The metaphor of scaffolding: its utility for the field of learning disabilities
Stone, C.A. 1998, Journal of Learning Disabilities, vol. 31, no.4, pp.344-364.

Until I read this article, I understood that Vygotsky was the originator of the scaffolding metaphor. In fact its first extended use was in a paper by Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) to describe and explain the role played by parents working with their children in joint problem solving activities. Bruner of course was familiar with the concept of the ‘zone of proximal development (ZPD). After all, he wrote the introduction to the first English edition of ‘Language and Thought’ by Vygotsky The link between the two was later made explicit by Bruner but not before Cazden (1979), who was interested in classroom interactions had already done so. The author goes on to describe the further history of the metaphor’s development and application but concludes that in reality there was little advance in successfully extending the metaphor.

Critically, the author claims the clarity and usefulness of the metaphor has come increasingly under fire to the point where some researchers argue that it should be abandoned. Stone argues against this position but presents his position thus.

‘My intention was not to be critical; rather I hoped to achieve some clarity regarding both the promises and the pitfalls of the metaphor. In this way, we can make optimal use of what may be a fruitful tool in advancing our awareness of both the origins of certain aspects of the various learning disability syndromes and the instructional dynamics needed to bring about productive learning in children with learning disabilities.’

This Stone goes on to do in a cogent, helpful manner.

Along the way he points out some research-based interventions that have applied the metaphor effectively, for example Reciprocal Teaching (Palincsar and Brown, 1984) and that of Bos and Anders (1990). The instructional metaphor has, he concludes been fruitful in pointing the way towards some innovative practices, one of the criteria for a useful metaphor. Even so, there are still many unanswered questions, it appears. These include. What are the characteristics of students who are assisted by its application? Who is helped? Who is not?

How do limitations in ‘language comprehension, memory, attention, pragmatics, and/or self-reflection and self-control’, interfering with cognitive and communicative demands, restrict the effectiveness of scaffolded instruction?
How effective can scaffolded instruction be at the classroom level?

If direct instruction in general appears to most benefit students with learning disabilities, how can one justify more indirect approaches?

This is a thought-provoking article and it is one that I consider all STLDs could study with worthwhile results. There is so much we take for granted in our practice. It provides a warning for us to be alert against adopting metaphors unthinkingly. It does not mean, however that we need to dump an ‘old friend’. As Stone suggests, there could be life in the old metaphor yet.