This article was downloaded by: [The Aga Khan University]On: 18 October 2014, At: 06:06Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T3JH, UK

Early Years: An InternationalResearch JournalPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceye20

Scaffolding Learning throughMeaningful Tasks and AdultInteractionPenny Coltman , Dinara Petyaeva & Julia AnghileriPublished online: 02 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Penny Coltman , Dinara Petyaeva & Julia Anghileri (2002)Scaffolding Learning through Meaningful Tasks and Adult Interaction, Early Years: AnInternational Research Journal, 22:1, 39-49, DOI: 10.1080/09575140120111508

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09575140120111508

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is

expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

06 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Early Years, Vol. 22, No. 1, 2002

Scaffolding Learning through MeaningfulTasks and Adult Interaction

PENNY COLTMAN, DINARA PETYAEVA & JULIA ANGHILERI, Faculty ofEducation, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

ABSTRACT This paper reports a study into the role of a supporting adult in promotingeffective learning relating to aspects of 3D shape in young children. Nursery andreception aged children carried out problem solving tasks using wooden blocks, in thiscase Poleidoblocs, embedded within playful contexts. Using the notion of ‘scaffolding’and working within the child’s Zone of Proximal Development, this study analyses thestructured adult intervention that increases the effectiveness of learning and leads to anenhanced development of secure and transferable concepts.

Keywords: early mathematics, Poleidoblocs, playful contexts, embedded tasks,scaffolding, cultural–historical approach

Background

With the current focus on teaching and learning number skills, aspects of mathematicsrelating to shape and space have recently received rather less attention. Anghileri andBaron (1999) established that children’s self-directed play with wooden building blocksprovides valuable opportunities for extending learning related to 3D shapes, includingsuch aspects as the characterisation of properties, the awareness of relationships between2D representations and 3D structures and the development of intuitive awareness ofaspects of symmetry, measure, stability and balance. Anghileri and Baron (1999) carriedout their observations on children engaging in free play with Poleidoblocs and on taskscompleted without adult intervention. This study investigates the role of adult interactionin improving the effectiveness of such learning.

Poleidoblocs are brightly coloured wooden blocks in a range of geometric shapes,widely available in primary school classrooms. The full set consists of 54 blocks in sixbasic 3D shapes (cube, cuboid, cylinder, triangular prism, cone and square basedpyramid) which are mathematically interrelated in their size. They were devised and

ISSN 0957-5146 print/ISSN 1472-4421 online/02/010039-11 Ó 2002 TACTYC

DOI: 10.1080/0957514012011150 8

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

06 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

40 P. Coltman et al.

described as ‘materials of play’ by Dr Margaret Lowenfeld (1963) who used them tostudy aspects of children’s non-verbal communications. In the classroom, Poleidoblocsare traditionally used for both free play, and as exemplar materials to support theteaching of early aspects of 3D geometry. They can provide tactile and visual opportu-nities for children to develop a dynamic awareness of shapes, including topologicalrelationships (Piaget & Inhelder, 1956), and ‘to form schemas on the basis of featureanalysis of visual forms’ (Clements et al., 1999).

Although spatial ability may not appear to be the most vital component of mathemat-ical ability (Orton, 1992) within a classroom situation ‘an appropriate balance is neededof different kinds of activity to cater for the varying degrees of this potential thatchildren may have and to accommodate their learning patterns’ (Nickson, 2000, p. 51).It is suggested that many powerful and abstract ideas have their origins in experienceswith 3D shapes, such as ‘moving small objects, rotating them and rearranging them intopatterns’ (Davis, 1986).

Research Framework

Learning Theories

This study is largely framed by the ‘cultural–historical theory’ of Vygotsky which hasprovided the basis for a wide range of work by researchers and writers that has resultedin different understandings of the learning process (Vygotsky, 1978; Elkonin, 1971;Lompscher, 1999; Hedegaard, 1999). The guiding principle for this research is taken asa ‘cultural–historical approach’ (Hedegaard, 1999) in which learning is characterised asa process which results from an interaction between the individual, and both social andcultural conditions. Lompscher (1999) discusses the importance of considering ‘thewidespread efforts of designing new conditions and forms of teaching and learning basedon ideas of learners as subjects co-operating with others, actively acting upon learningobjects and each other, regulating and forming their activity under guidance andbecoming more and more independent and self-responsible in the process’ (p. 143). Boththe adult interactions and the design of playful contexts for the activities will beconsidered as key considerations in this study for enhancing the learning process.

Spatial Ability

In founding this study in children’s learning about shapes it is informed by van Heile’s(1986) theory of children’s geometric concept development in which different stages arecharacterised, from an initial Gestalt-like visual understanding through increasinglysophisticated levels of description, analysis, abstraction and proof. Although level 1involves children’s ability to recognise shapes as wholes without identi� cation of theproperties or determining characteristics, Clements et al. (1999), working with childrenfrom 3 to 6 years of age, found that children of this age were generally operating at the‘pre-representational’ van Heile level (0) with experience and language limiting theirability to re� ne or demonstrate understandings related to geometric shapes.

Adult Interaction

The notion of social interaction as a key to learning is seen in the social-constructivisttheory described by Pollard and Tann (1997) as a form of constructivism ‘which strongly

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

06 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Scaffolding Learning 41

suggests the importance for learning of the social context and of interaction with others’(p. 124). Within this paradigm, the example is used from Rowland (1987) who describesa model in which ‘a re� ective agent scaffolds children’s understanding across their zonesof proximal development’. Activity is followed by support and instruction and a cycleis established which takes the learning forward beyond the level which the child wouldhave reached alone. Eventually a point is reached at which the child has constructed anunderstanding with support.

In any activity with children the social environment, and particularly adult involve-ment, can increase the effectiveness of the learning process (Vygotsky, 1978; Donaldson,1978; Wood, 1986; Bruner, 1996; Edwards & Knight, 1994; Anning & Edwards, 1999).The role of the adult can be taken at its most fundamental level: the management of thelearning environment, the presentation of materials, the design of a task and itsplacement within a context. This is then extended to a subsequent level of adultinvolvement, that of providing supportive interaction during the learning process itself,sometimes referred to as scaffolding (Wood et al., 1976; Pollard & Tann, 1997).Although the evidence of scaffolding in the classroom is inconclusive according to somestudies in mathematics (Bliss et al., 1996), others � nd it useful to characterise classroomactivities. Tanner and Jones (2000) use the terms ‘dynamic scaffolders’ to describeteaching styles and showed this approach was effective in ‘accelerating the developmentof active metacognitive skills’ (p. 27).

When children play freely with materials they may serendipitously solve a particularproblem without being aware of the relationship between their actions and the solution.Hence they would be unable to transfer their method to new situations or to another task.It could be said that there is no evidence of metacognition (Flavell, 1976). Adultinteraction has a bene� t in promoting the child’s awareness of the signi� cance of the actswhich were carried out in successfully completing a task. The child is aware not onlyof the found solution, but of the processes which led to its discovery. Gallimore andTharp (1990) describe a process in which children become self-regulating, and thusindependent of adult help, through the provision of feedback.

In this study, a signi� cant aspect of the role of the adult will be the design of checkingor feedback procedures within the task, which encouraged children to re� ect on theirsuccess in meeting goals.

Playful Context

Among the social and cultural conditions for consideration are the activities to beengaged in and the ways in which they are presented. Vygotsky highlighted the role ofplay within the learning process of young children when he wrote that ‘the child movesforward essentially through play activity’ (1978, p. 103). This view, which has subse-quently been supported by the � ndings of many researchers and educationalists workingwithin a number of theoretical perspectives (Moyles, 1994; Bruner, 1996; Anning &Edwards, 1999; Edwards & Knight, 1994), is taken as another key consideration in thisstudy.

Leontiev (1981) used the term ‘leading activity’ to describe an activity with whichthe child was especially eager to engage. This activity ‘contributes in a decisive wayto the development of the child by promoting new actions and psychologicalprocesses that anticipate a new episode of development’ (p. 485). Chaiklin (1999),working within the framework of cultural–historical theory, asserts that ‘the theoreticalassumption is that development occurs when teaching is formulated in relation to the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

06 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

42 P. Coltman et al.

pupil’s leading activity’. Following the work of Elkonin (1971), van Oers (1999), whoworked with children from 4 to 8 years of age, assumed that within the context of aschool setting, play was a leading activity and hence learning would be most effectivewhen it occurred through play. Indeed he considers that ‘play activity is fundamental foryoung children as a context for learning and development’ (p. 272).

Closely linked to an acknowledgement of this fundamental role of play, is theunderstanding that children should perceive a motivational component that correspondsto their own needs and facilitates their own comprehension. This is often described asa requirement for a meaningful context within which the child sees both purpose andrelevance (Donaldson, 1978).

Zone of Proximal Development

In this study it is acknowledged that there are limits to the learning which may beachieved even with adult support. At any particular stage of development some tasks willrequire individual children to use intellectual processes which are beyond their Zone ofProximal Development or ZPD (Vygotsky, 1978; Tharp & Gallimore, 1998; Rowland,1987). When working within the ZPD the amount of support needed by a child mayvary. Within his model of scaffolding, Bruner proposes a form of intervention in whichthe adult and child establish a ‘co-construction’ of meanings through a system of gradedhelp (Bruner, 1990). Within this paper we attempt to establish one approach to thisgrading of the level of support given.

Aims of the Study

The main aim of this research has been to study the effect on children’s learning ofdifferent provisions of adult support for children undertaking problem solving tasks andthe effectiveness of embedding tasks in playful contexts. The hypothesis was that usingwooden blocks with appropriate adult interaction would increase the effectiveness of thelearning process and lead to an enhanced development of secure and transferableconcepts related to shape and space.

Methodology

Materials

A series of problem solving tasks were designed using selected subsets from a set of 3Dwooden shapes, Poleidoblocs. These materials were used as they are typically availablein infant classrooms. Additionally, a range of simple props was used including, forexample, toy animals and cardboard models which helped to provide playful (and thusmeaningful) contexts to the tasks.

Sample

The project involved children aged 4–6 years from two schools (n 5 90), in the springand summer terms of their reception year and was developed in three phases—a free playphase, a pilot phase, and an experimental phase. The pilot phase involved children(n 5 30) from the reception class of one primary school and the experimental phaseinvolved children (n 5 60) comprising two complete reception classes from a second

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

06 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Scaffolding Learning 43

primary school. In all phases children were observed individually working on speci� ctasks. Each session was 10–20 minutes in duration and � eld notes were taken. Somechildren were also videotaped.

Free Play: the initial phase

All of the 90 children taking part in the research were given the opportunity to becomefamiliar with the Poleidoblocs through periods of individual free play. Observations ofthis play gave an additional opportunity to characterise the types of activity whichchildren spontaneously initiated (see Anghileri & Baron, 1999) and helped to reduce thepossibility of poor responses which could be attributable to working with unfamiliarmaterials.

Pilot Phase

During the pilot phase a number of practical activities were tested and the responses ofchildren (n 5 30) were analysed to inform the design of the tasks to be used in theexperimental phase. Six different tasks were selected for the main experiment relating todifferent aspects of learning about shapes. Throughout the experimental phase of theresearch the tasks related to the following aspects of shape and space:

· matching 2D outlines to the faces of 3D blocks;· recognising and using alternative orientations of 3D shapes;· developing an awareness of aspects of balance;· characterising and classifying 3D shapes;· recognising equivalence in shape and size;· constructing a re� ective image of a given pattern (using re� ective symmetry).

The model of graded support involved the design of contexts for the tasks that wouldbe meaningful for the children and additional interactions which provided cues andprompts of an increasingly explicit nature. These interactions consisted of four levels:

· initial level—design of meaningful task: changes were made from an abstract/unembedded mathematical task to a contextualised task which required the samesolution;

· second level—re� ective observations: the researcher drew attention to the shape ofparticular blocks in relation to the task, encouraging the child to handle the blocks,examining the shapes of different faces both visually and manually;

· third level—intermediate modelling: the researcher demonstrated the actions necessaryto solve the task, using an equivalent but different set of blocks;

· fourth level—direct demonstration: the researcher showed the child how to completethe task.

Experimental Phases

Children (n 5 60) were � rst given abstract/unembedded tasks presented in a materialform. The purpose of the pre-test was to select children who were as yet unable tocomplete one or more of the tasks. Inability to complete tasks showed that the relevantunderstanding was not, at this stage, within the capability of the child (the zone of actualdevelopment), but could be within the zone of proximal development. These children

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

06 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

44 P. Coltman et al.

TABLE 1. Phases of the experimenta l programme

Pre-test (unembedded task)Children proceed who did not successfull y complete the pre-test task

Teaching phase

Experimental group (n 5 27) Control group (n 5 27)

First Embedded Task A First Embedded Task ASuccess rate recorded Success rate recordedStructured adult interaction until the task is No structured adult interactionsuccessfully completed

3 days 3 daysSecond Reinforcement Embedded Task B Second Reinforcement Embedded Task B

Success rate recorded Success rate recordedStructured adult interaction until the task No structured adult interactionsuccessfully completed

3 days 3 days

Post-test (unembedded task)

were thus selected as subjects for the study which focused on the forming of thisunderstanding, working within the zone of proximal development, and proceeded to a‘teaching phase’.

After the pre-test, selected children (n 5 54) were divided into three groups, each ofthem including children who had not performed the same two tasks from the six offeredat the pre-test. (Four of the children had completed all but one task.) Each of these threegroups was then further divided into control and experimental groups, taking intoaccount the gender, age, teacher and baseline assessment scores of the children, tomaximise equivalence between the groups. Thus each of the three groups completed a‘teaching phase’ for two different aspects of understanding shape and space (Table 1).

The experimental procedure was designed to encompass both motivational andcognitive aspects when working within a zone of proximal development. A source ofmotivation was provided in the use of embedded tasks with contexts meaningful toyoung children; for example, in order to help ‘a prince rescue the princess’ children wereasked to build a tower from certain blocks using the elements of balance. The cognitiveaspect was supported by the provision of additional graded levels of adult help, and alsoby the presentation of both the task and the adult help in a material form so that therewas hands-on activity. In addition, in order to provide for self-regulation leading to thedevelopment of secure and transferable concepts (i.e. a metacognitive level of learning)an element of self-correction with resultant feedback was incorporated into the design ofeach task. For example, a task requiring 3D blocks to be matched to 2D faces was setin the context of a ‘lorry’ with recessed frames that the blocks � tted into, remaining inview.

Results

Pre-test

The six unembedded tasks used in the pre-test were considered as being at an appropriatelevel of challenge and suitable for support as between a third and a half of the receptionaged children tested were unable to complete each one of the tasks.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

06 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Scaffolding Learning 45

TABLE 2. Results for different tasks

Tasks Groups Pre-test Embedded Task A Embedded Task B Post-test

Matching 2D Control 0% 78% 67% 44%outlines to the faces Experimental 0% 67% 55% 100%of 3D blocks

Recognising and Control 0% 11% 22% 22%using alternative Experimental 0% 22% 78% 89%orientation s of 3Dshapes

Developing an Control 0% 44% 22% 11%awareness of aspects Experimental 0% 55% 67% 100%of balance

Characterising and Control 0% 22% 44% 0%classifying 3D Experimental 0% 44% 89% 67%shapes

Recognising Control 0% 89% 55% 89%equivalence in shape Experimental 0% 89% 89% 100%and size

Constructing a Control 0% 33% 78% 33%re� ective image of Experimental 0% 33% 89% 89%a given pattern

Teaching Phase

In the teaching phase each child dealt with two aspects of shape and space for whichthey had been unsuccessful in the pre-test. Having been unable to complete the abstracttask, the children in both control and experimental groups were presented with the same� rst embedded task (Task A), that is, with a context that was meaningful to the children.In both groups the children � rst tried to solve the tasks on their own with no adultintervention. Children in the experimental group then had graded levels of adult supportwhile the control group had no further intervention. After 3 days the children in eachgroup were presented with a further/reinforcement embedded task (Task B). After afurther 3 days the post-test unembedded task was given. At each stage success rates werenoted (Table 2).

In every task the experimental group were more successful in the post-test than thecontrol group. The greatest difference between the groups appears in tasks related todeveloping an awareness of aspects of balance, the least in tasks related to therecognition of the equivalence in shape and size. Due to the embedded nature of the � rstteaching Task A, some of the children from both the control and the experimental groupcould execute activities which they had not been able to do in the pre-test. In the pre-test,for example, children were asked to balance a cuboid on three cones. The childrenalmost invariably were unable to do this as they repeatedly arranged the cones in a linearfashion. The embedded task asked the children to build a rocket from a number of blocksincluding three cones. The context powerfully suggested a vertical structure and the onlyway this could be produced incorporating the cones was to group them together. This

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

06 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

46 P. Coltman et al.

FIG. 1. Percentages of children successfull y completing tasks.

automatically resulted in a tripod on which another block could be placed. Consequently,the results of the control and experimental groups showed no signi� cant difference. Inthe control group 46.3% of the children could � nd a solution and in the experimentalgroup 51.8% (p . 0.05).

After engaging in a task, the children in the experimental group were encouraged tocheck their � ndings, reinforcing the signi� cance of their solution and the children whocould not execute the task received graded help as previously described. An overwhelm-ing majority of children (72%) managed to � nd a method of solution on receiving thethird level of help. The second level of help appeared suf� cient in 28% of cases. No-onein fact required the fourth level.

In the control group no adult interaction was offered to the children. The design of thetasks, however, encouraged children to check the effectiveness of their found solutions.For example, when children carried out a task which required them to make a modelbridge taller by re-orientating the blocks supporting it, a cardboard bus was either ableor unable to pass beneath it.

Three days after the presentation of these � rst embedded tasks the children in both thecontrol and experimental groups were presented with second, reinforcement tasks (TaskB) requiring the same kinds of activity but within a different meaningful context. Asecond task which required children to re-orient blocks to make a tower taller, forexample, involved a ‘mouse’ and a cardboard ‘Christmas Tree’. The mouse was unableto reach the top of the tree to place a sequin star in position. The children ‘helped’ themouse by changing the orientation of a triangular prism, standing it on one of thetriangular faces to reach the greater height. When the children were asked in the post-testto make a tower taller by reorienting the blocks they were able to relate back to the storycontext.

When the results are combined for all tasks, Figure 1 shows that success in thepost-test in the experimental group is over 90% while the control group remainconsiderably lower at 33%.

In the control group there was no signi� cant improvement in the results after the � rstintervention. On the � rst presentation of an embedded task (Task A) 46.3% obtained acorrect solution and for the reinforcement tasks (Task B) 48.1% (p . 0.05). Thus, simplyincreasing the number of tasks appears not to be very effective in promoting learning.

Before the provision of any adult support in Task B, 77.8% of children in theexperimental group correctly found the solutions. Such a sharp increase (26%) can be

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

06 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Scaffolding Learning 47

explained by the adult support supplied in completing Task A which enabled the childrento acquire a method of action and use it in approaching another, similar problem (TaskB). The difference in success between the experimental and control groups in completingTask B was 29.7% (p , 0.05). The 22.2% of children in the experimental group whowere unable to complete Task B, again received adult support as described earlier, toenable them to do so successfully.

Discussion

In the control group the introduction of a meaningful context at the beginning of theteaching process led to a substantial improvement in the results compared to those of thepre-test (Table 2). Reinforcement through an additional task (Task B) did not addanything new to the learning situation as the results showed no signi� cant improvement.In the post-test the success rate of children, working again without the support of ameaningful context, decreased. Following Hughes (1986) we believe that an increase inthe number of concrete tasks alone does not advance the child to new stages of learning(levels of knowledge). In our case the children in the control group, whilst improvingtheir solution of concrete tasks, did not realise the principle of their solution and couldnot transfer it to another situation.

In the experimental group the children, with the support of an adult, solved theteaching tasks and carried out a self-correction process, with resultant feedback, whichraised an appreciation of the actions carried out in order to achieve the successfulsolution. This, in turn, led to an enhanced ability to transfer the acquired activity to newcircumstances (indicating learning at a metacognitive level) and thus to further improve-ment in the performance of post-test tasks. Moreover, children became self-regulatory(Gallimore & Tharp, 1990) because in many cases of post-tests they carried out theirown checking procedures. A particularly striking example of this was seen in a group ofchildren who had carried out a pair of tasks designed to develop an understanding of thecharacteristics of cylinders. In Task A the children had been shown two cylinders ofdifferent proportions and a cuboid of similar size. These blocks were presented in abasket which was introduced as the nest of the ‘cylinder bird’. The task for the childrenwas to identify the ‘baby’ which did not belong to the ‘cylinder bird’. It was explainedto the children that cylinder bird babies love to roll. Exploring this idea enabled thechildren to identify the cuboid as the ‘intruder’. In Task B the same context was usedbut this time the ‘nest’ contained two cylinders and a cone. The additional informationgiven was that cylinder birds play in the sand jumping on their feet and then their headsalways making an identical round print in the sand. Investigating this informationenabled the children to identify the cone as the intruder. The post-test presented aselection of blocks with children asked to identify the cylinders. Most of the children inthe experimental group related this task to that of the cylinder bird babies, and used theconcepts of rolling and identical round end-faces as support for checking their solutions.

Although the assumption for this study was that the children were operating at thepre-representational van Heile level (0), the � ndings of this research suggest that this isnot uniform across all the shapes involved. Evidence suggests that their understandingof the cuboid and its properties, for example, was more secure than that of the triangularprism. Their con� dence in working with cuboids and their facility in matching their facesto 2D shapes showed awareness of the images that different orientations would give. Forthe triangular prism, on the other hand, most of the children were unsuccessful at

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

06 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

48 P. Coltman et al.

working with different orientations, showing their dif� culty in perceiving the shape otherthan in its holistic sense as a ‘roof’.

Conclusions

The results of the experiment support our hypothesis that the provision of graded levelsof adult support (scaffolding) substantially improves the effectiveness of learning relatedto aspects of shape and space. With appreciation of the importance of free play withwooden blocks, there is an element of insuf� ciency in facilitating the acquisition of earlygeometrical concepts. Children alone cannot reliably ‘discover’ all the important andnecessary knowledge and methods of action solely through manipulating the blocks.They learn these more effectively through carefully structured joint activity with‘experienced others’.

REFERENCES

Anghileri , J. & Baron, S. (1999) Playing with the materials of study: Poleidoblocs , Education 3–13, 27(2), pp. 57–64.

Anning, A. & Edwards, A. (1999) Promoting Children’s Learning from Birth to Five: developing thenew early years professional (Buckingham, Open University Press).

Bliss, J., Askew, M. & Macrae, S. (1996) Effective teaching and learning: scaffolding revisited , OxfordReview of Education, 22, pp. 37–61.

Bruner, J. S. (1990) Acts of Meaning (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press).Bruner, J. S. (1996) The Culture of Education (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press).Chaiklin, S. (1999) Developmenta l teaching in upper-secondar y school, in: M. Hedegaard & J. Lomp-

scher (Eds) Learning Activity and Development (Oxford, Aarhus University Press).Clements, D. H., Swaminathan, S., Hannibal, M. & Sarama, S. (1999) Young children’s concepts of

shape, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30 (2), pp. 192–212.Davis, R. (1986) Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: a summary analysis , in: J.

Heibert (Ed.) Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge: the case of mathematics (Hillsdale, Erlbaum).Donaldson, M. (1978) Childrens ’ Minds (London, Fontana).Edwards, A. & Knight, P. (1994) Effective Early Years Education Teaching Young Children (Bucking-

ham, Open University Press).Elkonin, D. B. (1971) Toward the problem of stages in the mental development of the child, Soviet

Psychology , 10, pp. 538–653.Flavell, J. H. (1976) Metacognitive aspects of problem solving, in: L. B. Resnick (Ed.) The Nature of

Intelligence (Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum).Gallimore, R. & Tharp, R. (1990) Teaching mind and society: teaching schooling and literate discourse ,

in: L. Moll (Ed.) Vygotsky and Education (Cambridge, CUP).Hedegaard, M. (1999) The in� uence of societal knowledge traditions on children ’s thinking and

conceptua l development, in: M. Hedegaard & J. Lompscher (Eds) Learning Activity and Development(Oxford, Aarhus University Press).

Hughes, M. (1986) Children and Number (Oxford, Basil Blackwell).Leontiev, A. N. (1981) The problem of activity in psychology , in: J. V. Wertsch (Ed.) The Concept of

Activity in Soviet Psychology (Armonk, NY, Sharpe), pp. 37–71.Lompscher, J. (1999) Learning activity and its formation: ascending from the abstract to the concrete , in:

M. Hedegaard & J. Lompscher (Eds) Learning Activity and Development (Oxford, Aarhus UniversityPress).

Lowenfeld, M. & Anderson, V. (1963) Poleidoblocs in the Infant School (London, E. A. Arnold).Moyles, J. (1994) The Excellence of Play (Buckingham , Open University Press).Nickson, M. (2000) Teaching and Learning Mathematics: a teacher’s guide to recent research and its

application (London, Cassell).Orton, A. (1992) Learning Mathematics: issues, theory and practice (London, Cassell).Piaget, J. & Inhelder , B. (1956) The Child’s Conception of Space (London, Routledge and Kegan Paul).Pollard, A. & Tann (1997) Re� ective Teaching in the Primary School (London, Cassell).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

06 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Scaffolding Learning 49

Rowland, S. (1987) An interpretive model of teaching and learning, in: A. Pollard (Ed.) Children andtheir Primary Schools (London, Falmer Press), pp. 128–132.

Tanner, H. & Jones, S. (2000) Scaffolding for success: re� ective discourse and the effective teaching ofmathematical thinking skills, in: T. Rowland & C. Morgan (Eds) Research in Mathematics Education,Volume 2 (London, BSRLM).

Tharp, R. & Gallimore, R. (1998) A theory of learning as assisted performance , in: D. Faulkner, K.Littletone & M. Woodhead (Eds) Learning Relationships in the Classroom (London, Routledge) .

van Heile, P. M. (1986) Structure and Insight (Orlando, Academic Press).van Oers, B. (1999) Teaching opportunitie s in play, in: M. Hedegaard & J. Lompscher (Eds) Learning

Activity and Development (Oxford, Aarhus University Press).Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in Society, edited by M. Cole, V. John Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman

(Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press).Wood, D. J. (1986) Aspects of teaching and learning, in: M. Richards & P. Light (Eds) Children of Social

Worlds (Cambridge, Polity Press).Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. & Ross, G. (1976) The role of tutoring in problem solving, Journal of Child

Psychiatry , 17, pp. 89–100.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

06 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014