Scaffolding in peer-peer interaction

A discussion of learning and development within learners’ ZPD necessarily brings about another important question, namely: How is effective assistance in peer collaborative dialogue to be provided within the ZPD in order to promote second language development? In order to do this, the concept of scaffolding needs to be addressed. Scaffolding, an important part of sociocultural theory, seems to be of particular relevance to M-A collaborative dialogue as it implies that the more proficient learner helps the less proficient learner to complete the task at hand. Scaffolding is defined as “acollaborative process, through which assistance is provided from person to person such that an interlocutor is enabled to do something she or he might not have been able to do otherwise” (Ohta, 2000, p. 52). Or to borrow Ellis’ (2003, p.180) definition, “scaffolding is the dialogic process by which one speaker assists another in performing a function that he or she cannot perform alone.” Van de Pol et al. (2010) conducted a review of the general education literature on scaffolding and suggest that the three key characteristic features of scaffolding mentioned by the sixty-six studies reviewed are contingency (referred to as responsiveness or adjusted support (p.274), fading (gradual withdrawal of the scaffolding, and transfer of responsibility (responsibility for the performance of a task is gradually transferred to the learner) (p.275). According to

Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976), support that is provided includes initiating interest in the task, simplifying it, maintaining pursuit of the goal, marking critical features and discrepancies between what has been produced and the ideal solution, controlling frustration during problem solving, and demonstrating an idealized version of the act to be performed. This suggests that through scaffolding, an expert is able to help a novice in various ways during their collaborative interaction on a task. However, whether such help leads to learning may depend on various factors and may be a very delicate process. For example, Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994) argue for the importance of controlling the quantity and quality of assistance, and see problems in an inadvertently over- or under provision of assistance. In the same vein, Ohta (2000) says that “development cannot occur if too much assistance is provided or if a task is too easy” and stresses the need for the peer interlocutor to be “very sensitive to the partner’s readiness for help” (p.52). She explains that assistance occurs “in the form of peers’ waiting for each other to finish their utterances, prompting, through co-constructions or recasts” (p.52). In Ohta’s (2000) study, two university learners of Japanese completed an oral task. In this study, Hal (HP) provided assistance to Becky (LP) thanks to which Becky rapidly improved in her use of a difficult construction. What is more, Becky was able to provide assistance to her more proficient partner. The study shows that both LP and HP learners can benefit through this process, given that the HP student is very attentive to the LP students’ readiness for help, and that both learners show a high level of collaborative engagement as they approach a task.

Ohta’s findings resonate with results of the study conducted by Donato (1994), who investigated scaffolding within a peer group. He found that even though each individual member of the dyad lacked the necessary knowledge to produce a grammatically correct form in French, each member of the group contributed by his/her particular knowledge to the problem solution, and this contribution resulted in learning. The study by Swain et al. (2002, p. 172-3) supports Ohta’s and Donato’s findings, and has revealed that peers who work within their ZPD are able to support their learning. The participants in Swain’s study did so through questioning, proposing possible solutions, disagreeing, repeating, and managing activities in addition to social and cognitive behaviours (p. 172-3). These studies are of particular interest as they challenge the notion of scaffolding as being a behavior in which some language knowledge or skills are transmitted from the more knowledgeable individual (usually teacher) to the less knowledgeable one. They interpret scaffolding as a process of assistance among peers

who are engaged in joint activity, in which, however, none of the group members necessarily directs the flow of assistance as assistance is distributed among the peers themselves. In a similar vein, Stone (1993) argues that scaffolding should not be understood as a technique, but is a fluid, interpersonal process characterized by an active involvement of the participants who construct mutual understanding or intersubjectivity in the process of communication.

It has to be, however, noted that none of the studies mentioned above did operationalize scaffolding in the light of the features mentioned by van de Pol (2010) or Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) because these features are characteristic for teacher- student interactions, which are simply rarely seen in peer interactions; in particular among children. Moreover, above mentioned studies (Donato, 1994; Ohta, 2000) have focused on university students, who may be capable of scaffolding each other’s learning within their ZPD, and who may do so in ways, which are not necessarily different from teacher-learner scaffolding. However, while the purpose of scaffolding as seen in teacher-learner interactions or among university level peers may be to enhance second language development or a development of conceptual understanding (Davin & Donato, 2013), the purpose of assistance among secondary school learners is most likely to merely complete the task at hand, although this may vary across individuals.

I would argue that despite the wide use of the term scaffolding in various contexts, including teacher-learner interaction, and peer interaction, there seems to be no or limited consensus with regards to its definition. I understand scaffolding as a purposive help, which is matched and graduated to the particular learner’s current linguistic needs with the purpose of enhancing second language development. I am in agreement with van de Pol et al. (2010) who underlined that the key characteristic features of scaffolding are contingency, fading, and transfer of responsibility. I would also argue that when seen in this light, scaffolding is not something that secondary school learners normally do or/and are capable of doing without being explicitly taught how to do so. Although secondary school peers may be able to support each other during task-work, this support will most likely concern the emergent problems of the task and occur without an intention to enhance second language development. This is, however, not to say that second language development resulting from this support cannot occur.