought by the question.

2. Exploring/Experimentation -- The student orally forms hypotheses and/or asks questions to further understand the topic.

3. Aware of Concept and Articulates It -- The student understands a larger concept and explains it.

4. Application of Learning -- The student transfers a concept or a new learning to a new context.   For example, a student illustrates or makes an analogy.

Teacher Behaviors

1.Saying Directions -- The teacher explains the activity with specific instruction about how to do it.

2. Checking to Understand the Basics -- The teacher asks specific questions to evoke specific answers.   This line of questioning occurs so the teacher learns if the student understood basic facts or ideas.

3. Adding or Illustrating -- The teacher elaborates on a concept that he/she is explaining.

4. Probing -- The teacher asks questions to get the student to continue to develop ideas.   The student is on the right track but the teacher is trying to take the concept further.  

5. Re-directing--If the student is not on track with his/her ideas, the teacher begins asking questions that lead the student to the correct ideas or in a specific direction.   Re-directing does not include telling the student they are incorrect and just giving them the answers.

6. Providing Guidance -- The teacher suggests resources that the student may use to further their learning or performance. For example, a teacher may provide a tool (ex. a book or other print resource; an index) or a specific suggestion (ex. “Why don't you draw a picture or use this graphic organizer to help you remember?”)

Shared Behaviors

1. Collaboration -- The give and take of information between the student and the teacher.   They could be bouncing ideas back and forth and/or building information together.

2. Encouraging -- Gestures or vocalizations that are used to encourage the other person to keep communicating, expressing ideas, and providing information.   Examples:   “Right,” Umhmm etc

3. Reiteration -- The student or teacher repeats a concept or idea in his/her own words in order to clarify.

4. Confirming -- The student or teacher understands the concepts being discussed and is acknowledging that the other person is on the right track.

After the categories were determined, transcripts were coded using these categories. One long transcript of interaction between the mentor (professor) and the teacher was coded in which there were a total of 101 interactions. The percentages in each category for the professor-teacher interactions are reported in Table 1.

Table 1 : Percentages of mentor, teacher, and shared behaviors in a session

In Table 1, it is interesting to note the low percentage of “application of learning” by the teacher. This may be because the teacher (who was the student in this scenario) applied her learning more in her practice than in her verbalizations. Among the behaviors initiated by the mentor (professor), the highest percentage were ones that probed the thinking of the teacher; this could be linked to a scaffolding feature of aiming for the Zone of Proximal Development by challenging the student's thinking. The highest percentage of interactions were “confirming”; that is, the mentor or the teacher seemed to be sharing an understanding and working to create a positive emotional tone.

               Table 2 shows the development of the teacher using the coding from three sessions in which TS met with DM.   There are fewer student responses that require specific factual answers over time and more collaborative or shared behaviors with the teacher.   These are all indications of teacher development.

Note that the percentages in each of the categories for “collaboration” increased between teacher and student (4% to 6% to 23%). “Confirming” increased (21% to 24% to 36%) which means team building was enhanced over time.   As it is linked to the Teacher Learning Instrument, this behavior is similar to S2 and S3 as it relates to sharing an understanding and working to create a positive emotional tone. “Confirming” is a stepping-stone for “collaboration” and, as this behavior increased, “reporting specific behaviors” decreased dramatically.   “Reiteration” decreased (9% to 5% between the 2 nd And 3 rd session), which means there needed to be less clarification because the teacher and the student were better aligned.   “Application of learning” by the student doubled (4% to 9%).

Table 2: Percentages of student, teacher, and shared behaviors in 3 sessions of instruction with clinical teacher and elementary-aged student

Furthermore, the reflections of TS were read multiple times and analyzed.  TS reported that when she viewed the videotape, she noticed that she spoke too much and questioned whether this interfered with DM's metacognition and independence.   TS wrote about her concerns specifically in these areas: 

She reflected that she had to “make many quick decisions. Should I make all of the corrections myself so that DM could devote the entire hour to completing a Doug Flutie comic strip [for the cover of the I-Search Paper]? I really wanted DM to do the comic strip but I decided that making all the revisions and corrections for DM without his reflections and self-evaluation would not be appropriate and would not encourage and support his independence and metacognitive development.” At the end of the semester, TS voiced her concern about “the time crunch” but also her pride in DM's finished I-Search Paper.

Conclusions/Limitations/Implications

              The multiple levels of student work analysis in a scaffolding experience echoes both TS's learning and teaching and the student and professor who were on either side of her. The journey of change that occurred during one semester of practicum experience was striking. TS, who at the beginning of the semester described her lack of confidence with assessment, instructional decision-making and interacting with the parent and paraprofessional, spoke at the end of the semester of pride, accomplishment, and assuredness in many of her interactions with adults.   Furthermore, she found her work with DM to be professionally rewarding and was proud of DM's accomplishments.

              DM, himself, also made important achievements. The I-Search Paper utilized motivation through a self-selected topic, the integration of reading and writing, organization of information and other key reading strategies.   Specifically, DM made progress in visualizing when reading. Moreover, he expanded his vocabulary and decoding strategies while reading texts that were highly interesting. He was supported to advance multiple literacy skills towards a goal of independent literacy pursuits.

As the reading clinic professor, I found that the focus on scaffolding in an explicit way was helpful. Although many of the aspects of scaffolding are inherent to the position of clinic professor -- for example, facilitating a supportive atmosphere for teacher and student learning -- I found that the analysis of the   transcripts of professor-student talk were both enlightening and surprising.   They illuminated the content and the context of the learning. The process of analysis was difficult and surprising. As the categories emerged in the transcripts of the mentor-teacher, they mirrored the categories that emerged from analysis of the teacher-child. In only a few instances of labeled categories were there not examples from both sets of transcripts.

The analysis of the transcripts also reflected the categories of scaffolding defined by Meyer (1993). Key to scaffolding is having ample time/freedom for discourse in a non-threatening environment. Emphasizing the move towards independence in learning is a prominent aspect of scaffolding. This frame seemed to characterize both the work of the mentor/clinic director with TS and TS's work with DM. Over the course of the semester, there was increasing evidence of shared/collaborative interactions. This was probably linked with the large number of confirming behaviors in both sets of transcripts; the learning atmosphere was rich in continual positive two-way feedback.

              The implications of this study are framed by some key limitations of the design, procedures and results of this study.   First of all, the scaffolding of instruction for the teacher was captured only during the one-on-one meetings with the professor.   None of the larger social context of learning, such as the coaching by her peers, became part of the written record of this study.

              Most poignant was the taping-transcribing-debriefing-reflecting format of the TLI, which seemed to be very useful for a teacher who found herself in a more challenging teaching environment.   My reflections on the experience with TS reveal that the TLI, at least in this modified format, allowed for a structure that supported teacher's growth in a non-threatening atmosphere.

              The challenge ahead is to offer teachers opportunities for growth in supportive environments and to link teacher professional growth and the child's literacy gains. . One way to do this is in the context of the clinical environment.   The clinic provides the sheltered space for professional risk taking.   For whether it is a university-based reading clinic or a school-based program, one of the hallmarks of clinical learning is that it offers a non-threatening supportive milieu for teachers.  

In a study of elementary children's writing, Many (2002) concluded that learners developed more complex conceptual understanding and develop a repertoire of strategies when scaffolding that “was woven in and out of the background of instruction in light of the values and beliefs of the teachers and the philosophical orientation of the school.”   This same context for learning -- carefully scaffolded instruction -- can be applied to adults advancing their specific competencies of teaching and students struggling in multiple ways to advance their literacy. A helping hand that offers just enough support at a timely moment can be the key to standing alone.

References

Cobb, J. (2001). Findings on teacher learning in a university-based setting . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, TX.

Dole, J.A., Brown, and Trathen.   (1996). The effects of strategy instruction on the comprehension performance of at-risk students .   Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 62-88.

Eversen, D. (1999). Introduction. In Eversen, D.   & Mosenthal, P. (Eds.).   Reconsidering the Role of the Reading Clinic in a New Age of Literacy . Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, ix-xii.

Feist-Willis, Zimmerman, Freppon   and Campbell. (2001). Findings on teacher learning in classroom-based and university-based settings . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, TX.

Freppon, P. (1997). Changing professional practice: what teachers learn from critical incidents in reading clinic/ Dynamic Assessment: From reading clinic to the classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Scottsdale, AZ.

              Hill, M. (1997). Changing professional practice: What teachers learn from critical incidents in reading clinic/ Impact of critical incident inquiry established in the preservice reading practicum upon professional teaching decisions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Scottsdale, AZ.

Hutson, B. (1998 ).   Opening dialogues across reading clinics/Promoting trial teaching in diagnosis . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX.

Kinnucan-Welsch & Grogan. (2001). Findings on teacher learning in classroom-based settings . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, TX.

Laster, B. (1997). Changing professional practice: what teachers learn from critical incidents in reading clinic/ Impact of family literacy on teachers' learning . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Phoenix, AZ.

Laster, B. (2002). Research Methodologies for Teacher and Student Learning In Reading Clinics/Literacy Centers. Alternative Session presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Miami, FL.

              Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage Publishers.

                Macrorie, K. (1988). The I-Search Paper.   Portsmouth, NH : Boynton/Cook Publishers, Heinemann.

              Roskos and Rosemary (2001) Teacher Learning Instrument (TLI). Unpublished

Manuscript. John Carroll University.

                Rosemary, Freppon & Kinnucan-Welsch. (in press). Improving literacy teaching through structured collaborative inquiry in classroom and university clinical settings.   National Reading Conference Yearbook.

                Palinscar (1998). Keeping the metaphor of scaffolding fresh—A response to C. Addison Stone's “The metaphor of scaffolding: It's utility for the field of learning disabilities.” Journal of Reading Disabilities.   31, 370-373.

Tidwell, D. & Laster, B. (1998). Opening dialogues across reading clinics/The dance of reflection. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1998). Mind in society. Development of higher psychological processes . Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.

Walker & Ward, (2001). Findings on teacher learning in classroom-based settings . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, TX.

About the Author:

Dr. Barbara Laster is a member of the Department of Reading, Special Education, and Technology in the College of Education at Towson University.   She may be reached at blaster@towson.edu .   She wishes to acknowledge Katie Saxe, Lisa Evans, John Laster, and Penny Freppon for their invaluable help on this project.