A comparative Analysis of Teachers’ Scaffolding Practices

Parviz Birjandi; Sepideh Jazebi

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ijll.20140203.14

| Peer-Reviewed

A comparative Analysis of Teachers’ Scaffolding Practices

Parviz Birjandi, Sepideh Jazebi

Published in International Journal of Language and Linguistics (Volume 2, Issue 3)

Received: 13 March 2014 Accepted: 16 April 2014 Published: 20 April 2014

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Despite a seemingly infinite variety of classifications, there is no generally-accepted instrument for the scrutiny of EFL teachers’ scaffolding practices. This study endeavored to provide a sound model based on which teachers’ SFs (i.e. Scaffolding Functions) and SSs (i.e. Scaffolding Strategies) could be collated. To this end, a mixed approach was employed and earlier models along with teachers’ practices were investigated. The result was a checklist comprising 55 SS items classified into linguistic, cognitive, metacognitive, social, cultural, and affective SFs. To develop a comparative analysis, 90 instruction hours of 30 teachers were recorded and transcribed. Short-Focused Conversations (SFCs) formed the basic unit of analysis according to which teachers’ qualification, high-support and low-support scaffolding, and negotiation type were examined. The findings of the study strongly supported the notion of fading and the timely withdrawing of assistance to enhance learners’ growth of autonomy.

Published in	International Journal of Language and Linguistics (Volume 2, Issue 3)
DOI	10.11648/j.ijll.20140203.14
Page(s)	154-164
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2014. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Scaffolding Strategies, Scaffolding Functions, Short-Focused Conversations, Fading

References

[1]	Anton, M. (1999). The discourse of a learner-centered classroom: Sociocultural perspectives on teacher learner interaction in the second language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 83(3), 303-318.
[2]	Beatty, K., & Nunn, D. (2004). Computer-mediated collaborative learning. System, 32(2), 165-183.
[3]	Bruner, J. (1983). Child’s talk. New York: Norton.
[4]	Buenner, P. S. (2013). Do Scaffolding Interactions Exist in the Thai Classroom? Journal of Language Studies, 13(3), 17-30.
[5]	Cekaite, A., & Aronsson, K. (2005). Language play, a collaborative resource in children’s L2 learning. Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 169-191.
[6]	Collins, A, Brown, J. S., & Newinan, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, leartiing, and instrrrction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp, 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
[7]	Cook, G. (1997). Language play, language learning. English Language Teaching Journal, 51(3), 224-231.
[8]	Daniels, H. (2007). Pedagogy. In H. Daniels, M. Cole & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 307-331). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[9]	DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). New York: Cambridge University Press.
[10]	Diaz, N. R. (2009). A Comparative study of native and non-native teachers’ scaffolding techniques in SLA at an early age. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 17, 57-73.
[11]	Dornyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
[12]	Feuerstein, R. S. (2000). Mediated learning experience, instrumental enrichment and the learning propensity assessment device. In Interdisciplinary counsel on development and learning disorders, ICDL clinical practice guidelines: Redefining the standards of care for infants, children, and families with special needs (pp. 557-578). MD: The Interdisciplinary Council on Development and Learning Disorders.
[13]	Forman, R. (2008). Using notions of scaffolding and intertextuality to understand the bilingual teaching of English in Thailand. Linguistics and Education, 19(4), 319-332.
[14]	Fotos, S. (2001). Cognitive approaches to grammar instruction. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed.) (pp. 267-284). Boston: Heinel & Heinle Publishers.
[15]	Fotos, S., & Hinkel, E. (2007). Form-focused instruction and output for second language writing gains. In S. Fotos & H. Nassaji (Eds.), Form-focused instruction and teacher education: Studies in the honour of Rod Ellis (pp. 131-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[16]	Gatbonton, E. (2008). Looking beyond teachers’ classroom behavior: Novice and experienced ESL teachers’ pedagogical knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 161-182.
[17]	Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. ETR & D, 52(2), 5-22.
[18]	Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with students in a content-based classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 247-273.
[19]	Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2005). Putting scaffolding to work: The contribution of scaffolding in articulating ESL education. Prospectives, 20(1), 6-30.
[20]	Jakobson, R. (1960). Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
[21]	Johnson, M. (2003). A philosophy of second language acquisition. London: Yale University Press.
[22]	Johnstone, B. (2008). Discourse analysis. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
[23]	Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computers & Education, 56(2), 403-417.
[24]	Kostouli, T. (2005). Co-constructing writing contexts in classrooms: Scaffolding, collaboration, and asymmetries of knowledge. In T. Kostouli (Ed.), Writing in context(s): Textual practices and learning processes in sociocultural settings (pp. 93-116). Boston: Springer.
[25]	Kozulin, A. (2003). Psychological tools and mediated learning. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. Ageyev & S. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky's educational theory in cultural context (pp. 15-38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[26]	Kramsch, C. (2004). The language teacher as go-between. Utbildning & Demokrati, 13(3), 37–60.
[27]	Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[28]	Li, D. D., & Lim, C. P. (2008). Scaffolding online historical inquiry tasks: A case study of two secondary school classrooms. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1394–1410.
[29]	Maggioli, G. H. D. (2013). Of metaphors and literalization: Reconceptualizing scaffolding in language teaching. Encounters on Education, 14, 133-150.
[30]	Mariani, L. (1997). Teacher support and teacher challenge in promoting learner autonomy. Perspectives, 23(2). Retrieved November 20, 2013, from www.learningpaths.org/papers/papersupport.htm
[31]	Molenaar, I., Boxtel, C. A. V., & Sleegers, P. J. C. (2010). The effects of scaffolding metacognitive activities in small groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1727-1738.
[32]	Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9, 34–51.
[33]	Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 51-78). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[34]	Olson, C. B., & Land, R. (2007). A cognitive strategies approach to reading and writing instruction for English language learners in secondary school. Research in the Teaching of English, 41(3), 269-303.
[35]	Panselinas, G., & Komis, V. (2009). Scaffolding through talk in groupwork learning. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4(2), 86-103.
[36]	Pawan, F. (2008). Content-area teachers and scaffolded instruction for English language learners. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(6), 1450–1462.
[37]	Pea, R.D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaﬀolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 423–451.
[38]	Pentimonti, J. M., & Justice, L. M. (2010). Teachers’ use of scaffolding strategies during read alouds in the preschool classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37(4), 241-248.
[39]	Perry, N. E., Hutchinson, L., & Thauberger, C. (2008). Talking about teaching self-regulated learning: Scaffolding student teachers’ development and use of practices that promote self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 47(2), 97-108.
[40]	Pol, J. V. D. & Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271-296.
[41]	Proctor, C. P., Dalton, B., & Grisham, D. L. (2007). Scaffolding English language learners and struggling readers in a universal literacy environment with embedded strategy instruction and vocabulary support. Journal of Literacy Research, 39(1), 71-93.
[42]	Puntambekar, S., & Hubscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1-12.
[43]	Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing learner work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273-304.
[44]	Rojas-Drummond, S., Mercer, N., & Dabrowski, E. (2001). Collaboration, scaffolding and the promotion of problem solving strategies in Mexican pre-schoolers. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16(2), 179-196.
[45]	Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. A. (2002). A summary of research exploring hard and soft scaffolding for teachers and students using a multimedia supported learning environment. The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 1(2), 1-12.
[46]	Schmidt, R. (1990). The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.
[47]	Schmidt, R. (2010). Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning. In W. M. Chan, S. Chi, K. N. Cin, J. Istanto, M. Nagami, J. W. Sew, T. Suthiwan, & I. Walker, Proceedings of CLaSIC 2010, Singapore, December 2-4 (pp. 721-737). Singapore: National University of Singapore, Centre for Language Studies.
[48]	Sharkey, J. (2004). ESOL Teachers’ Knowledge of Context as Critical Mediator in Curriculum Development. TESOL Quarterly, 38(2), 279-299.
[49]	Sharma, P., & Hannafin, N. (2005). Learner perception of scaffolding in supporting critical thinking. Journal of computing in higher education, 17(1), 17-42.
[50]	Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
[51]	Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[52]	Speer, N. M., & Wagner, J. F. (2009). Knowledge needed by a teacher to provide analytic scaffolding during undergraduate mathematics classroom discussions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40(5), 530-562.
[53]	Sullivan, P. N. (2000). Playfulness as mediation in communicative language teaching in a Vietnamese classroom. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 115-132). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[54]	Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[55]	Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and instruction, 12(3), 185-233.
[56]	Tomasello, M. (1998). Introduction: A cognitive -functional perspective on language structure. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (pp. vii–xxiii). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
[57]	Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. London: Longman.
[58]	Villamil, O. S., & De Guerrero, M. C. M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 51-75.
[59]	Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (pp. 79-91). MA: Harvard University Press.
[60]	Watson, J. R. (2007). Applying sociocultural theory to a language classroom environment with second-year students of college Russian. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bryn Mawr College-Pennsylvania.
[61]	Wood, D., Bruner, J. & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, pp. 89-100
[62]	Wood, D., & Ross, G. (2006). The role of tutoring in problem solving. In J. S. Bruner (Ed.), In search of pedagogy: The selected works of Jerome S. Bruner (pp. 198-208). London: Taylor & Francis Group.
[63]	Yelland, N., & Masters, J. (2007). Rethinking scaffolding in the information age. Computers & Education, 48(3), 362–382.
[64]	Yu, G. (2004). Perception, Practice and Progress: Significance of scaffolding and zone of proximal development for second or foreign language teachers. Asian EFL Journal, 6(4), 1-24.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Parviz Birjandi, Sepideh Jazebi. (2014). A comparative Analysis of Teachers’ Scaffolding Practices. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 2(3), 154-164. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20140203.14

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Parviz Birjandi; Sepideh Jazebi. A comparative Analysis of Teachers’ Scaffolding Practices. Int. J. Lang. Linguist. 2014, 2(3), 154-164. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20140203.14

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Parviz Birjandi, Sepideh Jazebi. A comparative Analysis of Teachers’ Scaffolding Practices. Int J Lang Linguist. 2014;2(3):154-164. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20140203.14

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijll.20140203.14,
  author = {Parviz Birjandi and Sepideh Jazebi},
  title = {A comparative Analysis of Teachers’ Scaffolding Practices},
  journal = {International Journal of Language and Linguistics},
  volume = {2},
  number = {3},
  pages = {154-164},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijll.20140203.14},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20140203.14},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijll.20140203.14},
  abstract = {Despite a seemingly infinite variety of classifications, there is no generally-accepted instrument for the scrutiny of EFL teachers’ scaffolding practices. This study endeavored to provide a sound model based on which teachers’ SFs (i.e. Scaffolding Functions) and SSs (i.e. Scaffolding Strategies) could be collated. To this end, a mixed approach was employed and earlier models along with teachers’ practices were investigated. The result was a checklist comprising 55 SS items classified into linguistic, cognitive, metacognitive, social, cultural, and affective SFs. To develop a comparative analysis, 90 instruction hours of 30 teachers were recorded and transcribed. Short-Focused Conversations (SFCs) formed the basic unit of analysis according to which teachers’ qualification, high-support and low-support scaffolding, and negotiation type were examined. The findings of the study strongly supported the notion of fading and the timely withdrawing of assistance to enhance learners’ growth of autonomy.},
 year = {2014}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - A comparative Analysis of Teachers’ Scaffolding Practices
AU  - Parviz Birjandi
AU  - Sepideh Jazebi
Y1  - 2014/04/20
PY  - 2014
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20140203.14
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijll.20140203.14
T2  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
JF  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
JO  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
SP  - 154
EP  - 164
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-0221
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20140203.14
AB  - Despite a seemingly infinite variety of classifications, there is no generally-accepted instrument for the scrutiny of EFL teachers’ scaffolding practices. This study endeavored to provide a sound model based on which teachers’ SFs (i.e. Scaffolding Functions) and SSs (i.e. Scaffolding Strategies) could be collated. To this end, a mixed approach was employed and earlier models along with teachers’ practices were investigated. The result was a checklist comprising 55 SS items classified into linguistic, cognitive, metacognitive, social, cultural, and affective SFs. To develop a comparative analysis, 90 instruction hours of 30 teachers were recorded and transcribed. Short-Focused Conversations (SFCs) formed the basic unit of analysis according to which teachers’ qualification, high-support and low-support scaffolding, and negotiation type were examined. The findings of the study strongly supported the notion of fading and the timely withdrawing of assistance to enhance learners’ growth of autonomy.
VL  - 2
IS  - 3
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Parviz Birjandi

Deptartment of Language and Literature, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Sepideh Jazebi

Deptartment of Language and Literature, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Parviz Birjandi, Sepideh Jazebi. (2014). A comparative Analysis of Teachers’ Scaffolding Practices. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 2(3), 154-164. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20140203.14

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Parviz Birjandi; Sepideh Jazebi. A comparative Analysis of Teachers’ Scaffolding Practices. Int. J. Lang. Linguist. 2014, 2(3), 154-164. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20140203.14

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Parviz Birjandi, Sepideh Jazebi. A comparative Analysis of Teachers’ Scaffolding Practices. Int J Lang Linguist. 2014;2(3):154-164. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20140203.14

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijll.20140203.14,
  author = {Parviz Birjandi and Sepideh Jazebi},
  title = {A comparative Analysis of Teachers’ Scaffolding Practices},
  journal = {International Journal of Language and Linguistics},
  volume = {2},
  number = {3},
  pages = {154-164},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijll.20140203.14},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20140203.14},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijll.20140203.14},
  abstract = {Despite a seemingly infinite variety of classifications, there is no generally-accepted instrument for the scrutiny of EFL teachers’ scaffolding practices. This study endeavored to provide a sound model based on which teachers’ SFs (i.e. Scaffolding Functions) and SSs (i.e. Scaffolding Strategies) could be collated. To this end, a mixed approach was employed and earlier models along with teachers’ practices were investigated. The result was a checklist comprising 55 SS items classified into linguistic, cognitive, metacognitive, social, cultural, and affective SFs. To develop a comparative analysis, 90 instruction hours of 30 teachers were recorded and transcribed. Short-Focused Conversations (SFCs) formed the basic unit of analysis according to which teachers’ qualification, high-support and low-support scaffolding, and negotiation type were examined. The findings of the study strongly supported the notion of fading and the timely withdrawing of assistance to enhance learners’ growth of autonomy.},
 year = {2014}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - A comparative Analysis of Teachers’ Scaffolding Practices
AU  - Parviz Birjandi
AU  - Sepideh Jazebi
Y1  - 2014/04/20
PY  - 2014
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20140203.14
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijll.20140203.14
T2  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
JF  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
JO  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
SP  - 154
EP  - 164
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-0221
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20140203.14
AB  - Despite a seemingly infinite variety of classifications, there is no generally-accepted instrument for the scrutiny of EFL teachers’ scaffolding practices. This study endeavored to provide a sound model based on which teachers’ SFs (i.e. Scaffolding Functions) and SSs (i.e. Scaffolding Strategies) could be collated. To this end, a mixed approach was employed and earlier models along with teachers’ practices were investigated. The result was a checklist comprising 55 SS items classified into linguistic, cognitive, metacognitive, social, cultural, and affective SFs. To develop a comparative analysis, 90 instruction hours of 30 teachers were recorded and transcribed. Short-Focused Conversations (SFCs) formed the basic unit of analysis according to which teachers’ qualification, high-support and low-support scaffolding, and negotiation type were examined. The findings of the study strongly supported the notion of fading and the timely withdrawing of assistance to enhance learners’ growth of autonomy.
VL  - 2
IS  - 3
ER  -

Copy | Download