Summary of the Study

This case study aims at investigating the scaffolding strategies used by two elementary English teachers in Taiwan, examining how these teachers use them to enhance EFL students’ cognitive engagement, and discussing their beliefs of strategy use. The following three research questions guided this study:

1. What scaffolding strategies do elementary English teachers use to enhance EFL students’ cognitive engagement?

2. How do elementary English teachers use these scaffolding strategies for enhancing students’ cognitive engagement?

3. Why do elementary English teachers use these scaffolding strategies for enhancing students’ cognitive engagement?

The interview and observation data were collected from late August to mid-October, 2007. The data collection procedure included 1) initial interviews of the two teachers;

2) selected classes to be observed; 3) begin the formal observations and follow-up interviews. Before conducting interviews and formal observations, the researcher provided a consent form for the two teachers and their students in order to get their permissions to participate in the study. The formal observations and follow-up interviews lasted for about one and a half month. All of them were audio and

video-taped and then transcribed by the researcher and checked by a transcriber. Five hours of the interviews and eleven hours of the class observations in total were carried out with Amy and her classes; one and a half hour of the interviews and nine hours of the class observations were collected from Emily and her classes. The researcher adopted constant comparative method and template approach to analyze the data.

Template approach was applied after constant comparative method in order to confirm there was no missing code in the data analysis process. Finally, the trustworthiness of this study was judged by four criteria which included credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. The researcher used different strategies to assure each criterion.

The result of this study showed that the two teachers believed that cognitive engagement was classified into three categories: 1) triggering and sustaining attention, 2) enhancing memory, and 3) initiating critical thinking. The two teachers used different scaffolding strategies to help the students achieve different categories of cognitive engagement.

For Amy, students’ attention was the most basic condition for cognitive engagement. She used lots of strategies to trigger and sustain students’ attention in English teaching (e.g., walk around, stop talking, stare at students, and others). When students became concentrated on the class, Amy began to provide lots of opportunities for students to practice and give explanations in order to enhance students’ impression, familiarity, and comprehension of the materials. Amy increased students’ familiarity by giving variety with visual aids, using tasks, and giving homework. She increased students’ impression by sharing associated experience. She increased students’

comprehension by using L1 and objects as mediated tools to explain class materials.

Finally, Amy initiated students’ thinking by asking open-ended questions and using tasks. These two strategies were used at the final stage of English learning because

she believed that the two strategies required the highest level of cognitive engagement, critical thinking.

Compared with Amy, Emily did not have such a clear framework of cognitive engagement. Although Emily observed that attention might lead to better English learning, she did not demand attention but attracted the students by using tasks or giving rewards because she wanted to provide a relaxing environment for the students to learn English. In terms of enhancing students’ familiarity, impression, and comprehension of class materials, Emily had some similar strategies to Amy’s. Emily also gave variety with visual aids and gave homework to enhance students’ familiarity.

However, giving variety with visual aids was used for different purposes. Emily used this strategy to increase students’ familiarity and impression of class materials.

Moreover, she also used L1 and objects as mediated tools while explaining class materials to increase students’ comprehension. Emily did not use any strategy to initiate students’ critical thinking because of her teaching beliefs and experiences. She had tried to provide critical thinking time for students in class before; however, some students used the time to talk with each other rather than to think class materials.

Emily had decided not to spend time on students’ critical thinking in class.

Compared with existing literatures or personal assumptions, the present study discovered that students’ cognitive engagement might need teachers’ assistance to elevate. This finding responded to ZPD (Vygotsky, 1978) and scaffolding (Wood, Bruner, & Rose, 1976) which pointed out teacher’s role in assisting students’ second language learning.

In addition, there are two other expected findings in this study: 1) Similar scaffolding strategies for enhancing students’ cognitive engagement were recognized in the previous and present studies, 2) Teachers’ beliefs played an important role in teachers’ use of scaffolding strategies.

However, there are some unpredicted and interesting findings include: 1) One case in the present study believed that cognitive engagement was a sequential concept;

2) The two cases in the present study showed different perceptions of the teacher’s role in initiating EFL students’ critical thinking; 3) The two cases in the present study were not aware that students can be active listeners or learners in class; 4) The two cases in the present study emphasized more on students’ memory of vocabulary and sentences than on critical thinking.

This study concludes that the teachers’ beliefs of cognitive engagement played an important role in their use of scaffolding strategies. The present study discovered that the two teachers had different perceptions of students’ cognitive engagement. For example, one of the two teachers believed that her use of scaffolding strategies could guide students to think critically. The other teacher, Emily, perceived that the teacher only had to provide time and then students had innate ability to think critically.

Therefore, Emily did not use any strategy to initiate students’ critical thinking in class.

Discussing the two teachers’ beliefs of cognitive engagement helped the researcher to understand their purposes of using different scaffolding strategies.