e use of scaffolding in teaching writing in the english 10 textbook (10 year program) at vietnam’s upper secondary schools a case study

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION

GRADUATION PAPER
The use of scaffolding in teaching writing in
the English 10 textbook (10-year program)
at Vietnam’s upper-secondary schools
A case study
Supervisor: Tran Thi Lan Anh, Ph.D
Student: Nguyen Ha Trang
Course: QH2017.F1.E2.SP.CLC

Hanoi - 2021


ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI
TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ
KHOA SƯ PHẠM TIẾNG ANH

KHOÁ LUẬN TỐT NGHIỆP
Hoạt động hỗ trợ (Scaffolding) được sử dụng trong giảng dạy kỹ năng
Viết ở Sách giáo khoa Tiếng Anh 10 (chương trình 10 năm của Bộ) tại
các trường Trung học Phổ Thông ở Việt Nam:
Nghiên cứu trường hợp

Giảng viên hướng dẫn: TS. Trần Thị Lan Anh
Sinh viên: Nguyễn Hà Trang
Lớp: QH2017.F1.E2.SP.CLC

Hanoi - 2021

ACCEPTANCE PAGE
I hereby state that I: Nguyen Ha Trang, being a candidate for the degree of Bachelor
of Arts (fast-track programme) accept the requirements of the College relating to the
retention and use of Bachelor’s Graduation Paper deposited in the library. In terms
of these conditions, I agree that the origin of my paper deposited in the library should
be accessible for the purposes of study and research, in accordance with the normal
conditions established by the librarian for the care, loan or reproduction of the paper.

Signature

Date

Trang

8/6/2021

Nguyen Ha Trang


TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...................................................................................... i
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................ii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................... 1
1.1. Research background and rationale .................................................................................... 1
1.2. Aims and objectives of the study ........................................................................................ 3
1.3. Significance of the study .................................................................................................... 3
1.4. Scope of the study .............................................................................................................. 3
1.5. An overview of the rest of the paper................................................................................... 4

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................ 5
2.1. Writing ............................................................................................................................... 5
2.2. Writing approach ................................................................................................................ 5
2.3. Scaffolding ......................................................................................................................... 9

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY ................................................................... 19
3.1. Research approach ............................................................................................................ 19
3.2. The research design .......................................................................................................... 20
3.3. Data collection procedure ................................................................................................. 23
3.4. Research instrument ......................................................................................................... 25
3.5. Data analysis method........................................................................................................ 28
3.6. Data analysis procedure .................................................................................................... 29
3.7. Research ethics ................................................................................................................. 33

CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION .............................................. 34
4.1. Research question 1: What scaffolding activities are present in the writing sections in the
“English 10” textbook (10-year program)? ............................................................................ 34
4.2. Research question 2: What scaffolding tools do teachers use in English writing lessons for
tenth graders at Vietnamese upper-secondary schools? .......................................................... 58
4.3. Research question 3: What underlie English teachers’ employment or rejection of
scaffolding tools for students in the classroom? ...................................................................... 71
4.4. Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 77

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION ........................................................................... 83
5.1. Summary of main findings ............................................................................................... 83
5.2. Implications ...................................................................................................................... 84
5.3. Limitations and suggestions for further research .............................................................. 85
5.4. Concluding thoughts......................................................................................................... 86

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 88
APPENDICES ..................................................................................................... 100


LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 3.1 Participants’ background

21

Figure 3.1 Data collection procedure

23

Table 3.2 Data sources and focus of data collection and analysis

24

Table 3.3 Participants’ observation details

26

Table 3.4 Participants’ interview details

28

Table 3.5 The coding framework for six scaffolding activities

30

Table 3.6 Descriptive coding in interview analysis

31

Table 3.7 In Vivo coding in interview analysis

32

Table 3.8 The coding framework for six scaffolding tools

32

Table 4.1 Writing tasks and scaffolding activities presented in the

47

English 10 textbook
Table 4.2 Types of scaffolding activities designed in the English 10

49

textbook
Table 4.3 Scaffolding activities and tools used by the teachers in

62

observed lessons
Table 4.4 Scaffolding tools used in writing lessons

64

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This research paper could not have been accomplished without the support
from numerous individuals. First and foremost, I would like to express my special
thanks and gratitude to my devoted supervisor Ms. Tran Thi Lan Anh, who provided
me with extensive knowledge about research design, useful suggestions and detailed
comments during the completion of this research. This project would not have been
possible without her constructive critique and continuous guidance, for which I am
immensely thankful and feel appreciated.
Furthermore, I want to express my deepest appreciation for the support staff
from the University of Languages and International Studies in providing me with the
letter of introduction to the research site. Their professionalism in processing relevant
paperwork and documents enabled me to carry out the project on time and gain
permission to collect data.
In addition, I am extremely thankful to my three participants for their time and
cooperation, without which I could not have been able to complete my research
project. I am also grateful for my former teachers who assisted me in the process of
contacting the interviewees and collecting data.
On top of that, I can never disregard the mental support from my family and
friends who motivated me to overcome all the adversities that I encountered along
the way. My boyfriend was also a source of encouragement that I treasured in this
long and challenging journey.
Last but not least, I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to my previous
research team members, who were always supportive and constructive. These
incredible individuals gave me valuable suggestions that helped me to amend my
writing despite insurmountable difficulties.

i

ABSTRACT
Scaffolding, a concept related to the zone of proximal development (ZPD) developed
by Vygotsky (1978), has been widely perceived as a significant instructional tool by
a number of scholars and educators. However, existing research investigating the use
of scaffolding in textbooks and in writing lessons has been scarce. The current
research aims to explore the scaffolding activities developed by the textbook writers
in the English 10 textbook, teachers’ employment of scaffolding tools and reasons
behind their choices of scaffolding for writing lessons for 10th graders at upper
secondary schools in Vietnam. To attain the aforementioned objectives, the study
employed a qualitative case study design. To collect data, textbook analysis, three
teaching observations and nine semi-structured interviews with three participants
were conducted. Results from analysing the textbook revealed five scaffolding types
namely modelling, contextualizing, bridging, schema building and developing
metacognition utilized in the design of the textbook. Of these, developing
metacognition and schema building were ranked as the most commonly used
scaffolding activities. The quantitative and thematic analysis of observed data also
showed that participants employed six scaffolding tools in their English writing
lessons. Noticeably, questioning and feeding back were extensively employed by the
participants while explaining and modelling were the least preferred means of
scaffolding. Teachers shared three common underlying reasons for adopting these
tools, which are learners’ academic background, learners’ motivation and learners’
cognitive development and some other individualized reasons. The results of this
research could be a reference for teachers to reflect on their use of scaffolding
activities and the underlying rationales for each tool used, and for textbook designers,
educationalists and the policy makers to review and propose applicable adjustments
to the new English 10 textbook to cater for different learning styles. The study
proposes implications for researchers in similar teaching contexts who wish to
conduct further studies on related topics.

KEYWORDS: Scaffolding, EFL writing,
learning
ii

textbook analysis, English language


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Research background and rationale
Textbooks are, according to Sheldon (1988), the core of any ELT (English Language
Teaching) program. However, there have been some reservations about making use
of the textbook series. Allwright (1982) concerned that textbooks are implicitly
prescriptive, affecting the methods and procedures of classroom practice. Richards
(2005) was also worried that textbooks may not meet the needs of all learners and
require further adaptation to yield desired learning outcomes. Recently in Vietnam,
the textbook series (10-year program) for upper secondary school students were
written for innovative purposes to replace the old textbook series. Given that textbook
evaluation is of paramount importance in any language program, the need for detailed
analysis and evaluation of English textbook series currently in use in Vietnam has
emerged.
The significance of writing skills in ELT has been emphasized by many
researchers such as Byrne (1984), Celce-Murcia (1991), Graves (1994), Tribble
(1996), Harklau (2002), Car-valho (2005) and Graham & Perin (2007) and Nguyen
(2015). However, a study by Ueda (1999) stated that “writing activities have been
generally disregarded” in classroom settings (as cited in Kobayakawa, 2011, p.28).
High school students do not acquire the necessary writing proficiency that they may
use for college (Chait & Venezia, 2009; Graham & Perin, 2007; Escher, 2015). This
can be attributed to some problems such as the difficulty of writing exercises and
topics in English textbooks, problems in generating and constructing ideas with
vocabulary, sentence and paragraph organization (Nguyen, 2015; Richard &

Renandya, 2002). Some exercises are too complicated for students to do without
teachers’ support. Laksmi (2006) & Monphonsri et al. (2013) pointed out that the lack
of background knowledge for writing can be one of students’ obstacles as well.
Therefore, the need for not only book designers but also teachers to adopt scaffolding
techniques and activities to facilitate learners’ transition from assisted to independent
performance is raised. In short, scaffolding techniques refer to “a temporary
1


supportive structure that teachers create to assist a student or a group of students to
accomplish a task that they could not complete alone” (Hogan & Pressley, 1997,
p.116). There are six scaffolding tools (tools are defined as how scaffolding takes
place) used by teachers in class as distinguished in the framework of Van de Pol et
al. (2010): modeling, giving hints, instructing, explaining, feeding back and
questioning. This is also my driving motivation to study the design of scaffolding
activities in the English textbooks and identify teachers’ practice and choice of
scaffolding tools in real English writing lessons.
Being described as the key to facilitating effective learning (Gibbons, 2002),
scaffolding, when being implemented in a writing lesson, is of great benefits to
learners. In fact, many studies have been carried out to investigate the use of
scaffolding activities in language teaching, especially in teaching writing. Most of the
research concluded that scaffolding has significant impacts on students’ learning. For
example, the study of Singh et al. (2020) and Mohtar et al. (2017) showed positive
and favourable effects of teachers’ use of scaffolding on weak ESL learners in
learning writing skills. The results from the research of Niu & Deng (2018) also
revealed that the scaffolding strategies can be an effective means to assist students in
improving their writing proficiency.
However, the majority of existing literature revolves around the use of
scaffolding in the field of literacy (Clark & Graves, 2005; Smith, 2006 both cited in
Van de Pol, 2012). Limited number of studies have been carried out to explore types

of writing activities presented in English textbooks (Cho, 2014; Maher et al., 2013;
Yu & Reynolds, 2018), hence few to none conclusions about the use of scaffolding
activities by the textbook designers. Furthermore, while considerable literature has
been built up around the theme of scaffolding, no existing published studies have
been found in the Vietnamese context to examine the scaffolding activities in the new
English textbook series (10-year-program). Few research studies have investigated
the underlying reasons for teachers’ use of scaffolding, especially in writing
instruction. This indicates the need to fill in the mentioned gap by studying the use of

2


scaffolding tools and activities by teachers and textbook designers and reasons behind
teachers’ choices of those tools in real writing lessons.
1.2. Aims and objectives of the study
The study attempts to answer the following research questions:
1. What scaffolding activities are present in the writing sections in the “English
10” textbook (10-year program)?
2. What scaffolding tools do English teachers use in writing lessons for tenth
graders at Vietnamese upper-secondary schools?
3. What underlie English teachers’ employment or rejection of scaffolding tools
for students in the classroom?
1.3. Significance of the study
The answers to three research questions in this work are supposed to benefit students,
teachers, textbook designers, educationalists, MOET and researchers. Firstly, the
research is hoped to encourage EFL teachers to make the most of scaffolding
techniques to yield the desired learning outcomes in writing lessons. The research
findings and suggestions could also be used to assist textbook designers,
educationalists and the Ministry of Education and Training in proposing applicable
adjustments to the new English 10 textbook for upper secondary school students (10year-program), and supports to facilitate EFL teachers to develop their profession.

Last but not least, the findings from the current research can shed light on the issue
of when and how scaffolding in writing lessons can be used by the teachers, which
can lay the foundation for other studies in the same field, especially in the context of
Vietnamese education.
1.4. Scope of the study
This research was designed to explore Vietnamese EFL upper-secondary teachers’
practice of scaffolding techniques, as well as investigate the use of scaffolding
activities in the current English textbook for 10th graders of upper secondary schools.

3


Apart from examining the English textbook, this research investigates three cases of
EFL teachers working in a high school in Vietnam. For the first research question,
this study reviews the scaffolding tasks presented in the textbook “English 10” (10year-program). Next, to answer the two latter research questions, this study uncovers
teachers’ reasons for their use of scaffolding activities and their practices of
scaffolding techniques in facilitating students’ writing performance.
1.5. An overview of the rest of the paper
The rest of the paper consists of four chapters as follows:
Chapter II: Literature review
This chapter provides the background of the study, including definitions of key
concepts and
related studies in the field.
Chapter III: Methodology
This chapter provides information regarding setting, sampling, instruments and
procedures
employed in the research.
Chapter IV: Findings and Discussion
This chapter presents, analyzes and discusses the findings from the data collected
according to three research questions.

Chapter V: Conclusion
This chapter summarizes the main issues discussed in the paper, limitations of the
study as well as some suggestions for further research.
Following this chapter are the References and Appendices.

4


CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter covers a review of previous studies and of the literature related to the
research topic. The review is concerned with two major domains: writing and
scaffolding. The first part focuses on the significance of writing, its nature, and the
activities and techniques that can be used in developing the learners' writing skills.
The second part provides the concepts, characteristics, types, and techniques of
scaffolding and examines some practical guidelines and cautions when scaffolding is
used to teach writing in classrooms. From the literature, the chapter continues
discussing the research gaps that this present research is conducted to address.
2.1. Writing
2.1.1. Definition
Harmer (1998) defines writing as “a process that is, the stages the writer undergoes
to write something in its final form. This process has four main elements which are
planning, drafting, editing and final draft”. Richard & Schmidt (2002) viewed writing
as “a result of complex processes of planning, drafting, reviewing and revising.”
Writing plays an essential role in not only daily activities but also academic
ones (Dang, 2019). Dwivedi (2015) believes that if students are proficient at writing,
they will be able to make the most of the language in their study and work in the long
run. Moreover, in light of advanced technology development, the exchange of
information is largely performed via technological devices, making it crucial for
people to communicate effectively in writing (Griffiths, 2016).
2.2. Writing approach

As the research questions aim to analyse the use of scaffolding by textbook
designers and teachers in teaching writing, understanding the writing approach
presented in the English 10 textbook and in teachers’ real writing lesson is a must.
Firstly, this will help to derive some certain types of scaffolding activities used to
accommodate each writing approach in the textbook. Secondly, reasons behind the
choice of scaffolding tools in real writing lessons can be concluded based on the
writing approach that teachers adopt.
5


2.2.1. Product approach
Product approach is considered as a prescriptive and product-centred way of teaching
writing (Smith, 2000). It is a traditional approach encouraging language learners to
mimic a model text which is usually presented and analysed at an early stage (Hasan
& Akhand, 2010). This approach emphasizes appropriate use of vocabulary, syntax,
and cohesive device (Badger & Goodith, 2000). Writing development, thus, is
deemed as the direct result of students’ imitation, exploration and analysis of model
text.
According to Steele (2002) and Clenton (2004), teaching writing using product
approach involves four stages:
Stage one: Students are given a model text to study and mimic its highlighted
features.
Stage two: Students are involved in isolated controlled practice of the highlighted
features.
Stage three: Students work to organize ideas.
Stage four: Students individually use the skills, structures and vocabulary to produce
the final writing product.
2.2.2. Process approach
Process approach requires students to be actively involved in the communication of
ideas, feelings and experiences (Stanley, 2002). Particularly, students are not

expected to produce coherent, error-free, polished responses to their writing
assignments as the approach focuses more on the development of language use
(Celce-Murcia, 1991). Writing is now seen as a series of stages with teacher
intervention by enabling appropriate input of skills and knowledge (Badger &
Goodith, 2000: 160).
Steele (2002) describes process approach as follows:
Stage 1: Students brainstorm and discuss ideas. Teachers provide support if needed
without interrupting the flow of idea production.
Stage 2: Students develop and note down their ideas, and judge the quality and
usefulness of those ideas.
6


Stage 3: Students organise ideas into a mind map, spidergram, or linear form, which
would help them structure their texts.
Stage 4: Students write the first draft. This is done in class and frequently in pairs
or groups.
Stage 5: Drafts are exchanged, so that students become the readers of each other’s
work. This helps them develop an awareness of the fact that writers produce
something to be read, and thus can improve their own drafts.
Stage 6: Students return the drafts and make improvements based on peer feedback.
Stage 7: A final draft is written.
Stage 8: Students once again exchange and read each other’s work and perhaps even
write a response or a reply. Finally they submit their final writing product to the
teachers for assessment.
2.2.3. Genre approach
According to Husan & Akhan (2010), writing is viewed as a social and cultural
practice in genre-based approach. This writing includes the writing context, and the
conventions of the target discourse community. Badger and White (2000) noted that
genre-based approach can be considered as an extension of product approach as it

shares some similarities with product approach.
The focus of genre approach would be the language and discourse features of
specific texts and the context of using the text. ‘’Genre approach emphasizes more
on the reader, and on the conventions that a piece of writing needs to follow in order
to be successfully accepted by its readership (Munice, 2002)’’ (as cited in Hasan &
Akhand, 2010, p.81).
The five stages of a genre approach are (Hyland, 2007):
Stage 1: Setting the context
Stage 2: Modelling
Stage 3: Joint construction
Stage 4: Independent construction
Stage 5: Comparing

7


According to Firkins, Forey, and Sengupta (2007), three stages of a genre approach
includes:
Stage 1: Modelling
Stage 2: Joint construction
Stage 3: Independent construction
2.2.4. Integrated approach
It is true that using an approach may be more beneficial than another in some
circumstances. However, the disadvantages of such an approach can only be
compensated by the advantages of others. Hasan & Akhand (2010) wrote: “Process
approach is really significant to let the students generate their ideas in a
comprehensive manner. It helps a student to organize his/her thoughts in a systematic
way which enables the student to write fluently in a different language which is not
his/her mother tongue. On the other hand, the product approach is also important for
a student to be able to realize the competence level he/she requires according to the

task, age and maturity.” (p. 84).
Therefore, the need to mix “the careful control of language for learner (as in
product), and the creative use of language by the learner (as in process)” has emerged
(Kim & Kim, 2005, pp.7-8). Scaffolding appears to be a feasible method for this (Kim
& Kim, 2005). Hasan & Akhand (2010) stated that they have integrated productprocess approach in classrooms as follows:
Stage 1: Guided Brainstorming - Teachers provide students with major ideas/points
and ask learners to organize subpoints.
Stage 2: Top down approach in the organization of ideas is implemented.
Specifically, students are given a text and required to extract the important ideas/
points from the text.
Stage 3: Teachers provide guided questions in different angles to help students
develop ideas.
Stage 4: Teachers and students discuss several aspects of the model texts such as the
use of language structures, the level of formality, etc. This helps students to realize

8


that language features should not be imitated randomly, but be used in certain
situations.
Stage 5: Teachers and students point out the difference between an essay of a good
grade and that of a less better one.
2.3. Scaffolding
2.3.1. Definition
In the second language (L2) acquisition studies, the term “scaffolding” has gained
growing popularity since the introduction of Vygotsky’s (1978) “zone of proximal
development” (ZPD) (Miller et al., 2015; Lantolf, 2000). Specifically, ZPD according
to Vygotsky, refers to the difference between an individual’s actual and potential
developmental level. Vygotsky (1978, p.3) also emphasizes that “the range of skill
that can be developed with adult guidance or peer collaboration exceeds what can be

attained alone”. This means when students reach their limits in learning, they should
ask for assistance or support on performance to yield the desired learning outcomes.
Jaramillo (1996) stated that teachers activate this ZPD when they introduce students
to concepts which are above their skills, and encourage them to go beyond their
current levels.
Scaffolding, in its literal sense, is “a temporary structure that is often put up in
the process of constructing a building. As each bit of the new building is finished, the
scaffolding is taken down. The scaffolding is temporary, but essential for the
construction of the building” (Gibbons, 2002, p. 10). Meanwhile, scaffolding, in its
educational sense, was first defined by Wood, Bruner & Ross (1976) as an “adult
controlling those elements of the task that are essentially beyond the learner’s
capacity, thus permitting him to concentrate upon and complete only those elements
that are within his range of competence” (p.9). Similarly, the process of teaching can
be seen as comparable to the construction process of a building. From this view, the
term “scaffolding” is used to demonstrate the support or the assistance provided by
teachers while students are trying to obtain new skills.
The level of increasing or decreasing assistance is based on the learners’ ability
to perform and accomplish the targeted task on their own (Bodrova & Leong, 1998;
9


Elicker, 1995). In other words, scaffolding requires teachers to support their students
step-by-step, then progressively remove the assistance to let students perform the
tasks independently (Bliss & Askew, 1996; Bodrova & Leong, 1998; Palincsar,
1998). Scaffolding, thus, can be considered as temporary support that motivates and
helps learners to gain a high level of understanding and success in completing the
tasks. As cited in the study of Hogan & Pressley (1997), scaffolding is considered “a
temporary supportive structure that teachers create to assist a student or a group of
students to accomplish a task that they could not complete alone” (p. 116).
Scaffolding, according to Clark (2005) and Cagiltay (2006), is deemed as a process

enabling novices to carry out a task, solve a problem or obtain a goal which may be
beyond their unassisted efforts. Graves (2003) added that “in addition to helping
children complete tasks they could not otherwise complete, scaffolding can aid
students by helping them to complete a task with less stress or in less time, or to learn
more fully than they would have otherwise” (p. 30). Students can also enhance their
knowledge and skills to a higher level of competence (Rogoff, 1996).
Scaffolding in writing is an effective technique to make use of the support
provided to learners. Scaffolding is advocated by some researchers such as Larkin
(2002), Hyland (2003) and Cotteral & Cohen (2003), among others. Bodrova (1998)
believed that potential levels of writing performance can be obtained thanks to
scaffolding.
Based on the definition and functions of scaffolding above, it is clear that
teachers should adjust their teaching methodology in the classroom and make use of
the scaffolding techniques to support students to reach the ZPD to yield the desired
learning outcomes.
2.3.2. Further understanding of scaffolding
According to Wood et al. (1976), there are six types of assistance that an adult can
give: (1) developing the child’s interest; (2) simplifying the task to reduce the level
of freedom; (3) maintaining orientation or direction; (4) pointing out the task features;
(5) dealing with frustration; and (6) describing or illustrating viable solutions.
The success of scaffolding is considered based on these educational notions:
10


Intersubjectivity: the instructor and the learner collaborate to redefine the task and
share an understanding of the goal to be accomplished.
Gradual assistance: The scaffolding requires the teachers’ engagement in learners’
learning, the active involvement of learners and challenging tasks which require
support. It also demands gradual support from the instructors based on the current
level of understanding of students. The teachers not only need to have a

comprehensive knowledge of the task and the sub-goals to be completed, but also
understand the learners’ capabilities that may change during the instruction progress
(Van Lier, 2004). Thus, the number and types of activities may change gradually for
different learners who are at different levels and also for the same learners over a
period of time. The scaffolders can model the feasible solutions (Wood et al., 1976)
or workable strategies (Brown, 1994) or provide various types of assistance such as
offering explanations, encouraging active participation, modeling desired behaviour
and giving clarifications (Hogan & Pressley, 1997)
On-going assessment: Van Lier (2004) believes that interactions can help the
instructors to monitor students’ progress and provide sufficient and suitable support.
An ongoing assessment and adaptation of assistance during interactions are
necessary.
Learning responsibility: The final theoretical aspect of scaffolding is decreasing the
support provided to the learners so that they can be responsible for their own learning.
According to Wood et al. (1976), the transfer of responsibility is crucial in that the
learners not only know how to accomplish the targeted tasks, but also abstract the
process of completing specific activities to generalize this understanding to similar
tasks in the long run.
2.3.2.1. Psychological aspects of scaffolding
Stager & Harman (2002) believe that scaffolding builds self-confidence. The
temporary assistance provided by the scaffolders enables learners to be confident in
accomplishing their targeted tasks which would have been difficult without
scaffolded support. Moreover, scaffolding allows teachers and learners to form a
stronger bond and foster a closer relationship.

11


2.3.2.2. Cognitive aspects of scaffolding`
From the cognitive perspective, scaffolding is proved to be an effective tool to

enhance learners’ critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Critical thinking,
according to Rogoff (1996), is the process of actively applying, conceptualizing,
analyzing and/or evaluating information from experience, reflection, observation and
communication, as a guide to action. Besides, problem-solving requires the control
and modulation of learners' fundamental skills.
2.3.2.3. Pedagogical aspects of scaffolding
Scaffolding’s ultimate goal is to facilitate the learning process. Hammond (2001)
wrote that “knowing when and how to intervene is what scaffolding is all about. It is
about the teacher taking an informed and active role in guiding students' learning as
they come to terms with new ideas and concepts” (p.60).
Van Lier (2004) and Walqui (2006) highlight different pedagogical aspects of
scaffolding:
Continuity: Tasks are connected with one another and repeated with variations.
Contextual support: A safe and well-accommodated environment is necessary.
Intersubjectivity: Mutual rapport and active engagement are fostered. There is
encouragement and nonthreatening participation in a shared community of
practice.
Contingency: Task procedures are well-adjusted based on learners’ actions.
Contributions and utterances may be co-constructed and oriented towards each
other.
Handover/takeover: As confidence and skills increase, learners should be
ready to take over the tasks themselves. Teachers watch carefully until they
feel that learners can deal with the tasks on their own.
Flow: Challenges and skills are in balance. Participants concentrate on the
given tasks and are ‘in tune’ with each other.
All in all, the psychological, cognitive and pedagogical aspects of scaffolding interact
with each other and it is hard to characterize their features separately.

12

2.3.3. Scaffolding classification
Since the introduction of the concept of scaffolding, there have been many experts
trying to categorize scaffolding based on a number of criteria.
Considering the level of support, Hammond (2001) divides scaffolding into
two types: the macro and micro levels. The macro level refers to the overall design
of each lesson such as task sequences to achieve certain objectives and the
“handover” of responsibility from teachers to students. The micro level involves
moment-to-moment support and assistance given by the teachers or peers within the
lesson. To further students’ understanding of the task, teachers or even peers can
provide scaffolding through various strategies such as questioning or recasting
students’ previous experiences.
Regarding the functions and mechanisms of scaffolding, Hannafin et al.
(1999) proposed four different types of scaffolds - conceptual, metacognitive,
procedural and strategic scaffolding. Conceptual scaffolding guides learners
regarding what to consider and prioritize, helping learners to reason misconceptions
or complex problems during their learning process. This can be obtained by several
mechanisms such as providing feedback, hinting/cueing, coaching comments for
motivational purposes, and giving a model (Cagiltay, 2006). Metacognitive
scaffolding refers to the guidance in how to think and relate the given information to
previous knowledge. Procedural scaffolding clarifies, emphasizes and guides
learners to utilize tools and available resources until the task is completed. Finally,
strategic scaffolding gives students several alternatives to solve problems at key
decision points.
13


With a view to categorizing instructional scaffolding into different strategies,
Hogan & Pressley (1997) propose different instructional scaffolding techniques such
as offering explanations, modelling of desired behaviours, inviting learners’

participation and clarifying learners’ understandings. Walqui (2006), however,
presents six types of scaffolding: modelling, bridging, contextualizing, scheme
building, developing metacognition, re-presenting text. In terms of modelling,
students are provided sample products containing explicit guidelines and standards
for students’ outcomes. Bridging refers to the process of creating a connection
between students’ previous knowledge and the novel piece of knowledge.
Contextualizing is the process of embedding language in certain contexts by utilizing
different tools like pictures, videos, realia or analogies. Regarding scheme building,
teachers organize students’ knowledge and establish connections among different
concepts. Metacognition refers to the process of offering students strategies for
managing their thinking. Finally, re-presenting means that students have to transform
a text into forms of other genres to express their understanding. This framework
focuses on the conceptual approach to categorize scaffolding strategies. It can also
represent the intentions of textbook designers when designing the scaffolding
activities in the English 10 textbook, thus, it will be utilized to answer research
question 1. However, it does not present specific scaffolding tools, so this framework
will not be used for data analysis of research question 2.
The framework proposed by Van de Pol et al. (2010) includes both scaffolding
intentions and scaffolding tools. The combination of a scaffolding tool with a
scaffolding intention will form and construct a scaffolding strategy. This framework,
according to Razgulina-Lytsy (2012), is beneficial to identify scaffolding in the
interactions among teachers and students more precisely. Five scaffolding intentions
are: direction maintenance, cognitive structuring, reduction of the degrees of
freedom, recruitment and contingency management/ frustration control. Direction
maintenance requires teachers to maintain the learners’ target and pursuit of a specific
objective. Cognitive structuring refers to the process of providing “explanatory and
belief structures that organize and justify” (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988, p.63). When it

14

comes to reduction of the degrees of freedom, teachers need to simplify the tasks or
take over parts of a task that is beyond students’ ability at that certain point.
Recruitment concerns getting students’ interests in the targeted tasks and helping
them to follow the task requirements, while frustration control refers to the use of
rewards and punishments to facilitate students’ performance and minimize or prevent
their frustration. Six scaffolding means to accommodate students’ process of learning
are also distinguished in the study of Van de Pol et al. (2010): feeding backs, giving
hints, instructing, explaining, modelling and questioning.
Feeding back entails the provision of information about the students’
performance to the students themselves. It has been proved to be a core
element of scaffolding by several studies such as Pea R. D. (2004) and
Quintana et al. (2004) since it informs students of proper and precise
judgements about their performance for further adjustment and adaptation
(Poehner, 2012).
Giving hints involves the provision of suggestions or clues to help students do
the tasks. Alibali (2006) considered hints as an effective tool to accommodate
students’ learning.
Instructing entails teachers telling learners what to do or how something must
be done and why. Instructing is only deemed as a scaffolding tool if it “reduces
the cognitive load required to perform a particular task” (Johnson, 2009, p.22).
Straightforward instruction cannot be considered as scaffolding (Mercer,
1998).
Explaining means that the teachers give detailed information or clarification
to the students. This, according to Fisher & Frey (2010), is critically important
when students’ acquisition of knowledge to complete the task is insufficient.
Modelling refers to “the process of offering behaviour for imitation” (Tharp &
Gallimore, 1988, p.47). This will assist students in both metacognitive and
cognitive activities (Brophy, 1999).
Questioning is the process of asking students questions that demand “an active

linguistic and cognitive answer” (Van de Pol et al., 2010, p. 277). The primary

15


function of teachers’ questions is highlighted by Cazden (1988) as
reconceptualizing students’ thinking and understanding.
Given that the objective of this study is to explore the scaffolding tools employed by
the English teachers of tenth graders, the framework proposed by Van de Pol et al.
(2010) appears to be the most suitable. This framework will be utilized in both data
collection and analysis.
2.3.4. Considerations in implementing scaffolding
The selection of suitable scaffolding tools depends on various factors. Al-Yami
(2008) recommended that teachers should understand students’ ability thoroughly to
identify the knowledge gap so that scaffolding activities can be suitably designed and
implemented at a specific point. Students’ level of proficiency should also be taken
into consideration. Siemon & Virgona (2003) stated that certain groups of students
need teachers’ modelling, coaching or prompting, while others do not. Similarly,
Fenner (2018) emphasized the need to consider students’ academic strengths and
weaknesses as well as their background when designing and applying scaffolding
techniques.
Besides, there are other factors which have a considerable impact on the use
of scaffolding. For example, Wood et al. (1976) believe that the use of scaffolding
depends on a particular learner, with a particular task, at a particular time. The age of
students and the targeted tasks can also affect the teachers’ decision of scaffolding
tools (Baralt, 2013). Fenner (2018) added that learners’ familiarity of the content,
complexity of the tasks and especially the linguistic demands may underline teachers’
choice of scaffolding.
2.3.5. Relevant studies about the use of scaffolding techniques in
language teaching

A number of researchers have conducted studies to investigate teachers’ use of
scaffolding techniques in language education research, especially in the field of
literacy (Clark & Graves, 2005; Smith, 2006 both cited in Van de Pol, 2012). The
studies carried out by Al-Yami (2008) and Safa & Rozati (2017) claimed a favourable
impact of scaffolding on listening comprehension of students. In particular, Al-Yami
16