Gunawardena Pedagogies For Scaffolding Thinking in ESL (2019)

3
PEDAGOGIES FOR SCAFFOLDING

THINKING IN ESL
Integrating first principles of learning
Maya Gunawardena
Introduction
Despite the tremendous growth in the teaching and learning endeavours and the
abundance of learning resources, teachers who teach courses such as English as a
second language (ESL), English as a foreign language (EFL), English for Specific
purposes (ESP), and English for Academic purposes (EAP) face numerous chal-
lenges in engaging their learners in the instructed learning settings. Teaching
reading has been found to be influential because it impacts all language skills
(Birch, 2002). Recent studies on thinking skills in teaching ESL have examined
new ways to increase engagement in students’ learning by minimizing student
inhibition and promoting interaction and active thinking (Cheng, 2010).
Previous research argues that cultural issues and education traditions in some
countries seem to affect students’ learning, particularly how students interact
with their peers and teachers (Li & Wegerif, 2014; Gunawardena et. al., 2017).
Studies on teaching critical thinking have also highlighted cultural differences
Copyright © 2019. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.
in the way students develop thinking dispositions (Arkinson, 1997; Paton, 2010).
Despite these cultural variables, scaffolding has been found to be necessary
and useful for effective learning (Wilson, 2017). In the course of scaffolding
thinking, thinking routines are useful ways of helping students to develop their
thinking styles and dispositions (Harvard University Visible Learning Project).
Therefore, universal principles such as scaffolding have been found to be useful
in the instructional design for all contexts, despite different cultural styles in
learning and teaching.
There is a plethora of literature on how to teach ESL reading, writing, gram-
mar, listening, and speaking, including the pronunciation of English. Such
frameworks and ideas have been found to be useful for teacher education, yet
some are controversial because they were developed and empirically tested in
Li, L. (Ed.). (2019). Thinking skills and creativity in second language education : Case studies from international perspectives. Taylor & Francis Group.
Created from eastcarolina on 2022-05-16 19:41:40.
Pedagogies for scaffolding thinking in ESL 43
the West. Recent research into promoting thinking skills has expanded and
enriched such pedagogies irrespective of the context (Chamot, 1995; Tarvin
& Al-Arishi, 1991). Research into scaffolding thinking in ESL needs further
expansion. The focus on explicit thinking in other subject areas has been found
to be useful for developing more effective learning and teaching by addressing
inherent dilemmas. However, currently teaching thinking is not as significant
in ESL as in other skill-based areas. Wilson (2017) argues that “critical reading
pedagogy can be realized in different ways, but that nurturing students’ critical
dispositions, in particular, requires delicate scaffolding to support their develop-
ment as critical meaning-makers” (p. 256).
Therefore, this chapter aims to develop a framework to scaffold reading in
ESL by incorporating Merrill’s (2002) first principles of learning. Developing a
holistic teaching framework for scaffolding thinking in ESL in different stages
of reading lessons (pre, while, and post) will enhance the process of “nurtur-
ing students’ critical dispositions” (Wilson, 2017, p. 256). The framework has
been given the acronym, KADEI, (see details later in this chapter). This chapter
will also examine two exemplars adopting the KADEI framework to develop
thinking routines for critical reading. This framework aims to negotiate chal-
lenges of developing thinking in ESL where students’ language competencies
are lower and cultural factors may impinge on their learning. The chapter will
also discuss the implications of adopting such an approach to promote thinking
and learning in ESL.
Ongoing issues in ESL teaching and learning

Due to the phenomenal spread of English and the greater demand for English
education in the current workforce and the modern market, students are more
motivated to learn English than ever before. Increasingly, we hear stories of suc-
cessful learners who develop native-like fluency in both written and oral com-
munication in English. However, many learners still achieve only limited skills;
hence, they struggle to survive in the local and international workforce of the
21st century.
Governments, such as the Sri Lankan government, have introduced or revised
education reforms to increase students’ competencies in English so that they
may become more successful global citizens. Due to distributional issues and
the ongoing economic reasons, textbooks are still the main resource being used
in the government primary and secondary schools in most developing coun-
tries. Students’ lack of motivation and disengagement in learning English are
still major challenges in secondary schools. With the increasing access for a larger
pool of technological and print-based resources on the internet, inconsistencies
in teachers’ practice seem to increase. The most disadvantaged in this regard are
students from rural areas.
Student factors also affect developing students’ language competencies and
hence thinking skills. Among them, students’ attitudinal and cultural factors
44 Maya Gunawardena
are well known (Canagarajah, 1999; Gunawardena et al., 2017). Textbook-

based learning has been found to be problematic in any learning context
because the content is chosen by the textbook writers, and it may not neces-
sarily fall within students’ interests. This can also reflect mismatches between
generations (curriculum writers) and the perceived assumptions of students’
interests. Therefore, these factors may influence efforts to generate interactive
student discussions. Choy and Cheah (2009) argue that teachers’ involvement is
necessary to help students to think critically. In line with Choy and Cheah, it
could be argued that teachers should not be constrained by the themes and the
content in textbooks because there are numerous ways that teachers can help
engage students in extending their learning. Recent research into thinking in
ESL has shown us new directions to promote motivation and engagement in
students’ learning.
Scaffolding in ESL teaching

The metaphor of scaffolding, which was first introduced by Wood, Bruner,
and Ross (1976) and later illustrated by Vygotsky (1978), has been viewed as
an appealing and useful technique for boosting students’ cognitive- and skill-
based development (Hammond & Gibbons, 2005). It resonates with teachers’
day-to-day practice, but it is sometimes taken for granted that any teacher
interaction is loosely viewed as scaffolding (Mercer, 1994). Hammond (2001)
and Hammond & Gibbons (2005) explore subtle issues with the metaphor
of scaffolding and its use, and they argue that scaffolding should occur in
collaborative environments, rather than the teacher playing the role of the
more knowledgeable other (MKO). In collaborative environments learn-
ers also contribute to construct knowledge together with the MKO. This
negotiating process “contributes to ongoing development of social and cul-
tural understanding and ways of thinking about the world” (Hammond &
Gibbons, 2005, p. 15).
Therefore, scaffolding thinking is also a useful endeavour to stimulate stu-
dents help them get used to the routines of thinking (Harvard University Zero
Project, 2015). Language plays a vital role in scaffolding, and effective scaffold-
ing requires clear goals and structured activities that enable student teaching
(Hammond & Gibbons, 2001: Mercer, 1994). Macro-level scaffolding, where
there is a clearly articulated scaffolding framework, is arguably more impor-
tant than teacher intervention in helping students accomplish a task at any level.
Scaffolding thinking in ESL as discussed in this chapter takes this macro approach
to help students to develop routines of critical thinking in reading. There are
insufficient research-based frameworks that consider the difficulties faced by
ESL learners. The curriculum cycle model (Derewianka, 1990; Hammond &
Gibbons, 2001) is a literacy teaching pedagogical model of teaching writing.
In this model, three stages are identified as important in helping ESL students
to accomplish literacy-related tasks: Building the field, joint construction, and
independent construction. This model is developed based on the gradual release

of responsibility model (Fisher et al. 2008; Pearson & Gallagher, 1983), under
the assumption that “with strong vertical alignment and purposeful instruction,
students learn” (Fisher, 2008, p. 3), and therefore models such as the curriculum
cycle help teachers to provide macro-level organized scaffolding to guide stu-
dents to accomplish difficult writing tasks in response to individual and whole-
class-based instructions. The curriculum cycle model is more appropriate for
teaching writing, where students get to examine genres of texts and their char-
acteristics (building the field); they work with the teacher and create similar
texts ( joint construction); and then they independently create texts (independent
contribution) based on their knowledge about such genres (Derewianka, 1990;
Hammond & Gibbons, 2001).
Current pedagogical intervention models for teaching reading consider stu-
dents’ language barriers, literacy needs, and reciprocity in reading and writing.
However, thinking routines or metacognitive strategies (Zero Project) have not
yet been embedded into these frameworks and models. As a result of the efforts
to incorporate scaffolding thinking into ESL research and practice, this paper
advocates helping students to participate in the construction of their knowl-
edge and to become good thinkers. I argue that it is important to provide clear
“delicate macro-level support” (Wilson, 2017) to create thinking dispositions
and thinking routines by drawing on the principles of learning. As an expe-
rienced teacher in ESL contexts, I see the benefits of scaffolding thinking to
(1) engage learners more in active learning, (2) make the content more memo-
rable by allowing them to reflect deeply on content, (3) create pathways or rou-
tines so that they are readily available in future learning, (4) motivate learners by
increasing their capabilities in thinking and learning (knowledge is constructed
by them), and (5) encourage students to co-construct learning and create their
thinking dispositions.
Thinking skills and language learning

The relationship between thinking skills and language learning superficially

looks paradoxical, because thinking requires a language and ESL learners may
not have enough language repertoire to think in a language that is unfamiliar
to them. However, recent research demonstrates that thinking does involve the
learner in deep learning, leading to more responsive actions (Chamot, 1995;
Tarvin & Al-Arishi, 1991; Wilson, 2017). Further, “cognitive development and
language development go hand in hand; language is a tool through which the
child comes to understand the world” (Snow, Met, & Genesee, 1989, p. 201).
Hence, teaching a language in isolation seems less effective; the content that
stimulates students’ thinking provides a motivational incentive for students to
learn a language (Snow et al., 1989). This was the main proposition for the
ESL curriculum developed as “the content integration model” in the 1980s
(Cummins, 1980, 1981), which is now in practice in some contexts. However,
46 Maya Gunawardena
this content obligatory model in the mainstream curriculum has several draw-
backs, such as the potential lack of ESL teachers with specialist subject knowl-
edge and the fact that many students are not acquiring the content due to
their language barriers. Thus content integration is not being widely supported
and implemented in some contexts, and ESL is still often taught as a separate
subject.
An alternative and much more feasible approach is to include content that
interests learners and get them to deeply reflect on content, as an incentive to
learn the language. The information gap between the students and the ESL
teacher would provide an authentic, natural context for interaction (Snow
et al., 1989) between them. It would also allow students to mentally engage with
the content at a deeper level despite their language barriers, and teachers could
act as more knowledgeable persons (Vygotsky, 1978) who can assist them with
language-related problems.
It is then the teachers’ duty to facilitate students’ language-learning and
deep-thinking skills and critical dispositions by adopting appropriate pedago-
gies that will sufficiently equip learners with skills for comprehension, and by
further integrating the content with their real-life experiences (Merrill, 2002).
Teachers may have a different orientation to developing thinking (Gunawardena
et al., 2017) and critical pedagogy (Wilson, 2017); however, scaffolding their
thinking using a macro model would assist all students who are learning the
language and relating it to the world around them.
The Gunawardena et al. (2017) study indicated that teachers are in con-
sistent agreement with the importance of embedding thinking into their
reading lessons; yet their descriptions of the lessons demonstrated that they
used the term scaffolding loosely and referred only to micro-level scaffold-
ing. Merrill’s first principles of learning resonate with teachers, and there-
fore these principles are embedded in the model discussed in this paper,
which seeks to provide macro-level scaffolding where students read texts to
construct knowledge and broaden their ESL language repertoire in a more
engaging environment.
Merrill’s principles of learning

David Merrill is a renowned scholar from the United States who closely worked
with the father of instructional design, Robert Gagne, in developing effec-
tive techniques for delivering information to learners in an instructed setting.
In a paper published in 2002, Merrill describes several crucial instructional
principles “related to creating learning environments and products rather than
describing how learners acquire knowledge and skills from these environments
or products” (p. 46). In summary, Merrill calls these principles problem-centred
instruction, a term that has been adopted by many instructional designers and
teachers. In this paper (Merrill, 2002), he discusses five interrelated fundamen-
tal human learning principles that are useful in instructional design to promote
learning. By examining several design theories (p. 45), he identifies five phases
of effective instruction:
1. Task or problem-centred—learning is promoted when instruction

focuses on relevant real-world tasks or problems, including a series of tasks
or problems that progress from simple to complex.
2. Activation—learning is promoted when learning begins with recalling
students’ prior knowledge. This activation can also include a foundational
learning experience on which new learning can be based.
3. Demonstration—learning is promoted when students can see clear learn-
ing intentions and also when new knowledge is demonstrated to the learner.
4. Application—learning is promoted when students apply new knowledge as
in real-world tasks or in solving real-world problems (students will benefit by
receiving effective feedback and appropriate guidance during application).
5. Integration—learning is promoted when students are encouraged to inte-
grate their new knowledge into their life through reflection, discussion,
debate, and/or presentation of new knowledge.
Developing a framework to scaffold thinking in ESL reading

A close examination of the above principles demonstrates that they are useful
not only in instructional design but also in developing effective pedagogical
frameworks or teaching models, particularly in developing delicate scaffolding
taxonomies. For convenience, and based on the need to promote reading skills,
this chapter has slightly adapted useful principles to develop a framework for
scaffolding students’ thinking in the English classroom to engage in effective
reading. The first principle, the problem-based learning is effective; however,
it is not always possible to offer content as problems in all learning contexts.
Therefore, it has been excluded in the design of this framework. The principles
adapted from Merrill (2002) are as follows:
Principle 1: Filling in a knowledge gap

In normal classrooms, teachers expect students to acquire content that they pre-
scribe for students, and this has offered many challenges for students who are
usually at different phases of their learning and whose motivational levels to learn
the content that teachers want them to master are low. Early researchers of learn-
ing, such as Bruner (1978) and Vygotsky (1978), have seen the need for teachers
estimating students’ prior knowledge to connect students to new knowledge.
However, this is not enough for a teacher unless students also see a clear connec-
tion between what they know, what they are going to learn, and why they need
to acquire that information or skill. Teachers should strive to help their students
understand that what they are going to learn will fill a gap in their knowledge.
Maier and Richter (2014) argue that “learners with strong prior beliefs tend
48 Maya Gunawardena
to construct a one-sided mental representation that is biased towards belief-

consistent information” (p. 51). Therefore, it is important to help students unlock
.
such beliefs by examining other perspectives.

The ESL curriculum often puts students in a more demanding situation: stu-
dents confront an extra challenge of presenting new information in another lan-
guage. However, learning something new (information or a skill or a perspective)
in this class benefits students by keeping them focused and holding their attention.
The teacher participants in the Gunawardena et al. (2017) study thought simple
and less cognitively demanding themes could motivate students to learn English,
but they were referring to some interesting information pieces, stories, and per-
sonal recounts in student textbooks, where they could put more emphasis on
moral values. However, having a knowledge gap in students is a necessity for any
classroom because English-based skills such as vocabulary and grammar can be
integrated into these lessons. Learners often may not see problems themselves, so
teachers can strategize learning by using activities that help students recognize the
gap between what they know and what they still must learn in order to increase
their understanding. This gap in their knowledge can drive their learning.
Principle 2: Activation of thinking

Now students identify their knowledge gap, teachers can lead them through
thinking-based activities where teachers scaffold their thinking. This can be
done in many ways (e.g. by asking questions about the information or getting
students involved in a problem-based activity). This phase of the lesson is where
students enquire about knowledge. Teachers can only support them to think.
This is a very important stage of a lesson, wherein students are stimulated to
find new knowledge. They can work in groups or pairs to think about the topic
under discussion. An enquiry approach to learning has shown promising results
in many subjects, and it can be useful in ESL teaching as well. There is a real
dilemma here, because students’ English language repertoire can be limited,
making it difficult for them to activate their thinking (they may be accustomed
to thinking only in their mother tongue). However, this stage is useful, and
teachers can use the bilingual approach to translate their questions or any other
responses. Teachers also can utilize ‘thinking routines’ (Visible thinking) to
facilitate students’ thinking. Visible thinking provides strategies (core routines)
for teachers to help students to get started with active thinking.
Principle 3: Demonstration (Learning intentions

and new knowledge)
This stage is, as Merrill suggests, another phase of a lesson where a teacher can show
the learners where they are heading. Research reveals that students like teachers
telling them about what they are expected to learn. This explicit discussion with
students has been found to be useful prompting them to reflect on their own
learning and to develop a clear understanding of academic goals. Demonstration

includes two phases: Demonstration of learning goals or intentions and demon-
stration of new knowledge. Learning is promoted when instructors demonstrate
what is to be learned rather than merely offering information about what is to
be learned. This level of goal orientation has been found to be a driver of effec-
tive learning. Demonstration can also include showcasing what they have learned
explicitly in the lessons. This will assist students in whole-class instruction, because
some may not necessarily learn what teachers want them to learn.
Principle 4: Expand knowledge

In this stage of thinking, students themselves take the lead, as they learn to
expand and commit themselves to learning more about the topic. It is important
for students to know that knowledge can be extended and that it changes over
time and context. They need to discover different perspectives on the topic; con-
templation of the topic from different angles can help students to remember and
use knowledge in practice.
Principle 5: Integration of the knowledge into everyday

life contexts
This last, pertinent stage of student learning resembles a step from Bloom’s tax-
onomy, where students apply knowledge in real-life contexts. Students’ mental
structures get strengthened when they see that knowledge or cognitive informa-
tion can be relevant to their own lives, enhance their thinking, and affect their
behaviour. Here students see that knowledge is not abstract and can be applied
daily. They also need to realize that knowledge can evolve further, and they
should be able to see the dynamics of how knowledge is applied in the real world.
Hence, the steps of reading instruction are as follows: Knowledge gap,
Activation of thinking, Demonstration (goals and new knowledge), Expand
knowledge, and Integration of knowledge in the real world. Therefore, this
framework is called the KADEI framework. The acronym will help teachers to
remember each step of their lessons and they can use these as progressive steps in
scaffolding reading lessons.
The KADEI framework and its application

The KADEI framework can be diagrammatically represented as in Figure 3.1. It
shows different progressive stages of ESL reading lessons. These hierarchical
steps will help teachers to scaffold students’ thinking in learning new knowl-
edge and the language repertoire, particularly vocabulary skills. This will
present a more holistic approach, as opposed to just reading or reading com-
prehension in the ESL classroom. The framework offers a dual purpose of
increasing language skills and developing critical reading. Tables 3.1 and 3.2
50 Maya Gunawardena
TABLE 3.1 KADEI in application: Reading about Queen Victoria (an information piece)
KADEI steps Teacher activity Student activity
Knowledge gap Teacher introduces the topic Complete the tasks

and asks students to complete Share their sheets with a
the Y chart or the KWL chart partner
about Queen Victoria
To ease the difficulty, they can
include words and symbols
(not complete sentences)
Teachers can have access to the
Y and KWL chart templates
via a simple Google search
Activation Teacher asks students to think Think and write
about what they would like to questions and share
know about Queen Victoria their questions with
They can write one or two the class
enquiry questions
Demonstration Before students read the text, Listen, tell, think, and
1. Demonstrate learning teacher provides a few summarize
goals (pre-reading) questions for which they will
2. Demonstrate learned seek answers in the text
knowledge Teacher asks the students to read
(post-reading) the text and helps them to
summarize the content
Expand learning and Teacher asks students to think Research or talk with
thinking beyond to about what people may say partners, and present
connect about Queen Victoria, apart their findings to the
from what they have just class
learned (Teacher can provide
resources such as videos and
texts to help them arrive at
their conclusions)
Integration of Teachers asks students to Students connect
knowledge compare Queen Victoria with themes and topics and
modern-day queens (teacher have their own views
can provide examples, or about the world and
students can work the country
independently or in groups)
provide two examples of how a teacher might use the KADEI framework in
facilitating reading. The two reading examples are drawn from the Sri Lankan
state school textbook for grade 11, and they are quite self-explanatory in their
content, so that readers from other contexts may be able to understand the les-
son procedure and proposed activities.
Table 3.1 provides the sequence of a reading lesson where KADEI is applied
in scaffolding students’ thinking. The lesson is an information text about Queen
Victoria written by a local panel of teachers. The lesson objective is to increase
students’ basic reading comprehension skills, such as skimming and scanning to
answer a few simple questions provided in the text. The procedure has embedded
Integration
Expand
Demonstration
Activation
Global Local
Context Knowledge Context
Gap
De
ge f
mo Go
led n o
ns als
ow tio
tra
Students’ Prior
Kn ra
w st
tio
Knowledge
Ne mon
n
of
De
Views and Perspectives
Regional Context
FIGURE 3.1 The KADEI framework for scaffolding students’ thinking in reading lessons.
TABLE 3.2 KADEI in application: Reading about friendship (an opinion piece)
KADEI steps Teacher activity Student activity
Knowledge gap Teacher introduces the topic Complete the task and
and asks students to write their share their thoughts with
own opinions about friendship other students
Activation Teacher gets students to think Think and write
about different views/questions questions and share their
about friendship questions with the class
Demonstration Before reading the text, teacher Listen, tell, think, and
1. Demonstrate learning provides a few questions for summarize

goals (pre-reading) which they will seek answers
2. Demonstrate learned in the text
knowledge Teacher asks the students to read
(post-reading) the text to help them
summarize the content
Expand learning and Teacher asks students to think Research or talk with
thinking beyond to about how culture might partners, and present
connect influence friendship (teacher their findings to the class
can provide resources help them
arrive at their conclusions)
Integration of Teacher gives students different Students connect themes
knowledge cultural contexts and asks them and topics and have their
to research what friends do on own views about the
different occasions world and the country
BK-TandF-LI_TEXT_9781138297937-190406-Chp03.indd 51
Li, L. (Ed.). (2019). Thinking skills and creativity in second language education : Case studies from international perspectives. Taylor & Francis 21/06/19
Group. 1:17 PM
52 Maya Gunawardena
learning principles into the KADEI framework to engage learners in thinking

and making connections with the content and beyond.
Provided in Table 3.2 is another example of the application of KADEI. This
lesson is also from the textbook prescribed for grade 11 students in Sri Lankan
government schools.
Teachers’ perceptions of the KADEI model

Ten experienced teachers (with over 10 years of teaching experience) who
currently teach in the secondary schools (grades 10 and 11) in Sri Lanka
volunteered to adopt the model in their ESL reading lessons. They have
provided useful feedback on its application. Teachers were asked to read an
introduction to the model, utilize the procedures suggested in the model in
their reading lessons, discuss their views about it, and compare it with their
current approaches to teaching reading. This is a small random convenient
sample (Etikan, Musa, & Alkassim, 2016), and it is acknowledged that gen-
eralizations cannot be drawn. However, teachers’ feedback was found to be
immensely valuable for a practitioner who intends to try out the model;
hence, the following section of this chapter provides a brief snapshot of teach-
ers’ perceptions of the model. It is also important to note that in this pilot
study, the KADEI model was used only in a few lessons; therefore, further
research, where teachers adopted the model for a longer period, undoubtedly
would provide more fruitful results.
All ten teachers, who read about the KADEI model and implemented it in
a few of their lessons, were in consistent agreement with the model’s purpose.
They thought that the model aimed to address an existing gap in students’ learn-
ing. All of them thought that the current learning tradition of ESL in the second-
ary school fails to encourage learners’ active engagement both in deep reading
and thinking; they assumed that this gap has become even wider with the use
of the internet, because students can easily locate content-related information
and they pay less attention to detail. Therefore, teachers were optimistic that the
model would indeed benefit teachers as they consider thinking and deep learning
in the learning of ESL. This result supports the findings of the Gunawardena
et al. (2017) study.
However, they pointed out the need for changing education goals and national
assessment paradigms to make learners more engaged in their reading. As per-
ceived by the participants, many teachers (in this context) currently tend to put
significant emphasis on grammatical accuracy in ESL teaching, which seemingly
frustrates many young learners: “They get over-corrected in English classrooms” (T2).
As noted by many participants, teachers are compelled to focus on grammar
because they prepare learners to take the national examination at the end of grade
11, where they must answer questions with grammatical accuracy. Students are
graded on their language competency: “So, they do not see the purpose of content
knowledge in a culture [where] examination is an end point and the topics have no relevance
to their examination” (T3). “They want the teachers’ help them with the exam by giving
them past questions” (T8). Therefore, the national examination culture seems to
be a crucial obstacle for learner engagement in learning.
The problem of students’ detachment from the content, as some teachers
think, was a significant obstacle for providing students with activities for reading,
thinking, and expanding, which ultimately results in students’ disengagement.
It is also important to note that the time when the KADEI framework was used
may have been the reason why teachers have experienced such dilemmas. One
teacher said: “This is towards the end of the year and students are not very focused,
and students in grade 11 can only think about their examination” (T10). If the model
had been adopted in a different period, the results might have been different.
Therefore, the results can be inconclusive, yet examination can generally be
regarded as a constraint for teacher flexibility in instructional design for ESL in
senior secondary classes.
The above situation, if it relates to any context (perhaps it does to many
ESL contexts in their own countries), contradicts Merrill’s argument for active
learning in a problem-based environment to decrease disengagement and
underachievement. Connecting learners with the content may be much eas-
ier than connecting learners to language structures or vocabulary in isolation
(Cummins, 1980, 1981). However, teachers’ are preoccupied with the upcoming
examination, (“to teach the test”) and they seem to address students’ imme-
diate needs. Students’ expectation of teachers helping them with the potential
examination questions can be justifiable, because in contexts such as Sri Lanka,
passing the examination is essential for entering higher education and to obtain
employment opportunities; their tacit knowledge of content or language is least
important, and the examination result is a critical determiner of their future.
Teachers have also noted potential problems of the model: Steps are long
and difficult to execute in one lesson (40 minutes in this context) (T1, T2, and
T7); students’ language abilities are limited, and using KADEI in a multilevel
classroom is a challenge (T10 and T9); students’ general knowledge is poor, and
therefore they did not engage in conversations as expected (T1, T3, T8, and T6);
they are not used to the culture of asking questions and thinking beyond, and
they waited for the teachers to fill in the gaps (T1). These limitations were noted
consistently across ten teachers — some explicitly and others implicitly, in the
context of similar problems. Such problems as poor language knowledge, time
constraints, multilevel classrooms, and issues with learning and teaching tradi-
tions exist in many contexts.
I argue that the above problems cannot necessarily be attributed to the prob-
lems with the proposed model as they resonate with the problems that the
model attempts to address by embedding Merrill’s principles. Teachers need
to be equipped with resources and skills to mitigate such typical problems
that ESL teachers confront in an instructed setting. One teacher (T5) reported
applying the KADEI procedures without any problems and found the stu-
dents fully engaged with the controversial topic, which was “advantages and
54 Maya Gunawardena
disadvantages of technology”. Another teacher (T4) also reported applying the

model successfully in teaching a reading lesson about “Mahatma Gandhi” and
also saw some resemblance of the model to the E 5 method: Engage, Explore,
Explain, Elaborate, and Evaluate (Duran & Duran, 2004). The E 5 is an
enquiry model that is widely used in teaching sciences. Enquiry learning is
promising, and students’ information literacy skills (Castaneda-Pena, Barbosa-
Chacon, & Sanchez, 2017) need to be improved for the successful applica-
tion of such enquiry-based models. It is also vitally important that all teachers
(professional learning communities) and the school support the shift in learn-
ing; it is necessary to have a shift in the school culture and learning traditions
to make changes happen in learning and teaching and in the value structures
of a community (DuFour, 2004; Snow-Gerono, 2005). Further research into
the implementation of the KADEI model is required to confirm its efficacy,
universality, and generalizability.
The implications of the KADEI model

Scaffolding is a principle that might be taken for granted for simply helping stu-
dents in their learning. Therefore, macro scaffolding frameworks such as the cur-
riculum cycle (Derewianka, 1990) and the KADEI framework, as shown in this
chapter, can be regarded as useful guides for teachers. There are various factors
which impact on student learning, and therefore it is vital to understand how stu-
dent learning can be promoted in an instructed environment. Merrill’s principles
are interesting, and they are useful for promoting learner engagement in learn-
ing. However, embedding them in teaching is not always easy, so frameworks
such as these models may facilitate the application of such valuable principles.
The KADEI model aims to offer useful guidelines for teachers in helping
students to think and expand learning knowledge by making connections with
them and the world. This may look like a prescriptive and rigid approach to
the teaching of reading. However, creative teachers can use the model wisely
in their own way by incorporating interesting activities into their lesson plans
and assigning students to work on their own enquiry projects in their own time.
Education traditions, goals, and systems, as shown above, can be regarded as
major obstacles to practical application; however, teachers need to engage in
professional decision making on behalf of their students. As Kramsch (1993) says,
“classroom teaching is a juggling act that requires instant-by-instant decisions
based on both local and global knowledge and on an intuitive grasp of the situ-
ation” (p. 3). Teachers are intellectuals who must make apt professional decisions
to increase student learning.
For many ESL learning contexts, deep thinking-based approaches are
novel, and the acute implementation of a model such as KADEI is challeng-
ing. Teachers cannot fight the battle alone. One possible way to overcome
such problems is to develop professional learning communities (DuFour, 2004;
Snow-Gerono, 2005) dedicated to making a shift happen in the school culture.
DuFour argues that there is a need for congruity between teachers and leaders of
schools and that they should collaboratively commit to ensuring that all students
learn and are successful in achieving desired results, irrespective of their entry
levels and learning barriers.
This chapter has highlighted the need for a macro model for scaffolding
thinking. If teachers use approaches such as KADEI, students will develop
an automated path to think, research, and expand their understanding of the
world. Often ESL lessons terminate in reading comprehension and building
vocabulary skills (or simply addressing the needs of the education traditions,
such as meeting the examination needs mentioned in this chapter). Through
KADEI, students can extend their learning beyond facts or information and
arrive at divergent thinking, thereby increasing their cognitive and metacog-
nitive skills.
The KADEI model aims to address the challenges inherent in the use of a text-
book for learning by providing guidelines for thinking and extension through
whatever resources are available to learners. Despite the limitations of the use of
textbooks, poor countries can only afford to provide a textbook, which is indeed
better than having no resources for learning. Therefore, teachers need to be
equipped with approaches to use textbooks in the 21st century to develop criti-
cal reading skills. There is also a dire need to change the entire school culture to
produce more informed citizens.
Conclusion
This chapter has presented a macro model to scaffold thinking in teaching
reading in ESL lessons. Despite the limitation of students’ language compe-
tencies, the KADEI framework offers useful ideas for teachers to help students
develop thinking dispositions when learning English. It has incorporated use-
ful principles from Merrill’s paper (2002) to motivate and increase learner
engagement in reading and developing critical reading skills. It provides
examples only to assist teachers in implementing the model, which should
not be used as a prescriptive or rigid model. Teachers can incorporate various

teaching strategies to make reading more interesting for their learners. The
chapter also examined the efficacy of the model, based on a small sample
of teachers executing the model in their reading lessons. However, findings
are inconclusive; the model must be used in many contexts in order for its
effectiveness in all contexts to be evaluated. There is no “one-size-fits-all”
model, and teachers are requested to test the KADEI model and amend it for
their purposes. The main proposition for embedding thinking-based learn-
ing is universally supported in modern education (Chamot, 1995; Harvard
University Zero Project, 2015; Merrill, 2002; Tarvin & Al-Arishi, 1991;
Wilson, 2017). We need to create a culture of thinking to produce successful
learners who can make informed decisions, and they must be ready for the
unpredictable, rapidly changing world.
56 Maya Gunawardena
ESL lessons should provide opportunities for students to develop thinking

skills despite the limitations of the language barrier. Thinking will promote
deep learning and learner students, so in designing learning experiences for stu-
dents, teachers must consider providing opportunities for thinking. Thinking
about the content can be a bridge or vehicle and an incentive for a language
learner. Creating a culture of thinking in ESL reading necessitates a whole-
school approach, and teachers need to work in collaboration, in their professional
learning communities, to discuss and mitigate the problems inherent in lan-
guage learning and to negotiate the challenges that arise in implementing novel
teaching approaches.
References
Arkinson, D. (1997). A critical approach to critical thinking in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly,
31(1), 71–94.
Birch, B. M. (2002). English L2 reading: Getting to the bottom. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Campbell, J., & Li, M. (2008). Asian students’ voices: An empirical study of Asian students’
learning experiences at a New Zealand university. Journal of Studies in International
Education, 12(4), 375–396.
Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Castaneda-Pena, H. A., Barbosa-Chacon, J. W., & Hormiga-Sanchez, M. (2017). Exploring
the complementarity between information literacy and foreign language competencies.
Revista ESPACIOS, 38(35), 41.
Chamot, A. (1995). Creating a community of thinkers in the ESL/EFL. TESOL Matters,
5(5), 1–16.
Cheng, V. M. (2010). Tensions and dilemmas of teachers in creativity reform in a Chinese
context. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 5(3), 120–137.
Choy, S. C., & Cheah, P. K. (2009). Teacher perceptions of critical thinking among students
and its influence on higher education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20(2), 198–206.
Cummins, J. (1980). The exit and entry fallacy in bilingual education. NABE Journal, 4(3),
25–59.
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational
success for language minority students. In J. Cummins, Schooling and language minority
students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3–49). Los Angeles: California State Department
of Education, California State University, National Evaluation, Dissemination and
Assessment Center.
Derewianka, B. (1991). Exploring how texts work. Newtown, New South Wales: PETA.
DuFour, R. (2004). What is a “professional learning community”? Educational Leadership,
61(8), 6–11.
Duran, L. B., & Duran, E. (2004). The 5E instructional model: A learning cycle approach for
inquiry-based science teaching. Science Education Review, 3(2), 49–58.
Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and
purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4.
Fisher, D. (2008). Effective use of the gradual release of responsibility model. Author
Monographs, 1–4. Retrieved from https://www.mheonline.com/_treasures/pdf/doug-
las_fisher.pdf
Li, L. (Ed.). (2019). Thinking skills and creativity in second language education : Case studies from international perspectives. Taylor & Francis19/06/19
Group. 10:19 AM
Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Lapp, D. (2008). Shared readings: Modeling comprehension, vocabulary,
text structures, and text features for older readers. The Reading Teacher, 61(7), 548–556.
Gunawardena, M., Sooriyampola, M., & Walisundara, N. (2017). Scaffolding thinking in ESL
lessons: Negotiating challenges. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 279–285.
Hammond, J. (2001). Scaffolding: Teaching and learning in language and literacy education.
Newtown, Australia: Primary English Teaching Association,
Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2005) Putting scaffolding to work: The contribution of scaf-
folding in articulating ESL education. Prospect, 20(1)6–30.
Harvard University Zero Project. http://www.pz.harvard.edu/ accessed and viewed
10/11/17.
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Li, L., & Wegerif, R. (2014).What does it mean to teach thinking in China? Challenging and
developing notions of ‘Confucian education’. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 11, 22–32.
Maier, J., & Richter, T. (2014). Fostering multiple text comprehension: How metacognitive
strategies and motivation moderate the text-belief consistency effect. Metacognition and
learning, 9(1), 51-74.
Mercer, N (1994). Neo-Vygotskian theory and classroom education. In B. Steirer & J. Maybin
(Eds.), Language, Literacy and Learning in Educational Practice. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 50(3), 43–59.
Paton, M (2010). Asian students, critical thinking and English as an academic lingua franca.
Analytic Teaching and Philosophical Praxis, 32(1) 27–39.
Pearson, P. D., and Gallagher, M. C. (1983).The instruction of reading comprehension. Higher
Education, 20(2), 198–206.
Snow, M. A., Met, M., & Genesee, F. (1989). A conceptual framework for the integration of
language and content in second/foreign language instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 23(2),
201–217.
Snow-Gerono, J. L. (2005). Professional development in a culture of inquiry: PDS teachers
identify the benefits of professional learning communities. Teaching and Teacher Education,
21(3), 241–256.
Tarvin, W., & Al-Arishi, A. (1991). Rethinking communicator language teaching: Reflection
and the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 25(1), 9–27.
Visible thinking: http://www.visiblethinkingpz.org/VisibleThinking_html_files/01_Visible
ThinkingInAction/01a_VTInAction.html viewed 10/11/17.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society:The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.

Wilson, K. (2017). Critical reading, critical thinking: Delicate scaffolding in English for
academic purposes (EAP). Thinking Skills and Creativity, 22, 256–265.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.
Li, L. (Ed.). (2019). Thinking skills and creativity in second language education : Case studies from international perspectives. Taylor & Francis19/06/19
Group. 10:19 AM

Gunawardena Pedagogies For Scaffolding Thinking in ESL (2019)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gunawardena Pedagogies For Scaffolding Thinking in ESL (2019)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3

PEDAGOGIES FOR SCAFFOLDING

Ongoing issues in ESL teaching and learning

are well known (Canagarajah, 1999; Gunawardena et al., 2017). Textbook-

Scaffolding in ESL teaching

independent construction. This model is developed based on the gradual release

Thinking skills and language learning

The relationship between thinking skills and language learning superficially

Merrill’s principles of learning

1. Task or problem-centred—learning is promoted when instruction

Developing a framework to scaffold thinking in ESL reading

Principle 1: Filling in a knowledge gap

to construct a one-sided mental representation that is biased towards belief-

such beliefs by examining other perspectives.

Principle 2: Activation of thinking

Principle 3: Demonstration (Learning intentions

learning and to develop a clear understanding of academic goals. Demonstration

Principle 4: Expand knowledge

Principle 5: Integration of the knowledge into everyday

The KADEI framework and its application

KADEI steps Teacher activity Student activity

Knowledge gap Teacher introduces the topic Complete the tasks

Views and Perspectives

KADEI steps Teacher activity Student activity

1. Demonstrate learning provides a few questions for summarize

learning principles into the KADEI framework to engage learners in thinking

Teachers’ perceptions of the KADEI model

disadvantages of technology”. Another teacher (T4) also reported applying the

The implications of the KADEI model

not be used as a prescriptive or rigid model. Teachers can incorporate various

ESL lessons should provide opportunities for students to develop thinking

MA: Harvard University Press.

You might also like

1. Demonstrate learning provides a few questions for summarize