Scaffold Structure and Function¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 3 claims (3 for) · 10 studies (5 causal, 3 review, 1 quant-synthesis, 1 qualitative), q2–q4 · 1 of 10 report an effect size

Description¶

Scaffold Structure and Function is a language-focused planning strategy, most often used in project-based learning (PBL), in which the designer analyzes a project to identify the specific language functions (what students must do with language — argue, describe, hypothesize) and structures (the grammatical forms and vocabulary that realize those functions) required for success. Students are then explicitly taught these forms and given tools such as sentence starters, stems, and frames so that language demands do not become a hidden barrier to demonstrating content knowledge.

Design Implications¶

The strategy treats academic language as a learnable object rather than an assumed prerequisite, consistent with evidence that explicit disciplinary literacy instruction improves comprehension Disciplinary literacy instruction improves comprehension. [+M]. Its effectiveness depends on contingent support: scaffolds should be provided based on diagnosed need and progressively removed as learners gain independence Contingent scaffolding improves learning. [+M]. Static, one-size-fits-all stems risk becoming crutches or constraints rather than temporary support.

Context¶

Requirements¶

• A task analysis of the project identifying its key language functions (e.g., "justify a design decision," "summarize findings") and the structures that express them
• Explicit instruction in those structures before and during the project, not just distribution of handouts
• Tiered supports matched to learner proficiency, with a plan for fading (Fading applies to language scaffolds as much as to task scaffolds)
• Authentic occasions to use the target language in Collaborative Learning or presentation contexts

Constraints¶

• Overly prescriptive stems can limit creativity and produce formulaic, template-driven writing [-M] — learners may satisfy the frame without engaging the underlying function
• Generic sentence starters unconnected to the project's actual discourse demands add cognitive load without payoff [~M]
• If scaffolds are never faded, learners can become dependent on frames and fail to internalize the structures Contingent scaffolding improves learning. [-M]
• Front-loading all language support at once overwhelms novices; Chunking language objectives across project milestones works better Chunking reduces working memory load. [+M]

Implementation Variability¶

• Sentence frames vs. starters: frames constrain a whole utterance ("The data suggest that ___ because ___"); starters only open it — frames suit novices, starters suit developing proficiency
• Oral vs. written scaffolds: discussion protocols with talk stems (e.g., Kagan structures) vs. writing frames in graphic organizers
• Co-constructed scaffolds: classes build word walls and anchor charts together, increasing ownership and recall [+W]
• Multimodal supports: glossaries, visuals, and Advance Organizers that preview project vocabulary and structure

Target Learners¶

• English language learners, who benefit most when content and language objectives are taught together [+M]
• Students with limited academic language exposure regardless of home language
• Proficient speakers still benefit when scaffolds target discipline-specific registers (e.g., scientific hedging: "the evidence suggests…") [+W]
• Advanced learners may find basic stems redundant; tier or fade accordingly [~M]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Academic language development: mastering the functions and structures of school and disciplinary discourse
• Communication of content learning: ensuring language proficiency does not mask or distort content understanding
• Learner autonomy: internalizing frames so students eventually generate academic language independently

Instructions¶

1. Analyze the project's final products and milestones to list the language functions students will need (argue, explain, narrate, evaluate).
2. Identify the structures — sentence patterns, connectives, key vocabulary — that express each function, and preview them with an Advance Organizer.
3. Teach the structures explicitly through models and Non-Examples, showing both strong and weak uses.
4. Distribute tiered sentence starters and frames matched to proficiency levels; embed them in Graphic Organizers and discussion protocols.
5. Require use during Collaborative Learning and presentations, then progressively fade the scaffolds as students demonstrate control Contingent scaffolding improves learning. [+M].

Related Strategies¶

• Accessible Syntax — complements this strategy by simplifying the syntax of input texts while this strategy builds output language
• Activating Prior Knowledge — front-loads the conceptual grounding that makes new language structures meaningful
• Offer generative formulaic expressions instead of rigid sentence starters
• Support English learners with sentence frames, graphic organizers, and word walls—but supplement frames with level-appropriate strategies because frames can limit the range of student responses

Related Elements¶

• Advance Organizers — preview the project's language demands before students encounter them
• Fading — the mechanism for removing language scaffolds as proficiency grows
• Graphic Organizers — common carriers for sentence frames and vocabulary supports
• Modeling — demonstrating the target language function in use before students attempt it

Examples¶

• PBLWorks (Buck Institute for Education) — its PBL guidance for English learners recommends analyzing project driving questions and final products to derive sentence stems for critique protocols and presentations (https://www.pblworks.org).
• Understanding Language / Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, and Equity (SCALE) — performance task templates specify discipline-based language functions and supply corresponding sentence frames for ELLs (https://ell.stanford.edu).
• Seventh-grade science PBL example: before a "design a sustainable city" presentation, students receive tiered stems — beginners: "Our design uses ___ because ___"; advanced: "One trade-off we considered was ___, which required us to ___" — with stems faded by the final presentation.

Key Sources¶

• Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
• Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning: Teaching Second Language Learners in the Mainstream Classroom. Heinemann.
• Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159–180. doi:10.1080/13670050608668639
• Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2005). Putting scaffolding to work: The contribution of scaffolding in articulating ESL education. Prospect, 20(1), 6–30.
• van Lier, L. (2004). The Ecology and Semiotics of Language Learning. Kluwer Academic. doi:10.1007/1-4020-7912-5