• 沒有找到結果。

國小英語教師幫助學生思考學習之教學策略及信念研究

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "國小英語教師幫助學生思考學習之教學策略及信念研究"

Copied!
170
0
0

加載中.... (立即查看全文)

全文

(1)⊕ 國立中山大學外國語文學系研究所 碩士論文 國小英語教師幫助學生思考學習之教學策略及信念研究. Scaffolding Strategies of Elementary English Teachers: Ways and Beliefs of Enhancing EFL Students’ Cognitive Engagement. 研究生:葉佳雯撰 By Jia-Wen Yeh 指導教授:楊郁芬博士 Advisor:Dr. Yu-Feng Yang. 中華民國 97 年 02 月 February 2008.

(2) 摘要. 本研究旨在探討國小英語教師幫助學生思考學習之教學策略及信念。研究主 題如下: (一)國小英語教師對於幫助學生思考學習所採用的教學策略; (二)國 小英語教師教學策略使用的過程;(三)國小英語教師使用其教學策略的主要信 念。 本研究主要採用探索型(exploratory case study)和解釋型(explanatory case study)個案研究。參與本研究的主要對象為兩位台灣國小英語教師。資料收集的 方式主要為訪談和教室觀察,期間為九十六年八月底至十月中。研究者在徵得兩 位教師的同意後,隨即開始進行訪談和教室觀察。包含其中一位教師五個小時的 訪談及十個小時的教室觀察;另一位教師一個半小時的訪談及九個小時的教室觀 察。訪談資料以錄音的方式保存並逐字轉記為文字;教室觀察資料以錄影的方式 保存並擷取相關片段轉記為文字。資料分析主要採取持續比較分析法(constant comparative method)和樣板式分析法(template approach)。過程包括先採用持續比 較分析法將教學策略的型態從收集的語料中加以標記並分類,並歸納兩位教師對 於使用教學策略幫助學生思考學習的主要信念;另輔以 Gallimore and Tharp (1990) 所提出的六大教學策略作為分類的樣板,以檢視教學策略的歸納是否有所遺漏。 本研究獲致之主要發現如下:(一)兩位教師認為學生的思考學習主要分為 三類:注意力、記憶、批判性思考;(二)兩位教師採用不同的教學策略來幫助 學生的思考學習;(三)兩位教師對於思考學習的信念在其教學策略的使用上扮 演很重要的角色,學生的思考學習也因此有所差異。 本研究的主要發現和維果斯基的「最近發展區」及「鷹架作用」的概念相 符合,參與研究之教師認為教師之引導及協助在幫助學生學習第二語言時扮演相 當重要的角色。以下發現與本研究之預期相符合:(一)在兩位教師的教學策略 裡可以發現,其中有部份吻合前述文獻中所提及之教師幫助學生思考學習之教學 策略;(二)教師信念對於其教學策略的使用有相當程度之影響。 ii.

(3) 本研究之非預期發現如下:(一)對本研究其中一位教師而言,思考學習有 階段性之分;(二)針對教師在幫助學生批判性思考所扮演的角色,兩位教師持 有不同見解;(三)兩位教師並沒有察覺學生在思考學習上可能是主動的;(四) 兩位教師皆著重在加強學生的單字記憶力而非引導學生的批判性思考。 本研究對於日後國小英語教學的應用如下:(一)國小英語教師須意識到學 生的批判性思考可能需要老師的引導;(二)國小英語教師須意識到老師須循序 漸進的引導似乎可以幫助學生的批判性思考; (三)培育英語師資時應提供如何 幫助學生思考學習的相關課程,此外,應教導實習教師學習如何幫助學生融入於 思考學習。 相關後續研究之建議如下:(一)可持續探究教師信念對於其教學策略的影 響; (二)將學生的觀點納入考量以分辨教學策略對於幫助學生思考學習的成效; (三)將家長的觀點納入考量以研究家長意見對於教學策略的影響性。. iii.

(4) ABSTRACT This study aimed to investigate elementary school EFL teachers’ use of scaffolding strategies for enhancing EFL students’ cognitive engagement, and to examine whether the teachers’ beliefs correspond to their strategy use. The three main focuses of the study included: 1) the types of scaffolding strategies used by elementary English teachers to enhance EFL students’ cognitive engagement; 2) the processes of using these scaffolding strategies; 3) the teachers’ beliefs in using these scaffolding strategies. The present study utilized an exploratory-explanatory case study design. Two elementary English teachers participated in this study. Data were collected from interviews and classroom observations during late-August to mid-October 2007. The researcher carried out all the interviews and classroom observations after she got the two teachers’ permission to participate in this study. Five hours of interviews and eleven hours of classroom observations were collected from one teacher, while one and a half hours of interviews and nine hours of classroom observations were collected from the other. The interview data were audio-taped and then transcribed word by word. The classroom observation data were video-taped, and the useful parts were transcribed word by word. The researcher adopted constant comparative method and the template approach for data analysis. The process of data analysis with the use of constant comparative method included categorizing the types of scaffolding strategies from the collected data and analyzing the two elementary English teachers’ beliefs of using scaffolding strategies. In addition, Gallimore and Tharp’s (1990) six teaching strategies were used as a template to confirm that there was no missing code in the data analysis process. The three major findings of this study are as the following: 1) the two. iv.

(5) elementary English teachers in this study believed that cognitive engagement is classified into three categories: attention, memory, and critical thinking; 2) the two elementary English teachers in this study used scaffolding strategies in different ways to help students achieve different categories of cognitive engagement; 3) the two elementary English teachers’ different beliefs of cognitive engagement played an important role in their use of scaffolding strategies, and they guided students to achieve different levels of cognitive engagement in class based on their beliefs. The findings of the present study, in general, respond to EFL teachers’ perceptions of ZPD (Vygotsky, 1978) and scaffolding (Wood, Bruner, & Rose, 1976) which pointed out the importance of teacher’s role in assisting students’ second language learning. The expected findings discussed are as the following: 1) similar scaffolding strategies for enhancing students’ cognitive engagement found in the present study were recognized in previous studies; 2) teachers’ beliefs played an important role in teachers’ use of scaffolding strategies. Unexpected, or interesting findings discussed are as the following: 1) one teacher in the present study believed that cognitive engagement was a sequential concept; 2) the two teachers in the present study showed different perceptions of the role of EFL teacher in initiating students’ critical thinking; 3) The two teachers in the present study were not aware that students could be active listeners or learners in class; 4) The two teachers in the present study put more emphasis on students’ memory of vocabulary and sentences than on critical thinking. Three pedagogical implications are suggested in this study: 1) Elementary English teachers need to be aware that critical thinking of some students’ might need assistance from teachers; 2) elementary English teachers need to be aware that step-by-step assistance is more likely to help students achieve critical thinking; 3) teacher education should provide related courses about cognitive engagement, and v.

(6) practice teachers should learn how to assist students in engaging cognitively in English class. Finally, this study suggests three directions for further research: 1) the future study should investigate on teachers’ beliefs or perspectives on using scaffolding strategies in class; 2) the future study should take students’ perspectives into account to identify the effectiveness of scaffolding strategies in enhancing EFL students’ cognitive engagement; 3) the future study should take parents’ expectation or perceptions of English teaching into account to investigate how parents’ expectations and feedback influence teachers’ scaffolding strategies.. vi.

(7) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This master thesis would not have been possible to complete without the assistance and support of numerous individuals. First, I would like to show my sincere gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Yu-Feng Yang, a hard-working and active researcher, who is concerned about current educational issues in English teaching, and never runs out of passion for research. I have learned much from her attitude towards being a researcher as well as a teacher. Dr. Yu-Feng Yang has always encouraged me when I was frustrated. From her encouragements, I was able to regain my confidence to keep working hard on my thesis study. Without her support and guidance, I could not have come this far. I am also grateful to my thesis committee members, Dr. Shu-Ing Shyu and Dr. Chin-Chi Chao, both of whom gave me insightful comments and suggestions which made my study more significant. I would like to express my deepest gratitude to the teachers, Amy and Emily, and their students who assisted in participating in video-taping and audio-taping of the classes. Amy and Emily allowed me to conduct research in their classes, and kindly offered me any help that I needed during and after the research. I am sincerely honored to observe and study their excellent English teaching. I give my sincere thanks to my dear friends, Vickie, Peter, Robin, Max, Belinda, Candice, Eric, Emily, and Claudia. Their friendship gave me confidence and kept me in great spirits. Without their valuable friendship, I would not have been able to overcome the long journey of completing this thesis. Last, my deepest thanks to my parents for their everlasting love and total support. This thesis would not be completed without their encouragement and patience. Their supports made the completion of this thesis more meaningful.. vii.

(8) TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT............................................................................................. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................. vii LISTS OF TABLES..................................................................................x LISTS OF FIGURES.............................................................................. xi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................1 1.1 Research Background and Motivation ........................................................1 1.2 Terminologies..................................................................................................2 1.3 Needs for the Study........................................................................................3 1.4 Purpose of the Study......................................................................................5 1.5 Significance of the Study ...............................................................................6 1.6 Overview of the Study....................................................................................6. CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................7 2.1 Socio-cultural Theory and Second Language Learning.............................7 2.1.1 Zone of Proximal Development .........................................................7 2.1.2 Scaffolding ...........................................................................................9 2.2 Empirical Research of Scaffolding .............................................................11 2.2.1 Scaffolding in General Education....................................................11 2.2.1.1 Scaffolding Used in Reading Lessons .....................................11 2.2.1.2 Scaffolding Used in Computer-Mediated Lessons ..................12 2.2.2.1 Instructional Conversations .....................................................14 2.2.2.1.1 Asking Questions ..........................................................15 2.2.2.1.2 Giving Feedback ...........................................................18 2.2.3 Teacher’s Belief and Goals for Scaffolding Second Language Learning............................................................................................21 2.3 Summary.......................................................................................................22. CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY..........................................................25 3.1 Overview .......................................................................................................25 3.2 Research Questions......................................................................................25 3.3 Participants...................................................................................................26 3.4 Data Collection .............................................................................................29 3.5 Data Collection Procedures.........................................................................30 3.5.1 Interviews...........................................................................................31 3.5.2 Observations......................................................................................32 3.6 Data Analysis ................................................................................................34 3.7 Trustworthiness............................................................................................36 3.8 Summary.......................................................................................................37 viii.

(9) CHAPTER 4 RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS ........................................39 4.1 Scaffolding Strategies for Enhancing EFL Students’ Cognitive Engagement ..................................................................................................39 4.2 Process of Using Scaffolding Strategies......................................................45 4.3 Teacher Beliefs of Using Scaffolding Strategies for Enhancing Students’ Cognitive Engagement.................................................................................77 4.4 Discussions .................................................................................................. 111 4.5 Summary.....................................................................................................118. CHAPTER 5 IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ..................121 5.1 Summary of the Study ...............................................................................121 5.2 Limitations of the Study ............................................................................124 5.3 Pedagogical Implications...........................................................................126 5.4 Suggestions for Further Research ............................................................127 5.5 Conclusion ..................................................................................................128. REFERENCES......................................................................................130 APPENDIX 1: Timetable of Interviews and Observations ..............144 APPENDIX 2: First Interview Questions...........................................146 APPENDIX 3: Follow-up Interview Questions .................................147 APPENDIX 4: Consent Form to Participants ...................................148 APPENDIX 4: Consent Form to Participants ...................................149 APPENDIX 5: Consent Form to Parents ...........................................150 APPENDIX 6: A Letter to Parents .....................................................151 APPENDIX 7: Worksheet in Amy’s Class .........................................152 APPENDIX 8: Worksheet in Amy’s Class .........................................153 APPENDIX 9: Sample Field Notes of Classroom Observation .......154 APPENDIX 10: Sample Field Notes of Interview .............................155 APPENDIX 11: Sample Transcript of Classroom Observation ......156 APPENDIX 12: Sample Transcript of Interview ..............................158. ix.

(10) LISTS OF TABLES. Table 1 Teachers’ Background Information ............................................................29 Table 2 Students and Their Parents’ Perception about the Consent Form..........31 Table 3 The Number of Times and Total Time of Two Teachers’ Interviews .......32 Table 4 The Number of Times and Total Time of Two Teachers’ Observations...33 Table 5 Scaffolding Strategies for Enhancing EFL Students’ Cognitive Engagement ..................................................................................................41 Table 6 The Types of Scaffolding Strategies in the Two Teacher’s Class ............44.

(11) LISTS OF FIGURES Figure 1 The Sequence of Scaffolding Strategies to Alert Students Attention......51 Figure 2 Amy’s Drawing of Explanation of Come and Go.....................................65 Figure 3 The Priority of Cognitive Engagement in Amy’s Class...........................78 Figure 4 Amy’s Beliefs of Confidence and Attentive Listening..............................83 Figure 5 Amy’s Beliefs of Different Conditions for Memory .................................89. xi.

(12) CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Research Background and Motivation As English has become a major international language, the government of Taiwan has actively engaged English as an essential part of the school curriculum. Starting in 2001, English has become a required subject for fifth and sixth graders in elementary schools in Taiwan. In 2005, the Ministry of Education changed the English Teaching Policy and required elementary school students to learn English starting from the third grade. Recently, many elementary school English teachers in Taiwan are facing the problem of multilevel language classrooms where students’ levels of English proficiency vary widely. Lin (2003) stated that 76% of the elementary school teachers in Taiwan perceived that there was a wide English proficiency gap among students, and this gap has made English teaching difficult and ineffective. Moreover, according to Chiang’s study in 2005, more than 88% of elementary English teachers in her study pointed out that students’ English proficiency differences was a problem in English teaching. In addition, the researcher encountered the same problem of students’ various levels of English proficiency in class when she taught English in an elementary school during her junior year of university. She discovered that some of the students with lower English proficiency level were not willing to pay attention to her in class because they could not comprehend the class materials she provided. However, some of the students with higher English proficiency level usually listened to the researcher more attentively. This teaching experience convinced the researcher that disparity in English proficiency level was an immense problem in English class, or elementary English education. Under this situation, two important questions emerge: how do elementary. 1.

(13) English teachers assist a class of students with multilevel English proficiency in learning English? That is, what kinds of assistances can English teachers provide in class to help students’ English learning? It is logical to turn to existing literatures regarding English teachers’ use of strategies in classrooms; however, first, some terminologies need to be defined for the purpose of understanding those literatures.. 1.2 Terminologies Before the researcher go to the related theories and studies about the present study, several terms are defined to help readers’ comprehension of this study.. Zone of Proximal Development ZPD refers to “the distance between the actual development level as determined by independent problem-solving and the level of potential development as determined by problem-solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” ( Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). Scaffolding Scaffolding is a process which an expert (i.e., teachers, more advanced students) assists novices (i.e., students who need help) to achieve a goal or solve a problem which novices could not achieve or solve alone (Wood, Bruner, & Rose, 1976). For example, when students did not know how to complete a task, teachers can assist them by providing a demonstration. Cognitive Engagement In this study, cognitive engagement refers to the fact that students are making mental effort in learning tasks (Chapman, 2003). This definition responds to Vygotsky’s higher order thinking (Vygotsky, 1978) which includes “attention, 2.

(14) voluntary. memory,. rational. thought,. planning,. problem. solving,. and. meaning-making activity” (cited in Lantolf & Thorne, 2006, p. 198).. 1.3 Needs for the Study In recent years, language education has witnessed the importance of socio-cultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978). This theory holds that the higher order functions of the mind can be developed through interactions with other human beings. Vygotsky (1978) claimed that learning takes place at one’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) in which children are assisted by more knowledgeable persons (e.g., teachers or peers) and gradually develop the ability to do certain tasks without help or assistance. That is, teachers’ assistances or scaffoldings are necessary and important for students’ learning before they are able to solve problems alone/independently (Wood et al., 1976). Scaffolding in general education has been examined and discussed for a long time. Some studies have been carried out to investigate how teachers assist students in reading lessons (Calfee & Patrick, 1995; Ogle, 1986) and 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). However, rather than second language teaching, these studies focused on general education In addition to general education, many studies have investigated teachers’ use of different strategies to scaffold students’ second language learning. A number of studies have found that the strategy of asking questions has been adopted in ESL contexts to assist students’ learning (Cazden, 1988; Chaudron, 1988; Hatch, 1992; Long, 1981; Mehan, 1979; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; Wells, 1996). In addition, many studies explored that the strategy of giving implicit negative feedback is helpful to L2 3.

(15) acquisition because it helps students to notice their incorrect use of the target language (e.g., Doughty, 1994; Doughty and Varela, 1998; Han, 2001; Loewen, 2002; Lyster, 1998; Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Robert, 1995; Seedhouse, 1997; Williams, 2001). The types of scaffolding strategies in ESL context (e.g., asking questions and giving feedback) have been investigated in many studies. However, few studies examined how and why these strategies are used by teachers, especially in an EFL context in which class hours are sometimes the only time that assistances can be provided for students to learn English. 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). 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 and found that teachers’ beliefs might not exactly reflect their teaching practices. Previous studies had different findings about the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and their teaching practices. In addition, 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. The findings of previous studies concerned much more about teachers’ strategies for assisting students’ second language learning in ESL context, in which assistances for students’ English learning can be obtained either inside or outside of schools, than EFL context, in which students are provided with assistances sometimes only in schools. Therefore, teachers’ strategies for assisting students’ second language learning in EFL context, in which students only can obtain assistances for their second 4.

(16) language learning in schools, need to be investigated. In addition, many studies mainly focused on investigating the types of teachers’ strategies (e.g., asking questions, giving feedback) rather than teachers’ ways of using these strategies. Therefore, how teachers use strategies for assisting students’ second language learning needs to be investigated. Moreover, some studies found that there is a link between teachers’ beliefs or intentions and their teaching practices. However, 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.. 1.4 Purpose of the Study The present study intended to fill the gaps in literature by investigating elementary English teachers’ scaffolding strategies for enhancing EFL students’ cognitive engagement, examining the process of using those scaffolding strategies, and discuss the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and strategies use. Elementary school EFL teachers’ behaviors, actions, and thoughts of scaffolding strategies for students’ cognitive engagement in English class will be discussed in detail. Therefore, this study addressed the following questions: 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 EFL students’ cognitive engagement? 3. Why do elementary English teachers use these scaffolding strategies for enhancing EFL students’ cognitive engagement?. 5.

(17) 1.5 Significance of the Study The findings of this study might be useful for several pedagogical aspects. First, the present study can provide examples for other elementary English teachers who are interested in knowing what types of strategies can be used for assisting students’ cognitive engagement and how to employ them. Second, other elementary English teachers can use the present study as a reflective tool to examine their scaffolding strategies for enhancing students’ cognitive engagement in class.. 1.6 Overview of the Study The present study consists of five chapters. Chapter one covers the research background and motivation, terminologies, needs for the study, purpose of the study, and significance of the study. Chapter two reviews relevant theories, including social-cultural theory, Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), and scaffolding. In addition, it introduces empirical studies which are related to the study. Chapter three specifies the methodology used for this study, including description of the participants, data collection, data analysis, and trustworthiness of the study. Chapter four reports the results and discussions of the study. Finally, chapter five concludes the entire study with a summary of the major findings and reports limitations of the study, pedagogical implications, suggestions for further study, and a brief conclusion of the study.. 6.

(18) CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW. In this chapter, the fist section introduces socio-cultural theory. ZPD and scaffolding, two concepts that are related to teachers’ assistance in socio-cultural theory, will also be presented. The second section provides a review of empirical studies concerning scaffolding in general and second language education. Finally, the third section discusses the studies regarding teachers’ beliefs and their use of scaffolding strategies for students’ second language learning.. 2.1 Socio-cultural Theory and Second Language Learning Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory has become a prominent domain of inquiry for language teaching and learning and been widely applied by language teachers recently. A key feature of socio-cultural theory is that language development for humans comes from social interaction. Vygotsky (1978) believes that social interaction can not only increase learners’ level of knowledge but also mediate learners’ thoughts and behaviors. Kublin et al. (1998) briefly explained Vygotsky’s idea and stated “learning as being embedded within social events and occurring as a child interacts with people, objects, and events in the environment" (p. 287). In the beginning of language learning process, teachers, being considered as experts, can control and guide learners in class. Gradually, learners internalize what teachers have taught and become independent in learning. Thus, teachers’ instruction in class plays an important role for second language acquisition. What teachers do to help students in class becomes an important area for second language educators and researchers to explore.. 2.1.1 Zone of Proximal Development Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) is one of the core concepts in socio-cultural 7.

(19) theory, and it can provide an understanding of the role of assistance in students’ second language learning. Vygotsky (1978) defines ZPD as “the distance between the actual development level as determined by independent problem-solving and the level of potential development as determined by problem-solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” ( p. 86). Some scholars agree with Vygotsky’s view of the needs for providing assistance for students’ learning. Wertsch (1979) and his colleagues reported that children could solve the complicated problems through interacting with their parents. Moreover, Lightbown and Spada (1999) indicated “L2 learners advance to higher levels of linguistic knowledge when they collaborate and interact with speakers of the second language who are more knowledgeable than they are” (p. 44). Thus, how experts, teachers in particular, support second language learners plays an important role in language learning. The challenge for teachers in assisting second language acquisition is to help students engage cognitively (i. e., voluntary attention and memory, problem-solving, meaning-making, critical thinking) in class (cited in VanPatten & Willams, 2006). That is, supporting students’ cognitive engagement in language learning is a big challenge for most teachers. Due to this factor, investigating how teachers support students’ cognitive engagement becomes an important issue in second language acquisition research. Some second language scholars have discussed that Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) is similar to Krashen’s theory of i+1 (Guerra, 1996; Johnson, 1995; Kramsch, 1992; Richard-Amato, 1983; Schinke-Llano, 1993). However, not all the scholars agree that Vygotsky’s ZPD and Krashen’s i+1 share the same characteristics in nature. Several scholars recently indicated these two theories are incommensurable (de Guerrero, 1996; Dunn & Lantolf, 1998; Kinginger, 2001, 2002). Lantolf (2005) clarified that the main difference between these two theories is 8.

(20) teacher’s roles in the process of language learning. Krashen, following Chomsky’s view of language acquisition, claimed that learners acquire language through Language Acquisition Device (LAD), which helps learners to process comprehensible information for achieving the next level of language learning (i+1). In Krashen’s view, children are endowed with the ability to acquire a language and what they need is comprehensible input. Therefore, teacher’s role in language learning is to provide comprehensible input as one-way input, and mutual linguistic interaction is not direct relevant to second language acquisition, as Krashen (1982) indicated “ learners theoretically possible to acquire language without ever talking” (p. 60). However, Vygotsky has different perspective from Krashen’s view about teacher’s role in language learning. For Vygotsky, learners acquire language through social interaction (e.g., social interaction between experts and novices; peer interaction). To activate ZPD for learning, negotiation between a teacher and a student is necessary so that students can engage in class cognitively. In addition, Ellis (2003) indicated interaction plays a significant role in language learning because it provides chances for learners to produce language, engage in communication, and receive feedback. For Vygotsky, the teacher has to take a part in students’ meaning negotiation process or guide students’ interaction to advance students’ language learning experience.. 2.1.2 Scaffolding Scaffolding, the other important concept of social-cultural theory, is also presented to provide an understanding of teachers’ role in assisting students’ second language learning. Scaffolding is a process which an expert assists novices to achieve a goal or solve a problem which novices could not achieve or solve alone (Woo, Bruner, & Rose, 1976). In school settings, scaffolding is “what teachers say or do to enable children to complete complex mental tasks they could not complete without 9.

(21) assistance” (Pearson & Fielding, 1991, p.842). Scaffolding was first used by Vygotsky and Luria who focused on investigating how adults introduce children to cultural means (cited in van der Veer & Valsiner, 1991, p. 226). Bruner (1978) explained scaffolding as a mother’s verbal assistance for maintaining conversation with children and viewed it as a means for promoting language acquisition. According to Bruner (1978), the mother’s scaffolding behavior is characterized by five significant features: “(a) reducing the complexity of the task, (b) getting the child’s attention and keeping it focused, (c) offering models, (d) extending the scope of the immediate situation, and (e) providing support so that the child moves forward and does not slip back” (cited in Guerrero & Villamil, 2000, p.52). In addition to mothers, some scholars indicated teachers can be experts who provide assistance for students to learn the target language. In addition, Gallimore and Tharp (1990) redefined several qualitatively means which are adopted by teachers to assist learners’ performance. The functions of each means are discussed as follows (Gallimore & Tharp, 1990, cited in Moll, 1992, p.178). 1. Modeling is the process of offering behavior for imitation. 2. Contingency management is the means of assisting performance by which rewards and punishment are arranged to follow behavior, depending on whether the behavior is desired or not. 3. Feedback occurs in interactive teaching and helps students to improve their accuracy of output. 4. Instructions are used primarily in two contexts: on matters of deportment and in assigning tasks. Instructing voice of the teacher becomes the self-instructing voices of the learner in the transition from apprentice to self-regulated performer. 5. Questioning explicitly calls for an active linguistic and cognitive response. 6. Cognitive structuring refers to the provision of a structure for thinking and acting. 10.

(22) There are two types of cognitive structuring which are the structures of explanation and the structures for cognitive activities. Teachers assist students to organize the raw of new materials coming along with different settings through cognitive structures. Moreover, cognitive structures organize content and functions and refer to like instances. In addition to the scaffolding means, scaffolding functions were also identified. Wertsch (1985) proposed six functions of scaffolding that are provided by teachers. These functions include recruitment, reductions in degrees of freedom, direction maintenance, making critical features, frustration control, and demonstrations. The six functions of scaffolding are beyond the scope of this study and will not be further discussed in the following sections.. 2.2 Empirical Research of Scaffolding Scaffolding has been discussed in many empirical studies. The following sections are going to examine the empirical studies of scaffolding in general education and second language acquisition.. 2.2.1 Scaffolding in General Education Scaffolding in general education has been examined and discussed for a long time. The following discussions conducted studies of scaffolding in reading lessons and computer-mediated lessons.. 2.2.1.1 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 11.

(23) 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 12.

(24) 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. 13.

(25) 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, 14.

(26) 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 15.

(27) 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 16.

(28) 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 17.

(29) 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 18.

(30) (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 explicitlanguage-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 19.

(31) 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 20.

(32) (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 21.

(33) pedagogical beliefs or intentions to their teaching practices. However, a few studies had different results (Mastrini-McAteer, 1997; Tucker, 2001). Oskoz and LiskinGasparro (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 theory, is also presented to provide an understanding of teachers’ role in assisting students’ second language learning. While ZPD refers to the distance between two developmental levels which include learners’ actual development and the level of 22.

(34) potential development, scaffolding refers to the supports provided by others (e.g. teachers or peers) to help learners acquire knowledge or become an independent language learner. The second section of this chapter provides empirical researches of scaffolding in general education and second language teaching. Studies of scaffolding in general education found that teachers usually used the strategy of asking questions to assist students’ learning in reading lessons. In addition, teachers often used scaffolding strategies (e.g., orienting strategies, peer interaction, prompts, and modeling) to help students’ learning in computer-mediated lessons. Studies of scaffolding in second language teaching discovered that asking questions and giving feedback are the two strategies which are often used to assist students’ English learning. Only these two types of scaffolding strategies (e.g., asking questions and giving feedback) have been investigated in many studies conducted in ESL context rather than EFL context. Moreover, many studies focused on investigating the types of teachers’ strategies (e.g., asking questions, giving feedback) rather than teachers’ ways of using strategies. Whether there are other types of scaffolding strategies in EFL class and how teachers use strategies for assisting students’ second language learning need to be investigated. The third section discusses studies about teachers’ beliefs of scaffolding second language learning. Some studies found that there is a link between teachers’ beliefs or intentions and their teaching practices. However, how teachers’ beliefs corresponded to their teaching practices had not been discussed. Therefore, the present study also aims at investigating the role of teachers’ beliefs in their teaching practices, in addition to other types of scaffolding strategies teachers applied in their classroom and. their ways of using them. The researcher hopes that the present study can help other elementary English. teachers understand how some teachers use scaffolding strategies to enhance students’ 23.

(35) cognitive engagement. In addition, the researcher also expects that other elementary English teachers can use the present study as a reflective tool to examine their scaffolding strategies for enhancing students’ cognitive engagement in class.. 24.

(36) CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY. 3.1 Overview The methodology applied in this study is explained in six sections that are employed to answer the research questions. of this study. The first section lists research. questions of this study. The second section illustrates the research participants, including brief background information of the teacher and student participants. The third section provides the methods of data collection which include interviews and classroom observations. In the fourth section, the procedures of data collection are based on conducting semi-structure interviews with the teacher and non-participant classroom observations. Interviews with the teacher are employed to collect the teachers’ thoughts and purposes of using scaffolding strategies Classroom observations are used to explore scaffolding strategies and how the teachers applied them in classrooms. In the fifth section, it clarifies the methods of analyzing the data, including constant comparative method and template approach. The detailed procedure of analyzing data is presented in this section. Finally, a summary of this chapter is showed in the last section.. 3.2 Research Questions This study aims to answer the following research questions. 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? 25.

(37) The goal of this study is to investigate what, how, and why scaffolding strategies are used by elementary school EFL teachers to enhance students’ cognitive engagement. In order to investigate teachers’ scaffolding strategies more in-depth, this study utilized a qualitative study which is appropriate to understand the process of events and actions (Britan, 1978; Patton, 1990). There are different approaches of qualitative studies, such as biographical studies, phenomenological studies, grounded theory studies and case studies. This study utilized exploratory-explanatory case study design (Yin, 1994). In an exploratory case study, data collection is undertaken prior to definition of the research questions. The researcher conducted exploratory case study because she had not enough ideas about precise research questions of the present study before collecting data. In addition to exploratory case study, explanatory case study which examines the data closely both at a surface and deep level to explain the phenomena in the data (Yin, 1994) was also conducted. For instance, a researcher may ask the reason as to why a student uses an inferencing strategy in reading (Zaidah, 2003). In the present study, the research is interested in investigating why teachers use scaffolding strategies to enhance students’ cognitive engagement, so explanatory case study was conducted.. 3.3 Participants This study used convenient sampling to select two public elementary English teachers in Southern Taiwan as the target participants. Convenient sampling simply involves using the people who are the most available or the most easily selected to be in research study (Marshall, 1996). It was difficult to find the subjects to participate in this study because most teachers in Taiwan were not comfortable to be observed. The researcher only found two voluntary teachers to participate in this study. One of the two teachers had more English teaching experiences than the other. The two 26.

(38) participants’ different English teaching experiences could help the researcher gain further understanding on how teachers with different English teaching experiences assist students’ second language learning in class. In order to ensure confidentiality, the two teachers’ names were labeled as Amy and Emily to protect their privacy. One participant, Amy, was a non-native English teacher with six years of English teaching experience. She graduated from the education department of a national education university. English was Amy’s minor in the university. The school that Amy taught was a large-scale school containing about 66 classes with an average of 35 students per class. The school encompassed the full range of socioeconomic levels in the region, from poverty to upper-middle class. Amy was in her fourth year at this school and she was in charge of eleven sixth grade classes. These classes were also taught by Amy when they were in fifth grade. The English learning time was approximately forty minutes per class and two classes per week. About forty classes in a semester, five units of a textbook should be taught in all classes. Two of the classes were chosen to be observed because of students’ different proficiency levels. The researcher asked Amy to choose two classes which could represent different proficiency levels. One class was called class A, and the students’ proficiency levels were average. The other class was called class B, and the students’ proficiency levels varied. The differences between the two classes could help the researcher examine whether Amy used different scaffolding strategies based on students’ proficiency levels. In addition, Amy’s teaching goal was to help students know how to pronounce a word with phonics after finishing all her classes. Due to this fact, Amy put lots of efforts on the rules of phonics in her class. The other participant, Emily, was also a non-native English teacher with three years of English teaching experience. She majored in English and graduated from a college that specified in foreign languages. The school that Emily taught was smaller 27.

(39) than Amy’s and it was a middle-scale school containing about 36 classes with an average of 31 students per class. The school also encompassed the full range of socioeconomic levels in the region, from poverty to upper-middle class. However, half of the students’ parents belonged to lower-middle class. Emily was in her third year at this school and she was in charge of seven fifth grade classes and three third grade classes. Only fifth grade classes were chosen to be observed in this study in order to compare with Amy’s six grade classes. These classes were also taught by Emily when they were in fourth grade. The English learning time of fifth grade classes was the same as Amy’s sixth grade classes. About forty classes in a semester, four units in a textbook should be taught in all classes. Emily’s two fifth-grade classes were chosen to be observed because students’ proficiency levels varied as Amy’s. Based on the similar classes, the researcher could compare or examine different scaffolding strategies between the two teachers. Emily’s teaching goal was very different from Amy’s. Emily’s teaching belief was to cultivate students’ interest of learning English. Due to this fact, she used various kinds of tasks in her class. Moreover, one interesting note is that Emily often felt tired after class and was short of incentive to reflect her teaching. This interesting point might explain why Emily expressed her teaching beliefs with shorter sentences than Amy’s during the interviews. Table 1 summarizes the background information of the two teachers.. 28.

(40) Table 1 Teachers’ Background Information Teacher Education Background Years Teaching Teaching Grade Class Size Teaching Goals. Amy. Emily. Bachelors (B.A.) Education major With a minor in English 6 years 6th Grade. Bachelors(B.A.) English major 3 years. 3th Grade / 5th Grade 34-35 students 31-32 students Every student knows how to Cultivate students’ interest of pronounce words with phonics learning English. 3.4 Data Collection The purpose of this study is to investigate what types of scaffolding strategies are used for enhancing students’ cognitive engagement. Moreover, the processes and reasons of using them are also examined in this study. In order to gain valid data, the primary data were collected from semi-structured interviews and non-participant classroom observations from late-August to mid-October 2007. The timetables of the two teachers’ interviews and classroom observations are presented in Appendix 1. Mackey and Gass (2005) claimed that “observations are useful for gathering in-depth information about such phenomena as the types of language, activities, interactions, instruction, and events that occur in second and foreign language classrooms” (p. 186). Because this study attempts to investigate not only what but also how scaffolding strategies teachers really apply, classroom observations were carried out to investigate students’ cognitive engagement among others. Moreover, in order to be objective and not to affect the whole class, the researcher adopted non-participant observation. A non-participant observation refers to that researchers do not participate in the activity but rather “sit on the sidelines” and watch; they are not directly involved in the situation they are observing (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2003). The researcher recorded class sections with two digital camcorders and took notes 29.

(41) during the observations. Useful parts of observations (e.g., when the teacher was using a scaffolding strategy) were transcribed word by word by the researcher and then checked by another transcriber. In addition to classroom observations, interviews are useful for exploring participants’ thoughts, perceptions, reasoning processes, insights and perspectives (Maxwell, 1996). It can be used to explore the teachers’ commonly used scaffolding strategies, and understand the processes and the reasons about the teachers’ perceptions toward using scaffolding strategies for enhancing students’ cognitive engagement in this study. Semi-structured interviews which involve a relatively fixed interview schedule were adopted for this study (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2003). In the first interview, there were some fixed questions for both of the teachers in order to understand their teaching philosophies (Appendix 2). In addition, in-depth interviews which encourage respondents to provide detailed explanations of their experiences, feeling, and beliefs were conducted in the follow-up interviews (Spradley, 1979) (Appendix 3). In-depth interviews were used to clarify scaffolding strategies that had been observed and to explore teachers’ beliefs and purposes for using those strategies. All the interview data were audio-taped by a SONY digital recorder and transcribed word by word by the researcher. Finally, all the transcriptions were checked by another transcriber.. 3.5 Data Collection Procedures The data collection procedure of the present study involved three stages. The initial stage was to interview teachers in order to have a preliminary understanding of the two teachers. The second stage was to select classrooms to be observed. The third stage was to do the classroom observations and follow-up interviews. The data for this study were collected from semi-structure interviews, in-depth 30.

(42) interviews, and non-participant observations from late-August to mid-October 2007. Before all the interviews and observations, the researcher provided a consent form (Appendix 4) for the teachers in order to get their permission for participating in this study. Both of the teachers gave their permissions for the researcher to do the interviews and observations. The timetables of the two teachers’ interviews and observations are presented in Appendix 1. Moreover, before the formal observations, the researcher provided a consent form (Appendix 5) for all the students and their parents in order to get their confirmation. Table 2 shows the students and their parents’ perceptions about the consent form.. Table 2 Students and Their Parents’ Perception about the Consent Form Teachers’ Classes. Agree. Disagree. Total. Amy’s Class A Amy’s Class B Emily’s Class A Emily’s Class B. 29 34 26 30. 5 0 5 2. 34 34 31 32. Not all the students and their parents agreed to participate in this study. In order to follow research ethic, the researcher wrote a letter (Appendix 6) to the students who were not willing to participate in the study and explained that their data will not be applied in the study. In other words, the dialogues between the teachers and those students were not adopted in this study.. 3.5.1 Interviews Amy’s first interview was two weeks earlier than Emily’s because Emily was more available in mid-September 2007. After the first interviews, the follow-up interviews were conducted with each teacher at the end of one or two observations in order to 31.

(43) clarify the teachers’ scaffolding strategies and to explore their reasons and purposes for using those scaffolding strategies. Both teachers were encouraged to speak anything they thought to be important and were allowed to express topics not covered by the outlines of questions. All the interview data were audio-taped. After the interviews, the researcher transcribed all data and typed them word by word. In order to enhance reliability, transcripts were made by the researcher and then checked against by another transcriber. The number of times and total time of interviews are different between the two teachers as displayed in Table 3.. Table 3 The Number of Times and Total Time of Two Teachers’ Interviews Times. Hours. Amy. 10. 5.1. Emily. 7. 1.5. The length of interviews was very different between the two teachers. Both of the teachers were very nice and willing to answer the questions. However, Amy was more experienced and had many thoughts about English education. Emily expressed that she was a young English teacher and still searching for her own ways to teach English. Due to this fact, Emily often answered questions in short sentences which resulted in a large discrepancy in the length of interviews for the two teachers.. 3.5.2 Observations The researcher started her initial observation of Amy’s all classes from October 7th to 10th 2007. After observing Amy’s eleven classes once, the researcher chose two of the classes to be the participants. However, there were no pre-observations in Emily’s case because of some delays. The researcher chose two classes to be the participants with Emily’s suggestions. After getting the students’ permissions, the researcher 32.

數據

Table 1 Teachers’ Background Information
Table 2 Students and Their Parents’ Perception about the Consent Form    Teachers’
Table 3 The Number of Times and Total Time of Two Teachers’ Interviews
Table 4 The Number of Times and Total Time of Two Teachers’ Observations
+7

參考文獻

相關文件

配合小學數學科課程的推行,與參與的學校 協作研究及發展 推動 STEM

• 4.1 學校尚需提升學與教 效能。學校仍需持續探討 不同的教學策略, 以助 教師促進課堂互動,及 提升學生的共通能力...

Infusing higher-order thinking and learning to learn into content instruction: A case study of secondary computing studies in Scotland. Critical thinking: What it is and why

中學中國語文科 小學中國語文科 中學英國語文科 小學英國語文科 中學數學科 小學數學科.

二、 學 與教: 第二語言學習理論、學習難點及學與教策略 三、 教材:.  運用第二語言學習架構的教學單元系列

Rebecca Oxford (1990) 將語言學習策略分為兩大類:直接性 學習策略 (directed language learning strategies) 及間接性學 習策略 (in-directed

電子學習 教學 教學 教學 教學 聲情教學 聲情教學 聲情教學 聲情教學.. 策略 策略

利用學習成果促進音樂科的學與教(新辦) 小學 有效的課堂器樂演奏學與教策略(新辦) 小學 小學音樂教師基礎教學知識課程(新辦)