Scaffolding Used in Reading Lessons

Some researchers have explored how scaffolding is used in reading lessons (Calfee &

Patrick, 1995; Ogle, 1986). Graves & Avery (1997) observed a 15-year veteran social study teacher’s eleventh-grade U.S. history class and explored the teacher scaffolded

learners when the reading materials are challenging or when the purpose for learners is to take the challenge in reading. The teacher did use some strategies to scaffold students when they are reading. In pre-reading activities, the teacher asked questions to activate students’ background knowledge. In during-reading activities, the teacher guided the students to read through instructions. In post-reading activities, the teacher asked questions or lead the students to discuss what they read. The teacher did scaffold students in reading in order to help them solve the problems in reading activities. .

2.2.1.2 Scaffolding Used in Computer-Mediated Lessons

Some studies explored how teachers use scaffolding strategies in computer-mediated lessons (Cavalier & Klein, 1998; Ge & Land, 2003; Gordin & Pea, 1995; Greene &

Land, 2000; Klein & Pridemore, 1994; Land, 2000; Lin et al., 1999; Lin & Lehman, 1999; Oliver & Hannafin, 2000; Ping & Swe, 2004; Roehler & Cantlon, 1997;

Scardamalia et al., 1984). In Ping and Swe’s (2004) study, they observed fifteen computer-mediated lessons of two junior colleges in Singapore and explored how some strategies the teacher used in the computer-mediated lessons can engage learners cognitively in their learning process. Based on scaffolding strategies and identified in previous studies, Ping and Swe examined the following scaffolding strategies teachers used to support their students in computer-mediated lessons:

1. orienting strategies used to attract students’ attention to key concepts or visual cues (Cavalier & Klein, 1998; Klein & Pridemore, 1994; Oliver & Hannafin, 2000);

2. peer interaction used to improve cognitive thinking and metacognitive skills (Greene & Land, 2000; Lin et al., 1999);

3. prompts which includes question, elaboration and reflection prompts used to

promote knowledge integration (Ge & Land, 2003; Land, 2000; Lin & Lehman, 1999; Scardamalia et al., 1984);

4. modeling used to guide students to generate questions and elaborate thinking (Gordin & Pea, 1995; Roehler & Cantlon, 1997).

In terms of orienting strategies, the teacher provided a step-by-step instruction to explain what the students were expected to do in the lesson and the teacher’s expectations. According to the observation, the teacher usually gave handouts or projected instructions on the screen via the teachers’ computer. The students were more engaged and motivated in the learning process if they understand the teachers’

instruction and expectations.

In terms of peer interactions, the students were encouraged to engage with what had been learnt or discussed in the lesson by interacting with peers. Based on the observation, the students helped each other to engage in class by talking and asking questions to one another.

In terms of prompts, the teacher had to use prompts which not only helped provide clues to solve the problems but also provided the students with examples of important problem-solving strategies. According to the data, the teachers lead the students to think critically by asking questions (e.g., wh-questions).

Last, modeling guided the students to generate questions and think in class.

Based on the data, the teacher demonstrated some features of the software before asking the students to complete the task independently. The students felt with ease within the task if the teacher offered demonstration to them.

Orienting strategies, peer interaction, prompts, and modeling are the scaffolding strategies which have been found in computer-mediated lessons. Pin and Swe (2004) examined how the teacher used them in Singapore contexts; however, we do not know whether and how they are used in Taiwan context.

2.2.2 Scaffolding in Second Language Teaching

Teachers, like scaffolds used in construction, play an important role in assisting students with knowledge building and skills development in second language learning.

Instructional conversation is a common form of teacher assistances.

2.2.2.1 Instructional Conversations

According to Tharp and Gallimore (1988, 1991), instructional conversation refers to productive and interactive verbal strategies used by teachers to engage students in active thinking, meaning negotiation and, accordingly, learning. Moreover, instructional conversation is identified as a dialog between teachers and learners in which prior knowledge and experiences are woven together with new material to build higher understanding (Tharp & Yamauchi, 1994). Goldenberg (1991) provided five critical features of instructional conversation. First, it is interesting and engaging.

Second, it is an idea or a concept that has meaning and relevance for students. Third, it has a focus during the discussion. Fourth, there is a high level of participation. Fifth, students engage in extended discussions with the teacher and among themselves.

These five features are helpful for the researcher to identify instructional conversation in class.

There are different ways to initiate instructional conversations in class. Dornyei (1994) proposed three methods for teachers to assist and motivate students. First, teachers are like group leaders and students’ attitudes and orientations toward learning are modeled after the teachers. Second, teachers call students’ attention and arise their metacognitve awareness by presenting the task. Third, teachers provide information feedback (e.g., praise) and controlling feedback (e.g., the comparison of students’

successes or failures with others) for students. According to Dornyei (1994), teachers can motivate and initiate instructional conversation by modeling, presenting the task,

and providing feedback. In addition to these three ways, asking questions is also another common way to initiate instructional conversation (cf. Chaudron, 1988;

Mehan, 1979; Mollica, 1994; Nunan, 1991). According to the previous studies, methods for initiating instructional conversation have been identified. However, how the instructional conversations are used in class is little discussed.

2.2.2.1.1 Asking Questions

One of the ways to initiate instructional conversation is to ask questions. In order to provide more opportunities for learners to have social interaction in class and elicit more output from learners, teachers usually use questions as an instructional tool when interacting with the entire class (cf. Chaudron, 1988; Mehan, 1979; Mollica, 1994; Nunan, 1991).

There are many ways to classify teacher questions. The most commonly used classification is closed/display and open/referential questions (Barnes, 1975; Long &

Sato 1983). According to Barnes’ and Long and Sato’s definition, “closed/display question” refers to the teacher has known the answers and requires fixed answers.

They are useful to elicit short and mechanical responses. “Open /referential question,”

on the other hand, refers to the teacher does not know the answer and usually requires more complex answers.

A number of studies about teacher questioning have been conducted in ESL context to investigate how teachers’ questions engage learners in instructional interactions, check students’ comprehension, and build students’ understanding of complex concept (Cazden, 1988; Chaudron, 1988; Hatch, 1992; Long, 1981; Mehan, 1979; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; Wells, 1996). Moreover, the functions of questions have been examined in some studies (Forman, McCormick, & Donato, 1993; Wong, 1991). McCormick and Donato (2000) did research to observe how a university ESL

teacher’s questioning strategies scaffold language learning during teacher-fronted activities and how questions asked reflect Wertsch’s (1985) six scaffolding functions.

Taking direction maintenance questions (abbreviation as DM Questions; the questions for maintaining students’ motivation and participation) as an example, the teacher used DM questions to check students’ comprehensibility and encourage more students to participate (e.g., You mean…? / I guess what you said is …?). The results of this study showed that students were able to achieve tasks when the teacher’s questions were used effectively. In addition, the teacher chose questions selectively based on her goals of specific course. Hsu’s study shared a similar finding. Hsu (2001) examined teacher questions in L2 classroom and the subjects included two teachers and 27 ESL learners in American college. The results showed that teacher questioning are like elicitation tools and attention-drawing devices and are used to provide corrective feedback, trigger learners’ output, and promote learners’ performance, cognitive thinking, and self-regulation.

Some studies examined display questions in ESL contexts (Cullen, 1998; Long

& Sato, 1983; Markee, 2000; Nunn, 1999; Van Lier, 1988). Some of them indicated closed questions are commonly used but do not generate adequate language output from students. Therefore, closed questions are pedagogically meaningless (Baetens Beardsmore, 1996; Chua-Wong & McLellan, 1996; Martin, 1990). However, Ho (2005) had different perspective and indicated that closed questions are pedagogically meaningful. Ho (2005) observed three non-native ESL teachers in Brunei and found that teachers’ questions can be classified into three-levels rather than only two fixed types of questions which include open and closed questions. Level 1 is similar to closed/display questions and level 3 is similar to open/referential questions. The only difference is level 2 which concerns with general knowledge, vocabulary and language proficiency questions. Level 2 questions may elicit few possible answers

and the teacher may know the answers; however, the students may not. This kind of questions may or may not stimulate lengthy responses but students can be engaged cognitively in the process of answering the questions. The teacher asks this kind of questions purposefully in order to introduce the topic of class or test students’ general knowledge. Due to this factor, the intentions behind the questions have to be considered. In Ho’s (2005) study, display questions are pedagogically meaningful if we take the teacher’s purpose into account. In addition to Ho’s (2005) study, Lee (2006) used a procedural approach to investigate how ESL teachers in a mid-western U.S. university use display questions in class. This study used sequential analysis which focuses on three-turn sequence of initiation-response-evaluation (IRE) to examine display questions. The results showed that there were three ways for teachers to demonstrate display questions. First, the teacher made her display questions answerable and students could recognize the question and offered the answer. Second, the teacher used students’ common sense knowledge and asked students to recall their past experiences. Third, the teacher used display question as a repair to negotiate what is being asked and keep asking a better question to elicit the correct answer more quickly. This study revealed that display questions are available and important resources for teachers to initiate and to continue interaction with students in class.

Two studies above showed that ESL teachers’ ways of using display questions in class and the practice of display questions depend on teachers’ pedagogic intentions.

To the best of my knowledge, there are relatively few studies investigating the strategy of asking questions in an EFL context, in which class hours are sometimes the only time that assistances can be provided for students to learn English (Hussin, 2006; Wu, 1993). Hussin (2006) did a qualitative research to examine the dimensions of questioning in secondary school classrooms in Malaysia. The results showed that the majority of questions set by the EFL classes were low-level, which students can

answer with little cognitive thinking. Moreover, there was a mismatch between the national curriculum and teachers’ questions in the real class. While the national policy is to help learners become critical thinkers, teachers seem concerned other short term goals because of the entrance examination. According to Hussin’s study, we know that teachers in Malaysia tend to use low-level questions in class because of the entrance exam. However, it did not mention how the teachers asked these “low-level”

questions.

To sum up, the strategy of asking questions has been examined in ESL context, in which assistances for students’ English learning can often be obtained inside and outside of classroom (Cazden, 1988; Chaudron, 1988; Hatch, 1992; Long, 1981;

Mehan, 1979; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; Wells, 1996); however, few studies have investigated this strategy in an EFL context, in which class hours are sometimes the only time that assistances can be provided for students to learn English (Hussin, 2006;

Wu, 1993). That is, there are limited investigations of how EFL teachers use the strategy of asking questions to assist students’ learning in class. In addition to the strategy of asking questions, there is a need to explore other types of strategies which are used by ESL and EFL teachers to assist students’ learning.

2.2.2.1.2 Giving Feedback

Giving feedback is another way to initiate instructional conversation. Feedback refers to teachers’ error correction strategies, and it can either be positive or negative.

Negative feedback refers to the fact that a teacher corrects students’ nontargetlike responses and can be divided into explicit and implicit feedbacks (Gass, 2003; Long, 1996). Explicit feedback refers to direct correction of students’ errors; implicit feedback refers to pointing out students’ ungrammatical output indirectly. The form of implicit feedback can be clarification requests, confirmation checks, and recasts

(Braidi, 2002). Positive feedback, on the other hand, refers to the fact that a teacher praises and confirms students’ performances.

Many studies put emphases on investigating the relationship between negative feedback and second language acquisition (e.g., Doughty, 1994; Doughty and Varela, 1998; Han, 2001; Loewen, 2002; Lyster, 1998; Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Robert, 1995;

Seedhouse, 1997; Williams, 2001). Negative feedback is helpful for L2 acquisition because it helps students to notice their incorrect use of target language (Gass, 2001).

Early studies on negative feedback showed that feedback in the form of explicit correction is seldom available (e.g., Chaudron 1986, 1987; Chun, Day, Chenoweth, &

Luppescu, 1982). Recent SLA research has put emphasis on the role of implicit negative feedback, such as recasts and negotiation, and uses of negative feedback in second language development (Ayoun, 2001; Doughty & Varela, 1998; Han, 2002;

Leeman, 2003; Long, Inagaki, & Ortega, 1998; Mackey & Philp, 1998; Morris, 2002a;

Muranoi, 2000; Nabei & Swain, 2002). Findings of these studies indicated implicit negative feedback can facilitate learners' L2 development. However, there are few studies telling us how the teacher provides negative feedback in class.

In order to examine feedback in L2 classes, there are many elements which have to be considered. Context is one of the elements. In Oliver and Mackey’s (2003) study, they observed five Australian ESL teachers and their students in order to examine the relationship between the teachers’ feedback and four interactional contexts which include content, management, communication, and explicit language.

The teacher used different ways to provide feedback in different contexts. For example, the teacher corrected the students’ ungrammatical form directly in explicit- language-focused exchanges. In content exchanges, the teacher corrected the students by explicitly explaining or imparting knowledge as the feedback for students. In this study, the results showed teachers were most likely to offer feedback in explicit

language-focused and content-focused exchanges; learners were most likely to use feedback which is provided in explicit language-focused exchanges. This study suggests that teachers’ feedbacks varied in interactional context. In addition, In Sheen’s (2004) study, teachers’ corrective feedback and learners’ uptake were analyzed according to four classroom settings which include French immersion, Canada ESL, New Zealand ESL, and Korean EFL. Sheen (2004) analyzed the feedback based on Lyster and Ranta’s taxonomy of teachers’ corrective feedback. The results showed that recasts were the most frequent feedback type in all four contexts but were much more frequent in the Korean EFL and New Zealand ESL classrooms than in the French immersion and Canada ESL classrooms. This study found that the different feedback types varied in frequency but not in type across the four classroom settings. Two studies above showed the teachers used different ways to offer feedback according to interactional context. Moreover, recast is the most frequent type of feedback that the teachers use in immersion, EFL, and ESL classroom settings.

In addition to the context, interlocutor type is another element which may take effect on different feedback. There are various interlocutor types (e.g., NS/NNS, teachers’ personality, gender…etc). Mackey, Oliver, & Leeman (2003) examined the effects of interlocutor type on the provision and incorporation of feedback in task-based interaction. The interlocutor type included NS-NNS and NNS-NNS adult and child dyads. The types of teachers included NS and NNS; however, the type of students only included NNS. The results showed that learners received negative feedback in response to their L2 nontargetlike utterances in all dyad types. One significant difference was negative feedback might be different because of learners’

age. Teachers of NNSs provided significantly less feedback than teachers of NSs in adult dyads; however, teachers of NNSs offered more opportunities for learners to modify their output than teachers of NSs. This study suggests that interlocutor type

(e.g., NS vs. NNS) and learners’ age are important variables which have to take into account when examining feedback in class.

In sum, the context, interlocutor type, and learner age are important elements which we have to consider in examining feedback. Moreover, the process of using feedback is still little investigated, both in ESL and EFL contexts.

2.2.3 Teacher’s Belief and Goals for Scaffolding Second Language Learning Most of studies focused on examining the relationship between language teachers’

strategies and second language acquisition, but only a few investigated the relationship between teachers’ strategies and beliefs. Earlier studies found that the patterns of teacher-student interaction reflected teachers’ certain pedagogical beliefs (Barner, 1992; Cazden 1988; Gutierrez, 1994; Mastrini-McAteer, 1997; Wells, 1993).

Recent studies also investigated the importance of teacher’s beliefs or intentions on their teaching practices and found that there is a link between teachers’ beliefs or intentions and their teaching practices (Almarza, 1996; Ertmer, et al., 1999; Johnson, 1992; Lin, 2001; Smith 1996; Wang, 2000). Martinez (2000) investigated the relationship between the teachers’ beliefs and the classroom literacy practices of a first-grade bilingual teacher and explored the teacher’s perceptions toward literacy instruction reflected her literacy practices. For example, some bilingual teachers believed that activating students’ prior knowledge assisted to anchor meaning-making and make certain knowledge simple and easy to acquire. Due to this fact, they would use some strategies (e.g., ask questions) to activate students’ prior knowledge in class.

Moreover, in Ping and Swe’s (2004) study, the teachers’ use of teaching strategies depended on their pedagogical intention. If the teacher wanted to invite the students to think critically, he or she would use prompts (e.g., asking wh-questions) as a scaffolding strategy. Two studies above showed that teachers did apply their

pedagogical beliefs or intentions to their teaching practices. However, a few studies had different results (Mastrini-McAteer, 1997; Tucker, 2001). Oskoz and Liskin- Gasparro (2001) did a case study to investigate teachers’ beliefs and discourse of corrective feedback in a university-level Spanish class. Based on the observation and interview data, the teacher, a native speaker of Spanish, believed students were inhibited by frequent correction. However, the data indicated that she provided extensive corrective feedback, not only in form-focused activities, but also in communicative activities, where she claimed to use recasts most frequently. This study showed that teachers’ belief might not exactly reflect on their teaching practices.

In conclusion, previous studies had different findings about the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and their teaching practices. Moreover, how teachers’

beliefs corresponded to their teaching practices had not been discussed. Therefore, the present study aims at investigating the role of teachers’ beliefs in their teaching practices.

2.3 Summary

This chapter summarizes related theories and empirical studies concerned about scaffolding. It first discusses Vygotsky’s social-cultural theory which suggests human’s language development comes from social interaction. Moreover, Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), one of the core concepts in socio-cultural theory, is also discussed to provide an understanding of the role of assistance in students’

second language learning. Scaffolding, the other important concept of social-cultural

second language learning. Scaffolding, the other important concept of social-cultural