The early history of the scaffolding metaphor: Bernstein, Luria, Vygotsky, and before

Anna Shvarts,Arthur Bakker

doi:10.1080/10749039.2019.1574306

Anna Shvarts, Arthur Bakker

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2019.1574306

Copy DOI

Abstract

ABSTRACTGiven the growing interest in the scaffolding process, it is worthwhile to address competing accounts about the origin of this term. The concept was empirically introduced by Wood, Bruner, and Ross in 1976 and has often been associated with the “zone of proximal development” in the writing of L.S. Vygotsky. We trace the origins of it in instances of the term being used by Nikolai Bernstein and Alexander Luria, as well as in Vygotsky’s notebooks. Our historical search helps to highlight the theoretical connection between this metaphor and the teaching/learning versus development opposition, and its relation to motor control development.

Highlights

Given the growing interest in the scaffolding process, it is worthwhile to address competing accounts about the origin of this term
The aim of this article is to share our discoveries about the history of the scaffolding metaphor, which we found in Russian psychology, in particular in the work of Nikolai Bernstein (1947, 1991/1996) and Luria and in Vygotsky’s recently translated and published notebooks (Zavershneva & Van der Veer, 2018)
We propose how scaffolding can be related to Vygotskian ideas such as the zone of proximal development (ZPD) and Bernstein’s ideas about motor development, so as to contribute to a “more differentiated ontology” (p. 423)

Summary

Introduction

By showing how Bruner was inspired by Bernstein’s work and by correspondence and conversations with Luria, we intend to clarify the extent to which the metaphor began as Vygotskian and the extent to which different properties of the metaphor were introduced by Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976). With this history at hand, we use the historical observations to highlight aspects of the metaphor that are worth emphasizing to preserve the richness and specificity of the original ideas behind scaffolding. The threat of losing any specific innovation in the educational and developmental science which this concept may convey is especially strong due to the controversial history of this concept

Objectives

Discussion

Conclusion