Speaking from personal experience, the ability for an instructor to present material in a variety of ways can be the difference between academic life and death for a student. For most K-12 teachers, diversity is a way of life (Huss-Keeler & Brown, 2007), and the best ways to rise to that challenge are to plan ahead, provide a variety of instructional methods, and keep things lively (Tomlinson, Brighton, Hertberg, Callahan, Moon, Brimijohn, Conover & Reynolds, 2003). The idea for this artifact came from completing a module in Vanderbilt's IRIS Center website for CI 6364: Dysfunctional Behavior. This particular module focused on the idea of scaffolding, as well as the different types and how to implement it.

Essentially, scaffolding works the same way it would on a building. It provides temporary support and solidity that is slowly removed as the learning and concepts become more stable and permanent (Roehler & Cantlon, 1997). There are three basic types of scaffolding: content, task, and material. To scaffold content, one should begin with easy, familiar, or very interesting content, gradually working towards more difficult content and fewer supports. Task scaffolding is highly repetitive and has a strong correlation to typical behaviorist theories. A series of steps is provided, then the instructor models the thought and physical steps of the process. Students should then be given an opportunity for independent practice. This is repeated over a period of time, with students slowly gaining more responsibility for each of the steps. Probably the most familiar example of this is found in a typical math classroom. The final form involves creating external prompts, such as pneumonic devices, posters, etc., to guide students when they become "stuck." The teacher should be sure to check student understanding and provide the appropriate level of reinforcement. Below is a link to a Prezi that provides a presentation on scaffolding as well as an example of scaffolding at work in an ELA classroom.

http://prezi.com/aoyqysehqnsa/scaffolding/?auth_key=367a54dedc7482c2796dcbf241f94ed0da8ed86b

The information from this module could potentially be very helpful to a classroom teacher or a counselor. They seem to be closely tied to behaviorism theory, as is evident by the need for modeling and reinforcement necessary to make it successful. It seems that for some individuals, these strategies come naturally, while others may have to set aside time to include these in lesson plans or on an individual case-by-case basis with students. The benefit to this method is that it doesn't require many, if any, materials (beyond time of course), and they are relatively easy to implement. In addition, creating the prezi discussing these ideas required critical thinking on my part to determine ways in which scaffolding might be used in a classroom for both content and technology.

References

Huss-Keeler, R. & Brown, S. (2007). Meeting diverse learning needs: Differentiating instruction in graduate early childhood mathematics classes. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 28(1), pp. 41-57. Retrieved from ERIC database. (EJ828425). doi:10.1080/10901020601184390

Roehler, L. & Cantlon, D. (1997). Scaffolding: A powerful tool in social constructivist classrooms. In K. Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding student learning (pp. 6-42). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

Tomlinson, C., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C., Moon, T., Brimijohn, K., Conover, L. & Reynolds, T. (2003). Different instruction in response to student readiness, interest and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of the literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(2-3), pp. 119-145.

Helping students develop critical thinking, problem solving, and performance skills are high goals for any instructor, regardless of content area (Arend, 2009). One of the better ways to engage learners and nurture these goals is through discussion, which promotes active learning and often enhances learner outcomes (Wilson, Pollock & Hamann, 2007). Furthermore, when students are allowed to debate, there exists a positive correlation between the quality of student arguments and the quality of question and responses given from peers (Williams & Lahman, 2011). This is a clear case where one gets from students what one gives. Similarly, wording is key is sparking higher thinking. The best of these will allow for multiple points of view, arguments based on these points of view, and a variety of applicable skills (Greenlaw & DeLoach, 2003).

The lesson attached below was created in CI 6321: Content Area Instruction as an introduction to a high school Art I class. It incorporates a variety of activities and technologies including a slideshow, video clips and images. Focused largely on group discussion, there are a variety of opportunities for collaboration, and indeed, realizing the diverse opinions of others is a primary goal of the lesson. There is also an activity inviting not only collaboration and debate, but also critical thinking, as students are asked to make choices and defend them, while others may be asked to argue an opposing position. Actually having the opportunity to deliver this lesson made me aware of improvements that needed to be made in both procedure and delivery. Consequently, I chose to divide the activity, and it made me realize that for a first lesson, it would likely need to begin with a totally unrelated icebreaker to spark discussion. Even when delivered to an adult audience, most members didn't initially seem comfortable leading or contributing to discussion. Only a few really participated, and the reality is that the same issue would be present in a high school classroom. Therefore, for a lesson that relies heavily on discussion requires a truly engaging introduction or a comfortable, previously established classroom environment.

References

Arend, B. (2009). Encouraging critical thinking in online threaded discussions. Journal of Educators Online, 6(1). Retrieved from ERIC database. (EJ904064)

Greenlaw, S. & DeLoach, S. (2005). Do electronic discussions create critical thinking spillovers? Contemporary Economic Policy, 23(1), pp. 149-163.

Wilson, B., Pollock, P. & Hamann, K. (2007). Does active learning enhance learner outcomes? Evidence from discussion participation in online classes. Journal of Political Science Education, 3(2), pp. 131-142.

Williams, L. & Lahman, M. (2011). Online discussion, student engagement, and critical thinking. Journal of Political Science Education, 7(2). Retrieved from ERIC database. (EJ926777). doi:10.1080/15512169.2011.564919