100 4.7 References Chi, M. T., Siler, S. A., & Jeong, H. Y. T. & Hausmann, R.G. (2001). Learning from Human Tutoring. Cognitive Science, 25, 471-533. Donato, R. (2000) ‘Sociocultural Contributions to understanding the second and foreign language classroom. In Lantolf, J. (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Garza, R. (2009). Latino and white high school students’ perceptions of caring behaviors: Are we culturally responsive to our students? Urban Education, 44, 297–321. Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2005). Putting scaffolding to work: The contribution of scaffolding in articulating ESL education. Prospect, 20(1), 6-30. Lajoie, S. P. (2005). Extending the scaffolding metaphor. Instructional Science, 33, 541–557. Macrine, S. L., & Sabbatino, E. D. (2008). Dynamic assessment and remediation approach: Using the DARA approach to assist struggling readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 24, 52–76 McNeill, K., Lizotte, D., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. (2006). Supporting Students' Construction of Scientific Explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191. Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking. A sociocultural approach. New York: Routledge. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension- fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175. Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 423–451. Pradita, I., Prasetya, W., & Maharsi, I. (2019). Effect of instructional scaffolding in enhancing students' participating in synchronous online learning. In Proceedings of the 2019 5th International Conference on Education and Training Technologies (pp. 106-110). Sharpe, T. (2001). Scaffolding in action: Snapshots from the classroom. In J. Hammond (Ed.), Scaffolding: Teaching and learning in language and literacy education (pp. 31–48). Newtown, NSW: PETA. Shepard, L. A. (2005). Linking formative assessment to scaffolding. Educational Leadership, 63, 66–70 Snow, R. E., & Swanson, J. (1992). Instructional psychology: Aptitude, adaptation, and assessment. Annual review of psychology, 43(1), 583-626. Stone, C. A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of learning disabilities, 31(4), 344-364. Swanson, H. L., & Lussier, C. M. (2001). A selective synthesis of the experimental literature on dynamic assessment. Review of Educational Research, 71, 321– 363.
101 Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A decade of research. Educational psychology review, 22(3), 271- 296. Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2011). Patterns of contingent teaching in teacher–student interaction. Learning and Instruction, 21(1), 46-57. Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2012). Promoting teacher scaffolding in small-group work: A contingency perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 193–205. http://doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.09.009 Van de Pol, J., Mercer, N., & Volman, M. (2018). Scaffolding student understanding in small-group work: Students’ uptake of teacher support in subsequent small- group interaction. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(2), 206-239. Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. London: Longman. Van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky. (R.W. Rieber & A.S. Carton, Trans.). New York: Plenum Press. (Original works published in 1934, 1960). Wells, G. (1996). Using the tool-kit of discourse in the activity of learning and teaching. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3(2), 74-101. Wittwer, J., & Renkl, A. (2008). Why instructional explanations often do not work: A framework for understanding the effectiveness of instruction explanations. Educational Psychologist, 43, 49–64. http://doi:10.1080/00461520701756420. Wood, D. (1991). Aspects of teaching and learning. In P. Light, S. Sheldon, & M. Woodhead (Eds.), Learning to think (pp. 97–120). London, England: Routledge. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17(2), 89–100. Wood, D., Wood, H., & Middleton, D. (1978). An experimental evaluation of four face- to-face teaching strategies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 1, 131– 147. http://doi:10.1177/016502547 800100203.
102 Chapter Five: From the Concept of Scaffolding to Classroom Application: The EFL Scaffolding Writing Instruction Models 5.1 Introduction The focus of this chapter is to explain how scaffolding was designed for EFL writing instruction in different contexts; i.e., a model used for an EFL writing teacher training program and in a different EFL writing model used to help EFL upper secondary school students improve their writing. In this chapter, I will begin the first section attempting to analyze the underlying concepts of each model based on the design-in macro scaffolding concepts. Then, I will identify the core features of the scaffolding strategies the teachers employed in their instructional steps from the lesson plans that they demonstrated based on the models. These scaffolding strategies include contingency, fading, and transfer of responsibility. Evidence on the part of the course participants’ and students’ uptake and accuracy of their performance will be presented. The two studies where the developed model and the design-in was used to create the lessons and scaffolding strategies were planned. The highlight of this lesson was to explicitly identify how specific scaffolding strategies were implemented in each respective stage of contingency, fading, and transfer of responsibility in each model. The two EFL writing instructional models are: 1. Scaffolded Writing Instruction model designed as an EFL writing instruction training program for lower and upper secondary school teachers (Chinokul, 2012), and 2. Fisher and Frey’s Gradual Release model applied to enhance EFL upper secondary school students’ writing ability (Kumpawan, 2014) As mentioned in the preface, I was involved with the above models as a teacher educator in the position of a training program designer and the trainer and as the main thesis advisor for model 2.
103 5.2 Design-in scaffolding macro level and micro scaffolding support Design-in scaffolding macro level An attempt to trace the evidence of design-in scaffolding macro level is to match some of the information stated about the workshop plan which may correspond to what Hammond and Gibbons (2005) conceptualized as the features of design-in scaffolding macro level for planning program: identification of the goals of the program; the organization of classrooms; and the selection and sequencing of tasks. For scaffolding in action, Hammond and Gibbons (2005) suggest 8 features to be considered. These include students’ prior knowledge and experiences, selection of tasks, sequencing of tasks, participant structures, semiotic systems, mediational texts, metalinguistic and metacognitive awareness. Dansie (2001) applied the design-in scaffolding macro level in a practical way for classroom context based on 5 key elements as shown in Table 5.1 below. Table 5.1: Key elements to be considered in the stage of design-in scaffolding macro level (Dansie, 2001, p. 50) 1 The teacher’s clear goals 2 The teacher’s understanding of the linguistic demands of the associated task 3 Knowledge of the students and of their current abilities and understanding 4 Careful sequencing of tasks designed to develop the practices required to achieve the goal 5 A gradual but constant shift of responsibility for task completion from teacher to students These 5 elements will be used to examine the plan by matching with some information taken from the artifacts of the workshop by the teacher trainer and the instruction. The teacher trainer and the teacher provided in their instruction of the two projects: 1) Scaffolded Writing Instruction that was used in the training of in-service teachers; and 2) Fisher and Fray’s Gradual Release model applied to enhance EFL upper secondary school students’ writing ability.
104 Micro-level scaffolding Micro-level scaffolding occurs within the broader macro-level scaffolding (Hammond & Gibbons, 2001). Planning applies the key elements of scaffolding; i.e., contingency, fading, and transfer of responsibility. As mentioned in chapter 4, contingency refers to the “at need” adjustment of the progress of a teaching-learning event, or sequencing of events, so that students are supported to work within attainable limits (Hammond, 2001; p. 116). Many words are used to associate with contingency; i.e., adaptive, responsive, tailored, adjusted, differentiated, titrated, and calibrated support. Tools to ensure that the students get the support they need and at the right level are diagnostic strategies. These strategies include dynamic assessment (Lajoie, 2005; Macrine & Sabbatino, 2008; Pea, 2004; Swanson & Lussier, 2001), formative assessment (Shepard, 2005), online diagnosis (Palincsar & Brown, 1984), or monitoring and checking students’ understanding. Van de Pol et al. (2010) proposed an integrative framework for the analysis of scaffolding strategies that includes five scaffolding intentions (what is scaffolded) and six scaffolding means (how is scaffolding taking place): means, direction maintenance, cognitive intentions--cognitive structuring, cognitive intention--reduction of the degrees of freedom, affective intentions--contingency management/frustration control and affective intention—recruitment. Six scaffolding means according to Van de Pol et al. (2010) include 1) Feeding back: the provision of information regarding the students’ performance to the student themselves. 2) Hints: the provision of clues or suggestions by the teacher to help the students go forward. 3) Instructing: the teacher telling the students what to do or explaining of how something must be done and why. 4) Explaining: the provision of more detailed information or clarification by the teacher. 5) Modeling: the process of offering behavior for imitation. 6) Questioning: asking students questions that require an active linguistic and cognitive answer. In addition, Van de Pol et al. (2018) provide clear ideas on how to trace whether the support the teacher gave would be appropriate by looking at students’ uptake and accuracy of their answers through teacher-student, student-student interaction. This may happen when the teacher employs degree of control support, checks students’ understanding and provides contingency shift principle. Hammond (2001) states that the key element of micro scaffolding is the contingent nature of support. The teacher is constantly monitoring students’ understanding and ability in order to determine the support required. Apart from tracing the dialog and interaction between teacher-student and student-student, Hammond (2001) contends that scaffolding can be traced through semiotic i.e., active engagement with interactive texts, with peers via chat rooms. This may be in line with an expand scaffolding of Van Lier (2004) resources (See chapter 4).
105 To conclude, how contingency is traced back in the two projects, I plan to examine in the workshop or the class plan based on 3 features: 1) scaffolding intentions; 2) the teacher’s use of scaffolding strategies and 3) the students’ uptake of the scaffolding provided by the teacher. The first feature of scaffolding in action is scaffolding intentions. Van de Pol et al.’s (2010) proposal of 5 elements will be traced: means, direction maintenance, cognitive intention, affective intention, and recruitment concerns. The use of semiotic system and selection and sequencing of tasks (Hammond & Gibbons, 2001; 2005) will also be explored. The second feature is teacher’s use of scaffolding strategies. The teacher trainer’s and teacher researcher’s instructional steps will be traced based on the 6 scaffolding strategies that Van de Pol et al. (2005) has explained; i.e. feeding back, hints, instructing, explaining, modeling, and questioning. Finally, the feature on student’s uptake of the scaffolding support provided by the teacher, will be traced back in an attempt to find observable evidence of students’ uptake and the accuracy of answers or the expected level of the tasks assigned to them (Van de Pol et al., 2018). (Refer to Table 5.2.) As for fading, a stage when the teacher gradually reduces the support or the guidance, according to Pradita et al. (2019), the reduction is in terms of asking the students to do the same or giving modeled task. This will be traced for the two projects in terms of the instructions when the course participants in my workshop and the students in Kumpawan’s study were told to move on to the next level of task. This is the specific point that I and Kumpawan may use as a sign to confirm that their course participants and students were ready for the next move. Transfer responsibility is the stage when the students have more responsibilities in themselves (Pradita et al., 2019). In this stage, the trace will be when the course participants and the students were released to do independent work on the assigned tasks. This is the stage where they become autonomous learners. Table 5.2 Checklist to trace the evidence of how the teacher trainer and the teacher researcher applied micro scaffolding strategies in the two projects I Contingency support Evidence of how the teacher applied scaffolding intention 1 Means metacognitive cognitive affective Evidence 2 Direction maintenance Evidence of how the teacher maintains the student’s pursuit of a particular objective of the task Yes No If yes, evidence 3 Cognitive intentions--Cognitive structuring Yes No If yes, provide explanatory and belief structures that organize and justify
106 I Contingency support Evidence of how the teacher applied scaffolding intention 4 Cognitive intentions--Reduction of the degrees of freedom Yes No If yes, how the teacher takes over those parts of a task that the student is not yet able to perform and thereby simplification of the task for the student 5 Affective intention--Contingency management/frustration control Yes No If yes, how the teacher facilitates student performance via a system of rewards and punishment while keeping students motivated through reducing frustration 6. Affective intention--Recruitment concerns Yes No If yes, how the teacher gets the student interested in a task and helps them adhere to its requirements Evidence of the use of semiotic and explanation of selection and sequencing of tasks 1 The use of semiotic. Yes No If yes, explain 2 Explanation of selection and sequencing of tasks. Yes No If yes, how Evidence of how the teacher applied six scaffolding strategies: feeding back hints instructing explaining modeling questioning Evidence of student’s uptake of the scaffolding support provided by the teacher: Students’ uptake was observed. Accuracy of answers or the expected level of the tasks assigned to them was observed. II Fading Evidence and explanation of strategies of how the teacher gradually withdraws. III The transfer of responsibility Evidence of what and how the students had to shoulder more responsibility as the amount of scaffolds they received declined. Source: The checklist items in this figure are integrated and adjusted from Van de Pol and Beishuizen (2010), Van de Pol et al. (2018), Hammond (2001), and Hammond Gibbons (2005).
107 5.3 Tracing of design-in scaffolding macro level and micro level scaffolding in the teacher training workshop: New Perspectives on Teaching Writing (Chinokul, 2012) Context and rationale of the workshop: The Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University was funded by the Ministry of Education to train the teachers at all levels and subject matters in a series of workshops during 2010, 2011, and 2012. The Foreign Languages Division, Department of Curriculum and Instruction as one unit of the Faculty took part in this professional development project. The main tasks were to help train school teachers teaching English language at the lower and upper secondary school nationwide to improve English Language Instruction. The training started with the planning of the theme to be built around English language skills, the design of the workshop series, the writing and publication of teaching manuals and student books, as well as the training to groups of representative teachers from schools in each province and region. The theme of the workshop focused on thinking. There were altogether 8 modules in the workshops for the EFL teachers: Module 1 English Learning Planning, Module 2 Developing Thinking Skills, Module 3 Teaching Listening Skills, Module 4 Teaching Speaking Skills, Module 5 Teaching Reading Skills, Module 6 Teaching Writing Skills, Module 7 Information Technology for ELT, and Module 8 Developing English Courses. The time given for each module in the workshop was approximately 2 hours. In each year, the workshops were run for 3 days with crossed Modules so that each trainer could be able to deliver the workshops to the participants who were representatives of school teachers in the lower and upper secondary schools. After the training session of the workshop, it was expected that participants would transfer what they had learned to the other school teachers at their own regional schools. As for the content in the teacher manuals and student books, the versions of lower and upper secondary schools shared the same framework or directions although the details of information and the examples as well as the handouts may be different. The workshop manuals and student books in the series were slightly different in each year as the course designers revised the versions to suit the workshop participants after they were used. This was one of the huge nationwide teacher training workshops that our faculty members were involved with and the impact could be immense on the Thai education. The target source which is related to this book is the module 6--New Perspectives on Teaching Writing which inspired scaffolding and its use to frame the content and structure of the activities in the module. The highlight will be the theoretical foundation which I used to design the workshop and how I planned to employ scaffolding in the framework. In addition, I will trace back whether there is any evidence that the three aspects of scaffolding: contingency, fading, and transfer of
108 responsibility were observed in the training. How can I ensure that the teachers who participated in the workshop would understand and be able to take the content knowledge and pedagogical skills to teach other teachers and their students after they have completed the workshop? Tracing the evidence of design-in scaffolding macro level The 5 elements described in the section of design-in macro level of scaffolding will be used to examine the plan of Scaffolded Writing Instruction which was used in the training of in-service teachers by matching with some information taken from the artifacts of the workshop. Dansie’s (2001) 5 elements are: 1. The teacher’s clear goals; 2. The teacher’s understanding of the linguistic demands of the associated task; 3. Knowledge of the students and of their current abilities and understanding; 4. Careful sequencing of tasks designed to develop the practices required to achieve the goal; and 5. A gradual but constant shift of responsibility for task completion from teacher to students. Based on the teacher manual of Module 6 for the lower secondary school level in 2012, the following information was explained: Table 5.3: Matching Dentice’s (2001) key elements to trace the evidence of the elements of the design-in macro level within the teachers’ training workshop on Scaffolded Writing Instruction (Chinokul, 2012). Objectives The trainer’s By the end of the module, the course participants will be able to: clear goals. 1. apply Scaffolded Writing Instruction framework and guidelines for EFL writing pedagogy in class, The teacher’s 2. design teaching and learning writing activities by integrating understanding of thinking skills and other English language skills, and the linguistic 3. assess and evaluate EFL English writing skills. demands of the associated tasks. Contents • Design and implement Scaffolded Writing Instruction approach as an alternative framework for EFL writing pedagogy Writing as a support skill (Skill-getting) Writing for self-expression (Skill-using) • Designs of EFL writing activities by integrating thinking skills and other language skills Prewriting stage During writing stage Post writing stage • Authentic assessment used to assess and evaluate EFL students’ writing.
109 Time 2 hours Activities/Procedures No Activities Tim Types of Materials . e activities Handout 1 20 Worksheet 1 1 Introducing the mins Whole Careful concepts of Scaffolded class Handout 2 sequencing of Writing Instruction 40 discussio Handout 3 tasks designed framework mins n to develop the practices 2 Planning to teach Group required to writing with Scaffolded work achieve the Writing Instruction goals. Worksheet 2 3 Implementing 40 Group Handout 4 Scaffolded Writing mins work Worksheet 3 Instruction in class (Teachin g demonstr ation) 4 Assessment and 20 Group Handout 5 evaluation of written mins discussio Worksheet 4 product n (Practici ng self- monitori ng editing) Activity 1: Introducing the concepts of Scaffolded Writing Knowledge of Instruction framework the students and • Discussion is conducted on the concepts of Scaffolded Writing of their current Instruction framework and why applying the framework will ability and help the writing students gain more confidence in their writing understanding ability. Careful Activity 2: Planning to teach writing with Scaffolded Writing sequencing of tasks designed Instruction to develop the • Planning and teaching steps of how to implement Scaffolded practice required Writing Instruction in class are discussed. to achieve the goals.
110 Activity 3: Implementing Scaffolded Writing Instruction in class The teacher • Course participants observe the demonstration and work along trainer’s understanding of with the activities in each teaching step. the linguistic • The reason of integrating thinking and other language skills in demands of the designated tasks. teaching writing is raised. •The wrap-up session which will be conducted at the end of each A gradual but constant shift of activity to raise the key concepts the course participants should responsibility for task be aware of. completion from teacher trainer to Activity 4: Assessment and evaluation of written product course • Course participants practice giving feedbacks to their friends’ participants. writing. • Course participants discuss and select an appropriate assessment tool for their friends’ writing. • The wrap-up session is aimed to help raise the key concepts of the framework. For the whole training session, the course participants are aware of the connection between theory and practice of EFL writing pedagogy. They are provided with some hands-on experiences and inspired with some useful and interesting input to create writing tasks. Tracing the evidence of Micro scaffolding strategies To trace the scaffolding in terms of contingency, fading and transfer of responsibility in the workshop, I examined what had been planned for teaching demonstration against the plan of tracing micro scaffolding strategies the teacher trainer used in the demonstration at the workshop. How contingency is traced back in the two projects, I planned to examine the workshop or the class plan based on 3 features: 1) scaffolding intentions; 2) the teacher’s use of scaffolding strategies and 3) the students’ uptake of the scaffolding provided by the teacher. Fading and transfer of responsibility in the workshop will also be explored. Scaffolding intentions, Van de Pol et al.’s (2005) proposal of 5 elements will be traced: means, direction maintenance, cognitive intention, affective intention, and recruitment concerns. The use of semiotic and selection and sequencing of tasks (Hammond, 2001; Hammond & Gibbons, 2005) will also be explored.
111 Table 5.4 Checklist to trace the evidence of how the teacher trainer applied micro scaffolding strategies in the teachers’ training workshop (Chinokul, 2012) I Contingency support Evidence of how the teacher applied scaffolding intention 1 Means metacognitive cognitive affective Evidence: 1. Scaffolding support for metacognitive strategies: Teacher trainer reviewed and worked on pre-writing strategies techniques in the worksheets provided for the course participants (see Activity 2 and 3 in Table 5.3) 2. For cognitive scaffolding: Course participants were asked to work on Activity 1 and 4 in Table 5.3. They also engaged in the teaching demonstration in all the stages (see Table 5.5) while trying to relate each stage of the teaching demonstration to the steps in the Scaffolded Writing Instruction framework provided for them (see figures 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 below). 3. For affective scaffolding, relevant authentic materials; i.e., video clip of the music video, pictures, competition games, sample of authentic writing materials were employed during the workshop session to create positive environment. 2 Direction maintenance Evidence of how the teacher maintains the students’ pursuit of a particular objective of the task Yes No If yes, evidence: The activities of the workshop were planned based on the objectives and the achievement of each activity was constantly monitored and checked during the demonstration. 3 Cognitive intentions--Cognitive structuring Yes No If yes, provide explanatory and belief structures that organize and justify: whole class and small group works were assigned to discuss and do the tasks. After that a random assignment was performed to present the work in front of the class. 4 Cognitive intentions--Reduction of the degrees of freedom Yes No If yes, how the teacher takes over those parts of a task that the student is not yet able to perform and thereby simplification of the task for the student The course participants were assigned to get involved in group tasks and voluntarily present their completed task at the end of the workshop. The teacher trainer was very careful to provide feedback or any scaffolding support to the course participants in a constructive and friendly manner. 5 Affective intention--Contingency management/frustration control Yes No If yes, how the teacher facilitates student performance via a system of rewards and punishment while keeping students motivated through reducing frustration: Feedback and constructive comments were given by peers and the teacher trainer. Then the groups which were chosen from the course participants as the
112 three best teams were given some small presents as token of appreciation for their cooperation and good work. 6. Affective intention--Recruitment concerns Yes No If yes, how the teacher gets students interested in a task and helps them adhere to its requirements: The topic of the workshop in the demonstration and all the activities were linked to provide the model and full explanation for the Scaffolded Writing Instruction. PPT slides, handouts and other visuals were provided. The instructions in each activity was structured in a way that the course participants could follow and apply them in their actual classes. Evidence of the use of semiotic and explanation of selection and sequencing of tasks 1 The use of semiotic. Yes No If yes, explain: Video clip of music video and relevant pictures of famous people were used as inputs to explain grammar points used in writing. In addition real samples of writing were provided (see teaching demonstration). 2 Explanation of selection and sequencing of tasks. Yes No If yes, how. See detailed information in the evidence section from the artifacts from the workshop and description of teaching demonstration. Evidence of how the teacher trainer applied six scaffolding strategies: feeding back hints instructing explaining modeling questioning Evidence of student’s uptake of the scaffolding support provided by the teacher: Students’ uptake was observed. Accuracy of answers or the expected level of the tasks assigned to them was observed. II Fading Evidence and explanation of strategies of how the teacher gradually withdraws. The performances of the course participants were observed at the stage of group work and pair work. When they could do the task at a satisfactory level, the teacher trainer began to fade. III The transfer of responsibility Evidence of what and how the students had to shoulder more responsibility as the amount of scaffolds they received declined. The assigned task at the independent writing. Source: The checklist items in this figure are integrated and adjusted from Van de Pol and Beishuizen (2010), Van de Pol et al. (2018), Hammond (2001), and Hammond and Gibbons (2005).
113 Table 5.5: Evidence from the teaching demonstration for the workshop Activity 6.4: Implementing Scaffolded Writing Instruction in class Study handout 6.4 and participate in the teaching demonstration. After the teaching demonstration, complete the tasks in worksheet 6.4. Handout 6.4: Demonstration of Scaffolded Writing Teacher trainer monitors Instruction in class Instruction: Participate in the the course participants’ teaching demonstration and observe how the understanding of the instructional process is conducted in class. Then, answer teaching demonstration. the questions in the worksheet. Competition game Demonstration Activity creates good interaction Writing people description between course Pre-writing stage demonstration activity participants and the 1. The class begins with competition game of who teacher trainer and is who. The course participants are divided into among the course groups. They read short descriptions of persons participants themselves. from the power point and play the game. The The trainer can check sample of descriptions are as follows: the participants’ a) She was born in the North of Thailand. At the background knowledge about the content that age of 44 she assumed a big position for her she is going to introduce to them. The semiotics country. Many people admire her personality systems were used to scaffold the activity. and her beauty. (Yingluck Shinawatra) Course participants’ uptake was observed. b) She is a good performer because she can sing and dance very well. She has written several songs and those songs have been so popular. What makes her famous is her clothes! She dresses in a very unique style. (Lady Gaga) c) He is a very famous Thai actor, married with two children. His nickname begins with K. (Ken Theeradej) 2. The class discusses what element in the description helps them relate to the persons. During-writing stage demonstration activities: Scaffolding stage began with the whole class. Focus lesson (whole class) The course participants’ 1. The instructor plays the song “Five for background knowledge Fighting” on YouTube available at was elicited as part of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCdEuM the contingency support. k7C9E&feature=related and asks the They were checking participants to relate to Superman. Then she whether they were ready asks each course participant to give some
114 adjectives to describe the superheroes. She to move on to the next uses some questions to elicit their answers. level. This Sample of questions can be referred to in demonstration was for http://www.thesuperheroquiz.com/. The the course participants action verbs and adjectives to describe their to learn possible activity superheroes may include: breathe in writing as a support underwater, control the weather, climb walls, skill for the writing become invisible, see through walls, shoot down exercise. All of lasers, freeze things, make force fields, lift the six scaffolding anything, run fast, stretch very far, talk to strategies can be animals, fly, become anything and shrink. observed; i.e. modeling, (Writing as a support skill--writing down instructing, hints, exercise) feeding back, explain, 2. The course participants match their written and questioning. Course adjectives with the right categories such as: participants’ uptake and character, intellectual ability, attitude towards accuracy of the chosen life, attitude towards other people, clothing, etc. vocabulary items and 3. Discussion is then made about the list of words the sentences were from each category and how those words could observed. The role of be formed in a sentence and put together to contingency and fading describe their heroes. can be observed. Guided Instruction (group work) The teacher trainer 1. The class considers some resources from the reviewed grammar and internet which can be used to help them learn to vocabulary as well as describe people (the details are in the appendix of provided sample the student’s book). paragraphs to describe 2. As a group they are given the model descriptions people. This part of of people to study and the description analysis writing is a support skill worksheet to complete (see power point slide). (see the framework). The language facilities discussed are: The explanation and a) The use of various types of adjectives; modeling was observed b) The use of syntactic elements; and for scaffolding— c) The use of other additional information. contingency. (Writing as a support skill--writing in the language) Collaborative learning (pair work) The course participants Then in pairs, they select the picture of a superhero were asked to get the teacher prepared for them in a package. They involved in the write the description about the superhero. The workshop to practice descriptions of superheroes that other students wrote writing. This is an may be used as a guide so that they have some idea activity of writing in the of how specific they should describe their language as a support
115 superhero. The website can be downloaded at skill in the framework. http://www.mes-english.com/vkeypals/supers.php Direction maintenance was observed (Writing as a support skill--writing in the (contingency support 2 language) on the checklist 5.4 above). Independent writing (individual) The task was assigned to The course participants write the description of a local the course participants superhero without mentioning the name. when they were ready to do independent writing (Writing for self-expression—flexible messages) for self-expression in the framework. The Post-writing stage demonstration activity: transfer of responsibility Students check their paragraph for accuracy and was observed. content. They exchange their paragraph writings to get The last stage of writing feedback. Finally, on voluntary basis they are to present is to publish their work their writing pieces in front of the class. The class then to others. The whole guess who the superhero is and summarize which teaching demonstration qualities of the heroes they admire and why. was for the course participants to observe and it was expected that they would be able to transfer their knowledge and experiences to teach their students in their own class. Evidence from the artifacts of the workshop 1.The explanation of the framework was provided in Activity 1. The questions were raised to highlight the what and how of Scaffolded Writing Instruction and how it is framed and used in classroom. Scaffolded Writing Instruction framework and Scaffolded writing tasks were introduced to the course participants in Activity 1 shown in Figures 5.1 and 5.2 below: Activity 1 Introducing Scaffolded Writing Instruction Framework The principle of this framework is teaching with a gradual release. This can be done by using scaffold which refers to a special, supportive way of interacting and to a temporary structure that assists learning (Waqui and van Lier, 2010). As both a process and a structure, scaffolding can be described as the pedagogical ways in which the zone of proximal development (the area where
116 the potential ability can be reached with assistance from a mediator which can be a person and/or a resource) is established. Scaffolding writing model: Scaffolded Writing Instruction model Framework for Teaching Writing Controlled free Writing as a support skill (skill- Writing for self-expression (skill- getting) using) 1.writing down exercise involving 1. flexibility message copying/ reporting of learned (transformation exercises, material sentence-combining, expansion) 2.writing in the language (controlled 2. expressive writing (guided and grammar practice, reinforce their free composition) growing knowledge of linguistic system) Figure 5.1: Scaffolded Writing Instruction framework for secondary school level What are possible scaffolding which writing teachers can provide? 1. The delivery of writing tasks Tasks in writing as support skill Tasks in writing for self-expression 2. Teaching writing as a process with multiple drafts allowed. 3. The resources used to motivate the students to write. 4. The structure of group work. All these aspects help them to be more confident as writers.
117 Expressive writing At what level do you want them to achieve? Where is Flexibility the current message ability of writing the students? Writing in the language Writing down exercise Writing as support skill Writing for self -expression (skill-getting) (skill-using) Figure 5.2: Scaffolded writing tasks for secondary school levels: Bridging the gap between where the students’ current writing ability is and where the teacher expects them to achieve Scaffolded Writing Instruction can be framed to bridge the gap between where the students’ current writing ability is and where the teacher expects them to achieve. It should be noted; however, that for the upper secondary school students, the tasks which suit their ability will be in the area of skill-using. If they are ready, they can be assigned works which require them to express their opinion in English writing. Therefore, this idea may help set up a realistic plan for helping the students to write an extended essay which is an indicator of a world class standard school. 2. As the theme of the workshop is “thinking, ” Figure 5.3 was used to explain how thinking and writing are related. Note that this is to connect the Scaffolded Writing Instruction and Scaffolded writing task as explained above.
118 • The writer thinks beyond the W R Higher information given to create I order argument for writing by T thinking interpreting, applying, analyzing, I skill synthesizing and evaluating the N information G S • The writer stays and thinks within U Lower the information given to seek C order evidence for writing by recalling, C thinking recogniting or translating E skill information S S Figure 5.3 The connection of thinking and writing The course participants were told that for lower secondary students, most of the tasks may probably focus on the lower order thinking skill at the stage of writing as a support skill (skill-getting). But the teacher may consider moving beyond to the next step of higher order thinking (skill-using) if the students are ready. For upper secondary students, the focus will be more on writing for self-expression (skill-using); the activities on the stage of writing as support skill (skill-getting) will be to prepare the students to be ready for the writing at the skill-using phase. 3. During the workshop these worksheets and checklist for designing pedagogical writing instruction were discussed and practiced on. Instruction: Imagine that your mentor teacher assigns you to teach a writing course in the semester. Use the following guidelines to help you prepare the writing lesson. 1. Mode of input: spoken data (accompanied by visuals, sounds or any combination of these) written data (accompanied by visuals, sounds or any combination of these) 2. Type of input: text dialogue video recording other pieces of communication data
119 3. List the information of the language you want the students to practice in writing. Language in focus: ________________________________ Grammar point: ________________________________ Vocabulary: ________________________________ Cultural knowledge: ________________________________ 4. Content and type of writing Select the content and type of writing which seem to be applied in the writing class. Select the type of content and type of writing Personal writing Diaries, journals, shopping lists, reminders for oneself, packing lists, addresses, recipes Social writing Letters, e-mails, invitations, notes of thanks, instructions to friends, notes of congratulations, instructions to family, telephone messages Public writing Public notices, advertisement, instructions, form filling, applications, posters, business letters Creative writing Rhymes, poems, songs, role play, drama, stories, autobiography, web pages 5. How will you apply Scaffolded Writing Instruction in the class? _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________
120 6. Teaching steps for Scaffolded Writing Instruction framework Pre-writing stage During-writing stage Post-writing stage Write the strategies which Write the strategies Choose the strategies which you are going to apply in which you are going you are going to use in this each step. to apply in each stage. step. Focus lesson (whole class) 1. brainstorming _______________________ ________________ 2. examining writing _______________________ ________________ _______________________ ________________ models _______________________ ________________ 3. listing and categorizing _______________________ ________________ Guided Instruction ________________ information (group work) ________________ 4. reflecting upon _______________________ ________________ _______________________ ________________ personal experience _______________________ ________________ 5. role playing and other _______________________ ________________ _______________________ ________________ drama techniques Collaborative learning 6. game to connect (pair work) Your choices for _______________________ thinking and language _______________________ type of assessment: skills _______________________ Holistic scoring 7. constructing thought _______________________ webs and graphic _______________________ assessment organizers Analytical 8. asking the 5 Ws—who, Independent writing what, where, when and (individual) scoring assessment why _______________________ 9. interviewing a person _______________________ Reason(s) for the knowledgeable about _______________________ the topic _______________________ selection: 10. searching captions in _______________________ newspapers to jot ________________ down ideas for writing ________________ 11. engaging in peer or ________________ teacher-student Sample scoring discussions and rubrics: conferences 12. viewing media such as pictures, movies, television and listening to music
121 5.4 Tracing of design-in scaffolding macro level and micro level scaffolding in the M. Ed. thesis entitled Effects of Fisher and Frey’s gradual release of responsibility model on writing ability of tenth grade students (Kumpawan, 2014) Background of the study Kumpawan (2014) found a mismatch between what the policy of the Ministry of Education of Thailand when the announcement was made about reaching the World- Class Standard School and the actual English language performance of the majority of the Thai EFL students studying at lower- and upper-secondary schools. The Ministry of Education of Thailand considers putting an emphasis on an investment in education as a part of human resource development to build up students’ learning achievement towards world-class level. Therefore, one of the education plans, the World-Class Standard School Policy, was employed in 2010. Kumpawan cited the information from The Office of Basic Education Commission (2010) which revealed that 500 participant schools (119 primary schools and 381 secondary schools) all over the country to provide quality of learning as a preparation toward world class level. It can be obviously seen in the conflicting situation that it is quite difficult to implement the policy posed by the Ministry of Education regarding the increased level of English language proficiency of the Thai students to World-class standards, considering the results of the Ordinary National Education Test (O-NET) in English language and the reality of the students’ actual performance in English. The results of Ordinary National Education Test (O-NET) in 2011 revealed that the English average scores of Thai students were at the lowest, compared with other subject areas (Phanphrut, 2012). It indicated that Thai students need a lot of improvement in English proficiency. In addition, regarding the four skills of English proficiency, writing skill is considered as the most difficult skill for many Thai students (Amkham, 2010). Kumpawan reported her own observation teaching writing in EFL context of Thailand, especially in upper secondary level that most of the Thai students were assigned to write more complicated tasks such as a report or an essay, compulsory requirements under the World-Class Standard School Policy. One of the World-Class Standard learning strands provided in participant schools is Independent Study 2: Communication and Presentation which required students to generate their knowledge and present the information in the form of academic writing. It was evident that the students were not yet ready to write English at the expected level. They needed more practice in order to produce such complex types of writing. The compulsory and elective courses offered at the lower secondary level emphasize on grammar teaching only at sentence level. Therefore, writing extended sentences may be beyond the ability of many lower secondary school students as they had not yet practiced to do so. Most of upper secondary students faced difficulties in writing an academic essay, according to the World-Class Standard Policy, since they were not well prepared for this kind of genre of writing.
122 Additionally, a large class size is another factor effecting student achievement as teachers cannot provide assistance to all students in the class. As a result, many Thai scholars have tried to develop and implement many teaching methodologies to improve Thai students’ writing ability. One of the new perspectives on teaching writing that can pave an alternative pedagogy is the scaffold model. Scaffolding instruction focuses on the role of mentoring in which teachers provide students guidance along the way of learning and gradually reduce their assistance until students can perform tasks on their own (Fisher & Frey, 2003, 2008; Pearson & Gallagher, 1983; Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976). In fact, the theory of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) proposed by Vygotsky (1978) is the ground theory of the Gradual Release of Responsibility Model (GRR). Pearson and Gallagher developed the GRR model based on ZPD theory in 1983. Later, in 2008, Douglas Fisher and Nancy Frey adapted Pearson and Gallagher’s GRR model (1983) by adding one more component in their framework: Collaborative Learning, which is slightly different from other scholars’ model in the field. Fisher and Frey (2008) suggested four major components of gradual release of responsibility which are: Focus Lesson, Guided Instruction, Collaborative Learning and finally Independent Work. The model was successfully accepted from the research conducted in many subject disciplines, but not in EFL writing. Therefore, Kumpawan’s study was aimed to investigate the use of the gradual release of responsibility model by using Fisher and Frey’s framework (2003; 2008) and how it affected upper secondary school students’ writing ability. Tracing the evidence of design-in scaffolding macro level The 5 elements described in the section of design-in macro level of scaffolding will be used to examine the plan of Kumpawan’s use of Fisher and Frey’s GRR model to improve her students’ writing ability by matching with some information taken from the information in her thesis. These 5 elements are: 1. The teacher’s clear goals; 2. The teacher’s understanding of the linguistic demands of the associated task; 3. Knowledge of the students and of their current abilities and understanding; 4. Careful sequencing of tasks designed to develop the practices required to achieve the goal; and 5. A gradual but constant shift of responsibility for task completion from teacher to students. Background of the course The course “English 30231 Writing I” offered in her school which is a large famous public school in Bangkok was used to implement the model. There were 31 students from the Mathematic-English program who were of mixed-ability English proficiency level and took the course in the first semester of the academic year 2013. The implementation of Fisher and Frey’s Gradual Release of Responsibility model in this course took 12 weeks (Figure 5.4 and Table 5.7). Starting with week 1, students were asked to write a well-organized paragraph as a pre-test on the topic: “My favorite movie character”. The writing ability was evaluated by writing scoring rubrics (Oregon Department of Education’s Office, 2010), in terms of idea and content; organization;
123 word choice; sentence fluency; and conventions. The total score was 30. The model was used to teach writing in four different text types: descriptive, narrative, opinion, and comparison and contrast on weeks 2-9. The topics came from the students’ choices of which they were asked in the needs analysis before the model was implemented. The class interactions and environments were video recorded. On week 10 post-test was conducted. Weeks 11-12 the key informants of the representatives of high, mid, and low achievers were interviewed and the class observations were transcribed. The construction of the lessons was analyzed based on Denise’s (2001) 5 key elements to trace the design-in macro scaffolding level of Kumpawan’s study. Table 5.6 Matching Kumpawan’s construct of the lesson plan with the key elements to be considered in the stage of design-in scaffolding macro level (Kumpawan, 2014; Dansie, 2001, p. 50) The construct of the lesson plans Matching with the In this study the lesson plans were developed based on The teacher was clear how Fisher and Frey’s Model (2008) of Gradual Release of to apply GRR model for the course goal. Responsibility which divided teaching instruction into A gradual but constant four stages: Focus lesson / “I do it”, Guided Instruction shift of responsibility for /“We do it, Collaborative/ “You do it together”, and task completion from Independent Practice/ “You do it alone”. Since the teacher to students. writing course is a 1.0 credit hours, each lesson plan Careful sequencing of tasks designed to develop covered the content in two periods. The teaching steps the practices required to achieve the goal in period one covered: Focus lesson, Guided Instruction, and Collaborative, whereas the second period covered Independent Practice. Figure 5.4 showed the adaptation of Fisher and Frey’s Model (2008) used in this study: it showed the responsibility in learning gradually moves from teacher’s toward students’ responsibility at the final steps of teaching. At stage 2: Guided instruction and stage 3: Collaborative, it is called joint responsibility (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983) in which teacher and students shared the responsibility in teaching and learning. Teacher gradually hands on the responsibility to students during the collaborative stage. The teaching steps obviously shifted from teacher-oriented to learner-oriented. There were eight lesson plans all together in this study: they covered four different genres of writing which were descriptive, narrative, comparison and contrast, and opinion writing.
124 The construct of the lesson plans Matching with the However, since Fisher and Frey’s GRR Model does The teacher’s understanding of the not provide further elaboration on how to check linguistic demands of the students’ competence whether they are ready to shift associated task to the next step, Table 5.7 was added in accordance Knowledge of the students and of their current with overall view of what the class looked like and abilities and understanding what happened in each stage including the teacher’s role. Table 5.7 presented a summary of teacher’s and students’ role indicating that students were expected to participate in each teaching stage of the Gradual Release of Responsibility Model. Those activities and tasks were adopted from the model of Fisher and Frey and developed by the researcher. In each stage, the specific level of writing tasks: vocabulary level, sentence level, and paragraph level and learning activities such as whole class, group work and individual work were stated and described based on learning of the objectives in the lesson plan (See Kumpawan’s sample lesson plan by scanning the QR code below).
125 Figure 5.4: Fisher and Frey’s Gradual Release of Responsibility model Table 5.7: Summary of Teacher’s Role and Students’ Role in Each Teaching Stage of Gradual Release of Responsibility Model Four Stages of Fisher Teacher’s role Students’ Role and Frey’s Gradual 1. establishes objectives 1. Students learn about Release of of lesson vocabulary and grammar. Responsibility Model 2. asks questions to check 2. Students read short Stage 1: Focus lesson / “I student understanding passage and answer the do it” 3. reads aloud questions regarding the 4. demonstrates tasks passage. Stage 2: Guided 3. Students compose few Instruction / “We do it” 1. works with students sentences. 2. checks student 1. Students learn about understanding, prompts, vocabulary and grammar. and cues 2. Students read the 3. provides additional passage and answer the modeling questions.
126 Four Stages of Fisher Teacher’s role Students’ Role and Frey’s Gradual 3. Students identify topic Release of sentence, supporting sentences and other Responsibility Model components. 4. Students write several Stage 3: Collaborative/ 1. provides feedbacks sentences. “You do it together” 2. determines students’ 1. Students work, discuss, plan, brainstorm and draft level of understanding writing task together with their classmates. 3. moves along groups 2. Students gather and synthesize information 4. clarifies confusion from the available sources including Stage 4: Independent 1. provides support and classmates, teacher, Practice/ “You do it alone” feedbacks dictionary, books, the 2. determines students’ Internet, etc. level of understanding 3. Students work in group 3. evaluates learning, and compose a short based on learning paragraph. objectives 1. Students plan and draft their own writing task. 2. Students gather and synthesize information from the available sources including classmates, teacher, dictionary, books, the Internet, etc. 3. Students individually compose a paragraph.
127 Tracing the evidence of micro scaffolding strategies Table 5.8 Checklist to trace the evidence of how Kumpawan actually applied the micro scaffolding strategies from information in her thesis I Contingency support Evidence of how the teacher applied scaffolding intention 1 Means metacognitive cognitive affective Evidence 1. Scaffolding support for metacognitive strategies: Kumpawan reviewed and worked on literature necessary for her to construct the lesson plans. She tried to distinguish the roles of teacher and students in each stage, how the responsibility in learning gradually moves from teacher’s toward students’ responsibility at the final steps of teaching. (see Table 5.7 above) 2. For cognitive scaffolding: Course participants were asked to work on tasks in each stage of “I do it”, “we do it”, “you do it together”, and “you do it alone” (see sample worksheet in Kumpawa’s lesson plan by scanning the QR code above). 3. For affective scaffolding, relevant authentic materials; i.e. pictures, games, sample of authentic writing materials, graphic organizer, sample paragraph templates and useful grammar resources were provided as worksheets for students. The students were motivated to learn to write more from the evidence of the students’ interviews. 2 Direction maintenance Evidence of how the teacher maintains the student’s pursuit of a particular objective of the task Yes No If yes, evidence The instructions and the roles of teacher were clearly designed in each stage of the GRR writing model. 3 Cognitive intentions--Cognitive structuring Yes No If yes, provide explanatory and belief structures that organize and justify 4 Cognitive intentions--Reduction of the degrees of freedom Yes No If yes, how the teacher takes over those parts of a task that the student is not yet able to perform and thereby simplification of the task for the student The students were given sufficient input and guidance from many stages of the GRR so their anxiety may be decreased. 5 Affective intention--Contingency management/frustration control Yes No If yes, how the teacher facilitates student performance via a system of rewards and punishment while keeping students motivated through reducing frustration 6. Affective intention--Recruitment concerns Yes No If yes, how the teacher gets the student interested in a task and helps them adhere to its requirements
128 I Contingency support Evidence of how the teacher applied scaffolding intention The students were assigned the topics that they chose based on the needs analysis. Therefore, they engaged in the writing task. Evidence of the use of semiotic and explanation of selection and sequencing of tasks Yes No 1 The use of semiotic. If yes, explain Pictures, authentic materials and resources were used to help the students became motivated to write. No 2 Explanation of selection and sequencing of tasks. Yes If yes, how With GRR writing instruction, the tasks were selected and sequenced to easiest the step from learning grammar and vocabulary, reading a sample paragraph, learning how to write in the text type that they read with the template and writing on their own. (see Kumpawan’s sample lesson plan) Evidence of how the teacher applied six scaffolding strategies: feeding back hints instructing explaining modeling questioning The evidence was clearly observed from the sample lesson plan and the excerpts 1 - 3 below. Evidence of student’s uptake of the scaffolding support provided by the teacher: Students’ uptake was observed. Accuracy of answers or the expected level of the tasks assigned to them was observed. II Fading Evidence and explanation of strategies of how the teacher gradually withdraws. The teacher gradually release her role in fading herself to just facilitating as illustrated in collaborative stage excerpt 3 below. III The transfer of responsibility Evidence of what and how the students had to shoulder more responsibility as the amount of scaffolds they received declined. The students were on task by themselves as seen in the independent practice. Note that the interaction was student to student when some students sought help. Source: The checklist items in this figure are integrated and adjusted from Van de Pol and Beishuizen (2010), Van de Pol et al. (2018), Hammond (2001), and Hammond Gibbons (2005).
129 The evidence of contingency scaffolding strategies found from Kumpawan’s study Excerpts of the conversation to demonstrate the evidence of contingency scaffolding strategies between teacher-student interactions are presented as follows: Excerpt 1: Focus Lesson Teacher: “Well, if I try to form a sentence, for example “It looks ……” (Teacher points at vocabulary on the board) Students (whole class): Modern Teacher: “What else? It looks ……” Students (whole class): “Clean” Teacher: “Well, if change it to “It smells….(clean)”, can I” Students (whole class): “Yes.” Excerpt 1, it showed the teacher’s role in using questions as a contingency support to check students’ understanding. Teacher asked students to form a sentence by using the vocabulary from the worksheet to confirm students’ uptake. Excerpt 2: Guided Instruction Teacher: “Try to analyze (writing components), which sentence in the paragraph is the topic sentence and which ones are supporting sentences. Have you filed in the chart, yet?” Students (whole class): Yes, I have. Teacher: “Can I have one volunteer to complete the supporting sentences part?” (one student volunteers) Student: ….“There are many trees in the park. Some trees are tall, and some trees are short. There are many yellow and red flowers in the park, too” Excerpt 2, teacher used prompting as a contingency support by referring to templates so she can examine their uptake on writing components: topic sentence and supporting details. The student could give correct answer showing his/ her understanding. Excerpt 3: Collaborative A group of students asks teacher about their outline. Teacher: “Then, what happened, where and how?” Students1: “Here. For Background (of the story), we write that we played theme park attractions together. Then, when we describe what theme park attractions we played in detail, we will put it in the Middle (of the tory) part. Teacher: “Mmm..I see. The Background (of the story) will tell how and when the story happened.” Student2: “And how about what we wrote here as the Middle (of the story)?” (Students 2 points at the outline) Teacher: “…OK.”
130 (Teacher points at a sentence in the outline) Teacher: “Here….you must say ‘(it) is located in…’ in what….?” Students2: “in Rangsit” Student1: “And in the last part, we say that Nan’s father took us back (home)...” (Students 1 points at the outline) Teacher: “Mmm..OK.” Excerpt 3, the teacher prepared to fade and so she only acted as a facilitator or monitor in the classroom, while students worked in groups together. When they wanted some clarifications, they sought for the teacher’s help. The teacher only gave those students suggestions and corrective feedback on their outlines. From the excerpt 3, it showed that students learned how to draft their writing paragraph: it consisted of background, middle and end of the story. This may be the sign for the teacher that the students are now ready for the transfer of responsibility. Excerpt 4: Independent Practice (A student1 is writing an individual work. She asks her friend who sits next to her.) Student1: “How do you spell Chiangrai?” Student2: “Ch-ai-ng, then, R-a-i” Student1: “Ch-ai-ng -R-a-i” (Student3 passes by.) Student3: (laughter) “What!.. Boyd?” Student2: (laughter) Student1: (laughter) “Look, you aren’t reliable, Boyd.” (Student1 looks at her cell phone to check word spelling.) Student1: “Here it is. It is Chiang Rai.” (Student1 looks for writing examples in her worksheet. She points at a sentence in the worksheet and asks Student3. ) Student1: “What is ‘We were worried about him…’” Student3: “Well, it means we feel worried about him.” Student1: “So, if I want to say I was worried about my sister, I can use that (pattern), right?” Student3: “Mm… Yes, something like that.” Excerpt 4, teacher gradually withdrew the role in the class as instructor to become a facilitator. Students individually worked on the writing exercise. However, when student 1 had confusion, she asked her groupmates and sought information from the dictionary in her cell phone as well as consulted writing examples in her worksheet, instead. This seems to mirror the situation where the transfer of responsibility had occurred.
131 5.5 Chapter summary In this chapter the observation checklists of both design-in macro scaffolding and micro scaffolding strategies were created to trace the evidence that may be observed from the teacher training workshop and the classroom instruction. From the investigation, there were clear evidence of design-in, contingency, fading and transfer responsibility employed by the teacher trainer and the teacher in teaching writing. Tracing the studies of scaffolding how the actual scaffolding strategies were used by the teachers may add more contribution to the field of English language teaching. To some extent, it gave a picture of what, how and when to apply contingency, fading, and transfer of responsibility, which are the questions often raised in literature review and by the classroom teachers themselves. 5.5 References Amkham, C. (2010). Effect of differentiated writing instruction by tiered assignments on writing ability of ninth grade students. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University Chulalongkorn University Bangkok, Thailand. Chinokul, S. (2012). “Teachers’ manual for module 6: New perspectives on teaching writing for upper secondary education level” Thai Khem Khang Project. Faculty of Education: Chulalongkorn University. Dansie,B. (2001). Chapter 4 Scaffolding the oral language ‘The hungry bear retold’ in Hammond, J (Ed.), Scaffolding: Teaching and learning in language and literacy education. (pp. 49-67). ERIC https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED456447.pdf. Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2003). Writing instruction for struggling adolescent readers: A gradual release model. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 46(5), 396. Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2008). Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for the gradual release of responsibility. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum. Development. Hammond,J. (2001). Scaffolding: Teaching and learning in language and literacy education (ED456477). ERIC https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED456447.pdf. Hammon,J. & Gibbons, P. (2001). What is scaffolding? In Hammond, J. (Ed.), Scaffolding: Teaching and learning in language and literacy education. Primary English Teaching Association, Newtown (Australia). ERIC https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED456447.pdf. Pradita, I, Prasetya, W. & Maharsi, I. (2019). Effect of instructional scaffolding in enhancing students’ participating in synchronous online learning, ICETT Association for Computing Machinery, May 27-29, 2019, Seoul, Republic of Korea https://doi.org/10.1145/3337682.3337707).
132 Kumpawan, P. (2014). Effects of Fisher and Frey’s gradual release of responsibility model on writing ability of tenth grade students. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University Chulalongkorn University Bangkok, Thailand. Lajoie, S. (2005). Extending the scaffolding metaphor. Instructional Science, 33, 541–557. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-005-1279-2. Macrine, S. & Sabbatino, E.D. (2008). Dynamic assessment and remediation approach: Using the DARA approach to assist struggling readers, Reading & Writing Quarterly, 24:1, 52-76, https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560701753112 Oregon Department of Education. (2010). Office scoring guide, writing 2010-2012. Retrieved From www.ode.state.or.us/wma/teachlearn/testing/scoring/guides/wriscorguide_en_ 1011.pdf Palincsar, A. S. & Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 117-175. Pea, R.A. (2004) The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity, The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423-451, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_6 Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, G. (1983). The gradual release of responsibility model of instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 112–123. Phanphrut, S. (2012, June). Educational Research and the Development toward the ASEAN. Paper presented at The 14th National Symposium on Educational Research of Office of the Education Council, Bangkok, Thailand. Swanson, H. L. & Lussier, C. M. (2001). A selective synthesis of the experimental literature on dynamic assessment. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 321–363. Shepard, L. A. 2005. Linking Formative Assessment to Scaffolding. Educational Leadership, 63, 66–70. Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 271– 297. DOI:10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6. Van de Pol, J., Mercer, N. & Volman, M. (2018). Scaffolding student understanding in small-group work: students’ uptake of teacher support in subsequent small- group interaction, Journal of the Learning Sciences. http://doi.org/ 10.1080/10508406.2018.1522258. Van Lier, L. (2004). The Ecology and Semiotics of Language Learning. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic van Lier, 2004. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring and problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.
133 Chapter six: Conclusion “Scaffolding is a concept that rests finally on the relationship between the activities of the lesson, the states of minds of the learners, and the Intentions of the teacher” (Freebody, 2000 cited in Jones, 2001). The above statement by Freebody may reflect well for the attempt of this book which proposes scaffolding instruction as a solution for challenges from the three corners: the student writers, the writing teachers, and the writing texts. The relationship among the three corners affect each other. Throughout the chapters it is undeniable that effective writing instruction can occur if one of the corners does not in itself cooperate in the cases of student writers and writing teachers. The writing texts need to be well scaffolded. At this point Hammond and Gibbons’s (2001) relevant questions should be referred to. They raised the questions which have been revisited by scholars and yet there are no perfect answers for these questions. The question of “what counts” as scaffolding in the classroom, and the relationship between scaffolding and what might be thought of as “good teaching” are still issues to be explored. They also raised an interesting point regarding scaffolding citing Maybin, Mercer and Steier (1992) which write: [Scaffolding] is not just any assistance which helps a learner accomplish a task. It is help which will enable a learner to accomplish a task which they would not have been quite able to manage on their own, and it is help which is intended to bring the learner closer to a state of competence which will enable them eventually to complete such a task on their own.' To some extent, this book has contributed some answer on the aspect of EFL writing instruction at a secondary school level. The summary of what the book covers is as follows: Chapter one proposes “Scaffolding Writing Instruction” as a solution of challenges from the three corners of writing process: student writers, writing teachers, and writing texts. the chapter has raised the point of the unclear concepts of Design-in macro and micro scaffolding strategies. And these issues are to be explored in this book. Within the macro scaffolding, the features of scaffolding: contingency, fading, and transfer of responsibly need clarification in the way that teachers can visualize what and how they can implement them in actual classroom settings and trace their teaching for the evidence if they believe in scaffolding and apply the concepts in their class. Chapter two presents’ challenges from the three corners of writing process. The lack of EFL students’ confidence in English and writing skills play a big role in hindering them from being good writers. They need to be motivated, assisted, and understand that teachers can help support them in their learning process. Writing teachers are the most important in the three corners of the writing process. Their intention, pedagogical beliefs and feedback provision are very important to help improve the situation of EFL writing instruction. The writing texts as students’ writing products can be subject to further analysis to maximize the value of the L2 writing texts.
134 The scholars in the field found that the writing texts produced by EFL students are quite different from those of the native speakers. Raising awareness of the issues and providing some recommendations for EFL teaching would be worthwhile. Chapter three focuses on teachers’ beliefs about EFL writing instructional approaches. The chapter presents the review of how teachers’ beliefs affect the way they teach in terms of the choices of writing instruction, task designs, lesson planning, and feedback provisions. This chapter gives an overview of the three commonly used in EFL writing instruction: product, Process and genre writing instruction. Chapter four focuses on exploring the theory of scaffolding and its features: contingency, fading, transfer of responsibility. The design-in scaffolding is explored. This chapter then explains how the concepts can be applied in planning a unit of writing. The chapter describes the process of applying these concepts in a classroom for unit preparation step-by-step. Chapter five analyzes and synthesizes the literature discussing the design-in macro scaffolding and micro scaffolding features where contingency, fading, and transfer of responsibility are discussed. It also proposes an observation form—a checklist to trace the evidence of how a teacher trainer and avteacher researcher used scaffolding to teach writing in in-service teacher training workshops and their secondary school Thai EFL students. There are evidence observed from both cases. Chapter six concludes an attempt in proposing and illustrating how scaffolding writing instruction can be a solution to the dilemma from the three corners of writing process: student writers, writing teacher, the writing texts. The mission sets up in the preface for my attempt to make scaffolding visible to the eyes of EFL writing teachers has come to an end. I hope that this book can contribute to the ELT field in clarifying the process of using scaffolding writing in classroom from the perspective of theory and practice according to the book title: Scaffolding Writing Instruction: Theory and Practice. References Hammon,J. & Gibbons, P. (2001). What is scaffolding? In Hammond, J. (Ed.), Scaffolding: Teaching and learning in language and literacy education. (ED456447) Primary English Teaching Association, Newtown (Australia). ERIC https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED456447.pdf. Jones, P. (2001). Mind in the classroom. In Hammond, J. (Ed.), Scaffolding: Teaching and learning in language and literacy education (ED456477). Primary English Teaching Association, Newtown (Australia). ERIC https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED456447.pdf
Subject Index 135 A I Identifying text structure .................. 18, 20, 24 A designed-in scaffolding unit planning Independent construction of a text.......... 59, 63 blueprint for teacher..................................87 Instructing................................................... 104 Intervention strategies ............................ 83, 89 A framework of the scaffolded writing J instruction .................................................85 Joint construction ................................... 59, 62 L Affective intention .............. 106, 111, 112, 127 L1 discourse interference.............................. 14 Analytic Scoring ...........................................69 L1 rhetorical style......................................... 14 Lesson plan to teach EFL writing.............iii, 64 C M Mediational texts .......................................... 79 Checking student’s learning..............83, 84, 91 Metalinguistic....................................... 37, 137 Checking the diagnosis ...........................83, 89 Micro level errors ......................................... 14 Checklist to trace the evidence....105, 111, 127 Modeling ........................................ 58, 61, 104 Conferencing feedback sessions ...................49 Modeling a text....................................... 58, 61 Content and type of writing.........................119 Multiple drafts ........................................ 48, 49 Contingency .....iii, 9, 80, 81, 89, 105, 106, 111, P Peer feedback ......................................... 49, 67 127 Pre-writing stage........................... 26, 113, 120 Contingent teaching ......................................82 Process writing instruction approach............ 47 Contrastive rhetoric.......................38, 140, 141 Product writing instruction ........................... 42 Publishing............................................... 49, 57 D Q Questioning ................................................ 104 Design-in scaffolding............................. iv, 103 R Design-in support..................................... iii, 79 Recruitment ................................ 106, 112, 127 Diagnostic strategies ...............................83, 89 Reduction of the degrees of freedom. 106, 111, Domain contingency .......................................9 Dynamic assessment ...................100, 132, 141 127 S E Scaffolding instruction ............................... 122 Scaffolding intentions................................. 110 Explaining ...................................................104 Scaffolding writing instruction............. 8, 9, 89 Self-monitoring strategies............................. 49 F Fading ....................... 9, 81, 106, 110, 112, 128 Feedback ...........iii, 48, 67, 68, 70, 75, 111, 139 Feeding back ...............................................104 Fisher and Frey’s framework ......................122 G Genre-based writing instruction....................58 Gradual Release of Responsibility .....122, 123, 124, 125 H Hints............................................................104 Holistic scoring .....................................68, 120
136 U Skill-getting.................................................108 Unit planning (Designed-in scaffolding at Skill-using ...................................................108 macro level).............................................. 87 Small-group work .........................................84 Students’ uptake.......... 101, 106, 112, 128, 144 Using corpus for developing language awareness ........................................... 20, 23 T W Task at a macro level ....................................20 Tasks at a micro level....................................20 Writing as support skill .............................. 117 Teacher’s role..............................................125 Writing down exercise................................ 117 Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs .................. iii, 40 Writing for self-expression......... 108, 115, 116 Teachers’ roles ..............................................47 Writing in the language .............................. 117 Text structure ................................................20 The sociocultural theory..................................9 Z Tracing of design-in scaffolding macro level iv, Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) 77, 122 107, 121 Transfer of responsibility ..............................82
137 References Amkham, C. (2010). Effect of differentiated writing instruction by tiered assignments on writing ability of ninth grade students. Unpublished master’s thesis. Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. Badger, R. & White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing, ELT Journal, 54 (2), 153-164. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/54.2.153 Bartholomare, D. (1980). The Study of error. College Composition and Communication, 31, 253-269. Belcher, D. (2007). A bridge too far? TESOL Quarterly, 41, 396–399. Bennui, P. (2008). A study of L1 interference in the writing of Thai EFL students. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 4, 72-102. Borg, M. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs. ELT Journal, 55(2), 186–188. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/55.2.186. Brown, H. G. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices. New York: Pearson Education Inc. Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. White Plains. NY: Pearson Education. Bordin, W., Yusop, B., Eric, A., Ambele and Fatimah, J. (2019). An Analysis of the Written Errors of Thai EFL Students’ Essay Writing in English. Songklanakarin Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 25(3), 55-82. Brookhart, S.M., Moss, C.M. &Long, B.A. (2009). Promoting student ownership of learning through high-impact formative assessment practices. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 6(12), 52-67. Burns, A. (1992). Teacher beliefs and their influence on classroom practice. Prospect, 7(3), 56–66Chan, P.E., Graham-Day, K.J., Ressa, V.A., Peters, M.T., & Konrad, M. (2014). Beyond involvement: Promoting student ownership of learning in classrooms. Intervention in School and Clinic, 50(2), 105–113. Chi, M. T., Siler, S. A., & Jeong, H. Y. T. & Hausmann, R.G. (2001). Learning from Human Tutoring. Cognitive Science, 25, 471-533. Faculty of Education: Chulalongkorn University. Chinokul, S. (2012). Teachers’ manual for module 6: New perspectives on teaching writing for upper secondary education level. Thai Khem Khang Project. Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University. Clarke, M. A. (1994). The dysfunctions of the theory/practice discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 9–26. Cohen, A., & Brooks-Carson, A. (2001). Research on direct versus translated writing: Students’ strategies and their results. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2),169- 188. Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second-language proficiency. Language Learning, 39(1), 81-141. Cumming, A. (1990). Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written Communication, 7, 482-511.
138 Cumming, A. (1989). Student teachers’ conceptions of curriculum: Towards an understanding oflanguage teacher development. TESL Canada Journal, 7, 33–51. Cushing Weigle, S. (2005). Second Language Writing Expertise. In Johnson, K. (Ed.), Expertise in Second Language Learning and Teaching. (pp.128-149). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Dansie,B. (2001). Chapter 4 Scaffolding the oral language ‘The hungry bear retold’ in Hammond, J (Ed.), Scaffolding: Teaching and learning in language and literacy education. (pp. 49-67). ERIC https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED456447.pdf. Dang Thi Ngoc Anh. (2019). EFL student’s writing skills: Challenges and remedies. Journal of Research & Method in Education, 9(6.1), 74-84. Dhanya, M. & Alamelu, C. (2019). Factors influencing the acquisition of writing skills. International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering, 8(7), May 2019, 1399-1404. Donato, R. (2000) ‘Sociocultural Contributions to understanding the second and foreign language classroom. In Lantolf, J. (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dwivedi, R.S. & Chakravarthy, R.V. (2015). Problems Encountered By Rural Students in Writing English–Role of English Teacher-Some Solutions. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL), 3(7), 27-38. Dymock, S. (2005). Teaching expository text structure awareness. The Reading Teacher, 59(2), 177-181. English Teaching Association, Newtown (Australia). ERIC https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED456447.pdf.Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2003). Writing instruction for struggling adolescent readers: A gradual release model. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 46(5), 396. Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: a response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-11. Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2008). Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for the gradual release of responsibility. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum. Development. Frankel K.K. (2013). Revisiting the Role of Explicit Genre Instruction in the Classroom, Journal of Education, 193 (1), 17-30. Garza, R. (2009). Latino and white high school students’ perceptions of caring behaviors: Are we culturally responsive to our students? Urban Education, 44, 297–321. Grabe, W. & Kaplan, R.B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspectives. London: Routledge. Hammon,J. & Gibbons, P. (2001). What is scaffolding? In Hammond, J. (Ed.), Scaffolding: Teaching and learning in language and literacy education. (ED456447) Primary English Teaching Association, Newtown (Australia). ERIC https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED456447.pdf. Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2005). Putting scaffolding to work: The contribution of scaffolding in articulating ESL education. Prospect, 20(1), 6-30.
139 Hammond,J. (2001). Scaffolding: Teaching and learning in language and literacy education (ED456477). ERIC https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED456447.pdf. Hedgcock, J.S. (2012). Second language writing processes among adolescent and adult learners.Writing: A Mosaic of New Perspectives. In Grigorenko, E.L., Mambrino, E. & Preiss, D.D. (Eds), New York: Psychology Press Taylor & Francs Group. 221-239. Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford University Press. Oxford. Hedge, T. (2002). Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom (pp. 14-100). Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. Hedge,T. (2005). Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hirvela, A., & Belcher, D. (2007). Writing scholars as teacher educators: Exploring writing teacher education. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 125–128. Hirose, K. (2003). Comparing L1 and L2 organizational patterns in the argumentative writing of Japanese EFL students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(2), 181-209. Horowitz, D.M. (1986). What professors actually require: Academic tasks for the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 20(3), 445-462. Hourani, T. M. Y. (2008). An analysis of the common grammatical errors in the English writing made by 3rd secondary male students in the Eastern Coast of the UAE. Unpublished master’s thesis. British University in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Hu, G. (2002). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: The case of Huwari, I., & Al-Khasawneh, F. (2013). The reasons behind the weaknesses of writing inEnglish among pre-year students’ At Taibah University. English for Specific Purposes World, 38(14), 1-9.communicative language teaching in China. Language Culture and Curriculum, 15(2),93-105. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908310208666636 Hyland, K. (1990). Providing productive feedback. ELT Journal, 44(4), 279-285. Hyland, K. (2003). Second languagewWriting. New York, USA: Cambridge University Press. Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (2006a). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and Issues. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1-19. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006b). Feedback on second language writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83–101. https://doi.org/doi:10.1017/S0261444806003399 Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Indrasuta, C. (1988). Narrative styles in the writing of Thai and American students. In A. C.Purves (Ed.), Writing across languages and cultures (pp. 206-226). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. I Wy, D. (2016). Genre-based approach: What and how to teach and to learn writing. English Language Teaching, 9(9), 45-51.
140 Jacobs, H. L. S. A. Zinkgraf, D.R. Warmouth, V.F. Hartfiel & J.B. Hughey (1981). Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers. Jones, P. (2001). Mind in the classroom. In Hammond, J. (Ed.), Scaffolding: Teaching and learning in language and literacy education (ED456477). Primary English Teaching Association, Newtown (Australia). ERIC https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED456447.pdf Johnson, K. (1994). The emerging beliefs and instructional practices of pre-service English as Second Language teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(4), 439-452. Kaplan, R.B. (1988). Contrastive rhetoric and second language learning: Notes toward a theory of contrastive rhetoric. In A. Parves (Ed.), Writing across languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric (pp. 275-304). Newbury Park, CA: Stage. Knapp, P. & Watkins, M. (2005). Genre, text, grammar: Technologies for teaching and assessing writing. University of New South, Wales Press Ltd. Krapels, A. R. (1991). An overview of second language writing process research. In B.Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research Insights for the classroom (pp. 37-56). Cambridge: Cambridge University. Kress, G. (1987). Genre in a social theory of language: A reply to John Dixon. In I. Reid (Ed.), Theplace of genre in learning: Current debates (pp. 35–45). Melbourne, AU: Deakin University: Centre for Studies in Literary Education. Kress, G. (1993). Genre as social process. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), The powers of literacy: A genre approach to teaching writing (pp. 22–37). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Kroll, B. (2003). Introduction: Teaching the next generation of second language writers. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 1–10). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Kumpawan, P. (2014). Effects of Fisher and Frey’s gradual release responsibility model on writing ability of tenth grade students. Unpublished master’s thesis. Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. Kumpawan, P. (2014). Effects of Fisher and Frey’s gradual release of responsibilitymodel on writing ability of tenth grade students. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University Chulalongkorn University Bangkok, Thailand. Lajoie, S. P. (2005). Extending the scaffolding metaphor. Instructional Science, 33, 541–557. Leki, I., Cumming, A. & Silva, T. (2008). A synthesis of research on second language writing in English. London: Routledge. Li Wai Shing, J. (1992). A process approach to feedback in writing. Perspectives, 4(1), 47- 65. Liu, J. & Hansen, J. (2002) Peer Response in Second Language Writing Classrooms. USA: The University of Michigan Press.
141 Li, L.T. (1999). Revaluing EFL student writers from the perspective of literacy development. TheProceedings of the English international symposium on English Teaching. English Teachers’ Association, ROC, Taipei, 1999 (pp 441- 452). Taipei: Crane. Ly, T., T. (2007). Learners’ motivation and identity in the Vietnamese EFL writing classroom. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 6(1), 151-163. Matsuda, P.K. (1997). Contrastive rhetoric in context: a dynamic model of l2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(1), 45-60. Matsuda, P. K., & Silva, T. (2010). Writing. In N. Schmitt (Ed.). An introduction to applied linguistics (2nd ed.) (pp. 232–246). London: Hodder Education. Macrine, S. & Sabbatino, E.D. (2008). Dynamic assessment and remediation approach: Using the DARA approach to assist struggling readers, Reading & Writing Quarterly, 24:1, 52-76, https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560701753112 Marhaeni, A., Kusuma, I., Dewi, N., & Paramartha, A. (2019). Using performance assessment to empower students’ learning ownership and promote achievement in EFL writing courses. International Journal of Humanities, Literature & Arts, 2(1), 9-17.https://doi.org/10.31295/ijhla.v2n1.55 Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking. A sociocultural approach. New York: Routledge. McNeill, K., Lizotte, D., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. (2006). Supporting Students' Construction of Scientific Explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191. Mitchell, T.D. & Gomez-Laich, M. P. (2021). Know your roles: Alleviating the academic-professional tension in the case analysis genre. English for Specific Purposes, 61, 117-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2020.10.002 Nguyen, T., M., H, Hudson, P., & Reedy, D. (2008). Preparing preservice teachers to teach EFL writing: Motivations, perceptions, expectations, and challenges. In JALT conference 2008: Shared Identities: Our Interweaving Threads, 31 October – 3 November, 2008, Tokyo, Japan. Nguyen. (2021). An exploration into Thai preservice teachers’ views, challenges, preparation and expectation in learning to teach English writing. TESOL International Journal, 16(5), 112-142.) Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching & learning. New York, NY: Heinle & Heinle. Nunan, D. (2003). Practical English language teaching. Singapore: McGrawhill. Oregon Department of Education. (2010). Office scoring guide, writing 2010-2012. Retrieved From www.ode.state.or.us/wma/teachlearn/testing/scoring/guides/wriscorguide_en_1 011.pdf Palincsar, A. S. & Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 117-175. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.
142 Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension- fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175. Parichat, W. & Chinokul, S. (2014). English language writing anxiety among grade 11 Thai students. An Online Journal of Educational (OJED), 9(1), 657-671. Pea, R.A. (2004) The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity, The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423-451, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_6 Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, G. (1983). The gradual release of responsibility model of instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 112–123. Phanphrut, S. (2012, June). Educational Research and the Development toward the ASEAN. Paper presented at The 14th National Symposium on Educational Research of Office of the Education Council, Bangkok, Thailand. Pongsiriwet, C. (2001). Relationships among grammatical accuracy, discourse features, and the quality of second language writing: The case of Thai EFL learners. Unpublished Dissertation. College of Human Resources and Education, West Virginia University. Pradita, I, Prasetya, W. & Maharsi, I. (2019). Effect of instructional scaffolding in enhancing students’ participating in synchronous online learning, ICETT Association for Computing Machinery, May 27-29, 2019, Seoul, Republic of Korea https://doi.org/10.1145/3337682.3337707). Pradita, I., Prasetya, W., & Maharsi, I. (2019). Effect of instructional scaffolding in enhancing students' participating in synchronous online learning. In Proceedings of the 2019 5th International Conference on Education and Training Technologies (pp. 106-110). Reid, J. (1990). Responding to different topic types: A quantitative analysis from a contrastive rhetoric perspective. In Kroll, B. (Ed), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 191-210). New York: Cambridge University Press. Seow, A. (2002) “The writing process and process writing”. In Richards, J. and Renandya, W. (Eds.), Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 315-320. Shannon, J. (1994). TESOL´s process vs. product debate. Available: ERIC Document 375 626. Sharpe, T. (2001). Scaffolding in action: Snapshots from the classroom. In J. Hammond (Ed.), Scaffolding: Teaching and learning in language and literacy education (pp. 31–48). Newtown, NSW: PETA. Shepard, L. A. 2005. Linking Formative Assessment to Scaffolding. Educational Leadership, 63, 66–70.on dynamic assessment. Review of Educational Research, 71, 321–363. Silva, T. (1987) ESL Composition: An historical Perspective. Available: ERIC document: 282 442
143 Silva, T. (1993). Toward an Understanding of the Distinct Nature of L2 Writing: The ESL Research and Its Implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 657-677. Snow, R. E., & Swanson, J. (1992). Instructional psychology: Aptitude, adaptation, and assessment. Annual review of psychology, 43(1), 583-626. Soter, A.O. (1988). The second language learner and cultural transfer in narration. In A. Purves (Eds.). Writing across languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric (pp. 177-205). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Steiner, H. H. (2016). The strategy project: Promoting self-regulated learning through an authentic assignment. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 28(2), 271-282. Stone, C. A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of learning disabilities, 31(4), 344-364. Swanson, H. L., & Lussier, C. M. (2001). A selective synthesis of the experimental literature Swanson, H. L. & Lussier, C. M. (2001). A selective synthesis of the experimental literature on dynamic assessment. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 321–363. Taber, K.S. & Brock, R. (2018). A study to explore the potential of designing teaching activities to scaffold learning: Understanding circular motion. In Abend, M. (Ed.), Effective Teaching and Learning: Perspectives, Strategies and Implementation (pp. 45-85). New York: Nova Science Publishers. (This is the author’ manuscript copy.) Tarnopolsky, O. (2000). Writing English as a foreign language: A report from Ukraine. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 209-226. Tagle, T., Diaz, C., Briesmaster, M., Ortiz, M., Ubilla, L. & Etchegaray, P. (2017). Pre-service EFL teachers’ beliefs about teaching writing: A case study in two Chilean universities. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 14(2), 187-200. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 1770.1996.tb01238.x Tribble, C. & G. Jones. (1990). Concordances in the classroom: A resource book for teachers. Harlow: Longman Group. Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A decade of research. Educational psychology review, 22(3), 271- 296. Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2011). Patterns of contingent teaching in teacher–student interaction. Learning and Instruction, 21(1), 46-57. Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2012). Promoting teacher scaffolding in small-group work: A contingency perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 193–205. http://doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.09.009 Van de Pol, J., Mercer, N., & Volman, M. (2018). Scaffolding student understanding in small-group work: Students’ uptake of teacher support in subsequent small- group interaction. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(2), 206-239.
144 Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. London: Longman. Van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky. (R.W. Rieber & A.S. Carton, Trans.). New York: Plenum Press. (Original works published in 1934, 1960). Wang, Z. (2011). A case study of one EFL writing teacher's feedback on discourse for advancedlearners in China. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 6, 21-42. Wells, G. (1996). Using the tool-kit of discourse in the activity of learning and teaching. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3(2), 74-101. Wittwer, J., & Renkl, A. (2008). Why instructional explanations often do not work: A framework for understanding the effectiveness of instruction explanations. Wilson, K. (2014). Scaffolding Theory: High Challenge, High Support in Academic Language Learning (ALL) Contexts. Journal of Academic Language & Learning, 8(3), A91-A100. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy value theory of achievement motivation.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68-81. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring and problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100. Educational Psychologist, 43, 49–64. http://doi:10.1080/00461520701756420. Wood, D. (1991). Aspects of teaching and learning. In P. Light, S. Sheldon, & M. Woodhead (Eds.), Learning to think (pp. 97–120). London, England: Routledge. Wood, D., Wood, H., & Middleton, D. (1978). An experimental evaluation of four face- to-face teaching strategies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 1, 131–147. http://doi:10.1177/016502547 800100203.Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yang, L. & Gao, S. (2013). Beliefs and practices of Chinese university teachers in EFL writing instruction, Language, Culture and Curriculum, 26(2), 128-145. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2013.794817 Yero, J. L. (2002). Teaching in mind: How teacher thinking shapes education. MT: Hamilton. Yua, S., Xu, H., Jianga, L. & Ian, I. K. (2020). Understanding Macau novice secondary teachers’ beliefs and practices of EFL writing instruction: A complexity theory Perspective. Journal of Second Language Writing, 48, 1-13. Yueh-miao, C. (2002). The problems of university EFL Writing in Taiwan. The Korea TESOL Journal, 5(1), 59-79. Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students. Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165-188.
145 The Author: Sumalee Chinokul received her Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics from The University of Sydney, Australia. She is Associate Professor at The Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University. She teaches undergraduate and graduate students, supervises pre-service teachers, advises graduate students to conduct their theses and dissertations. She also conducts workshops and helps mentor in-service teachers. Her research concentration includes English language teacher education, English for Specific Purposes, Classroom-based assessment and research in English language Instruction.
EFL
Search
Read the Text Version
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 87
- 88
- 89
- 90
- 91
- 92
- 93
- 94
- 95
- 96
- 97
- 98
- 99
- 100
- 101
- 102
- 103
- 104
- 105
- 106
- 107
- 108
- 109
- 110
- 111
- 112
- 113
- 114
- 115
- 116
- 117
- 118
- 119
- 120
- 121
- 122
- 123
- 124
- 125
- 126
- 127
- 128
- 129
- 130
- 131
- 132
- 133
- 134
- 135
- 136
- 137
- 138
- 139
- 140
- 141
- 142
- 143
- 144
- 145
- 146
- 147
