10.57647/JNTELL.2025.0403.17

Exploring the Effects of Synchronous Cognitive and Motivational Scaffolding on Speaking Accuracy and Fluency among Pre-Intermediate Iranian EFL Learners

PDF
  • Leila Hosnan1,
  • Amir Marzban*1,
  • Omid Pourkalhor2,
  1. Department of English Language, Am.C., Islamic Azad University, Amol, Iran
  2. Department of English Language, Cha.C., Islamic Azad University, Chalous, Iran

Received: 2025-08-16

Revised: 2025-08-20

Accepted: 2025-09-06

Published in Issue 2025-10-19

Copyright (c) 2025 Leila Hosnan, Amir Marzban, Omid Pourkalhor (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Hosnan, L., Marzban, A., & Pourkalhor, O. (2025). Exploring the Effects of Synchronous Cognitive and Motivational Scaffolding on Speaking Accuracy and Fluency among Pre-Intermediate Iranian EFL Learners. Journal of New Trends in English Language Learning (JNTELL), 4(3). https://doi.org/10.57647/JNTELL.2025.0403.17
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

PDF views: 65

Abstract

This study investigated the impact of cognitive and motivational scaffolding on the speaking skills of Iranian pre-intermediate EFL learners, focusing on accuracy and fluency. A total of 90 participants were selected through the Oxford Placement Test (OPT), speaking pre- and post-tests, and a semi-structured interview. Data were analyzed using SPSS 26, and normality of the data was assessed with Shapiro-Wilk and Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests. Paired-sample t-tests and independent-sample t-tests were used to analyze pretest and posttest differences within and between groups. The results revealed that cognitive scaffolding enhanced speaking accuracy, whereas motivational scaffolding primarily improved fluency. The study also explored learners' perceptions through qualitative feedback, highlighting challenges such as technical issues and lack of individualized attention in online settings. While students appreciated the positive reinforcement provided by motivational scaffolding, they found cognitive scaffolding more effective for understanding complex language structures. The study concludes that integrating both scaffolding approaches can provide a balanced method for improving EFL learners' speaking proficiency, with cognitive scaffolding addressing accuracy, and motivational scaffolding fostering fluency. These findings offer practical implications for EFL instruction, emphasizing the need for tailored strategies that incorporate both cognitive and motivational elements to enhance speaking performance.

Keywords

  • Cognitive scaffolding,
  • Motivational scaffolding,
  • OPT,
  • Speaking accuracy and fluency
PDF

References

  1. Basturkman, H. (2006). The role of cognitive scaffolding in language learning. Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 314-333.
  2. Bigdeli, S., & Rahimi, R. (2015). The impact of scaffolding on the complexity and accuracy of narrative writing by Iranian EFL learners. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 3(2), 1-18.
  3. Blake, R., et al. (2009). Emerging technologies for language learning. CALICO Journal, 27(2), 263-273. https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.27.2.263-273
  4. Bruner, J. S. (1978). The role of dialogue in language acquisition. In A. G. B. (Ed.), Cognitive development and learning. New York: Academic Press.
  5. Chi, M. T. H. (1996). Constructing self-explanations and scaffolded explanations in tutoring. In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 472-477). Erlbaum.
  6. Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2005). A framework for designing scaffolds for problem-solving tasks. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 237-250.
  7. Day, Babcock, R., Manning, K., & Rogers, T. (2012). Scaffolding and tutoring in writing centers: Enhancing student writing. Writing Center Journal, 32(1), 123-145.
  8. Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In L. L. Taylor (Ed.), Vygotskian perspectives on learning and development (pp. 33-56). Cambridge University Press.
  9. Fellner, T., & Apple, M. (2006). Fluency and complexity in oral performance: Evaluating and improving the second language learning process. The Modern Language Journal, 90(1), 17-29.
  10. Goh, C. C. M., & Burns, A. (2012). Teaching speaking: A holistic approach. Cambridge University Press.
  11. Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford University Press.
  12. Hubbard, P. (2009). Computer-assisted language learning. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 101-122). Wiley-Blackwell.
  13. Izanlu, M., & Feyli, F. (2015). Symmetrical and asymmetrical scaffolding’s impact on grammar acquisition among Iranian EFL learners. ELT Journal, 69(4), 413-421.
  14. Jafari, S. (2019). The effectiveness of scaffolding on vocabulary knowledge of Iranian EFL learners. Asian Journal of Education and Learning, 10(4), 24-33.
  15. Khosravi, S. (2017). The impact of symmetrical scaffolding on advanced students' reading comprehension. Journal of English Language Studies, 9(1), 12-21.
  16. Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford University Press.
  17. Levy, M., & Stockwell, G. (2006). CALL dimensions: Options and issues in computer-assisted language learning. Routledge.
  18. Levitt, R. (2017). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development: A theoretical framework for language learning. Journal of Education, 40(2), 99-120.
  19. Lin, T., & Chen, Z. (2007). The zone of proximal development: Bridging the gap between what students know and can achieve. Teaching and Learning Journal, 8(3), 45-57.
  20. Luoma, S. (2004). Assessing speaking. Cambridge University Press.
  21. Mazouzi, S. (2013). Analysis of errors in oral production: The case of the third-year pupils of secondary school. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 2(3), 77-87.
  22. Mackiewicz, J., & Thompson, T. (2014). Scaffolding as a metaphor for teaching in writing. Journal of Writing Research, 11(3), 21-45.
  23. Moayeri, M., & Khodareza, M. (2019). Mobile-Assisted Language Learning and its impact on speaking accuracy of Iranian EFL learners. English Language Teaching Journal, 7(3), 45-60.
  24. Ohta, A. S. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford University Press.
  25. Putnam, R. T. (1987). A cognitive approach to the development of mathematical thinking. Educational Psychologist, 25(3), 123-131.
  26. Razaghi, M., Bagheri, H., & Yamini, M. (2019). Cognitive scaffolding and its effect on the speaking skills of Iranian female EFL learners. Journal of English Language and Literature, 6(4), 78-89.
  27. Robinson, P. (1995). Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(2), 243–267.
  28. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 185–211.
  29. Storch, N. (2011). Peer interaction and second language learning. Language Teaching, 44(1), 1-14.
  30. Thornbury, S. (2005). How to teach speaking. Pearson Education.