Instructional Scaffolding and its Impact on Learning Persian Language

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Abstract

Teaching and Learning a second language, especially in postgraduate courses requires teachers to use appropriate teaching approaches and strategies since they can facilitate language learning considerably. The present research aims to study the relationship between instructional scaffolding and language learning among a selected group of Persian learners in Persian Language Centre in Qazvin, Iran. The research was conducted in a correlational framework and population included all Persian learners in Persian Language Centre of International Imam Khomeini University in Qazvin in 2013-14., among whom 126 applicants were selected by ratio sampling method. The data were gathered through instructional scaffolding questionnaire and analyzed using Pearson's Correlation Coefficient and Stepwise Regression. Findings showed that there existed a significant positive relationship between instructional scaffolding and its types (cognitive, contextual, procedural, metacognitive and motivational) with Persian learning. In addition, stepwise regression analyses revealed that the cognitive, texture, procedural, metacognitive and motivational scaffolding could significantly and positively predict learning of Persian in applicants. The results indicated that instructional scaffolding and its types would play a crucial role in enhancing Persian learning in non-Persian speakers.

Keywords

References

حیدرزادگان، ع. و همکاران. (1386). بررسی تأثیر نظریه‌ی سازنده‌گرایی اجتماعی بر عملکرد دانش‌آموزان پایه‌ی سوم در درس علوم در شهر زاهدان. فصلنامه‌ی مطالعات برنامه درسی، سال دوم، شماره 6، صص: 6-4.
ریچی، ر. و همکاران. (1391). دانش ‌پایه­ی طراحی آموزشی (نظریه، پژوهش، عمل). ترجمه­ی حسین زنگنه و الهه ولایتی. تهران: آوای نور (تاریخ انتشار به زبان اصلی، 2011).
رحیمی‌دوست، غ. (1392). چارچوب تکیه‌گاه‌سازی آموزشی اثربخش در محیط یادگیری مشکل‌گشایی مبتنی بر کامپیوتر: به ‌سوی تدوین و اعتباربخشی الگوی تکیه‌گاه‌سازی آموزشی. رساله­ی دکتری. تهران: دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی.
سیف، ع. (1389). روانشناسی پرورشی نوین (روانشناسی یادگیری و آموزش). تهران: نشر دوران.
فردانش، ه. و شیخی ­فینی، ع. (1381). درآمدی بر سازنده‌گرایی در روان‌شناسی و علوم تربیتی. فصلنامه‌ی علوم انسانی دانشگاه الزهرا، سال 12، شماره 42.
 
Azevedo, R. et al. (2008). Why Is Externally Facilitated Regulated Learning More Effective than Self-Regulated Learning with Hypermedia? Educational Technology Research and Development, 56: 45-72.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a Theory of Instruction. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Bruner, J. (1983). Child’s Talk. New York: Norton.
Bradley, K. S. & Bradley, J, A. (2004). Scaffolding Academic Learning for Second Language Learners. Texas A&M University (Kingsville, Texas, USA).
Chiang, c & dankel. P. (1990). The Effect of Speech Modification Prior Knowledge and Listening Proficiency on EFL Lecture Learning. TESOL Quarterly: 26(2): 34-47.
Coady, J. & Huckin, T. (1997).Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
Chang, K. E. et al. (2001). The Effect of Concept Mapping to Enhance Text Comprehension and Summarization. The Journal of Experimental Education, 71(1).
Davis, E. A. (1996). Metacognitive Scaffolding to Foster Scientific Explanations. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York: Collier Macmillan Publishers.
Eslinger, E. et al. (2008). Supporting Inquiry Processes with an Interactive Learning Environment: Inquiry Island. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(6): 610-617.
Fosnot, C. T. & Perry, R. S. (2005). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives and Practice (2nd edition) (pp. 8-38). New York: Teacher's College Press.
Garrison, D. R. et al. (2012). Communities of Inquiry. University of Calgary: Learning Commons. Retrieved from: http://commons.ucalgary.ca.
Hogan, K. & Pressley, M. (1997). Scaffolding Student Learning: Instructional Approaches and ISsues. Cambridge: Brookline Books.
Hannafin, M. J.  et al. (1999).Open learning environments: Foundations and models. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory (pp. 115-140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional Theories and Models (2nd edition) (pp. 215-239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Keller, J. & Burkman, E. (1993). Motivation principles. In M. Fleming & W. H. Levie (Eds.), Instructional Message Design: Principles from the Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences (2nd edition) (pp. 3-53). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Lantolf, J. (2001). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Language Learning (pp. 23-26). New York: Oxford University Press.
Lim, C. P. et al. (2006). Gaming in a 3D Multiuser Virtual Environment: Engaging Students in Science Lessons. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2): 211–231.
Meskill, C. (2005). Triadic Scaffolds: Tools for Teaching English Language Learning with Computer.State University of New York at Albany. Language Learning and Technology, 9(1): 5-46.
McCloskey, M. L. et al. (2010). Scaffolding Academic Language for English Learners: What, Why, How? Washington, DC: US Department of State.40-41.
Oliver, K. & Hannafin, M. (2001).Developing and Refining Mental Models in Open-ended Learning Environments: A Case Study.Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(4): 5-32.
Pata, K. et al. (2006). Inter-Relations of Tutor's and Peers' Scaffolding and Decision-Making Discourse Acts.Instructional Science: An International Journal of Learning and Sciences, 34(4): 313-341.
Reigleuth, C. M. (1999). Instructional Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory. New Jersey: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates Publishers.
Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding Complex Learning: The Mechanisms of Structuring and Problematizing Student Work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3): 273-304.
Simons, K. D. & Klein, J. D. (2007). The Impact of Scaffolding and Student Achievement Levels in a Problem-based Learning Environment. Instructional Science, 35(1): 41-72.
Scardamalia, M. et al. (1984).Teachability of Reflective Processes in Written Composition. Cognitive Science, 8(2): 173-190.
Tan, A. (2006). Does Blogging Promote Preservice Teacher Reflection? Examining the Relationships between Learning Tool and Scaffolding in a Blended Learning Environment. A Doctoral Dissertation. Department of Instructional Systems Technology, Indiana University.
Valanides, N. & Angeli, C. (2008). Distributed Cognition in a Sixth-Grade Classroom: An Attempt to Overcome Alternative Conceptions About Light and Color. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(3): 309-336.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Walqui, A. (2006). Second Language Learners, English Language Learners, Scaffolding, Sociocultural Theory. The international Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2).
Wood, D. et al. (1976). The Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving. Journal of Child Psychology, Psychiatry,  and Applied Disciplines, 17: 89–100.
Yelland N. & Masters, J. (2007). Rethinking Scaffolding in the Information Age. Computers and Education, 48: 362-382.
 
 
 

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 22 April 2015
  • Accept Date: 22 April 2015

Share

How to cite

Statistics