Running head: SCAFFOLDING LITERACY INSTRUCTION 1

Scaffolding Literacy Instruction:

How Domain Contingency in Reading Instruction Enhances Literacy Growth

Jayme W. Allen-Vetz

University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Dr. Scott

CIL 699
SCAFFOLDING LITERACY INSTRUCTION 2

Abstract

This paper explores how using domain contingency in reading instruction enhances student’s

literacy growth. It also investigates teaching students how to use strategies and studies how

effective scaffolding is based on student’s literacy needs. The topic originated due to the

importance of students needing ample time to practice reading in the classroom and the ability to

become strategic readers in order to improve their literacy skills. The participants included a

kindergarten teacher, preschool teachers, elementary teachers, first grade students in intervention

groups, at-risk struggling readers in elementary school, and third grade students in the regular

classroom. The methods used to conduct the study were videos, transcriptions, case studies,

multilevel analyses of individual literacy lessons, and questionnaires. Analyses for employing

domain contingency when scaffolding literacy interaction and individual lessons by trained early

literacy intervention teachers were conducted. Patterns and themes relevant to differentiating

instruction transcripts were coded. Excerpts from transcripts were provided to identify verbal

scaffolds during observations of teacher and student literacy interactions. Domain contingency

has positive implications for literacy growth because it helps students use sources of information

they are neglecting while reading. However, scaffolding literacy instruction using domain and

instructional contingency is a complex task. Future research is needed to help us better

understand how to successfully scaffold reading instruction.

SCAFFOLDING LITERACY INSTRUCTION 3

Effective Reading Instruction Overview

After completing more than half of my Literacy Education graduate program, I have had

the concept of providing more time for students to practice reading in the classroom ingrained in

me. Every class in my program has emphasized the importance of creating time in the classroom

for students to increase the volume of reading texts. “It has been documented for many years that

the amount of time students spend reading real books is the most reliable indicator of students’

reading achievement and growth” (Hudson & Williams, 2015, p. 531).

I chose my topic because I do not want to use the same routine when instructing students

to solve challenging words while reading. “I want to take each student further in their literacy

development through providing my full attention, genuine responses, and verbal scaffolding

when they are immersed in reading” (Ankrum, Belcastro, & Genest, 2014, p. 45). Merely

providing reading instruction and one-to-one assistance will not meet students’ literacy needs

while learning to read in the classroom. I will need to have a large toolbox of intentional

scaffolding strategies to employ in order to meet every student’s reading needs at their

instructional level because one of my goals is to provide ample time in my classroom for

students to practice reading.

Teachers often successfully identify struggling readers, yet correctly meeting the

individual needs of these students is an overwhelming task (Bratsch-Hines, Garwood, Varghese,

& Vernon-Feagans, 2017). It is not an easy job to take on the challenge of working with students

of differing skill levels while providing appropriate feedback and reading strategies. However,

high-quality instruction tailored towards a student’s individual needs could help readers with

long-term reading skills (Bratsch-Hines et al., 2017). This notion is supported by Bratsch-Hines

et al., (2017) who states, “effective reading instruction for children who are at risk for reading
SCAFFOLDING LITERACY INSTRUCTION 4

problems or learning disabilities can mitigate risk, particularly when delivered early, as in

kindergarten and first grade” (p. 271).

About Scaffolding Literacy Instruction

The basic definition of scaffolding is the procedure that helps a student successfully

complete a task, accomplish a goal, or solve a problem outside of their unaided abilities (Ankrum

et al., 2014). “The notion of scaffolding is situated within Vygotsky’s theory of instruction that

emphasizes the importance of delivering instruction that is in advance of a child’s current level

of skill” (Justice & Pentimonti, 2009, p. 243). Social interactions, when delivered through a more

knowledgeable person, could enhance a student’s understanding of a task (Ankrum et al., 2014).

Verbal scaffolding can be the social interaction between the teacher and student. Prompting,

questioning, and praising learners are types of verbal scaffolding (Ankrum et al., 2014). The

teacher and student’s spoken interactions through verbal scaffolding can greatly impact

struggling readers (Ankrum et al., 2014).

Teachers can scaffold literacy instruction through an instructional contingent approach.

“Instructional contingency refers to the amount of help teachers provide to a learner at

difficultly” (Rodgers, 2017, p. 525). Teachers can also scaffold literacy instruction through a

domain contingent method. “Domain contingency is about what the teacher chooses to focus on

in the interaction” (Rodgers, 2017, p. 525). In order to read unfamiliar words, an emergent reader

discovers how to use at least three sources of information including: the meaning of the story,

visual information, and oral language (Brownfield, D’Agostino, Harmey, Kelly, & Rodgers,

2016). The construction of knowledge while reading includes combining sources of information

and practicing problem-solving skills (Brownfield et al., 2016).

SCAFFOLDING LITERACY INSTRUCTION 5

Intentional scaffolding strategies that students practice consistently with and without the

teacher could become an automatic skill in the reading process. Reading instruction that

purposefully scaffolds strategies should help students master skills that they have not yet learned.

It is crucial that reading strategies are taught when students are immersed in the reading

experience. Teachers that implement direct instruction in reading strategies could help their

students use strategies to work towards their reading goals (Afflerbach, Paris, & Pearson, 2008).

Teacher modeling strategies, extra time for guided practice, and daily independent reading are

examples of direct instruction in reading strategies (Scharlach, 2008).

Scaffolding Literacy Instruction Research

After researching the benefits of scaffolding reading instruction, I was inspired to learn

more about teacher-student interactions during reading in order to learn the best practices of

scaffolding my instruction in the classroom. Most of the scaffolding studies have been in the area

of instructional contingency and there is a lack of research regarding domain contingency

(Rodgers, 2016). This notion is supported by Rodgers (2016) who states, “this lack of attention

about what to focus on is surprising if we agree with the idea that scaffolding moves ought to

take into account both what the learner can do and the domain itself” (p. 525). Rodgers (2016)

suggests that scaffolding interactions should consider what the learner is capable of doing and

what a teacher decides to focus on in order to improve the leaner’s reading skills. “Due to the

positive impact of domain contingency on the scaffolding experience it is important for teachers

to be more responsive in their reading instruction so students do not rely heavily on one source

of information while solving difficult words” (Rodgers, 2017, p. 531).

Teaching Students How To Use Strategies

SCAFFOLDING LITERACY INSTRUCTION 6

Teachers that employ domain contingency in their reading instruction teach students how

to use strategies they are neglecting while reading. Rodgers (2017) explained that what teachers

chose to focus on and whether or not they were domain contingent in their reading instruction

contributed to student outcomes. In one study regarding the process of effective scaffolding,

“teachers with higher outcomes also significantly improved on domain contingency across time,

whereas teachers with lower outcomes did not significantly change” (Brownfield et al., 2016, p.

357). In other words, teachers that were becoming experts in domain contingency had higher

student outcomes, whereas teachers that were not successfully using domain contingency in their

instruction had lower student outcomes (Brownfield et al., 2016).

Teachers need to be able to teach the reader how to use a particular strategy in a certain

context through observing a student’s reading. Then they can guide the reader to ultimately use

the strategy on a metacognitive level when there is no support. According to Scharlach (2008), in

order to improve a student’s metacognition when using the strategy during independent reading,

teachers can apply an ART of Comprehension recording sheet to better transfer independent use

of the needed strategy. While students are reading, they stop and write down each reading

strategy on the ART of Comprehension sheet that they are currently using, which enhances their

engagement with the text (Scharlach, 2008). Also, the ability to process whether or not their

selected strategy was successful could improve their ability to self-regulate their strategy use

(Lee & Schmitt, 2014). “The degree and type of support will vary among children until their

network of strategies is sufficiently developed that they can extend their own strategies to meet

the demands of increasingly complex texts” (Lee & Schmitt, 2014, p. 52).

Lee & Schmitt (2014) found a positive connection between a student’s behavior

demonstrating strategic use of the same strategies and the frequency and type of teacher language
SCAFFOLDING LITERACY INSTRUCTION 7

used to scaffold the specific instructional strategies. Thus, teacher language and one-to-one

instruction could have a powerful impact on shaping strategic readers. During the teacher-student

interactions, teachers can make their verbal scaffolding noticeable so students can employ

strategies to their reading (Ankrum et al., 2014). The study regarding teacher language and its

influence on student instructional strategies “demonstrates that the teacher has the opportunity to

observe and interact closely with the student to search for and to teach within the child’s zone of

proximal development, where instruction is maximized and accelerated progress is possible”

(Lee & Schmitt, 2014, p. 54). A student’s zone of proximal development is determined by the

level of independently completing a task and the attempt at problem solving a task under adult

guidance (Ankrum et al., 2014).

In addition, self-selected texts at student’s reading level help engage and motivate

independent strategy use. Davis, Guthrie, & Lutz (2006) suggests that students in the classroom

should show engagement when tackling challenging tasks. A study that examined evidence of

student engagement during integrated reading-science instruction showed that students with

strong growth in reading comprehension were engaged with complex literacy tasks (Davis et al.,

2006). According to Hudson & Williams (2015), studies show that self-selected texts are twice

as effective at students’ achieving their reading skills than teachers choosing the texts for them.

Thus, self-selected texts could enhance students understanding of how to use strategies during

reading instruction time.

Scaffolding is based on Student’s Literacy Needs

Bratsch-Hines et al., (2017) conducted a research study to gather more information about

enhancing the use of reading instructional strategies for future teachers. Bratsch-Hines et al.,

(2017) found that teachers used code-focused strategies more often than meaning-focused
SCAFFOLDING LITERACY INSTRUCTION 8

strategies despite the fact that their students struggled in both areas. Their students would have

benefited from high amounts of code and meaning focused instructional strategies (Bratsch-

Hines et al., 2017).

Primary student’s literacy skills are positively influenced through read aloud experiences.

Read alouds can provide an interactive context where students learn and practice applying

reading strategies through socializing (Justice & Pentimonti, 2010). The majority of students

today attend a classroom that immerses them in frequent stories on a daily basis. It is important

for teachers to understand specific scaffolds regarding the read aloud task to teach students how

to use the strategy.

According to Justice & Pentimonti (2010), one study regarding preschool teachers use of

specific scaffolds showed that low support scaffolding strategies were used more often than high

support strategies. Also, teacher perceptions regarding the use of scaffolding strategies is

misinterpreted (Justice & Pentimonti, 2010). The findings showed that teachers used more low

support scaffolding strategies whereas most teachers stated that they used high and low

scaffolding strategies equally in the classroom (Justice & Pentimonti, 2010). Thus, Justice &

Pentimonti (2010) suggest that children who need more support during read alouds might not

receive the appropriate form of scaffolding tailored at their level because teachers’ perceptions of

strategy use in their classrooms are inaccurate. “This finding suggests that teachers may not be

differentiating their strategy use to the extent needed for all children to benefit from read aloud

interactions” (Justice & Pentimonti, 2010, p. 246).

Teachers that use domain contingency in reading instruction scaffold strategies based on

the needs and strengths of the student. In order to meet the needs of students during instruction it

is imperative that teachers depart from the lesson plan and respond authentically to the dialogue
SCAFFOLDING LITERACY INSTRUCTION 9

instead of focusing on what they will say next in their conversation. Teachers can actually

impede students reading growth if they guide students to overuse one source of information

while reading (Rodgers, 2017). Also, teachers need to not habitually emphasize certain sources

of information when scaffolding reading instruction because students may have already mastered

that particular strategy.

In one study, a kindergarten teacher provided an example of how planned verbal

scaffolding is used in the classroom. However, the planned verbal scaffolding does not mean that

it is a one-size fits all approach (Ankrum et al., 2014). The kindergarten teacher, Ms. Palmer, and

her students demonstrated scaffolded discussions through before, during, and after reading

interactions. She was connected to her student’s reading behavior and supported their learning

needs through observing their responses during the reading process. Ms. Palmer’s lessons were

tailored towards their literacy needs and were responsive to her students. She demonstrated

exemplary instruction through responding authentically and making quick instructional decisions

to meet the learner’s needs (Ankrum et al., 2014). “Creating and conducting thoughtfully varied

lessons that account for individual needs and strengths requires deep knowledge of literacy

processes, pedagogy, and individuals” (Ankrum et al., 2014, p. 40).

Implications for Employing Domain Contingency

A study that was conducted to research differentiated reading instruction in the classroom

suggests that intentional verbal scaffolding in the area of reading instruction could have

encouraging results for student’s reading development (Ankrum et al., 2014). Teachers could be

aware that, when teaching students how to use strategies, the type of language support will vary

depending on the child’s degree of independent strategy use. “It would be useful to provide

quality examples of differentiated instruction, such as Ms. Palmer’s example, to explicitly

SCAFFOLDING LITERACY INSTRUCTION 10

demonstrate the manner in which small group discussion can be utilized to scaffold young

learners in the reading process” (Ankrum et al., 2014, p. 45).

Participating in consistent professional development workshops, learning from literacy

coaches, and working with interventionists can help teachers provide appropriate scaffolded

literacy strategies tailored towards individual student’s needs and strengths during intervention

time. Also, professional development opportunities that focus on increasing skills in

differentiating instruction could benefit teachers. If a teacher doesn’t have a deep understanding

of the domain when scaffolding literacy instruction, but makes professional decisions about

when to help and how much help to give the student, it seems questionable that the reader will

master the task (Brownfield et al., 2016).

Teachers are more likely to prevent later reading difficulties when they provide

interventions for students that struggle with reading or are at risk for a learning disability in the

early grades (Bratsch-Hines et al., 2017). “Teacher support systems, high-quality implementation

of reading instruction and intervention, and high levels of teacher expertise for teaching reading

are important mechanisms by which children with or at risk for reading or learning disabilities

may experience success in early elementary school and beyond” (Bratsch-Hines et al., 2017, p.

280).

Another implication is for teachers to reflect on the effectiveness of their instruction and

to analyze their use of language in regards to student behaviors. One way to reflect on instruction

is to consider if the student is using the strategy that the teacher is attempting to teach. Also,

reflecting on whether or not the student understands how to use the strategy that the teacher is

demonstrating is helpful (Lee & Schmitt, 2014). In addition, taking a running record to record

the student’s reading behavior and identify the sources of information the reader is using and
SCAFFOLDING LITERACY INSTRUCTION 11

neglecting is a great reflection tool (Rodgers, 2016). “We ought to look for patterns in what

students typically ignore and use, and we should think about what kind of change we are trying

to bring about” (Rodgers, 2016, p. 530).

A suggestion for meeting students’ literacy needs is through providing students with self-

selected texts during independent reading time at their reading level. Engagement, motivation,

and becoming strategic readers are likely enhanced when teachers allow students to choose their

own texts at their skill level (Scharlach, 2008). Thus, motivation is a crucial behavior to

achieving literacy goals.

Conclusion

Effective scaffolding is a complex task. Future research is needed to bring a greater

understanding about successfully scaffolding reading instruction in the classroom especially in

the different forms of contingency such as: temporal, instructional, and domain. “Simply

accounting for hits or misses in terms of adjusting help up or down in response to a student’s

attempts at difficulty is a complex manner” (Brownfield et al., 2016, p. 359).

Teachers are more likely to employ domain contingency in their reading instruction when

they have a clear focus on student achievement, literacy needs, and behavior strengths. Creating

a positive reading culture that provides a sufficient amount of reading time could help teachers to

practice employing domain contingency in their reading instruction in order to improve student’s

literacy growth.

I hope that when my students are immersed in reading I can provide quick instructional

decisions, genuine responses, and effective verbal scaffolding to them in order to enhance their

development in the appropriate literacy area. I want to thoughtfully employ domain contingency
SCAFFOLDING LITERACY INSTRUCTION 12

so I can help students use the strategies they are neglecting during their reading experience to

enhance their literacy growth.

SCAFFOLDING LITERACY INSTRUCTION 13

References

Afflerbach, P., Paris, S. G., & Pearson, D. P. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading

skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61(5), 364-373.

Ankrum, J., Belcastro, E., & Genest, M. (2014). The power of verbal scaffolding: Showing

beginning readers how to use reading strategies. Early Childhood Education Journal, 42,

39-47.

Bratsch-Hines, M. E., Garwood, J., Varghese, C., & Vernon-Feagans, L. (2017). Child skills and

teacher qualifications: Associations with elementary classroom teachers’ reading

instruction for struggling readers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32(4), 270-

283.

Brownfield, K., D’Agostino, J., Harmey, S., Kelly, R., & Rodgers, E. (2016). Examining the

nature of scaffolding in an early literacy intervention. Reading Research Quarterly,

51(3), 345-360.

Davis, M. H., Guthrie, J. T., & Lutz. S. L. (2006). Scaffolding for engagement in elementary

school reading instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(1), 3-16.

Hudson, A. K., & Williams, J. A. (2015). Reading every single day: A journey to authentic

reading. The Reading Teacher, 68(7), 530-538.

Lee, P. A., & Schmitt, M. C. (2014). Teacher language scaffolds the development of independent

strategic reading activities and metacognitive awareness in emergent readers. Reading

Psychology, 35, 32-57

Pentimonti, J. M., & Justice, L. M. (2010). Teachers’ use of scaffolding strategies during read

alouds in the preschool classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37, 241-248.
SCAFFOLDING LITERACY INSTRUCTION 14

Rodgers, E. (2016). Scaffolding word solving while reading: New research insights. The Reading

Teacher, 70(5), 525-532.

Scharlach, T. D. (2008). Start comprehending: Students and teachers actively reading text. The

Reading Teacher, 62(1), 20-31.