“Cognitive and motivational scaffolding” is a term that pops up quite often in Writing Center scholarship, but its definition is a bit elusive and hard to pin down under one wording. Child psychologists Wood, Bruner, and Ross coined the term in 1976, describing it as a “process that enables a child or novice to solve a problem, carry out a task or achieve a goal which would be beyond [their] unassisted efforts. This scaffolding consists essentially of the adult ‘controlling’ those elements of the task that are initially beyond the learner’s capacity, thus permitting [them] to concentrate upon and complete only those elements that are within [their] range of competence” (p. 90).
Mackiewicz and Thompson (2014) further specify that “[s]caffolding … helps students learn the right way to ask questions and therefore provide the basis for independent learning” (p. 57). Nordlof (2014) compares scaffolding to the act of teaching a child to ride a bicycle: “When an adult holds on to the back of the bicycle while the child rides, the adult effectively controls an element that might be beyond the child’s ability at the moment (balance), and allows the child to focus on the skill of pedaling” (p. 56).
At its base, in the context of the Writing Center, scaffolding is the idea of the tutor helping the writer to develop the skills that they require in order to confidently make their own revisions. Scaffolding acts as a support system for the learning writer, so that they can hone certain skills while the tutor “props up” other skills for the time being. Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) further specify six “scaffolding functions” (and I will replace their original word “child” with “writer,” as their theory has been widely appropriated by Writing Center scholars in the decades since):
- Recruiting the writer’s interest
- Reducing the size of the task to a manageable level for the writer
- Maintaining the writer’s focus
- Specifying the most relevant features of the task
- Managing the writer’s frustration
- Demonstrating an “idealized” form of the solution for the writer to imitate in their own form
The majority of research and scholarship regarding these six scaffolding functions exclusively discusses such functions within the context of synchronous writing center appointments, often relying upon instantaneous tutor/writer discourse for the two to come to an understanding of each other. I asked myself: “How does scaffolding fit into Written Feedback appointments? Can it fit into Written Feedback appointments?”
And the answer is: drumroll please… yes! In fact, the procedures put into place by the University Center for Writing-based Learning (UCWbL) naturally lend themselves to the six scaffolding functions. Every Written Feedback appointment requires an appointment letter with five components: Rapport, Exigence, Agenda, Methods, and Next Steps. From here, I will deconstruct each of the six scaffolding functions and synthesize the ways in which each component of the appointment letter fits into these functions.
Recruit the Writer’s Interest: Rapport and Exigence
Rapport introduces the tutoring process as a friendly one and reminds the writer that their paper is interesting, as the tutor enjoyed reading it. Exigence makes the student feel seen and heard. The tutor’s interest in the writer’s paper must translate to the writer through these two aspects of the appointment letter, and make them feel excited about and interested in the writing process, which contributes to scaffolding because they are motivated to participate in the learning process.
Reduce the Size of the Task to a Manageable Level for the Writer: Agenda
The agenda consolidates all of the tutor’s comments into one, two, or three points of focus. The tutor should only use as many foci as they have time to thoroughly explain, and should choose foci that will be most useful to the writer in strengthening their paper (prioritizing “global” concerns over “local” ones). This ties into Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (or ZPD), summarized by Mackiewicz and Thompson (2014) as “the region of sensitivity to instruction” (p. 57). Nordlof (2014) further specifies that it frames students’ learning in terms of growth, rather than in terms of what students already know. In other words, ascertaining a writer’s ZPD helps the tutor meet the student where they’re at, in order to start at that level and gradually help elevate them to the highest level possible.
In a Written Feedback appointment, tutors may still deduce a writer’s relative ZPD by looking back at the writer’s previous appointment letters in order to investigate which agenda items they may have already been working on, closely reading the writer’s appointment form in order to find out whether the student is coming into the Writing Center of their own volition or whether they may be a more unwilling tutee due to class requirements, and noticing whether or not the writer has marked themselves as an English Language Learner, in order to comment appropriately. The use of an effective agenda and the careful investigation of a student’s ZPD can help tutors facilitate effective scaffolding in this way.
Maintain the Writer’s Focus: Rapport, Exigence, Agenda, Methods, and Next Steps
If the appointment letter as a whole is sequential and well-explained, the writer will have an easier time focusing on the content and fully grasping the steps the tutor suggests that they take in order to immediately improve their draft and also pick up on some potentially-new writing skills.
Specify the Most Relevant Features of the Task: Agenda and Next Steps
The tutor can specify the most relevant and pressing features of their feedback by organizing agenda items by importance (once again, prioritizing global items over local items) and specifying next steps in a logical order by importance and which suggested revisions are non-negotiable (such as punctuation errors or obvious word choice errors that muddle the main ideas of the paper) and which may be up to the writer to ultimately decide.
Manage the Writer’s Frustration: Rapport and Exigence
Rapport and exigence may preemptively relax the writer by making them feel welcomed and understood by the tutor. Mackiewicz and Thompson’s (2014) distinction of “motivational scaffolding” plays into this idea of encouraging the writer as well, suggesting strategies such as “praising, reinforcing students’ control, being optimistic, and giving sympathy and empathy” (p. 64) in order to mitigate any possible feelings of frustration or self-doubt the writer may be prone to experiencing.
Demonstrate an Idealized Form of the Solution for the Writer to Imitate Back in Their Own Form: Methods
In the “methods” section of the appointment letter, the tutor can provide specific strategies, suggestions, and resources for the writer to look at in their own time and adapt into their own writing. Additionally, Wood et al. (1976) found that using a student’s previous strong work as an example for future work (or revising weaker areas of the same project) is an effective way to encourage the student and ensure that their finished piece is written entirely in their own voice, not in the voice of the tutor or any of the resources they may provide.
Moving Forward
So—where does this leave us? To recap, each of the six functions of cognitive scaffolding can be broken into pieces fulfilled by the UCWbL’s five required components of the appointment letter. If a tutor fulfills the requirements of the appointment letter, they will simultaneously be fulfilling the six functions of cognitive scaffolding, even if they are not consciously attempting to do so. In this way, although asynchronous appointments do not allow for the back-and-forth communication that much of the literature surrounding “scaffolding” explores, the tutor can still determine the writer’s ZPD through the examination of the appointment form and quality of writing, and will ultimately end up utilizing all six effective scaffolding techniques through careful construction of the appointment letter in accordance with the UCWbL’s standards.