English Teachers’ Practice of Classroom Discourse in Light of Zone of Proximal Development Theory and Scaffolding Techniques
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1501.06Keywords:
English teachers, authoritative discourse, dialogue discourse, Zone of Proximal Development, scaffolding techniquesAbstract
This research examines English teachers’ use of classroom discourse in the light of Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) theory and scaffolding techniques. English teachers play an essential role in increasing dialogic interaction in their English language learners (ELLs). The participants were 18 English teachers from government secondary school in Makkah city, Saudi Arabia. The observation sheet used to collect data concentrated on major points of classroom discourse in the lesson stages of teaching English including lesson planning, explanation, and evaluation. The results highlight high-level practice of some strategies that support authoritative discourse in some strategies in the three lesson stages. However, the findings reveal lower levels of teachers’ use of strategies that support teaching in the ZPD. The findings also reveal an increase in the use of some strategies such as concentration on correcting errors in the planning stage before implementing the lesson. Furthermore, the findings reveal an increase in teachers’ use of some strategies such as encouraging continuous classroom discourse without providing correct responses for learners before discussions in the teaching stage. Also, it indicates a high-level increase in the use of some strategies such as evaluation of previously memorized concepts, and asking questions to evaluate students’ performance levels in the evaluation stage.
References
Aguiar, O. G., Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2010). Learning from responding to students’ questions: The authoritative and dialogic tension. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 174–193.
Ahmadi Safa, M., & Motaghi, F. (2021). Cognitive vs. metacognitive scaffolding strategies and EFL learners’ listening comprehension development. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211021821
Alexander, R. (2005). Culture, dialogue and learning: Notes on an emerging pedagogy. Paper presented at the Conference of the International Association for Cognitive Education and Psychology. University of Durham, North Carolina.
Almuntasheri, S. (2019). Pre-service science teachers’ use of scientific discourse in the light of ZPD Vygotsky theory. Paper presented at the Second International Conference in Education, Al-Baha University, Saudi Arabia.
Azir, I. D. A. (2019). Applying peer scaffolding to enhance the EFL vocational students’ speaking skills. Ethical Lingua: Journal of Language Teaching and Literature, 6(2), 149–157.
Bosser, U., Lindahl, M. (2020). Teachers’ coordination of dialogic and authoritative discourses promoting specific goals in socio-scientific issue-based teaching. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19(6), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10061-1
Burns, C., & Myhill, D. (2004). Interactive or inactive? A consideration of the nature of interaction in whole class teaching. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34(1), 35–49.
Chang, S. (2021). Supporting expansive learning in preservice bilingual teachers’ Zone of Proximal Development of the activity system: An analysis of a four-field model trajectory. Professional Development in Education, 47(2–3), 225–242.
Chin, C. (2007) Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815–843.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell Báez, J. (2020). 30 essential skills for the qualitative researcher. SAGE Publications.
Daniels, H. (2002). Vygotsky and pedagogy. Routledge.
Ehre, M., Bakhtin, M. M., Holquist, M., & Emerson, C. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Poetics Today, 5, 172. https://doi.org/10.2307/1772435
Esteban-Guitart, M. (2018). The biosocial foundation of the early Vygotsky: Educational psychology before the Zone of Proximal Development. History of Psychology, 21(4), 384–401. https://doi.org/10.1037/hop0000092
Eun, B. (2019). The Zone of Proximal Development as an overarching concept: A framework for synthesizing Vygotsky’s theories. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 51(1), 18–30.
Fithriani, R. (2019). ZPD and the benefits of written feedback in L2 writing: Focusing on students’ perceptions. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 19(1), 63–73.
Garcia-Carrion, R., de Aguileta, G., Padros, M., & Ramis-Salas, M. (2020). Implications for social impact of dialogic teaching and learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(Article 140), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00140
Gillies, R. (2020). Dialogic teaching during cooperative inquiry-based science: A case study of a Year 6 classroom. Education Sciences, 10(11), 328. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10110328
Gonulal, T., & Loewen, S. (2018). Scaffolding technique. In J. L. Lionitas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching, (pp. 1–5). Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0180
Hamidi, E., & Bagherzadeh, R. (2018). The logical problem of scaffolding in second language acquisition. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 3(19), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-018-0059-x
Hong, T. D., & Nguyen, H. B. (2019). Teacher beliefs and practices of scaffolding students’ reading comprehension through questioning at pre-reading stage. European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 4(2), 72-91. https://doi.org/10.46827/EJFL.V0I0.2511
Lavin, S. (2019). Towards a useful conception of the ZPD for language education. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of Advance Teaching and Education (pp. 57–66).
Li, D., & Zhang, L. (2022). Exploring teacher scaffolding in a CLIL-framed EFL intensive reading class: A classroom discourse analysis approach. Language Teaching Research, 26(3), 333–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820903340
Margolis, A. A. (2020). Zone of Proximal Development, scaffolding and teaching practice. Cultural-Historical Psychology, 16(3), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.17759/chp.2020160303
Maryam, B., Sören, H., & Gunilla, L. (2020). Putting scaffolding into action: Preschool teachers’ actions using interactive whiteboard. Early Childhood Education Journal, 48(1), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-019-00971-3
Mirzaei, A., & Pahlevansadegh, V. (2020). The effect of ZPD-activated instruction on EFL learners’ vocabulary knowledge and written lexical density. Applied Linguistics Research Journal, 4(2), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.14744/alrj.2019.43153
Nazerian, S., Abbasian, G. R., & Mohseni, A. (2021). Measurement and incorporation of ZPD scenarios in developing writing accuracy in EFL classes. Cogent Education, 8(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2021.1968735
Nfor, S. (2020). Multimodal scaffolding teaching: Role-taking or role-creating in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) oral communication class in Japan. Scenario: A Journal for Performative Teaching, Learning, Research, 14(1), 24–43. https://doi.org/10.33178/scenario.14.1.3
Peng, H., & Tao, S. (2018). Schema, Zone of Proximal Development, and scaffolding in real-classroom settings and inspired improvements in Chinese middle schools’ classrooms. Frontiers in Educational Research, 5(10), 101–106. https://doi.org/10.25236/fer.2022.051020
Reznitskaya, A., & Gregory, M. (2013). Student thought and classroom language: Examining the mechanisms of change in dialogic teaching. Educational Psychology, 48, 114–133. Sage, K. (2022). Zone of proximal development. Routledge.
Sana-ati, M. K., Khonamri, F., Azizi, M., & Molana, K. (2019). Dynamic assessment in developing EFL learners’ depth of vocabulary knowledge through critical reading. Malaysian Journal of Education, 44(2), 20-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/JPEN-2019-44.02-03
Schutz, P. A., Hong, J. Y., Cross, D. I., & Osbon, J. N. (2006). Reflections on investigating emotion in educational activity settings. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 343–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9030-3
Scott, P., & Mortimer, E. (2005). Meaning making in high school science: A framework for analysing meaning making interactions. In M. Boersman, M. Goedhart, O. de Jong, & H. Eikelhof (Eds.), Research and the quality of science education Springer.
Scott, P., Mortimer, E., & Aguiar, O. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90, 605–631. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20131
Silalahi, R. M. (2019). Understanding Vygotsky’s Zone of Pproximal Development for learning. Polyglot: Journal Ilmiah, 15(2), 169–186. https://doi.org/10.19166/pji.v15i2.1544
Silva Santos, T. (2021). Exploring Brazilian English learners’ views and experiences of multilevel EFL classes. [Unpublished Master's Thesis]. The University of Manitoba.
Stone, C. A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding; Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 194-199.
Thomsen, H. (2018). Scaffolding target language use. In D. Little, J. Ridley, & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom: Teacher, learner, curriculum and assessment (pp. 29–46). Authentik Language Learning Resources
Verenikina, I. (2012). Facilitating collaborative work in tertiary teaching: A self-study. The Australian Educational Researcher, 39(4), 477–489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-012-0077-5
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Warren, E. (2021). Maximize learning: Keeping students in the Zone of Proximal Development. https://learningspecialistmaterials.blogspot.com/
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind. A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Harvard University Press.
Wolfe, S., & Alexander, R. (2008). Argumentation and dialogic teaching: Alternative peda-gogies for a changing world. www.robinalexander.org.uk/index.php/publications/
Xi, J., & Lantolf, J. P. (2021). Scaffolding and the Zone of Proximal Development: A problematic relationship. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 51(1), 25–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12260
Yildiz, Y., & Celik, B. (2020). The use of scaffolding techniques in language learning: Extending the level of understanding. International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies, 7(3), 148–153. https://doi.org/10.23918/ijsses.v7i3p148
Yusuk, S. (2018). Effects of Zone of Proximal Development-based scaffolding techniques on reading comprehension of Thai university students. Journal of Thai Interdisciplinary Research, 13(4), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.14456/jtir.2018.33
Zarei, A. A., & Alipour, H. (2020). Shadowing and scaffolding techniques affecting L2 reading comprehension. Applied Research on English Language, 9(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.22108/ARE.2019.117030.1462
