‘Scaffolding’ has become a synonym for ‘asking questions’. A tighter definition needs three things: support that is withdrawn over time (transfer of control), repetition across occasions, and evidence the learner takes over the language.
The argument
- Thornbury questions Ellis’s (2003: 181–2) classroom extract as scaffolding: it may just be IRF talk at cross-purposes.
- Wood, Bruner & Ross (1976): six features of scaffolding; Applebee (1986, via Foley 1994): transfer of control; van Lier (1996): principle of continuity (repeated, semi-ritualised routines); Gibbons (2002) on scaffolding in classrooms.
Classroom moves
- Plan the removal: dialogue model → keyword list → picture prompts → nothing, over successive performances.
- Ritual routines (opening chat, regular games) are where scaffolding accumulates.
- Reformulate learner talk on a learner-chosen topic, then have them reuse it later with less help.
Counterargument
A commenter, relaying Ellis: the teacher abandoned the task to follow the learner’s understanding, which is contingent support. Thornbury’s reply: supportive, yes, but no evidence the learner appropriated anything.
DELTA framing (Claude)
Define scaffolding with contingency + fading + handover; cite Wood, Bruner & Ross (1976) and van de Pol et al. (2010) for the contingency/fading/transfer model.
Connections
Pitch tasks inside the ZPD and hand over support · The ZPD is created in interaction, not a level · Recycle emergent language - board photos and upgraded learner texts