In this Journal of the Learning Sciencesarticle, Janneke van de Pol (Utrecht University), Neil Mercer (University of Cambridge), and Monique Volman (University of Amsterdam) report on their study of student “uptake” after a teacher provided scaffolding to a group of students discussing an issue. The researchers define scaffolding as “temporary support that is adapted to a student’s understanding,” within the zone of proximal development, that “enables a child or novice to solve a problem, carry out a task, or achieve a goal which would be beyond his unassisted efforts.” Uptake is defined as students remembering and being able to apply teachers’ scaffolding, as opposed to ignoring or forgetting it. 

The researchers observed closely as secondary-school history teachers circulated in their classrooms helping students with their assignments. The key variables in successful uptake turned out to be:

-  Teachers ascertaining students’ prior knowledge and tuning in to their discussions;

-  Giving more support if students seem confused, less if they are on the right track;

-  Checking for understanding in the moment;

-  Not walking away (fading support) until there’s evidence that students understand.

“To be effective,” conclude van de Pol, Mercer, and Volman, “teachers need to provide scaffolding support that is contingent on the learning needs of the students, but teachers also need to maintain that support until students have reached a suitable level of understanding to be able to apply it.” 

 

“Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students’ Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction” by Janneke van de Pol, Neil Mercer, and Monique Volman in The Journal of the Learning Sciences, April-June 2019 (Vol. 28, #2, p. 206-239), https://bit.ly/2JBJk0h; van de Pol can be reached at j.e.vandepol@uu.nl. 

            In this article in Phi Delta Kappan, Emma Gargroetzi, Rosa Chavez, Jennifer Langer-Osuna, and Kimiko Lange (Stanford University), and Jen Munson (Northwestern University) say most teachers assume that when student groups are supposed to be working on a shared task but are chatting about off-task subjects, they’re wasting time and need to be redirected. But in their research with fourth graders, Gargroetzi, Chavez, Langer-Osuna, Lange, and Munson found that off-task chatter is often productive. When students were talking about something other than the assigned work, more than half the time they were talking in ways that led to collaboration. About 20 percent of the time students were chatting to avoid work. And about 17 percent of the time they were off task because they thought they had finished. 

            “Productive disciplinary collaboration requires that all students participate, something easier said than done,” say Gargroetzi, Chavez, Langer-Osuna, Lange, and Munson. “Each time students collaborate, they are grappling with disciplinary ideas and practices, as well as the social world. These dual goals make collaboration a powerful platform for teaching and learning.”

The authors’ careful observation of students working in groups revealed that students often used their off-task talk to “negotiate access to collaboration” in the following ways:

-  Warm-up to collaboration – initial connections to peers so students can begin to work as a group;

-  Gain access to collaboration for self – a student who was previously not participating enters and begins to work with the group;

-  Recruit others to collaboration – this brings non-participators into the joint work;

-  Gain the attention of others – this gets peers to turn toward the speaker and give him or her the opportunity to join the conversation;

-  Resist domination – this is aimed at deflecting efforts by a peer to dominate the group.

Observing these off-task interactions, most teachers would be inclined to intervene and tell students to get back to work. “But doing so,” say the authors, “would ignore the productive functions that these interactions served in supporting students’ collaborative work. In fact, intervention could derail students’ efforts to establish collaboration and undermine their learning how to negotiate the tricky terrain of joint work.” Better to listen in for a moment to see if the off-task talk was brief and fulfilling one of the functions listed above.

            Intervention does make sense, they continue, when students are avoiding work or think they’re done. But how do teachers judge what’s truly off-task? Gargroetzi, Chavez, Langer-Osuna, Lange, and Munson suggest several instances that call for intervention:

-  A student is being excluded and attempts to join are consistently spurned.

-  Off-task chatter goes on for more than a minute without attempts to get back to work.

-  Students need guidance on how to work together productively.

“Productive teacher interventions address the issue behind the off-task talk,” say the authors – for example, giving explicit instructions on how to work together and support each other.

 

“Can Off-Task Be On-Track?” by Emma Gargroetzi, Rosa Chavez, Jen Munson, Jennifer Langer-Osuna, and Kimiko Lange in Phi Delta Kappan, May 2019 (Vol. 100, #8, p. 62-66), https://bit.ly/2HAIMWW; the authors can be reached at egroetzi@stanford.edu,rdchavez@stanford.edu, jmunson@northwestern.edu, jmlo@stanford.edu, and kimikol@stanford.edu