See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235982664

6 Riazi & Rezaii. Teacher- and peer-scaffolding behaviors

Data · March 2013

CITATIONS READS

0 1,319

2 authors:

Mehdi Riazi Maliheh Rezaei

Macquarie University Monash University (Australia)
66 PUBLICATIONS   1,569 CITATIONS    9 PUBLICATIONS   90 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Qualitative data coding and analysis: A review of second language (L2) writing research View project

Scholarly productivity in Applied Linguistics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mehdi Riazi on 06 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CLESOL 2010 CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS

Riazi, M. & Rezaii, M. (2011). Teacher- and peer-scaffolding behaviors: Effects on EFL students’ writing
improvement. In A. Feryok (Ed.), CLESOL 2010: Proceedings of the 12th National Conference for
Community Languages and ESOL (pp. 55-63). Retrieved from http://www.tesolanz.org.nz/
______________________________________________________________

Teacher- and peer-scaffolding behaviors: Effects on EFL students' writing

improvement

Mehdi Riazi
Department of Linguistics, Macquarie University
Mehdi.riazi@mq.edu.au

Malihe Rezaii
maliherezai@yahoo.com

Abstract

This paper reports a study conducted within the sociocultural framework and aimed at
investigating the effect of scaffolding on EFL students’ writing ability. The study intended to
find out whether teacher- or peer-scaffolding was more successful in helping students
improve their English texts. To this end, two groups of university students who enrolled in
general English course were provided with teacher- and peer-scaffolding in the process of
revising their writings. Pre- and post-writing tasks were collected from the students to check
their writing improvement. Results of t-tests showed that teacher scaffolding appeared to be
more successful on improving students' writing in this particular EFL context. It was also
found that both the teacher and peers used many different scaffolding behaviors; however,
the teacher used more such behaviors in mediating students’ writing. Findings of the study
contribute to the present literature on scaffolding studies as well as ESL writing instruction.

Introduction

Over the past decades, there has been an increasing interest in exploring the notion of
scaffolding in the process of students' learning. This has been due to the fact that educators'
attention has shifted to the quality of adult or knowledgeable peer interventions on students’
learning. Vygotsky's (1978) Socio-Cultural Theory (SCT) emphasizes the influence of
culture, peers, and adults on the children and other learners’ linguistic and cognitive
development. Vygotskyan SCT and the notion of Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) have
contributed a lot to the concept of scaffolding. That is, central to SCT is the idea that higher
form of thinking and acquiring certain skills are shaped by social interaction among
participants involved in the learning task within the learners' ZPD and through scaffolding
assistance. Scaffolding as Bruner (1983, cited in Walqui, 2006) stated is a process of setting
up situations to make novice's entry into the task easy and successful and then gradually
pulling back and handling the role to them as they become skilled enough to manage the task.
SCT and its related components of ZPD and scaffolding has become an appealing and
important frame in educational contexts and particularly in L2 studies (for some recent
sources on the use of SCT in second language instruction, see, Chaiklin, 2003; Cross, 2006;
Johnson, 2006, 2009; Lantolf, 2000; Lantolf, 2004; and Lantolf & Poehner, 2008).

55
 CLESOL 2010 CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS

Van Lier (1996, p. 196, 2004) has formulated six principles of pedagogical
scaffolding specific to schooling in general and language learning in particular. These
principles include:
• Contextual support—a safe but challenging environment: errors are expected and
accepted as part of the learning process
• Continuity—repeated occurrences over time of a complex of actions, keeping a
balance between routine and variation
• Intersubjectivity—mutual engagement and support: two minds thinking as one in a
shared community of practice
• Contingency—the scaffolded assistance depends on learners’ reactions: elements can
be added, changed, deleted, repeated, etc
• Handover/Takeover—the ZPD closes when learner is ready to undertake similar tasks
without help
• Flow—communication between participants is not forced, but flow in a natural way.

In addition, Clark and Graves (2004, pp. 571-572) argue, "The way that scaffolding is
implemented in the classroom depends on students’ abilities. Varying levels of support are
possible, and the more complex a task is, the more support students will need to accomplish
it". They also emphasize, "What makes scaffolding so effective is that it enables a teacher to
keep a task whole, while students learn to understand and manage the parts, and presents the
learner with just the right challenge” (Clark & Graves, 2004, p. 571). As such, they
encourage teachers to add scaffolding to their instructional repertoire. Because scaffolding is
a highly flexible and adoptable model of instruction that supports students as they acquire
basic skills and higher order processes, it allows for explicit instruction within authentic
contexts of reading and writing, and enables teachers to differentiate instruction for students
of diverse needs. For some recent studies on the use of scaffolding in L2 writing instruction,
the reader may refer to Brooks and Swain (2009); Cotteral and Cohen (2003); and Hammond
(2002).
Whereas studies on scaffolding are mostly concentrated on teacher student
interactions, in the field of second language research, as Storch (2007) states, scaffolding can
also occur in peer interaction, when learners work in small groups or pairs (see, e.g., Donato,
1994; Storch, 2002, 2005). Donato (1994) explored the notion of "mutual scaffolding" to
show that intervention among learners can also be as effective as intervention among teacher
and students. However, results of the studies in this area are conflicting to some extent.
Tudge (1999), for example, examined peer interaction from a Vygotskyan perspective
concerning both the outcomes and processes of collaboration. While the findings of the study
provided some support for the Vygotskyan position, in that less competent children could
indeed benefit from working with a more competent peer in arriving at shared meaning or
intersubjective understanding in the course of discussion, Tudge (1999) argued that for
children to benefit from collaboration, it appeared that they needed to have a partner whose
thinking was at a more advanced level and that the competent partner needed to introduce
reasoning into the discussion at an appropriate level. An extreme finding of unsuccessfulness
of peer-scaffolding was reported by Russell (1982). Russell found that collaboration between
children of the same level led to no progress on the part of the student in need of help. This is
while Light and Glachan (1985, cited in Lloyd & Fernyhough, 1999) provided evidence that
pairing children would lead to learning and development.
In ESL context and L2 writing again there are conflicting findings. De Guerrero and
Villamil's (2000) conducted a study on peer-scaffolding in ESL writing classroom to observe
the mechanisms by which strategies of revision take shape and develop in the
interpsychological space created when two learners are working in their respective ZPDs.

56
 CLESOL 2010 CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS

The participants were two male intermediate ESL college students, native of Spanish, who
enrolled in an ESL communication skills course that emphasized the development of writing.
The students were required to participate in revision sessions during which they revised a
composition (a narrative piece) written by one of them. The findings showed that the effect of
scaffolding was mutual as the students reciprocally extended support and task regulation
became more symmetrical. However, the analysis of the data also showed moments when the
students were unsure or unaware of standard forms or uses of L2 language. They sometimes
exchanged correct knowledge, sometimes incorrect, but from a sociocultural perspective they
were at all times co-constructing their own system of making meaning through words in an
L2. De Guerrero and Villamil concluded that revision skills in the L2 writing class, as it
occurs in mediated peer interaction, is not, of course, a smooth, linear process of development
toward L2 norms but an irregular and dynamic movement entailing the possibility of
regression, creativity, and progress. Storch (2007) also investigated the merits of pair work on
a text editing task in ESL classes. The study was conducted in four intact ESL tertiary
classes. Analysis of the edited texts showed that there were no significant differences
between the accuracy of tasks completed individually and those completed in pairs. Storch
concluded that although pair work on a grammar-focused task may not lead to greater
accuracy in completing the task, pair work provides learners with opportunities to use the
second language for a range of functions, and in turn for language learning.
While previous research has contributed a lot to the knowledge base on teacher and
peer scaffolding topic, more research is needed in other contexts to investigate the effect of
teacher- vs. peer-scaffolding on students’ writing in a second or foreign language. The
present study thus aimed at investigating firstly, to what extent teacher and peer-scaffolding
behaviors might improve students’ writing in an EFL context, and secondly, what mediating
behaviors are used by the teachers and peers in the writing course. The following research
questions were posed:

1 Is teacher- or peer-scaffolding more successful in improving students’ overall writing

ability?
2 What are the scaffolding behaviors used by the teacher and the capable peer of a pair
while engaged in the revision process of a written task?
3 Are there any differences between the type and frequency of scaffolding behaviors
used by the teacher and the more capable peers?

The study

Participants

The study was conducted with 25 students all native speakers of Persian language in the 20-
23 year age range studying at the Department of Computer and Industrial Engineering of a
northern university in Iran. The students were attending a required general English course and
were registered in two groups; the first group included 15 (10 female and 5 male) students
and the second group included 10 (5 female and 5 male) students. The general English course
was, in fact, a reading and writing course with one hour and half per week for each skill. The
reading and writing sections of an IELTS preparation book was used as the instructional
material. The book’s writing parts involved various types of writing such as description of
graphs, trends, and processes. The students were at the same level of English language
proficiency and the two groups were almost the same in all respects including materials and
activities except for the scaffolding pattern.

57
 CLESOL 2010 CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS

Procedures

The two groups were randomly assigned to experimental with teacher-scaffolding approach
and control group with peer-scaffolding mode. The students of the second group formed five
pairs so that a more experienced student worked with the student in need of help. To identify
the more capable peer of each pair, the students of the control group were given a topic to
write on. The writings were scored by the teacher who determined which of the students in
each pair needed his/her writing to be revised. The same teacher taught both groups and all
teacher-student and peer interactions in both classes were audio recorded with the
participants’ consent and were then transcribed for analysis. In both classes the students as
well as the teacher sometimes used Persian in their interactions to ask and explain points;
however, all were translated and transcribed into English.
The transcribed interactions were codified using Mediating Learning Experience
(MLE) Scale developed by Lidz (1991; also reproduced in de Guerrero & Villamil, 2000).
The last component of Lidz’s scale (change) was not used in this study as it could not be
materialized in peer interactions. The description of the component is “Communicating to the
child that he or she has made some change or improved in some way” and peers were not in a
position to be able to convey this to their partners. Lidz used Vygotsky’s notion of ZPD and
Feuerstein’s (1980) work on dynamic assessment to develop this scale for measuring
mediated instruction as a representation of scaffolding which is opposed to direct learning in
that the learner learns without the assistance of a mediator. According to Lidz (1991), the
MLE Rating Scale is significant because 1) unlike most of the existing scales of adult-child
interaction that address interactions between mothers and infants, it can be used with teachers
and other mediators and has the potential for use with a broader age span, and 2) unlike most
of the existing scales that include a narrow selection of interaction components, the MLE
Rating Scale is a summary of the multitude of factors occurring within teaching and parenting
relationships that may influence the learner's cognitive development.
The scale consists of 12 scaffolding behaviors (11 of them were used in the present
study) and can be used to record such behaviors as mediators try to help learners in the
process of completing language and writing tasks. We used this scale to codify the instances
of scaffolding behaviors in teacher and peers interactions as they were revising student
writers’ essays. To check the reliability of coding, about ten percent of the data (25 pages)
was coded by one coder at two intervals with about two weeks in between, and by another
coder who was trained to use Lidz’s scale. The intra-coder reliability was 0.94, and the inter-
coder reliability was 0.77. The inter-coder reliability was not that high as the intra-coder
reliability given the complexity of the coding scheme and concepts.
Moreover, students of the two groups were asked to write an essay right at the
beginning of the term and one at the end of the term, both on the same topic, to be used as
their pre- and post-test writing task. Composition Profile Scale developed by Hartfiel,
Hughey, Wormuth, & Jacobs (1985) was used to score students' essays. This scale has five
components including content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanics. To
check the reliability of ratings, about ten percent of the writings were scored by the same
rater twice with about ten days interval and by another trained rater who was able to apply
Jacobs et al.’s scale to students’ writings. The reliability indexes were 0.91 and 0.86 for intra-
and inter-rater respectively.

Results and discussion

Table 1 presents the results of the descriptive statistics for students’ writing performance in
pre- and post-test.

58
 CLESOL 2010 CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics of Students’ Writing Performance on Pre- and Post-test

Pre-test (mean & SD) Post-test (mean & SD)

Teacher-scaffolding group 63.92 (10.15) 78.23 (6.84)
Peer-scaffolding group 65.19 (11) 71.88 (8.75)
As can be seen in Table 1, students in teacher-scaffolding group performed better on
their post writing test. A paired t-test on the writing scores for pre-test did not indicate any
significant difference between the means of the two groups implying that the two groups
were at the same level of writing ability. However, an independent t-test on students’ post-
test writing scores showed a significant difference between the performances of the two
groups (t = 2.14, df = 27, p = .042).
If we can attribute this gain to the mediating behaviors, then students in the teacher-
mediated class benefited more than the students in the peer-mediated class in improving their
writing. This finding is consistent with Gillies and Boyle (2005) who found the teachers' role
crucial in prompting thinking and problem solving in their students.
The frequency and percentage of the different scaffolding behaviors used by the
teacher and peer mediators using Lidz’s coding scheme is presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Frequency and Percentage of the Scaffolding Behaviors in the Teacher- and
Peer-mediated Classes

Teacher-scaffolding Peer-scaffolding
Intentionality 750 (33%) 321 (33%)
Meaning 53 (2.33%) 18 (1.85%)
Transcendence 57 (2.51%) 20 (2.05%)
Sharing joint regard 181 (8%) 116 (11.9%)
Sharing of experience 2 (.09%) 8 (.82%)
Task regulation 263 (11.6%) 73 (7.5%)
Praise/encouragement 187 (8.24%) 44 (4.52%)
Challenge 76 (3.35%) 1 (.1%)
Psychological differentiation 452 (19.9%) 239 (24.54%)
Contingent responsivity 209 (9.21%) 180 (13.35%)
Affective involvement 40 (1.76%) 4 (.41%)

Total 2270 (100%) 974 (100%)

As can be seen, the teacher's use of the overall components of the mediating behaviors
was higher than those of peers (2270 vs. 974) showing that the teacher used more scaffolding
behaviors than peers. Among the eleven mediating behaviors suggested by Lidz (1991), six
behaviors accounted for about 90% and 95% of total scaffolding behaviors in teacher- and
peer-mediated classes respectively. The other five behaviors received very little attention on
the part of the mediators among them we can refer to “sharing of experience” and “affective
involvement” which seems natural in an EFL context like Iran. In this EFL context people are
reluctant to share their experiences or reveal their affects even in other situations. Three
mediating behaviors (Intentionality= 33%, Psychological Differentiation= 19.9%, and Task
Regulation= 11.6%) accounted for 64.5 percent of the total scaffolding behaviors in the
teacher-mediated class. Also, three mediating behaviors (Intentionality=32.96%,

59
 CLESOL 2010 CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS

Psychological Differentiation=24.54%, and Contingent Responsivity=13.35%) accounted for

70.85 percent of the total scaffolding behaviors in the peer-scaffolding class. In order to see if
the difference between the mediating behaviors in the two classes were significant, non-
parametric Chi-square test of significance was used. Result of the Chi-square showed that the
differences were significant (value= 103.25, df=9, p<.001) indicating that the pattern of used
behaviors were systematic and meaningful.
Regarding teacher and peer mediators’ use of scaffolding behaviors, it was found that
the mediators in both classes obviously took the responsibility of assisting the student writers
in the task of revising their writings by using a high percentage of “intentionality” behavior.
Intentionality according to Lidz (1991) means consciously attempting to influence the
learner’s actions by making efforts to keep the interaction going, engage the learner’s
attention, inhibit impulsive behavior, and maintain goal orientation. On the other hand, both
the teacher and the peers showed similar patterns of “psychological differentiation” in their
mediating behavior indicating their attempt to keep a distance between themselves as
mediators and student writers trying to maintain an objective stance in their interactions so
that the student writers can function independently. This is while “task regulation” was the
third mostly used scaffolding behavior in the teacher-mediated class indicating the fact that
the teacher was particularly engaged in regulating the task by manipulating or simplifying it
and offering principles of solution. Peers did not show such a facilitating role; rather they
were only conveyers of solutions and principles using “contingent responsivity”. The result
clarifies the fact that since the teacher was the only mediator in her class, she could not be
responsive to the needs of all the students of the class thus “contingent responsivity” did not
gain a high frequency in her class. On the contrary, in the peer-mediated class, the students
were paired and so peer-mediators were more able to be responsive to the needs of their
partners. Generally, the findings are consistent with those of de Guerrero and Villamil's
(2000) study in that they were able to identify most of the scaffolding behaviors while peers
were engaged in helping their partners revising their writings. They concluded that peers
were also able to use variety of scaffolding behaviors to assist their partners with the revision
task.
There were also some components that were scarcely used by the peers. “Challenge”
was a particularly important component of the scale which implies challenging the learner to
reach beyond his or her current level of functioning, but not so much that the learner will feel
overwhelmed and get discouraged (Lidz, 1991). In the teacher-mediated class, the students
were helped to reach higher levels of functioning to some extent (3.35%) while almost no
effort was made on the part of the peer mediators (0.1%) to help their partners to reach
beyond their current level. In fact, peers' minds were mostly engaged with the current
situation and to solve immediate problems than challenging their partners’ beyond their
current level of functioning. This finding is in line with Ohta (2000) who argued that
collaboration among peers occurred moment-by-moment in the classroom activity and that
there is no guarantee that the partner would be able to use the acquired target structure
correctly in a broader range of contexts and beyond their current need.
One finding in our study, however, was that there were also some wrong and
uncertain behaviors on the part of peer mediators. For example, we observed 10 instances of
peer mediators' uncertainty about the suggested corrections on student writings. Moreover, in
12 cases the peers changed something correct on their partners’ writings into incorrect
patterns. As Tudge (1999) stated, student mediators needed to have knowledge and thinking
skills at a more advanced level to be able to function as mediators. Peers are usually partial
holders of knowledge. They are able to help their partners as much as their knowledge and
skills permit. Therefore, there is no guarantee that the meaning that is created when two peers
interact is linguistically and academically accurate. Because of this, researchers usually differ

60
 CLESOL 2010 CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS

in their views concerning the value of the peer scaffolding as a mechanism for student's
learning. Some have, of course, stated that this is not restricted to student peers and could
have been observed with teachers as well. Myhill and Warren's study (2005) which
investigated the teacher's use of talk to scaffold pupils also indicated that in addition to
successful scaffolds, there were several critical moments where scaffolding was not that
successful among them which created confusion in learning because of the teacher's
insecurity with her own subject knowledge. The point should be made that students are still
learning the language themselves and sometimes it is difficult for them to interpret what they
mean, transfer what they know, and offer appropriate solutions as they try to help other
students. A pragmatic and certain approach toward peer-scaffolding would be to involve
students in this potential learning experience while having the teacher monitor the process.
Students can be grouped to help and interact with each other while finally the outcome of the
groups will be presented to the whole class for the teacher feedback and comments. In this
way not only the potentialities of peer-scaffolding are realized but also we have made sure
that students’ partial knowledge and restricted skills have not resulted in any
misunderstanding or misinterpretation.

Conclusions

From a sociocultural perspective as used in the present study, both the teacher and peer
students proved to be influential in applying variety of scaffolding behaviors in order to help
student writers to reach higher states of independency. The nature of scaffolding behaviors
used by the teacher and peers were not very different. Among the eleven mediating behaviors
suggested by Lidz (1991), six behaviors accounted for about 90% and 95% of total
scaffolding behaviors in teacher- and peer-mediated classes respectively. The other five
behaviors received very little attention on the part of both the teacher and peer mediators.
Though the nature of mediating behaviors were almost the same in both classes, the pattern of
mediation, i.e., the order of the usage of the four behaviors out of the six frequently used ones
were different in the two classes with the probable reasons that were discussed above. It was,
however, found that the teacher generally proved to be more effective in terms of the type
and frequency of scaffolding behaviors she used as well as helping students’ writing
improvement which sounds natural and expected. For student peers the major issue was to
sustain the interactions and solve the immediate problem of student writers rather than
promoting their overall learning. That is why fewer attempts were made by peer-mediators to
resort to strategies that could bring about significant changes in students' writings. It seems
the peers' scaffolding should be scaffolded when peers have difficulty in problem solving
situations given their lack of knowledge and inadequate skills. It should be noted that the
present study was a small-scale study; similar studies are therefore required with a larger
samples and in other contexts to find out if the same or different results will be reached.

References

Brooks, L., & Swain, M. (2009). Languaging in collaborative writing: Creation of and
response to expertise. In A. Mackey and C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on
interaction in SLA (pp. 58-89). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning
and instruction. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. Ageyev, and S. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s
educational theory in cultural context, (pp. 39-64). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.

61
 CLESOL 2010 CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS

Clark, K. F., & Graves, M. F. (2004). Scaffolding students' comprehension of text.

International Reading Association, 570-580.
Cotteral, S., & Cohen, R. (2003). Scaffolding for second language writers: producing an
academic essay. ELT Journal, 57(2), 158-166.
Cross, (2006). Language teaching as activity: A sociocultural perspective of second language
teacher practice. Monash University. Victoria, Australia.
de Guerrero, M. G. M., & Villamil O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in
L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 51-68.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf and G.
Appel (Eds.), Vygoyskiian approaches to second language research, pp. 33-55.
Estport CT: Ablex.
Gillies, M., & Boyle, M. (2005). Teachers’ scaffolding behaviors during cooperative
learning. Asia-pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33(3), 243-256.
Hammond, J. (2002). Scaffolding teaching and learning in language and literacy education.
Newtown, Australia: PETA.
Hartfiel, V. F., Hughey, J. B., Wormuth, D., & Jacobs, H. L. (1985). Learning ESL
Composition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
Johnson, K. E. (2006). The sociocultural turn and its challenges for second language teacher
education. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 235-257.
Johnson, K. E. (2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. New
York: Routledge.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Lantolf, J. P. (2004). Sociocultural theory and second and foreign language learning: An
overview of sociocultural theory. In K. van Esch and O. St. John (Eds.), New insights
into foreign language and teaching (pp. 13-34). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2008). Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second
languages. London: Equinox.
Lidz, C. S. (1991). Practitioner’s guide to dynamic assessment. New York: Guilford.
Lloyd, P., & Fernyhough, C. (Eds.). (1999). Lev Vygotsky: Critical assessments. London:
Routledge.
Myhill, D., & Warren, P. (2005). Scaffolds or straitjackets? Critical moments in classroom
discourse. Educational Review, 57, 55-69.
Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance
in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. Lantolf
(Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 51-78). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Russell, J. (1982). Cognitive conflict, transmission, and justification: Conversation attainment
through dyadic interaction. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 140, 287-297.
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52, 119–58.
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal
of Second Language Writing, 14, 153–73.
Storch, N. (2007). Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes.
Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 143-159.
Tudge, J.R.H. (1999). Processes and consequences of peer collaboration: A Vygotskian
analysis. In P. Lloyd & C. Fernyhough. Lev Vygotsky: Critical assessments, Volume
2. Rutledge: London & New York.
van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and
authenticity. New York: Longman.

62
 CLESOL 2010 CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS

van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual
framework. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2),
159-180.

63

View publication stats