EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERACTIVE PEER SCAFFOLDING

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Declaration………..............................................................................................i
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................ ii
Abstract ............................................................................................................. iii
Contents ............................................................................................................. v
List of tables.................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 5
1.1. RATIONALE.......................................................................................... 5
1.2. RESEARCH AIMS................................................................................. 6
1.3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS .................................................................... 7
1.4. HYPOTHESES ....................................................................................... 7
1.5. ORGANISATION OF THE STUDY .................................................... 7
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................... 9
2.1. DEFINITION OF SCAFFOLDING ....................................................... 9
2.2. ZONE OF PROXIMAL DEVELOPMENT ......................................... 10
2.2.1. Sociocultural Theory ..................................................................... 10
2.2.2. Zone of Proximal Development..................................................... 11
2.2.3. ZPD Assessment ............................................................................ 13
2.2.4. ZPD and Scaffolding ..................................................................... 14
2.3. FEATURES AND DISCIPLINES OF SCAFFOLDING ..................... 16
2.3.1. Features of scaffolding .................................................................. 16
1


2.3.2. Disciplines of scaffolding .............................................................. 18
2.4. PEER SCAFFOLDING IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING
RESEARCH................................................................................................. 19
2.5. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERACTIVE SCAFFOLDING
AMONG PEERS ......................................................................................... 21
2.5.1. Scaffolding and achievement ......................................................... 22
2.5.2. Scaffolding, task effort and appreciation of support ..................... 24

2.5.3. Support contingency and independent working time in scaffolding
small-group work ..................................................................................... 26
2.5.4. Addressing the challenges of problem-based learning .................. 27
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY ................................................................. 29
3.1. SIGNIFICANCES OF RESEARCH .................................................... 29
3.2. RESEARCH DESIGN .......................................................................... 29
3.3. RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS ............................................................ 30
3.4. PROCEDURES .................................................................................... 31
3.4.1. Pilot study ...................................................................................... 31
3.4.2. Data collection ............................................................................... 32
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS .............................................................................. 34
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION .................................. 41
5.1. SUMMARY OF THE STUDY ............................................................ 41
5.2. DISCUSSION ....................................................................................... 41
5.3. IMPLICATIONS .................................................................................. 43
5.4. LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................... 43
2


5.5. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH .................... 44
REFERENCE……………………………………………………………….30

3


LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1

Statistics questionnaire survey results on using IPS in
speaking class

Table 3.2

Statistics questionnaire survey results on the effectiveness of
using IPS in speaking class

4


EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERACTIVE PEER
SCAFFOLDING (IPS) IN ENHANCING
SPEAKING SKILL

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
In this chapter, I describe main reasons why interactive scaffolding is worth
being researched in the context of acquiring English proficiency among EFL
learners. Research aims, research questions, hypotheses and organization of
the study are also given.
1.1. RATIONALE
The process of learning a language in general and English in particular requires
a number of strategies and methods which may serve as effective tools to boost
a learner’s linguistic proficiency and to help them achieve their goals.
Interactive scaffolding, therefore, is one of those instructional boosters
providing language pursuers opportunities to experience different interactionbased situations as well as to deal with problems which may emerge in the
process of learning a language. English acquirement has a close connection with
continued interactions among individuals. However, due to the differences in
every learner’s capabilities, the interactive process might be hindered. Thus,
Scaffolding, in this case, is required to support those who with poorer English
performances.

Despite being trained for many years, the majority of students in Vietnam
mainly expose to English grammar delivered on papers rather than
communication skills which are the key to language acquisition. Given that
case, it is concluded that they possibly fail to perform any speaking tasks in a
5


natural way. Hence, interactive scaffolding would assist English learners in
coping with a host of difficulties, occurring in daily communicative situations,
such as a lack of vocabulary, ideas, incomplete non paper-based grammar, or
incorrect pronunciation . When those hinderances are overcome, speaking skills
will be mastered, making language learning process easier, faster and
transferable.
Interactive scaffolding may also help both competent and incompetent learners
to combat psychological problems during the course of learning English,
specifically, speaking skills. In fact, a classroom setting may hold culturallydivergent students who are probably inexperienced in interactive skills and
unfamiliar with classroom social discourse. That might trigger hesitancy
preventing learners from mastering verbal skills. With the interference of
interactive scaffolding, every individual will grasp a chance of being
intellectually and emotionally supported, as a result, their performances in
English acquisition would be enhanced. In addition, reticence is a common
problem in the context of Asian classrooms where students are too shy to ask
questions, so this technique is also significant to reticent students who might
overcome their shyness, reticence and attain their goals.
This way of teaching has been being applied on global educational system but
it is still new to Vietnamese one, especially at Cantho University. The term
“Scaffolding” is still ambiguous to a number of teachers and English learners.
Therefore, it is worth conducting this research to measure how popular this
teaching approach is employed and what effects it may bring about to English
learners.

1.2. RESEARCH AIMS
This study was designed to investigate how popularly interactive scaffolding is
used among English-majored classes and what effects learners may have from
it.

6


1.3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Based on the research aims, this study attempts to find out the answers to the
following questions:
1. To what extent interactive scaffolding is applied in English-specialized
classes?
2. What are positive outcomes English-majored learners might have by
applying interactive scaffolding?
1.4. HYPOTHESES
1. Interactive scaffolding is only used in English-based classes when
students are asked.
2. Interactive scaffolding has some positive impacts on English-driven
learners:
 Enhance their confidence
 Improve their range of vocabulary
 Grammar and pronunciation mistakes can be corrected
 Become more fluent and interactive
 Boost their general verbal abilities
1.5. ORGANISATION OF THE STUDY
This thesis is organized into five following chapters including (1) Introduction,
(2) Literature Review, (3) Methodology, (4) Results(5) Discussion, Conclusion,
Limitations and Suggestions.
In chapter 1, all the rationale, aims, research questions, research hypotheses and

the organization of the research are presented.
Chapter 2 concentrates on a general view of the relevant studies to this thesis
and gives definitions of key terms used in the study.
Chapter 3 focuses on the significances of research, research design, participants,
instruments and procedures.
7


Chapter 4 reports the findings from the questionnaire responses. After data is
collected from the participants, it will be analyzed by the software SPSS
(Statistics Package for the Social Sciences).
Chapter 5 gives a summary of the main findings of the study along with the
discussion. Some limitations are mentioned after that and some suggestions for
further studies in this chapter are also presented .

8


CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. DEFINITION OF SCAFFOLDING
The term “scaffolding” was conceptualized by Wood, Bruner and Ross (1976),
regarding a kind of assistance provided by a more capable person to a less
capable one. Capable people include not only teachers, experts but also include
more knowledgeable peers who will help the learner to achieve language skills.
Also, according to (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976, cited in Lantolf, &Appel,
1994, p. 40), scaffolding is a discursive mechanism which occurs in “the social
interaction that a knowledgeable participant can create, by means of speech,
supportive conditions in which the novice can participate in, and extend current
skills and knowledge to higher levels of competence”. In the process of

scaffolding, the teacher helps the student to understand a notion or a concept
and complete the task that the student has difficulty figuring it out individually
in the beginning. With the teacher’s assistance, the student’s capabilities and
skills can be exceeded. The most important feature of scaffolding is that the
student is permitted to participate in different activities and then that one enables
to do unassisted tasks by his/herself. The student can’t help making mistakes
which are within the teacher’s expectation but he or she is able to complete the
task or attain his or her goals thanks to the teacher’s continual assessment and
constructive feedback. The student is mainly responsible for mastering the task
and will work independently from the teacher as long as he or she gets
understood what the teacher conveys to him or her. This process is call “fading”
or the gradual removal of scaffolding. Scaffolding which acts as a knowledgelike bridge enables students to reach what they do not now based on what they
have known before. If scaffolding is appropriately executed, it will play a role
as an enabler rather than a disabler (Benson, 1997).
Since its birth, the term scaffolding has experienced various interpretation and
operation in different contexts such as formal classrooms, parent-child
9


interaction, adult education, mainstream education as well as L2 education. The
significance of scaffolding has been broadened to the extent that who provides
scaffolding is no longer a question, as “expertise” rather than “experts” is
becoming the focus (Carmichael-Wong & Vine, 2004). Its use is no longer
restricted to face-to-face interaction between an adult/expert and a child/novice.
For example, many researchers have now considered peer collaboration (e.g.
Barnard, 2002; De Guerrero& Villamil, 2000; Riazi & Rezaii, 2011; Shehadeh,
2011; Storch, 2007; Van Lier, 2004; Walqui, 2006) and interaction between a
teacher and a classroom full of students as scaffolding (e.g. Davis & Miyake,
2004; Many, Dewberry, Taylor, & Coady, 2009).
2.2. ZONE OF PROXIMAL DEVELOPMENT

2.2.1. Sociocultural Theory
Sociocultural Theory (SCT) is an approach to human sciences with the purpose
of explaining and developing a connection between mental functioning and the
cultural, institutional and historical conditions in which mental functioning
happens (Van Lier, 2004 as cited in Pishghadam & Ghadiri, 2011). It directly
emphasizes the link between social context and individuals’ psychological
development (Bruffee, 1993, 1996; Gere, 1987 as cited in Tsai, 2006). Vygotsky
(1978, 1981 &1987) is fundamentally concerned with the thesis that the
development of human cognitive functions proceeds from the social or
interpsychological plane to the individual or intrapsychological plane, with the
use of symbolic, socioculturally developed tools the most important of which is
language. In other words, SCT regards human mental functioning as necessarily
a mediated process which is organized by artifacts, activities and concepts
(Lantolf, 2000). In addition, as Lantolf & Thorne (2007) point out, although
Vygotsky does not reject the neurobiological factors for the development of
higher order thinking ability he mainly focuses on the significance of interaction
occurring within social contexts for developing human cognitive ability.
Generally, in SCT learners are treated as active meaning-makers and problemsolvers in their process of learning with the great emphasis on the learning
10


which stems from interaction and negotiations of meaning among individuals.
The notion of ZPD is considered significant in SCT since it is the region in
which

the

transition

from

interpsychological

functions

turns

into

intrapsychological functions. It is believed that a variety of internal
developmental functions will be activated by learning and this process only
happens provided that the child interacts with the peers or adults in a social
environment (Fahim & Haghani, 2012). However, it should be mentioned that
the current view of the ZPD has been expanded beyond the interaction between
an expert and a novice. Recent research seeks to gain a better understanding on
how L2 learning is mediated in the ZPD by looking more closely at peer
interactions in the ZPD. In other words, ZPD is considered as providing an
opportunity to learn with and from others (Anton, 1999; Lantolf, 2000; Wells,
1998).
2.2.2. Zone of Proximal Development
The concept of zone of proximal development (ZPD) was developed by Lev
Semenovich Vygotsky during the late 1920s and elaborated progressively until
his death in 1934. In Mind in Society: The Development of Higher
Psychological Processes, Vygotsky defined the ZPD as “the distance between
the actual development level as determined by independent problem solving and
the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under
adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peer” (p. 86). That is, the
ZPD was understood by Vygotsky to describe the current or actual level of
development of the learner and the next level attainable through the use of
mediating semiotic and environmental tools and capable adult or peer

facilitation. The idea is that individuals learn best when working together with
others during joint collaboration, and it is through such collaborative endeavors
with more skilled persons that learners learn and internalize new concepts,
psychological tools, and skills. Roosevelt (2008) holds that the main goal of
education from Vygotskian perspective is to keep learners in their own ZPDs as
often as possible by giving them interesting and culturally meaningful learning
11


and problem-solving tasks that are slightly more difficult than what they do
alone, such that they will need to work together either with another, more
competent peer or with a teacher or adult to finish the task. The idea is that after
completing the task jointly, the learner will likely be able to complete the same
task individually next time, and through that process, the learner’s ZPD for that
particular task will have been raised. This process is then repeated at the higher
level of task difficulty that the learner’s new ZPD requires. This concept is
illustrated in Figure 1. (Campbell ,2008, p. 3). The tasks assigned to the learners
sometimes fall outside the ZPD that the learner can already do, or tasks that the
learner would not be able to do even with help, for example trying to teach the
average 10 year old to solve quadratic equations. Thus the focus of teaching is
on tasks inside the ZPD which the learner cannot do by him or herself but has
www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 3, No. 4; December 2010
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 239 the potential to
accomplish with the guidance of others. As the learner accomplishes the task,
his or her ZPD, or the gap between what he or she can do on their own and what
he or she can only accomplish with assistance shrinks. This shrinking of the
ZPD is illustrated in Figure 2. (Campbell ,2008, p. 4). Vygotsky (1962)
introduced the concept of ZPD to criticize the psychometric-based testing in
Russian schools. The traditional testing reflected only the current level of
learners’ achievement, rather than learner’s potential for development in future

.The zone of actual development(ZAD)does not sufficiently describe
development. Rather, it reflects what is already developed or achieved. The
level of assisted performance in ZPD highlights the potential for emerging
behavior and “tomorrow of development” (Vygotsky, 1978). Cole & Cole
(2001) point out that the term proximal indicates that the assistance provided
goes just slightly beyond the learner’s current competence complementing and
building on their existing abilities. Yaroshevky (1989) indicates that that the
link between education and development is manifested in Vygotsky's idea of
ZPD. Verenikina (2003) points out that to arrive at this position Vygotsky had
to overcome two types of reductionism - biological, which is the normal
12


maturing of the physical brain and sociological, the appropriation by the learner
of society's cultural assets (language, etc) thrust upon it by adults (p.4). It is
within this latter area that Vygotsky placed his ZPD by arguing that rather than
having education dragging behind in sociological development it must
anticipate it - it must "run ahead as the adult helps the learner to climb the next
step"(Yaroshevsky, 1989, p.277). Vygotsky recognized that the distance
between doing something independently and with the help of another indicated
stages of development, which do not necessarily coincide in all people. In this
way he regarded an instructor’s "teaching of a student not just as a source of
information to be assimilated but as a lever with which the student's thought,
with its structural characteristics, is shifted from level to level".(Yaroshevsky,
1989, p.283,cited in Verenikina, 2003, p.4)
2.2.3. ZPD Assessment
Chaiklin (2003) believes that as a first step for understanding how Vygotsky
formulated the zone of proximal development, it is important to remember that
Vygotsky’s interest is to develop a theoretical basis for appropriate pedagogical
interventions, including principles for possible instructional grouping of

learners and identification of specific interventions for individual learners.
Interventions must be based on diagnostic procedures based on a learner’s
current state of development. Vygotsky (1998) indicates that “a true diagnosis
must provide an explanation, prediction, and scientific basis for practical
prescription” (p, 205). Chaiklin (2003) asserts that a solution to the diagnostic
problem is identical with having an explanatory theory of psychological
development. Vygotsky proposes that the zone of proximal development as a
diagnostic principle “allows us to penetrate into the internal causal-dynamic and
genetic connections that determine the process itself of mental development”
(p. 203). To understand Vygotsky’s initial proposal of ZPD, a theoretical
explanation of how ZPD operates to assess an individual learner is needed .To
make things clear, we have to consider Vygotsky's notion of imitation, around
which his analysis is constructed. Chaiklin (2003) points out that a person’s
13


ability to imitate, as conceived by Vygotsky, is the basis for a zone of proximal
development. Imitation, as used here, is not a mindless copying of actions
(Vygotsky 1997, p. 95). Rather, Vygotsky wants to break from a copying view,
to give a new meaning to imitation – reflecting a new theoretical position – in
which imitation presupposes some understanding of the structural relations in a
problem that is being solved (Vygotsky1987, p. 210). Vygotsky holds that a
learner is not able to imitate anything ,“imitation is possible only to the extent
and in those forms in which it is accompanied by understanding” (Vygotsky,
1997, p. 96). “It is well established that the child can imitate only what lies
within the zone of his intellectual potential” (Vygotsky, 1987, p. 209)
Vygotsky(1997)attempted to avoid imitation misunderstandings, because he
considered it as “one of the basic paths of cultural development of the child” (p.
95). In Vygotsky’s texts the term imitation should be read with an awareness
that a special technical meaning is intended. We can now consider how the

concept of imitation provides a theoretical justification for how to assess a
learner’s zone of proximal development. “The area of immature, but maturing
processes makes up the child’s zone of proximal development” (Vygotsky,
1998b, p. 202). For a given learner, these maturing functions are more or less
developed but unable to support independent performance. Independent
performance cannot provide evidence of what maturing functions are present
(Elkonin, 1998).
2.2.4. ZPD and Scaffolding
It is widely believed that socio-cultural theory of mind and the concept of ZPD
form the basis of the notion of scaffolding (Berk, 2001; Daniels, 2001; Wells,
2001). However, the interpretations and explanations of the exact ways that
scaffolding relates to it have been different. These range from understanding
scaffolding as a direct application and operationalisation of Vygotsky's concept
of teaching in the zone of proximal development (Wells, 1999), to the
www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 3, No. 4; December 2010
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 241 view that the
14


notion of scaffolding only partially reflects the richness of Vygotsky's zone of
proximal development (e.g. Daniels, 2001). In addition, the limitations of the
metaphor of scaffolding in interpreting the zone of proximal development have
been revealed (Stone, 1998 cited in Verenikina, 2003, p. 2). Wells (1999)
defined scaffolding as "a way of operationalizing Vygotsky's (1987) concept of
working in the zone of proximal development". He recognized three key
features that give educational scaffolding its particular character: 1) the
essentially dialogic nature of the discourse in which knowledge is coconstructed; 2) the significance of the kind of activity in which knowing is
embedded and 3) the role of artifacts that mediate knowing (Wells, 1999, p.127)
The major goal of scaffolding in teaching represents view the ZPD characteristic
of transfer of responsibility for the task to the student (Mercer and Fisher, 1993).

They emphasize the collaboration between the teacher and the learner in
constructing knowledge and skill. Other authors see the metaphor of scaffolding
as limited compared to the notion of ZPD. Lave and Wenger (1991) point out
that the notion of ZPD which emphasizes teacher-learner collaboration and
negotiation as bilateral process contrasts scaffolding that captures teaching
performance as a one-way communication process. In scaffolding, the
scaffolder constructs the scaffold alone and presents it for the use of the novice
(Daniels, 2002, p. 59). Stone (1984) expressed the concern that the metaphor of
scaffolding can lead to viewing the teacher-learner interaction in the classroom
as predominantly adult-driven and one-sided in nature. This view, if applied to
classroom teaching, might take educators back to a pre-Piagetian, traditional
way of teaching through direct instruction(Verenikina, 2008). The cognitive
constructivism of Piaget views learners as active constructors of their world
view and discoverers of knowledge, on the other hand Vygotsky’s social
constructivism which is built on Piaget’s ideas of active learners focuses on
social interaction in learning and development. The quality of teacher-learner
interaction is seen as crucial when scaffolding learner’s learning (Bodrova &
Leong, 1996). Stone (1998) highlighting the limitations of the scaffolding
metaphor, reveals that a number of educational and developmental
15


psychologists are questioning the theoretical and practical value of the
metaphor. However, he concludes, the metaphor should not be abandoned
(Stone, 1998, p.351).
2.3. FEATURES AND DISCIPLINES OF SCAFFOLDING
2.3.1. Features of scaffolding
According to Wood, scaffolding is developed with six features: (a) recruiting
the tutee’s interest in the task; (b) reducing the degree of freedom in the task to
make it manageable to the tutee; (c) maintaining goal direction; (d) marking

critical features; (e) controlling frustration; and (f) modelling solutions to the
task. They argue further that scaffolding may eventually lead to “development
of task competence by the learner at a pace that would outdo his unassisted
efforts” (p. 90). In the field of language learning, Van Lier (2004) notes six
features of scaffolding:

1) Continuity: repeated occurrences over time, with variations connected to one
another. Continuity was met as every session the pairs were required to write a
complete argumentative essay, building on their past knowledge of the genre
which have been developed in the previous sessions. Out of class collaboration
on revising their essays based on peers or teacher feedback and comments also
enabled the learners to link the past and future interaction.

2) Contextual support: a safe but challenging environment, errors are expected
and accepted as part of the learning process. Contextual support was initially
provided by the explanations and clarifications on the argumentative genre by
the tutor and with the peer discussions between the members of the dyads.
Another layer of the contextual support was created by the students themselves
when deciding to argue for or against a topic and providing supports for
their arguments. The challenge was to co-construct a five-paragraph
argumentative essay in the limited time of classroom hour.

16


3) Intersubjectivity: mutual engagement and support, two minds thinking as one.
Intersubjectivity was achieved when the pairs engaged in harmonious
exploratory talk in such cases as reformulating the statement made by one
member of the dyad and seeking confirmation of his or her understanding. There
was mutual engagement and support in each dyad as the members tried to

pull on each other’s linguistic and extra-linguistic knowledge of the
mechanical as well as contextual aspects of the essay at hand. In this way they
were involved in the knowledge transmission, receiving and taking suggestions
and working toward a common goal, namely co-constructing a comprehensive
essay.
4) Contingency: the scaffolding support depends on learners’ reactions,
elements can be added, changed, deleted, repeated, etc. Contingency was met
during drafting and revision phases of the writing process as the assistance
provided by the more capable peer was contingent upon what has been done in
the previous stages of the writing process, thus, elements were changed, added
or deleted accordingly. More specifically in the drafting phase it was observed
that the more capable peer who had taken the role of a consultant tried to build
a trustful atmosphere ensuring the less competent peer that what he or she says
regarding for instance spelling or choice of a particular term was right. This
made the peers’ varied comprehension and interpretation to be brought in the
surface of discourse and it was reconstructed and refined through contingent
interaction (Barnard & Campbell, 2005).
5) Handover/Takeover: there is an increasing role for the learner when skills
and confidence increase. Handover was employed when at the end of each
writing task the peers reached agreement on what they were supposed to write
in each section of the essay including introduction, body, and conclusion, or
what should be added to them. Thus, before submitting their essay to the
teacher, the learners achieved a measure of control over their writing process
through interdependent activity. (Ibid.)
17


6) Flow: communication between participants is not forced, but flows in a
natural way. Flow was achieved as the interaction between the peers in each
dyad was the characteristic of easy, unforceful conversations. The peers

addressed each other and talked comfortably when sharing ideas and
discussing different aspects of their writing.

2.3.2. Disciplines of scaffolding
In the context of ESL classroom, the learner’s language can be scaffolded by
the teacher in a host of essential ways based on disciplines as follows:
1. Motivating the learner to work on a given task in the target language
2. Defining the number of task steps related to the learners’ current ability
3. Diagnosing discrepancies between the learner’s production and
obtainment of the ideal solution
4. Controlling learners’ frustration and risk to find new solutions (p.395)
Specifically, teachers encourage students to perform a practical task in which
the requirement of targeted language skill is apparent. Secondly, to finish a
chosen task, the teacher’s clarification will be put into logical steps. Thirdly, the
teacher can deliver to students assessment on how well they understand the task
or any challenge they face. After this step is completed, the teacher can show
constructive solutions to the previous problems by assisting them in defining
their own feelings and relevant classroom experiences.
As ESL students become proficient at doing more complex English language
tasks, the amount of teacher and peer supports can be decreased or removed
entirely. This part of scaffolding is known as “fading”. The component of
“fading” is characterized as the continual revision of the scaffolded parameters
in response to emerging capabilities of the novice (Rogoff, 1990). A second
component of scaffolding is called “internalization” (Wertsch, 1991). The
internalization of scaffolded performance is said to occur whenever the learner
18


experiences an internalized dialogue which is supposed to promote his or her
use and acquisition of knowledge as it is co-constructed in a shared activity. The

theoretical basis for scaffolding in EFL is well-established. Scaffolding as a
strategy was first predicated on a social constructivist approach that linguistic
development takes place through social interaction in a historical-cultural
context. In the social constructivist theory, Vygotsky (1986) claimed that all
children learn through some sort of interpersonal activity, and that learning
manifests itself first as social interaction and secondly as internalization (cited
in Ellis, 1997).
2.4. PEER SCAFFOLDING IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING RESEARCH
Peers play a pivotal role in shaping a child’ values and behaviors and
encouraging his or her development and socialization. In the classroom,
teachers are supposed to deal with a number of social and emotional matters
which may deprive them of their time for academic program. For instance, it is
challenging for teachers to establish a collaborative learning environment where
there are anti-social behaviors, penetrators or victims of bullying; as a result,
students fail to collaborate with others in academic activities. When they do not
succeed in developing constructive peer relationship, they might encounter
social and psychological obstacles and the potential of unsuccessful academic
performances would move in tandem. Therefore, it is believed that peer
scaffolding serves as an effective tool to maximize student learning.
Collaborative learning is a pedagogy that is student-centred and values-focused
so it is compatible with research where students are encouraged to examine their
values, develop mutual respect and learn how to work together. It is often used
when referring to sociocultural perspectives on learning where primacy is given
to knowledge as a social rather than individual concept and supports the premise
of using the collective knowledge of peers. Ideally, when there are students who
have different backgrounds, knowledge and experience, ideas are exchanged
that allow the individual to question their perspective and learning to occur
(Battistich & Watson, 2003). This suggests a more flexible approach to teaching
19

where students have increasing control over the experience of working in a
group (Hart, 1992) and a level of independence. But there are assumptions that
students have developed communication and interpersonal skills to work
together ( Gillies & Ashman, 1996; Hart, 1992; Johnson & Johnson, 2003).
Therefore, the teacher’s facilitative role is to diagnose the needs of students so
they develop the skills and confidence to work together.
In other L2 fields, Le's (2006) research on using group work in vocabulary
learning in Vietnam, Even in group work "not supported" (5 classmates working
together) or "assisted" group work (4 classmates and 1 high school classmate
working together), students learn new words, use collective memory and get
help from members others in the group when learning and using new words.
However, groups supported by more likely peers used more target languages in
discussions than groups that were not supported. Similarly, Le (2007) found that
novice expert group work creates more learning opportunities than unsupported
group work. Other researchers (e.g., Barnard, 2002; Barnard & Campbell, 2005;
Gibbons, 2002; McDonough, 2004) also report that L2 students may produce
results beyond their individual abilities when studying in pairs or in groups. In
addition, the reader also showed (a) willingness to influence the partner’s
actions, to keep the interaction going, and to accomplish goals, (b) efforts at
making the task manageable for both and inducing solutions to textual
problems, (c) promotion of understanding by focusing on what was not clear or
discrepant and eliciting clarification or correction, and (d) ability to read his
partner’s cues and respond accordingly. These findings were supported by Riazi
and Rezaii’s (2011) recent study on peer scaffolding in ESL writing.
Furthermore, studies by Storch (2002, 2005, 2007) add some insights into the
peer scaffolding mechanisms with the findings that during collaborative writing
L2, learners are able to pool their linguistic resources and ideas, provide
feedback, make suggestions and counter-suggestions, offer explanations, and
repeat the suggestions made. The types of scaffolding behaviours reported in

these studies were used to guide data analysis in this study.

20


2.5. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERACTIVE SCAFFOLDING AMONG PEERS
One of the effective strategies in language learning is known as scaffolding. It
is one of the concepts introduced by Lev Vygotsky (1978). Scaffolding can help
learners to decrease the distance between their actual developmental level and
their potential development through problem solving of adult or peer guidance.
It is done by a number of strategies such as recruiting learners’ interest, reducing
their choices, maintaining their goal orientation, highlighting critical aspects of
the task, controlling their frustration, and demonstrating activity paths to them
(Wood, Bruner & Ross, 1976). Scaffolding, as an instructional strategy, is a
significant tool to contribute to the learning process because it provides
opportunities for students to solve their learning problems (Poorahmadi, 2009).
The procedure for the presentation of scaffolding should be done systematically
considering the students’ needs and their current level of development; it should
be gradually decreased as the teacher ensures that students have become
independent in their learning (Berk, 2002). The mastery of speaking skills in
English is a priority for many second or foreign language learners. Profound
knowledge of oral strategies helps foreign language learners negotiate meaning
and solve their communication problems. Language learning strategies, as
specific actions taken by the learner to make learning easier, faster, and more
transferable to new situations have always been an influential factor to increase
the level of performance of language learners (Oxford, 1990). The previously
carried out studies indicate that some factors other than strategies may play a
role in choosing, using, and transferring the strategies by learners in difficult
contexts of communication (Oxford & Ehrman, 1995). Although, a number of
studies have been conducted to investigate the role of scaffolding in other

language skills (Huggings & Edwards, 2011; Rahimi & Tahmasebi, 2011), but
very few studies have focused on examining the effectiveness of scaffolding on
EFL learners' speaking ability. For many students, recognizing and using the
traditional ways of language teaching are the most frustrating and difficult
aspects of their language learning experience since they are not able to achieve
sufficient knowledge of language skills or subject matters. The use of
21


scaffolding strategies would ensure EFL learners they experience effective way
of learning speaking for EFL learners since they are contextualized, provide
deep senses of language use, and learner-based classroom as the listening
comprehension is the result of learner’s efforts. Scaffolding provides the
teachers both with the learners’ actual level of performance and with their
learning potential. They can prescribe different individual learning plans for
learners with different learning needs. In other words, two students with the
same non-dynamic but different high and low learning potential scores can be
treated differently. The learner with a low learning potential should be provided
with learning and information processing strategies; likewise, the teacher can
prepare different plans for each individual learner. The present study was going
to find the optimal ways of teaching speaking using scaffolding. In other words,
in this study, the focus was on comparing interactive scaffolding strategies used
as an instructional adjunct in the development of Iranian EFL learners' speaking
ability.
2.5.1. Scaffolding and achievement
The way teachers interact with students affects students’ achievement
(Praetorius et al. 2012). Scaffolding and more specifically contingent support
represents intervening in such a way that the learner can succeed at the task
(Mattanah et al. 2005). Contingent support continually provides learners with
problems of controlled complexity; it makes the task manageable at any time

(Wood and Wood 1996).
Stone noted that it is unclear how or why contingent support may work
(Stone 1998a, b). And until now the question ‘What are the mechanisms of
contingent support?’ has still not been answered (Van de Pol et al. 2010).
However, some suggestions have been made in the literature and three elements
seem to play a role: (1) the level of cognitive processing; deep versus superficial
processing of information, (2) making connections to existing mental models in
long term memory, and (3) available cognitive resources. If the level of control
22


is too high for a student (i.e., the support is non-contingent as too much help is
given), superficial processing of the information is assumed. The student is not
challenged to actively process the information and therefore does not actively
make connections with existing knowledge or an existing mental model in the
long term memory (e.g., Wittwer and Renkl 2008; Wittwer et al. 2010). In
addition, it is assumed that attending to redundant information (information that
is already known) “might prevent learners from processing more elaborate
information and, thus, from engaging in more meaningful activities that directly
foster learning cf. Kalyuga 2007; McNamara and Kintsch 1996; Wittwer and
Renkl 2008; Wannarka and Ruhl 2008).” (Wittwer et al. 2010, p. 74).
If the level of control is too low for a student (i.e., the support is non-contingent
as too little help is given) deep processing cannot take place. The student cannot
make connections with his/her existing knowledge. The cognitive load of
processing the information is too high (Wittwer et al. 2010).
If the level of control fits the students’ understanding, the student has sufficient
cognitive resources to actively process the information provided and is able to
make connections between the new information and the existing knowledge in
the long-term memory. “If explanations are tailored to a particular learner, they
are more likely to contribute to a deep understanding, because then they

facilitate the construction of a coherent mental representation of the information
conveyed (a so-called situation model; see, e.g., Otero and Graesser 2001)”
(Wittwer et al. 2010, p. 74). Only when support is adapted to a student’s
understanding, connections between new information and information already
stored in long-term memory are fostered (Webb and Mastergeorge 2003). A
body of research showed that parental scaffolding was associated with success
on different sorts of outcomes such as self-regulated learning (Mattanah et al.
2005), block-building and puzzle construction tasks (Fidalgo and Pereira 2005;
Wood and Middleton 1975) and long-division math homework (Pino-Pasternak
et al. 2010). Pino-Pasternak et al. (2010) stressed that contingency was found to

23


uniquely predict the children’s performance, also when taking into account pretest measurements and other characteristics such as parenting style.
Yet, in the current study we focused on teacher scaffolding, in contrast to
parental scaffolding. An essential difference between teacher scaffolding and
parental scaffolding is that in the latter case, the parent knows his/her child
better than a teacher knows his/her students which might facilitate the
adaptation of the support. Additionally, the studies of parental scaffolding
mentioned above took place in one-to-one situations which are not comparable
to classroom situations where one teacher has to deal with about 30 students at
a time (Davis and Miyake 2004).
Experimental studies on the effects of teacher scaffolding in a classroom setting
are rare (cf. Kim and Hannafin 2011; Van de Pol et al. 2010). The only face-toface, nonparental scaffolding studies using an experimental design are (one-toone) tutoring studies with structured and/or hands-on tasks (e.g., Murphy and
Messer 2000). The results of these tutoring studies are similar to the results of
the parental scaffolding studies; contingent support generally leads to improved
student performances. A non-experimental micro-level study that investigated
the relation between different patterns of contingency (e.g., increased control
upon poor student understanding and decreased control upon good student

understanding) in a classroom setting is the study of Van de Pol and Elbers
(2013). They found that contingent support was mainly related to increased
student understanding when the initial student understanding was poor.
Previous research—albeit mostly in out of classroom contexts—shows
contingent support is related to students’ improved student achievement.
2.5.2. Scaffolding, task effort and appreciation of support
Most studies on contingent support have used students’ achievement as an
outcome measure. Yet, other outcomes are important for students’ learning and
well-being as well. One important factor in students’ success is task effort.
Numerous studies have demonstrated that students’ task effort affects their
24


achievement (Fredricks et al. 2004). Task effort refers to students’ effort,
attention and persistence in the classroom (Fredricks et al. 2004; Hughes et
al. 2008). Task effort is malleable and context-specific and the quality of teacher
support, e.g., in terms of contingency, can affect task effort (Fredricks et
al. 2004). If the contingent shift principle is applied, a tutor’s support is always
responsive to the student’s understanding which in turn is hypothesized to
stimulate student’s task effort; the tutor keeps the task challenging but
manageable: “The child never succeeds too easily nor fails too often” (Wood et
al. 1978, p. 144). When support is contingent, the student knows which steps to
take and how to proceed independently. When support is non-contingent,
students often withdraw from the task as it is beyond or beneath their reach
causing respectively frustration or boredom (Wertsch 1979). Hardly any
empirical research exists on whether and how contingent support affects task
effort. The only study that we encountered was the study of Chiu (2004) in
which a positive relation was found between support in which the teacher first
evaluated students’ understanding (assuming that this promoted contingency)
and student’s task effort.

Another important factor in students’ success is students’ appreciation of
support. Students’ appreciation of support provided (e.g., because they feel that
they are being taken seriously or because they feel the support was enjoyable or
pleasant) may have long-term implications as support that is appreciated might
encourage students to engage in further learning (Pratt and Savoy-Levine 1998).
Wood (1988), using informal observations, reports that students who
experienced contingent support seemed more positive towards their tutors. Pratt
and Savoy-Levine (1998) were the first (and, to our knowledge, only)
researchers who tested this hypothesis more systematically. They investigated
the effects of contingent support on students’ mathematical skills by conducting
an experiment with several conditions: a full contingent (all control levels),
moderate contingent (several but not all control levels) and non-contingent
condition (only high-control levels) tutoring condition. Students in the full and
25