In reviewing the terms of scaffolding and shaping, because I
had questioned whether they were really that different from one another, I
found that they are actually quite similar. If I were asked what the difference was between the two I don’t feel confident in my ability to do so. They both
have behavior as being a baseline for what is being acquired,
modified, or changing,. They both present stages as to how the individual learns said
behavior, and both identify these stages as having some level of succession.
Here’s the question that I’m pondering, and feel free to
reply with your own thoughts and examples to help me more fully understand. Are
these two terms as similar as I perceive them to be? If so, how could I best
explain it to let’s say, one of my general psychology students (as I’m sure one
will ask at some point)? Where is the cross over line between behavior and cognition, specifically with this example?
The similarities of these two concepts are worth noticing, as you've done. Perhaps they point to the different metaphors that undergird each theory. The verb "to shape" is not one you would hear a Piagetian use. It's possible that a behaviorist would use the term scaffolding, but even a scaffold presumes a builder down below who is active in her or his own process and merely receiving some support from the outside. Perhaps they differ in the emphasis they place on the agency of the learner.
ReplyDelete