綜述Bruner等人執行的兩項鷹架研究並探討其教學意涵
作者:中國文化大學教育學院師資培育中心單文經、江蘇理工學院教育學院蔣美霞
卷期:69卷第3期
日期:2024年09月
頁碼:225-256
DOI:https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202409_69(3).0008
摘要:
本文以Bruner等人於1976年發表的〈個別教導在解決問題上所扮演的角色〉,及其獨自於1983年出版的《兒童的說話:學習運用語言》為主要參考文獻,解析其執行這兩項鷹架研究的緣由,綜述其大要,討論其有關問題,並探討其教學意涵。本研究確認,以鷹架導師協助兒童解決組裝物件的問題,及以鷹架母親協助兒童習得以言行事的技能為主旨的研究成果,可為教學帶來豐富的意涵。本研究並指出,在支援任務結束後,鷹架除撤離外,尚有融入兒童言行的整體之可能。最後,於總結全文要旨後,並建議若干可資未來研究的方向。
關鍵詞:J. S. Bruner、以言行事、個別教導、教學意涵、鷹架
《詳全文》
參考文獻:
» 展開更多
- Chan, G. (2020, July 14). 鷹架理論(Scaffolding Theory):教學者要怎麼建置學習的輔助輪?(一)總覽。Medium。https://medium.com/moodwide/理論鷹架-要怎麼建置學習的輔助輪- 一-總覽-d55e0063e02d
- Chan, G. (2020, July 14). Scaffolding theory: How does an instructor build a learning wheel? https:// medium.com/moodwide/理論鷹架-要怎麼建置學習的輔助輪-一-總覽-d55e0063e02d】
- 于文正(2014)。鷹架具體程度對創意發想的影響。教育科學研究期刊,59(2),31-60。https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.2014.59(2).02
- Yu, W.-C. (2014). A discussion on scaffolding theory and online game design task creativity. Journal of Research in Educational Sciences, 59(2), 31-60. https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.2014.59(2).02】
- 何善亮(2007)。「最近發展區」的多重解讀及其教育蘊涵。教育學報,3(4),29-34。
- He, S.-L. (2007). A multi-interpretation of ZPD and its educational implication. Journal of Educational Studies, 3(4), 29-34.】
- 周泰立、曹峰銘(2018)。語言與心理表徵。載於梁庚辰、周泰立(主編),心理學—身體心靈與文化的整合(第二版,頁259-276)。國立臺灣大學出版中心。
- Zhou, T.-L., & Cao, F.-M. (2018). Language and mental representation. In G.-C. Liang & T.-L. Zhou (Eds.), Psychology: An integration of body, mind and culture (2nd ed., pp. 259-276). NTU Publishing Center.】
- 周淑惠(2003)。淺談幼兒教學中的鷹架搭構。國教世紀,206,13-18。https://doi.org/10.6758/KCSC.200306.0013
- Chou, S.-H. (2003). A brief discussion on scaffold construction in early childhood teaching. National Education Century, 206, 13-18.】
- 林敏宜、簡淑真(2011)。幼兒心智言談研究及其對教育的啟示。幼兒教育,304,43-55。https://doi.org/10.6367/ECE.201112.0043
- Lin, M.-Y., & Chien, S.-C. (2011). A study of young children mental talk and implications for young children education. Early Childhood Education, 304, 43-55. https://doi.org/10.6367/ECE.201112.0043】
- 林澤民(2017,6月24日)。身份認同的語言遊戲:「維根斯坦盒子」裡的台灣人。關鍵評論The News Lens。https://www.thenewslens.com/article/71377
- Lin, Z.-M. (2017, June 24). Linguistic games of identity: The Taiwanese in the “Wittgenstein Box.” The News Lens. https://www.thenewslens.com/article/71377.】
- 耿一偉(無日期)。語言、遊戲與生活形式—維根斯坦的文化觀。2024年1月29日,取自https://www.academia.edu/19859619
- Geng, Y.-W. (n.d.). Language, games and forms of life– A Wittgenstein view of culture. Retrieved January 29, 2024, from https://www.academia.edu/19859619】
- 張春興(1974)。教育心理學的誕生與發展。師大學報,19,177-200。
- Chang, C.-X. (1974). The birth and development of educational psychology. Journal of National Taiwan Normal University, 19, 177-200.】
- 梁耀城(2016)。教學後需撤鷹架。台灣教育,702,50-51。
- Liang, Y.-C. (2016). The need to remove scaffolding after teaching. Education in Taiwan, 702, 50-51.】
- 單文經(2006)。國民中小學應兼重能力培養與訊息習得的教學。教育研究與發展期刊,2(2),43-66。
- Shan, W.-J. (2006). Equal enforcement of capacity cultivation and teaching for knowledge or information acquisition at the grade 1-9 level. Journal of Educational Research and Development, 2(2), 43-66.】
- 單文經、蔡曉楓、高博銓(2022)。J. Bruner 1950年代四項著作述要及其教學意蘊。教育研究集刊,68(4),77-127。https://doi.org/10.53106/102887082022126804003
- Shan, W.-J., Tsai, S.-F., & Kao, P.-C. (2022). The main points of J. Bruner’s four works from the 1950s and their pedagogical implications. Educational Research Bulletin, 68(4), 77-127. https://doi.org/10.53106/ 102887082022126804003】
- 單文經、羅逸平(2024)。評析庶民教學觀四分說之所本、確立及其有關問題。課程與教學,26(2),91-122。
- Shan, W.-J., & Lo, Y.-P. (2024). A critical analysis of the origin, formation, and related problems of the four models of folk pedagogy. Curriculum & Instruction Quarterly, 26(2), 91-122.】
- 謝州恩(2013)。鷹架理論的發展、類型、模式與對科學教學的啟示。科學教育月刊,364,2-16。https://doi.org/10.6216/SEM.201311_(364).0001
- Hsieh, C.-E. (2013). The developments, types, and models of scaffolding theories and the implication for science instruction. Science Education Monthly, 364, 2-16. https://doi.org/10.6216/SEM.201311_(364).0001】
- Boblett, N. (2012). Scaffolding: Defining the metaphor. TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 1-16.
- Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 393-451). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/ 9781315044408-13
- Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Harvard University Press.
- Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. W. W. Norton.
- Bruner, J. S. (1980). Jerome S. Bruner. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), A history of psychology in autobiography (Vol. VII, pp. 75-151). W. H. Freeman. https://doi.org/10.1037/11346-003
- Bruner, J. S. (1983a). Child’s talk: Learning to use language. Oxford University Press.
- Bruner, J. S. (1983b). In search of mind: Essays in autobiography. Harper & Row.
- Bruner, J. S. (1986). The inspiration of Vygotsky. In J. S. Bruner (Ed.), Actual minds, possible worlds (pp. 70-78). Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674029019-006
- Bruner, J. S. (1996). The culture of education. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/ 9780674251083
- Bruner, J. S. (2006a). In Search of pedagogy, Vol. I. The selected works of Jerome S. Bruner, 1957-1978. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203088609
- Bruner, J. S. (2006b). In Search of pedagogy, Vol. II. The selected works of Jerome S. Bruner, 1979-2006. Routledge.
- Bruner, J. S., Olver, R. R., & Greenfield, P. M. (Eds). (1966). Studies in cognitive growth. John Wiley & Sons.
- Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. In L. Hickman (Ed.), The collected works of John Dewey, 1882-1953 (pp. 193-204). Electronic Edition [MW9]. Intelex Corp. https://doi.org/ 10.1086/591813
- Entretien avec David Wood pour le numéro spécial «L’ aide en contexte numérique d’ apprentissage» (2017). Distances et médiations des savoirs [Online]. https://doi.org/10.4000/dms.1908
- Gierasimczuk, N., Kurzen, L., & Vel´azquez-Quesada, F. R. (2009). Learning and teaching as a game: A sabotage approach. In X. He, J. Horty, & E. Pacuit (Eds.), Logic, rationality, and interaction: Second International Workshop, LORI 2009 (pp. 119-132). Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04893-7_10
- Greenfield, P. M. (2016). Jerome S. Bruner (1915-2016). Nature, 535, 232. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/535232a
- Lake, R. (2012). Vygotsky on education primer. Peter Lang.
- Olson, D. R. (1980). Preface. In D. R. Olson (Ed.), The social foundations of language and thought: Essay in honor of Jerome S. Bruner (pp. ix-xii). W. W. Norton.
- Olson, D. R. (2007). Jerome Bruner. The cognitive revolution in educational theory. Continuum. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472541369.ch-008
- Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423-451. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_6
- Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the danger of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X027002004
- Shanker, S. G., & Taylor, T. J. (2001). The house that Bruner built. In D. Bakhurst & S. G. Shanker (Eds.), Jerome Bruner: Language, culture, self (pp. 50-70). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/ 9781446217634.n4
- Shvarts, A., & Bakker, A. (2019). The early history of the scaffolding metaphor: Bernstein, Luria, Vygotsky, and before. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 26(1), 4-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10749039.2019.1574306
- Stone, C. A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 344-364. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949803100404
- Tomasello, M., Kruger, A. C., & Ratner, H. (1993). Cultural learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16(3), 495-511.
- Wood, D. (1980). Teaching the young child: Some reflections between social interaction, language, and thought. In D. Olson (Ed.), The social foundations of language and thought: Essay in honor of Jerome S. Bruner (pp. 280-296). W. W. Norton.
- Wood, D., & Middleton, D. J. (1975). A study of assisted problem solving. British Journal of Psychology, 66(2), 181-191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1975.tb01454.x
- Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
- Wood, D., Wood, H. A., & Middleton, D. J. (1978). An experimental evaluation of four face-to-face teaching strategies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 1(2), 131-147. https://doi.org/10.1177/016502547800100203
An Overview of Two Studies on Scaffolding in Learning Conducted by Bruner et al. and an Exploration of Their Pedagogical
Author: Wen-jing Shan(Chinese Culture University Center for Teacher Education), Meixia Jiang(Department of Pre-school Education, Jiangsu University of Technology)
Vol.&No.:Vol. 69, No. 3
Date:September 2024
Pages:225-256
DOI:https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202409_69(3).0008
Abstract:
Motivation Derived from a Preliminary Literature Review
On the basis of a preliminary literature review, the authors determined that research on scaffolding in learning is highly regarded in Chinese societies and abroad but that two scaffolding studies conducted by Bruner et al. have not generally been considered in scaffolding research. Thus, the current authors conducted an assessment to fill this gap in the literature. Moreover, the authors identified two related topics that have been insufficiently addressed by other researchers. These topics are the reasons motivating the two scaffolding studies conducted by Bruner et al. and collating the findings of the scaffolding studies conducted by Bruner et al.
Further Confirmation of the Motivation of this Study through a Further Literature Review
In this study, a paper written by Bruner et al. (1976) entitled “The Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving” and a book by Bruner (1983a) entitled Child’s Talk were used as the primary literature. In addition, the Chinese and English papers written by Bruner, either alone or in collaboration with others, and the papers written by his students and colleagues, including Greenfield, Olson, Pea, and Wood, were considered. The current study analyzed the two aforementioned scaffolding studies conducted by Bruner et al. A further literature review was conducted to confirm the purpose of this study, that is, to analyze the reasons for which the two scaffolding studies were conducted by Bruner et al., summarize the main points of the studies, discuss related topics, and explore the pedagogical implications of these two studies.
Research Methodology
The authors adopted an iterative approach to analyzing the aforementioned literature written by Bruner et al. The studies overall and each study and its contents were iteratively analyzed. The main findings of these studies overall and those of each study were analyzed and interpreted. Throughout the analysis of the studies, criticisms and commentaries were made to improve the robustness of the synthesis of information. Subsequently, the pedagogical implications of the two studies by Bruner et al. that served as the primary literature were explored.
Finding 1: Confirmation of Why Bruner et al. Performed the Two Scaffolding Studies
The current authors identified two motivations for the two scaffolding studies by Bruner et al. First, Bruner exhibited a shift in his focus of research from thinking to the development of thinking, and this shift led to the implementation of scaffolding research. Second, Bruner exhibited a shift in the perspective he employed in his research from that of Piaget, who emphasized logical cognitive structures and the natural development of the individual, to that of Vygotsky, who emphasized the function of thinking in the psyche and social and cultural learning by societies; this shift was identified as the main reason for Bruner beginning to implement scaffolding studies.
Finding 2: Summarization of the Findings of the Two Scaffolding studies by Bruner et al.
The findings of the two studies that served as the primary literature of the current study are summarized as follows. First, scaffolding in learning provided by mentors helps children to solve problems in assembling objects. Second, mothers play a role in providing scaffolding and thereby help children to acquire speech-acting skills. These findings can inform teaching approaches and can improve learning outcomes. In addition, after mothers provide such support, the scaffolding may be integrated into the whole of the child's speech and behavior or may be withdrawn.
This study also discovered that the following scaffolding strategies can be utilized by teachers or mothers: attracting the child’s attention, reducing degrees of freedom to manageable limits, maintaining the direction, marking critical features, controlling frustration, and demonstrating solutions. For demonstrating solutions to be effective, a mentor or a mother must perform the following: planning in advance, focusing on the child’s autonomy in performing tasks, using both verbal guidance and behavioral interventions, taking note of the child’s performance at all times, providing appropriate feedback and assistance as necessary, and maintaining a warm and cordial attitude to establish a calm and stimulating atmosphere with limitations when necessary.
In addition, the current paper addresses three questions: Why did Bruner et al. employ the term “scaffolding” for the concept? Should the scaffolding be withdrawn at the end of the supported task? Is scaffolding essential in practical teaching? Addressing these questions improved the understanding of the meaning of scaffolding.
Finding 3: Exploration of the Pedagogical Implications of the Two Scaffolding Studies Conducted by Bruner et al.
The current authors identified two key points regarding the pedagogical implications of each of the two scaffolding studies conducted by Bruner et al. For Study 1, the authors identified that the focus of problem-solving teaching is ensuring that children accurately understand the approach required to achieve expected outcomes and that a key element of teaching is providing learners with a set of scaffolds to facilitate learning and help learners reach the expected standards. From Study 2, the current authors determined that teaching methods should be based on participant theory rather than spectator theory. According to participant theory, teaching should leverage children’s capacity for interactions that they develop early in life, which can lead children to gradually engage in reflective thinking and collaborative learning.
Conclusion and Suggestions for Future Research
Using an iterative approach, this study summarized the main points of two scaffolding studies conducted by Bruner et al. and explored their pedagogical implications on the basis of their main points. Reflecting on the writing process for this paper, the current authors have determined that the research questions have been properly addressed and that the research objectives have been achieved.
The current study suggests that scaffolding may be integrated into the overall child’s speech and behavior after the completion of a supportive task or be withdrawn. In addition, this study identified several topics related to scaffolding, individualized instruction, and language acquisition; these topics warrant further investigation.
Keywords:J. S. Bruner, learning how to do things with words, tutoring, pedagogical implications, scaffolding