International Journal of Language and Linguistics

2014; 2(3): 154-164

Published online April 20, 2014 (http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/j/ijll)
doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20140203.14

A comparartive analysis of teachers’ scaffolding practices

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

Email address:
[email protected] (P. Birjandi), [email protected] (S. Jazebi)

To cite this article:

Parviz Birjandi, Sepideh Jazebi. A comparative Analysis of Teachers’ Scaffolding Practices. International Journal of Language and
Linguistics. Vol. 2, No. 3, 2014, pp. 154-164. doi: 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.

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

the definition and nature of scaffolding despite myriad

1. Introduction proposed valuable classifications. Such rich literature makes
Socio-cultural theory (SCT) has provided an invaluable it feasible to take the theoretically and empirically-studied
framework for the scrutiny of language interaction in the factors into account, and thus, to develop a robust and
classroom. Accordingly, individuals are not isolated entities reliable framework which can be comprehensive as well as
but indispensible members of their sociocultural community informative. Such a framework would result in a more
where the fusing robust inter-relation between the members profound grasp of classroom discourse and interaction based
and the community culminates in a reciprocal and on which teachers’ scaffolding practices and their relative
complementary configuration of one another. Within efficacy in the learners’ co-construction of knowledge can be
language classrooms, as an instance of this community, carefully examined and assessed. In this regard, Perry,
learning happens as a result of the teacher and the learners’ Hutchinson, and Thauberger (2008) assert that increasing
goal-directed interactions where the pivotal role of awareness of such strategies enables the teachers to
scaffolding comes to light. incorporate them in all aspects of their teaching and learning
The merits of employing qualitatively and quantitatively environment and become more flexible and sensitive to
appropriate scaffolding strategies in the process of language learners’ needs.
learning is what different scholars agree on (e.g. Anton,
1999; Forman, 2008; Fotos and Hinkel, 2007; Kozulin, 2. Review of Research Literature
2003). Improving peer interaction, meaningful
communication, enhancing learners’ confidence, risk-taking, 2.1. What Is Scaffolding
problem-solving ability, and critical thinking are a few Scaffolding is a commonly used construct which can be
advantages among numerous highlighted ones. traced back to sociocultural theory. Generally speaking, it
Nevertheless, there is no generally accepted operational refers to various kinds of support learners receive from the
definition of the scaffolding construct as it has been a matter teachers, peers, materials, and the learning context to acquire
of debate for many years (Kim and Hannafin, 2010; Pol, and expand their knowledge and abilities. For learning to be
Volman, and Beishuizen, 2010). most effective, Vygotsky (1987) highlights the crucial role
Through a close inquiry into the earlier studies, Pol, et al of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD); that is, “the
(2010) conclude that there is no consensus with respect to
 International Journal of Language and Linguistics 2014; 2(3): 154-164 155

distance between the actual developmental level as quite dynamic and encompasses the moment to moment
determined by independent problem solving and the level of contextual support provided by teachers and peers. In other
potential development as determined through problem words, teachers should continuously diagnose learners’ realm
solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more of ZPD and provide the adjusted support. Accordingly, the
capable peers” (p. 86). One of the early interpreters of complementary roles of these scaffolding types are
Vygotsky’s work, as Lantolf and Thorne (2006) assert, was underscored and soft scaffolds guide the learners in the
Bruner who coined the term scaffolding according to the application of hard scaffolds. In the same line, Daniels (2007,
ZPD construct and the required interaction and assisted p. 318) asserts that a ‘rigid scaffold’ which is similar to a task
performance for the psychological development. He defines analysis provided through teaching differs to a great extent
scaffolding in first language acquisition as “a process of with the ‘negotiated scaffold’ which arises out of
setting up the situation to make the child’s entry easy and collaborative activities. Equivalent notions are named as fixed
successful and then gradually pulling back and handling the and adaptive scaffolding respectively by Li and Lim (2008).
role to the child as he becomes skilled enough to manage it” As it is crystal clear, the teacher’s role as the facilitator
(1983, p. 60). Following Bruner’s work, Wood and Ross and mediator in the provision and efficacy of soft
(2006) refer to scaffolding as the process through which the scaffolding is noteworthy.
teachers support and provide assistance at a higher level of
the learner’s current capacity within his or her ZPD. 2.2. Teacher as the Mediator
Similarly, Yu (2004) states that “[The teacher] provides a Among different types of other regulation, teachers’ role
scaffold to assure that the [learners’] ineptitudes can be is of great significance as s/he plans, provides, directs, and
rescued or rectified by appropriate intervention, and then manipulates qualitatively and quantitatively proper support.
removes the scaffold part by part as the reciprocal structure With this end in view, Puntambekar and Hubscher (2005)
can stand on its own” (p. 60). argue that the teacher should be a domain expert as well as a
The crucial features of scaffolding, classified by Puntambekar facilitator to deliver effective scaffolding. As a result, the
and Hubscher (2005) and Pol, et al (2010) are summarized in teachers’ role in SCT differs to a great extent from that of a
what follows. 1) Diagnostic strategies: The first step for the conventional one, a distinction Feuerstein (2000) elaborates
teacher is to diagnose learners’ needs. 2) Contingency: Through on. In a conventional class, the learner is exposed to a
communicative interactions, a shared common understanding or stimulus (e.g. a question) and his follow up response forms
intersubjectivity will be built which, in turn, creates the the basis for the teacher-student interaction with the mere
foundation for the ongoing assessment and adaptation of the aim of problem-solving. Within mediated learning
required support through which learning happens. 3) Transfer: experience, conversely, a supportive person intervenes the
The gradual transfer of learning responsibility to the learners process of receiving the stimulus and producing the response
happens as they become more independent. 4) Fading: The with the purpose of supporting learner’s thinking process
teachers’ adjusted support gradually fades as the learners become and how s/he approaches the problem at hand. For the
autonomous. 5) Prolepsis: The proleptic feature, inherent in the learner to have a successful thinking process, the mediator
core of scaffolding, refers to the process of leaving implicit some should pay heed to the following indispensable key features:
information that may be provided subsequently (Daniels, 2007). 1) intentionality and reciprocity which refers to the
In addition to the aforementioned definitions and features, mediator’s purposeful intervention in an interaction where
the main functions of scaffolding have also been scrutinized no one is a superior; 2) mediation of meaning according to
through the socio-cultural lens. Wood and Ross (2006, p. which the how of problem-solving and the reflection on such
206) classify six different functions of the support provided a process is underscored in order to enhance learners’
by the teacher as 1) recruitment: enlisting the learner’s autonomy; and 3) transcendence which indicates the
interest in the task, 2) reduction in degrees of freedom: generalization of the acquired knowledge to other settings (p.
simplifying the task, 3) direction maintenance: keeping the 558). Most importantly, the mediator’s thorough reflection
learner motivated and in pursuit of the goal, 4) marking and attention to affective dimension of learning and factors
critical features: highlighting and accentuating certain such as behavior regulation, goal setting, awareness
relevant features, 5) frustration control: reducing stress and enhancement, and a sense of belonging, establishes a robust
frustration during problem solving, and 6) demonstration: contrast with the earlier conventional approaches.
demonstrating and modeling a solution to a task. (p. 206) Along the same lines, in the provision of a framework for
Due to the inseparable and pivotal role of scaffolding in SCT-based teaching practice, Watson (2007, pp. 35-44)
learning contexts, numerous studies have been conducted the offers a general guideline subsuming five macro-strategies
result of which are miscellaneous classifications and within which teachers innovate and recreate their own
interpretations. Nevertheless, pertinent to this study is the context-based micro-strategies. The proposed
degree of teachers’ scaffolds dynamicity according to which macro-strategies are: 1) fostering learners’ self-awareness
Saye and Brush (2002) categorize scaffolds into hard and soft and autonomy through goal-setting and motivation
types. The former refers to “static supports that can be enhancement; 2) underscoring individual differences; 3)
anticipated and planned in advance based on typical learner Providing learning affordances or a variety of linguistic as
difficulties with a task” (p.2). The latter, on the other hand, is well as social, historical, and cultural opportunities where
156 Parviz Birjandi and Sepideh Jazebi: A comparative Analysis of Teachers’ Scaffolding Practices

individualized learning is possible; 4) facilitating scaffolding practices. To this end, a mixed approach (i.e. top
collaborative problem-solving through scaffolding or the down and bottom up) was employed to shed brighter lights
expert-novice interaction within the learners’ ZPDs; and 5) on the previously conducted studies in the field. Furthermore,
promoting multidimensional language awareness in regard to investigate the practicality of the tentative model, teachers
to cultural, historical, ideological, linguistic, and genre SFs and SSs were compared and contrasted according to the
-specific aspects. model. Consequently, the following research questions were
Closely related to the notion of teachers’ meditational addressed.
practice is the concept of pedagogical knowledge. 1) What SSs do Iranian EFL teachers employ in their
Shulman (1986, p.9) introduced the term teachers’ teaching practices?
‘Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)’ which refers to the 2) Is there a statistically significant relationship between
intersection between teachers’ content knowledge and the the teachers’ qualification and their scaffolding
numerous means and techniques employed to make it practices?
comprehensible. SSs, as Pawan (2008) reiterates, is a form 3) Is there a statistically significant relationship between
of PCK. In other words, teachers’ choice of SSs depends on SFC negotiation type and the teachers’ scaffolding
their practical knowledge of how to teach, which emerges practices?
from teachers’ prior experiences including teacher education, 4) Is there a statistically significant relationship between
life experiences, interaction with colleagues and learners, high-support and low-support scaffolding and the
perceived values and constraints operating within the school teachers’ scaffolding practices?
and classroom environment, as well as the teacher
interpretations of the particular instructional context. 4. Methodology
Germane to the appropriate choice of SSs, is the right
degree or quantity of strategy provision. Ohta (2000) 4.1. Participants
pinpoints the underlying causes of development hindrance in
instructional settings and ascribes it to too easy tasks or too The participants in this study fell into two distinct
much assistance. Similarly, Johnson (2003) asserts that too categories. The first category formed the sample for the
much accommodation can hinder the learner’s progression interview and the second category was employed for the
from other-regulation to self-regulation, the result of which recording and close scrutiny of their actual scaffolding
is fossilization. Hence, interactional cues are of great practices. Heterogeneity of the teachers for the first stage of
significance in the appreciation of learners’ actual and data collection was essential in order to come up with a
potential level, and consequently, in the appropriate degree broad range of SSs. As a result, a team of 30 volunteer
of scaffolding provision. teachers from eight EFL institutes with heterogeneous
In sum, teacher’s awareness and knowledge of the process demographic information were randomly selected.
of scaffolding can be altered via teachers’ awareness of With regard to the second stage of data collection (i.e.
diagnostic strategies, contingency, transfer, fading, recording the classes), a different group of participants was
fossilization and feedback provision. required as the formerly mentioned group was consciously
familiarized with the notion of scaffolding and consequently
the focus of the present study. Therefore, thirty participants
3. Purpose of the Study were equally selected from two English institutes. Table 2
The present study was conducted to provide a framework illustrates their main characteristics.
for the scrutiny of EFL teachers’ moment to moment
Table 1. The participants’ demographic information in the interview.

Age no. Education no. Experience no. Level no.

20-29 13 Relevant 19 ≤ 6 years 12 Elementary 3
30-39 9 Irrelevant 11 ≥ 6 years 18 Intermediate 11
Over40 8 Advanced 16

Table 2. The participants’ demographic information in the recordings.

Age no. Education no. Experience no. Level no.

20-29 7 Relevant 20 ≤ 6 years 18 Elementary 15
30-39 19 Irrelevant 10 ≥ 6 years 12 Intermediate 15
Over40 3

4.2. Instruments With this end in view, top-down and bottom-up approaches
were consecutively employed. Following a top-down
In order to provide a robust and sound basis for the approach, the previously proposed functions and strategies
quantitative and qualitative scrutiny of the employed SSs in were inquired, extracted, compared and contrasted in the
the language classrooms, a tentative model was proposed. earlier researches (e.g. Beatty and Nunan, 2004; Diaz, 2009;
 International Journal of Language and Linguistics 2014; 2(3): 154-164 157

Li and Lim, 2008; Ge and Land, 2004; Kim and Hannafin, practice in the real context. Due to the teachers’
2010; Molenaar, Boxtel, and Sleegers, 2010; Panselinas and unfamiliarity with the construct of scaffolding, at least
Komis, 2009; Pawan, 2008; Pentimonti and Justice, 2010; consciously, an introduction was given to the participants.
Perry, et al, 2008; Rojas-Drummond, Sharma and Hannafin, The time of the interview ranged from 20 minutes to an hour
2005; Villamil and De Guerrero, 1996; and Yelland and and it was conducted in Persian (i.e. teachers’ L1) to provide
Masters, 2007). On the basis of the commonalities, the a more secure atmosphere where they could express
researchers came up with a tentative model. To verify the themselves with no barriers. The recorded sessions went
alignment of theory and practice, a cardinal procedure through careful transcription and analysis.
accentuated by Dornyei (2003), a bottom-up approach was The final step of the data collection was to record and
applied according to which teachers’ actual practice of SFs transcribe the SFCs. With the official permission of two
and SSs were collated. The result was a checklist embracing institutes, three sessions of thirty teachers’ classes were
55 items (i.e. SSs) classified into six SFs presented in what audio-recorded. Thus, 90 hours of their teaching were
follows. examined to select the SFCs which is a type of instructional
a) Linguistic scaffolding (9 items): The simplification of conversation coined by Panselinas and Komis (2009). This
instructional language via various means such as term refers to the dialogues in which negotiation for
form-based descriptions, feedback provision and meaning and the co-construction of knowledge in the pursuit
Consciousness Raising (CR). (Pawan, 2008, p. 1454) of the learning goal occur. In order to provide a solid
b) Cognitive scaffolding (20 items): The enhancement of foundation for the SFCs selection in the study, the following
comprehension via 1) conceptual scaffolding (i.e. empirical features of SFCs were also employed.
supportive frameworks for meaning such as charts), 1) Spiral/distributed turn taking
and 2) Procedural scaffolding (i.e. supportive 2) A goal-directed conversation in which the goal is
framework for learning procedures). (Molennar et al., accomplished
2010 and Yelland and Masters, 2007 ) 3) Unpredictable utterances of either the teacher or the
c) Metacognitive scaffolding (11 items): The learner
improvement of the structure and regulation of 4) Teacher-fronted conversation
cognitive processes, the co-construction of knowledge, 5) Main features of scaffolding (discussed in the literature
and the monitoring and control of learning processes review )
(Molenaar et al., 2010). After the SFCs selection procedure, they were transcribed
d) Social scaffolding (8 items): The employment of social carefully for further analysis. A general transcription
interaction (e.g., group work). (Pawan, 2008, p. 1454) convention was used as there is no generally accepted
e) Cultural scaffolding (2 items): The employment of standardized transcription system for discourse analysis.
culturally and historically familiar artifacts, tools and According to Johnstone (2008), transcriptions cannot
informational sources. (Pawan, 2008, p. 1454) include everything; therefore, the researchers had to select
f) Affective/Emotive scaffolding (4 items): The provision what was fruitful for this specific study. In sum, 500
of emotional support via encouragement and approval. conversations were selected and the SFCs duration ranged
(Yelland & Masters, 2007, p. 367) from 15 seconds to 3 minutes and 45 seconds.
This checklist encompasses the key indicators of the
complex construct of scaffolding and forms the basis for the 5. Data Analysis and Results
procedure of data collection and the follow up analysis. First,
it was employed in the construction of the structured Prior to the analysis of the obtained data according to the
interview with 27 items categorized into three sections research questions, the reliability of the checklist was
through which the employment of scaffolding in general, the estimated and Cronbach’s alpha proved to be high (.84) with
use of specific SFs, and scaffolding in various teaching 55 items. Afterwards, the data were analyzed, a summary of
practices (e.g. error correction, problems in communication, which is presented in what follows. Worth noting is the fact
tasks accomplishment, learning strategies, and critical that teachers’ scaffolding practices were analyzed at three
thinking) were scrutinized. And second, it served as the levels of STAU (Scaffolding Total Average Use), SFs, and
coding scheme for the SFCs transcription analysis. SSs.
4.3. Procedure 5.1. Teachers’ Employed SSs in Their Teaching Practices

As mentioned earlier, a top-down approach was first Through a detailed analysis of the transcribed interviews,
employed based on which a tentative model was proposed. some neglected SSs including form-based CR and
In order to offer a more valid framework, the model went meaning-based CR strategies, creating fun to provide an
through revision by three domain experts according to which attractive atmosphere and disagreeing with learner’s
some re-specifications were made. Afterwards, opinion or creating doubt to improve critical thinking were
extrapolating a bottom-up approach, the structured interview traced. Hence, the above-mentioned SSs were added to the
was conducted to examine the harmony between the model as the previously selected strategies proved to be
literature-based SFs and SSs and the teachers’ actual verifiable.
158 Parviz Birjandi and Sepideh Jazebi: A comparative Analysis of Teachers’ Scaffolding Practices

5.2. Teachers’ Qualification and Their Scaffolding significant in all functions (Table 3). Taking the SSs into
Practices account, 12 of the significant mean differences were in favor
of form-based SSs, whereas 20 others won favor with
In order to delve into the relationship between teachers’ meaning-based SSs (Table 4). As it is clear, the rest of the
qualification and their SSs, three major subcategories of items were discarded due to the insignificant mean difference.
their demographic information including teaching level,
teaching experience, and educational major were taken into 5.4. High-Support and Low-Support Scaffolding and
account to classify them into more-qualified and Teachers’ Scaffolding Practices
less-qualified teachers. Consequently, those with
intermediate classes, relevant teaching major, and six years Kostouli (2005) and Pentimonti and Justice (2010)
of teaching experience or more were labeled as provide a practical basis for the distinction between
more-qualified teachers. Due to the non-normality of the high-support and low-support scaffolding. Pursuing their
sample, a Mann Whitney U test was conducted the result of practice, the SFCs and the applied SSs were organized into
which revealed a significant difference (U = 22193, Z = high-support and low-support according to the cut-off
-5.591, p = .000) between more qualified (N = 258, M = numbers of teacher’s words (70), students’ words (30), and
42.85) and less qualified (N = 242, M = 54.69) teachers in turns (14) in each SFC. If the total fell below these cut-off
their STAUs and less-qualified teachers outperformed numbers obtained from data collation, the conversation was
more-qualified ones. To narrow down the difference to SFs, named as low-support and if the number exceeded the
the result of Mann Whitney Test and mean comparison proposed criteria, the SFCs were regarded as high-support.
showed that social (U = 18262.50, Z = -8.029, p = .000) and As the difference among the SFCs length is of great
cognitive functions (U = 23773.50, Z = -4.616, p = .000) significance, 101 conversations with a time range of 15
were the source of this variance. For further scrutiny, the SSs seconds to 3 minutes and 45 seconds were included.
were studied and Less-qualified teachers outdid in 13 items Afterwards, Mann-Whitney Test was run to scrutinize their
including showing instead of explaining, meaning-based CR, statistical difference in the STAUs. The result illustrated a
meaning-based prediction, simplifying tasks, visual prompts, significant difference (U = 436, Z = -5.65, p = .000, N =55)
meaning-based feedback, meaning-based negotiation, according to which the high-support SFCs (median = 1.19;
participation prompt, offering suggestion, soliciting mean rank = 69.02, N = 46) statistically exceeded the
suggestion, signaling interest, pausing for students’ response, low-support category (median = .67; mean rank = 35.93) in
and repeating a previously spoken utterance. their STAUs. In other words, high-support SFCs included
more SSs. To further analyze the difference, a follow up
5.3. SFC’s Negotiation Type and Teachers’ Scaffolding Mann Whitney Test was employed (Table5).
Practices As it is illustrated in the table, the teachers in high-support
SFCs outperformed those in low support conversations in all
According to the dichotomy of form and meaning, the the categories with the exception of cultural function.
SFCs were classified into two categories. This research Further analysis revealed that the teachers significantly
question aimed at investigating any possible relationship outperformed in their strategy use in high-support SFCs with
between these two negotiation types and the quantity and regard to seventeen SSs including simplified language,
quality of EFL teachers’ SSs. A Mann Whitney U Test was direct instruction of form/FoFS, example provision,
utilized to compare the STAUs in both negotiation types. reducing the available choices, simplifying tasks, in and out
The result displayed a significant difference (U = 27200.500, of the class connections, elaboration prompt, completing
Z = -2.245, p = .025) of the dominant use of meaning-based students’ utterances, participation prompts, offering
STAUs (N = 220, M = 50.93) in comparison with the suggestions, soliciting suggestions, signaling interests,
form-based STAUs (N = 280, M = 46.74). Consequently, the pausing for students’ response, repeating, encouraging,
difference among the SFs and SSs were also examined to helping students reflect on learning, and finally helping
create a comprehensive picture of the whole. students think about thinking.
Excluding affective SF, the difference proved to be

Table 3. A comparison among different scaffolding functions with regard to the negotiation types.

Linguistic Cognitive Metacognitive Social Cultural Affective

M R of form-based negotiation 354.35 181.56 239.33 230.90 235.19 239.80

M R of meaning-based negotiation 118.33 338.25 264.72 275.45 269.99 264.12

Mann-Whitney U 1721.500 11496.00 27671.500 25312.00 26512.00 27804.400

Z -18.171 -12.050 -1.968 -3.424 -4.674 -1.896

Asymo.Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .049 .001 .000 .058

+ M R (Mean Rank)
 International Journal of Language and Linguistics 2014; 2(3): 154-164 159

previously encountered points and consequent

Table 4. Frequently employed SSs in meaning-based and form-based generalization. Metalinguistic awareness and explicit
SFCs.
knowledge of language fit in with this category. Further, he
Form-based SSs Meaning-based SSs proposes the noticing hypothesis according to which
Read aloud Simplified language consciousness raising and noticing is the fundamental key
Slow pace Example provision
to learning. In addition, he elaborates on conscious learning
Direct instruction of form (FOFS) Meaning-based CR
Primary focus on meaning and and presents its main features as noticing, having intention
Meaning prediction and effort, understanding language principles, planned
secondary focus on form (FOF)
Form-based feedback In and out of class connection studying, and verbalizing the acquired knowledge. This
Form-based negotiation Elaboration prompt hypothesis, as Fotos (2001) reiterates, has given rise to
Form-based CR Meaning-based feedback
various consciousness raising tasks and methods the
Form-based prediction Completing students’ utterances
Modeling Meaning-based negotiation benefits of which are highlighted in various studies (e.g.
Participation prompt Dekeyser, 1998; Nassaji and Swain, 2000). In addition, due
to the learners’ limited capability of simultaneous
processing of from and meaning, a viewpoint highlighted
6. Discussion by some scholars such as Skehan (1998) and Tomasselo
6.1. Teachers’ Employed SSs in Their Teaching Practices (1998), the strategies in the present study are classified into
form-based and meaning-based categories.
The data analysis of the structured interview led to the Creating fun through language play, as another neglected
addition of five scaffolding strategies including form-based strategy, has been in the spotlight for many years. Cook
CR and meaning-based CR strategies, creating fun via (1997) defines language play with reference to formal level
language play to provide an attractive atmosphere and (i.e. playing with sounds and grammatical structures) and
disagreeing with learner’s opinion or creating doubt to the semantic level (i.e. playing with units of meaning to
improve critical thinking to the model. create fiction). The link between language play and
The notion of CR and its efficacy in language acquisition language learning can be presented via theoretical and
have given rise to numerous studies in the field of SLA. practical standpoints. The former refers to the overt role of
Schmidt (1990, 2010) defines the term consciousness from metalingual and the covert role of poetic function of
three main perspectives: 1) Consciousness as intention: The language (Jakobson, 1960). The latter, on the other hand,
distinction between incidental versus intentional or reiterates the practical merits of such discourse in language
goal-directed learning illustrates the vital role of intention learning such as learners’ enriched affective engagement
in language learning, 2) consciousness as attention: and thus a soared sense of belonging to the classroom
Regardless of the degree of intentionality, consciousness as community, more noticeable and memorable lessons,
attention encompasses different kinds of subcategories such expansion of vocabulary knowledge, practice of authentic
as alertness, detection, orientation, and etc. Their language use, extension of interactions, enhancement of
commonality lies in the function of directing information collaborative attention to a specific linguistic form, and
processing despite insufficient skills. 3) Consciousness as pushed output (Cekaite and Aronsson, 2005; Cook, 1997;
awareness: Three levels of awareness have been proposed Sullivan, 2000; Swain, 2000). As pointed out in the
including perception, noticing, and understanding. above-mentioned studies, the affective function of this
Perception is not necessarily conscious whereas noticing is strategy is self-evident.
the focal and conscious attention. Understanding, with a
greater degree of awareness, involves conscious analysis of

Table 5. Mann-whitney U test for the SF comparison of high and low support SFCs.

Linguistic Cognitive Metacognitive Social Cultural Affective

M R of form-based negotiation 44.00 40.17 43.95 38.72 49.19 41.39
M R of meaning-based negotiation 59.37 63.95 59.43 65.68 53.16 62.49
Mann-Whitney U 880.000 669.500 877.000 589.500 1165.500 736.500
Z -2.633 -4.065 -2.669 -4.610 -1.167 -3.655
Asymo.Sig. (2-tailed) .008 .000 .000 .000 .243 .008

The final category of newly-mentioned strategies, namely increased difficulty level of the task at a certain stage which,
disagreeing with learner’s opinion or creating doubt to in turn, enhances learners’ creative production. With regard
improve critical thinking, can be located within to Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) classification of
problematizing strategies as one subsection of scaffolding functions, problematizing is inter-related with
metacognitive function. In an attempt to elaborate on the highlighting critical features and direction maintenance
nature of problematizing strategies, Reiser (2004) asserts (Reiser, 2004). In an experimental study conducted by
that the provision of such scaffolding happens via the Molenaar, et al (2010), the efficacy of such strategies in
160 Parviz Birjandi and Sepideh Jazebi: A comparative Analysis of Teachers’ Scaffolding Practices

language acquisition became apparent. 6.3. SFC’s Negotiation Type and Teachers’ Scaffolding
In sum, the newly-mentioned strategies by the teachers Practices
were perceived as noteworthy items and thus added to the
model. The importance of comprehension and meaning
construction in language learning especially at early stages
6.2. Teachers’ Qualification and Their Scaffolding of language acquisition might be accounted for the obtained
Practices findings. This noted standpoint is accentuated by Olson and
Land (2007) in the realm of literacy development. Along the
The findings of the study revealed the more frequent same lines, ‘Message abundancy’ is what Gibbons (2003, p.
employment of cognitive and social SFs by Less qualified 267) has coined to refer to simultaneous access to a variety
teachers which can be discussed form two principal of meaning-based sources via different language modes and
viewpoints: learners and teachers. semiotic systems to support students’ learning. Furthermore,
6.2.1. L earners Kramsch (2004) voices her support for the importance of
The choice of SSs largely depends on the social context meaning over form and invites teachers to go beyond form
where one of the most determining factors is the learners’ and discuss different kinds of meaning including
ZPDs. More frequent use of SSs by less-qualified teachers grammatical, social, cultural, political, and etc. In
might be due to the fact that their learners are at the conclusion, Buenner (2013) stresses that meaning-based
elementary level, and hence, a lot of high-support strategies contain more contextual support and contingency
scaffolding might be required which in turn results in a in comparison with form-based ones. Therefore, it can be
distinguishable growth in their quantity of SSs. Taking the confirmed that the scaffolding features are more
dominant SFs (i.e. cognitive and social) into account, it can conspicuous in meaning-based strategies, hence, more
be stated that such learners are incapable of simultaneous frequently employed in the SFCs.
form and meaning processing (Skehan, 1998); furthermore, 6.4. High-Support and Low-Support Scaffolding and
meaning is of paramount significance in comparison with Teachers’ Scaffolding Practices
form (Kramsch, 2004); and consequently, a great deal of
meaning-based support are required prior to focusing on The findings revealed that the teachers in high-support
language form. SFCs outperformed those in low support conversations in all
With regard to the more frequent use of social strategies, it the categories with the exception of cultural function. This
could be inferred that the probability of getting frustrated fact is similarly observed by Pawan (2008), as the teachers
due to the massive cognitive load of new information at the in his study have a low average in their knowledge and
elementary level is high, as proposed by Sweller and therefore usage of cultural scaffolding. Consequently,
Chandler (1994) via cognitive load theory. As a result, the training and awareness enhancement are required to
requirements of social support in such context could be overcome this deficiency.
predictable. The distinction between high and low support is a matter
of challenge and support balance in SFCs. This balance can
6.2.2. Teachers be achieved by the appropriate quantity and quality of
It should be noted that effective teaching is the outcome of moment-to-moment scaffolding which will finally result in
hard and soft scaffolding amalgamation (Hammonds and learner’s autonomy (Van Lier, 1996). Similarly, the notion of
Gibbons, 2005; Maggioli, 2013; and Van Lier, 1996). fading (i.e. gradual removal of high support) which is
Therefore, the pre-planning is regarded as crucial as the closely related to the shift from other-regulation to
moment-to moment support. It might be concluded that self-regulation is stressed by many scholars such as Proctor,
more qualified teachers are more-experienced in designing Dalton, and Grisham (2007) and Puntambekar and Hubscher
the lesson plans and tasks; therefore, less soft scaffolding (2005). As the learners are at the early stages of learning, the
will be required as the challenges are predictable, and thus, dominant frequency of high support strategies is eminently
preventable for them. reasonable.
The findings are also consistent with Speer and Wagner In addition, as Mariani (1997) points out, the best learning
(2009) argument according to which teachers’ pedagogical environment is created by high challenge and high support.
knowledge is one among many influential factors in He adds that other types of combination between these two
scaffolding provision. Contextualization and paying attention factors culminate in defective learning contexts. Frustration
to intricate contextual factors, for instance, is mentioned by is the result of high challenge and low support, long-term
Sharkey (2004) as a pivotal factor. In addition, pedagogical dependence and little learning is the outcome of low
content knowledge, as Gatbonton (2008) stresses, can be challenge and high support, and finally, boredom is created
acquired in a short period of training, and consequently, veils due to low challenge and low support. Thus, the efficacy and
the difference between the novice and the experienced. As a significance of high support SSs endorses the obtained
result, it can be implied that teachers’ knowledge and results.
experience are not the mere source of scaffolding choice From a holistic perspective, the findings of this study
variation and other factors are involved as well. allude to the notion of fading which refers to the gradual
 International Journal of Language and Linguistics 2014; 2(3): 154-164 161

removal of support as the learner becomes more autonomous Appendix

and take on more responsibility for learning. The term is
coined by Collins, Brown, and Newman (1989) and defined The Proposed Model of Scaffolding
as ‘Once the learner has a grasp of the target skill, the master Linguistic scaffolding
reduces (or fades) his participation, providing only limited o Using simpler language forms
hints, refinements, and feedback to the learner, who o Reading out loud
practices successively approximating smooth execution of o Slowing your pace
the whole skill’(p. 456). Furthermore, fading is a gradual o Providing direct instruction of language (FOFS)
process accompanied by less frequent and less detailed o Paying primary focus on meaning and secondary focus
strategies. With reference to this definition, Pea (2004) on form (FOF)
infers that fading is an indispensable feature of scaffolding o Providing form-based feedback (input providing)
without which this support develops distributed intelligence, o Negotiating the form (output prompting)
a concept drastically different from scaffolding. He contrasts o Form-based consciousness raising (e.g.
distributed intelligence with scaffold-with-fading and adds stressing a word)
that this ‘intelligence is distributed across people, o Predicting the form the learner is going to say
environments including designed artifacts, and situations’ (p. Cognitive scaffolding
431). In this respect, assistance such as availability of tools o Providing a model as an example (by talking about it or
amplifies intelligence and unassisted performance is performing it)
unnecessary. In other words, there is no scaffolding without o Talking about mental processes and strategies used to
fading. solve a problem
In sum, the obtained results and the notion of fading o Showing instead of explaining
alluded in the model can be employed to confirm the o Using examples
practicality of the model for the analysis and comparison of o Reviewing
EFL teachers’ actual practice of scaffolding. o Activating prior knowledge
o Meaning-based consciousness raising (e.g. asking
7. Conclusion confirmation checks and comprehension checks)
o Predicting the meaning the learner is going to say
The development of an enriched model of scaffolding for a o Prompting students to describe what might happen next
comparative analysis of EFL teachers’ practices was the main or at the end
aim of the study. A model with 6 SFs and 55 SSs was o Reducing the number of available choices to learners to
proposed the appeal of which lies in the amalgamation of a choose from
bottom-up (research-based) and top-down (literature--based) o Simplifying the task by breaking it into parts
and top-down (literature-based) approaches in order to o Using explicit connections between in-class and out of
appreciate the complexity of the construct. It became apparent class experiences
that less-qualified teachers outperformed the more-qualified o Making your expectations explicit
ones with regard to the cognitive and social SFs; high-support o Using real objects
scaffolding required more frequent use of SSs; and o Using visuals such as charts, posters, pictures, concept
meaning-based support was more dominant. Interestingly, all maps and alike
the results can be discussed via the lens of fading notion, a o Using elaboration prompts (to help learners with the
vital feature of scaffolding, without which fossilization and articulation of thought and expression)
the prolonged dependence on other-regulated assistance occur, o Using procedural prompts (to help learners complete a
and thus, learners’ autonomy in self-discovery is hindered. specific task, e.g. an example of this is…, another
The pedagogical implications of the study can be presented reason is that…)
from two main perspectives. First, the mastery of a set of o Using generalization prompts (to prompt transfer from
pre-determined SSs does not alter teachers’ qualifications and specific to general)
the SSs efficacy is largely reliant on countless contextual o Providing meaning-based feedback (input providing)
factors as it is illustrated in the studies conducted on o Completing what learners said incompletely
teacher-learner relationship (e.g. language learning strategies). o Meaning-based negotiation of content (output
Nevertheless, increasing teachers’ awareness of different SSs prompting)
and enriching their pedagogical content knowledge can be Metacognitive scaffolding
entirely influential in their practice. Second, fading is an o Problematizing (creating doubt to improve critical
indispensable element of scaffolding and teachers should pay thinking)
heed to individuals’ ZPDs for the timely removal of the o Problematizing (disagreeing with the learner)
assistance. o Orienting learners’ attention to their feelings
Needless to say, further studies in different social contexts o Orienting learners’ attention to the point
are required to prove the efficacy and practicality of the o Orienting learners’ attention to the task demands
model. o Helping learners with the identification of the effects of
162 Parviz Birjandi and Sepideh Jazebi: A comparative Analysis of Teachers’ Scaffolding Practices

thinking on learning [9] DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive

o Helping learners with the planning of their learning perspectives on learning and practicing second language
grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form
process in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). New
o Helping learners with monitoring of their progress York: Cambridge University Press.
o Helping learners with the evaluation of the content of
an activity [10] Diaz, N. R. (2009). A Comparative study of native and
non-native teachers’ scaffolding techniques in SLA at an
o Helping learners with the reflection on their learning early age. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense,
process 17, 57-73.
o Giving guidelines to learners for thinking about
thinking [11] Dornyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language
research: Construction, administration, and processing. NJ:
Social scaffolding Lawrence Erlbaum.
o Prompting active participation
o Offering suggestion [12] Feuerstein, R. S. (2000). Mediated learning experience,
o Soliciting suggestion instrumental enrichment and the learning propensity
assessment device. In Interdisciplinary counsel on
o Signaling interest development and learning disorders, ICDL clinical practice
o Pausing so that learners can have time to respond guidelines: Redefining the standards of care for infants,
o Repeating a previously spoken utterance children, and families with special needs (pp. 557-578). MD:
o Using content-free space-holders of feedback (e.g. uh, The Interdisciplinary Council on Development and Learning
yeah, my God) Disorders.
o Giving directives (getting the students to do something [13] Forman, R. (2008). Using notions of scaffolding and
such as requests or commands) intertextuality to understand the bilingual teaching of English
Cultural scaffolding in Thailand. Linguistics and Education, 19(4), 319-332.
o Using L1 [14] Fotos, S. (2001). Cognitive approaches to grammar
o Referring to familiar cultural knowledge instruction. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a
Affective scaffolding second or foreign language (3rd ed.) (pp. 267-284). Boston:
o Encouraging learners Heinel & Heinle Publishers.
o Controlling their frustration [15] Fotos, S., & Hinkel, E. (2007). Form-focused instruction and
o Making evaluative comments output for second language writing gains. In S. Fotos & H.
o Creating fun Nassaji (Eds.), Form-focused instruction and teacher
education: Studies in the honour of Rod Ellis (pp. 131-144).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
References [16] Gatbonton, E. (2008). Looking beyond teachers’ classroom
behavior: Novice and experienced ESL teachers’ pedagogical
[1] Anton, M. (1999). The discourse of a learner-centered knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 161-182.
classroom: Sociocultural perspectives on teacher learner
interaction in the second language classroom. The Modern [17] Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2004). A conceptual framework for
Language Journal, 83(3), 303-318. scaffolding ill-structured problem-solving processes using
question prompts and peer interactions. ETR & D, 52(2),
[2] Beatty, K., & Nunn, D. (2004). Computer-mediated 5-22.
collaborative learning. System, 32(2), 165-183.
[18] Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher
[3] Bruner, J. (1983). Child’s talk. New York: Norton. interactions with students in a content-based classroom.
TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 247-273.
[4] Buenner, P. S. (2013). Do Scaffolding Interactions Exist in
the Thai Classroom? Journal of Language Studies, 13(3), [19] Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2005). Putting scaffolding to
17-30. work: The contribution of scaffolding in articulating ESL
education. Prospectives, 20(1), 6-30.
[5] Cekaite, A., & Aronsson, K. (2005). Language play, a
collaborative resource in children’s L2 learning. Applied [20] Jakobson, R. (1960). Closing statement: Linguistics and
Linguistics, 26(2), 169-191. poetics. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language. Cambridge:
MIT Press.
[6] Collins, A, Brown, J. S., & Newinan, S. E. (1989). Cognitive
apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and [21] Johnson, M. (2003). A philosophy of second language
mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, leartiing, and acquisition. London: Yale University Press.
instrrrction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp, 453-494).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. [22] Johnstone, B. (2008). Discourse analysis. Malden: Blackwell
Publishing.
[7] Cook, G. (1997). Language play, language learning. English
Language Teaching Journal, 51(3), 224-231. [23] Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Scaffolding problem
solving in technology-enhanced learning environments
[8] Daniels, H. (2007). Pedagogy. In H. Daniels, M. Cole & J. V. (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice.
Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. Computers & Education, 56(2), 403-417.
307-331). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 International Journal of Language and Linguistics 2014; 2(3): 154-164 163

[24] Kostouli, T. (2005). Co-constructing writing contexts in promote self-regulated learning. International Journal of
classrooms: Scaffolding, collaboration, and asymmetries of Educational Research, 47(2), 97-108.
knowledge. In T. Kostouli (Ed.), Writing in context(s):
Textual practices and learning processes in sociocultural [40] Pol, J. V. D. & Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010).
settings (pp. 93-116). Boston: Springer. Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A decade of
research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271-296.
[25] Kozulin, A. (2003). Psychological tools and mediated
learning. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. Ageyev & S. Miller [41] Proctor, C. P., Dalton, B., & Grisham, D. L. (2007).
(Eds.), Vygotsky's educational theory in cultural context (pp. Scaffolding English language learners and struggling readers
15-38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. in a universal literacy environment with embedded strategy
instruction and vocabulary support. Journal of Literacy
[26] Kramsch, C. (2004). The language teacher as go-between. Research, 39(1), 71-93.
Utbildning & Demokrati, 13(3), 37–60.
[42] Puntambekar, S., & Hubscher, R. (2005). Tools for
[27] Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory scaffolding students in a complex learning environment:
and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational
Oxford University Press. Psychologist, 40(1), 1-12.
[28] Li, D. D., & Lim, C. P. (2008). Scaffolding online historical [43] Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The
inquiry tasks: A case study of two secondary school mechanisms of structuring and problematizing learner work.
classrooms. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1394–1410. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273-304.
[29] Maggioli, G. H. D. (2013). Of metaphors and literalization: [44] Rojas-Drummond, S., Mercer, N., & Dabrowski, E. (2001).
Reconceptualizing scaffolding in language teaching. Collaboration, scaffolding and the promotion of problem
Encounters on Education, 14, 133-150. solving strategies in Mexican pre-schoolers. European
Journal of Psychology of Education, 16(2), 179-196.
[30] Mariani, L. (1997). Teacher support and teacher challenge in
promoting learner autonomy. Perspectives, 23(2). Retrieved [45] Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. A. (2002). A summary of research
November 20, 2013, from exploring hard and soft scaffolding for teachers and students
www.learningpaths.org/papers/papersupport.htm using a multimedia supported learning environment. The
Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 1(2), 1-12.
[31] Molenaar, I., Boxtel, C. A. V., & Sleegers, P. J. C. (2010). The
effects of scaffolding metacognitive activities in small groups. [46] Schmidt, R. (1990). The Role of Consciousness in Second
Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1727-1738. Language Learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.
[32] Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective [47] Schmidt, R. (2010). Attention, awareness, and individual
on corrective feedback: The effect of random versus differences in language learning. In W. M. Chan, S. Chi, K. N.
negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Cin, J. Istanto, M. Nagami, J. W. Sew, T. Suthiwan, & I.
Awareness, 9, 34–51. Walker, Proceedings of CLaSIC 2010, Singapore, December
2-4 (pp. 721-737). Singapore: National University of
[33] Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Singapore, Centre for Language Studies.
Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of
proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In [48] Sharkey, J. (2004). ESOL Teachers’ Knowledge of Context as
J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language Critical Mediator in Curriculum Development. TESOL
learning (pp. 51-78). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Quarterly, 38(2), 279-299.
[34] Olson, C. B., & Land, R. (2007). A cognitive strategies [49] Sharma, P., & Hannafin, N. (2005). Learner perception of
approach to reading and writing instruction for English scaffolding in supporting critical thinking. Journal of
language learners in secondary school. Research in the computing in higher education, 17(1), 17-42.
Teaching of English, 41(3), 269-303.
[50] Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching:
[35] Panselinas, G., & Komis, V. (2009). Scaffolding through talk Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review,
in groupwork learning. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4(2), 57(1), 1-22.
86-103.
[51] Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning.
[36] Pawan, F. (2008). Content-area teachers and scaffolded Oxford: Oxford University Press.
instruction for English language learners. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 24(6), 1450–1462. [52] Speer, N. M., & Wagner, J. F. (2009). Knowledge needed by a
teacher to provide analytic scaffolding during undergraduate
[37] Pea, R.D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of mathematics classroom discussions. Journal for Research in
scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, Mathematics Education, 40(5), 530-562.
education, and human activity. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 13, 423–451. [53] Sullivan, P. N. (2000). Playfulness as mediation in
communicative language teaching in a Vietnamese classroom.
[38] Pentimonti, J. M., & Justice, L. M. (2010). Teachers’ use of In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second
scaffolding strategies during read alouds in the preschool language learning (pp. 115-132). Oxford: Oxford University
classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37(4), Press.
241-248.
[54] Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond:
[39] Perry, N. E., Hutchinson, L., & Thauberger, C. (2008). Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P.
Talking about teaching self-regulated learning: Scaffolding Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language
student teachers’ development and use of practices that learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
164 Parviz Birjandi and Sepideh Jazebi: A comparative Analysis of Teachers’ Scaffolding Practices

[55] Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is [60] Watson, J. R. (2007). Applying sociocultural theory to a
difficult to learn. Cognition and instruction, 12(3), 185-233. language classroom environment with second-year students
of college Russian. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bryn
[56] Tomasello, M. (1998). Introduction: A cognitive -functional Mawr College-Pennsylvania.
perspective on language structure. In M. Tomasello (Ed.),
The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional [61] Wood, D., Bruner, J. & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring
approaches to language structure (pp. vii–xxiii). Mahwah, NJ: in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and
Erlbaum. Psychiatry, 17, pp. 89-100
[57] Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: [62] Wood, D., & Ross, G. (2006). The role of tutoring in problem
Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. London: Longman. solving. In J. S. Bruner (Ed.), In search of pedagogy: The
selected works of Jerome S. Bruner (pp. 198-208). London:
[58] Villamil, O. S., & De Guerrero, M. C. M. (1996). Peer Taylor & Francis Group.
revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities,
mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior. Journal [63] Yelland, N., & Masters, J. (2007). Rethinking scaffolding in
of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 51-75. the information age. Computers & Education, 48(3),
362–382.
[59] Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Interaction between learning and
development. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. [64] Yu, G. (2004). Perception, Practice and Progress:
Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of Significance of scaffolding and zone of proximal
higher psychological processes (pp. 79-91). MA: Harvard development for second or foreign language teachers. Asian
University Press. EFL Journal, 6(4), 1-24.