International Journal Of Literature And Languages
128
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue05 2025
PAGE NO.
128-133
10.37547/ijll/Volume05Issue05-32
The Role of Scaffolding in Second Language Acquisition
Asst. Prof. Dr. Wafaa Mokhlos Faisal
Babylon University, Department of English, College of Education for Human Sciences, Iraq
Asst. lect. Noor Shakir Fadhil (M.A)
Ministry of Education, Babylon Education Directorate, Amina Bint Wahab Secondary School, Iraq
Received:
29 March 2025;
Accepted:
10 April 2025;
Published:
30 May 2025
Abstract:
This study focuses on the impact of scaffolding model provided by teachers on first intermediate
students' English language acquisition in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) instruction. Aligned with Vygotsky's
sociocultural theory and Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) scaffolding model, this research questions the impact of
structured teaching assistance on students' progress in vocabulary, grammar, and reading skills and students'
attitudes towards scaffolding methods in the classroom. A mixed-methods approach is used, combining
qualitative and quantitative analyses. The sample includes 30 first intermediate students at a school, and data
sources are written exercises, teacher feedback, and learner reflections. This study identifies the pedagogical
advantage of scaffolding in intermediate EFL instruction and merits its continued use to facilitate effective
language acquisition.
Introduction:
Scaffolding is one of the determinants of
second language acquisition (SLA), particularly in
classroom settings where students require facilitated
support to develop linguistic competence. Based on
Vygotsky's (1978) sociocultural theory, scaffolding
describes the temporary support provided by
instructors or peers to facilitate students to accomplish
tasks beyond their immediate ability. In foreign
language classrooms, EFL, these strategies include
modeling, guided practice, feedback, and questioning
tools that vow to create learner independence and
competence over time. For secondary learners,
scaffolding is especially helpful in bridging the gap
between elementary and more advanced levels of
language ability. This research answers two main
research questions.
1.How does teacher scaffolding affect first secondary
students' language development in EFL classrooms?
2.How are the students' attitudes towards scaffolding
strategies during class?
These questions are meant to determine how different
scaffolding strategies assist students in vocabulary
development, grammar, and reading comprehension
and probe students' attitudes towards scaffolding and
the influence it has on their motivation, confidence,
and language learning engagement.
The analysis is based on the scaffolding model
introduced by Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976), which
accounts for six main instructional functions:
recruitment, reduction in degrees of freedom,
maintenance of direction, marking critical features,
control of frustration, and demonstration. These
functions provide a conceptual framework through
which the operation of scaffolding in the instruction
process can be understood to achieve learning
outcomes. Written data for the study consist of written
classroom materials and students' responses, collected
from 30 first-year secondary EFL learners in a single
public school.
They consist of the written exercises, teacher
commentaries on assignments, and students' answers
to questions addressing scaffolding. Additional data in
written forms were collected using open-ended
student questionnaires and teacher reflections and
yielded information regarding the instructional process
and learners' experience. To determine the scaffolding
effectiveness, pre-test and post-test design was
applied. The tests were conducted in vocabulary
development areas, grammar usage, and reading
comprehension. The tests were set following the
English national curriculum for the first secondary level
study, thus providing a comparative measure of
language development before and after scaffolded
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
129
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
instruction.
2.Scaffolding
Scaffolding is a teaching method that temporarily
provides structured direction to students in order to
gain new skills or knowledge in a manner of step-by-
step responsibility transfer as the student becomes
increasingly competent.Wood, Bruner, and Ross
introduced the term as early as 1976 by calling it a
process when a more cognitively advanced other such
as the teacher or peer helps the learner to respond to
a problem, to do a task, or to do something that will be
beyond their own will. Support is not fixed but is
adjusted by the changing needs of the learner and is a
process termed as "contingent support.". The
scaffolding theory is closely associated with Vygotsky's
(1978) sociocultural theory, particularly the concept of
the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). The ZPD is
the space between what a learner can do alone and
what they can do with support. Scaffolding occurs in
this space where students bridge the gap between
current ability and potential for development. In
teaching practice, scaffolding may be undertaken in
many different ways, including asking guiding
questions, providing cues or prompts, modeling the use
of language, providing feedback, and segmentation of
tasks into manageable pieces (Hammond, 2001).
Effective scaffolding is characterized by elements of
intentionality, graduated support, dialogic interaction,
and fading. The instructor must assess the needs of the
learner, provide sufficient support to foster progress,
and reduce that support as the learner develops
capacity. This exercise not only enhances academic
performance but also assists in promoting learner
autonomy and confidence (Maybin, Mercer, & Stierer,
1992).
3.Second Language Acquisition (SLA)
Second Language Acquisition (SLA) defines how
individuals develop a second language, either inside or
outside a classroom. SLA is a multidisciplinary field that
steals concepts from linguistics, psychology, education,
and cognitive science to explain the manner in which
individuals acquire an additional language as well as
factors that influence how effective the learning
process is (Ellis, 1997). Perhaps one of the most basic
SLA theories is Krashen's (1982) Input Hypothesis that
asserts that learning happens when the learners are
exposed to "comprehensible input" that is one level
beyond their present skill level (i+1). Another very
often-cited model is Long's (1983) Interaction
Hypothesis which asserts that communication and
meaning negotiation are crucial for facilitating
language acquisition. These theories emphasize
exposure, context, and communication in acquisition.
Cognitive SLA models are interested in how learners
process linguistic input, store it, and access it for
communication use. Swain's (1985) Output Hypothesis
is a case in point, where the production of language
(speaking or writing) allows learners to notice gaps in
their knowledge and mold their linguistic output.
Concurrently, sociocultural theories, as inspired by
Vygotsky, highlight social interaction, culture tools, and
collaborative learning for language acquisition (Lantolf
& Thorne, 2006). Among the factors that influence SLA
are age, motivation, aptitude, context of learning, and
amount and quality of target language exposure.
Classroom instruction that involves the use of
scaffolding techniques can be used to significantly
enhance SLA since it offers supportive learning
environments where students are allowed to take risks
with language, given immediate correction, and
progressively work towards increased autonomy
(Lightbown & Spada, 2013).
4.Data Selection
Research data were particularly selected to expose the
impact of scaffolding strategies on English acquisition
for first secondary students. The participants were 30
students in a public secondary school, all at the first-
year level of secondary education. This is a transitional
phase in formal education where students ought to
acquire greater autonomy in language use. The
participants were chosen on the basis of accessibility,
willingness to participate, and conformity with the
national English curriculum. The data are only written
output produced by students under classroom
instruction. These include grammar exercises,
vocabulary
worksheets,
guided
reading
comprehension, and writing paragraph exercises all
conducted under scaffolding instructional contexts. In
addition, open-ended written questionnaires were
employed in order to provoke students' opinion on the
use of scaffolding strategies. Observation of teachers in
writing was also conducted, furnishing information
regarding how scaffolding was utilized and adapted
during instruction.
5.Data Analysis
Data analysis utilized a qualitative-descriptive method
enhanced with quantitative pre-test and post-test
comparisons. The qualitative component involved
coding the students' written responses to identify
linguistic development in some of the most significant
areas of vocabulary use, sentence complexity,
correctness of grammar, and reading competence.
Student questionnaires were subjected to thematic
analysis to identify the learners' perception of
scaffolding with the intention of investigating
categories of motivation, clarity, support, and
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
130
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
autonomy. For quantitative analysis, test scores were
statistically compared to determine the impact of
scaffolded instruction on student performance.
Descriptive statistics (mean, median, standard
deviation) were used to measure progress, and
changes were described in terms of both test scores
and qualitative observation. Scaffolding roles observed
while teaching as per Wood, Bruner, and Ross's (1976)
model were also equated to students' changes in
output to measure instructional effectiveness.
6.Test Design
To assess the effect of scaffolding on students'
language growth, a pre-test and post-test method was
employed. The pre-test served as a diagnostic test to
establish a baseline of students' ability in vocabulary,
grammar, and reading comprehension. The post-test,
administered after the instructional intervention, was a
replica of the structure and content of the pre-test to
ensure comparability. Both tests were designed in
accordance with the national first secondary
curriculum for English and designed to reflect
classroom objectives. They were designed with
multiple-choice items, sentence transformation
exercises, vocabulary usage, short readings with
comprehension questions, and guided writing
exercises. The tests were designed to measure
students' ability to apply learned language forms and
comprehend texts after scaffolded teaching.
7.Target Group: First Secondary Students
The study centered on children in the first year of
secondary education, typically aged between 13 and
15. The rationale for selecting this age group was based
on their developmental preparedness to process more
sophisticated language inputs and their escalating
demand for teaching methods that facilitate
autonomous learning. By this stage of education,
students
are
supposed
to
transcend
mere
memorization
and
start
utilizing
language
constructively and correctly. Scaffolding is particularly
valuable at this level, since it can bridge the gap
between teacher guidance and learner autonomy.
Moreover, first secondary students are often adapting
to new academic expectations and classroom rules,
making them an ideal group for studying the function
of supportive instructional strategies such as
scaffolding. Their performance and reaction give
valuable information on the effectiveness of scaffolding
in a structured yet transitional learning setting.
8. Scaffolding Impact Test Report
Test Structure Diagram
Scaffolding Impact Test Structure
1.Vocabulary (30%)
Matching (10%)
Fill-in-the-blanks (10%)
Sentence creation (10%)
2.Grammar (30%)
Sentence correction (10%)
Tense transformation (10%)
Dialogue completion (10%)
3.Reading Comprehension (40%)
Literal questions (10%)
Inferential questions (15%)
Vocabulary in context (10%)
Main idea summary (5%)
9. Scoring Rubric
Score Range Proficiency Level Description
90
–
100%
Excellent
Mastery in all areas with minimal errors
80
–
89%
Very Good
Strong command with minor mistakes
70
–
79%
Good
Good grasp with some noticeable issues
60
–
69%
Satisfactory
Basic understanding, needs improvement
Below 60% Needs Support Struggles in key areas, requires scaffolding
10.Pre-Test vs. Post-Test Comparison
Skill Area
Pre-Test Avg. Post-Test Avg.
Vocabulary
65%
85%
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
131
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
Skill Area
Pre-Test Avg. Post-Test Avg.
Grammar
60%
80%
Reading Comprehension 55%
75%
11.Analysis
The 20% increase in vocabulary and grammar
proficiency demonstrates the effectiveness of
scaffolding strategies including feedback, guided
practice, and modeling. Improvements in reading
comprehension show how beneficial it is to use
teaching strategies like questioning and emphasizing
textual aspects. These findings lend credence to the
idea that scaffolding helps students advance in their
foundational language skills.
Sample Student Responses
1. Vocabulary (Pre-Test vs. Post-Test)
Pre-
Test: “I am go to market.”
Post-
Test: “I am going to the market to buy
vegetables.”
2. Grammar Usage
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
132
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
Pre-
Test: “He don't like apples.”
Post-
Test: “He doesn't like apples because they are
sour.”
3. Reading Comprehension Response
Pre-
Test: “The story is about a boy.”
Post-
Test: “The story is about a young boy who learns
to be responsible after losing his pet dog.”
3.Student Reflection on Scaffolding
“When the teacher asked questions and gave hints, I
understood the grammar rules better.”
“I liked when we worked togethe
r. My classmates
helped me find the answers.
12.CONCLUSION
This study provides strong evidence that scaffolding
plays a crucial role in first-secondary EFL learners'
learning of a second language. The study illustrates
how instructional support with guidance leads to
improved
vocabulary,
grammar,
and
reading
comprehension. It is informed by sociocultural theory
and the scaffolding approach of Wood, Bruner, and
Ross (1976). The success of scaffolding techniques
including modeling, guided practice, and corrective
feedback is demonstrated by the 20% increases in post-
test scores across all language areas. Qualitative results
also show that students see scaffolding favorably,
attributing it to improved interest, motivation, clarity,
and confidence. Student reflection indicates that
supportive classroom discourse and collaborative
learning environments enabled their enhanced
understanding of complex linguistic structures and
increased independence.
These findings validate the notion that scaffolding not
only improves academic performance but also learner
independence and socio-emotional growth. Because of
the transitional nature of first secondary education,
scaffolding is a vital pedagogical strategy for closing the
gap between early and more sophisticated language
usage. Future research can explore scaffolding's long-
term effects, its application to different EFL settings,
and the promise of digital scaffolds in facilitating
learner success. In general, the present study
vindicates that well-planned and responsive scaffolding
can significantly aid the success of language learners
during secondary education.
REFERENCES
Bruner, J. S. (1983). Child’s talk: Learning to use
language. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. Oxford
University Press.
Hammond, J. (2001). Scaffolding: Teaching and learning
in language and literacy education. Primary English
Teaching Association.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second
language acquisition. Pergamon Press.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory
and the genesis of second language development.
Oxford University Press.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages
are learned (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker
conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible
input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126
–
141.
Maybin, J., Mercer, N., & Stierer, B. (1992). Scaffolding
learning in the classroom. In K. Norman (Ed.), Thinking
voices: The work of the National Oracy Project (pp.
186
–
195). Hodder & Stoughton.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some
roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible
output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden
(Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235
–
256). Newbury House.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The
development of higher psychological processes.
Harvard University Press.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of
tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89
–
100.
Language Skills Activity Worksheet
1. Vocabulary (30%)
A. Matching (10%)
Match the words to their meanings:
A. Enormous
B. Fragile
C. Cautious
D. Reliable
1. ___ Easily broken
2. ___ Very large
3. ___ Careful
4. ___ Can be trusted
B. Fill-in-the-blanks (10%)
Fill in the blanks with the correct word from the list:
(list: generous, exhausted, whisper, rescue)
1. The firefighters arrived just in time to ______ the
trapped dog.
2. After running for an hour, she felt completely
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
133
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
______.
3.
Please speak softly and ______ so we don’t wake the
baby.
4. He is a very ______ person who often helps others.
C. Sentence Creation (10%)
Use the given word in a meaningful sentence:
1.
Courageous:
___________________________________________
2.
Predict:
____________________________________________
___
3.
Harmful:
____________________________________________
__
4.
Discover:
____________________________________________
_
2. Grammar (30%)
A. Sentence Correction (10%)
Correct the grammatical errors in the following
sentences:
1.
She
don’t
like
playing
basketball.
→
__________________________
2.
I
can
swims
very
well.
→
_________________________________
3.
They
is
going
to
the
park.
→
_______________________________
4.
He
have
eat
lunch
already.
→
______________________________
B. Tense Transformation (10%)
Change the sentences to the tense indicated in
brackets:
1. She walks to school. (Past Simple) →
__________________________
2. They played soccer. (Future Simple) →
_________________________
3. He is eating lunch. (Present Perfect) →
_________________________
4. We will travel to Japan. (Present Continuous) →
__________________
C. Dialogue Completion (10%)
Complete the dialogue using correct grammar:
A: Hi! How ______ you today?
B: I’m fine, thanks. What ______ you doing?
A: I ______ my homework.
B: That’s good. Do you need any ______?
3. Reading Comprehension (40%)
Read the passage and answer the questions below:
Tom was a kind boy who loved animals. One day, he
found a stray cat near his house. It was cold and hungry,
so Tom took it home, fed it, and gave it a warm place to
sleep. The next day, he made a poster to find its owner.
A. Literal Questions (10%)
1. What kind of animals did Tom love?
2. What did Tom do when he found the cat?
B. Inferential Questions (15%)
3. Why do you think Tom took the cat home?
4. What does this story tell us about Tom’s character?
5. How might the cat have ended up near Tom’s house?
C. Vocabulary in Context (10%)
What does the word “stray” most likel
y mean in the
passage?
a) Dangerous
b) Lost
c) Happy
d) Young
D. Main Idea Summary (5%)
Write one sentence to summarize the main idea of the
passage:
