Microgenetic Analysis in an EFL Context: The Effects of Teacher and Peer Scaffolding on Reading Comprehension Pedagogy

Document Type : research article

Authors

1 Department of English Language, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran

2 Department of English, Chalous Branch Islamic Azad University Chalous, Iran

3 Department of English, Tabriz Branch Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran

Abstract

Abstract



In this study, the researchers examined the possible effects of a sociocultural model of teaching reading comprehension on the learners’ performance using a mixed-method approach. The authors relied on Vygotsky's theory of learning and his notion of the zone of proximal development (ZPD) to analyze scaffolding behaviors among two experimental groups (teacher scaffolding and peer scaffolding) and a control group contributing to reading comprehension using both qualitative and quantitative analyses. The learners were intermediate-level students participating in a 15-session private reading comprehension course. At every session, individual learners received scaffolding helps provided by the teacher in teacher scaffolding and the peer in peer scaffolding groups while performing reading comprehension tasks. Each group of peers included one low and one high intermediate student. In the quantitative phase, the data collected through pretest and posttest were analyzed using ANOVA test. Moreover, the qualitative part, the data including audio recorded talks between the teacher and students (teacher scaffolding), were analyzed through a microgenetic approach. In the qualitative phase, the applicability of the teacher's scaffolding instructions in different levels was presented. The levels and variety of guidance required by the learner to successfully perform a given task were analyzed applying Lidz's (1991) scaffolding instructions. The results in the quantitative phase supported the benefit of the practicality of scaffolding techniques in teaching reading comprehension.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

باقری مسعودزاده، آذر، رستمی ابوسعیدی، علی اصغر و افراز، شهرام (1398). میزان اثر بخشی روش آموزشی تکلیف محور بر بهبود مهارت خواندن زبان­آموزان ایرانی: بررسی دیدگاه مدرسان. پژوهشهای زبانشناختی در زبانهای خارجی، 9(4)، 1105-1130.
خامسان، احمد و برادران خاکسار، زهرا (1390). مقایسة آموزش زبان با استفاده از نقشة مفهومی فردی و مشارکتی با شیوة سنتی. پژوهشهای زبانشناختی در زبانهای خارجی، 1(1)، 57-75.
مرزبان، امیر و موحدی، مروارید (1394). تأثیر آموزش راهبردی خواندن زبان دوم در کارکرد خواندن زبان­آموزان ایرانی و نگرش آنان نسبت به خواندن زبان دوم. پژوهشهای زبانشناختی در زبانهای خارجی، 5(1)، 133-151.
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02064.x
Amirian, S. M. R., & Ramazanian, M. (2017). The Effect of interactionist dynamic assessment on Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ reading comprehension. In S. M. R. Amirian & Gh. Zareian (Eds.), Challenges in foreign language teaching in Iran. Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, N. (1999). Exploring second language reading: Issues and strategies (1st ed.). Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Antón, M. (1999). The Discourse of a learner‐centered classroom: Sociocultural perspectives on teacher‐learner interaction in the second‐language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 83(3), 303–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00024
Bagheri Masoudzadeh, A., Rostami Abousaeedi, A., & Afraz, S. (2020). The Effect of task- based language teaching (TBLT) on Iranian EFL learners’ reading comprehension ability (Teachers’ perception in focus). Foreign Language Research Journal, 9(4), 1105-1130. https://doi.org/10.22059/jflr.2019.278829.624
Day, C. (2005). The Uk policy for school leadership: Uneasy transitions. In N. Bascia, A. Cumming, A. Datnow, K. Leithwood, & D. Livingstone (Eds.), International handbook of educational policy (pp. 392-420). Springer.
Dehqan, M. & Ghafar samar, R. (2014). Reading comprehension in sociocultural context: Effect on learner of two proficiency levels. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 404-410. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.433.
de Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00052
Khamesan, A. & Baradaran Khaksar, Z. (2011). Comparison between collaborative and individual concept mapping with the traditional method it teaching English. Foreign Language Research Journal, 1(1), 57-75.
Kusumawati, A. J. (2018). Scaffolding learning in reading and writing skill in English for mechanical engineering. In proceedings of the 2018, The 3rd international conference on information and education innovations (pp. 78-82). ACM.
Lidz, C. S. (1991). Practitioner’s guide to dynamic assessment (The Guilford school practitioner series) (1st ed.). The Guilford Press.
Markee, N. (2000). Conversation analysis (Second language acquisition research series) (1st ed.). Routledge.
Marzban, A. & Movahedi, m. (2015). The impact of RSI in L2 on Iranian EFL learners’ reading performance and attitude toward reading in L2. Foreign Language Research Journal, 5(1), 133-151.
Nieto, C. (2007). Applications of Vygotskyan concept of mediation in SLA. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 9, 213-228.
Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Routledge.
Rockoff, J. E. (2004). The Impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data. The American Economic Review, 94(2), 247-252.
Roosevelt, F. D. (2008). Zone of proximal development. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational psychology. SAGE publication.
Shrestha, P., & Coffin, C. (2012). Dynamic assessment, tutor mediation and academic writing development. Assessing Writing, 17(1), 55-70.
Siegler, R. S., & Crowley, K. (1991). The microgenetic method: A direct means for studying cognitive development. American Psychologist, 46(6), 606–620. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.46.6.606
Siegler, R. S. (2006). Microgenetic analyses of learning. In D. Kuhn, R. S. Siegler, W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Cognition, perception, and language. John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Suk, N. (2016). The effects of extensive reading on reading comprehension, reading rate, and vocabulary acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(1), 73-89. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/rrq.152.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (Revised ed.). Harvard University Press.
Wassie, S., Mekonnen, W. & Gashaw, B. (2018). Teachers’ scaffolding pPractices in teaching reading comprehension at eight preparatory schools in East Gojjam Zone: Grade 11 in focus. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 8(19), 31-53.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/CBO9780511605895.
Werner, H. (1956). Microgenesis and aphasia. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52(3), 347–353. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048896
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). The semiotic mediation of mental life: L. S. Vygotsky and M. M. Bakhtin. Semiotic Mediation, 49-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-491280-9.50009-1
Wood, D. J., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The Role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
Journal of Foreign Language Research
Volume 13, Issue 1
May 2023
Pages 59-78

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics